Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

We used to have that blind spot on loyalist marches but we wised up.

False equivalence. You can't compare a wind-up-the-taigs Protestant/Unionist 'culture' with the historic native language of Ireland.

Oh and ye didn't 'wise up' - ye were prevented from marching where you weren't wanted.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Guys you can jump up and down all you like in this. Every unionist party wee and big are public ally opposed to ILA. That’s partly because they know that it would be disastrous at the polls to support ILA. You are claiming lots of unionists (the non belligerent type) are in favour of ILA. Could we have some links please showing mainstream unionist support

I actually think that the DUP took a lead on this and other unionist parties have to follow to compete with them. The Alliance Party is deemed to be a unionist party (and they do get a big disaffected Unionist vote), so I don't think its fair to say that all unionism (as opposed to DUP/TUV) are against an Irish Language Act.


Can you explain to me what your objection is to bilingual signage. From what you have been claiming, its being forced on communities when it isn't. How do you explain the requirement for a 2/3 majority. Are loyalist votes worth two of nationalist votes?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

So maybe explain why every unionist politician, moderate or extreme, in Fermanagh Tyrone or Derry are opposed to ILA and Irish roadsigns.
You guys have a major blind spot on this one. We used to have that blind spot on loyalist marches but we wised up.
Time for you guys to catch up.

Why would I have to explain?

I never said they were not opposed. What I said was they oppose but accept that they cannot get their way and live with like moderate democrats.

What wising up? Didnt youse try to use your influence when you had the balance of power to get marching where you were not wanted

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Guys you can jump up and down all you like in this. Every unionist party wee and big are public ally opposed to ILA. That’s partly because they know that it would be disastrous at the polls to support ILA. You are claiming lots of unionists (the non belligerent type) are in favour of ILA. Could we have some links please showing mainstream unionist support

Are you just going to skim past your blatant misrepresentation of the Alliance position on the language, Downcow?

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Guys you can jump up and down all you like in this. Every unionist party wee and big are public ally opposed to ILA. That’s partly because they know that it would be disastrous at the polls to support ILA. You are claiming lots of unionists (the non belligerent type) are in favour of ILA. Could we have some links please showing mainstream unionist support

Any chance you can answer the questions that are repeatedly put to you? Thank you.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Are you just going to skim past your blatant misrepresentation of the Alliance position on the language, Downcow?

Fionn I will check and if you are correct I’ll acknowledge it. I was going by newspaper reports which said eg this, which appears in contradiction to what you are saying.
“ The latest proposals for dual Irish and English language street signs in Belfast were voted down this week as the leader of the supposedly cross-community Alliance Party claimed that the sight of the Irish language in public is “contentious”.”

Did she describe the sight of the Irish language in public is “contentious” or is this just lies?

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

I actually think that the DUP took a lead on this and other unionist parties have to follow to compete with them. The Alliance Party is deemed to be a unionist party (and they do get a big disaffected Unionist vote), so I don't think its fair to say that all unionism (as opposed to DUP/TUV) are against an Irish Language Act.


Can you explain to me what your objection is to bilingual signage. From what you have been claiming, its being forced on communities when it isn't. How do you explain the requirement for a 2/3 majority. Are loyalist votes worth two of nationalist votes?

Jm08. Do you want a serious discussion about this or are you just going to ignore any evidence I present.

I can evidence a a neighbouring hamlet to me which is 90+% unionist which has a big sign erected in its midst in dual language. The locals continually paint it out and the Council continually replace it.

Would you accept (If I evidence this) that this would disprove your statement about me ie “you have been claiming, its being forced on communities when it isn't.” ?

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Fionn I will check and if you are correct I’ll acknowledge it. I was going by newspaper reports which said eg this, which appears in contradiction to what you are saying.
“ The latest proposals for dual Irish and English language street signs in Belfast were voted down this week as the leader of the supposedly cross-community Alliance Party claimed that the sight of the Irish language in public is “contentious”.”

