Scots politics played part in dissident’s rejection of violence
DUP and others here yet to grasp impact of independence
WHAT is happening in the shadowy world of dissident republicanism? Last week, the veteran republican Des Dalton, a former president and leading member of Republican Sinn Fein, publicly called for an end to paramilitary violence by the dissident armed groups.
Up until now, the introspective and twilight world of dissident republicanism has been usually opaque and politically incoherent.
Given the significance of Dalton’s call for a ceasefire and the secretive quarter from which it comes, it is necessary for mainstream politicians and commentators to take heed.
The former leader emphasised that the current armed campaigns cannot be justified strategically, or morally. He bluntly stated, in a research interview for Liverpool University’s Institute of Irish Studies, “The suspension of armed struggle would create better conditions for dialogue about reunification.”
Dalton added that there were, in his opinion, major opportunities opening up and that the constitutional question was centre stage in a way it has not been for over 40 years.
Without the distraction of sporadic armed actions, the Irish republican message can resonate even more widely.
He made it plain that, “Those who advocate for perpetual armed action, without short-term, or long-term, objectives, do a disservice to Irish republicanism, as by their actions they serve only to copper-fasten the institutions of partition.”
After his comments were publicised, Dalton resigned from Republican Sinn Fein after its ard comhairle voted to suspend him from membership — a decision he could not accept. He said that it was time for him to find his “own voice”.
Clearly, Des Dalton’s publicly expressed opinions are his own personal views and are not supported by his erstwhile comrades.
Nonetheless, coming from someone who has been with Republican Sinn Fein for 30 years, his views cannot be disregarded and may well be an opening up of an enclosed area of political thought to the wider reality of a changed political landscape across these islands. What is of particular interest, leaving aside his important call for a dissident ceasefire, is the impact of Scotland in the future development of relations within the United Kingdom.
He is clear in his assessment that the Scottish move to independence has accelerated to a point where the future of the whole “so-called United Kingdom” is seriously in question for the first time in 300 years. In such a scenario, to what Union will the unionists be loyal, he asks.
Raising the Scottish question in the context of Irish dissident republicanism gives rise to the hope that dissident republicanism is not completely impervious to the realities of contemporary politics.
Without doubt, Dalton is attempting to prise open Republican Sinn Fein from the stifling straitjacket of orthodox traditional republican thinking.
Living, as they do, in an historic time-warp, the various dissident groups are a reminder of where the Provisional IRA were in the 1980s.
They hold little genuine political support in local communities and are regarded by most nationalists and republicans as an obstacle to political progress towards a united Ireland.
Their continued espousal of violence, or “armed struggle”, as they would deem it, is seen as not just wrong, but anachronistic, ineffective and counterproductive.
They are seen to be stubbornly wedded to outmoded ideas of extreme republicanism abandoned almost 30 years ago by the Provos.
Dissident republicans have put themselves very much on the fringe of politics, shunned by the media and seen as gloomy, doctrinaire political extremists and mindless fanatics by most of the nationalist community.
To the unionist community, they are a total anathema.
Their savage atrocities — be it the Omagh bomb, or the despicable murder of journalist Lyra Mckee — uniformly revolted public opinion right across the community.
Precisely because of all that, Dalton’s comments are, therefore, to be welcomed and encouraged.
Hopefully, Des Dalton is not a lonely voice crying out in a dissident wilderness.
Indeed, Dalton, in his analysis of the potential impact of Scottish independence on the Union for unionists, raises a question that still continues to be denied, or ignored, by unionists themselves and, in particular, the DUP.
The DUP have yet to express any considered view on the consequences for the Union and Northern Ireland if Scotland opts for independence. This myopia is dangerous for unionism and bad for our politics.
Maybe unionists are foolishly hoping that the issue of Scottish independence will simply evaporate.
Or, perhaps, they believe that the SNP will tear itself and the independence movement to pieces with their vicious and highly damaging internecine disputes.
There is nothing worse than a family feud.
While these highly personalised disputes could sabotage Nicola Sturgeon’s own political standing as SNP leader and First Minister, such is the integrity and strength of the Scottish independence movement that it could still survive unscathed and emerge victorious in a future independence referendum.