Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
WITH NEXT WEEK’s referendum on Scottish independence fast approaching and with the polls showing a very tight race it’s worth reflecting on what impact independence for our Celtic cousins might have on Ireland.
Like many Irish people emotionally I’m instinctively in favour of Scottish independence.
Romantic notions of our sister Celtic nations acting in concert on the world stage are hard to push aside. Inevitably, cooperation and awareness of each other would increase hugely with independence, which would be welcome. It’s very likely we would find many common causes at European and international level.
But it’s not hard to see how Scottish independence could lead to trouble in the North, where it would hugely destabilise the Unionist community. It could possibly bring Irish unification closer, but might do so in a messy way that few would want.
It would also likely leave behind a hurt, weakened and isolationist UK. This could damage Western security and weaken NATO just as Russia becomes newly aggressive. It would also make an English exit from the EU more likely, which would open up a whole second phase of problems for us. It’s a classic heart versus head clash and I’m guessing that’s the dilemma in a lot of Scottish minds as people decide how to vote on Thursday.
High public engagement
People in Scotland know this vote matters and a truly national debate is taking place across the country. It’s been heated at times, but civilised. Predictions of an 80%+ turnout are widely accepted.
The voting age has been lowered to 16 and people who never normally vote will do so in large numbers. Are poor, disenfranchised council estate voters likely to vote Yes and No in the same proportion as those interviewed by polling companies? The First Minister, the SNP’s Alex Salmond, believes he has an unappreciated reservoir of Yes voters amongst this demographic. All this makes predictions and polling difficult, but there is no doubting the intensity of the debate.
In an era when most politics is dismissed as irrelevant it’s both fascinating and satisfying to see the really high public engagement with this debate people get that this really matters.
And of course it’ll have impacts that are much bigger than Scotland itself. Negative campaigning by No side One big feature of the campaign that has jumped out is the negativity of the No side campaign, Better Together, headed up by the former Labour chancellor Alistair Darling. They obviously cynically decided early on that scare tactics, especially on economic topics, had a better chance of success than a positive message about why Scotland is better off in the Union.
Tactics leave a bad taste
However it doesn’t say much for the Union when even its proponents can find little positive to say about it. And these tactics will leave a bad taste in Scotland’s mouth towards the rest of UK after the result, whichever way it goes.
Fostering fears over whether Scotland could keep using sterling after independence (the SNP’s preference) has been a major theme of the No side, backed up by the three main UK political parties. The currency line is ugly, rough politics, but early on it seemed to have worked at creating fear over a Yes, however latterly it may have caused resentment that might be helping fuel the late Yes surge.
Similar concerns were raised about Scottish membership of the EU and in general the No side have tried to create the impression that Scotland could not succeed on its own.
Together may be right that these negative tactics will win the day, but spending two years telling your own people they would be a flop on their own is a bit depressing and it’s not much of a prospectus. It says a lot about what even many pro-union Scots think of the Union.
The fear-mongering also risks flipping a resentment switch in voters who want to vote No but haven’t been given a positive pitch and feel like their nation is being insulted. Its a dangerous game. This will be a cohort to watch out for in the exit polls.
In reality the UK and EU would resolve all these ‘problematic’ issues amicably in the case of independence as it would be in all parties’ interests to do so.
Could Scotland vote Yes?
Disenchantment with politics and inability to change policy through elections (since most parties share similar programs) means voters today are willing to take disruptive risks, meaning a Yes vote is perhaps more likely than it would be in more settled times.
In recent years we’ve seen such disenchantment appear as votes for UKIP in England, but it’s a phenomenon with deeper roots in Scotland, where they have never got the governments they voted for. A Yes vote would separate them from a Westminster that has never reflected Scotland’s politics that has a big appeal.
Concern over hard economic realities means the referendum may still result in a No vote, if only narrowly. However the Union will be weakened either way and if it’s a close No result the issue will not be settled with any finality. The tactics of the UK political class in opposing independence will leave long term resentment too.