Did she describe the sight of the Irish language in public is “contentious” or is this just lies?

You could keep pretending the situation is muddy....or you could read the direct quotes I posted from Naomi Long herself, Downcow.

The simple, undoubted, not even slightly disputable fact of the matter is the Alliance Party proposed an amendment that would make it easier to have Irish signs in Belfast. No spin, no bullsh*t, actual facts.

That would be the same Naomi Long, who has said herself that she speaks some Irish, and would like to speak more, from the same Alliance Party which Stephen Farry is a member....that would be the Stephen Farry who's first words addressing the House of Commons as an MP were in Irish.....the Alliance Party who have repeatedly and openly stated they supported an Irish Language Act......this is the party you're trying to portray as against the language?


Catch yourself on.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Jm08. Do you want a serious discussion about this or are you just going to ignore any evidence I present.

I can evidence a a neighbouring hamlet to me which is 90+% unionist which has a big sign erected in its midst in dual language. The locals continually paint it out and the Council continually replace it.

Would you accept (If I evidence this) that this would disprove your statement about me ie “you have been claiming, its being forced on communities when it isn't.” ?

What's so offensive on the sign that it needs to be vandalised?

Link us to a photo of it perhaps if you have difficulty spelling it.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Jm08. Do you want a serious discussion about this or are you just going to ignore any evidence I present.

You have not presented any evidence.

I can evidence a a neighbouring hamlet to me which is 90+% unionist which has a big sign erected in its midst in dual language. The locals continually paint it out and the Council continually replace it.

How can it have been erected without the permission of the local people. In Belfast at the moment you need 30% of people resident to petition for a vote. Then the vote needs to be 2/3rd for the change. If the population of the town is 90+ unionist, it would seem that they must have voted to have it and some people who can't accept democracy keep defacing the sign. Fair play to the Council for standing up to the local bullyboy loyalists.

Would you accept (If I evidence this) that this would disprove your statement about me ie “you have been claiming, its being forced on communities when it isn't.” ?

You can try, but I'm not sure you get where I'm coming from. I believe in democracy and the system that if 50+1% votes for something, you have to go along with it. All voices are equal.

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

You have not presented any evidence.





How can it have been erected without the permission of the local people. In Belfast at the moment you need 30% of people resident to petition for a vote. Then the vote needs to be 2/3rd for the change. If the population of the town is 90+ unionist, it would seem that they must have voted to have it and some people who can't accept democracy keep defacing the sign. Fair play to the Council for standing up to the local bullyboy loyalists.



You can try, but I'm not sure you get where I'm coming from. I believe in democracy and the system that if 50+1% votes for something, you have to go along with it. All voices are equal.

I like consistency. So are you saying Irish signage should not be erected if the majority in a town or village do not support them?

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

You have not presented any evidence.

Because you have yet to confirm that you will accept evidence.
I said “ I can evidence a neighbouring hamlet to me which is 90+% unionist which has a big sign erected in its midst in dual language. The locals continually paint it out and the Council continually replace it.”

Is that reasonable evidence, if true, that these are erected where they are not wanted?

doubting Thomas Bonnie wants a photo lol

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You could keep pretending the situation is muddy....or you could read the direct quotes I posted from Naomi Long herself, Downcow.

The simple, undoubted, not even slightly disputable fact of the matter is the Alliance Party proposed an amendment that would make it easier to have Irish signs in Belfast. No spin, no bullsh*t, actual facts.

That would be the same Naomi Long, who has said herself that she speaks some Irish, and would like to speak more, from the same Alliance Party which Stephen Farry is a member....that would be the Stephen Farry who's first words addressing the House of Commons as an MP were in Irish.....the Alliance Party who have repeatedly and openly stated they supported an Irish Language Act......this is the party you're trying to portray as against the language?


Catch yourself on.

I will concede that the newspaper article I quoted over simplifies and indeed overstated the alliance position. So. Thank you for putting me right on it.

For you to tell me to ‘catch myself on’ for claiming the alliance party see Irish signage as controversial is entirely unreasonable.
If they did not see it as controversial then why would they not just have it erected everywhere?

