SF and Westminster

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

You really don't see the massive hole in the SF argument - they want separate rights for one language, not inclusive rights for all languages respecting both traditions.

On the topic of Brokenshire - well done to him for ensuring transparency of funding for political parties. No more will the likes of the DUP be able to get anonymous donations for a Brexit referendum, I take it you welcome that.

I don't think you really see the massive hole in your own argument. You keep trying to equate two things that are not a like for like i.e a dialect and a language. They claim to be British, the language of "their side" is the language of Britain/UK. Respecting both traditions is giving Irish the same footing as English. Recognising "Ulster-scots" is the equivalent of bringing in an act to recognize the Dublin or Cork accent as being more than a dialect i.e nonsense. Whether unionists "think" it's a language or not should be neither here or there, it simply isn't. Unless you agree that childish nonsense should be pandered to at the highest levels in politics and society? And even with that, no one is even against them bringing in an Ulster-scots act. But the focus for some must be to always find a way to blame SF/nationalist side

blanch152

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I don't think you really see the massive hole in your own argument. You keep trying to equate two things that are not a like for like i.e a dialect and a language. They claim to be British, the language of "their side" is the language of Britain/UK. Respecting both traditions is giving Irish the same footing as English. Recognising "Ulster-scots" is the equivalent of bringing in an act to recognize the Dublin or Cork accent as being more than a dialect i.e nonsense. Whether unionists "think" it's a language or not should be neither here or there, it simply isn't. Unless you agree that childish nonsense should be pandered to at the highest levels in politics and society? And even with that, no one is even against them bringing in an Ulster-scots act. But the focus for some must be to always find a way to blame SF/nationalist side

What is clear from your post (and many others around here) is the lack of respect for the opposing tradition.

Equating Ulster-Scots to a Cork accent, references to childish nonsense and similar remarks from others are a clear sign that there is a very long way to go in terms of unifying the North. Imposing an Irish Language Act on the other side is not the way to win hearts and minds.

British means more than English, it means Scottish, Welsh and yes, Irish as well. 800 years of belonging to the British tradition does leave a mark and we should be brave enough to openly acknowledge and praise the British heritage across this island.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What is clear from your post (and many others around here) is the lack of respect for the opposing tradition.

Equating Ulster-Scots to a Cork accent, references to childish nonsense and similar remarks from others are a clear sign that there is a very long way to go in terms of unifying the North. Imposing an Irish Language Act on the other side is not the way to win hearts and minds.

British means more than English, it means Scottish, Welsh and yes, Irish as well. 800 years of belonging to the British tradition does leave a mark and we should be brave enough to openly acknowledge and praise the British heritage across this island.

The party you are defending have used the executive to denigrate and deride a language knowing how divisive that would be.
Whatever you say the standing of Ulster-Scots is hotly contested and you can find many aspersions cast by experts on it's claims to be a language.
And again,nobody has a problem giving it its own official place.
Have the DUP officially applied for it to be recognised with an act? And if so, when did they do this?

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

What is clear from your post (and many others around here) is the lack of respect for the opposing tradition.

So should all traditions be respected unconditionally regardless of what they believe in or come out with?

blanch152 wrote: »

Equating Ulster-Scots to a Cork accent, references to childish nonsense and similar remarks from others are a clear sign that there is a very long way to go in terms of unifying the North. Imposing an Irish Language Act on the other side is not the way to win hearts and minds.

People speaking with an accent from around Cork or Belfast are both speaking in dialects. They are equivalents and it is not an attempt at belittlement to point that out, but what is for certain is that neither are languages. Calling out the pettiness of the DUP, which is born out of a siege mentality, to resist Irish heritage at all costs is not what is preventing unity in the North. Pandering to and allowing fundamental extremists to condition every new generation with a "No Surrender" siege mentality is probably closer to the mark, and it is something which you seem to defend and deflect from at all costs by attempting to move all focus to SF on every matter related to the north

blanch152 wrote: »

British means more than English, it means Scottish, Welsh and yes, Irish as well. 800 years of belonging to the British tradition does leave a mark and we should be brave enough to openly acknowledge and praise the British heritage across this island.

