5 ms·

Have you read any of Marks' books? I know they only tell his side of the story, but the type is there on the page to be scrutinized. He was genuinely approached

Have you read any of Marks' books? I know they only tell his side of the story, but the type is there on the page to be scrutinized. He was genuinely approached by MI6 to offer/collect intel, he may have hammed it up in court for his own benefit, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. He also disliked the IRA connections, apparently, but smuggling via Ireland was easier than via France/mainland Europe. In the politics of the time, and perhaps from being Welsh, it was easier to excuse the IRA, I think a fair few Welsh and Scottish subjects of HM Elizabeth II would have had sympathies with the "cause", although not with the manner in which it was being fought for (violence versus Scotland's wait of 30-40 more years for a referendum; some Irishmen obviously wanted a resolution within their lifetime). The Mr. Nice moniker comes from having bought a passport/identity from a real person by that name (Nice as in the French town), which he then traveled under and adopted. It was genuinely his name for a while. MI6 was known to exist even it not confirmed by the govt. Ever heard of James Bond? Myth rooted in fact, every UK citizen who has read Flemming/Greene/etc knew there was an MI6. Whatever you think of Marks, he does have a folk hero side that appeals to the British, someone who found his way into the establishment, but then rejected the banality of that life and instead lived a life most of us haven't the gall to even attempt. I think that is why he is appreciated by the British press.

k-mcgrady 11y ago
>> "violence versus Scotland's wait of 30-40 more years for a referendum; some Irishmen obviously wanted a resolution within their lifetime" I don't think you can really draw a comparison between the two. The Troubles didn't start simply because the Irish wanted to control their own affairs they started due to the fact that Irish Catholics were being heavily discriminated against.
- kagamine 11y ago
  As a Scot who watched the 'troubles' on the news week after week, year after year, I respectfully disagree. Many Scots I believe felt that the Irish had the courage to do what we did not: to take the matter into our own hands. Those same people also held the contrary view that violence was not the answer, and that common sense would prevail. They can now feel venerated in that they took the higher ground. Recent events in Scotland however, display that the political situation/plight is not different enough that you can merely dismiss it as you do, almost half the population of Scotland want self-rule (for the record, I'm not among them). The details may differ but the desire is equal.
  - k-mcgrady 11y ago
    I don't disagree about a desire for independence but unless there have been huge civil rights abuses in Scotland in the last 40 years that I'm unaware of (maybe there have been, please correct me if there were) then then necessity for change is different.
    - kagamine 11y ago
      Well, it depends who you talk to, and honestly I haven't the time nor the inclination to get into the details of Scottish politics right now, but some would say the last 300 years of Scotland's history are one long human rights abuse. Some would disagree. In JavaScript terms: Is Ireland === Scotland? or... Is Ireland == Scotland?
      - pjc50 11y ago
        Ireland != Scotland; there's no Scottish Bobby Sands and no Scottish Easter Rising. The sectarianism maps differently too. The Scottish independence movement is largely secular.
      - arethuza 11y ago
        "last 300 years of Scotland's history are one long human rights abuse" Apart from sectarian bigotry, which I don't think was ever quite as institutionalized as it was in NI, what human rights abuses are you referring to in the last ~100 years? As a "Yes" voting Scot I have to say that I think the rights of Scots were treated with great respect by the rest of the UK - we wanted a referendum for independence and we got one.
        pidg 11y ago
        I suspect '300 years' takes us back to 1707 and the Acts of Union. I think most (not 'some') people would disagree with the hardline nationalist view that we've endured 300 years of human rights abuses since then.
  - simonh 11y ago
- celticninja 11y ago
  Not sure why you were down voted this is correct.
  - kagamine 11y ago
    Probably because there is nothing "correct" about it, it is simply opinion (that shouldn't be downvoted either). Something is not "correct" because you agree with it.
    - celticninja 11y ago
      What exactly is opinion? That catholics were discriminated against or that the discrimination was a major driving factor behind the IRAs recruitment and/ot reason for existence?
pjc50 11y ago
As a paid-up Yes/SNP supporter with a little familiarity with NI, I think it's a really bad idea to compare the two situations. The Troubles were not about having a "resolution", and indeed having a referendum within the Six Counties would have produced a result for staying in the UK. The troubles were about discrimination and violence: both street violence and state violence. The solution involved the reform of the RUC and the imposition of human rights law and anti-discrimination law. Whereas the Scottish question has not been characterised by any significant level of violence on either side of the politics - there's a bit of it around the Old Firm, but it doesn't pervade public life in anything like the same way. Scotland got its first devo referendum in '79, albeit sabotaged by the turnout requirement.
philh 11y ago
> MI6 was known to exist even it not confirmed by the govt. Ever heard of James Bond? Myth rooted in fact, every UK citizen who has read Flemming/Greene/etc knew there was an MI6. Unless there's more to this than it sounds like - why would people assume an agency in some fictional stories was real?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pjc50 11y ago
  known to exist even it not confirmed by the govt. is the key phrase. MI5 even kept up official denial of their existence for some years after moving into a huge, highly conspicuous building on the Thames. It does open up a big-picture question of "what is a fact in politics", when operating in the face of official denial and secrecy. MI6 was mentioned in the popular, banned memoir Spycatcher, published in 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher
  - philh 11y ago
    The specific phrase that I was questioning was every UK citizen who has read Flemming/Greene/etc. Parent makes it sound like people knew about it from reading spy stories, which seems unlikely.