Just be clear with me. Do you see Irish language signage in ni as controversial?

And please don’t duck the question by giving me reasons. Just tell me if it is a controversial issue or not?

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

I will concede that the newspaper article I quoted over simplifies and indeed overstated the alliance position. So. Thank you for putting me right on it.

For you to tell me to ‘catch myself on’ for claiming the alliance party see Irish signage as controversial is entirely unreasonable.
If they did not see it as controversial then why would they not just have it erected everywhere?

Just be clear with me. Do you see Irish language signage in ni as controversial?

And please don’t duck the question by giving me reasons. Just tell me if it is a controversial issue or not?

Once more, you're incorrectly stating someone's position. I told you to catch yourself on for trying to portray Alliance Party as against the Irish Language and provided evidence to show that they clearly are not. I didn't say the language wasn't controversial, nor did I say Irish language/dual language signage was not controversial. This is very clear in my post.

In some circles in NI dual language signage is controversial....so what? The language being controversial isn't a moral position, it does nothing to address whether or not that controversy is justified. Not to draw a direct comparison between the morality or magnitude of the two situations, but rather to demonstrate how irrelevant it is to state something is, 'controversial', it isn't that long ago that interracial marriage was considered, 'controversial' in some parts of the USA for example. Hell, in some places it would still be considered controversial.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Once more, you're incorrectly stating someone's position. I told you to catch yourself on for trying to portray Alliance Party as against the Irish Language and provided evidence to show that they clearly are not. I didn't say the language wasn't controversial, nor did I say Irish language/dual language signage was not controversial. This is very clear in my post.

In some circles in NI dual language signage is controversial....so what? The language being controversial isn't a moral position, it does nothing to address whether or not that controversy is justified. Not to draw a direct comparison between the morality or magnitude of the two situations, but rather to demonstrate how irrelevant it is to state something is, 'controversial', it isn't that long ago that interracial marriage was considered, 'controversial' in some parts of the USA for example. Hell, in some places it would still be considered controversial.

Now you are dancing in the head of a pin, in my view, to avoid saying Irish signage in ni is controversial. You have jumped to ridiculous equivalencies like interracial marriage.
To say ‘ some circles in NI dual language signage is controversial....so what?’, is clearly avoidance as this could be said about absolutely anything under dispute eg in some circles in Northern Ireland cutting down road signs is controversial.....so what?

Dancing on a pin aside, I think I understand from your post that you do accept dual signage in ni is a sensitive and controversial issue and needs handling with care and sensitivity.
Would that be fair?

Sunny Disposition

Obviously Irish language signage is controversial.
I feel it shouldn’t be, and again this is a sign of the failure of the State, that something as benign as helping a minority language can be a massive political issue.
It was a strange hill for unionism to fight so hard on tbh, and went a very long way to losing virtually all moderate nationalists.

RobMc59

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Obviously Irish language signage is controversial.
I feel it shouldn’t be, and again this is a sign of the failure of the State, that something as benign as helping a minority language can be a massive political issue.
It was a strange hill for unionism to fight so hard on tbh, and went a very long way to losing virtually all moderate nationalists.

The problem is it has gone beyond helping a minority language because it is being used for political gain now.The fiercest advocates for it aren't generally moderate nationalists .Which triggers unease within the Unionist community as its viewed as an erosion of their way of life.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Now you are dancing in the head of a pin, in my view, to avoid saying Irish signage in ni is controversial. You have jumped to ridiculous equivalencies like interracial marriage.
To say ‘ some circles in NI dual language signage is controversial....so what?’, is clearly avoidance as this could be said about absolutely anything under dispute eg in some circles in Northern Ireland cutting down road signs is controversial.....so what?

Dancing on a pin aside, I think I understand from your post that you do accept dual signage in ni is a sensitive and controversial issue and needs handling with care and sensitivity.
Would that be fair?

