Stormont power sharing talks

McMurphy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Just as night follows day. You mention Wikipedia and someone dismisses it out of hand. The article is full of references too which I was at pains to point out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia the irony of using Wikipedia to prove how creditable Wikipedia is is not lost on me but if you're unwilling to accept that just pretend I posted nearly 300 references instead.

Wikipedia article about Ulster Scots claims it is a dialect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Scots

A dialect is not a language, it's as simple as that.

tomwaterford

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Wikipeida.

You realise it's open to anyone to read, create and edit pages as they see fit.

I think we can dismiss wikipeida as a reliable source.

It's not as easy to edit as you imagine,more widely read page more scuriteny required

This notion that you can rock onto any Wikipedia page and edit it is baffling in the extreme




To make an example,try change the Kim Kardashian page to say she married Irish person called Rick Shaw in 2016 and see how long it takes to get changed

LeinsterDub

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Wikipedia article about Ulster Scots claims it is a dialect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Scots

A dialect is not a language, it's as simple as that.

Maybe read past the first line it's a dialect of Scots . Which is a language

McMurphy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Maybe read past the first line it's a dialect of Scots . Which is a language

I am not too fussed about arguing this back and forth all night, but if you're now saying that Ulster Scots is a dialect of Scots, then that answers your own argument, no?

LeinsterDub

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I am not too fussed about arguing this back and forth all night, but if you're now saying that Ulster Scots is a dialect of Scots, then that answers your own argument, no?

I thought everyone was aware of the fact it's a dialect of Scots? What's your point? I thought your point was it was just English with an accent?

steddyeddy

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 see it isn't just SF pushing an Irish language act. It's the SDLP and Alliance. As Naomi Long said there's very few cases where the native language of a country doesn't have protection.

FrancieBrady

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

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.

FrancieBrady

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

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.

blanch152

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?

blanch152

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?

blanch152

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.

FrancieBrady

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.

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.

steddyeddy

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.

steddyeddy

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.

FrancieBrady

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.

steddyeddy

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.

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

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.

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

blanch152

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?

blanch152

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

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.

blanch152

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.

FrancieBrady

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.

FrancieBrady

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.

tomwaterford

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.

Sure we know you dislike Irish culture

Professor Moriarty

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.

OK. So let's leave the Irish Language die and let's leave parading die. Deal?

Irishweather

People on this forum discuss the Constitutional position of my country much more often than in day to day affairs here in Northern Ireland.

I know this is a political forum, but I just would to post that little piece of information to put some perspective/clarity into the current situation.

A United Ireland will probably happen at some stage, but not for several decades most likely, hence the topic is not on most people's minds at all.

end of the road

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?

everything is wrong with it. it will never be truely like Finchley, the people there are not and never will be british. northern ireland is part of ireland, ruled by britain, but the people are irish. the british people don't recognise them as being british either.

Irishweather

There is no true British identity. The idea of being as "British as Finchely" is daft, we in Northern Ireland cannot be as British as Finchely because our culture is distinctly different in contrast to Finchely and other areas of England.The same can be said about Scotland and Wales, each regions of the United Kingdom which also have their own distinct cultures.

You must recognise, at the very least, the unique culture (not discussing Orange Order) in places such as North Antrim which is very much influenced by Scotland.

I'm not cluthing at straws here, merely looking at the reality of the cultures in Northern Ireland and how they differ quite substantially to the Irish of the South.

tomwaterford

Irishweather wrote: »

I'm not cluthing at straws here, merely looking at the reality of the cultures in Northern Ireland and how they differ quite substantially to the Irish of the South.

Perhaps you can try expand on what is substantially different culturally between both places??

Irishweather

Religion, way of Life, attitudes, historical perspective.

FrancieBrady

Irishweather wrote: »

There is no true British identity. The idea of being as "British as Finchely" is daft, we in Northern Ireland cannot be as British as Finchely because our culture is distinctly different in comparison to Finchely and other areas of England.The same can be said about Scotland and Wales, each regions of the United Kingdom which also have their own distinct cultures.

You must recognise, at the very least, the unique culture (not discussing Orange Order) in places such as North Antrim which is very much influenced by Scotland.

