SF and Westminster

J.pilkington · 30-06-2017 1:42pm #1

This topic came up on the Crowley thread and something popped onto my mind.

There is a lot of talk of the DUP having an advantage in NI over SF because foster is in bed with T.May, but how does this work in detail?

Is the critical issue that there will a government vote and this is where the DUP do their good deed (one off) or is it an ongoing thing?

Say if SF were to decide that in 6 mths time that the DUP are having things too much their way can they turn up at Westminster and bring down the government as their votes cause a swing? Or is it a case that once they opt out they stay out until the next election / government? If it's the former then it sounds like SF have as much bargaining power with T.May as the DUP

wes · 30-06-2017 2:13pm

SF numbers can't bring down the government. So its a moot point ultimately. Now that could change in another election.

Riskymove · 30-06-2017 2:19pm

J.pilkington wrote: »

Is the critical issue that there will a government vote and this is where the DUP do their good deed (one off) or is it an ongoing thing?

it is an ongoing thing - they have an overall majority with the DUP support

SF showing up to vote cannot change anything

technically SF provide further assistance though as they are never there to vote against something so reduce the votes actually needed in practice to win a vote

blanch152 · 30-06-2017 10:16pm

There are a couple of implications for SF at the moment.

Firstly, the DUP will have a direct hotline to Theresa May for the lifetime of this British government.

Secondly, the DUP now don't need the Assembly as much as SF do. That of course explains SF breaking their election promise not to accept Arlene as First Minister (it will actually be interesting to see how they spin that one)

Thirdly, the DUP will be seen by the NI electorate as the party who brought the extra money to the table. The SF absence from Westminister facilitated that.

Fourthly, those who didn't want a Tory government will not thank SF for increasing the Tory/DUP majority.

All of which explains SF's about turn and readiness to get the Assembly going. Without it, they have zero influence.

J.pilkington · 01-07-2017 3:16am

Thanks for the clarification, I thought for some reason that the only reason DUP / May government could work was if SF didn't take their seats

AnGaelach · 02-07-2017 4:57pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Thirdly, the DUP will be seen by the NI electorate as the party who brought the extra money to the table. The SF absence from Westminister facilitated that.

If you think parish pump politics is the bread and butter in NI you'd be mistaken. A Nationalist isn't going to vote DUP just because they fixed the roads, as it were.

blanch152 wrote: »

All of which explains SF's about turn and readiness to get the Assembly going. Without it, they have zero influence.

Gerry has already said they won't have an agreement by Monday. I actually think SF is willing to let the talks collapse because while doing so reduces their influence at Westminster (not like they have much to start with), it very could lead to them consolidating their control over the Nationalist bloc of voters.

Painting the Tories and DUP as being in bed together plays much better to their electorate than saying "we're partially responsible for everything the DUP does in Stormont".

Honestly, SF's best bet is probably to let the talks collapse and work to consolidate the Nationalists that are still SDLP/Alliance holdouts.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 6:16pm

When you consider the amount of money wasted on the RHI scheme the money the DUP got (to be spent everywhere not just on DUP vanity projects) isn't really a lot in the scheme of things and the gloss will come off it very quickly and attention will shift back to why there isn't a functioning executive.

The DUP are already having difficulty explaining why they are so reluctant to give the same rights to the people of NI as people have elsewhere in the UK and Ireland. Including a similar language act to those in Scotland and Wales and other social issues such as LGBT and same sex marriage.

judeboy101 · 02-07-2017 6:22pm

There is a working majority of 14 if you include unionists mp's, exclude sinn fein. That includes all the lads who are speakers/deputies.

blanch152 · 03-07-2017 12:12am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When you consider the amount of money wasted on the RHI scheme the money the DUP got (to be spent everywhere not just on DUP vanity projects) isn't really a lot in the scheme of things and the gloss will come off it very quickly and attention will shift back to why there isn't a functioning executive.

The DUP are already having difficulty explaining why they are so reluctant to give the same rights to the people of NI as people have elsewhere in the UK and Ireland. Including a similar language act to those in Scotland and Wales and other social issues such as LGBT and same sex marriage.

The DUP position on same sex marriage is a disgrace, we can agree about that.

However, SF are disingenuous on the language issue, looking for a ROI type language act. Nobody has yet been able to explain to me what is wrong with a Minority Languages Act.

FrancieBrady · 03-07-2017 8:48am

blanch152 wrote: »

The DUP position on same sex marriage is a disgrace, we can agree about that.

However, SF are disingenuous on the language issue, looking for a ROI type language act. Nobody has yet been able to explain to me what is wrong with a Minority Languages Act.

It's a compromise to assuage and pacify Unionism. That is all it is.

You may have missed that this whole thing is about parity.

blanch152 · 03-07-2017 10:21am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's a compromise to assuage and pacify Unionism. That is all it is.