Jesus Christ, Downcow.....I'm avoiding saying Irish Language signage in NI is controversial.....when you've just quoted me saying Irish Language Signage in NI is controversial. In what world am I avoiding saying something......by saying those exact words?!

As to whether it needs handling with sensitivity, I'd argue that in relation to these types of thing, people are altogether too sensitive. I'd probably line up somewhere pretty close to the position Alliance Party took in their proposed amendment all things considered.

It's amazing that when it comes to marching, you defend it and suggest any offense taken is the fault of those offended. You accuse those who don't want it near their homes of manufacturing the problem....but you seem to have a different standard in place for dual language signs.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

The problem is it has gone beyond helping a minority language because it is being used for political gain now.The fiercest advocates for it aren't generally moderate nationalists .Which triggers unease within the Unionist community as its viewed as an erosion of their way of life.

You should have a word with Linda Ervine, Rob. Perhaps a little look into Turas, which she is responsible for. It is the largest Irish Language class in Belfast. There are no fiercer advocates for the Irish Language than Linda.

It's a sad state of affairs when someone else receiving support for learning something can be viewed as eroding your way of life.

Junkyard Tom

YouGov poll on Sky News has English support for NI remaining in the UK at 26%. Now if I was a planner in Whitehall I'd be thinking that the best way to keep Scotland in the UK would be to offload their Irish problem and use the savings to buy off the Scots.



When Brexit and the coming recession begin to bite the English will start wondering why they're sending £10Bn to the Irish who don't even want to be in the Union any more anyway (that's how it will play in the papers).

Dublin needs to start planning for Unification, it's the prudent thing to do.

Happy 100 year centenary Unionism.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

The problem is it has gone beyond helping a minority language because it is being used for political gain now.The fiercest advocates for it aren't generally moderate nationalists .Which triggers unease within the Unionist community as its viewed as an erosion of their way of life.

Oh yes...the 'Unionist way of life' has been completely eroded in Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry etc.

What you mean Rob is that belligerent bigoted objection and cultural supremacy is and has been a 'way of life' for some Unionists.

I'm sure they will miss it but will they be worse off?

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

YouGov poll on Sky News has English support for NI remaining in the UK at 26%. Now if I was a planner in Whitehall I'd be thinking that the best way to keep Scotland in the UK would be to offload their Irish problem and use the savings to buy off the Scots.



When Brexit and the coming recession begin to bite the English will start wondering why they're sending £10Bn to the Irish who don't even want to be in the Union any more anyway (that's how it will play in the papers).

Dublin needs to start planning for Unification, it's the prudent thing to do.

Happy 100 year centenary Unionism.

Your problem is Tom that the gfa copper fastens the union. England can’t chuck us out any more than we can chuck England out.

I’m not sure what bit of, the Ira supporting the gfa was to all intents and purpose a surrender

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

Your problem is Tom...

It's your problem DC. If the English decide they've had enough of their 'Irish problem' they'll make withdrawal happen one way or another.

You think young unionists and 'don't knows' in the north aren't looking at polls like the above and already wondering what the hell's in the union for them when England doesn't give a shit about their place in it? It's already happening.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Jesus Christ, Downcow.....I'm avoiding saying Irish Language signage in NI is controversial.....when you've just quoted me saying Irish Language Signage in NI is controversial. In what world am I avoiding saying something......by saying those exact words?!

As to whether it needs handling with sensitivity, I'd argue that in relation to these types of thing, people are altogether too sensitive. I'd probably line up somewhere pretty close to the position Alliance Party took in their proposed amendment all things considered.

It's amazing that when it comes to marching, you defend it and suggest any offense taken is the fault of those offended. You accuse those who don't want it near their homes of manufacturing the problem....but you seem to have a different standard in place for dual language signs.

Shouting at me fionn doesn’t help. You had chose your words carefully along the lines of - it is controversial to a section of people, quite different in my mind to saying it is controversial full stop. But I think you have said it now. So thank you.

