BREXIT: What will happen with UK higher education after Brexit?

What will happen with UK higher education after Brexit?

In this essay it is going to be discussed the future of the university education after Brexit. First, it is going to be done a brief introduction of the relation between Britain and the rest of Europe in higher education. Secondly, the essay will analyse how the students of both the EU and UK will be affected, especially in the Erasmus Programme, taking into account the possible consequences of leaving the programme. Thirdly, it will be discussed how Brexit will affect education in the particular case of Scotland and suggest the potential strategies to develop the education system. Finally, it is going to be used Romero’s personal experience to show the first effects of Brexit on individual students.

The UK’s vote to leave the EU has caused widespread consternation and has weakened the relations between Europe and the UK. Among other features, the higher education system is one of the main important aspects that will be affected by this situation. In the past decades, EU universities and British universities have had many exchange and cooperation programmes, one of the most popular is the Erasmus Programme. This programme has not only helped the universities to deepen academic research and improve new teaching methods, but it has also made students have more opportunities to receive better education resources. However, Brexit has changed this favourable cooperation and it is estimated to have even worse impacts in the long term.

To begin with, we are going to write about the EU and UK students’ problems in studying abroad in Europe. In demographic terms, UK universities will be affected because they have a EU undergraduate’s dependence, and leaving the EU, they will have reduced a number of excellent students from European countries. Moreover, another reason why EU students can decide not to come to UK universities is the financial one. Even though it is already known that the EU will give less financial support to EU students who go to the UK (because it will be no longer in the EU), the current concern of students is if they will be required to pay the full international student’s fee. If this occurs, the number of these students will dramatically decrease in UK universities. Furthermore, UK universities will also suffer potential consequences for the decline in revenues (Mayhew, 2017). At the same time, UK students will also have the same main issues. Nevertheless, in the case of British students it will not be so much a financial problem but a problem of having fewer opportunities when they want to pursue advanced studies.

In addition to the reduction of the number of excellent students, universities’ academic research may also be affected. In previous years, numerous cooperation programmes were established in an attempt to encourage academic research and faculty development. Such collaborations have largely improved research-oriented universities capabilities. Once lost the support from EU, UK universities may not satisfy the needs of the nation and society in the long term. Furthermore, it will be difficult for universities to hire and retain staff from EU countries. Overall, the impact on the ability of UK universities to develop will be huge. After Brexit, UK needs to deal with how to ensure adequate funding for research (Mayhew, 2017).

          Facing such negative impacts, the Scottish government has shown its objection to Brexit in terms of education. The government released the information that its universities will continue to welcome students from Europe despite the threat from Brexit. Scotland is proud of its thriving higher education and recognises the social economic and cultural benefits. International students have made a huge contribution to Scotland. The government believes in its excellence in education and the proud of its deep sense of internationalism. Although worrying signs show that Brexit is making Scotland less attractive for EU students, the reduction in the number of applicants to Scottish universities has had less impact than in England. This has also shown the damage being done by the decision to leave the EU (Anon, 2017). Overall, the Scottish government’s attitudes and response towards Brexit’s influence on the education system suggest that improvements are needed to make up for the loss of excellent students, resources and experts from the EU.

To improve the education system, UK universities should try to use strategies to develop its higher education system for the longer term. Firstly, UK universities’ administration should take the positive advantage of its program duration to attract non-European students. The negative impact of Britain's harsh study abroad policy is less than the positive attraction of having a shorter time to complete a degree. The undergraduate program is usually 3 years for international students and 1 to 2 years for post-graduate. Despite the fact that the visa threshold is strict, the shorter academic structure is still an important factor in attracting more international students’ interests. Furthermore, Brexit will also bring opportunities and encouragements to the development of the British education system under great challenges. UK universities may seek broader international cooperation without losing the opportunity to develop their overseas education industry. Although Brexit will not have much impact on the overall development of higher education in Britain, it is undeniable that Brexit has still brought about major changes in the field of scientific research in the United Kingdom. Britain should take the path of bilateral and international cooperation and innovation in the future.

