Why didn't Loyalist Prisoners Protest?

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

secondopinion

Cavehill Red said:

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

And where are all these 'working class' heroes now?

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

Neo-fascists aren't they?

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

I don't care.

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

Where's that gun you were talking about?

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.

Wow. You're quite the 'Mystic Meg' aren't you?

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.

You seem to live in the past old boy. Most street violence involves working class and underclass elements, not old Etonians. Perhaps that explains your bizarre socialist ruminations? Even The Maoists don't believe in Mao anymore.

secondopinion

Chuck Stone said:

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

I'm not surprised.

Chuck Stone

secondopinion wrote: »

I'm not surprised.

Careful now - your mask might slip.

Cavehill Red

secondopinion wrote: »

And where are all these 'working class' heroes now?

Checked Stormont recently? Try the Deputy First Minister's office for starters.

secondopinion wrote: »

Neo-fascists aren't they?

Are they? You'd have to make a case for that, which I suspect is not going to be convincing. Shady past? Indubitably. Marxist tendencies? Yes, and kept cleverly under wraps for the most part these days but still there. Neo-fascists? Er, no, is the short answer.

secondopinion wrote: »

I don't care.

On one level that's fair enough, even admirable. Too many people have been fooled by this codology already, and people are making good money peddling fake culture to the NI Protestant community. On the other hand, as someone with a proud Scots planter heritage from NI, I feel personally affronted at these ongoing attempts to polyfilla the gaps in Unionist (and it is Unionist) identity with makey-uppy BS when there is so much to be actually proud of, some of which is related to Britishness, some to Irishness, some to the influence of the Scotch-Irish across the globe. I don't see the need to cheapen those real cultural achievements by adding nonsense to it. In fact, it offends me. It probably ought to offend you too, but I'm not in the business of telling people what to feel.

secondopinion wrote: »

Where's that gun you were talking about?

Are you seriously suggesting to me that he didn't hold a weapon that night? Or any of the other nights he went 'training'?

secondopinion wrote: »

Wow. You're quite the 'Mystic Meg' aren't you?

Don't be silly. Robinson knows what's happening, hence his panicked intervention in the Scottish referendum debate last month. Unionists who sleepwalk into the deconstruction of the UK are going to have a cold shower if they don't sit at the table and negotiate something they can live with in the aftermath. Robbo's not that stupid, but many of his followers are, or if not downright stupid, simply complacent. The times, they are a-changing. More people should really read Trevor Nairn. He's the one predicted all of this, not me.

secondopinion wrote: »

You seem to live in the past old boy. Most street violence involves working class and underclass elements, not old Etonians. Perhaps that explains your bizarre socialist ruminations? Even The Maoists don't believe in Mao anymore.

Unsure what Mao (a good middle class boy) has to do with anything. I defer to your obvious greater association with Maoists, not knowing any.
One could argue, firstly, that you've ignored my point that the upper classes fight in different ways. Or secondly, that per capita, there's little difference in terms of violent crime between the lower classes (of whom there are many) and the upper classes (of whom there are few). Paisley was as bloodthirsty as any Provo or UVF killer; but his Christian ministry meant he had to sublimate his hate by sending proxies out to do the killing for him, just like the good ole Oxbridge boys in Whitehall do to this day.

secondopinion

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Checked Stormont recently? Try the Deputy First Minister's office for starters.



Are they? You'd have to make a case for that, which I suspect is not going to be convincing. Shady past? Indubitably. Marxist tendencies? Yes, and kept cleverly under wraps for the most part these days but still there. Neo-fascists? Er, no, is the short answer.



On one level that's fair enough, even admirable. Too many people have been fooled by this codology already, and people are making good money peddling fake culture to the NI Protestant community. On the other hand, as someone with a proud Scots planter heritage from NI, I feel personally affronted at these ongoing attempts to polyfilla the gaps in Unionist (and it is Unionist) identity with makey-uppy BS when there is so much to be actually proud of, some of which is related to Britishness, some to Irishness, some to the influence of the Scotch-Irish across the globe. I don't see the need to cheapen those real cultural achievements by adding nonsense to it. In fact, it offends me. It probably ought to offend you too, but I'm not in the business of telling people what to feel.



Are you seriously suggesting to me that he didn't hold a weapon that night? Or any of the other nights he went 'training'?



Don't be silly. Robinson knows what's happening, hence his panicked intervention in the Scottish referendum debate last month. Unionists who sleepwalk into the deconstruction of the UK are going to have a cold shower if they don't sit at the table and negotiate something they can live with in the aftermath. Robbo's not that stupid, but many of his followers are, or if not downright stupid, simply complacent. The times, they are a-changing. More people should really read Trevor Nairn. He's the one predicted all of this, not me.



Unsure what Mao (a good middle class boy) has to do with anything. I defer to your obvious greater association with Maoists, not knowing any.
One could argue, firstly, that you've ignored my point that the upper classes fight in different ways. Or secondly, that per capita, there's little difference in terms of violent crime between the lower classes (of whom there are many) and the upper classes (of whom there are few). Paisley was as bloodthirsty as any Provo or UVF killer; but his Christian ministry meant he had to sublimate his hate by sending proxies out to do the killing for him, just like the good ole Oxbridge boys in Whitehall do to this day.

Some very interesting thoughts Cavehill. You've got a really active imagination - a trait of The Irish apparently. We'll all have to wait and see what develops over the coming centuries. Personally, I predict a partitioned USA, starting with The South West - VIVA!:)

Cavehill Red

secondopinion wrote: »

Some very interesting thoughts Cavehill. You've got a really active imagination - a trait of The Irish apparently. We'll all have to wait and see what develops over the coming centuries. Personally, I predict a partitioned USA, starting with The South West - VIVA!:)

I understand it's uncomfortable to be a Unionist in the current climate, and that many even highly intelligent Unionists would prefer not to have to think about what's going to happen in five, ten or twenty years. (We're neither of us likely to live centuries, so let's dispense with the sci-fi, shall we?)
Nevertheless, the one sure guarantee of future conflict in NI is if Unionism is not prepared for all eventualities in the ever-increasingly likely event that Nairn's After Britain hypothesis comes to pass. And I do mean all eventualities. We all know that NI is unsustainable as an independent entity. Repartition is highly unlikely to be endorsed either.
Unionism is actually in a difficult position, and I just hope that enough Unionists realise this to be realistic about their options and think them through carefully in advance, because the worst possible outcome is if Unionism starts to make rash and ill-thought out moves arbitrarily because they woke up too late and found history had passed them by.
In the context of 'No Surrender' rhetoric, some options may currently appear unthinkable, but many things, such as the Chuckle Brothers, once seemed impossible and later became possible, then probable then inevitable. It's likely that realpolitik will dictate what's possible and what's not for everyone in NI. Unionism, especially the UUP, has been slow to grasp that in the past. They'd do well not to bury their heads in the sand again, especially not for the next decade or more.
As for the USA? You might be right. I could see the likes of Vermont kicking things off by looking to secede.