LL-L: "Language conflicts" LOWLANDS-L, 28.JUL.2000 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 28.JUL.2000 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =======================================================================

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Language conflicts" (was "Loanguage politics",
"Language maintenance", "Language planning") LOWLANDS-L, 24.JUL.2000 (04) [E]

Criostoir wrote:

>Is this a sound assessment or am I entirely incorrect?

Sounds sound enough to me. The description of the Faroese situation may,
however, be rather idyllic - I understand that Faroe has repeatedly got into
financial difficulties and had to be baled out by Denmark.

As far as Scots is concerned, this raises the question of how far Scots is
tied up with Scottish Nationalism. On the one hand, almost everyone engaged in
active support of Scots is also an active Scottish Nationalist (I am one of
the few exceptions), so you might say that, without Scottish Nationalism,
there would now be no real support for Scots as a language. On the other hand,
this leads to the problems which Sandy has already mentioned, where on the one
finger (I'm already on one hand!) people who are not Scots speakers take it
upon themselves to create a form of Scots which is calculatedly different from
English in spelling and vocabulary, but (because the writers are not in touch
with native idiom) tends to slavishly follow English syntax. On the other
finger, support for Scots by nationalist politicians can sometimes follow the
same patronising and ostensible acceptance of local speech which is favoured
by the academic and literary establishment.

Among those who have a more serious view of the matter, there is the
difficulty that, among nationalists, the future of the Scots language is seen
in terms of a future Scottish state where that language would have an
automatic status. Firstly, it is by no means certain that an independent
Scotland would give any more real status to the language than the present
establishment does (though it has to be admitted that it could scarcely be
less) simply because, in a democratic society where the prejudices are already
well established and the philosophy dominated by current literary chaos
theory, it may never be a priority. Secondly, this leads to a failure in the
art of the possible, where most proposals for language development are geared
towards an imaginary situation where this status already exists, and thus the
proposals effectively depend upon the inauguration of that status before they
could even begin to be effective. The nub of this particular problem is that
nationalists do not make contingency plans for the maintenance of Scots within
the UK, because this is a situation which they cannot afford to contemplate.
Another point is that some supporters of Scots may feel that it is more
productive to lend their efforts to the fight for independence, under the
assumption that status for Scots will follow. This leads to a failure to
thrash out the fundamentals necessary for the practical use of Scots in
education etc.

The simplest example is orthography. In a situation where a language was
taught in school by decree, any sort of orthography would do - even the
incompatible mixture of middle Scots and English conventions proposed by David
Purves (eg. buckle but mukkil), or the ad hoc one used by the SNDA (e.g. seeck
but reek, jaicket but glaikit) , though these would effectively have to be
learned word by word because spelling by phonology or analogy is not
prioritised in their conception. (I have chosen examples to show that these
methods, radically different in their philosophy, actually lead to similar
inconsistancies). Where a language is not taught by decree, however, this does
not work. The result is that spelling systems proposed for Scots tend to be
impractical, and an inhibition to their acceptance by Scots speakers in the
conditions which actually exist. The trend seems to be to accept the SNDA
spellings as being those with most influence; but, as these are not intended
to represent Scots as a language, they can only further the SNDAs own
philosophy of representing it in terms of its local dialects.

>The issue of Gaelic/Welsh lacking in hospitality is a
>strange one. I've never felt it myself

I did say that this was myth - I don't imagine there's any truth behind it,
except at the level where people will remember incidents which support that
myth and forget those which don't. But myths are themselves expressions of
identity.

 There is also
>the belief that Welsh and Gaelic speakers really use
>English as their language between themselves, which is
>patently ridiculous.

George Borrow records just such an incident, where someone came into a house
in Wales and immediately becan to mock him in Welsh, not knowing that he could
understand. This is an example of an incident which perpetuates a myth.

 >The Scots Parliament is largely staffed by the same
>collaborationist MPs as sit in Westminster, and
>therefore they have - with the exception of the SNP,
>the SSP and certain Liberal Democrat elements - thrown
>their lot in with the monoglot English-speaking
>hierarchy.

