Stormont power sharing talks

Red_Wake

Lads, if Irish is so important to republicanism, why could neither Gerry Adams nor Martin McGuinness speak it?

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The Polish thing is a red herring. Irish is the native langauge that predated the langauge of the invader/coloniser. If the Polish spoke Russian and were seeking a Polish Language act, in thier homeland, as recognition of the historic nature of their native langauge it would be comparable.

Nobody today can speak Ogham, the pre-Celtic language of Ireland that was replaced by the invading/migrating Celts. If you truly believe the nonsense about the invader/coloniser, then you should be rejecting both Irish and English.

The reality today is that you look at modern Irish culture and you see the predominant influence of the English language with a nod to the Irish language. The predominant Irish authors write in English and the predominant
Irish musicians sing in English (even the Wolfe Tones!!!). Yes, the Irish language has its place in modern Irish culture but it is a small place.

FrancieBrady

Red_Wake wrote: »

Lads, if Irish is so important to republicanism, why could neither Gerry Adams nor Martin McGuinness speak it?

It isn't that it is only important to republicanism, it is important to those who identify as Irish.

I don't speak it but I can see the absolute importance of it culturally and I agree with Friel that a nation without it's own language is only half a nation.

We, in the south are beginning to win back the language from the state with grass roots growing of it. (see Gael Scoilenna etc)
Those identifying as Irish in northern Ireland enshrined the need for parity of esteem in the GFA, and agreed the mechanics of an act at St Andrew's.

Adams seems to do his best to include the language in his public statements and learning it seemed to be impossible for McGuinness as it was for me. Doesn't lessen seeing it as important.

Professor Moriarty

Red_Wake wrote: »

Lads, if Irish is so important to republicanism, why could neither Gerry Adams nor Martin McGuinness speak it?

Adams has relatively good Irish.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody today can speak Ogham, the pre-Celtic language of Ireland that was replaced by the invading/migrating Celts. If you truly believe the nonsense about the invader/coloniser, then you should be rejecting both Irish and English.

The reality today is that you look at modern Irish culture and you see the predominant influence of the English language with a nod to the Irish language. The predominant Irish authors write in English and the predominant
Irish musicians sing in English (even the Wolfe Tones!!!). Yes, the Irish language has its place in modern Irish culture but it is a small place.

This was important enough to be agreed at St Andrew's, as equally important as reform of and recognition of the police force was.

The issue here is not what you think about Irish but what do you think of the DUP cherrypicking one democratically agreed clause out of an agreement and blocking it's progress. Is that RIGHT or WRONG in the opinion of a 'constitutional' anything?

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

This is the one thing you can´t get out of their heads and hearts of course. It is like some elementary credential in their mindset, collectively applying for many of the Prods. I have given up to debate about this matter with "Ulstermen" as they are too deep rooted in this mentality. When looking at the other community in NI, they might have more reasons to complain for what the minority with the siege complex has done to them, but one can see by many of the CNRs, that they are more progressive and may have overcome some injustice from the past, but that doesn´t means that they have forgotten anything at all. Just they don´t stick to this siege mentatily. That is some aspect which distinguishes those two communities.

I´ve come across various NI Posters who regret it that they couldn´t learn Irish in School cos it was never on the curriculum and everybody knows why. Needless to say that they are of Republican background. On the other Hand, I have come across various posters from the Republic of Ireland who often stated that they have no interest in Irish at all and that they had to learn it in School because it was on the curriculum but don´t use it in their daily life anyway. Some of them were even a bit hostile towards TG4 for which I never had any understanding anyway. I think that it is good that the Irish State is maintaining the teaching of Irish and thus a part of Irish culture which is at the core of the whole Islands history. But let´s be honest, people use that language they are used to it in their daily life.

I´m currently reading the book "Ireland´s Invasion of the World, The Irish diaspora in a nutshell " by Miki Garcia. An interesting reading and although there are passages one knows anyway when one is familiar with Irish history, it was really interesting to learn how many words used in the English language originate and derive from the Irish language. He listed some of them, making a couple of lines in that book.

Unionist leader after leader has at times fed that siege mentality.

And they should be ashamed of it.
The 'Never Never Never' culture is designed to keep unionists living in fear...of 'encroachment by Catholics' (that is the definition of sectarian politics) when it only progressing society back to normality.
That is why I say that time and again their position is untenable and it becomes 'Never, Never, Never...oh well, maybe'.

