Irish Language in Stormount and SF

Erin Go Brath

djpbarry wrote: »

Inevitable? What makes you think the people of Northern Ireland want to be part of the Republic? Only about 30% of them support such a move.

How would you know only 30% support such a move? Have you gone around and asked them all individually?

The only way we can know is if a referendum takes place, which outlines what form a United Ireland will take (federalist, socialist etc). As I said before, when the Unionist/Nationalist ratio evens out which will happen, there will be a push for a referendum by nationalists (and the unionists cant stop a referendum). I would suspect if a referendum took place now, people would vote against a UI. In 15-20 years there will be a completely different demographic and a much different result I suspect. The question of nationality of the 6 County statelet is far from being settled!

murphaph

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

They are from Ireland so they are my countrymen. Many of them play Gaelic Games, and represent their county, and clubs in the All-Ireland series, speak Irish, have Irish passports etc etc and most importantly consider themselves IRISH. Thats a good enough reason to call them my countrymen.

Do you consider ALL Northern Ireland citizens to be your countrymen, even the ones who don't consider themselves so?

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Due to the continuing demographic changes with regard the Nationalist/Unionist ratio, I suspect the Northern statlet may be no longer in existence within the next few decades anyway, (depending obviously on what way majority vote in an inevitable reunification referendum)

Why can't you call it Northern Ireland? Is that so dificult? You insult about 1 million people with your 'statelet comment'

Voipjunkie

murphaph wrote: »

Why can't you call it Northern Ireland? Is that so dificult? You insult about 1 million people with your 'statelet comment'

Why is your only concern insulting unionist you think nothing of insulting nationalists here on a daily basis

djpbarry

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

How would you know only 30% support such a move? Have you gone around and asked them all individually?

I got the figure from the Northern Ireland Life & Times Survey.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The only way we can know is if a referendum takes place, which outlines what form a United Ireland will take (federalist, socialist etc).

There you go again, assuming that the people of Northern Ireland want a united Ireland - all that's left to decide is what form it will take!

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

As I said before, when the Unionist/Nationalist ratio evens out which will happen .... In 15-20 years there will be a completely different demographic and a much different result I suspect.

What exactly are you basing that on? It would appear to be your own personal opinion and nothing more. There is no evidence to suggest that Nationalism is on the increase in Northern Ireland.

Voipjunkie

djpbarry wrote: »

What exactly are you basing that on? It would appear to be your own personal opinion and nothing more. There is no evidence to suggest that Nationalism is on the increase in Northern Ireland.

Well not that it has anything to do with the irish language but there is evidence in the form of increased vote share for the nationalist/republican parties for example the vote share was 40.5% in 2003 assembly elections to 41.8% in 2007

Erin Go Brath

djpbarry wrote: »

What exactly are you basing that on? It would appear to be your own personal opinion and nothing more. There is no evidence to suggest that Nationalism is on the increase in Northern Ireland.

Your joking right. Nationalist vote increases almost every election. Going back half a century 4 of the 6 Counties + Belfast were Unionist majority. These days 4 of the 6 Counties are Nationalist majority, with Belfast 50/50 no majority. Higher birthrate for Taigs, plus lot of Unionists/Protestants leaving for England to go to college, and staying there for jobs, contributes to this. The younger generation which hasn't made its way onto the register yet, and will do in the next 5-10 years is predominantly Catholic/Nationalist. The over 65 voters are predominatly unionist, and as they die off, so does much of the Unionist vote.

This isn't my personal opinion, but fact. The game is up for Unionism, and bigotry. The next 2 decades will see Nationalists become a majority!

djpbarry

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Higher birthrate for Taigs, plus lot of Unionists/Protestants leaving for England to go to college, and staying there for jobs, contributes to this. The younger generation which hasn't made its way onto the register yet, and will do in the next 5-10 years is predominantly Catholic/Nationalist. The over 65 voters are predominatly unionist, and as they die off, so does much of the Unionist vote.

This isn't my personal opinion, but fact. The game is up for Unionism, and bigotry.

