Bloody Sunday was a key moment in the rise of the Provisional IRA. Thirty eight years later, The Saville Report is being published following the Provos’ disbandment. It would be unfortunate if the changed political circumstances were to dictate the way parties in the North respond to the findings.

There has been a strangely muted reaction to the outrageous plans of the Northern Ireland Office for publication of the Report. In a separate development, an attack on the Inquiry by the prospective Minister for Justice at Stormont resulted not in clear demands that he stand down but in frantic efforts by Nationalist politicians to rescue him from his own behaviour.

The fact that groups once at war have made their peace with the British establishment should have no bearing on judgments as to what happened in Derry in 1972. The political wing of the Parachute Regiment, the New Labour Government, represented in the North by the former Tory Shaun Woodward, is not an honest broker in relation to the Saville Report but an uncritical supporter of the British Army, a facilitator in the cover-up of crime.

The fact that appalling atrocities were also carried out in the North by both Nationalist and Unionist paramilitary groups cannot be allowed to obscure the ugly role of British forces, exemplified in the Bloody Sunday killings. The main paramilitary groups have either left the stage or say that they are in the process of so doing. Nothing less should be demanded of the perpetrators of the Derry massacre.

If, as many of us are confident will be the case, Lord Saville and his colleagues find that the Bloody Sunday killings were unlawful, the demand of all who have campaigned for the truth should be for the disbandment of the Parachute Regiment.  I believe that that demand should be voiced loudly and insistently at local councils, at Stormont, at Westminster and in every forum where we can find a hearing.

Woodward’s thorough bad faith is clear from his determination that representatives of the British Government, including members of MI5, be given days to pore over the Report before the families or their representatives are allowed sight of it. This is the same MI5 which supplied Army commanders with false information about the Bogside in the days before Bloody Sunday and which has just been denounced by Britain’s top judges for perjury and collusion in torture in the Binyam Mohamed case.  Woodward’s suggestion is that MI5 should be invited to recommend the deletion of lines in the Report which, in its opinion, would put national security at risk. 

This, of course, was the exact reason given by MI5 in the Mohamed case for wanting the suppression of documents relating to torture. The appeal rejected MI5 bona fides with something approaching contempt.

Despite all this, I suspect that some in the audience will have been entirely unaware of the role Woodward intends for MI5 in relation to Saville. There has hardly been a major controversy about the matter. This, in my view, is because Nationalist politicians don’t want a row which might unsettle the institutions which they have become part of.

The same issue is raised even more sharply by the outburst from the prospective Minster for Justice at Stormont, Alliance Party leader David Ford.  A leaked email revealed that Ford - like some Unionist sectarians, right-wing Tories, the Daily Mail etc. - regards the Bloody Sunday Inquiry as “pointless”. He’s entitled to his view. But it is a view which, whatever about other ministries, ought to have disqualified him immediately from the job of supervising the justice system.

But, astonishingly, it was the larger of the two nationalist parties which rushed most quickly to his rescue, arranging a meeting with a number of relatives of the victims at extremely short notice and then issuing Ford with a clean bill of health. The fear was that if their chosen nominee for the position wasn’t rehabilitated pronto, plans for the devolution of policing and justice might be endangered.

Once again, politics trumped truth.

I don’t make it a secret that my own views on these matters are dictated by my politics. I am a socialist, and therefore a firm opponent of both militarism and paramilitarism. I base my hopes for the future not on a system which takes the division between the communities for granted but on the self-activity of the mass of working class people. So I have no stake in the Stormont system. Neither do I believe that the choice before us is between the Stormont deal and a return to all-out violence. These are things we can debate over the coming years.

But we don’t have the luxury of years when it comes to Bloody Sunday. I say that even those who do have a stake in the system should step back, take a hard look and ask themselves whether, in this instance, and perhaps without thinking the issues through, they have not allowed the system to take precedence over all other considerations.