It is little wonder that no-one on here will engage in a list of these Never Never Never stances to show who is really blocking progress in northern Ireland.

When a 'constitutional nationalist' gets hoodwinked into thinking one side is as bad as the other and has never called out the unionist side on it's own for dragging it's feet, then you can see how effective this strategy is.

From my observations, it´s both sides who like to be engaged in pulling the led of one another. I´m not saying that I disagree with you, on the contrary, your post is well put and I´m all with you. From looking at both sides as an outsider, it appears that they are both caught in a ever running circle and somehow, neither side looks capable to exit the game and end it. Hard to tell who´s driving whom but obviously, neither side will give in. That is what makes it really look silly and so backwards as well as outdated.

I agree with that the fear is more on the PUL´s side and this is some sort of their heritage, steming from the early days of the Plantation and being handed down from one generation to the next for centuries right to this very day. It clearly also indicates that this fear doesn´t come from nothing and proves that the Plantation itself was plain injustice and land robbery by the colonial power and the colonists. Seeing it from that angle, the fear has a driving force behind it which is to another part the knowledge that all this was injustice from the very start, even if they always pretend that they don´t care and that they were right in all what they have done. In fact it is in strong contrast to all those Christian beliefs they hold so high up which makes it a hypocrisy.

There is much to it in Irish history that predates the Plantation and how previous immigrants integrated into the Irish Society without causing such injustice as it started with the Plantation. Oliver Cromwell, the most cursed Englishman in Ireland, planted the Troubles when he sent the Protestants to Ireland in order to suppress and force the Irish into submission to Protestant rule over them. I think that the character of Oliver Cromwell is well known enough to spare me further writings. Just to Point at his fierceness and his radicalism from which nothing good ever came for Ireland. I say that he made things much worse and I am not only thinking at the slaughter he brought upon Ireland, I Focus on the planting of the Trouble that grew from this Plantation period and which lasts to this day. It has seen some improvements since the GFA was signed, but it is really apparent that some backlashes and fall backs are often caused by the representatives of the DUP. Some provocations from SF occured as well, but one shouldn´t forget that despite the power-sharing in NI govt, the Protestants are still a minority in NI and in our days it has more to do with the selfdetermined perception and allegiance on their side as being more British than anything else. Their perception is still like in the old days, they see themselves as the "bulwark of British rule in NI", in at least a similar way like their forebears saw themselves as the representatives and preservation force of English and later British rule in Ireland. Taking every effort to be more British than the British in GB themselves which is just another display of exaggeration in nationalism. A nationalism that only defines itself in the term British, despising the English despite the fact that this in itself bears the pure sign of contradiction. Then there are the Ulster-Scots who in distinction to the other Unionists cling on to their Scottish heritage, but nevertheless are as much loyalistic than their other brethren of English descendancy.

I was more talking about the diehard Unionists and Loyalists. There are also the more moderate and those among them who are inclined to take a more pragmatic approach to the prospect of a UI. But their numbers seem to be varying and trust towards the other community, which is essential for any progress in NI, is a very sensitive matter up there. I have had my debates with such people as well. Their "pragmatic" opinion often results in them saying that they could imagine living in a UI if SF would not rule it. As soon and as much as there is a rise in support of SF to be observed, they become restrained to the whole idea. That tells something about their fear, may it be rational or not, but it is something that sits deep down in the collective subconscious. The fear of retaliation for past injustice and murder. More or less, this is always present and it also still Plays some part in power sharing in NI.

Irishweather

Thomas__ wrote: »

Quite right and it´s really curious that the English managed to suppress the Irish language as well as the Scottish Gaelic. In some other colonies, they also forced English on the natives but couldn´t succeed to root it out in their minds and the use of the language. So, many of the former colonies of the BE are bilingual, which bears some advantages.

I have little to nearly very less knowledge of the Irish language, always it is the problem to know how written words are pronounced but when I listen to it, it is clear to me, from the sound of it that this is the real native language of the Irish. That´s because what one perceives as an accent in English it´s the native one that fits Irish. It´s similar to the Scots. Very distinguished from all the accents by native English speakers in England.

Why is the Northern Irish accent so different, then?

