Stormont power sharing talks

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't believe we needed an Irish language act in Ireland either, but whatever the merits of an Irish language act in Ireland, the North certainly doesn't need one for an artificially revived language. Ulster Irish died in the 1970s.

Of course you don't believe in a vibrant Irish language culture (which this act will promote) but it isn't about 'you'.
It is about the people who identify as Irish and who are electing again and again, in increasing numbers, a party that is seeking an act on their behalf.
A party that has already agreed this with the British government who have now suspended governing with another party who have sought to cherrypick only what is acceptable to their religiously fundamentalist and culturally bigoted code.

Some of the very behaviour that led to the conflict in the first place.

blanch152 wrote: »

A summary of public opinion constitutes evidence that the British cabinet didn't even consider unionists British? Are you seriously putting that out of context extract forward as evidence?

We are back to the fantasy world of one retired British general in one highly edited television interview being taken as conclusive evidence that the IRA weren't militarily defeated.

It isn't a fantasy.

A group that negotiates a settlement and only decommissions when that settlement is satisfactory cannot be described as being defeated.

tomwaterford wrote: »

What's so wrong with having an Irish language act in Ireland???

Hardly ground shaking stuff tbh

I don't believe we needed an Irish language act in Ireland either, but whatever the merits of an Irish language act in Ireland, the North certainly doesn't need one for an artificially revived language. Ulster Irish died in the 1970s.

blanch152 wrote: »

The GFA also has the right to identify as British, so again, what is the problem with parts of the North looking like Finchley?

None. Because I never said there was a problem.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

An excerpt of a summary of the confidential minutes of a British cabinet meeting in 1981 below:

nationalarchives.gov.uk

The British cabinet didn't even consider unionists British. It was a matter for 'the Irish on thier own' and 'British lives' were being sacrificed.

A summary of public opinion constitutes evidence that the British cabinet didn't even consider unionists British? Are you seriously putting that out of context extract forward as evidence?

We are back to the fantasy world of one retired British general in one highly edited television interview being taken as conclusive evidence that the IRA weren't militarily defeated.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are as usual in your attempt to somehow blame those who identify as Irish forgetting the existence of the GFA which enshrines the right to identify as Irish and all that comes with that.

The fact is that the majority who identify as Irish request this act. If they didn't they wouldn't be e!ecting the party looking for it most stridenrly in bigger and bigger numbers.

The GFA also has the right to identify as British, so again, what is the problem with parts of the North looking like Finchley?

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

As opposed to the artificially reborn Irish language?

What's so wrong with having an Irish language act in Ireland???

Hardly ground shaking stuff tbh

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

An excerpt of a summary of the confidential minutes of a British cabinet meeting in 1981 below:

nationalarchives.gov.uk

The British cabinet didn't even consider unionists British. It was a matter for 'the Irish on thier own' and 'British lives' were being sacrificed.

The 'insecurity' that dare not speak it's name. It is behind everything, from gerrymandering to the flag to the Irish language act, that unionists have ever done.
And its the reason ultimately why there is no executive.

Junkyard Tom

steddyeddy wrote: »

I suppose the fact that it isn't.

An excerpt of a summary of the confidential minutes of a British cabinet meeting in 1981 below:

nationalarchives.gov.uk

The British cabinet didn't even consider unionists British. It was a matter for 'the Irish on thier own' and 'British lives' were being sacrificed.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Irish people would in fact have been much less discriminated against in Finchley than they were in the artificially created sectarian state created out of their homeland to cater for unionists.

The history of the North is the history of pandering to extremists like Carson. It's given unionists a sense of entitlment that manifests as a denial of any Irish culture.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I suppose the fact that it isn't. Partition created an unusual situation where loyalists like Carson were in the majority. This lead to a polarisation of the nationalist community and 3 decades of troubles. The Irish in the North were ignored and discriminated against for most of the North's existence. Claiming that it's in the UK therefore it must be like Finchely is ignoring the North's history and the fact that it's in Ireland, populated by a lot of Irish people.

Irish people would in fact have been much less discriminated against in Finchley than they were in the artificially created sectarian state created out of their homeland to cater for unionists.

blanch152 wrote: »

As opposed to the artificially reborn Irish language?

Yes it's still a dialect. Irish was also artificially repressed. Time to rectify that.

blanch152 wrote: »

The North is part of the UK and the majority of people up there want it to remain so. What is wrong with it being like Finchley?

