Thats something I hadn’t considered. Bit like Sinn Fein and the IRA.
If I’m honest my knowledge of Loyalist paramilitaries is somewhat lacking and its currently something I’m trying to rectify. There is a lot more quality material on the Republican movement than the Loyalist side out there and I’d appreciate any recommendations for reading material if anyone has any.
I never said you didn’t, and nor would I. I have no problem with anyone in NI who wants to be Irish nor with anyone who wants to be British. It is the choice of the individual what they identify as. As it stands you call yourself Irish quite correctly, of course you do. You’ll get no argument from me on that score. But equally there are others in Northern Ireland are as correct to not call themselves Irish. I think everyone knows that there is disagreement within Northern Ireland about that particular issue.
And I don’t doubt for a minute that Bernadette McAliskey doesn’t want to be British. Any more than I doubt that Ian Paisley does. Most good politicos talk a good talk and say the right words; it’s why they do it. To raise the spirits of their followers. If you are partisan/a fence sitter, you tend to take anyone’s rhetoric with a pinch of salt. Because as far as I can see, we seem to have all of our blades of grass, even since the very articles she was talking about in your quote were changed by the same somebodies in Dublin and in Cork (and other places) she mentions.
I posted about the change to the Constitution as a point of information in this thread. Because I’ve lurked on the Straight Dope for quite a long time and it seems to me that there is a belief that everyone who is Irish wants this island to be one nation in every sense of the word. I thought it needed saying that an actual vote on the subject showed otherwise, that’s why I said it.
I see what you mean.
I think that if the Republic voted to reject the North things would go downhill very quickly however.
Talking about changes to the Irish Constitution…
The amendment which meant that only a person of Irish parentage is entitled to be an Irish citizen if they’re born in Ireland, makes an exception for the chidren of BRITISH parents i.e. any child born of British parents is entitled to be Irish if they’re born in any county of Ireland. That hold true whether the parents were born in Belfast or Birmingham.
Interesting little legal loophole.
Can you imagine what an actual referendum would do? None of the politicians will support it, because no-one has a clue what the outcome will be. The only way of gauging a likely outcome is the census. The census, however, is specifically forbidden from asking questions about political allegiance, and instead substitutes the question:
Are you from:
Which isn’t particularly helpful when you think about it.
P.S. Can we stop using Loyalist when we mean Unionist and Republican when we mean Nationalist and keep the terms for who they properly apply to? Cheers.
I agree, but only to an extent. You see, as I tried to say clumsily above, you can’t look at one aspect without considering a whole lot of other influentual or influenced others. Yes, the UDA was a terrorist association, but was also an official wing of the Loyalist/Unionist/-other-descriptor factions. One could equally ask why Sinn Fein are given an aura of respectability (and many do).
I would also suggest (and I emphasise I am an impartial Brit here) that the Protestant communities might disagree with your statement that: *If the Nationalists had attempted those stunts the authorities would have come down on them with both feet, instead they caved into their demands. * In fact, the biggest problem as I see it is that there was no fair way. Any concessions to Dublin (Drumcree, for instance) are met by outrage by Unionists, and vice versa.
As usual, but perhaps especially so with this issue, it depends on what you read, who it’s by, and what other influences you have. The only reason I engaged in this thread is because I was struck by the impression that NI is unsafe - especially, it seems, for Catholics and thought that someone should point out that daily experience in much of NI is not like that.
*Martiju
I agree, but only to an extent. You see, as I tried to say clumsily above, you can’t look at one aspect without considering a whole lot of other influentual or influenced others. Yes, the UDA was a terrorist association, but was also an official wing of the Loyalist/Unionist/-other-descriptor factions. One could equally ask why Sinn Fein are given an aura of respectability (and many do).*
What I meant was that the authorities didn’t treat the Catholic and Protestant communities with an even hand at the outbreak of the Troubles which created a lasting resentment. If they had done, even if they’ve come down extremely hard on both Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries things may have been sorted out earlier. The “Well they may be harsh, but at least they’re fair” attitude. The problem was that in the early 1970’s the British and Unionist authorities turned a blind eye to the activities of the Loyalist paramilitaries and concentrated on the IRA. This was perhaps understandable in the sense that they were extremely stretched as it was and perhaps believed that the Loyalist violence was simply reactionary and as soon as the IRA was defeated would disappear. However as a Catholic living in Belfast and elsewhere during that time what you would see would be the Loyalists having practically free reign to attack the Catholic community at will with the authorities doing virtually nothing about it and unfairly oppressing them at the same time.
