Why Sinn Fein need to show that it’s local decision makers who matter

Abstentionism….If there is ever a topic that sets tongues wagging it’s the age old debate about whether Sinn Fein will ever take their seats at Westminster.

This obsession is set more so amongst commentators who have for years predicted that Sinn Fein are close to giving up their abstentionist policy when it comes to Westminster.

Such an analysis ignores the very basic tenet of republicanism is to make Westminster as irrelevant as possible in Irish affairs. Since 1918, it has been a policy adhered to by republican minded parties that if they are elected to the House of Commons they do not take their seats.

The very act of not taking your seat is a powerful symbol that this place has no beneficial role in our political discourse. (I appreciate this is a contested view)

I appreciate that Sinn Fein evolved their abstentionist policy to take seats in the Dail and the Assembly, but these are local parliaments which help emphasise the irrelevance of Westminster. This again in the longer term helps fuel the narrative that governance is better done on the island of Ireland and not in Westminster.

The whole raison d’être of republicanism is about marginalising Westminster and emphasising that building a united Ireland, rather than the United Kingdom is a priority.

In the longer term could an issue arise that forces Sinn Fein or any other republican to take their seats, of course it could. But as a tangible strategy for the future of creating an all island political dynamic and again building on the narrative of Westminster being irrelevant, it would be hard to square that circle for the party.

I have always been a big proponent of republicanism coming up with new ideas and new thinking to capture the policy initiative. However, sitting in Westminster, whilst it might look attractive in the context of a hung parliament, is not something that is in the long run helpful to your fundamental reason for being in existence.

For Sinn Fein to properly boost republicanism, they need to show that it’s local decision makers who matter. The decision to abstain has been based in the past on dislike of Britain, but for modern day circumstances the pragmatic approach of making our all island bodies stronger, our local parliaments more responsive and those sitting in Westminster irrelevant to the local debate has to be the key going forward.

In short the game plan has to be about building the united Ireland narrative, not indulging in Westminster speculation. Make your local representatives count.

 

, , ,

  • Morpheus

    So blah blah blah no answers to anything. Gotcha.

    Here’s the real quote from the GFA:

    “Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.”

    What exactly an SoS needs to see in order for it to appear likely to succeed is a grey area – something I have written about extensively – but we get an idea from David Cameron when he talked about how the Scottish got their referendum:

    “The Scottish National Party was elected in Scotland in 2011 and promised a referendum on independence. We could have blocked that, we could have put it off but just as with other big issues, it was right to take – not duck – the big decision. I am a passionate believer in our United Kingdom – I wanted more than anything for our United Kingdom to stay together. But I am also a democrat. And it was right that we respected the SNP’s majority in Holyrood and gave the Scottish people their right to have their say.

    Still think nationalism should walk away from Stormont? Nationalism can learn to blame the game or bitch from the sidelines, which is it to be?

    What script are you waffling about now ffs? It’s exactly crap like that which makes people think you are a raving loon. As for your ‘point’ – is there a logical one coming any time soon which isn’t dripping in paranoia and oh-woe-is-me mopery BS? Is there a plan in there other that holding your breath and stamping your feet until you get your way like a spoiled brat?

    You are a cliché, a relic of time long gone. Your thought patterns belong on the 1970s…the people have moved on and we are doing things our way now,peacefully and democratically. Get used to it.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Actually, as I remember 1968, Ronnie Bunting Senior seemed to think all six counties were “Unionist areas”, but that may be just the way it came over to us on the march! Perhaps CB still thinks in this manner!

  • Zeno

    It is one of the main problems in our society and it affects both sides, There a desire to believe anything bad about themuns. The actual truth isn’t important in some areas.

  • $136050377

    No, there was an offer of a ceasefire in 1979. I am positive about that.
    And the British rejected it..
    It came out after the year 2000

  • Dixie Elliott

    ” It’s exactly crap like that which makes people think you are a raving loon….”