From personal experience, even though if Brexit has still not happened, it has already affected me. As a current Erasmus student in the University of Edinburgh, I can say that I have had fewer opportunities to choose a university in England than other partners in previous years, with this I mean that for instance, in places such as London there was only one place to go for the Erasmus and it was for one single semester. This was not the case of Scotland, where I have had the same opportunities to choose a university than my other partners had in recent years. In the financial point of view, my scholarship has been affected, because the United Kingdom has passed from a first category destination for Erasmus students to a second one, so I received less money from the EU to go to the UK. Moreover, accommodation prices will also be more expensive in following years according to what I have been told by the university here in Scotland. Nevertheless, a good aspect about Brexit that will be good for students is that the pound has been devalued in recent years, so the exchange range between the euro and the pound will benefit us. My suggestion will be not to leave the EU, because there will be serious consequences in the Erasmus Programme, but as it seems impossible to reverse this situation, I would probably try not to change the Erasmus and reinforce it offering more opportunities to study in the UK. This reinforcement should be done to improve the European educational system and try to avoid mixing politics with education.

In conclusion, our study aimed to investigate the effects of Brexit on the UK higher education system. We have explored the negative effects of Brexit on both European students and UK universities. We then discussed the potential advantages and strategies that could be adopted to make up for the loss of the advantages of being inside the EU and development of the UK education system. In general, we can see that Brexit is having negative effects on both the EU and the UK particularly. In the future, it is estimated that UK universities will have a decline in their income of EU students, financial aid from Europe and academic research resources. And UK universities will also need to seek other alternatives, such as broader international cooperation, to improve their academic research quality in the long term.

References

Mayhew, Ken; UK higher education and Brexit, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 33, Issue suppl_1, 1 March 2017, Pages S155–S161, https://doi-org.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/10.1093/oxrep/grx012

Anon, 2017. SCOTLAND IS TOP OF ERASMUS CLASS. States News Service, States News Service, Feb 3, 2017.

In collaboration with Chushu Wu.

American Revolution: An inevitable consequence?

American Revolution:

An inevitable consequence? 

In this essay I am going to discuss about how important the American Revolution was in the development of the British colonies during the eighteenth century and also see if it was an unavoidable fact or not in the evolution of themselves. With this in mind, this essay will be seen from two different perspectives: the American and the English one. Moreover, my proposition is to see the change of mentality of the colonials regarding to Great Britain.

            According to Knott the paradox of the mainland colonies is that they were increasingly becoming more culturally integrated to Great Britain on the very eve of the independence. The Seven Years’ War transformed the idea of a decentralized British Empire into a relation based in trade, military alliance and the administration by a protector-king. This change of mentality would later affect British literature during the Romantic period, when there was a big nationalistic movement because of the British Empire. This was the reason why colonialists claimed their British identity, which allowed in among other freedoms: loyalty to the crown in the British Parliament and the practice of Protestantism. The rise of professions, the spread of newspapers, new commercial trades and the idea of social aspirations brought eastern colonies to a bigger proximity with Britain. The devotion to the British royalty doing similar festivities also provoked a similar sensibility to the crown. [1]

Nevertheless, as Knott says in his book, British ideas used in Great Britain against their own monarchy as “no taxation without representation” or “liberty and property” were after used by colonial patriots between the decades of 1750 and 1760 that collected the complaints of the colonists of the Thirteen Colonies towards the British authorities. All this sentimentality combined with the absence of any type of aristocracy and no frontier experience, as in the case of America, brought to the elite and middle-class colonial society from the 1760s, a revolutionary and reformist spirit, that is to say, the idea of becoming a nation (medicine and print will be crucial transatlantic conduits to make this sensibility possible).

In the case of America this new sensibility divided the population in two different bands. On one side there were, as I mentioned before, the patriots, people of the American colonies who wanted to gain the independence from Britain creating instead of this, the United States. These states will be composed by the thirteen American colonies. And on the other side, the loyalists, people who wanted to stay part of Great Britain and conserved their British citizenship. Loyalists will be a fundamental piece for the mediation between Britain and the colony.[2]

