Northern Ireland Executive is now unique, as Scots go for ‘government’…
THE Scottish Executive has been rebranded as the Scottish Government (though the former remains the legal name). According to a BBC report, First Minister Alex Salmond said Northern Ireland was the only other country in the world where the word ‘executive’ was used to describe a layer of government. In addition, the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom will be removed from all the Scottish Government’s official documents and replaced with a saltire. The move came after a poll suggested that only 29% of people wanted the title Scottish Executive to remain. What do you think? Is ‘executive’ less meaningful than ‘government’, which is sometimes used? Should we ditch ‘Northern Ireland Executive’ for Northern Ireland Goverment (though why we don’t make more use of the more grammatically correct ‘Northern Irish’ is another question) or Government of Northern Ireland? Does our less powerful, more administrative executive even deserve to be called a ‘government’?
So no unionist here has actually disclaimed an Irish part to their identity. Where is the actual evidence that many unionists do?
turgon says it doesnt he? might be wrong though
Turgon and others I believe. However I hope Turgon won’t mind me saying that he usually rationalises his stand until he remembers to shout ‘No Surrender!’ and then he goes back to square one.
>>There has been a change in the ambience apropos the independence question.<<
I don’t know what your people are saying to you Phil, but there is a new energy about the place, the SNP has really lit Scotland up, we are no longer talking about our own nation standing on her own. I believe that at this moment in time we are living it. The ‘Glasgow Irish’ seem to be turning, though not in as many numbers as I would like/hope, but we are getting there. Hopefully they will no longer prop up nu-Labour who could turn into a west of Scotland pressure group if they are not careful.
Ziznivy:
The term “irish” can mean a multitude of things. You can be geographically Irish, linguistically Irish, politically Irish, culturally Irish to name but a few.
Most unionists would have to agree they are geographically Irish, – but simply saying that you are Irish makes the listener assume that the other three “Irishnesses” apply, when they actually don’t apply.
Gonzo
From the BBC:
“Police release the name of a Northern Ireland man killed in the north-east of England at the weekend.”
“A Northern Ireland man through and through, Alan moved to London in his early twenties.”
“A Northern Ireland woman is reunited with the pop star who saved her life.”
(among others)
From CNN:
“A bipartisan group of U.S. senators condemned the killing of a Northern Ireland man after meeting Wednesday with his sisters and fiancee.”
etc etc.
So a quite normal (predicate) adjective form, though obviously not one for certain papers’ style guides!
Rubicon
Your 12.29 is precisely my point.
We should have a parliament – with appropriate powers.
We should probably have a statute too, by the way, but let’s not push our luck for now…
IJP
Remove the word ‘Northern’ each of the examples you have listed. Not one of them now sounds right, and – arguably – they are all wrong.
Common usage doesn’t make something right – otherwise txt language, misplaced apostrophes and the like would be considered ‘proper’ use of English.
Or, presumably, as you might say, England language!
;oP
Sorry, it’s just a bugbear. Why on earth do people prefer to use ‘Northern Ireland’ as a descriptive term, when a perfectly good one already exists, is less of a mouthful and doesn’t sound like a deliberate attempt to avoid using the word ‘Irish’?!
I mean, when people are on holidays, and John tells you he’s English and Berghart says he’s German, would anyone seriously pipe up and say “I’m a Northern Ireland man”?!
Gonzo
You’ve missed my point.
My point is that of course you can’t say “Ireland man” or “Scotland man” or for that matter “Scotland Executive”.
But you can (and do) say “Northern Ireland man” and “Northern Ireland Executive”. So “Northern Ireland” is used, in practice, as an attributive adjective (but not as a predicative, obviously).
The question posed was whether this is a cunning Unionist plot to avoid the word “Irish”. One could equally well argue it’s a cunning Nationalist plot to make the whole “Northern Ireland” thing sound artificial.
It’s neither. It’s just usage.
Rule number one in linguistics is to remember it’s not mathematics – sometimes usage seems illogical, but it is decisive in determining what can reasonably be considered “right” and “wrong”. And rightly so – we Liberals believe in power to the people, after all!
“we Liberals believe in power to the people, after all!”
Bad idea – you can’t vote them out.
“The term “irish†can mean a multitude of things. You can be geographically Irish, linguistically Irish, politically Irish, culturally Irish to name but a few.
Most unionists would have to agree they are geographically Irish, – but simply saying that you are Irish makes the listener assume that the other three “Irishnesses†apply, when they actually don’t apply.”
All those types of Irishness you mention are contested. Politically Irish indeed is a completely meaningless term.
What unionists need to do is assert their own understanding of Irishness and refuse to cede the identity to nationalism.
Rialtas Thuaisceart na hÉireann. that would be nice.
Translation – The Government of Northern Ireland/the North of Ireland.
In Scotland we have the re-emergence of Doric speaking groups in the north east, in the northern islands they have celebrated their norse culture, in the highlands and islands and increasingly in Glasgow we celebrate our gaelic culture.
We are all Scots!
We also have the unavoidable world-wide view of shortbread tin Scotland. Ireland and the Irish are a world wide brand also if viewed in this way.
>>What unionists need to do is assert their own understanding of Irishness and refuse to cede the identity to nationalism.<<
Ziz, Do you really think you and others will come across well in your attempts to do this. The examples I have witnessed thus far make a mockery of Paddy’s day.
