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 @ 12:04 AM
Ahern,
You know where the door is.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:22 AMYeah, you’re leaning into it droning on about Irish, in English. Oh, and it’s, oh so very plainly, ‘A H E M’, you moron.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:28 AMBelieve the same as Gaelgannaire re: comphrehension of Scottish Gaelic. Looking through gd.wikipedia is like reading Irish in a Scottish accent - read fun! gv.wikipedia is another story, but I believe that that has more to do with a Welsh spelling influence and that spoken its very similar, if not near identical, to Irish. Once I can pull myself through the mess of y’s, w’s and, even, ç’s, it make complete sense.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:29 AMDewi, I believe the same as Gaelgannaire re: comphrehension of Scottish Gaelic. Looking through gd.wikipedia is like reading Irish in a Scottish accent - read fun! gv.wikipedia is another story, but I believe that that has more to do with a Welsh spelling influence and that spoken its very similar, if not near identical, to Irish. Once I can pull myself through the mess of y’s, w’s and, even, ç’s, it make complete sense.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:30 AMDidn’t we exhaust this debate a week or so ago.
The language debate should be a cultural one but unfortunately it seems to be mainly a political football (soccer ball?) on this forum.
I think the whole thing should be shelved for a few years. Maybe by then political tensions will have eased and progress could be made.Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:30 AMThe UUP are yet again trying to ‘out-DUP’ the DUP by blocking the proposed Irish Language Act. They have missed a great opportunity to illustrate that they are capable of thinking outside the box and to help promote Gaelic on a cross-community basis.
By not supporting the Acht Unionist politicians are denying their own community any real contact with Ulster’s indigenous tongue.
As any Irish speaker will tell you, Gaelic is for all and any further attempt to hinder its progression will simply make the issue more controversial.
Dála an scéil, agus an tAcht i mbaol, an bhfaca sibh an achainà úd ar son comharthaà bóthair atá dátheangach? Tá an chuma air go bhfuil na Gaeil ag dÃriú isteach ar chúrsaà bóthair anois in ionad an oiread sin béime ar an Acht féin. Spéisiúil…
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:33 AM**ahem** ‘Ahem’
Still, if you’re not interested in the discussion, feel free to go somewhere else and take your griping with you.
Here’s an idea. Go visit the car-wreck that is the RoI/NI soccer thread. Your name-calling should come in handy there.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:36 AMThis *isn’t* a thread about the British-subsidy dependent Irish language, it’s plainly hoped to be a thread chiefly about the UUP. Only Irish language bores have, of course, latched on to it and, in English, droned it into the ground. Here’s a suggestion - if you’re that keen on Irish, stop waiting and whining for your British government protection and go outside and talk to someone in Irish.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:48 AMAhem
I’m sorry to see that you’ve got your knickers in such a twist; I was just enjoying reading the thread before your utterly negative interjection.
Anyhoo, back to the discussion. TTFN sweetheart.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:54 AMI cannot think of another European country where politicians would oppose the putting up of road signs in the language of which a large minority of its population adhere to, whether they speak it or not.
What this response tells me is there is enormous fear lurking within the middle class Unionist psyche, which perhaps was best demonstrated by David Trimbles pompous mannerisms, all bluster and go on the surface but underneath?
I normally feel that IJP is a font of much wisdom, but on this he is mistaken, yes republicans will use the Irish Language as a cultural weapon, but what is wrong with that, it is a dam sight better than using an AK47 surly. The Unionists have got all they wanted from the GFA, that is if they are being honest and have no wish to go back to the dark ages.
It is high time Unionists understood that Irish language speakers are there fellow citizens and showed them some respect. If they were to do so, they might just be given some respect in return.
The UK is one of the riches nations in the world, there is enough money for road signs, ask the people of Wales.Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:58 AMWe do speak Irish every day but discussion with the wider community is needed on issues such as language legislation and bilingual road signage etc.
