"A Very British Transition" - A Post-Junta Britain TL

A Very British Transition: what I gather of the Succession of First Lords & Prime Ministers
Portrait​
Title
Prime Minister
Office
(Lifespan)
Term of Office​
Party​
IMG_1339.png
IMG_1331.jpg
First Lord Louis Mountbatten
1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma
(1900-1980)
9 December, 1968
-
20 October, 1980 †​

11 Years, 311 Days​
National
IMG_1339.png
IMG_1333.jpg
First Lord Peter Hill-Norton
(1915-2003)​
20 October, 1980
-
16 May, 2004 †​

23 Years, 206 Days​
National
IMG_1339.png
IMG_1334.jpg
First Lord Sir Mike Jackson
(1944-​
16 May, 2004
-
14 March, 2005​

302 Days​
National
IMG_1340.png
IMG_1335.jpg
Alan Johnson
(1950-​
14 March, 2005
-
17 November, 2012​

7 Years, 213 Days​
SDP
IMG_1339.png
IMG_1336.jpg
William Hague
(1961-​
17 November, 2012
-
Incumbent
National
@powerab
This is cool
 
What has the Former First Lord Mike Jackson been up to in the years since leaving office and stepping back from post junta political/military life?

How is he viewed by the public compared to his predecessors and in light of subsequent events?
Jackson is generally rather popular, after Hill-Norton's death and the General Strike Jackson saw the writing on the wall and relented to a negotiated transition via the Cardiff Accords - rather than putting tanks on the street like some in the Junta wanted. If Jackson had really wanted to cling to power the transition could have been a lot more bloody. He is seen as one of the four or five major figures who ensured the Cardiff Accords were a success.

Afterwards he served as Defence Secretary for the first few years of the transition, this was back when the Secretary was appointed by the military rather that the Prime Minister. Where he oversaw moderate reforms to the military and generally enjoyed a close relationship with Alan Johnson, although he worked to block further civilian control over the armed forces.

Jackson's departure and his replacement by the more hawkish Charles Guntherie saw relations deteriorate between military and civilian, eventually culminating in the attempted coup of 2009.

Since retirement he has spent his time lecturing and has recently published "Defence of the Realm" his memoirs around the downfall of the Junta, an international best-seller.
 
A Very British Transition: what I gather of the Succession of First Lords & Prime Ministers
Portrait​
Title
Prime Minister
Office
(Lifespan)
Term of Office​
Party​
IMG_1339.png
IMG_1331.jpg
First Lord Louis Mountbatten
1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma
(1900-1980)
9 December, 1968
-
20 October, 1980 †​

11 Years, 311 Days​
National
IMG_1339.png
IMG_1333.jpg
First Lord Peter Hill-Norton
(1915-2003)​
20 October, 1980
-
16 May, 2004 †​

23 Years, 206 Days​
National
IMG_1339.png
IMG_1334.jpg
First Lord Sir Mike Jackson
(1944-​
16 May, 2004
-
14 March, 2005​

302 Days​
National
IMG_1340.png
IMG_1335.jpg
Alan Johnson
(1950-​
14 March, 2005
-
17 November, 2012​

7 Years, 213 Days​
SDP
IMG_1339.png
IMG_1336.jpg
William Hague
(1961-​
17 November, 2012
-
Incumbent
National
How did Hill-Norton keep serving as First Lord after being dead for a year?
 
2018 Scottish Election Exit Poll
1652699957359.png


(Big Ben Chimes)

RISE WIN

FORECAST RISE LARGEST PARTY IN SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT WITH 25 SEATS


Brian Taylor - Our exit poll is suggesting RISE will be the largest party after all the votes are counted. Patrick Harvie’s RISE party won 25 seats, up two. Unity has also gained seats on 20, up three, the best result ever for the party. SNP on 16, up three. The UPA on 12, down one, the Social Democrats on 9, down three. The Worker's Party on 8, up two. Alba on 3, up one. And finally an absolute disaster for National on 2 seats, down seven. It is just and exit poll and we will see how accurate it is when results come in. But it doesn’t seem like we’ve seen any breakthrough in the great constitutional debate. Laura Miller, your reaction?

