Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The British say many things and have a track record of being duplicitous, eg. 'We don't talk to terrorists' when in fact they where flat out talking.

Or they're being perfectly straightforward. I really have to wonder at the republican mindset - The Brits were not to be trusted because they were determined not to relinquish control of NI, and now they're not to be trusted because they're intent on ridding themselves of NI?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Even at the height of the troubles the Loyalists couldn't effectively mount an operation in the South without the collusion of the security forces, that won't be available and said 'security forces' will be their enemies.
I believe anybody who can envisage a sustained campaign capable of bringing down any new arrangements( and an attempt at one will be expected and planned for) are living in a fairyland.

Who says they couldn't? Who suggests they had any interest in doing so? And in any case, they wouldn't need to direct any campaign 'in the South', in a 32 county scenario. I don't think a campaign would bring down any new arrangement btw, any more than republican violence brought down the old one. But that's not much solace.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you think that a few guns will offer a threat to the new arrangements, dream on.
The arsenal required, the know how and the logistics will far exceed what was available to any group during the troubles.

Firstly - complete rubbish, secondly; your pal Karl, earlier in this thread, has a different belief:

Think about that. Fertilizer bombs. The PIRA's most destructive weapon was the truck bomb which caused billions of pounds worth of damage in Britain in the 1990's - you can't decommission fertilizer.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I still cannot in reality see a sustained campaign, which even if they succeed in mounting one, will be fruitless, and have no credible goals...you cannot bomb your way back into a relationship with Britain, what worth would that have? Be pragmatic here, because your average person will be.

Pointless and fruitless terrorism, with no hope of success is stock and trade for NI. Why would that change?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes there is a risk of violence, but it won't be violence that hasn't been planned for and if people are clear on what is happening and what will happen, then I think the chances of that violence being sustained or capable of destroying new arrangements are low. .

This is getting into the realms of the bizarre. Down South we stood back for years and refused to support the SF/IRA axis of evil that killed people on the basis that the achievement of a united Ireland was not worth shedding blood. Now you are saying that we will change our mind when a united Ireland is imminent and will accept attempted bombings in places like O'Connell St. the Zoo, the IFSC and Dundrum Shopping Centre (the likes of places targetted by the IRA in the past) as an acceptable price for a united Ireland.

You are mad. There is no way that the South will vote for a united Ireland until there are Unionist politicians in favour of a united Ireland that have the backing of a majority of their community.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I fail to see again, where thiss new capability is going to come from, given that loyalists will be unable to depend on state collusion..

In the same way that child prostitutes, drugs, guns for gangs, cigarettes etc are smuggled into the country every day. Are you just going to eliminate the black market overnight? NUTS, absolute NUTS to say that you cannot smuggle goods into Ireland. Yes, some will be caught, yes some will be intercepted but unless we run a hugely expensive security state (see my next point), some will get through.

Happyman42 wrote: »

That in fairness, is your belief, I have mine..

Me: South budget deficit + North budget deficit + Debt overhang + Extra security costs = Financial disaster. That is maths.

You: Everything will be all right on the night. That is belief in a flat earth.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think a lot of Unionists would favour such a regime!
Make no mistake here, what I will be looking for is a new, truly secular republic, so no worries on that front..

Have you told the people of the South yet? So we will have referenda on divorce, abortion and Northern Ireland at the same time. One vote or several? How many do you expect to succeed?

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you think that a few guns will offer a threat to the new arrangements, dream on.
The arsenal required, the know how and the logistics will far exceed what was available to any group during the troubles.
I still cannot in reality see a sustained campaign, which even if they succeed in mounting one, will be fruitless, and have no credible goals...you cannot bomb your way back into a relationship with Britain, what worth would that have? Be pragmatic here, because your average person will be.

Again, you are assuming that this only happens AFTER the vote. What if there is a real prospect of a referenda being passed (I know, hopeless fantasy, but let's give it a try)? Do you think that they will wait until after the referendum to start the bombing and rioting? How will we deal with that when we will still have several different security forces?

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

It's laughable that you believe the unionists won't be able to launch a campaign of terror, how could the IRA do it against the world's second largest military super power but the unionist community would not be able to stand up to the might of the Irish security services? I suppose in your head unionists are just silly head's with no talent for it unlike your republican hero's?

The IRA support network was an entirely different thing. With the set-up they had, securing a border was virtually impossible. There is no way I can see that Loyalists will be able to use the south as a supply line, and neither will they be able to securely use Britain or Scotland. That waterway is relatively easy to police.
Also, the IRA had allies in the form of states who saw to it that they had a supply of munitions...I don't see anything similar available for Loyalists.

I also don't believe it will be 'here one day, gone the next' for Britain, it should be made aware of it' responsibilities and not be allowed to withdraw leaving a mess behind them like they have done in most of the places they have been. There should be a massive financial cost to them, which I don't see them having a huge problem with given the dividend for them to get out.

The unionists never had a desire to really attack the south, the republicans were spurned on by a perceived attack on their civil rights and had reason to fight harder, things like the hunger strikes and bloody Sunday and even smaller incidents like rioting youths being accidentally killed by rubber bullet and even fully justifiable actions like killing IRA men in gun battles all served to make the IRA fight harder than the unionists ever were, the unionists were not battling a state, they perceived they were on the defensive.

