DUP = the past, Sinn Fein = the future?

I had an email from one reader recently who said that Slugger was ‘consistently interesting, entertaining and infuriating – what more could you want?” Well this one from Susan McKay is bound to infuriate some, when she argues that Sinn Fein is orientating itself towards the future, whilst the DUP is still focused on the past. Although it kind of ignores the key issue of shared security which is holding up substantial resolution, she raises an important question about the capacity of the DUP to lead it’s own people, and bolster confidence in the longer term future.

, ,

  • Cormac

    Well, at a guess I would say it’s the DUP talking tough in advance of a compromise… I seem to remember senior Republicans talking about no decommisioning – and decommisioning (and more) was exactly what happened. I have a feeling we’ll see a similar story being played out with the DUP position on power-sharing. I wouldn’t put too much store in Paisley’s rhetoric – it was the middle of the marching season, after all.

  • Kathy_C

    Hi all,

    When are republicans going to wake up and realize…the dup are doing exactly what they want….and that is….NOT being in gov’t with Catholics and they are using the sf/ira rant to get what they want…..that is their plan for the future….making the link to london stronger-and they have succeeded…
    What has adams and company accomplished as of late…except whining about the 2 gov’ts have to do their part and that republicans “should not be afraid to make correct strategic compromises.”
    I think the best strategic plan republicans should have is one that dumps gerry adams and get someone in there that is willing to politically fight ian paisly…and MAKE the dup go into gov’t…instead of just whining to others to make the dup go into gov’t.

  • Dispatch

    Susan McKay give her unbiased view. Predictable zzzzzzzzzzzz.

  • slug

    Do you think that Susan has been approached by Sinn Féin to stand as a candidate? It would be a good idea for Sinn Féin.

  • kensei

    I thought there was some ad hominum rule floating about?

    Anyway, it s amazing how much someone’s ability as a writer is proportional to how much you like what they are saying.

  • spirit-level

    Mick I like the simplicity of the headline.
    DUP = past
    SF = Future
    What posters on this thread have failed to give Susan McKay credit for is she’s right!

  • slug

    Date at which supported PSNI:

    DUP = past
    SF = near future.

  • kensei

    So, now having read the article, Susan McKay has actually just compared the public prouncements by the leader of Sinn Fein, and the public pronouncements of the DUP. Noticing one is talking about peace, which is most the future, and one is talking about war, which is the past, she finds the talk of war worrying.

    BAN THIS SICK FLITH.

  • Peking

    “…Susan has now come out as a fully fledged Gerry groupie”.

    The word is that’s both her and Mick then.

  • fair_deal

    How’s about this for an explanation. The Unionist and Republican constituencies are not mirror images of one another. Therefore, how they approach negotiations, public speeches and shifting opinion within their constituencies will not be and should not be carbon copies of one another as what works for one will not necessarily work well in the other.

    Also the premise of the article about Sinn fein in the future had to pretty much dismiss most of what the parade and event contained. It was looking 25 years back, many participants adopted garb (blankets), copied things of that time (bin lid banging), had six pieces of drama looking back, the bands “looked like the past because that is what they represented”. However this is all sidestepped as it conflicts with the predetermined narrative and bolster GA repeating stock phrases.

  • Jo

    “BAN THIS SICK FLITH.

    “???

  • spirit-level

    I suggest an independent observer from Mars, or one of the new Planets, would be hard pressed not to conclude that the language from the Adams’ statement was that of a peace-maker, and the language from Paisley that of a war-monger.
    Adams the democrat:
    “to be avowedly anti-sectarian, to face up to making peace with the unionist section of our people”
    Paisley the terrorist:
    ” the Bloody Hand of Ulster may be dyed a deeper red”.

    Who are the bad guys here?,George Bush might say, somewhat confused.
    I thought our policy was SF were the bad guys Condi?

    Kathy_C how do you suggest the DUP are MADE to go into gov’t?

  • na

    Could they not let the Catholics sit at the back on the Protestant bus service?

  • Alan

    “How’s about this for an explanation. The Unionist and Republican constituencies are not mirror images of one another. Therefore, how they approach negotiations, public speeches and shifting opinion within their constituencies will not be and should not be carbon copies of one another as what works for one will not necessarily work well in the other. ”

    And, as a consequence, whither consociationalism ?

  • fair_deal

    Alan

    Same destination different path?