LM - We have all lived through some of the most turbulent times in our nation and our politics. If this exit poll is correct those times look set to continue, 49 seats for the unilateralist parties and 46 seats for the unionist and federalist parties. So a very small majority of one if the three parties that make up the current government can pull themselves back together. That is a big if! The Worker’s Party especially have been very hostile to its former allies on the campaign trail so a third term for the unilateralist alliance isn’t a certainty.

BT - Bad news for William Hague, National has been nearly wiped out, whilst National were never Scotland’s natural party of Government they always played a role and held at least a bench or two of seats. Hague is under a lot of pressure down south and I’m sure National MPs will not be happy to see these results. A disappointing night for the SDP as well, with only nine seats, many in the party had hoped their soft unionist message would allow them to regain lost ground but Unity have left them in the dust.

LM - And there’s the question of the regional President, if RISE is able to form a government who will lead it? Will the British Government let Patrick Harvie return to Edinburgh, or will Jim Sillars or one of the other few remaining not imprisoned RISE officials lead the Government. Or - as some have suggested - will Mr Harvie lead a “Government-in-exile” from Dublin?

BT - The parliamentary maths gets even more complicated when you realise nearly a third of RISE’s electoral list are in prison or exile. Will these MSPs be allowed to take their seats? Or will the seat pass down to the next person on the list? Despite topping the RISE Glasgow list it still isn’t clear whether Patrick Harvie will legally be an MSP. This could be a question for the courts - who we know are no friend to Scottish nationalism.

LM - What are the odds of a “cross-community” Government like they have in Northern Ireland forming here in Scotland? The UPA and SDP have both called for a coalition stemming from both communities with Ministers of all sides of the constitutional debate sitting around the Cabinet table. Could this be a way forward?

BT - It’s certainly a nice idea Laura but both Patrick Harvie and Ruth Davidson have ruled such a deal out. This has been an absolutely vicious campaign, even between parties within the same constitutional blocs, there doesn’t seem to be the trust needed for such a grand coalition. Both RISE and Unity have made gains and will be eager to declare themselves as the winner, inviting an enemy into Government will only slow their momentum. Again any such deal would require Patrick Harvie returning to Edinburgh, but I can’t see William Hague or Ruth Davidson agreeing to that.

LM - Yes whilst Unity has had a good night, it has slim pickings of coalition partners - its aggressive squeeze messaging seems to have worked too well. Both the SDP and National have been ground into the dust. As for the federalist parties, whilst Alba is open to working with all sides the UPA won’t work with Unity whilst it props up William Hague in London.

BT - Absolutely, Unity have consolidated the Unionist support in their camp but it looks like the Separatists have fragmented to all sorts of different parties. The SNP have done well, especially rural and highland areas. The Workers Party too seems to be surging in the inner cities. RISE won’t be able to steamroll over it’s nationalist allies - they may even have to give the Workers Party full coalition status, with the ministerial powers that provides.

LM - Certainly lots of questions to answer tonight. With us now we have Jean Urquhart, one of the few senior RISE politicians in Belmarsh or Dublin. Ms Urquhart thank you for joining us, what are your thoughts on our exit poll?
 
Last edited:
Particularly since what happens in Scotland could spill over into Northern Ireland.

And since we're in the area - @powerab, I don't know if you mentioned it, but what's the status ATM of Ellan Vannin? How have the Manx fared when their neighbours were under the Junta and after?
The Manx were generally left alone by the Junta. As the Isle of Man has quite a large military presence and they tend to be quite conservative the Manx were fairly loyal to the British state, but they kept their autonomy and local democracy
 
Particularly since what happens in Scotland could spill over into Northern Ireland.