No, it is your opinion. You are assuming that everyone from a Nationalist or Catholic background will vote for Sinn Fein when they are old enough to vote. That is not fact, that is an assumption. You cannot predict the result of an election that is 10 to 20 years away. It should also be said that at least half of young people in Northern Ireland in the 18-24 bracket do not affiliate themselves with either Nationalist or Unionist parties.

As for your "facts" regarding birth rate, :rolleyes:.

Jackie laughlin

Let's make two wild assumptions:
1. All Catholics would vote for a united Ireland.
2. Catholics will outnumber Protestants at some point in the not too distant future.

Now, would it be democratic if a majority of, say, 52% forced the other 48% into union with the Republic? What benefit would this be to the 52%, the 48% or the people of the Republic?


Erin,
The rise of "26 County Nationalism", i.e. oppostion in the south to Irish unity, coincides with with the Provo campaign. This is another "achievement" for SF/IRA.

Just as there are Irish people born and bred in Britain, there are British people born and bred in Ireland. I know lots of people who have no problem being British and Irish and I have no problem with their "national status".

Erin Go Brath

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Let's make two wild assumptions:
1. All Catholics would vote for a united Ireland.
2. Catholics will outnumber Protestants at some point in the not too distant future.

Now, would it be democratic if a majority of, say, 52% forced the other 48% into union with the Republic? What benefit would this be to the 52%, the 48% or the people of the Republic?

Surely it would be more democratic than forcing the 52% to stay in a Union that they don't want to be part of. There was nothing very democratic about the creation of the 6 County statelet to begin with anyway. It would of course have to be ratified by 1) the majority of the 6 County statelet and 2) the majority of the 26 Counties before such a constitutional change could occur.

Furthermore, the Unionists who would be most opposed to change assumedly, would have their rights/culture safeguarded within the 32 County state.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Erin,
The rise of "26 County Nationalism", i.e. oppostion in the south to Irish unity, coincides with with the Provo campaign. This is another "achievement" for SF/IRA.

Just as there are Irish people born and bred in Britain, there are British people born and bred in Ireland. I know lots of people who have no problem being British and Irish and I have no problem with their "national status".

2:1 in the 26 are in favour of political unity. (Thats a conservative estimate btw). Some polls show the figure at 78% in favour of unity. Those against are mostly so for selfish reasons, such as what effect it'll have on their pockets etc. Not really sure there is such a rise in "26 County Nationalism" as you put it anyway. Even if you're right, theres a clear majority in favour of Unification South of the border, with a growing towards parity electorate in the North.

stovelid

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Even if you're right, theres a clear majority in favour of Unification South of the border,.

Aye, that'll be right. They really showed that by turning out in their droves for Sinn Fein in the last general election, didn't they?

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Surely it would be more democratic than forcing the 52% to stay in a Union that they don't want to be part of.

I think the years of vanguard delusions have addled your brain to the point where you cannot distinguish between your own politcial aspirations and those of the supposedly 'nationalist' electorate. Why do you continue to presume that you know exactly what they all want?

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Furthermore, the Unionists who would be most opposed to change assumedly, would have their rights/culture safeguarded within the 32 County state.

I think they already believe that their rights are adequately safeguarded within the UK.

What happens if they just don't want to be part of your '32 county state'?

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Now, would it be democratic if a majority of, say, 52% forced the other 48% into union with the Republic? What benefit would this be to the 52%, the 48% or the people of the Republic?

.

Far more democratic than allowing 48% to keep the 52% in a union they did not want
Besides which the survey that djpbarry is so fond reveals that vast majority over 90% odd would accept the majority decision

Jackie laughlin

Simple majoritarianism is not a view of democracy I would support.

I repeat, of what benefit would unification be to anyone on this island? If everyone's political, legal, economic and cultural rights are protected on an island with an unprotected border, is any further change worth the bother? I mean, other than the puerile reply, "Well, I'd prefer if THEY were bothered!"

I don't doubt that there is a substantial majority in the south in favour of unification. My point is that "26 county nationalism" seems to have been unknown before the Provos got going.

Erin Go Brath

stovelid wrote: »

Aye, that'll be right. They really showed that by turning out in their droves for Sinn Fein in the last general election, didn't they?

