Ex-paramilitary Michael Stone guilty of attempted murder

[shaun.lawson]

I disagree. It would have been delightful to see McGuiness and Adams slaughtered like the terrorists they are. Oh and Lawson, you tell my mate's mother who was killed by the IRA that it was political.

 

....

 

That's awful. People lost loved ones on both sides of the divide.

[JamboSean]

Whereas the Black and Tans' behaviour was just exemplary, wasn't it?

 

The troubles started in part because Catholics were sick of being treated like second class citizens. I deplore what McGuinness and his ilk did, but it was a political problem, as was ultimately recognised and partly resolved. If Adams and McGuinness had been assassinated, it'd have been an absolute disaster for the people of Northern Ireland: simple as that.

 

That was in 1918 Shaun, hardly comparable to the IRA terrorists.

[shaun.lawson]

In part?

What was the other part?

 

For much of the Provisional IRA's time Catholics were not treated as second class citizens.

Even before that a number of their complaints related to issues which affected working class Protestants in exactly the same way.

 

If you look at Sinn Fein's manifesto, the political problem was the lack of a Marxist state in all Ireland.

That isn't a great deal closer.

And they always had the option of cultivating success at the ballot box, which they managed in part through intimidation and fraud.

 

Terrorism is never the answer to a political problem, certainly not in a democracy.

 

So why did unionists respond by becoming terrorists themselves? A massive section of the Ulster population believed, not without some justice, that they were occupied by an illegal army - and in such circumstances (when your opponents are the army of one of the wealthiest nations on the planet), democratic politics often don't work. Try telling that to the Palestinians, most of whom aren't against the existence of Israel per se - but are against being occupied.

 

If an illegal army occupied England or Scotland, you or I would rise up, wouldn't we? What is the material difference in this case? And on the manifesto point: you often get daft ideological manifestos which bear no resemblance to reality. The Likud party, often in power in Israel, has a manifesto calling for a Greater Israel stretching way, way beyond its current confines - but that doesn't mean anyone takes it seriously.

[davemclaren]

That was in 1918 Shaun, hardly comparable to the IRA terrorists.

 

Try the B Specials then. Anyway, the IRA were a terrible criminal/terrorist organisation but the support for them in the late 60s/early 70s came from the way that the nationalist community were treated as 2nd class citizens. Hopefully this is all in the past now.

 

Anyway. Stone is a nutjob.

[shaun.lawson]

That was in 1918 Shaun, hardly comparable to the IRA terrorists.

 

And the 1920s. In other words, people only in their 40s or early 50s would still have been able to remember it when The Troubles began. It may sound odd to you or I - but history, more than three centuries of it, is why this stuff was and is so powerful in Northern Ireland.

[JamboSean]

And the 1920s. In other words, people only in their 40s or early 50s would still have been able to remember it when The Troubles began. It may sound odd to you or I - but history, more than three centuries of it, is why this stuff was and is so powerful in Northern Ireland.

 

I know that, I was over in Northern Ireland in August and was told not to mention the black and tans unless I was ready to take a 3 hour lecture.

 

Try the B Specials then. Anyway, the IRA were a terrible criminal/terrorist organisation but the support for them in the late 60s/early 70s came from the way that the nationalist community were treated as 2nd class citizens. Hopefully this is all in the past now.

 

Anyway. Stone is a nutjob.

 

Fair play Dave, I had never heard of them before but they seem to be glorified murderers too.

[MacDonald Jardine]

So why did unionists respond by becoming terrorists themselves? A massive section of the Ulster population believed, not without some justice, that they were occupied by an illegal army - and in such circumstances (when your opponents are the army of one of the wealthiest nations on the planet), democratic politics often don't work. Try telling that to the Palestinians, most of whom aren't against the existence of Israel per se - but are against being occupied.

 

If an illegal army occupied England or Scotland, you or I would rise up, wouldn't we? What is the material difference in this case? And on the manifesto point: you often get daft ideological manifestos which bear no resemblance to reality. The Likud party, often in power in Israel, has a manifesto calling for a Greater Israel stretching way, way beyond its current confines - but that doesn't mean anyone takes it seriously.

 

A section of the Unionist population felt, not without some justification, that they were under siege from a terrorist group who wanted them ethnically cleansed and that the army/ police had to abide by rules that the IRA didn't.