k-mcgrady 11y ago

>> "violence versus Scotland's wait of 30-40 more years for a referendum; some Irishmen obviously wanted a resolution within their lifetime" I don't think you can really draw a comparison between the two. The Troubles didn't start simply because the Irish wanted to control their own affairs they started due to the fact that Irish Catholics were being heavily discriminated against.

kagamine 11y ago
As a Scot who watched the 'troubles' on the news week after week, year after year, I respectfully disagree. Many Scots I believe felt that the Irish had the courage to do what we did not: to take the matter into our own hands. Those same people also held the contrary view that violence was not the answer, and that common sense would prevail. They can now feel venerated in that they took the higher ground. Recent events in Scotland however, display that the political situation/plight is not different enough that you can merely dismiss it as you do, almost half the population of Scotland want self-rule (for the record, I'm not among them). The details may differ but the desire is equal.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  I don't disagree about a desire for independence but unless there have been huge civil rights abuses in Scotland in the last 40 years that I'm unaware of (maybe there have been, please correct me if there were) then then necessity for change is different.
  - kagamine 11y ago
    Well, it depends who you talk to, and honestly I haven't the time nor the inclination to get into the details of Scottish politics right now, but some would say the last 300 years of Scotland's history are one long human rights abuse. Some would disagree. In JavaScript terms: Is Ireland === Scotland? or... Is Ireland == Scotland?
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Ireland != Scotland; there's no Scottish Bobby Sands and no Scottish Easter Rising. The sectarianism maps differently too. The Scottish independence movement is largely secular.
    - arethuza 11y ago
      "last 300 years of Scotland's history are one long human rights abuse" Apart from sectarian bigotry, which I don't think was ever quite as institutionalized as it was in NI, what human rights abuses are you referring to in the last ~100 years? As a "Yes" voting Scot I have to say that I think the rights of Scots were treated with great respect by the rest of the UK - we wanted a referendum for independence and we got one.
      - pidg 11y ago
        I suspect '300 years' takes us back to 1707 and the Acts of Union. I think most (not 'some') people would disagree with the hardline nationalist view that we've endured 300 years of human rights abuses since then.
- simonh 11y ago
celticninja 11y ago
Not sure why you were down voted this is correct.
- kagamine 11y ago
  Probably because there is nothing "correct" about it, it is simply opinion (that shouldn't be downvoted either). Something is not "correct" because you agree with it.
  - celticninja 11y ago
    What exactly is opinion? That catholics were discriminated against or that the discrimination was a major driving factor behind the IRAs recruitment and/ot reason for existence?

pjc50 11y ago

As a paid-up Yes/SNP supporter with a little familiarity with NI, I think it's a really bad idea to compare the two situations. The Troubles were not about having a "resolution", and indeed having a referendum within the Six Counties would have produced a result for staying in the UK. The troubles were about discrimination and violence: both street violence and state violence. The solution involved the reform of the RUC and the imposition of human rights law and anti-discrimination law. Whereas the Scottish question has not been characterised by any significant level of violence on either side of the politics - there's a bit of it around the Old Firm, but it doesn't pervade public life in anything like the same way. Scotland got its first devo referendum in '79, albeit sabotaged by the turnout requirement.

philh 11y ago

> MI6 was known to exist even it not confirmed by the govt. Ever heard of James Bond? Myth rooted in fact, every UK citizen who has read Flemming/Greene/etc knew there was an MI6. Unless there's more to this than it sounds like - why would people assume an agency in some fictional stories was real?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 11y ago
known to exist even it not confirmed by the govt. is the key phrase. MI5 even kept up official denial of their existence for some years after moving into a huge, highly conspicuous building on the Thames. It does open up a big-picture question of "what is a fact in politics", when operating in the face of official denial and secrecy. MI6 was mentioned in the popular, banned memoir Spycatcher, published in 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher
- philh 11y ago
  The specific phrase that I was questioning was every UK citizen who has read Flemming/Greene/etc. Parent makes it sound like people knew about it from reading spy stories, which seems unlikely.