The powerful thoughts of a Scottish Tory may shed some light on the Northern Ireland problem

No Conservative needs to be reminded that the Conservative Party has a problem with Scotland.

Since before the General Election, I have followed what bloggers and politicians have been saying about the causes of the problem and what to do about it but always bearing in mind that the problems of Scotland and Northern Ireland are not the same. Picking out the features of the Scottish problem and applying those parts of it, which are relevant to the Northern Ireland problem is not a straightforward exercise. The exercise is an important one, nevertheless. Back in June, I wrote my first post on this subject.

A few weeks ago, the Sanderson report was completed. Since I published a post in reaction to media commentary, I have had an opportunity to read the full report. Despite the report’s very hard-hitting observations on party organisation and structure, I could not help feeling that the report fell short of proper analysis on the prospects for an Independent Scottish Party.

I am now glad to say that another Conservative with far more knowledge of this subject than me has written a post, which cuts very deep and makes a case to answer for an independent party. He is Blair Murray and his post has been published on Conservative Home.

Murray makes some important observations about where ‘would be’ tories have parked their vote:

“The fact is that there are many centre-Right voters in Scotland who do not vote Tory. In rural areas, particularly in the Highlands, they vote Lib Dem. In the North-East and in urban areas many vote SNP. Indeed, canvassing in previous elections it became clear to me that many SNP supporters would prefer lower taxes, incentives for business and less government regulation. Some of these voters were even ambivalent towards the SNP’s central goal of independence. It is these voters, to the right of Scottish Labour on economic arguments, that we must win in the future.”

Murray also makes very important points relating to the history of the Scottish Unionist Party leading up to the merger with the Conservatives in 1965. An important Scottish political identity had effectively been killed. Murray makes this very important observation about the branding and identity of political parties in Scotland before the merger:

“What all of these have in common is the deliberate avoidance of the term ‘Conservative’, which had always been associated with the English party. The effect of the 1965 merger should be clear for all to see.”

Murray also defends the proposal to give Holyrood greater fiscal autonomy and argues against those who say that it is more likely to lead to Scottish independence.

I totally agree. A look at history might help to understand the Scottish psyche a little better. The Scots were not conquered by England. The first Unionist was a Scot. Somewhere buried deeply in the Scottish psyche is a desire to be seen as having parity with the English.

Murray concludes:

“All the evidence shows that Scots feel more Scottish than British. Incidentally, the evidence also shows that the English feel increasingly English rather than British. This does not for a moment mean that those who feel more Scottish or more English want the UK to split. Most of us are comfortable with overlapping identities. I, like most Conservatives, am a passionate supporter of the Union. And many of those voters in Scotland who feel more Scottish than British would vote for a party of the centre-Right. They would vote for a party supportive of enterprise and social stability, emphasising tradition and responsibilities as well as rights. At the moment they don’t. Only by becoming like those voters – proudly Scottish but supportive of the UK – will the Scottish Conservatives become a success.”

Identity is a key problem in Northern Ireland too. I make no bones about the fact that it is not easy to persuade a voter who is a unionist to make a journey which leaves behind the comfort zone of a party with a unionist identity. Just reading the exchanges that I have had on this blog with Conservative officials bears that out.  It will also be just as difficult to persuade Nationalists to leave the comfort zone of a party with a nationalist identity.

There are three powerful arguments in response to that which lend weight to the theory that the Northern Ireland Centre Right campaign is the right one to break down this paradox. Firstly, a party which is neutral on the constitutional position shortens that journey by half. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of Northern Irish people want an end to sectarianism. Thirdly, a Conservative Regional party which makes that journey from its present position would send a very inspiring powerful signal of leadership to the Northern Irish people.

Scottish Conservatives will not be separated from the main party in the near future.

As reported in the Scotsman today, the review by the committee, headed by Lord Sanderson, on the failure by the Conservative Party, to achieve electoral success in Scotland at the general election, has now been published.  The report will be regarded with keen interest by Northern Ireland Conservatives, as they look to make comparisons with the failure of UCUNF campaign in Northern Ireland.

According to the BBC, the review has recommended a “major overhaul.”

"significant weaknesses" in the party’s decision-making structure need to be tackled and more full-time staff taken on, including a chief policy adviser”

"The consistent themes in the many submissions we received were of a need for clarity of leadership, a distinctive Scottish identity, a welcoming and broader party, increased decentralisation of the party structure and the empowerment of the members.”

The report recommends the creation of a new Scottish Party leader, who need not necessarily be same person as the leader of the Conservative MSP group in Holyrood.

The report also recommends the creation of a post of Scottish Conservative Party leader.   The present position is that Annabelle Goldie is merely the leader of the Scottish Conservative group in Holyrood. 

The report provides some acknowledgement that the Conservative brand North of the Border is toxic in the sense that it is anti-Scottish.  The Scotsman says:

“The review lays out the Scottish party’s problems with brutal honesty, noting how polling shows Scots remain unclear about "what the Scottish Conservatives stand for", except that they still consider the party to be "anti-Scottish"

According to the BBC, this ‘anti-Scottish perceptions originates from the days of Margaret Thatcher (when the poll tax was introduced). 

However, the report does not make any recommendation to change the party’s branding.  According to a report by STV:

“The Commission also said there was no need for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party to change its name, stating: "The problem is not the party’s name or logo, but its failure to convey clearly and consistently what it believes in and stands for."

Clearly then, the review implies that the perception that the Conservatives are ‘anti-Scottish’ can be changed by conventional campaigning.   With respect to the Sanderson committee, the Party has been trying to change that perception, without success, for the last 20 years.  Having a Scottish Conservative leader is only tinkering with this problem.   Scots will rightly conclude that such a leader is still a puppet of the London Party.  

