Ian Major  ✒ As a Unionist, I can affirm that the sole reason for not running the Assembly is the Protocol.

It may seem unimportant to those unconcerned with the Union, but it is crucial to Unionists. It would be a hole below the waterline for the Union, if allowed to stand. 

The DUP, at least several of the leadership, might have been willing to adopt the UUP position on it, running the Assembly and hoping Boris would rescue them. But they knew that would finish the DUP.

A lot could be said about the DUP's messing that led to the Protocol, but the ordinary Unionist has given them the chance to redeem themselves on it. If they weaken, they will not be forgiven. 

I can see how Nationalists might think the real reason is a refusal to play second fiddle to SF now that SF is due 1st Minister. And the refusal of all Unionist parties to affirm they would accept a Deputy role supports that. But only the Agreement rejectionists think like that - TUV, with maybe a few DUP old guard. 

The Unionist parties should have had the honesty to affirm their willingness to take the Deputy role, if SF had the largest number of seats. They would always have done so, however reluctantly. 

The only proviso is that the Agreement was working properly. It has been, albeit with hiccups like the RHI scandal. But the Protocol ended that. It is a direct tampering with the Union, without Unionist consent. If it stands, the Assembly will fall. This is not a Unionist ploy. 

Who knows where this could end? Boris could refuse to budge and threaten Direct Rule with a strong Irish dimension. Even Joint Authority. It won't change hearts. Much better to remove the constitutional problem and get back to working together, even if it is with a SF First Minister.

Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist. 

It's The Protocol, Stupid

Ian Major  ✒ As a Unionist, I can affirm that the sole reason for not running the Assembly is the Protocol.

It may seem unimportant to those unconcerned with the Union, but it is crucial to Unionists. It would be a hole below the waterline for the Union, if allowed to stand. 

The DUP, at least several of the leadership, might have been willing to adopt the UUP position on it, running the Assembly and hoping Boris would rescue them. But they knew that would finish the DUP.

A lot could be said about the DUP's messing that led to the Protocol, but the ordinary Unionist has given them the chance to redeem themselves on it. If they weaken, they will not be forgiven. 

I can see how Nationalists might think the real reason is a refusal to play second fiddle to SF now that SF is due 1st Minister. And the refusal of all Unionist parties to affirm they would accept a Deputy role supports that. But only the Agreement rejectionists think like that - TUV, with maybe a few DUP old guard. 

The Unionist parties should have had the honesty to affirm their willingness to take the Deputy role, if SF had the largest number of seats. They would always have done so, however reluctantly. 

The only proviso is that the Agreement was working properly. It has been, albeit with hiccups like the RHI scandal. But the Protocol ended that. It is a direct tampering with the Union, without Unionist consent. If it stands, the Assembly will fall. This is not a Unionist ploy. 

Who knows where this could end? Boris could refuse to budge and threaten Direct Rule with a strong Irish dimension. Even Joint Authority. It won't change hearts. Much better to remove the constitutional problem and get back to working together, even if it is with a SF First Minister.

Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist. 

44 comments:

  1. Wolfie,

    Who knows where this could end? Boris could refuse to budge and threaten Direct Rule with a strong Irish dimension.

    Brian Rowan said the same thing to William Crawley last year when he was being interviewed on Radio Ulster's Talkback for his book Political Purgatory: The Battle to Save Stormont and the Play for a New Ireland ..... This link is a free copy of the ebook.....

    ‘Brian Rowan is brilliant when it comes to the forensics of local politics … That’s the strength of Political Purgatory. Rowan takes us up to and through the last crisis step by step. He doesn’t do broad brush, big picture stuff. He hears the rustles, he observes the seeming trifles, he talks to the horses’ mouths rather than third or fourth hand sources. More important, he joins the dots dispassionately and allows the evidence to take him to a conclusion.’
    Alex Kane, News Letter

    ‘Throughout his reporting on the peace process, ceasefires and agreements, Rowan kept fastidious notes, filing away original copies of statements and creating a rich archive that he can dip back into … The book is peppered with statements provided from politicians and police. But Rowan’s own voice shouts through the pages much more loudly than usual. He has some things to get off his chest, warnings about the inability of Stormont to survive another stoppage, and pointers to where the wheels could yet come off the political wagon.’
    Alan Meban, Slugger O’Toole

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course Rowan is well known for being soft on the Shinners and loves to kiss their arses.

      Delete
    2. Steve - I have seen him make them very uncomfortable.

      Delete
  2. There just didn't seem to be that much interest in the Protocol from surveys and polls

    ReplyDelete
  3. AM, yes, strange that so few mentioned it in the polls. Among the Unionist friends I speak with, it has great significance. It also explains the defections of some DUP voters to the TUV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The DUP did better than expected - yet their anti-Protocol campaign seemed never to take off. Maybe because SF played its own hand cautiously

      Delete
  4. For some Unionist the Protocol is the biggest threat to the Union since......the last one.

    I agree with the possibility of direct rule with an Irish dimension. Paisley was said to have been threatened with this, which would go some way in explaining his change of heart.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Henry Joy comments

    Ian - some of the logistics could definitely be ironed out; for example deliveries to supermarkets which are for resale within the 'UK' could be given a bye. However, the EU are in all likelihood going to insist on maintenance of systems which prevents unregulated 'back-door' access to their internal market.
    There'll be some further tweaking of arrangements but the fundamentals, including an 'Irish Sea' border will remain.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Maybe so, Henry Joy.

    But that will spell the end of something or somethings else. The Assembly? The Agreement? Or The DUP, TUV, UUP?

    Interesting times will certainly follow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd expect a fudge more than a total collapse Wolfie.

      Delete
  7. The elephant in the room with all of these debates is that unionists elect, time and time again, political leaders and politicians whose relationship with actual democracy, and realpolitik, is remote and solipsistic.

    The DUP are the largest unionist party. Unionists, ask yourselves, seriously, what unionist's voting scenario would have been most problematic for Sinn Fein. Another TPQ writer quipped that she was minded to vote TUV to bring about Irish unity faster. It would.

    Now, an agile, flexible unionist party, uninterested in performative dominance over nationalists and nationalism, could probably secure the union for a few generations. But the type of unionism that sustains idiots like John "Lord Kilcooney" Taylor will only serve to alienate nationalists and increase support for a UI.

    Taylor Tweeted this:

    "You are out of touch with reality. Every opinion poll suggests that 40 per cent of NI Catholics are content with remaining in U.K. Time you recognised that Catholics in towns such as Bangor; Portstewart etc are not the same as those in the Bogside!!"

    What the oafish Lord doesn't realise is that people like him ensure a steady stream of middle class Catholics realise NI will never stop, at best, patronising them. And so, support for Irish unity will increase. The Bogside, and the Falls, and other areas which suffered grievously at the hands of the unionist political class, aided by their violent loyalist paramilitary cousins, have already ensured solid support for a UI.

