Ireland’s British Troubles

Joint footpatrol of British UDA terrorists and British Army soldiers

Joint footpatrol of British UDA terrorists and British Army soldiers, British Occupied North of Ireland, 1970s

Interesting revelation from court documents released in Belfast (via the Detail), where Ciarán Martin, the former Security and Intelligence adviser to British prime minister David Cameron, admits that British terrorist groupings operating in Ireland during the conflict in the north-east of the country did so with the backing and support of Britain, perhaps up to the highest levels of government. Writing in a redacted letter to PM Cameron, dated July 8th 2011, Martin admits in relation to the 1989 assassination in Belfast of the Irish human rights lawyer Pat Finucane that:

“Even by Northern Ireland standards the facts are grisly. Moreover, in terms of allegations of British state ‘collusion’ with Loyalist paramilitaries, this is the big one… whilst we know of no evidence of direction or advance knowledge of the murder by ministers, security chiefs or officials, exhaustive previous examinations have laid bare some uncomfortable truths.

Paid state agents were directly involved in the killing, including the only man ever convicted of involvement in it.

[official investigations paint]…a picture of a system of agent-running by the RUC’s Special Branch and the Army’s Force Research Unit that was out of control… There is plenty of material in the public domain to this effect. …the evidence available only internally could be read to suggest that within government at a high level this systematic problem with Loyalist agents was known, but nothing was done about it.

It’s also potentially the case that credible suspicions of agent involvement in Mr Finucane’s murder were made known at senior levels after it and that nothing was done; the agents remained in place. These two points essentially aren’t public.”

In a follow up letter, dated July 9th 2011, the special advisor and Cameron confidant states that the prime minister:

“… like virtually everyone else outside MoD [Ministry of Defence] shares the view that this was an awful case and as bad as it gets, and was far worse than any post 9/11 allegation.”

The issue of Pat Finucane’s murder by the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), a British terrorist organisation in Ireland long known to have been controlled by Britain’s Intelligence services, drew an official apology from the London government earlier this year, and was recently discussed again by the United States Congress and its Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Of special significance in all this is the UDA’s former status as the largest and most active British terrorist group on the island of Ireland while simultaneously being a legal paramilitary organisation under British law and jurisdiction. Despite its involvement in hundreds of gun and bomb attacks (and the demands of the International community that it be banned) the terror faction was able to openly organise, recruit and train in the north-east of Ireland and in Britain; frequently with the assistance of serving or former British paramilitary police officers or soldiers. Its notoriously public headquarters in the middle of Belfast city was a regular venue for interviews with gunmen and bombers by members of the International media, and its overall existence was based on a continuous supply of money, arms and intelligence data from the British military and security services.

Without the UDA, and the other British terror factions, Britain’s counter-insurgency war in Ireland would never have been possible. And that is why no one seriously doubts that support for these groups came from the highest levels of the British government and across all party political divides and ideologies.

About these ads

Nigel, Nigel, Nigel – Out, Out, Out

English: Nigel Farage.

Nigel Farage

Scottish blogger James Kelly calls it right as he examines the ignoble retreat of the UKIP leader Nigel Farage from his expedition to Scotland. From the International Business Times:

“Farage thought it would be a great line to say that his tormentors want the “Union Jack… to be extinguished from Scotland forever”. Now I dare say that sort of thing goes down a storm in parts of England where Ukip are trying to whip up suspicion of ‘anti-British immigrants’, but here’s the thing, Nigel – we’re in the middle of a democratic process that could lead to Scotland becoming an independent country. And yes, that would mean for straightforward practical reasons that the Union Jack will no longer be our national flag. In other words, what Farage is charging the protesters with doing is supporting a Yes vote in the referendum.”

Margaret Thatcher – She Came, She Saw, She Failed

Margaret Thatcher touring the British Occupied North of Ireland in 1981 wearing a beret of the UDR, an infamous British Army militia responsible for scores of terrorist attacks during the 1970s, '80s and '90s

Margaret Thatcher touring the British Occupied North of Ireland in 1981 wearing a beret of the UDR, an infamous British Army militia responsible for scores of terrorist attacks during the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s

As a citizen of Ireland there is only one Margaret Thatcher that I remember. From the archives of the Guardian newspaper:

“Margaret Thatcher horrified her advisers when she recommended that the government should revive the memory of Oliver Cromwell – dubbed the butcher of Ireland – and encourage tens of thousands of Catholics to leave Ulster for the south.

A year after she was nearly killed in the IRA’s 1984 Brighton bomb, the then prime minister expressed dismay at Catholic opposition to British rule when they could follow the example of ancestors who were evicted from Ulster at the barrel of a Cromwellian gun in the 17th century.

Lady Thatcher’s extraordinary solution to the Troubles has been disclosed by her advisers at the time of the negotiations on the 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement.

Sir David Goodall, then a diplomat who was one of the most senior British officials negotiating with the Irish government, told a BBC four-part documentary, Endgame in Ireland, that Lady Thatcher made the “outrageous” proposal during a late night conversation at Chequers.

“She said, if the northern [Catholic] population want to be in the south, well why don’t they move over there? After all, there was a big movement of population in Ireland, wasn’t there?

“Nobody could think what it was. So finally I said, are you talking about Cromwell, prime minister? She said, that’s right, Cromwell.”

Lady Thatcher’s “outrageous” plan did not stop at reviving the memory of Cromwell.

Sir Charles Powell, then her private secretary, told the programme that she also called for Northern Ireland’s border with the republic to be redrawn.

“She thought that if we had a straight line border, not one with all those kinks and wiggles in it, it would be easier to defend,” he said.

The zigzag border is notoriously difficult to patrol. But Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, then cabinet secretary, told Lady Thatcher of the folly of her idea.

“It wasn’t as simple as that because the nationalist communities were not all in one place, not all in Fermanagh and Tyrone and South Armagh and so on,” he told the programme.

“There were many in Belfast, and the idea of partition in Belfast or moving large numbers of population didn’t seem to be very attractive.”

However, she would not abandon her idea and called for a “security zone” on both sides of the border to help the British army and the RUC to chase IRA terrorists who used to slip over the border after attacks in the north.”

Over on Bloomberg News Timothy Lavin offers an analysis of the effects on Ireland of Thatcher’s premiership:

“…the conflict did not bring out the best in her.

It showed how the character traits for which she is best remembered had some very dark consequences, and how her celebrated “resolve” often came at a brutally high human and moral cost. In Northern Ireland, in fact, that resolve directly obstructed the cause of peace.

The most illuminating example is the hunger strike in the Maze (or Long Kesh) prison from 1980-1981. In many obituaries published today, the story goes that Thatcher “faced down” Irish Republican Army hunger strikers, as the BBC put it. By “faced down” they mean “let them starve to death.” This is often treated as a victory of democratic determination over terrorism.

But history shows quite the opposite: Thatcher’s uncompromising treatment of the hunger strikers led only to an increase in terrorism and the ascension of the IRA as a potent political force.

Violent deaths related to the conflict rose to 101 in 1981 from 76 the year before, including 44 members of the security forces. Injuries rose to 1,350 from 801. Shootings increased to 1,142 from 642, and bombings reached nearly 400 that year. Far from demonstrating that the IRA’s struggle was a lost one, Thatcher only intensified its opposition to rule by what it considered an ever more brutal occupying force.

The other significant consequence of Thatcher’s unyielding position was that public sympathy for the hunger strikers quickly morphed into political support for Republicanism. Bobby Sands, one of the strikers, was elected to the British House of Commons for Fermanagh-South Tyrone while imprisoned. His victory “undermined the entire shaky edifice of British policy in Northern Ireland, which had been so painfully constructed on the hypothesis that blame for the ‘Troubles’ could be placed on a small gang of thugs and hoodlums who enjoyed no community support,” wrote David Beresford in “Ten Men Dead.”