But most MSPs will be monoglot native speakers of English anyway. They have
not thrown their lot in with a monoglot English-speaking hierarchy - they
_are_ that hierarchy. It is precisely this fact - that it is Scottish, not
English, opinion which is ultimately responsible for the prevailing attitudes
to Scots - which makes me rather sceptical that Scottish independence would
inevitably lead to any real, rather than token, status for Scots as a
language. It may be that Scots is unlikely to obtain any real status without
independence, but this does not necessarily mean that independence would lead
to that status.

>They are fully aware that Lallans is the primary
>articulation of national sentiment in Scotland and
>with Scots Gaelic forms a united front of Lowlander
>and Highlander. Therefore, only English can be used to
>keep Scotland within the union - or, better still:
>Scottish English.

This isn't the case. Scots (I don't use the term 'Lallans', because it tends
to suggest the sort of literary Scots with English syntax which I never tire
of criticising) is, far from being a primary articulation of national
sentiment, in fact very low on the priorities of most of even the most fervent
nationalists. Scots scholar Derrick McLure, himself a fervent nationalist, has
pointed this out in the past. It is true that only nationalist councils have
done anything to further Scots in their areas - to the considerable ridicule
of sections of the press, presumably confident that their readership will
naturally regard Scots in play groups as ridiculous - but the Scots language
seems to play no part in SNP election broadcasts, for example - I suspect they
fear it would lose them votes. Ironically the Tories have used Scots in
election propaganda - a measure, perhaps, of how derisory it is perceived to
be in Scots society.

Gaelic, unlike Scots, is actively supported by the current government - Brian
Wilson is a particularly ardent supporter. Again, an index of the situation
may be seen in the fact that both recent ministers of the Highlands and
Islands have been Gaelic speakers. It would be politically inadvisable for
them not to be. Nobody is concerned that representatives for Scots speaking
areas should speak Scots. If they did, they would probably take pains to
disguise the fact because of its vote-losing potential.

It is true that the other three main parties regard Scots as a nationalist
plot. But this is because most Scots supporters are nationalists, not because
most nationalists are Scots supporters.

Colin wrote:

 From social contacts I
>know that there is a good deal of resentment here in the north-east
>that people can receive programmes in Scottish Gaelic, but not in
>their own tongue.
>
>The resentment is misdirected, of course, but it does tend to show
>that that the battle for public opinion isn't won entirely.

Is this owing to the fact that complaints are always expressed louder than
support? Those who are in favour of Gaelic programs probably don't say so.
Similarly, if there were programs in Scots (setting aside the fact that only
local Scots - i.e. Doric - would likely be favoured by most in the NE) would
those in favour not be likely to say nothing, and those against to shout?

John M. Tait.

----------

From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject: Language politics

Dear all,

I thank Ian for his thoughtful submission. He made a
great number of very relevant points, but
unfortunately what I feel to be gross errors and
misjudgements too.

The issue of just what is "extreme" is entirely
subjective. For example Welsh-language activists who
burn English-language signposts in wholly
Welsh-speaking areas would be categorised as "extreme"
but a government such as France that refuses to
"grant" official status to Breton or Basque within
Brittany or northern Euskal Herria is not because it
enjoys "legitimate" sanction with its actions. This
illustrates support for a frustrating double standard
that I never thought I would encounter on Lowlands-L.

Ian points out that "It is equally important not to
appear extreme when it is unnecessary" and I find this
a ludicrous assertion: the idea that one should slip,
fox-like, between being "extreme" and "moderate" to
appease what to me is a despised officialdom is
frankly galling, unfair and vaguely reminiscient of a
defeatists stance towards one's own people and one's
own struggle as a minority. This has long been the
mantra of the "collaborationist" local officials I
have derided: the fundamental integral of not rocking
the boat lest it be construed by a self-appointed
"higher moral authority" to be "extreme". And just how
precisely does one identify what is "necessary"? Or
indeed what is "extreme"? This seems a non sequiter.
Necessity is another wonderfully subjective quality
and no doubt what I would deem necessary - coming as I
do from the "not moderate" camp - would no doubt be
balked at by the vast majority here. However, that
does not make my approach inappropriate or futile.

