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

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

How can anyone here answer what the act would contain when so far, it hasn't been leaked/ released to the media?

What we do know however, is that it had been seen by all the relative party's north/south and the UK - and had apparently been agreed upon, until (and not for the first time) the DUP decided they wanted to throw the toys out of the pram seemingly by the hard-core grassroots members.

Should direct rule be imposed, the irony will be that the yuk parliament will prob stream roll into law the 'Birtishness' the DUP want to hang on to - and implement a language act (like in Wales and Scotland) and SSM.

They'll possibly look at the stupid outdated laws that exist up there surrounding Sunday's too (try doing business in a major store early on a Sunday up there).

Some irony.

I wasn't asking for what the parties had agreed was in an ILA, I was asking what did people believe should be in an ILA.

Like on the abortion threads, you can ask what do the government proposals say or what do people believe. Surely, those people who support an ILA have some idea of what they believe should be in it.

Have they considered the safety issues raised by the Luas people in relation to signage - at least everyone in the South has some notion of Irish? Have they considered the ghettoisation issue? Do they believe it should be a token symbolic act or do they believe it should have real impact and real vision around Northern Ireland? These are questions that can be answered by posters who claim to know a lot about Northern Ireland and feel able to dismiss the opinions of others (labelling them as "partitionists").

I am left with the conclusion that having actually seen the impact of the ILA in the South, and not liking it, that my objections to an ILA on those real practical grounds are more grounded that any of the support or objections from people in the North to something that they don't really understand.

Deleted User wrote: »

Everyone knows where Dun Laoghaire is blanch. Theres nothing wrong with the signage, its the mindsets, like yours, that need to change. I must say that i find your persistent negativity to these issues quite depressing.

Not negative, just realistic.

The Irish language doesn't need an ILA.

Deleted User wrote: »

In your opinion. Here’s an enlightening opinion. Shows the advantage of a positive mindset and the ability NOT to have to react negatively to perceived differences in others.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/we-protestants-fear-gaelic-and-we-were-raised-to-mock-it-828996.html

I have a positive attitude to many things and a realistic attitude to the future of the Irish language.

cycle4fun wrote: »

Says the person who defended a political party leader sneering the war-cry / catch-phrase of the PIRA. "Up the Rebels, tiocagh ar la"

Care to point out where in her acceptance speech she said the highlighted ?

I see where she said "Up the Republic" so perhaps it is just a case of you looking on all members of the Republic as rebels.

You would not be alone in that unfortunately.
It`s an opinion shared, or at least implied to scaremonger, by many unionist political dinosaurs in Northern Ireland

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I can see how confusion would arise.

Glad you emerged unscathed though, and presumably a search party wasn't dispatched on this occasion?

... wasnt that one - was in short term on walls of spiral down ramps - just one instance of it - Ill photo it next time Im there...

I know we are blind to it because we see it all the time - but look at it objectively and you don't honestly think this random example below is a clean and uncluttered sign..

ozmo wrote: »

... wasnt that one - was in short term on walls of spiral down ramps - just one instance of it - Ill photo it next time Im there...

I know we are blind to it because we see it all the time - but look at it objectively and you don't honestly think this random example below is a clean and uncluttered sign..

What exactly is your problem with it ?

The Anglo-Saxon (and pretty much meaningless) translation of all those towns is in uppercase lettering.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The Irish language isn't comparable to Ulster Scots - Ulster Scots isn't a language. It's a dialect.

Exactly my point. Your attitude towards Ulster-Scots is reminiscent of the 1970s attitude towards Irish recalled in the Examiner article.

blanch152 wrote: »

Exactly my point. Your attitude towards Ulster-Scots is reminiscent of the 1970s attitude towards Irish recalled in the Examiner article.

The concept of Ulster Scots was examined very carefully by the European Commission in 1999. From the article:

In a highly critical report drawn up by 12 European delegates who speak languages such as Breton, Irish, Galician and Friulian (from northern Italy) Ulster Scots is damned as being "extremely close" to standard English.

For a flavour of why they were so critical, here is a sample text in Ulster Scots:

Gin ye hae guid analogue reception the nou, ye'r like no tae need tae replace yer ruiftap or set-tap aerial for the cheenge-ower – thare nae sic thing as a 'deegital aerial'. But gin ye hae ill analogue reception the nou, ye’ll mebbe need tae replace it.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I for one don't need Google translate for the above - it's pretty much English in a Scottish accent.

More Paul Howard`s Ross O`Carroll-Kelly than a distinct language.

cycle4fun wrote: »

The past was a different time, but there was no comparision between either the government in N. Ireland or here in the Republic with the arartheid system of South Africa. MOPE's were not found on this island, except in their heads.

You mean between 1911 and 1991 (there was no census in 1921). I'll tell you what happened.
1. WWI - thousands killed in it.
2. Withdrawal of British Army and Civil Service etc. out of Ireland. Many would have been transferred to other colonial outposts.
3. Many moved to NI (a Protestant State for a Protestant people as was the claim at the time).
4. WWII - more killed.

Anecdotally, I can tell you of a fairly well off family close to where I lived. Father killed in WWI, 3 sons killed in WWII, leaving a sister to carry out farming on her own. Terribly sad. She never got married because there was literally no one of her generation or religion left to marry.

cycle4fun wrote: »

I do not think Arlene Foster invited either May or Varadkar to Belfast or told them a deal was done

I'd imagine the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Karen Bradley would be the one issueing those invitations.

blanch152 wrote: »

Exactly my point. Your attitude towards Ulster-Scots is reminiscent of the 1970s attitude towards Irish recalled in the Examiner article.

Irish was a language and Ulster Scots a dialect in the 1970s also.

No own goal for SF here, the DUP were offered a reasonable deal and hadn't the sense to accept it, p**ing off the British in the process. They keep on kicking into their own net.