Firstly Eoghan, I’m a bit unsure what you mean when you say that unionists haven’t come across well in asserting that St Patrick’s Day is as much our day as it is nationalists’. I can’t imagine that such a contention would broach must criticism other than from the narrowest brand of ethno-fascist on the nationalist side.
I also fail to see how affirming the validity of a different type of Irishness and calling it by that name could be perceived badly, other than by those who define the identity in the narrowest fashion. I would imagine those nationalists who truly believe in an Ireland of equals would welcome such a development.
I’m not talking about a process which denies any other form of Irishness. I am saying that unionists should be confident in their own form of Irishness and in the understanding that acknowledging an Irish identity need not dilute a person’s political unionism. Such confidence might foster an atmosphere where the term is not understood merely through the prism of Irish nationalism.
>>I’m not talking about a process which denies any other form of Irishness.<<
This is my point Paddy’s day done that. Imagine a tourist who has enjoyed Paddy’s day elswhere in the world going to Belfast on the 17th March or whenever the event is held.
Also your rational belies my point about the worldwide view of Scottishness/Irishness. Much too complicated!
Could you give me an idea of Unionist Irishness that would complement other idea’s of Irishness?
IJP
While I agree that one can rightly say ‘Northern Ireland Executive’ (since it is a proper noun), I don’t think ‘Northern Ireland man’ is is in particularly common usage in spoken form.
All your examples come from news stories. I don’t think that qualifies as ‘common usage’ – maybe in the media, but not in the street. So I’m not sure about it being anything to do with ‘power to the people’; maybe ‘power of the media’, which tend to go for ‘soft options’ in contentious circumstances. Since we refer to every other country in the world properly, it all sounds like a chickenshit cop-out rather than any plot.
Er … the Irish rugby team, Guinness, Bushmills whisky etc etc. It’s been done to death already. The point is that Irish nationalism should not define Irishness and there is more to Irishness than the ROI, tricolour, Irish Language etc etc.
17 March is dominated by republicans. How can unionists be held responsible for the content of this parade? If anything it proves my point that unionists should not abdicate the defining of Irishness to republicans and nationalists or that’s what happens!
What next lads you goin to argue about!! People who never set foot in Britain claiming to be british? hillarious!!!
>>there is more to Irishness than the ROI, tricolour, Irish Language etc etc.< <
Don't be so touchy Ziz. This was my original point, how to go about this in a tactfully, without scaring or boring the tourists.
>>17 March is dominated by republicans. How can unionists be held responsible for the content of this parade?<<
Really! It was my understanding that the official parade was to be devoid of Nationalist symbols, also issues over funding.
DK
Lol!
Sir Humphrey (“The People don’t know what’s good for them”) would be turning in his grave, I confess!
Or as Andrew Marr says about Thatcher: “The problem with giving people freedom is you’re never quite sure what they’re going to do with it.”
It’s a risk we should probably aim at taking, though!
Gonzo
I hope you get equally excited about certain publications’ galling and misleading overuse of the word “Ulster”…!
The Unionists will come to terms with their Irishness in their own good time, now that Irish armies of one description or another have stopped taking potshots at them.
The last thing they need is Irish Nationalists telling them what they should or shouldn’t be.
Instead of selling Irish (or Scottish!) Nationalism, Celtic Nationalists might do well to ponder just how British their own cultures have become.
>>Instead of selling Irish (or Scottish!) Nationalism, Celtic Nationalists might do well to ponder just how British their own cultures have become.<<
Or American? Or English culture becoming American!
“The Unionists will come to terms with their Irishness in their own good time”
And that will entail no compromise of our politics or diminution of loyalty to the UK.
And if the UK is no more?
IJP: I don’t think ‘Northern Ireland man’ is is in particularly common usage in spoken form.
Isn’t it really just a bit of journalese: “Liverpool woman wins Nobel prize”, “Glasgow man injured in flash flood”, “Northern Ireland man…”
In common usage it would be Liverpudlian / Scouser / Glaswegian / Weegie or whatever.
“The Unionists will come to terms with their Irishness in their own good timeâ€
And that will entail no compromise of our politics or diminution of loyalty to the UK”
I dunno Ziz, that’s a very confident prediction of the behaviour of people maybe not born yet. Who knows what a decade or more of peace (coupled with increased Republican political power there) might achieve ?
I have pointed out that embracing a sense of Irishness does not entail changing or diluting political allegiance. What that has to do with what you’re saying I don’t really follow.
Being comfortably acknowledging Irishness is not part of a nationalising process! That is the entire point of what I am saying!
Reader
But even journalese would have “Londoner”.
I have certainly heard “Northern Ireland man” and such like in common parlance (alongside “Northern Irish man” and “Northern Irishman”, different emphasis), but not “Ireland man” (or for that matter “Irish man”, except where emphasizing gender).
Anyway, that’s not the point…!
IJP
As you rightly suggest, Ulster is indeed consistently used wrongly for Northern Ireland in the Press. This is because it’s easier to fit in a headline, and probably originated with unionist politicians referring – wrongly – to Ulster, when they should have referred to Northern Ireland.
However, ‘Northern Irish’ is shorter and easier to say than ‘Northern Ireland’ (when a description of something is being used). How did this error come about?
Did this practice originate with politicians? Was it then popularised by a media that ‘went along’ with that?
Imagine a line up of men from various nations. You’d say: “He’s German, he’s English, he’s Scottish or a Scot, he’s Welsh and he’s… Northern Ireland?!?!?”
No? So what would you say, assuming our man doesn’t want to be described as British or Irish?