Irish Language Act in the North: Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal?

NIMAN wrote: »

We had compulsory Irish when we got to 1st year in grammar school in Derry in 1980.
It was compulsory for 1st and 2nd year, optional after that.

Only a handful out of each class kept it on to 'O' Level, most couldn't wait to drop it.

Has that not more to do with how the subjects are more specialised after GCSE and most people only do 3 A Levels?

NIMAN

jm08 wrote: »

Has that not more to do with how the subjects are more specialised after GCSE and most people only do 3 A Levels?

No, iirc it was more because most of us hated it.

Latin was in there too as a subject. I think back in those days we associated Latin and Irish as something similar if I'm honest, and most of the school dropped them as soon as the first opportunity arose.

There wasn't the attention and interest around the Irish language back then as there is now.

Fionn1952

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

New poster here myself ... how much time did you spend living in the North

You're a 'new poster' yet you're asking me how much time I spent in the north? How do you know I spent any time there at all?

The question was directed at "Blanch", the last person on the quote tree, not you.

I assumed he had lived in The North since he insists on speaking on behalf of all the people there. Considering I grew up on the Northern side of the border, I found it very strange how little it reflected my own experience, and the reasons I suspect the language has suffered.

I've no idea where you have or haven't spent any time, nor why you seem to think this has anything to do with my being a new poster.

Junkyard Tom

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The question was directed at "Blanch", the last person on the quote tree, not you.

I thought you were addressing me, sorry about that!

I think the 'own goal' is very much against Arlene...again. She is being led not leading.

http://eamonnmallie.com/2018/02/new-light-shone-draft-agreement-eamonn-mallie/

Embarrassing.

Phoebas

jm08 wrote: »

I agree. I see that the top 11 performing schools in NI (based on A level results) are all catholic schools that have Irish in their curriculum. Learning Irish doesn't seem to hold them back.

That's a bit of a crude correlation. That list was based off GCSE and A-Level results - is Irish even an A-Level exam?

I don't think anyone involved in the study or the schools involved have cited Irish being on offer as any part of their success.
What was cited is the fact that they are all faith based.

Sean Rafferty, head of St Louis Grammar in Ballymena wrote:

"If you take a look at the top 11 schools they are all faith-based, and I think that says it all."

McMurphy

Phoebas wrote: »

That's a bit of a crude correlation. That list was based off GCSE and A-Level results - is Irish even an A-Level exam?

I don't think anyone involved in the study or the schools involved have cited Irish being on offer as any part of their success.
What was cited is the fact that they are all faith based.

Showing my age a bit here, but its close to 20 years since I sat my a levels, but 100% Irish was an option to sit.

I'm not sure these days, but Irish was compulsory as a subject until GCSE level (O level prev to that) and I for one couldn't wait to get away from it (hindsight is a wonderful thing).

From Saint Louis school website.

It's still an option for A level, I imagine someone wishing to teach it might find it useful qualification to use in college etc.

Phoebas wrote: »

That's a bit of a crude correlation. That list was based off GCSE and A-Level results - is Irish even an A-Level exam?

The point I was trying to make is that despite investment in Irish in catholic schools, it hasn't prevented them from being high achievers. In fact, the point could be made that learning Irish from a young age has made it easier for them to pick up other languages.

The problem for English speaking countries is that there is no huge need to learn another language because they will get by on English only. Learning another language also gives you insight into other nationalities and their culture and how their thought process works.

Irish is a beautiful descriptive language. If we lost the language, we lose part of our heritage. For instance, the name Dublin is meaningless if you don't know where it came from (dubh linn=blackpool) in comparison to London which there are many theories (such as place owned by Londinios).

Phoebas

jm08 wrote: »

The point I was trying to make is that despite investment in Irish in catholic schools, it hasn't prevented them from being high achievers.

There is no evidence that those schools' inclusion at the top of the league table had anything to do whatsoever with the fact that they have Irish on the curriculum.
Who knows - maybe they would have done even better if they weren't investing in the Irish language. We simply can't say either way.

jm08 wrote: »

In fact, the point could be made that learning Irish from a young age has made it easier for them to pick up other languages.

The problem for English speaking countries is that there is no huge need to learn another language because they will get by on English only. Learning another language also gives you insight into other nationalities and their culture and how their thought process works.

Irish is a beautiful descriptive language. If we lost the language, we lose part of our heritage. For instance, the name Dublin is meaningless if you don't know where it came from (dubh linn=blackpool) in comparison to London which there are many theories (such as place owned by Londinios).

I'd agree with that to some extent. There are plenty of good arguments for investing in the Irish language without inventing more.

