Opinions on Irish identity

recedite

murphaph wrote: »

Who knows what they'd do. I bet you the IRA would have had suicide bombers if it was a thing back then.

Nope, they didn't have the 72 virgins waiting for them in paradise after a suicide mission. Not then, not now either.

blanch152

The Golden Miller wrote: »

What is being suggested here exactly? That if a democratic vote took place and a United Ireland was agreed to by a majority, it should be ignored and subverted due to the threat of loyalist terrorism?

No, that hasn't been suggested by anyone.

However, some people have clearly suggested that if the democratic vote for Brexit resulted in a hard border, then there will be republican violence. I take it that you don't agree?

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

No, that hasn't been suggested by anyone.

However, some people have clearly suggested that if the democratic vote for Brexit resulted in a hard border, then there will be republican violence. I take it that you don't agree?

Might not be violence, but there would be civic unrest which would make NI a very unpleasant place to live.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Might not be violence, but there would be civic unrest which would make NI a very unpleasant place to live.

Francie and others have clearly stated that a hard Brexit would mean a return to violence from republicans, that says an awful lot about how they view the nationalist community and the values driving republicanism.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Francie and others have clearly stated that a hard Brexit would mean a return to violence from republicans, that says an awful lot about how they view the nationalist community and the values driving republicanism.

Francie believes there will be violence on all sides, which is slightly different assessment.
But then Francie doesn't believe that one side was to blame for the cyclical conflict on this island. Nor spend his time trying to drag every conversation around to his pet subject.

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

No, that hasn't been suggested by anyone.

However, some people have clearly suggested that if the democratic vote for Brexit resulted in a hard border, then there will be republican violence. I take it that you don't agree?

There may or may not be violence. Who knows? What we do know is violence by republicans will not dictate any final resolution, so why do you believe loyalist violence should dictate any final resolution to a United Ireland?

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

Francie and others have clearly stated that a hard Brexit would mean a return to violence from republicans, that says an awful lot about how they view the nationalist community and the values driving republicanism.

A 26 county partitionist pretending to defend the moral upstanding of northern nationalists? Keep spinning

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Francie and others have clearly stated that a hard Brexit would mean a return to violence from republicans, that says an awful lot about how they view the nationalist community and the values driving republicanism.

Civic unrest lead to violence in the past, so I wouldn't be surprised if history repeated itself. Bearing in mind how dependent the British Gov. are on the DUP, it could get ugly for nationalists in NI.

murphaph

The Golden Miller wrote: »

There may or may not be violence. Who knows? What we do know is violence by republicans will not dictate any final resolution, so why do you believe loyalist violence should dictate any final resolution to a United Ireland?

Because the average voter in the south cares more about their kids not being caught up in a loyalist attack than about a UI. It's called being pragmatic I suppose. If I'm happy that loyalist terrorism poses little to no threat I could vote for a UI if the financial side made sense but as a father I couldn't vote for one if I thought for a moment my kids could likely end up in the middle of something that could have been prevented by simply keeping the status quo.

murphaph

The Golden Miller wrote: »

A 26 county partitionist pretending to defend the moral upstanding of northern nationalists? Keep spinning

You can't escape the logic of his argument.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

You can't escape the logic of his argument.

If you are predisposed to believe that one side was always to blame, I suppose you would see his argument as 'logical'.

The Golden Miller

murphaph wrote: »

Because the average voter in the south cares more about their kids not being caught up in a loyalist attack than about a UI. It's called being pragmatic I suppose. If I'm happy that loyalist terrorism poses little to no threat I could vote for a UI if the financial side made sense but as a father I couldn't vote for one if I thought for a moment my kids could likely end up in the middle of something that could have been prevented by simply keeping the status quo.

Well considering loyalism's military campaign was highly inefficient during the height of the troubles despite having the support and intelligence of the British state, what capacity do you believe it has when a bunch of small scale glorified drug dealers are stood down by both the British and Irish army? Why is it dissident republicans are rarely able to mount any sort of attack?

The Golden Miller

murphaph wrote: »

You can't escape the logic of his argument.