  • circles

    na – the catholics don’t get the bus passes (in the south anyway).
    Anyway they’re both the past – the thing is, republican voters will begin realising this eventually and the SF vote may begin to disintegrate, while the DUPes will never catch on and will continue to stick a big fat X beside the name Paisley without further reflection. A simple case of survival of the thickest.

  • Dec

    It was looking 25 years back, many participants adopted garb (blankets), copied things of that time (bin lid banging), had six pieces of drama looking back, the bands “looked like the past because that is what they represented”

    Well it was a commeration, Brains.

  • fair_deal

    Dec

    Its the juxtaposition between the narrative the article claims from the event and what actually happened is the point.

  • dantheman

    Well said Susan, the DUP only see the future as being that of irrevokable damnation and the grey skies of the republic. Jesus even the unionists recognise in their own twisted way that irisn unification is inevitable.

    My problem with Sinn Fein is that they really have to deice whether they a party that works primarily for unification or for socialism. I hope the former, in which case they really need to have a good long think about their current economic policy and changing it to align the larger jurisdiction so that the transition not only seems more natural but runs as smooth as possible.

    IN summary,

    DUP = No future
    SF = Bit of alteration needed in light of recent changes in the Republic.

  • headmelter

    Can anyone tell me has Papa Doc ever made a statement indicating that he or his party are prepared to engage and reconcile with Republicans without the usual rhetorical ‘preconditions’?

  • carlosblancos

    I think the title of the post was a little, eh, simplistic. That said, the DUP seems to focus on running down the self-esteem of the Unionist community, which, combined with the siege mentality, keeps them all scared and voting for the big man.

    In the past those hailing from the Unionist community built the best ships, the first planes, invented modern thermochemistry, the pneumatic tyre, played some of the best football and write some of the best songs.

    Yet somehow, they vote for pathetic Paisley. Explain.

  • maura

    The ‘Rev.’Ian Paisley July 12th 2006

    ‘There is no discharge in this war.”

    When did the DUP start acknowledging that the Northern Ireland conflict was actually a WAR! Isn’t that contrary to Unionist thinking/policy?

  • Setanta

    Suzanne Breen – a fare superior writer?

    She is the single reason that so many nationalists and republicans I know no longer buy the Sunday Tribune. One touching portrait of Wille Frazer, Lord Laird etc too many….

    Oh and why has it been so hard for people to focus on the actual topic in this thread?

  • Henry94

    Cormac

    Well, at a guess I would say it’s the DUP talking tough in advance of a compromise… I seem to remember senior Republicans talking about no decommisioning – and decommisioning (and more) was exactly what happened.

    I think there is a big difference. The vast majority of republican voters wanted decommissioning. But they were prepared to let the IRA get on with it in their own time. There is no reason to believe that a majority of DUP voters want power-sharing at all.

    Their strategy is to keep finding an excuse for not going into government that can unite the “no power-sharing” faction with the “hard-bargin” faction.

    I think they would sooner see Joint Authority than face up to the inevitable split while Paisley is still alive.

  • headmelter

    “In the past those hailing from the Unionist community built the best ships, the first planes,

    Yet somehow, they vote for pathetic Paisley. Explain.”

    Building the best ships is certainly arguable since the most ‘famous’ one sank but they certainly monopolised ship building and aircraft manufacturing so much so that it was’nt until the late eighties there were strides made to neutralise the workplace from sectarian flags and emblems and the attitudes of many of the employees took a lot longer to ‘change’, that’s if they ever really did.
    Having worked in one of the ‘big’ emeployers during the eighties I can honestly testify I was made feel as welcome as a fart in a space suit the entire time I worked there and it was especially difficult during the marching season.
    I don’t know what it is like now but then the mindset and opinions of a substantial number of the workforce was extremely sectarian and the management was worse.

    As for continuing to vote for Paisley I can only imagine he reminds them of the ‘good auld days’ and because there is no real progressive alternative they feel they have no other choice.

  • Cormac

    Thanks Henry94 – finally, a reply after 24 posts 🙂 And one that isn’t laying into Ms McKay!

    “while Paisley is still alive”

    I know it’s been said before – but will we be saying the above quote for much more?

    Republicans/Nationalists (I’m sick of those words – how about ‘Rationalists’? 😉 have a sort of fantasy about the successors to Big Ian being prepared to do a deal, but is that really going to be the case?

    For my money, I think so.

    I think that Robinson and co REALLY WANT to be in power, even if that inevitably means sharing power. Remember, they worked pretty hard in their Ministries the last time round.