And since we're in the area - @powerab, I don't know if you mentioned it, but what's the status ATM of Ellan Vannin? How have the Manx fared when their neighbours were under the Junta and after?
Honestly since there's no devolution deal in Northern Ireland and two of it's parties are supporting National in Westminster I'm kinda surprised that things haven't already spilled over the NI.
 
Honestly since there's no devolution deal in Northern Ireland and two of it's parties are supporting National in Westminster I'm kinda surprised that things haven't already spilled over the NI.
There is some devolution in NI through the provincial Parliament, and a peace process with the IRA was built into the Cardiff Accords similarly to the SNLA peace process. It's also kicking off in Northern Ireland. I don't go into as much detail around NI as its fairly similar to the OTL Troubles, whilst ITTL Scotland is a lot more different than OTL UK, making a more interesting story. 😁
 
one of the few senior RISE politicians not in chains

I feel like the language used by the BBC is out of character here with how they tend to report on Scottish issues, at least in OTL. 'In chains' sounds too much like RISE are being oppressed for the BBC, perhaps simply arrested instead?

Interesting outcome Powerab! It sounds like one thing Hague's government/the courts could do is arrest just enough RISE and Workers party-list candidates that they can't take their seats and the seats default to more congenial alternatives.
 
Last edited:
I feel like the language used by the BBC is out of character here with how they tend to report on Scottish issues, at least in OTL. 'In chains' sounds too much like RISE are being oppressed for teh BBC, perhaps simply arrested instead?

Interesting outcome Powerab! It sounds like one thing Hague's government/the courts could do is arrest just enough RISE and Workers party list candidates that they can't take their seats and the seats default to more congenial alternatives.
You're probably right - I was running out of interesting ways to say in prison.

Since the UK uses a party list system. So any candidates who are arrested forfeit their seat to the next person on their party list. So Hague will need to arrest all 95 RISE candidates!
 
Last edited:
I feel like the language used by the BBC is out of character here with how they tend to report on Scottish issues, at least in OTL. 'In chains' sounds too much like RISE are being oppressed for teh BBC, perhaps simply arrested instead?

Interesting outcome Powerab! It sounds like one thing Hague's government/the courts could do is arrest just enough RISE and Workers party list candidates that they can't take their seats and the seats default to more congenial alternatives.
You're probably right - I was running out of interesting ways to say in prison.

Since the UK uses a party list system any candidates who are arrested forfeit their seat to the next person on their party list so Hague will need to arrest all 95 RISE candidates!
If Hague puts all 95 RISE candidates in prison then he'll be shooting himself in the foor again, as all the more militant members will come to the fore as they say, "Fuck it, we go back to the old ways" and before you know it you have English troops being sent back home in bodybags. Not something Hague is wanting, especially since the EU will harangue him for it and putting them in the position of having a member state that is suppressing democracy in a part of their nation.

Overall the situation is FUBAR
 
The Manx were generally left alone by the Junta. As the Isle of Man has quite a large military presence and they tend to be quite conservative the Manx were fairly loyal to the British state, but they kept their autonomy and local democracy


I'm also assuming since it's a tax haven they didn't wanna start screwing with the basket all their stolen money was in?
 
There is some devolution in NI through the provincial Parliament, and a peace process with the IRA was built into the Cardiff Accords similarly to the SNLA peace process. It's also kicking off in Northern Ireland. I don't go into as much detail around NI as its fairly similar to the OTL Troubles, whilst ITTL Scotland is a lot more different than OTL UK, making a more interesting story. 😁
I don't really think the conflict in Northern Ireland would have gone the same as the troubles. The troubles was an inter-community sectarian conflict, the resistance to the junta would be much more ideological and even cross community.
The IRA at the time was going through a Marxist phase and was more interested in gaining internal and international allies through socialism than engaging in an armed conflict. So the conflict ITTL isn't an escalation of the civil rights movement where both sides claimed to be on the defensive and more of a part of the broader leftist opposition to the junta.
The Labour party and movement were also still quite significant within unionists so that would provide a base of vocal (and potentially violent) opposition to the junta from unionists, which may over time merge with the republican movement.
Ulster unionism was also going through a moderate period when the coup happened so liberal anti-juntists would be a fairly significant part of the population and political scene, and they might ironically have a more functional relationship with Irish nationalists than with more pro-junta loyalists.
Ultimately though you are the author so if you disagree with my conclusions or you want to focus on Scotland regardless that's up to you ,and it has been a very interesting series of events.
 