You may have missed that this whole thing is about parity.

Again, what is the problem with a Minority Languages Act that gives parity between Irish and Ulster Scots?

Unless you are saying that your language is more important than theirs, in which case it isn't about parity, it is about SF oneupmanship. Very transparent what SF are at on this.

FrancieBrady · 03-07-2017 10:26am

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, what is the problem with a Minority Languages Act that gives parity between Irish and Ulster Scots?

Unless you are saying that your language is more important than theirs, in which case it isn't about parity, it is about SF oneupmanship. Very transparent what SF are at on this.

Nobody has a problem recognising the dialect Ulster Scots in it's own right. That has been stated by everyone.

This is about recognising the language of Irish and all that goes with that for speakers and users of that language.

Why does Unionism have a problem with that is the question you should be asking. And why do they have a problem with all the other 'rights' that everybody else in the UK and Ireland enjoys.

bilston · 03-07-2017 10:27am

AnGaelach wrote: »

If you think parish pump politics is the bread and butter in NI you'd be mistaken. A Nationalist isn't going to vote DUP just because they fixed the roads, as it were.

Gerry has already said they won't have an agreement by Monday. I actually think SF is willing to let the talks collapse because while doing so reduces their influence at Westminster (not like they have much to start with), it very could lead to them consolidating their control over the Nationalist bloc of voters.

Painting the Tories and DUP as being in bed together plays much better to their electorate than saying "we're partially responsible for everything the DUP does in Stormont".

Honestly, SF's best bet is probably to let the talks collapse and work to consolidate the Nationalists that are still SDLP/Alliance holdouts.

Well isn't that the problem in a nutshell. Parties (from all sides) doing what is in their electoral interests rather that what is best for ALL the people of NI.

blanch152 · 03-07-2017 10:28am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody has a problem recognising the dialect Ulster Scots in it's own right. That has been stated by everyone.

This is about recognising the language of Irish and all that goes with that for speakers and users of that language.

Why does Unionism have a problem with that is the question you should be asking. And why do they have a problem with all the other 'rights' that everybody else in the UK and Ireland enjoys.

Got it, yours is a language, theirs is a dialect. So it is not about parity, it is about getting one up on the other side by reducing what they believe is a language to a dialect.

bilston · 03-07-2017 10:33am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When you consider the amount of money wasted on the RHI scheme the money the DUP got (to be spent everywhere not just on DUP vanity projects) isn't really a lot in the scheme of things and the gloss will come off it very quickly and attention will shift back to why there isn't a functioning executive.

Are you saying the £1bn is just being spent on DUP vanity projects?

FrancieBrady · 03-07-2017 10:43am

blanch152 wrote: »

Got it, yours is a language, theirs is a dialect. So it is not about parity, it is about getting one up on the other side by reducing what they believe is a language to a dialect.

Nope, nobody said that.

Ulster Scots is a dialect as far as I am concerned and that is neither here nor there. Nobody, at the negotiating table has a problem recognising it in it's own right. Nobody on the pro -Irish Language Act side is denigrating the Irish language in the executive for instance, in a rabble rousing provocative way.
It has been accepted by everyone that I can see at the table, that Ulster Scots can be recognised separately if that is what Unionism wants

What is required here is a recognition of Irish in it's own act. Very simple.

FrancieBrady · 03-07-2017 10:44am

bilston wrote: »

Are you saying the £1bn is just being spent on DUP vanity projects?

No, I thought I made it clear that it wasn't to be spent on DUP vanity projects.

blanch152 · 03-07-2017 11:11am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nope, nobody said that.

Ulster Scots is a dialect as far as I am concerned and that is neither here nor there. Nobody, at the negotiating table has a problem recognising it in it's own right. Nobody on the pro -Irish Language Act side is denigrating the Irish language in the executive for instance, in a rabble rousing provocative way.
It has been accepted by everyone that I can see at the table, that Ulster Scots can be recognised separately if that is what Unionism wants

What is required here is a recognition of Irish in it's own act. Very simple.

Yes, as far as you are concerned, but to the Unionists it isn't - it is a language.

This issue is a very good test of how different SF's rhetoric on parity is to their actions on parity. A Minority Languages Act that recognises both Ulster-Scots and Irish that gives parity to both sides is the obvious compromise that SF are unwilling to consider.

FrancieBrady · 03-07-2017 11:18am

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, as far as you are concerned, but to the Unionists it isn't - it is a language.

This issue is a very good test of how different SF's rhetoric on parity is to their actions on parity. A Minority Languages Act that recognises both Ulster-Scots and Irish that gives parity to both sides is the obvious compromise that SF are unwilling to consider.

What about the word 'Minority' represents 'parity' to you?

