Why didn't Loyalist Prisoners Protest?

guinnessdrinker

The Republican Blanket Protest that began in 1976 which then escalated to the Dirty Protest in 1978 and finally the Hunger Strikes of 1980 and 1981 have been fairly well documented over the years but there seems to be very little coverage given to what Loyalist prisoners were doing during the same period.

While a few Loyalist prisoners did join the blanket protest they were minuscule in number and didn't last very long on it. During the 1980 hunger strike a few Loyalists joined just as the hunger strike was about to be ended which to many may have seemed like a cynical and opportunistic move.

I heard a radio interview a few months ago in which a former Loyalist prisoner said he respected what the Republican prisoners were doing but he didn't say why the Loyalist prisoners did not protest. Similarly I remember reading that PUP leader Billy Hutchinson said he had a grudging respect for the Republican prisoners and that Loyalist prisoners should have being doing the same thing.

Like Republicans, Loyalists saw themselves as political prisoners, so why do people think they didn't protest to win political prisoner status?

Was it their mental resolve that prevented them from enduring the hardships of protesting or disillusionment with the state they believed they were defending?

I'm sure the answer is complex but it would be interesting to hear peoples opinions as it is not a widely talked about topic.

Victor

Republicans considered themselves to be at war with the British state. Loyalists considered themselves to be defending the British state. Republicans were therefore more willing to engage in extreme behaviour/action.

HavingCrack

Victor wrote: »

Republicans considered themselves to be at war with the British state.

Off topic slightly apologies

Interestingly, the Republicans view on their 'war' status changed regularly depending on the situation. The Loughall Ambush is the most notable-if the situation had been reversed the PIRA would have claimed it was a legitimate act of war.

R.Dub.Fusilier

when republicans went to prison it was part of their war, their war wasn't over. many of them got degrees and would use the skills learned to further the war. but from what i have read over the years it was opposite for loyalists who spent their time in the gym, a bit of a sweeping comment and there is ofcourse exceptions to this view. many loyalists considered their war was over and they had done their bit.

loyalist didnt need to protest as what ever the republican prisoners achieved by protesting they would also benefit from.

juan.kerr

Anyone else find it ironic that McFeely applied for bankruptcy in the UK? Didn't realise he was a loyalist.

guinnessdrinker

Interesting video here of Loyalist recollections of 1981.

Some good insights from the late David Ervine and two ex Loyalist prisoners that did go on the blanket when the special category status was removed.

Naturally they were opposed to the removal of the special category status as they seen themselves as political prisoners. One view they are putting across in the video was that unlike Republican prisoners, Loyalist prisoners did not have support in their own communities.

Some Loyalist prisoners felt they should be protesting while some said they shouldn't do anything as it would look like they were supporting Republicans.

The Loyalist prisoners had empathy with the Republican Hunger Strikers but the view of Loyalists outside prison was the opposite.

One of the ex prisoners in the video Billy McQuiston says he didn't belief for a minute that the hunger strike had anything to do with the Republican leadership outside the prison and that it was completely prisoner led, which is completely at odds with the British line at the time.

Worth a view.

Reekwind

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

when republicans went to prison it was part of their war, their war wasn't over. many of them got degrees and would use the skills learned to further the war. but from what i have read over the years it was opposite for loyalists who spent their time in the gym, a bit of a sweeping comment and there is ofcourse exceptions to this view. many loyalists considered their war was over and they had done their bit.

This is an important point but I'd have a slightly different take on it. Just to expand on it:

I can't remember who it was but some media commentator once made a very insightful observation: Republican prisoners came out of jail with Open University degrees in philosophy and economics; Loyalist prisoners came out with bigger muscles. The point is that the political mentality of the Republicans was always far more developed it's their Loyalist counterparts. By the late 1960s the IRA, in its various incarnations, perceived itself as being very much as part of the broader global anti-imperialist struggle (ie, alongside the PLO, Red Army Faction, Brigate Rosse, etc). It's leaders were able to talk in terms of socio-economic struggles, state and society, etc, and were increasingly educating themselves in various political schools. The PIRA's internal reorganisation in the 1970s was directly inspired by Maoism philosophy/history, for example

In contrast the key Loyalists were little more than thugs. Think of the likes of Billy 'King Rat' Wright or Johnny 'Mad Dog' Adair. They just didn't understand their fight in the same way as Republicans. This was for both historical reasons and the fact that their 'struggle' was clearly different by nature - buttressing an old order rather than establishing the new. This didn't make Loyalists any less "extreme", no one is questioning their brutality, in their actions but it did limit their horizons of thought. Those Loyalists who rose above this street level thinking - Ervine is sadly the only real notable example - were few and far between. Most Loyalists simply didn't think of themselves as 'politicals'

And this has ramifications today. Those years of enforced education spawned a cadre of highly politically literate Republican politicians. Whatever one thinks of Sinn Fein today, there is no doubting that it's a very slick political machine that has pretty much superseded the SDLP as the foremost representation of Nationalism. Conversely, the Loyalist movement, with the sadly brief exception of Ervine, never produced a coherent political movement of its own. As a result it's always been subservient to the equally flawed traditional Unionist political order. Which is not a particularly happy situation for anyone

ardmacha

Loyalists don't have a moral cause and so find it hard to get this kind of thng together.

Victor

Reekwind wrote: »

I can't remember who it was but some media commentator once made a very insightful observation: Republican prisoners came out of jail with Open University degrees in philosophy and economics; Loyalist prisoners came out with bigger muscles.

This, in part, is down to the fact that academically capable, but physical force-minded unionists could join the RUC, UDR or other part of the security forces, whereas there nationalist counterparts largely only had the IRA.

Reekwind

Victor, I don't know if I would put it all down to that - if only because it rather over-estimates the intellectual capabilities of the RUC et al - but I do think there is something in the idea that traditional Unionist structures hindered/prevented the emergence of a distinctly Loyalist political programme. The absence of these in the Nationalist community, where even the SDLP was a recent creation, was definitely of benefit to Sinn Fein

And of course any movement that arose in the 1960s couldn't really help but be highly political. Unionism hadn't really moved on from Carson's day, and arguably still hasn't, whereas the emerging Nationalist groups were able to tap into a far more sophisticated political model; one that emphasised education and had at its heart social critiques

Dr.Nightdub

There's also the factor that because unionism / loyalism was essentially conservative, in that it was explicitly aimed at preserving the pre-1968 status quo, their political objective was already defined and alternatives (outside of moderate reforms) would almost automatically be rejected. There was no real motivation for them to modernise their outlook as modernisation wasn't on their agenda.

On the other hand, nationalism (including radical republicanism), by virtue of seeking to put in place a completely new political order, was always going to cast the net wider in terms of looking at alternative objectives and strategies for achieving those objectives, based on what had been tried and worked elsewhere. With the various upheavals of the 60s (civil rights in the USA, anti-colonial struggles in Africa / southeast Asia, national liberation movements in south America, etc) they had a lot to work with.

KeithAFC

Why would Loyalists go on the hunger strike when they knew that the Republican side would do it and had people killing themselves? At the end of the day, if you look at what Bobby Sands and co died over, it was over clothes and not much else.