And if the reponse continues to be so depressingly negative i’m guessing many in the Gaelic-speaking community will just go out and put up their own signs etc.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:11 AMI’m a bit depressed that the issue for some is one of road signs and that the rich literature which can presumably be best appreciated in the original is totally ignored.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:27 AMWhat is the need to have road signs, goverment leaflets, etc, etc printed in gaelic? I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who wants to speak or write in gaelic, or any other language, but to waste millions of pounds putting up signs and printing leaflets and letters in gaelic when we have a health service in the state it is is absolute lunacy. Is there a single person that supports the Irish Language Act that cannot read, write, speak and understand English? I doubt it! This is all part of a narrow-minded, pan-nationalist, sectarian mindset of hating everything that is not irish catholic. They hate everything British and seem to hate nothing more than the British population in Northern Ireland.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:30 AMJOE
A language community doesn’t need legislation or rights to read its own literature. We’re doing that already.
It is the authorities however who make decisions about bilingual public services and road signs.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:30 AMJoeC - it’s all linked - great literature does not emerge without a vvibrant lingustic base - and visibility and status are part of the mix that produxces that.
Ahem I quite enjoyed “polyglot monomaniacs” as opposed to monoglot polymaniacs I suppose....
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:32 AMJoe,
Look at every single language based campaign on the planet. They all focus heavily on education and road signs.
Would you agree Dewi?
All languages have a rich literature which can be best appreciated in the original and all languages are equally beautiful in my view. CatrÃona Ruane is alway going on about that kind of thing, awful! - She should concentrate on getting the language taught in CCMS schools rather than that nonsense.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:36 AMUNITARIAN
Your comments are ridiculous.
The promotion of bilingualism is a celebration of heritage and a recognition of our culturally diverse society.
Irish speakers are not all nationalists and Gaelic is certainly not a ‘catholic’ language. No language can be classed on religious grounds.
Irish is simply a language that is spoken by many people who identify with Britain as much as Ireland.
To put it simply your views illustrate how little you know about the Irish language community here.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:37 AMI think the thread shows that the UUP belongs in the Executive. Alongside other parties who really don’t know what to do about the real issues.
(Actually the UUP’s manifesto was probably the best of them, but government is about delivery, not policy, and therein lies the problem - as evidenced on other threads, civil servants are giving Ministers the run-around.)
gaelgannaire
On the contrary, she should focus on getting it taught in non-CCMS schools.
Any policy based on state-sponsored promotion of Irish (and thereby state jobs dependent on competence in Irish) automatically discriminates against those who did not attend CCMS schools.
There’s that SF “equality” agenda again!
RG Cuan
Irish is simply a language that is spoken by many people who identify with Britain as much as Ireland.
A worthy idea, but it’s really not, though, is it?
Mind, I’d say the people who are annoyed by the constant moaning about it probably identify as much with Ireland as Britain, I’d grant you that!
And SF’s plans would only make both situations worse - while doing nothing to tackle the real issues in our society.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:47 AMIJP
The vast majority of people who attend state schools want absolutely nothing to do with anything Gaelic. With the notable exception of an occasional wearing of a modern interpretation of tradtional highland dress.
Why would anyone want to focus on getting the language taught in those schools?
I believe they should have to right to learn whatever they wish including Irish, though perhaps Scottish Gaelic would be more appropriate but I dont think that should be the priority when I am sure that many parents with children attending CCMS schools would like the choice of Irish at primary level.
All knowledge increases job oppurtunties, no doubt, but that is peoples own choice.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 12:04 PMDISMAYED
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?
Doesn’t quite work like that. Each part of the UK has the ability and power to deal with issues as it deems most suitable to its own needs. Wales has a fairly strong language act, but then lots of people in Wales speak Welsh. Scotland, on the other hand, where only small numbers speak Gaelic, has a weak language act. Northern Ireland, where fewer still speak Gaelic (at least as a first language) currently has no act, but has signed Gaelic up to the Part II status of the European Charter and has Foras na Gaeilge. In England, there is no act to protect Cornish, but I believe it is signed up to Part I status.
GAELGANNAIRE
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.
So why the need to change them into Gaelic, then? Can’t we just leave them as they are – acknowledging their Gaelic origins as you do?
RG CUAN
By not supporting the Act …
You don’t support an Act: you support a Bill. When the Bill is passed it becomes an Act, after which support is irrelevant.