The loyalits would have loved the capability to bomb Dublin and the South at various times. They didn't have the capability to do it without collusion.

Fast forward to a united Ireland, of course you will accept the unionist rioting will be on an unprecedented scale, then the Irish government will realise how hard a job the brits had! What happens when the Irish security services kill the first unionists? Could be a poor guard shooting a plastic bullet under attack from petrol bomb, or a running over a teen by mistake, will the prisons start filling? Will the unionists have their hunger strikers? Tense situations with rioters and young untrained solders can soon spiral into a bloody Sunday.

Then the unionists would be at the same point of the CNR community in the 60's & 70's, they would have the hunger and a state to attack, remember one of the biggest employers of the unionist community has been the army, thousands of trained solders in the unionist ranks the question in this seniero is could the Irish government fight back?

There probably will be some rioting but I genuinely believe that pragmatists, when faced with the reality that Britain will walk away will bite the bullet and make the best of the new arrangements. As I say, it would be futile to try and bomb your way back into Britain. Think about it for a while.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Or they're being perfectly straightforward. I really have to wonder at the republican mindset - The Brits were not to be trusted because they were determined not to relinquish control of NI, and now they're not to be trusted because they're intent on ridding themselves of NI?

Now you're getting it!

Who says they couldn't? Who suggests they had any interest in doing so? And in any case, they wouldn't need to direct any campaign 'in the South', in a 32 county scenario. I don't think a campaign would bring down any new arrangement btw, any more than republican violence brought down the old one. But that's not much solace.

Where or who would they direct a campaign at?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

This is getting into the realms of the bizarre. Down South we stood back for years and refused to support the SF/IRA axis of evil that killed people on the basis that the achievement of a united Ireland was not worth shedding blood. Now you are saying that we will change our mind when a united Ireland is imminent and will accept attempted bombings in places like O'Connell St. the Zoo, the IFSC and Dundrum Shopping Centre (the likes of places targetted by the IRA in the past) as an acceptable price for a united Ireland.

You are mad. There is no way that the South will vote for a united Ireland until there are Unionist politicians in favour of a united Ireland that have the backing of a majority of their community.

Did you ever think you would see Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness laughing together or Gerry and Peter Robinon doing buissness together or M. MG standing between the queen and Peter Robinson hooting the breeze?
All of those things happened in a very short space of time, what we once thought impossible can and does happen.

In the same way that child prostitutes, drugs, guns for gangs, cigarettes etc are smuggled into the country every day. Are you just going to eliminate the black market overnight? NUTS, absolute NUTS to say that you cannot smuggle goods into Ireland. Yes, some will be caught, yes some will be intercepted but unless we run a hugely expensive security state (see my next point), some will get through.

Once you move into the realms of large arms shipments and semtex thing change, I still think it will be very difficult to get their hands on any significant quantities>

And, why? Answer me that, it would be futile. They would just bomb themselves into further isolation.



[

Me: South budget deficit + North budget deficit + Debt overhang + Extra security costs = Financial disaster. That is maths.

You: Everything will be all right on the night. That is belief in a flat earth.

No what I proposed was:
Disappearing budget deficit + Britain saying we have no more money to give you + decreasing debt overhang + shared security costs = extremely possible and doable. That is also maths taking into account the future.


Have you told the people of the South yet? So we will have referenda on divorce, abortion and Northern Ireland at the same time. One vote or several? How many do you expect to succeed?

Again, you are assuming that this only happens AFTER the vote. What if there is a real prospect of a referenda being passed (I know, hopeless fantasy, but let's give it a try)? Do you think that they will wait until after the referendum to start the bombing and rioting? How will we deal with that when we will still have several different security forces?

Look at history and the ever decreasing huffing and puffing about change.
We where promised armageddon over the flag and the GFA and the Anglo Irish Agreement etc etc etc etc.
I don't believe that Unionism can be mobilised in the way it was around Sunningdale and the Ulster Workers Strike anymore

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Now you're getting it!

I sure am. It's not pretty, or remotely logical, but I guess you work with whatever you can.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where or who would they direct a campaign at?

Anything that would hurt the state, which would now include the six counties. No need to look too far, and no greater challenge to blow things up than was presented to anyone in the past. Fertiliser bombs are pretty handy to assemble and park wherever.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

I also don't believe it will be 'here one day, gone the next' for Britain, it should be made aware of it' responsibilities and not be allowed to withdraw leaving a mess behind them like they have done in most of the places they have been. There should be a massive financial cost to them, which I don't see them having a huge problem with given the dividend for them to get out.

Or in other words, we'd like our cake, we'd like to eat it and we would like someone else to pay for it.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I sure am. It's not pretty, or remotely logical, but I guess you work with whatever you can.

Well I am not naive enough to think that Britain's motives are altogether pure in this. And Unionist have to admit it to themselves too, because more overt examples are coming down the line I'm afraid.
The British have been convinced to begin the exit, you can decide who or what convinced them, doesn't matter to me.

Anything that would hurt the state, which would now include the six counties. No need to look too far, and no greater challenge to blow things up than was presented to anyone in the past. Fertiliser bombs are pretty handy to assemble and park wherever.

The only thing fertiliser bombs have going for them is surprise, they are unwieldy, dangerous for transporters and in a climate of surveillance, not very practical.
You have a relatively tight and confined community to watch, totally different for the IRA, who had people in almost every town in Ireland.
When there is no practical goal and therefore no real target then I would expect any campaign to fizzle out.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or in other words, we'd like our cake, we'd like to eat it and we would like someone else to pay for it.