I don't think it would be worth losing Ulster Loyalists over such reasons. I think they did the right thing and when you consider the political tension at the time, it was very important they were seen not to be following the lead of Republicans and over such petty reasons, they didn't need to.

Loyalists don't have a moral cause and so find it hard to get this kind of thng together.

The Loyalists (I call them patriots) had a moral cause (in my opinion of course) in trying to retain the Union with Britain and to not lose the country. Why would starving themselves be of any good to the Loyalist cause?

jonniebgood1

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why would Loyalists go on the hunger strike when they knew that the Republican side would do it and had people killing themselves? At the end of the day, if you look at what Bobby Sands and co died over, it was over clothes and not much else.

I don't think it would be worth losing Ulster Loyalists over such reasons. I think they did the right thing and when you consider the political tension at the time, it was very important they were seen not to be following the lead of Republicans and over such petty reasons, they didn't need to.


The Loyalists (I call them patriots) had a moral cause (in my opinion of course) in trying to retain the Union with Britain and to not lose the country. Why would starving themselves be of any good to the Loyalist cause?

You are either trying to start a row or really have no understanding of the Republican prisoners cause if you believe the above (the clothes comment). Both sides had causes they believed were moral but you seem to only see 1 side of this, you should understand the reasons behind the blanket protests before you comment on them (for starters they were not about clothes as you state).

jonniebgood1

ardmacha wrote: »

Loyalists don't have a moral cause and so find it hard to get this kind of thng together.

Both sides had causes they believed to be moral. It is a matter of judgement and ignorance of this is unnessesary.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Loyalists (I call them patriots) had a moral cause (in my opinion of course) in trying to retain the Union with Britain and to not lose the country. Why would starving themselves be of any good to the Loyalist cause?

The Loyalists were patriots? To where exactly?
As I recall the UDA on more than one occasion proposed all sorts of political settlements from autonomy within a unified Ireland to independence for NI, to repartition.
Whatever they were patriots of, it seemed to change with the wind. A half-generation later, and all they were loyal to was drugs and money.

KeithAFC

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You are either trying to start a row or really have no understanding of the Republican prisoners cause if you believe the above (the clothes comment). Both sides had causes they believed were moral but you seem to only see 1 side of this, you should understand the reasons behind the blanket protests before you comment on them (for starters they were not about clothes as you state).

Ok. I know they had a number of demands but none of them was about a United Ireland. They just wanted political status and not have to do prison work and wear their own clothes.

Is that worth going on hunger strike? That was what my comment was about. Perhaps I should have put more detail into it but now you surely see what I mean? I think they went the wrong way about it.

The Loyalists were patriots? To where exactly?
As I recall the UDA on more than one occasion proposed all sorts of political settlements from autonomy within a unified Ireland to independence for NI, to repartition.
Whatever they were patriots of, it seemed to change with the wind. A half-generation later, and all they were loyal to was drugs and money.

I consider people like the 1916 rebels patriots. It wasn't a slur. I think the Loyalists believed in the cause and they believed in defending the Union.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

I consider people like the 1916 rebels patriots. It wasn't a slur. I think the Loyalists believed in the cause and they believed in defending the Union.

That still doesn't answer what they were patriots about. Was it the union? Then why did they repeatedly offer alternatives to the union? Was it the land itself? (If so, how?) Was it always, as it ultimately turned out, a patriotism only to self-aggrandisement and riches at the expense of their own communities?

secondopinion

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

The Republican Blanket Protest that began in 1976 which then escalated to the Dirty Protest in 1978 and finally the Hunger Strikes of 1980 and 1981 have been fairly well documented over the years but there seems to be very little coverage given to what Loyalist prisoners were doing during the same period.

While a few Loyalist prisoners did join the blanket protest they were minuscule in number and didn't last very long on it. During the 1980 hunger strike a few Loyalists joined just as the hunger strike was about to be ended which to many may have seemed like a cynical and opportunistic move.

I heard a radio interview a few months ago in which a former Loyalist prisoner said he respected what the Republican prisoners were doing but he didn't say why the Loyalist prisoners did not protest. Similarly I remember reading that PUP leader Billy Hutchinson said he had a grudging respect for the Republican prisoners and that Loyalist prisoners should have being doing the same thing.

Like Republicans, Loyalists saw themselves as political prisoners, so why do people think they didn't protest to win political prisoner status?

Was it their mental resolve that prevented them from enduring the hardships of protesting or disillusionment with the state they believed they were defending?

I'm sure the answer is complex but it would be interesting to hear peoples opinions as it is not a widely talked about topic.

The answer's actually quite simple. Whilst Republicans had little to lose by confronting The UK State in any manner, Loyalists wished to avoid or minimise such confrontations for obvious POLITICAL reasons. The wider Unionist community shared this thinking.

As one Republican militant has since said - "Loyalists regarded The UK prison system, as we did The Free State prison system".

secondopinion

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

when republicans went to prison it was part of their war, their war wasn't over. many of them got degrees and would use the skills learned to further the war. but from what i have read over the years it was opposite for loyalists who spent their time in the gym, a bit of a sweeping comment and there is ofcourse exceptions to this view. many loyalists considered their war was over and they had done their bit.

loyalist didnt need to protest as what ever the republican prisoners achieved by protesting they would also benefit from.

It's a little bit of a myth about Loyalists spending all their time in the gym whilst in prison! In fact, the first graduates were Loyalists:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/prison-sentence-proved-no-bar-to-degrees-for-loyalists-15057195.html

Of course, the activities of certain Loyalist prisoners right at the end of the 'troubles' tended to shape public perception.

secondopinion

Reekwind said:

This is an important point but I'd have a slightly different take on it. Just to expand on it:

I can't remember who it was but some media commentator once made a very insightful observation: Republican prisoners came out of jail with Open University degrees in philosophy and economics; Loyalist prisoners came out with bigger muscles.

That's a little bit of a myth. Do you have any comparative numbers?

The point is that the political mentality of the Republicans was always far more developed it's their Loyalist counterparts. By the late 1960s the IRA, in its various incarnations, perceived itself as being very much as part of the broader global anti-imperialist struggle (ie, alongside the PLO, Red Army Faction, Brigate Rosse, etc). It's leaders were able to talk in terms of socio-economic struggles, state and society, etc, and were increasingly educating themselves in various political schools. The PIRA's internal reorganisation in the 1970s was directly inspired by Maoism philosophy/history, for example

So they believed a load of discredited socialist mumbo jumbo?

In contrast the key Loyalists were little more than thugs.

I think you'll find that most of the western world regarded all terrorists in NI as 'thugs' - not just Loyalist ones.

Think of the likes of Billy 'King Rat' Wright or Johnny 'Mad Dog' Adair. They just didn't understand their fight in the same way as Republicans.

Actually, they did understand 'their fight' quite well.

And this has ramifications today. Those years of enforced education spawned a cadre of highly politically literate Republican politicians. Whatever one thinks of Sinn Fein today, there is no doubting that it's a very slick political machine that has pretty much superseded the SDLP as the foremost representation of Nationalism. Conversely, the Loyalist movement, with the sadly brief exception of Ervine, never produced a coherent political movement of its own. As a result it's always been subservient to the equally flawed traditional Unionist political order. Which is not a particularly happy situation for anyone

No Loyalist equivalent to SF? Oh dear...

secondopinion

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The Loyalists were patriots? To where exactly?
As I recall the UDA on more than one occasion proposed all sorts of political settlements from autonomy within a unified Ireland to independence for NI, to repartition.
Whatever they were patriots of, it seemed to change with the wind. A half-generation later, and all they were loyal to was drugs and money.