I suppose the fact that it isn't. Partition created an unusual situation where loyalists like Carson were in the majority. This lead to a polarisation of the nationalist community and 3 decades of troubles. The Irish in the North were ignored and discriminated against for most of the North's existence. Claiming that it's in the UK therefore it must be like Finchely is ignoring the North's history and the fact that it's in Ireland, populated by a lot of Irish people.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

The North is part of the UK

The northeast is currently under UK jurisdiction subject to change as laid out in the GFA, it's part of Ireland, always has been, and always will be.

and the majority of people up there want it to remain so.

We don't know that for sure. How can you tell if the majority want to keep Westminster bankrolling the place if there's no discussion about what a UI might look like?

What is wrong with it being like Finchley?

It was never like Finchley. People in Finchley would not feel at home in the northeast of Ireland, especially during the marching season when it's supposed to be at its most 'British', Bowler hats haven't been fashionable headwear in Finchley for decades.

blanch152 wrote: »

The North is part of the UK and the majority of people up there want it to remain so. What is wrong with it being like Finchley?

You are as usual in your attempt to somehow blame those who identify as Irish forgetting the existence of the GFA which enshrines the right to identify as Irish and all that comes with that.

The fact is that the majority who identify as Irish request this act. If they didn't they wouldn't be e!ecting the party looking for it most stridenrly in bigger and bigger numbers.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I don't think either party is genuinely interested in preserving endangered languages or dialects. Instead it's more about finding an issue to antagonise each other. Do you honestly think that if the positions were reversed (i.e. if the DUP were aligned with a language and SF with a dialect) they wouldn't be having the exact same row, the only difference being that the arguments would be made by opposite sides, with SF arguing for parity between the two and the DUP saying it isn't a real language etc.?

You have hit the nail on the head here. Tiny numbers speak the artificially created Ulster Scots and slightly less tiny numbers speak the artificially rejuvenated Ulster Irish.

And it is the main reason preventing a government being formed. Only in Northern Ireland.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's a blatant attempt to prevent the 'greening' of the north and a general neuroticism about anything that makes the northeast of Ireland more like the rest of the island and less like Finchley.

Also, Arlene's 'if you feed a crocodile' statement provides us with a little insight to the Unionist mindset. They still believe they own/control 'the food' and will share it out however they damn please.

The North is part of the UK and the majority of people up there want it to remain so. What is wrong with it being like Finchley?

steddyeddy wrote: »

Apart from the fact it's not a language. Have you any papers detailing whether it's a language? I have a few.

As opposed to the artificially reborn Irish language?

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Correct, the old objection of unionists, that it would be a capitulation to SF and must be rejected for that reason shows anyone with their eyes open what this is.

It's a blatant attempt to prevent the 'greening' of the north and a general neuroticism about anything that makes the northeast of Ireland more like the rest of the island and less like Finchley.

Also, Arlene's 'if you feed a crocodile' statement provides us with a little insight to the Unionist mindset. They still believe they own/control 'the food' and will share it out however they damn please.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. In this instance I do believe that, rightly, SF are fighting to preserve the language. The whole Ulster Scots issue is a red herring. There are lots of other issues that each side can use to antagonise. This is simply petty malice on the part of the DUP. Even if you were right, and SF would do the same, it doesn't excuse what the DUP is doing.

Correct, the old objection of unionists, that it would be a capitulation to SF and must be rejected for that reason shows anyone with their eyes open what this is.
The Ulster Scots stuff was invented in an effort to bring respectability to plain and blatant cultural bigotry.
A standalone Ulster-Scots Act would not solve this, because it's the last stand of a dying ideology

Professor Moriarty

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I don't think either party is genuinely interested in preserving endangered languages or dialects. Instead it's more about finding an issue to antagonise each other. Do you honestly think that if the positions were reversed (i.e. if the DUP were aligned with a language and SF with a dialect) they wouldn't be having the exact same row, the only difference being that the arguments would be made by opposite sides, with SF arguing for parity between the two and the DUP saying it isn't a real language etc.?

No. In this instance I do believe that, rightly, SF are fighting to preserve the language. The whole Ulster Scots issue is a red herring. There are lots of other issues that each side can use to antagonise. This is simply petty malice on the part of the DUP. Even if you were right, and SF would do the same, it doesn't excuse what the DUP is doing.

Ian Paisley, former leader of the DUP wrote to object to an Irish Language act in 2007 and never once mentioned 'Ulster Scots', preferring instead to claim it would be politically divisive and "sponsored by Sinn Féin".
This is despite the fact that the other parties in the Assembly agree n this.

That is the issue. Nothing more than cultural bigotry and the Never Never Never culture of the DUP.

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/2007-September/005523.html