It is regrettable that the committee has not fully ‘grasped the nettle’ of toxicity.  For Northern Irish Conservatives who want to see a new Independent party, this effectively indicates that there will be no change of the position here for the next few years, at least. 

Will voters think the DUP an irrelevance at Westminster Elections?

The Glasgow North East by election was predicted by most of the political punters but the scale of the Labour win did come as a shock. 

Scottish voting patterns are hard to decipher at the best of times.  Willie Bain, the new Labour MP apparently ran an ‘insurgents’ campaign’ protesting the decisions made by the SNP government in Edinburgh. 

That does not appear to be the entire reason for the win though.  An opinion poll taken for the TNS/BMRB Herald on 3^rd November indicated a huge difference between voting intentions for the Holyrood Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. 

	Labour	SNP	Cons	L.Dem
Holyrood	32	40	13	11
Westminster	39	25	18	12

It seems then that some 15% of Scottish voters are prepared to vote for the SNP at elections for the Scottish Parliament and either Conservative or Labour for the UK Parliament.  Does that now mean that the SNP is an irrelevance at Westminster in the eyes of a large proportion of Scottish voters?

This situation does beg an interesting question for Northern Ireland politics.  It is appreciated that the circumstances are entirely different and it is not exactly comparing like with like.  For example, Sinn Fein supporters are quite happy to vote for their party even though they do not take up their seats at Westminster. 

However, there is a new element approaching Northern Ireland politics – the Conservatives, in alliance with the UUP, are offering all voters in Northern Ireland the chance to vote for the next UK Government.  

Will voters start thinking that the DUP is now an irrelevance at Westminster?  Will TUV voters start to think along those lines if they do not have a candidate to represent them?  Time will tell.

Commission on Scottish Devolution presents its final report

Yesterday, the commission on Scottish Devolution published its final report. 

The report has in it recommendations which undoubtedly will have ripple effects in relation to the future of Northern Ireland. 

At the centre of the debate, to which the report alludes, is ‘how much and what fiscal autonomy should be given to devolved government?”

In an article written about the report the Times highlights the flaw that exists in the present system. 

“Successive administrations had been more celebrated for the way they spent taxpayers’ money than for the efficiency with which they managed their budgets. Having the power to invest an annual block grant of £32 billion, without the responsibility for raising the tax, was always a one-sided bargain”

In other words, there is no democratic accountability.  Unless an administration has the responsibility to raise all the money it spends, it can always blame central government for not providing enough revenue if services fall short.  It can also hide behind central government if there is a problem with the economy generally since it is not responsible for fiscal or monetary policy of any kind.

The report recommends that Scotland should have more power to raise and reduce taxes but subject to some control mechanisms retained by central government.  The Times summarises the recommendation as follows:

“A Scottish government would be free to follow the spending pattern laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer but if it chose to cut taxes, it would be forced to reduce public spending. If it raised taxes, it would have to explain why”

Does the proposal give away too much or too little power?   Is this a stepping stone towards the breakup of the Union or will it create greater harmony in the Union?   (Alan Cochrane writing in  the Telegraph  suggests the report goes in the right direction for the Nationalists).   What are the implications of the proposals for Northern Ireland’s future?  Should Northern Ireland be denied the power to raise taxes until sectarian politics is out of the system?  Those are questions for a future post.

The debate on the proposed Irish Language Act – part V

Part I    Part II   Part III   Part IV  

In my four previous posts, I have set out the history of the Irish Language and the status quo today in terms of speaking, learning and heritage.  Since the previous post, I have received updated information.  I would like to thank very much those of you who have supplied me with that information.

I said in my previous post that the last Northern Irish speaker of Irish died in 1983.  He was actually the last recorded adult monoglott Irish speaker.  I have since been told that there was a later Northern Irish monoglott Irish speaker who died in 1986. I also omitted to mention two communities in Belfast in the Shaw’s Road and the Falls Road which have set up mini-Gaeltacht areas.  It is also worth acknowledging that there are now a number of Irish medium schools.  All the indications are that the learning of the Irish Language is on the increase.   

The proposed Irish Language Act is not a straight forward debate.  The arguments both for and against include issues relating to Culture, Identity, Legal, Constitutional, educational, promotional, sectarian and financial.  One could also subdivide the arguments under those headings.  I have weighed all of those arguments very carefully in accordance with the following guiding principles.  

Guiding principles  

The overriding principle upon which I approach the issues and find a solution to them is that Northern Ireland’s best interests are paramount. I appreciate that not everybody will necessarily have the same view about what Northern Ireland’s best interests should be.  

My view of Northern Ireland’s best interest in relation to the Irish Language is guided by two main principles.   

The first is that that we need to bring sectarianism to an end and thereby move Northern Ireland towards harmony.  Conversely, we must not do anything which would lead to or aggravate sectarian division.   

The second principle is that primacy should be given to the the Belfast Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement.  The importance of these two agreements can never be understated.  Together, they are the negotiated blueprint for long term peace and an acceptable political constitution.  If there is to be any departure from any strand of those two agreements, there have to be extremely compelling reasons for doing so.  I have also decided that if there is a conflict between the first and the second principle, the first principle should take precedence over the second.  

Behind those principles, there is a vision.  The Irish Language is clearly a part of Northern Ireland’s cultural and historical heritage.  Provided that a way forward can be found for the Irish Language which is acceptable to both communities, it has the potential to develop into a symbol of a unified Northern Ireland identity.   

The St. Andrews Agreement  

The St. Andrews agreement is the appropriate starting point, since it does seem to be the main reason for the debate.    

