If this is the sort of person who can now get into Oxford, I do weep for the future. I know that idiots have always slipped in, but it looks like this guy may actually be passing his classes. Even if you ignore his stunning lack of knowledge, the total absence of persuasive writing ability is shocking.

I must admit, I've been pleasantly surprised by your writing on the riots. It's a sad day for the likes of UUP/UDF and DUP/LVF when a rabidly pro-Unionist commentator like you can't find any sympathy with the Orange Order, and even admits Gerry Adams has a point about something.

It's the approach to debate and disagreement that worries me: fingers in the ears and la-la-la. This guy's a postgrad. He wouldn't have got a philosophy degree at St Andrews with his attitude.

L

Do you live in Northern Ireland? If not, shut up.

Linstead,

I have regularly admitted that Gerry Adams has points about all sorts of things. The reason the man shouldn't be allowed in politics is not that he's wrong; it's that he's the head of a terrorist organisation.

My opinion of the Orange Order is much the same as it's always been. I've been saying the same thing (though not blogged it, so you'll have to take my word for it) for years. Nothing about this week's events changed that opinion; they just made it topical.

A sizable part of the UUP, I'm pretty sure, would like to ditch the Orange Orders, but can't afford the inevitable split.

I'm not pro-Unionist; I'm pro-Union, and I don't see anything rabid about that. It's a simple matter of choosing which country to live in. In most parts of the world, people can make that decision based on geography. I live in one of the parts where, having chosen a place to live and settled down there, the geography could be whipped out from under me by politics and stuck in a different country. Not wanting this to happen is no more rabid than living in Gloucester and not wanting to suddenly find oneself living in France. There's nothing necessarily anti-French about that; it's just that one would like to choose whether to live there.


> UUP/UDF and DUP/LVF

You're delusional. Even the anti-Paisley press don't make this mistake, instead asking tough questions of David Ervine. And the idea that the UUP are a terrorist front is laughably absurd.

I weep for the future as much as Jackie. I must also say that you are one of the last people I know that I would call pro-unionist, or in fact, pro-any political party. ;)
And can I just point Linstead in the direction of the comments section of this post where I think both of us demonstrate a respect for Gerry Adams that might get us stabbed were we to announce it in East Belfast.
Or, indeed, certain pubs in Bangor.

Yes, I was thinking of that particular rabidly pro-Unionist post of mine earlier, but couldn't be bothered finding the link. So thanks for that, Mr Jackson.

You must get me a list of those pubs. I'm not very good at keeping my mouth shut.

Well, if you want to see some foaming at the mouth rabid unionism, you know where to come....! Grrr.

"I'm not pro-Unionist"
I had a look at that link. From what I can gather, by saying "Unionists are right", and criticising the poor quality of their duplicity "At least when Westminster's politicians lie, they do it well. Our lot are such bloody amateurs", while repeatedly hammering home your view of IRA as "bastard scum", you're actually espousing dangerously non-conformist views? You're still reiterating the dominant ideology - just moaning about the quality of your idealogues.

"the geography could be whipped out from under me by politics and stuck in a different country."
Yes, I'd imagine the inhabitants of Ireland were rather peeved when the geography was whipped out from under them and they were stuck in the United Kingdom. Whoops.

"instead asking tough questions of David Ervine"
Ervine's rather convenient in that respect. A fairly minor player, with no political representation, who is happy to admit former paramilitary activity, mentioning him allows the media to 'balance' their description of Sinn Fein as "the political wing of the IRA" with "the PUP - who have links to paramilitaries" (woo!). Meanwhile, no one discusses David Trimble's background in the pseudo-paramilitary Vanguard group, or the fact that almost all UUP MPs elected have been members of an institutionally sectarian society (the Orange Order) who are happy to admit their links to paramilitaries. No one discusses the fact that Ian Paisley has collaborated with every major Loyalist group, be it in campaigns against civil rights, organising strikes to destroy power-sharing, or just in secret midnight rallies of gun-waving lunatics, and has even started a few paramilitary groups of his own.

"The Orange Order is a very broad church and it's not my responsibility to say to people they can't be members of various organisations".
Orange Order Grand Master Dawson Bailie, August 2000 when asked about Orange Order members involvement with Unionist paramilitaries.

"They are on our side. We might not agree with everything they do but they have been helpful to brethren in north and west Belfast, and continued to defend Orange Order refusal to talk to residents".
Orange Order Deputy Grand Master McMurdie, July 2005, when asked about Orange Order links to unionist paramilitaries.