    What people? mac tire and Robin? I’ve certainly seen no others. In fact mac tire said everyone saw I had a breakdown on Slugger and one of those ‘everyones’ Robin asked twice…Where was that?

    Again you’ve gone off on an angry rant without dealing with the points I’ve put forward. And now I’m a raving loon.

    The self-proclaimed peacemakers wasted a generation rejecting everything they now hold up as success. As I pointed out earlier Adams attacked the IRA leadership from jail in 1976 for calling that ceasefire and referred to “unscrupulous politicians and so called “Peacemakers”

    The fact is, after all the deaths and years wasted in prison we are left with SF and the DUP sitting in a government which is little more than a Little Britain statelet. SF can’t even get an Irish Language Act nor their Peace Center and they have to tow the line no matter what claims they make about opposing Tory Cuts.

    Actually where have the people moved on to given they’ve demanded peace since the 1970s, in particular when the Peace People took to the streets?

    Adams and McGuinness accepted the peaceful path but they are going nowhere except were they are told to go. For now it’s signing up to Austerity.

  • $136050377

    From Wiki.

    “Confidential documents released on 30 December 2008 from the British state archives show that the IRA leadership proposed a ceasefire and peace talks to the British government in 1978. The British refused the offer. Prime Minister James Callaghan decided that there should be “positive rejection” of the approach on the basis that the republicans were not serious and “see their campaign as a long haul”. Irish State documents from the same period say that the IRA had made a similar offer to the British the previous year. An Irish Defence Forces document, dated 15 February 1977, states that “It is now known that feelers were sent out at Christmas by the top IRA leadership to interest the British authorities in another long ceasefire.”[78]…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#The_.22Long_War.22

    Citation 78 is from an Irish Times article.
    Trust you accept this.
    Puts a different light on things….Doesn’t it?

  • Dixie Elliott

    You are trying to tell me that the IRA offered a ceasefire in 1979 and the British rejected it?

    You are positive about it but can only say it came out after the year 2000….

    If the IRA wanted to end the struggle in 1979 they must have thought the war was unwinnable therefore they allowed two Hunger Strikes and 10 deaths knowing those men were dying for nothing.

    So Richard O’Rawe was right?

  • Morpheus

    Of course there were wasted years (and lives) but we are where we are. We can moan about it or do something about it and the people have chosen the GFA as a way forward. The people will decide their future, not some guys who pulled on a mask thinking they knew best and that violence was the solution. If the people want a UI then the path is there to follow and if they don’t then they won’t follow it.

  • $136050377

    I posted a link..I suggest you read it..As for what it entails..It entails that the PIRA were willing to do like you suggested in your post..End the war earlier.
    Now, you are trying to say , you don’t want this after all.
    All this happened BEFORE the hunger strikes. There was a prison protest..but NO hunger strike was called..Not EVEN the first one.

  • $136050377

    It was 1978. not 1979..I was writing from memory..1978.

  • Dixie Elliott

    Yes it proves that Adams was just as willing to pull the wool over the IRA’s eyes in the ’70s as he was in the 80s given his 1976 statement from jail about ceasefires.

    And it also proves that Richard O’Rawe was right, they let men die on Hunger Strike knowing they couldn’t win the overall war….

    So if is the case why didn’t the leadership set out trying to persuade the IRA that a political course was the only route to take instead of repeatedly preaching war?

  • $136050377

    Yawn..You said that the IRA “should” have called a ceasefire earlier..When I tell you they did.. You now change your position.
    BTW..It’s takes two to make peace..The Brits didn’t agree.
    So ergo…You blamed the IRA for continuing the war..Now you blame them for trying to stop it.
    Are you British??? Coz you seem to like to have your cake and eat it.
    Like a good British public schoolboy.
    Trouble with you Dixie..Is …I don’t think you know yourself anymore.
    Maybe you been living with the Brits TOO long?
    No offence..But the fact that you are doing..Is pure bRitish.
    No Horse and carraige need be spared for you to drive thru it. Typical bRit strategy.
    Enjoy it.