Whilst Arlene Foster might like to be MP, it is clear that unless there is a unity candidate unionism is most unlikely to retake FST. Furthermore, there is considerable the animosity between the DUP and UUP in FST and many UUP members remain annoyed with Foster personally for having jumped ship from the UUP to the DUP. Hence, any personal ambition she may have to be an MP is unrealistic, at least in the short term, and as such her standing aside is maybe less painful for her than if she had a good chance of being elected. In addition since the DUP’s decision to enter power sharing with the UUP, support for the DUP seems to have dropped in FST. Although Foster herself won the Enniskillen by election, easily defeating the UUP candidate; areas outside that district electoral area seem to have swung more firmly against the DUP. In the European election there was some suggestion that although some small unionist towns like Lisbellaw (within the Enniskillen DEA) stayed loyal to the DUP, others such as Kesh and Ballinamallard and the unionist vote in the border areas of West and South Fermanagh has moved away from the DUP. The South Tyrone part of FST has also been suggested to have become more disenchanted with the DUP following their entry into government with Sinn Fein.

In view of all of this it was quite possible that if Arlene Foster were to stand again against Tom Elliott for the Westminster election, she might come off second best in the intra unionist contest: the opposite result to the 2005 election. Such an outcome would be a bit of a blow to the DUP and, hence, for Foster to offer to stand aside is further good politics as it will then increase the pressure on Tom Elliott to do likewise and help allow an agreed civic unionist candidate to emerge. Although Norman Baxter has ruled himself out, he may come under renewed pressure to reconsider his position and indeed the CUs may be put under pressure to allow some form of words to be devised which could permit an agreed candidate to be less than a fully fledged member of the Conservative Party should they win at the general election.

All the above also leaves aside the effect that an agreed unionist candidate would have on nationalist / republican voting intentions. Although Fearghal McKinney the former UTV presenter has declared his intention of running for the SDLP, this is a seat which would require a seismic shift in voting for the SDLP to win. Rather it is quite possible that an agreed unionist candidate would result in an even larger percentage of the nationalist vote supporting Michelle Gildernew in an attempt to head off a unionist victory. It might also reduce any tendency to a fall in Gildernew’s hard line vote from those who object to Sinn Fein’s supposed compromises. Though few would see Ms. Gildernew as on the moderate wing of Sinn Fein; Fermanagh seems to have amongst the largest percentage of republicans who object to the new dispensation. If there were a single unionist candidate, then the SDLP might, paradoxically find a reduction in its vote despite their new high profile candidate and the election might begin to approximate to the bitter head count battles of 1981 when the SDLP failed to stand against either Bobby Sands or Owen Carron.

Although it’s worth noting that the Crescent Capital news section includes an Irish News report on Fund III, “which Crescent fund managers claim will raise up to £60 million”, which reveals

Crescent says the pre-marketing phase to the third as yet un-named fund has already started, and its team is preparing to speak to institutional investors in America and Scandinavia, as well as Britain and Ireland, ahead of its proposed launch in early 2011.

Central to its plans will be securing a Europe-wide tender which Invest NI is launching in the spring.

Whilst of the last investment fund, Crescent Capital II in 2004, worth £22.5 million.

Investors in Crescent Capital two included Invest NI (£7.5 million), the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee (£6 million) and the New York State Common Retirement Fund, the second biggest pension fund in the US.

and

A spokesman for Invest NI told the Irish News: “Subject to board approval, we intend to go out to tender in the next couple of months to select fund managers for two new funds – a co-investment scheme and a development fund.

“The co-investment scheme would co-invest alongside Business Angels and seek to encourage the development of the Halo network.

“The proposed development fund will work alongside private investors to meet the gap in access to capital in the local venture capital market for investments between £450,000 and £1.5 million.”

From the Bel Tel

The findings also show that a minority of people, some 40%, felt that having just the two rights were sufficient, while 44% argued they were not. When polled on socio-economic rights, however — such as the right to adequate accommodation or an adequate standard of living — up to 95% of respondents felt that this was very important. In summary, 83% of people felt that there should be more than just the two rights recommended by Government included in the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.

The old heart of the city behind Berry St strikes me as just about salvageable.  Bankmore St off Ormeau Ave was part of a mixed area of traditional terraces (focusing on Cassidy’s pub for some of us), whose name was appropriated for the sectarian killing ground of the lower Ormeau in the early 70s. Oldies will remember the Bankmore 11 football team that was almost wiped out. The small desert that remains is a kind of testimony to the terrible moral and social failures of that time. More social housing would seem to me highly desirable of the quality much of Belfast has enjoyed for the past 30 years. Development here presents a big challenge for Shared Future ideas, although by definition, these can’t be forced on communities.  Spare us from more speculative high rises and apartments please.  I was delighted to see that Maurice Craig, described here as “Ireland’s first conservation warrior” and author of the celebrated poem ( here slightly adapted as a song),  “May the Lord in his mercy be kind to Belfast” is still thriving, well into his nineties. The poem
(although not quite word for word accurately recalled here I think), is as fresh as ever.       

