Martin McGuinness resigns, Stormont in chaos

[topcat(The most tip top)]

If you mean that republicans want a united Ireland and unionists want to maintain the union, then you are right. How do you square that circle?

We build a second Northern Ireland on giant stilts above the existing one and that way they can have one each

The republicans can keep the existing one meaning they'll be in a United geographically continuous Ireland like they've always wanted while the loyalists can have the new top bunk meaning that the Protestant ascendancy will actually be literally true

[Granny Danger]

3 hours ago, Jacksgranda said:

If you mean that republicans want a united Ireland and unionists want to maintain the union, then you are right. How do you square that circle?

If you mean that the paramilitaries have support within their respective communities, then no, so the Troubles aren't going to re-erupt, in the foreseeable future..

More people consider themselves Northern Irish, rather than Irish or British, particularly among the younger generation, so that's another plus.

You have to remember that there is hardly a person in Northern Ireland who doesn't know somebody who has lost a relative in the Troubles, never mind actually losing a relative themselves.

It would be a bit like the Chinese being asked to share power with the Japanese (for the sake of "peace") only 10 years after the end of the second world war, and being told "Nanking - forget about it".

It is hard to disagree with anything in your post but what's your solution?  The reason I ask is that if there is no solution then it's more of the same; hopefully this will not see the reemergence of violence but who is to say.  In your post you use the term "forseeable future" but the idea that violence could erupt again in 15 or 20 years time is a harrowing thought.

2 hours ago, WaffenThinMint said:

If they continue it, they'll have no one to blame but themselves

That's true but all of us are affected by the environment that we are born into and brought up in.  If you are subjected to bigottry from an early age there is far greater likliehood of you accepting that as the norm.  Some, hopefully many, will be able to shrug off the us v them mentality but many others will accept it and others positively embrace it.

[Jacksgranda]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

It is hard to disagree with anything in your post but what's your solution?  The reason I ask is that if there is no solution then it's more of the same; hopefully this will not see the reemergence of violence but who is to say.  In your post you use the term "forseeable future" but the idea that violence could erupt again in 15 or 20 years time is a harrowing thought.

Keep plodding on. Things are markedly different from the days of the Belfast Agreement, keep the guns quiet for another 25 years - by which time some of my grandchildren might have grandchildren of their own - and things will have moved on a wee bit more.

My grandchildren can go to the "top of the town" now - my step children couldn't because they were protestants. Slow progress.

Where I live is very polarised - but there are far more "mixed" relationships than 20+ years ago, primarily because you no longer risk getting a beating - or worse - for being in the "wrong" area.

During the course of my working life I have been in some very republican areas - e.g. Dungiven, the Bogside, the Creggan - but never felt in danger (except during the hunger strike, perhaps), but then I wasn't a part time member of the security forces. I wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes.

I'm sure my boss at the time had to pay protection money to the IRA - his bother-in-law's brother-in-law was an INLA hunger striker - because I was able to drive from Dungiven to Artigarvan every Friday through winding country roads in IRA territory with a briefcase full of workmens' wages, and the workmen were paid in cash, back then. Never got stopped/robbed once, and it would have been well known that the wages went at a certain time.

Now, were he still living and still running a construction firm I'm not so sure he would still have to make a contribution to the cause.

The grip of the paramilitaries is (very, very) slowly weakening.

25 years we might be in Mike Nesbitt's post sectarian voting scenario, and voting for proper politicians. Lucky us!

[1320Lichtie]

