Border Poll discussion

Frank Castle wrote: »

Tbh, when it comes to derry/londonderry I break it down to which part I am referring to.
City side is derry and waterside is londonderry, keeps people happier i found in my own experience.

I just refer to it as Derry, and I don't think I've ever offended anyone when I did, nor been pulled on it, and likewise if I ever found myself in the company of someone who referred to it as Londonderry, have I ever been offended or felt the need to pull them on it either.

Frank Castle

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Derry has.a nationalist population of close to 75%.

Why would anyone have any problem with the locals referring to the city they reside calling it whatever the hell they want?

Tbh, when it comes to derry/londonderry I break it down to which part I am referring to.
City side is derry and waterside is londonderry, keeps people happier i found in my own experience.

Frank Castle

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Throughout this thread I have just found it so fascinating because the reactions of some would lead you to believe that unionists are the maligned minority under a jurisdiction they do not want.

It has always been thus that any inch that Nationalists get in the name of equality has to be matched somehow for unionism to save face.

It's not seen as Nationalists getting Equal, it's seen as unionists losing status.

And I'm sorry, I'm not really in the humour of putting up with this nonsense. To be offended at the language by which all of these people owe placenames and their dialectical ticks to is beyond bizarre. And just the latest in the goalposts being shifted once more.

It's maddening.

Honestly it is hard for most to understand, because from a position of complete dominance, every concession feels like oppression.

The sad truth is must of us either don't understand that or refuse to acknowledge it. (and most of my people are poorly educated and lack the ability to assess themselves, let alone the other half) This drives sectarianism ever onward. Education is key to a better future imo, and it is severely lacking at home.

downcow wrote: »

That sounds reasonable to me. You realise itwould initially lead to a dramatic decrease in Irish signage as they are currently up in areas that cause offence and are painted over and pulled down regularly

For those who think roi is innocent on this issue. Is there any chance you could start giving our second city it’s correct name on your road signs? Sure how could signs possibly offend anyone?

Derry has.a nationalist population of close to 75%.

Why would anyone have any problem with the locals referring to the city they reside calling it whatever the hell they want?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

To be honest, we haven't been given any reason for objecting to Irish. None that I have seen.

It is 'offence' for the sake of offence, I think.

It's just the standard whataboutery and neverism. And that's fine.

But just be upfront about it and stop tying yourself in knots.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Throughout this thread I have just found it so fascinating because the reactions of some would lead you to believe that unionists are the maligned minority under a jurisdiction they do not want.

It has always been thus that any inch that Nationalists get in the name of equality has to be matched somehow for unionism to save face.

It's not seen as Nationalists getting Equal, it's seen as unionists losing status.

And I'm sorry, I'm not really in the humour of putting up with this nonsense. To be offended at the language by which all of these people owe placenames and their dialectical ticks to is beyond bizarre. And just the latest in the goalposts being shifted once more.

It's maddening.

To be honest, we haven't been given any reason for objecting to Irish. None that I have seen.

It is 'offence' for the sake of offence, I think.

Throughout this thread I have just found it so fascinating because the reactions of some would lead you to believe that unionists are the maligned minority under a jurisdiction they do not want.

It has always been thus that any inch that Nationalists get in the name of equality has to be matched somehow for unionism to save face.

It's not seen as Nationalists getting Equal, it's seen as unionists losing status.

And I'm sorry, I'm not really in the humour of putting up with this nonsense. To be offended at the language by which all of these people owe placenames and their dialectical ticks to is beyond bizarre. And just the latest in the goalposts being shifted once more.

It's maddening.

downcow wrote: »

That sounds reasonable to me. You realise itwould initially lead to a dramatic decrease in Irish signage as they are currently up in areas that cause offence and are painted over and pulled down regularly

For those who think roi is innocent on this issue. Is there any chance you could start giving our second city it’s correct name on your road signs? Sure how could signs possibly offend anyone?

Again with your equating of the use of a language to the actions of a sectarian organisation.

---

Re Derry, we already refer to it correctly and use the name that most people call it by.

We also use the name that a huge majority of its residents use.

Does the use of Derry offend you? You've a very thin skin.

Also, you wouldn't be sanctioning interference in the politics of a foreign country now would you?

Do you ever query why County Down is so-called?

downcow wrote: »

so back to the devil in the detail. I am not being pedantic because this genuinely is one of my concerns.
How would you decide if a community wanted them? Eg street by street, council areas, counties etc.
I do believe nationalists have not thought this one through.

In Newry they vote as a Street to have them erected.

Also, I know common sense is in short supply amongst loyalists but you could also have self awareness, like, you wouldn't think of asking to march down the Falls or past Holy Cross school or the Garvaghy now would ya?

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Perhaps some sort of commission, who assess whether it would be particularly contentious, who would have the power to prevent signage being erected in certain areas where they're not wanted by the local people to that area?

Seems like a pretty familiar and easy method to me.