I have already set out the relevant provisions in the Belfast Agreement which relate to the promotion of the Language.  The St. Andrews Agreement was, at the very least, an agreement to give legislative effect to the Belfast Agreement.  It may even have been more than that.    

It is worth repeating the relevant wording of the St. Andrews agreement.   

“The Government will introduce an Irish Language Act reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland and work with the incoming Executive to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language.”  

Has the Government delivered on this part of the Agreement with the introduction of the new section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act?  Once again, it is worth repeating section 28D   

“(1) The Executive Committee shall adopt a strategy setting out how it proposes to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language. 

(2) The Executive Committee shall adopt a strategy setting out how it proposes to enhance and develop the Ulster Scots language, heritage and culture.   

(3) The Executive Committee— 

(a) must keep under review each of the strategies; and

(b) may from time to time adopt a new strategy or revise a strategy.”  

Diane Dodds of the DUP has made references to a proposed Irish Language Act in very hostile terms.  In reference to the SDLP draft bill, she said at the beginning of February 2009, “We’ve binned the Irish Language Act.”  Very recently, she said this of Sinn Fein 

“Remember their promised Irish Language Act? The Direct Rule regime was prepared to grant it. Indeed they were out to public consultation on the issue and were poised to impose a rigid Irish language regime upon us.”

Enacting section 28D after the conclusion of St. Andrews would have been a very odd thing to do if there was to be a another piece of legislation to follow.  This suggests that something stronger than section 28D was in the offing.  Diane Dodd’s remarks are very near to confirmation that section 28D was a watered down compromise which appeared after the DUP rejected the original proposals.  

Assuming that stronger legislation for the Irish Language had been offered by the Government, what was it likely to have been?   

The St.Andrew’s agreement says “reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland.”  It is worth providing a summary of those experiences.  

The Irish language and the Republic of Ireland Constitutional experience  

When the Irish Free State began in 1922, the Irish constitution made Irish and English equal official languages.  In 1938, Irish became the first official language.  Notwithstanding this status, there are still restrictions on the use of Irish in the Courts and Tribunals.  The reason for this is that the right to natural justice is a higher constitutional principle.  

The principle of natural justice is now underpinned by the European convention on Human Rights.  In particular, Article 6(1) provides the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.  Article 6(3) provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.   

A litigant (party to proceedings) is entitled to use his native language or the Irish Language (if not his native language) when presenting his side of the case to a Court or Tribunal but may not require another party to do so.  A party is not entitled to demand that the entire proceedings are in Irish.  A judge may have the benefit of an interpreter (including an Irish interpreter) to assist with his understanding of the evidence.  Advocacy, questioning and cross-examination may be carried out in Irish.  A defendant in a criminal trial can not insist that a jury has an understanding in Irish.   

No party to any proceedings can insist on a legal notice being translated unless this would lead to a breach of natural justice. Either official language can be used for a notice unless there is a separate statutory provision to the contrary.  Section 8 of the Official Languages Act 2003 entitles a Defendant to demand a summons or pleading in either official language.  A person can chose to give evidence in either official language.   

Article 25.4.4 of the Irish Constitution provides that all Acts of the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) have to be translated into Irish but this does not apply to secondary legislation, which would include Court rules.  Case Law has determined that the State is obliged to translate Rules of the Superior Courts into Irish within a reasonable period after their adoption.  The same also applied to the District Court Rules.   

The Status of Irish as a first (rather than an equal) language has some legal implications.  It has also been held that Article 8 obliged the State to provide an Irish translation of official documentation where a person wishes to conduct business in Irish. Forms for use in the Companies Registry have to have an Irish translation.  However, a statute requiring road vehicle registration plates to have English was held not unconstitutional when a defendant was convicted for having Irish-only plates.  

It is undecided whether the State is obliged to translate all official documents for any transaction whether a person requires it or not.  There is no legislation which provides that there should be exclusive use of Irish or English for any official purpose of the State.    

Article 8 also hits the education sector.  A Minister may refuse to fund primary schools without the adequate teaching of Irish.  The provision of Irish is a necessary element of State funded education.   

It seems that having Irish as a first language in a Country which is predominantly English-speaking has put a legal strain on official business functionality.  In 1996, the Report of the Constitutional Review Group rejected the primacy given to Irish by Article 8 as “unrealistic, given that English is the language currently spoken as their vernacular by 98% of the population of the State.”   

The Group recommended that English and Irish are the two official languages but also recommended a protection provision for Irish that “the State shall take special care to nurture the language and increase its use.”  The recommendation has been ignored and there seems to be no national desire to change the position.   

Wales and the Welsh Language  

Before the Romans came to Britain and possibly until the invasion (of what later became England) by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, nearly all of Britain spoke in one of the Brythonic Celtic languages.  Wales was only partially occupied by the Romans and never by the Anglo-Saxons.  For these reasons, Wales has retained its ancient language (albeit evolved from what it was) to this day.   

In 1282, King Edward I of England completed the conquest of Wales.  From that point onwards, Wales became a part of the English Kingdom.  There was no separate legal system in Wales until devolution in 1998.  The de facto official language of state was whatever went on in England.  Originally, the official language was Norman French until that language became obsolete by the reign of King Henry V.  In the reign of Henry VIII, by section XX of the Laws of Wales Act 1535, only English could be spoken in the Welsh Courts despite the fact that hardly anybody in Wales spoke English.  

The Welsh language never became extinct. It had been heading in that direction.  21% of the Welsh population speak the Welsh language today.   