 

Your post about occupation justifies Republican terrorism on the basis the country was in some way occupied.

That ignores several facts.

The army was initially called in as extra protection for Catholics.

The UK army was called in to a part of the UK which required it's services. There has never been any kind of majority for anything other than continued membership of the UK.

 

A better analogy than Palestine would be native Americans in the USA deciding to bomb and shoot the rest of the population.

Would that be justified on the basis they were occupied?

[shaun.lawson]

A section of the Unionist population felt, not without some justification, that they were under siege from a terrorist group who wanted them ethnically cleansed and that the army/ police had to abide by rules that the IRA didn't.

 

Your post about occupation justifies Republican terrorism on the basis the country was in some way occupied.

That ignores several facts.

The army was initially called in as extra protection for Catholics.

The UK army was called in to a part of the UK which required it's services. There has never been any kind of majority for anything other than continued membership of the UK.

 

A better analogy than Palestine would be native Americans in the USA deciding to bomb and shoot the rest of the population.

Would that be justified on the basis they were occupied?

 

Since Ireland was partitioned, you mean? And the fate of those who weren't exactly ecstatic about Britain annexing the country centuries earlier - what about them? Incidentally, if there ever is a majority in favour of a united Ireland (as is likely within 20 to 30 years), what will be your opinion?

 

On your final point: it depends on what means were available to them. But given they were up against opponents with overwhelming military superiority, my answer would be yes, it would.

[MacDonald Jardine]

Since Ireland was partitioned, you mean? And the fate of those who weren't exactly ecstatic about Britain annexing the country centuries earlier - what about them? Incidentally, if there ever is a majority in favour of a united Ireland (as is likely within 20 to 30 years), what will be your opinion?

 

On your final point: it depends on what means were available to them. But given they were up against opponents with overwhelming military superiority, my answer would be yes, it would.

 

Yes I mean since partition.

That was a democratic decision too.

 

Again your reference to annexation feeds in to the Brits as invaders Republican myth.

Those they were aiming against most are Irish Protestants who have as much right to be their as they have.

 

I'm not sure that you grasped my final point.

Are you really saying that if a Native American Liberation Army began a terrorist campaign today you would support it?

 

There have been Protestants in Ireland longer than the white mwn in the USA.

 

As for your other point: I'm a democrat.

If the majority want to unite with the Republic of Ireland who am I to say otherwise?

[shaun.lawson]

Yes I mean since partition.

That was a democratic decision too.

 

Again your reference to annexation feeds in to the Brits as invaders Republican myth.

Those they were aiming against most are Irish Protestants who have as much right to be their as they have.

 

I'm not sure that you grasped my final point.

Are you really saying that if a Native American Liberation Army began a terrorist campaign today you would support it?

 

There have been Protestants in Ireland longer than the white mwn in the USA.

 

As for your other point: I'm a democrat.

If the majority want to unite with the Republic of Ireland who am I to say otherwise?

 

But that's not how it worked out, was it? A million miles from it, in truth! My doctorate is on 1820s Britain - in which politicians routinely toasted the "Protestant Ascendancy", mobs ran amok during election campaigns with cries of "No Popery", and Catholics were barred from even entering Parliament until 1829. This was despite the Act of Union of 1801, in which the Irish Parliament voted itself out of existence in exchange for rights not granted - and when the Irish Lord Lieutenant or Chief Secretary wrote back to London from Dublin Castle, it wasn't union supporting Protestants they were worried about: it was Catholic leader Daniel O'Connell.

 

I'd have supported a native American Liberation Army in the nineteenth century - not now, because they've essentially died out. The Irish Republican cause has always been an internationally recognised grievance: ditto the Palestinians, and the Kurds, and Kashmir. And others too, who are too powerless to do anything against repressive regimes (eg. Burma).

[Therapist]

I'd have supported a native American Liberation Army in the nineteenth century - not now, because they've essentially died out. The Irish Republican cause has always been an internationally recognised grievance: ditto the Palestinians, and the Kurds, and Kashmir. And others too, who are too powerless to do anything against repressive regimes (eg. Burma).

 

You are sounding suspiciously like a tim.

[shaun.lawson]

You are sounding suspiciously like a tim.