Patriots

In relation to what Spalding says, patriots at the beginning of the American Revolution were conscious that their Puritan ancestors were already looking for their freedom when they first came to America. They considered themselves as the descendants of Oliver Cromwel’s army, Cromwel and Puritan army appeared in a time in which army conflicts were very common. Thomas Jefferson was one of the main precursors of this belief in which"the laws of nature and of nature's god” (The Declaration of Independence) preserved the Puritan tradition. Moreover, not only Jefferson and his patriot colleagues were aware of this revolutionary Puritan provenance, also loyalists, who dissolved the House of Burgesses on May 26, 1774, when patriots were illegally planning their revolutionary movement. This means that since that moment all these Puritan ideas came to play a very important role for the revolution. Paradoxically, this religion, which once pretended to be used to reform the Anglicanism in England (really approached to royal power), was now being used against them.[3]

Boston Massacre

In the military aspect of the Revolution it’s important to mention the Massacre of Boston, an incident between the population of Boston and the 29^th regiment of the British army in America. The conflict happened because Boston inhabitants didn’t like the presence of majesty’s troops in their cities, so they organised a riot against them (pretending to take king’s chest and kill its sentries). Despite this fact, Preston, the leader of the regiment, told soldiers not to fire against the population. Unfortunately, in the middle of the protest with the shouting, the American inhabitants throwing snowballs and using clubs against soldiers, some British army soldiers fired without orders to the population, killing three people and two more people later, because of wounds. Preston was judged, but finally found innocent. This event would be another fact to take into account to understand the mentality of the colony was changing towards Britain.[4]

Loyalists

On the other band of the Revolution there were the loyalists, who, according to Calhoon, were in the middle of all these changes, being still loyal to England. The most important revolutionary conflicts appeared because of Great Britain’s decisions in the 1750s and the 1760s of centralizing the territory control over the colonies. Decisions as the Stamp Act[5] or the use of Townshed duties revenue to pay Crown officials’ salaries were some of the conflicts that loyalists supported. These important colonials held positions as royal governors, judges and attorneys generals. Nevertheless, loyalists were in the very difficult situation of defending British parliamentary statutes, which they found harmful for the well-being of the Empire, as for instance: prosecuting patriot activists or using British troops to enforce civil laws, and at the same time, wanting to preserve a peaceful stability in the relationship between the colony and the mainland. [6]

Moreover, doing these actions, they also had to promote crown ideas and beliefs, as for example, parliamentary supremacy of the mainland, the British Empire being the Mother country of the colonies or the colonial prosperity thanks to British credit, among other ideas. Loyalists didn’t believe in the British parliamentary supremacy, but they considered British legislature and Constitution as the bases of the British Empire. Conscious of the commercial fragility within the Empire, they protected British militia and supported commercial trade with Great Britain. Loyalists, therefore, tried to avoid an ideological conflict between the Crown and the colonies. When it finally occurred with the incident of the Boston Tea Party[7] at the very end of 1773 they began to see the big alienation between the colony and the empire.[8]

The Revolution did not only affect British institutions in America, but it also extended to all domains in which there was a colonial-imperial relationship. As well, it is important to mention that The Revolution occurred in a really diverse society composed by European immigrants and their descendants, Native American Indians, African American slaves and free slaves. So when the royal governor of Virginia called slaves of rebellious planters to win their liberty, eight hundreds of them fought for the Empire. They even feared that thousands of others would also want to fight in order to win their liberty. In the case of Native Indians, British cultivated them for the purpose of fighting against the French and they also discovered that through diplomacy they could obtain Indian lands needed for the colonial expansion (Indians feared between being British allies or staying neutral).[9]

The Declaration of Independence

The moment of the Revolution was arriving and all colonies need to agree to declare the independence of the colonies, it is for this reason that during the spring of 1776, localities and groups of ordinary Americans, as New York mechanics or South Carolina grand Juries among others, adopted the resolutions of the independence. This encouraged the Continental Congress to assemble a five-member committee to draft a formal declaration of independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote it and the other four members supervised and edited it. Radical ideas as “all men are created equal having inalienable rights” or the “Declaration of Sentiment appeared in it. Despite the fact of being so utopian (because American History shows the repeated injuries done to this declaration along its history), the 4^th July 1776 the United States of America declared the independence from Great Britain. In this declaration they explained the reasons why they wanted to be independent: one of the main reasons is that they believed that British government is not untouchable, and when it doesn’t represent all the population, it needs to be changed. Other reasons were the unfair taxes imposed to them, the King of England (they considered he was a history of repeated injuries), or British aristocracy.[10]

This essay has discussed about the different points of view on the causes of the Revolution. Despite all the causes I have mentioned throughout the entire essay, it is   true that nothing in history is inevitable and America could still be part of the British Empire. However, taking into the account how Great Britain treated its colonies, the absence of an a hierarchic society, the wish of American people to become a nation and the fact of being so far away from the United Kingdom, made impossible that this relationship would have continued as it was before the Revolution started. Naturally, the American Revolution served as a precedent not only for other British colonies, but also for the rest of them around the world, changing their mentality towards the colonizers.