It’s certainly going to be close. The nasty, scary No side stuff seems to have backfired after some initial success. And Salmond has run an superb campaign. It had at one point looked like the Yes side had peaked too early, but recent polls show that isn’t so. And we know from Irish referenda that with momentum like this and a tight margin in polling this far out the result on polling day often goes against the establishment side.
Boost for democracy
Regardless of the result the referendum process itself has been excellent for democracy. Citizens have been reminded that their vote can change their country.
Many voters have stopped believing this truth in the demoralising years since the 2008 crash, which have been dominated by unresponsive parties that refuse to deliver change. Whether they vote Yes or No Scottish voters are radically altering their political dispensation by the ballot box, reminding us that democracy can still be used to change our societies. It is a timely lesson that voters looking in from Ireland might well be influenced by in the years ahead.
Impacts on Ireland
There has been surprisingly little coverage or comment on Scottish independence in Ireland, but a Yes vote would affect us on many fronts. Irish politicians’ silence on the topic can be justified as a polite respect for the sovereignty of the Scottish people and not interfering in their decision-making, but its also due to the fact many Irish politicians are conflicted it’s heart versus head again an instinctive support for independence versus an awareness that it would bring with it lots of complications.
However independence could happen and it should be more on our radar. A selection of possible issues that come to mind includes:
● instability in NI politics
● changes to Common Travel Area with UK will it be extended to Scotland?
● impacts on residency rights of Irish in UK and Scotland and vice versa
● immigration changes in UK and/or Scotland that impact here
● practicalities around NI border and onward travel to Scotland
● new FDI competition with a Scotland offering similar product to us
● new trade barriers (unlikely as Scotland will stay within EU)
● currency changes (unlikely to be a major issue but needs consideration)
● changed relationships and power balance with UK and within EU
● defence issues if UK moves assets (e.g. Royal Navy ships) from Scotland to NI
● energy issues one of only two existing UK interconnectors lands in Scotland
● fishing rights conflicts
● other unforeseen consequences
We will successfully adapt to whatever the decision the Scottish make, but we should be putting more thought into the issues independence might raise.
Northern Ireland
Although a Yes vote for independence would have a huge impact on Northern Ireland it has not featured much in the campaign in Scotland. Of course the Scots deserve the right to make the decision about the future of their nation on their own terms. They shouldn’t be constrained by the potential impacts a Yes vote might have on the various tribes in the North.
If independence is the decision, the North, and everyone else on these islands will have to accommodate themselves to Scotland’s sovereign choice.
Politicians in the North have been very careful to say little in the Scottish debate. Because the sectarian conflict in NI has seeped into Scotland (the Celtic Rangers rivalry being the most visible example) any comment by a Northern politician can be inflammatory, but also counter-productive.
A Northern Unionist speaking for a No vote is more likely to motivate potential Yes voters and any Sinn Féin call for a Yes vote would reinforce the determination of certain No voters. The big No march by the Orange Order in Edinburgh this weekend makes the point the official No campaign see it doing them damage and are trying to distance themselves from it.
Serious situation
Nevertheless, if Scotland does break away it will cause a serious situation in the North that we and the rump UK will have to manage. Scottish independence could hugely destabilise the unionist community there. The people they have the most natural political and cultural affinity with will have left the political union that they will remain attached to.
The Crown and the British Army would still offer an historic link to the UK for Northern Unionists, but for most it was never the English they valued unity with on a cultural or personal level, it was the Scots. The consequences are hard to predict, but it is no small issue, the impact could be enormous.
Parallels with 1922
Interestingly both the Scottish government and the UK government look to the example of the exit of the Irish Free State from the UK in 1922 for inspiration as to how independence might happen in practice.
The Scots use it for precedent on maintaining a currency union (we only unpegged the punt from sterling in 1979) and a free travel area (with generous residency and political rights) after independence. Both of these issues make hesitant would-be-Yes voters nervous so to be able to point to a real example is very helpful to Salmond.