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody today can speak Ogham, the pre-Celtic language of Ireland that was replaced by the invading/migrating Celts. If you truly believe the nonsense about the invader/coloniser, then you should be rejecting both Irish and English.

The reality today is that you look at modern Irish culture and you see the predominant influence of the English language with a nod to the Irish language. The predominant Irish authors write in English and the predominant  
Irish musicians sing in English (even the Wolfe Tones!!!). Yes, the Irish language has its place in modern Irish culture but it is a small place.

This was important enough to be agreed at St Andrew's, as equally important as reform of and recognition of the police force was.

The issue here is not what you think about Irish but what do you think of the DUP cherrypicking one democratically agreed clause out of an agreement and blocking it's progress. Is that RIGHT or WRONG in the opinion of a 'constitutional' anything?

For my part, I can clearly state that the refusal on the DUP´s side is utterly wrong. They have painted the Irish language in their perception as something that is strong related with SF and the IRA and forgot that many of their forebears were fluent Irish speakers themselves. Dragging language and culture into political games is a wrong doing per se.

Irishweather

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

To paraphrase Paisley, it is a Protestant organisation for a Protestant people.

Their latest RIP remarks are exclusionary to certain groups of Protestants. Not very inclusive.

I suspect they are coming from the Presbyterian/Reformed mindset. I wonder how the Anglican members feel.

Although having visited an Anglican Church in England and a COI here in Northern Ireland, they both seemed vastly different, so maybe the COI does this in NI too.

Thomas__

Irishweather wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

Quite right and it´s really curious that the English managed to suppress the Irish language as well as the Scottish Gaelic. In some other colonies, they also forced English on the natives but couldn´t succeed to root it out in their minds and the use of the language. So, many of the former colonies of the BE are bilingual, which bears some advantages.

I have little to nearly very less knowledge of the Irish language, always it is the problem to know how written words are pronounced but when I listen to it, it is clear to me, from the sound of it that this is the real native language of the Irish. That´s because what one perceives as an accent in English it´s the native one that fits Irish. It´s similar to the Scots. Very distinguished from all the accents by native English speakers in England.

Why is the Northern Irish accent so different, then?

Well, you should know it yourself, shouldn´t you? I´m not the one to explain that to you, as you´re by appearence an Ulsterman yourself. No offence intended, but one has to listen carefully to distinguish between someone from NI and someone from Scotland cos sometimes, they sound very similar.

There is just one thing which I still find somehow curious and it is that I wonder what the Ulster-Scots have done to get that much ridicule because of their way to talk and the language they speak which is imo more that comparable to a dialect than just an accent. It´s one Thing to pull someones leg for being a Unionist or Loyalist, cos that has some political meaning, but to have a go at one for his accent or dialect and make it ridiculous is a tad beyond my approval.

Chips Lovell

Can I remind everyone that the topic of this thread is the current Stormont negotiation. Stick to the topic at hand. And please bear in mind the charter:

High standards of debate and quality posts / threads are required. Repeated one liner, low quality style posts will result in a ban. Threads (and posts) that are not based on serious and legitimate Political discussion will be deleted without warning. For the lighter side of Politics we have the Politics Cafere.

If you can't have proper discussion without resorting to the usual petty bickering that characterises so many Northern Ireland threads, expect to be banned from the discussion.

Thanks

Thomas__

Red_Wake wrote: »

Lads, if Irish is so important to republicanism, why could neither Gerry Adams nor Martin McGuinness speak it?

I´d like to answer your question with a counter question which is, "why couldn´t both of them not learn it during their schooldays in school?" As I take it that you know the answer to that question already, it will answer your own one as well.

There are different ways to learn a language but there is one thing which is very important which is, one has to use it in writing and talking.

Red_Wake

Thomas__ wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Lads, if Irish is so important to republicanism, why could neither Gerry Adams nor Martin McGuinness speak it?

I´d like to answer your question with a counter question which is, "why couldn´t both of them not learn it during their schooldays in school?" As I take it that you know the answer to that question already, it will answer your own one as well.

There are different ways to learn a language but there is one thing which is very important which is, one has to use it in writing and talking.

My father learned Irish at night classes in his 50s[from nothing I believe], Leo Varadkar has been learning Irish relatively recently so he can handle any questions in irish, and participate in irish language debates, which Gerry Adams has had to pull out of due to his poor quality of irish.