Britain will be expected to contribute and will, because it is right that they should. Of that there will be no doubt.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well I am not naive enough to think that Britain's motives are altogether pure in this. And Unionist have to admit it to themselves too, because more overt examples are coming down the line I'm afraid.

Oh, now you're being coy. Your position is that Britain has always been actively pernicious. And made a 360 degree turn to remain pernicious when it suited your narrative. Quite why Unionists have to admit anything based on your belief of what's 'coming down the line' escapes me. It's woo.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The British have been convinced to begin the exit, you can decide who or what convinced them, doesn't matter to me.

Britain haven't been convinced of any such thing. So no need to decide on that score. Britain made clear it's continued commitment to the retention of Union, on the basis of consent, years before SF came to their senses and stopped their campaign of violence. You should also note that the exact same arrangement applies to Scotland, where nobody had to die, or murder to arrive at the same destination.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The only thing fertiliser bombs have going for them is surprise, they are unwieldy, dangerous for transporters and in a climate of surveillance, not very practical.

Complete nonsense. Ask the people of Omagh, or Canary Warf how impractical the placement and detonation of those bombs proved to be.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You have a relatively tight and confined community to watch, totally different for the IRA, who had people in almost every town in Ireland.
When there is no practical goal and therefore no real target then I would expect any campaign to fizzle out.

The IRA had people in almost every town in Ireland? Dream on. Here's what CAIN has to say on their membership:

It is thought that membership of the IRA peaked at around 1,500 in the mid-1970s and it is believed that at the time of the 1994 ceasefire membership was approximately 500 with a smaller number being 'active' members

Worth pointing out that the worst single atrocity of the troubles, the Omagh bombing, and all the subsequent murders, have been committed by a group numbering a couple of dozen people.
As to having a practical goal - again - that didn't undermine any terror group before, so why would it now?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britain will be expected to contribute and will, because it is right that they should. Of that there will be no doubt.

In your mind. But that's not really a measure that will be taken into account.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britain will be expected to contribute and will, because it is right that they should. Of that there will be no doubt.

Expected by who?

Why should the British tax payer pay for Irish unity.

Although I'm sure they will.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Oh, now you're being coy. Your position is that Britain has always been actively pernicious. And made a 360 degree turn to remain pernicious when it suited your narrative. Quite why Unionists have to admit anything based on your belief of what's 'coming down the line' escapes me. It's woo.

Not being coy at all, I just don't view the British with the same rose tinted glasses as some. There is always an agenda in everything they do,
All Unionists have to do is take the rose tinted glasses off and look at the fundamental sea change in British behaviour in the last 20 years.

Britain haven't been convinced of any such thing. So no need to decide on that score. Britain made clear it's continued commitment to the retention of Union, on the basis of consent, years before SF came to their senses and stopped their campaign of violence. You should also note that the exact same arrangement applies to Scotland, where nobody had to die, or murder to arrive at the same destination.

Britain has committed itself to be neutral on the subject, which exposes a huge flank on the Unionist side. That is the change, what that will mean in the future is what we are surmising.

Complete nonsense. Ask the people of Omagh, or Canary Warf how impractical the placement and detonation of those bombs proved to be.

Hardly a campaign of insurrection, there is a reason the IRA took the risk to import Semtex and more sophisticated weaponry.
I or anyone can make a bomb in my kitchem...can I carry out a sustained campaign...no.

The IRA had people in almost every town in Ireland? Dream on. Here's what CAIN has to say on their membership:

I deliberately said 'people' and not 'soldiers'. Safe houses, sympathetic supporters where crucial to their campaign.

Worth pointing out that the worst single atrocity of the troubles, the Omagh bombing, and all the subsequent murders, have been committed by a group numbering a couple of dozen people.

As I said, impossible to maintain without a secure hinterland to operate, train in, and a network of support...see Dissidents for exampes

As to having a practical goal - again - that didn't undermine any terror group before, so why would it now?

That me dear is a matter of opinion and I believe yours is wrong.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Expected by who?

Why should the British tax payer pay for Irish unity.

Although I'm sure they will.

Because they of all people will be glad to and insure that it is a success.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not being coy at all, I just don't view the British with the same rose tinted glasses as some. There is always an agenda in everything they do,
All Unionists have to do is take the rose tinted glasses off and look at the fundamental sea change in British behaviour in the last 20 years.

There's been little change in the position of Britain in the last 20 years. The Anglo-Irish Agreement (29 years ago) made clear that NI was only part of the UK on the basis of the consent of the people of NI. Peter Brooke stated that Britain had 'no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland' in 1990 (24 years ago). No sea change since then. None of which explain the bizarre 360 degree dance about what to accuse the Brits of within the republican narrative. You'd have to try hard not to just see it as kneejerk demonization.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britain has committed itself to be neutral on the subject, which exposes a huge flank on the Unionist side. That is the change, what that will mean in the future is what we are surmising.

It's made that commitment to |Scotland too, and no-one is pretending that they're 'attempting to exit' the Union. This is your fantasy.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Hardly a campaign of insurrection, there is a reason the IRA took the risk to import Semtex and more sophisticated weaponry.
I or anyone can make a bomb in my kitchem...can I carry out a sustained campaign...no.