In the case of the UK government 1922 let’s them make the unambiguous case that they would be the successor state after independence, keeping the UN Security Council seat, the nuclear weapons (something the SNP don’t want anyway) and the Bank of England and hence control over sterling. 1922 laid much of the legal and constitutional groundwork that would be needed to accomplish Scottish independence in practice.
Of course the big difference with Irish independence is that the current process has featured no violence a democratic choice is being freely made by the people of an ancient nation, in a process that both the Scottish and UK governments approved. And internally, despite heated debate, there has been no violence and little trouble around the campaign. This is a most welcome aspect of the current process.
Scotland decides its destiny
Turnout will be exceptionally high, and all the latest polls indicate an extremely close race. However, given the atypical nature of the voters turning out traditional polling will have struggled to have captured their views. The lower voting age and the participation of marginalised voters that normally don’t engage in the political process favours the Yes side.
Combined with the current disenchantment with mainstream politics and the longstanding Scottish disenchantment with Westminster it’s very possible Scottish independence will be carried.
If it is, it will be a political earthquake for these islands, one we are not ready for. It might be time to start thinking about who should be Ireland’s first ambassador to Scotland.
Dr Kevin Byrne writes about Irish policy and politics at NowOrSoon.com. You can follow him on Facebook or @noworsoon
This man is responsible for more terrorism than your average Al Qaeda general through the hate that he has spread through his entire public life! I have no interest in his opinion on anything!
exactly ted,why give him a audience at all,i wouldnt want to hear his opinion on the weather
The DUP’s Ulster resistance imported loads of weapons, the RUC and British Military Intelligence imported weapons.
All went to Loyalists paramilitaries.
There was a lot more done than incitement to kill and discriminate by Unionist politicians.
Time we called a spade a spade.
Watch It’s 2 Mins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbgSNMepC_o
Well said Ted
It will be interesting to see how posters like James Buchanan and Patrick Lyons, who have been rabid (and off-topic most of the time) in their defence of Paisley’s comments on another thread, react to a complete and utter denunciation of those comments by current Unionist leaders. They’ll probably just go off-topic again and indulge in their favourite hobby – whataboutery.
Their the same person
lyons had 5 pseudonyms on the last post.
Foxy, I didn’t know that. I just assumed posters on The Journal are not allowed sock-puppets (like most other sites). Thanks for that.
They’re
id advise people to ignore him/them,he’s a sad pathetic little man looking to troll,why on earth would you come on here day after day to say the same thing to people who dont think the same as you about such a sensitive topic,he clearly enjoys being controversial and needs it too,please just ignore him and he’ll go away,i told him the other day thats what i was going to do and he sent 3 messages trying to goad me into talking !! he’s a parasite,debate is fine and all that but it gets to a point where it is just trolling and looking for trouble
You nasty git….
Let’s just go round his house for a cup of tea and a chat
@ Scaldychops
If you were on the previous thread you’d clearly see that I supported the Dublin and Monaghan families getting the truth about what happened their loved ones, I also referred to both republican and loyalist terrorists as scvm who caused a lot of hurt in this country. I did put these bombings into perspective though and compared it to what was happening up here on a more regular basis, an innocent victim is an innocent victim whether they died in Dublin/Monaghan in 1974 or the Shankill bombing in 1993, theres no hierarchy of victims.
People on here think its ok that people were murdered because it was done in the name of Irish freedom, imagine if I said the Dublin/Monaghan bombings were ok because it somehow strengthened the UK or some warped statement like that, i’d be hounded on here more than I am already. The perpetrators of Dublin ad Monaghan were murdering scvmbags who certainly didnt represent me in any way. Theres my stance on the matter, now red thumb away.
@Patrick Lyons
They’re their Patrick, you seem quite crotchety.
your, you”re a dick
“People on here think it’s ok that people were murdered because it was done in the name of Irish freedom”
Who??
The Orange Order- Ireland’s answer to the Ku Klux Klan
Hill Billy comes from Billy’s boys on the hill.
They still had Orange Parades in America up to the last century. When the Americans had to ban them.