  • Dixie Elliott

    EXACTLY…All this happened before the Hunger Strikes. If as you say the IRA were trying to end the war earlier why let men die knowing they wanted to end the war?

    By wanting to end the war they must have known it was unwinnable am I right?

    So why let men die agonising deaths if you knew they were dying for nothing?

    And where did I say I didn’t want this after all?

    If I had known the IRA wanted to end it in 1979 I’d have been off the Blanket like a shot.

  • Dixie Elliott

    Are you frigging serious cara?

    The IRA called ceasefires in 1972 and Feb 1975 so how the hell could I say they should have called it earlier?

    They did and if you had followed you’d have noticed I quoted Adams as being opposed to the 75 ceasefire. Read the Quote!!

    Therefore the chances of the IRA ending the war then were scuppered by Adams.

    As for the rest of your comment, idiotic as it is. The British are pumping millions in funding into SF. I didn’t shake hands with the British Queen, nor did I raise a toast to her or show her round the Crum like Comical Marty. Nor did I stand to attention at a British Cenotaph.

    With due respect you sound like MH McIvor the former SF councilor who thinks dissidents aren’t up to killing cops.

  • eiregain

    So on the topic of royals and swearing allegiance and oaths (that in their wording extended to the whole shambolic illegitimate royal family) you bring up peados and rapists,

    in the immortal words of Heisenberg “tread lightly”

  • eiregain

    aye because swearing an oath of allegance is the same as having a dinner function.

    From that perspective on your next birthday you should be dubbing knights, waving like a eejit and making everyone in attenance aware that by simply greeting you and being in your presence they have sacrificed their values and principles.

    Unionist politicians are never allowed to greet an irish TD or president in case they become meexikan or worse feenyanz

  • Dixie Elliott

    Or else what?

    Given that you’re from Derry and a supporter of the Queen’s favourite Shinner Marty I’m certain that you’d know a rapist who’s the talk of the town…..

  • Dixie Elliott

    Raising a toast to the British Queen who honoured the Paras is far from a dinner function, then again not unexpected given that during the HAAS talks there was a meeting in Rathmor to ‘discuss’ ending commemorations for dead volunteers to be replaced by a function hidden from Unionists eyes….At the same time the Shinner Mayor of Belfast was standing to attention at Belfast Cenotaph.

  • eiregain

    “Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won’t come in.”

  • eiregain

    so…

  • Dixie Elliott

    so….In future we’ll be seeing shinners openly commemorating Britain’s war dead while ensuring they aren’t caught commemorating dead IRA Volunteers in public in case it upsets the Unionists.

  • eiregain

    your logic, is strange.

    you seem to believe that one off events (dinner with queen/commemorating sacrifice) dictate how the rest of us lead our lives.

    you are very mistaken. It may be the case that when a unionist politician “throws snowballs” that you and your peers follow suit, i assure you the same is not the case within republicanism.

  • Dixie Elliott

    I doubt you know very little about republicanism except the claims made by the cult leaders that SF are mainstream republicans.

    The hard fact is that SF rely on British funding to ensure jobs and loyalty. Outside of informers, never in the history of Irish Republicanism have Republicans been funded by the British.

    It proves one thing. The British don’t invest in anything unless it is of great use to them.

  • Cue Bono

    I’ll take a bit of time explaining this all to you because it is a common theme that drones trying to justify PIRA’s activities throw out there.

    First of all the ‘first murders’. In 1966 Gusty Spence and a handful of fellow lunatics formed the UVF and murdered a protestant pensioner and two catholic civilians. The RUC arrested Spence and his accomplices and they were sentenced to prison terms of up to forty years. None of that had anything whatsoever to do with the outbreak of republican violence in 68/69. No Provo ever announced that he joined the IRA because of what the UVF did in 1966. Only recently have people like you taken to throwing that red herring into the mix in order to pretend that the Prods started the murdering.