He is the same person who believes republican violence should be defiantly stood down, yet loyalist violence should decide our futures. But logic you say?

Jim 77

Ulsterman96 wrote: »

My question is, I am a 19 year old from the north and come from a very mixed religious background family,  and growing up I was raised not to judge people on where they're from or what religion, political stance they belong to and I am thankful for this. I am aware of both my linage of having both grandparents from the south and grandparents of Scottish decent, and recently have become very compelled to embrace both cultures, but whilst doing so, especially in the north it feels like its either, you're British or you're Irish, and I honestly feel I do not belong to any of these and struggle with my identity because of the divide of the island and so I feel Northern Irish is the only identity I feel comfortable expressing and so I just wanted to get other peoples opinions of this identity from across Ireland.

Ok, here's my opinion:
Geographically you're Northern Irish, Irish, European, Terrestrial...
Politically you're Northern Irish, British, optionally Irish, an EU citizen pending final outcome of Brexit.

blanch152

The Golden Miller wrote: »

A 26 county partitionist pretending to defend the moral upstanding of northern nationalists? Keep spinning

The Golden Miller wrote: »

He is the same person who believes republican violence should be defiantly stood down, yet loyalist violence should decide our futures. But logic you say?

Please stop telling lies about my posts.

(1) I believe in a united Ireland.

(2) I oppose all violence.

I have been consistent on both those points over many threads and posts.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Please stop telling lies about my posts.

(1) I believe in a united Ireland.

(2) I oppose all violence.

I have been consistent on both those points over many threads and posts.

I think number 2 is a delusion prevalent in a certain Irish identity to be honest.
Silence can support violence and it has on this island.
And there are those who have been consistently silent on British and Irish violence against communities on this island, happy, because the fact that it has never been inquired into properly and not proven as a result, that it never took place.
You have most recently dismissed Heavy Gang violence for this reason, for instance.

For those reasons I would dispute your 'opposition' to violence.

My view would be that violence of one sort or another is sadly inevitable and I would be in favour of building societies where there is no need for it. i.e. removing the sources of conflict and inequalities.

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

Please stop telling lies about my posts.

(1) I believe in a united Ireland.

And I support partition. Except neither those statements are believable. Who's benefit are you lying for?

blanch152 wrote: »

(2) I oppose all violence.

I have been consistent on both those points over many threads and posts.

Except ever only see fit to condemn one side. Why do you believe republican violence should be defiantly stood down, yet loyalist violence should be a factor in determining our future?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Francie believes there will be violence on all sides, which is slightly different assessment.
But then Francie doesn't believe that one side was to blame for the cyclical conflict on this island. Nor spend his time trying to drag every conversation around to his pet subject.

You may say now that you believe that there will be violence on all sides, but in earlier posts, you have already made clear that the loyalist community (to their credit) have no appetite for large scale sustained violence, yet in other posts you warn of a return to serious republican violence in the event of a hard border.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think you and the others commenting at the moment fully understand the unionist identity. There is no appetite for large scale sustained violence in the majority of that community.
If there was we would have had a bloodbath already.
What we have gotten is localised violence from a dying rump of 'loyalism'.
Unionism would have rejected the GFA on a much larger scale because it set out the roadmap for a UI.

You may not realise what you are saying about the republican community but it is clear. I have much more faith in the republican community than you do, and I believe that there won't be a return to political violence in the event of a hard border. Yes, there will be an increase in criminality linked to smuggling, some of which the perpetrators will seek to get political cover for, but that is all.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You may say now that you believe that there will be violence on all sides, but in earlier posts, you have already made clear that the loyalist community (to their credit) have no appetite for large scale sustained violence, yet in other posts you warn of a return to serious republican violence in the event of a hard border.



You may not realise what you are saying about the republican community but it is clear. I have much more faith in the republican community than you do, and I believe that there won't be a return to political violence in the event of a hard border. Yes, there will be an increase in criminality linked to smuggling, some of which the perpetrators will seek to get political cover for, but that is all.