It infuriates me that we, as a broad confederation
representing minorty interests, should be somehow in
hoc to notions of externally categorised and imposed
notions of "moderation". These same moderates seem
entirely content to allow themselves and the culture
they represent to be kicked like a beaten dog so long
as - God forbid! - the said culture is not tarred with
the brush of being "not moderate". The issue of "not
moderate" versus "extreme" is of central importance to
my assertion here. To me, they are two entirely
different modes of engagement. Do you want to be
"moderate" or do you want to see your language
promoted? Do you want to be "moderate" or do you want
to have the freedom to choose your own cultural
destiny? Do you want to be "moderate" or do you want
your distinctiveness to be slowly eroded?

To be "not moderate" - which I how would categorise
myself - is to refuse to allow one's actions and views
to be governed by externally imposed notions of
"moderation" which have been designed or developed
(call it what you will) by the same people who
gleefully engender their own "official" policies of
anti-moderation with regard to their minorities. Who
balk at any concession to the sad minority as
"extreme" or "giving in to separatism". And yet they
see nothing wrong in denying a people the right to use
their language (as is the case in Frane with regard to
Breton and Euskara) or in seeking to "educate"
minorities by ridding them of the "scourge" of their
home languages. These moral arbiters are, in my
opinion, far more intolerant than the frustrated
Welsh-speaker who defaces English-language signs in
monolingual Welsh environments or the despairing
Breton who smashes the mirrors in Versailles. The key
question I must ask is what is less "moderate":
refusing to kowtow to an authority that seeks to
extirpate your language and culture through familiar
methods of denigration, or the actual authority itself
- of course, wonderfully moderate - that refuses to
"allow" the said culture to promote or manifest its
language in its own area?

We touched recently upon this when we had the
"permission" discussion. Those who seek to display
themselves as perfectly balanced, reasonable and
unequivocally "moderate" above all else invariably
seem to me to end up uttering a grovelling thank you
for this most offensive of "allowances", and to be the
token minority speaker who agrees to be wheeled out by
the oppressor government to show how "enlightened" the
said government is towards its minorities. As we have
agreed, why the hell should a minority group be
grateful to the larger culture for having its language
finally "granted" official status? How can these
painfully intense "moderates" go back to their people
with a tentative agreement on bilingual roadsigns and
sell it as "freedom" or "progress" or "recognition" or
anything less than the defeat and collaboration that
it is? It's nothing of the sort. And yet to oppose
this neglect is to somehow be "immoderate" or
"extreme". If that is what being "moderate" entails -
given up one's cultural dignity and one's linguistic
human rights, then yes, I am all of those things.

To be "extreme" is vastly different, however. To me,
an "extremist" is one with no continuity of purpose or
of outcome. They seek to snipe. This view is entirely
understandable and often I am sympathetic to this
snap-neck reaction to an accumulation of oppressive
events. When one looks back through the looking glass
of history, people we now deify as "freedom fighters"
or "heroes" were then categorised as "terrorists" or
"extremists": take for example the ANC - few nowadays
would even countenance that they were "extreme": they
were defending their birth rights and protecting
themselves and their community against blatant
oppression. And yet in their day they were the
"terrorists" and the "extremists" who were shunned by
the moderates. In retrospect, it is clear to all that
the real "terrorism" was perpetuated by the racist
Afrikaaner government. As Ian points out: extremists
have their place, and "moderates" exist in an intimate
symbiosis with their more effective counterparts -
"not moderates" and "extremists".

To return to a particular example Ian discussed - that
of my use of the charged terms "oppressed" and
"Socialist Scotland" - I stand by my assertions. When
I used the epithet "Socialist Scotland" I was not
intending to imply that Scotland was somehow one
monolithic one-party edifice of socialism, but rather
specifically to that mass of people within Scotland
who consider themselves to be socialist and may
therefore be said to "Socialist Scotland". I perhaps
should have qualified this interjection with "those of
the population who identify themselves as socialist"
but clearly this was far too long-winded.