    Secondly the attacks on ‘civil rights marchers’. As discussed above with Seann the People’s Democracy had a deliberate policy of conducting illegal marches through unionist areas in order to provoke violence. The NICRA leadership refused to participate in those marches because they knew what they were designed to do. Loyalists did indeed attack or attempt to attack thse marches. Just as republicans have continually attacked and attempted to attack orange parades. Nobody died. Only a madman would claim that an attack, using sticks and stones, by one group of people on a march conducted by an opposing group of people was justification for a thirty five year murder campaign. Another red herring.

    Thirdly the burning of Catholic houses. In 68/69 Protestants and Catholics were living in the same streets beside each other in many areas of Belfast. When the rioting broke out in Londonderry, riots btw which started with a republican mob attacking an Apprentice Boys Parade, republicans ordered their followers in other areas to break out in rioting in order to stretch the police to ther absolute limit. Republicans in Belfast responded with relish opening fire on the police and besieging Hastings Street RUC station where they tried to burn the occupants alive. Not unsurprisingly the loyalists responded to this upsrising in their midst and embarked on their own rioting spree. Catholics were burned out of their homes and Protestants were also burned out of their homes by Catholics. Both communities retreated into their own ghettoes. The army were brought in and peace descended on the cities.

    Meanwhile in the background the IRA had split between left wing marxists and right wing Hiberno Catholics. The latter group became the Provos. Their very first action was the sectarian ambush of an orange parade on the Newtownards Road where they murdered three unarmed Protestant civilians. They didn’t do that because of Gusty Spence, the ‘civil rights’ marches or the burning of Bombay Street. They did it because they wanted to spark a civil war and force Britain to abandon Northern Ireland.

    That is what the Troubles were all about and after thirty five years of murder and mayhem the Provos were defeated, disarmed and forced into accepting the legitimacy of the British state in Northern Ireland. Obviously that defeat is extremely embarrassing, and that is why the internet is awash with little republican drones attempting to rewrite history with the biggest murderers of all portrayed as the good guys.

    It isn’t working.

  • Cue Bono

    Sure I’ll give him a ring. Alternatively you could nip down to the library and read a book which talks about Bunting junior, his time with PD and his later career as an INLA murderer.

  • Cue Bono

    Can you list some of these ‘ridiculous’ claims? I think you may be mixing me up a bit with Robin who claimed that hundreds of Catholics were burned in their homes. Strangely your natural sense of balance has not led you to tackle his lack of learning.

  • Cue Bono

    “What the student marchers seemingly were not capable of was self-criticism.
    They accepted the accolades heaped on them when they refused to
    be provoked into reacting violently; they accepted that the march
    had split PD somewhat, but what remained was the elite of the
    movement; they accepted that it ‘established in people’s minds
    the separate identity of PD as the most extreme of civil rights
    groups,'[50] and they accepted that Kevin Boyle and
    Michael Farrell were elected to the NICRA executive in February
    largely as a result of the publicity won on that march.

    But no one stopped to ask what effect it had on Protestant opinion.
    An Australian observer has noted that ‘arrogant’ invasion of enemy
    territory ‘has often been the flashpoint of the religious riots
    which have punctuated Ulster’s short but stormy history.'[51]
    The ‘Long March’ was seen by many Protestants as a series of
    arrogant invasions of their territory; the ambush at Burntollet
    bridge was their answer to it.