I was speaking about the entire unionist community. A huge portion of which would have to be onboard for a violent campaign to sustain itself. Facts show us that the vast majority of Unionism is not onboard, otherwise there would have been a sustained campaign of violence when a UI by consensus was voted on i.e. The GFA.
They tried to sustain but couldn't and the campaign withered out and they got on with it.,

Elements of the Republican community has responded with violence to state violence and partition and by sheer volume of numbers on both sides of the border has been able to sustain it.

There is no more or less a propensity for violence on either side. The facts don't support you on this.

A Little Pony

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

It's bigger than just flags or parades, it's Japan 1945 throwing yourself off cliffs type situation for Unionists.

Utter rubbish.

To you, not to thousands of actual Unionists like myself. It's stuff of nightmares to be frank about it. I'd rather be dead.

The Golden Miller

A Little Pony wrote: »

To you, not to thousands of actual Unionists like myself. It's stuff of nightmares to be frank about it. I'd rather be dead.

You rather be dead than support an agreed democratic decision? So in essence, you don't support democracy unless it suits?

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

To you, not to thousands of actual Unionists like myself. It's stuff of nightmares to be frank about it. I'd rather be dead.

How do you think the Unionist identity will respond in the event of a UI vote passing?

A Little Pony

The Golden Miller wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

To you, not to thousands of actual Unionists like myself. It's stuff of nightmares to be frank about it. I'd rather be dead.

You rather be dead than support an agreed democratic decision? So in essence, you don't support democracy unless it suits?

Go with the people, but if you are dead you don't know about it. So it makes perfect sense.

The Golden Miller

A Little Pony wrote: »

Go with the people, but if you are dead you don't know about it. So it makes perfect sense.

So you'd rather die opposing the democratic will of the people, or you'd just commit suicide?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was speaking about the entire unionist community. A huge portion of which would have to be onboard for a violent campaign to sustain itself. Facts show us that the vast majority of Unionism is not onboard, otherwise there would have been a sustained campaign of violence when a UI by consensus was voted on i.e. The GFA.
They tried to sustain but couldn't and the campaign withered out and they got on with it.,

Elements of the Republican community has responded with violence to state violence and partition and by sheer volume of numbers on both sides of the border has been able to sustain it.

There is no more or less a propensity for violence on either side. The facts don't support you on this.

I really don't get the logic of your argument.

The evidence from the 1970s was that only a small minority of the Republican community were onboard for a violent campaign. True, there was serious intimidation with kneecapping, beatings etc. being par for the course, but only a small minority were needed to sustain it. Yet you argue that the opposite is required in the loyalist community.

Again, my position is that people in general have grown beyond seeing violence as a political solution in the North and it is only the criminal elements seeking cover for their activity and the old men in the corner who cling to the notion. Maybe my benign view of people and their maturity is naive but I don't see any real potential for violence in either community. You only have to see today's trial result to understand how pathetic the republican threat is.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I really don't get the logic of your argument.

The evidence from the 1970s was that only a small minority of the Republican community were onboard for a violent campaign. True, there was serious intimidation with kneecapping, beatings etc. being par for the course, but only a small minority were needed to sustain it. Yet you argue that the opposite is required in the loyalist community.

Again, my position is that people in general have grown beyond seeing violence as a political solution in the North and it is only the criminal elements seeking cover for their activity and the old men in the corner who cling to the notion. Maybe my benign view of people and their maturity is naive but I don't see any real potential for violence in either community. You only have to see today's trial result to understand how pathetic the republican threat is.

My assessment is different. Based on what I have seen and what I can see.

Violence in reaction to political events is as old as the world itself.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My assessment is different. Based on what I have seen and what I can see.

Violence in reaction to political events is as old as the world itself.

It is the consistency of your assessment and the underpinning logic that I have issues with.

There is no compelling reason in any of your posts as to why the loyalist community can't sustain a terrorist campaign when the republican community can. You make this statement repeatedly yet you deny all the possible reasons why this is so.

It is like saying that Arsenal are a more successful club than Spurs, without explaining why and just keep returning to the single statement that one is better than the other.

murphaph

In a UI the loyalists would be attacking the south. They would have fixed easy targets like Garda stations to pipe bomb just like the IRA had fixed targets in the UK and further afield.