In 1983, Sinn Fein — the IRA’s political wing – gathered 13.4 percent of the Westminster vote in Northern Ireland, compared with 17.9 percent for the moderate nationalists of the Social Democratic and Labour Party. Gerry Adams, then Sinn Fein’s vice president, was elected in West Belfast over the moderate Gerry Fitt. For the British government, these were ominous omens. Today, Sinn Fein is the largest nationalist bloc in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the fourth-largest party in the parliament of the Irish Republic.

Still, “a crime is a crime is a crime,” Thatcher insisted at the time. “It is not political, it is a crime.”

This was to deny reality, especially as international sympathy for the strikers surged. But Thatcher never took a particularly realistic approach to the hunger strike, or to Northern Ireland generally.

[she was] …someone who could occasionally show a staggering indifference to human suffering.”

As Levine continues in the Comments underneath:

“…it isn’t hard, in this case, to differentiate between what violence is “political” and what isn’t. The men in the Maze prison didn’t become political prisoners because they went on a hunger strike. They became political prisoners because they were arrested — often without trial — for violence or activism intended to overthrow what they viewed as an oppressive political order and an illegal occupation.

Let me be clear: This doesn’t make violence a legitimate response.

But the fact that the political order in Northern Ireland at the time violated Catholic civil rights on a grand scale is beyond dispute. And the IRA itself was an objectively political organization: Its terrorism, although reprehensible, was intertwined with a legitimate movement for Catholic civil rights and a party, Sinn Fein, that adhered to an overt platform of political objectives. (Roughly the same platform, as it happens, that Irish revolutionaries had been asserting for 800 years.) Most crucially, the IRA’s intended targets were the military and security forces of occupation and other paramilitaries — not civilians.”

My own feelings on hearing of her passing are best summed up in this post by Football Clichés and another by author Terry Glavin. Like other British leaders who brought war to Ireland she has passed but we the Irish people have endured.

Truth Is The First Casualty Of War

Cecil O'Donovan, age 18, and his brother Aidan, age 14, murdered by the Royal Irish Constabulary, 20.02.1921

Cecil O’Donovan, age 18, and his brother Aidan, age 14, murdered by the Royal Irish Constabulary, 20.02.1921

Last Monday I watched the second part of TV3’s drama-documentary series, “In the Name of the Republic”, where once again Eunan O’Halpin claimed to offer an analysis of the alleged actions of the Irish Republican Army during the Revolution of 1916-1923. Despite a few days of thinking it over and trying to see some historical value in the whole exercise it is hard to escape the impression that the programme (like the one before it) was anything other than some weirdly anachronistic anti-Irish Republican propaganda film. If fact it could have come straight from the film archives of the British Imperial War Museum, stamped 1921.

Stripped of the shallow pretence of balance it was obvious that the documentary makers had set out to “prove” that the men and women who fought to defend Irish democracy at the start of the 20th century were simply “terrorists” and “murderers” lacking in any sort of electoral mandate or support. In fact, going further, the programme all but justified British colonial rule in Ireland by taking the point of view of the country’s British paramilitary police force, the Royal Irish Constabulary, the British judicial system, the British Occupation Forces and individual members of the Irish population who actively supported or collaborated with British rule.

I suppose if the Revisionist fringe of academia in the southern United States can produce books and movies to “prove” that the Confederacy was actually a paragon of democracy and morality with hundreds of thousands of happy-go-lucky slaves then why not a “reform” of Colonial Ireland? What is it that the Neo-Confederates in the United States now demand as the proper title of the internecine conflict that scarred the nation during the mid-1800s? It’s no longer the American Civil War, it’s now the War Between the States. Or should that be the War of Northern Aggression? 

So what’s next for our own Irish Revisionist tendency? Will the Irish War of Independence become the War of Irish Aggression? Some Neo-Unionists in Ireland are already half-way there with their favoured meme of the moment: the Irish Terror. Not as in the Irish being terrorized by their then colonial rulers from Britain.  Oh no. It’s the other way around. The Irish terrorized the British – and the Irish terrorized the Irish. Or so they would have us believe. And sure, if the facts of history don’t fit that interpretation don’t worry, they will be ignored or replaced with some home-made ones of their own. It worked before. Just ask Peter Hart.

Perhaps I should leave it to others to offer a more studied opinion of the televised theatrics of the TV3 documentary? Professor John Borgonovo has his say in the Irish Examiner:

“In the first episode, viewers met an aged Co Laois man who related his boyhood encounter with a neighbouring farmer, who claimed he had dug up a body while ploughing his field, one of three corpses supposedly buried there by the IRA.

Series host Prof Eunan O’Halpin (of Trinity College Dublin) told the audience his research had uncovered two civilians abducted by the Tipperary IRA and “never seen again”. The rest of the episode attempted to prove his theory that they were interred in this Laois field.

At considerable expense, a team of forensic archaeologists dug up the fine pasture, before informing O’Halpin that no corpses could be located. Meanwhile, O’Halpin travelled to Dublin to request the release of Department of Justice files relating to his two missing men.

The episode concluded with O’Halpin opening the sealed files, only to learn that both had survived the conflict. They were never killed by the IRA, much less secretly buried in Laois. The obvious lesson here is: Finish your research before you rent the JCB.

Undeterred, in the second episode, O’Halpin moves to more fertile ground in Cork City and Knockraha, a village a few miles east of Cork. In recent years, the area has attracted considerable speculation about the killing of alleged informers, especially Protestants.

Much interest stems from Gerard Murphy’s 2011 book, The Year of Disappearances, which received overwhelmingly negative reviews from historians concerned by his over-reliance on folklore and supposition. Murphy’s unlikely theories of covert revolutionary activity in Cork included the IRA’s unrecorded killing of up to 30 Freemasons in the spring of 1922, and the drowning of Protestant schoolchildren by IRA intelligence agent Josephine Brown.

The absence of such dramatic events in contemporary and later records (civilian, military, governmental, and religious) leads me to conclude that they did not occur. I was surprised, therefore, by the sight of Murphy relating additional theories for In the Name of the Republic.”

Surprise is one way of putting it. But then birds of a feather an’ all that.

Meanwhile historian John Dorney, who’s truly excellent website The Irish Story has gone to great lengths to present a dispassionate and fair evaluation of the revolutionary period, examines the issue of the 200 “murders” Eunan O’Halpin alleges were carried out by the Irish Republican Army:

“Immediately this set alarm bells ringing. In 2012, O’Halpin published the first results of his and Daithí Ó Corráin’s research, which revealed that the IRA in the War of Independence, was responsible for 281 of the 898 civilian fatalities, with British forces being responsible for 381. A further 236 deaths could not be confidently attributed to any party (the IRA, loyalist, rioters, undercover Crown forces).

This brings up two questions – first of all, where did all the extra ‘disappeared’ victims come from? There was no effort made in the programme to verify this figure of 200 secret killings by the IRA. Secondly, given that state forces actually killed more civilians, why was this not given greater prominence in the programme?

Even worse was the programme quoting the Royal Irish Constabulary as an impartial witness to events. An RIC DI was quoted saying,  ‘People are afraid to be associated with the forces of the crown’, by an IRA – ‘system of universal terrorism’, and called for the ‘extermination of these bandits’. What else would a party to a counter insurgency campaign say?

In the second part, looking at County Cork, it was alleged that the IRA Cork Number 1 Brigade, which covered north Cork and the city, abducted and killed up to 90 victims and secretly buried them on the farm of one Martin Corry.

Corry claimed in his IRA pension that 27 bodies were buried on his farm and in a bog (now forest) called Knockraha. In recordings in the 1970s he claimed that there were ’60 even’. The problem with this testimony is that there does not seem to have been 60, 90 or even 30 victims missing that could fit into the alleged mass graves. Corry for instance told local historian Jim Fitzgerald that 17 ‘Camerons’ (of the Highland Cameron regiment) were buried there. In fact, John Borgonovo tells us, the regiment had only 3 men missing in its time in Cork.