It's not? I'm a bit surprised that you can dismiss the major weapon of terrorism over the entire troubles so lightly. I have no idea what you can do with your sink, but if you're suggesting that you can't base a sustained campaign of terrorism on fertilizer bombs, you're mistaken.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I deliberately said 'people' and not 'soldiers'. Safe houses, sympathetic supporters where crucial to their campaign.

Soldiers? You said IRA members in every town. That's not, and never was, the case. A broader sympathetic group to the loyalist cause? Nah - can't see where that might come from. :rolleyes:

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I said, impossible to maintain without a secure hinterland to operate, train in, and a network of support...see Dissidents for exampes

Last I looked they were placing bombs all over Belfast at Christmas, and were responsible for the worst toll of life in one incident 16 years earlier. That seems pretty sustained to me.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because they of all people will be glad to and insure that it is a success.

British people will be pleased for the Irish, I'm sure, but why should they pay and who is expecting them to pay?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

I just don't view the British with the same rose tinted glasses as some. There is always an agenda in everything they do,


Britain has committed itself to be neutral on the subject, .

You are now becoming a parody of yourself. Look at your last post. You don't view the British with the same rose tinted glasses as some yet you state that they have committed to being neutral and presumably you expect them to keep to that. Excellent, made me laugh.

I don't think you understand the way that other people think and view the world. Like many extremists, you are convinced by the correctness of your views to an extent that you cannot see that others are like you and similarly convinced of their views. You hold entrenched views on the North yet you expect others (Unionists) with entrenched views to just roll over and accept your way of thinking and accept the logic (your logic, not everyone else's logic) of a united Ireland.

I have long held the view that a united Ireland is many decades away, possibly centuries, maybe never. The lack of progress since the GFA has supported that view. I have always wondered why nationalists believe it can come sooner and I remain open to be convinced. When I read some of the posts on this thread which have no clue as to the way the world works, I get a glimpse of their rationale and I now have a better understanding of the dreamers. Unfortunately, there is very little by way of hard evidence of changing minds in the North or financial calculations that show it will work that would convince me to change. It is all ifs, buts, maybes and whatabouts.

It is not just me. I have been watching the local election campaign down South. The amount of effort being put in by SF to this election campaign shows that they also have put the idea of a united Ireland to one side for a long time. Otherwise they would be working on hearts and minds in the North.

You see, as a voter in the South, the nationalists have to convince me that they have persuaded the Unionists that a united Ireland is a good idea.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

No what I proposed was:
Disappearing budget deficit + Britain saying we have no more money to give you + decreasing debt overhang + shared security costs = extremely possible and doable. That is also maths taking into account the future.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britain will be expected to contribute and will, because it is right that they should. Of that there will be no doubt.

Which is it? "Britain saying we have no more money to give you" or "Britain will be expected to contribute and will"?

Has logic gone completely out the window? Can you hold two contradictory points of view in two successive posts?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

There's been little change in the position of Britain in the last 20 years. The Anglo-Irish Agreement (29 years ago) made clear that NI was only part of the UK on the basis of the consent of the people of NI. Peter Brooke stated that Britain had 'no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland' in 1990 (24 years ago). No sea change since then. None of which explain the bizarre 360 degree dance about what to accuse the Brits of within the republican narrative. You'd have to try hard not to just see it as kneejerk demonization.

Well politically I am delighted if what you say is how Unionist politicians view it. Allows SF to further consolidate their position.
But then, haven't Unionists been whinging every chance they get about their position being eroded.
Maybe it's you that is blind?

It's made that commitment to |Scotland too, and no-one is pretending that they're 'attempting to exit' the Union. This is your fantasy.

Scotland is not the same case. I know very little about it as it doesn't particularly interest me.

It's not? I'm a bit surprised that you can dismiss the major weapon of terrorism over the entire troubles so lightly. I have no idea what you can do with your sink, but if you're suggesting that you can't base a sustained campaign of terrorism on fertilizer bombs, you're mistaken.

Go research the subject,
And you still haven't given us a credible explanation as what they will be trying to achieve, do you think the British will relent and open their arms and admit they were wrong? There has to be a tangible goal to sustain a campaign too.

Soldiers? You said IRA members in every town. That's not, and never was, the case. A broader sympathetic group to the loyalist cause? Nah - can't see where that might come from. :rolleyes:

They had a support network that made the campaign sustainable. Try researching that too.

Last I looked they were placing bombs all over Belfast at Christmas, and were responsible for the worst toll of life in one incident 16 years earlier. That seems pretty sustained to me.

It wouldn't have any effect, pointless. But you would have to expect a few loons to try. I genuinely believe most ordinary Unionists would not have the stomach for it.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

You are now becoming a parody of yourself. Look at your last post. You don't view the British with the same rose tinted glasses as some yet you state that they have committed to being neutral and presumably you expect them to keep to that. Excellent, made me laugh.

had you been reading and actually digesting what is being said you will see that I have already said, that while they have agreed to be neutral they will be anything but. Duplicity, they are the masters at it, after all.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Which is it? "Britain saying we have no more money to give you" or "Britain will be expected to contribute and will"?

They will contribute a one off figure rather than continue to bail out what is an economic basket case, which clearly needs the austerity we have undergone to fix our problems. Gonna have to happen.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well politically I am delighted if what you say is how Unionist politicians view it. Allows SF to further consolidate their position.
But then, haven't Unionists been whinging every chance they get about their position being eroded.
Maybe it's you that is blind?