 

 

What's a tim? Someone who believes in self-determination, and that all peoples should have a place they can call home?

[Therapist]

Someone who believes in self-determination, and that all peoples should have a place they can call home?

 

Sort of...

[shaun.lawson]

Sort of...

 

Good. I'm glad that's settled.

[MacDonald Jardine]

But that's not how it worked out, was it? A million miles from it, in truth! My doctorate is on 1820s Britain - in which politicians routinely toasted the "Protestant Ascendancy", mobs ran amok during election campaigns with cries of "No Popery", and Catholics were barred from even entering Parliament until 1829. This was despite the Act of Union of 1801, in which the Irish Parliament voted itself out of existence in exchange for rights not granted - and when the Irish Lord Lieutenant or Chief Secretary wrote back to London from Dublin Castle, it wasn't union supporting Protestants they were worried about: it was Catholic leader Daniel O'Connell.

 

I'd have supported a native American Liberation Army in the nineteenth century - not now, because they've essentially died out. The Irish Republican cause has always been an internationally recognised grievance: ditto the Palestinians, and the Kurds, and Kashmir. And others too, who are too powerless to do anything against repressive regimes (eg. Burma).

 

Not how what worked?

As you recognise yourself there was Catholic emancipation after 1829.

Well before the injustices that necessitated a bombing campaign against civilians.

 

To compare the "plight" of Irish Catholics with the Kurds, the palestinians or the Kashmiris is ludicrous.

[shaun.lawson]

Not how what worked?

As you recognise yourself there was Catholic emancipation after 1829.

Well before the injustices that necessitated a bombing campaign against civilians.

 

To compare the "plight" of Irish Catholics with the Kurds, the palestinians or the Kashmiris is ludicrous.

 

Not if they're illegally occupied, it isn't. This whole thing merely revolves around a place called home. You or I take this and our country for granted; many others can't. On a more miniscule level, it's probably why Tynecastle means so much to us all too: a place called home is an intangible, emotional thing. It's why people who are rootless often struggle with finding their way in the world; probably even why the simple act of moving house is among the most stressful things any of us will ever do. It's why wars break out between nations, and the left's attitude towards patriotism (notably, English or British patriotism) is so damn stupid.

 

That's all it is. Yes, Irish Catholics have lived in a Western country, and a fully representative democracy since 1945 - but often not without discrimination or being made to feel inferior. And when you have no choice other than to live somewhere you experience this, and you feel your home has been forcibly taken from you, trouble invariably results.

[lesterbangs]

Not if they're illegally occupied, it isn't. This whole thing merely revolves around a place called home. You or I take this and our country for granted; many others can't. On a more miniscule level, it's probably why Tynecastle means so much to us all too: a place called home is an intangible, emotional thing. It's why people who are rootless often struggle with finding their way in the world; probably even why the simple act of moving house is among the most stressful things any of us will ever do. It's why wars break out between nations, and the left's attitude towards patriotism (notably, English or British patriotism) is so damn stupid.

 

That's all it is. Yes, Irish Catholics have lived in a Western country, and a fully representative democracy since 1945 - but often not without discrimination or being made to feel inferior. And when you have no choice other than to live somewhere you experience this, and you feel your home has been forcibly taken from you, trouble invariably results.

 

Or more accurately, with massive discrimination. For example, the Special Powers Act - the envy of apartheid South Africa.

[grumpyjambo]

Can't remember the British blowing up innocent civillians....

 

The Crown forces used other methods just as awful.

[Therapist]

The Crown forces used other methods just as awful.

 

 

What utter tosh.

[lesterbangs]

What utter tosh.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

[MacDonald Jardine]

Not if they're illegally occupied, it isn't. This whole thing merely revolves around a place called home. You or I take this and our country for granted; many others can't. On a more miniscule level, it's probably why Tynecastle means so much to us all too: a place called home is an intangible, emotional thing. It's why people who are rootless often struggle with finding their way in the world; probably even why the simple act of moving house is among the most stressful things any of us will ever do. It's why wars break out between nations, and the left's attitude towards patriotism (notably, English or British patriotism) is so damn stupid.

 

That's all it is. Yes, Irish Catholics have lived in a Western country, and a fully representative democracy since 1945 - but often not without discrimination or being made to feel inferior. And when you have no choice other than to live somewhere you experience this, and you feel your home has been forcibly taken from you, trouble invariably results.