Bibliography

An Account of a late military massacre at Boston, or The consequences of quartering troops in a populous town. Boston: Digital History Eighteenth Century Collections Online, 1770.

Calhoon, Robert M., Barnes, Timothy M., and Davis, Robert Scott. Tory Insurgents : The Loyalist Perception and Other Essays. Carolina: Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2010.

Declaration of Independence . Digital History, 1776.

Knott, Sara. Sensibility and the American Revolution. North Carolina: Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012.

Spalding, James C. “Loyalist as Royalist, Patriot as Puritan: The American Revolution as a Repetition of the English Civil Wars.” Cambridge University Press , September 1976: 329-340.

---

[1]Knott, Sara. Sensibility and the American Revolution. North Carolina: Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012. 1 

[2]Knott, Sensibility and the American Revolution, 2-3

[3]Spalding, James C. “Loyalist as Royalist, Patriot as Puritan: The American Revolution as a Repetition of the English Civil Wars.” Cambridge University Press , September 1976: 329-340.

[4]Account of the Boston Massacre, 1770

[5]Act of the British Parliament that imposed a direct tax on the American colonies and that required the use of British stamps and British stamp papersin many colonial printed manuscripts.

[6]Calhoon, Robert M., Barnes, Timothy M., and Davis, Robert Scott. Tory Insurgents : The Loyalist Perception and Other Essays. Carolina: Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2010. Introduction xii

[7]An act of protest in which the American settlers destroyed an entire shipment of tea sent by the East India Company of Great Britain due to the high taxes imposed by the British and in response of the Boston Massacre. It is also considered as one of the biggest precedents  of the Independence War

[8]Calhoon, Introduction to: Try Insurgents, xiii- xiv

[9]Calhoon, Introduction to: Try Insurgents, xiii- xiv

[10]Declaration of Independence, 1776

The origin of the Irish Nationalism and its evolution after the Irish War of Independence

The origin of the Irish Nationalism and its evolution after the Irish War of Independence

In this essay, I am going to discuss about the origin of Ireland as a nation and how the nationalism evolved after the Irish War of Independence against Britain, dividing the essay in two main parts. With this in mind, in this essay we will always take into account three main aspects: socio-economic, religious, political and historical, so that we can have the context and the reasons why it happened. This essay will also be seen from two different perspectives: the British because Britain was the nation which dominated Ireland until the Irish nationalism emerged, and the other is the Irish, seeing how their thinking was changing until they decided to become a nation.

When did it begin?

There are many events in history that could have determined the origin of the Irish nationalism, that is to say, the beginning of Irish history as a nation. But when can one talk about Irish nationalism? In 1904, a man called Eoin MacNeill, an Irish scholar and also politician, asked himself that question giving a lecture. He said it could be considered that its beginning was in the Gaelic or pre-Normand period, in other words, a traditional period of Ireland. Or even it could have started in the 16^th century, in a revolutionary period. (Boyce, 2003:15)

Other aspects that he also took into account were the religious ones: on the one hand, during the 1640s when there was a big Catholic movement and, on the other hand, with the Protestants of the eighteenth century. And last but not least important, the author refers to the modern aspect, as for instance, the socio-political change of the 19^thcentury of Ireland. It is for this reason that he says that a historian must decide between searching in the more ancient past writing in a theological way or beginning in a more modern period forgetting other historical events.(Boyce, 2003:15).