    I'm fairly sure many within the DUP know this, but they also know that they'd be Lundified if they said it. And so, unionism and loyalism continue to devour themselves over a basic inclination to "other" a voting bloc that they need.

    In all seriousness, Jamie Bryson, Jim Alister, Arlene Foster, and Edwin Poots (and his excruciating son Luke) should have their portraits up on the wall of the Felon's Club. They just can't help themselves. And Sinn Fein sit back at laugh at them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alas I am starting to agree with you Brandon, on this if not much else. High time Unionist parties stopped the politik of fear harvesting and tried to become attractive in their offerings across the board. But how the fuck can a party that has among their ranks a cretin who seriously believes the Earth is six thousand years old offer anything of coherent substance? All the Unionist parties seem to be caught in a cul-de-sac and have no idea what to do, so ...do nothing and hope BoJo the teflon narcissist either fudges them out or creates another monumental fuck up that everyone forgets how they got into the mess in the first place.

      Delete
  8. Dismissive and disrespectful attitudes and comments have long existed on both sides. Silly and naive comments add to the burden.

    I had hope that mutual respect would develop from its encouraging beginnings with McGuinness and Paisley. But with the demise of both, things have gone significantly backwards.

    SF are so well disciplined that they think that fractured Unionism can be herded into the pen that opens to a UI. The idea of respecting the British people here has no part in their mindset. We are to be made Irish and no respect shown to our ethnic identity.

    Certainly there is a deep antagonism by the whole of the Unionist people to a future under SF rule. That is not due to SF being Irish (formerly Catholic and Irish), but to them being the political wing of those who murdered our kith and kin, and who still celebrate those who did the killing.

    The DUP and TUV, and to a softer extent the UUP, represent that community feeling. They do not generate it. The only things those politicians generate are the policies they think will do something to prevent SF's campaign winning. They speak for all Unionists in their intent, but there are disagreements on the particular policies at times.

    I can understand the disrespect felt by Nationalists over many past comments by Unionists. The latter were/are caught up in the same spiral of misunderstandings, resentments and fears that gave rise to the disrespectful comments from Nationalists.

    We all need to mentally stand in each other's shoes for a while. If respect doesn't follow from that, then a contested future is assured. An agreed future can only arise where the British and Irish identities of either side are respected and assured in whatever agreement we can come to. If that existed on both sides, maybe a new vision of an agreed NI or an agreed UI would emerge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian - In the Brexit referendum Norn Iron, at 62.66% had the lowest turnout of all the regions within the 'UK'.

      The highest vote for remain at 62%, occurred in Scotland.
      In second place, with 59.93% came the greater London area.
      Whereas the vote for remain in Norn Iron came in 3rd with 55.78%.

      No doubt, some Unionists have a sense of discomfort around the Protocol. However doesn't the relevantly low turnout (10 points off the 72% participation rate achieved throughout the UK as a whole), coupled with the 11.5% margin in favour of Europe within the six-counties presents a significant challenge to the rationality of the DUP/TUV's positioning?

      Delete
  9. @Wolfsbane

    A reasoned and interesting comment, which I think deserves a considered response. Part 1 of 2

    “SF are so well disciplined that they think that fractured Unionism can be herded into the pen that opens to a UI.”

    I think you’re wrong, actually. As I said, if Unionism threw its lot in with a socially liberal, tolerant, politically progressive political party, that happened to believe in the union with Great Britain, the UI project would be shelved indefinitely. SF recognise that Unionism is prone to swinging, usually violently, to the right when it perceives any threat. SF can deal with a reactionary, even thuggish Unionism: it strengthens their case that nationalists can’t get a fair deal with Unionists wielding power.

    “The idea of respecting the British people here has no part in their mindset. We are to be made Irish and no respect shown to our ethnic identity.”

    Can you explain what you mean by “no respect shown to our ethnic identity?

    “Certainly there is a deep antagonism by the whole of the Unionist people to a future under SF rule. That is not due to SF being Irish (formerly Catholic and Irish), but to them being the political wing of those who murdered our kith and kin, and who still celebrate those who did the killing.”

    I don’t think you can speak for the whole of the Unionist people. I know at least one who votes Sinn Fein “because they at least get things done.” And the antagonism predates the rise of Sinn Fein, the creation of the PIRA, and indeed has been there since the state of Northern Ireland was created.

    If you can show me an elected republican or nationalist representative who has been as antagonistic as the odious Sammy Wilson, I will be very surprised.

    The union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland was not enough for the manifestations of Unionism and Orangeism. Unionist dominance has to be performatively demonstrated. I suspect that this is the ethnic identity that you mentioned.

    Unionists do not have a monopoly on being victims to murder. Nationalist civilians suffered disproportionately more than any other ethnic group in the most recent Troubles, as well as in the 1920s. The DUP posed with sledgehammers, at the same time as loyalist paramilitaries were using them to break down doors in nationalist areas to murder the occupants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If you can show me an elected republican or nationalist representative who has been as antagonistic as the odious Sammy Wilson, I will be very surprised."

      Who was the Belfast Brigade OC who gave the nod for the Shankill Bomb? Answers on a postcard to Connolly House. If that wasn't antagonistic I've no idea what was. "Elected" nor otherwise is a meaningless qualifier if they provide strategy.

      Delete
    2. Reply A
      Brandon said:
      "A reasoned and interesting comment, which I think deserves a considered response. Part 1 of 2
      [“SF are so well disciplined that they think that fractured Unionism can be herded into the pen that opens to a UI.”]
      BS:’I think you’re wrong, actually. As I said, if Unionism threw its lot in with a socially liberal, tolerant, politically progressive political party, that happened to believe in the union with Great Britain, the UI project would be shelved indefinitely.’

      Yes, that could work. But SF know the reality, that the DUP and TUV cannot desert their moral policies without losing almost all their voters. Securing the Union is not more important to many of us than those values. I voted for the pro-life parties, including Aontu, before transferring to the other Unionists. I would certainly not support any party that deserted those values for the ‘progressive‘ policies you suggest.

      BS: ‘SF recognise that Unionism is prone to swinging, usually violently, to the right when it perceives any threat. SF can deal with a reactionary, even thuggish Unionism: it strengthens their case that nationalists can’t get a fair deal with Unionists wielding power.’

      Absolutely correct! SF knows how to press the buttons that will get a gut-reaction from many Unionists, the louder of them especially. They used that to provoke them over Orange marches. When the Agreement happened and I heard SF were talking about confronting the marches rather than negotiating about them, I went down to the Mill in West Belfast (I forget its proper name) and asked to speak with any SF leader. They (again I've forgotten who) came down to reception and heard my plea to engage for agreement, not confrontation. But they merely nodded and said they had a policy.

      Of course the contested marches and especially the school protests were big dividends for those policies. And the careless and dismissive comments about the Irish language fed into the desired image. So too the latest refusal by all Unionist parties to say if they would serve under a SF First Minister. All but the TUV, who in principle will not share power with - never mind serve under SF – should have said they have no problem doing so, if the votes turn out that way. The only proviso is that the Agreement is being worked.