The question of whether I was justified in my use of
the emotionally live term "oppression" is another one
based entirely on personal opinion and subjectivity.
To me, "oppression" is not too strong a term to be
used to desribe the motions and modes of rule within
the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is hardly
unique in its centralisation - indeed, France is far
more monolithic - but I have had only too unfortunate
experiences at the hands of peripheralisation. It is
entirely correct in my view to deem the United Kingdom
- which is, by its very nature and force of numbers
Anglocentric - as oppressive.

This is an oppression that is not limited to the
Celtic areas of the United Kingdom. Any area outside
of the central belt based on London and the Home
Counties is only too acutely aware of the sense of
neglect and deprivation and that it is wilfully
ignored by the London government. That the Labour
government seems to think of poverty, unemployment and
working-class truculence as inherently inevitable in
the areas outside of the South-East of England is
particularly saddening and frustrating. I have long
argued that the north of England is particularly
discriminated against by London. To those in the
ruling class these areas are a kind of post-industrial
wilderlands or social black hole, useful for the
collection of the quintannual Labour vote but
otherwise best left to degrade and collapse. That
unemployment in these areas is consistently massive
when compared to the South-East is particularly
alarming, but less surprising when one realises that
the policy of the Blair government has long been -
whether covertly or overtly - to redirect potential
developments away from these "troublesome" areas to
East Anglia or the Home Counties. It is no coincidence
that Cambridge is now a leading producer of computer
software and e-commerce opportunities whilst
Liverpool, Derby et al are left with collapsed
industrial bases.

Therefore it is entirely reasonable to assume the term
"oppression" and to use it consistently as I have
done. "Oppression" is a useful shorthand term that I
do not use lightly. There are different forms of
oppression - be it linguistic, economic, social - and
often minority areas bear the brunt of all three.
Indeed, if you cast your minds back to some of my
earlier you will note that I include the North-East
and Yorkshire as minority language areas.
Consequently, therefore, you will see that I am
entirely justified in my assertions and that I cleave
to no double standards. If "oppression" is highly
emotive that is good - it mirrors my own highly
emotive outlook each time I employ it in description.

To be frank, Ian, and without meaning to sound
offensive (which I never intend), I am sick to the
point of depression when the old tired arguement about
Scottish and Welsh over-representation is raised as
some kind of dubious justification for a further
reduction in the United Kingdom's responsibilities in
those areas. A colonial government that quite
gleefully strips the assets of its colonies - in
Scotland and Wales' case oil and coal respectively -
should not thcweam and thcweam until it is sick when
the tables are turned and it is required to fulfil its
obligations in areas it persistently declares to be
integral to it. There are a number of people in
England and within the British government who would
dearly love Scotland and Wales (and Cornwall and the
north of England) to suffer greatly for their
continued existence, and they forever dredge up the
argument that it is unfair that Scottish MPs are
allowed to vote on peculiarly English matters. Well,
I'm sorry, but this is the result of the English
Parliament being passed off as the United Kingdom one,
and if they complain because they are now reaping the
whirlwind, they really should have thought about that
when they quite happily sowed their seed.

The idea that a bigger area should enjoy the most
power is also to me quite bizarre. Under this scheme,
America might as well take over all the other nations
of the planet simply because it can. Or are we all
supposed to initiate union with China now, because it
has the largest population? Or India? This argument is
curiously at variance when it comes to the issue of
European intengration: the same commentators who argue
that "biggest is best" seem vociferously opposed to
the EU, despite their hegemonistic affirmations. Yet
another case of a double standard at work.