I may have misunderstood your point, feel free to correct me if I have.
*I would also suggest (and I emphasise I am an impartial Brit here) that the Protestant communities might disagree with your statement that: If the Nationalists had attempted those stunts the authorities would have come down on them with both feet, instead they caved into their demands. * In fact, the biggest problem as I see it is that there was no fair way. Any concessions to Dublin (Drumcree, for instance) are met by outrage by Unionists, and vice versa.
With all due respect there’s no such thing as an impartial Brit your views and attitudes have been shaped by your experience of growing up in England (?) during the Troubles and being under the threat of IRA violence, that is going to colour your opinion. Just as I have to recognise that I’m approaching the problem from a naturally biased position so do you. Britain was another player in the Troubles, not a neutral observer.
As regards Northern Ireland being brought to a standstill by the actions of members of the Protestant community in 1973 and 1996 I 100% guarentee you that the Catholic population wouldn’t have been allowed to even attempt something like that. There is one Monty Pythonesque scene in a book on Drumcree where a journalist was being taken from Belfast to Drumcree during the protests in a police-car, on being confronted by two young female protestors with a pram blocking a main road the journalist is told that they’re going to have to find an alternative route…
The British government was forced to back down not once but twice by the threat of violence so that the Orangemen and Loyalists could get their own way, I would like to be able to look at the British government as a fair and impartial participant but the more that I read the more it seems that they have (had?) a strange deference to the Unionist majority over here.
As usual, but perhaps especially so with this issue, it depends on what you read, who it’s by, and what other influences you have.
Thats definitely true, I can only give things from my perspective and what I believe (and believe I can back up) to be true but someone else with a different background is naturally going to see things differently.
The only reason I engaged in this thread is because I was struck by the impression that NI is unsafe - especially, it seems, for Catholics and thought that someone should point out that daily experience in much of NI is not like that.
In some respects Northern Ireland is safer than the rest of the UK, in general violent crime and anti-social behaviour for example. But in a place where you have to explain to an outsider why some areas are flying Israeli flags beside the Union Jack and others are flying Palestinian ones beside the tricolour you just know things aren’t exactly normal. 
Things are however infinitely better than during the worst days of the Troubles though and I hope they can only get better.
StaberindeMk2 Thanks for that reply - I think we are agreeing more than not!
I think, for example, that your comment on the authorities believing Loyalist activities to be reactionary is absolutely true. Whether or not they were is arguable.
As far as being impartial, I was a child during the majority of the Troubles, so although I was conscious of the dangers when I was in London, for example, I didn’t know anything of the politics. Of course no one is entirely unbiased, what I was trying to say is that I don’t consider myself a defendent of the Loyalist factions in any way (in fact, far from it). In the same way, I don’t think you can say the British Govt backed down in the face of Orangemen, as there is a legitimate argument about the freedom to march - certainly at Drumcree which is, as I understand it, a march to a church service. The need to go through Catholic areas is disputable of course. NI is British after all, so should, arguably, be supported by the British Govt.
I also agree that Israeli/Palestine thing never made much sense to me - apart from aims to be inflammatory.
I agree with you that things do look to be getting better slowly. Unfortunately though, new generations of paramilitaries are growing on both sides (as far as I can tell) and that doesn’t bode well.
I’m having trouble posting this, hopefully the formatting isn’t screwed up…(I really should quit sniffin’ glue)
Martiju
As far as being impartial, I was a child during the majority of the Troubles, so although I was conscious of the dangers when I was in London, for example, I didn’t know anything of the politics. Of course no one is entirely unbiased, what I was trying to say is that I don’t consider myself a defendent of the Loyalist factions in any way (in fact, far from it). In the same way, I don’t think you can say the British Govt backed down in the face of Orangemen, as there is a legitimate argument about the freedom to march - certainly at Drumcree which is, as I understand it, a march to a church service. The need to go through Catholic areas is disputable of course. NI is British after all, so should, arguably, be supported by the British Govt.
