"The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge. "

Yes Steve you did state ALL of that. Then when challenged on it you drop most of it don't you and come back with the following:

"Not exactly irrelevant" is, to people who understand English, unlike you apparently, an example of understatement. Got that, Keith? It does not mean "almost irrelevant" in anybody's book but yours. It means the precise opposite."

But you see Steve when you immediately follow "Not exactly irrelevant" with "but they happened and they are water under the bridge" reduces the rights and wrongs of the 1916 events to irrelevance.

The Irish War of Independence was not caused solely by what happened in 1916, there were many other contributing factors. The absolute unwillingness to enter into discussion and to compromise by two groups on Irishmen being the main stumbling block.

Agreed Amos Home Rule would be a pale imitation for those who wanted Independence, but as Keith A stated it would be an important stepping stone towards Independence and one that more or less guarantee a peaceful transition. In 1916 before the rising there is absolutely nothing to suggest or support the view that the majority of those living in Ireland wanted Independence, there is evidence to support the view that there would have been a majority for Home Rule.