...the BPL [Boston Public Library] is in moderately hot fiscal water, and one solution that has been aired is the closing of a number of branch libraries. Both president Amy Ryan and board chairman Jeffrey Rudman insisted that they find this prospect distasteful, but that did little to pacify the crowd. The library-going public understandably does not want any branch closed.

Some suspect that this crisis is not entirely about money, and they’re probably right. The library is facing a shortfall of roughly $3.5 million, mostly because of expected state budget cuts. That is steep, but not necessarily insurmountable. Some people believe that the library could raise that much money, if money were the only issue.

No, another issue — carefully couched — is consolidation. That means closing underused branches or those in lousy facilities, instead of spending the money to make them marginally better. Of course, to say that publicly would be terrible politics, even if has the benefit of a certain cold logic. [emphasis added]

Politics to a certain extent is about divining the public will and acting in accordance with that… But can the public will can be about improving things in ways that produce good outcomes in the longer rather than the shorter term?

And from Section 4 of the report - “Analysis of Failures by DRD as Shareholder”

4.1 Background

The Shareholder Unit (SU) in DRD was originally established as one element of the overall governance model appropriate to NIW as a government owned company. As noted previously, from 2008-09 NIW was categorised as an NDPB for public expenditure purposes. This was an indirect result of the deferral of domestic water charging which necessitated the continuation of funding by DRD. This change in status coupled with the overall desire of the DRD Accounting Officer to improve public accountability led to the governance architecture for NIW being strengthened in May 2008. [added emphasis]

And

4.3 Findings

A key issue for NIW has been and continues to be the confusion over organisational strategy and the status of the organisation as both a GoCo and an NDPB. This has created an incredibly complex governance and stakeholder environment involving the Utility Regulator, the SU; and from 2008-09, the additional overlay of NDPB accountability requirements. In addition to the complexity of the model, evidence presented to the IRT has highlighted the significant resource commitment required across the entire governance system to maintain the model. This governance structure is heavily demanding on both DRD and NIW and is reflective of the increased public accountability. [added emphasis]

IRT’s key finding for DRD, as Shareholder, relates the slow speed of response to the following events:

• strengthening NED capacity and ensuring this was in line with good governance;
• appointing a new CEO following the Chair’s appointment into dual role; and
• appointing the CEO of NIW as Accounting Officer immediately following reclassification of the organisation as an NDPB.

The IRT recognises that the delays outlined above were in part due to the complex political environment surrounding the Water Reform programme and in part due to the timeline required to secure inter-Departmental approvals and clarification with DFP. That said, these delays contributed to the creation of a governance environment that has led to the circumstances in which the governance failures noted in the previous section have occurred. However, this is no excuse for the failures in procurement which have been identified within NIW.

In terms of DRD’s role in the Internal Audit environment of NIW we consider that prior to May 2008 DRD was slow to act to ensure that NIW was taking internal audit matters seriously. Recent events have demonstrated that the DRD has given enhanced attention to NIW’s performance in following up audit recommendations. The Department has been encouraged by the increased attention this matter has received under the direction of the current CEO to whom it has given strong support and encouragement.

Update As Nevin notes in the comments zone, the Chairman and two of the three non-Executive directors sacked had been re-appointed to the Board of NI Water by the Minister in April 2009.

“As somebody who was actually at Hatfield throughout, I can say that while one of the parties might have arrived with that agenda it was most definitely not the basis on which the Conservative Party brought the participants together.

“As we made clear at the time, the purpose was to help promote political stability and in particular explore means of overcoming the impasse on policing and justice and avoiding a collapse.

“There is only one electoral pact - between the Conservative Party and the Ulster Unionist Party.  That is what both parties are committed to making work.”

