Ulster Defence Association - Links With Other Groups

Links With Other Groups

In his book Black Sun, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke claimed that the UDA had links with Neo-Nazi groups in Britain—specifically Combat 18 (formed in 1991) and the British National Socialist Movement (formed in 1985). He claims that members of these groups helped to smuggle weapons for the UDA/UFF. Ian S Wood's book Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA claims that the UDA has received backing from Combat 18, the British National Front and the British National Party. In 2006, the BBC also reported that the group has links with Combat 18. It is unknown whether these links still exist. The links may not have been politically motivated, but mutually beneficial arms deals. On one occasion the UDA sent Louis Scott, one of a few black members of the UDA, to make the transaction.

The Red Hand Defenders is a cover name used by breakaway factions of the UDA/UFF and the LVF. The term was originally coined in 1997 when members of the LVF carried out attacks on behalf of Johnny Adair's "UFF 2nd Battalion, 'C' Company (Shankill Road)" and vice-versa. The relationship between the UDA/UFF (specifically Adair's unit, not the wider leadership of the UDA) was initially formed after the death of Billy Wright, the previous leader of the LVF, and Adair's personal friendship with Mark 'Swinger' Fulton, the organisations new chief.

The necessity for a cover name resulted from the need to avoid tensions between the UDA and the UVF, the organisation from which the LVF had broken away. It was perceived that any open co-operation between the UDA and the LVF would anger the UVF, something which proved to be the case in following years and resulted in the infamous 'Loyalist Feud'. There has been debate as to whether or not the Red Hand Defenders have become an entity in their own right made up of dissident factions from both the UDA and the LVF (both of which have now declared ceasefires whilst the RHD has not), though much intelligence has been based on the claims of responsibility which, as has been suggested, are frequently misleading.