Same reason as all over the world. Drunk Orange men rioting and attacking and killing people.
You can take the Orange man from Fermanagh but he takes his hate and violence with him.
This wasn’t the Orange Order though, it was the UVF. I know those two organisations overlap, but they aren’t the same so it’s a bit off-topic. Bash the UVF here, there’ll be a story about the Loyal Orders doing something stupid soon enough and you can get it off your chest then
One and the same Etienne. Orange marchers carry banners supporting various loyalist terror-groupings. They like to do so whilst passing spots in Belfast where said groups have gunned down innocent Catholics.
The special branch aided and abetted the escape from justice of the british army members who bombed dublin and monaghan. The special branch took a gun off a british soldier in DUBLIN DOCKS on the night of the bombings and put him on a ferry.
Rather than hunt the terrorists the special branch launched a vicious campaign of hatred and intimidation against the families of those who were murdered and injured in the bombings.
No other police force in the world would have done these heinous things, only the special branch.
really?
It sounds a bit Alex Jones….I have a hard time believing members of the special branch committed treason…for who’s benefit? What’s their advantage in doing it?
I can see why the British would have an incentive to collude because they were trying to get us to pass internment at the time but our own cops? Why?
i see that the civil and public servants are been rolled out.
why did the branch stop the investigation weeks after the bombings?
Why did they hand over evidence to the RUC?
Why did they launch a campaign of hatred against the families?
Why didn’t they arrest the soldier instead of putting him on a ferry?
Forget about your alex jones bullshit and think logically.
Well if I’m to be a shell for this conspiracy then I demand the Skull and Bones society, on their way to bomb the new world trade center with holograms and cruize missiles combined with controlled demolitions just like the last time, at least pay me some cash…I could really use some cash?
If you’re too busy rigging royal car crashes and putting secret poison into the contrails of jets I understand but…later maybe? I’m not shelling for you guys for free…I mean can I at least get in on one of the Bilderberg meetings? Maybe you could slip me a 500euro bill under the table or something?
Huboy…never assume a conspiracy when simple incompetence is a more likely explanation.
I believe in facts, I often get slammed on here for trying to pull the discussion away from emotionally driven hysteria towards logic and reason. So you want me to believe the Garda special branch committed treason you have to tell me two things
1. What are the independently verifiable facts that lend credence to this?
2. What would they have to gain by doing it? (whats the affirmative theory of the crime?)
Where’s the conspiracy?
Everything i said is proven facts. What’s your bullshit about the twin towers and diana got to do with british terror in ireland?
You’re too blind to see, bet you can’t wait for sunday so you can buy the sunday independent.
Money?
Neither a civic or public servant, just somebody who thinks your theory is completet tosh
I’m not too blind to see anything, I’m a scientist, and all scientific investigation starts with healthy skepticism. You are making a very serious assertion that the people who’s specific job it is to protect us from terrorism participated in covering up (or participated in?) a terrorist attack? and thus committed treason….it’s an audacious assertion so it’s naturally going to be met with skepticism.
I’ve never read the Sunday Independent and it’s been ten years since I read an Irish newspaper except flicking thru the metro on my way to work.
Whats the source for the things you cite above? How did you find them out?
Ryan, why was the investigation stopped then?
why did the Paddy Cooney meet with the British shortly after the attack?
Special Branch, did they EVER arrest any loyalist/British terrorists in 40 years?
The Govt committed treason, why not them?
why has this never been investigated properly despite everyone knowing the British were involved, including Judge Barron?
Let’s look at it logically then, one item at a time
[why did the branch stop the investigation weeks after the bombings?]
The investigation taking one time rather than another is not proof of collusion by the special branch, they may have collected all the evidence they had?
[Why did they hand over evidence to the RUC?]
What evidence? Was it evidence that pointed to persons in the RUCs jurisdiction?
[Why did they launch a campaign of hatred against the families?]
The special branch launched a campaign of hate or the state or the Brits? Who?