Statutory recognition for the Welsh language began in 1942 with the Welsh Courts Act.  This gave the right to use Welsh in courts providing that the Welsh speaker was under a disadvantage in having to speak English. This right was very narrowly defined by subsequent case law and with the declining monoglott Welsh population was heading for obsolescence. The Welsh Language Act 1967 overturned these decisions.  It made clear the right of any party or witness to use Welsh.  It also gave rise to the concept of ‘equal validity’ between the Welsh and English languages except that in a case of conflict between Welsh and English text, English prevailed.   

The Welsh Language Act 1993  sets up a language board answerable to the Welsh Secretary of State (now devolved to the Welsh Executive).  The Wales Act 1998 gave power to do anything the Welsh want to do to support the Welsh Language.  It has been compulsory to learn Welsh in schools since 2000.   There is not an “equal” status as an official language in the Welsh Assembly or Welsh Parliamentary proceedings.   

Many of the Welsh are very passionate about their language and its relationship to their identity.  It was interesting to see how one Newspaper reporter/blogger suffered the wrath of the language defenders when he suggested scrapping the 1993 Act and was accused of “bigotry” by many commenters.   

There is a campaign for a new Welsh Language Act to make Welsh an equal language completely.  It has now been running for about four years.  As the implications of the proposals sink in, resistance from businesses is on the increase as cost implications to private businesses are carry weight in the arguments.  It is not clear how many in Wales would support a new language act.  

Northern Ireland’s state of readiness for Irish in the Courts and as an official language  

Although Wales and the Republic of Ireland allow a person to use the Irish or Welsh language in Court proceedings, it is very unlikely that the version of the Irish Language Act contemplated by the UK Government would have included an immediate right to use Irish in a Court in Northern Ireland court because of the practical difficulties.   

Before such a right could be implemented, there would need to be a training programme so that a sufficient number of lawyers and judges would achieve a high level of fluency in the language.  I emphasize “high level” here because anything short of that could lead to a miscarriage of justice, even with an interpreter.  When I say “sufficient number” I mean I high percentage as there are in Wales and the Republic of Ireland.    

Since it is not possible to force existing Northern Irish lawyers to learn Irish, let alone expect them to do so quickly, there would need a long-term plan to bring Irish into legal education and training.  Should we decide that we want Irish in the Northern Ireland Courts in the future, there would need to be an announcement made that a qualification in Irish will be compulsory for entry into the Legal Profession in (say) 10 years from now so that school students contemplating a legal career can chose to do GCSE and ‘A’ level Irish or equivalent in anticipation of that.  At some point in the future (perhaps 25 years time), this would yield enough fluent-speaking lawyers of sufficient experience to facilitate the right to be heard in Irish. 

Although it is possible to have a right to be heard in another language in the courts without that language being an official language, it is not possible to have an official language without an individual being able to use that language in the Courts as of right.  The case law in the Republic of Ireland makes that clear. It would also have been strange if the UK Government’s proposed Irish Language Act would “leapfrog” the Welsh to make Irish an equal language in Northern Ireland.   

Given all the circumstances, I can not see that the Government would have proposed to introduce an Irish Language Act similar to the Irish or Welsh one.  What then is the likely view taken by the Government for an Irish Language based upon the Irish and Welsh experience?   

Fortunately, we have a very big clue.  Just over a year before the St. Andrews Agreement was reached, the Scottish Parliament passed its first Language Act.  

Scotland and the Scots Gaelic Language    

Scotland is historically different to Ireland and Wales in the sense that it was never completely ruled by the Normans or the English.  There would have been a time when Scots Gaelic was the official language under the ancient Scottish Kings such as Kenneth McAlpin.    

Influences such as the Church and the close connection between Scots and Norman nobility led to English becoming the official Scottish language long before King James VI of Scotland ascended the throne of England in 1603 (see e.g. the Royal Mines Act 1424).   

Scots Gaelic is one of the daughter languages of Old Irish. There are reportedly no Monoglott speakers left except in the remote Outer Hebrides.  Like all other Celtic Languages, it was declining.  As with other Celtic languages including Welsh, Cornish, Irish and Manx, there is a revivalist movement.    

Until recently, there was no legislation in relation to Scots Gaelic. Following devolution in 1998, the Scottish Parliament passed the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act  in 2005.   

The 2005 Act establishes a National Gaelic language board which 

(a)   has functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language

(b)   is required to prepare a national Gaelic language plan

(c)   requires certain public authorities to prepare and publish Gaelic language plans in connection with the exercise of their functions and to maintain and implement such plans

(d)   issues guidance in relation to Gaelic education.   

I have no doubt that the Scots looked at the Welsh and Irish position before bringing in the legislation.  They recognised the practical difficulties of a fully-blown language Act as in the Republic of Ireland but the Act also contemplates a constitutional upgrading of the Language once there are a sufficient number of speakers.   

The other interesting observation about the Scottish legislation is that it was so substantially contemporaneous in time with the St. Andrews Agreement.  I have little doubt that if there was going to be an Irish Language Act at the time of St. Andrews, it would have been modelled on the Scottish legislation.   

Similarities and Differences between the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act and section 28D   

The first similarity that jumps out of the page is that in the Scottish case, a plan is required to be prepared.  In the Northern Irish Case, a strategy is required.  It is also fair to say that the existing structure in Northern Ireland has the capability (in theory) to deliver as much promotion for the Irish Language as the 2005 Act does for Scots Gaelic.    

