Friday, August 24, 2007
A brief glance into UUP thinking…
DAVID Burnside’s recent suggestion that the UUP leave the Executive to join the Opposition looks likes it’s been put on the long finger, if these minutes (below the fold) of UUP meetings earlier this month are anything to go by. Elsewhere in the (admittedly rather dull) document, the party seems keen on pushing the establishment of an Environmental Protection Agency (thus removing Crown immunity from the Dept of Environment run by the DUP’s Arlene Foster) and 15 local authorities (as opposed to the 11 favoured by the relevant Minister, Arlene Foster). There was nothing to report on party reform - the most pressing issue for the UUP - but “but that our attempts in getting articles through to the local press required greater effort”. Hopefully, this post goes some way towards addressing that. On the Irish Language, the UUP sees the “Act is an attempt by republicans to use the language as a cultural weapon in their ongoing struggle against unionism. As such, their proposals should not be supported”.
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME OF SPECIAL MEETINGS OF THE ULSTER UNIONIST MLA’S HELD ON TUESDAY 7th and WEDNESDAY 8th AUGUST 2007
UUP Opposition / Corporate Executive Decisions
It was agreed that the Ulster Unionist Assembly Group will keep under ongoing review the Party’s participation in the Assembly Executive and will prepare a submission to the Executive Review Committee to put forward proposals to ensure the creation of a more suitable form of democratic and accountable government for Northern Ireland. Ministers report to Group on Executive Business.
Devolution of Policing & Justice
It was agreed that the relevant parties would meet to prepare a submission on the Devolution of Policing & Justice, due on 17th August. Meeting to be called by Party Leader.
National Stadium
It was agreed to pursue consultations in the Party with key people. Meeting with key people to be called by Party Leader.
Environment & Planning
It was agreed that the Party spokesperson should look at taking the initiative in launching a campaign for an environment protection agency by way of a Private Member’s Bill or a Committee Bill; and to take an interest in the relevant environmental Groups and engage with them on a regular basis. It was also agreed not to move on the Party’s position of a 15-council model.
Performance in the Assembly & Projection of our efforts at Stormont / Party Reform
Performance in the Assembly & Projection of our efforts at Stormont – It was agreed that the Party’s performance in the Assembly had dramatically improved, but that our attempts in getting articles through to the local press required greater effort.
Party Reform – The Party Leader agreed to fully report to the Group again in due course. It was also agreed that the issue of MLAs contributions would be returned to the agenda for a full discussion.
Irish Language
It was agreed to support the motion with the inclusion of a suggested amendment, put forward by Roy Beggs, to include the words ‘St Andrews’ in the text. The motion is as follows:
This house considers that arrangements for suitable recognition of the Irish Language were made in the practical implementation of the Belfast Agreement, and that present agitation for an Irish Language Act is an attempt by republicans to use the language as a cultural weapon in their ongoing struggle against unionism. As such, their proposals should not be supported.
Education
It was agreed that as this was such a wide-ranging topic it warranted a comprehensive discussion; therefore a special meeting should be arranged with a full complement of Members.
Belfast Gonzo @ 01:04 AM
The trouble with this and other articles on this website is simply this :
Some folks lay in wait to either applaud them or to oppose them depending on their secterian view. It has become quite boring. Folks in northern Ireland need to understand that they live in an extremely small area of a small island that that there is a large world around it.
Most of the people around the globe are sick and tired of the uneducated loons in northern Ireland tossing bricks at one another and painting kerbs in their neighborhood. In this day and age, it’s very hard to believe that there are white people in the world who behave in this way.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 03:25 AM“Act is an attempt by republicans to use the language as a cultural weapon in their ongoing struggle against unionism. As such, their proposals should not be supported”.
I’ll tell u something for nothing - rejecting an Irish Language Act plays into republicans’ hands. Nothing over the last few months has been as depressing as the bizarre rejection (universal I’ll give you) of Unionists of such a mild acceptance of language rights - asking for trouble.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 07:15 AMKieranJ
Take your racist, prejudiced tripe somewhere else.
As for your “you’re all sectarian up there” bollocks, tell it to someone who cares. Every country and region in the world focusses most on its own local issues. Ours have had a more pronounced international profile than others. God knows where you’re from (although I can guess), but I doubt it’s somewhere where the local issues are more lofty and high-minded.
Listen to yourself: “Most of the people around the globe are sick and tired...” indeed! F*** away off.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 08:42 AM“nothing to report on party reform”
So this is just a really boring suicide note then
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 08:48 AMAlas Dewi I think you are right.
The best play for unionists would be to embrace the Gaelic language and play up its linkages with the other Gaelic speaking UK regions and promote the idea of a British Isles identity rather than a narrow Irish one.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 09:19 AMMnob - it’s the phrase “cultural “weapon"” that offends really - it’s just a language - how on earth does giving people language rights effect the debate on unification ? Just don’t get it.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 09:26 AMmnob wrote: “… play up its linkages with the other Gaelic speaking UK regions ...” - This would be a dream come true for those with a genuine interested in Irish (or Gaelic in that context). Links with Scotland and Mann are essential to the life of the language, regardless of what narrow minds think. Northern unionists are in the best position to do make that happen. I fear that it’s too late, but the potential of a Northern Gaelic revivial outside of the confines of sectarianism is incredible.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 09:55 AMLots of things are incredible Oli but happen - like peace ? As the nature of Britain changes the Unionist people surely have to find an identity not entirely dependant on memeories of a defunct empire.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 09:59 AMMCT
A little harsh, methinks.
Dewi
The problem is more this: how can you reject something before you’ve even read it?
