Thatcher was ignorant of Ireland at the height of the Troubles claims state papers

No Seamus I'm a Londoner.

Dan. Nice to see you agree Nationalists were abuse in the North all along. Just have to get you to agree they still are.

Controversial not Confidential.

DanOLoingsigh, WoundedKnee etc. The South are different from those in the North anyway. In the South IRA factions are very much the minority. You have to look at the Treaty period and the Civil war that followed to understand how Ireland its self will be divided no matter what happens with the Unionists. The Republic of Ireland is a modern European state and its responsibilities are similar to all other similar EU members. As far as Security goes the Republic of Ireland see's the IRA as a threat. Maybe not as much as the Unionists do however The Republic of Ireland that emerged from the Irish Civil war remains and were at odds with the more extreme brethren and remain so. The reasons are similar remembering that when the IRB and the IRA sacked all the British Garrisons towards the end of the Uprising and when the British finally left the Curragh etc the IRB in and around Lenster took control of the weaponry. Had the IRA been better supplied and equipped after the agreement to end hostilities with the Monarch and Whitehall they may have defeated the IRB and gone on to call London's bluff whom were depleted and tired from fighting in World War 1. And you Americans let it happen anyway because the people we sent to New York and Boston ie the 181st and the 69th infantry love America more than Ireland hence the lack of dedication to the cause. (outrageous and confidential sure that makes it seem funny to me, don't think it otherwise).

A well worded British apology Dano.

So you`re not a shinner Bobby.

She was ignorant about a lot of things, the dictator was a disaster for us.

Knee – I read your post, thank you; all recollections are by nature selective. I was just giving my own impressions…I was disagreeing with your prognosis that the southern populace were in ignorance of what was going on in the north… The SDLP had far more RTE airtime than any unionist party, are you saying they did not speak on behalf of ‘Northern Catholics’? Again, I disagree…most southerners were completely against the bombing campaign, and in particular that on the UK mainland…while few families had connections ‘up north’, many had close relatives living in UK cities, and feared for their safety whenever the ‘heroes’ mounted an attack…events such as the Herrema kidnap gave the south a taste of what SF/IRA were about at that time, and no government worthy of the name could allow the fellow-travellers of such gangs the opportunity to try and justify their activities over the airwaves… the 1975 Broadcasting (Amendment) Act made that crystal clear, and the ban stayed in force until they started down the constitutional road, and finally recognised that consent was needed for any future UI.

Oloinsigh--It looks like you didn't read my post, or if you did you failed to understand it. My post showed how divorced Southerners were from the North, and indeed quite ignorant of it. This ignorance was encouraged by the Southern administration, which actively censored any opinion that might be construed as expressing sympathy for the Northern Catholics. In contrast, Loyalist politicians had unlimited access to the Southern state radio and TV, and were guaranteed soft interviews. You appear to be unaware of that tradition of state censorship, which commenced in the early 1970s and ran for two decades. Since I never depicted the Southerners as straining at the leash to get involved in the North, you are disagreeing with something I didn't say. But I do say that there was a leash on the Southerners, even if most made no effort to break free of it. You utterly failed to address the question of how ill-informed--and why--the Southerners were as regards the North, as exemplified by the incomprehension when Sands won his election. Maybe you need to read a bit more carefully before selectively "recollecting" things.

She did say NI was as British as Finchley. Then purloined EU funds for NI, telling them we (the English) need them. Anyone know the ethnic breakdown of Finchley in the 1980s?

My recollection of things ‘down south’ in the 1980’s is quite different to that of Woundedknee…most people were only too aware of the daily atrocities up north…and wanted to have little to do with it. There was understandable fear of the conflict coming south, and their view of most ‘northerners’ was that they deserved each other…’sure they’re all mad up there’ was a common phrase. Of course there was a minority of ‘activists’ who wanted a more ‘republican’ stance, but the great majority looked on in horror, and quietly resolved to have nothing to do with anything ‘northern’.

Seamus, agree completely...

Curtis...No, Bunreacht na hÉireann ARTICLE 2 – ‘It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland to be part of the Irish Nation’… makes you wonder why some ‘so called’ republicans see fit to deny the key legislation of the country, eh???

"It’s reassuring to hear support for the rights of unionists to live in the place of their birth…unionists are entitled to protection under the constitution…" Are you referring to that "unwritten" constitution again, Dano?

Dan. All people should be entitled to protection from the Gov of the day. Regardless of creed or colour. Just as Nationalists should have been all along in the North.