    Nor did anyone wonder if it would have a debilitating effect on
    the civil rights campaign. Michael Farrell, in a characteristic
    blanket statement, thought the contrary: Without this resumption
    there would have been no “one man, one vote” and no
    Cameron Report.'[53]

    The charge of ‘calculated martyrdom’ made by Cameron is one which
    John Hume accepted:

    ‘I would think that the leaders of the march calculated it and
    knew what would happen. Anyone with any experience of Northern
    Ireland politics knew it would happen. It was a calculated move
    by the leaders . . . As a result of the Burntollet march Farrell
    became a national leader.'[53]”

    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/pdmarch/arthur74a.htm#chap1

    As the Cameron Report states (taken from the same source)

    ‘For moderates this march had disastrous effects. It polarized
    the extreme elements in the communities in each place it entered.
    It lost sympathy for the Civil Rights movement and led to serious
    rioting in Maghera and Londonderry. It divided the Civil Rights
    movement and weakened the Derry Citizens’ Action Committee. We
    are driven to think that the leaders must have intended that their
    venture would weaken the moderate reforming forces in Northern
    Ireland. We think that their object was to create tension so that
    in the process a more radical programme could be realised. They
    saw the march as a calculated martyrdom.'[43]

  • Cue Bono

    I look forward to you withdrawing that remark.

  • eiregain

    Your doubts are correct, I know a lot about it (you doubted that i knew little),

    i know enough to be able to see that your talking pish, and republicans dont have this extremist view of their world that you purport and seem to experience.
    we see compromise and progress around every corner, and dont see them as mutually exclusive.

    scary isnt it

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Although several books mention Ronnie Og and the PD in the same sentence, I never encountered him as an activist in that context. That’s why I’m so very leery of these “myths” I find perpetrated in books, where someone mentions that someone attended one meeting, perhaps, and next thing in some later book he’s a key member. The first time Ronnie surfaced politically in my memory it was as a member of the Official IRA.

    And that’s the last bit of information I’m prepared to offer you. I’m sick to death of answering your sterile, uninformed digs. If you cannot read serious, properly researched books for any reason, get someone to actually teach you some real history. Going by your endless carping hectoring tone over the past fortnight, I cannot imagine that you have anything useful to contribute to any intelligent adult debate that is attempting to unravel those very serious problems that tragically divide our community (note, singular!). In future, I would be obliged if you would please refrain from adding your pointless comments to anything I post.

  • $136050377

    Are you frigging serious cara?

    The IRA called ceasefires in 1972 and Feb 1975 so how the hell could I say they should have called it earlier?

    ======================================
    Read your own comment.
    Quote ” /…My Analysis is that all this should have begun in the 70s..”

    As in you believe the PIRA should have surrendered.
    So, I told you that the post ceasefire leadership in 1978 offered to go down that route..But the Brits slapped them down.
    So, How do you make peace with your enemy without surrendering???
    Now, You are driving a Horse and Carraige through your own argument.
    Firstly you say they should have made peace in the 70’s.
    Then, when I point out a bit of history , that you are shockingly unaware of.
    You get on your high horse and say, the opposite..that they are “collobators”or whatever your point is.
    The real point is ..That you are NEVER satisfied.
    And the fact that you drive a Horse and Carraige thru your own argument..gives you a massive touch of bRitishness.
    And No I am not your bete Noir..Mcvior.

  • Cue Bono

    I wrote a lengthy reply to this post expaining in detail why each of your points was wrong. It was deleted. I won’t be going to the trouble again. However if you an find me the Provo document which states that they decided to begin their murder campaign because of Gusty Spence or the Civil Rights campaign then please post it up. My understanding is that they were trying to bomb us into a united Ireland and they were very open about that.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Well, that’s it now! I’ll not answer no matter what provocation he offers. I was reluctant to go all “the Tower of Ivory is assailed by a foul thing” but enough’s enough! Thanks, seriously, for taking the trouble to inform me about the kind of sterile blocking that I should expect from him.

  • Cue Bono

    A couple of points. The OO parades have been going on for decades. They didn’t set out to deliberately pick CNR areas to marh through. CNRs moved into those areas and decided to exclude the OO.

    The PDs deliberately chose to march through unionist areas in order to provoke trouble. Their route to Burntollet included a number of unionist towns and villages.

