The events of that day, which became known as Bloody Sunday, would become one of the defining moments of the Troubles. The killings deepened nationalist anger, contributed to increased support for the IRA and left a lasting sense of injustice among many people in Northern Ireland. But the controversy did not end there. It continued for decades, largely because of the official response to what happened.
The Widgery Tribunal
Within two days of Bloody Sunday, the British Government had established the Widgery Tribunal. The tribunal published its findings just 11 weeks after the shootings. The report was widely criticised for giving greater weight to soldiers’ accounts than to those of civilian witnesses, and for failing to adequately examine available forensic evidence.
Rather than resolving the controversy, Widgery became part of it. For many nationalists, the tribunal appeared to confirm a belief that the British state was unwilling to hold its own forces properly accountable.
As scholar Angela Hegarty argued, the tribunal caused “great damage” to Northern Ireland. Its conclusions became deeply embedded in nationalist perceptions of British rule, while the failure to establish a trusted account of the killings contributed to further political division.
Almost three decades later, dramatically changed political circumstances created the conditions for a fresh examination of Bloody Sunday.
The Saville Inquiry
The 1998 Good Friday Agreement created a new framework for Northern Ireland’s politics and opened the way for a different approach to the legacy of the conflict. Against that backdrop, the British Government established a second inquiry, chaired by Lord Saville.
Over 12 years, the Saville Inquiry examined thousands of witnesses, alongside extensive forensic and documentary evidence. When its report was finally published in 2010, it fundamentally challenged the conclusions of Widgery.
The inquiry concluded that those killed had been innocent of wrongdoing and that the soldiers’ firing could not be justified. Prime Minister David Cameron subsequently apologised on behalf of the British Government, describing what happened on Bloody Sunday as “unjustified and unjustifiable“.
For the victims’ families, this was a moment of profound symbolic importance.
After decades of campaigning, their relatives had finally been officially recognised as victims rather than being left under the shadow of the original allegations surrounding the march.
The importance of Saville, therefore, extends beyond its legal findings. It established an authoritative historical record where the Widgery Tribunal had failed to command widespread trust. That matters in a society emerging from conflict.
Political scientist Nevin Aiken has argued that reconciliation requires more than legal accountability. Victims also need recognition of their experiences, while societies emerging from conflict need to challenge the narratives and divisions that have sustained hostility between communities.
In that respect, Saville provided a form of symbolic justice. It demonstrated that the British state was prepared to examine its own actions and acknowledge that an earlier official account had been wrong. But the inquiry also exposed the limits of truth without punishment.
The limits of justice
The most significant criticism of Saville is that it produced very few criminal consequences. In 2019, the Public Prosecution Service announced that one former paratrooper, known as Soldier F, would face charges relating to the deaths of James Wray and William McKinney.
The case ultimately failed to produce a conviction. The prosecution was complicated by the passage of time and the loss of witnesses and evidence, and Soldier F was found not guilty in 2025.
For families who had spent decades campaigning for justice, the outcome was inevitably disappointing. Saville had established a detailed account of what happened, but it could not provide the legal accountability that many had wanted.
There were other costs, too.
The inquiry took 12 years to complete and placed an enormous emotional burden on families who had already spent decades revisiting the events of 1972. Critics also questioned its estimated £200 million cost and whether such a lengthy and expensive process was justified when its criminal consequences were, in the end, so limited.
This leaves Saville with a complicated legacy. It did not provide everything that the victims’ families had sought. Yet it achieved something that neither criminal proceedings nor political negotiations had previously managed: it fundamentally changed the official account of Bloody Sunday.
Ambitions for partnership and self-determination
And that question of political trust is where the story becomes particularly relevant to Wales today.
Earlier this month, Cardiff became the setting for a meeting between the leaders of Plaid Cymru, the SNP and Sinn Féin. Rhun ap Iorwerth, John Swinney and Michelle O’Neill, alongside Sinn Féin president Mary Lou McDonald, signed an agreement asserting the right of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to self-determination. The meeting brought together parties with different constitutional goals and different legal routes towards them, but with a shared interest in greater national autonomy.
The Welsh and Scottish governments also signed the Cytundeb Caerdydd – Cardiff Agreement, setting out plans for cooperation on issues including poverty, economic growth, climate change, international engagement, language, culture and sport. The comparison with Northern Ireland must, of course, be treated carefully.
A question of trust and self-determination
Wales has not experienced anything comparable to the political violence of the Troubles, and the constitutional arrangements of Northern Ireland are unique. The Good Friday Agreement provides a specific mechanism for a future referendum on Irish unity that has no direct equivalent in Wales.
Yet the underlying question is relevant: what happens when people lose confidence in the institutions governing them?
Bloody Sunday became such a powerful symbol because many people believed the British state had failed to listen to them and had failed to acknowledge what had happened. Saville demonstrated how difficult, and expensive, it can be to rebuild trust once that relationship has broken down.
For Wales, this does not provide an argument for or against independence. Instead, it raises a question about the nature of democratic consent.
The recent Cardiff summit does not determine Wales’s constitutional future. But it does demonstrate that questions of self-determination are increasingly being discussed collectively across the UK’s Celtic nations.
The lesson of Bloody Sunday is perhaps that constitutional relationships cannot be sustained by institutions alone. They also depend upon whether people believe those institutions are accountable, willing to listen and capable of acknowledging their mistakes.
Saville did not erase the suffering of Bloody Sunday, nor did it deliver the full justice many families wanted. What it did was replace a deeply contested official narrative with a detailed account that recognised the victims’ innocence and acknowledged state responsibility.
As Wales enters a new period of constitutional debate, that distinction between truth, justice and trust is worth remembering.
The question facing Wales is not simply whether it should remain part of the United Kingdom or eventually become independent. It is whether the people of Wales believe they have a meaningful voice in deciding that future, and whether the institutions around them are willing to respect whatever answer they give.
More from Politics and Society
Bylines Network Gazette is out!
The latest Bylines Network Gazette is out now. Become a Friend of Bylines Network or upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, and you will get access to a vital collection of citizen articles and stories.
Journalism by the people, for the people.