That statement doesn't make any sense. Are you suggesting that the only people in the 26 Counties who favour unification are Shinners voters?
Any polls I've seen shown theres at least 2:1 majority in favour of a UI!

stovelid wrote: »

I think the years of vanguard delusions have addled your brain to the point where you cannot distinguish between your own politcial aspirations and those of the supposedly 'nationalist' electorate. Why do you continue to presume that you know exactly what they all want?

I suffer from no delusions, although thanks for the concern over my mental state.
It's simple really, the Unionist majority in terms of % share of the vote is decreasing election upon election. It's not a giant leap to conclude that if that pattern continues that nationalists will be in the majority some day. (When that will happen is open for debate). If this does happen, then there will be calls for a referendum. I'm not presuming to know what way they'll vote, but its a distinct possibility they will vote for unification.

stovelid wrote: »

I think they already believe that their rights are adequately safeguarded within the UK.

What happens if they just don't want to be part of your '32 county state'?

Well if its ratified, the steps will be taken to organise how to proceed with unification. Its called democracy!

neil_hosey

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I don't doubt that there is a substantial majority in the south in favour of unification. My point is that "26 county nationalism" seems to have been unknown before the Provos got going.

Could you explain more clearly what you are trying to say here before i reply.

My point is that "26 county nationalism" seems to have been unknown before the Provos got going.

Do you mean by this that before the provisionals were formed, there was no want of reunification?

djpbarry

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

It's simple really, the Unionist majority in terms of % share of the vote is decreasing election upon election. It's not a giant leap to conclude that if that pattern continues that nationalists will be in the majority some day.

Well, it is a leap of sorts. You are assuming that political opinion will remain polarised over the coming years. You have said on numerous occasions that the Nationalist vote is increasing, so let's look at the figures, shall we? Here's a plot of NI Election results from 2003 to 2007:


Blue, green and red represent the Unionist vote, the Nationalist vote and the 'Other' vote respectively. Now, while I do not consider four data points enough to extract a reliable trend, it is clear that the Unionist vote would appear to be declining. However, it would appear to be the 'Other' vote that is benefiting from this more so than the Nationalist vote. The slope of the red trendline is greater than that of the green.

stovelid

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Any polls I've seen shown theres at least 2:1 majority in favour of a UI!

I don't doubt that a majority of voters (including myself) have a sentimental attachment to a united Ireland.

Put the notion on the table though, and I'd like to see how that majority would hold up under a bitter, sustained analysis of the economic, political, and security costs of absorbing NI.

Basically: would people be motivated by self-interest or sentiment?

Bear in mind the ease with which so many voters were able - despite believing they were crooks - to re-elect FF, just to keep the 'good times' rolling.

I don't deny that many people still want a 32 state but I'm not sure it's as clear cut as you think.

The recent busted electoral flush of SF suggests to me that, since the end of the troubles and the bedding down of the GFA, many people in the south are finally starting to consider the NI question without emotional recourse to the troubles.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I'm not presuming to know what way they'll vote, but its a distinct possibility they will vote for unification.

Again, who can say with certainty that a declining unionist vote will translate to SDLP or SF votes, let alone pro-unification ones?

Perhaps, as djp said, the 'other' will return?

As the pre-GFA generation passes away, maybe traditional political groupings will re-emerge: Labour, FF-style centrist parties, and so on.

csk

stovelid wrote: »

K.

It's in response to the interchangeable use of the phrase 'nationalists'.

Not all Irish speakers /catholics/ Irish are nationalists; however, this doesn't stop republicans from branding them all as such for reasons of politcial contingency.

There are plenty of Irish speakers /catholics/ Irish who don't wish to be identified with nationalism, including me.

Of course, shinners are probably not the only culprits. Anybody who uses the Irish language to score political points against the 'others' is an embarrassment.

First of all there was no "indiscriminate" use of the word nationalist. That's just in your head. It was actually a very precise use of the word. Maybe you don't realise but usually in discourse about the six counties, the term nationalist is relatively benign one accepted by all as a fairly neutral way od describing that community that consideres it self exclusively Irish.

It has nothing to do with religion. Now even by the standards of the nomenclature minefield that the north represents it is a non controversial description, used widely by most media and other outlets.