Who mentioned unionists politicians at all? I really don't know what point you're trying to make, but it's coming across as pretty confused.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Scotland is not the same case. I know very little about it as it doesn't particularly interest me.

Ignorance doesn't really help your argument. It's the same deal as NI - part of the union until a majority vote for otherwise. And not a drop of blood spilled to achieve the same deal.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Go research the subject,
And you still haven't given us a credible explanation as what they will be trying to achieve, do you think the British will relent and open their arms and admit they were wrong? There has to be a tangible goal to sustain a campaign too.

What did the IRA claim they were trying to achieve? Was it ever realistic? Well - rinse and repeat for another unachievable goal. I'll avoid the urge to go off and research, cheers. You'll just have to take my word - you're wrong.

Happyman42 wrote: »

They had a support network that made the campaign sustainable. Try researching that too.

Again - I've no need to research anything. Loyalist has a pretty well illustrated support network, which could achieve anything that the IRA could have (which is little more than terrorise with no scope of attaining their goals, but again, that's no solace for their victims).

Happyman42 wrote: »

It wouldn't have any effect, pointless.

Just like the rest of violence in NI then?

Happyman42 wrote: »

But you would have to expect a few loons to try. I genuinely believe most ordinary Unionists would not have the stomach for it.

You don't need 'most unionists' - you just need a few dozen loyalists - as I've already pointed out.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

They will contribute a one off figure rather than continue to bail out what is an economic basket case, which clearly needs the austerity we have undergone to fix our problems. Gonna have to happen.

If you say so.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

had you been reading and actually digesting what is being said you will see that I have already said, that while they have agreed to be neutral they will be anything but. Duplicity, they are the masters at it, after all.

If you say so. But why would they be in the game of bailing out the costs of a united Ireland then? It's as if you're further confused in your pet theories.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Ignorance doesn't really help your argument. It's the same deal as NI - part of the union until a majority vote for otherwise. And not a drop of blood spilled to achieve the same deal.

Nope, googled it there and Scotland was never partitioned and was never a sectarian statlet requiring a two government agreement to keep it peaceful. Not the same really.

What did the IRA claim they were trying to achieve?

We are now talking about what they where trying to achieve.

Was it ever realistic? Well - rinse and repeat for another unachievable goal. I'll avoid the urge to go off and research, cheers. You'll just have to take my word - you're wrong.

As I said above...yes it was achievable.
Any chance of showing a credible goal for loyalist/unionist violence in the event of a vote for a UI?

Again - I've no need to research anything. Loyalist has a pretty well illustrated support network, which could achieve anything that the IRA could have (which is little more than terrorise with no scope of attaining their goals, but again, that's no solace for their victims).

The difference is that they would be trapped in Ulster with no dependable supply line from outside. Think rationally.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nope, googled it there and Scotland was never partitioned and was never a sectarian statlet requiring a two government agreement to keep it peaceful. Not the same really.

There's no sectarian statelet in Ireland either, and last I heard, the issue was staying within, or leaving the Union, so it seems like pretty much exactly the same issue. But as you say, you've been ignorant of that fact until now, so I guess it's understandable.

Happyman42 wrote: »

We are now talking about what they where trying to achieve.

As I said above...yes it was achievable.
Any chance of showing a credible goal for loyalist/unionist violence in the event of a vote for a UI?

Brits out? Eire Nua? 32 county socialist republic? It demonstrably wasn't. You've learned nothing from those 35 years, have you? The goal for a campaign of loyalist violence would be just as unachievable as that of the IRA. But slow learners are easily found in this conflict.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The difference is that they would be trapped in Ulster with no dependable supply line from outside. Think rationally.

They wouldn't be any more 'trapped' than republican terrorists were/are. Again the RIRA have sustained a campaign of violence for 16 years, including the worst single atrocity of the troubles. You're in denial if you think that loyalists couldn't achieve the same, or worse.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

There's no sectarian statelet in Ireland either,

Did I say there was? Republicans stood up to and got rid of it. It won't be coming back.

and last I heard, the issue was staying within, or leaving the Union, so it seems like pretty much exactly the same issue. But as you say, you've been ignorant of that fact until now, so I guess it's understandable.

The issues are entirely different, there are two governments and partition involved here. Stop being silly Alastair.

Brits out? Eire Nua? 32 county socialist republic? It demonstrably wasn't. You've learned nothing from those 35 years, have you? The goal for a campaign of loyalist violence would be just as unachievable as that of the IRA. But slow learners are easily found in this conflict.

Would we be here had the IRA campaign not happened...in my opinion, no, we wouldn't. You disagree. We are entitled to our opinions.

At least we agree that a campaign by Loyalists/Unionists would be pointless.

They wouldn't be any more 'trapped' than republican terrorists were/are. Again the RIRA have sustained a campaign of violence for 16 years, including the worst single atrocity of the troubles. You're in denial if you think that loyalists couldn't achieve the same, or worse.

RIRA operate in the same way as the PIRA, the Omagh bomb was driven from Dundalk allegedly.
Loyalists could not do that, they would be much more constrained and contained.
They managed to get bombs to Dublin and Monaghan but only with security forces collusion. That is the only reason we didn't have more, it just wasn't logistically possible.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did I say there was? Republicans stood up to and got rid of it. It won't be coming back.