 

Whether they feel that way or not, and I don't concede it was entirely justified, in a Western democracy there is no excuse for terrorism.

 

It would be presumably okay for every ethnic minority on the UK mainland, and indeed those in the Republic of Ireland, to start a terrorist campaign on the basis they have suffered discrimination.

Or can they not call this land home?

[MacDonald Jardine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

 

You think that gives the Republicans a moral right to indiscriminately kill and maim?

[Simon]

 

The troubles started in part because Catholics were sick of being treated like second class citizens.

 

Ask Protestant farmers in border areas, The residents in the Fountain Estate Londonderry, the residents of Cluan Place (East Belfast), the residents of Suffolk Estate (West Belfast) etc, about being treated like second class citizens and "civil rights".

Ask the families of the victims of The Abercorn, Bloody Friday,Darkley, Kingsmills, LaMon, Ballykelly,Enniskillen, Shankill, Omagh,etc about their "civil rights"

[lesterbangs]

You think that gives the Republicans a moral right to indiscriminately kill and maim?

 

Mercy, that's quite an extrapolation from an answer to a specific point.

[shaun.lawson]

Whether they feel that way or not, and I don't concede it was entirely justified, in a Western democracy there is no excuse for terrorism.

 

It would be presumably okay for every ethnic minority on the UK mainland, and indeed those in the Republic of Ireland, to start a terrorist campaign on the basis they have suffered discrimination.

Or can they not call this land home?

 

Nope. None of the groups you've mentioned have seen their homeland occupied by an illegal army.

[Ulysses]

Nope. None of the groups you've mentioned have seen their homeland occupied by an illegal army.

 

With all due respect, I think you need to re-evaluate your position on this.

 

I really don't like getting dragged into these debates, partly because of my own nationality and partly because most people on the board who debate this stuff haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about.

 

But I really must say that the notion that NI was "occupied by an illegal army" is - to put it charitably - unhelpful to understanding its history and politics.

[shaun.lawson]

With all due respect, I think you need to re-evaluate your position on this.

 

I really don't like getting dragged into these debates, partly because of my own nationality and partly because most people on the board who debate this stuff haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about.

 

But I really must say that the notion that NI was "occupied by an illegal army" is - to put it charitably - unhelpful to understanding its history and politics.

 

OK. Could you set out a non-partisan, fact-based view of this - if that's not asking an impossible question, that is? Perhaps I have unwittingly bought into Republican mythology - and I'm always willing to reconsider and learn more about something.

[Ulysses]

....if that's not asking an impossible question.....

 

On this forum?

[shaun.lawson]

On this forum?

 

Why not? You're a universally respected poster, who we all know will be scrupulous - and I could clearly do with learning more about this, as I've said.

[Ulysses]

Why not? You're a universally respected poster, who we all know will be scrupulous - and I could clearly do with learning more about this, as I've said.

 

The trouble with the Troubles is that there isn't such a thing as a non-partisan view of what happened. There are partisan views, and all you can hope for is that people who are analysing them can pick their way through them and arrive at some objective view of the history involved.

 

As to the history, I can't give you my view of everything that happened - because I'd run out of Internet.

 

With that in mind, I'll confine myself to the legality question. The existence of NI as a political entity separate to the Irish Free State (and subsequently the Irish Republic) and part of the United Kingdom was accepted in a treaty agreed between the Irish and British governments in 1921. While this was challenged politically in the Irish Constitution of 1937 and the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act of 1948, and also in statements by Irish politicians, the treaty was never subjected to legal, or diplomatic challenge by either signatory nation. In effect, the actions taken by the Irish Government in 1937 and 1948 had legal status only within the territory of the Irish Republic, and outside that territory could only have the status of political or symbolic statement.

 

Therefore the treaty and its provisions were legitimate in Irish, British and international legal contexts. And in turn the status of NI as a separate political entity within the UK was legal under the terms of the treaty, and underpinned by the Ireland Act passed by Parliament in 1949.

 

The effects of the treaty and the legislation were twofold. Firstly, the NI government in Belfast was the legal government in NI. Secondly, the UK government at Westminster and Whitehall had considerable discretion to suspend or circumvent the legal authority of the NI government.