The fact that you had to jump on my "indiscriminate" use of the word given that no such "indiscriminancy" exists well it points to something. It points to the fact that you are either trying to make some kind of obtuse point that really didn't need to be made or you are very, very simple. Either way it was a stupid post.

AS for "the other". WEll you and your fellow travellers are the only one's constructing an "other" in the remorseless need to strip Sinn Féin and nationalists from the six counties of their culture and nationality.

djpbarry

csk wrote: »

AS for "the other". WEll you and your fellow travellers are the only one's constructing an "other" in the remorseless need to strip Sinn Féin and nationalists from the six counties of their culture and nationality.

Excuse me? "Travellers"? Care to explain that comment?

"The Others", as you well know, refers to parties other than the Unionists/Nationalists. In other words, an alternative to tribal politics.

stovelid

csk wrote: »

First of all there was no "indiscriminate" use of the word nationalist. That's just in your head. It was actually a very precise use of the word. Maybe you don't realise but usually in discourse about the six counties, the term nationalist is relatively benign one accepted by all as a fairly neutral way od describing that community that consideres it self exclusively Irish.
.

Actually, there were quite a few people here carrying on the republican tradition of 'speaking for' the catholic electorate as if they were simply an inert, pro-unification herd. Although merely speaking on their behalf is a welcome progression from executing them on a whim for minor infractions, eh?

csk wrote: »

The fact that you had to jump on my "indiscriminate" use of the word given that no such "indiscriminancy" exists well it points to something. It points to the fact that you are either trying to make some kind of obtuse point that really didn't need to be made or you are very, very simple. Either way it was a stupid post.

I do apologize if I was abstruse in my dislike of Sinn Fein and the Irish-manglers in Stormont; I meant to be quite clear on the subject.

csk wrote: »

AS for "the other". WEll you and your fellow travellers are the only one's constructing an "other" in the remorseless need to strip Sinn Féin and nationalists from the six counties of their culture and nationality.

Sorry, I meant the 'other' as the other political parties outside the nationalist/unionist duopoly.

Jackie laughlin

Neil,
Apologies. I seem to have given you the opposite impression of the one intended.

What I mean is that there is now a substantial majority in the south who favour unity. However, in years past it would not have been a mere substantial majority; it would have been near complete agreement with few dissenting voices. There is now a large block of "26 county nationalists" who see their nation and their country as being the 26 counties of the Republic. This is a relatively new phenomenon - Irish people wanting N.I. cut off from the rest of Ireland as far as possible. This sentiment has grown from nothing over the latest period of IRA activity. It is an indication of the damage SF/IRA did to the very thing they say they were killing for.

I'd like to try asking again: of what benefit would unification be to anyone on this island? If everyone's political, legal, economic and cultural rights are protected on an island with an unprotected border, is any further change worth the bother? I mean, other than the puerile reply, "Well, I'd prefer if THEY were bothered!"

LordSutch

Why the need to 'Take-Over' the North? Why the need to get the Brits Out? Why the need to 'Make' the North "Green"? Why the need to get rid of any, & all references to being 'British'? Why the need to 'Break' the Union?

The Unionist/British peoples of the North have been in situ since at least the 1600s, they are British, they are Unionist and they are not Irish Nationalists > their flag is the Union Flag, their National Anthem is God Save the Queen & their National anthem is not 'The Soldiers Song'!

Why the compulsion 'by some' Nationalists to erase all signs of 'Britishness' from this island? specially now that we are all beginning to live and work in harmony.

I say 'long live the border' as I think it helps with promoting the two Predominant Cultures (British & Irish) on this island of ours, but trying to eradicate or 'erase' one side or the divide has proven not to work.

csk

ArthurF wrote:

The Unionist/British peoples of the North have been in situ since at least the 1600s, they are British, they are Unionist and they are not Irish Nationalists > their flag is the Union Flag, their National Anthem is God Save the Queen & their National anthem is not 'The Soldiers Song'!

Whose anthem is "the soldiers song" Arthur? It's definintely not mine nor that of Ireland.