There are, however, differences which in my opinion make the dynamics of promotion very different.  In the Scottish Case, a board has been set up to deal with the planning.  It also includes public authorities.  In Northern Ireland, it is the function of the Executive to make the Strategy.  That is about as detailed as it gets.  The big weakness of section 28 is that there is a de facto veto on progress because of its vagueness.  For example the strategy might be no more than making Irish available for all Adults to learn at all of Northern Ireland’s Further Education colleges.  That would be an almost useless initiative because most of the FE Colleges provide that facility already.   

With an Assembly in charge of promotion, you are putting politicians in charge and you are more likely to have conflict.  There is also something particularly attractive about having a board.  They are more likely to have specialist expertise than the executive or an executive committee.   

We await the emergence of a strategy.  The right noises have so far been made on the website of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure but note the last sentence   

“A Strategy for Indigenous or Regional Minority Languages will be presented to the Executive in due course”   

I am therefore going to make my first provisional declaration of opinion here.  It is that if an Irish Language Act is justified, then the part of it which deals with promotion of the Irish Language should be modelled upon the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 and that section 28D is inadequate.   

At this point in this post, I have not expressed a view about the aspirational part of the Scottish Act.  It still remains a question as to whether there should be expressed in a new language act a desire for equal status for the language in the future and/or a future desire to have Irish in the Courts.  Although it will take a long time before equal status of the language can be achieved, some sort of way forward needs to be found for long term aspiration, since this will affect the shorter term decisions on strategy and planning.   

There are still other arguments to address.  Before I get on to these, we need to consider whether promotion of the Irish Language is everything we need to do to honour the Belfast and St. Andrews agreements or should there be more?  In the investigation of that, we look at the arguments in favour of making Irish an official language.  These include promotion, constitutional rights and identity.   

Is there any relationship between promotion of the Language and giving the Irish Language any degree of official status?   

The learning of Irish has been growing in Northern Ireland in the last generation without any form of constitutional recognition.  In a sense, some constitutional recognition has already been given by section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act with possibly more effective provisions on promotion to come.  The question I am really asking is “does promotion of the Language require any form of status as an official language or the right to a trial in Irish to promote it?”    

Just from a common sense point of view, it is difficult to see how officiation of the Language would not promote it in some way given the number of employees and lawyers who would be required to have involvement with the language.   

Sir David Crystal O.B.E. who was born in Northern Ireland is a part time lecturer in linguistics at Bangor University (North Wales).  In his book “Language Death” (2000: Cambridge University Press) he postulates that an endangered language will progress if its speakers:

1. increase their prestige within the dominant community
2. increase their wealth
3. increase their legitimate power in the eyes of the dominant community
4. have a strong presence in the education system
5. can write down the language
6. can make use of electronic technology

Item 1 (increasing prestige) suggests that the Language might benefit by giving it official status.  I hasten to add here that I have not obtained a copy of the book.  The above list is an internet summary.  I leave that potential point “in the air” without conclusion as it would need the input expert opinion.  

Constitutional Rights and Identity

In my last post, I referred to the part of the Belfast Agreement which links cultural rights to Equality.  It is worth setting out once again, Article 1(d) under the heading of the Belfast Agreement “Constitutional Issues”. This reads as follows:   

 “1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British–Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo–Irish Agreement, they will:  ….

……..(v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities; …..”

I now come to a question which is at the heart of this debate.  Where exactly does the Irish language sit in terms of identity?   

Note particularly the words “both communities.”  Those words are a very clear reference to Catholic and Protestant.  Article 1(d) represents the so-called “Equality” argument.  If the Identity of the Irish Language belongs purely to the Catholic Community, then the argument is straight forward.  It would mean that in applying Article 1(v), the UK Government is obliged, within the spirit and meaning of the Belfast Agreement, to impose a long-term aspiration to give Irish equal status in an Irish Language Act.   

Some people would indeed argue that the language is only for Catholics.  They could point to statistics which indicate a ratio of about 15: 1 people who are Catholics who have learned and/or are speaking the Irish Language. 

With the greatest respect to the proponents of that argument, justifying equal status through Article 1(v) is a sectarian argument.  For one thing, Irish speaking is still a pastime of a minority of Catholics. It is also a fact that a significant number of Protestants have either learned it or want to learn it.  Furthermore, the educational system does not yet provide a fair enough opportunity for Protestant children to learn the Irish language.  

There is a further argument on interpretation which is against the notion that the Irish Language is purely a Catholic identity.  In the section of the Belfast agreement which deals with promotion of the language under the heading “Economic social and cultural issues” (see below), there is a reference to “the Irish Language Community.”  That is not a community defined on sectarian lines.   

I maintain that there is an opportunity for the Irish Language to be adopted as a cross-community identity going forward. Accordingly, I reject Article 1(v) as justification for equal status of the Irish Language.  I hasten to add that this does not mean that Irish should be shut out forever on the question of equality of status.  My view is that if there is going to be a decision about equal status in the future, it must flow from a united cross-community desire to incorporate the language as a part of an evolving Northern Irish identity.    

I accept that this strand of the issue has the potential to become a “chicken and egg” dispute.  In other words by leaving out the aspiration, there would never be a chance of equal status for the Irish Language because there is no planning leading towards it.  My answer to that problem is in two parts.  

Firstly, for this plan to work, the Protestant community needs time and space in order that enough people from that community are ready to take an informed view on the long term official status of Irish.  It needs time for enough people from that community to have the opportunity to learn the language and to develop enthusiasm for it.  It needs space for those people to fully appreciate the Irish Language heritage without politicians making people think that it is in their interests to resist it.   

Secondly, the inspiration for planning for the development of the language and a new Irish Language Act can still be consistent with future equal status if a correct form of wording is used in the statement in the pre-amble in an Irish Language Act.  It would be a form of words which makes it clear that the door is not shut on a future decision to make the Irish Language official but still leaving the decision on whether that should become policy to the future. 