Both adult learners, who didn't let any lack of support for the irish language stop them. Why couldn't Gerry and Martin take it upon themselves to become as fluent as Leo[who's often insinuated to be a "West Brit" or "Tory boy"].

To me, it beggars belief that anyone could claim that disrespecting the irish language is offensive to them, when they don't even care enough about it to learn it themselves.

Thomas__

Red_Wake wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Lads, if Irish is so important to republicanism, why could neither Gerry Adams nor Martin McGuinness speak it?

I´d like to answer your question with a counter question which is, "why couldn´t both of them not learn it during their schooldays in school?" As I take it that you know the answer to that question already, it will answer your own one as well.

There are different ways to learn a language but there is one thing which is very important which is, one has to use it in writing and talking.

My father learned Irish at night classes in his 50s[from nothing I believe], Leo Varadkar has been learning Irish relatively recently so he can handle any questions in irish, and participate in irish language debates, which Gerry Adams has had to pull out of due to his poor quality of irish.

Both adult learners, who didn't let any lack of support for the irish language stop them. Why couldn't Gerry and Martin take it upon themselves to become as fluent as Leo[who's often insinuated to be a "West Brit" or "Tory boy"].

To me, it beggars belief that anyone could claim that disrespecting the irish language is offensive to them, when they don't even care enough about it to learn it themselves.

Fair point, just that I presume that Mr Varadcar didn´t grow up during the Troubles in NI. I think that the latter aspect bears some reason.

Professor Moriarty

Red_Wake wrote: »

My father learned Irish at night classes in his 50s[from nothing I believe], Leo Varadkar has been learning Irish relatively recently so he can handle any questions in irish, and participate in irish language debates, which Gerry Adams has had to pull out of due to his poor quality of irish.

Both adult learners, who didn't let any lack of support for the irish language stop them. Why couldn't Gerry and Martin take it upon themselves to become as fluent as Leo[who's often insinuated to be a "West Brit" or "Tory boy"].

To me, it beggars belief that anyone could claim that disrespecting the irish language is offensive to them, when they don't even care enough about it to learn it themselves.

Varadkar was educated in Ireland and would have learned Irish as a core subject. He would be brushing up on an existing grasp of the language.

Red_Wake

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

My father learned Irish at night classes in his 50s[from nothing I believe], Leo Varadkar has been learning Irish relatively recently so he can handle any questions in irish, and participate in irish language debates, which Gerry Adams has had to pull out of due to his poor quality of irish.

Both adult learners, who didn't let any lack of support for the irish language stop them. Why couldn't Gerry and Martin take it upon themselves to become as fluent as Leo[who's often insinuated to be a "West Brit" or "Tory boy"].

To me, it beggars belief that anyone could claim that disrespecting the irish language is offensive to them, when they don't even care enough about it to learn it themselves.

Varadkar was educated in Ireland and would have learned Irish as a core subject. He would be brushing up on an existing grasp of the language.

Irish, as a taught subject in secondary school, is atrocious. I honestly feel if it was taught as a foreign language[similiar to how french is taught], it would be both more enjoyable, and the students would come out with a better standard of Irish.

The Irish education won't make you a gaeilgeoir, so should not be counted as an advantage for explaining how two adults have such different standards of Irish. When it comes down to it, Leo made the effort to learn the language[admittedly there was a practical element of it for him with the irish language debates], and the two lads didn't.

tomwaterford

Red_Wake wrote: »

Irish, as a taught subject in secondary school, is atrocious. I honestly feel if it was taught as a foreign language[similiar to how french is taught], it would be both more enjoyable, and the students would come out with a better standard of Irish.

The Irish education won't make you a gaeilgeoir, so should not be counted as an advantage for explaining how two adults have such different standards of Irish. When it comes down to it, Leo made the effort to learn the language[admittedly there was a practical element of it for him with the irish language debates], and the two lads didn't.

Your argument amounts to,there shouldn't be an Irish language act because two people,one of whom is dead don't speak it to an acceptable level for you??


Or what exactly is the exact point your attempting to put across



(If twas me,I'd gladly make all tds and civil servants compulsory learn Irish,)

Thomas__

Red_Wake wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

My father learned Irish at night classes in his 50s[from nothing I believe], Leo Varadkar has been learning Irish relatively recently so he can handle any questions in irish, and participate in irish language debates, which Gerry Adams has had to pull out of due to his poor quality of irish.

