That’s the propaganda line. I learned in history class over there (not sympathetic to Britain) that before 1916, the demand of the Irish was for home rule, not full independence; it was the rapid summary execution of the (many, but not all communistic) rebels that swayed sympathies for the cause of independence.
Given that the Scots are themselves Celts, and that they also spoke (and speak, in many parts of Alba still) a form of Gaelic, how “foreign” were they, really? And also, back in the times of Henry II, how foreign was Catholicism, never mind the subsequent Protestantism? Was Protestantism “foreign” in the lands where it first arose? Is it “foreign” in the USA, where it predominates?
Speaking of “Europe” as an entity indicates sympathy for the European Union, an anti-American entity.
How many of the Scots who came to Ulster were from the Gaelic speaking areas, and how many were from the Scots speaking ones? Furthermore, the Scottish people originally lived in Ireland before coming over to Scotland, so they basically came back to their ancestors’s homes.
That is the most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard, pushed by the most ridiculous propaganda line: That Protestant settlers from the island of Britain are “Irish”. THEY may have wanted home rule, but the original Irish population fought for centuries for independence.
The 1916 rebels themselves were armed by a monarchy (Germany); some were communist-leaning but not most (where else other than Ireland, until recent decades, was religion more intertwined with government?).
Saying the Irish wanted home rule instead of independence ignores the political and economic oppression (all the way up to independence) suffered under the English crown. Who would want to be ruled by a foreign country where it is illegal (to this day) for a Catholic to sit on the throne?