Effectively it is saying that Northern Ireland should be brought to a position where it will be better informed to make a more positive decision on the official status of the language in the future.  I have provided here an example of how the wording of a pre-amble might be written.  The Scottish 2005 Act pre-amble says this:

“An Act of the Scottish Parliament to establish a body having functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language”

An Irish Language Act pre-amble for Northern Ireland might read like this:  

“An Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly to establish a body having functions exercisable with a view to promoting the Irish Language such that in the future, an informed decision can be taken as to whether it should become a National objective of the Northern Ireland people to elevate the status of the Irish language to become an official language of Northern Ireland commanding equal respect to the English language”  

Nobody knows for sure what the attitude towards the Irish Language will be in the future.  What is important is that both communities go forward on this journey together and reach decisions which are in the best interests of the whole of Northern Ireland.  

Having set out my proposal on aspiration, this has to be balanced with a promotion and education package which is strong enough to take Northern Ireland to the desired future mature position.  

Education and Further Legislative provisions for the promotion of the Language?

Article 4 of the part of the Belfast agreement under the heading “Economic social and Cultural Issues,” states as follows   

4. In the context of active consideration currently being given to the UK signing the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the British Government will in particular in relation to the Irish language, where appropriate and where people so desire it:

• take resolute action to promote the language;
• facilitate and encourage the use of the language in speech and writing in public and private life where there is appropriate demand;
• seek to remove, where possible, restrictions which would discourage or work against the maintenance or development of the language;
• make provision for liaising with the Irish language community, representing their views to public authorities and investigating complaints;
• place a statutory duty on the Department of Education to encourage and facilitate Irish medium education in line with current provision for integrated education;
• explore urgently with the relevant British authorities, and in co-operation with the Irish broadcasting authorities, the scope for achieving more widespread availability of Teilifís na Gaeilige in Northern Ireland;
• seek more effective ways to encourage and provide financial support for Irish language film and television production in Northern Ireland; and
• encourage the parties to secure agreement that this commitment will be sustained by a new Assembly in a way which takes account of the desires and sensitivities of the community.

These guidelines should always be part of any checklist when planning a strategy for the promotion of the Irish Language.  Is there anything in that list which is likely to lose out without being incorporated into a New Irish Language Act?   

There may well be.  I think that on any review, before any new Irish Language Bill is put before Parliament or the Assembly, there should be a review of all the bullet points to see if any legislation is needed to give effect to them.  The Part dealing with Irish Medium Schools is already covered by Article 89 of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998   

It is important that as soon as is reasonably practicable, Irish is made available for learning at all primary schools, secondary schools and further Education Colleges (so that Adults can learn Irish) across Northern Ireland.  As a minimum requirement and certainly acting in the spirit of the first bullet point, I would recommend that new legislation requiring any Board conducting an Irish Language Plan or strategy makes those objectives a primary aim in the plan.  Apart from the legal profession and any professional who would be vital to making the constitution workable for the Irish Language, learning Irish should never be compulsory in the Education system.  Indeed, making it compulsory would, at this juncture, be failing the obligations in the final above-mentioned bullet point “…which takes account of the desires and sensitivities of the community”   

If Irish were ever to become an equal language in the future, there would need to be a plan to include education, training and qualifications for the legal professions of Northern Ireland.  Before any plan is hatched or imposed on the Legal Profession, there should firstly be consultation with the Northern Ireland Law Society and the Northern Ireland Bar Council along with a feasibility study is made about how the Legal Professions would introduce Irish into the legal system, should it become the will of the Northern Ireland people to give Irish official status in the future.  Such a feasibility study is not just important for planning.  Its findings would be crucial to future informed decisions.   

The SDLP draft Irish Language Bill

 In January 2009, the SDLP presented its proposed Irish Language Bill, which was summarily rejected out of hand.  The proposals in the act can be summarized as follows 

(1) to make Irish an official language carrying equal status with English

(2) The right to use Irish in debates in the Assembly.

(3) to enable a party, witness or other person to present their case or give evidence in the official language of their choice to a court, tribunal or other decision-making body

(4) providing all civil servants and local government employees with the right to use either official language as a language of work

(5) Providing a pro-active requirement of public bodies to promote the Irish Language as a language of work

(6) A right for all employees of whatever business to speak either of the official languages in the course of their employment

(7) The right of all parents to have Irish taught to their children at any preschool, primary and post-primary school

(8) The right of all parents for their children to receive Irish-medium preschool, primary and post-primary school education (subject to availability of numbers of children requiring it in a particular area)

(9) Appointment of an official languages commissioner

Item (1), we have already discussed.  

Item (2) is not practicable and never will be.  All it can ever achieve is inconvenience.  As I have pointed out, it is hardly used in the Republic of Ireland where Irish is the first Language.  Without being rude, what has this got to do with promotion of the language?  How can it be justified when an MLA speaking in Irish to expect an MLA who does not to understand him/her?  

Our starting point for the business of Stormont is that all MLAs understand English. Judging from the Irish experience, we are never going to be in a situation where even half the politicians speak Irish.  English is the universally appropriate medium for getting the business of Stormont delivered.  Some tokenism might be acceptable.  For example, in order to appreciate the heritage aspect of Irish, salutations and greetings, which are in use already such as “Go raibh maith agat” are acceptable.  

Item (3) we have already discussed.

Item (5) of the proposals depends on item (4) while items (4) and (6) depend upon item (1).  In other words, items (4) to (6) can not apply as the bill is drafted without the Irish Language being official.   

Another problem with items (4), (5) and (6) is that they could be seen as anti-competitive in the commercial world.    