The British did rather more to get rid of a sectarian state. Republicans didn't get rid of anything until they stole the clothes of the SDLP.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The issues are entirely different, there are two governments and partition involved here. Stop being silly Alastair.

There are two governments involved - the Scottish and the UK governments. Partition would be the consequence of Scottish independence. The issues are precisely the same - breaking away from Union through the popular vote.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would we be here had the IRA campaign not happened...in my opinion, no, we wouldn't. You disagree. We are entitled to our opinions.

We would be in the same boat as the Scots. As I say, you've learned nothing from 35 years of failure.

Happyman42 wrote: »

At least we agree that a campaign by Loyalists/Unionists would be pointless.

As the republican campaign was. Yes.

Happyman42 wrote: »

RIRA operate in the same way as the PIRA, the Omagh bomb was driven from Dundalk allegedly.
Loyalists could not do that, they would be much more constrained and contained.
They managed to get bombs to Dublin and Monaghan but only with security forces collusion. That is the only reason we didn't have more, it just wasn't logistically possible.

Your denial is something special alright. You think there's some special skill in putting a bomb together that requires a Dundalk address? You keep repeating the same guff about Monaghan/Dublin, but as every inquiry has shown, the bombs were no different to other loyalist bombs planted over NI beforehand. They didn't need any security forces collusion to make the bombs, and they certainly didn't need any help in driving them south of the border. Your fantasy of inept loyalists without a broader sympathy base and ample access to secure bomb making resources, is frankly, naive.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The British did rather more to get rid of a sectarian state. Republicans didn't get rid of anything until they stole the clothes of the SDLP.

The British shored up the sectarian statlet and caused the situation to ignite. Basic history there.

There are two governments involved - the Scottish and the UK governments. Partition would be the consequence of Scottish independence. The issues are precisely the same - breaking away from Union through the popular vote.

Independence will be by consent for the Scots, Partition was forced on Ireland.
Different issues.

We would be in the same boat as the Scots. As I say, you've learned nothing from 35 years of failure.

How long have the Scots been waiting to vote on independence again?
We absolutely wouldn't be this far down the road. But if you can't even be critical of SDLP dithering and mistakes then I understand you have no hope of seeing that.

Your denial is something special alright. You think there's some special skill in putting a bomb together that requires a Dundalk address? You keep repeating the same guff about Monaghan/Dublin, but as every inquiry has shown, the bombs were no different to other loyalist bombs planted over NI beforehand. They didn't need any security forces collusion to make the bombs, and they certainly didn't need any help in driving them south of the border. Your fantasy of inept loyalists without a broader sympathy base and ample access to secure bomb making resources, is frankly, naive.

They may have a sympathy base but it will be a constrained and hemmed in one.
I cannot see where they will be supplied from and logisticaly how they will get a secure supply in. My eyes are wide open, the world is a changed place, if you are moving large volume of armaments then you are going to attract attention, a group like the IRA would find it difficult in today's climate.

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

Your fantasy of inept loyalists without a broader sympathy base and ample access to secure bomb making resources, is frankly, naive.

In the event of a UI, or moves toward it, to what ends would loyalist violence be? A 'West Bank' style arrangement with loyalist enclaves controlled by Loyalist paramilitaries?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The British shored up the sectarian statlet and caused the situation to ignite. Basic history there.

Basic republican narrative, but not one that tally's with the facts.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Independence will be by consent for the Scots, Partition was forced on Ireland.
Different issues.

Partition was a consequence of Irish demands - North and South. The British just responded to those demands. A 32 county Ireland will be derived from the consent of the voters of NI. Same issue.

Happyman42 wrote: »

How long have the Scots been waiting to vote on independence again?
We absolutely wouldn't be this far down the road. But if you can't even be critical of SDLP dithering and mistakes then I understand you have no hope of seeing that.

You're quite assured for a man who knew nothing about the issue of Scottish independence a few hours ago. Bottom line is that a vote on Scottish independence is likely to happen before a vote in NI, and with the bonus of no thousands murdered for that process. Quite a damning verdict for the merits of the 'Republican Movement's' strategy in NI.

Happyman42 wrote: »

They may have a sympathy base but it will be a constrained and hemmed in one.
I cannot see where they will be supplied from and logisticaly how they will get a secure supply in. My eyes are wide open, the world is a changed place, if you are moving large volume of armaments then you are going to attract attention, a group like the IRA would find it difficult in today's climate.

You can't see alright. The climate for leaving fertilizer bombs in public spaces is no more difficult now than it was in Omagh. Building such bombs just needs a shed with a bit of seclusion - it doesn't require any complex logistics or Percival security measures. It also doesn't require large numbers of people. The world is precisely the same as it was 16 years ago in that regard - possibly even less secure, and most definitely less secure under a 32 county Irish security arrangement - with much of that expertise under the umbrella of the British security presence.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

In the event of a UI, or moves toward it, to what ends would loyalist violence be? A 'West Bank' style arrangement with loyalist enclaves controlled by Loyalist paramilitaries?

Is that any more ludicrous than 'Free Derry', 'Victory in '73', or 'Eire Nua'?

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

The climate for leaving fertilizer bombs in public spaces is no more difficult now than it was in Omagh.