    I even think that Paisley himself wants to be in power, even if it also means sharing power. But maybe that’s just me caught up in a little too much peace optimism (it can be quite contagious at times, especially to us ‘Down South’).

    Not sure if a ‘vast majority’ of Republicans wanted decommissioning – it was a hard sell but certainly accepted by the vast majority eventually. A recent-ish survey of DUP delegates to a party convention showed most in favour of sharing power with the SDLP… how long before that gets extended to SF? (Interestingly, I think – but not sure – that there was a significant minority in favour of power-sharing with SF?).

    The winds of change? Or have I just been smoking too much of the Dundalk Democrat thread?

  • kensei

    ???

    Just trying to register my Daily Mail-style disgust at Susan McKay’s blantly pro-IRA article. How dare she suggest that talking about peace is better than talking about war.

  • “Jesus even the unionists recognise in their own twisted way that irisn [sic] unification is inevitable”

    You wish.

  • Keith M

    Who knows what party is truely geared towards the future? Who knows what issues will concern people in 5 or 10 to 20 years? Like McCann I have no crystal ball but I’ll hazard a guess that given the way that the left/right faultline which has dominated most European politics for the last 100 years becomes less relevant, two issues will dominate.

    The first issue is where the decisions which effect us are made. Over the past 20 years we have seen the gradual erosion of the power of the national parliaments in favour of a more federal European model. This is especially true in this country and others that use the Euro, as economic autonomy is gradually reigned in. There are already many and will surely be many more that are uncomfortable with this but as long as it keeps Europe peaceful and generally prosperous, I don’t see this change stopping any time soon.

    The other issue that is likely to dominate is the right of the individual vs. the role of the state. Technology and other advances have made people more self-reliant and less dependent on “society”. The lower interest in politics (reflected by lower and lower turnouts) is the result of people no longer feeling that their lives and lifestyles are impacted by those that represent them in parliament and make the laws. How will political parties adapt to a future where they are seen as less relevant to people’s lives?

    When you look at both the DUP and SF on these issues, the difference between them is all but negligable. Both are anti-European (SF is the only party to reject every referendum on European integration, the DUP opposes the Euro).

    Regarding the role of the individual vs. the state, both parties get to roughly the same place by different routes. SF is an old style “tax and spend” authoritarian leftist party which at least on paper rejects the market economy. However on issues of public morality it generally takes a more liberal approach.

    The DUP is socially more conservative but economically more liberal and has they have pointed out the over-dependence on the state sector in N.I., time and again.

    Therefore in this context to say that one party is the future and one the past is ridiculous.

    Indeed one can argue that SF is the party which spends more time living in the past, whether it be at 1916 commemorations or terrorist hunger stike rallies.

    Where is the party that has a vision of where N.I. will be when people finally wake up to the idea of the dream/nightmare of a “united Ireland” isn’t gonna happen in the forseeable future? It currently suits both the SF and the DUP to keep this “united Ireland” nonsense going, but with the principle of consent now paramount and no change of attitude comes from the pro-union majority, parties have to address real issues and not keep going around in circles on the “national question”.

  • TAFKABO

    The thread title means nothing, literaly nothing. But, it sounds good and gets the right people stirred up. All that Sinn Fein have done in real terms is play catchup with all the other non violent democrats, and for this Gerry is hailed as the second coming?

    Sinn Fein and the DUP both rely on their mandates, and this shall not be changing anytime soon. The future belongs to those who shall continue to get a mandate. No use bleating the DUP are the past, if they have a mandate in the present, then that’s what you need to get your head around.

  • Proud

    Jesus even the unionists recognise in their own twisted way that irisn unification is inevitable.

    Afraid not, chum. Comments such as this wouldn’t tempt me into a UI either.

  • kensei

    “Sinn Fein and the DUP both rely on their mandates, and this shall not be changing anytime soon. The future belongs to those who shall continue to get a mandate. No use bleating the DUP are the past, if they have a mandate in the present, then that’s what you need to get your head around.”

    Which is true only so far as if the real power here, the British Government, doesn’t like what you are doing, it will happily screw you and your petty mandates. Basically, the bottom line is that it’s not Nationalism that will get the most damage from Unionism living in the past.

  • circles

    “All that Sinn Fein have done in real terms is play catchup with all the other non violent democrats, and for this Gerry is hailed as the second coming?”
    I assume that we can strike the DUP from the list of non-violent democrats then TAF, given the good Docs blood and honour discourse for the 12th?
    Does that mean then the Shinners move up one and the Dupes down one? (at least in the National Polemic League)

  • TAFKABO

    Circles.

