Is the purpose not to reinforce otherness?

"The problem with Ulster Scots..." is the politicisation of the langualect and the poor leadership in the movement who are trying to beat Irish.

A Protestant Gaelic League? I really don't like the idea.
But certainly i'd love to see more Protestant & Unionist support for Irish as it's part of their* heritage too.
Certainly he makes some good points. We do have shared traditions on the island which unfortunatly have been hijacked by certain folks. Perhaps the U-S movement is a manifestation of this.
We just need to recognise what we have in common and realise that because one side might speak Irish (or beat a lambeg, or whatever) doesn't mean the other side can't.

*some of them

maca, like it or not, to many if not most in the protestant community, gaelic is welded to the catholic nationalism proclaimed by Gerry Adams and co in the past.

Really crap article, by the way.

an interesting article, which would have benefitted from a critical reading beforehand.

EG. The SNP is not doing well in Scotland, Labour is Unionist (therefore Scottish Unionism is not in retreat, and is not the preserve of the Conservative Party).

The Cruthin and Ulster-Scots ideas have been linked together by most academics (far from being a contradiction)- Ian Adamson being a founder member of the Ulster-Scots movement

I was wondering about this quote (by an Ulster-Scots revivalist):

"The Ulster Scots language, culture and history must be brought into the schools.. but under current European legislation there was an obligation for Ulster Scots to be taught in Northern Ireland schools."

I am not sure this is true. If it isn't why is it being uncritically repeated?

On his key point I was told that Protestants learning Irish is in decline, far from being a growing movement (although there are others on Slugger better placed than I to talk on this).

His lack of evidence on this point and his dubious assertions elsewhere in the piece mean I just don't belive Dr Coulter.

Davros
"to many if not most in the protestant community, gaelic is welded to the catholic nationalism proclaimed by Gerry Adams and co in the past."

I understand that Davros. But that's the point, that's what needs to be fought against. The language doesn't belong to Gerry & Co, and that offends me as much as it may many protestants, especially those who have felt a connection with the language in the past.
So should we leave it as it is? Or should we try to encourage interest in our shared cultures?

"Really crap article"

A thorough examination of the article by Willowfield. Thanks for your contribution.

What I find most ironic about Ulster-Scots is that the original Scots were Gaelic speakers. The Lowland-Scots were a mixture of Anglo-Saxons and true Scots who adopted the Anglo-Saxon language back in the 1st and early 2nd millenia AD. The true 'Scots' language is the Scottish strain of the Gaelic language.

Ulster Scots, I think this is simply the Ulster Protestants way of saying we come from a different cultural background, your oil, we're water, and never the twain shall mix. They reject belonging to the Irish family tree and are attempting to promote what they call Ulster Scots, which is nothing more than a local dialect originating from the original Scots which in itself was corrupted by the Irish long years ago, so a more accurate, and non-sectarian name would be Scots Irish. But they are well entitled to embrace that which they see as being part of their historic culture no matter what purist criticism may heaped upon them. Compare the accent of a Belfast man and that of Cork man, they have a language all their own, the same but different, different meanings for the same words, who's to say what's right or wrong. If you can't find it in your hearts to encourage them, don't be trying to bring them down or belittle what they clearly hold dear.

Fair comment, BeanShide.

Personally, as an Ulster Protestant, I don't particularly identify with the Ulster-Scots movement. I feel it is too narrow an identity, completey ignoring our English roots, for example.

Willow
"I feel it is too narrow an identity, completey ignoring our English roots, for example"

All depends on the way you look at it. I don't see the problem embracing the U-S identity (as narrow as you may believe it to be) while also embracing your 'English identity'. You don't have to confine yourself to one or the other, on the contrary I believe it could be personally enriching.

BeanShide, I have to be honest, your handle troubles me. Would something like "Banshee" or "Bean Sidhe" not be better? ;))

Hi Fraggle,

"The Lowland-Scots were a mixture of Anglo-Saxons and true Scots who adopted the Anglo-Saxon language back in the 1st and early 2nd millenia AD."

??? Surely, neither the Angles or Saxons had even made it to Southern England by this time?

Hi BeanShide,

"They reject belonging to the Irish family tree..."

Whilst this may be true, I believe it is an over-simplification. For instance, I consider myself politically British, geographically and culturally British and Irish. However, when I say Irish I mean an Irishness that embraces both traditions. I have found in the past that a lot of Nationalists do not. Example, Irish bars abroad - not many Union Jacks. Ditto St.Paddy's parades.

Congal Claen

"when I say Irish I mean an Irishness that embraces both traditions. I have found in the past that a lot of Nationalists do not. Example, Irish bars abroad - not many Union Jacks"

There is no need for nationalists to show the Union Jack. Firstly it is a British and not an Irish symbol and secondly the Tricolor embraces all aspects of Ireland.

"Irish bars abroad - not many Union Jacks"

How many British pubs even just in NI carry Tricolours? ;)

cg

There may be no need for nationalists to "show the Union Jack", but if an Irish pub were to be inclusive of all aspects of Irishness it should display unionist symbols as well as nationalist ones.

maca

Why would a British bar (and the only ones I can think of are those dreadful ones you find in places like Benidorm that serve English breakfasts) "carry" an ROI tricolour??

willowfield
Get a grip and hopefully a life as well. If I go into a pub the last thing I want to see is a union jack it would sour the drink.

Excuse the possible double posting...

"Why would a British bar "carry" an ROI tricolour??"

For the same reasons an Irish bar should carry a Union Flag.
"to be inclusive of all aspects of [Britishness] it should display [nationalist] symbols as well as [unionist] ones"

cg

Get a grip and hopefully a life as well. If I go into a pub the last thing I want to see is a union jack it would sour the drink.

At least you are honest about your bitterness and support for an exclusive Irish identity.

maca

For the same reasons an Irish bar should carry a Union Flag.

Do people from the ROI consider themselves British?

"Do people from the ROI consider themselves British?"

Two tracks...

1. Obviouly some do. Aren't there Unionists in Donegal? As well Irish people with British roots?

2. Why limit it to ROI? There are Irish people in NI & GB. Note you used the word "symbol"

My understanding of the ROI tricolour is that it has two representations: first, as the state flag of the ROI, and second, as a symbol of Irish nationalism.

I'm unaware of it ever being used as a representation of Britishness.

Congal, an old teacher once told me not to use the word 'surely' unless I was actually sure. I think that you may be mixing the Anglo-Saxons up with the Normans.

OMG!

Willowfield, do you mean that you are entirely unaware of the original meaning of the green, white and orange tricolour?

fraggle, are you aware of the origin of the union flag?

Both the tricolor and the British flag symbolise unity, ironic then that they cause so much disunity.

By the way, the fact that the tricolor is traditionally a flag of revolutionaries might still put old tories like me off!

Rebecca, point me to a comment I've made which leads you to question my awareness or otherwise of the origin of the union flag.

OMG @ Rebecca's apparant ignorance of the origin of the term 'tory' and thus the irony of her last sentence.

The cultural symbolism of kitschy, tacky theme pubs abroad! What a strange path to take the discussion down!

And I guarantee she knows where "tory" originates.

That kind of pedantry is a bit pathetic.

actually, can I retract the last part. UO is correct (and I am wrong) in that the tories of the time were opposed to the revolutionary movement in France.

never quibble with a history undergrad about inane historical facts fraggle ;)

My brain is full of them.

The term Tory has many meanings, the one I refer to when I use it is usually the more recent conservative one.

Flags are a very interesting thing to debate, what ideas lay behind them, their symbolism etc. You can learn alot about a country merely by studying their flag.

Ziznivy

I apologise if I appear pedantic, the subject of flags just fascinates me and I merrily jump into any debate that has trailed into that subject.

OU. I was accusing Fraggle of being pedantic!

"Flags are a very interesting thing to debate..."

OK, Did you know ...

• The top four colo(u)rs used in flags are red, blue, green, and white.
• 39 countries have red, white, and blue in their flag*
• 27 countries have only red, white, and blue in their flag
• The main color hues of the flags of Muslim countries are red and green
• The main color hues of the flags of Christian countires are blue and red

*It's quite obvious therefore that the Union Flag is just "common". Not nearly as special as the Irish Tricolour ;))

oops, sorry Ziznivy, getting a bit paranoid, its debating with duppers on another thread thats done it to me!!

Interesting research maca ;)

Whatever happened to Trans Atlantic box office smash On Eagles Wing? Did it go the way of Belfasts' most famous ship?

• The main color hues of the flags of Muslim countries are red and green
• The main color hues of the flags of Christian countires are blue and red

The Mexican flag is red white and green, the Brazilian flag is green, the Peruvian flag is Red and white. These are all overwhelmingly Catholic nations. Were you referring to European Christians? If so I dont beleive the Spanish flag has blue in it.

Fraggle

Willowfield, do you mean that you are entirely unaware of the original meaning of the green, white and orange tricolour?

No, I don't mean that.

To quote from the back cover of a history of South Africa I picked up while out there:

The tragedy of South Africa is that it has always been ruled - and still is - by elites which seek their own group self-interest rather than that of the country as a whole. Only when it at last acquires a ruling elite which thinks and feels for the whole of this beloved country will this cycle change.

IDM

Correct.

I have to question why Slugger keeps carrying these articles. They are written on an entirely false basis and make no sense whatsoever.

Nevertheless, the underlying (if accidental) point that those who seek to maintain the British link should stop trying to play the 'ethnic nationalist' game. They would get a lot further if they stood up to the 'ethnic nationalists' who try to claim they're not Irish, and instead promoted their own Irishness as part of an inclusive brand of Irishness which includes a genuine British dimension.

Ethnic nationalism is wrong and is the basic hindrance to social and political progress here. Inventing another form of ethnic nationalism is no way to challenge it.

Fraggle

original Scots... true Scots

????????????????!!!

Perhaps you are mimicking others rather than expressing your own view, but let's be clear this is ethnic nationalist nonsense!

The 'original Scots' (i.e. residents of Scotland) did not speak Gaelic, we have no idea what they spoke but it would have pre-dated any separate Celtic language. 'True Scots' are people currently resident in or from Scotland, regardless of ethnicity. Ethnic Nationalism has a habit of using terms such as 'original' or 'true' to suit itself, regardless of the historical lies this causes. Its false basis and contemporary irrelevance is why ethnic nationalism hinders progress everywhere it is present.

I return to my earlier quote - substitute 'Northern Ireland' for 'South Africa'...

IJP

Actually I don't think you are right this time:

"The 'original Scots' (i.e. residents of Scotland) did not speak Gaelic, we have no idea what they spoke but it would have pre-dated any separate Celtic language."

the original scots you are talking about would have spoken gaelic because Scotland was initially settled by the Irish. Thats where the name Scotland came from - the Irish traditionally were known as the Scottie, and Ireland was known as Scotiland (or something like that) Then when the Irish went to Scotland first of all, Scotland became known as Scotia Minor and Ireland was Scotia Major. Therefore the original language of the Scots must have been Irish Gaelic.

*There are probably some horribly mispelt terms in there, thats my basic recollection from first year history.

Therefore the original language of the Scots must have been Irish Gaelic.

one small point. The British Isles have been inhabited for at least 5,000 years before those who became the Gaels were known to exist in Central Yurp, let alone before they started their journey to these Islands.

John Coulter has excelled in his latest piece of fiction. I presume he only writes these "articles" in between bouts of handwringing, self-loathing and other manifestations of liberal guilt.

Ulster-Scots is not popular because it is anti-Irish. It is not popular because it's anti-anything.

It is popular because it is the authentic expression (linguistic and otherwise) of a sizeable proportion of Northern Ireland's rural population. It brings together cultural icons which have been long-ignored and long-demeaned by Hibernophiles and Anglophiles alike. Despite this it has been preserved in the folk culture of many and is now being warmly embraced by many people.