      They had spent over a decade sharing power with SF, on the basis of the Agreement. But the UUP and DUP were afraid of each other using such a statement as a weapon to influence their less astute voters.

      [“The idea of respecting the British people here has no part in their mindset. We are to be made Irish and no respect shown to our ethnic identity.”]
      BS: ‘Can you explain what you mean by “no respect shown to our ethnic identity?’

      Consider the Irish Tricolour. It proclaims peace between the Planters, represented by the Orange, and the Gael, represented by the Green. But how was the Orange identity respected in the Free State and later Republic? And by SF throughout its existence? What equivalence was shown to the remembrance of the fallen of each? The British Legion Remembrance events? A rubbish dump in Dublin. A massacre of the remembering in Enniskillen. War Memorials vandalized in many towns in NI.

      What celebrations of our past were permitted in ROI? Rossnowlagh has an Orange March once a year. Dublin?

      And I see little talk of a UI that will have any equivalence between Orange and Green. Just an absorption of the Orange until it is Green.

      Delete
    3. Reply B
      Brandon said:
      [“Certainly there is a deep antagonism by the whole of the Unionist people to a future under SF rule. That is not due to SF being Irish (formerly Catholic and Irish), but to them being the political wing of those who murdered our kith and kin, and who still celebrate those who did the killing.”]
      BS: ‘I don’t think you can speak for the whole of the Unionist people. I know at least one who votes Sinn Fein “because they at least get things done.” ‘

      There will always be a crazie among a hundred. Like a Nationalist who will vote for the PUP because they get things done.

      BS: ‘And the antagonism predates the rise of Sinn Fein, the creation of the PIRA, and indeed has been there since the state of Northern Ireland was created.’

      The antagonism to a future Home Rule was mild compared to the present one. The IRA murders of so many of our own, many children among them, and the celebration of those who did the murders by present day SF, is a violation at the heart of every Unionist. We expected SF to regret that damage, to reflect on the mistake it was to persist with the Troubles even when they saw the carnage and abuse of the innocent it involved. But 24 years later they are still trying to herd the Unionist people into a UI against their will. And celebrating their killers. Had they the decency to merely remember their fallen, regretting the decisions that maintained an unjust war, many of us could respect that. All parts of our population have, or should have, deep regrets over past mistakes that enabled the Troubles.

      BS: ‘If you can show me an elected republican or nationalist representative who has been as antagonistic as the odious Sammy Wilson, I will be very surprised.’

      Gerry makes it clear, where he smears those Unionists who hold to Christian beliefs about abortion, homosexuality, etc as the enemy who have to be broken: ‘But what’s the point? The point is to actually break these bastards - that’s the point. And what’s going to break them is equality. That’s what’s going to break them - equality. Who could be afraid of equality? Who could be afraid of treating somebody the way you want to be treated. That’s what we need to keep the focus on - that’s the trojan horse of the entire republican strategy – is to reach out to people on the basis of equality.’ Enniskillen 24 July 2014, in Impartial Reporter of 25th.

      Delete
    4. Reply C
      Brandon said:
      BS: ‘The union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland was not enough for the manifestations of Unionism and Orangeism. Unionist dominance has to be performatively demonstrated. I suspect that this is the ethnic identity that you mentioned.’

      That's a fair criticism of the Unionist leadership since Partition. Its bunker mentality led it to marginalize Nationalists rather than seek to persuade them of the benefits of the Union. That fear was used by Paisley to overthrow the first real attempt to reconcile with the Republic, by Terence O'Neill. But I can only offer in mitigation that the desire to dominate is not intrinsic to Unionism – where no threat exists, very few Unionists would seek to coat-trail, never mind dominate.

      BS: ‘Unionists do not have a monopoly on being victims to murder. Nationalist civilians suffered disproportionately more than any other ethnic group in the most recent Troubles, as well as in the 1920s. The DUP posed with sledgehammers, at the same time as loyalist paramilitaries were using them to break down doors in nationalist areas to murder the occupants.’

      Absolutely! The Troubles was not a one-sided unjust war. But the Unionist people have not voted for the representatives of the murderers. The DUP made a lot of empty talk about defending Ulster, but the vast majority of them and their supporters did not murder anyone. And the political parties that had the same relationship to the terrorists as SF had got very little support. When we see the leadership of the DUP and TUV, we do not see people taking their policies to an Army Council for endorsement. They may be hypocrites at times, and callous toward the Irish people at other times, but in essence they share much more with the SDLP, FF and FG in their politicking than they do with SF. And almost all Unionist see that difference. Those who are open to consider a UI at some stage, are not open to a UI run by SF. In exactly the same way they would not be open to remaining in a NI run by the PUP.

      Delete
    5. Reply D
      Brandon said:
      [“The DUP and TUV, and to a softer extent the UUP, represent that community feeling. They do not generate it. The only things those politicians generate are the policies they think will do something to prevent SF's campaign winning. They speak for all Unionists in their intent, but there are disagreements on the particular policies at times.”]
      BS: ’ I don’t think that this is true. Many from the PUL community will look back and say they can see they were duped and used by the Unionist political class. Alas, this analysis is usually in hindsight.’

      Yes, that was true to at least the BA. But after 2007, I think most Unionists think for themselves rather than trusting their leaders to know best. Certainly any I speak to give no blank cheque to any politician. They assess their policies and how likely they think the politicians will stick to those policies. That of course leads to mistakes of ignorance, but better that the voters are forced to think for themselves. The DUP would not get away with ignoring the Protocol or promising to get it fixed sometime.

      BS: ‘The DUP and TUV are fixated on the protocol, ironic given their leading role in causing it. Polling suggests that the protocol is not as important to voters as it is to politicians.’

      They did not cause it. There were and are proper alternatives. But the EU is determined to make the UK pay for leaving, and to give a warning to any other nation not to do the same. And the Irish government and Nationalists think the Unionists can be done down without consequences.

      Delete
    6. Reply E 5/5
      Brandon said:
      [“I can understand the disrespect felt by Nationalists over many past comments by Unionists. The latter were/are caught up in the same spiral of misunderstandings, resentments and fears that gave rise to the disrespectful comments from Nationalists.”]
      BS: ‘Leaving aside comments, Unionist political leaders have, post GFA, condoned the following actions which caused massive public disorder and/or physical attacks on nationalists: the Harryville blockade; the Drumcree blockades/riots/standoffs; the 2013 flags protests. Unionist politicians were also extremely slow and weak at criticising or condemning the despicable actions at Holy Cross school. Peter Robinson threatened a “graduated response” to a parades commission ruling about an Orange march.’

      Agreed. SF pushed their buttons and they jumped as expected. Dumb reaction rather than considered responses.

      BS: ‘The nationalist population bore the brunt of these actions, facilitated and encouraged in many cases by the unionist political class.
      Why would a nationalist want to remain in a situation where these people had political power?’