    Paisley talks a good fight, but never goes the distance.
    Adams talks about peace, we’re still waiting to see if that will go the distance as well.

  • circles

    I beg to differ TAF – Paisley has long outstayed his welcome in the ring – 40 years plus of provocation and negativism, and he has the dynasty set up in true democratic style to keep the fires burning.
    Adams has delivered an IRA ceasefire, IRA disarmament, 10 years of relative calm from armed republicanism and has managed to take the majority of grass roots republicans with him on this adventure. Like him or not, Adams has delivered thigns never thought possible. If the peace does not go the distance, I doubt that that could be laid at Adams door.

  • Rory

    Well yes. Susan McKay’s observation is plainly and simply true. There can be no doubt of that. The respective words of Adams and Paisley simply say that that is so.

    What on earth Fair Deal was waffling on about in order to escape this stark reality is anyone’s guess.

    If indeed Paisley’s remarks at the 12th celebrations were merely the usual rabble-rousing rhetoric that has been contemptuously spewed by various unionist demagogues over time to galvanise those of their supporters they secretly despise as riff-raff and that he will be obliged to come to heel by realpoitik we can only wait and see. I doubt very much that he longer has much control or that any that he has will last much longer.

  • Londonderry_loyal

    Well if the DUP are in the past, there must be a lot of unionists who are also still in the past!!

    Was funny to hear of SF’s new director “Director of Unionist Engagement”!! They cant get past Pailsey and Co so there going direct to the people

  • Jeremy

    Was funny to hear of SF’s new director “Director of Unionist Engagement”!! They cant get past Pailsey and Co so there going direct to the people.

    Do you think unionists will ever have the imagination to do something similar?

    David Vance – Could we expect a more rational argument from Mr. Vance. The answer to that is a resound(sic)no!

  • Dave

    SF/IRA are pushing for unification as some have stated. What type of unification is this going to be? will Ireland ever be united, probably.

    The sad fact that unification will only be the geographical type, as for being unified as a people this is beyond the capabilities of Republicans and Nationalists. When the unionist people of Northern Ireland feel safe and secure in the land where they where born they may wish to break with there tradition of no surrender and decide that they are Irish and not Ulster-Scots/British, though I doubt this very much.

    Unification of the land, probably, of the people??? Maybe SF/IRA should have taken on board that the bombing and shooting of not only those who define themselves as Irish but also of those who define themselves as not Irish, has set back Republican aspirations for a very long time. The DUP will do no wrong in looking at the past. lest we forget.

  • headmelter

    “Well if the DUP are in the past, there must be a lot of unionists who are also still in the past!!”

    Unfortunately this is sadly true and quite insightful Derry_loyalist.

  • “The answer to that is a resound no!”

    Now that is more like the Lion of Mid-Ulster we know. Still the absence of a single “Vichy” or even a muted “Quisling” still makes me wonder if our lad has been captured by the pod people.

    Free David Vance!!!!!

  • eranu

    “Republicans/Nationalists (I’m sick of those words – how about ‘Rationalists’? 😉 ”

    cormac, how about IRAtionalists ? 😀

    im well sick of the terms Republicans / Nationalists / Unionists / Loyalists too. how about adding them to the banned words list for a day and see how people manage to word their posts? it might be genuinely interesting to see what labels people come up with.

  • headmelter

    Great idea eranu.

    my personal favourites for the psotestants in our community are sally rods or Iron rods and cream buns.

    Are there any non derogatory ‘pet’ names out there for the green community anyone?

  • TAFKABO

    Are there any non derogatory ‘pet’ names out there for the green community anyone?

    The Adams family?

  • Nevin

    To complement ‘iron rods’ how about ‘wars and plagues’?

  • Donnacha

    Lunionists?

  • Patrique

    Susan McKay wrote one of the best books about N.Ireland, not specifivcally academic, therefore easily read and understood, and enjoyed by thousands.

    You can’t deny that.

  • Southern Observer

    Mr.Vance,you are in flagrant violation of the Slugger ‘ad hominem’ rule.

  • Marcus

    I’m not a particular fan of Susan McKay nor a Sinn Fein voter.

    However, it’s interesting to note that some of the people here criticise Susan McKay while saying how great Suzanne Breen is. I can understand how some people feel that Susan McKay is partial to the Republican side in her writing. It’s equally obvious that Ms Breen is only interested in portraying the “likeable” side of Unionism.

