Sunday, September 02, 2007
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’?
Belfast Gonzo @ 11:40 AM
What do you feel then Peter ? Interested honestly.
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 09:50 PMRory – your post precisely defines the exclusive nature of the Irish identity that makes it near impossible for others to describe themselves as Irish.
I’ve a Norman name that came in the first invasion of Ireland more than 600 years ago. But – my mother’s maiden name is Celtic. History is a little hazy on the Celtic plantation of Ireland.
Am I a planter? Am I half a planter? But – my father’s mother’s name came from northern England/Scottish borders. The calculations are getting difficult now – but I guess I have to be more than half a planter.
At first when I read, “In North America the original inhabitants were displaced and subjugated almost to the point of anihiliation. The Irish proved more resiliant.” I thought “what crap! A good part of the US was ‘planted’ by the Irish!” I’m sure you’ll be aware that the annihilation of the “original inhabitants” occurred long after US independence.
But hey – the “Irish” didn’t do it – right? Once you exclude the Celts, Vikings, Normans, English, Scottish … or anyone who has an ancestor related to same – I’m sure you’re right!
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 09:57 PMSo, “Northern Ireland Government” with a St Patrick’s Cross (well, if it’s ok for the PSNI…) instead of those stupid hexagons? I’ll go for that.
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 09:58 PMPete claims on the Hugo MacNeill thread he references:
“I’d suggest that the allegiances John Hewitt referred to are cultural and societal rather than political” - wrt to Ulster, Irish and British.
Spot on IMO. In fact, an unusual placing of the horse before the cart.
In this dispute, Orange and Green are two sides which each have idealised political arrangements in which they hope to accommodate the cultural and societal elements.
But each side resists, fearing the loss of their own societal and cultural elements in the other’s political framework.
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 10:01 PMLinguistically, I think usage dictates that “Northern Ireland” is also the adjective - a “Northern Ireland man”, the “Northern Ireland team”, etc.
Politically, I’m quite happy with “Northern Ireland Executive”. “Government” to me refers to the whole thing - NIO, UK Government in so far as it has responsibility on reserved/excepted matters, cross-border bodies etc. “Executive” is very specific to the Ministers who have power for devolved matters. (Besides, “Government of NI” sounds too much like the bad old days.)
I’d quite like a “Parliament” back, mind…
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 10:07 PM“I’d quite like a “Parliament” back, mind…”
Me too (then shall we have MNPs?), but am willing to wait to see if they act like one.
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 10:10 PMpáid
Indeed.
Dewi
I live in/on an archipelago.
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 10:12 PMSo do I Pete and loved that thread - probably indicative that there were only a dozen or so commentators (more than your blasted Vikings though). seriously though - do u regard yourself as Irish ?
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 10:23 PMI’d quite like a “Parliament” back, mind…
Posted by IJP on Sep 03, 2007 @ 12:07 AM
Couldn’t agree more IJP - but you’re mixing the plinths of power. You need to separate the legislature, executive and judiciary.
A Parliament would need control of justice and at least some fiscal matters. These the Scottish Parliament has - the Assembly does not. In Scotland the Government is answerable and appointed by the Parliament. In NI this is just a vaneer. The power-sharing formula of the GFA merges the institutions of “executive/government” and “parliament/legislature/assmembly” to one.
So in Scotland the electorate decided a change was required in the people representing them in Parliament. There was a far greater change in NI voting patterns - but still the same 4 parties form the executive.
I’m told it’s the price for peace. It means - “it doesn’t matter what you think/vote - it’ll all be OK - a minister or two may loose a seat but we’ll all be back”.
What a croc of sh*t! The same 4 parties own all the Assembly Committees. What is a Committee intended to do? Isn’t it supposed to scrutinise and challenge?
There’s no separation of powers in NI and there’s not mechanism to deliver accountability. Until there is - call it what you want - but it aint democracy.
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 10:29 PMDewi
You may want to re-read those earlier posts..
I have no reluctance in identifying myself as Irish, British, European, International.. but, in particular, Archipelagic.
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 10:31 PMArchipelagic ! Start a movement ! - The Archipelagic Liberation Army ? - Any particular language ?
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 10:35 PMbut, in particular, Archipelagic.
Posted by Pete Baker on Sep 03, 2007 @ 12:31 AM
Damned Roman! ;)
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 10:40 PMPete
Well archipelagic certainly rolls off the tongue in a way that British or Irish never could ;oP
IJP
Linguistically, I don’t think usage dictates that ‘Northern Ireland’ is an adjective at all times. It is correct in certain circumstances - as in ‘a Northern Ireland player, since the player plays for a team called ‘Northern Ireland’.
However, ‘a Northern Ireland man’ is either ‘a man from Northern Ireland’ or ‘a Northern Irish man’.
I would agree that it is fine to refer to the ‘Northern Ireland team’ or even the ‘Northern Ireland Executive’. We talk the ‘the England team’ at least.
But ‘Northern Ireland man’?
I have never heard anyone talk about ‘the England man’ or ‘the Ireland woman’. It is the ‘English man’ and ‘Irish woman’ (which are often run together as single words). Of course, it implies an identity. The Scots (not ‘the Scotland people’) chose ‘The Scottish Government’ and had a ‘Scottish Executive’ before. While they could also have picked ‘The Government of Scotland’ to succeed the previous label, I really doubt anyone suggested ‘The Scotland Government’.
One could - rightly and easily - refer to ‘a man from Scotland’ (ie he may not be ‘Scottish’ but lives in Scotland) or, in the same vein, ‘a woman from Ireland’.
Indeed, it’s not uncommon to refer to ‘a man from Northern Ireland’, which covers both those from the area and those who live there.