  • Cue Bono

    That is good. Debating with you is a waste of time as you have a penchant for avoiding the truth.

  • Cue Bono

    You never met Bunting in PD therefore all the books and articles about his time in PD are wrong. Priceless. His OIRA career would of course have coincided with his PD career as the IRA were heavily involved in penetrating the ‘civil rights’ movement. If you post sensible things then I will either praise or ignore them, depeding on whether they interest me. If you post lies then I will challenge them and produce evidence to counter them. That is how debates work.

  • carl marks

    yes you are right they have been going on for many decades and they have been the cause of sectarian strife since the order was formed, of course the paramilitary band’s and hanger on’s have also been taunting nationalist’s for many decades!
    as for PD and the march’s, got any proof of your claim for deliberately setting out to cause trouble?
    and you are seriously claiming that the thugs attacking the students at burntollet where justified for territorial reasons!
    i repeat my suggestion go read a book, learn something you a very uniformed person and that is a pity.

  • Dixie Elliott

    Who said the IRA should have surrendered? I said they should have ended the conflict then. Ceasefires are not ending the conflict as was proven in 1972 and 75 to 76 when those ceasefires broke.

    You conveniently ignored the jail letter from Adams which condemned the 75 ceasefire. My point was that while he hadn’t complete control of the IRA he opposed ceasefires yet when he took control in the 80s he set about, in your words, surrendering. The man who calls himself a peacemaker ensured any chances of the IRA ending it’s campaign was scuppered until he took over.

    Clearly Adams’ intention was to build a political movement but had the war ended before that they would never have been able to build on the people’s desire for peace because the SDLP already had a firm foothold with the Nationalist electorate and in all likelihood they would never have made inroads on the SDLP vote with what would be a new political party. He needed to have SF established as a political party before they could rid themselves of PIRA and so IRA Volunteers including Hunger Strikers died needlessly as did hundreds of civilians.

    However whether it be in the 70s or the 80s the IRA should have been informed that the war was unwinnable and that a political route was the only way forward. The fact that the IRA went to the Brits again in 1978 meant they knew it was unwinnable yet they allowed men to die on a Hunger Strike. Bobby Sands’ election victory opened the door to electoral politics and Adams needed Owen Carron to win the by-election so that they could continue on that route. This cost 6 men their lives.

    You say I was ‘shockingly unaware of the 1978 ceasefire offer’ and that was likely because I was on the Blanket Protest and it is certain that the 78 offer was unknown to the majority of the IRA as it only became public in December 2008.

    What you are doing is trying to avoid the overall points I’m making by reverting back to a meaningless ceasefire offer in 1978.

    Again you throw out the British crap. Any shinner calling someone a Brit given the fact the Brits fund that party and Marty toasted their Queen is akin to Gary Glitter calling someone a pervert.

  • carl marks

    you see there is no “provo document” but the vast majority agree that the sectarian violence of the UVF and the Paisleyites was what made people turn to the provos for protection.
    I do notice that you avoid talking about the loyalist death squads and you didn’t answer my question re, itf you believe that the loyalist murders and bombing did influence the formation of the provos then surely unless you are a complete hypocrite if you claim that the loyalists were influenced by the Provo’s

  • $136050377

    “Who said the IRA should have surrendered? I said they should have ended the conflict then. ”
    ============================================
    Well. If the IRA offer a ceasefire and the Brits don’t take up the offer, then the only option to “end it” would be a surrender. It’s simple logic.
    And all your talk about Hunger strikes is self serving.
    Self serving in the facts that A) the IRA outside the wire didn’t want the hunger strikes in the first instance.
    And in the second instance what were they to do? Offer another ceasefire that would most likely be rejected.Whilst the men were on hunger strike. [ I don’t have to spell out what this would have done.]
    And if that happened?
    Then the only option to “end it” would be a surrender.
    Also, If you were an IRA volunteer..How easy did you think it’d be to defeat the Brit army in the first place??? You can’t really claim . You shoulda been told.
    The Germans lost 2 World Wars.
    USA got beaten in Vietnam losing about 50,000 dead and many more wounded.
    WW1 was a waste of life.etc..etc.
    War is not easy..not for the faint of heart.
    It Would have been nice to win it.
    But then if the old school didn’t kill Michael Collins..maybe we’s got the Brits out.
    or no civil war..maybe we’s got repartition leading to a UI by now.
    If the civil rights had of started 10 years earlier with the same result..than maybe the Free State would have given active support to the PIRA.
    Point is..There’s a lot of stuff that should’ve been done different.
    We are were we are.
    This is a Unionist site….They are loving your comments.
    Think about it.