I don't really think the conflict in Northern Ireland would have gone the same as the troubles. The troubles was an inter-community sectarian conflict, the resistance to the junta would be much more ideological and even cross community.
The IRA at the time was going through a Marxist phase and was more interested in gaining internal and international allies through socialism than engaging in an armed conflict. So the conflict ITTL isn't an escalation of the civil rights movement where both sides claimed to be on the defensive and more of a part of the broader leftist opposition to the junta.
The Labour party and movement were also still quite significant within unionists so that would provide a base of vocal (and potentially violent) opposition to the junta from unionists, which may over time merge with the republican movement.
Ulster unionism was also going through a moderate period when the coup happened so liberal anti-juntists would be a fairly significant part of the population and political scene, and they might ironically have a more functional relationship with Irish nationalists than with more pro-junta loyalists.
Ultimately though you are the author so if you disagree with my conclusions or you want to focus on Scotland regardless that's up to you ,and it has been a very interesting series of events.
Hmm, not the author, but it seems like even with a 1966 POD there's some room for maneuver to make it parallel the OTL Troubles (similarly, if not exactly). Probably not to the same level as, say, a surviving Airey Neave as N.I. Secretary, but the spirit could be there (not to mention O'Neill's liberalism and reconciliation process was not too popular among NI Unionists). From the point of view of the First Lord's regime, this could be possible through exploiting sectarian tensions and all that while also painting with a broad brush what counted as "Communism" and all that (tactics also used by apartheid-era South Africa). Ian Paisley and co. could be much more prominent than IOTL in that case. What couldn't be coopted would be forced out (as it's also canon Ireland is also one of the bastions of anti-Junta resistance).
 
Hmm, not the author, but it seems like even with a 1966 POD there's some room for maneuver to make it parallel the OTL Troubles (similarly, if not exactly). Probably not to the same level as, say, a surviving Airey Neave as N.I. Secretary, but the spirit could be there (not to mention O'Neill's liberalism and reconciliation process was not too popular among NI Unionists). From the point of view of the First Lord's regime, this could be possible through exploiting sectarian tensions and all that while also painting with a broad brush what counted as "Communism" and all that (tactics also used by apartheid-era South Africa). Ian Paisley and co. could be much more prominent than IOTL in that case. What couldn't be coopted would be forced out (as it's also canon Ireland is also one of the bastions of anti-Junta resistance).
The whole 'our opponents are all communists and terrorists' thing would definitely be used and go down quite well the the Paisley types. Also the counter socialism with sectarianism things was a practiced strategy of ulster unionists so that's also on the table.
I'm not sure that I agree that O'Neil was unpopular, he was controversial among unionists but he did maintain the support of most of them when the party split in the 1969 election.
Even with the events being near identical I think the context of the junta would mean the political and social division of NI would be very different, possibly with republicanism crossing sectarian lines and unionism be irreversibly divided.
 
How did the Republic of Ireland react to the coup and fare during the Juntas rule of their next door neighbour?

What was the Juntas policy towards the Republic during the troubles in NI?

ITTL did a certain planning exercise for troops crossing the border known as Exercise Armageddon still take place and if so was it perhaps considered as more of a serious option as opposed to the mass suicide pact of OTL?

On the subject of that particular "Exercise" did the Junta ever seriously consider carrying out operations South of the border for any reason?
 