Keep plodding on. Things are markedly different from the days of the Belfast Agreement, keep the guns quiet for another 25 years - by which time some of my grandchildren might have grandchildren of their own - and things will have moved on a wee bit more.
My grandchildren can go to the "top of the town" now - my step children couldn't because they were protestants. Slow progress.
Where I live is very polarised - but there are far more "mixed" relationships than 20+ years ago, primarily because you no longer risk getting a beating - or worse - for being in the "wrong" area.
During the course of my working life I have been in some very republican areas - e.g. Dungiven, the Bogside, the Creggan - but never felt in danger (except during the hunger strike, perhaps), but then I wasn't a part time member of the security forces. I wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes.
I'm sure my boss at the time had to pay protection money to the IRA - his bother-in-law's brother-in-law was an INLA hunger striker - because I was able to drive from Dungiven to Artigarvan every Friday through winding country roads in IRA territory with a briefcase full of workmens' wages, and the workmen were paid in cash, back then. Never got stopped/robbed once, and it would have been well known that the wages went at a certain time.
Now, were he still living and still running a construction firm I'm not so sure he would still have to make a contribution to the cause.
The grip of the paramilitaries is (very, very) slowly weakening.
25 years we might be in Mike Nesbitt's post sectarian voting scenario, and voting for proper politicians. Lucky us!

Are you northern Irish or Scottish living there out of interest.

[Jacksgranda]

A proud Scot. (Is this the right thread for saying "proud Scot"...)

[Granny Danger]

7 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Keep plodding on. Things are markedly different from the days of the Belfast Agreement, keep the guns quiet for another 25 years - by which time some of my grandchildren might have grandchildren of their own - and things will have moved on a wee bit more.

My grandchildren can go to the "top of the town" now - my step children couldn't because they were protestants. Slow progress.

Where I live is very polarised - but there are far more "mixed" relationships than 20+ years ago, primarily because you no longer risk getting a beating - or worse - for being in the "wrong" area.

During the course of my working life I have been in some very republican areas - e.g. Dungiven, the Bogside, the Creggan - but never felt in danger (except during the hunger strike, perhaps), but then I wasn't a part time member of the security forces. I wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes.

I'm sure my boss at the time had to pay protection money to the IRA - his bother-in-law's brother-in-law was an INLA hunger striker - because I was able to drive from Dungiven to Artigarvan every Friday through winding country roads in IRA territory with a briefcase full of workmens' wages, and the workmen were paid in cash, back then. Never got stopped/robbed once, and it would have been well known that the wages went at a certain time.

Now, were he still living and still running a construction firm I'm not so sure he would still have to make a contribution to the cause.

The grip of the paramilitaries is (very, very) slowly weakening.

25 years we might be in Mike Nesbitt's post sectarian voting scenario, and voting for proper politicians. Lucky us!

Thanks for the full and considered reply.  I suppose an outsider can never really understand what it is like to live there and I hope the progess is steady even if slow.  I hope that things do not go backwards towards violence but, as an outsider, I took little encouragement from the tone of politicians during the recent elections.  The politics seem as entrenched as ever.

Edit to add:  and the tone of many of the electorate that I saw/heard being interviewed.

[Jacksgranda]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

Thanks for the full and considered reply.  I suppose an outsider can never really understand what it is like to live there and I hope the progess is steady even if slow.  I hope that things do not go backwards towards violence but, as an outsider, I took little encouragement from the tone of politicians during the recent elections.  The politics seem as entrenched as ever.

Well, we keep voting for the feckers, so what do you expect!

I don't pay much heed to what the politicos say to each other, it's mostly for their own supports consideration, things usually get sorted out. I think Michelle O'Neill was just marking her territory - for all my dislike of the late Martin McGuinness his language wouldn't have been so intemperate, imho - and Arlene Foster just replied in kind.

You saw what trying to be reasonable did for Mr Nesbitt and the UUP!

[Wee Willie]

1 hour ago, 1320Lichtie said:

**** all RAGING at Swinney for tweeting RIP. Funny as f**k but also annoying that Swinneys put himself in that position.

Surely that's no as bad as Mrs Windsor shaking his hand.
I wonder if it was a masonic handshake?

The Queen and Martin McGuinness shake hands

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39336606
The Queen's two-day visit to Northern Ireland in 2012 was marked by an historic handshake.
Her Majesty and former IRA commander Martin McGuinness shook hands for the first time.
The meeting between the monarch and Northern Ireland's deputy first minister took place at a charity event in Belfast.

 

[DI Bruce Robertson]

My thoughts are very similar to Adam's. The poster(not Gerry).
Unless a cause is entirely beaten into submission & know they are on the losing end, it does take people to change their views, to elicit peace, and he was one of those people, not condoning any actions or involvement in the "troubles" but do think he realised the errors.