I'm not cluthing at straws here, merely looking at the reality of the cultures in Northern Ireland and how they differ quite substantially to the Irish of the South.

And all that is being asked in the interests of 'equality' is that the Irish culture and the language be recognised.
Nobody is threatening the links to Scotland or to whatever borough in Britain they fancy.
None of the cultures in the north or the south differ 'substantially'.

Irishweather

So you think cultures in Northern Ireland are a conglomerate in reality? Really?

FrancieBrady

Irishweather wrote: »

So you think cultures in Northern Ireland are a conglomerate in reality? Really?

What?

Irishweather

Do you think the respective cultures are the same as one another?

LeinsterDub

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And all that is being asked in the interests of 'equality' is that the Irish culture and the language be recognised.
Nobody is threatening the links to Scotland or to whatever borough in Britain they fancy.
None of the cultures in the north or the south differ 'substantially'.

Why can't Irish be recognised alongside Ulster Scots, even if you refuse to accept Ulster Scots as a language?

Do a Dev, cross your fingers about the bits you don't like and be pragmatic

Irishweather

I am a Unionist and I don't think Ulster Scots should be bolstered up with any legislation. It is not a language.

tomwaterford

Irishweather wrote: »

Religion, way of Life, attitudes, historical perspective.

Religion isn't a culture (and there fcuk all difference only singing at the masses tbh) and irrelevant among anyone under 30

Way of life .....some expansion again is required here as to what differences do you see culturally here???


Historical perspective isn't a culture either,history is simple facts are X

,I fail to see how there can be perspective/different views anywhere in the world on history only shysters making money by twisting facts







Are you sure your not grasping at straws

Irishweather

If there is no cultural differences at all, then explain why Northern Ireland exists as a jurisdiction?

tomwaterford

Irishweather wrote: »

If there is no cultural differences at all, then explain why Northern Ireland exists as a jurisdiction?

Because at time of Irish independence northern Ireland accounted for circa 45% of irish economic output and it's was worth Britain's while to hold onto it



Pure and utterly it's simply that....money talks.....don't ever fool yourself into thinking English care about music/culture (anything) above money

tomwaterford

Btw I'm awaiting further explanation of the gem that was difference s in way of life

Irishweather

tomwaterford wrote: »

Because at time of Irish independence northern Ireland accounted for circa 45% of irish economic output and it's was worth Britain's while to hold onto it



Pure and utterly it's simply that....money talks.....don't ever fool yourself into thinking English care about music/culture (anything) above money

I go to university in England, i'm no fool.

FrancieBrady

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why can't Irish be recognised alongside Ulster Scots, even if you refuse to accept Ulster Scots as a language?

Do a Dev, cross your fingers about the bits you don't like and be pragmatic

Because it has been invented/thrown in there to demean, once again, the Irish language. Look at what Paisley's objections were in 2007, not a mention of U-S.

The Irish people have had enough of that. The time has come, are unionists going meet their obligations and allow full equality and normalisation or not.

Junkyard Tom

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?

Yes.

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.

Oh for goodness sake not this again. I don't remember seeing any white flags being waved, mass arrests and so on, quite the opposite. Also, the fact that a former PIRA commander was deputy first Minister for most of the last couple of decades might have passed you by.

LeinsterDub

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because it has been invented/thrown in there to demean, once again, the Irish language. Look at what Paisley's objections were in 2007, not a mention of U-S.

The Irish people have had enough of that. The time has come, are unionists going meet their obligations and allow full equality and normalisation or not.

I don't understand how accepting something is or is not a language impacts the status of Irish.

FrancieBrady

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I don't understand how accepting something is or is not a language impacts the status of Irish.

What you are asking Irish people to do is once again accept a dilution of their request.

It is a principle, 'that unionists dictate what they get' is what is at stake.

Unionism has invented the significance of Ulster Scots to give respectability to the cultural bigotry expressed by Ian Paisley in 2007.
Because they know that that position is untenable so have invented the notion that Ulster Scots is on a par.
It is no suprise that some here have swallowed that position as being credible.

You only need to open your eyes and see how Irish is disparaged at executive level and below to see the real Unionist attitude to it.