If former 'loyalists' (they'd surely be disloyal for their actions) were to manage to start blowing things up (I don't believe they'd have the capability, will, support network, or endgame) but let's just pretend they did, to what ends would be their actions?

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

If former 'loyalists' (they'd surely be disloyal for their actions) were to mange to start blowing things up (I don't believe they'd have the capability, will, support network, or endgame) but let's just pretend they did, to what ends would be their actions?

They've blown things, and people, apart in the past. Why would you be surprised at their capacity to do so in the future? Their goal would be to subvert a 32 county Ireland - just as the republican goal was to subvert the 6 counties NI. Attainable end goals haven't counted for much in this conflict, and are unlikely to count for much in any future conflict.

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

Is that any more ludicrous than 'Free Derry', 'Victory in '73', or 'Eire Nua'?

You're answering a question with a question.

If you could just park your anti-Republican mania for a few seconds and stop seeing these debates as a zero-sum-game you might come up with cogent answer for the following question.

What would be the ends of loyalist violence in the event of a majority vote for a UI?

Go on. Give it a go.

Richard

Karl Stein wrote: »

If former 'loyalists' (they'd surely be disloyal for their actions) were to mange to start blowing things up (I don't believe they'd have the capability, will, support network, or endgame) but let's just pretend they did, to what ends would be their actions?

They don't need ends, at least not realistic ones. They just need to be annoyed that "themm'uns get everything".

Richard

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nope, googled it there and Scotland was never partitioned

If there's a Yes vote in September then Great Britain will be.

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

Their goal would be to subvert a 32 county Ireland

To what ends? Come on alastair. Give it a go. Park the anti-Republican anti-Nationalist mania for a second and consider the question.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

You're answering a question with a question. .

Well spotted.

Karl Stein wrote: »

If you could just park your anti-Republican mania for a few seconds and stop seeing these debates as a zero-sum-game you might come up with cogent answer for the following question.

What would be the ends of loyalist violence in the event of a majority vote for a UI?

Go on. Give it a go.

You got your answer. There is no achievable outcome for a campaign of violence. There never was. Did that stop said campaign? Is the RIRA sixteen years down the line in the belief that they're going to succeed where the IRA didn't? Logic doesn't play much of a role in these groups.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

To what ends? Come on alastair. Give it a go. Park the anti-Republican anti-Nationalist mania for a second and consider the question.

I did, and gave you an answer. Try and focus.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Basic republican narrative, but not one that tally's with the facts.

So the arrival of British troops, events like Bloody Sunday, Internment etc didn't ignite the situation?
Carry on Alastair, I'm not getting into that one.

Partition was a consequence of Irish demands - North and South. The British just responded to those demands. A 32 county Ireland will be derived from the consent of the voters of NI. Same issue.

Yes and they were also told it would be a mistake and forced it into being.

The Irish situation has different issues to the Scottish one.

You're quite assured for a man who knew nothing about the issue of Scottish independence a few hours ago. Bottom line is that a vote on Scottish independence is likely to happen before a vote in NI, and with the bonus of no thousands murdered for that process. Quite a damning verdict for the merits of the 'Republican Movement's' strategy in NI.

Different situation again, Scotland was not a sectarian statelet and did not have a minority community being trampled on.
The conflict ignited due to a government relinquishing it's responsibilities and having to be brought to the table to negotiate. Sad but true.

You can't see alright. The climate for leaving fertilizer bombs in public spaces is no more difficult now than it was in Omagh. Building such bombs just needs a shed with a bit of seclusion - it doesn't require any complex logistics or Percival security measures. It also doesn't require large numbers of people. The world is precisely the same as it was 16 years ago in that regard - possibly even less secure, and most definitely less secure under a 32 county Irish security arrangement - with much of that expertise under the umbrella of the British security presence.

As I said earlier (but you ignored) the British will be very very keen to see to it that a Loyalist/Unionist campaign fails. Intelligence will be shared like never before and they won't need to do it secretly.
Very daunting prospect, hemmed in, no secure overland routes. Almost impossible to sustain a campaign would be my opinion.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

So the arrival of British troops, events like Bloosy Sunday, Internment etc didn't ignite the situation?
Carry on Alastair, I'm not getting into that one.

The arrival of a British troops led to the dismantling of the sectarian state.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes and they were also told it would be a mistake and forced it into being.

It was entirely Irish demands that forced partition. 100% Irish.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Irish situation has different issues to the Scottish one.

Sure, but at the heart it's about breaking with the Union by the consent of the voters in those regions. Except that thousands died in one case, because of a pointless conflict.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Different situation again, Scotland was not a sectarian statelet and did not have a minority community being trampled on.
The conflict ignited due to a government relinquishing it's responsibilities and having to be brought to the table to negotiate. Sad but true.

NI is not a sectarian statelet, and hasn't been one for more than 40 years. There is no minority community being trampled on, hasn't been for years. That minority community voted time and time again for constitutional politics of the kind that brought about the poll for independence in Scotland.Sadly there was an anti-democratic organisation that opted to ignore that mandate and instead opted to pursue a campaign of violence, allegedly in their name.

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I said earlier (but you ignored) the British will be very very keen to see to it that a Loyalist/Unionist campaign fails. Intelligence will be shared like never before and they won't need to do it secretly.
Very daunting prospect, hemmed in, no secure overland routes. Almost impossible to sustain a campaign would be my opinion.