Erin Go Brath

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, it is a leap of sorts. You are assuming that political opinion will remain polarised over the coming years. You have said on numerous occasions that the Nationalist vote is increasing, so let's look at the figures, shall we? Here's a plot of NI Election results from 2003 to 2007:
However, it would appear to be the 'Other' vote that is benefiting from this more so than the Nationalist vote. The slope of the red trendline is greater than that of the green.

Your graph doesn't cover enough of a time frame to see the changes. Theres not going to be much changes in one year.

This is a good website if you want to see the changing demographics.
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/

Check out the amount of green now compared to 15-25 years ago. One example is the Westminster elections 1983 where theres 2 Nationalist seats, 1992 elections its up to 4 nationalist seats, 2005 elections theres 8 nationalist seats. Fast forward another few decades, how many??

stovelid wrote:

I don't doubt that a majority of voters (including myself) have a sentimental attachment to a united Ireland.

Put the notion on the table though, and I'd like to see how that majority would hold up under a bitter, sustained analysis of the economic, political, and security costs of absorbing NI.

Basically: would people be motivated by self-interest or sentiment?

Fair point. Some by the former, some by the latter i suspect. Don't underestimate how patriotic the Irish people are though. Nationalist sentiment will be at all time high in the coming few decades i feel. The centenary of the 1916 rising, War of Independence etc will all contribute greatly to this.

csk

stovelid wrote:

Actually, there were quite a few people here carrying on the republican tradition of 'speaking for' the catholic electorate as if they were simply an inert, pro-unification herd. Although merely speaking on their behalf is a welcome progression from executing them on a whim for minor infractions, eh?

Here we go again more "other" ballsology. Now we have the unamed "few people" from the unspecified "republican tradition" who seek to "speak for" a "Catholic electorate". I would imagine there is no one here, least of all me, who would fit that bill.

As I said and you conveinently left out THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.

Sorry, I meant the 'other' as the other political parties outside the nationalist/unionist duopoly.

No you didn't. YOu quite clearly brought up the "other" long you before this thread descended into the muppestfest it has now become.

You see you and your fellow traveller's in this thread are trying to construct a very elaborate "other" in order to strip, those Irish who inhabit the north of Ireland, of their culture and nationality. This sees the simple act of an Irish person speaking Irish become a sinister effort at "hijacking" "our culture". Of course you confine "our culture" to that of the 26 counties of the Republic despite the fact that culturally and geographically this island is the same. Of course YOU seem incapable of understanding this, however in the doublethink that emerges from the febrile imaginations of stovelid and his fellow travellers this is coopted onto me as somekind of failure on my part. Despite me never having suggested anything else to have been the case. Then we have Jackie who tries to create the idea that the only true nationalists(read true Irish) are those fluent in Irish. In Jackies mind, anyone who can't speak but tries to learn or at least tries to ensure that services will be provided for those who wish to learn becomes a poser(read not true Irish).

In this doublethink those Irish peole from the six counties are damned if they do damned if they don't, relegated to the position of some sinister "other" lurking the shadows waiting to do whatever it is stovelid and his fellow travellers febrile imagination can cook up, of course some hint as to what this might be is given above when stovelid chastises some unamed "other" for "executing people on a whim".

Voipjunkie

ArthurF wrote: »

Why the need to 'Take-Over' the North? Why the need to get the Brits Out? Why the need to 'Make' the North "Green"? Why the need to get rid of any, & all references to being 'British'? Why the need to 'Break' the Union?

The Unionist/British peoples of the North have been in situ since at least the 1600s, they are British, they are Unionist and they are not Irish Nationalists > their flag is the Union Flag, their National Anthem is God Save the Queen & their National anthem is not 'The Soldiers Song'!

Why the compulsion 'by some' Nationalists to erase all signs of 'Britishness' from this island? specially now that we are all beginning to live and work in harmony.

I say 'long live the border' as I think it helps with promoting the two Predominant Cultures (British & Irish) on this island of ours, but trying to eradicate or 'erase' one side or the divide has proven not to work.