The UDA, in common with other PUL organisations recognised that The UK State might not last for ever, hence fall back positions like Ulster independence and re-partition.

The UDA's role effectively ended in 1994 and certainly in 1998. What happened to it's remnants as regards criminal activity is not really worthy of comment. All organisations contain criminal elements.

Reekwind

secondopinion wrote: »

That's a little bit of a myth. Do you have any comparative numbers?

No, I stated that it was an anecdote. Do you have any numbers? Other than the relative lack of Loyalist ex-prisoners at the head of the Unionist movement

It should be fairly straightforward to demonstrate that Republican prisoners are more prominent in Nationalist politics than Loyalist prisoners are in Unionist politics... but I really don't care enough for a simple but time consuming count of Assembly members. Feel free

So they believed a load of discredited socialist mumbo jumbo?

Yes. They had a coherent ideological framework into which they could fit their ideas. Whether you agree with the content of this or not, there is little denying that it is many, many times more sophisticated than any comparable Loyalist politics. Which the important exception of the PUP of course*

And calling this "discredited" in the 1970s is bizarrely anachronistic. At the time you could hardly get more (self-consciously) modern. Today SF has largely jettisoned this... but then so has their contemporary British politicians. Jack Straw, to take a random example, was once a Stalinist

*Of course it was the PUP's adoption of this "discredited socialist mumbo jumbo" that gave them that tools needed to actually add some political content to Loyalism

Actually, they did understand 'their fight' quite well.

They understood it in street terms but could hardly look beyond killing the next Catholic. Is that better or worse than justifying their actions with a more sophisticated political framework? That's an entirely different discussion. What is relevant is that most Loyalist terrorists were unable to place their 'struggle' into a wider ideology. Again, the PUP is the only notable example of Loyalist 'struggles' giving rise to Loyalist politics and Loyalist politicians

No Loyalist equivalent to SF? Oh dear...

Again there's no actual content here for me to address. Are you suggesting that there is a Loyalist political party currently active that compares to SF either in its size or its role within its respective community?

Rhetorical question. The only notable political party that can truly be called 'Loyalist' - as opposed to traditional Unionism - is the PUP. And this is a party that is clearly in a state of terminal decline*. Not only is it the only real, if dying, manifestation of a distinctly Loyalist ideology active today, there's also no other Loyalist party that even comes close to matching its historical impact

Instead the leadership of the Unionist movement resides where it always has - traditional figures who have, typically, arrived at their positions without engaging in armed struggle. Contrast to Nationalism where ex-IRA members, or at least an organisation led by such, has supplanted the SDLP as the largest voice in that community. There is no Loyalist organisation or politician that has adjusted anywhere near as well to the post-Good Friday environment as SF

*Something that I regret. Whatever my disagreements with Loyalism or much of the late Ervine's politics, I do perceive the PUP as a genuine attempt to cater for the 'Loyalist community' (lack of better term) in a way that traditional Unionist authorities fail to do

Cavehill Red

secondopinion wrote: »

The UDA, in common with other PUL organisations recognised that The UK State might not last for ever, hence fall back positions like Ulster independence and re-partition.

The UDA's role effectively ended in 1994 and certainly in 1998. What happened to it's remnants as regards criminal activity is not really worthy of comment. All organisations contain criminal elements.

You might contend that the fact that the UDA transformed into a totally criminal organisation to be unworthy of comment. I would contend that they merely, in the lack of McMichael and Tyrie, reverted to their core motive, which was criminality and personal enrichment.
That the UDA proposed, independent of other stimuli, non-union solutions, including at least one that encompassed a united ireland, indicates to me the sheer lack of solidity in terms of Loyalist belief systems. Fundamentally, their answer is anything that the Republicans don't want, which is a reactive rather than a proactive system.
Inevitably political Loyalists come to this point - as representatives of the Ulster protestant working class, they come to understand that the only thing they need fear from a united Ireland is the loss of their own community identity, which is in any case secured by the simple fact that they exist and are prepared to speak out.
The tragedy of Ireland for the past century or more is that Ulster loyalists feel this but are incapable of expressing it, a la Irvine, because it would place them in a less extreme position to unionism, which is a dead end. and as we all know, extremism wins the day in NI.

secondopinion

Reekwind said:

No, I stated that it was an anecdote. Do you have any numbers? Other than the relative lack of Loyalist ex-prisoners at the head of the Unionist movement

The numbers I was asking for were ex-prisoners who had degrees - not figures on ex-prisoners in Stormont.

Yes. They had a coherent ideological framework into which they could fit their ideas. Whether you agree with the content of this or not, there is little denying that it is many, many times more sophisticated than any comparable Loyalist politics. Which the important exception of the PUP of course*

Loyalist paramilitaries existed to kill Irish Nationalists as part of a political pressure strategy. What makes you think they required any further analysis than that?

*Of course it was the PUP's adoption of this "discredited socialist mumbo jumbo" that gave them that tools needed to actually add some political content to Loyalism

Really. What exactly have The PUP achieved? What makes you think Loyalist paramilitaries required any political analysis at all, apart from the obvious?

They understood it in street terms but could hardly look beyond killing the next Catholic.

That was their role.

Is that better or worse than justifying their actions with a more sophisticated political framework?

They didn't require one. Defence of Ulster's constitutional position was their motivation. Compare and contrast The UK armed forces in WWII with the SS. Both were militarists, but whilst The SS had a sophisticated political ideology, British soldiers had the normal spread of views found within The UK at that time. Many cared nothing about politics at all - only winning the war as soldiers.

That's an entirely different discussion. What is relevant is that most Loyalist terrorists were unable to place their 'struggle' into a wider ideology. Again, the PUP is the only notable example of Loyalist 'struggles' giving rise to Loyalist politics and Loyalist politicians

Again, Loyalist paramilitaries had no interest in 'a wider ideology' - their personal political views were diverse. Only a minority had any interest in politics in the narrow sense of the word. The PUP never obtained a majority of the individual UVF members votes.

Again there's no actual content here for me to address. Are you suggesting that there is a Loyalist political party currently active that compares to SF either in its size or its role within its respective community?

I don't know what you mean by 'Loyalist' - perhaps you could explain?

Rhetorical question. The only notable political party that can truly be called 'Loyalist' - as opposed to traditional Unionism - is the PUP. And this is a party that is clearly in a state of terminal decline*. Not only is it the only real, if dying, manifestation of a distinctly Loyalist ideology active today, there's also no other Loyalist party that even comes close to matching its historical impact

Again - define 'Loyalist'.

Instead the leadership of the Unionist movement resides where it always has - traditional figures who have, typically, arrived at their positions without engaging in armed struggle.

And?

Contrast to Nationalism where ex-IRA members, or at least an organisation led by such, has supplanted the SDLP as the largest voice in that community.

And your point is?