I'm aware of what British means, and the above has nothing to do with what we are talking about. No one is disputing British heritage in Ireland, the problem is those who claim to be British can't acknowledge and praise Irish heritage in the Irish part of the UK, in the same manner the Welsh and Scottish unionists can embrace Scottish and Welsh heritage

FrancieBrady

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Pandering to and allowing fundamental extremists to condition every new generation with a "No Surrender" siege mentality is probably closer to the mark, and it is something which you seem to defend and deflect from at all costs by attempting to move all focus to SF on every matter related to the north

Unionists have said that an Irish Act will be a 'vehicle to hollow out our Britishness'.
If you ever wanted a better phrase to underline the 'siege mentality' then that is it.
Not to mention that it totally undermines the GFA, which agreed to recognise fully the aspiration to identify as British and Irish. And the St. Andrew's Agreement where the British committed to legislation on this issue.

Personally, I think the executive should stay down until this is resolved, once and for all.
We have seen that nobody has anything to fear from the progress to normality, even if the path (Flags and marches etc) to that normality might be initially difficult and fraught.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The party you are defending have used the executive to denigrate and deride a language knowing how divisive that would be.
Whatever you say the standing of Ulster-Scots is hotly contested and you can find many aspersions cast by experts on it's claims to be a language.
And again,nobody has a problem giving it its own official place.
Have the DUP officially applied for it to be recognised with an act? And if so, when did they do this?

I am not defending any party, I have criticised both the DUP and SF and have no time for either.

The standing of Ulster-Scots is hotly contested by nationalists, the standing of Irish is hotly contested by unionists. The compromise is a Minority Languages Act. I am nor surprised that neither party has considered this as both are stuck in their bunker mentality.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not defending any party, I have criticised both the DUP and SF and have no time for either.

The standing of Ulster-Scots is hotly contested by nationalists, the standing of Irish is hotly contested by unionists. The compromise is a Minority Languages Act. I am nor surprised that neither party has considered this as both are stuck in their bunker mentality.

It is not only contested by Nationalists.
I'll leave this here, to explain in some way why I think it is not a language. This is an extract from a maiden speech by Jim Shannon in the HOC. Judge for yourself whether this is a dialect or a proper language.

“Ther er mony guid things that a cud sae aboot tha fowk o’ mi’ Baille-Wick but yince an fairmist Aa’ coont it a grate muckle oaner tae spake oot oan ther behaulf in tha Hoos O’ Commons. Tha Strengfird fowk er tha satt o’ tha grun, an in thenkin theim fer ther support Aa’ wud asshair theim that A’ll wroucht an dae fer theim tha best Aa caun.

And in the unlikely event you would require a translation, here it is:

“There are many good things that I could say about the people of my constituency, but first of all I count it a great honour to speak on their behalf in the House of Commons. The Strangford people are the salt of the earth and in thanking them for their support I would also assure them that I shall work and do for them the best I can.”

Again, nobody has a problem preserving this language/dialect.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is not only contested by Nationalists.
I'll leave this here, to explain in some way why I think it is not a language. This is an extract from a maiden speech by Jim Shannon in the HOC. Judge for yourself whether this is a dialect or a proper language.



And in the unlikely event you would require a translation, here it is:


Again, nobody has a problem preserving this language/dialect.

It is not about judging for myself, it is about respecting each community.

You think that it is not a language and produce a speech as evidence, some of the Unionists think the same about Irish. Mutual respect, at one level SF are right to demand respect for Irish, but they are so so wrong in demanding only one-way respect and not offering any of their own. As I said already, two parties stuck in trenches and bunkers.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not about judging for myself, it is about respecting each community.

You think that it is not a language and produce a speech as evidence, some of the Unionists think the same about Irish. Mutual respect, at one level SF are right to demand respect for Irish, but they are so so wrong in demanding only one-way respect and not offering any of their own. As I said already, two parties stuck in trenches and bunkers.