 

What this means is that when the NI government requested London to deploy the Army and London did so, the deployment was legal. It also means that when London exercised its right to impose direct rule in March 1972, its operational and strategic direction of the Army continued to be legal.

 

Therefore at no point was the presence of the Army in NI ever illegal in terms of British or international law. And (not that this is legally relevant) it was never challenged legally or diplomatically by the Irish government.

 

There is a completely separate Republican mythology about this, based on a very simple - though irrational - idea, which is that the Irish government did not have the legal authority to agree the treaty of 1921, and that all Irish governments from 1921 to the present day have no legal status.

 

If you wish to believe this be my guest, but it is so far removed from reality that even the IRA and Sinn F?in have given up on it.

 

I hope that all makes sense.

[davemclaren]

The trouble with the Troubles is that there isn't such a thing as a non-partisan view of what happened. There are partisan views, and all you can hope for is that people who are analysing them can pick their way through them and arrive at some objective view of the history involved.

 

As to the history, I can't give you my view of everything that happened - because I'd run out of Internet.

 

With that in mind, I'll confine myself to the legality question. The existence of NI as a political entity separate to the Irish Free State (and subsequently the Irish Republic) and part of the United Kingdom was accepted in a treaty agreed between the Irish and British governments in 1921. While this was challenged politically in the Irish Constitution of 1937 and the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act of 1948, and also in statements by Irish politicians, the treaty was never subjected to legal, or diplomatic challenge by either signatory nation. In effect, the actions taken by the Irish Government in 1937 and 1948 had legal status only within the territory of the Irish Republic, and outside that territory could only have the status of political or symbolic statement.

 

Therefore the treaty and its provisions were legitimate in Irish, British and international legal contexts. And in turn the status of NI as a separate political entity within the UK was legal under the terms of the treaty, and underpinned by the Ireland Act passed by Parliament in 1949.

 

The effects of the treaty and the legislation were twofold. Firstly, the NI government in Belfast was the legal government in NI. Secondly, the UK government at Westminster and Whitehall had considerable discretion to suspend or circumvent the legal authority of the NI government.

 

What this means is that when the NI government requested London to deploy the Army and London did so, the deployment was legal. It also means that when London exercised its right to impose direct rule in March 1972, its operational and strategic direction of the Army continued to be legal.

 

Therefore at no point was the presence of the Army in NI ever illegal in terms of British or international law. And (not that this is legally relevant) it was never challenged legally or diplomatically by the Irish government.

 

There is a completely separate Republican mythology about this, based on a very simple - though irrational - idea, which is that the Irish government did not have the legal authority to agree the treaty of 1921, and that all Irish governments from 1921 to the present day have no legal status.

 

If you wish to believe this be my guest, but it is so far removed from reality that even the IRA and Sinn F?in have given up on it.

 

I hope that all makes sense.

 

So, let me get this right..... you're saying it wasn't illegal.

[shaun.lawson]

The trouble with the Troubles is that there isn't such a thing as a non-partisan view of what happened. There are partisan views, and all you can hope for is that people who are analysing them can pick their way through them and arrive at some objective view of the history involved.

 

As to the history, I can't give you my view of everything that happened - because I'd run out of Internet.

 

With that in mind, I'll confine myself to the legality question. The existence of NI as a political entity separate to the Irish Free State (and subsequently the Irish Republic) and part of the United Kingdom was accepted in a treaty agreed between the Irish and British governments in 1921. While this was challenged politically in the Irish Constitution of 1937 and the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act of 1948, and also in statements by Irish politicians, the treaty was never subjected to legal, or diplomatic challenge by either signatory nation. In effect, the actions taken by the Irish Government in 1937 and 1948 had legal status only within the territory of the Irish Republic, and outside that territory could only have the status of political or symbolic statement.

 

Therefore the treaty and its provisions were legitimate in Irish, British and international legal contexts. And in turn the status of NI as a separate political entity within the UK was legal under the terms of the treaty, and underpinned by the Ireland Act passed by Parliament in 1949.

 

The effects of the treaty and the legislation were twofold. Firstly, the NI government in Belfast was the legal government in NI. Secondly, the UK government at Westminster and Whitehall had considerable discretion to suspend or circumvent the legal authority of the NI government.