I am informed that Jim Fitzgerald himself estimates that between Corry’s farm and Knockraha there may be 15 bodies buried. The figure of 90 secret deaths comes from Gerard Murphy, whose book, the Year of the Disappearances, was rightly savaged here on the Irish Story by Pádraig Óg Ó Ruairc for presenting supposition as evidence.

But there was no evidence presented for scores of disappeared civilians. Nor for tendentious talk about the Cork IRA’s campaign of ‘extortion’ and ‘torture’. The casual viewer would never have guessed that the IRA represented a political movement with overwhelming electoral support in the elections of 1918 and 1920.

…this was a bafflingly biased programme. It presented and inflated all the bad things the IRA did, shorn of context while proposing a thesis of hundreds of disappeared which was never even remotely proved.

So why the sensational anti-republican tone of ‘In the Name of the Republic’?

There is nothing to be gained by treating nationalist history as a sacred cow but nothing either by making radical claims unsupported by evidence.”

But that begs the question, is there nothing to be gained by the falsification of Irish history as it relates to the War of Independence? Or are there in fact real political gains to be made by inflicting untold damage on the Irish people’s understanding of their own history? Are we seeing in Ireland a larger “culture war”, as has been witnessed in the United States, over the nation’s past, present and future? A war played out in the pages of our national newspapers every week, and on our radios and TVs? The United States has Glenn Beck or Fox News. We have Kevin Myers or the Sunday Independent. In the struggle between Progressives and Regressives in Ireland the Irish Revolution represents the greatest loss of status and influence for the latter. Is it any wonder that they wish to contest it, even in retrospect?

And what about Ireland’s British-owned television channel TV3? Some more analysis and dramatic re-enactments of supposed events from world history in a series of exciting new TV programmes? Perhaps the “truth” about Anne Frank? Or a sympathetic examination of the Lost Cause? But after the farce of the last two weeks will anyone be watching?

British Separatism In Scotland

The partition of Scotland the new Greater England

The partition of Scotland – and the new Greater England

So Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, has finally unveiled the long-promised date for the Scottish independence referendum: Thursday the 18th of September 2014. Good news for the broad Nationalist movement in Scotland which now has a target date to aim for (along with the encouraging – if slight – rise in the polls for the potential pro-independence vote seen recently).

However the political war over Scotland’s (and Britain’s) future is well and truly on and nothing seems to be excluded. I noted back in January of 2012 the calls emanating from leaders of the separatist British Unionist minority in the north-east of Ireland suggesting that their vital (as well as historic) links with Britain and Lowland Scotland should be secured by “partitioning” any future independent Scottish nation (essentially moving the border between Scotland and England up to a line between Kilmarnock on the west coast and Dunbar on the eastern coast, and taking in areas around or including Glasgow). Lord John Kilclooney, better known as the former UUP head-honcho John Taylor, was the first off the blocks with this:

“Northern Ireland is not only geographically close to Scotland but shares more with Scotland than with any other country. When the majority in Ireland voted for independence from the UK… Northern Ireland remained within the UK as was the desire of most people in that part of Ireland. Should there ever be a majority in Scotland for independence it should not be binding on all the people of Scotland.

If, say, Strathclyde or the Lowlands prefer to remain in the UK then that decision should be honoured by a partition of Scotland.”

Ah yes, because appeasing a small, violent and anti-democratic British separatist minority worked out so well in Ireland didn’t it?

But no matter, Taylor’s attitudes were reflected in those of other British Unionist leaders. Tom Elliot, the then worse leader of the UUP up to the present worse leader of the UUP, declared:

“…the constitutional approach of Alex Salmond appears to pose a greater threat to the union than the violence of the IRA.”

Ta-dah! But others remained focused on the idea of divide and conquer. Like Tory bigwig Malcolm Sinclair, the 20th Earl of Caithness (but of course):

“A former Conservative minister has said Orkney and Shetland should have the right to remain part of the UK if Scotland votes for independence.

The Earl of Caithness has tabled amendments to the Scotland Bill, which gives further powers to Holyrood.

He said a referendum vote favouring independence should not be binding on the Northern Isles, unless the majority of islanders voted “yes”.”

For a while the battle-drums fell silent but they are droning loud again. From the Telegraph:

“The Orkney and Shetland islands could remain part of the UK if the rest of Scotland votes to separate, according to a report submitted by their MSPs to the Government. The islands could even declare independence themselves, it adds.

Alternatively, they could agree to join a separate Scotland only if they are granted a much bigger portion of North Sea oil and gas revenues, around a quarter of which lies in Shetland’s waters alone.

Tavish Scott, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Shetland, agreed the threat was political “dynamite” but questioned why Mr Salmond was the only politician who could use oil wealth to argue for self-determination.

Their residents have traditionally been extremely hostile to Scottish independence and preferred Westminster government to that from Holyrood. The SNP has previously recognised the islands’ right to decide their own future but Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, recently angered residents by stating this was wrong because they are “not a nation”.”

Could it be that one of the Unionist tactics for the Scottish referendum campaign is a simple threat: if you break up our nation we will break up your’s! And of course, all those oil and maritime resources in the northern extremes of the North Sea do help.

National Self-Determination – British Need Apply Only

The British Occupied North of Ireland

The British Occupied North of Ireland or the real Northern Ireland 48% Protestant, 47% British

Well there’s no surprise in the news that the vast majority of the people living on the Islas Malvinas/Falkland Islands have voted to remain under British rule in a referendum held yesterday. Apparently the British government believes that this act of democratic self-determination by the inhabitants of the territory will be central to Britain’s case under international law for continued claims of sovereignty over the islands.

Hmmm… if only the British had developed such a respect for democracy and self-determination at the start of the 20th century as they now claim to have at the start of the 21st century. Then perhaps they might have respected the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants of the Irish islands in their act of democratic self-determination in 1918. And 1921. But then of course the inhabitants of the island of Ireland and its islands were voting to be Irish not British; and Britain could never respect that. Well, not without a revolutionary war and several decades of intermittent conflict. And even then not without the partition of the island of Ireland and the establishment of the democratic anomaly that is the British Occupied North of Ireland.

Not so much the Pax Britannica as the Pax Hypocritica.

Ireland – Poster Child Of The Stockholm Syndrome

Patty Hearst in front of the insignia of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA)

Patty Hearst in front of the insignia of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA)

Andrew S. Loveland has an interesting post over on The Frumious Bandersnatch examining the famous (if exceptional) psychological condition known as the Stockholm Syndrome:

“In 1973, Jan-Erik Olsson and Clark Olofsson entered the Kreditbanken premises in Stockholm fully intending to relieve the bank of it’s coffers. The heist failed miserably and the men subsequently took three females and one male employee hostage. The Swedish clerks were kept for six days in a vault during which time they were frequently held at gunpoint and on several occasions were asked to place nooses about their necks and strap bombs to their bodies.

Despite the trauma of such events, when the attempt to free them came, the four hostages fought with their captors against the police. Upon their release one of the hostages even went so far as to set up a fund for the hostage takers’ legal fees.

The rather bewildering response to this incident from the victims led to the term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ being coined by the Swedish criminologist and psychiatrist, Nils Bejerot during a news broadcast following the events as a nation sought to come to terms with what they had witnessed.

Despite the number of high profile cases however, there remains to be found a coherent and consensus agreement on precisely what criteria needs be met before Stockholm Syndrome can emerge. Several traits ought to be present in any case,

- a severely uneven power relationship whereby the captor dictates what can/cannot be done by the victim

- a perceived threat, either real or imagined, at the hands of the captor

- occasional kindnesses shown by the captors toward the victim

- isolation of perspectives other than that of the captor

- a perceived inability, either real or imagined, to escape

Reviewing the list above however, I am more than content to posit the idea that Scotland presently is experiencing something of a societal Stockholm Syndrome, a creeping sentiment that has gradually but inexorably stolen into our nation’s psyche.”

