> But Northern Ireland _is_ an example of freedom through bloodshed. There was decades of violence before the UK conceded to give them genuine choice.
I think that's an oversimplification; the intent was there to give Ireland self-governance from the 1880s (initially as a single, unified area). Notably, the Government of Ireland Act 1914, better known as the Third Home Rule Bill (the prior two had failed to pass through Parliament) would've led to a unitary Ireland, though this led to the Home Rule Crisis (though there had been some rioting going back to the 1880s) and was ultimately never implemented due to the outbreak of war.
The real fatal errors in the case of Ireland were the handling of the Easter Rising of 1916 and the coupling of implementation of Home Rule with conscription in Ireland, along with many more errors during the guerrilla war that followed.
Had WW1 not happened when it did, who knows what would have happened in Ireland.
Oh, the UK completely fucked over Ireland, there's little doubt about that, despite legally being in a far better place than the colonies (they actually had representation, most obviously) they practically weren't.
The question is whether bloodshed was inevitable in the path to independence, and I don't think it's reasonable to call the actions of the state bloodshed on that path except when it was in direct suppression of it (and I don't think there was any of that prior to the Easter Rising, unless one considers the rebellion of 1798 when Ireland was still legally a separate country, though had had the same ruler as England since the 12th century, albeit with a separate political structure).
Certainly the blood on the UK's hands led to many of the calls for independence, but if independence had been granted in, e.g., 1886 (i.e., the First Home Rule Bill) would it be freedom through bloodshed, or would it be freedom through wanting to do better yourselves? I'd definitely say the latter.
As an Irish person I couldn't help but burst out laughing at this interpretation of history. There was certainly a desire for self-government in Ireland expressed in the English parliament back then, but it was very much a political football between the Tories (who were dead against it) and the Liberals (who didn't care for the Irish particularly but liked the underlying principle) which enabled Parnell to act as a power-broker for a few years.
I really don't think it's reasonable to say that the 1998 plebiscite was the culmination of a century long effort by the UK to grant Ireland her independence; the late 19th Century just marks the period where it began to be considered a fit subject for parliamentary debate.
Oh, I certainly didn't mean to imply there was a century long effort!
Essentially what I'm contending is whether they ever had a genuine choice prior to 1998, and I'd strongly suggest that the Third Home Rule Bill was that—though, had WW1 not happened, whether it would've avoided most of the bloodshed is inherently unclear, especially given the 1886 Belfast riots and the unwillingness to compromise on what was really all three sides.
As for the political football, there's no denying it was—but that's true of many things in Westminster, both around the turn of the 19th/20th century and today.
To clarify what I meant a bit - Ireland was already part of Europe, and there were Irish scholars, Catholicism was there, they traded with Europe and were familiar with European norms and traditions. The culture that England forced on Ireland was not all that much different to what was already in place.
I imagine, though, that opinion on the two terms depends on what you think of 'colonisation' as.
I think that's an oversimplification; the intent was there to give Ireland self-governance from the 1880s (initially as a single, unified area). Notably, the Government of Ireland Act 1914, better known as the Third Home Rule Bill (the prior two had failed to pass through Parliament) would've led to a unitary Ireland, though this led to the Home Rule Crisis (though there had been some rioting going back to the 1880s) and was ultimately never implemented due to the outbreak of war.
The real fatal errors in the case of Ireland were the handling of the Easter Rising of 1916 and the coupling of implementation of Home Rule with conscription in Ireland, along with many more errors during the guerrilla war that followed.
Had WW1 not happened when it did, who knows what would have happened in Ireland.