And what about land area? Perhaps Ian should define
what he means by "bigger". If he means land area, then
Scotland should have significantly more MPs in the
colonial parliament than it already enjoys. After all,
land and environment fall within the remit of
responsibility in government, and it would be just as
easy to argue that there should be an MP for every
1,000 sq km or so because the land needs to be managed
as well as the people. Of course, if this was the
case, the world would all belong to the Russian
Federation or to Canada, depending or which of the two
is actually greater in size. Or perhaps I'm being
pedantic? Well... it could be something to do with a
reaction to an equally pedantic argument about the
number of Scottish MPs in an English Assembly: a
number (72) that is entirely impotent to be of any
great effect on a greater body (the 529 or so English
MPs).

As for the Scottish Parliament voting itself out of
existence: this is entirely true. However, what Ian
failed to add in mitigation was that the Scottish
Parliament was an unrepresentative prostitute body,
bribed up to the eyeballs by English gold and open
only to nobles and high-ranking aristocrats. It was
neither representative nor democratic. Similarly, the
Darien venture was entirely limited to capitalists and
aristocrats within the Scottish elite. Therefore, the
Scottish nation's wishes were not taken it to
consideration, unless one considers a band of
affectatious ruling class fools whoring their votes
out for English pounds to be the entire Scottish
nation. The fact that the Union was accompanied by
mass riots in Edinburgh - to the refrain of "No Union
with English dogs!" - indicates that the mass of the
Scottish nation were implacably opposed to their
unconsulted, undesired and unfortunate subsumation
into England (for that is what Britain remains - the
English Empire).

Scotland was not physically colonised - I was being
figurative rather than precise in my usage there, for
which I apologise - but it was nonetheless placed
under a colonial rule by the English government and
administered as "North Britain". It is interesting to
point out in mitigation that if one looks at
commentaries of the period 1707-1900 the term "English
race" for "British" continues to be used to great
effect, but that "Scottish" becomes "North British"
and "Welsh" and "Cornish" non-existant. The intention
was to extend "England" to the whole of the island of
Britain, and throughout the era of the scramble for
Africa colonists spoke of "England's inescapable duty"
(Cecil Rhodes) to consolidate its Empire and of
"England's commitment" (Winston Churchill) to India,
etc. Never once was the term "British" used when it
should have been, to indicate the panoply of nations
within the Empire. No, "English" clearly meant
"English", and "British" did too.

The image of the kilted Highlander at the forefront of
English imperialism can be discounted: as we all know,
the experience of participation in imperialism by
minority groups has meant the minority group - in this
case Scots - were useful as front line cannon fodder,
but that hardly justifies their inclusion as
"imperialists" or "colonists". You are quite correct,
Ian, in pointing out the preponderance of Scottish
placenames in colonised areas. However, one must
understand unequivocally the context in which Scots,
Welsh, Cornish and Irish migrated to England's
colonies. The ethnic cleansing that was the Highland
Clearances and the period after the '45 (the 1745
Rising, for those not acquainted with peculiarly
Celtic events) meant that thousands upon thousands of
Gaelic-speaking Highlanders were dispossessed (often
of their lives too) and were encouraged (and in many
cases coerced) into moving into Canada and New Zealand
particularly. They were no more eager colonists than
any other type of refugees, and in many cases they
were intended to "fill the hole" of "Terra nullis"
until full-scale English migration could be realised.
They were not enamoured of their positions, but they
were on the whole refugees.

That is not to excuse the gleeful and rapacious
attitudes of individuals. For a long time "Castle
Catholics" in Ireland produced a pliant colonial civil
service and participated fully and zealously in the
consolidation of the English Empire abroad. Often
Irishmen, Scotsmen or Welshmen rose to individually
quite lofty positions, evidenced in the psoition of
Colonel O'Dwyer, the Governor-General of the Panjab at
the time of the Amritsar Massacre. He was later
assassinated in England years afterward by an
revengeful Indian whose family had been butchered by
British troops at the time of the Massacre.