Both adult learners, who didn't let any lack of support for the irish language stop them. Why couldn't Gerry and Martin take it upon themselves to become as fluent as Leo[who's often insinuated to be a "West Brit" or "Tory boy"].

To me, it beggars belief that anyone could claim that disrespecting the irish language is offensive to them, when they don't even care enough about it to learn it themselves.

Varadkar was educated in Ireland and would have learned Irish as a core subject. He would be brushing up on an existing grasp of the language.

Irish, as a taught subject in secondary school, is atrocious. I honestly feel if it was taught as a foreign language[similiar to how french is taught], it would be both more enjoyable, and the students would come out with a better standard of Irish.

The Irish education won't make you a gaeilgeoir, so should not be counted as an advantage for explaining how two adults have such different standards of Irish. When it comes down to it, Leo made the effort to learn the language[admittedly there was a practical element of it for him with the irish language debates], and the two lads didn't.

I don´t think that your assesment reflects that good on the times and circumstances in NI in the years from 1968 to 1998. I rather think that people of the CNR community had other things to worry about than to learn Irish by whaterever way available to them.

When it comes about the different ways of learning the Irish language, I think back to the times in which the so called "Gaelic Revival" took place and how people living in Ireland managed to learn it then, before P. Pearse opened his own school for Irish language. I think that I recall it well when saying that there was some big deal of autodidactic efforts and also privat teaching in Gaelic associations part and parcel of the whole undertaking. That´s for those who didn´t live in the Gaeltacht with native Irish Speakers around.

I am no Irish person myself, but I have some Irish history DVDs in which interviews and enactment scenes have parts which are spoken in Irish, with English subs (otherwise I wouldn´t understand what they´re talking about at all). I also have an Irish-English dictionary to look up words from time to time which interest me and I like to know what their meaning is in English. That´s not enough to learn the language at all, but enough to get at least a gist of it and by the way learning some words and how to pronounce them along the way. When I would take on learning Irish seriously, I would have to attend lessons with all the paperwork to practice writing and memorising the words and how they´re written. But I also would have to practice the pronounciation as well. Then comes the point of considering where to use it? Outside of the Gaeltacht regions, I rarely hear people talking in Irish and that is some point, the many speak English and I suppose because that is the language they use in their daily life and businesses.
It´s what I often noticed, Irish people saying that they have no use for Irish in their daily life and prefer English to Irish. Some even complained about to had to learn it in School. For others it is clearly a matter of their political standing as true Republicans with a strong link to the Gaelic hertiage of Ireland. I think that this is some aspect which often brings some controversial debates about the learning of Irish, to make it a political matter.

Thomas__

tomwaterford wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Irish, as a taught subject in secondary school, is atrocious. I honestly feel if it was taught as a foreign language[similiar to how french is taught], it would be both more enjoyable, and the students would come out with a better standard of Irish.

The Irish education won't make you a gaeilgeoir, so should not be counted as an advantage for explaining how two adults have such different standards of Irish. When it comes down to it, Leo made the effort to learn the language[admittedly there was a practical element of it for him with the irish language debates], and the two lads didn't.

Your argument amounts to,there shouldn't be an Irish language act because two people,one of whom is dead don't speak it to an acceptable level for you??


Or what exactly is the exact point your attempting to put across



(If twas me,I'd gladly make all tds and civil servants compulsory learn Irish,)

That´s already the case, when you apply for a job in the civil service, you have to know Irish. But for TDs, it won´t work unless the majority of the TDs would start to debate in Irish only. I can´t imagine this would ever happen.

tomwaterford

Thomas__ wrote: »

That´s already the case, when you apply for a job in the civil service, you have to know Irish. But for TDs, it won´t work unless the majority of the TDs would start to debate in Irish only. I can´t imagine this would ever happen.

Tbf I think you're getting paid by the state, it's not unreasonable to expect you to learn irish

Red_Wake

tomwaterford wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Irish, as a taught subject in secondary school, is atrocious. I honestly feel if it was taught as a foreign language[similiar to how french is taught], it would be both more enjoyable, and the students would come out with a better standard of Irish.

The Irish education won't make you a gaeilgeoir, so should not be counted as an advantage for explaining how two adults have such different standards of Irish. When it comes down to it, Leo made the effort to learn the language[admittedly there was a practical element of it for him with the irish language debates], and the two lads didn't.