Leafy North Downers / Stranmillisites / Lisburnians may have little or no contact with Ulster-Scots people. You really need to get out more (ie beyond the car park of M&S)

For all the criticism levelled at it, Ulster-Scots has the potential - particularly in terms of language - to overlap into the Catholic and Protestant communities. Yes it's mostly Lowland Presbyterian stock who use the language, it would be madness to deny that. It is also nonsense to deny that Catholic people are somehow exempt. I know many Catholic folks who live in rural areas and who use as much Scots/Ulster-Scots on a daily basis as their Protestant neighbours. They may not be able to identify with the cultural identity, but they certainly can identify with the language. And this is to be wholeheartedly encouraged.

But perhaps this is why Ulster-Scots language is so demeaned? Perhaps there are powerful interest groups out there who want to maintain our historic divisions rather than bring people together? A healthy celebration and acceptance of Ulster-Scots language has the potential to heal and bond "both sides".

If Protestants can be Irish (geographical, cultural, linguistic or political) then can't Catholics be Ulster-Scots? Of course they can! And more power to them.

How much does Coulter get paid for perpetuating this sort of drivel?

Does he not know that even Tourism Ireland recognise this and are about to launch a multi-million Euro advertising campaign in the US to reach the as-yet untapped Ulster-Scots/Scots-Irish tourist market? The world has moved on - can people like Coulter catch up some time this century?

Significantly, in the early 20th Century at least one Sinn Fein spokesperson was praising Ulster-Scots culture and was demanding that it be taught in all schools.

I'll tantalise you all with that and leave it for you to investigate for yourselves...

Does he not know that even Tourism Ireland recognise this and are about to launch a multi-million Euro advertising campaign in the US to reach the as-yet untapped Ulster-Scots/Scots-Irish tourist market?

Tourism Ireland would proudly proclaim we are descended from Martians if they thought it would bring extra visitors and help justify the large amonts of dosh they spend. So I don't think we can take the endorsement of a body whose remit is increasing income generated by visitors as meaning that there is any merit in the Ulster-Scots movement.

this past year.
Part of the problem is also within the U-S movement itself. It won't be taken seriously until you have some proper leadership.

"A healthy celebration and acceptance of Ulster-Scots language has the potential to heal and bond "both sides"."

Just curious, would you say the same of Irish?

Damn damn damn!!
Again...

"long-ignored and long-demeaned by Hibernophiles and Anglophiles alike"

Do you not think lack of knowledge is part of the problem. On all my visits to NI I have never heard U-S spoken and didn't even know the dialect existed until ... this past year.
Part of the problem is also within the U-S movement itself. It won't be taken seriously until you have some proper leadership.

"A healthy celebration and acceptance of Ulster-Scots language has the potential to heal and bond "both sides"."

Just curious, would you say the same of Irish?

Troubled by my handle maca?

Your're not the first to have attempted a spelling correction, assuming it was supposed to be the Irish for Banshee. It's actually a encryption of my name, hope this clarifies the situation.

Don't take me too seriously BeanShide. ;)
Though I did make the wrong assumption, apologies.

maca - can you define "proper leadership?"

Lack of knowledge is indeed part of the problem. Use of Ulster-Scots has been condemned in "respectable" circles for at least the last two generations and consequently its usage is undeniably in decline. Much like Scots in Scotland in fact...

The Agency has done little or nothing to educate the wider population re: the language. A great shame... but as I've said before what's more attractive - a trip to the USA or a wet Friday night in Buckna?

I don't think Irish has the same potential. How many Protestants use Irish vocab and grammar in Ulster? A lot. lot less than Catholics who use Scots.

Authentic daily usage has more potential to bring people together than cerebral academic appreciation.

"can you define "proper leadership?""

It's easier if I just tell you what's not good leadership, politicising the language, trying to make it a competition between Irish and U-S, etc.

"I don't think Irish has the same potential. How many Protestants use Irish vocab and grammar in Ulster? A lot. lot less than Catholics who use Scots."

Irish has a lot of potential. To start with, look at the resources already available for Irish, TV, radio, newspapers, books, etc etc Things any living language needs. Will U-S have the same?

"cerebral academic appreciation" Is that all you think Irish is good for? Are you saying Irish usage is not "authentic"?. Don't go down this road or you'll end up repeating the mistakes already made by the U-S movements leadership.

..no references to Shinners in this thread of cultural focus.

I think some of you are too critical of Coulter ; hes right about Ireland inhabitants -in this case Ulster Scots ones, needing to identify with the national idiom but he loses genuine republicans in argung for a parallel, sectarian expression of this.

That said, its better to be singing different verses of the same hymn than from different hymn sheets

What do you mean by "the national idiom" ? The regional dialect as promoted by Comhaltas Uladh ?

Davros and and IJP, you're all making the same mistake. By 'original Scots', I'm not talking about the inhabitants of the area now known as Scotland 5000 years ago. I'm talking about the people who brought the name 'Scot' to Scotland in the first place.

Rebecca, bang on!

Call me a pedant but I'm just questioning the usage of the word Scot. My dad has an old Irish dictionary, published at the beginning of the 20th century which lists 'Scot' *spelling* as meaning Irish.

Now, I'm not a big fan of ethnic nationalism and so on but this Cruthin thing annoys me. If the Cruthin ever existed, they are the ancesters of the 'native Irish' and highlanders who resulted from a mixture of picts and Scots from Ireland. Bugger all to do with the lowland settlers who moved over in the plantations.

Depends on the definitions Fraggle, and they are arguing at cross-purposes. IJP defined the Scots as the people who live in Scotland. The first inhabitants of Scotland - "original Scots" wouldn't have spoken Irish Gaelic as it was thousands of years earlier than the arrival of Gaelic language in Ireland. U-O isn't talking about what IJP and I would call the original Scots.

he defined them incorrectly IMO.

before the arrival of the scots from ireland, there were no scots in the area now known as scotland.

those people already living there certainly wouldn't have been speaking ulster-scots in any case.

That's where the talking at cross purposes comes in.

those people already living there certainly wouldn't have been speaking ulster-scots in any case.

None of these people that you allow as scots would have been speaking standardised Irish either ;)

Correct Davros.

It is convenient for the 'Celtic ethnic nationalists' to start history in about AD 500.

It is also wrong.

There were people in Scotland before the Gaels, and there were people in Ireland before the Gaels. They spoke neither Gaelic nor Ullans!

Not that any of this matters a jot to the task at hand, namely the creation of a prosperous and stable region here for us all to share.

Steveo

But perhaps this is why Ulster-Scots language is so demeaned? Perhaps there are powerful interest groups out there who want to maintain our historic divisions rather than bring people together?

The latter is unquestionably true, but it has nothing to do with the former.

The Ulster-Scots 'language' is demeaned because those charged with its promotion have shown no sympathy or affinity with the actual speaking community, choosing instead to invent something with little or no bearing to anything spoken, either historically or currently, in Ireland. One can only assume they have done so precisely to create the situation you refer to in the second question - 'they have their language with funny accents on the letters, so we should have ours'.

The authentic promotion of the genuine language - as spoken by Fenton, Gillen, Cromie et al - does indeed have the potential to be a social unifier. But that has not happened.

That's what happens when you have a political system that rewards those who encourage division and promotes sectarian carve-ups at the expense of the ordinary, broad-minded (wo)man in the street/field.

maca,
i'm not saying that academic appreciation is all that Irish is good for, and neither am I saying that Irish has no potential - far from it in both cases.

My point is that from a "whole community" perspective most Protestants don't have an organic encounter with the Irish language on a day-to-day basis (and those who do opt to get involved tend to do so in an academic-ish manner) whereas, from personal experience, many Catholic folks do encounter Scots every day, at the local shop, the post office, the farm , the cattle market, around the kitchen table, with their neighbours.

This is powerful stuff which should be built upon.

"My point is that from a "whole community" perspective most Protestants don't have an organic encounter with the Irish language on a day-to-day basis (and those who do opt to get involved tend to do so in an academic-ish manner) whereas, from personal experience, many Catholic folks do encounter Scots every day, at the local shop, the post office, the farm , the cattle market, around the kitchen table, with their neighbours."

Morning Steve.
I see your point.
I'm not sure I really see the potential which you see though and definitly you have a challenge on your hands to convince the catholic community to take it seriously. To me it sounds like you are overplaying the amount of U-Scots in everyday use in your English (don't take offence, none intended). Indeed I have many friends from the North and have so far failed to notice any unique words in their speech which I would consider to be U-S. But of course you live there and i don't.

One thing I will say is to heed my earlier advice, learn from the experience of Irish, keep politics out of it and get new leadership. There's no reason why the U-S and Irish language communities shouldn't be working together. When they fight against each other they both lose and I think U-S will suffer more.

If U-S wants to get anywhere and convince the world at large that it is a viable culture/language and rather a means of getting half the grants 'themmuns' get they need to get rid of Laird and any political leanings. I'm not convinced of the merits of U-S, however if it is a legitimate venture then it should be supported.

However, I probably live closer to Scotland than anyone on Slugger without actually living in Scotland! I am from North Antrim and can see the Mull from my house, so someone please enlighten me as to the Scots/U-S words I would use in everyday parlance?!

"The Ulster Scots language, culture and history must be brought into the schools.. but under current European legislation there was an obligation for Ulster Scots to be taught in Northern Ireland schools."

I am afraid that is not the case at all. The Ulster-Scots Agency has the task of promoting the language and it`s inherant culture. There is no mention of schools or the education system.

"The Lowland-Scots were a mixture of Anglo-Saxons and true Scots who adopted the Anglo-Saxon language back in the 1st and early 2nd millenia AD."

Ulster-Scots is a dialect of the Scots language movement. It is a Germanic language and I would like to see the Ulster-Scots Agency working with their Scottish counterparts more closely on developing the language, especially the written form.

"secondly the Tricolor embraces all aspects of Ireland."

Quite obviously it does not or else everyone would use it. Why for instance do some use the St Patrick`s Cross instead?

Dr Coulter usually writes some interesting articles but in this case I think he is barking up the wrong tree. Protestant Gaelic League`s are an extremely silly idea. By all means encourage the development of the Irish language but I have to say I do not feel compelled to learn the language and nor do I identify with it. That is not meant to be offensive or derogatory. What I do find offensive is that it is deemed you have to speak Irish and be "gaelic" to be Irish. My identity is multi-faceted and has an Ulster-Scots element, a Northern Ireland elelemnt and also a general Irish and British elements. Therefore I consider it simplest to say that I am British or Northern Irish but I would accept Ulsterman, Irish or Ulster-Scot.

There is a book entitled The People With No Name:Ireland`s Ulster-Scots by Patrick Griffin which makes for very good reading. I think the Ulster-Scots movement can and will actually help to settle "The Planters" into a stable position within the wider Irish society. It may have taken 400 years but......when everyone is content and confident with their place in society it can only be good.

"please enlighten me as to the Scots/U-S words I would use in everyday parlance?!"

Ya mean ya dinny ken how tae spek tha Scots leid?

Try here and watch the Willie Drennan video clip.

Or the BBC NI Ulster-Scots Voices website

"Indeed I have many friends from the North and have so far failed to notice any unique words in their speech which I would consider to be U-S."

For best results try going to rural areas outside Ballymena and Ballymoney. Even in Ballymena which is a very Ulster-Scots area alot of the words have died out in the actual town and you need to go to rural areas. Cullybackey is another good place to hear the braid Scots.

Here in Tyrone Ulster-Scots is limited to a few words and phrases nowadays, which I might add are usually used by the whole community and not just Unionists.