"If not, shut up."
No, Vic. I'm sure you'd love it if we did, but educated Catholics who have issues with their treatment aren't going to shut up. We're not going to shut up or go away. Should blacks, Jews, gays and women have "shut up" when they were being oppressed?

> actually espousing dangerously non-conformist views

This bollocks again. Last time I responded to this very silly point of yours, you accused me of shutting down the argument. Strangely, here you still are, still arguing.

You've got it exactly backwards. I never claimed that my views are non-conformist, nor do I care whether they are. In fact, disliking both the Orange Order and the IRA is an extremely mainstream view over here, which is pretty much my point when arguing with people like you. English left-wingers like to think that the two sides in NI are Catholic and Protestant or Republican and Unionist, and that one is oppressing the other. They're not, as a rule: they're pro-terrorist and anti-terrorist, and the people who are most oppressed by the bastards on either side are the very communities they claim to support. Witness this last week: who are the Loyalist thugs damaging the most? Loyalist communities, as usual. As the McCartneys would tell you, it's the same on the other side.

Some of my neighbours are Catholic. One of my other neighbours is a nice old Protestant lady whose husband was machine-gunned to death by the IRA because they thought he was someone else, and who grows orange lilies in her garden for her son to wear on his Orange marches. The one simple point that people outside NI refuse to grasp is this: they're friends. All that hatred-across-the-boundaries, I've-never-even-met-a-Catholic shite seen on TV and in Jim bloody Sheridan's films is about a handful of small areas under the thumb of terrorist gangsters. Most of the province is not like that, and judging it that way is like judging the whole of England on the basis of a couple of dodgy areas in Tyneside where blacks aren't welcome. I've known Catholics who support the England football and cricket teams — something that no Scot, whether Catholic or Protestant, would ever do. There is far less sectarianism here than in the West of Scotland, and I've never known anyone who has lived in both to say otherwise.

Why do you bother taking quotes out of context when they're written down in full for all to see, by the way? I said "I'm not pro-Unionist; I'm pro-Union", and you then quote only the first half and present the fact that I'm admittedly pro-Union as somehow contradicting that. Likewise, why do you think that quotes that reveal what bastards certain Orange leaders are would in any way contradict my assertion that certain Orangemen are belligerent bastards? Why bother? You think someone's going to fall for this?


> the inhabitants of Ireland were rather peeved when the geography was whipped out from under them and they were stuck in the United Kingdom.

Absolutely, yes; I've said as much before. However, they're dead now, so their needs come second. Similarly, if, two hundred years hence, the majority of Northern Irish people want Unification, I don't expect my opinions to be given any weight. As a general rule, attempts to undo history go awry and only lead to further problems, which is why I said before that, however much one might object to the Spanish sacking of South America, it would still be a very bad idea to try to chuck the Spanish out now. It happened. Now we have to live with it.


> Ervine's rather convenient in that respect.

This is why Vic told you to shut up if you don't live here — not if you're Catholic — and she has a point. No, Ervine isn't convenient in any way. If you live outside NI, comfortably detached from all this, you might think Ervine is convenient for some people because you think this is all about scoring points in political arguments. Those of us who live here think that he's extremely inconvenient, because he represents an organisation which kills people, burns their houses down, torches their cars, and has just shut down our city for the eighth day in a row.


> mentioning him allows the media to 'balance' their description of Sinn Fein as "the political wing of the IRA"

Er, that's not the media's description; that's Sinn Fein's description. It's hardly bias to take them at their word.


> educated Catholics who have issues with their treatment aren't going to shut up. We're not going to shut up or go away. Should blacks, Jews, gays and women have "shut up" when they were being oppressed?

Where are these oppressed Catholics? It's no longer the 1800s, and Irish Catholics wear shoes and read books and stuff these days. I meet Northern Irish Catholics on a daily basis. They're no more oppressed than I am — at least, not by the British Government. In IRA-controlled areas, they're oppressed by the IRA.

This whole discussion's quite bizarre, really. Right now, Loyalist terrorists are smashing up Loyalist areas, and the British Army have been called in to suppress their violence. I criticise the thugs behind it all. And you come on here and complain that I'm defending Loyalist violence and the use of the army against Catholics. What are you on?


> repeatedly hammering home your view of IRA as "bastard scum"

Are you saying they're not?