Last edited:
The whole 'our opponents are all communists and terrorists' thing would definitely be used and go down quite well the the Paisley types. Also the counter socialism with sectarianism things was a practiced strategy of ulster unionists so that's also on the table.
I'm not sure that I agree that O'Neil was unpopular, he was controversial among unionists but he did maintain the support of most of them when the party split in the 1969 election.
Even with the events being near identical I think the context of the junta would mean the political and social division of NI would be very different, possibly with republicanism crossing sectarian lines and unionism be irreversibly divided.
So, I know the OP mentioned a few times he didn't want to go into the exact specifics of the POD, but as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, let's give it a try. While the running joke here is how much of the early chapters of the TL parallel the Spanish transition to democracy, only to speedrun right into austerity politics, Northern Ireland is the one thing that stands apart.

From what we know from the TL and the author's comments, the following bits are (rather loosely) canon:
*The general thrust of it, as just mentioned, is that of the Troubles but with a lot more dead people, culminating in a peace process of sorts akin to OTL that parallel the Cardiff Accords; as much as we can dispute it, that's the limiting framework; in addition, the UK-Ireland relationship is poor because of NI being under military occupation (pre-existing tensions in Northern Ireland here could suggest a parallel with Taiwan under the GMD or - minus the colonialism bit - the various attempts by the Kremlin during the Cold War period to limit the spread of alternatives to the existing Marxist-Leninist ideology, complete with human rights violations), further reinforced through having an NI veteran as Defence Minister in the Johnson Government, Hague's predecessor in National being a former Governor of NI, and Ireland proper as one of many havens for exiles (hence why, ITTL, Harvie hiding out in Dublin makes sense - not to mention symbolic value as the seat of the British government-in-exile during the Junta years)
*We also know, from the OP, that repression in Northern Ireland was very harsh (along with Scotland and Wales), leading to a renewal of the IRA from '68 onwards (so NICRA would be a cause for alarm on both sides of the Irish Sea, from the POV of the Junta and from Stormont), which suggests a parallel between Northern Ireland and the Spanish peripheral nations (considering the history of bombings and all that, including the formation of the World High Jump Record Holder meme, the closest parallel here would be of the IRA = ETA and hence NI = Basque Country), but considering Irish history and particularly NI's history in all its complexity, such a simplistic narrative will not do - not when Loyalist paramilitaries are still a thing alongside Civil Assistance, as well as both the Troubles and the Basque Country forming models for the conflict in Scotland that led to where Scotland is now ITTL
>Furthering it more is NI's central role during the British version of 23-F, as one of the main area of operations alongside London - not to mention reigniting sectarian tensions yet again
*We also know - much like in 1964 in Brazil (with the formation of ARENA [pronounced ah-RAY-nah] and the MDB) and Francoist Spain (with the formation of the FET y la JONS) - that the National/SDP formation was not entirely consensual (indeed, National was formed out of a motley crew of parties, including the UUP), which not only colors NI politics ITTL (alongside the existence of SF and the SDLP - as with OTL) but also seeks to conform NI to the British political norm, governed like the rest of the UK (even with its own quirks)

Considering all that, that suggests some parameters.
*The first concern for the Junta, in order to stabilize its situation post-coup, is to ensure the rest of the country falls in line. Northern Ireland by design is distinct from the rest of the UK insofar as (because of the 1920 Fourth Home Rule Bill) it has its own parliament. Under normal peaceful circumstances (pre OTL/pre-POD) that would mean Westminster and Whitehall could allow it to fall off their radar as it could take care of itself (no matter how horrendous it was); in the context of a military occupation, with Northern Ireland holding the same status as the rest of the UK and holding a land border through which dissidents could escape, the Junta would see it as a security risk.
*Then there's the matter of O'Neill's Government and the rise of NICRA, both of which are anathema to the politics of fear that governed NI up until the POD. While both were ultimately necessary to ease some of the tensions going on (even if they were years ahead of the time, although NICRA was in parallel with other similar events going on worldwide during the '60s), it also creates a problem for the Junta, both as a potential bastion for opposition and also (as you noted) if things went wrong to make Republicanism (with a capital R) a cross-community thing. From a Unionist POV, that cannot be allowed to happen, as that means the old sectarian fears would be rising up again.
*Finally, there's also the left-wing turn the Officials took towards a more Marxist line. From the point of view of dissidents, that is unacceptable as it's basically abandoning The Struggle (TM/MC) - not to mention that by that point, Ireland proper was going its own way, with things going on in Belfast et. al. a minor part of one's peripheral world-view. (Not when there's more exciting stuff going on, like the introduction of television, free secondary education, and the beginning of Sean Lemass's economic reforms, for instance.)