Unionists cannot legitimately think the same about the Irish language. That is the point.
It is legitimate to see the above as a dialect though. If it isn't you will have to explain why it isn't.
I totally respect Ulster Scots as something worth preserving just as I would think it worth preserving regional accents.
But no amount of 'faux respect' will convince me it is a free standing language.
You are confusing 'respect' with giving way to an obvious attempt to dilute the place of the Irish language in a society that is supposed to be inclusive of all aspirations.

Giving way out of fear not respect is wrong, totally wrong and just kicks a can down the road. And we know were that got us before in northern Ireland.

I totally support the effort to resolve this now, once and for all.

Mal-Adjusted

blanch152 wrote: »

The standing of Ulster-Scots is hotly contested by nationalists,

not just by nationalists, in fairness.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/ulster-scots-can-t-be-equated-to-irish-language-dup-founder-1-8033181

blanch152 wrote: »

the standing of Irish is hotly contested by unionists.

Is it really? Are there really unionists out there who claim it's not a language? I mean actual academics, not the willie frazer flag burning types.

blanch152 wrote: »

The compromise is a Minority Languages Act.

While something like that might get over the line, Sinn Fein will no doubt see it as a way to dilute any Irish language act, and given the DUP's past statements, they'd be pretty justified.

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not about judging for myself, it is about respecting each community.

You think that it is not a language and produce a speech as evidence, some of the Unionists think the same about Irish. Mutual respect, at one level SF are right to demand respect for Irish, but they are so so wrong in demanding only one-way respect and not offering any of their own. As I said already, two parties stuck in trenches and bunkers.

You keep repeating that SF only support one way respect while ignoring the fact that SF have no problem with an Ulster-scots act. You also keep ignoring that the equivalent of Irish on the unionist side is the English language, which is already recognised as the official language in the north. Having Irish recognised on a similar footing would be respecting both communities. English is the "indigenous" language of unionism. I suppose it's not convenient to address this point though

Where does this "respecting the other community" end? If they decided beheading Catholics was now part of their culture does that makes it OK because they THINK it would be OK? Just because some THINK Ulster-Scots is a language doesn't make it factually so. Do we just pander to everything they think, regardless of what it is?

Having Irish culture and heritage recognised officially in the north should have been enforced by the UK government along time ago. Having the indigenous language and culture of a place recognised should be standard, without any concessions even needed for any other groups, just like in Scotland and just like in Wales.

No you'd like to make out that it's two parties stuck in the bunkers, as do most southern partitionists. The "both sides are as bad as each other" rhetoric is just another way to deflect from the fact that SF have no problem accepting unionist culture while the DUP have a major problem accepting Irish heritage. Just more deflection to take the light off unionism. This attitude will just serve to enable their ingrained siege mentality to carry on for another few generations

The Golden Miller

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unionists have said that an Irish Act will be a 'vehicle to hollow out our Britishness'.
If you ever wanted a better phrase to underline the 'siege mentality' then that is it.
Not to mention that it totally undermines the GFA, which agreed to recognise fully the aspiration to identify as British and Irish. And the St. Andrew's Agreement where the British committed to legislation on this issue.

Personally, I think the executive should stay down until this is resolved, once and for all.
We have seen that nobody has anything to fear from the progress to normality, even if the path (Flags and marches etc) to that normality might be initially difficult and fraught.

I agree. Everytime SF have tried to reach out to the other side it's been thrown back in their face. If the DUP are going to use the institutions in the north to obstruct any progress being made on the parity of Irish heritage and equality in general, then SF should refuse to engage until the British government does something about it (which won't happen for a long time as they are no longer neutral, but so be it). The DUP have not accepted the GFA in the same spirit as the other parties, even the UUP.

FrancieBrady

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I agree. Everytime SF have tried to reach out to the other side it's been thrown back in their face. If the DUP are going to use the institutions in the north to obstruct any progress being made on the parity of Irish heritage and equality in general, then they should refuse to engage until the British government does something about it (which won't happen as they are no longer neutral). The DUP have not accepted the GFA in the same spirit as the other parties, even the UUP.