      The Nationalist should also not react dumbly. They should, the Unionists should, not keep the spiral of offense going. Especially lately when the confrontations are few. Time to talk to see if NI can respect and work for both sides.

      [“We all need to mentally stand in each other's shoes for a while. If respect doesn't follow from that, then a contested future is assured. An agreed future can only arise where the British and Irish identities of either side are respected and assured in whatever agreement we can come to. If that existed on both sides, maybe a new vision of an agreed NI or an agreed UI would emerge.”]
      BS: ‘ I agree wholeheartedly with this comment. Unionists need to ask themselves exactly what they want. If it’s simply to remain a part of the UK, then why do they constantly elect bigots, reactionaries, fools, and religious lunatics as their political leaders?’

      This illustrates a BIG problem about respect. If Christian values are to be banned from the political platforms, already a large number of Unionists, and the fewer Catholic Nationalists, are to be silenced. That may be the vision of a Socialist Republic, and seemly too of a liberal progressive NI, but we will not retire from using our votes to protect the unborn and freedom of religion and speech.

      I see your comments about hate speech from some Unionist politicians, but wonder how much of that is your view of Christian teachings? Did these politicians say, “All Catholics are bastards” Or had they rather criticized some
      Catholic teaching?

      Delete
  10. Part 2 of 2

    “The DUP and TUV, and to a softer extent the UUP, represent that community feeling. They do not generate it. The only things those politicians generate are the policies they think will do something to prevent SF's campaign winning. They speak for all Unionists in their intent, but there are disagreements on the particular policies at times.”

    I don’t think that this is true. Many from the PUL community will look back and say they can see they were duped and used by the Unionist political class. Alas, this analysis is usually in hindsight.

    The DUP and TUV are fixated on the protocol, ironic given their leading role in causing it. Polling suggests that the protocol is not as important to voters as it is to politicians.

    “I can understand the disrespect felt by Nationalists over many past comments by Unionists. The latter were/are caught up in the same spiral of misunderstandings, resentments and fears that gave rise to the disrespectful comments from Nationalists.”

    Leaving aside comments, Unionist political leaders have, post GFA, condoned the following actions which caused massive public disorder and/or physical attacks on nationalists: the Harryville blockade; the Drumcree blockades/riots/standoffs; the 2013 flags protests. Unionist politicians were also extremely slow and weak at criticising or condemning the despicable actions at Holy Cross school. Peter Robinson threatened a “graduated response” to a parades commission ruling about an Orange march.

    The nationalist population bore the brunt of these actions, facilitated and encouraged in many cases by the unionist political class.

    Why would a nationalist want to remain in a situation where these people had political power?

    “We all need to mentally stand in each other's shoes for a while. If respect doesn't follow from that, then a contested future is assured. An agreed future can only arise where the British and Irish identities of either side are respected and assured in whatever agreement we can come to. If that existed on both sides, maybe a new vision of an agreed NI or an agreed UI would emerge.”

    I agree wholeheartedly with this comment. Unionists need to ask themselves exactly what they want. If it’s simply to remain a part of the UK, then why do they constantly elect bigots, reactionaries, fools, and religious lunatics as their political leaders?

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Steve R

    I may be wrong, but I think the BB OC at the time was against the Sinn Fein peace strategy, though he later came on board. It's discussed in Ed Moloney's Secret History of the IRA.

    Moloney also noted that an IRA bomb around an election damaged a lot of houses in Andytown, and suspected it was a deliberate ploy to negatively impact Sinn Fein's vote.

    Gerry Bradley wrote of how a loyalist tried to goad him in jail by talking about a Sinn Fein man being murdered. Bradley replied that what the fuck did it have to do with him: he was IRA, not Sinn Fein.

    There are no public figures on the CNR side who come out with the odious, sectarian, inciteful stuff that Willie McCrea, Paisley Sr, or that tragic buffoon Sammy Wilson.

    Everyone has a past, and that doesn't necessarily have to preclude a future, but the nutter wing of the DUP are as nutty as they ever have been.

    I don't think Jeffrey Donaldson is cut from the same cloth as Willie McCrea, for example. I don't think Donaldson has the same hatred and sectarian madness about him. I've never been able to find an overt sectarian comment from Jim Alister, either, though I don't think Alister can in seriousness describe himself as a democrat, given his refusal to accept Sinn Fein's mandate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There are no public figures on the CNR side who come out with the odious, sectarian, inciteful stuff that Willie McCrea, Paisley Sr, or that tragic buffoon Sammy Wilson."

      Agree with you, but that's probably because the cute hurrs are far more self aware of PR than those Dupper muppets. Even Bradley admitted how sectarian the Belfast Brigade were.

      Delete
  12. @ Steve R

    if I recall correctly, Bradley acknowledged the sectarian nature of some of the Third Battalion's actions, rather than the Belfast Brigade as a whole. I'm working on two pieces about sectarian murderers from within the CNR community. Ardoyne appears to be the locus of a lot of these actions, which I think is A Coy, 3rd Batt, Belfast Brigade. Bradley justified it by saying that the IRA in Andersontown only had "the Brits" to deal with, whereas Unity flats, Short Strand, Ardoyne and other 3rd Batt areas had loyalists to contend with.

    Obviously, all of this is bureaucratic irrelevance to the scores of Protestants murdered by Catholics for no other reason that where they lived, but it's important historically. The leaders of the Belfast Brigade had strikingly different attitudes to sectarian murder, from what I've been able to research.

    "but that's probably because the cute hurrs are far more self aware of PR than those Dupper muppets"

    I agree with this to an extent. But I also think there are deeply embedded cultural norms that normalise sectarianism within the unionist political class, and mean that overt, almost camp over-the-top sectarianism didn't hold a bigot back from political office and electability. The fusion between religion and politics is significantly more prevalent within the PUL community, thought becoming less so.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Henry Joy said:
    "Ian - In the Brexit referendum Norn Iron, at 62.66% had the lowest turnout of all the regions within the 'UK'.

    The highest vote for remain at 62%, occurred in Scotland.
    In second place, with 59.93% came the greater London area.
    Whereas the vote for remain in Norn Iron came in 3rd with 55.78%.

    No doubt, some Unionists have a sense of discomfort around the Protocol. However doesn't the relevantly low turnout (10 points off the 72% participation rate achieved throughout the UK as a whole), coupled with the 11.5% margin in favour of Europe within the six-counties presents a significant challenge to the rationality of the DUP/TUV's positioning?"


    No, it doesn't. Why? 2 reasons: Because a majority of Unionists backed Brexit, and because it was a UK decision, not regional. The former reason would invalidate the NI majority Remain vote as determinative, if it were a regional decision. Mutual veto. The latter reason is the reality – a UK decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Ian it was a regional vote.