[Why didn’t they arrest the soldier instead of putting him on a ferry?]
If the special branch was colluding and they let one of the bombers go then how did this ever come out? How did anyone ever find out they let him go?
The reason I asked you for an affirmative theory of the crime is because in debates with 911 truthers they always said to me ”ahh we don’t know…were just asking questions”, and that’s all they’d do, make vague suggestions thru spooky questions but they had no theory of the crime because there couldn’t be one that made sense. What did the special branch have to gain by committing treason? or the state?
@ huboy de kid,i dont know if its true or not but i wouldnt dismiss it out of hand,people are idiots would ye really put it past the british to do such a thing ?? ye are probably the same people thinking the BBC show a few weeks back on state terrorism was “eye opening” yet when ye hear it again its all “alex jones” like !!!
Well ok it is possible. But let’s see some evidence/hard facts … not just a bunch of unanswered questions.
@Gerard I would not put it past the British state to collude, or elements of securocrats inside the UK establishment to collude because there is a rational reason they could theoretically have for doing it: it gets us to experience terrorism and makes us more likely to support draconian laws and measures that would also enhance UK security from terrorism.
What I find hard to beleive is the idea that the Garda Special Branch decided to help agents of a foreign power help terrorists bomb their own country and murder the people they took an oath to protect…just cos? For what? What’s their motive for that?
What do they or their political masters have to gain from bombs exploding in Ireland?
ryan the absence of proof isnt proof ! if you’d take the time to read my comment i never said i belived they had or they hadnt but i am certainly keeping an open mind about it,i dont know how the special branch works or the relationships between governments at international level and my point is you certainly dont either,you say you are a scientist and start with a skeptical mind well it would seem that skepticism works only one way and i know you are gona say logically there was no clear reason and the questions you ask are valid,i agree but its not science we are dealing with its goverments,people and special agents your scientific logic does not come into play,people are irrational,illogical and some times unreadable,who’s to say they werent ordered to leave them go to avoid an international scandal ?? or maybe out of fear of what it would provoke if brought to the open ?? or maybe something was promised in return ?? trade,prisoners,something in return for the nationalist of the north,im not saying this was decided upon before hand maybe after they were caught,who knows !!! its shady and its not called a “dirty war” for nothing and its certainly not gona be obvious to you or me and one ting i do know loyalist gangs hadnt the capabilities or logistical know how to carry this out alone,they were more into getting drunk and picking up random catholics and then murdering them and i certainly would not put the special branch above anything because they had swore an oath,that is naive,they work for the government and the govenrment only !!
All historical fact and well documented in several investigations.
This was a strange country up to the 90′s. To call it a functioning democracy was a joke.
if you have proof of that you should take it to the authorities, mr made up shinner name
The ironic thing about what Paisley said was that the likes of Cosgrave, Fitzgerald, etc. never really did ever condemn the British apartheid state in the North or even murders committed on it’s behalf.
-1969 pograms in Derry
-Bloody Sunday
They even colluded with the British – letting British soldiers found with a bomb in the Republic go free (Fitzgerald).
Stopped investigation into Dublin and Monaghan Bombings. (Cosgrave).
They in fact acted like cowards. Even a Vichy Regime.
All they did was tacitly support was equal rights, shared future, etc.
They helped cover up countless killings in the South because they didn’t want it coming out that most of it was done by British soldiers and RUC men.
This has been backed in countless investigations.
Political leaders are responsible for fomenting the narrative from which terrorism is spawned. Don’t listen to bullshit from Paisley or Adams or any of them. The terrorism suited them when it served their personal political aspirations and goals. Now in their latter years they want to be redeemed as peacemakers and statesmen. It’s all rubbish. These fools could have tempered the anger , instead they stoked it. They are the real terrorists.
Cromwell started it if you knew your history. They all used violence and murder and hatred to do this damage.
Actually he makes a good point…terrorism does not emerge in a vacuum it comes from political narratives that are spun to support it. How else do you think members of the CIRA-RIRA today justify what they do? There is a political narrative spun, they have their own twisted ass backwards version of history and at the end of that twisted story their army council is left as the ‘legitimate’ government of Ireland.