 

What this means is that when the NI government requested London to deploy the Army and London did so, the deployment was legal. It also means that when London exercised its right to impose direct rule in March 1972, its operational and strategic direction of the Army continued to be legal.

 

Therefore at no point was the presence of the Army in NI ever illegal in terms of British or international law. And (not that this is legally relevant) it was never challenged legally or diplomatically by the Irish government.

 

There is a completely separate Republican mythology about this, based on a very simple - though irrational - idea, which is that the Irish government did not have the legal authority to agree the treaty of 1921, and that all Irish governments from 1921 to the present day have no legal status.

 

If you wish to believe this be my guest, but it is so far removed from reality that even the IRA and Sinn F?in have given up on it.

 

I hope that all makes sense.

 

It does: thanks for taking the time to post it. The problem, though, is how horrendously split the Irish side was: leading to the Civil War there and (I think?) the emergence of Fianna F?il, which was opposed to the treaty IIRC. Presumably both governments appreciated this at the time, and what partition would likely lead to? And presumably this also accounts for the international support, notably in the US, which the Republican cause would go on to enjoy?

 

Incidentally, could you clarify something? The Free State came into being as a result of the treaty. Therefore, how could there have been an Irish government prior to this? This isn't a partisan point: I'm just puzzled, basically.

[Boris]

It does: thanks for taking the time to post it. The problem, though, is how horrendously split the Irish side was: leading to the Civil War there and (I think?) the emergence of Fianna F?il, which was opposed to the treaty IIRC. Presumably both governments appreciated this at the time, and what partition would likely lead to? And presumably this also accounts for the international support, notably in the US, which the Republican cause would go on to enjoy?

 

Incidentally, could you clarify something? The Free State came into being as a result of the treaty. Therefore, how could there have been an Irish government prior to this? This isn't a partisan point: I'm just puzzled, basically.

 

I assume the first Irish Govt was the body of people who negotiated the formation of the Free State with HMG?

 

Re the split in the Republican movement - stickies and pinnies? One side wanted all of Ireland while the other prevailing faction saw the realpolitik of partition. Not too mention the dilution of the revolutionary left wing element of Irish republicanism by Irish Nationalism.

 

As for the US, I think a lot of that is a misty eyed "plastic paddie" (for want of a phrase) reaction.

[cosanostra]

Seems to me like he was a very evil man.

 

Prison is definitely the best place for him.

[shaun.lawson]

I assume the first Irish Govt was the body of people who negotiated the formation of the Free State with HMG?

 

Re the split in the Republican movement - stickies and pinnies? One side wanted all of Ireland while the other prevailing faction saw the realpolitik of partition. Not too mention the dilution of the revolutionary left wing element of Irish republicanism by Irish Nationalism.

 

As for the US, I think a lot of that is a misty eyed "plastic paddie" (for want of a phrase) reaction.

 

You still sound gutted about this even now, Boris!

 

But on the first Irish Govt: how was this body of people chosen? And who chose them? Not the British, I assume - so who?

[Denny Crane]

It does: thanks for taking the time to post it. The problem, though, is how horrendously split the Irish side was: leading to the Civil War there and (I think?) the emergence of Fianna F?il, which was opposed to the treaty IIRC. Presumably both governments appreciated this at the time, and what partition would likely lead to? And presumably this also accounts for the international support, notably in the US, which the Republican cause would go on to enjoy?

 

Incidentally, could you clarify something? The Free State came into being as a result of the treaty. Therefore, how could there have been an Irish government prior to this? This isn't a partisan point: I'm just puzzled, basically.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Government_of_Southern_Ireland

[shaun.lawson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Government_of_Southern_Ireland

 

Interesting. Reading that (somewhat biased piece?), you can see where all the controversy, claim and counter-claim comes from. I didn't know a huge amount about the detail surrounding the Free State's formation prior to what Ulysees wrote - but if I spotted the potential problems surrounding the legitimacy of the Irish signators (though I entirely accept Uly's point that it was legal), it's hardly surprising if those involved at the time felt similarly.

[Deek]

You still sound gutted about this even now, Boris!

 

But on the first Irish Govt: how was this body of people chosen? And who chose them? Not the British, I assume - so who?