There is no Loyalist organisation or politician that has adjusted anywhere near as well to the post-Good Friday environment as SF

You assume Loyalist paramilitaries in general were hoping to create some political party, as opposed to a selection of individuals such as Ervine.

*Something that I regret. Whatever my disagreements with Loyalism or much of the late Ervine's politics, I do perceive the PUP as a genuine attempt to cater for the 'Loyalist community' (lack of better term) in a way that traditional Unionist authorities fail to do

Who are The 'Loyalist' community?

secondopinion

Cavehill Red said:

You might contend that the fact that the UDA transformed into a totally criminal organisation to be unworthy of comment.

I didn't contend that.

I would contend that they merely, in the lack of McMichael and Tyrie, reverted to their core motive, which was criminality and personal enrichment.

I wouldn't have thought that - at least no more than any of bunch of terrorists such as PIRA/IPLO/INLA etc.

That the UDA proposed, independent of other stimuli, non-union solutions, including at least one that encompassed a united ireland, indicates to me the sheer lack of solidity in terms of Loyalist belief systems.

I'm not sure The UDA did propose any sort of united Ireland - I think you might be thinking of The UVF, who looked at a federal Ireland within a federal UK in the very early seventies. The aim of Loyalist paramilitaries was to keep Ulster out of a United Ireland. Mostly this meant supporting The Union, but some elements looked at an independent state at times.

Fundamentally, their answer is anything that the Republicans don't want, which is a reactive rather than a proactive system.

See above.

Inevitably political Loyalists come to this point - as representatives of the Ulster protestant working class, they come to understand that the only thing they need fear from a united Ireland is the loss of their own community identity, which is in any case secured by the simple fact that they exist and are prepared to speak out.

No, not really. You see, most people in England see themselves as English then British. Loyalist paramilitaries would historically have seen themselves as Ullish then British. There's no conflict in this and requires no interaction with The Irish in The ROI.

The tragedy of Ireland for the past century or more is that Ulster loyalists feel this but are incapable of expressing it, a la Irvine, because it would place them in a less extreme position to unionism, which is a dead end. and as we all know, extremism wins the day in NI.

I think some of The Irish get carried away with the importance of David Ervine!

Perhaps you could explain the difference between a Loyalist and a Unionist?

Cavehill Red

secondopinion wrote: »

Cavehill Red said:
I didn't contend that.

It was a reasonable conclusion from your statement.

secondopinion wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought that - at least no more than any of bunch of terrorists such as PIRA/IPLO/INLA etc.

I think, at least in relation to PIRA, it's demonstrable that no Loyalist terror organisation possessed a theoretical or political framework to their activities that compares. With McMichael and Tyrie the UDA possessed a brief period of political thinking which went under beneath the tidal wave of base criminality and self-enrichment.

secondopinion wrote: »

I'm not sure The UDA did propose any sort of united Ireland - I think you might be thinking of The UVF, who looked at a federal Ireland within a federal UK in the very early seventies. The aim of Loyalist paramilitaries was to keep Ulster out of a United Ireland. Mostly this meant supporting The Union, but some elements looked at an independent state at times.

Pretty sure McMichael proposed autonomy within a unified framework in the 80s. You seem to endorse the point I'm making, which is that the point of Loyalism was reactive rather than proactive because they had nothing to be proactive towards.

secondopinion wrote: »

No, not really. You see, most people in England see themselves as English then British. Loyalist paramilitaries would historically have seen themselves as Ullish then British. There's no conflict in this and requires no interaction with The Irish in The ROI.

There's no such word as 'Ullish'.
Hence, Loyalist terrorists could not have seen themselves as such. They saw themselves as British, in a war with the IRA. Pretty much every Loyalist terrorist on record has iterated that same position.

secondopinion wrote: »

I think some of The Irish get carried away with the importance of David Ervine!

I think too many Unionists underestimate his relevance.

secondopinion wrote: »

Perhaps you could explain the difference between a Loyalist and a Unionist?

In theory, one is loyal to the Queen and the other supports the union of occupied Ireland with Britain politically. In practice, one is working class and the other middle class British citizens in occupied Ireland.

Reekwind

secondopinion wrote: »

The numbers I was asking for were ex-prisoners who had degrees - not figures on ex-prisoners in Stormont

And what part of my response to your request did you not understand?

But then maybe all those Loyalist ex-prisoners with degrees all went into dentistry or engineering instead of politics?

Loyalist paramilitaries existed to kill Irish Nationalists as part of a political pressure strategy. What makes you think they required any further analysis than that?

They didn't. Not so long as they were content to be murderous lapdogs for the traditional Unionist political leadership. Actually formulating a position of their own, see below, and conceptualising their 'struggle' in explicitly political terms - including political protest - required a more sophisticated political framework

The Republican leadership made that leap but only a few Loyalists were able to do likewise

Really. What exactly have The PUP achieved?

You mean aside from being the most obvious example of a distinctly Loyalist political party? That is, the development of an ideological programme, by Loyalist ex-terrorists, that could stand without the leadership/support of the traditional Unionist elite. This was, as Cavehill Red notes, a far more proactive (and I would argue, constructive) platform than that typically offered by the UUP or DUP. It remains the only real case of Loyalist killers being able to get off their knees and actually produce a coherent political analysis of the Troubles

And it's unfortunate that this proved to be a dead end. Republicans were able to go from prison to politics but there were too few like-minded Loyalists to do the same. Leadership of the Unionist movement remains pretty much the same as it was a century ago - businessmen and clergymen directing mindless thugs

That was their role.

So you keep repeating. As if these are historical roles doled out by some cosmic director

They didn't require one. Defence of Ulster's constitutional position was their motivation. Compare and contrast The UK armed forces in WWII with the SS. Both were militarists, but whilst The SS had a sophisticated political ideology, British soldiers had the normal spread of views found within The UK at that time. Many cared nothing about politics at all - only winning the war as soldiers.

1) That's a very, very poor analogy. Leaving aside the sweeping generalisations, you are comparing apples with oranges. Why not compare the British Army with the Wehrmacht? Why compare a national army to a party/political paramilitary force?

2) It's silly and is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand

3) Suddenly the Loyalist killers are well-versed in and have acute concerns about the constitutional arrangements of the UK? Are these the same terrorists who, you contend, didn't need or have an interest in politics, ideology or analysis?

Again, Loyalist paramilitaries had no interest in 'a wider ideology' - their personal political views were diverse. Only a minority had any interest in politics in the narrow sense of the word

Yes, that's exactly my point. Hence the difference with Republican prisoners. Honestly, I'm not sure that you're actually reading my posts

I don't know what you mean by 'Loyalist' - perhaps you could explain?

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse but there is a good question here. This (PDF) is probably as good a place to start as any

In short, Loyalism means more than 'physical force Unionism'. Explaining exactly how it is to be defined is difficult - as noted few Loyalists have been politically educated/aware enough to give it expression - but, for the purposes of this thread, there are a few key points. Despite sitting within the broader Unionist milieu (much as Republicanism is a subset of Nationalism), Loyalism as a political movement can be said to be:

1) Distinct from the Unionist establishment
2) Provides analyses rooted in more than constitutional arguments or blind loyalty to the Crown.
3) Is formulated by paramilitaries or those from that background
4) As a result of the above, it is more proactive and positive. Politically active Loyalists tend to be (ironically) more in favour of negotiated settlements and community based initiatives

Of course most 'Loyalist' paramilitaries have traditionally been completely unable to express themselves politically. What that leaves is an empty terrorism that is carried out by Loyalists in the interests of a detached and almost alien political elite (the UUP and DUP). The latter provide the political leadership while the former do the killing

Contrast with the Nationalist community where the killers have successfully made the transition and are setting the political agenda

And your point is?