      Strategically though, TUV/DUP are missing a wide-open goal. If they were to focus on the opportunities of joint access to both EU & UK markets and show better judgement, rather than being led by their 'Orange Willy's' irrational, lustful and reactionary stances they could avoid further
      divisiveness, minimise push-back from Nationalism to some extent (alienate less soft Nationalism in the SDLP) and begin forging a more centralist position which would in turn allow them then to proceed to collaborate with the APNI to 'protect' the Union.

      From my perspective, though I wish it weren't so, the game is not one yet easily won for Nationalism. Rather is it very much one for Unionism to loose.

      Delete
  14. Stevie,

    Who was the Belfast Brigade OC who gave the nod for the Shankill Bomb?

    He was a British agent . who told his MI5 paymasters about the planned attack and MI5 gave it the thumbs up. A few years later ... Loyalist's planted bombs on the Shankill, murdered Loyalist's, forced over 200 familes from their homes. Last year on The Shankill, teenagers were goaded and in somecases told to riot by older men.....

    The people on the Shankill Road aren't being antagonised by Irish Republicans, Irish Nationalist's, Irish Gov. or the EU.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frankie,

      Blame the Brits when an Op goes sideways? Typical. Everyone knew that womble office was bugged so nobody would use it. Throwing Adair's name out there after was just insulting. That was a sectarian kill from top to bottom.

      "A few years later ... Loyalist's planted bombs on the Shankill, murdered Loyalist's, forced over 200 familes from their homes"

      That was the UVF targeting Adairs 'C' company of scumbags who were in alliance with Portadown traitors. Should have stiffed the lot of them if you asked me.

      "The people on the Shankill Road aren't being antagonised by Irish Republicans, Irish Nationalist's, Irish Gov. or the EU."

      Not these days, no.

      Delete
    2. Stevie,

      Blame the Brits when an Op goes sideways? Typical. That was a sectarian kill from top to bottom.

      The only thing that went wrong for the British in the Shankill bombing was Sean Kelly came out alive. Read an article that Anthony wrote for TPQ called Short Fuse. In the comments...read what itsjustmacker and Feel te love had to say about the operation and a short fuse, remember that was 2013.

      From The Independent 2016 Shankill Road bomb: IRA double-agent 'deliberately set device to explode prematurely' ....Read the article, in part it reads......

      Ex-IRA prisoners say they strongly believe “AA” was given the go-ahead by his handlers to “jark” the device. Asked how this could have been done, one former prisoner said: “It would have been easily booby-trapped. Those carrying it would not have known the timer could have been altered. They would have been given 45 seconds to clear the premises and then detonate the device, giving them time to also get out, but not those upstairs who were the target. But, if it was a time-lag switch, it could have been secretly adjusted, without a doubt.”

      But “AA” is said to have confessed recently that he had had possession of the bomb used in the Shankill Road in October 1993 before it was handed over to Begley and Kelly.

      One ex-Belfast prisoner said: “This will be totally devastating for the IRA’s credibility. It raises massive questions for the state, as to what extent it allowed its own citizens to die, who made those decisions and can they ever be made amenable..........

      Thomas Begley and Sean Kelly were nothing more than pawns and the nine innocent people who lost their lives along with the scores injured and maimed for life were nothing other than collateral damage to the British. Again 2016 the police watchdog was..." probing claims that the senior IRA operative who planned the 1993 Shankill Road bombing was an informant who passed on details that could have allowed the security forces to prevent the atrocity."

      Ultimate blame for the Shankill bomb lies at the door of MI5....Ask yourself one simple question Stevie..."What had the Provisionals to gain from planting a bomb in the middle of the Shankill Road....?"

      That was the UVF targeting Adairs 'C' company of scumbags who were in alliance with Portadown traitors. Should have stiffed the lot of them if you asked me.

      Anyone else you'd like to have seen 'stiffed'....?

      Not these days, no.

      Stevie go back and watch the video about the Loyalist feud, listen to what Billy Hutchinson said at the time about how Loyalist's have managed to do in weeks what the Provisionals couldn't do in 30yrs...(bring death, terror, intimidation, fear onto the streets of the Shankill....)

      Delete
  15. @ Wolfsbane 1/3

    Re “moral policies”

    The DUP and TUV’s stance on this suite of policies are completely at odds with the British political establishment, the British voting public, and increasingly with the younger unionist electorate.

    The DUP have been unable to capitalise on devout Catholics who share their stance on “moral policies” because of the deep-rooted, visceral sectarian bigotry of many of the leading and guiding lights of the DUP.

    Re Orange marches.

    Loyalist/unionist street disorder, fighting, anti-social behaviour, and sectarian violence predate the rise of Sinn Fein, and in fact predate the creation of Northern Ireland (have a read of Holy War in Belfast). The Northern Irish state has been in perpetual crisis since its foundation.

    Unionists and loyalists can often seem incapable of owning and recognising that there is a strong tradition of nihilistic violence within their communities, and that it does not need, and usually has not had, any type of “triggering” from the CNR community.

    By the “schools protest” do you mean the targeting by loyalists of Catholic school girls? If so, I feel I have comprehensively debunked the exculpatory myths many unionists tell themselves about why this happened in three pieces which you can find here: https://www.thepensivequill.com/search?q=holy+cross

    Re “ethnic identity”

    There is no equivalent of the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 in the Republic.

    I put this back to you, how was Orange identity restricted in the Republic? The decline in the Protestant population in the Republic has led to much debate about causes. I find the economic migration argument most compelling.

    The NIO started having enough of the annual blight on society that Orangeism caused in the 1980s, and instructed the RUC to establish actual order on ththe Orange Order. Orangeism has manifested itself lethally on scores of occasions, the victims usually being politically uninvolved nationalists, but other Orangemen, members of the security forces, and occasionally hapless Scottish bandsmen have all died because of the lawless nature of this subculture.

    Re the “crazies” – did you know that Sinn Fein has a former RUC officer among its candidates? There are far more anomalies that you might expect.

    Re “But the Unionist people have not voted for the representatives of the murderers. The DUP made a lot of empty talk about defending Ulster, but the vast majority of them and their supporters did not murder anyone.”

    If you read my pieces on Holy Cross, you’ll note the insipid, weak, and ineffectual reaction of political unionism to the most vile crimes being committed on a daily basis.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ Wolfsbane 2/3

    Hundreds of citizens of Northern Ireland were murdered by men in uniforms, mostly nationalists, but a not insignificant number of unionists. Sir Jeffrey Donaldson attended the funeral of a former British soldier who died whilst being tried for shooting a man with learning difficulties in the back. Numerous unionist politicians have defended the criminals and murderers in the Parachute regiment, and said that these particular killers should not face the same justice that others face.

    Numerous unionist politicians were members of the UDR, an organisation which was considered deeply sectarian in its nature by virtually every independent observer, and many from within the British establishment

    Former First Minister Peter Robinson wrote a character reference for Sammy Tweed, a prominent loyalist who escaped policy custody in 1974, and is suspected in the torture murder of another man with learning difficulties, Pat Benstead.