"it would still be a very bad idea to try to chuck the Spanish out now. It happened. Now we have to live with it".
Firstly, the Spanish weren't the only colonial nation in South America at that time - there were Dutch, British and Portugese colonies as well - so there wasn't the same colonial hegemony. Secondly, the natives were pagans and this religion isn't practised any more, so there's no sectarian religious conflict like in NI - Spanish Peruvians don't march through Machu Pichu playing flutes every summer. Thirdly, no South American country is still directly run from Spain. Fourthly, the reasons for European colonisation of South America were primarily economic, rather than political. In fact, I don't know why you made this analogy at all.

"he represents an organisation which kills people, burns their houses down, torches their cars, and has just shut down our city for the eighth day in a row"
Paisley represents murdering Loyalist thugs as well, but we're still sold this image of him as "Reverend" Paisley, the principled man of the cloth, who might be a bit cranky, but is generally a Good Guy. Ervine is a gnat's fart in the wind compared to the antics of Paisley, who's worked with unceasing vigour for 40-odd years to prevent any progress in NI, all the time spewing out bigoted filth. Yet the British media practically paint the old cunt as a National Treasure. So we're not allowed to talk about the DUP's 'links' with ACP, who're basically a front for the LVF, and instead focus on Ervine. Myabe you're right and everyone in NI knows what a bunch of tossers they all are and the increasing number of votes at every election for both the DUP and Sinn Fein are some sort of US Republican-style voting anomaly, but it doesn't seem that way to "left wing English" people.

"that's Sinn Fein's description"
You're going back a bit there. Anyway, I can't ever recall the UUP being referred to as "the political wing of the Orange Order".

"complain that I'm defending Loyalist violence and the use of the army against Catholics. What are you on?"
No, I pointed out that I enjoyed your criticism of Loyalist violence, framed as it was, in a pro-Unionist (and pro-Union, if you like) context.

"Where are these oppressed Catholics?"
There are dozens of Loyalist attacks on Catholics (and on foreigners, and on each other) every month. 70% of people living in the 10% most deprived areas are Catholic. Catholics are more likely to be unemployed, are less likely to be in senior civil service grades, are more likely to be on Housing Executive waiting list, and have poorer health records.

"Are you saying they're not?"
No, I'm quoting you as part of my argument. Weren't you going on about taking things out of context a minute ago?

> In fact, I don't know why you made this analogy at all.

As I said, it was an illustration of something that both shouldn't have been done in the first place and shouldn't be undone now. Another example is Germany: should it have been split in two? Nope. Should it have been reunified? Increasingly, Germans think that was a disastrous idea.


> we're still sold this image of him as "Reverend" Paisley, the principled man of the cloth, who might be a bit cranky, but is generally a Good Guy. ... the British media practically paint the old cunt as a National Treasure.

I'm trying hard to contain my laughter here. You reckon the British media have a pro-Paisley bias? Seriously?


> Myabe you're right and everyone in NI knows what a bunch of tossers they all are and the increasing number of votes at every election for both the DUP and Sinn Fein are some sort of US Republican-style voting anomaly

Don't think I've said that at any point.


> There are dozens of Loyalist attacks on Catholics (and on foreigners, and on each other)

My point.


> 70% of people living in the 10% most deprived areas are Catholic. Catholics are more likely to be unemployed

Yes, but that's no longer a sign of oppression by the British Government (though it probably was before the gains of the 60s). One of the IRA's key claims has long been that Northern Ireland is a failure when run by the British. To back up that claim, they have taken violent action to drive down employment, especially among Catholics, and to drive business out of the province, especially if it was employing Catholics. High employment among Catholics presents the IRA with a recruitment problem, so they try to prevent it. At one point, the senior civil service were thought to be on the IRA's hit-lists — I know this, because I know the family of a civil servant who spent a few years turning the key in the ignition before getting into the car. No-one who lived in an IRA-controlled area was about to apply for those jobs, as they'd have been killed by the very men who claimed to be fighting for their rights. Maybe it's true that, had they applied, they'd have been discriminated against. But we'll never know, because of the intimidation that took place before the application process even began.

Similar thing with the RUC. Contrary to the IRA's claims, lots of Catholics did join the force. The reason they were under-represented (though not to the degree you might think) was that the IRA would put extra special effort into killing Catholic officers, whose very existence contradicted a key IRA propaganda claim. You had to have one hell of a vocation to be a Catholic policeman. Remarkably, many did.

The employment discrimination here is more complex than the picture you present, by the way. The problem wasn't that Catholics couldn't get jobs; it was that Catholics couldn't get jobs in many Protestant institutions and vice versa. For instance, the Ulster Hospital used to be staffed almost entirely by Protestants while the Royal was staffed almost entirely by Catholics.


> are more likely to be on Housing Executive waiting list

The British Government are such bloody amateurs. They're supposed to be oppressing these people, and they go giving them subsidised housing. Doh.