And of course the opposite is true why the need to eradicate the Irish language
Why the need to hold onto the North

Why the need to make the North blue white and red

Why the need to get rid of all references to being Irish
Why the need to Keep the Union

The Nationalist/Irish people have been in situ since long before the 1600s they are Irish not British their flag is the tricolour their National Anthem is Amhran Na bhFiann not god save the Queen

Why the compulsion of some unionists to erase all signs of Irishness from this Island especially now when we are starting to live and work in harmony.


See it is all very reasonable but Nationalist see the attack on the Irish language just as you have described as an attempt to eradicate Irishness from the North.
Peace and harmony and recognising and embracing our differences has to work both ways, it can not just be a matter of Nationalists accepting Unionist culture ,it has to also involve Unionists accepting Nationalist culture.

Using Irish in Stormont is not an attack on Britishness or Unionist culture no more than using English is an attack on Irishness why can both not be acceptable.

stovelid

csk wrote: »

Whose anthem is "the soldiers song" Arthur? It's definintely not mine nor that of Ireland.

I hope you're not insisting - in English - on the title 'Amhrán na bhFiann'.

or do you mean 'Ireland's Call'?

Jackie laughlin

"Then we have Jackie who tries to create the idea that the only true nationalists(read true Irish) are those fluent in Irish. In Jackies mind, anyone who can't speak but tries to learn or at least tries to ensure that services will be provided for those who wish to learn becomes a poser(read not true Irish)."

Jackie said nothing of the sort.

Jackie said that if someone parades themselves as a champion of Irish culture, their willingness to learn Irish is a fair test of their credibility.

Jackie doesn't think and never suggested that someone who doesn't speak Irish but who is well disposed towards it - even tries to learn it - and who argues for state support for the language is a poser.

stovelid

csk wrote: »

No you didn't. YOu quite clearly brought up the "other" long you before this thread descended into the muppestfest it has now become.

I skimmed back through my posts (in the absence of a helpful quote from you) and I had mentioned using Irish as a political point against 'others' (that is, Unionists and other non-Irish speakers) a few pages back. Is that what you mean?

The reference to 'The Other' (note the emphasis) was a concurrence with djp's (more recent) observations on voting trends, that, 'other' viable politcial options beyond the current parties.

csk wrote: »

This sees the simple act of an Irish person speaking Irish become a sinister effort at "hijacking" "our culture".

Nope - this sees the simple act of a Irish person insisting on speaking Irish in non-Irish speaking company as foul manners and an embarrassment to most people without a politcial axe to grind.

csk wrote: »

Of course you confine "our culture" to that of the 26 counties of the Republic despite the fact that culturally and geographically this island is the same.

I said we are two distinct political entities, which we are.

I don't suggest 'our culture' is sequestered to the 26 counties. Just that, to me, it means more than a badge to flaunt at the other* tribe.

* another adjectival fancy of mine. Please forgive me.

csk wrote: »

Then we have Jackie who tries to create the idea that the only true nationalists(read true Irish) are those fluent in Irish. In Jackies mind, anyone who can't speak but tries to learn or at least tries to ensure that services will be provided for those who wish to learn becomes a poser(read not true Irish).

I'm sure Jackie can speak for herself/himself, but I certainly didn't get that impression from her/his posts.

Jackie laughlin

"I'm a boy, I'm a boy and my Mom DID admit it!!!" (Apologies to Pete Townsend, the bastard who appeared in a green, white and orange "union jack" in our own National Stadium on the S.C.Rd.)

Voipjunkie

stovelid wrote: »

Nope - this sees the simple act of a Irish person insisting on speaking Irish in non-Irish speaking company as foul manners and an embarrassment to most people without a politcial axe to grind.

Why should you be embarrassed for gods sake why is it bad manners is it bad manners to speak French at the UN or Spanish is it bad manners to speak Flemish in Belgium.
There are two main cultures on this Island why do you find it embarrassing that someone should want to speak Irish.
And I don't buy all this political axe to grind bull****, it is a language it is Irish this is the Island of Ireland, if someone wants to speak it then why kick up a fuss, why can people not just accept that some people want to speak Irish why do people try to diminish it.
Why do people find it so hard to accept that people want to speak Irish without trying to see it as a disparagement on someone else's views or traditions.