Like MLAs, civil servants are there to serve the public.  There are many important ongoing matters in public administration and they do not need to be hampered or interfered with just because somebody wants to communicate in Irish.  We need to be sensible here.  We are, at the very least, going to remain a predominantly English-Speaking and at best bilingual society.  Where business has to be transacted, efficient and unhampered communication is of vital importance.  As with Assembly business, I see in these proposals potential impairment of business without any real benefit to the Irish speaking world.  Once again, heritage can be acknowledged with some tokenism as it is on headed notepaper sometimes or where sometimes official government guidelines are published in two languages.  That already happens in the department of Education on websites.  I see no harm in that so long as it does not interfere with the efficient flow of government business.   

I also want to make it clear that a Board set up for putting forward a language development plan would have plenty of ideas flowing to plan a promotion of the Irish language.  They would consider everything from the erection of road signs to the publication of Government information.  In the early years of promotion, I imagine that teaching would be given priority.  A Board would be able to decide upon the most efficient way of promoting the language, having regard to funding available.  As I have said previously, they would look at the entire checklist provided in the Belfast Agreement.   

Item (7), I have already discussed and recommended in my own way under the Education heading.  The Irish medium school proposal (item (8)) will not work for the present because it requires a certain number of Irish – speaking teachers.  It is perhaps a proposal which could be looked at again in the future when, hopefully, the promotion of the Irish Language will not be such a contentious matter.  That can be monitored by a proposed board.  

Given that I object to the SDLP proposal almost in its entirety, it follows that I would also object to the appointment of an Irish Language Commissioner (item 9).  

Other Criticisms of a proposed Irish Language Act

I said in my previous post that Edwin Poots criticized a proposed Irish Language Act as being too costly and too divisive.  One could argue that a DUP politician can never advanced a credible point of view given their pre-determined bias against promotion of the Irish Language.  However, similar criticisms have been made by Stephen Farry of the Alliance Party.  Given the non-sectarian nature of his viewpoint, it deserves respect. He said this

“We are working to find common ground in the Assembly to deliver this. However, the draft legislation tabled by the SDLP is divisive and counter-productive.”

Dr. Farry is right.  The SDLP draft bill is overbearing and unacceptable.  In its present form, it is certainly divisive and counter-productive. 

I have left the argument about cost until last for one very good reason.  It is all very well using cost as an argument.  It also has far more potency during a recession.  However, we can’t have a sensible argument about cost unless we discuss the cost of doing nothing.  

Northern Ireland may now just about have peace.  It certainly does not yet have harmony.  It has a long way to go before we achieve that.  There is no doubt that the cost of sectarianism is very high.  Sectarianism and segregation are part of a systematic loop in which they are both the product and cause of each other.  The Alliance Party says costs of segregation are £1 billion per annum.  I can’t comment on the costings but would agree that they are high.  Let us just say that indirectly, moving the Irish Language out of sectarianism and into a unified symbol for Northern Ireland will save money.  I also happen to believe, going back to the Belfast Agreement that there is an implied term, under Article 4 of Educational Aspects (set out above) that there should be a reasonable flow of funding from the state to promote the Irish Language.  I can not specify here what “reasonable” means in terms of cash.  Costing would be for somebody more expertly qualified to give an opinion on than me.   

Conclusion and recommendations

 (1)   The St. Andrews Agreement contemplated an Irish Language Act which was more substantial than the legislation that eventually emerged (a new section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act 1998). 

(2)  Section 28D is flawed.  It only requires the Executive to make, adopt and review a strategy for promotion of the Irish Language.  It lacks “teeth.”  It is only as strong as the most obstructive member of the Executive and could result in a very minimal promotion of the Irish Language.

(3)  The experiences of Wales and the Republic of Ireland indicate that Northern Ireland is not in any position to take implementation of an Irish Language Act along the lines of either the Irish Republic or Wales.  Northern Ireland is in a much more similar position to Scotland. 

(4)   The proposed Irish Language Act being put forward by the SDLP is divisive and liable to lead to further sectarian division.  

(5)   In principle, the Irish Language should be nurtured so that it has the best chance to flourish within the Protestant community and eventually become a unifying rather than dividing (sectarian) symbol

(6)  If the Irish Language can be transformed into a non-divisive and Unifying symbol for Northern Ireland, the costs of implementing promotion proposals under (8) below will actually save money indirectly in the longer run.

(7)   To take no further action legislatively would be as divisive as the SDLP proposal.

(8)   An Irish Language Act is recommended which would

(a)   Be similar to the Scottish Act of 2005 in the sense of appointing a Board to devise a plan and strategy for promotion of the Irish Language.  The Board would be required to consider the terms stated in the Belfast Agreement.

(b)   Not have the same stated aspiration in the pre-amble of the Scottish Act (i.e. having a view to giving the language official status in the future).  Instead, a pre-amble would be less committed.  (See above under “Constitutional rights and Identity”)

(c)   Place an obligation to facilitate the teaching of Irish in all Northern Ireland schools without it being made compulsory.

The Conservative party is good for the Union

Some bloggers have begun to get twitchy about the future of the Union following the election of a Conservative Government.   

Throughout history, the Conservatives have always been the political party most strongly associated with Unionism.  From time to time, the other parties including the Liberals and the Labour Party have associated themselves with constitutional change, which the Conservatives have opposed.  The obvious examples were in relation to Ireland in the late 19^th and early 20^th Century.  When Gladstone was Prime Minister, the Irish Nationalists allied themselves with the Liberals to push home rule, which the Conservatives opposed.  It was actually the advance of the Parnellites which led to the formation of the Ulster Unionists.    