    Prominent members of the political parties that you claim have some sort of moral stance literally celebrated the murder of nationalists, and in other cases blatantly incited them.

    That most of the DUP weren’t as public in their support for the UDA/UVF as Sinn Fein were for the IRA is cowardice in my opinion. You ignored my point about the DUP posing with sledge-hammers. The DUP dog-whistled very effectively to loyalist murderers.

    A book could be written about the indulgence of sectarian murderers, and uniformed killers, by unionist politicians. If you want to condemn Sinn Fein for defending those who killed for their cause, you can only do so in good faith if you do the same for unionists.

    You cannot have it both ways. You, as a unionist, do not have the moral authority to condemn Sinn Fein unless you loudly condemn those from your own bloc for doing the exact same thing. I do not do this to engage in whataboutery, I do it to illustrate the futility of making the claims that you do. The unionist political class is steeped in anti-Irish bigotry and offering its full support to those who persecuted nationalists.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Wolfbane 3/3

    Re Gerry Adams and equality

    Gerry Adams is and was completely correct. Unionism now, and for the past one hundred years, is entirely at odds with how equality is understood in Britain. Had unionists any strategic vision, they would recognise that and act accordingly. Instead they literally adopt the strategy that Gerry Adams predicted they would.

    To quote Wellington "They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way."
    Re the need for unionists to dominate

    “But I can only offer in mitigation that the desire to dominate is not intrinsic to Unionism – where no threat exists, very few Unionists would seek to coat-trail, never mind dominate.”

    I think that this is incorrect. Jennifer Todd in her excellent article “Two Traditions in Unionist Political Culture” noted that, for loyalists, the “core assumption is that the only alternative to Ulster loyalist dominance is Ulster loyalist defeat and humiliation”

    Apologies for referencing my own work again, but I explore this here: Reflections On Loyalist Paramilitary Activity ➖ Sectarian Murder - TPQ (thepensivequill.com)

    I think that Jennifer Todd is totally correct. Any analysis of Orangeism, unionism or loyalism will demonstrate the inherent need for performative intimidation.

    Re “They did not cause it. There were and are proper alternatives. But the EU is determined to make the UK pay for leaving, and to give a warning to any other nation not to do the same. And the Irish government and Nationalists think the Unionists can be done down without consequences.”

    The DUP, to borrow their Freudian phrases, were the bridesmaids for the election of Boris Johnson, who duly and predictably treated them with the contempt he holds unionism more generally in.

    Conflating nationalists with the EU and Irish government as being involved in some kind of conspiracy to “do down” unionists is Jamie Bryson-esque nonsense.

    Re “ If Christian values are to be banned from the political platforms, already a large number of Unionists, and the fewer Catholic Nationalists, are to be silenced. “

    With respect, Christian values are subjective, and are obviously not banned from political platforms. But if you look to Britain, you will see how irrelevant religions generally is to holding elected public office.

    To borrow a phrase from Ghandi, Christian values are a wonderful idea. Paisley, Poots, McCrea et al are men for whom loving thy neighbour is a foreign concept. They would consider my a Catholic because I was born on the Falls Road, the same Falls Road that a member of their party (and presumably faith) called for to be bombed by the RAF.

    That’s the kind of madness that I object to.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks, Brandon. I'll read your articles and get back - maybe Saturday.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Wolfsbane - no problem. If you want to get in touch direct, let me know and I could get your details off AM.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  20. [A]
    Brandon said: BS: ‘Re “moral policies”
    The DUP and TUV’s stance on this suite of policies are completely at odds with the British political establishment, the British voting public, and increasingly with the younger unionist electorate.’

    Correct. The British and Irish nations are as one morally, except for the few Evangelicals and even fewer devout Catholics in GB, and a larger number of Evangelicals and devout Catholics here.

    BS: ‘The DUP have been unable to capitalise on devout Catholics who share their stance on “moral policies” because of the deep-rooted, visceral sectarian bigotry of many of the leading and guiding lights of the DUP.’

    Yes, but it’s not sectarian in the religious sense, rather ethnic. The disrespect show to all things Irish. The religious differences are a valid target for criticism, like all ideologies.

    BS: ‘Re Orange marches.
    Loyalist/unionist street disorder, fighting, anti-social behaviour, and sectarian violence predate the rise of Sinn Fein, and in fact predate the creation of Northern Ireland (have a read of Holy War in Belfast). The Northern Irish state has been in perpetual crisis since its foundation.’

    The Planters have lived under threat several times since their arrival. The 1641 Massacre, the Seige of Derry, the rise of Home Rule campaign, the IRA campaign at the beginning of NI, the Border Campaign, and ultimately the Troubles.

    The tensions between those crises rose or fell in isolated areas – the Belfast unrest of the mid-thirties, for example. But generally, even in the Border Campaign, both communities got on well. Except maybe in urban areas: I grew up amongst Catholic neighbours in the country and never had overt sectarian abuse until I went to a fair in a Catholic area of town , with a Catholic friend. I had left my primary school uniform on, which identified me as a Prod. I was approached and threatened by an older lad, who pulled up my tie and said something like Prods are not welcome here. I left, as did my friend.

    And it was town Prods who spoke bitterly of Catholics.

    But I'm not sure what to make of that, as rural South Armagh produced some of the leading sectarian killers on both sides. Just maybe they were the exceptions, with the hardness of urban working class living accounting for the rest.

    It's not as if our country existence suppressed either identity. We put up our Union Jack on the Twelfth, they played rebel songs on their Dansette of an evening. We sat with them for the craic, at times.
    Sometimes my Catholic mates talked about a UI. A friend said he would eat grass if that's what it meant to have a UI. My Dad was in the Specials, but we had good relations with all our Catholic neighbours. One even asked my Dad if he would shoot his dying dog, to save him the cost of a vet – which he did, relying on his friend's discretion as unauthorized use of a firearm could have got him in trouble.

    The UVF murder of Peter Ward was a great shock for us all. But no Prod I knew was other than appalled. There was no even quiet support for that. It was seen, at least by those I knew, as murder deserving a hanging.

    But the Civil Rights movement brought out the fears and resentments. Had all Unionist leaders taken the leaders of CRA at face value, as O'Neill was doing, maybe the Troubles could have been avoided. But Paisley and others were able to point to some IRA figures involved with the movement, and persuaded most, including myself, that this was an IRA front, not a genuine effort at normalizing and equalizing housing opportunities, etc. We now know that it was both.

    A strong man who could recognize Unionist fears but assure them that he could be trusted to handle it all, would have succeeded. But poor O'Neill was seen by many as a soft toff, gullible and not seeing the dangers. A great missed opportunity .

    ReplyDelete
  21. [B]
    Brandon said:

    BS: ‘Unionists and loyalists can often seem incapable of owning and recognising that there is a strong tradition of nihilistic violence within their communities, and that it does not need, and usually has not had, any type of “triggering” from the CNR community.’