No one person started the troubles it came from a complex interplay of factors. Don’t call people names, this is not a schoolyard.
aaah, my comment was removed. Lets try again.
Terrorism never suited irish nationalists. It suited the British, Adams stopped the war, the british started it.
Stop reading the sunday independent.
Well then, if we were to use paisley’s own logic the Stormont gov. brought the IRA campaign upon itself through its denial of civil rights to 1/3 of its population.
Don’t read the indo so there’s that fact you got wrong. My comment not only applies to the Troubles, but every single war throughout history and throughout the world. Unfortunately war and violence.does suit political aims. Look at the change of US foreign policy. It used to be the communists that were the threat , then that narrative was useless after the fall of communism. So the new threat was Islam, something strange to fear.
As long as Paisley had the threat of Taigs at the gate, and Adams had the threat of state violence, they could steer the narrative.
It’s moderates that end wars not extremists. Yet they never get the credit for it. Where’s the SDLP now? Drowned out by the violent extremists claiming to be peacemakers.
And funnily enough they all became very quiet after 9/11. Justifying terrorism went out of fashion at that point.
That man was evil personified, If you need a starting point for sectarian strife it’s as good as any. He was none to good in England either, his infamy is still moulds the British people’s attitude to authority. No love lost there and even less trust.
you can say physical violence isnt the answer but tell me whats “twisted” about their take on history ??
If you are talking to me Gerard what I mean by twisted is the nonsense notion that if it’s not a 32 county dail it does not count and that the last remnants of the last all IRELAND Dail gave the power of the ‘legitimate’ state to the old ira army council and they passed it on to the PIRA etc etc etc
Thus all govts the irish people elect are illegitimate, they believe this stuff and it’s bonkers.
The people of this island voted for a compromise peace plan, they just can’t accept that, in all their talk about ‘republicanism’ they have lost sight of the ultimate power in a republic laying with the people, whos wishes they ignore.
ok ryan and please try and answer this for me,when men like dan breen and them fired the first shots of the tan war they were vilified by the whole commuinity,called criminals and cowards now they have goverment buildings and estates named after them.what is the difference ?? i want to know what you think so dont off on a mad one tell me in your eyes what is the difference ?? because from where i sit the only difference is ultimate vicotry,if thay had lost we likely wouldnt know their names or hold them in any regard,of course the vast majority of people want whats easiest and to be left to live their lives,work and feed their children thats natural but it doesnt make those prepared to sacrifice wrong for been willing to do so,i dont care about the dail or anything else i would never condemn any man for fighting for his country and no im not saying every method is ok,im not saying blow up innocents so before you even start try keep the hysterical cliches to a minimum
I agree with what Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinnness said.
I do not necessarily agree with what Peter Robinson or Martin McGuinness may actually think.
We should remember that the disgusting comments from Paisley are the exact same that former
Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave told the families of the victims of that terrorist attack on the day they lost their loved ones.
The Southern media and politicians have treated Sinn Fein so badly
That the DUP and other loyalists and feel they can treat them anyway
they like . Paisley knows he can say whatever and the Unionists will
Get away with it . It also gives the DUP and OUP a get out of jail free
card . The Southern media. And Politicians in their desire for narrow
Political gain are leaving the majority of Nationalist people without
proper representation
The National Govt of the mid 70′s, Cosgrave’s FG and Lab. set the special branch on the survivors who wondered why the Guards were told stop the investigation after 6 weeks.
The UVF in Mid-Ulster will certainly send Liam Cosgrave a wreath when he shuffles off.
Terrorists are responsible for their own actions. They cannot be excused or lay the blame on anybody else. Both ‘republicans’ and ‘loyalists’ were/are a disgrace and nothing but carbuncles on the face of humanity.
But the ira are a little bit worse eh Patrick
They certainly murdered more people than any other gang.
Ryan i agree but why are you using the same profile pic (?) as mr lyons was earlier?