The loyalists had to try to get at moving targets like IRA men. Not as easy at all as planting a bomb in post box and walking away but that is the kind of stuff loyalists would be up to if they were motivated to.

It would be the IRA campaign in reverse, just to show the taigs in Dublin what's what.

Sure it probably wouldn't happen any more than republicans will start killing customs men on the border but if there was a chance of it most people down south would just reject a UI for a quiet life.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It is the consistency of your assessment and the underpinning logic that I have issues with.

There is no compelling reason in any of your posts as to why the loyalist community can't sustain a terrorist campaign when the republican community can. You make this statement repeatedly yet you deny all the possible reasons why this is so.

It is like saying that Arsenal are a more successful club than Spurs, without explaining why and just keep returning to the single statement that one is better than the other.

I did explain why I reached that assessment.

Loyalism/Unionism would be easily hemmed in and monitored by both authorities intent on stopping them. Look at how difficult they found it to act outside their communities during the conflict even with alleged collusion with BA and RUC for the facts there.
Republicans would not be as restricted and numerically, i.e. the ratio of people willing to support them, north and south, they would easily be larger in number. Look at the history of the conflict for the simple facts there.

You can keep ignoring that I have offered this if you like but you are wrong here too.

Both have the same propensity for violence but only one can sustain it imo for the reasons stated. And before you say it, there is no triumphalism intended, in saying it.

A Little Pony

To think Unionists/Loyalists couldn't start a terror campaign by bombing and shooting Garda and Irish soldiers in Protestant areas and down South is extremely naive. It would be an armed struggle, the target would be much easier and defined. You would aim for the economic hub of the Irish state, blow it to pieces, disrupt infrastructure, so take out railways, water supplies, keep businesses from around the world wanting to invest because of the chaos. 

All very easily achievable. The question is why would Southern people vote for that.

Junkyard Tom

A Little Pony wrote: »

To think Unionists/Loyalists couldn't start a terror campaign by bombing and shooting Garda and Irish soldiers in Protestant areas and down South is extremely naive. It would be an armed struggle, the target would be much easier and defined. You would aim for the economic hub of the Irish state, blow it to pieces, disrupt infrastructure, so take out railways, water supplies, keep businesses from around the world wanting to invest because of the chaos. 

All very easily achievable. The question is why would Southern people vote for that.

Even if we pretend that unionists could what would they hope to achieve?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I did explain why I reached that assessment.

Loyalism/Unionism would be easily hemmed in and monitored by both authorities intent on stopping them. Look at how difficult they found it to act outside their communities during the conflict even with alleged collusion with BA and RUC for the facts there.
Republicans would not be as restricted and numerically, i.e. the ratio of people willing to support them, north and south, they would easily be larger in number. Look at the history of the conflict for the simple facts there.

You can keep ignoring that I have offered this if you like but you are wrong here too.

Both have the same propensity for violence but only one can sustain it imo for the reasons stated. And before you say it, there is no triumphalism intended, in saying it.

I never said there was any triumphalism in saying it - in fact the opposite. It is a very sad and despairing thing that there are people out there from the republican community who believe that their community could and will (under certain circumstances) support a terrorist campaign to overthrow a democratic decision.

When you say "the ratio of people willing to support them", you are pointing to a greater propensity in the nationalist community to support violence or to protect those engaged in violence. That is truly a shameful situation for any decent Irishman.

Your point is clear and understood, though ultimately disheartening, if true.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I never said there was any triumphalism in saying it - in fact the opposite. It is a very sad and despairing thing that there are people out there from the republican community who believe that their community could and will (under certain circumstances) support a terrorist campaign to overthrow a democratic decision.

When you say "the ratio of people willing to support them", you are pointing to a greater propensity in the nationalist community to support violence or to protect those engaged in violence. That is truly a shameful situation for any decent Irishman.

Your point is clear and understood, though ultimately disheartening, if true.

Do you understand what a ratio is?