What I think should happen now is pressure on the British Government to act on their commitments under the GFA and St Andrew's agreement should be mounted. And staying out of an executive should be part of that. Not an ideal situation but this has been coming for a long time and it is clear that is what the people SF represent want.
It should be now or never because it has to be sorted just like you would try to sort any cancerous attack.

The Golden Miller

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What I think should happen now is pressure on the British Government to act on their commitments under the GFA and St Andrew's agreement should be mounted. And staying out of an executive should be part of that. Not an ideal situation but this has been coming for a long time and it is clear that is what the people SF represent want.
It should be now or never because it has to be sorted just like you would try to sort any cancerous attack.

Yes it does have to be now and SF finally see that themselves. It was coming to a head for a long time before SF pulled out when the RHI scandal was the straw that broke the camels back. For too long SF were subservient to the DUP just to keep the institutions afloat (while the DUP obstructed any progress they tried to make) as they seen the bigger picture. But that toxic environment could only last for so long. So SF have to stick it out because if they don't they are letting the GFA down themselves by being subservient to the DUP which corrupts the spirit in which the institutions were founded upon

FrancieBrady

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Yes it does have to be now and SF finally see that themselves. It was coming to a head for a long time before SF pulled out when the RHI scandal was the straw that broke the camels back. For too long SF were subservient to the DUP just to keep the institutions afloat (while the DUP obstructed any progress they tried to make) as they seen the bigger picture. But that toxic environment could only last for so long. So SF have to stick it out because if they don't they are letting the GFA down themselves by being subservient to the DUP which corrupts the spirit in which the institutions were founded upon

Every step towards normality has been vociferously resisted. And still we have people saying that every step to that normality has to defer to unionists or be diluted for fear of causing offence.

Ridiculous really.

astrofool

They're both as bad as each other.

Whatever about other injustices, and to bleat on about the RHI wasting money, the Irish Language Act is, in itself, a big money black hole, and has yielded almost 0 uptake of Irish in the south (where if the same money was spent on teaching and promoting Irish, it may be growing instead of declining).

For it to be the issue in the North that prevents a government forming is beyond ridiculous.

FrancieBrady

astrofool wrote: »

They're both as bad as each other.

Whatever about other injustices, and to bleat on about the RHI wasting money, the Irish Language Act is, in itself, a big money black hole, and has yielded almost 0 uptake of Irish in the south (where if the same money was spent on teaching and promoting Irish, it may be growing instead of declining).

For it to be the issue in the North that prevents a government forming is beyond ridiculous.

You will have to show nationalism disrespecting the other culture on the same level that unionism has disrespected Irish culture to be taken seriously here.

Are you one of those who wants to defer to unionism's proven track record of demeaning the Irish culture for fear of upsetting them?

And 'bleat' seems to suggest that you do not want any consequences for what happened with the RHI scheme. Is that true too?

I ask because there is nothing to say back to you really if that is the case.


*And that is allowing for the fact that parity of cultural identity may not be important to everybody but it is clearly important to many.

blanch152

astrofool wrote: »

They're both as bad as each other.

Whatever about other injustices, and to bleat on about the RHI wasting money, the Irish Language Act is, in itself, a big money black hole, and has yielded almost 0 uptake of Irish in the south (where if the same money was spent on teaching and promoting Irish, it may be growing instead of declining).

For it to be the issue in the North that prevents a government forming is beyond ridiculous.

You are hitting the nail on the head.

The only thing that could work is a watered down version of our Act that also catered for other minority languages.

However, expect to be told you are disrespecting the nationalist culture by questioning the value of an Irish Language Act.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

*And that is allowing for the fact that parity of cultural identity may not be important to everybody but it is clearly important to many.

Yes, but who defines parity of cultural identity?

The problem here is that both parties - SF and DUP but particularly SF - dress up their views as being about parity of cultural identity as defined by themselves.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but who defines parity of cultural identity?