"Another example is Germany: should it have been split in two? Nope. Should it have been reunified? Increasingly, Germans think that was a disastrous idea."

You don't strike me as the kind of person who'd be a big fan of the GDR. As a random aside, have a look at this, if you have the time: http://womenshistory.about.com/ l...rmany_women.htm

Do you think East Timor shouldn't have got independence? What about Scottish and Welsh devolution? Or the creation of Israel? The breakup of the USSR?

"You reckon the British media have a pro-Paisley bias? Seriously?"

Seriously. The media don't report Paisley's history and links with Loyalist groups, and paint him as, at worst, an obstinate old goat who is standing up for what he believes in against those greasy, sneaky Sinn Fein types, and actually works very hard for his constituents. When you contrast this with the portrait of Nationalists as nihilists who want to destroy a state that's would work fine if it wasn't for their stirring it, it looks like Paisley is getting a pretty good deal. I don't ever recall the BBC dubbing over his voice, which is a shame.


"> Myabe you're right and everyone in NI knows what a bunch of tossers they all are and the increasing number of votes at every election for both the DUP and Sinn Fein are some sort of US Republican-style voting anomaly

Don't think I've said that at any point."

You said "In fact, disliking both the Orange Order and the IRA is an extremely mainstream view over here" and "All that hatred-across-the-boundaries, I've-never-even-met-a-Catholic shite seen on TV and in Jim bloody Sheridan's films is about a handful of small areas under the thumb of terrorist gangsters. Most of the province is not like that". It's further up the page if you want to check. So, if it's all happy families over there, why are people shifting their votes towards the IRA-connected Sinn Fein and the LVF-connected, bigot-led, Orange-affiliated DUP?

"they have taken violent action to drive down employment, especially among Catholics, and to drive business out of the province, especially if it was employing Catholics".

This is news to me. So Catholic unemployment and poverty in a province where Protestant bigots hold all the money and power is actually solely the IRA's fault.

"Contrary to the IRA's claims, lots of Catholics did join the force".

Percentage-wise, it was never even in double figures, let alone representative. A leaked internal report from 1997 reported that a third of Catholic RUC officers had suffered religious discrimination and/or harassment from Protestant fellow officers. And then, of course, there's the 2003 Stevens report, which exposed RUC collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in the late 80s. And it's believed that the RUC were implicated in John Stalker's report on Shoot To Kill, but handily, it was never published. And this isn't just an extremist's view - the SDLP (probably the only major party who aren't a front for a paramilitary organisation) were among the RUC's fiercest critics - it was Seamus Mallon who said the RUC was "97% Protestant and 100% Unionist".


"it was that Catholics couldn't get jobs in many Protestant institutions and vice versa. For instance, the Ulster Hospital used to be staffed almost entirely by Protestants while the Royal was staffed almost entirely by Catholics".

Oh, I know all that - Belfast City Council even kept Catholic and Protestant sewerage workers on separate squads. The "Protestant institutions" that Catholics couldn't get jobs in included the government, the police, the civil service, almost all manufacturing etc. But, equally balanced, I'm sure you'll agree, by the strict exclusion of Protestants from becoming Catholic priests or members of the IRA.


"The British Government are such bloody amateurs. They're supposed to be oppressing these people, and they go giving them subsidised housing. Doh."

Very clever. I produce a statistic on Catholic poverty, and you twist it, using your Unionist logic, into a sneering implication that Catholics are somehow getting a favourable deal from the smiling benefactor that is the UK Government. Protestants are equally free to join a waiting list, it's just that fewer need to, which was my original point. By the way, social housing is not subsidised - NIHE is expected to balance its books, and sets its rents accordingly. It actually generates revenue for the government through Right to Buy. You neo-Liberals seem to think everything operated by the state is heavily subsidised, while it's generally big business who benefit from injections of taxpayers' money.

> NIHE is expected to balance its books, and sets its rents accordingly.

Unless you're claiming that council housing is the same price as private-sector rentals, it's subsidised. The subsidy is what makes it cheaper, regardless of book-balancing. All you're saying here is that it could be subsidised even more to make it even cheaper.


> a sneering implication that Catholics are somehow getting a favourable deal from the smiling benefactor that is the UK Government. Protestants are equally free to join a waiting list, it's just that fewer need to, which was my original point.

Yes, I understood your original point, thanks. But you're not just saying that Catholics are poor; you're saying that they're oppressed by the British Government and are therefore poor. As evidence, you present the large numbers of Catholics who are being helped financially by the British Government.