Your argument amounts to,there shouldn't be an Irish language act because two people,one of whom is dead don't speak it to an acceptable level for you??


Or what exactly is the exact point your attempting to put across



(If twas me,I'd gladly make all tds and civil servants compulsory learn Irish,)

My point is, claiming the irish language is a barrier to forming a government rings hollow when the individual in question won't even learn it themselves.

tomwaterford

Red_Wake wrote: »

My point is, claiming the irish language is a barrier to forming a government rings hollow when the individual in question won't even learn it themselves.

I think your equating learning Irish language and having an Irish language act

(Which the dup agreed to,they done everything to block)


It's just a symptom of the broader contempt Irish culture and nationlism is held with by the dup..,...signed up to an agreement añd proceed to play the rules to block/undermine the very spirit of that agreement



For even a simplistic view,when after the euros someone put forward a motion to coñgratulate both Ireland and the north on their performances

Nothing too unreasonable, they point blank refused unless England were included (who even by their standards had a woeful tournament)..,..this is mindset your up againest

FrancieBrady

Red_Wake wrote: »

My point is, claiming the irish language is a barrier to forming a government rings hollow when the individual in question won't even learn it themselves.

Why?

Women's rights could be a barrier, would the person have to be a woman to object?

The issue here is not the merits or demerits of Irish, but the continued blocking of agreed clauses in an agreement the DUP were party to.
That they have chosen to cherrypick the bits they don't like since the GFA has now come to a head after years of frustration.

Are they correct to do this ( continually row back on agreed provisions and the availability of other rights that everyone 'normally' has on these islands)in your opinion?

*I am not interested in your opinion of Irish btw.

Thomas__

tomwaterford wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

That´s already the case, when you apply for a job in the civil service, you have to know Irish. But for TDs, it won´t work unless the majority of the TDs would start to debate in Irish only. I can´t imagine this would ever happen.

Tbf I think you're getting paid by the state, it's not unreasonable to expect you to learn irish

Naturally, one who works for the Irish State is required to have Irish in his professional credentials.

Chips Lovell

Thomas__ wrote: »

That´s already the case, when you apply for a job in the civil service, you have to know Irish.

That's no longer the case. If I recall correctly, it was abolished in 1975 with the exception of jobs that needed Irish speakers. I think they still give bonus points for knowledge of Irish though.

Thomas__

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

That´s already the case, when you apply for a job in the civil service, you have to know Irish.

That's no longer the case. If I recall correctly, it was abolished in 1975 with the exception of jobs that needed Irish speakers. I think they still give bonus points for knowledge of Irish though.

I didn´t know that. In regards of the Irish Constitution, it´d be natural to require knowledge in Irish language from applicants for becoming a civil servant.

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

My point is, claiming the irish language is a barrier to forming a government rings hollow when the individual in question won't even learn it themselves.

Why?

Women's rights could be a barrier, would the person have to be a woman to object?

The issue here is not the merits or demerits of Irish, but the continued blocking of agreed clauses in an agreement the DUP were party to.
That they have chosen to cherrypick the bits they don't like since the GFA has now come to a head after years of frustration.

Are they correct to do this  ( continually row back on agreed provisions and the availability of other rights that everyone 'normally' has on these islands)in your opinion?

*I am not interested in your opinion of Irish btw.

Sums it up very well, the way the DUP is delivering her part in the power sharing of the NI govt. In many ways, I see the DUP as being "the" blocking part(y) in many aspects which concerns political and societal progress in NI. Needless to mention the topic of a UI, which is "by nature" a non-starter to them (to put it mildly). By the way, when one thinks about this imaginary UI, Irish would be on the Curriculum on the whole Island, and therefore in NI as well, whether the DUP would like it or not. I think that they know that perfectly well which might be one of the many reasons why they are against a UI (with remaining British is of course at the top of all).

Chips Lovell

Thomas__ wrote: »

I didn´t know that. In regards of the Irish Constitution, it´d be natural to require knowledge in Irish language from applicants for becoming a civil servant.