 

It was the left wing element including James Connelly the republican martyr who were the leaders in the campaign for a Free Irish State. But Connelly was killed by the British and the movement was then led by Collins who although a soldier could not compete with ?amon de Valera, ultimately leading to his death from fellow Irishmen. De Valera ultimately formed the free state.

 

You should read a book called "Big fellow, Long Fellow" which describes in detail the fight between the pair.

[shaun.lawson]

It was the left wing element including James Connelly the republican martyr who were the leaders in the campaign for a Free Irish State. But Connelly was killed by the British and the movement was then led by Collins who although a soldier could not compete with ?amon de Valera, ultimately leading to his death from fellow Irishmen. De Valera ultimately formed the free state.

 

You should read a book called "Big fellow, Long Fellow" which describes in detail the fight between the pair.

 

Cheers for the reference: I'll check it out!

[Deek]

The Crown forces used other methods just as awful.

 

I remember Enniskillen though.

 

11 dead and 69 injured at a remembrance parade. Just like the one myself and hundreds of others attended at The Haymarket last week.

[siegementality]

Ersehole.

[Ulysses]

....you can see where all the controversy, claim and counter-claim comes from.

 

You can. But what is important is not where it comes from, but where it leads.

 

The negotiators on the Irish side were, in effect, the leadership of the "revolution", i.e. the Sinn F?in party that had won a huge majority of the seats at the previous general election and its military wing that had prosecuted the guerrilla independence war. They negotiated, and at a crucial moment the leadership split between those who were prepared to do a deal and those who weren't.

 

The mythology of irredentist Republicans is that they are the political descendants of the people who weren't prepared to do a deal, and that those people were the only ones with the legitimate authority to negotiate with the British government. However, the mythology doesn't stand up to scrutiny - whether it is analysed from the standpoint of the "constitutional" or "military" nationalists.

 

From a "constitutional" perspective, the Republican mythology fails because of what happened in 1932 and afterwards. The majority of the anti-treaty people decided to accept the reality of the treaty, were elected to the Irish parliament, and became the government in 1932. They went on to draft the 1937 constitution, and then supported the 1948 legislation. In effect, the diehard Republicans voted themselves into the wilderness.

 

From a "military" perspective, the failure of the Republican mythology is even more stark. After the treaty was agreed, there was a bitter civil war in Ireland between those who supported and opposed the treaty. Here's the crucial fact: the Republicans lost. Their philosophy is based on seeking an independent and united Ireland by military means. But before they could get to to have their war against Britain, they had to fight a war against the rest of the Irish - and they lost it.

 

That also explains something that a lot of people outside of Ireland - and especially in Scotland - completely fail to understand about Irish politics. And it is this: militant Irish republicanism was a bigger threat to the Irish state and Irish political life than it could ever be to Britain. And because of this, Irish people in the mainstream of political opinion feared Republicanism. That's something that "plastic paddies" outside Ireland simply don't get, which in turn explains their foolish fondness for extreme Republican ideas.

[shaun.lawson]

You can. But what is important is not where it comes from, but where it leads.

 

The negotiators on the Irish side were, in effect, the leadership of the "revolution", i.e. the Sinn F?in party that had won a huge majority of the seats at the previous general election and its military wing that had prosecuted the guerrilla independence war. They negotiated, and at a crucial moment the leadership split between those who were prepared to do a deal and those who weren't.

 

The mythology of irredentist Republicans is that they are the political descendants of the people who weren't prepared to do a deal, and that those people were the only ones with the legitimate authority to negotiate with the British government. However, the mythology doesn't stand up to scrutiny - whether it is analysed from the standpoint of the "constitutional" or "military" nationalists.

 

From a "constitutional" perspective, the Republican mythology fails because of what happened in 1932 and afterwards. The majority of the anti-treaty people decided to accept the reality of the treaty, were elected to the Irish parliament, and became the government in 1932. They went on to draft the 1937 constitution, and then supported the 1948 legislation. In effect, the diehard Republicans voted themselves into the wilderness.

 

From a "military" perspective, the failure of the Republican mythology is even more stark. After the treaty was agreed, there was a bitter civil war in Ireland between those who supported and opposed the treaty. Here's the crucial fact: the Republicans lost. Their philosophy is based on seeking an independent and united Ireland by military means. But before they could get to to have their war against Britain, they had to fight a war against the rest of the Irish - and they lost it.