The full article is well worth reading as Loveland uses this paradigm to explore the current state of Nationalist and Unionist politics in contemporary Scotland. However the concept of a “national” Stockhom Syndrome also has some applicability for us here in Ireland, not least in describing the obsessional relationship many Irish people have with our nearest neighbour – and former colonial masters – in Britain. And latterly, of course, the EU. For one of the characteristics of the syndrome is the fanatical need of the victim to be accepted by the victimiser as an equal. To be like them. Indeed, to be one of them. In the process the captive abandons their own identity and adopts that of the captive-taker.

Sound familiar?

Mixed Results For Plaid Cymru In New Poll

Plaid Cymru

Plaid Cymru

A new poll of 1007 voters from across Wales by ITV Cymru / YouGov continues to reflect the so-so fortunes of Plaid Cymru, the Welsh Nationalist party. After a decade of mediocre election results, and an unexpectedly dire performance at the 2011 polls under charismatic new leader Leanne Wood, the Welsh Nationalists were seen as being very much on the back-foot, squeezed from Left and Right by the Labour Party and the Conservatives. Though the latest opinion poll (along with some recent local election results) offers some crumbs of comfort the party’s failure to connect with people outside of its core vote continues to hamper growth.

“Senedd Constituency Vote (change from 2011 vote)

Labour 46% (+4%)

Conservative 21% (-4%)

Plaid Cymru 17% (-2%)

Lib Dems 10% (-1%)

UKIP 5% (+5%)

Others 2% (-1%)

Senedd Regional Vote (change from 2011 vote)

Labour 26% (-11%)

Plaid Cymru 26% (+8%)

Conservative 14% (-9%)

UKIP 13% (+8%)

Lib Dems 11% (+3%)

Others 11% (+2%)

British Parliament Vote (change from 2010 vote)

Labour 51% (+15%)

Conservative 22% (-4%)

Plaid Cymru 10% (-1%)

Lib Dem 9% (-11%)

UKIP 7% (+5%)

Others 2% (-2%)”

In some slightly better news, Plaid has seen a surge in party funding. In 2011 it received a frankly paltry £27,067 from public donations. However 2012 saw a 262% jump to £97,917, a far more realistic “income” for a national political party in Wales. In part that may be down to Leanne Wood’s more progressively nationalist (and Left-leaning) leadership which seems to have a greater appeal with already convinced Nationalist voters. Notably the party has seen greater popularity amongst the under-25s in recent polling.

However Plaid Cymru’s inability to make much headway into prising apart the Labour Party’s seemingly iron grip on nearly half the Welsh electorate remains the single biggest stumbling block to future growth. Unless they can emulate the success of the SNP in taking away votes from Labour the party will remain in a position of relative weakness.

HMG Official Statement – Britain Is England

What is a Treaty worth? Not much it seems.

What is a Treaty worth? Not much it seems.

Did you know that Scotland ceased to exist as a nation after the so-called Act of Union between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England in 1707 that formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain? Maybe, yes, though people’s views differ but did you know that England continued to exist as a nation? In fact, England as a national and territorial unit simply became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the “Union” was nothing more than the annexation of a neighbouring (and rival) territory on the island of Britain by the Kingdom of England making it another region of the English state.

This is a claim that would incense most Scottish nationalists and even irritate quite a few pro-Union Scots. Yet, remarkably, this very claim is implied in a document released by the British government yesterday putting forward its case for the continued existence of the UK and its opposition to Scottish independence. From “Scotland analysis: Devolution and the implications of Scottish independence” comes this constitutional, legal and political analysis on page 73, Part IVThe status of Scotland and the remainder of the UK in international law”:

26. From 1603, when the Stuart King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne, Scotland and England (and its colony Ireland) shared the same monarch.

27. There is little reason to doubt that between that date and 1707, England and Scotland remained separate states.

(a) Whether the union of 1707 created a new state

35. An alternative view is that as a matter of international law England continued, albeit under a new name and regardless of the position in domestic law, and was simply enlarged to incorporate Scotland. In support of this view, among other things:

35.1 Scottish members joined Parliament at Westminster, but there was no new election of its English members. This was in accordance with the Acts of Union Article XXII.

35.2 Treaties concluded by England appear to have survived to bind Great Britain.

35.3 England’s diplomatic representation in the rest of Europe continued uninterrupted. The Acts of Union Article XXIV appears to acknowledge this in retaining the Great Seal of England for transitional purposes.

36. We note that the incorporation… of Ireland, previously a colony, under the Union with Ireland Act 1801 (GB) and the Act of Union 1800 (Ireland) did not affect state continuity. Despite its similarity to the union of 1707, Scottish and English writers unite in seeing the incorporation of Ireland not as the creation of a new state but as an accretion without any consequences in international law.

37. For the purpose of this advice, it is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state.

43. The same result follows from the alternative possibility, discussed above, that Great Britain was the continuator of England rather than a new state.”

While it is welcome to see the British government formally recognise Ireland’s incorporation into the so-called UK as a case of colonisation and annexation, it is bizarre to see such an explicit acknowledgement by the British state of the belief held by most observers: that Britain equals England and British equals English. Has the British English prime minister David Cameron just handed Alex Salmond and the SNP another propaganda victory in the Scottish referendum war?

More here.

Related articles

Ian Hurst, Derek Haslam And Hackgate

British Military Intelligence FRU member Ian Hurst - Martin Ingram circled in white, British Occupied North of Ireland, c. 1980s

British Military Intelligence FRU member Ian Hurst – Martin Ingram circled in white, British Occupied North of Ireland, c. 1980s

More on Britain’s “super-spy” Ian Hurst (aka. Martin Ingram) with an alleged phone recording of the former soldier from the notorious Force Research Unit (FRU) in conversation with Derek Haslam, an undercover police officer from Scotland Yard. The FRU was a British Military Intelligence group that conducted part of Britain’s counter-insurgency war against the Irish Republican Army through the control of Britain’s terror gangs in Ireland, principally the UVF and UFF. From its inception in 1981 until the late 1990s the FRU was involved in dozens of terrorist attacks, most notably the assassination of the Irish civil rights lawyer Pat Finucane.

Here Haslam discusses his role in Britain’s recent “Phone Hacking Scandal” with Hurst (more here). Here’s the transcript:

Hurst - The point is that MPs, ministers, the Home Secretary, they were targets, and that information was communicated to your handlers.

Haslam - And the reason is they fell into two two camps of target, one that could be made, they could, er, financially make money from, and the other type was one that they could use, blackmail, or influence for their own benefit to do with their own thing, because they were so anti that squad

Hurst - So, yeah, you mean they see…

Haslam - Yeah, anything that could put the Met into a bad light, or anybody they could implicate, or blackmail into helping them, you know, in two.  One would have been for earning money like Marunchak’s end, and two would have been for influence.

Hurst - But you can put your hand on your heart and you can say categorically that all intelligence which you generated which demonstrated a threat to posed against an MP, a minister, or the home secretary was communicated to your handler?

Haslam - That’s right, and you look at my motivation [cut]“

Thanks to Goggzilla for the tip.

Angloban – The Anglophone Fundamentalists Of Britain And Ireland

Heil England - Anglophone Supremacism

Heil England – Anglophone Supremacism

We all know that the internet is the mother of all lies. The world wide web of falsehoods. Which is why I so rarely let anything I read or see on it get to me. However every now and again something comes along to turn even the mildest of us into something resembling a keyboard-chewing Tea Party supporter exposed to an online clip of “Modern Family”. Over the last few weeks we’ve seen something like a concerted effort in the right-wing British press to stir up a renewed atmosphere of hatred towards the Welsh language. Or more accurately towards the speakers of the Welsh language. For though certain Anglophone fundamentalists will claim that they hate the Welsh language without hating Welsh speakers that is like certain Christian fundamentalists saying they hate homosexuality without hating homosexuals.