However, Ian's assertion that "Scotland's history has
been one of assisting in the colonialism of other
nations" is a gross generalisation of the sort I have
been accused of myself, and I really can't let it go
by with a reciprocation. Participation out of
desperation or coercion is hardly equivalent to
full-scale colonisation undertaken with gusto and
obsession bordering on zealotry. I point to the recent
example of the Druze and Circassians within the
Israel/Palestinian struggle. The Druze serve in the
Israeli Army, but are relegated to the most menial or
the most suicidal of tasks. Typically they serve in
the Border Police, where they come into daily contact
with angry Palestinians who consider them traitors:
they are subjected to horrific abuse - both verbal and
physical - from Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews
alike. I recall reading in Janine Di Giovanni's
"Against the Stranger" the story of a Druze Israeli
soldier who was coerced by his colleagues into
defusing a particularly volatile bomb. It was reasoned
that, compared with an Israeli Jew, a Druze was
disposable. He was halfway through when the device
exploded and tore his eyes out. Both Palestinians and
Israeli Jews alike refer to the Druze as "shit Arabs"
and the Druze themselves have out of alienation and
desperation chosen the route - collaboration with
Israel - which leads to the least relative suffering.
In Palestine, however, the Druze are seen as apostate
Muslims and as traitors to the Palestinian cause. As a
result they are despised. To Israeli authorities they
are little more than a useful buffer between Israel
proper and Syria.

As all history is but an interpretation of the past,
Ian, what is "ludicrous" to you is not any less valid
that what is "gospel"; therefore, one should refrain
from making personal judgements on other people's
views of what is, after all, a fairly malleable
continuum that bends and contorts dependeing on the
politics of the interpreter.

Which brings me to the gist of your post: the "Six
Counties" appellation. I have never made any secret
whatsoever of the fact that I am a socialist, and, by
extension, that I am in favour of the reunification of
Ireland. I do not feel ashamed of my politics nor of
any one else's. I believe passionately in the validity
of every view and of free speech. I am only too deeply
aware of the "third front" in this conflict, fought
through the politics of names and terms. To those who
are uninitiated in this arcane but sensitive
complexity I will provide a brief summary of the
significance of certain terms. I warn you in advance
that I am writing solely from my own point of view and
that Ian may well have a diametrically opposed
interpretation.

The two traditions in Ireland identify themselves by
two differing aspirations: whether to retain the
region known as Northern Ireland as part of the United
Kingdom or whether to reunify it with the rest of the
island of Ireland. As such, Unionists and loyalists
(who favour retention of the constitutional status
quo) use terminology which reflects this intended
outcome. In contrast, Nationalists and republicans
(who favour the reunification of Ireland) have their
own political shibboleths.

Beginning with the basics: "Northern Ireland" is the
internationally recognised legal title of the entity
which formerly comprised of six of the geographical
counties of the ancient nine-county province of
Ulster. However, the title stems from the Treaty of
1921 which agreed to the partition of Ireland into two
entities: "Northern Ireland" (consisting of the
counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry [or
Londonderry], Fermanagh and Tyrone) and "Southern
Ireland" (consisting of the twenty-six remaining
counties). However, "Southern Ireland" chose the name
of "Saorstat Eireann" (in English "the Irish Free
State") and in 1937 laid claim to the six counties of
the North, denying the validity of the 1921 Treaty.
Hence, to nationalists, "Northern Ireland" is a title
representing British sovereignty and legislative
competency in Ireland: they prefer "the north of
Ireland" "the North" (to indicate the island's
indivisible nature) or "the Six Counties" or the "Six
County entity" (which is intended to reaffirm the
'Irishness' of the region and to minoritise the
Unionist sentiment there in terms of the whole
island). Unionists, in contrast, often use the term
"Ulster" to refer to the region, because it is
reminiscient of Carson, Craig and the original
nine-county Ulster Unionism. However, as the contested
region comprises of only two-thirds of the historic
province of Ulster, nationalists oppose this usage as
inaccurate and offensive. Similarly, nationalists
oppose the Unionist term "the Province" because of its
two-fold association: as a "province" of the United
Kingdom (which nationalists do not countenance the
region as being) and because the only way "province"
should be used strictly in nationalist terminology is
to refer to a nine-county entity within a reunited
Ireland.