Therefore now Boyce, bearing in mind all these aspects, first defines the term nationalism to come later to the Irish case. Nationalism, according to him, is the feeling or belief of a community of people that share the same origin (with the same history and literature), that usually have a common language that differs from other nations (not always) and who might have the same religion. Consequently, he argues that this feeling would take on more importance in Ireland in the last quarter of the eighteenth century with the Acts of Union of 1801 with Britain. (Boyce, 2003:16)        

The Act of Union (1^st January 1801)

According to the author Larking in A History of Ireland, and as a result of the French Revolution in 1789, Britain would take advantage of this fact and would have the reason to unify the Kingdom of Ireland to its territory. The most revolutionary Irish leaders of the 19^th century would see this union as a given and would work all this century (within the strict possibilities that Britain allowed them) against this union. The Union banned any possible representation of Irish people in their parliament, which had achieved more autonomy since 1782, forcing the representatives of the Irish parliament to go to the British one, in Westminster.(Larkin H., 2014:9)

From the British point of view, this was an historic and nonviolent act, and it would give Ireland a period of stability, but the most important thing for them was that it was the last step of a process that began with the annexation of Wales in 1535, Scotland in 1707 and finished with Ireland in 1801. (Larkin H., 2014:10)

Nevertheless, for Ireland it wasn’t a “real pacific period” and in time it divided both cultures and communities. England would try to convince Ireland in all the possible aspects showing the benefits of the Union, in the economic aspect they would explain the benefits of a more solid economy that would promote Ireland’s economic growth. However, having such unequal economies was very difficult to have parity in both of them, so it wasn’t as good as they expected (and furthermore if we include that there was a period of corruption).(Larkin H., 2014:15)

From the religious point of view, Larkin says that Ireland was composed of a majority of Catholics (for each Protestant there were three Catholics, proportion which would be just the opposite in the case of the Union between Britain and Ireland, that is, three against twelve, having British more options to control them. It is for this reason that Britain didn’t like the idea of having a Catholic parliament in Ireland. (Larkin H., 2014:15) Despite the fact that there was a Protestant ascendancy with the two major Protestant parties growing more and more (the Crown and the Tory party), the author McCaffrey in The Irish Question : Two Centuries of Conflict says that the Catholic majority refused to accept this pact because they believed that they would be in a huge inferiority. (McCaffrey, 2015:3)

However, it was more than an ideology which was counting for this union according to Larkin’s opinion. On the one hand, there were the Protestants that, even being a small group, monopolised land, politics and society. On the other hand, the Catholics were landless, “politically underprivileged”, poor etc. and controlled by the Protestant elite. This meant that if Protestants were for the Union, the whole Ireland would be part of Britain, and in fact that is what happened. Bearing in mind all these aspects, Catholic masses would have a serious problem of identity, partly because of the dependence on Britain and partly also because they couldn’t be taken into account as a nation. (Larkin H., 2014:4)

In conclusion, this period will create an Irish national sentiment, based mostly in a strong hatred against the British predominance in their territory. This feeling wouldn’t end until after the Irish War of Independence when Ireland was recognised as a country. This would, as well, affect in a devastating way its poor economic situation, which would trigger the Great Famine of Ireland, also known as The Irish potato famine (1845-1852) and one of the biggest migrations of its history. And, last but not least, from the religious point of view, the Catholics would have serious problems (especially in the 19^th century), because of the Anti-Catholic laws of Britain that abolished their human rights like: voting, having a good education or job etc. being even persecuted.

After the Irish War of Independence: The Anglo-Irish Treaty

After the war, in December 1921 England and Ireland would sign The Anglo-Irish Treaty, despite the fact that they did not have much interest in having peace in both territories. This could be explained because in the last stages of the war many violent acts took place, according to what the author Michael Hopkinson says in The Irish War of Independence. The terms discussed in this treaty were: the safeguard of the defence of Ireland, the future of Ulster (an Irish Protestant region formed by six counties that was in favour of the union with Britain), the granting of fiscal autonomy and the self-domain in their twenty-six counties. (Hopkinson, 2002: 177) This treaty, signed by the provisional Irish government and by the British Prime Minister Lloyd George and his asembly of negotiators, had an acceptable degree of independence for his supporters. Nonetheless, for others there would be something missing and that was the partition of Ireland (despite the fact that there was little to discuss because they had already done it that same year). As well, this treaty was not accepted by those who voted against (the anti-Treaties or republicans) as it was inconceivable for them and, therefore, they refused to recognize the Irish Free State. Nevertheless, for the big majority it represented one more step for the Irish freedom, even if with this agreement they would continue to be subordinated to Britain in some economical aspects (Curtis, 2010: 106-107)