So why do people bother to refer to ‘a Northern Ireland man’ when it is less specific, probably grammatically incorrect and just sounds plain odd?
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 11:22 PMActually its fairly well documented that this happened very recently, from about late 1960s. Some say it was in fact a consequence of the troubles.
Posted by slug on Sep 02, 2007 @ 11:44 PM
Slug – I’m not convinced. Yes, the violence polarised – but that didn’t start in the 60’s. I’m sure the Provo’s moved many to places that they never thought they’d be.
What I’m trying to say is that the failure of unionism to promote – or even accept – its role in developing Ireland is a serious matter. In 1911 Belfast rivalled Dublin to be Ireland’s principal city. Massive immigration in to Belfast occurred and much earlier linen contracts stretched far – keeping people in a living in Donegal when no local industry could have made that happen.
Nationalist propaganda would have you believe that people of the unionist tradition were simply self-serving. I’ve read hundreds of posts here that confirm the success of that propaganda.
Unionists were given a Parliament and Government but for 50 years they failed to produce an identity beyond an overtly sectarian one. Why not?
Unionists have bought the nationalist propaganda, they hide from history and a discussion of the past that could have them cowering in a sense of impending shame. This didn’t start with civil rights – many unionists supported civil rights!
Posted by on Sep 02, 2007 @ 11:24 PM**I was really surprised to read a quote from Carson defining himself as “Irish”.
I did not expect that. **Good lord, the man was born, bred and buttered in Dublin, he spoke with a thick Dublin accent all his life, how could he NOT describe himself as Irish?
However like Gordon Brown’s Scottishness, Edward Carson’s Irishness was within an overarching Britishness.
It’s not really that complicated.
Any other examples of British Irishness? Yep, loads; the Irish Guards, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Church of Ireland, the Cross of Saint Patrick on the Union Flag, the Irish Football Association, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, The Royal Dublin Society, Bushmills Irish Whiskey, the harp on the Royal Standard, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Royal Howth Yacht Club, etc etc.
It’s not just that the prods have dificulty in coming to terms with their Irishness, as you can see from the above list there are certain aspects of Irishness that die-hard Nationalists have difficulty with too you know.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2007 @ 01:24 AMposted by Kathy C
Good for the Scots…getting rid of the royal coat of arms….they seem to understand the meaning of symbolism….
Posted by on Sep 03, 2007 @ 01:32 AMKatinka - The Scots were Gaelic
Rory - The Scots (called the Scoti by the Romans) came from Ireland
Rubicon - The Normans became ‘more Irish than the Irish themselves.’ and anyway, what tiny fraction of one’s ancestry does you surmname actually represent?
Posted by on Sep 03, 2007 @ 06:40 AMI guess unionist’s stopped wanting to be Irish about the same time the Irish Republican Army started blowing large holes in Belfast and London.
Since then it’s become more of a political thing. More than one ardant shinner has informed me that I can’t identify myself as Irish because I’m not a republican.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2007 @ 08:25 AMAs I recall, Rubicon, Irishmen did indeed play a part in the annihiliation of the native Americans and for that they were as guilty as others who also did. The 7th Cavalry under Custer had a large Irish contingent and Crazy Horse made them sorry at Little Big Horn - and quite right too!
Posted by on Sep 03, 2007 @ 09:00 AMPounder,
“More than one ardant shinner has informed me that I can’t identify myself as Irish because I’m not a republican.”
Well if you let them to define who you are and who you aren’t….....
I’m not a republican, but they wouldn’t tell me I’m not Irish and get away with it.
The Irish have been around for millenia before anyone ever heard of Irish republicanism.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2007 @ 09:25 AMGonzo -
“The Scots (not ‘the Scotland people’) chose ‘The Scottish Government’ and had a ‘Scottish Executive’ before. While they could also have picked ‘The Government of Scotland’ to succeed the previous label, I really doubt anyone suggested ‘The Scotland Government’.”
Interesting point on the use of the adjective. I think it would more correctly be ‘the Northern Irish Executive’. (As it happens, touching on the identity issue, this would suit me well as I primarily see myself as Northern Irish).
On the other hand, though, when devolution came in 1998, the Scottish Office was replaced by the Scotland Office, and the Welsh Office by the Wales Office. Us good folks in NI had had the Northern Ireland Office since the 1970s so maybe they were falling into line with us… (How long the three departments will last without being rolled into one is perhaps another debate!)
Posted by on Sep 03, 2007 @ 09:52 AMI am proud to be Irish by identity. Manifestations of that include that I support Northern Ireland football team, I support the Ireland Cricket Team, and I am a member of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland. I do however have cultural personal and family ties that connect me with things right across these islands, including family sacrifices made in times of war, university education, and cultural influences. Thus, I regard myself as being also British by identity. More broadly I am a European.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2007 @ 09:54 AMThere is also the option of Northern Irelander, which President Bush opted for. I quite like it, notwithstanding the resonances with “Englander”, which is usually acccompanied by with word “Little”.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2007 @ 09:59 AMIt is *hugely* ironic that irish republicans created partitian by withdrawing from the UK and created an ‘ourselves alone’ identity, and yet they accuse unionists of being petty seperatists.
I’m a unionist - im irish within a British Isles context, a UK administration and an EU framework.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2007 @ 10:07 AMI remember a thread here where most kids appeared to be going with “Northern Irish”, and this was across the religious divide. So the term “Northern Irish” Government/executive/pack-o-wankers might be best.
On the point that everyone here is “Irish” if they were born on the Island of Ireland, does that mean that everyone in Scotland has to be “British” as they were born on the island of Britain - even if they may say that they are Scottish first?
Posted by on Sep 03, 2007 @ 10:51 AM