Firstly, the Ulster Unionist constitution allowed the party membership to recall it’s delegates (and in parties like this, your negotiators are delegates and not representatives) and instruct them on what position they could take in negotiations. This had three results

• They were unable to negotiate meaningfully while their opponents were under no such duress.
• They became an attractive target for ‘entryism’ and as soon as the negotiations were over, a large section of their party left to join a different party - the party for whom they had clearly been the agents for some considerable time
• They were electorally smashed at the subsequent elections. A lot of the sharper leadership material departed leaving the sort of geniuses who were able to negotiate this great victory in charge.

The British Labour Party succumbed to similar madness in the 1980s. The Bennites made a strategic decision to expose the party leadership to the wrath of its activists. It campaigned on a ‘deselect your MP’ platform whereby a small number of fanatics in the Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) would seek to unseat candidates who didn’t toe the anti-EEC / pro CND / Alternative Economic Strategy (AES) line. The net result was supposed to be a coherent party that could campaign on a socialist platform. It ignored a few key points:

1. They were they not popular polices in the first place. And, compounding this error, most political parties form their policies by negotiating with the electorate. This was effectively ruled out by this process
2. That there were small unrepresentative groupings - particularly Militant - that would be able to use this opportunity (in much the same way that the DUP used the UUP more than twenty years later) to use the party as a vehicle for their own party development

Militant weren’t as capable as the DUP and they managed to seriously damage the party and facilitated a polarisation of British politics. It allowed the Thatcherite Tory radicals a much more open run than they really deserved.

So, are the Lib-Dems open to a spot of Entryism of the Militant / DUP variety? None is evident at the moment. But take a look at their slogan, will you?

“Change that works for you. Building a fairer Britain”.

Labour’s slogan is “a future fair for all.” The Tories are going an a “year for change” message. This is not a party with a distinctive principled vision that it has communicated to the electorate. It’s not one that has a coherent membership.

Their leadership may have to conduct the biggest negotiations of their lives as delegates. Their instructions will come from a membership who is receiving overtures from the two other main parties.

I’m glad I’m not in Nick Clegg’s shoes.

And DC’s Improbable blog lists the culprits

Here is the roll of shame, updated on 12 March (the last six signed in the last 24 hours)

Tredinnick, David Con
Simpson, Alan Lab
Russell, Bob LibDem
Pound, Stephen Lab
Dismore, Andrew Lab
Simpson, David Democratic unionist
McDonnell, John Lab
Campbell, Gregory Democratic unionist
Cohen, Harry Lab
Corbyn, Jeremy Lab
Drew, David Lab
Gray, James Con
Hancock, Mike LibDem
Hermon, Lady Ulster unionist
Key, Robert Con
Hemming, John LibDem
Bone, Peter Con
Davies, Dai Independent
Mates, Michael Con
Dodds, Nigel Democratic unionist
Wyatt, Derek Lab
Sarwar, Mohammad Lab
Hamilton, Fabian Lab
Winterton, Nicholas Con
Davies, Philip Con
Leigh, Edward Con
Barlow, Celia Lab
Ellwood, Tobias Con
Leech, John Lib Dem
Main, Anne Lab
Robinson, Peter Democratic unionist
McCrea, Dr William Democratic unionist
Paisley, Ian Democratic unionist
Brady, Graham Con
Cook, Frank Lab
Hall, Patrick Lab
Binley, Brian Con
Pugh, John Lib dem
Davey, Edward Lib dem
Weir, Mike Scottish Nationalist
Sharma, Virendra Kumar Lab
Abbott, Diane Lab
Williams, Mark Lib dem
Horam, John Con
Widdecombe, Ann Con
Browne, Jeremy Lib dem
Spicer, Michael Con
Maclean, David Con
McCafferty, Chris Lab
Buck, Karen Lab
George, Andrew Lib Dem
Vis, Rudi Lab
Walter, Robert Lab
Whittingdale, John Con
Farron, Timothy Lib Dem

Is there a clue in an earlier Irish Times report?

Detectives in Ireland have been working on the case since late last year with their counterparts in the US and Europe, including Sweden. Those arrested yesterday are from Algeria, Croatia, Palestine, Libya and the US. They are aged in their mid-20s to late-40s. The Irish Times understands the suspects were taken into custody on the basis of information supplied to the Garda by the FBI that came to light after surveillance of the suspects’ communications, including e-mails.