Northern and Southern Ireland

Meanwhile in Ireland, as I have mentioned before, the division of the territory affected the region of Ulster (situated in Northern Ireland) and the rest of Ireland. The conflict of Northern Ireland or The Troubles is believed to have a religious origin between Catholics and Protestants, but according to the author Joanne McEvoy the origin lays somewhere else: the national identity. Whilst Nationalists regard the Republic of Ireland as their ‘motherland’, the Unionists consider Britain their country, as they have very different objectives: Unionists want to be part of the United Kingdom and Nationalists want a united Ireland.Of course, in Ireland the religion divisions have always been explicit. It is known that during this period there were many cases of sectarianism because of this issue, but these discrepancies also coincide with other economical differences, historical facts and national political identity.(McEvoy, 2008: 8)

IRA

According to Andrew Sanders, the IRA or Irish Republic Army was considered heir of the Irish Volunteers, a small group of Irish volunteers that took part in the First World War. The Irish Volunteers split from the National Volunteers in 1914 and, encouraged by the Irish Parliamentary Party leader (John Redmond), would give their support to the Allies at the beginning of the war. The remainder was supposed to be a home guard in the Irish territory, but Britain refused to train a disorganised movement which couldn’t provide front-line soldiers, apart from the concern that they could provoke as they could have been used against them in nationalistic terms. As the war progressed worse, news about its divisions in their army arrived in Ireland and the threat of having to go to war increased, whilst support given to the National Volunteers was dicreasing. At the same time, the Irish Volunteers were becoming more and more numerous. That was specially influenced by Britain that created a Republican division in which the most important thing was the pragmatic significance of the war, in other words, what they will achieve at the end of the war. (Sanders, 2011: 1-2)

This movement would continue after the war until the decade of 1970s, when Nothern Ireland would suffer one of the most violent periods in its history. As a result of The ‘Troubles’, over two thousand people would be murdered and half of them in the hands of the Provisional IRA. In August 1969, the Official IRA would be created and it would split with the Provisional one. This movement was established because of the impotence experienced during that decade and with the purpose of being able to change it into a deadly insurgency fast. Nevertheless, they also began to have political activity, as for instance, claiming the recognitions of the parliaments of Stormont or Westminster, but having an extreme socialism orientation. (Sanders, 2011: 45)

The tendency towards politics of the IRA would start as a peace process, according to Sanders, that will be established during the following decades and continued until the 1990s when the IRA would make its final movement with two ceasefires. All this, added with the internal factionism of the movement and the transition of the Irish-American military support to political intervention, would finally end with the most abrupt period in the history of Nothern Ireland. (Sanders, 2011: 191) The beginning of the 21^st century was in an uneasy calm, even if the final year of the previous century had only eight deaths, there was a straight relation between violence and politics that wouldn’t end till the last paramilitary group in Nothern Ireland, the LVF (Loyalist Volunteer Force) was disolved, arresting in October 2005 its leader. (Sanders, 2011: 226-227)

To sum up with this second part of the essay, it could be said that the period between the Irish War of Independence until our days was even more violent in some decades that the war itself. Having two main territorial and political isues, the complete independence of Ireland from Britain and the internal territorial division in the Irish territory, dividing it into two parts: Northern and Southern Ireland. Likewise, I have also discussed about the biggest paramilitary movement emerged in Ireland in the last century, the IRA, which I have considered very important for the understanding of the Irish Nationalism, because it would be crucial in the conflict of Nothern Ireland.

 

Works cited

Boyce, D. G. (2003). Nationalism in Ireland (3). London: Routledge.

Curtis, K. (2010). Anthem Irish Studies : P. S. O'Hegarty (1879-1955) : Sinn Féin Fenian (1). London: Anthem Press.

Hopkinson, M. (2002). The Irish War of Independence. Montreal: MQUP.

Larkin, H. (2014). Anthem Perspectives in History : A History of Ireland 1800–1922 Theatres of Disorder? (1). London: Anthem Press.

McCaffrey, L. J. (2015). The Irish Question : Two Centuries of Conflict (2). Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

McEvoy, J. (2008). Politics Study Guides EUP : Politics of Northern Ireland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Sanders, A. (2011). Inside the IRA : Dissident Republicans and the War for Legitimacy (1). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.