“Securocrats”: whose side are they really on?

Newt Emerson however thinks that Republican proponents seem oblivious to the danger of pushing the British securocrat interference theorem too far. In fact he argues that the British intelligence services have stacked the game in favour of Irish Republicans, and that they are the main beneficiaries of any secret interference in NI.

The intelligence establishment does exist of course but its true political agenda is clearly to make life as easy as possible for senior republicans. So the danger of securocrat conspiracy theories is that they can easily implicate senior republicans as well. Might a leading Shinner have lifted the phone and given the nod to Kelly’s arrest, for some reason? That’s no harder to believe than the existence of a hidden network of disgruntled spooks hell-bent on restarting the Troubles.

He also give short shrift to the ‘it’s to placate the Unionists theory over Sean Kelly’s arrest:

Another republican fantasy currently doing the rounds suggests that Sean Kelly’s arrest was a sop to unionists by the new Secretary of State to make up for his ludicrous lefty past. There are two problems with this theory. First, neither main unionist party has expressed any concern over Peter Hain’s appointment. Second, both main unionist parties have expressed concern over Sean Kelly’s arrest.

In support, he cites:

The DUP in particular fears that, because the details of Kelly’s review hearing need not be reported, another juicy set of republican misdeeds is about to be swept under the rug. Perhaps Nigel Dodds should start complaining about securocrats – he certainly has the better excuse.