Your opinion is based on a fantasy. Intelligence has been shared for a long time now, and yet the RIRA continue to plant bombs. Your super-security splurge is just woo.

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

There is no achievable outcome for a campaign of violence.

Let me explain to you what you're doing because I'm not confident you understand yourself. You're invoking 'loyalist' violence in the event of a UI in a flaccid attempt to make the case that it should not, or will never, happen.

A parade of horribles is also a rhetorical device whereby the speaker argues against taking a certain course of action by listing a number of extremely undesirable events which will ostensibly result from the action. Its power lies in the emotional impact of the unpleasant predictions

'Its power lies in its emotional impact'.

Your anti-Republican/Nationalist emotions, strong as they undoubtedly are, have supplanted reason.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

Let me explain to you what you're doing because I'm not confident you understand yourself. You're invoking 'loyalist' violence in the event of a UI in a flaccid attempt to make the case that it should not, or will never, happen.

I am? Oh, wait. I'm not.
I'm responding to the lie that a 32 county Ireland is in prospect any time soon. It may well happen at some point, but it'll only be when loyalists have lent their consent, because without it, those 30% of non-committal voters will be well aware what coerced sovereignty brings out in that small minority who believe they can bomb and shoot their way to an improved settlement. So it'll not arise, because pragmatism (on this and the obvious economic / social provision issues) will push any change well down the road.

Karl Stein wrote: »

Your anti-Republican/Nationalist emotions, strong as they undoubtedly are, have supplanted reason.

It's an entirely reasoned position.

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

It may well happen at some point, but it'll only be when loyalists have lent their consent,

Lol, no. Loyalists define themselves considerably by their opposition to a UI. The gears of a UI will begin to turn when the majority decide it, loyalists have no veto. It will be supported with gusto by the vast majority of British people who view loyalism as alien and would love to drop the hot potato forever more. Loyalists are all too aware of this.

because without it, those 30% of non-committal voters will be well aware what coerced sovereignty brings out in that small minority who believe they can bomb and shoot their way to an improved settlement.

Your parade of horribles gets ever more fantastical in your mind.

Let's do a little thought experiment alastair. A majority vote for a UI and the gears begin to turn - what would loyalists' demands for an 'improved settlement' (your words, own them) be?

Richard

Karl Stein wrote: »

Let's do a little thought experiment alastair. A majority vote for a UI and the gears begin to turn - what would loyalists' demands for an 'improved settlement' (your words, own them) be?

I'll answer your question or "thought experiment" as you seem to want to call it.

I presume loyalists would be more likely to lend their support if there was (off the top of my head):

A guarantee that the NI devolved assembly would continue.

The right to maintain British Citizenship

A replacement of the Irish Tricolour

Some guarantees on parading, Irish language and culture.

Apart from the last point, many Unionists would be swayed by these too. And the SDLP have said they'd want the NI Assembly to continue in a UI.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

Lol, no. Loyalists define themselves considerably by their opposition to a UI. The gears of a UI will begin to turn when the majority decide it, loyalists have no veto. It will be supported with gusto by the vast majority of British people who view loyalism as alien and would love to drop the hot potato forever more. Loyalists are all too aware of this.

Try a little comprehension. I'm not talking about any loyalist veto. I'm talking about that critical 30% who have no ideological position on the union, or who are simply undecided - they're not going to vote for ending the union if it looks like it would kick off renewed violence. That's the point I'm making. As to how loyalists define themselves? As we've seen, there's compromise, and even ideologues can resign themselves to compromise if it's framed appropriately. The British attitude to loyalism, unionism, nationalism, and republicanism is a complete irrelevance. It's not anything to do with them.

Karl Stein wrote: »

Your parade of horribles gets ever more fantastical in your mind.

Let's do a little thought experiment alastair. A majority vote for a UI and the gears begin to turn - what would loyalists' demands for an 'improved settlement' (your words, own them) be?

Again - my point is that we're well short of demonstrating any majority willing to vote for a united Ireland. The floating voters will certainly consider the prevailing attitudes (as well as judge the economic repercussions) in making their decision.

twowheelsgood

Richard wrote: »

I presume loyalists would be more likely to lend their support ….

The likelihood of loyalists / unionists lending their support is about as close to zero as makes no difference. They may have no choice in the matter and in time, maybe even one generation, they might grudgingly tolerate it.

But the idea that they might be persuaded is just one of the dafter things republicans come out with. You might as well be trying to persuade a die-hard Man U fan to support Liverpool!

gallag

Karl Stein wrote: »

To what ends? Come on alastair. Give it a go. Park the anti-Republican anti-Nationalist mania for a second and consider the question.

I would imagine if there was a united Ireland with no chance of returning to the UK the the goal of unionists in N.I would be for an independent N.I.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

They will contribute a one off figure rather than continue to bail out what is an economic basket case, which clearly needs the austerity we have undergone to fix our problems. Gonna have to happen.

Have you a link to this agreement on a one off figure or is it another of your beliefs?

Edit: And if they are as duplicitous as you say, what makes you so sure they won't renege on this as well??

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did I say there was? Republicans stood up to and got rid of it. It won't be coming back.



.

Which is why everyone is now happy with the current status quo which is unlikely to change in my lifetime (other than a few cosmetic changes of more North/South quangos and some infrastructure projects).