OK I understand you better now, I didn’t think you were defending the Loyalist cause just that you believed yourself to be free from preconceptions of the situation here which I see isn’t the case. Nobody from Northern Ireland, the Republic or the rest of the UK can be viewed as a dispassationate observer as we’re all just too close to the action.
As regard to the Orange marches and your last sentence:
While Northern Ireland is part of the UK and therefore British all citizens should have an equal voice, although the Orangemen may consider themselves British and the Catholic objectors may consider themselves Irish (though its often not as simple as that) we’re all under the auspices of the British authorities, whether we like it or not, and its the responsibility of the authorities to listen to all viewpoints and attempt to facilitate an equitable solution.
Even if like the Drumcree parades thats pretty much the equivalent of putting a square peg in a round hole…
I have to say that the images of Catholics being violently removed from the main street set back the image of the authorities (which had been gradually improving) massively, it brought back memories of the heavy-handed tactics used against the Civil Rights Marchers and the bias of the authorities.
A journalist from another country reported that when an RUC land-rover arrived to remove the protestors the sergeant leapt out and shouted at his men, “Right, lets get at the fenian bastards”. That aggressive attitude, whether perceived or actual, towards Catholics and softly-softly approach towards Protestants was one of the reasons why the RUC was considered unacceptable as a police force.
The reorganisation of the RUC into the PSNI after the Patten Commission has gone a long way to improving the attitude of the Catholic population towards the police and it was absolutely necessary. I personally believe that its up to us to improve things and that Catholics should be signing up to the PSNI to help normalise things from the inside, something I’d consider myself if my eyesight was up to scratch, I have worked for them before.
I brought that example up to compare it to the reaction of the police to the two women + pram “blocking” a road during the Drumcee protests. That quite simply would not have been allowed if it had been Nationalists trying to bring the country to its knees. I think most people, even here, don’t realise how close Northern Ireland came to open civil war during that period, that may sound like hyperbole but trust me it isn’t.
But thats all in the past, hopefully.
Again as regards the Orange marches the marches held peacefully in Derry every year prove that it can work if both sides are willing to negotiate unfortunately too many Orangemen have the attititude espoused by one Orangeman at Drumcree that, “Whats the point in having a parade if we have to ask for Catholics permission to do so?” At Drumcree the Residents Organisation was prepared for negotiations but the Orangemen simply refused to meet with them.
Also while there may be a right to march, though I do say that if the BNP wanted to stage a regular triumphalist march through a mainly Asian area in England more than a few eyebrows would be raised, they had no right to attempt to bring a part of the UK to its knees.
The authority of the British government in London was directly challenged and they were seen to cave in, again the effect on the opinion of the Catholic population here was devastating.
I’m taking most of my quotes from “Drumcree” by Chris Ryder and Vincent Kearney btw, a good summary of the whole situation.
I also agree that Israeli/Palestine thing never made much sense to me - apart from aims to be inflammatory.
The only reason for it is to annoy the other side!
I agree with you that things do look to be getting better slowly. Unfortunately though, new generations of paramilitaries are growing on both sides (as far as I can tell) and that doesn’t bode well.
My hope is that if we do achieve a comprehensive peace settlement the cover of political ideology will be automatically lifted from these groups. They can therefore be dealt with as ordainary criminals, if they insist on continuing their illegal activities, just as such gangs are dealt with elsewhere.
And yes I think we’re pretty much on the same side. 
Irish national-socialism (via the IRA etc) has wone great victories by the use of terrorism. Therefore it is not irrelevent, as it has shown the way forward for those of evil dispositions that are not in power.
This was helped by millions of US citizens who supported the IRA.
Nice, does your first line bring Godwins law into effect?