    I recognise that in some, maybe most, urban areas of working class Unionists/Loyalists. But Nationalists/Republicans were not past that either.

    BS: ‘By the “schools protest” do you mean the targeting by loyalists of Catholic school girls? If so, I feel I have comprehensively debunked the exculpatory myths many unionists tell themselves about why this happened in three pieces which you can find here: https://www.thepensivequill.com/search?q=holy+cross’

    Yes, the disgraceful saga that emerged there. I've read your 3 posts on that, and I can see how you came to several of your conclusions. But rather than events chosen by Loyalists, as you suggest, I think they were shrewdly chosen by SF in some instances, or opportunistically exploited by them in others.

    For example, I doubt any brainbox amongst Loyalism sat down and planned to protest and riot about Catholic kids walking to school. But when Republicans ran down a Loyalist from putting up a sign on a lamppost near the school entrance, given the dry tinder of emotions already existing in the area, it was no surprise that it escalated from there. The right button had been pushed and the Loyalist community fell for it. The easiest thing was to make an issue of the parents walking through the Loyalist area to access the school and scream abuse at them. And worse to follow.

    The wise thing would have been for Loyalists, given they were going to react about the incident, to go after those responsible. Not the parents and certainly not the kids. But this is where a valid criticism you raise of the whole Loyalist campaign comes in: the callous choice they made to mainly target the whole Catholic community for the sins of the Republicans. I have never understood why. I can only speculate that it was the lazy answer, giving easy targets. And sectarian murders by the IRA, such as their bombings and the killing of relatives of police/UDR/prison officers, allowed them to feel justified in ‘returning the serve'.

    ReplyDelete
  22. [C]
    Brandon said:
    BS: ‘Re “ethnic identity”
    There is no equivalent of the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 in the Republic.
    I put this back to you, how was Orange identity restricted in the Republic? The decline in the Protestant population in the Republic has led to much debate about causes. I find the economic migration argument most compelling.’

    Was the British identity of British Protestants in the Republic celebrated as the Irish identity of the others was celebrated? Were Orange songs played along with Republican songs on Raidió Éireann?

    Certainly economic migration took many Protestants out of the Free State/Republic, as it did Catholics. But I personally know several Protestant families who came North to escape the cold house.

    BS: ‘The NIO started having enough of the annual blight on society that Orangeism caused in the 1980s, and instructed the RUC to establish actual order on ththe Orange Order. Orangeism has manifested itself lethally on scores of occasions, the victims usually being politically uninvolved nationalists, but other Orangemen, members of the security forces, and occasionally hapless Scottish bandsmen have all died because of the lawless nature of this subculture.’

    The Orange marches in general have been decent, peaceful affairs. I am not an Orangeman, but I attended marches for many years and found this true. The worse aspects usually were drunken marchers pissing up walls. The problems came with a small minority of contested marches. The Orange were to blame for some of those, and Republicans for others. Drumcree has been a problem for many years, essentially down to Orange bloody-mindedness. Behind this was the belief that anyone is entitled to March on any road, as it belongs to the Queen, not the locals. That was always a bogus excuse, for most of them would not have agreed that Nationalist marches could walk on roads in Unionist areas.

    The violence that emerged from Loyalists attending the contested event was because they saw the ban on the march being an assault of their civil liberties. And SF deliberately stirred up the protests to the marches, hoping for loyalists to attack the security forces and be attacked in return. Drumcree very nearly set the whole province on fire, had not the Chief Constable backed down when he saw the trajectory. He humbled himself to stop it, by forcing the parade through, accepting the lesser violence that would come from the Nationalist protesters.
    I have great respect for his sacrifice.

    As I saw it, the blame lay with the Orange when it allowed the March route to become mainly Nationalist. If the route was so important they should have encouraged their supporters who lived on the route to remain there. And with Drumcree there was a suitable alternative route.

    So the Orange culture is not intrinsically lawless and violent. But Loyalism mostly is, and their interaction with the marches has been the problem. Same applies to the Bonfire culture. In my earlier days familes could bring their little kids and have a decent time. But since the rise of the drunk and drugs culture among the youth, very few are suitable for families.

    ReplyDelete
  23. D]
    Brandon said:
    BS: ‘Re the “crazies” – did you know that Sinn Fein has a former RUC officer among its candidates? There are far more anomalies that you might expect.’

    Yes, I knew that. Same exceptions applied on the Loyalist side. One of the key LVF men in Mid-Ulster was a Catholic.

    BS: ‘Re “But the Unionist people have not voted for the representatives of the murderers. The DUP made a lot of empty talk about defending Ulster, but the vast majority of them and their supporters did not murder anyone.”
    If you read my pieces on Holy Cross, you’ll note the insipid, weak, and ineffectual reaction of political unionism to the most vile crimes being committed on a daily basis.’

    Yes, I agree that Unionist politicians at times were insipid, weak and ineffectual in the face of Loyalist crimes. But mostly that was not the case. Like the SDLP, they would come on to deplore such crimes, even if their actions were less inspiring than their words.

    The crisis for all was the murder of the Quinn boys on 12th July 1998, before the feared clash at Drumcree. That stopped the Drumcree crisis immediately, the shame being felt about the Loyalist murders. I have often reflected at the same result on the other special day, 15th August, in the same year. The Omagh Bomb was a catalyst for revulsion at Republican violence. A message from God, I believe, to both sinful communities about their intransigence, on their special days.

    ReplyDelete

  24. [E]
    Brandon said:
    BS: ‘Hundreds of citizens of Northern Ireland were murdered by men in uniforms, mostly nationalists, but a not insignificant number of unionists. Sir Jeffrey Donaldson attended the funeral of a former British soldier who died whilst being tried for shooting a man with learning difficulties in the back. Numerous unionist politicians have defended the criminals and murderers in the Parachute regiment, and said that these particular killers should not face the same justice that others face.’

    I agree that bias has been shown by Unionist politicians toward members of the Security Forces. No doubt that has been a reaction against the hypocrisy of SF in seeking justice for Nationalist victims while concealing the identities of many IRA murderers. But regrettable, nonetheless. The politicians should have supported justice for all, or an amnesty for all.

    BS: ‘Numerous unionist politicians were members of the UDR, an organisation which was considered deeply sectarian in its nature by virtually every independent observer, and many from within the British establishment’

    Most of the UDR were honourable men and women, as was the RUC, and did not endorse the Loyalist killing campaign. The Catholics who were in both the UDR and RUC and were murdered by the IRA testify of that.

    BS: ‘Former First Minister Peter Robinson wrote a character reference for Sammy Tweed, a prominent loyalist who escaped policy custody in 1974, and is suspected in the torture murder of another man with learning difficulties, Pat Benstead.’

    When did he write it? Before the crimes or after his release? If Robinson knew of his crimes and there had been no repentance shown, then that would be an endorsement of his crimes. Just as giving a character reference for an IRA terrorist would be today, without repentance shown.

    BS: ‘Prominent members of the political parties that you claim have some sort of moral stance literally celebrated the murder of nationalists, and in other cases blatantly incited them.’