The same one I've been making all along: Republicanism as a political framework is infinitely more coherent and developed than Loyalism. Hence the different attitudes to protest by the prisoners

You assume Loyalist paramilitaries in general were hoping to create some political party, as opposed to a selection of individuals such as Ervine.

No, I assume that "Loyalist paramilitaries in general" have been incapable of creating such a party. Not for want of trying of course but because they simply didn't/don't have the political eduction or conciousness

I think some of The Irish get carried away with the importance of David Ervine!

A Loyalist paramilitary capable of expressing a coherent and genuinely interesting political position... well that's always novel. And worth taking seriously

Victor

Cavehill Red wrote: »

There's no such word as 'Ullish'.

http://www.google.ie/search?q=Ullish&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

Reekwind wrote: »

1) That's a very, very poor analogy.

Perhaps, but sometimes such analogies are telling.

[/QUOTE]Leaving aside the sweeping generalisations, you are comparing apples with oranges. [/QUOTE]What colour are the apples.

Why not compare the British Army with the Wehrmacht? Why compare a national army to a party/political paramilitary force?

It is somewhat accurate.

Comparing one army to another, their opponent, won't necessarily show many conceptual differences (both were industrialised militaries, led by an upper class officer corps, greatly expanded by the necessities of the war - different uniforms, weapons and tactics are separate).

The SS was more than a paramilitary organisation, it had whole divisions of conventional military forces, the difference being that they were politically motivated in a certain direction.

If you want to be accurate,t he proper comparison would be Wehrmacht v SS, but, eh, they were on the same side.

Cavehill Red

Victor wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/search?q=Ullish&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

I've got the OED, Collins and Webster's here. That word isn't in any of them. Therefore I contend, it's not a word.
I note in your kindly proffered google search (not quite the same as actual research, but never mind), there isn't a single reference to the term that dates beyond 2009. Is Ullish the new Ullans, perhaps? Or the new Cruithin?
Bless the little beavers in UUP HQ, having to come up with new adjectives on a biennial basis to describe their own inherent sense of statelessness.

secondopinion

Cavehill Red said:

It was a reasonable conclusion from your statement.

No it wasn't.

I think, at least in relation to PIRA, it's demonstrable that no Loyalist terror organisation possessed a theoretical or political framework to their activities that compares. With McMichael and Tyrie the UDA possessed a brief period of political thinking which went under beneath the tidal wave of base criminality and self-enrichment.

You don't appear to have a very high opinion of Loyalist paramilitaries. You're not an Irish Nationalist are you? Do you regard Irish Republicans as being motivated by 'base criminality and self-enrichment'?

Pretty sure McMichael proposed autonomy within a unified framework in the 80s.

I'm afraid not. Power sharing within NI was his thing at that time.

You seem to endorse the point I'm making, which is that the point of Loyalism was reactive rather than proactive because they had nothing to be proactive towards.

Who says they needed to be pro-active?

There's no such word as 'Ullish'.

There is. It's a bit like Scottish.

Hence, Loyalist terrorists could not have seen themselves as such. They saw themselves as British, in a war with the IRA. Pretty much every Loyalist terrorist on record has iterated that same position.

Many Loyalists would have described themselves as being loyal first and foremost to Ulster.

I think too many Unionists underestimate his relevance.

I don't think so. I agree that many Republicans got very excited by him for obvious reasons.

In theory, one is loyal to the Queen and the other supports the union of occupied Ireland with Britain politically. In practice, one is working class and the other middle class British citizens in occupied Ireland.

Interesting. There's many different ideas on what a 'Loyalist' is. The 'working class' bit is quite contemporary and is obviously media driven. During the 'troubles' most people would have seen a 'Loyalist' as a militant Unionist. I think that definition was most accurate. Class had nothing to do with it (at least not directly).

secondopinion

Reekwind said:

But then maybe all those Loyalist ex-prisoners with degrees all went into dentistry or engineering instead of politics?

Yes, they got on with their lives outside politics.

They didn't. Not so long as they were content to be murderous lapdogs for the traditional Unionist political leadership. Actually formulating a position of their own, see below, and conceptualising their 'struggle' in explicitly political terms - including political protest - required a more sophisticated political framework

But most were only interested in winning their 'war'. They didn't join paramilitary organisations to become involved in politics. That wasn't their motivation.

The Republican leadership made that leap but only a few Loyalists were able to do likewise

Or interested in doing likewise.

And it's unfortunate that this proved to be a dead end. Republicans were able to go from prison to politics but there were too few like-minded Loyalists to do the same. Leadership of the Unionist movement remains pretty much the same as it was a century ago - businessmen and clergymen directing mindless thugs

I take it you're not a Unionist?:D

So you keep repeating. As if these are historical roles doled out by some cosmic director

They chose that role.

3) Suddenly the Loyalist killers are well-versed in and have acute concerns about the constitutional arrangements of the UK? Are these the same terrorists who, you contend, didn't need or have an interest in politics, ideology or analysis?

Their prime interest was in maintaining Ulster's constitutional position within The UK - this was their 'analysis'. You seem to think they should have been beavering away writing books or something. Their opinions were diverse outside of the constitutional question.

In short, Loyalism means more than 'physical force Unionism'.

I don't think it does. Or at least it didn't.

Explaining exactly how it is to be defined is difficult - as noted few Loyalists have been politically educated/aware enough to give it expression - but, for the purposes of this thread, there are a few key points. Despite sitting within the broader Unionist milieu (much as Republicanism is a subset of Nationalism), Loyalism as a political movement can be said to be:

1) Distinct from the Unionist establishment
2) Provides analyses rooted in more than constitutional arguments or blind loyalty to the Crown.
3) Is formulated by paramilitaries or those from that background
4) As a result of the above, it is more proactive and positive. Politically active Loyalists tend to be (ironically) more in favour of negotiated settlements and community based initiatives

That might be how some describe Loyalism. I don't.

Of course most 'Loyalist' paramilitaries have traditionally been completely unable to express themselves politically.

They were a single issue pressure group. They used guns to 'express themselves politically'.

No, I assume that "Loyalist paramilitaries in general" have been incapable of creating such a party. Not for want of trying of course but because they simply didn't/don't have the political eduction or conciousness

Most weren't interested.

Reekwind

Victor wrote: »

What colour are the apples.

The SS was more than a paramilitary organisation, it had whole divisions of conventional military forces, the difference being that they were politically motivated in a certain direction

Even the Waffen-SS was a paramilitary force: it was an explicitly political (and party led) organisation that lay outside the conventional chain of command. I understand that the definition is subjective, and in practice the SS often did fall under OKW, but there is a distinction there that's worth noting

To be honest though, the SS probably isn't something that's worth discussing in this thread

Edit:

secondopinion wrote:

But most were only interested in winning their 'war'. They didn't join paramilitary organisations to become involved in politics. That wasn't their motivation.