  • Dixie Elliott

    LOL If you’re not McIvor cara you sure as hell are in his class….

    I’ll say no more lol

  • mac tire

    “I’ll say no more lol”
    Probably best all round, a chara.

  • Cue Bono

    Your argument that the UVF violence made the ‘people’ turn to the Provos for protection is somewhat dented by the fact that the Provo murder campaign directly influenced the increase in the loyalist murder campaign. So instead of providing protection they left the nationalist community to suffer forwhat they were doing.

    Gusty Spence and co were locked by the RUC long before the Provos were invented. Their actions in 1966 had nothing to do with the Troubles.

  • Cue Bono

    The strife around OO parades is the direct consequence of republican intolerance of the OO. I posted a quote and a link to a whole section of a book (you might learn something Seann) about the PDs and their deliberate policy of marching through unionist areas. Read it and get back to me.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Sterile specious paranoid ranting, CB. Some reliable evidence please for Ronnie’s actual detailed career in the PD if you wish to credibly contradict me! Or for the IRA penetration, as opposed to individual involvement by members of Republican organisations in the NICRA. In your terms the Unionists (Robin Cole!) were also penetrating NICRA, perhaps conniving with the Republicans to effect a United Ireland!

    “William Craig, the Stormont minister of home affairs, claimed that the civil rights movement had been infiltrated by subversives. He was privately challenged by RUC Inspector General Albert Kennedy, who rejected official attempts to project NICRA as an IRA front.”

    http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/protestant-fears-civil-rights-self-fulfilling-conspiracies/

    Incidentaly, this quote, although from a copyright work, fulfils the legal requirements for “fair use” being only two sentences and not “substantive”! Please note.

  • eiregain

    another A grade Dicksy rant, i can sense your anxiety mate, try a herbal remedy, it might calm you down. maybe then you will no longer spew vitriolic bogwater.

  • $136050377

    not my problem if you can’t see how they could “end it” without the co-operation of their enemy..without just surrendering.

  • Dixie Elliott

    I’m anxiety free. Given I don’t have to make excuses in my head for the cover up of paedophilia and rape, including the leading one in Derry. And trying to defend toasting the British Queen. No wonder the majority of online shinners hide their identity…..

    Clearly you’re rattled because you couldn’t answer the above.

  • carl marks

    We do a lot of whataboutry on Slugger, here’s a bit of whatiffery,
    Let’s assume that SF decide to take there seats now assuming that SF,SDLP,PC all retain there present number of seats then we have 11 nationalist members add to this 20 SNP seats ( conservative estimate) we have a potential bloc of at least 31 Nationalist MP’s at the next parliament! (without SF 26).
    with the redoubtable Alex Salmond most likely the leader of the SNP at Westminster is it not entirely possible that Alex ( arguably the most capable politician in both these Islands) might forge such a Alliance,possibly making the next government the most pro devolution/independence possible.
    By the way i am just counting the main nationalist parties, not independents and the conservative members who could be described as English nationalists
    Now would that maybe tempt the Shinner’s to take their seats, I think that abstentionism is starting to appear ridiculous even to themselves, after all they are in Europe, the Dial, Stormont and as for the whole oath thing i dare say if they decide to take their seats then some compromise could be reached.