Of course there are some who want to make this about SF and not about a party with a burgeoning track record of denying hugely significant rights to whole host of people because of a bigoted and religiously fundamentalist creed.
This is a party whose representatives have recently stood in the executive with the intent of publicly denigrating the Irish language.
Yet, SF and other nationalists have been very clear that Ulster Scots can have it's own separate recognition if that is a serious objective of Unionism.

That you wish to make it about SF is quite baffling really.

Irishweather · 03-07-2017 11:58am

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, as far as you are concerned, but to the Unionists it isn't - it is a language.

This issue is a very good test of how different SF's rhetoric on parity is to their actions on parity. A Minority Languages Act that recognises both Ulster-Scots and Irish that gives parity to both sides is the obvious compromise that SF are unwilling to consider.

Not all.

FrancieBrady · 03-07-2017 6:21pm

It will be interesting to see if Brokenshire is brave enough/interested in rights enough to take the option of legislating above Unionist heads to solve this. Which apparently he has the option of doing.

blanch152 · 03-07-2017 9:34pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if Brokenshire is brave enough/interested in rights enough to take the option of legislating above Unionist heads to solve this. Which apparently he has the option of doing.

Unfortunately for SF, he won't do anything that would bring down the Confidence and Supply Arrangement.

FrancieBrady · 03-07-2017 9:48pm

No, it's unfortunate or tragic for all those denied their rights by a still bigoted, still suprematist, still religiously fundamentalist unionist party and a Westminster parliament only interested in what it can get from this island.

blanch152 · 03-07-2017 10:14pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, it's unfortunate or tragic for all those denied their rights by a still bigoted, still suprematist, still religiously fundamentalist unionist party and a Westminster parliament only interested in what it can get from this island.

I don't think that the absence of an Irish Language Act is as big a deal as that, after all there are more Polish speakers down here.

FrancieBrady · 03-07-2017 10:17pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think that the absence of an Irish Language Act is as big a deal as that, after all there are more Polish speakers down here.

I was talking about the whole range of 'rights' denied to a whole range of people.

I know it's difficult to defend but could you possibly try a little harder here?

blanch152 · 03-07-2017 10:35pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was talking about the whole range of 'rights' denied to a whole range of people.

I know it's difficult to defend but could you possibly try a little harder here?

I am only dealing with the Irish Language Act issue.

FrancieBrady · 03-07-2017 10:54pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I am only dealing with the Irish Language Act issue.

Will you deal with denial of rights across society in the north of Ireland by a still bigoted, still religiously fundamentalist unionist party?

blanch152 · 03-07-2017 11:06pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Will you deal with denial of rights across society in the north of Ireland by a still bigoted, still religiously fundamentalist unionist party?

I already did, here is my previous post on the issue. The SF argument for an Irish Language Act only is very weak and you are trying to distract from that, even when discussing with those who agree with you on other points.

blanch152 wrote: »

The DUP position on same sex marriage is a disgrace, we can agree about that.

However, SF are disingenuous on the language issue, looking for a ROI type language act. Nobody has yet been able to explain to me what is wrong with a Minority Languages Act.

FrancieBrady · 03-07-2017 11:14pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I already did, here is my previous post on the issue. The SF argument for an Irish Language Act only is very weak and you are trying to distract from that, even when discussing with those who agree with you on other points.

So objecting to the denial of one right (a stand alone language act similar to those enjoyed by Scotland &Wales) is weak but objecting to the denial of other rights enjoyed by everybody in the UK is OK because you find that denial a disgrace.

Could you try making some consistent sense here?

blanch152 · 04-07-2017 12:13am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So objecting to the denial of one right (a stand alone language act similar to those enjoyed by Scotland &Wales) is weak but objecting to the denial of other rights enjoyed by everybody in the UK is OK because you find that denial a disgrace.

Could you try making some consistent sense here?

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.

FrancieBrady · 04-07-2017 12:18am

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.

There is no hole and problem recognising all languages.
Have the DUP officially asked for an Ulster-Scots act even?

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 welcome transparency in any part of how we are governed.

The Golden Miller · 04-07-2017 12:34am

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 · 04-07-2017 12:59am

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 · 04-07-2017 1:11am

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 · 04-07-2017 1:18am

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 · 04-07-2017 10:11am

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 · 04-07-2017 10:27am

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 · 04-07-2017 10:42am

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 · 04-07-2017 11:06am

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 · 04-07-2017 11:26am

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 · 04-07-2017 11:53am

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 · 04-07-2017 12:55pm

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 · 04-07-2017 1:06pm

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 · 04-07-2017 1:14pm

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 · 04-07-2017 1:24pm

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 · 04-07-2017 1:29pm

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 · 04-07-2017 3:18pm

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 · 04-07-2017 3:26pm

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 · 04-07-2017 3:48pm

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 · 04-07-2017 3:49pm

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 · 04-07-2017 3:52pm

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?

SF and Westminster

Comments