In the late 1970s, the Labour Party brought forward proposals for devolution.  They passed the Scotland Act and the Wales Act in 1978.  For devolution to take place, it required not just a majority but the vote in favour of 40% of the Electorate in a referendum.  The referendum in Wales failed but in Scotland, a majority (51%) voted in favour of the change.  However, this did not amount to 40% of the electorate (less than 33%) and the Statute did not operate.  However, the majority vote angered the Scottish Nationalists.   They took their revenge on Labour when they joined the Conservatives in the vote of no confidence on March 28^th 1979.  This led to 18 years of Conservative power.   

I mention those events because it has been suggested that Conservative Governments give rise to increased Nationalism when it is clear that Nationalism was growing under the Administration of other parties.  Furthermore, Nationalism has continued to grow under Labour with Alex Salmond triumphing over Labour to form the first SNP administration.    

Horseman indicates that the Conservatives are essentially an English Party but I would not agree that a seat count is the way of determining that.  There have been a number of reasons why the Conservatives have not fared particularly well in other parts of the United Kingdom.  Northern Ireland is included in his projection that the Conservatives will win no seats.  I don’t know why he mentions Northern Ireland because the Labour Party don’t have seats there either.  As to Wales, the Conservatives have never done particularly well there but Nationalism did not advance for that reason.   

Scotland is a different matter.  The Conservative vote did decline in Scotland and it is true that some of the would-be Conservative voters went permanently to the SNP.  This began as a failure by the Conservatives to recognise the need for the Scots to retain their own identity.  One other big factor which contributed to the growth of Nationalism had nothing to do with the Conservatives.  It was the growth of the North Sea Oil industry.  There were three other factors which contributed to the decline in Conservative support north of the border.  One was the strengthening of the Liberals (who were led by a Scot, David Steel).  Another was their use of the Scots as a “guinea pig” to implement the poll tax.  The third was the party’s poor organisation in Scotland.  

All of those events are past events and will not happen again.  Meanwhile, David Cameron’s conservatives have learnt the lessons of the past and strengthened the Conservative position in Scotland.  They have espoused regional identity – something they did not do particularly well before (including support for the advancement of the celtic languages).  I do not agree that Conservative success will be limited to a gain of three seats in Scotland either.  To cap the position, there is no longer a Conservative opposition to devolution.  The Nationalists will never again be able to distinguish the Conservatives from Labour or Liberal Democrats.  If the Nationalist position advances, it will be nothing to do with the Conservatives.    

I do not agree that just because there would be no effective opposition in Scotland or Wales, that Nationalist objectives would advance.  For one thing, the game has changed.  Mark Perryman is not comparing like with like.   We have not yet seen the electoral results of the SNP having their own administration within devolution.  If anything, the Nationalists are likely to lose popularity.  Furthermore, the Conservatives have learnt so many lessons from being in opposition.  The Conservative Party is now a different kind of unionist party from what it was.  It is now a culturally aware and culturally embracing party and leading the charge to advance culture in the Celtic countries.  If anything, are more likely to make substantial gains in the Celtic Countries whilst in power.   The Conservative party is good for the Union.

Conservatives need to anticipate a battle with a Celtic Cartel

For many years, the Northern Ireland economy has been buttressed by the rest of the UK.  A public sector representing more than 60% of Northern Ireland’s GDP and a net revenue deficit nearing £7 billion per annum looks gigantic if your population is 1.7 million.  On the other hand, if your population is more than 60 million, it hardly makes much of a difference to the overall UK budget – or does it?

 

Whatever is being said this side of a general election, it is as sure as night follows day that there will have to be massive cuts in public expenditure.  This is not a forecast any more.  It is something that we all have to face, whichever part of the United Kingdom we live in.  The UK economy has been damaged by this Labour Government to such an extent that we now have to accept that we will need a long period of austerity much more painful than that which we faced in the early 1980s and early 90s.

 

Where does this leave the economy of Northern Ireland?  It was not the fault of peace-loving people in Northern Ireland that we have arrived at this position of such dependence – yet we can not expect to be propped up while the rest of the UK goes through severe economic hardship.  How then will this affect Northern Ireland politics? 

 

If, as I am confident will happen, the Conservatives are returned to power, the Treasury will be looking to all departments to make savings, including the devolved Governments.  I would suggest that the Barnett formula , the mechanism by which the funding of the different parts of the UK are funded, will have to be revisited.  The Labour Government is unlikely to do anything with it because Scotland and Wales have long been its power bases. The Conservatives will not be so inhibited. 

 

Very large stresses are bound to appear as the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments fight to keep the cuts in their grants as small as possible. My suspicion is that this scenario has already been foreseen by Welsh and Scottish politicians who have invited their counterparts in Northern Ireland to join them, ostensibly, to share ideas for the promotion of good regional policy .  Whilst this is laudable, it could also be a cover for what I would call a Celtic devolution cartel.  The formation of such a cartel may have a sinister element to it, particularly if it becomes a vehicle for mischief-making by the Scottish Nationalists. 

 

Conservative politicians and planners need to be several moves ahead here. They must plan for a political fight over finances to the regional parts of the United Kingdom and plan how they are going to win the arguments.  Conservative spin doctors will also need to be at the top of their game to ensure that this Government retains the political blame for all the future pain.  This may be difficult for the UUP and Northern Ireland Conservatives as they put on their regional hats and look ahead to the Assembly elections in 2011.  They too will have to make some advance political planning.  They will not be able to stop the spending cuts but they can at least have some influence as to where the axe falls, the rate at which it falls and have control over the manner in which the news is presented.