I do not believe parades should go where they are not wanted as they are controversial and sensitive. The difficulty is deciding what that means “where they are not wanted” , it’s complex. (Que Francie with his simplistic answer that the parades commission will decide based on subjective stuff like community tension, violence, and opposition). Maybe same could be applied to Irish language signage but it’s not simple and that would def lead to the removal of quite a few signs and would spur on residents groups like in the marching issue.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Your problem is Tom that the gfa copper fastens the union. England can’t chuck us out any more than we can chuck England out.

I’m not sure what bit of, the Ira supporting the gfa was to all intents and purpose a surrender

I think you know this but it is worth repeating...you are correct, they cannot get rid of you but they can certainly push you away without fear of the core vote getting annoyed about it (they have, with an Irish Sea border) and they can support a UI emotionally and finacially and 75% and rising will be ok with that too.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You should have a word with Linda Ervine, Rob. Perhaps a little look into Turas, which she is responsible for. It is the largest Irish Language class in Belfast. There are no fiercer advocates for the Irish Language than Linda.

It's a sad state of affairs when someone else receiving support for learning something can be viewed as eroding your way of life.

Thanks for the information about Linda Ervine.She seems an interesting character,I'll keep an eye on her on Twitter.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

I’m not sure what bit of, the Ira supporting the gfa was to all intents and purpose a surrender

You go on thinking that if it helps comfort you. Regardless, The Troubles is as far away from now as WWII was from its beginning. Your 'but the RA' tactic is a busted flush.

Next year's centenary commiserations are going to be painful to witness.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Shouting at me fionn doesn’t help. You had chose your words carefully along the lines of - it is controversial to a section of people, quite different in my mind to saying it is controversial full stop. But I think you have said it now. So thank you.

I do not believe parades should go where they are not wanted as they are controversial and sensitive. The difficulty is deciding what that means “where they are not wanted” , it’s complex. (Que Francie with his simplistic answer that the parades commission will decide based on subjective stuff like community tension, violence, and opposition). Maybe same could be applied to Irish language signage but it’s not simple and that would def lead to the removal of quite a few signs and would spur on residents groups like in the marching issue.

Downcow, I'm, 'shouting' (odd phrasing on a text based forum. I'd say I'm demonstrating exasperation at your willful misreading) because you said I had difficulty stating that Irish Language signage is controversial.....by quoting a post in which I said it is controversial.

Saying that it is controversial to a section of people is a statement of fact. It is not at all controversial to the vast majority of my community. How you can try and argue with a self-evidential fact is beyond me.

I suspect however that if we started with your parades position we would have an awful lot MORE signs however. This position would be to put them up absolutely everywhere and only consider removing them when there is sufficient local complaints to suggest they are not wanted AND this would lead to tension/violence. I can think of quite a lot of places that would have lovely new signs up with your proposal, and only a handful of places they would be removed.

Or perhaps something more akin to the Alliance Party's proposal would be more manageable, like I already said.

Capt'n Midnight

downcow wrote: »

Your problem is Tom that the gfa copper fastens the union. England can’t chuck us out any more than we can chuck England out.

There is no choice between being a communist on 1,500 calories a day and a believer in democracy on a thousand.
- General Lucius Clay , American Occupation of Germany

Reducing disability payments with the move from DLA to PIP.
Reducing subvention.
Reducing the numbers of civil servants and other direct and indirect govt subsidised employees.

There's the option of not bailing out a major employer the next time one needs a bail out.

There's lots of ways of getting people to consider their position.

RobMc59

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There is no choice between being a communist on 1,500 calories a day and a believer in democracy on a thousand.
- General Lucius Clay , American Occupation of Germany

Reducing disability payments with the move from DLA to PIP.
Reducing subvention.
Reducing the numbers of civil servants and other direct and indirect govt subsidised employees.

There's the option of not bailing out a major employer the next time one needs a bail out.

There's lots of ways of getting people to consider their position.

How could the UK government justify removing benefits and entitlements from NI but continue in the rest of the UK?Surely that could be challenged in court?