 

That also explains something that a lot of people outside of Ireland - and especially in Scotland - completely fail to understand about Irish politics. And it is this: militant Irish republicanism was a bigger threat to the Irish state and Irish political life than it could ever be to Britain. And because of this, Irish people in the mainstream of political opinion feared Republicanism. That's something that "plastic paddies" outside Ireland simply don't get, which in turn explains their foolish fondness for extreme Republican ideas.

 

That's all very illuminating, Uly: many thanks. Those few hundred words have taught me far more about it all than anything else I've heard or read - especially your final paragraph. Given all that though, I remain somewhat puzzled as to how, given the Republicans lost the war, Fianna Fail became so influential; and how a fair amount of mainstream Irish opinion continued to support a united Ireland until fairly recently (which the FF manifesto called for itself, didn't it?).

 

Mind you - I was browsing around the net some months back, and came across references to the Wolfe Tones on an Irish forum. The contributors found the music, and the sentiments contained within, absolutely embarrassing - and said the same about much of Celtic's support. Again, it was very interesting. The extent to which Eire has moved on and embraced the present and future is abundantly clear; it's a pity the same can't apparently be said for much of Glasgow.

 

Incidentally, the conflict between moderate constitutionalists and radicals applied in the nineteenth century too, as I'm sure you'll know. O'Connell was one of the former - but things grew steadily out of hand in the 1830s and 40s, naturally so given the awful economic backdrop. I find it astonishing just how patient Irish leaders were between 1801 and 1829: the Westminster Parliament was in stasis, and Catholic emancipation continually blocked by the King and the House of Lords; and the level of complacency and ignorance about Ireland in dispatches sent by ministers was quite staggering. Even after emancipation, it's dubious how much this meant for Irish people in real terms - and what's remarkable in my eyes is how little in the way of violent rebellion there actually was.

[Ulysses]

Given all that though, I remain somewhat puzzled as to how, given the Republicans lost the war, Fianna Fail became so influential; and how a fair amount of mainstream Irish opinion continued to support a united Ireland until fairly recently (which the FF manifesto called for itself, didn't it?).

 

Fianna F?il became so influential because it recognised the realities of the new Irish state and followed public opinion in moving away from militarism through the 1920s and early 1930s.

 

A lot of mainstream Irish opinion supported a united Ireland - and it still does. However, what it does not support is the use of violence to achieve that objective. I think that's a valid political position to hold.

[Ulysses]

So, let me get this right..... you're saying it wasn't illegal.

 

Yep, only not in so many words.

[shaun.lawson]

Fianna F?il became so influential because it recognised the realities of the new Irish state and followed public opinion in moving away from militarism through the 1920s and early 1930s.

 

A lot of mainstream Irish opinion supported a united Ireland - and it still does. However, what it does not support is the use of violence to achieve that objective. I think that's a valid political position to hold.

 

Ah, OK. Was there any polling done amongst the Irish public during The Troubles? What did they think of the IRA?

[Therapist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

 

The brave men of the Parachute Regiment were cleared of any blame for what happened.

[davemclaren]

The brave men of the Parachute Regiment were cleared of any blame for what happened.

 

The reality is that, in any conflict, some of the security services will overstep the mark either marginally or by a long way. In a democracy I believe it's absolutely correct that we expect a better standard of behaviour from our armed forces and police than from a bunch of terrorists. The vast majority of the time that's what we get.

[Therapist]

The reality is that, in any conflict, some of the security services will overstep the mark either marginally or by a long way. In a democracy I believe it's absolutely correct that we expect a better standard of behaviour from our armed forces and police than from a bunch of terrorists. The vast majority of the time that's what we get.

 

Her Majesty's Armed Forces are beyond reproach. You'll find that it's the trigger happy cops that let the side down, as in the de Menezes incident. Why, I can also recall they shot and killed someone who was carrying a table leg.

[davemclaren]

Her Majesty's Armed Forces are beyond reproach. You'll find that it's the trigger happy cops that let the side down, as in the de Menezes incident. Why, I can also recall they shot and killed someone who was carrying a table leg.

 

Not to mention being in the possession of a yellow mini.