I must admit it I am really Ruairi Colton.
You wish
I play the good guy Ruairi plays the bad guy. I/we have a split personality. Sometimes the Ruairi part of me thinks that other people are really me/us. I have tried to seek medical help for Ruairi but he/I/we will not go.
I’m not sure what you mean Rairi in firefox I can’t see a profile pic just the generic photo background thing, the photos meant to be my facebook page main photo. I only use one name on here.
Ryan, my alter ego Ruairi will not believe, correctly so, that we are not the same person. The three of us must try to get along as we share the same body. Of course, you knew this already as you are me/us.
I’m lost…
Was gonna ask the same question ruairi
What would you like to know Michelle. I would be only too happy to help you.
I have to say Mr Lyons i lol at that.
No one can accuse you of not having a sense of humour.
Have you more than one profile on the journal? What is the meaning of life? And the question I really want you to answer, how long is a piece of string?
Michelle the meaning of life is 42. This can be verified by The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. The length of a genuine piece of string is 42”. String theory and the meaning of life are interconnected. All pieces of string that are not 42″ in length are patent forgeries.
Past time for this prehistoric bigot to crawl away and die,where his bones will never be found!
Shinner persecution complex is alive and well
He’s just an all round horrible man.
Source: Don Mullan.
Is it true Britain have info on the bombings they wont release, cuz if they do that seems very fishy. Not saying they did it but…..
I see this in 911 lore as well.
A gap in the picture does not = evidence of conspiracy.
Theres definitely something both govts don’t want revealed about these bombings but it’s more likley collusion between loyalists and elements inside the UK security apparatus than mad plots of special branch men somehow finding it ok to let a bomber go but deciding he can’t go with his gun..
well ryan to apply your logic,why woudl the irish government want to hide state collusion between britain and loyalists ??
Obviously, low-ranking personnel in both the RUC and the UDR were involved in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings but there is no evidence that high-ranking personnel authorised it. As for convicted murderer John Weir’s allegation that the late Harry Breen was involved, he is not a reliable witness because he was angry that the RUC didn’t protect him from prosecution. Furthermore, the Barron inquiry did not have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses. Therefore, the Barron report is hardly worth the paper on which it is written.
and is there one shred of proof that they didnt authorize it ?? i think with the hundreds of years of history against them i for one wont be giving them the benefit of the doubt,you work away though ciaran
@Gerard Tuohy
“and is there one shred of proof that they didnt authorize it ??”
Have you ever heard of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
have you ever heard of a history book ????
Gerard, you cannot blame people for the crimes of their ancestors.
you said there was no evidence of it,this crime was in the 70′s when there is now plenty of evidence of the higher ups colluding at the time and my point is they have previous for this type of behaviour anyway,hundreds of years of previous !! even if it happend today id say the same,if you think the same people who ran the b-specials,ruc and loyalist paramilitaries wouldnt be capable of such things then thats your opinion and i dont think i need to say what i think that makes of you !!! so no i am not blaming people for their ancestors and even if i was id be right they are still here and still fuqing us over,now if i started given danes grief or norwegians then your argument would be valid
@Gerard Tuohy
“you said there was no evidence of it,this crime was in the 70′s when there is now plenty of evidence of the higher ups colluding at the time and my point is they have previous for this type of behaviour anyway,hundreds of years of previous !!”
What I meant that the fact that previous British governments did bad things on the island of Ireland hundreds of years ago doesn’t necessarily mean that the British government that was in power in 1974 did bad things on this island. Harold Wilson, who was British prime minister at the time of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, was a left-wing politician and he feared that British intelligence was spying on him. Therefore, you cannot accuse him of collusion with Loyalists.
Furthermore, James Flanagan, who was RUC Chief Constable from 1973 to 1976, was a Catholic. Therefore, you cannot accuse him of collusion with Loyalists either.
Where’s the evidence of the collusion of higher-up personnel?
He’s some plonker
Why doesn’t this old guy go away and die
have your say