This is getting repetitive. You keep coming back to this point that I entirely agree with. No one is arguing that Loyalists fought due to any interest in politics; I have made clear that I consider it to have been a failure of Loyalist terrorists to formulate their cause in a political framework

This is important today. The Loyalist leadership during the Troubles (whether you consider them to be simply paramilitaries or not) were almost entirely incapable of moving into politics; they therefore abdicated power/influence to traditional Unionist bodies. I'd contend that the latter have been failing the unionist community since the strike of 1919. The interest of the former is blindly political (preserving the Union at all costs) and so ignores the interests of ordinary unionists and those who actually did the 'fighting'*. SF stepped into this gap on the Nationalist side and is so able to more effectively help Republican working class communities; Loyalist areas have no such structure in place and are ill-served by the DUP

*There is no question that the majority of active Loyalist paramilitaries were drawn from working class neighbourhoods. Contrast with the composition of the DUP leadership

secondopinion

Reekwind wrote: »

Even the Waffen-SS was a paramilitary force: it was an explicitly political (and party led) organisation that lay outside the conventional chain of command. I understand that the definition is subjective, and in practice the SS often did fall under OKW, but there is a distinction there that's worth noting

To be honest though, the SS probably isn't something that's worth discussing in this thread

On the contrary, I believe The SS and Republican paramilitaries shared a 'political soldier' ideology. Of course, many Republican militants were only interested in driving out 'da Brits' and little else.

jonniebgood1

secondopinion wrote: »

On the contrary, I believe The SS and Republican paramilitaries shared a 'political soldier' ideology. Of course, many Republican militants were only interested in driving out 'da Brits' and little else.

If you believe this then you need to demonstrate it with sources to back up your belief. Until you do so it is only opinion and I don't see where it comes from.

Cavehill Red

secondopinion wrote: »

Cavehill Red said:

No it wasn't.

Of course it was.

secondopinion wrote: »

You don't appear to have a very high opinion of Loyalist paramilitaries. You're not an Irish Nationalist are you? Do you regard Irish Republicans as being motivated by 'base criminality and self-enrichment'?

On the contrary, I've known some rather intelligent Loyalists I would consider friends. I've also known plenty of meathead Loyalists too. I am indeed a Nationalist of the 1798 hue, ie not a Republican. I'd be the first to suggest that many Republicans were also motivated, at least in part, by base criminality and self-enrichment. The distinction, I think, between two flavours of excrement as I see it, is that the Republican movement had a consistent political ideology which is largely lacking in Loyalism.

secondopinion wrote: »

I'm afraid not. Power sharing within NI was his thing at that time.

I'm pretty sure he also referred to autonomy within a unified Ireland as an option too.

secondopinion wrote: »

Who says they needed to be pro-active?

The distinction is that their reactivity corralled them as a movement into a position where, as others have already stated, they were effectively used as bootboys for Unionism which by and large ignored their needs. Had they been pro-active, they could have functioned in their own interests and needs rather than those of their Unionist elite.

secondopinion wrote: »

There is. It's a bit like Scottish.

In that they both end in -ish? Otherwise, one describes the state of being of or belonging to Scotland, while the other is utterly made up and exists in no credible dictionary.

secondopinion wrote: »

Many Loyalists would have described themselves as being loyal first and foremost to Ulster.

The land answer. Which brings me back to what I previously put to you - in what way were they loyal to the land?

secondopinion wrote: »

I don't think so. I agree that many Republicans got very excited by him for obvious reasons.

Peter Robinson has already had a taste of Ervine's legacy. I suspect in time his political perspective will come to be seen as prescient.

secondopinion wrote: »

Interesting. There's many different ideas on what a 'Loyalist' is. The 'working class' bit is quite contemporary and is obviously media driven. During the 'troubles' most people would have seen a 'Loyalist' as a militant Unionist. I think that definition was most accurate. Class had nothing to do with it (at least not directly).

Utter nonsense. There were never any Loyalist murals in the heartlands of Unionist elite. No UDA battalions in Crawfordsburn, no UVF companies on the Malone Road. Armed force loyalism could reasonably be referred to as militant unionism insofar as they functioned as the militant, semi-detached, manipulated arm of people like Paisley, who could then disingenuously disown responsibility for their actions inspired by him. But there is more to Loyalism than armed force, just as there is more to Republicanism than armed force. Grass roots Loyalism dates back decades, and was and is an entirely working class phenomenon.

Chuck Stone

Cavehill Red wrote: »

the Republican movement had a consistent political ideology which is largely lacking in Loyalism.

And unlike loyalism the physical force aspect of Republicanism had a tangible enemy in the British Army and the state apparatus of the north.

Reekwind

secondopinion wrote: »

On the contrary, I believe The SS and Republican paramilitaries shared a 'political soldier' ideology

Possibly but you never made that comparison

Of course, many Republican militants were only interested in driving out 'da Brits' and little else.

Anyone with any involvement in the Republican movement, never mind progressing to active service, would have at the very least been exposed to Republican ideology. Often the core message of this would have been 'Brits out' but it would have been expressed and couched in highly political language and placed within a wider ideological framework. Often with an international dimension; you did not get the likes of this in Loyalist neighbourhoods

And frankly the important point is not so much the grassroots but the ability of the Republican leadership to think, talk and formulate policy in an explicitly political manner. It's why those Republican prisoners went on to create/run a major political party while Loyalist paramilitaries dissolved into feuding gangs with no voice on the political stage

secondopinion

Cavehill Red said:

On the contrary, I've known some rather intelligent Loyalists I would consider friends. I've also known plenty of meathead Loyalists too. I am indeed a Nationalist of the 1798 hue, ie not a Republican. I'd be the first to suggest that many Republicans were also motivated, at least in part, by base criminality and self-enrichment. The distinction, I think, between two flavours of excrement as I see it, is that the Republican movement had a consistent political ideology which is largely lacking in Loyalism.

Loyalist ideology was maintaining The Union, or carving out an Ulster British state if necessary. It required no further refinement.

I'm pretty sure he also referred to autonomy within a unified Ireland as an option too.

I'd like to see you prove that. McMichael was involved in 'Common Sense' in the eighties - Google it.

The distinction is that their reactivity corralled them as a movement into a position where, as others have already stated, they were effectively used as bootboys for Unionism which by and large ignored their needs.

They were paramilitants fighting for Ulster's separateness from an all Ireland, independent state. Their 'needs' were not part of the equation.

Had they been pro-active, they could have functioned in their own interests and needs rather than those of their Unionist elite.

I'll just repeat what I said above so you can read it again:

They were paramilitants fighting for Ulster's separateness from an all Ireland, independent state. Their 'needs' were not part of the equation.

In that they both end in -ish? Otherwise, one describes the state of being of or belonging to Scotland, while the other is utterly made up and exists in no credible dictionary.

Ullish is a term used to describe Ulster men as Scottish is a term used to describe Scotsmen. All words are 'utterly made up'.

