And ultimately holiday homes in Donegal 
Just like to point out that the Orange marches are not ‘violent parades’ in and of themselves. They are part of a historic tradition that goes back to the days of William of Orange, King of England and his defeat of James’ army at the Boyne.
I am not from Northern Ireland, though my girlfriend is - and I held a lot of the misconceptions I see here before I went to the 12th this year to find out for myself what it was like. I am as anti-sectarian as they come, and object to the deliberate marching through Catholic estates - the sectarian songs - and the general anti-Catholic sentiment. I saw a little of each - but what I saw much more was a lot of people having a fun celebration on, what is for them, a national holiday. I didn’t see any violence, or even threats of violence, even in the mixed communities that the march went through. It certainly wasn’t the case that the lack of a union flag put your house under threat - at least not in the area of County Down that I saw.
The most telling thing for me is a group of Catholics saying how before the Troubles started, they used to join in the celebrations, but now cannot through fear of their own communities attacking them. I also know of a priest who used to join the band outside his church and sing along to the music.
Let me put it this way: Suppose NI were united with the Republic – the IRA’s stated end-goal. Would the IRA simply disband or fade away after that, as, in principle, it should? Or would it continue as a purely profit-driven criminal organization?
The IRA’s end goal (based on the politics of Sinn Fein) is a United Ireland which is an Irish-speaking Marxist State.
The likelihood of that occuring is rather slight.
Sinn Fein will never disappear, and I would imagine that the IRA wil continue much as they have been dong for the last 10 years. So no, I personally don’t think the criminal activity will stop, because once you have power, nobody gives it up easily. At least we know where we are with the IRA. Nature abhorrs a vacuum, and the devil you do know may well be better than the devil you don’t.
It’s also worth pointing out that, should the situation you state ever come to be, there are a number of Loyalist factions which would immediately take the place of the IRA, albeit with the focus of their attacks more likely to be on Dublin, rather than London. You would simply replace one terrorist organisation with another. Also, as irishgirl says, it is unlikely that those with power would be willing to give it up. Again, this is part of the problem with the various Loyalist groups at present - infighting to gain/regain control of power, territory and profits.
More importantly, how many Loyalists would attack them for joining in?
As well as that, as far as I know, Catholics are banned from joining the ranks of the Orange Order (if they felt they wanted to) Much like Catholics who tried to join the police, there was the threat of bullying from within the force as well as threats from the IRA outside (threats which were greater, but then the force wasn’t that great for Catholics to join in the first place)
It’s not just the Orange Order, there were reports a few years ago of a Catholic woman who wished to join the UUP and was refused.
Just because the majority of Protestants are Unionists, and the majority of Catholics are Nationalists does not mean that religious affliation must always decide political opinions. For some people which church they attend has very little to do with their politics…even in Northern Ireland.
One can be a Protestant who feels themselves to be Irish, and would quite like to see a United Ireland (like me), or a Catholic who self identifies as British and would like to stay that way (several of my friends). Even in Northern Ireland you don’t always have to agree with your friends on matters of politics and religion.
So in practical terms, the purpose of the IRA is to ensure that the IRA continues to be. :dubious:
I think you will find that regardless of origin, this becomes the prime purpose of any organisation whatsoever.
Don’t they notice any dissonance between Marxism and nationalism?
The goal of the IRA was to set up a 32 county socialist state not Marxist. The Marxist line of the Official IRA in the early 1970’s was one of the reasons for the split which resulted in the Provisionals.
Personally I think that the majority of the IRA would like to announce that the campaign of violence is over and wrap it all up but they won’t do so if it looks like they’re in a position of weakness and surrendering. What makes me think this is that last November the deal had basically been done before Ian Paisley once again opened his fat mouth in Ballymena.
I think people in England and elsewhere don’t quite understand how big a problem being forced into such a situation for the IRA would be, it wouldn’t be just a means of humiliating them and their supporters (of which I’m not one but I do understand why they came into existence and continued the struggle for so long) but by extension the Catholic community of Northern Ireland as a whole. And for a people who seethed under institutional oppression and humiliation for fifty or more years thats a very, very touchy subject.
If everyone would put the triumphalism to one side they might be able to work something out.
Don’t be decieved, everyone preaches that they want peace, they don’t, or at least thats not all they want, they also want victory, they want the other side to admit that it was all their fault and they were wrong to oppose them in the first place.
