Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Irish Language Act will cost too much?
Interestingly the proposed Irish Language Act featured in a speech by William Logan Sovereign Grand Master of the least political of the three main loyal institutions, the Royal Black Institution last Saturday in Bangor. No great fan of the Martin and Ian show, he landed a few barbed comments in that direction, labelling it a “cosy and insidious arrangement” is dangerous because it may lead to “many slow, incremental and subtle changes which would go unnoticed and unchallenged”.
Then he turns his attention to the said Act (still yet to emerge as a bill):
“An interesting part of that agenda is the increasing pressure to introduce dual language legislation. Consider for a moment the enormous cost involved in implementing such a system with dual language road signs and documentation having to be printed in two languages. This money required would be better spent on improving and upgrading essential services such as hospitals, general health service and the roads and water infrastructure.”
Mick Fealty @ 11:48 AM
The boy’s and girl’s name Logan \l(o)-gan\ is pronounced LOH-gan. It is of Scottish and Gaelic origin, and its meaning is “hollow”.
Of course, you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet, but it may explain some of the Master’s reluctance to propogate a bilingual society.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 01:25 PMConsider for a moment the enormous cost involved in implementing such a system with dual language road signs and documentation having to be printed in two languages. This money required would be better spent on improving and upgrading essential services such as hospitals, general health service and the roads and water infrastructure.
Pretty weak argument. Perhaps he might care to explain the vast differential in price between an english-only roadsign and a bi-lingual one. Of course the same ‘better value’ argument can be applied to the war in Iraq, the Royal family, oh and the security costs of policing over 3500 marches per year by the various loyal institutions and bands.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 01:31 PMOnly Councils that want to have bilingual signage will be able to have them. Therefore Unionist controlled Councils will probably not have any unless petitions are signed by residents for their areas.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 01:34 PM“many slow, incremental and subtle changes which would go unnoticed and unchallenged”.
Isn’t that precisely what is needed ?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 01:41 PMDarren
The councils dont control road signage, DRD do.
Dec,
Many people in their submissions to DCAL mentions signs, as they do on this thread, but it should be pointed out the the original ‘POBAL’ document, ultimately just another submission, didn’t mention them although I understand it is included in later information coming from POBAL, probably because they read through all the other submissions.
Darren & Dec,
The campaign for bilingual signage can therefore be seen as a separate campaign which is concerned with minister Murphy’s department rather that Minister Poots department.
There is a story in LÁ today http://www.nuacht.com and there is an online petition http://www.petitiononline.com/aga1/
Cost as you can see is claimed as an issue though the sign manufactuer has basically denied it!
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 01:46 PMGaelgannaire
I take your point about signage in general. I used to be involved in the tendering of contracts in the DoE so I’m acutely aware of how little an little extra paint actually costs. However, my general point remains about weak, easily-refutable (and somewhat hypocritical) arguments emerging from the usual suspects just confirms many people’s view that the preservation of the status-quo, not value for money, is the real issue here.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 02:14 PMgaelgannaire,
Yes, but it is up to the Local Councils to decide in what areas bilingual signage is to be used.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 02:18 PMBilly Logan is entitled to his views, but I would suggest he’s way out of step with mainstream Unionist opinion which is glad to see devolution up and running at Stormont.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 02:32 PMDec
Are our road signs painted? I don’t understand the processes but the things looked like transfers to me. But surely signs must cost more if you make them bigger to accommodate the Irish version? I’d love to see a cost breakdown from someone.
In any case, if Irish is going to appear on our signs, then they shouldn’t look like those hideous things the Republic has. Road signage in the south is not a work of beauty.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 02:32 PMGinfizz
I tend to agree with you there - particularly a time when I sense there is a real mood with the Orange Institution to move away from always having to have political speeches on the platform.For an Institution which managed to stay out of things around 1998 its an odd time to start getting a bit miffed about how things are going now.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 02:44 PMinterested
I suggest some buttons are being pressed by behind the scenes operatives with their own anti-DUP axe to grind.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 02:46 PMI do wish sectarians like William Logan would simply come out and state in plain language what it is that’s eating them up.
What for example does he mean by:
“There is sense of confusion, and even a sense of betrayal in both sections of the Northern Ireland community. People are just asking ‘what is going on?’”
Confusion? In “both sections”? I believe most of us know “what is going on”. It’s called “democracy at work”, William.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 02:48 PMDawkins
I agree. Incidentally why do some of the people at the head of these orders take upon themselves to presume to speak for every Unionist? Who elected them?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 02:50 PMGareth
You’re correct, they are transfers. Though I doubt that the signs would have to be that much bigger.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 02:56 PMGareth,
I don’t know how much the bigger signs cost but I’m sure nothing like the 600 million we are currently shelling out on the road infrastructure they might end up on.I wonder if Logan would be happy if the Irish Republic footed the Irish language costs instead?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 03:05 PMDarren,
Councils have the power to erect bilingual name plates. But directional road-signage does not fall under their jurisdiction - thats DRD.
Bilingual directional road signage is not permitted in Northern Ireland, English only. That is the line coming from DRD but I must admit I have yet to identify the precise piece of legislation that dictates this.
Dec,
I myself prefer the bilingual signs they have in the Scottish Highlands to the ones in the South. http://www.gaelicplacenames.org/.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 03:11 PMWell presumably its not a question of the DRD bringing in bilingual road-signs all over the North. They will only be accpeptable in areas that want them.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 03:42 PMIs anyone commenting on this thread actually old enough to drive? I only ask because the last thing you want to have to do when you’re trying to find where you want to go is squint because the writing is half the size it could be or run down a list of twice as many place names in the space of the few seconds when a road sign is actually visible from the driver’s seat.
I quite enjoy finding out the original meanings of the old Gaelic names for places here, but road signs serve a practical purpose besides the sectarian one-upmanship espoused on the internet.
Oh and anyone who considers Stormont to be an example of “democracy in action” needs to revisit their GCSE politics.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 04:36 PMBeano
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1056072.stm
We spent £53,000 investigating apparently.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 04:40 PMI dont know why logan is geting his knickers in a twist there is not going to be an Irish Language Act, maybe he just likes to wind his own community up
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 05:21 PMCan’t resist I know but T&J I just can’t work out precisely what’s the Big Wow ? Letting Irish speakers communicate with public bodies in Irish in Ireland - how’s that going to destroy the Union precisely ?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 05:37 PMThe Unionist community via their politicans will be demonising themselves by not agreeing to an ILA. The British Government will have to introduce an act if the Unionist parties stop one.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 06:06 PMNice link Dewi, diolch.
Folks, stories in Lá Nua today and last week quote a representative of PWS - the company that make all new road signs in the north and south - who states that the extra cost invovled with bilingual signage is minimal.
DRD claim that bilingual signs would cost up to 40% more than monolingual ones but this is obviously false, or else they got another company to provide the information.
Na Ceithearna Coille, the main organisation behind the campaign for bilingual signage, clearly state that they only seek Irish/English signs in areas that support the language and that signs could be erected only when they need replacing etc.
On the whole therefore the extra cost arguement is simply another meager excuse from the Anti-Gaels.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 06:17 PMBeano,
The people (dēmos) elected the parties or individuals they thought should exercise power (kratos). And that’s what they’re doing. It’s what we call democracy (dēmokratia).
Shall I repeat that more slowly or have you got it now?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 06:18 PMNot a bad idea George, maybe the Dublin government might share the costs for the new signs - if we get them! - it is after all their aim to have a truly bilingual country by 2027…
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 06:28 PM