And who believes that one?

The latest in this series of propagandist pieces comes via the Daily Mail and regular anti-Welsh hack Roger Lewis. Yes, that Roger Lewis, the British writer who last year informed us of his opinion of the indigenous speech of the Welsh people:

“I abhor the appalling and moribund monkey language…”

Oh yes, he really did say that. Understandably the article sparked an outrage in Wales with demands for Lewis to be charged under legislation covering allegations of incitement to hatred. Then to make matters worse the centre-left and London-based Independent newspaper launched a blistering defence of Lewis and his appalling views. Despite the fact that he wrote them in a rival newspaper!

Now he is back again with a lengthy article attacking pretty much everything that is Welsh in Wales, with an ideological claim that is common to Anglophone supremacists everywhere:

“…his was the view of my great-grandparents in Bedwas. ‘English was embraced for reasons of social and economic advancement.’

This is what those teachers in  Ceredigion – and those who support them – can’t accept: what my friend at Oxford called ‘the evident cultural superiority of English’…”

Sigh. Why is it that there are so many English-speakers who believe that their language and their culture is inherently superior to the indigenous languages and cultures of the island of Britain, be it Welsh, Scottish or Cornish? And why are there so many English-speaking Irish people who believe the same?

What is it that turns some English-speakers in Britain or Ireland into unashamed hate-mongers? Despisers of other peoples’, other communities’, languages and cultures? Deniers of others peoples’ identities? People they share the same nations with.

Why the need to twist language and views to promote something that is little different from racism? Something, in fact, that is simply racism.

And why is it that in modern 21st century Ireland to identify with the indigenous language and culture of this island-nation is to render oneself a second class citizen with second class rights?

Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Cornwall. Different nations – but the same discrimination.

Language Wars In Wales

Here we go again. The obsessive Anglophone supremacism of the right-wing news media in Britain is becoming something of a running joke here on An Sionnach Fionn. We’ve had conveniently anonymous internet claims of English-speaking children being “discriminated” against in Welsh-speaking schools (not once but twice), mysterious anti-Welsh websites that have managed to find the ear of right-wing British journalists but are strangely deaf to anyone else, and now an English-speaking Santa Claus being pressured into resigning from his job because he was unable to speak to the children he was meeting – that is Welsh-speaking children in a Welsh-speaking region of Wales.

According to claims made in the Daily Mail:

“With his authentic bushy beard and red suit, Richard Burnell appeared the obvious choice to inhabit the Christmas grotto at his local museum.

But that wasn’t enough for parents on the Isle of Anglesey.

Because when they learned that Father Christmas could not speak Welsh they mounted a revolt to oust him.

Yesterday the 72-year-old retired housing officer admitted he had stepped aside after complaints that he wouldn’t be able to listen to children’s wish lists in their native tongue.

Mr Burnell, who belongs to an American organisation called the Amalgamated Order of Real Bearded Santas, was due to don his red suit for the opening of the Christmas grotto at Oriel Ynys Mon, the island’s history and culture museum, in Langefni, on December 9.

But when parents realised he wasn’t bilingual they lodged complaints with the local council.

‘I think it is a disgrace that you have an English-only Father Christmas coming to Oriel Ynys Mon,’ one mother said.

‘It’s going to cost £6 a child to meet him, so I’d expect they could find one who can speak Welsh.

‘I have young children who are still not that confident when speaking English, I think it is a shame they won’t be able to chat to Father Christmas in their own language.’”

Indeed.

Would you hire a man to portray the figure of Santa Claus who could only speak Welsh for children who could only speak English in an English-speaking region of England? Of course not. So why on earth would it be justifiable the other way around?

Anglophone Propaganda And The British Press

Defnyddiwch eich Cymraeg - Use your Welsh!

Defnyddiwch eich Cymraeg – Use your Welsh!

Well that didn’t take long. Barely a week has passed since the right-wing British news media carried a series of anonymous and unverifiable claims about a Welsh-medium school in Wales acting in a discriminatory manner towards English-speaking pupils when we now have yet another fantastical allegation of “anti-English bias” in the Welsh education system. Is there an anglophone black propaganda unit turning this nonsense out on a regular basis?

According to claims made in the conservative Express newspaper:

“A HEAD teacher was accused of “living in the Dark Ages” yesterday after warning that children caught speaking English in his Welsh school faced expulsion.

The punishment is part of a system to “monitor, congratulate and discipline pupils in their use of Welsh”, claims Huw Foster Evans.

He has told parents of any youngster who continues to speak in English to a member of staff after receiving two warnings that they will be “invited to the school to discuss their child’s future”.

If pupils speak English in class they will lose their free time while if they are caught doing so in corridors or the playground they will be reprimanded.

The controversial rules have been spelled out in a letter to parents of all 800 pupils at Ysgol Morgan Llwyd ­secondary school in Wrexham, North Wales.”

What the journalist fails to make clear is that the increasingly popular Ysgol Morgan Llwyd is the one and only secondary school in the local area that teaches all classes through the Welsh language. It is attended by children whose indigenous language is Welsh or children whose first language is English but whose parents wish them to become fluent in Welsh. Furthermore, the article also fails to point out that there are several English-medium schools available in the locality that teach pupils entirely through the English language.

As the school principal Foster Evans makes clear:

““We enjoy the strong support of the vast majority of pupils and carers who share with us a positive focus on the learning, achievement and personal development of pupils through the medium of Welsh.

Fluency in Welsh is an absolute requirement to enable our students to attain their full potential.

The only way to develop increasing fluency in any language is to speak it as regularly as possible.”

So, another invented or exaggerated non-story about alleged bias against English-speaking schoolchildren in Wales. The real story in fact is that such patently false claims are being made and that they are being given such prominence in the British anglophone nationalist press. As I said before, the culture war in Wales is heating up.

A Resurgence Of Anti-Irish Racism In The United States – Or Harmless Stereotyping?

“The usual Irish way of doing things”, an 1871 caricature by Thomas Nast

When most people speak of racism against the Irish they automatically think of Britain and more specifically England. The history of anti-Irishness in our Anglo-Celtic neighbour is a long one, with Medieval roots. It was the Norman-French invasion and conquest of Britain in the 11th and 12th centuries that gave it real impetus. Up to that time Ireland and England generally enjoyed close relations. From the 6th century onwards northern English aristocrats regularly married off their children into the Irish (and Scottish) royal houses in the hope of cementing alliances with the dominant Gaelic powers of the Irish Sea region. Ironically when the Norman-French lord William the Bastard took (stole?) the throne of England it was the Irish that the indigenous English turned to for help. Harold Godwinson was the last native English king of England until his death in the Battle of Hastings in 1066 fighting the Norman-French invaders. But in his youth he had lived for a time as a political exile in Ireland with his father Godwin the Earl of Essex, while his sister Edith of Wessex, the wife of Edward the Confessor king of England, was noted as a fluent Irish-speaker. Returning to England Harold maintained his family’s strong links to Ireland, securing from his allies a mixed Irish and Scandinavian-Irish force which fought alongside the English at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, three weeks before the catastrophe at Hastings.

Following the death of Harold at the hands of the Norman-French his sons and their supporters fled to Ireland seeking refuge with the powerful magnate Diarmaid mac Maoil na mBó, the king of Laighin. From there the English exiles launched several attacks on “Occupied” England using Irish and Scandinavian-Irish fleets and armies, striking across the southern counties (one target was the affluent sea-port of Bristol whose mercantile classes later became closely associated with the Norman-English campaigns in Ireland). Eventually the exiled English princes disappeared from the pages of history, almost certainly blending into the milieu of Irish aristocratic families. Another irony is to be found in the possibility that the descendants of the last native English king of England may be living in unknowing anonymity in Ireland.