MICK HALL
I cannot think of another European country where politicians would oppose the putting up of road signs in the language of which a large minority of its population adhere to, whether they speak it or not.
I doubt very much whether politicians in Croatia would support road signs in the Cyrillic alphabet in recognition of its Serb minority. Oops, they got ethnically cleansed, didn’t they? But some are coming back.
Do you think the road signs in Estonia and Latvia are bilingual Estonian/Russian or Latvian/Russian? No, neither do I. Are there Basque road signs in south-western France? Are there Corsican road signs in Corsica? Are there Catalan road signs in southern France? Are there Occitan road signs in southern France or northern Spain? Are there bilingual road signs in Italy, where regional language abound? Or what about Albanian road signs in Macedonia? Hungarian road signs in Translyvanian?
What do you reckon?
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 12:07 PMSo why the need to change them into Gaelic, then? Can’t we just leave them as they are – acknowledging their Gaelic origins as you do?
Willowfield - would you oppose spelling them correctly ?
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 12:18 PMAre there Basque road signs in south-western France?
No but there should be of course,
Are there Corsican road signs in Corsica?
Yes, the Corsican is the one without the bullet holes in my experience.
Are there Catalan road signs in southern France?
No, but there should be.
Are there Occitan road signs in southern France or northern Spain?
No.
Are there bilingual road signs in Italy, where regional language abound?
Yes. In Valle d’Aosta (French), Tyrol (German), Fruilino and Sardinia. The Fruiliani and Sards are also recongised as distinct peoples under the constitution of the Italian Republic.
Or what about Albanian road signs in Macedonia? Hungarian road signs in Translyvanian?
Dont know, but I bet RG Cuan does.
- So why the need to change them into Gaelic, then? Can’t we just leave them as they are – acknowledging their Gaelic origins as you do?
Because for any Gaelic speaker the Gaelic form is clearer to understand, not necessarily in terms of where you are going but more in terms of what you are going to.
Again, the call is for bilingual signage, with the English language spelling (in your view the correct one) to be seen in addition the the Gaelic one (in my view the correct one).
Again, I don’t believe anyone is making any request for universal bilingual signage - only in areas with want it. In my view that is democratic.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 12:20 PMWell to all who responded to me, thank you.
Perhaps I may have missed the point somewhat.
I assumed (incorrectly?) that the campaign included provision of educational funds.
Is it just government services?Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 12:29 PMWhat is the need to have road signs, government leaflets, etc, etc printed in gaelic?”
Because it would be an expression of support from the State for the language of the Irish nation, it is about the most basic act of equality.
willowfield
You may well be right but the example you give in the Baltic states are very weak as it hinges on the oppressed aping their oppressor. I have no doubt their will be in the future bilingual road signs etc in southern France as their are in parts of spain, that there is not already simply means unlike in Ireland [n]there has not been pressure from within these communities for them and there is the rub.. The worlds moved on since the soviets forced russian on the Baltic countries it is time the north started showing some respect to their minority.
Why do you fear Irish/English road signs, it seems weird to me. The only reason I can see for such opposition is you do not wish to concede an inch to republicans. The cost factor is just a diversion as we could all come up with much better ways to save us tax payers money, which could then be spent on better things, iraq and afghanistan for example, or not upgrading the nuclear deterrent.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 12:36 PM“Yes republicans will use the Irish Language as a cultural weapon, but what is wrong with that, it is a dam sight better than using an AK47 surly.”
Trust the sectarian parties to choose with devastating consistency the wrong weapons at the wrong time. Unionists attack the language act in order, quite deliberately, to alienate nationalists and nationalists wield the act like a weapon in order, quite deliberately, to alienate unionists. Like two children building their sand castles bigger while the sea rushes in.
The reaction of both sides is contemptable.
On top of this you have those two sides twisting themselves towards hernia over the cost of this separation to the NI exchequer. It’s all about how to avoid the issue that division cannot be healed by institutionalising division. All about closing your mind to the fact that division eats its own offspring.
Personally, I’d love to see a phased introduction of Irish on road signs. It would add to my appreciation of the world and increase my understanding of that darkling, gaelic side of my soul.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 12:46 PM