> You don't strike me as the kind of person who'd be a big fan of the GDR.

The GDR was destroyed well before reunification. Germany could have remained, as it was for a short while, two nations without Communism and with an open border. A lot of Germans now wish it had.


> Do you think East Timor shouldn't have got independence? What about Scottish and Welsh devolution? Or the creation of Israel? The breakup of the USSR?

My point was that it's generally a mistake to try to undo history. Certainly Scottish devolution is an appalling farce, and Scotland is a very good example of how counterproductive it is to nurse centuries-old grudges. An entire nation with a chip on its shoulder, never doing anything to fix its problems because it's so much easier to blame it on the English and whinge about something that happened in the Fifteenth Century. I speak as someone who loves the place. I've no experience of living in Wales, but conversations with Welsh Nationalists certainly give the impression that they're similar: the problem is never that the government's corrupt or incompetent or stupid or inefficient; the problem is that the government is English. If only the MPs were Welsh and worked in a building in Wales, all Wales's problems would be fixed. I wonder if that worked.

I don't see how the break-up of the USSR was anything to do with undoing history. Surely undoing history would have involved reinstating the Tsar. The break-up was a move forwards.

And the creation of Israel? Good example. Tricky situation, that one, because the Zionists were proven so very right by Europeans in the 30s and 40s: Jews certainly do need a homeland where they don't rely on anyone else's benificence for their own defense. But was any part of Israel's creation not a monumental fuck-up? Would have been much better to find a bit of the world not full to the brim with Jew-hatred, surely.


> I don't ever recall the BBC dubbing over his voice, which is a shame.

Seems odd to refer to government policy as media bias. As I recall, the BBC and other media organisations were against that law.


> So, if it's all happy families over there, why are people shifting their votes towards the IRA-connected Sinn Fein and the LVF-connected, bigot-led, Orange-affiliated DUP?

Because people don't vote for failures and they do vote for successes. The UUP and SDLP nailed their colours to the mast of the Good Friday Agreement, which everyone now knows was a crock of shit. Prisoner release wasn't supposed to occur until after decommissioning had been confirmed, but instead occurred before it had even been confirmed that decommissioning would ever happen at all. Voters were willing to risk the release of terrorists in return for peace, but not for nothing. In voters' eyes, both the UUP and the SDLP now look like failures at best or fools at worst. So people are faced with the choice of voting for a moderate party or an effective party. And what's the point in voting for an ineffective moderate party? If they're ineffective, their moderation will never become policy. As, indeed, it didn't. I said all this when you first appeared here, and you responded to it (said it was "Unionist", surprisingly), but you're either extremely forgetful or very fond of feigning ignorance.

The other thing which distorts NI politics is that MPs take their duty to their constituents seriously. You mentioned above that the media claim that Paisley does good work for his constituents. That's not media bias: he does — as do the Shinners. A lot of people vote for, for instance, Jeffrey Donaldson despite not agreeing with his party about everything, because they know that, if they have a problem, he'll work hard to help them. It's easy to forget that, like politics everywhere, there is more than one issue over here.


> This is news to me.

Why am I not surprised?

"Unless you're claiming that council housing is the same price as private-sector rentals, it's subsidised. The subsidy is what makes it cheaper, regardless of book-balancing. All you're saying here is that it could be subsidised even more to make it even cheaper."

A subsidy that has to be paid back in full isn't much of a subsidy.

Your bus fares cost £50 a month. I "subsidise" them to the tune of £30, but charge you £30 for the privilege, arguing that, if you'd borrowed the £30 from a bank they'd have charged you interest, while I don't. You might call that a subsidy, but I don't.

"the large numbers of Catholics who are being helped financially by the British Government".

Again, you phrase that if it was a special favour the British Government is doing. "Look at the way the British Government is blatantly favouring Catholics by allowing them access to the same Council servies people of all religions all over mainland UK have access to". Wow.

"I don't see how the break-up of the USSR was anything to do with undoing history. Surely undoing history would have involved reinstating the Tsar."

Before the revolution, Russia was a corrupt oligarchy. After the breakup of the USSR, it became a corrupt oligarchy. There's a pat answer you could give here, but beware...

> Again, you phrase that if it was a special favour the British Government is doing.

Er, no, I don't. All I said was that it doesn't constitute oppression.


> After the breakup of the USSR, it became a corrupt oligarchy.

Beside the point. What I said was that it's generally a mistake to try to undo history. That's not what was attempted in the USSR. You're saying that other courses of action can also have terrible consequences. No argument from me there.