Anti-Irishness on the island of Britain took a firm hold with the paranoia of the Norman-French ascendancy which displaced the English nobility. For them Ireland was a political, military and economic rival, and they looked on at the Gaelic-Scandinavian trading networks that dominated the region with envy – and avarice. The country was also increasingly a place of refuge for anti-Norman interests, English, Scottish and Welsh. The latter in particular filled the Irish royal courts as petitioners for military and financial aid including such notables as the Irish-born Gruffydd ap Cynan, later king of Gwynedd, and the exiled Rhys ap Tewdwr, king of Deheubarth. Even some Norman-French lords looked to forge bonds with their Irish counterparts, the seditious activities of the powerful de Montgomery brothers, Arnulf de Montgomery (Earl of Pembroke) and Robert de Montgomery (Earl of Shrewsbury), leading indirectly to the Norman-British incursions into Ireland of the late 12th century, culminating with the invasions of 1169 and 1171.

The Norman-British and later British wars in Ireland gave official form to the anti-Irish bigotry that has forever since plagued Irish-British relations. Over the centuries as printing became widespread and what we now recognise as popular culture emerged, be it literary, artistic or theatrical, discrimination or hatred towards all things Irish became the norm in Britain. Even the advent of radio, film and television had little effect on this regressive ideology. Only in the last two decades did overt anti-Irishness become frowned upon – at least in the liberal left media. Yet even here quasi-racist opinion pieces or articles on the Irish are not unknown and matters relating to Ireland seem forever slanted as if through a distorting mirror. Hostility and disdain towards the Irish is a subconscious undercurrent throughout much of British society in the same way that anti-Semitism is felt if not always expressed in Europe (at its most banal the otherwise inexplicable dislike in England for people with red hair or “gingers” stems from the stereotypical image of Irish people in 18th and 19th Britain, a sort of lingering folk-memory).

Unfortunately wherever the British went their prejudices went with them. The United States, despite its origins and later development, retained a strong British influence in its founding language, culture and religion that made animosity to the Irish inevitable. The presence of so many English colonists along with their Protestant religious beliefs meant that Irish settlers and their Roman Catholic faith were at best distasteful, at worse positively provocative. These attitudes were given a militant infusion with the later migration of Scots-Irish (or Ulster-Scots) settlers from Ireland. Shaped by the conflict-ridden Anglo-Scottish colonial plantations in Ireland the Scots-Irish brought with them a ready resort to bloodshed wrapped up in a puritanical Protestant fundamentalism that created a seismic shift in the emerging American society. For a significant number of these new Americans to find the old Irish (and Catholic) foe in their new home was unacceptable and they developed an intolerant culture of Irish people that persists in some parts of the United States to the present day.

These two factors, more than anything else, blossomed into the anti-Irish racism that became so dominant in American society in the decades surrounding An Gorta Mór or the Great Famine in Ireland of the mid-1800s. During the American Civil War the Confederacy was notable for the high levels of Scots-Irish descendants participating in the Confederate forces and government, whereas the newer Irish filled the ranks of the Federal armies (and thereby assured entry to wider acceptability in American society). Radical anti-Irish and anti-Catholic groups like the Native American Party or the Know-Nothings and the later the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) traced their origins to these times.

It has often been said that when John F. Kennedy was elected to the White House in 1961 the moment had been reached when Irish-Americans were finally accepted as American. Looking back at those rose-tinted times through the myth of the new Camelot, however tarnished around the edges it has subsequently become, the whirlwind of anti-Irish and anti-Catholic prejudice Kennedy’s successful candidacy whipped up in the United States has long since been forgotten. If you think the indignation and outright hysteria that greeted the election and presidency of Barack Obama is something new think again. It finds eerie parallels in the administration of JFK.

Over the last five decades anti-Irish (or Catholic) bigotry in the US was largely relegated to the fringe. It rarely manifested itself, except through a sort of vague mockery or satire. Even when offensive stereotypes of Irish people were presented it was not always with prejudicial intent. Simple ignorance, more often than malice, was to blame when offence was given. If the makers of the American televisions series, Sons of Anarchy, were told that their Irish characters and storylines are racist (which they explicitly are) no doubt they would be astonished. Of course, being unaware of being racist is itself no excuse. Unthinking or unconscious bigotry isn’t any more acceptable than the self-conscious kind. Though, in fairness, one should mention that the Irish psyche is so twisted by years of British colonial rule and a self-loathing felt by many that Ireland’s public service broadcaster, RTÉ, actually shows the grotesquely offensive Sons of Anarchy on late night television. But then RTÉ has long been little more than a subsidiary of British TV stations like the BBC and ITV.

Recently though discriminatory views in the United States about Ireland and the Irish have found a new, if extremely fertile, ground to take seed in. The American Christian Right have embraced and promulgated a series of bizarre theories about Ireland as the “greatest enemy of Israel in the Western world” that have gained a wide audience. In particular militant Protestant fundamentalists, some of whom have links to the separatist British Unionist minority in Ireland, have taken to the internet in their trollish droves to disgorge gigabytes of misinformation wrapped up in this conspiratorial nonsense. Regardless of fact or reason, in clear contradiction of known history, they distort, misrepresent and falsify Irish and Jewish relations to such an extent that in some quarters unbelievable lies have become accepted truths. Their falsehoods are now beginning to insinuate their way into the mainstream of American news media and politics – yet few challenge them.

That serious matter I will return to soon but for now, this. From CBS News a clearly unimpressed movie review of the sequel “Taken 2″ by a staff writer with the Associated Press, starring the Irish actor Liam Neeson. Here is an excerpt:

“There was something primal about “Taken,” a father putting all his brains and brawn into saving his little girl, and doing it with startling ferocity and ingenious trade-craft. Neeson just looks like he’s yawning his way through a light workout here, using one big Irish paw to snuff bad guys and holding the other one out to the studio for his paycheck.”

Big Irish paw? Considering the infamous 19th and 20th century representations of Irish people in Britain and the United States as simian-like creatures, apes and monkeys or sub-human Untermenschen, this is hardly the best choice of words to use. Would Denzel Washington be referred to as dispatching his enemies with his “big black paw”? One imagines not. A passing simile, obviously made without malicious intent, yet still revealing of the English language and American culture as it views Irish people.

Speak Welsh? Get Out!

Welsh Not – Anti-Welsh Racism In Britain

Imagine moving to France or Germany, taking over the management of a local bar, and then demanding that all the customers speak English in the bar or get out? Outrageous no? Such seems to be the situation in a court case being reported in Wales where an English landlord is on trial after threatening and banning Welsh-speaking customers from his pub in a Welsh-speaking region of Wales.

From the Daily Post:

“A pub landlord brandished a gun in his own bar after a row with customers who’d been told not to order drinks in Welsh, a court heard.

Gareth James Sale, 26, denies possessing a firearm – an air rife – with intent to cause fear of violence at the Royal Oak, Penrhyndeudraeth in the early hours of June 18 last year.

Outlining the case at Caernarfon Crown Court today prosecutor Sion ap Mihangel said Sale, originally from Bedfordshire, and his then partner had taken over as temporary licensees at the pub.

Both were from England and didn’t speak Welsh.

Sale told police he’d drunk eight units of vodka and his partner “significantly more” between 3pm and midnight that day.

Mr ap Mihangel said: “He described her as being argumentative with locals.”

He said Sale’s partner confronted locals and “told them to order their drinks in English.”

“She became very aggressive and it eventually culminated with the Welsh drinkers being told to leave.”

Mr ap Mihangel said: “The defendant left the bar area and went upstairs later returning carrying a gun in his hands.”

Witness Alys Owen said she’d gone out for a drink with her partner Philippe Murphy and heard the landlord and landlady telling locals not to speak Welsh by the bar and not to order their drinks in Welsh.”