I don't think that rule has ever been challenged. Would make an interesting case if it was.

blanch152

Thomas__ wrote: »

Sums it up very well, the way the DUP is delivering her part in the power sharing of the NI govt. In many ways, I see the DUP as being "the" blocking part(y) in many aspects which concerns political and societal progress in NI. Needless to mention the topic of a UI, which is "by nature" a non-starter to them (to put it mildly). By the way, when one thinks about this imaginary UI, Irish would be on the Curriculum on the whole Island, and therefore in NI as well, whether the DUP would like it or not. I think that they know that perfectly well which might be one of the many reasons why they are against a UI (with remaining British is of course at the top of all).

In a united Ireland, compulsory Irish for the Leaving Certificate would have to go, entry requirements for a second language in college would also have to go, preferential treatment for Irish in the civil service would also have to go.

These are the types of things that would inevitably be required in order to reassure Unionists about their future. It is ironic that uniting the island would inevitably lead to further Anglisation.

blanch152

Thomas__ wrote: »

That´s already the case, when you apply for a job in the civil service, you have to know Irish. But for TDs, it won´t work unless the majority of the TDs would start to debate in Irish only. I can´t imagine this would ever happen.

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf I think you're getting paid by the state, it's not unreasonable to expect you to learn irish

In nearly 20 years as a civil and public servant before I left, I never used a word of Irish.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

In a united Ireland, compulsory Irish for the Leaving Certificate would have to go, entry requirements for a second language in college would also have to go, preferential treatment for Irish in the civil service would also have to go.

These are the types of things that would inevitably be required in order to reassure Unionists about their future. It is ironic that uniting the island would inevitably lead to further Anglisation.

Yes, there would have to be legislation and acts that ensure parity of esteem and that respect identity. No big deal.

Red_Wake

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

In a united Ireland, compulsory Irish for the Leaving Certificate would have to go, entry requirements for a second language in college would also have to go, preferential treatment for Irish in the civil service would also have to go.

These are the types of things that would inevitably be required in order to reassure Unionists about their future. It is ironic that uniting the island would inevitably lead to further Anglisation.

Yes, there would have to be legislation and acts that ensure parity of esteem and that respect identity. No big deal.

Even if those acts involve Ulster Scots?

Professor Moriarty

Red_Wake wrote: »

Even if those acts involve Ulster Scots?

Yes. Ulster Scots should be afforded the same esteem as Shelta. Even if Shelta is more distinct and more widely spoken than Ulster Scots.

FrancieBrady

Red_Wake wrote: »

Even if those acts involve Ulster Scots?

If that is what has been agreed then - yes.


Blocking agreements (setting up roadblocks like the 'Ulster Scots' one) is the core reason as to why the Stormont executive has collapsed.

Red_Wake

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Even if those acts involve Ulster Scots?

Yes. Ulster Scots should be afforded the same esteem as Shelta. Even if Shelta is more distinct and more widely spoken than Ulster Scots.

But not Irish I assume, seeing as you're not using it in your example?

Professor Moriarty

Red_Wake wrote: »

But not Irish I assume, seeing as you're not using it in your example?

Oh no. Irish is an ancient and distinct language. Shelta and Ulster Scots are dialects though Shelta would have more claims to being a language.

A Little Pony

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

You see Irish isn't sectarian. It was spoken by both sides a century ago. It would be a great way to build bridges across communities.

In fact,  many of the stalwarts of the Gaelic Revival and other Irish cultural revivals were wealthy Protestants.

But you can't compare maintaining and promoting one of Europe's most ancient languages with aggressive bigotry and sectarianism. Or a dialect. To do so insults  your neighbour and simply exposes frightened and biased thinking. The rest of the world is casting Unionism adrift. The Tory/DUP temporary little arrangement will be dropped soon As the UK sunders further, English/Scottish/Welsh  politicians will do what is best for their electorate.

Unionists who think that England will care about them are deluded. For its own sake, Unionism should think about who will be its friend in the future. Protestant ascendancy is over. Paranoid sulking and sectarianism won't bring it back. It's time to grow up.

So much paranoia in this post, as if the world gives a sh*t about this part of the world or Unionism or takes any notice of the politics of NI at all. Don't be so naive or disingenuous to think otherwise.

Professor Moriarty

A Little Pony wrote: »

So much paranoia in this post, as if the world gives a sh*t about this part of the world or Unionism or takes any notice of the politics of NI at all. Don't be so naive or disingenuous to think otherwise.