Thraa`ed = twisted, grumpy
scundered (scunnered, scundert) = fed up
ganch = fool, idiot
foundert = freezing

"A healthy celebration and acceptance of Ulster-Scots language has the potential to heal and bond "both sides"."

Just curious, would you say the same of Irish?

I am not sure that it does because the language does not seem to cross the divide as much. Irish simply is not used throughout the Unionist community the way it is in the Nationalist community. Although the Ulster-Scots used by all nowadays tends to be more like Ulster-English with a few Scots words thrown in.

It also comes at a time ethnic minorities are complaining about Irish language being a barrier to Jobs in the South:-

"Press Release issued 16 October 2004
Immediate Release

Irish Council for Civil Liberties (an chomhairle um chearta daonna) welcomes decision to review entry requirements to Gardai

Today, in response to apparent divisions within government on reviewing the requirement to have Irish in order to join the Gardai, the ICCL endorsed the proposal to remove the Irish-language requirement. Welcoming the proposal, Aisling Reidy, Director of ICCL noted:

"Ensuring a modern, effective police service for Ireland, which reflects the diverse make up of Irish society, is an important objective, and one that we believe removing a ban on membership of the Gardai unless you have Irish will help to achieve. In ICCL's policy paper on Garda Refrom, published in March 2003, the ICCL called for recruitment and promotion practices to be reviewed in order to examine the question the Gardai being more representative. While the ability to speak Irish should be treated as an asset and positive factor for any member of the Gardai, it does not follow that the Gardai serve the public better by excluding those who do not speak Irish. The removal of the Irish-language requirement of course has particular relevance for recruits from ethnic minorities, but could also improve recruitment from other sections of Irish society where Irish is not a skill individuals have."

I'll bet Donnie really uses a brave wheen of U-S words, and I hope he's not too crabbit to admit it,forby. Living fernenst Scotland he'll see manys a brave driech day whenever he takes a wee juke out the window, with the sheughs full up till his oxters and the slaps all clarried with clabber.But he can still have a quare bit of crack , whether he's married on a cute wee cuddy or a targe, the ould gulpin!
and on and on and on....

Thraa`ed = twisted, grumpy
scundered (scunnered, scundert) = fed up
ganch = fool, idiot
foundert = freezing

Cheers Alan. We do use all those words in our area. So it does exist after all! :-)

Many of the people in the predominantly Nationalist areas around Loughgiel etc. pronounce stones as "stains" and say yin for "one".

I'll bet Donnie really uses a brave wheen of U-S words, and I hope he's not too crabbit to admit it,forby. Living fernenst Scotland he'll see manys a brave driech day whenever he takes a wee juke out the window, with the sheughs full up till his oxters and the slaps all clarried with clabber.But he can still have a quare bit of crack , whether he's married on a cute wee cuddy or a targe, the ould gulpin!
and on and on and on....

"brave wheen" - check
"crabbit" - check
"juke", "sheughs", "oxters", "clarried", "clabber" - check and on and on and on...

Although I thought clabber came from the Irish clábar?! Any ideas anyone?

You could be right. Although I have heard Clabber / Clobber used in Scotland. There are certainly a few gaelic words too that have made the transition into everyday Ulster-English.

If you go to Ballymoney etc everyone says stains, hoose (house), heed (head), moose(mouse), yin or wan (one), ken (know). Ok it might not constitute a language but if you played it back to a stranger and asked them where the person on the tape came from...you would`nt get Ireland as an answer, or Northern Ireland.

"I dinny ken" - I do not know.

Never heard that outside rural Dumfries & Galloway before....but they say it in Ballymoney.

Correct Donnie, and in fact 'ganch' is likely from Irish too (ag caint, i.e. one who talks on and on).

However, words such as thole and glaur (the Scots for 'clabber', one could say!) are fair-dinkum Scots, as are some items of grammar (e.g. dinnae vs 'don't'), and of course the basic accent (the Dubliner on the plane next to me the other day commented that she thought the Northern accent 'basically the same as Scotland' - an overstatement I think, but right idea).

"There were people in Scotland before the Gaels, and there were people in Ireland before the Gaels. They spoke neither Gaelic nor Ullans"

now you are definitely reaching, I don't think what the mesoliths and the neoliths spoke was really a language, more grunts.

"I dinny ken"

I have never in my life heard someone use that in regular conversation and I know plenty of people from Ballymoney and Ballymena (having been born in the latter) Alan, I think you are also reaching.

My Granny used to talk about putting on a powl-tice as hot as you could thole. I've never ever heard anyone say "I dinny ken" either here on is Sctoland!

No not reaching. As someone who went to school for 10 year in the Galloway area I had never heard that term used anywhere else but I heard it used by a Church member from the Ballymoney area (not sure exactly where) a few months ago. He did however have a very braid scotch way of speaking about him as everyone else kept telling him to speak English as they couldnt understand him. LOL.

"I dinny ken". A Glaswegan wouldnt not have a clue what you are on about..only ever heard it used in Galloway / The Borders.

Erm, excuse my crap English and spelling.

I think then that is maybe just his accent and way of talking rather than a language.

"A healthy celebration and acceptance of Ulster-Scots language has the potential to heal and bond "both sides"."

Just curious, would you say the same of Irish?"

As for the above, Ulster Scots is seen to be the unionist retort to the Irish language so I don't really think it is going to do any uniting. If anything I have alot more sympathy for Irish than U-S. A couple of hundred years ago we were all speaking Irish anyway, probably Ulster Irish too which is more unique to Ulster than any other provinces version of Irish.

Interesting IJP. I work with a guy from Swords in Dublin and he says "us Northerners" all seem to speak fast and with a high pitch / tone, very similar to the Scots way of speaking.

When I worked on the Ards Peninsula there was a remarkable difference between speeech in Ballyhalbert and Portavogie.

Yes for some reason the further you go down the Ards peninsula the more people sound like they are from North Antrim, Its bizarre.

Yeah. I am amazed at the variation in accents within such a small area such as Northern Ireland.
England and Scotland has various differetn accents too but not over such a small area. Scotland for instance I can easily idebtify Galloway / Borders area, Glasgow / Central Scotland (can usually note and Edinburgh twang too) but then you have to go as far a Dundee to hear a different accent "The chuchter accent".

One good tip from a friend doing a phd in phonetics.
How Now Brown Cow.
People from Ireland have a unique way of saying Cow.

"People from Ireland have a unique way of saying Cow."

Yep, I'd agree with that, I lived in Canada for a year with an english girl and she used to find the way I said cow hilarious. Also the word cricket in an Ulster accent used to have her in stitches too.

unionist observer

A couple of hundred years ago we were all speaking Irish anyway, probably Ulster Irish too which is more unique to Ulster than any other provinces version of Irish.

Around the time of the United Irishmen/Act of Union, everyone in Ulster was speaking Gaelic??

Any evidence for this?

When did Ulster Protestants ever speak Gaelic? They came from England and Lowland Scotland, neither of which were Gaelic areas - people there spoke either Scots or English.

Alot of the landowners spoke Irish actually, they had to in order to communicate with their tenants.

Evidence? Well, the place name for Newtownards was Ballyno until a century ago and still sometimes used today, thats from the Irish Baile Nua for Newtown.

When I lived in Glasgow, I met quite an islander and I could have sworn that he was from somewhere in the west of Ireland. We even tried to talk Gaelic although his Scots Gaelic was much better than my Ulster Irish. The various accents in Scotland vary tremendously even though most are recognizably Scottish.

One irritating thing about some northern irish accents is in the pronunciation of 't' sounds in the middle of words, eg. in the word 'stutter'. For a lot of people, it comes out sounding like a 'd' sound or else the 't' sound has to be over-emphasized. Anyone else know what I'm on about?

There is no need to have a phobia of Irish just because you are a unionist, and its even more ridiculous to start trumpeting Ulster Scots as the proddy language in retort to Irish. Its part of our history as well as nationalist history.

In Dublin I often get teased for my northern pronunciation of car. As in kyeawr.

Fraggle -

Some in North Antrim get round the problem you describe by replacing the 'd' sound with a glottal stop.

u_o, your attitude towards Irish has mellowed a lot in the last few months from the time when you thought that Irish had all but died out by the 16th century. :p

Alot of the landowners spoke Irish actually, they had to in order to communicate with their tenants.

I'm not sure that's correct. What I have read would suggest the opposite, that one of the main reasons Irish declined was that the language of business was English. Hence the below by one of 20th century Ireland's greatest poets, Michael Hartnett/ Micheál Ó hAirtnéide

Excerpt from ‘A Farewell to English’
by Michael Hartnett

This road is not new.
I am not a maker of new things.
I cannot hew
out of the vacuum-cleaner minds
the sense of serving dead kings.

I am nothing new.
I am not a lonely mouth
trying to chew
a niche for culture
in the clergy-cluttered south.

But I will not see
great men go down
who walked in rags
from town to town
finding English a necessary sin,
the perfect language to sell pigs in.

I have made my choice
and leave with little weeping.
I have come with meagre voice
to court the language of my people.

Michael Hartnett (b. Sep. 18, 1941 - d. Oct. 13, 1999)

fraggle

I think that may be down to my dissertation - Settlement history of Newtownards, Co Down. Theres a big gaelic influence in the town until fairly recently which I didn't know about and wasn't expecting. Also coming back to Dublin in oct will have done that too.

Davros

some of the sources I have been reading recently for college work do emphasise outreach by landowners. I think Irish started to decline when more and more settlers came over, the working settlers as well as the landed gentry and through their use of english it started replacing Irish.

U-O

Not reaching at all. The single Indo-European language (and it was clearly that) from which nearly all European languages are derived was spoken 4000-5000 years ago. As were, of course, ancient Egyptian and Chinese languages spoken and even beginning to be written around that time. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose the contemporary inhabitants of Scotland did not have a clearly identifiable language (or indeed languageS). The basic problem here is people assuming that history starts when people learn to write, but that is simply untrue.

The reason people in the Ards Peninsula sound like North Antrim is that the whole area, from Portaferry to Coleraine, was settled similarly and would've sounded the same. The economic development of (Greater) Belfast in the middle subsequently brought other linguistic influences to the area between them.

The fact that Gaelic place names survive in the North is evidence that the settlers had a passive competence in Gaelic, not that they spoke it. After all, Gaelic place names had survived across most of Scotland even though the language hadn't (likewise Norse and even some Celtic place names in England). The same applies in eastern Ulster. That is not to say no settlers spoke Gaelic, just that the survival of place names is not evidence for this.

There is no need to have a phobia of Irish just because you are a unionist

Correct.

IJP

but the evidence is that Ireland was the most influential centres of language in the time. It was in Ireland the first recorded writing in the British Isles was discovered on Ogham stones. Ogham Stones were also found in Scotland and the Isle of Man, which indicates they were places of Irish influence. I do feel you are underestimating Gaelic.

By the way I am not a gaelic enthusiast by anyones standards, I am simply interested in a history of the British Isles and Irish happens to play a part in it.

"I'll bet Donnie really uses a brave wheen of U-S words, and I hope he's not too crabbit to admit it,forby. Living fernenst Scotland he'll see manys a brave driech day whenever he takes a wee juke out the window, with the sheughs full up till his oxters and the slaps all clarried with clabber.But he can still have a quare bit of crack , whether he's married on a cute wee cuddy or a targe, the ould gulpin!"

Davidbrew has highlighted what has been on my mind during this discussion. When people talk of the U-S words used in everyday Ulster English i'd wonder just how much of that is simply "Planter English" or "Northern hiberno English" rather than Ulster-Scots. This is not putting down U-S, just a general question about how much the various dialects overlap today. I'd guess that currently the English spoken in the North is a quare mix of the English dialects with some influence from both Scots & Irish. So to say NI folk already use lots of U-S words may not be entirely accurate. Perhaps IJP can enlighted us.