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

To think Unionists/Loyalists couldn't start a terror campaign by bombing and shooting Garda and Irish soldiers in Protestant areas and down South is extremely naive. It would be an armed struggle, the target would be much easier and defined. You would aim for the economic hub of the Irish state, blow it to pieces, disrupt infrastructure, so take out railways, water supplies, keep businesses from around the world wanting to invest because of the chaos. 

All very easily achievable. The question is why would Southern people vote for that.

Just a few questions arising from that.
There will be a transition period I would imagine with areas retaining policing structures for a number of years.

Would Unionists/Loyalists support shooting members of a transitional police force made up of policemen from their own areas?

What would be different, logistically speaking, from the last conflict that would allow them to blow the economic hub of Ireland to pieces?

Will they shoot British forces who stop them bringing in the weaponry to sustain this campaign?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you understand what a ratio is?

Certainly I do:

https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/ratio.html

https://nrich.maths.org/4825


http://www.montereyinstitute.org/courses/DevelopmentalMath/COURSE_TEXT_RESOURCE/U04_L1_T1_text_final.html

Here is your quotation again:

"Republicans would not be as restricted and numerically, i.e. the ratio of people willing to support them, north and south, they would easily be larger in number"

The key word in the sentence is ratio. When you use the word ratio in this context, there can only be one meaning - the proportion of the nationalist community willing to support republican terrorists is higher than that of the unionist community supporting loyalist terrorists.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just a few questions arising from that.
There will be a transition period I would imagine with areas retaining policing structures for a number of years.

Would Unionists/Loyalists support shooting members of a transitional police force made up of policemen from their own areas?

What would be different, logistically speaking, from the last conflict that would allow them to blow the economic hub of Ireland to pieces?

Will they shoot British forces who stop them bringing in the weaponry to sustain this campaign?

We are once again drawn into a comparison between the two communities. We know the attitude that the republican community, as recently as 2010, had to their own that joined the PSNI

https://www.independent.ie/sport/columnists/joe-brolly/joe-brolly-spurned-bombed-and-maimed-by-his-own-kind-36270245.html

Are you saying that members of the unionist community would be above all that, and would be happy with a police force answering to the South? Are you once again accidentally demonising your own community in order to try and prove that there would be no resistance to a united Ireland?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Certainly I do:

https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/ratio.html

https://nrich.maths.org/4825


http://www.montereyinstitute.org/courses/DevelopmentalMath/COURSE_TEXT_RESOURCE/U04_L1_T1_text_final.html

Here is your quotation again:

"Republicans would not be as restricted and numerically, i.e. the ratio of people willing to support them, north and south, they would easily be larger in number"

The key word in the sentence is ratio. When you use the word ratio in this context, there can only be one meaning - the proportion of the nationalist community willing to support republican terrorists is higher than that of the unionist community supporting loyalist terrorists.

No, the overall number of nationalists/republicans north and south is higher than the overall number of loyalists and unionists north and south therefore the number willing to support a militant campaign will be higher. Simple maths. And backed up by the history of the conflict/war.

Sorry to thwart you again, but can you just accept that I am NOT saying there is a higher propensity for violence in republican communities no matter how hard you try to put those words in my mouth.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

We are once again drawn into a comparison between the two communities. We know the attitude that the republican community, as recently as 2010, had to their own that joined the PSNI

https://www.independent.ie/sport/columnists/joe-brolly/joe-brolly-spurned-bombed-and-maimed-by-his-own-kind-36270245.html

Are you saying that members of the unionist community would be above all that, and would be happy with a police force answering to the South? Are you once again accidentally demonising your own community in order to try and prove that there would be no resistance to a united Ireland?

You are claiming now that 'the republican community' supported what was done there?

Could you back that up in any factual way?

recedite

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you saying that members of the unionist community would be above all that, and would be happy with a police force answering to the South?

It would likely be a UI police force, not one answering to the south.
That might take some getting used to, for people in the south as well as for people in the north. Either that, or two separate regional police forces, both answering to a UI.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

It would likely be a UI police force, not one answering to the south.
That might take some getting used to, for people in the south as well as for people in the north. Either that, or two separate regional police forces.