Another example of the attitudes born of Anglophone supremacism. Of course it is only a few years ago that Irish-speaking employees were banned from speaking their own language in a foreign-owned Gaeltacht-based company in Ireland until threatened with legal action. I myself have experienced discrimination in the workplace because I have used Irish, including being ridiculed by a former manager and told that I shouldn’t be working or living in Dublin if I wanted to speak “…that language”. I have also been attacked in public for even the most casual use of Irish by those who object to its very existence. Or perhaps more accurately the existence of those who speak it or those who don’t speak it but who still identify with the language and regard it as their own.

One Less White Nigger – Britain’s Anti-Irishness

British Nationalism In Ireland – Racism And Sectarianism As The Orange Order Identifies With The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) – One Reflection Of British Anti-Irishness

Quick post to highlight an article by Brian Whelan in the Irish Times on the persistent and enduring nature of anti-Irish racism in Britain:

“Last week saw the announcement of an “anti-IRA” march in Liverpool by hardline English Defence League splinter group the North West Infidels (NWI), a  far-right street protest movement. The march is an anachronism, a feeble attempt by the far-right to relive past ‘glories’ – but if you scratch beneath the surface of English society anti-Irish prejudice still lurks.

Thousands of Irish people have emigrated to England over the last three years. They’ve arrived in the country with over 600,000 Irish born citizens, but are quite often completely unaware of the difficulties past generations faced moving here.

For me the soft face of anti-Irish sentiment first hit home when people began to leave comments under articles I’ve written suggesting it’s time for me to move home and hand my job and house over to a British person. I felt it was my own fault for venturing below the line.

It turns out I’m not alone. British-born journalist Brendan O’Neill regularly receives “Paddy-bashing’” abuse for simply having an Irish surname and occasionally speaking out against “Catholic-bashing”.

Last February, in scenes unseen since the ‘80s, hardline British nationalists stopped a march commemorating Liverpool-born Republican Sean Phelan and racially abused marchers.

The NWI, usually dedicated to harassing the Muslim community under the pretence of protesting “extremism”, have openly expanded their remit to include targeting Irish families.

The rhetoric of groups like the English Defence League is just the recycled racism of the 1980s when the National Front and British Movement would stage “anti-IRA” marches as an excuse to attack and intimidate Irish immigrants.

The unspoken rule seems to be that Irish people are white, so discriminating against them can’t be racist. When BBC3 screened RTE’s documentary about Irish rappers last week the soft face of anti-Irish prejudice quickly surfaced on Twitter:

“You should be Happy They Spitting Bars and Not Blowing up Sh*t#IRA”

“Irish rappers on bbc three!? Give it a rest, f**k off back to the fiddle and flute you potato eating chumps!“

“Irish rappers!!…potato famine has resulted in some damage chromosomes me thinks”

Similar Tweets about any other nationality could potentially get the person arrested or fired from their job, but when the jokes are aimed at the Irish it is written off as “banter”.

A fractured Irish community with no connection between the old generation and the new arrivals can make an easy target. Without a sense of our own history anti-Irish sentiment might seem like something that doesn’t affect you, but if left unchecked it could come marching down your street next.”

Britain – The Enemy Combatant

Sinn Féin is continuing to press home its advantage following the visit by Britain’s head of state to Ireland to attend a Co-Operate Ireland function (of which she and the President of Ireland are joint patrons), an event where she met the northern deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness. From a Reuters’ report:

“Former IRA leader Martin McGuinness on Thursday accused Britain of making “very wrong” decisions, saying it was failing to engage with Northern Ireland or take responsibility for the British army’s role in a conflict that killed thousands.

Speaking a day after his historic handshake with Queen Elizabeth, McGuinness – now the deputy first minister of Northern Ireland – complained he had met U.S. President Barack Obama more times in his current role than he had met British Prime Minister David Cameron.

“This lack of engagement by David Cameron is a serious mistake,” he told an audience at Westminster in London near the Houses of Parliament, which the Irish Republican Army bombed in 1974.

Urging Britain to recognise what he said was its role as a combatant in the Northern Ireland conflict, he accused London of obstructing inquiries into the alleged killings of civilians by the British army and called for greater overall engagement.

“Unfortunately to date the British state has refused to even acknowledge its role as a combatant in the conflict,” said McGuinness. “That position is no longer tenable as we move forward. It is insulting to victims.”

His meeting with the queen on Wednesday came 14 years after the IRA ended its war against British rule in the province, which is part of the United Kingdom which also includes Britain.

McGuinness said he had met the queen, whose cousin was killed in a 1979 IRA attack, in the spirit of national reconciliation and mutual respect, but that rapprochement was being made more difficult by Britain’s “very wrong and unhelpful” decisions.

“We are emerging from a conflict that resulted in lives being lost and families being devastated. I genuinely regret every single life that was lost during that conflict,” McGuinness said.

“I am up for the big challenge of redefining that relationship in the wake of this week’s historic events. But in the same way as you cannot make peace on your own you cannot build reconciliation without participation,” he added.

McGuinness on Thursday restated his goal of a united Ireland and pushed for “new thinking” in Britain and Ireland, calling the current partition “a relic of the past – a symbol of political failure”.

“Is supporting partition really what a modern, forward-looking British government should be doing in the year 2012? I don’t think so,” he said.

“It is also a challenge for the Irish government. For too long successive Irish governments have paid lip service to Irish unity. They have tolerated the division of our country and people which has resulted in Ireland as a nation not reaching our full potential,” he added.”

The Butcher’s Apron – Britain’s War In Ireland

Irish Civilian Tortured In The British Occupied North Of Ireland, Image Early 1970s

A few days ago I discussed the casual revelation by a former British Intelligence agent, the writer and historian Harry Ferguson, of the British Army policy of torturing suspects and detainees in the North of Ireland through waterboarding. Now more evidence has emerged of this abuse – from the British judicial system that originally gave legal sanction to Britain’s “interrogation in-depth” techniques in Ireland in the 1970s and ‘80s.

From the Guardian newspaper:

“The last man to be sentenced to death in the UK has had his conviction quashed after a court heard that he confessed to the crime after being waterboarded and subjected to death threats. His successful appeal comes 39 years after his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

Liam Holden served 17 years behind bars after being convicted of being the IRA sniper who shot dead Frank Bell, a teenage member of the Parachute Regiment, in west Belfast in 1972.

Holden’s conviction was quashed after the court of appeal heard that he had signed a confession only after being taken to an army base near to the scene of the shooting and subjected to waterboarding and death threats.

More significantly, inquiries by the Criminal Cases Review Commission discovered evidence that the army’s practice of detaining and questioning suspects at that time was unlawful, potentially opening an avenue of appeal for other people convicted of terrorism offences during the early years of the conflict in Northern Ireland.”

BBC News has a more detailed report:

“It happened almost 40 years ago, but Liam Holden can still recall the sensation of gasping for breath as water was slowly poured on to a towel covering his face.

“That feeling will never leave me,” he says.

“Even talking about it now, I get a gagging sensation in my throat.”

He was 19 at the time and was being questioned by members of the Parachute Regiment about the murder of a soldier, Private Frank Bell.

The teenage chef was taken from his home and brought to an army post at Black Mountain school, where he was held for almost five hours.

By the end of his time in military custody, he had agreed to sign a statement admitting he had shot the soldier.

“I didn’t think about going to prison or anything like that, I just confessed to make them stop”

So what did the Army do during that time? Liam Holden says he was subjected to sustained torture and then threatened that he would be shot if he did not confess to the killing.

“I was beaten and they told me to admit I had shot the soldier, but I said that wasn’t true because I didn’t.

“Then six soldiers came into the cubicle where I was being held and grabbed me. They held me down on the floor and one of them placed a towel over my face, and they got water and they started pouring the water through the towel all round my face, very slowly,” he says.

“After a while you can’t get your breath but you still try to get your breath, so when you were trying to breathe in through your mouth you are sucking the water in, and if you try to breathe in through your nose, you are sniffing the water in.

Liam Holden says those who forced him to sign the confession knew he was innocent.