I may be being overly cynical with the latter statement but I’m beginning to doubt it.
The title caught my eye because I’m currently reading “UDA” by Henry McDonald and Jim Cusack. Its my perception that people in England especially appear to believe that the IRA was 99% responsible for the trouble here and while they’re aware of Loyalist paramilitaries its only in the vaguest terms. Its also raises questions as to why the UDA remained a legal organisation up until 1992.
I find it extremely gratifying that people are still interested in the history of the Troubles and the current situation here and would be happy to try to answer any questions people may have.
Here’s the $64 question: Is there any “solution” that would put all this behind us forever? E.g., what are the prospects that NI will ever be united with the Republic?* And if that ever happens, will it end the Troubles? Would the Loyalists be satisfied with political representation in Dublin? (Very considerable representation – certainly they would have a larger proportional vote share in Dublin than they now have in Westminster.) Or would they wage a new terror campaign? The only other “solution” I can think of would be total independence for NI, and so far as I’ve heard nobody is even campaigning for that.
*Discussed earlier in this thread – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=312368.
As its after 3am here I’ll give a quick answer now and perhaps a more considered one tomorrow.
In my opinion to find a solution we first have to recognise that there are two legitmate identities in Northern Ireland, primarily those who are Protestant and consider themselves British and those who are Catholic and consider themselves Irish (there are of course an infinite number of shades between those, for example someone calling me British doesn’t bother me that much, after all I was born and grew up in the UK however illegitimate I may find the state of Northern Ireland, the problems only start when people insist I’m only British)*
Once we’ve done that we can begin to move forward, recognising that Catholics are never going to be 100% happy with NI in the Union and Protestants will never be 100% happy with being part of a United Ireland and so the will of the majority will have to be respected for whatever the situation is at the time. For now Catholics must bow to the will of the Protestant majority (not to get into the history of the Northern Irish state and how it was unfairly engineered to have that majority) and if in the future the will of the majority is to join the Republic, as may occur relatively soon if the greater Catholic birth-rate continues, then the Protestant minority will have to again bow to the wishes of the majority. I’m not 100% happy with this arrangement myself but as long as there is no active state-sponsored discrimination then its acceptable.
The important part being that both traditions are recognised and considered fully legitimate, for most of its existence Northern Ireland was quite literally “A Protestant State for a Protestant People” and Catholics were treated with suspicion and discriminated against. Descrimination of any form is no longer acceptable and must be stamped out whereever it raises its ugly head.
Personally I think that a good solution to satisfy both traditions would be for joint sovergnty (spelling) by both the London and Dublin governments over the territory of Northern Ireland to reassure both Protestants and Catholics that their viewpoints and presence are recognised. I can just imagine the storms of protest if this was mooted though…
As for your questions:
what are the prospects that NI will ever be united with the Republic?
Long term I would say the prospects are quite good but its impossible to say what the situation will be like a few years down the line. There are plenty of Catholics who also prefer the status quo and the economic benefits provided by being part of the UK (as doubtful as those benefits now are). Personally I feel thats a rather cold and unromantic view but I understand where they’re coming from.
And if that ever happens, will it end the Troubles? Would the Loyalists be satisfied with political representation in Dublin? Or would they wage a new terror campaign?
If the will of the majority is to join the Republic I don’t see how they’d have much cause for complaint, Catholics have been lectured on their need to respect “the will of the majority” for long enough, something thats finally been accepted with the Good Friday Agreement. Its possible that a new Loyalist terror campaign would be launched but I hope that it would be recognised and made clear that they’re fighting a losing battle. That assumes that both the Dublin and London goverments would have the courage to make it abundantly clear that their violence is not going to have the effect of retaining or reinstating the Union. It’d be a very very messy and complicated situation for sure though.
The only other “solution” I can think of would be total independence for NI, and so far as I’ve heard nobody is even campaigning for that.
That has been proposed on and off as a solution, often by Loyalist paramilitaries (which makes me wonder how Loyal they really are to the British state if they’d be content with their own private fiefdom). In my opinion it would be the worst possible outcome and something I would find totally unacceptable. It would be nothing more than the attempt of the Unionists/Protestant hardliners to reassert their dominance over the territory of Northern Ireland. As I mentioned above they ran Northern Ireland as their own private fiefdom for fifty years with little to no interference from London despite it being part of the UK and many would just love to have those days back.
