SDLP and SF clash over justice minister plans

[Eldritch]

Well said, it realllly disturbs me how me how cultish some SF fans are, some even credit SF with the peace process ignoring of course the heroism of the SDLP; the only good guys of the troubles.

ElBlogador.com- The Voice of Irish Nationalism: SDLP: Opposing Collusion In 1974

Secret papers just released have revealed that former SDLP leader Gerry Fitt raised fears of RUC/ Loyalist collusion in 1974.

Mr. Fitt raised concerns with the British government of the RUC’s ineffectiveness in quelling anti-Catholic intimidation in north Belfast.

He also suggested that harassment of Catholics had not been stopped because of the risk of irritating loyalists in the area.

Gerry highlighted the fact that a resident of Newtownabbey had reported a suspicious car in the area on 11th February 1974- half an hour later, two teenagers were shot dead by the UDA. The RUC arrived five minutes after they had been murdered. If they had taken action when they got the information, the victims could have been saved.

These facts completely disprove recent claims by Sinn Féin that the SDLP has only recently jumped on the anti-collusion bandwagon.

For instance, Martin McGuinness claimed: “The current SDLP interest in collusion is in stark contrast to their silence when collusion was bringing death and suffering to many families.” McGuinness is proven wrong.

While Sinn Féin was not bothering to stand in elections, and their allies in the IRA were busy shooting and blowing up people (many Catholics included), the SDLP was trying to build a better future through the Sunningdale Agreement (i.e. the Good Friday Agreement 25 years early) and highlighting collusion.

It was only when it became expedient for Sinn Féin that they decided to jump on the anti-collusion bandwagon. This was long, long after the SDLP had highlighted the rot of collusion, as these documents prove. And Sinn Féin has the cheek to accuse the SDLP of opportunism!

This is all the more amazing, as it now transpires that Sinn Féin has been in collusion with the British for years- both through agents such as Denis Donaldson, and through dirty side deals, such as the one on OTRs.

Yet again we see evidence that the SDLP has consistently been striving to highlight inequality against Catholics. Yet again we see Sinn Féin absorb SDLP policy and try to pass it off as their own.

Collusion is no illusion. But Sinn Féin claims about the SDLP’s position on collusion most certainly are.

[Eldritch]

Another excellent post from one of my favorite blogs:

ElBlogador.com- The Voice of Irish Nationalism: The SDLP: The True Descendants of 1916?

In light of the recent 90th anniversary commemorations of the Easter Rising, most of those involved in festivities declared that they were doing so as the direct political descendants of those who led the insurrection. Given the myriad of parties in Ireland who could, and often do, claim such lineage, I thought I’d pose a little A-Level-style question:

“James Connolly formed the Irish Labour Party in 1912. He was one of the seven signatories of the Proclamation of Independence at Easter 1916, and was on the National Executive of Labour at the time of his execution shortly thereafter. Gerry Fitt became the Irish Labour Party Stormont MP for West Belfast in 1962, and in 1964 he split from Labour to form the Republican Labour Party. He, and many of his colleagues, then united with a number of other groupings to form the Social Democratic and Labour Party in 1970, and he became its first Leader. This means that the SDLP has as direct a lineage to the leadership of the 1916 Rising (or perhaps more) than Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Provisional Sinn Féin, The Workers Party, Republican Sinn Féin, The 32 County Sovereignty Committee/ Movement, The Irish Republican Socialist Party, the Progressive Democrats, or any others who claim such a link. Discuss.”

Those who lay claim to the mantle of being the political descendents of the 1916 signatories have gone through many splits, and diverge greatly with regard to the ideological positions they occupy today. Considering this, is there any legitimate argument against the above assertion?

Just for the record, this is not an attempt to jump on any bandwagon, but merely an academic exercise to examine claims and counterclaims regarding who exactly represents the leaders of the Rising.

[Eldritch]

Another good point:

"All Hail Our Glorious Leaders

And so it is that today the two largest parties in the north- the DUP and Sinn Féin- are scheduled to nominate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to be. Contrary to popular belief, both posts are created equal, and therefore Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness' roles will be constitutionally identical.

So what will the future hold with these two political juggernauts in place? It is said that David Trimble and Séamus Mallon didn't get on very well, but when you compare it with the partnership of Anti-Catholic Numero Uno Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, the man who said that Sinn Féin had 'absolutely no intention of going into Stormont' and that that position would 'never, never, never change,' then it seems like Trimble/ Mallon was a partnership made in heaven."

[Keith-M]

This should be the SDLP's ministry. PSF are a howling disgrace for not insisting on the proper implementation of the GFA on this issue.
Let the unionist backwoodsmen pull down Stormont again if they refuse. At this point, Northern Nationalists are well prepared to move to joint administration.

This is complete nonsense. There is only provision for ten ministries using D'Hondt. Justice and policing were delibarly excluded from the ministries until both unionisnts and nationalists could decide that they were happy that there was sufficient trust and support for the PSNI, to devolve the ministry. If that time has come, it is up to both groups in the assembly to agree a formula that would get a majority in both assembly groups.

There is no provision for an eleventh ministry to be allocated under D'Hondt, and there never was. The SDLP (and their supporters) are showing their typical clueless dog in the manger attitude that has made them redundant.

[Pat Mc Larnon]

D'Hondt does not apply on this occasion. When the SDLP and UUP created the junior ministries for themselves there was no thought of D'Hondt on their part.

When the new ministers portfolio is introduced I would be in favour of all ministers standing down and then beginning the D'Hondt process again. In that scenario the SDLP would be entitled to a second ministry.