The Ghosts of the Road

It was ghosts, he said, leaning over his pint
In the pensioners bar
You see them walking the road
Even in daylight
Hunched over talking to themselves
Bearing the weight of the past on the shoulders
Sure they’ve been cast aside
Used and spat out
Take your man, Smoky, aye, he was one of the best
Would have been bombing and shooting and
taking them on at the worst of things
He was one of their hardest bravest men
Or Bobby, I mind when Bobby wasn’t as he is
the way he is now like, sitting today already drunk
or more never stopped being drunk from
last night, last week, last month, last year;
Oh he was one who chased the women and had a curl in his hair
Really he wouldn’t hurt a fly
Unless he had to
Sure he’d been a soft touch underneath
And you’d be in your bed your face smashed from looking
at his girl the wrong way and suffering from a terrible hangover
When the door would be rapping at 7am
And who would be standing there with his face cleaned
looking slick and sorry, apologetic
For having hurt you the night before
Aw, man there’s so many ghosts walk this road and how messed up they are
Messed in the head and treated like dirt no matter what they gave the movement
It’d break your heart so it would
If you really knew the history of these men
these women who yell and scream at anything going
Nothing broke them, not the Brits, not the screws, not the years on the blanket
It was our own that broke them, it was
That’s the heartbreak of it all
It was our own that broke them.

Congress of Vienna:

It declared only established states could recognise other states (the British were signed up to this at its outset)

The Montevideo convention

• A permanent population - NI check
• Defined territory - NI check
• Government - NI check
• Capacity to enter into relations with other states - NI check (Westminster enters them, Stormont enacts them – see all EU legislation)

OK, so Montevideo wasn’t broadly adopted. What else?

Recognition by the UN

UK incorporating NI fully recognised. (Only the 32CSM are actively disputing this via the UN and I doubt even they think it will be successful)

Social theory

Well you can’t do much better than Max Weber

His definition - the state must retain a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. In Northern Ireland the majority demand the only legitimate uses of violence must be within the law or through agents of the state (armed forces or police).

So under the broad definitions above how do republican political actors reject NI as a legitimate political state? 

Those in administration could refuse to recognise international agreements concluded by the state (UK) and they and others could recognise that violence is not solely legitimate in the hands of state forces or under state law.

This has been distilled down to a State will maintain its own internal security and protect its borders. So again, if you support the State - support its forces of law and enforcement of those laws and abide by international agreements that legitimise the State.

It is very easy to see ways to reject British State legitimacy over a northern ireland in the UK through the above. It is equally easy to see those recognising Northern Ireland as a legitimate part of the UK by their actions.

Peter Robinson said

“I have done all that I can to encourage the Ulster Unionist Party to support the motion.I entered the process of engagement with that party, both at Hillsborough Castle and afterwards, in good faith. I wanted that party to be fully involved, and, as a result of the Hillsborough Castle Agreement, Sir Reg Empey and Margaret Ritchie are now chairing an important Executive working group on the functioning of the Executive. Good work is being done by that working group.”

But Margaret Ritchie said on the contrary…

“There is a parading working group, to which the SDLP and the UUP need not apply. Elected Ministers are not allowed to see any papers, but Sinn Féin is happy to share them with the Orange Order. The Executive function and delivery working group has four-party involvement, but, after six meetings, it is going nowhere fast. There is a St Andrews unfinished business working group and an Executive backlog working group, which is chaired by the DUP and Sinn Féin but struggles to make progress.”

Who’s right? But have you noticed, Robinson made a “four party coalition” offer to the UUs and the SDLP.

“We have not been able to reach all-party agreement on those matters as yet, but last night I offered Sir Reg tangible evidence of a four-party coalition and a public assurance that the DUP would not use its votes on the Executive to override the votes of any three Ministers if they wanted a matter to be further considered. That offer was made in the context of the UUP supporting the devolution of policing and justice, and I am disappointed that it does not appear that that will happen. Nonetheless, I am prepared to repeat that offer in circumstances in which the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP approach Executive business in good faith. Whatever the outcome of the vote today, we should not be distracted from doing what is right.”

Unctuous perhaps, but what was wrong with that Reg and Margaret – or were you listening? Margaret also said an agreed Cohesion, Sharing and Integration (CSI) document was due to emerge from FMDFM onThursday, when she was due to receive a copy. Did you get it Margaret and will you share it with us in the interests of transparency?