I am against another penny being spent by government on Irish and Ulster Scots. The English language is one thing we all have in common, and we have far too many other areas in desperate need of funding (suicide counselling, tackling hospital waiting lists, not to mention English language courses for immigrants).
However, I am not against seeking ways in which government policy can be changed to promote Irish to a greater bulk of the population than is currently the case.
If an Act means dividing up the country by spending more money and putting up Irish signposts to indicate a “Catholic area”, forget it. That’s bad for NI, and it’s bad for the Irish language.
If an Act means an educational hub for the language and wider broadcasting services so that anyone who wishes to learn and use Irish can, and anyone who doesn’t doesn’t feel obliged, then great.
To be frank, such subtleties are, it seems, beyond Unionism or Nationalism.
But most of all, it’s time we all realized that, compared to our rates of social exclusion, economic inactivity and hospital waiting, the Irish language is a non-issue. The Executive parties are only giving it air as a means to avoid the real problems our society faces.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:13 AMDewi,
you are wrong about the link between the Irish language and re-unification.
There is an Irish Language Act in the South, one you are using as a reference in Wales.
There is none in the North, and as long as the North exists perhaps there won’t be one.
The Unionists continue to identify a language with a political philosophy. It’s a serious intellectual mistake and they will pay a serious price for it.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:17 AMIJP,
I’m in favour of spending money on the Irish language and I hope, therefore, that little old ladies die for want of hospital care.
That the gist of it?
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:22 AMAgree with Dewi
As a constituent part of the UK, NI is entitled to the same protection to its indigenous languages as that afforded to those in mainland Britain. You can’t on one hand say that NI ‘is as British as Finchley’ and then adopt an a la carte approach where NI has some opt-out clause. Multicultural Britain indeed but what about a multicultural UK?
Sorry, but equating a language to a weapon is a red herring and yes, we all remember the infamous phrase about every word being a bullet, etc. Why insist on playing into these people’s hands? Ironically, unionists by refusing are turning a cultural issue into a political one which will be exploited in future victimisation claims.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:25 AM- If an Act means dividing up the country by spending more money and putting up Irish signposts to indicate a “Catholic area”, forget it. That’s bad for NI, and it’s bad for the Irish language.
IJP plays the liberal but under the surface its Ulster is British only I’m afraid.
Putting up Irish signposts to indicate a ‘Catholic’ area. I am afraid IJP that 96% of place-names in the North come from Gaelic, not the ‘Catholic’ language.
You claim it is bad for the Gaelic language? How? I suggest that a road sign is the most capable vehicle for the transmission of the knowledge of the original form and the knowledge contained in it - Thats good for any language. Full stop.
At the end of the day, unionism is not capable of effecting the amount of Irish spoken so the ‘bad for the Irish language’ comment is without basis.
I know not one Gaelic speaker who fear emnitity.
IJP makes the same assumptions as any large U Unionist. What is the difference?
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:41 AMWoa there Dewi ! To use a hackneyed phrase - this is not a one way street. It wasn’t unionists who politicised the language in the first place.
Nationalists cant be surprised at the reaction this has caused (and in fact I’m pretty sure many aren’t and are encouraging the reaction because it suits everyone’s agenda).
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:42 AMTo get back to the point of the thread (perhaps, they did bring up the language bit),
I think that there is a real possibility that both the DUP and SF peaked at the last election; so now that politics is approaching normal, often boring, stuff, there is an opportunity for both the UUP and SDLP to regain support. Neither seem capable of offering anything new unfortunately.Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:44 AMgaelgannaire your point would have been better made without the vitriol.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:46 AMJoe - I agree completely. The UU could grasp the agenda for example by becoming (again ?) the Tories in NI and fighting on economic issues - something I fear the DUP and SF are weak on. The Tories should be in the ascendancy in the UK and the UUP could grab their coat tails.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:49 AM“Woa there Dewi ! To use a hackneyed phrase - this is not a one way street. It wasn’t unionists who politicised the language in the first place.”
I humbly suggest that centuries of British suppression might have “politicised” the language in the first place !...and while I’m on about it that’s the real thing that is annoying is the bastardised spelling of Gaelic / Welsh etc namaes by those blasted English mapmakers. Bilingualism on road signs here would be far less of an issue if we just spelt the names of places correctly...I suspect the same holds there.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:49 AMOK Dewi you may be right - but you’ve just disproved your own point at the same time ! :-)
The fact is - the language is politicised - by both sides - and over a *long* period of time. Disentangling that is a task for both communities.
I’ve suggested a way that it could be done - by playing up the Gaelic part - are you in or out ?
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:53 AMmnob,
Many people have been working on your idea for years -
http://www.colmcille.net/home-en.html
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:58 AM100% in Mnob - question for gaelgannaire - how understandable is Scots Gaelic to an Irish speaker ? I can just about understand written Breton but not spoken.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:04 AMgaelgannaire thank you very much for that.
Its reassuring that sometimes in amongst the petty arguing and sniping in this site that something genuinely happens that makes me think. I genuinely did not know about that group and will read the site in more detail when I get home.
Dewi - great - now all we need to do is to call it the ‘Gaelic Language Act’ and we may be onto a winner !
... all this agreement is a bit much mind you ... now where did the football threads go :-P
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:08 AMDewi,
Depends on where your are from and what you have read in Irish.
I can understand 99% written, 95% spoken, can speak 60%.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:08 AM“now where did the football threads go :-P “
It’s “Soccer” not “Football” you idiot !
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:10 AMIf we introduce an ‘Irish Language Act’, can we please ensure at least one its clauses will ban polyglot monomaniacs from boring to death every f*cking thread on Slugger with their petty, arse-grindingly, British-subvention-leeching, sodding tedious obsession? Thanks in advance.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:17 AM