Utter nonsense. There were never any Loyalist murals in the heartlands of Unionist elite. No UDA battalions in Crawfordsburn, no UVF companies on the Malone Road. Armed force loyalism could reasonably be referred to as militant unionism insofar as they functioned as the militant, semi-detached, manipulated arm of people like Paisley, who could then disingenuously disown responsibility for their actions inspired by him.

And? Someone stuck a gun to their collective heads did they? Apart from PIRA I mean.

But there is more to Loyalism than armed force, just as there is more to Republicanism than armed force. Grass roots Loyalism dates back decades, and was and is an entirely working class phenomenon.

That's why I used the phrase 'directly'. Think it through.

secondopinion

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And unlike loyalism the physical force aspect of Republicanism had a tangible enemy in the British Army and the state apparatus of the north.

The Republican movement and the wider Nationalist community in NI was Loyalism's 'tangible enemy'. You should read up on ethnic conflicts world wide and what they generally involve.

secondopinion

Reekwind said:

Anyone with any involvement in the Republican movement, never mind progressing to active service, would have at the very least been exposed to Republican ideology. Often the core message of this would have been 'Brits out' but it would have been expressed and couched in highly political language and placed within a wider ideological framework. Often with an international dimension; you did not get the likes of this in Loyalist neighbourhoods

Perhaps they made it too complicated? Inferiority complex?

And frankly the important point is not so much the grassroots but the ability of the Republican leadership to think, talk and formulate policy in an explicitly political manner. It's why those Republican prisoners went on to create/run a major political party while Loyalist paramilitaries dissolved into feuding gangs with no voice on the political stage

Weren't there Republicans beaten to death by their 'comrades' in Short Strand and South Armagh? Feuds?

In any case, you're missing the elephant in the room aren't you? Namely, that The PUL community had a disinclination to vote for terrorists - and that included most 'working class' Unionists. Perhaps The CNR community had far lower moral standards?

Chuck Stone

secondopinion wrote: »

the wider Nationalist community in NI was Loyalism's 'tangible enemy'

This targeting of the wider Nationalist community is what was so disgusting about so called 'loyalist's' supposed 'campaign' and was the only aspect of it that achieved any 'success'.

the UVF and RHC was responsible for 481 deaths

412 85% civilian.

Republican paramilitary 4%.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/book/

Only 4% Republican paramilitary in spite of receiving intelligence from state actors in the north.

secondopinion

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This targeting of the wider Nationalist community is what was so disgusting about so called 'loyalist's' supposed 'campaign'.

Killing people is always disgusting. If The IRA wanted to protect their community they'd have worn uniforms and openly displayed their weapons and then confronted The British Army. Yes, The Army would still have operated under the rule of civil law (waiving the old 'yellow cards' about etc), but at least The IRA would have maintained some credibility, instead of allowing their own community to absorb Loyalist reprisals and die on their behalf.

secondopinion

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Only 4% Republican paramilitary in spite of receiving intelligence from state actors in the north.

Not all Republican activists were claimed and many outside The IRA provided assistance to PIRA, as well as many who voted for them, especially in working class areas - giving them moral support.

As I say, it would have been easier to kill Republican militants if they'd worn uniforms. I guess we'll never know.

Pretty academic now.

Cavehill Red

secondopinion wrote: »

Cavehill Red said:
Loyalist ideology was maintaining The Union, or carving out an Ulster British state if necessary. It required no further refinement.

It could certainly have benefited from refinement in order to
a) properly represent the interests of working class Protestant communities rather than the unionist elite
b) create and sustain a genuine political voice for those communities
c) prevent the decay of their own movement into venal drug-dealing and criminality
Whether you consider it regrettable or not that Loyalism was not (or at least not until much later) refined politically in a lasting manner depends on whether you are of the unionist elite, or whether you're part of the other 80% of NI.

secondopinion wrote: »

I'd like to see you prove that. McMichael was involved in 'Common Sense' in the eighties - Google it.

Not everything from the days before the internet is on google. A trip to the Linenhall would be required, and I'm not in Belfast currently (plus they're closed.) You'll have to trust me on this one - I recall reading the document at the time with, I admit, a degree of bafflement, given that it came in the context of a veritable blizzard of contradictory proposals, including 'Common Sense' from the same source.

secondopinion wrote: »

They were paramilitants fighting for Ulster's separateness from an all Ireland, independent state. Their 'needs' were not part of the equation.

Disposable grunts for unionism, as I said. Your concern for their needs marks you out as a party to the type of unionism (ie most of it) which was always happy to throw its own working class voters on the fire if it suited them.

secondopinion wrote: »

I'll just repeat what I said above so you can read it again:

They were paramilitants fighting for Ulster's separateness from an all Ireland, independent state. Their 'needs' were not part of the equation.

And I'll repeat in turn, it is a shame and tragedy that Loyalism was so manipulated by unionists and failed to sufficiently develop its own political edifice to represent the working class Protestant communities who have never been represented by unionism.

secondopinion wrote: »

Ullish is a term used to describe Ulster men as Scottish is a term used to describe Scotsmen. All words are 'utterly made up'.

No, it's not. Scottish is in all the dictionaries. Ullish is in your head. Along with those other spoofs, Ulster-Scots "language", the British lost tribe of Israel, and the Cruithin.

secondopinion wrote: »

And? Someone stuck a gun to their collective heads did they? Apart from PIRA I mean.

Who knows what went on at Loyalist paramilitary gatherings? I recall Robinson toting guns and Paisley leading his own paramilitary force at one point. Again, however, I note your lack of empathy for those you accept fought to defend your interests. This is, ultimately, why nationalism is destined to prevail in Ireland. Unionism will always turn on itself and destroy itself from within. Carson to Trimble to Robinson all tell that tale, and the sorriest episode is the manipulation and subsequent disowning of Loyalist paramilitaries by those who spoke the words that sent them out to commit pogroms on their own working class neighbours.

secondopinion wrote: »

That's why I used the phrase 'directly'. Think it through.

You said class had "nothing to do" with defining Loyalism as distinct from Unionism, at least not directly. I say it was the single defining factor of distinction between two similar political ideologies, and I challenge you to demonstrate how class was an 'indirect' defining factor.

Chuck Stone

secondopinion wrote: »

Killing people is always disgusting. If The IRA wanted to protect their community they'd have worn uniforms and openly displayed their weapons and then confronted The British Army.

An incredibly naive notion for which I doubt there is any precedent in modern history.

Yes, The Army would still have operated under the rule of civil law (waiving the old 'yellow cards' about etc), but at least The IRA would have maintained some credibility, instead of allowing their own community to absorb Loyalist reprisals and die on their behalf.

Disgusting victim blaming ^^.

The majority of the Nationalist population wanted nothing to do with physical force Republicanism. The SDLP was the preeminent political party by Nationalist choice in the 6 counties until the conflict was well over. The only outcome the loyalist death squads achieved was as a recruitment tool for physical force Republicanism.

secondopinion

Cavehill Red said:

It could certainly have benefited from refinement in order to
a) properly represent the interests of working class Protestant communities rather than the unionist elite
b) create and sustain a genuine political voice for those communities
c) prevent the decay of their own movement into venal drug-dealing and criminality
Whether you consider it regrettable or not that Loyalism was not (or at least not until much later) refined politically in a lasting manner depends on whether you are of the unionist elite, or whether you're part of the other 80% of NI.