    Personally, I prefer an impartial writer who can see the good and bad of both sides. I just think it’s laughable that some people here are happy with any “journalist” who portrays a sympathetic (but totally unrealistic) view of their side.

    So, it’s not journalistic skill that’s being debated – it’s whether the journalist is prejudiced in the “right” direction.

    I think Ms McKay is partly correct – Sinn Fein will have some relevance in the medium term. However, their outdated socialist policies would be an economic disaster and guaranteed vote losers in the longer term.

    Under Paisley – the DUP are going nowhere – his 12th speech was 40 years out of date – hateful and pathetic. If he is succeeded by Jim Allister and the “never on a Sunday” brigade – they will continue to be sidelined. If, as is more likely, he is succeeded by Peter Robinson and the pragmatic wing – there are some very talented people in the DUP and they could contribute a great deal.

  • darth rumsfeld

    “It’s equally obvious that Ms Breen is only interested in portraying the “likeable” side of Unionism.”

    er.. that would be the Suzanne Breen who was renowned at University for her republican viewpoint, but who was also independent of thought to see through the Shinner cant and bluster then? I appreciate she obviously looked very hard to find nice Unionists, there being so few of us, but I bet she spends more time on one story than the entire editorial staff of Daily Ireland do in churning out a month’s editions of their comic.

    McKay simpers out of the side of her sub-Mona Lisa enigmatic smile as she sends out little poison darts against a community she obviously rejected when she became a student. But that’s easy. Breen challenges her own pre-conceptions, and -I bet-surprises herself as much as me with the conclusions of some of her pieces. She is a bit “Daily Mail” about the students in the Holy Land though.As for McKays’s book- it makes the Da Vinci code look deep

  • Marcus

    Darth

    Like I said, I’m not a fan of Susan McKay’s writing.

    I neither know nor care what Suzanne Breen’s political viewpoint as a student was. I’m certainly not impressed by her writing or her radio stuff. She’s not up to analyzing major issues – she’s more GMTV than radio 4.

    I see little difference between someone from a Nationalist background writing pieces sympathetic to Unionists and someone doing it the other way around.

    I don’t know where you got the stuff about there being very few nice unionists – I didn’t say that nor do I believe it.

    My point was that anything that I have read by Ms Breen is almost trying to convince nationalists that all “loyalist” violence is a response to “nationalist” violence. She wants to pretend that there were no purely sectarian Protestants who killed Catholics solely because they were Catholics.

    Before you start – I am well aware that it’s a 2 way street and I unreservedly condemn ALL such activity from EITHER side.

    I just don’t like “journalists” who effectively write what their audience wants to hear. Let’s face it – in NI, the Unionists love to hear a nationalist/Catholic having a go at their own community and vice versa.

    I’m not against reading realistic criticism of my own community but only if it’s from someone with integrity that I respect. As I said, I can understand why Unionists may think that Ms McKay is not impartial in her criticisms of the Unionist community and don’t respect her opinions.

    I am a very moderate Catholic (I am not and have never been a Sinn Fein voter or supporter). However, I believe that Suzanne Breen is an extremely average and opportunistic “journalist” who finds it easier to progress her career in NI by criticising the nationalist/Catholic community in a way that will endear her to a Unionist audience.

    I’d much rather read a journalist who had the intelligence/courage to deal with the good and bad things in both communities.

    In my opinion, neither Ms McKay or Ms Breen meet that criteria.

  • eranu

    “Lunionists?”

    LOL

    donnacha, wish id thought of that one too !

    so there we go. the new terms to be used hence forth are IRAtionalists and Lunionists hehehe!

  • Nevin

    Grunionists – spawn at night along beaches during the high tides of spring and summer – wave gun permits on mountain tops.

  • Nevin

    Patrigue, I’ve read her vox pop about Ballymoney. She appeared to be too lazy to cross-check the various accounts she received.

  • darth rumsfeld

    “I don’t know where you got the stuff about there being very few nice unionists – I didn’t say that nor do I believe it.”

    …read mackays’s book Marcus for someone who sems to!
    I’m certainly
    not attributing her views to your good self

  • kensei

    “…read mackays’s book Marcus for someone who sems to! ”

    I have. There seemed to be a mixture of people. Willie Frazer is obviously a cock, though.

  • wellithink..

    “When did the DUP start acknowledging that the Northern Ireland conflict was actually a WAR! Isn’t that contrary to Unionist thinking/policy?”