So the Junta would need to find a way to tar anything "Irish" with a broad brush, whether or not it was accurate, and try to condition the people to accept British military rule while still having an armed struggle going on that is still recognizably similar to OTL as a sectarian conflict gone pear-shaped. Anything that would be seen as uniting Northern Ireland together against the Junta, altering its political and social divisions, would need to be prevented, full stop. One part of this would be exploiting sectarian tensions and tarring with a broad brush its left-wing opponents (NILP, the IRA/SF, etc.) as "Communists" and terrorists. But it needs to be much more than that to bring NI on board with the rest of the UK (and hence making the NI conflict reasonably similar to, if not exactly like, the Troubles, probably with bringing forward both the OTL events of 1969 and 1972, probably even having them blend into each other).

On one hand, the Junta would basically be functioning like apartheid-era South Africa when it comes to exploiting sectarian tensions (including adopting a very broad definition of Communism as being anti-Junta and consolidating and increasing the repression of Catholics through a similar battery of laws as apartheid South Africa unleashed in the 1950s and/or even a strengthened variation of the old Penal Laws). As a possible focus for anti-Junta resistance, that would mean increased repression on coupled with co-opting of the Catholic Church (in which case the Junta would be in good company with certain Latin American dictatorships). Armagh would be a bloodbath all throughout the Junta (including the Church of Ireland as well, as it became more anti-Junta), as the mother seat of Christianity in Ireland.

On the other hand, the Junta would need to eliminate all other alternative definitions of Unionism (funnelling such dissent leading towards the transition out of Northern Ireland and into the rest of the UK or with the British government-in-exile and prevent possible cross-community "contamination", creating a cordon sanitaire around Irish nationalism and retaining the pre-O'Neill status quo. (In effect, what would ultimately IOTL become Alliance should not be allowed to form. but instead funnelled into a moderate nationalism led by the SDLP - making it a NI counterpart to the SDP on the Mainland - once liberalization under Hill-Norton starts.) So the Junta would need to engineer a split within the UUP in order to create a NI wing of National by scapegoating O'Neill et. al. as traitors to the Protestant faith and the British Crown (that Protestantism in Northern Ireland is pretty diverse would be immaterial to a Junta seeking "stability", but the vitriol is such to prevent the Catholic Church from becoming a cross-community arena of anti-Junta resistance), not to mention ravaging the NILP so that it too becomes part of National purely on the grounds of maintaining Unionism and Protestant supremacy. NI's Home Rule Parliament and Government would also need to be forcibly abolished (and hence the 1920 Government of Ireland Act repealed and replaced with something else), necessitating a period of direct rule (reverting to the 1801-1920 status quo) before a provincial government (under military occupation) would be set up.

Would it be difficult to pull off? Probably, but that's how having the *Troubles play out under the Junta would have to work, through marginalizing any opposition that would want to frame it as ideological and reframe it as a sectarian conflict that ultimately would be damaging to the Junta in the long run. In that light, it could therefore be easy to square with what happens ITTL with the British version of 23-F, where Protestant militias take over the provincial government in Belfast alongside the military occupation of Northern Ireland, leading to protests and riots in Catholic neighborhoods in response. Ultimately, though, much of it hinges on keeping a clamp on butterflies in NI by having the OTL narrative conform to the whims and needs of the Junta.
 