You could say that about the working class anywhere. Not too many miners in Parliament or The US senate I'd suspect.

Disposable grunts for unionism, as I said. Your concern for their needs marks you out as a party to the type of unionism (ie most of it) which was always happy to throw its own working class voters on the fire if it suited them.

As I say, your views on the 'working class' apply across the developed world - they're not unique to NI.

And I'll repeat in turn, it is a shame and tragedy that Loyalism was so manipulated by unionists and failed to sufficiently develop its own political edifice to represent the working class Protestant communities who have never been represented by unionism.

As I say, your views on the 'working class' apply across the developed world - they're not unique to NI.

No, it's not. Scottish is in all the dictionaries. Ullish is in your head.

Psssssss. I don't actually have any emotional involvement in the word Ullish - but it does exist.

Along with those other spoofs, Ulster-Scots "language", the British lost tribe of Israel, and the Cruithin.

See above.

Who knows what went on at Loyalist paramilitary gatherings? I recall Robinson toting guns

I don't - except on a trip to Israel.

and Paisley leading his own paramilitary force at one point.

The Third Force that did nothing then disappeared? Or perhaps Ulster Resistance which Paisley disassociated himself from once they became active?

Again, however, I note your lack of empathy for those you accept fought to defend your interests.

Eh?

This is, ultimately, why nationalism is destined to prevail in Ireland.

Now you're letting yourself down - political hyperbole.

You said class had "nothing to do" with defining Loyalism as distinct from Unionism, at least not directly. I say it was the single defining factor of distinction between two similar political ideologies, and I challenge you to demonstrate how class was an 'indirect' defining factor.

Working class people like violence - middle class people don't. Something that's always fascinated me. A student can be p*ssed out of his skull, but he'll never do anything beyond 'hitting' the next bar, whilst the 'roofer' brawls from pub to pub. Any views on that?

secondopinion

Chuck Stone said:

An incredibly naive notion for which I doubt there is any precedent in modern history.

The only naive people are those who think Nationalists could kill Unionists without Unionists killing Nationalists. You're not one of them are you Chuck?

The majority of the Nationalist population wanted nothing to do with physical force Republicanism. The SDLP was the preeminent political party by Nationalist choice in the 6 counties until the conflict was well over. The only outcome the loyalist death squads achieved was as a recruitment tool for physical force Republicanism.

Loyalists regarded The SDLP as part of The Pan Nationalist Front.

Did The IRA's activities act as a recruitment tool for physical force Loyalism? David Ervine certainly thought so - following 'Bloody Friday'.

Chuck Stone

secondopinion wrote: »

The only naive people are those who think Nationalists could kill Unionists without Unionists killing Nationalists. You're not one of them are you Chuck?

If the goal of physical force Republicans was to kill Unionists in the same way the loyalist death squads killed Nationalists i.e. by accident of birth then there'd have been thousands more dead Unionists.

Loyalists regarded The SDLP as part of The Pan Nationalist Front.

What was this Pan Nationalist front you speak of? Was this one of Paisley's fabrications used to make the fools who listened to him even more paranoid?

Did The IRA's activities act as a recruitment tool for physical force Loyalism? David Ervine certainly thought so - following 'Bloody Friday'

Unionists had plenty of ways of defending their communities (from a non-existent threat) by joining the UDA, UDR, BA or whatever you're having for lunch.

As Cavehill Red says:

The distinction is that their reactivity corralled them as a movement into a position where, as others have already stated, they were effectively used as bootboys for Unionism which by and large ignored their needs. Had they been pro-active, they could have functioned in their own interests and needs rather than those of their Unionist elite.

Cavehill Red

secondopinion wrote: »

You could say that about the working class anywhere. Not too many miners in Parliament or The US senate I'd suspect.

You can't say it about Keir Hardie, Jim Larkin, or indeed the Republican movement.

secondopinion wrote: »

As I say, your views on the 'working class' apply across the developed world - they're not unique to NI.

Except what you claim applies across the developed world does NOT apply in the North of Ireland. Again, I cite Sinn Fein.

secondopinion wrote: »

As I say, your views on the 'working class' apply across the developed world - they're not unique to NI.

This is fun. Will I say it a third time?

secondopinion wrote: »

Psssssss. I don't actually have any emotional involvement in the word Ullish - but it does exist.

Just not anywhere that acknowledged words are collected.

secondopinion wrote: »

See above.

Are you suggesting that the Ulster Scots 'language', the British lost tribe of Israel and the Cruthin exist?

secondopinion wrote: »

I don't - except on a trip to Israel.

Really? Clontibret ring any bells? What about this, then?

secondopinion wrote: »

The Third Force that did nothing then disappeared? Or perhaps Ulster Resistance which Paisley disassociated himself from once they became active?

Yup, that's the very process of manipulating then disowning I was talking about.

secondopinion wrote: »

Eh?

Your attitude of dispensible Loyalists, the grunt sacrifice.

secondopinion wrote: »

Now you're letting yourself down - political hyperbole.

No, just an honest opinion. The only reason Unionism still exists is because it served London's interests, but it does not longer. Britain itself is coming apart at the seams, currently, in keeping with the Nairn plan laid out 20 years ago. Unionism will be hard pushed to gain traction on their safety net independent 6 counties option, what with the vehement opposition of nearly half the populace who, let's face it, are much less riven with in-fighting than unionism is and always historically has been. Unionism will do itself in, like it always does.

secondopinion wrote: »

Working class people like violence - middle class people don't. Something that's always fascinated me. A student can be p*ssed out of his skull, but he'll never do anything beyond 'hitting' the next bar, whilst the 'roofer' brawls from pub to pub. Any views on that?

Yes, I think it's nonsense. I've seen many's a posh boy rugby trip end up with people in cells after drunkenly picking fights with locals. Boxing was considered an essential element of many public school educations until very recently. Indeed, the upper class adore the military, the pomp and circumstance, the expensive toys, the sending out people who don't want a battle to get shot on their behalf.

secondopinion

Chuck Stone said:

If the goal of physical force Republicans was to kill Unionists in the same way the loyalist death squads killed Nationalists i.e. by accident of birth then there'd have been thousands more dead Unionists.

What are you talking about? Do you think Unionists cared why Republicans killed their neighbours, friends and relatives?

Unionists had plenty of ways of defending their communities (from a non-existent threat) by joining the UDA, UDR, BA or whatever you're having for lunch.

Non-existant threat? LOL.

Are you sure you mean UDA?

Chuck Stone

secondopinion wrote: »

What are you talking about? Do you think Unionists cared why Republicans killed their neighbours, friends and relatives?

Not too sure what you're talking about here tbh.

Non-existant threat? LOL.

Ah the first 'LOL'. Do I recognise this posting style from a previous thread which would make you a previously banned re-reg?

Are you sure you mean UDA?

Yes. Outlawed for being the murderous sectarian cesspit that it was in 1992 - 20 years too late.

The United Kingdom outlawed the "UFF" in November 1973 and the UDA itself was finally classified as a terrorist group in August 1992.

The UDA's/UFF's declared goal was to defend loyalist areas from attack and to combat Irish republicanism. However, most of its victims were civilians according to the Sutton Index of Deaths. The majority of them were Irish Catholics

Source