[ayrmad]

4 hours ago, gavin_3110 said:

I think the Irish are going through a major image change. I mean the old image of Leprechauns, shamrock, Guinness, horses running through council estates, toothless simpletons, people with eyebrows on their cheeks, badly tarmaced drives (in this country), men in platform shoes being arrested for bombings, lots of rocks and beamish. I think people are saying “yes, there’s more to Ireland than this”. A good slogan for the tourist board – “Dere’s more to Oireland Dan Dis.”

Future Motherwell manager.

[NotThePars]

A good thread from a young Northern Irish boy I follow.

[Ross.]

2 hours ago, The Chlamydia Kid said:

Folk say he brought about the peace process? He also brought about a significant part of the mayhem, murder and trauma that occurred.
He seems to be excused for the early stuff with the implication being others would have filled his role. But similarly others may have filled his role in the peace process.
The latter doesn't excuse the former. He only brought about a cessation in activities that he was largely responsible for.

He was a product of his environment. He was responsible for some horrendous things and that should not be forgotten, but you also have to consider what he was reacting to. There are almost no good guys as far as Northern Ireland during the troubles goes. Just a pity they didn't get lucky in Brighton...

[DublinMagyar]

A good thread from a young Northern Irish boy I follow.

Why on earth are you following young Irish boys around [emoji33]

[NotThePars]

Just now, DublinMagyar said:

Why on earth are you following young Irish boys around

 

Great bunch of lads.

[LongTimeLurker]

Just now, Ross. said:

....but you also have to consider what he was reacting to....

Such as? In the late 60s and early 70s the old Stormont way of doing things was being actively dismantled under pressure from Westminster and international opinion and could have been replaced by power sharing similar to what we see in the present day, if there hadn't been so many balaclava wearing "slow learners" around along with the people in Dublin's elite that were pulling their strings and providing them with sanctuary throughout all the years of mayhem, that needed almost another 25 years to realise that they couldn't bomb and murder their way to some supposely socialist Gaelic speaking UI fairy tale that the majority in NI quite simply didn't want any part of.

[Jacksgranda]

29 minutes ago, Ross. said:

He was a product of his environment. He was responsible for some horrendous things and that should not be forgotten, but you also have to consider what he was reacting to. There are almost no good guys as far as Northern Ireland during the troubles goes. Just a pity they didn't get lucky in Brighton...

As LTL says the legislation was in place, if perhaps not enacted, to give civil rights to all, which is what the Troubles was supposed to be all about. If, in fact, civil rights for all, was the desired outcome of the Civil Rights Movement.

The resulting mayhem and murder was to bring about a united Ireland, not civil rights/respect/equality or whaterver buzz word the murder excuser politicians, aka Sinn Fein, come up with next

[The Chlamydia Kid]

but do think he realised the errors.

Can't remember any hint of an apology to any victims nor desire to allow families with missing loved ones to get closure by revealing where there bodies were.

[DrewDon]

This is an excellent article from Kevin Meagher: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/03/21/martin-mcguinness-a-life-of-two-halves.

Quote

What would Martin McGuinness have done with his life if fate had not put him on the path it did?

A man of cool judgment as well as fierce determination and personal discipline, McGuinness could have succeeded in any walk of life. A British commander once observed that he was "first rate" officer material.

If he had grown-up in Manchester, or Dublin, he would have made an excellent MP for the Labour party, or TD for Fianna Fail. But McGuinness was born into poverty and discrimination in the Bogside area of Derry.

This was during the dismal years of corrupt Unionist ascendency at Stormont. Options for working-class Catholic lads like him were limited. Unionist moderates, like Terence O'Neill, were denounced and dragged down by hardliners on their own side, for urging reform. Power and opportunity rested in the hands of one community at the expense of the other. And it was staying that way.

What went on in Northern Ireland, stayed there. 