The problem here is that both parties - SF and DUP but particularly SF - dress up their views as being about parity of cultural identity as defined by themselves.

'Parity', concentrate on what that word means and you won't need anyone else to define it.

For instance, (and here is more of the DUP delusion that you and others buy into) Arlene says that seeking parity of esteem is one side 'seeking cultural supremacy over another' in the week before the 12th celebrations begin.
Could she be anymore bogus or ironic do you think?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You are hitting the nail on the head.

The only thing that could work is a watered down version of our Act that also catered for other minority languages.

However, expect to be told you are disrespecting the nationalist culture by questioning the value of an Irish Language Act.

'Watered down' is just kicking a difficult can down the road. The people have waited long enough for normality and genuine parity of esteem in how they are governed.

For Reals

Isn't the impasse also related to Unionists seeking similar recognition for Ulster Scots? Ulster Scots is akin to the Ebonics in the U.S., IMO, to use it in comparison to a native language is a bit of a stretch.

FrancieBrady

For Reals wrote: »

Isn't the impasse also related to Unionists seeking similar recognition for Ulster Scots? Ulster Scots is akin to the Ebonics in the U.S., IMO, to use it in comparison to a native language is a bit of a stretch.

IMO it is akin to saying English and Cockney are on a par in importance.
And I speak as someone who would hate to see Cockney die out.

Unionists have boxed themselves into the ridiculous corner on this one.

FrancieBrady

What hope have we in understanding what is actually going on here when Tommy Gorman jumps through hoops to avoid saying that the only reason the talks have ended today is to allow unionists to go off and celebrate their cultural identity. Everything comes to a standstill for that.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Parity', concentrate on what that word means and you won't need anyone else to define it.

For instance, (and here is more of the DUP delusion that you and others buy into) Arlene says that seeking parity of esteem is one side 'seeking cultural supremacy over another' in the week before the 12th celebrations begin.
Could she be anymore bogus or ironic do you think?

It is ironic coming from Arlene's mouth but it is also ironic coming from SF.

I half agree with her but both sides are now seeking cultural supremacy over the other. Those entrenched on either side fail to see this. When some of us down here point it out, we are derided as partitionists by one side or ignored as irrelevant Irish by the other.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It is ironic coming from Arlene's mouth but it is also ironic coming from SF.

I half agree with her but both sides are now seeking cultural supremacy over the other. Those entrenched on either side fail to see this. When some of us down here point it out, we are derided as partitionists by one side or ignored as irrelevant Irish by the other.

Do you understand the meaning of 'parity'?

Can you explain how anybody could use this to be 'culturally supreme'?

Are you afraid that SF or nationalists might achieve something for themselves, is that it? Because you are making no sense whatsoever and have shown nothing to indicate that 'both sides are as bad'. They are clearly not and you will see that in the next few weeks.

For Reals

There's also the DUP's opposition to lifting the region's ban on same-sex marriage. Hardly a Catholic Ireland cultural hang up.

FrancieBrady

For Reals wrote: »

There's also the DUP's opposition to lifting the region's ban on same-sex marriage. Hardly a Catholic Ireland cultural hang up.

Yes, apparently the rights the DUP block on a religious basis are a 'disgrace' but the rights they block on a cultural basis are ok.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

there is a very long way to go in terms of unifying the North

Unifying the north? As what? some sort of hybrid between Irish people and people whose culture is largely based on unbridled hibernophobia?

The DUP have no intention of trying to 'unify the north', they're too busy trying to retain remnants of the orange state while suppressing cultural, civic and political equality.

Red_Wake

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

there is a very long way to go in terms of unifying the North

Unifying the north? As what? some sort of hybrid between Irish people and people whose culture is largely based on unbridled hibernophobia?

The DUP have no intention of trying to 'unify the north', they're too busy trying to retain remnants of the orange state while suppressing cultural, civic and political equality.

By categorising unionists as a seperate group to "Irish" are you implicitly validatng their belief that they're not Irish?

A position quite counter productive to unifying Northern Ireland, if I may say so.