UO
I really like your attitude in the earier posts. Irish is not a threat to anyone and even if Unionists don't identify with it (many Southerners don't after all) they certainly don't need to be offended by it and shouldn't feel the need to counter it. Irish is not a sneaky way to force a 32-cty UI.
of course all that is nice in theory.

IJP
"The basic problem here is people assuming that history starts when people learn to write"

The Finnish language didn't even exist until a few hundred years ago when some bloke called Agricola put pen to paper ;)

unionist observer

Alot of the landowners spoke Irish actually, they had to in order to communicate with their tenants.

"A lot of" the landowners spoke Gaelic. That would be how many people, exactly? 100? 200? And what is your evidence for this?

Evidence? Well, the place name for Newtownards was Ballyno until a century ago and still sometimes used today, thats from the Irish Baile Nua for Newtown.

Not much evidence, then!

Face facts: Ulster Protestants spoke English and Scots, not Gaelic!

I can't give figures unfortunately Willowfield, I am just commenting after the research I have been doing recently which surprised me because I would have always assumed that landowners only spoke english.

Until 1922 there also were alot of protestants in the south as well lets not forget, there was a scottish influence in Ulster and the rest of Ireland but not on a large scale until the scottish plantations in the 17th century.

As for Scots being a language, it simply isn't, it is merely a dialect. Ulster Protestants are a very mixed race, for instance I have alot more gaelic ancestry than scots ancestry, that is only normal in any race with the effects of intermarriage etc.

This is a topic you could easily devote a life time to studying, ie. its alot more intricate than simply "Ulster Protestants spoke English and Scots, not Gaelic!" I don't think this interferes with my unionism either, I feel whats best for Ulster is to remain in the United Kingdom, you don't have to have your own blinkered view of history to be unionist.

"Irish is not a sneaky way to force a 32-cty UI.
of course all that is nice in theory."

exactly, although the republican movement has done a great job of linking Irish to all things republican. Before the gaelic revival Irish was everyones, however as I said, the republicans have done a great job in hijacking it and making it their own.

"the republicans have done a great job in hijacking it and making it their own."

Unfortunatly very true. But how do those Protestants who spoke Irish get it back?

we can't is the simple answer to that maca, sadly enough any unionist who displays an interest in Irish is viewed with suspecion and any party that is seen to encourage Irish will be trumpeted as sell outs of the unionist cause.

"the republicans have done a great job in hijacking it and making it their own."

Let's hope U-S doesn't go the same way, as many unionists are at pains to prove to the world that this is their culture and theirs alone!

unionist observer

Until 1922 there also were alot of protestants in the south as well lets not forget, there was a scottish influence in Ulster and the rest of Ireland but not on a large scale until the scottish plantations in the 17th century.

200 years ago is AFTER the 17th century!

As for Scots being a language, it simply isn't, it is merely a dialect.

Well, they spoke English, then!

Ulster Protestants are a very mixed race, for instance I have alot more gaelic ancestry than scots ancestry, that is only normal in any race with the effects of intermarriage etc.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean we were all speaking Gaelic 200 years ago. We weren't. In Ulster, most of us were speaking English!

This is a topic you could easily devote a life time to studying, ie. its alot more intricate than simply "Ulster Protestants spoke English and Scots, not Gaelic!" I don't think this interferes with my unionism either, I feel whats best for Ulster is to remain in the United Kingdom, you don't have to have your own blinkered view of history to be unionist.

It seems you are saying that I have a "blinkered view of history" because I say that Ulster Protestants spoke English, not Gaelic. Yet you claim otherwise without any evidence! Can you even cite another source which shows that the language of Ulster Protestants in the early 19th century was Gaelic and not English??

No? Didn't think so, because it wasn't.

It'll come in it's own good time Maca. As long as the move away from politics continues.

well, can you prove that every single Ulster Protestant spoke only english 200 years ago? I think its unlikely.

U-O

Not underestimating Gaelic at all, simply correcting the entire false contention that the 'original Scots' spoke Gaelic. They did not.

It is also untrue that Irish/Gaelic is any 'older' than any other language.

Of course, it was written earlier than any other language in NW Europe and is therefore a significant part of our history going back 1500 years - as a major literary tongue and a primary historical source. But that is not the same as being 'older'. We need to be accurate about such things because too many people with certain political axes to grind simplify and abuse history for their own narrow-minded ethnic-nationalist purposes. They need to be exposed.

sadly enough any unionist who displays an interest in Irish is viewed with suspecion and any party that is seen to encourage Irish will be trumpeted as sell outs of the unionist cause.

Spot on. Such suspicion is a perfect example of the narrow-minded ethnic nationalism I refer to.

UO
"we can't is the simple answer... "

I disagree. I'm an optimist and I know of some Unionists learning Irish. I actually think some unionists should be offended by the republicans stealing irish from them. Irish IS part of the heritage of *some* unionists and I think they shouldn't give up on that. Again, this is all great in theory....

Donnie
"Let's hope U-S doesn't go the same way..."

Doh! Too late. It's happened, the damage has been done. But hopefully with some real leadership in the U-S movement they can prevent further damage. They should really be cooperating with the Irish language movement rather than trying to beat them down.

IJP, you are wrong. The people who were called 'Scots' first (original scots) spoke Gaelic.

unionist observer

well, can you prove that every single Ulster Protestant spoke only english 200 years ago? I think its unlikely.

I never made such a claim. I say, though, that, broadly speaking, Protestants spoke English, and very few spoke Gaelic.

You, on the other hand, said that we were ALL speaking Gaelic! Your claim, it's up to you to back it up!

Posted by: unionist_observer at January 5, 2005 01:45 PM

so someone please enlighten me as to the Scots/U-S words I would use in everyday parlance?!

Thran
Glar
Thrapple
Wain
Ahine
Gie
Fizog
Oxter

All fairly common in everyday conversation in your neck of the woods.

"As for Scots being a language, it simply isn't, it is merely a dialect"

A dialect of what? English?
I know of no dialect that has it`s own unique vocabularly of thousands and thousands of words and its own grammar.
I would say that it is not a full blown, fully developed language but it is certainly far more than a dialect which to be honest is hardly spoken fluently anywhere nowadays but rather is mixed with genuine English and as such only remnants of the language remain with pockets of the population retaining a stronger Scots influence than others.

"I know of some Unionists learning Irish"

yeah but none of them can own it, it has to be kept clandestine, otherwise you start getting the classic reactions that Willowfield is currently exhibiting.

Alan

come on, there are plenty of dialects in the world that have as many variations to English as Scots does, for example Austrailian, American, Canadian. And then the older versions of English such as middle English and Old English are sometimes hardly even recognisable as English but they are. This does not make all the above dialects separate languages.

The Oxford English dictionary expands every year to incorporate new words in use which shows the english language has evolved and is still evolving.

Thran
Glar
Thrapple
Wain
Ahine
Gie
Fizog
Oxter

These words are not in my every day usage or anyone I knows everyday usage, possibly with the exception of wain, but thats not a word used in my generation. I know what ones oxters are but only from watching a Billy Connolly video.

I was going to say You missed out the most commonly used one Gonzo, "Crack", but then I remembered Ian reckons it might be Scandinavian!

Do you have to employ a Ballymena accent to authentically speak U-S?

unionist observer

Fair enough, but they are commonly used words in rural parts of North Antrim.

Or was the first 20 years all just a dream..?!

Does anyone else remember former Ballymena Mayor Sandy Spence needing subtitles every time he was on the BBC?

Gonzo

hmmm, I am not sure, my mother is from Ballymena and I have alot of relations up there but they don't use those words.

In fact I just pulled my mother over and asked her to look at the list of words, she recognised about half of them but wouldn't really use any in her everyday language anymore.

Gonzo
"Oxter"
Isn't oxter actually an English word which died out a couple of hundred years ago (in English)?
It's also used in Hiberno-English though I don't hear it as much as I used too.

Fraggle

Sorry to do a Willowfield on you, but you didn't say 'people who were called Scots', you said 'Scots'!

What people choose to call other people is immaterial ('Scotii' being the name applied by Latin speakers, not the people themselves).

Davros

:) In fact I said the word is broadly Germanic rather than Celtic in origin, something indisputably the case as evidenced by its contemporary use in Scotland, northern England and Flanders and its historical use even more widely. Its extention of meaning in Ireland does not take away the fact the word is Germanic and that, therefore, a Celtic-language spelling when writing a Germanic language is inappropriate (but that said, popular usage in the end always prevails).

It was people who can't grasp the difference between Scandinavia and the Low Countries who applied the 'Scandinavian' thing (I refer you to my comments on the all-island economy thread...) :)

Ian, I was going on a report carried in the Newsletter in 2003, long before I discovered Slugger :)

UO
"yeah but none of them can own it, it has to be kept clandestine"

Fair enough. Sad state of affairs really.'

Willow
"In Ulster, most of us were speaking English"

I'm not convinced that's entirely true. I'm not sure exactly which time period the main decline occurred pre- or post-famine but certainly a few hundred years ago the majourity were still speaking Irish.

There's a really cool map on the web which shows the decline over the years and the distribution of speakers throughout the island. I must try to find it, it may interest one or two of ye.

IJP
"Its extention of meaning in Ireland does not take away the fact the word is Germanic and that, therefore, a Celtic-language spelling when writing a Germanic language is inappropriate (but that said, popular usage in the end always prevails)"

Don't bring us back to the crack vs craic discussion. I'm still sticking to my guns on that one ;))

"There's a really cool map on the web which shows the decline over the years and the distribution of speakers throughout the island. I must try to find it, it may interest one or two of ye."

let me know if you do find it, that could be very useful for the dissertation I am working on at the minute

maca

I'm not convinced that's entirely true.

Entirely true? Surely it's either true or it's not?

I'm not sure exactly which time period the main decline occurred pre- or post-famine but certainly a few hundred years ago the majourity were still speaking Irish.

Not in Ulster, where most people were Protestants of "planter stock", were they not? If they weren't the majority, I assume they, plus those RCs speaking English outnumbered the RCs who still spoke Gaelic?

U-O/Gonzo,

People up our way would use thran, oxter and wain on a regular basis and sometimes glar (as in "it was covered in glar") but not familiar with the others to be honest with you.

Willow
"Not in Ulster, where most people were Protestants of "planter stock", were they not? If they weren't the majority, I assume they, plus those RCs speaking English outnumbered the RCs who still spoke Gaelic?"

Any figures? Might be useful.


UO
"let me know if you do find it, that could be very useful for the dissertation I am working on at the minute"
Will do. I *might* have downloaded it at some stage.

unionist observer

I note you ignored my post of 1.45, and instead followed it up with the sneering comment "yeah but none of them can own it, it has to be kept clandestine, otherwise you start getting the classic reactions that Willowfield is currently exhibiting".

Very poor.

You said that we were ALL speaking Gaelic. You have no evidence to back this up, so why do you attack someone who challenges your unfounded assertion?

Simply for challenging this assertion, you have implied that I have a "blinkered view of history". If you are unable to demonstrate how my view of history is blinkered, I suggest that you retract the accusation.

It actually would seem that my view of history is more accurate than your own and, presumably then, LESS blinkered.

u-o There's that sort of thing pp 31-36 and later on in the book in Brian Graham's In Search of Ireland , a cultural Geography, also in Máiréad Nic Craith's books.

cheers davros

speaking of which, I really ought to get back to it now and get some work done for a change.

maca

No figures - it's an assumption. I know Protestants outnnumbered RCs in early 20th century Ulster. Don't know about 100 years previously, but I'm assuming it'd be a fairly similar proportion. I could be wrong, of course.