I'd be in favour of said commission erring on the side of caution initially. Over time, as those of British extraction on this island realise it's part of their shared culture, and indeed they have serious credit to take for its survival, they may realise it isnt so contentious after all, which would likely see it gradually rolled out further, should the local people move from objection to neutrality, and indeed hopefully onto acceptance and embrace. This only works if something like Irish signage isnt lorded over those of a Unionist background as some sort of victory over them. There can't be a perception of triumphalism, which weaponises the signage and prevents its acceptance.

I foresee a similar pathway for Orange marches in the future. Erring on the side of caution with routes, but gradually through the actions of its members, demonstrating that it is a celebration of their heritage and history, not triumphalist, 'we go where we want because we say so' attempts to wind up locals, or stopping outside churches and playing the innocent when they're called out for playing, 'Sloop John B'. Over time, when those marches are carried out in the same non-contentious way the Order can manage the vast majority of their marches, gradually we can move towards the removal of objections by local people and the willingness to compromise on allowing historical marches through areas they weren't previously welcomed. Perhaps even that could gradually be accepted as a shared part of our history.

Ultimately in both scenarios, responsibility for acceptance lies on the shoulders of those who wish for it. If people can't control themselves and give into the base urge to rub it in the faces of the others, then they only have themselves to blame when they remain contentious and unwelcome.

Like it is with Planning now, it would have to be established that you have a legitimate reason for objection.
'It offends me, just because' would not or could not be a mature reason to object.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Perhaps some sort of commission, who assess whether it would be particularly contentious, who would have the power to prevent signage being erected in certain areas where they're not wanted by the local people to that area?

Seems like a pretty familiar and easy method to me.

I'd be in favour of said commission erring on the side of caution initially. Over time, as those of British extraction on this island realise it's part of their shared culture, and indeed they have serious credit to take for its survival, they may realise it isnt so contentious after all, which would likely see it gradually rolled out further, should the local people move from objection to neutrality, and indeed hopefully onto acceptance and embrace. This only works if something like Irish signage isnt lorded over those of a Unionist background as some sort of victory over them. There can't be a perception of triumphalism, which weaponises the signage and prevents its acceptance.

I foresee a similar pathway for Orange marches in the future. Erring on the side of caution with routes, but gradually through the actions of its members, demonstrating that it is a celebration of their heritage and history, not triumphalist, 'we go where we want because we say so' attempts to wind up locals, or stopping outside churches and playing the innocent when they're called out for playing, 'Sloop John B'. Over time, when those marches are carried out in the same non-contentious way the Order can manage the vast majority of their marches, gradually we can move towards the removal of objections by local people and the willingness to compromise on allowing historical marches through areas they weren't previously welcomed. Perhaps even that could gradually be accepted as a shared part of our history.

Ultimately in both scenarios, responsibility for acceptance lies on the shoulders of those who wish for it. If people can't control themselves and give into the base urge to rub it in the faces of the others, then they only have themselves to blame when they remain contentious and unwelcome.

That sounds reasonable to me. You realise itwould initially lead to a dramatic decrease in Irish signage as they are currently up in areas that cause offence and are painted over and pulled down regularly

For those who think roi is innocent on this issue. Is there any chance you could start giving our second city it’s correct name on your road signs? Sure how could signs possibly offend anyone?

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

so back to the devil in the detail. I am not being pedantic because this genuinely is one of my concerns.
How would you decide if a community wanted them? Eg street by street, council areas, counties etc.
I do believe nationalists have not thought this one through.

Perhaps some sort of commission, who assess whether it would be particularly contentious, who would have the power to prevent signage being erected in certain areas where they're not wanted by the local people to that area?

Seems like a pretty familiar and easy method to me.

I'd be in favour of said commission erring on the side of caution initially. Over time, as those of British extraction on this island realise it's part of their shared culture, and indeed they have serious credit to take for its survival, they may realise it isnt so contentious after all, which would likely see it gradually rolled out further, should the local people move from objection to neutrality, and indeed hopefully onto acceptance and embrace. This only works if something like Irish signage isnt lorded over those of a Unionist background as some sort of victory over them. There can't be a perception of triumphalism, which weaponises the signage and prevents its acceptance.

I foresee a similar pathway for Orange marches in the future. Erring on the side of caution with routes, but gradually through the actions of its members, demonstrating that it is a celebration of their heritage and history, not triumphalist, 'we go where we want because we say so' attempts to wind up locals, or stopping outside churches and playing the innocent when they're called out for playing, 'Sloop John B'. Over time, when those marches are carried out in the same non-contentious way the Order can manage the vast majority of their marches, gradually we can move towards the removal of objections by local people and the willingness to compromise on allowing historical marches through areas they weren't previously welcomed. Perhaps even that could gradually be accepted as a shared part of our history.

Ultimately in both scenarios, responsibility for acceptance lies on the shoulders of those who wish for it. If people can't control themselves and give into the base urge to rub it in the faces of the others, then they only have themselves to blame when they remain contentious and unwelcome.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The communities that object should not have it forced upon them.