If the Troubles were fought for any reason it was to end that period of Protestant domination and I for one will never accept any solution that even hints of a return to those days.
*People often seem to state that only Protestants/Unionists had to make compromises to achieve the Good Friday Agreement, for Catholics/Nationalists recognising the legitimacy of the Northern Irish state enshrined in that document is a massive step and one many people, including myself, are not entirely happy with but believe its necessary as a stepping stone towards a lasting peace. Thats not to mention the Republic doing away with Clause 22 (? probably getting mixed up with Catch-22) which laid claim to the territory of NI, another major stumbling block.
I once read a venerable Irish joke: “If only we were heathen so we could all live together like good Christians!” But I have my doubts as to whether that would help any . . .
When it comes to the reunification of this island, many foreign people seem to take it as read that the people in the Republic would welcome the North with open arms and that the only barrier to it is those pesky Unionists. That’s far too simplistic. In 1998, the people of the Republic voted in a constitutional referendum to rescind the constitutional claim of the Republic to the six counties of Northern Ireland. If everyone here in the Republic believed this island should be one state, how did that ever get passed?
Until a vote is put to all the citizens on this island, in both parts, then no one knows who wants what. No one. Not Gerry Adams, not Ian Paisley, not Bertie Ahern and not Tony Blair.
A bit idealistic, it was fought so that individuals within certain organisations could wedge themselves into a position of power within their own communities they might not have had under other circumstances. I for one would never like any solution that hints that those days would remain, but we’ll probably have to accept the heavy prescence of parmilitary/organised crime for some time to come…
True, I wish they’d hold an annual poll or consensus, or even one held a few months before the elections so we could do without the nationality issue being dragged over the coals by most parties and proper politics being discussed.
I’m not sure it’s true that people believe that the IRA is almost wholly responsible for the Troubles. It is true though that, for my generation, we grew up with the threat of terrorism from the IRA, but we also knew that the situation in NI was not a simple one - and certainly had (and still has) no simple solution. The difference may have been that the media only really talked about the IRA - as the various Loyalist paramilitaries did not affect the rest of the UK. However, it was also clear to me, at least, that the very existence of paramilitaries was not the sign of a civilised, healthy community.
The Ulster Defence Association, as I understand it, was legal because they had a role in protecting the Protestant population.
Thatcher’s policy, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, aimed to provide jobs for Catholics who were otherwise discriminated against in NI. However, in order to make room in, for example, the shipyards, Protestants were made redundant. Strikes were held, and naturally (under a Tory leadership) more Catholic workers were brought in to keep the industries running. The Protestants therefore were angry on two counts - some having lost their jobs and others resenting the breaking of picket lines. Before long bricks and petrol bombs were being thrown at the Catholic workers as they made their way to work.
In retaliation, members of the IRA began going into Protestant areas and conducting localised terrorism - petrol bombs into houses, torching cars, etc. The UDA formed originally to protect such areas - mainly as the police were unable (and perhaps unwilling) to manage such a diverse operation. The UDA effectively operated originally as guardsmen, sealing off roads at night with barriers, burnt out cars, etc. No doubt they also launched aggressive operations of their own.
By 1992, moves were being taken (once more) towards a new peace process. As such, it was clear that a number of paramilitary organisations operated on both sides, but were mostly illegal. Clearly, it would not make sense for one organisation to exist legally in the light of this - and certainly not after it’s original ‘mission’ (self-defined and loose) was no longer relevant. In the end it was just like all the other paramilitary organisations - out for power, money and oppression. Also, as in all these things, the Govt had to be shown to be dealing fairly with both sides - or risk the withdrawal of Sinn Fein and/or the Loyalist parties from the table (as inevitably happened several times).
Oh - and a nod to **irishgirl ** who noted that Protestant doesn’t always mean Loyalist and Catholic doesn’t always mean Republican. As that’s generally the case it’s easy to use the terminology but absolutely right to point it out.
The title caught my eye because I’m currently reading “UDA” by Henry McDonald and Jim Cusack. Its my perception that people in England especially appear to believe that the IRA was 99% responsible for the trouble here and while they’re aware of Loyalist paramilitaries its only in the vaguest terms. Its also raises questions as to why the UDA remained a legal organisation up until 1992.