But that's all beside the point. The main point I was making was that Ulster Protestants spoke English, not Gaelic.

Willow
"You said that we were ALL speaking Gaelic"

Can you point me to this post Willow, I must be losing my eyesight and can't find it.

unionist observer, 12.03pm

This might add a little to the discussion

"...the Plantation was a landmark.... ....
The great majority of those who came then and later in the century were Scottish settlers who with few exceptions spoke neither Gaelic nor English. Their language was Scots, a Germanic tongue that had a common origin with English in the Anglo-Saxon language of Britain centuries Earlier and that was the everyday language of Lowland Scotland at the time. These speakers and the descendant of their language, Ulster-Scots, produced a pluralism that has now differentiated Ulster from the rest of Ireland for 400 years. Ulster-Scots remains to this day a vibrant medium of daily life in parts of four Ulster counties -- northeast Down, north, mid and east Antrim, north Londonderry, and east Donegal.

The ratio of Scottish to English settlers in Ulster during the 17th century has often been put at five or six to one, with one rough estimate reckoning there were 100,000 Scots and 20,000 English at the time of the rebellion of 1641. The proportion would have been much higher in Antrim and north Down and more evenly balanced in the six west Ulster counties involved in the official Plantation scheme. The Gaelic-speaking Irish still formed a significant majority in most parishes in those counties by mid-century. Demographic patterns established by Plantation settlements ensured that there were two, often three, cultural traditions in contact in much of the province.

Plantation settlers from Scotland were dominant in and gradually extended their influence (especially in the form of Presbyterian churches) over parts of the province most accessible by sea to Scotland, for example, the Ards Peninsula and the Lough Foyle estuary. At the same time, English settlers were concentrated in Armagh, the Lagan Valley of north Down, south Tyrone, Fermanagh and elsewhere, producing the Mid-Ulster speech area still discernible today as having much more influence from England and much less from Scotland. Both Ulster-Scots and Mid-Ulster English were profoundly affected by Irish Gaelic, borrowing a good deal of vocabulary and some grammatical constructions. At the same time, with the influx of non-speakers of Irish into much of Ulster, that language receded more quickly there than in other provinces. Elsewhere Irish competed strongly with English until well into the 19th century, and in certain parts of Ulster (north Tyrone, much of Donegal) it did so as well"

"I am not sure, my mother is from Ballymena and I have alot of relations up there but they don't use those words."

That is sort of the point. It has been "bred" out of the people as "bad English" in the schools (In Ulster and Scotland). It is only in the past few years that some teachers have actually taken to trying to promote and preserve the words.

Thanks, maca.

Proves my point.

So much for having a "blinkered view of history" - seems the blinkers belong to unionist observer!

Willow
"Proves my point."

Partly. Definitly we were not all Irish speaking around the time of the Act of Union. But i'm not sure you are right when you say most of Ulster spoke English.

Did you miss:
"The great majority of those who came then ... spoke neither Gaelic nor English. Their language was Scots." Add to that the % of Irish speakers.

Don't hand out the blinkers just yet ;)

See my 2.50pm, which explains what my (main) point was.

As for the thing about whether Scots is a separate language from English, that is a red herring. Originally I said Protestants spoke either Scots or English. Then unionist observer said they were the same language, which I accepted for the sake of argument.

Whether or not they are two different languages, the point remains - Protestants spoke English and Scots/English (delete according to your views on whether or not Scots is a language), NOT Gaelic.

That is sort of the point. It has been "bred" out of the people as "bad English" in the schools (In Ulster and Scotland). It is only in the past few years that some teachers have actually taken to trying to promote and preserve the words.

This is true. Talking 'braid' was seen as an impediment to getting ahead, so parents actively discouraged its use. That, urbanisation, and the influence of the TV and radio in 'standardising' spoken English, are probably the biggest contributors to the dialect's slow demise.

Oh, and the Ulster Scots Agency is a bit of a hindrance to Ulster Scots too!

I think it's a bit sad. There are some fantastic Ulster Scots words and sayings, and it always seemed to me to have a certain earthy, natural bluntness and black Calvinistic humour about it.

Labelling it a Ballymena accent is nonsensical, and to dismiss it as country bumpkin speak doesn't do it justice.

If people, both opponents and proponents, can get over the fact that it isn't a fully-blown language (in practice, if not legally), then maybe they could better appreciate that it does have some value.

of course as recently as the early 1900s there was the famous case of the Broighter hoard- gold votive offerings found near Limavady by Samuel Nicholl( currently in the national Museum in Dublin-can we have it back ?) which went to the court of Admiralty in London to determine whether it was treasure trove or not. M'learned friends had to emply the services of a "translator" to decipher the evidence of Mr Nicholl as to where he had found the treasure.

Not to mention Robert Quigg VC, who, on being presented with his medal by King George V was told by his Sovereign "You're a brave fellow Quigg" and promptly replied " you're a brave fellow yourself, King !"

"So much for having a "blinkered view of history" - seems the blinkers belong to unionist observer!"

Of course I do, thats what happens when you study history for 4 years - catch a grip.

Willow
"See my 2.50pm, which explains what my (main) point was"

That's exactly the point I challenged.
Ask the Scottish if Scots is the same as English, it's not.

Jesus Christ, maca, my initial post stated English AND Scots. As I have ALREADY explained (3.38pm) I only changed it to English for the sake of the argument with unionist observer.

The essential point was and is that Ulster Protestants did NOT speak Gaelic.

Please have the courtesy to read what I write before shooting from the hip.

As for unionist observer, I'm not quite sure what is meant by her 7.02pm, but can I request a retraction of her claims that I view history through blinkers? It is hardly merited for the "crime" of challenging her preposterous claim that in the early 19th century everyone (in Ulster) spoke Gaelic, which has since, in any case, been debunked.

There has been a lot of debate about language and history so here I go to have my say.

1) Language before Gaelic. We know which language was spoken in Scotland before the arrival of Gaelic. It was Brythonic (i.e. the early form of Welsh). Indeed in the historical era we have examples of Welsh, or a very similar language, being used across the lowlands. The first Welsh poem 'Y Gododdin' refers to the territory around Edinborough.

Prior to the Brythons, who were Celts, we have no knowledge of any language spoken in Scotland however it is arguable that the language spoken was a form of Indo-European and was part of the vast western Europe language continuum which developed into the various Celtic languages. It is erroneous to think that just because a particular area, Hallstat and La Tene, developed particular cultural traits that are now identified with the Celts that the Celts must have come from those areas. This is simply not true and it is more likely that the Celtic language was already here, and developed here as much as it did in continental Europe. In other words the 'Celts' can rightly claim to be the aboriginal inhabitants of these islands. As regards the 'Picts' the Irish for pict 'Cruithin' shows exactly whom they were. Cruithin is the same word as Welsh Prydain - the early ethnic term used by the Welsh for their island and for themselves. In other words the Picts were Brythonic speakers. That there may have been Brythonic speakers in Ireland should not come as a shock - there is plenty of evidence that they were.

2) Regarding the planters who came to Ireland during the plantations. There is plenty of evidence that many of them did indeed speak Gaelic - it should be remembered that Gaelic was still spoken in those parts of Scotland adjacent to northern Ireland within living memory. It should also be remembered that the Gaels in Scotland have a full and developed national history which describes how they arrived in Scotland and it doesn't claim that they were anything other than Gaels. Those who use the 'Cruithin' theories put about by a number of academically dubious books conveniently forget the existence of Gaelic in Scotland.

"Jesus Christ, maca, my initial post stated English AND Scots. As I have ALREADY explained (3.38pm)"

Calm down boy. YOU said "See my 2.50pm, which explains what my (main) point was"
In your 2:50pm there is no mention of Scots.

Perhaps you could do me the courtesy of re-reading your own posts before freaking out.

It is erroneous to think that just because a particular area, Hallstat and La Tene, developed particular cultural traits that are now identified with the Celts that the Celts must have come from those areas. This is simply not true and it is more likely that the Celtic language was already here, and developed here as much as it did in continental Europe. In other words the 'Celts' can rightly claim to be the aboriginal inhabitants of these islands.

Willow
"The essential point was and is that Ulster Protestants did NOT speak Gaelic."

Perhaps Mogga could provide you the evidence to the contrary. And perhaps in future you could actually do some research rather than making assumptions all the time, it weakens your arguments otherwise.

"In other words the 'Celts' can rightly claim to be the aboriginal inhabitants of these islands"

A very dangerous discussion to start, I suggest NOT starting it.

the Gaels in Scotland have a full and developed national history which describes how they arrived in Scotland and it doesn't claim that they were anything other than Gaels.
It could hardly say otherwise as otherwise they would have to abandon their collective identity.

maca

Perhaps Mogga could provide you the evidence to the contrary.

That would be interesting, but the point was being made in general terms. I should have thought that was obvious. (I had already clarified elsewhere that I was not talking about every single Ulster Protestant.)

Willow
You usually demand accuracy, a trait of Ulster Prods I have been told, so isn't it only natural that i'd expect you to be accurate in your posts? General terms won't work, hense much of this unnecessary bickering.
An interesting subject this anyway, despite the bickering.

Willowfield

ok, I'm sorry, I was rude earlier.

I am aware that sometimes I do shoot from the hip and make generalisations, what I was trying to articulate was that there were Ulster protestants who would have spoken Irish, most likely not all. I have no proof of course for this assertion but the likelihood is that a percentage did, and the further back in history you go the more likely that more did. That much seems clear from the sources that I have read.

You guys might find this interesting: Protestants and the Irish Language: Historical Heritage and Current Attitudes in Northern Ireland

Also:

"... Some attempts to prevent further decline of the Irish language were instigated in 1795 by a group of Ulster Protestants in Belfast. They began publishing the first Irish language periodical Bolg an tSolthair (Miscellany) to recommend the Irish language to the notice of Irishmen . The Ulster Gaelic Society was founded soon after this and began producing contemporary works and translations of novels."
http://www.wiccaweb.com/irishgaelic.php

interesting article, I'm getting frustrated that my dissertation is most archaeology based, it would've been fun to use some of this language stuff in it.

Is it too late to change? ;))

think I'll stick some of it in anyway, the title is settlement history of newtownards, language is part of settlement history...well kinda, I could fit it in by discussing the languages of each phase of settlement.

"Elizabeth I of England ordered that a Protestant Bible be made available in Irish, and Sean O Ceannaigh translated and published the Protestant Catechism in 1571.The New Testament was translated in 1603, and the Old Testament in 1685. "

Rather misleading. The New Testament was indeed translated first. That was the same for protestant and catholic. But even the Old Testament contained the same books , the only difference was that the apocrypha in protestant bibles were in a seperate section. It wasn't until the Mid 19th century that the apocrypha were dropped from most protestant bibles.

but there already were versions of the bible in Irish in Ireland, thats what the Book of Kells etc were.

And in fact the first known written copy of the bible which was known as the Vulgate was brought into Ireland to Nendrum in the early medieval period.

but there already were versions of the bible in Irish in Ireland,

For the very few. It's interesting that a protestant Queen way back then wanted to give Irish People their bible in their own language ( does anybody know which provincial Irish was used or is that mainly a spoken difference ? )and 400 odd years later certain protestants kick and scream about a few signs and ATM machines using Irish.

the signs are one thing, I still think signs only in Irish is just confusing for us who don't speak the language.

However the bank machines are another, its clearly just the same computer program that they use in the bank of ireland machines in the republic that they have installed in the one up here. I hear there is a campaign to get Ulster Scots on the machines to!!!!

I still think signs only in Irish is just confusing for us who don't speak the language.

I was thinking more of the ones fighting tooth and nail against bilingual signs.