    You should read Alex Kane’s most recent column in the Newsletter, it was on this very topic. He said that it clearly was not a war as the classic definitely of war is hostilities between two sovereign nations, therefore the IRA vs the British State is not a war because only one sovereign nation was involved, thus it was terrorism, similar to the current Israel vs Hisbollah

  • Paddy Matthews

    David Brewster (“Darth Rumsfeld”):

    So..after years of mining the “guilty Prod” seam,throwing in a bit of socialist feminism for street cred,and including a truly toe-curlingly awful book of cliched caricatures, Susan has now come out as a fully fledged Gerry groupie.

    David Vance:

    Well, could we expect any better from the quisling provo sympathiser ‘guilty prod’ Mc Kay?

    I’ve asked this before, Mick, but does Susan McKay get a special exemption from the ad hominem rule on this site?

  • Northsider

    Good point, Paddy.

    McKay’s book was a worthy and timely look at the fear and loathing which grips certain sections of the unionist community. She IS a person who challenged and questioned her own background – just as Breen does.

    However, McKay, unlike Breen, doesn’t give her column over to a political party’s PR department week in and week out. Despite what certain contributors on here are trying to say.

    They seem conditioned to parrot on demand the same baseless, petty accusation at anyone who dares poke at their festering sores: ‘Sinn Feiner!’ IRA supporter’ etal.

    As stated, McKay is an incisive and honest writer who is not in hoc to any political party.

    Pity the same can’t be said about other hacks, one of whom is mentioned in this thread.

  • darth rumsfeld

    David Brewster (“Darth Rumsfeld”):

    eh? who he? google says he invented the safety lamp in the 19th century

    “I’ve asked this before, Mick, but does Susan McKay get a special exemption from the ad hominem rule on this site?”

    well obviously , since she’s a femina :0)

    “McKay’s book was a worthy and timely look at the fear and loathing which grips certain sections of the unionist community. She IS a person who challenged and questioned her own background – just as Breen does.”

    well not really. She starts off wibbling about her granda the Orangeman, throws in the usual caveats a la Douglas Gageby that “these people needed to be kept in their place” which made decent people do unpleasant things. She didn’t question her own background- she just rejected it and then whipped up a few stereotypical Prods as representative of the whole-only my opinion of course, but then … she never interviewed me!

  • Bushmills

    Susan McKay’s book was a demonisation piece written by someone who obviously rejected their own community on entry into university. Someone is obviously entitled to reject their own communities stand-points, but few have profited so richly from it.

    A poisonous article, by a woman who just can’t stop attacking the DUP. 2005 happened Susan, and your side lost. Get over it.

    BTW, even if Darth is Brewster (whih I doubt very much), surely nom de plumes are supposed to be respected here.

  • Patrique

    “Northern Protestants” is still an excellent book. We unfortunately do not have too much literature coming from the “protestant” side. Steve Bruce did good stuff, and a few others, and Gary Mitchell’s wonderfully perceptive plays are always welcome. But there is not a lot. McKay’s book stands out like a beacon.

  • Jeremy

    “I’ve asked this before, Mick, but does Susan McKay get a special exemption from the ad hominem rule on this site?”

    well obviously , since she’s a femina :0)

    Darth Rumsfield have you never watched the life of Brian. Which case follows AD, louder I cant hear you. Yes the accusative and what is femina? Its nominative or ablative. Now Femina is what type of noun? female 1st declension.Yes good (finally) Therefore it would be AD FEMINAE. Get your Sh!t together man. What do they teach you in those schools up there?

  • Jeremy

    Ahem – that should be feminam. They obviously teach at the same standard down here.

  • Southern Observer

    MacKay’s book however was a substantial improvement on the ghastly ‘Faithful Tribe’.

  • Belfast Gonzo

    Isn’t it a little bit hypocritical of republicans to criticise Paisley for rabble rousing? Adams used to give pretty hardline speeches in the past which were swiftly followed by policy U-turns.

    These were widely perceived as being for the consumption of republicans, to maintain unity while behind the scenes the party was ditching long-held principles.

    Yet every republican claims to know the mind of Paisley and his party…

  • Hidden Gem

    Marcus – I’d much rather read a journalist who had the intelligence/courage to deal with the good and bad things in both communities.

    My thoughts exactly.

    BG – These were widely perceived as being for the consumption of republicans, to maintain unity while behind the scenes the party was ditching long-held principles.

    What are the odds for “Policing” being the next?