“It was continual, a slow process, and at the end of it you basically feel like you are suffocating. They did not stop until I passed out, or was close to passing out.

“They repeated that three or four times, but were still getting the same answer. I told them I had not shot the soldier.”

Mr Holden, now a father of two, said the soldiers then changed tactics and put a hood over his head and told him he was going to be shot.

“They put me into a car and took me for a drive and said they were bringing me to a loyalist area,” he said.

“I couldn’t see where I was but I was in a field somewhere. One of the soldiers put a gun to my head and said that if I didn’t admit to killing the soldier that they were going to shoot me and just leave me there.

“I had a hood over my head and a gun at my head in the middle of a field and was told I would be killed if I didn’t admit it. There were no ifs or buts, I just said I did it.

“I didn’t think about going to prison or anything like that, I just confessed to make them stop.”

The term “waterboarding” was not in use at the time, but Mr Holden’s description of what happened to him, which he outlined in court at the time, are remarkably similar to the accounts of others who claim to have been subjected to the same form of torture by the CIA in recent years.”

Liam Holden also described his torture in the book, The Guinea Pigs, a publication that the British government banned from sale or importation into Britain:

“But electric-shock treatment was not the only ‘experiment’ undertaken by zealous interrogators, intent on brushing up their techniques. The ALJ report isolated cases of the Falanga (beatings of the soles of the feet with heavy rods) being used, and also the water torture. The latter appears to have been used only during the months of October and November 1972 at the Black Mountain Army post and at the Grand Central Hotel. Two of the victims, Liam Holden and William Parker, told how they had had water poured slowly through a towel over their faces until they felt themselves suffocating. This is of course a well-known torture used in particular by the French in Algeria and the present military regime in Greece. After a lengthy treatment of this kind, Holden ‘confessed’ to shooting a soldier in Ballymurphy. In most cases where the sole evidence against a man has been his own alleged ‘confession’, the judges in Northern Ireland have thrown the cases out of court and the Special Branch have been content to arrest the acquitted man as he tries to leave the court and send him to the detention camp at Long Kesh. In Holden’s case, however, he was convicted as a result of his ‘confession’ and sentenced to death.”

The British have consistently denied the catalogue of abuse recorded in the pages of the “Guinea Pigs”, along with the many other accounts of torture in the Occupied North of Ireland. Yet with every passing year those denials ring all the more hollow.

Former British Agent Admits Irish Citizens Were Waterboarded

Irish Civilian Tortured In The British Occupied North Of Ireland, Image Early 1970s

I’ve written before on An Sionnach Fionn about the widespread use of torture, both physical and psychological, by the British Forces in the North of Ireland, particularly during the 1970s and ‘80s. Thousands of men, women and children suffered various forms of abuse at the hands of British Army and British paramilitary police interrogators in military and police bases across the north-eastern part of Ireland during the first two decades of the conflict. From beatings in the cells to bound and hooded men being thrown out of hovering helicopters a few meters above the ground the records show countless accounts of brutality. Later these practices of torture were modified through the use of “special techniques” – psychological torture to you and me. The first victims were known as the “Guinea Pigs” and the effects of their treatment remains with them to the present day.

Incredibly, just as with the use of torture by the United States in its so-called War on Terror, all these actions were given official, legal sanction by both the British government and the British judiciary. What other nation in the western democratic world would permit the legalised torture of people it claimed were its citizens? What other nation would permit the creation of torture centres for the incarceration and “processing” of people it claimed were its citizens? Well, up to the 2000s that is.

Interestingly, despite numerous specific cases being catalogued and reported on by several international investigations (including by the United Nations Committee Against Torture, Amnesty International and the US Congress), the British state continues to deny that any campaign of systematic abuse occurred in the first two decades of Britain’s Dirty War in Ireland. Even a condemnatory ruling by the International Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg brought little recognition from British authorities. Yet, every now and again, things slip out that reveal just how widespread and matter-of-fact the practices of torture were.

Irish Prisoner Eddie Carmichael, Beaten By British Troops

The latest is a tiny, if informative, admission by Harry Ferguson, a former agent with the British Intelligence Service or SIS (colloquially MI6), now turned writer and historian. Here he is in the Huffington Post UK discussing the use of torture by the United States and its proxies, when out trips this admission:

“As to the morality, British reasoning is simple: we don’t use torture because it doesn’t work. Like the CIA we had to learn the hard way. In Northern Ireland, IRA terrorist suspects were waterboarded in the 1970s. Even using such techniques, it took time to overcome the subject’s resistance and by then the intelligence gained was virtually worthless. Intelligence is nothing if it is not timely.

Instead modern spies are taught that interrogation is a game of time – and it is something that those IRA suspects who were water boarded understood just as well. From the moment an agent is picked up and his loss is reported, the service is working to establish who and what might be compromised. Other agents will be moved, codes will be changed and, if necessary, entire operations will be closed down. You are not trying to hold out forever. You are holding out for as long as you can. You know that every minute before you break can be counted as another life saved.”

Of course what Ferguson fails to point out is that the majority of the Irish “suspects” formally tortured by the British Forces in Ireland between 1970 and 1979 were entirely innocent people. In fact, an estimated 80% of the men, women and children in that period who were “interrogated in depth” (the official British euphemism) were later evaluated as having had little to no information to impart. Which makes those interrogations less about seeking out counter-insurgency intelligence from enemy combatants than punishing and intimidating the civilian community which hosted them. One by one.

The Stress Position In Use, British Occupied Ireland, 1970s

Finally, you may wonder why I use the words “formally tortured” in the paragraph above? That is because the British Forces inflicted thousands of informal tortures throughout the British Occupied North of Ireland, and throughout the lifespan of the conflict. Take this recent account from the Irish singer and celebratory Brian Kennedy of his childhood in Belfast under the British regime, and the casualness of abuse by the British troops – even against schoolchildren:

“Brian recalls how he himself felt the ire of British soldiers.

‘One asked me something and out of pure contrariness I started answering him in Irish. He put his gun right to my balls and he goes, ‘Paddy, you better start speaking in English’.’

Did he have a hatred for the British back then?

‘I hated how scary it was. They could stop you at any time and ask you were you were going, when you were coming back — and clearly I was going to school. They got into an awful habit of making you take your shoes off and socks off to search you in the freezing cold in the morning. Then they would say all these awful things about your mother, about your sister — and that was just so you could get beyond them to get to school.’”

He later forgave his abusers and moved on, finding indeed in Britain itself a career and liberation of sorts. Well away from the coal face of the Irish war zone, though.

So, that was then, and this is now. But what has changed? Have the British officially admitted the use of physical and psychological torture against thousands of Irish citizens who found themselves trapped under continued British jurisdiction in the North of Ireland? Has the Irish government, their government, sought redress and compensation for their grievances? And what of the torturers?

Held In The Stress Position By British Soldiers, Irish Politician John Hume, Future Winner Of The Nobel Peace Prize

Not one British subject has served one day or even one minute in prison for the campaign of terror unleashed in the military and paramilitary installations in the north-east of Ireland. Indeed many have instead found themselves promoted or rewarded within the British Armed Forces, paramilitary police (the then RUC and its PSNI successor) and Intelligence community (MI5, MI6 and all the other abbreviations).

And, to borrow a phrase from elsewhere, they haven’t gone away you know.

The British “N” Word – Nationalism

The Lallands Peat Worrier is one of the most literate and erudite writers in the Scottish Nationalist blogosphere. He is one of my regular go-to people when I want a more in-depth analysis of Scottish affairs, especially in the convoluted area of law and constitutional jurisdiction. In fact, I’m frankly jealous of his abilities. Not least when I read a lengthy piece from him on British Nationalism. For only the British could claim that their nationalism is in fact not nationalism. And, indeed, all other nationalisms are nationalism. And therefore abhorrent.

The Peat Worrier takes a sharpened pin to this balloon of hypocritical pomposity. Enjoy.