Exactly my point. Once the Tories ditch Unionism, as they will, Unionists will find themselves friendless. The rest of the world doesn't understand Unionism and doesn't care.

A Little Pony

The last number of pages reading back on them is really funny and full of so much fear for 'The Prod'. From where I live I don't recognize these stereotypes of Ulster Unionists. It really is bizarre. Anyone actually from NI on here?

A Little Pony

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

So much paranoia in this post, as if the world gives a sh*t about this part of the world or Unionism or takes any notice of the politics of NI at all. Don't be so naive or disingenuous to think otherwise.

Exactly my point. Once the Tories ditch Unionism, as they will, Unionists will find themselves friendless. The rest of the world doesn't understand Unionism and doesn't care.

The Tories and Unionism have never really been friends, historically you will see that going back to Carson. And what you say has absolutely no relevance on anything anyway because Labour has worked in Parliament on votes with Unionist politicians.

Professor Moriarty

A Little Pony wrote: »

The last number of pages reading back on them is really funny and full of so much fear for 'The Prod'. From where I live I don't recognize these stereotypes of Ulster Unionists. It really is bizarre. Anyone actually from NI on here?

I don't think it's fear. More frustration than anything else.

Junkyard Tom

A Little Pony wrote: »

so much fear for 'The Prod'.

Where?

There aren't too many God-fearing church-goers in the north regardless of what religion they were raised in.

Professor Moriarty

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Tories and Unionism have never really been friends, historically you will see that going back to Carson. And what you say has absolutely no relevance on anything anyway because Labour has worked in Parliament on votes with Unionist politicians.

Hmmm. So the Tories should change their name from the Conservative and Unionist Party? Corbyn is the current leader of the Labour party. What do you think his opinion of Unionism is?

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

The last number of pages reading back on them is really funny and full of so much fear for 'The Prod'. From where I live I don't recognize these stereotypes of Ulster Unionists. It really is bizarre. Anyone actually from NI on here?

Have the DUP been solely responsible for blocking legislation that would ensure cultural and social rights that are enjoyed by every other citizen of these islands?

The answer to that (the only answer) tells us all we need to know.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The last number of pages reading back on them is really funny and full of so much fear for 'The Prod'. From where I live I don't recognize these stereotypes of Ulster Unionists. It really is bizarre. Anyone actually from NI on here?

Have the DUP been solely responsible for blocking legislation that would ensure cultural and social rights that are enjoyed by every other citizen of these islands?

The answer to that (the only answer) tells us all we need to know.

No because the DUP want an Ulster Scots act alongside an Irish language act. It's about each side getting something. Which is why the executive will not be back any time soon if ever again.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

No because the DUP want an Ulster Scots act alongside an Irish language act. It's about each side getting something. Which is why the executive will not be back any time soon if ever again.

Let's ask the question again:

Have the DUP been solely responsible for blocking legislation that would ensure cultural and social rights that are enjoyed by every other citizen of these islands?

Professor Moriarty

A Little Pony wrote: »

No because the DUP want an Ulster Scots act alongside an Irish language act. It's about each side getting something. Which is why the executive will not be back any time soon if ever again.

There's the problem in a nutshell. Rather than acquiesce in the spirit of reconciliation, people disingenuously equate Irish and Ulster Scots. It's such a petty attitude to take.

steddyeddy

A Little Pony wrote: »

The last number of pages reading back on them is really funny and full of so much fear for 'The Prod'. From where I live I don't recognize these stereotypes of Ulster Unionists. It really is bizarre. Anyone actually from NI on here?

Ulster unionists are not representative of prods. They make up the vast vast minority.

blanch152

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There's the problem in a nutshell. Rather than acquiesce in the spirit of reconciliation, people disingenuously equate Irish and Ulster Scots. It's such a petty attitude to take.

It could equally be argued that the refusal to entertain a Minority Languages Act is petty.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It could equally be argued that the refusal to entertain a Minority Languages Act is petty.

A Language Act is already agreed. The executive has collapsed because a roadblock was placed in front of that becoming legislation and many other roadblocks in front of other legislation too.

Nobody else cherrypicked what they didn't like out of agreements including the GFA.
I posted a year or more ago about this potentially happening (the GFA stagnating) and it has happened. It has been coming a long time.

What solution does a 'constitutional nationalist' have that doesn't involve one side acquiescing again? Serious question.