"..I said the word is broadly Germanic rather than Celtic in origin, something indisputably the case as evidenced by its contemporary use in Scotland, northern England and Flanders and its historical use even more widely. Its extention of meaning in Ireland does not take away the fact the word is Germanic and that, therefore, a Celtic-language spelling when writing a Germanic language is inappropriate.."

IJP - Scot is Celtic in origin not Germanic, compare Scotii to Scotraige. It's based on what people called themselves. Also, your other claim is nonsensical. A Celtic language spelling is entirely appropriate when writing anything you want to write.

Think about the word "tsunami". If you're theory is correct then it isn't appropriate to write this word. Which is obviously not true.

I don't think tour gonna argue that it's an not a Japanese because I'm writing in English. So there.

Davros
"does anybody know which provincial Irish was used or is that mainly a spoken difference"

One thing I haven't yet been able to find out is the history of the dialects, when they developed etc.
The differences are both spoken and written.
No idea about the bible ... yet.

UO
"the signs are one thing, I still think signs only in Irish is just confusing for us who don't speak the language."

I read a posting on another thread from a Gaeltacht local. It seems that the signs there are generally already in Irish but the problem is that maps have the English names. The plan seems to be to make the Irish name official so that maps will be changed to reflect the reality. If we are to believe this guy the whole idea is to eliminate confusion rather than cause it.
Of course they could change the signs to match the maps but that's not going to happen ;)

Do ye not think Irish names are just more interesting?
Example, a wee town I know called Killashee, means nothing in English really but the Irish is "Cill na Sidhe" ‘The Church of the Fairy Mound’ or ‘The Wood of the Fairies’
(i'd translate it as 'church of the fairies')

One the way to Sligo I pass through Riverstown, an unexciting name, in Irish "Baile Idir Dhá Abhainn" "The Town between two rivers".

They're probably not great examples but you get my drift.

"It is also untrue that Irish/Gaelic is any 'older' than any other language."

Languages can be young or old. If Ulster Scots is a seperate language from English, as some people seem to be saying then it can't be older than about 300 years. Because there were no Scots speakers in Ulster pre 1600, and for a long time after that it must have been indistinguishable from Scots. Irish has been spoken for at least 1,600 years.

"No idea about the bible ... yet."

It shows ;) If you are interested I can subscribe you to Papa Doc's .....

One of the good things in the Irish News is a feature on place names.

BTW Laird Lord has signed up to manage a new Ulster Scots boy band. Apparently it'll be called Take Thon.

Maca

Don't bring us back to the crack vs craic discussion. I'm still sticking to my guns on that one ;))

Then it's time you de-commissioned them :)

Sure, you live in the same country as one of the inspectors, so it'll not be too difficult :)

Unionist Observer,
the Book of Kells is in Latin. Strange you don't know that considering you go to Trinity!

Queen Elizabeth's bible was the first Irish language bible and if you want to know more about it and language on this island in general, I recommend (as I've done on here before) Translation Ireland by Michael Cronin of that bastion of learning DCU, which deals with the development of language on this island for the last 1000 years. Back then 10% of us spoke French, for example.

As far as I recall, Cronin said the Catholic Church wouldn't allow the Irish bible to be used because it was Protestant.

ah crap, so it is, there goes my argument!!

unionist observer

… what I was trying to articulate was that there were Ulster protestants who would have spoken Irish, most likely not all.

Most likely very few, surely?

Biffo

… Also, your other claim is nonsensical. A Celtic language spelling is entirely appropriate when writing anything you want to write. Think about the word "tsunami". If you're theory is correct then it isn't appropriate to write this word. Which is obviously not true. I don't think tour gonna argue that it's an not a Japanese because I'm writing in English. So there.

When writing in English, why would you use a Gaelic spelling for a word that exists in English? The spelling of “crack” in English is “crack”; the spelling of “crack” in Gaelic is “craic”; therefore it only makes sense to use the Gaelic spelling when writing in Gaelic. The spelling of “tsunami” in English is “tsunami”.

to be honest Willowfield, I would say there were more than just a few, but these are assumptions.

The Lough/Loch thing is interesting.
While it's lough in Hiberno-Irish and loch in Irish Gaelic, it's "loch" in both Scots-English and Scottish gaelic.

Davros
"If you are interested I can subscribe you to Papa Doc's"

Nooooo! Thanks but no thanks! ;)

IJP
"Sure, you live in the same country as one of the inspectors, so it'll not be too difficult "

I've softened him up with some koskenkorva (vodka), he's on my side.

Willow
"The spelling of “crack” in English is “crack”; the spelling of “crack” in Gaelic is “craic”"

Except of course that Hiberno-English is full of Irish words. I'm sure people are familiar with many such as Taoiseach, Táiniste, Dáil, Garda etc etc etc.

So where did "Lough" come from Maca ? Any ideas ?

I guess it's just an anglicisation. It's "Loch" in Irish, e.g. Loch nEathach (Lough Neagh) but translates as either "loch" or "lough".

This is my theory but I could be way off. The "CH" in Irish might be softer than in Scottish Gaelic so "loch" became "lough" in Ireland but "loch" in Scotland. Just a guess as I said...

so then does crack still mean the same in irish as it does in english and if so is that where the term came from?

Rebecca

"As for Scots being a language, it simply isn't, it is merely a dialect"

Erm, wrong. The European Union has included Ulster-Scots in its Charter of Minority Languages.

Taoiseach - ah yes the Gaelic for Il Duce!

Hopefully IJP might have an answer. The "English speaking" Scots Planters would have used Loch, The Gaelic speakers, including the Gallowglass, would also have used loch and the English Planters/settlers would surely have used lake.

"The European Union has included Ulster-Scots in its Charter of Minority Languages."

yeah, because that means its a language?!?!? Thats simply the EU giving in for a peaceful life. Its as much a language as old english is a different language.

Christopher
"Taoiseach - ah yes the Gaelic for Il Duce!"

Actually it's Irish. The Scottish don't use Taoiseach. (sometimes pedantism is a necessary evil)

"Erm, wrong. The European Union has included Ulster-Scots in its Charter of Minority Languages."

Have you read the charter? I'll have to check it again but I don't think the Charter actually defines what a language is. A "dialect" can (imho) be classed as a "regional or minority language".
In reality U-Scots is a dialect of the Scots language.

UO
"so then does crack still mean the same in irish as it does in english and if so is that where the term came from?"

I *think* craic (in Irish & often in Hiberno-English) does have a broader meaning. Of course I don't know how British people use "crack" , I have read it means chit-chat, gossip etc. Is that right?
"Crack" itself is Germanic, possibly Dutch though IJP can clarify.

Wrong Rebecca. It was placed on the list because it is a language. But of course you know better than the European Union.

The pleasure which you seem to derive out of rubbishing the cultural identity of thousands upon thousands of Ulster Protestants is a little disturbing. Still as long as you can indulge your own smug sense of superiority, thats OK....

Maca.

Fine. The Irish for Il Duce - the title Mussolini created for himself.

Wrong Christopher.

I am merely of the belief that you don't need to be of Scottish origin, have no RC relatives, be fundamental christian, come from a unionist family, be intolerant to other faiths and ideaologies or try to trump up the Ballymena accent as a language to believe the union is the best thing for Northern Ireland. This does not dimish my Britishness, if anything it makes it stronger.

crack in Northern Ireland means the same as in the republic, ie. fun, eg. bit of crack.

Didn't realise crack was Dutch/Germanic, this language business is very complicated, I'm very glad I do history rather than linguistics.

"You don't need to be of Scottish origin" - I'm not. "Have no RC relatives" - I do. "Come from a unionist family". I come from a UUP family if thats what you mean. "Be intolerant to other faiths and ideaologies" - I'm not. "Try to trump up the Ballymena accent as a language" - again rubbishing the cultural identity of thousands of Unionists.

Why exactly are you a Unionist?

Christopher
"It was placed on the list because it is a language. But of course you know better than the European Union."

It's nothing to do with the EU. It's a COE Charter.
It's also nothing to do with "rubbishing the cultural identity" of anyone. It's a simple linguistic matter. This would be like me claiming Hiberno-English is a language.

"The Irish for Il Duce - the title Mussolini created for himself."

Except Bertie didn't create the title for himself.
"Taoiseach" is actually an ancient Irish word.

UO
"this language business is very complicated, I'm very glad I do history rather than linguistics."

Fascinating subject though.

Taoiseach was a title created by De Valera in the 1937 Constitution. It may be an "ancient" word, but his motivation was to ape Mussolni.

Christopher

erm, that above were not accusations aimed at you, you are a bit hypersensitive to assume they were.

Why am I a unionist?

Well, I grew up in Britain and I love being British and part of the United Kingdom. I like the republic of Ireland, but then I also like lots of other countries, however they are foreign to me. There are other reasons that I am convinced that staying in the United Kingdom is the best for Northern Ireland, financial, social, in terms of how we are governed but the most over riding is that I love my country.

Things like Ulster Scots are annoying because it seems like unionists are trying to keep up with republicans because they are seen to have their own language. It makes unionism look weak. We are British and we don't need to make any excuses for that.

Christopher,
I see your knowledge of Italian is as limited your knowledge of Irish. You shouldn't believe all the myths you are told.

Duce actually means guide, which Hitler copied when he took Führer.

Taoiseach is the Irish for chief as in of a clan.

Clann is the Irish for family.

"We are British and we don't need to make any excuses for that."

Agreed. But we are Ulster-British - a unique brand of Britishness. Why do the work of cultural-fascists by stamping all over Ulster-Scots? In 1994 there were 2 U-S groups, today there are well over 200. In any other country this would be hailed as a cultural revival, but in Northen Ireland an awful lot of people seem to see it as their duty to crap all over it.

i thought the chief of a clan was ri tuath?

Biffo

This is a bit boring but since you queried it:

Scot is Celtic in origin not Germanic,

I never said it was Germanic. I said it was Latin. It was the Romans who referred to the inhabitants of Ireland universally as 'Scotii'. There is no evidence that they themselves had any collective term, since, as implied above, they were not writing at the time.

A Celtic language spelling is entirely appropriate when writing anything you want to write.

Eh?

When writing in English you use the English spelling. If a word derives from Japanese, fine. If a word derives from a Celtic language, fine. If a word derives from a Germanic language, though, why adopt the Celtic-language spelling? It's nonsense.

Your equivalence is incorrect. The equivalent would be writing 'tsunami' as something like 't-súnmidh' - i.e. adopting a Celtic-language spelling for a word that isn't Celtic!

I've nothing against writing 'craic' in Irish. I see no reason for the adoption of that spelling in English. Although, as a disclaimer, I have noted the one universal linguistic rule, namely that popular usage determines it in the end.

Languages can be young or old. If Ulster Scots is a seperate language from English, as some people seem to be saying then it can't be older than about 300 years.

Sorry, but both these statements indicate ignorance of the subject.

Firstly, all Indo-European languages are the same age because they derive from the same language. Determining when or if they split from other languages is subjective.

Secondly, no one is arguing Scots 'split from English' at all, and certainly not within the past 300 years. They have a common ancestor quite recently (i.e. at least until 1300), it's not an issue of 'splitting'. The split had certainly occurred by 1400 or so. The issue is whether Scots is now so dominated by English that the split is no longer really apparent (i.e. whether in fact 'Scots' is a dialect of English with a substrate from the now-obsolete Scots language, or whether it remains independent).

U-O et al

'Crack' first appears in Spenser's poetry (i.e. in England), also in Burns (in Scotland), yet does not appear in the main Irish dictionary of 1927. Therefore its entry into the Irish language is extremely recent.

The meaning has changed slightly in Ireland, I would say, in that as used in Scotland and northern England it means merely 'chat', whereas in Ireland it usually has a jovial connotation. But subtle changes of meaning to English words are common.