So NI schools can and do teach Irish to A level standard.
The British state funds Irish language broadcasting.
Anybody who wants to learn and speak the language can do so freely.

Is it really a major inconvenience to shinners that they can't demand to have a court case heard as gaeilge?
State-funded translators provided for everybody, despite that fact that all involved would be back speaking English again in the pub afterwards. Wouldn't it just be a pointless waste of public money? Jobs for the boys/cousins.

recedite wrote: »

So NI schools can and do teach Irish to A level standard.
The British state funds Irish language broadcasting.
Anybody who wants to learn and speak the language can do so freely.

Is it really a major inconvenience to shinners that they can't demand to have a court case heard as gaeilge?
State-funded translators provided for everybody, despite that fact that all involved would be back speaking English again in the pub afterwards. Wouldn't it just be a pointless waste of public money? Jobs for the boys/cousins.

You can make that type of case about anything that is not important to you.

Fionn1952

recedite wrote: »

Is it really a major inconvenience to shinners that they can't demand to have a court case heard as gaeilge?
State-funded translators provided for everybody, despite that fact that all involved would be back speaking English again in the pub afterwards. Wouldn't it just be a pointless waste of public money? Jobs for the boys/cousins.

Is it REALLY so difficult to comprehend that this isn't a Sinn Fein versus the rest scenario? That literally every party EXCEPT the DUP supports an ILA?

Is it that unreasonable for a party to expect (if we ignore the rest of the issues of merit surrounding the ILA) SOME sort of show of good faith regarding negotiations and respect for the other community in the North from the DUP?

The absolute pig ignorance and bias required to paint this as SF being the unreasonable party is shocking. Evidently the DUP's negotiating party felt that it was pretty reasonable until the "not a Taig about the place" vanguard of the party support became a concern.

But I suppose if you blame SF long enough, it'll all be their fault... Jesus wept.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can make that type of case about anything that is not important to you.

People's freedom is important to me. I'm not seeing any infringement on peoples freedom to speak Irish in NI. And there is also some state financial support.

In contrast, the RoI has a compulsory Irish policy in all state funded schools.That is an infringement on people's freedom.

recedite wrote: »

People's freedom is important to me. I'm not seeing any infringement on peoples freedom to speak Irish in NI. And there is also some state financial support.

In contrast, the RoI has a compulsory Irish policy in all state funded schools.That is an infringement on people's freedom.

It isn't about 'freedom to speak it'. How silly to be taking that stance.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It isn't about 'freedom to speak it'. How silly to be taking that stance.

What exactly is the nature of the oppression against NI Gaeilgeoirs then?

recedite wrote: »

What exactly is the nature of the oppression against NI Gaeilgeoirs then?

You have been called out on your complete misunderstanding of the issue here. Do you think it might be time to do some research?

Whats with all the negative vibes? If there's a legitimate grievance, surely you can just say it here?
Apparently the proposed Language Act was a bit of a secret, but involved duplicate signposts, court cases as gaeilge and a commissioner to do something.
Perhaps he/she would decree that a whole bunch of govt. publications needs to be translated into Irish?
Pretty much what happens in Dublin and Brussels already; create a whole lot of very expensive translations that nobody ever reads.

recedite wrote: »

Whats with all the negative vibes? If there's a legitimate grievance, surely you can just say it here?
Apparently the proposed Language Act was a bit of a secret, but involved duplicate signposts, court cases as gaeilge and a commissioner to do something.
Perhaps he/she would decree that a whole bunch of govt. publications needs to be translated into Irish?
Pretty much what happens in Dublin and Brussels already; create a whole lot of very expensive translations that nobody ever reads.

A complete waste of money in the South, but even more so in the North.

I love the way people with obvious issues with our language are deciding whether it has value for money or not.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I love the way people with obvious issues with our language are deciding whether it has value for money or not.

I have no issues with our historical language. I am just against artificial maintenance of the language.

I also love how a 'constitutional nationalist' is backing the belligerent never never unionist position here while all the other nationalist parties (and for a while the DUP) want an ILA.

recedite wrote: »

Whats with all the negative vibes? If there's a legitimate grievance, surely you can just say it here?
Apparently the proposed Language Act was a bit of a secret, but involved duplicate signposts, court cases as gaeilge and a commissioner to do something.
Perhaps he/she would decree that a whole bunch of govt. publications needs to be translated into Irish?
Pretty much what happens in Dublin and Brussels already; create a whole lot of very expensive translations that nobody ever reads.

And perhaps not. The wording of the St. Andrews Agreement:

- The Government will introduce an Irish Language Act reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland and work with the incoming Executive to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language.

