LL-L "Language policies" 2003.01.28 (11) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 28.JAN.2003 (11) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
 Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
 Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have 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>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language policies" 2003.01.28 (06) [E]

Though the undeniable fact is that Scots is spoken in two (devolved)
jurisdictions. It is only the perogative of the British government to sign
international charters or treaties etc. But the European Charter bears on
devolved responsibilities. Since the British government signed the charter
is it their resposibility to see to it that the obligations are fulfilled or
can this be delegated to the devolved jurisdictions? Can the devolved
jurisdictions refuse to implement (or at least to finance implementation)
the Charter on the grounds that it is a UK government Charter and not one
agreed to by the devolved jurisdictions?

--

Some comments, I don't know whether or not things are comparable:

In Belgium we have regionalized cultural matters, and are somehow faced with
a similar issue.

As a result of one of many compromises, the French speaking community got a
formal agreement from the federal government, it would sign "the treaty",
not for protecting walloon or limburgish or ..., but for allowing French
speaking people to get all services in French everywhere, and so avoiding
them to have to integrate in the Dutch (+ regional variants & dialects)
speaking North of Belgium.

Key point is: the federal government may sign, but the competence for
ratifying this matter is not with the federal parliament, but with the
regional parliaments. I cannot imagine the Flemish parliament will ever
ratify under the circumstances.

The circular minority problem:
If you protect indians in a reservate
-> An Anglo-Saxon immigrates in the reservate
-> He/she becomes a minority
-> He/she goes to court
-> The reservate will have to protect its own internal minority
and provide for all services procedures in the Anglo-Saxon way

Regards,
Roger

==================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Postings 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>.
 =======================================================================