I’m not sure it’s true that people believe that the IRA is almost wholly responsible for the Troubles. It is true though that, for my generation, we grew up with the threat of terrorism from the IRA, but we also knew that the situation in NI was not a simple one - and certainly had (and still has) no simple solution. The difference may have been that the media only really talked about the IRA - as the various Loyalist paramilitaries did not affect the rest of the UK. However, it was also clear to me, at least, that the very existence of paramilitaries was not the sign of a civilised, healthy community.*
From watching the British media and from my time living in England I did get the distinct impression that the average English person believes the problems here were 95% the fault of the IRA and they were aware of the Loyalist paramilitaries as a vague “Bad Thing” but not particularly interested because, after all, it wasn’t the Loyalists that were bombing England.
It is also extremely difficult to discuss the situation in a rationale manner because if you don’t simply agree with them and try to explain the rationale behind the IRA’s existence and operation in any manner you’re automatically labelled as a psychotic anti-British republican terrorist sympathiser. And things tend to go downhill from there.
Thats basically what you’ve said but you understand how it causes some resentment for the average Nationalist watching the British media to have the atrocities of the IRA constantly reiterated while the equally horrific actions of the Loyalist paramilitaries don’t recieve 1/10th of the coverage, and if they are mentioned its often in the same breath as an equivalent IRA action?
The Ulster Defence Association, as I understand it, was legal because they had a role in protecting the Protestant population.
That was their publicly stated role yes but it was an entirely open secret that they were the ‘acceptable’ face of the UFF, a UDA cover name, and regularly engaged in some of the most horrifically sectarian actions of the Troubles. The fact that they were legal until 1992 is totally indefensible and created more bitterness within the Catholic community than whatever perceieved benefits their continued legality may have brought the authorities.
*Thatcher’s policy, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, aimed to provide jobs for Catholics who were otherwise discriminated against in NI. However, in order to make room in, for example, the shipyards, Protestants were made redundant. Strikes were held, and naturally (under a Tory leadership) more Catholic workers were brought in to keep the industries running. The Protestants therefore were angry on two counts - some having lost their jobs and others resenting the breaking of picket lines. Before long bricks and petrol bombs were being thrown at the Catholic workers as they made their way to work.
In retaliation, members of the IRA began going into Protestant areas and conducting localised terrorism - petrol bombs into houses, torching cars, etc. The UDA formed originally to protect such areas - mainly as the police were unable (and perhaps unwilling) to manage such a diverse operation. The UDA effectively operated originally as guardsmen, sealing off roads at night with barriers, burnt out cars, etc. No doubt they also launched aggressive operations of their own.*
The UDA was in existence from the very earliest stages of the Troubles and their true nature was very quickly known. However as the British Army and the Unionist authorities were unwilling (understandably in a purely military sense) to fight a war on two fronts and the UDA and other Loyalist paramilitaries were not actively attacking the British Army or RUC (although on more than one occasion the UDA declared war on both of them, mostly when they weren’t entirely getting their own way) or attempting to undermine the state the focus of the security services was almost entirely on the activities of the IRA and a blind-eye was turned to the activities of the Loyalists. Again do you see why this caused massive bitterness and resentment within the Catholic community? The, justified, perception was that yet again they were being unfairly discriminated against. And if the legal authorities were unwilling or unable to protect them then who would?
btw your last sentence is an understatement of epic proportions.
By 1992, moves were being taken (once more) towards a new peace process. As such, it was clear that a number of paramilitary organisations operated on both sides, but were mostly illegal. Clearly, it would not make sense for one organisation to exist legally in the light of this - and certainly not after it’s original ‘mission’ (self-defined and loose) was no longer relevant. In the end it was just like all the other paramilitary organisations - out for power, money and oppression. Also, as in all these things, the Govt had to be shown to be dealing fairly with both sides - or risk the withdrawal of Sinn Fein and/or the Loyalist parties from the table (as inevitably happened several times).
The British government should have dealt fairly with both sides from the very beginning. The fact that they didn’t is one reason why the conflict rumbled on for so long. From reading the history of the Troubles I get the distinct impression that the British government and authorities were afraid of the Loyalist and Unionists, why else did they let them bring a part of the UK to its knees not once but twice? (in the 1973 strike to bring down the Sunningdale Agreement and in 1996 over the Drumcree parade) If the Nationalists had attempted those stunts the authorities would have come down on them with both feet, instead they caved into their demands.