A bit like orange parades.

so back to the devil in the detail. I am not being pedantic because this genuinely is one of my concerns.
How would you decide if a community wanted them? Eg street by street, council areas, counties etc.
I do believe nationalists have not thought this one through.

downcow wrote: »

The devil is in the detail.
Eg let’s just take one of those “Bilingual signage on public buildings and road signage”
What does this mean?
All public buildings? All roads?
What if communities don’t want it?

The communities that object should not have it forced upon them.

A bit like orange parades.

downcow wrote: »

Here we go again, I ask a question and francie, rather than contribute an answer, asks me a question.
The question was.
“The devil is in the detail.
Eg let’s just take one of those,
“Bilingual signage on public buildings and road signage”
What does this mean?
All public buildings? All roads?
What if communities don’t want it?”

They don't have to do it. You do know councils have done this already?

I am interested (as I have asked you before) why this simple thing is objected to or would be objected to? Every settlement on this island had an Irish name. Some still have them.

Do you know why anyone would have a problem with it and why?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would you object? Does it threaten your Britishness in some way?

Here we go again, I ask a question and francie, rather than contribute an answer, asks me a question.
The question was.
“The devil is in the detail.
Eg let’s just take one of those,
“Bilingual signage on public buildings and road signage”
What does this mean?
All public buildings? All roads?
What if communities don’t want it?”

downcow wrote: »

The devil is in the detail.
Eg let’s just take one of those “Bilingual signage on public buildings and road signage”
What does this mean?
All public buildings? All roads?
What if communities don’t want it?

Why would you object? Does it threaten your Britishness in some way?

downcow wrote: »

I need to be careful about disagreeing with you because this is exactly how I feel about brexit

Nothing stopping Brexit from being implemented only governmental disarray.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can talk about changing it when it is fully implemented.

I need to be careful about disagreeing with you because this is exactly how I feel about brexit

downcow wrote: »

The only terms I want to change are
1) the petition of concern so as we can get things like equal marriage through
2) a voluntary coalition so as dup or sf can’t bring it down when they throw their toys out of the pram

Anything there you disagree with francie?

You can talk about changing it when it is fully implemented.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

2 secs on Google.

The devil is in the detail.
Eg let’s just take one of those “Bilingual signage on public buildings and road signage”
What does this mean?
All public buildings? All roads?
What if communities don’t want it?

downcow wrote: »

There absolutely would not be and Irish language act by referendum. The UUP also oppose it. The issue is that we want to know what is in it before we agree to it. Do you remember how you thought people who voted for brexit didn’t know what they were voting for. Well no one has a clue what will be in an Irish language act.

2 secs on Google.

The use of Irish in courts, in the Assembly and for use by state bodies including the police

The appointment of an Irish language commissioner

The establishment of designated Gaelteacht areas in the North

The right for education through Irish

Bilingual signage on public buildings and road signage

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes you can and nationalists did and reached an international agreement with clearly defined routes to their desired future. Unionists in the main agreed with that and were happy to implement that agreement.
Now they and their support seem to be saying that they wish to change the terms because things are not suiting them. Not just on a UI poll either.

The only terms I want to change are
1) the petition of concern so as we can get things like equal marriage through
2) a voluntary coalition so as dup or sf can’t bring it down when they throw their toys out of the pram

Anything there you disagree with francie?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There would be an Irish Language Act by consensus only a single party has blocked it.

There absolutely would not be and Irish language act by referendum. The UUP also oppose it. The issue is that we want to know what is in it before we agree to it. Do you remember how you thought people who voted for brexit didn’t know what they were voting for. Well no one has a clue what will be in an Irish language act.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You can’t complain about not being represented in the legislature if your party’s policy is to not participate in the legislature.

Yes you can and nationalists did and reached an international agreement with clearly defined routes to their desired future. Unionists in the main agreed with that and were happy to implement that agreement.
Now they and their support seem to be saying that they wish to change the terms because things are not suiting them. Not just on a UI poll either.

downcow wrote: »

So Bonnie you are then happy that nationalist can only blame thenselves for the fact there is only a small minority of people want a UI. They should sell it better. And a wee bit of pr around the benifits of an Irish language act would also help because clearly they can only blame themselves for the fact few people give a fiddlers xxxx about and Irish language act.
As I said, what’s good for the goose

Then you've nothing to worry about.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You can’t complain about not being represented in the legislature if your party’s policy is to not participate in the legislature.

The only one's who complain about SF's abstentionism are those who need to complain about SF.

SF voters know the deal.

Sean.3516

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's fairly clear that in this particular situation that one community does not trust the legislature that has control of them as they mandate a party not to take their seats again and again.

You can’t complain about not being represented in the legislature if your party’s policy is to not participate in the legislature.

downcow wrote: »

So if the referendum was
Sex offenders should have the gentials cut off
Yes or no.
You think our civilised society would vote no??

Why would we set such a referendum?