The word needn't have 'come' from anywhere as such, it may just have been part of the original Germanic vocabulary (as, for example, was the predecessor of 'thole'). The 'Dutch' link is that the word 'krakken' is found in contemporary colloquial Flemish (i.e. northern Belgium).

My objection on an earlier thread was the apparent immediate assumption that anything that is 'different' in Ireland from elsewhere must necessarily be 'originally Irish'. The meaning of 'crack/craic' is merely an adapting of a word that came to the island, like many other aspects of language and culture, from outside (specifically in this case, Great Britain). It is, basically, part of a common linguistic heritage extending not only across but also beyond the island!

But sure, it's only a bit of crak/crack/craic...

George

Hmmm, actually Latin duco is 'I lead', thus Italian duce 'one who leads'/'leader', not far from 'chief' if I may say so.

I find it easier just to ignore the swarm, myself!

Christopher

Yes, but the point is that I am not scottish, my ancestry is planter english and gaelic irish, something I am very proud of. Ulster Scots is an attempt to force a scottish type culture on me.

Northern Ireland has its own culture and I don't need it forced down my throat for me to appreciate it. Thats something the republicans are known for - getting very OTT about their culture, fair enough but thats not the British way, it never has been. The whole thing just reeks of trying too hard.

In early medieval times, Ireland was divided into local kingdoms called túatha (people or tribe in old Irish) so I assume a rí tuath was a local chieftain and wouldn't have been the correct term for a leader of the country as a whole. Apparently, today's dioceses in Ireland are similar to the old tuatha.

It could be used if tuath was dropped and we were left with rí, which would be simply king.

IJP,
I take your point and I should have said latin.
Now you're in the swarm :-) I hate to be a pedant but it's actually a noun taken from the infinitive of the verb ducere. Dux is the latin for a military guide or commander.

Duce is a very old fashioned and aulic way of saying leader, political and military mainly.

If Mussoline wanted to be a leader in a non-military sense, he would have used a version of governare guidare or condurre.

Taoiseach has no military connotations. This is the difference.

Mussolini obviously.

George

from what I have read there were three grades of rulers

1. ri tuath - tribal king
2. ard-ri - high king (of a province)
3. ri erenn - king of ireland

Its a tetchy issue because there is debate as to whether anyone other than Brian Boru could claim to be the king of all of Ireland. However that was the power arrangement, in early christian ireland anyway

If is was only a provincial king would it have a Ard-prefix?

I don't think there was a High Kind before Brian. Though I think there were 4(with opposition) after him. ??

Chris Stalford

"In 1994 there were 2 U-S groups, today there are well over 200."

Of course it's got absolutely nothing to do with all the lovely EU cash piling into NI over the last 10 years since the agreement! Hmmmm........

I don't think the addition of a couple of dozen 'Ulster-Scots' words to the existing English language constitutes a language in its own right! Och aye the noo. Pure and simple this 'cultural revival' was seen as a cash cow.

"If is was only a provincial king would it have a Ard-prefix?"

dunno, that was the classification system we were given.

Technically the Ui Neills were high kings before Boru. They were the mightiest, and held the feast of Tailtu (spelling?) at Tara each year. Sources vary about it but I think it was supposed to be some sort of kings convention that one of the Ui Neills presided over.

Was there 4 after Boru? I thought there was only Rory O'Connor from Munster and Diarmait MacMurchada from Leinster.

"Things like Ulster Scots are annoying because it seems like unionists are trying to keep up with republicans because they are seen to have their own language. It makes unionism look weak. We are British and we don't need to make any excuses for that".

-only if rebecca buys the nationalist argument wholesale ( now why wouldn't that surprise me?).

The multicultural tent of the UK can easily include the Ulster Scots identity, which I have to say is more robust than your rather vague attachment to the UK.

The Ulster Scot is clearly not a catchall for Unionists -such as James Molyneaux (huguenot) Harold McCusker (gaelic-Irish)or Basil Brooke (anglo-Irish). It is however the most vibrant strand within Unionism- and further afield in the USA especially.
I don't mean to run down the Anglo-irish Unionists, but they haven't really exerted themselves culturally, socially, linguistically or politically since preWW1- and apart from the omnipresent (and very rude "fouter") the huguenot language hasn't crept into our everyday speech patterns !

Christopher's right when he asks you to examine why you are a Unionist, though for the wrong reason, I suspect. Most of us, like yourself, have an instinctive attachment to the status quo,which is perfectly fine, but when you are politically active and there is a political campaign to change the status quo, you can't simply leave it at that. In other words,the siege mentality comes about because of the siege. Pretending it hasn't happened, or that it has moved into a new phase won't do if you are an active participant.
Celebrating one aspect of our heritage doesn't make Unionism look weak, though it may distort it's broader appeal if the other aspects don't also participate.
You are perfectly placed to explore and promote the British- Irish identity of many in Roi. Someone like David Christopher, who has nothing in common with the Ulster-Scots movement would look stupid doing a Laird Lord, but his efforts have been extremely praiseworthy precisely because he leaves that aspect of unionism well alone and ploughs his own furrow.It's moe than sad that you would be so brainwashed as to think anyone's forcing a phony identity down your throat-after all, that's what nationalism has done for over 100 years.

Yeah, I think you are right about the O'Neills, at least they had a monopoly on the position until Brian ended that.
I read somewhere they were 4 high kings (with opposition) after Brian but I could be wrong. You know better.

well equally David, I have as little in common with Ulster Scots as David Christopher does.

"The multicultural tent of the UK can easily include the Ulster Scots identity, which I have to say is more robust than your rather vague attachment to the UK. "

your scornful dismissal of the personal reasons why I consider myself is rather rude but then I have come to expect that from you. I am a fan of debating basic concepts like why we are unionists but it would be nice to do it respectfully.

"I don't mean to run down the Anglo-irish Unionists, but they haven't really exerted themselves culturally, socially, linguistically or politically since preWW1- and apart from the omnipresent (and very rude "fouter") the huguenot language hasn't crept into our everyday speech patterns !"

Its not so easy asserting yourself as a unionist in the republic. I thought along the same lines when I first went to Dublin but now I have lived there for a while, I appreciate the difficulties faced by societies such as the reform movement and I admire them hugely.

David (and it applies to Chris too) I fear you are making a serious mistake with U-Scots. You shouldn't have to be protestant or even unionist to be part of and celebrate Ulster Scots heritage.
Do you not recognise the mistake when you call it the "most vibrant strand within Unionism"?

"I read somewhere they were 4 high kings (with opposition) after Brian but I could be wrong. You know better"

I wouldn't say that now - I wrote an essay on high kings in first year which seems a long time ago now and the memory is rather murky, I'd have to look it up before I was sure.

George

We are in agreement!

U-O

Northern Ireland has its own culture and I don't need it forced down my throat for me to appreciate it. Thats something the republicans are known for - getting very OTT about their culture, fair enough but thats not the British way, it never has been. The whole thing just reeks of trying too hard.

An excellent and important point.

unionist observer

to be honest Willowfield, I would say there were more than just a few, but these are assumptions.

And what is your assumption based on?

maca

Except of course that Hiberno-English is full of Irish words. I'm sure people are familiar with many such as Taoiseach, Táiniste, Dáil, Garda etc etc etc.

Those are Gaelic words that are used in English (normal English as well as "Hiberno-English"), not Gaelic spellings of English words.

Christopher Stalford

Erm, wrong. The European Union has included Ulster-Scots in its Charter of Minority Languages.

The European Union doesn't have a Charter of Minority Languages.

maca

"Taoiseach - ah yes the Gaelic for Il Duce!"

Actually it's Irish. The Scottish don't use Taoiseach. (sometimes pedantism is a necessary evil)

Irish is Gaelic. It was quite clear that young Stalford meant Irish Gaelic and not Scots Gaelic.

unionist observer

to be honest Willowfield, I would say there were more than just a few, but these are assumptions.

And what is your assumption based on?

maca

Except of course that Hiberno-English is full of Irish words. I'm sure people are familiar with many such as Taoiseach, Táiniste, Dáil, Garda etc etc etc.

Those are Gaelic words that are used in English (normal English as well as "Hiberno-English"), not Gaelic spellings of English words.

Christopher Stalford

Erm, wrong. The European Union has included Ulster-Scots in its Charter of Minority Languages.

The European Union doesn't have a Charter of Minority Languages.

maca

"Taoiseach - ah yes the Gaelic for Il Duce!"

Actually it's Irish. The Scottish don't use Taoiseach. (sometimes pedantism is a necessary evil)

Irish is Gaelic. It was quite clear that young Stalford meant Irish Gaelic and not Scots Gaelic.

Those are Gaelic words that are used in English (normal English as well as "Hiberno-English"), not Gaelic spellings of English words.

Very true.

Although of course Maca's point stands - there are quite a few Gaelic words in Standard English even ('slogan', 'twig' [='understand'], 'quid' etc, perhaps even 'she').

not Scots Gaelic.

Or even 'Scottish Gaelic'...

Going right back to the point, though, the strand of thought based on whether 'Ulster Scots' is part of 'unionism' (and, if so, whether that is good or bad news for Ulster Scots and/or unionism) is much more interesting...

IJP

I don't know if you read me correctly, maybe we are at cross purposes.

The point I was making is that you can adopt any word from any language and render it according to the writing system of any other language, whatever it might be, Germanic, Celtic, Romance, whatever.

You can change the spelling to make it easier to pronounce, eg "Whisky", or you can keep the original spelling, maybe for historical reasons, as in "O Neill"

I used "tsunami" as an example of a relatively new word adopted into English, where Japanese characters can't be used. That isn't the case with something like "cul de sac" where original spellin was retained.

You said "If a word derives from a Germanic language, though, why adopt the Celtic-language spelling? It's nonsense."

I say, why not, you can adopt different words and/or spellings, if needs be. It happens all the time. I don't know if you can read Irish but have a look at the following, it's by Flann O'Brien and it's quite funny only, but only if you are familiar with Irish spelling.

Said a Sassenach back in Dun Laoghaire
"I pay homage to nationalist thaoghaire,
But wherever I drobh
I found signposts that strobh
To make touring in Ireland so draoghaire."

OK, you're right. I am boring.!

I'm with Biffo on this.
There are no rules which say you can or can't do things like this, every living language does it and this is especially true of 'langualects' like Hiberno-English or U-Scots which are strongly influenced by the more dominant languages on the island.

"Those are Gaelic words that are used in English (normal English as well as "Hiberno-English"), not Gaelic spellings of English words."

So?

Surely the point in all of this is simply that there is no such thing as a "pure" language. There is no "one" language without influence from anywhere else. To try and argue for one either misguided or anachronistic.

Languages borrow from each other in lots of interesting and surprising ways. Transliteration is just one way.

U-O:

"Ulster Scots is an attempt to force a scottish type culture on me."
- who's coercing you? Did the boys come round in tartan balaclavas and put a haggis to your head? And is the Ulster-Scots movement active in Dublin now as well?

"...but thats not the British way..."
No, Britain never imposed its identity on anyone did it? All those pink bits on the Empire map not ring a bell? Black Policemen in the Carribean islands wearing shorts and London Bobby hats?

No-ones forcing anyone to do anything. If you don't like it, fair enough, leave it alone and go and do something else. But you could at least stop carping and recognise and respect the growing numbers of people who feel Ulster-Scots is part of who they are and who continue to enjoy its expression - linguistic, cultural, historical, musical etc.

And all this from a Strangford UUP constituency member?.... not ventured beyond Greyabbey yet?

JD is right.

My point is that the spelling innovation 'craic' is totally illogical given the word already exists within English. But like I say in my 'disclaimer' (and so as broadly to agree with Macca and Biffo), language is not always logical!