Sectarianism was allowed to run rampant. If you didn't own property, you couldn't vote in local elections. In any case, boundaries were rigged to lock in Protestant-Unionist dominance. For many unionists (not all, by any means), Catholics were simply inferior – politically and spiritually. This wasn't just about politics, it was something innate.

Unless this context is borne in mind, it is impossible to understand the decisions Martin McGuinness took with his life.

"If you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose," sang Bob Dylan. Working-class Catholics had assumed second-class status was their lot until the civil rights movement raised their gaze, awakening both their anger and optimism. But things didn't need to be like this.

McGuinness was not from a particularly political family. Sure enough, events made him so. The defeat of the civil rights protestors – literally bludgeoned off the streets by the sectarian police - saw the advantage default to the 'physical force' tradition, a pattern that has repeated itself in Irish politics time and again.

What followed is familiar enough. McGuinness, the IRA commander, was clinical and determined in waging guerrilla war. Derry looked as though "it had been bombed from the air" by the time he had finished, as one mordant description memorably had it.

The grim litany of death and destruction – enthusiastically entered into by the IRA, loyalists and the British state – coursed a bloody path through the 1970s and 1980s.

Everyone has blood on their hands.

Republicans. Loyalists. Ministers. Officials. Soldiers. British and Irish politicians. They all played a part in propping-up the Troubles as political reconciliation was effectively abandoned as a goal. There's culpability for actions taken and not taken on all sides.

The abnormal became normal. Yet the greater guilt should perhaps be reserved for those who let injustice fester and events spiral out of control in the first place. The end result is always, depressingly, the same. Politics gives way to something worse.

McGuinness's subsequent journey – helping lead Irish republicanism from militarism and Marx to democratic agitation and peace-building has defined the past quarter century, since the first IRA ceasefire of 1994. It was a true act of political leadership and one all but his most vindictive opponents will recognise and praise. Gerry Adams supplied the theory, McGuinness the force of reputation.

He desperately wanted power-sharing to succeed and rose to the occasion, respecting those of different views with a disarming generosity of spirit. Willing to reach out with genuine enthusiasm to unionists and Protestant clergy, usually well away from the spotlight in order to avoid accusations of artifice.

For those against the political process he had harsh words, denouncing dissident republicans as "traitors" for trying to upend the progress he had painstakingly helped to embed.

His unlikely rapport with Ian Paisley was utterly genuine, earning them the sobriquet "the Chuckle brothers." He was calm, sincere and authoritative. And, unlike most politicians, when McGuinness promised to deliver, he delivered. He made things happen.

As such, he is impossible to replace. An incalculable loss to Northern Irish politics. A genuine hard man with enduring credibility who could - and did - lead by example. His life is microcosm of events in Northern Ireland these past five decades. A journey from belligerence to reconciliation. From nihilism to optimism.

Martin McGuinness (1970-1994) shows us what happens when politics is allowed to fail.

Martin McGuinness (1994-2017) shows us what happens when it isn't.

Let that be his epitaph. 

 

[Ross.]

3 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Such as? In the late 60s and early 70s the old Stormont way of doing things was being actively dismantled under pressure from Westminster and international opinion and could have been replaced by power sharing similar to what we see in the present day, if there hadn't been so many balaclava wearing "slow learners" around along with the people in Dublin's elite that were pulling their strings and providing them with sanctuary throughout all the years of mayhem, that needed almost another 25 years to realise that they couldn't bomb and murder their way to some supposely socialist Gaelic speaking UI fairy tale that the majority in NI quite simply didn't want any part of.

I won't claim to know a great deal about the troubles, as I don't, but I was under the impression that the armed aspect of it only really kicked in in the late 60's and early 70's, largely as a response to the UPV and UVF attacking what had largely to that point being a relatively peaceful civil rights movement(I think the only bombs until then had been detonated south of the border)? Until then the IRA had been shrinking in size and influence and would probably have been rendered irrelevant had there not been a reaction to the attacks on NICRA? From that point on, everyone on all sides was after blood.

[LongTimeLurker]

What you need to look into is how the Provos split away and who was pulling their strings and why. That bit usually gets airbrushed out of BBC documentaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Crisis