    I haven't heard of any, but if you can give the proof I will deplore it with you. I know of some who have celebrated to killings of IRA terrorists, but that would be normal in any democratic society.

    ReplyDelete
  25. [F]
    Brandon said:
    BS: ‘That most of the DUP weren’t as public in their support for the UDA/UVF as Sinn Fein were for the IRA is cowardice in my opinion. You ignored my point about the DUP posing with sledge-hammers. The DUP dog-whistled very effectively to loyalist murderers.’

    I do know some who were happy when the UVF/UDA killed IRA men and women. But that was not to endorse the Loyalist murderers, just the demise of the other terrorists. I didn't comment on the sledgehammer incident as I don't recall it. I should have said that was deplorable, but it must have been exceptional if I don't recall it or any similar. The worst case I have seen was of William McCrea on a platform with Billy Wright, condemning the UVF for ordering him out of NI on pain of his life. That would have been no different from John Hume on a similar platform with an IRA dissident complaining about the IRA threatening him.

    BS: ‘A book could be written about the indulgence of sectarian murderers, and uniformed killers, by unionist politicians. If you want to condemn Sinn Fein for defending those who killed for their cause, you can only do so in good faith if you do the same for unionists.
    You cannot have it both ways. You, as a unionist, do not have the moral authority to condemn Sinn Fein unless you loudly condemn those from your own bloc for doing the exact same thing. I do not do this to engage in whataboutery, I do it to illustrate the futility of making the claims that you do. The unionist political class is steeped in anti-Irish bigotry and offering its full support to those who persecuted nationalists.’

    The difference is vast. SF was/is the political instrument of the IRA. Neither the DUP, UUP, nor TUV have ever being so implicated with Loyalist terrorists.

    I expect SF, if they want to be merely a political party upholding democratic ideals, to not celebrate terrorists who murdered and maimed so many during the Troubles. There is only one Unionist party that behaves as SF about the Troubles – the PUP. I would grieve if they ever got the majority support of the Unionist people, and be ashamed to be called a Unionist.

    ReplyDelete
  26. [F]
    Brandon said:
    BS: ‘Re Gerry Adams and equality
    Gerry Adams is and was completely correct. Unionism now, and for the past one hundred years, is entirely at odds with how equality is understood in Britain. Had unionists any strategic vision, they would recognise that and act accordingly. Instead they literally adopt the strategy that Gerry Adams predicted they would.’

    The IRA have long ago abandoned any of their Catholic beliefs, and SF with them. The equality they speak of is the right to murder a baby in the womb, and to enforce endorsement of the LGBTQ+ agenda. Were those the policies of the first Dail?

    BS: ‘To quote Wellington "They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way."’

    Indeed. But sad that the majority of Nationalists have left basic Christian teachings in their pursuit of the defeat of Unionism. The blood of tens of thousands of babies is on their hands.

    BS: ‘Re the need for unionists to dominate
    “But I can only offer in mitigation that the desire to dominate is not intrinsic to Unionism – where no threat exists, very few Unionists would seek to coat-trail, never mind dominate.”
    I think that this is incorrect. Jennifer Todd in her excellent article “Two Traditions in Unionist Political Culture” noted that, for loyalists, the “core assumption is that the only alternative to Ulster loyalist dominance is Ulster loyalist defeat and humiliation”’

    Then she is mistaken. There is no need for either side here to dominate- if only they will agree to work NI together. No doubt many Loyalists assume that the Nationalist people will settle for nothing less than a UI, so they think defeat of one side or the other is all that is on offer. But we all can show them that NI can belong to both.

    BS: ‘Apologies for referencing my own work again, but I explore this here: Reflections On Loyalist Paramilitary Activity ➖ Sectarian Murder - TPQ (thepensivequill.com)
    I think that Jennifer Todd is totally correct. Any analysis of Orangeism, unionism or loyalism will demonstrate the inherent need for performative intimidation.’

    Just now read it, and many of the comments following from AM, Steve, yourself and others. Helpful discussion. I think AM had the better of the analysis. As above, I think it mistaken to rely on an intrinsic sectarian hatred as the guiding principle behind Unionism or Loyalism. Real and perceived threats were the prime motivators of Unionist policy and Loyalist violence. The perception that the whole Nationalist community bore enough responsibility for the IRA murder campaign fed into the Loyalist indiscriminate murder campaign against the former. Plus it was easier to do. Very callous and rejected by the great majority of the Unionist people. But those people did not care much if any Republican was taken out by Loyalists, so it is not a total rejection of violence I'm speaking off.

    ReplyDelete
  27. [G]
    Brandon said:
    BS:’Re “They did not cause it. There were and are proper alternatives. But the EU is determined to make the UK pay for leaving, and to give a warning to any other nation not to do the same. And the Irish government and Nationalists think the Unionists can be done down without consequences.”
    The DUP, to borrow their Freudian phrases, were the bridesmaids for the election of Boris Johnson, who duly and predictably treated them with the contempt he holds unionism more generally in.’

    Correct. But not a surprise, coming from the Tories.

    BS: ‘Conflating nationalists with the EU and Irish government as being involved in some kind of conspiracy to “do down” unionists is Jamie Bryson-esque nonsense.’

    It makes the most sense to me. Not that the EU are interested in Unionists, more that Boris is their target.

    BS: ‘Re “ If Christian values are to be banned from the political platforms, already a large number of Unionists, and the fewer Catholic Nationalists, are to be silenced. “
    With respect, Christian values are subjective, and are obviously not banned from political platforms. But if you look to Britain, you will see how irrelevant religions generally is to holding elected public office.’

    I can accept those values are irrelevant to the majority of Britons and Irish. They are not subjective, however, but the historic view of both the Protestant and Catholic churches.

    I took from your comments that you thought they must be abandoned from political life of there is to be a positive future. I disagree.

    BS: ‘To borrow a phrase from Ghandi, Christian values are a wonderful idea. Paisley, Poots, McCrea et al are men for whom loving thy neighbour is a foreign concept.’

    That is to greatly misrepresent them. They may have politics that grate with yours, but you will find that they have good relations with individuals who do not share their political or religious beliefs. Of course, they are still able to fail, to sin against their neighbour. But I think you would feel safer living beside them than some godless Protestant who shared the progressive views on abortion and LGBTQ+.

    BS: ‘They would consider my a Catholic because I was born on the Falls Road, the same Falls Road that a member of their party (and presumably faith) called for to be bombed by the RAF.
    That’s the kind of madness that I object to.’

    Any Evangelical Protestant knows that the religion of any person is not synonymous with their locality. It is a matter of the heart.

    Never heard of the RAF bombing suggestion. Was it some sort of joke? If serious, it was utterly callous, for the only time area bombing can be justified is in extremis. That was never the case in NI or Ireland. The area bombings by the IRA and UVF were especially unjust actions in an unjust war.

    ReplyDelete