As for the old “The US supported the IRA” cry you’ll have to explain why the Americans should apologise for that and yet “Scotland supported the Loyalist Paramilitaries” which it did in the same very loose sense that some members of the relevent communities gave funds and support.
Where’s the outcry against that?
Then you are woefully ignorant. But ignorance is not stupidity. Here in the U.K., it is a commonplace that each side is as bad as the other - criminal gangs with a thin veneer of political/religious legitimacy - except that the loyalists don’t terrorise England.
Really? So thats why when I lived in England most of the people I talked to (those who were even willing to discuss it) were infinitely more knowledgeable about the actions of the IRA and Republican paramilitaries and had only the vaguest idea about the Loyalists? Thats why the IRA is talked about ad infinitum on TV and in the ‘national’ newspapers and the UVF etc merit a few occasional column inches. The truth comes out in your last line, it was the IRA that was bombing England, and so it is the IRA that virtually all the ‘national’ coverage was focused on.
“They’re all as bad as each other” isn’t exactly an in-depth and carefully researched view, more like an easily trotted out cliche.
And in a book I read recently, I believe it was “Catholics in Northern Ireland”, an academic study was referenced which had researched the ratio of media coverage between Republic and Loyalist atrocities over the course of the Troubles and confirmed that the former recieved massively more coverage. If you insist I’ll dig it out so you can confirm it for yourself.
More like an accurate summary, actually.
Whether my personal experience of friends/family/coworkers/pub -goers etc. is a fair sample or not, i don’t know, but in my experience this has always been true only if you take here to mean “UK Mainland”
I’d agree 100% with that for the exact reasons that you gave earlier - that the media coverage over here is obviously biaised towards cover of the IRA because they’re the one’s who are more likely to have an impact on the daily life of a mainlander.
That said, i’d agree with Quartz that the majority of people over here know full well that the blame lies with both sides, even if the activities of the IRA are the more publicised.
My point, formed from watching national UK TV over a prolonged period of time and time spent discussing the subject with English people, both in real-life and online, is that people have a far greater knowledge of the IRA and Republicanism rather than the activities of the Loyalists. They are aware of the Loyalists and know they aren’t good guys but not a great deal more than that. There does seem to the belief that it was the IRA who started and perpetuated the Troubles and the Loyalist paramilitaries only formed as a reaction to Republican violence when the reality was a lot less clear-cut than that.
I shouldn’t criticise, as I said earlier my own knowledge of Loyalist paramilitarism is comparitively weak, something I’m currently trying to rectify.
I fully agree. The knowledge within England of the troubles is heavily skewed. Partly for the valid reason that garius identifies, that it was IRA bombs that were being used in England. But it’s hard to see this as the sole reason for such immense ignorance of Loyalist violence.
Not just bombs in England but the long line of notorious events in Northern Ireland, the Omagh Bombing, the killing of Lord Mountbatten, the Enniskillen Remberance Day bombing etc a lot of IRA (or Irish Republican) killings were designed to attract attention from the public in Great Britain and abroad.
That and the security force losses to Republicans since the 1970s, there’s an awful lot to remind people outside of NI what they’re up to. To me, Loyalists have never really commited as many crimes to attract attention to those outside NI, that wasn’t their plan at all.
I’ve always found that the main gap in knowledge in Britain about NI is the origins of the troubles. The treaty that created the 6 county statelet and the devolved Stormont government that ruled it. The role the B-Specials played. The discrimination that was leveled at the nationalist/Catholic minority in almost all parts of their lives for nigh on 50 years before the IRA kicked into gear. They know little about the civil rights movement etc. and the background to Bloody Sunday etc. A lot seem to think that the IRA appeared in a vacuum and just starting killing people.
Anyway it looks like there may be a significant move in the pipeline. Let’s hope it is a major announcement that will satisfy all sides. There’s little hope of that but I can dream can I?
aye, they just terrorised targets in the south of Ireland in the 70’s with the aide of the RUC and British intelligence.
I’d agree with that.
We tend to see the timeline as going:
Cromwell invades Ireland
William of Orange turns up and acts like a bastard
IRA is formed to counter persecution and discrimination against Catholics in NI
Shit hits the fan