The UDA was quite obviously up to its neck in terrorism, the fact that it remained legal for so long is a stain on the British record.
Bugger…sorry ignore the above post, for some reason half of it was eaten.
What I meant to say was clears throat
*BrainGlutton
I once read a venerable Irish joke: “If only we were heathen so we could all live together like good Christians!” But I have my doubts as to whether that would help any . . .*
It wouldn’t, some of the nastier incidents and facets of the conflict here were due to naked sectarianism but even if the religious aspect didn’t exist it would still have been fought.
*Dublin11
When it comes to the reunification of this island, many foreign people seem to take it as read that the people in the Republic would welcome the North with open arms and that the only barrier to it is those pesky Unionists. That’s far too simplistic. In 1998, the people of the Republic voted in a constitutional referendum to rescind the constitutional claim of the Republic to the six counties of Northern Ireland. If everyone here in the Republic believed this island should be one state, how did that ever get passed?
Until a vote is put to all the citizens on this island, in both parts, then no one knows who wants what. No one. Not Gerry Adams, not Ian Paisley, not Bertie Ahern and not Tony Blair.*
There is quite a hair-raising quote from Bernadette McAliskey that succintly outlines the depth of feeling of many Catholics here that they are incontestably part of the Irish nation and no political divisions will deny us our heritage.
"“I will not be British. I will not be driven out of this nation. I will not have somebody in Cork or Dublin say to me that my father and my mother are buried on British soil, in the county of Tyrone…my national identity is not something for you to barter and sell. It is an integral part of my existence and I will not live without it…I tell you, on the peril of all our mortal lives, don’t you even dare to try to put us out of this nation - or we’ll leave you without a blade of grass.”
Bernadette McAliskey on Articles Two and Three of the Southern Constitution.
There is a belief that the freedom of the people of the south of Ireland was bought by the slavery of the Catholics in the north and if we were rejected by our Southern cousins…it would not go down well…we have as much a right to be Irish as you do.
As regards to an all Ireland vote, why not have an all Ireland + UK vote? We keep being told that the British ‘mainland’ would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland, so why not?
I would rather be an integral part of a unitary 32-county Irish state than an at best forgotten, at worst despised, province of the United Kingdom. For an example of how little we are thought of, the BBC recently commissioned and showed a series entitled “A Picture of Britain”, a four-part one-hour per episode, series showing the best of the scenery and artists of the British Isles. Of 240 minutes of program how long did they spend covering Ireland North and South?
12 minutes.
btw An interesting book covering the perspective and opinions of Northern Catholics (although somewhat out of date) is “In Search of a State: Catholics in Northern Ireland” by Fionnuala O’Connor.
*Pushkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaberindeMk2
If the Troubles were fought for any reason it was to end that period of Protestant domination and I for one will never accept any solution that even hints of a return to those days
A bit idealistic, it was fought so that individuals within certain organisations could wedge themselves into a position of power within their own communities they might not have had under other circumstances. I for one would never like any solution that hints that those days would remain, but we’ll probably have to accept the heavy prescence of parmilitary/organised crime for some time to come…*
Well thats not the first time I’ve been called overly idealistic, it seems I fluctuate between idealism and cynicism. 
I however would say that you’re being overly cynical with your assessment, the truth lies, as ever, somewhere in-between.
One of the bonuses of having a comprehensive universally agreed peace settlement would be that the paramilitaries would no longer have the cover of political ideology to hide behind. If they continue to engage in criminal activities they would be treated as simple criminals, as such gangs are treated in other parts of the world.
The problem is this strange half-way house between true peace and conflict we currently have, until the issue is resolved the messy situation of the present will continue.
*Martiju
Originally Posted by StaberindeMk2
The title caught my eye because I’m currently reading “UDA” by Henry McDonald and Jim Cusack. Its my perception that people in England especially appear to believe that the IRA was 99% responsible for the trouble here and while they’re aware of Loyalist paramilitaries its only in the vaguest terms. Its also raises questions as to why the UDA remained a legal organisation up until 1992.