So, I know the OP mentioned a few times he didn't want to go into the exact specifics of the POD, but as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, let's give it a try. While the running joke here is how much of the early chapters of the TL parallel the Spanish transition to democracy, only to speedrun right into austerity politics, Northern Ireland is the one thing that stands apart.

From what we know from the TL and the author's comments, the following bits are (rather loosely) canon:
*The general thrust of it, as just mentioned, is that of the Troubles but with a lot more dead people, culminating in a peace process of sorts akin to OTL that parallel the Cardiff Accords; as much as we can dispute it, that's the limiting framework; in addition, the UK-Ireland relationship is poor because of NI being under military occupation (pre-existing tensions in Northern Ireland here could suggest a parallel with Taiwan under the GMD or - minus the colonialism bit - the various attempts by the Kremlin during the Cold War period to limit the spread of alternatives to the existing Marxist-Leninist ideology, complete with human rights violations), further reinforced through having an NI veteran as Defence Minister in the Johnson Government, Hague's predecessor in National being a former Governor of NI, and Ireland proper as one of many havens for exiles (hence why, ITTL, Harvie hiding out in Dublin makes sense - not to mention symbolic value as the seat of the British government-in-exile during the Junta years)
*We also know, from the OP, that repression in Northern Ireland was very harsh (along with Scotland and Wales), leading to a renewal of the IRA from '68 onwards (so NICRA would be a cause for alarm on both sides of the Irish Sea, from the POV of the Junta and from Stormont), which suggests a parallel between Northern Ireland and the Spanish peripheral nations (considering the history of bombings and all that, including the formation of the World High Jump Record Holder meme, the closest parallel here would be of the IRA = ETA and hence NI = Basque Country), but considering Irish history and particularly NI's history in all its complexity, such a simplistic narrative will not do - not when Loyalist paramilitaries are still a thing alongside Civil Assistance, as well as both the Troubles and the Basque Country forming models for the conflict in Scotland that led to where Scotland is now ITTL
>Furthering it more is NI's central role during the British version of 23-F, as one of the main area of operations alongside London - not to mention reigniting sectarian tensions yet again
*We also know - much like in 1964 in Brazil (with the formation of ARENA [pronounced ah-RAY-nah] and the MDB) and Francoist Spain (with the formation of the FET y la JONS) - that the National/SDP formation was not entirely consensual (indeed, National was formed out of a motley crew of parties, including the UUP), which not only colors NI politics ITTL (alongside the existence of SF and the SDLP - as with OTL) but also seeks to conform NI to the British political norm, governed like the rest of the UK (even with its own quirks)

Considering all that, that suggests some parameters.
*The first concern for the Junta, in order to stabilize its situation post-coup, is to ensure the rest of the country falls in line. Northern Ireland by design is distinct from the rest of the UK insofar as (because of the 1920 Fourth Home Rule Bill) it has its own parliament. Under normal peaceful circumstances (pre OTL/pre-POD) that would mean Westminster and Whitehall could allow it to fall off their radar as it could take care of itself (no matter how horrendous it was); in the context of a military occupation, with Northern Ireland holding the same status as the rest of the UK and holding a land border through which dissidents could escape, the Junta would see it as a security risk.
*Then there's the matter of O'Neill's Government and the rise of NICRA, both of which are anathema to the politics of fear that governed NI up until the POD. While both were ultimately necessary to ease some of the tensions going on (even if they were years ahead of the time, although NICRA was in parallel with other similar events going on worldwide during the '60s), it also creates a problem for the Junta, both as a potential bastion for opposition and also (as you noted) if things went wrong to make Republicanism (with a capital R) a cross-community thing. From a Unionist POV, that cannot be allowed to happen, as that means the old sectarian fears would be rising up again.
*Finally, there's also the left-wing turn the Officials took towards a more Marxist line. From the point of view of dissidents, that is unacceptable as it's basically abandoning The Struggle (TM/MC) - not to mention that by that point, Ireland proper was going its own way, with things going on in Belfast et. al. a minor part of one's peripheral world-view. (Not when there's more exciting stuff going on, like the introduction of television, free secondary education, and the beginning of Sean Lemass's economic reforms, for instance.)

