nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

SF and Westminster

J.pilkington

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

wes

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

Riskymove

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.