- The Government firmly believes in the need to enhance and develop the Ulster Scots language, heritage and culture and will support the incoming Executive in taking this forward.

--

Problem is the language is actually attacked by some unionists (mainly DUP) and needs protection from them.

http://www.ultach.dsl.pipex.com/ForLearners/faqs.htm

Some facts on the Irish language (and comparision to other languages) in Northern Ireland.

Irish is the third most popular language subject (after French and Spanish) at post-primary level in English-medium schools. In the school year 2012/13, there were 2,078 pupils entries for GCSE Irish and 309 entries for A level Irish (the figures for other languages are: GCSE French 6250; Spanish 3,568; and GCSE German 1,017; A-Level French 550, Spanish 513 and German 125). The numbers of pupils studying languages has dropped since the requirement to study at least one language to GCSE was dropped from the curriculum.

Diarmuid Mac Giolla Chríost (2000), in his research is this area, has estimated that there are 40,000 to 45,000 ‘functional Irish speakers, with some 13 to 15,000 people with 'fluency in the full range of language skills. You can read his paper at http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/language/ macgiollachriost00.htm. Research by the renowned sociolinguist Pádraig Ó Riagáin estimates that 1-2% of the population of Northern Ireland claim to be completely fluent (16, 179 - 32, 358 people) (Fortnight March 2007: pg. 12).

jm08 wrote: »

And perhaps not. The wording of the St. Andrews Agreement:

- The Government will introduce an Irish Language Act reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland and work with the incoming Executive to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language.

- The Government firmly believes in the need to enhance and develop the Ulster Scots language, heritage and culture and will support the incoming Executive in taking this forward.

--

Problem is the language is actually attacked by some unionists (mainly DUP) and needs protection from them.

By creating an Act it also once and for all stops it being politically contentious. A win win for everyone.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I also love how a 'constitutional nationalist' is backing the belligerent never never unionist position here while all the other nationalist parties (and for a while the DUP) want an ILA.

I am not back any unionist position, I just have a mind of my own.

You will just as likely see me criticise unionist on the next issue, as I have many times before.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0219/941725-varadkar-sinn-fein-stormont/

If anything shows the impotence of SF up, outside of Stormont, outside of Westminister and outside of Government here, it is the sight of Mary-Lou on her way into Government Building as a supplicant to Leo and Simon seeking their help in resolving the North's problems that they are unable to fix themselves.

Edward M

SF would have been much better sticking to the rights issue, SSM would gain them more support internationally than an ILA.
The DUP can easily be shown to be dinosaurs on a lot of issues, not least of which is their attitude towards nationalists and catholics.
Much better if these issues were at the top of the list, not the language IMO.
So yes, I would say an own goal from SF.

jm08 wrote: »

And perhaps not. The wording of the St. Andrews Agreement:

- The Government will introduce an Irish Language Act reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland and work with the incoming Executive to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language.

- The Government firmly believes in the need to enhance and develop the Ulster Scots language, heritage and culture and will support the incoming Executive in taking this forward.

Well what is the experience of Wales and Ireland?

a) Compulsory Irish or Welsh in schools. In Wales the age for this instruction has been increasing. Since 1999 it goes on until GCSEs.
IMO this is a bad idea in Wales and Republic of Ireland, and a terrible idea if anyone tried to copy it in N.Ireland.

b) Extra points in the LC exams in Ireland for Gaelgeoirs, and LC Irish a mandatory requirement for some jobs in the civil service and teaching, even when Irish will never be spoken in the job. Another bad idea; it leads to unnecessary discrimination.

c) Vast amounts of govt. publications and EU documents required by law to be translated into piles of documents that nobody reads. Is there even one single person in Ireland or Wales who speaks those languages but is not proficient in English? I'd say the last one died well over a hundred years ago.

d) State funding for native language TV, Radio, and cultural events in Ireland and Wales. This is a great idea. It puts the general public in touch with the language. But in a positive way, without coercion.
However the Irish language already gets this funding in N.Ireland. If it needs to be increased, that could be arranged without an ILA.

The second part of your quote, the bit about Ulster Scots, is only there to provide the illusion of political "balance" IMO. In reality, I don't think unionists would want public money spent on promoting either language.

jm08 wrote: »

Problem is the language is actually attacked by some unionists (mainly DUP) and needs protection from them.

How can you attack a language? People can be attacked, property can be attacked. Attacking a concept is just freedom of speech.

Can we have some example of actual oppression?
Can we have some examples of what an ILA would achieve? (that isn't already being done)