So the Junta would need to find a way to tar anything "Irish" with a broad brush, whether or not it was accurate, and try to condition the people to accept British military rule while still having an armed struggle going on that is still recognizably similar to OTL as a sectarian conflict gone pear-shaped. Anything that would be seen as uniting Northern Ireland together against the Junta, altering its political and social divisions, would need to be prevented, full stop. One part of this would be exploiting sectarian tensions and tarring with a broad brush its left-wing opponents (NILP, the IRA/SF, etc.) as "Communists" and terrorists. But it needs to be much more than that to bring NI on board with the rest of the UK (and hence making the NI conflict reasonably similar to, if not exactly like, the Troubles, probably with bringing forward both the OTL events of 1969 and 1972, probably even having them blend into each other).

On one hand, the Junta would basically be functioning like apartheid-era South Africa when it comes to exploiting sectarian tensions (including adopting a very broad definition of Communism as being anti-Junta and consolidating and increasing the repression of Catholics through a similar battery of laws as apartheid South Africa unleashed in the 1950s and/or even a strengthened variation of the old Penal Laws). As a possible focus for anti-Junta resistance, that would mean increased repression on coupled with co-opting of the Catholic Church (in which case the Junta would be in good company with certain Latin American dictatorships). Armagh would be a bloodbath all throughout the Junta (including the Church of Ireland as well, as it became more anti-Junta), as the mother seat of Christianity in Ireland.

On the other hand, the Junta would need to eliminate all other alternative definitions of Unionism (funnelling such dissent leading towards the transition out of Northern Ireland and into the rest of the UK or with the British government-in-exile and prevent possible cross-community "contamination", creating a cordon sanitaire around Irish nationalism and retaining the pre-O'Neill status quo. (In effect, what would ultimately IOTL become Alliance should not be allowed to form. but instead funnelled into a moderate nationalism led by the SDLP - making it a NI counterpart to the SDP on the Mainland - once liberalization under Hill-Norton starts.) So the Junta would need to engineer a split within the UUP in order to create a NI wing of National by scapegoating O'Neill et. al. as traitors to the Protestant faith and the British Crown (that Protestantism in Northern Ireland is pretty diverse would be immaterial to a Junta seeking "stability", but the vitriol is such to prevent the Catholic Church from becoming a cross-community arena of anti-Junta resistance), not to mention ravaging the NILP so that it too becomes part of National purely on the grounds of maintaining Unionism and Protestant supremacy. NI's Home Rule Parliament and Government would also need to be forcibly abolished (and hence the 1920 Government of Ireland Act repealed and replaced with something else), necessitating a period of direct rule (reverting to the 1801-1920 status quo) before a provincial government (under military occupation) would be set up.

Would it be difficult to pull off? Probably, but that's how having the *Troubles play out under the Junta would have to work, through marginalizing any opposition that would want to frame it as ideological and reframe it as a sectarian conflict that ultimately would be damaging to the Junta in the long run. In that light, it could therefore be easy to square with what happens ITTL with the British version of 23-F, where Protestant militias take over the provincial government in Belfast alongside the military occupation of Northern Ireland, leading to protests and riots in Catholic neighborhoods in response. Ultimately, though, much of it hinges on keeping a clamp on butterflies in NI by having the OTL narrative conform to the whims and needs of the Junta.
That is very comprehensive and I can't really disagree with it, those are the parameters and that is the only real way to make it work, but the level of planing required to pull it off is insane.
Another element to work for this series of events could be the EEC/EU, since Ireland is a member and claimed NI then the EU position would likely support that, similar to Cyprus. So that could be portrayed as 'no junta means EU membership, means mandatory reunification'.
 
Top