I’m not sure it’s true that people believe that the IRA is almost wholly responsible for the Troubles. It is true though that, for my generation, we grew up with the threat of terrorism from the IRA, but we also knew that the situation in NI was not a simple one - and certainly had (and still has) no simple solution. The difference may have been that the media only really talked about the IRA - as the various Loyalist paramilitaries did not affect the rest of the UK. However, it was also clear to me, at least, that the very existence of paramilitaries was not the sign of a civilised, healthy community.*
From watching the British media and from my time living in England I did get the distinct impression that the average English person believes the problems here were 95% the fault of the IRA and they were aware of the Loyalist paramilitaries as a vague “Bad Thing” but not particularly interested because, after all, it wasn’t the Loyalists that were bombing England.
It is also extremely difficult to discuss the situation in a rationale manner because if you don’t simply agree with them and try to explain the rationale behind the IRA’s existence and operation in any manner you’re automatically labelled as a psychotic anti-British republican terrorist sympathiser. And things tend to go downhill from there.
Thats basically what you’ve said but you understand how it causes some resentment for the average Nationalist watching the British media to have the atrocities of the IRA constantly reiterated while the equally horrific actions of the Loyalist paramilitaries don’t recieve 1/10th of the coverage, and if they are mentioned its often in the same breath as an equivalent IRA action?
The Ulster Defence Association, as I understand it, was legal because they had a role in protecting the Protestant population.
That was their publicly stated role yes but it was an entirely open secret that they were the ‘acceptable’ face of the UFF, a UDA cover name, and regularly engaged in some of the most horrifically sectarian actions of the Troubles. The fact that they were legal until 1992 is totally indefensible and created more bitterness within the Catholic community than whatever perceieved benefits their continued legality may have brought the authorities.
*Thatcher’s policy, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, aimed to provide jobs for Catholics who were otherwise discriminated against in NI. However, in order to make room in, for example, the shipyards, Protestants were made redundant. Strikes were held, and naturally (under a Tory leadership) more Catholic workers were brought in to keep the industries running. The Protestants therefore were angry on two counts - some having lost their jobs and others resenting the breaking of picket lines. Before long bricks and petrol bombs were being thrown at the Catholic workers as they made their way to work.
In retaliation, members of the IRA began going into Protestant areas and conducting localised terrorism - petrol bombs into houses, torching cars, etc. The UDA formed originally to protect such areas - mainly as the police were unable (and perhaps unwilling) to manage such a diverse operation. The UDA effectively operated originally as guardsmen, sealing off roads at night with barriers, burnt out cars, etc. No doubt they also launched aggressive operations of their own.*
The UDA was in existence from the very earliest stages of the Troubles and their true nature was very quickly known. However as the British Army and the Unionist authorities were unwilling (understandably in a purely military sense) to fight a war on two fronts and the UDA and other Loyalist paramilitaries were not actively attacking the British Army or RUC (although on more than one occasion the UDA declared war on both of them, mostly when they weren’t entirely getting their own way) or attempting to undermine the state the focus of the security services was almost entirely on the activities of the IRA and a blind-eye was turned to the activities of the Loyalists. Again do you see why this caused massive bitterness and resentment within the Catholic community? The, justified, perception was that yet again they were being unfairly discriminated against. And if the legal authorities were unwilling or unable to protect them then who would?
btw your last sentence is an understatement of epic proportions.
By 1992, moves were being taken (once more) towards a new peace process. As such, it was clear that a number of paramilitary organisations operated on both sides, but were mostly illegal. Clearly, it would not make sense for one organisation to exist legally in the light of this - and certainly not after it’s original ‘mission’ (self-defined and loose) was no longer relevant. In the end it was just like all the other paramilitary organisations - out for power, money and oppression. Also, as in all these things, the Govt had to be shown to be dealing fairly with both sides - or risk the withdrawal of Sinn Fein and/or the Loyalist parties from the table (as inevitably happened several times).
The British government should have dealt fairly with both sides from the very beginning. The fact that they didn’t is one reason why the conflict rumbled on for so long. From reading the history of the Troubles I get the distinct impression that the British government and authorities were afraid of the Loyalist and Unionists, why else did they let them bring a part of the UK to its knees not once but twice? (in the 1973 strike to bring down the Sunningdale Agreement and in 1996 over the Drumcree parade) If the Nationalists had attempted those stunts the authorities would have come down on them with both feet, instead they caved into their demands.
The UDA was quite obviously up to its neck in terrorism, the fact that it remained legal for so long is a stain on the British authorities.
IIRC it was made legal for the UFF to have a legal mouthpiece to negotiate with the Westminister government.
Doesn’t make it any more palatable though…