In addition, nationalists refer to the second city of
the region as "Derry", which is an anglicised form of
its original Irish name, Doire (or Doire Cholmchille),
whilst their Unionist opponents talk of "Londonderry",
referring to the name of the city since it was
developed by London merchants within Protestant times
(i.e., since the 17th Century). In 1984 a Nationalist
majority on the City Council changed the name
officially to "Derry" but on most maps and documents
it is referred to as "Londonderry". A compromise has
developed whereby the city is referred to as "Derry"
(because it predates the latter derivation) whereas
the county surrounding, which is a purely English
creation, is named "Co. Londonderry".

In the wrong situations, these usages never fail to
cause offence, and it would be unthinkable for a
Unionist to refer to the "Six Counties" or for a
Nationalist to talk of "Ulster". Indeed, to a
Nationalist "Ulster" is an aggressive partisan term,
just as "Six Counties" may be to a Unionist.
Consequently, the terms used are a clear indication of
the speaker's political affliations, and that was the
point Ian was making. I was fully aware of this. Taken
to an extreme, it is possible to tell a person's
political affliation from their forenames or (more
innacurately) from their surnames. Protestant
Unionists (particularly those of Scottish descent)
will often have Scottish (or rather more accurately
non-Irish) forenames such as William, Kenneth, Ian,
Arthur, Sidney etc. whereas Catholic Nationalists are
more likely to have Irish Gaelic forenames such as
Sean, Seamas, Cormac, Liam, etc. In extension,
Nationalists often support Glasgow Celtic football
club, whereas their Unionist counterparts are allied
to Glasgow Rangers.

An unfortunate linguistic development has been that
Nationalists tend not to learn Ulster Scots (or even
acknowledge its existence, sadly) and Unionists tend
to avoid Irish Gaelic. This is not the case always,
however: I have a healthy respect for Ulster Scots and
Ian has a similar tolerance of Irish.

Ian presumed I was ignorant of such partisan
affirmations: on the contrary, I come from an Irish
Nationalist background, but born of a Cornish
nationalist mother and raised partially in Cornwall,
Co. Kildare and Nottingham. As such, I balk at using
"Northern Ireland" just as much as Ian does at using
the "Six Counties". From what I can extrapolate Ian
seems to be attempting to coerce me into using
Unionist versions - which is understable given that
Ulster Scots is included here. There are no "right" or
"wrong" versions, and there is no reason why I should
use "Northern Ireland". Ian attempts to use the
comprehension argument: that as most outsiders are not
privy to the vagaries of the Irish conflict I should
use the "legal" title, i.e., "Northern Ireland".
Unfortunately, what he fails to recognise when he asks
this is that he is asking me to recognise British
legal authority in Ireland, which is something I - or
any other Nationalist - would never countenance doing,
no more than I would attempt to force him into using
"the North". Therefore I intend to persist in using
the "Six Counties" now that I have informed everyone
of my very valid reasons for doing so.

I understand Ian's concern at my use of the "Six
Counties". However, he would do well to recognise the
similar effect that "Northern Ireland" or "Ulster" has
on me. And as for the issue of "Northern Ireland"
being the "moderate" view - I've just spent the best
part of three hours explaining why I am opposed to
"moderate" ways of thinking on minority language
issues, and that really was a lame dog. As Ron points
out: we have a broad and wonderfully diverse
intercourse here, and it would be wrong to alienate
any of us due to differences in political opinion,
linguistic view or national background. Therefore I
hope that I have not caused offence by what I have
written, and I would like very much to point out how
interesting our discussions are with the addition of a
little friction here and there.

It would be wrong to introduce censorship because of
one's political opinions: that only mirrors the
outside world where all of us on Lowlands-L are
discriminated against to a certain degree because of
our opinions, our interest or our linguistic
situation.

Thank you all very much for your time, effort and
patience in reading this and I apologise unreservedly
if I have caused offence. However, I will not retract
my views - there being little point in having
articulated them in the first place if I did.

Until next time,

Criostoir.

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =======================================================================