Irish News Collusion Exclusive

[civic_critic]

What people continuously fail to do is point out, one by one, what the strategic reasons are for britain's grip on the northern part of this island. The Brtish themselves are remarkably silent on the issue

[DSCH]

What people continuously fail to do is point out, one by one, what the strategic reasons are for britain's grip on the northern part of this island. The Brtish themselves are remarkably silent on the issue

Which are?

[civic_critic]

What people continuously fail to do is point out, one by one, what the strategic reasons are for britain's grip on the northern part of this island. The Brtish themselves are remarkably silent on the issue

Which are?

Exactly. I want someone to enlighten me.

[DSCH]

[quote=civic_critic]

What people continuously fail to do is point out, one by one, what the strategic reasons are for britain's grip on the northern part of this island. The Brtish themselves are remarkably silent on the issue

Which are?

Exactly. I want someone to enlighten me.[/quote:3gl4r7dy]

Maybe there are none. Inertia (the product of an inbuilt bias toward the status quo in OECD countries) and a Torygraph emotional solidarity with "Loyal Ulster", seem the most plausible explanations of British continued commitment to NI. This should provide a cue for RSF posters!

[Sidewinder]

I don't think a State motivated mainly by inertia and a touch of nostalgia would have gone to the brutal and bloody counter-insurgency lengths that Britain has done over the last 40 years. They wanted to keep control of the north, and were willing to do whatever that took. And absolutely nobody in Britain questioned it. So what was their motivation? It's a fair question, and the standard "inertia" answer (yes, I've seen it before, many times) just doesn't cut it for me.

[DSCH]

I don't think a State motivated mainly by inertia and a touch of nostalgia would have gone to the brutal and bloody counter-insurgency lengths that Britain has done over the last 40 years. They wanted to keep control of the north, and were willing to do whatever that took. And absolutely nobody in Britain questioned it. So what was their motivation? It's a fair question, and the standard "inertia" answer (yes, I've seen it before, many times) just doesn't cut it for me.

Well the "Free State" didn't/doesn't want it (the de facto position). That leaves independence, an international peace force / state apparatus or the status quo. You say "nostalgia", I say the emotional impulses that underpin British Nationalism are what keep Britain in NI. I don't buy into the idea of a "materialist" interpretation of Britain's continued presence in NI. I would be interested in arguments to the contrary.

[pogo]

An interesting question concerning 'collusion' would be whether more Republicans were killed through collusion between the British state and Republicans, or collusion between the British state and loyalists :

If anyone believes this to be a facile question, it should be pointed out that more Republicans were killed by other Republicans than by loyalists, and that 'Scap', the chief IRA torturer and British agent, accounted for perhaps 40 of these victims.

Does anyone know the answer to this question, or could anyone take an educated guess :

[true04]

Talking of collusion, what about the collusion which existed between some members of the Republics security services ( only a small minority , it must be said, but that is all it takes ... ) and Republican terrorists ?

[DSCH]

Talking of collusion, what about the collusion which existed between some members of the Republics security services ( only a small minority , it must be said, but that is all it takes ... ) and Republican terrorists ?

You'll find that Republican spies in the southern and British security forces were doing it for the money. This also applied to British spies in the Republican movement. However collusion between the Loyalists and British security forces was of a different nature as both groups shared a common worldview, i.e a Herrenvolk British nationalist worldview. They were natural allies for as long as the conflict continued.