‘Loyalist Terrorism: What If Britain Withdraws?’ by Donal Lavery

“You claim to be a majority,
Well You know that’s a lie!
You really are a minority,
On this Sweet Emerald Isle.”
-John Lennon (lyrics from his song “Bloody Sunday”).

There is an assumption advocated by some, including Unionist academics, which hypothesises that should Britain ever withdraw from the North, there would be untold Loyalist terrorism against the Catholic/Nationalist population – namely, the “Bloodbath theory of Northern Ireland.” Of course the people who propagate it are not neutral observers, many are Unionist politicians or the British media, which must be factored into any analyses. These intrigues want you to believe that in a doomsday scenario there could be some sort of sovereign, independent Ulster, that would become a Crown dominion in the Commonwealth; contrast this with how they are never done telling us how financially dependent we are on the Westminster Exchequer. So you can’t have it both ways, friends.

“Northern Ireland” would have neither the finances, resources, population or legitimacy, to exist without either British subvention or subsidies from the remaining Irish economy on most of the island. It would have no currency, no central bank, no trading relationships, no manufacturing and no financial services industry (in the absence of the first two things). If it had any of the essential ingredients required to facilitate a functioning independent state, then the Unionist leaders would have opted for a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in the 1970s, when Stormont was abolished by the British government, or during the “betrayal” Anglo-Irish Agreement era – just like the rich apartheid Rhodesian government did in the 1960s.

But the question I’m putting to you, is whether the Loyalists would be able to perpetuate a campaign of Orange terrorism against the then Irish majority living on the island? And it doesn’t take a mathematical genius to work out that they would be outnumbered by around 400% of their demographic size. The other fact which needs to be articulated is that in the absence of the British state and its militarist factions, who would give them the hardware, money and cover to wage such a war against the 4/5s of the country? For unlike the IRA, they didn’t have a widespread network of guerrilla alliances with various anti-colonial struggles on this planet.

Now I certainly wouldn’t suggest that a British withdrawal could occur without any inch of protest or skirmish. But it would be nothing by way of collateral damage in comparison to the sea of blood in which the Irish people have been drowned from Britain’s colonial occupation commenced. The “Tory intrigues” (as Carson called them) among Unionism, certainly would not risk the luxuries and reassurances of middle class privilege to help wage a bloody and all-out civil war against a state they would want their economic interests to flourish in.

So any right-thinking person will refuse to buy into this idea that you must perpetuate a system of partition which has caused enormous bloodshed, in order to avoid threats of “supposed” bloodshed by people without even the means to facilitate it in the first place. I mean, can anyone seriously imagine Gregory Campbell up “in arms” as he once promised in such an event? David Ervine garnered that in such a scenario, Loyalist people should make peace with their Irish neighbours and get the best deal possible for their communities. Therefore, all that lies between the present and a future Irish Republic is pressing the British government to stop playing the “Orange card” and have the balls to call their bluff on the matter once and for all.