The idea that a UI will be Dublin 'taking over' northern Ireland is completely wrongheaded. I think there would be a tremendous outreach to and involvement of unionists to ensure a unification that was as smooth as possible.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, the overall number of nationalists/republicans north and south is higher than the overall number of loyalists and unionists north and south therefore the number willing to support a militant campaign will be higher. Simple maths. And backed up by the history of the conflict/war.

Sorry to thwart you again, but can you just accept that I am NOT saying there is a higher propensity for violence in republican communities no matter how hard you try to put those words in my mouth.

But that is exactly what you said in this post:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

i.e. the ratio of people willing to support them, north and south, they would easily be larger in number.

It may well be that your misuse of the word ratio has caused confusion.

recedite

If we can move away from the maths terminology then, in simpler terms violent republicans could in the past call upon a large number of people to provide tacit and active support, both north and south, which allowed them to operate in all parts of the island. But violent loyalism has fewer people and is far more locally based.

blanch152

recedite wrote: »

If we can move away from the maths terminology then, in simpler terms violent republicans could in the past call upon a large number of people to provide tacit and active support, both north and south, which allowed them to operate in all parts of the island. But violent loyalism has fewer people and is far more locally based.

You are not comparing like with like.

If you are using the support both north and south for where violent republicans got their support, then you must use both the North and the rest of the UK for violent loyalists.

In that case, you still get back to the propensity to support violence in the respective communities.

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

You are not comparing like with like.

If you are using the support both north and south for where violent republicans got their support, then you must use both the North and the rest of the UK for violent loyalists.

In that case, you still get back to the propensity to support violence in the respective communities.

And what added capacity did mainland UK loyalists provide in the past?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You are not comparing like with like.

If you are using the support both north and south for where violent republicans got their support, then you must use both the North and the rest of the UK for violent loyalists.

In that case, you still get back to the propensity to support violence in the respective communities.

You mean YOU want to get to that.
Because it is absolutely not what I was saying or implying.

blanch152

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And what added capacity did mainland UK loyalists provide in the past?

Are you saying that people in the rest of UK put a higher value on life than on political causes than say, people in the rest of Ireland?

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you saying that people in the rest of UK put a higher value on life than on political causes than say, people in the rest of Ireland?

When have loyalists on mainland UK added to the capacity of loyalist terrorism in the north?

blanch152

The Golden Miller wrote: »

When have loyalists on mainland UK added to the capacity of loyalist terrorism in the north?

I take it that's your answer, the lack of support reflects the fact that they put human life above the political cause of maintaining the union.

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

I take it that's your answer, the lack of support reflects the fact that they put human life above the political cause of maintaining the union.

Well no, I asked you a question on a statement you made and you've yet to answer it. So can we get a straight answer to a straight question this time please?

FrancieBrady

The only reason the Loyalist/Unionists didn't kill far more was their access to arms and explosives. Something their leaders complained about.

We, as Loyalists, didn’t have such impressive connections with the world of armaments [as the IRA]. Our first trawl of weapons looked like something from a WWI museum with bolt-action Steyr and Torino [Vetterli] rifles, shotguns, a few handguns and very little ammunition. The odd Lee-Enfield rifle or Sten sub-machinegun were a luxury

They simply hadn't the same number of munitions or the know how.

While arming a group would be more difficult in this day and age, it would become significantly more difficult for Loyalists/Unionism and it comes down to geography and where they are. Frankly they are hemmed in.
They no longer have the ability to secretly collude, with the police or the army either. Those days are over.
Neither have they the UDR to draw weaponry from. One of the reasons it was disbanded was because it was bleeding weaponry to anyone who wanted it apparently.

Contrast that with how the IRA ran their campaign during the previous conflict. The entire coastline to land arms and explosives, a much much bigger hinterland dotted with support. Significantly easier to maintain and sustain a campaign.

Yes there will probably be tremendous anger in some Unionist/loyalist identities but other than localised rioting and sporadic attacks I cannot see where a 'sustained campaign' capable of striking at the heart of the economy is going to come from.