(Spellings such as 'doubt' and 'delight' are also 'wrong', as they are based on false etymology, for those of you determined to be bored...)

To some extent I see your point, Steveo, but I'm still entirely with U-O.

It is simply not 'British' to play the ethnic nationalist game - i.e. the game of inventing a cultural package (e.g. religion + music + language) to accompany a 'nation'/'people'/'community'.

This is entirely different from the broad imposition of British customs through the growth of Empire.

If I understand U-O's point correctly, it is that creating a 'cultural package' (Presbyterianism+Ulster-Scots speech+Scottish ancestry+highland dancing etc), and furthermore expecting taxpayers' money to assist this creation, is a decidedly 'un-British' act (not that that is the aim of all within the 'Ulster-Scots movement', I hasten to add). I think she's right.

But so-called "false etymology" is still a completely valid way for a language to evolve.

IJP et al,
I'm sure you're aware of the transAtlantic incarnations of "crack". (The following from "Cracker Culture - Celtic Ways in the Old South, Univ of Alabama Press"):

"Cracker does not signify an economic condition; rather it defines a culture. Scotch-Irish settlers, in whose dialect a cracker was a person who talked boastingly, brought the term to the South.... the Cracker was typically a Scotch-Irishman...

...to most travellers in the antebellum South, especially those from England and the North, a Cracker was any Southerner whose ways differed significantly from their own, and many accounts of trips through the Old South devoted space to laughing and sneering at the rustic and lazy habits of the Crackers...

... the speech of upcountry Southern Crackers reminded one traveller of the "dialect of your genuine" Scottish border country man..."

Coulter's material is getting so bad that I am beginning to wonder if there is any value to discussing his latest piece of tripe on here.

The Ulster-Scots Agency has not been a success story at all (but some Ulster-Scots activists believed from the beginning that it was designed to fail).

Unionist observer

The claim that gaelic was the language of Ulster Protestants historically 200 years ago is just plain wrong. The usage was largely restricted to communicating with the native Irish - it usage was for communication with others not as a language within that community nor was it imbued with a cultural or identity significance.

The 98 rebellion was over 200 years ago and most of its rural participants in Antrim and Down were Ulster-Scots speakers. For example the Ulster-Scots poetry of James Orr provides great insight into the rebellion. Unfortunately too much of what the public think they know about 1798 is actually the irish nationalist reinvention and myth created for the centenary in 1898.

The Ordnance surveys of the 1830's which documented the widespread use of Scots in rural communities in Antrim and Down did not find that for Gaelic.

In general, the historical argument is actually irrelevant for pretty much all lesser used languages in today's context. Knowledge of any lesser used language was of use a few hundred years ago when it was more widely used however today it is not required for its communicative value and people (especially new speakers) learn it for identity/cultural issues.

IJP:

"...It is simply not 'British' to play the ethnic nationalist game - i.e. the game of inventing a cultural package..."

All cultures are, to some degree, invention. Britishness is an invention.

The renaissance of Ulster-Scots has brought various extant related strands together, strands which people have been celebrating for generations - these strands have existed for a VERY long time!

Some of the critics (not you IJP) aren't aware - or simply don't want to know about - the 140+ years literary usage of the term "Ulster Scot" and the much longer usage of "Scot in Ulster".

The formal establishment of Scottish cultural groups here goes back a long way - a lot further than the Ulster-Scots Agency and the Agreement!!

AFAIK the Presbyterian Historical Society founded its (North of) Ireland branch in 1907. The Royal Scottish Country Dance Society founded its NI branch in 1923. The Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association founded its NI branch in 1950, and the first NI World Champion Pipe Band event was held at Balmoral Showgrounds, Belfast in June 1956. My mother's Presbyterian minister was using Ulster-Scots in his sermons in the same era.

These are Scottish customs which have been organically and naturally enjoyed here for generations. These things are not artificial! Your personal exposure to them may be very limited, but that doesnt mean they haven't - and dont still - naturally exist.

My fear is that the antics of a few has caused some folk to dismiss the whole thing - throw the baby out with the bath water if you will. Go to an Ulster-Scots event and look at the people there - these are "respectable decent people" who go home afterwards and put the kettle on, not political animals. They are not protesting about Bank of Ireland cashpoints using Irish. They do not dress like shortbread tins. They are not phoning "TalkBack". They are not on Slugger. That is not who these people are.

It is grossly unfair, and perhaps reckless, to dismiss these people - as the Irish News did with an Ian Knox cartoon - as some kind of neo-Nazi movement.

Relax. Buy some Bushmills and get a copy of James Webb's "Born Fighting - how the Scots-Irish shaped America" and open your minds... :-)

"Ulster Scots is an attempt to force a scottish type culture on me."
- who's coercing you? Did the boys come round in tartan balaclavas and put a haggis to your head? And is the Ulster-Scots movement active in Dublin now as well?

of course not steveo, I am talking about the ridiculous sort of peer pressure put on unionists by fellow unionists to be an ulster scot, as if that is part and parcel of being a unionist and the idea that if you are not an Ulster Scot then you are not a unionist. I reject this entirely, unionism is a broad church (hugely overused phrase but still very valid).

I personally just don't identify with Ulster Scots and whether right or wrong I do see it as the unionist retaliation to irish, this annoys me because as I said several times above, unionists do not need to prove anything to anyone and certainly do not need to produce some sparkly little culture package to justify being a unionist.

"The claim that gaelic was the language of Ulster Protestants historically 200 years ago is just plain wrong.'

I was not saying it was their main language, I was simply trying to get the point across that it was almost certainly in use.

"The Ordnance surveys of the 1830's which documented the widespread use of Scots in rural communities in Antrim and Down did not find that for Gaelic."

Yes, but in the same way as the english were probably using another form of english that would sound foreign to us all today. That doesn't make it a language, that makes it a dialect and part of the journey english has made through time.

"AFAIK the Presbyterian Historical Society founded its (North of) Ireland branch in 1907. The Royal Scottish Country Dance Society founded its NI branch in 1923. The Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association founded its NI branch in 1950, and the first NI World Champion Pipe Band event was held at Balmoral Showgrounds, Belfast in June 1956. My mother's Presbyterian minister was using Ulster-Scots in his sermons in the same era"

so Ulster Scots was a twentieth century creation? Thats the impression you are giving, if it was such a big part of the culture going back so many years why did societies only start being formed in the 20th century? I remember when I was growing up I went to dancing classes with my friends, we went to irish dancing and ballet because thats what was on offer. Scottish dancing was and is alien to us.

U-O:
I admire your pig-headed "thranness". Very Ulster-Scots in fact. You must enjoy your regular arguments with your shadow.

Ulster-Scots is not a twentieth century phenomenon. Perhaps this late at night your maths skills have deserted you? ie - 2005 - 140yrs = 1865 AD = 19th century.

Shall I then provide more, earlier, examples? Would more from the 19th Century suffice?

That Belfast's first curling club was founded in 1839?

That Ayshire needlework was being produced in County Down - at an industrial level - from 1830 onwards?

Or what about when Sir Hugh Montgomery built a "great school" in Newton (ie Newtownards - where your constituency association meets) he granted the students a green where they could play golf? (golf is recorded as having been played in Scotland as early as 1457)

Shall I go on?

"....I remember when I was growing up I went to dancing classes with my friends, we went to irish dancing and ballet because thats what was on offer..."

With respect, most rural working class Ulster-Scots kids don't take / can't afford dance lessons. But that's your experience, and that's fair enough. But it is not the experience of thousands of others are precisely refers back to my point of Jan 4 at 7.31:

"Ulster-Scots... brings together cultural icons which have been long-ignored and long-demeaned by Hibernophiles and Anglophiles alike... Leafy North Downers / Stranmillisites / Lisburnians may have little or no contact with Ulster-Scots people..."

There's a BBC Northern Ireland documentary which gets shown from time to time - old archival footage from the 50s and 60s called "The Day We Went to Bangor" - and has a few minutes of film and narrative about the then-tradition of spontaneous Scottish Country Dance happening down at Pickie Pool each Saturday afternoon. People would just turn up and get stuck in.

Simple, natural stuff. No politics. Just culture.

Whoops - typo! "...Ayshire..." should of course be "...Ayrshire..."

And Montgomery's "great school", with golf course, was built in 1630.

fair_deal, what are your sources? Whatever they are they are not comprehensive?

"The Ordnance surveys of the 1830's which documented the widespread use of Scots in rural communities in Antrim and Down did not find that for Gaelic"

Your are wrong. The Presbyterian church sent Irish speaking missionaries to the glens of Antrim in the 1830's.

Irish was certainly spoken in Counties Antrim and Down as it was in Armagh, Fermanagh, Tyrone, and Londonderry.

Steveo,

"With respect, most rural working class Ulster-Scots kids don't take / can't afford dance lessons"

How much are they charging these days for dance lessons? Would I be right in assuming that the Ulster-Scots are largely a poor community, except for their dance instructors.

It's a state of affairs I was not aware of.

I've just finished John Hewitt's 'Rhyming Weavers' and most of the poetry (IIRC) was from the mid-18th to mid-19th centuries. Does that help anyone?

And without wanting to start a bout of whataboutery, all tradition is invented anyway. I seem to (vaguely, so feel free to correct me) remember reading about aspects of Gaelic culture that were 'revived' in the last century, that perhaps would have been unrecognisable to those who called themselves Irish in previous generations?

This is not a criticism. While there is obviously a strong ethno-nationalist aspect to Gaelic culture, it has certainly evolved culturally. There's always going to be a 'Wolfe Tones' part that won't appeal to many outside that culture (and a 'twee' aspect for those that like their culture pre-packaged), but 'Irishness' has definitely changed in its outlook in some respects. To me, a casual observer, it doesn't seem as inward looking as it maybe used to. It is more all-embracing, with notable expections (another day).

But can anyone imagine an Ulster-Scots 'srl' at this moment in time? There is often a diversity in how Irish culture is celebrated that simply doesn't seem to exist yet in Ulster Scots culture, although I think that will change over time.

My guess is that this will happen if more younger people make it their own and interpret it in a contemporary way, rather then just hark back to the past. Maybe there's an Irvine Welsh in Ballymena, or a comedian lurking in Buckna!? (Quit laughing at the back...)

There seems to be enough vibrancy and enthusiasm at the moment, so who knows. It is interesting to watch the whole debate evolve, although it gets a bit tedious to see the old 'It's a language. No it isn't' argument crop up every single time it gets discussed.

Get over it, whatever you think!

Biffo,

Apart from the resurgence of Scottish dance among primary schools age kids over the last few years, dance lessons are not top of most rural working class "dour Presbyterian Calvinist" parents' wish list.

This would have been even more the case during U-O's era (I'm guessing at 1980's/1990's) - dance is more "acceptable" and widespread these days, but little Billy Elliotts are not a regular feature of Ulster-Scots life.

Does anyone know of their local BB or GB running ballet lessons? More likely today to find Scottish dance lessons in your area - and in Ulster-Scots areas, now these are becoming more easily available, they are extremely popular.

"I am talking about the ridiculous sort of peer pressure put on unionists by fellow unionists to be an ulster scot, as if that is part and parcel of being a unionist and the idea that if you are not an Ulster Scot then you are not a unionist. I reject this entirely, unionism is a broad church (hugely overused phrase but still very valid)."

which is precisely my point Rebecca-although expressed in reverse. I merely asked you to explore why you were a Unionist, beyond the vague"It's my country" stuff.

If you feel uncomfortable as a Unionist because Laird Lord wears a kilt, you would equally feel uncomfortable if Unionism included a strand of gaelic playing Irish speaking Roman Catholics in Royasl crossmaglen ( which incidentally would be perfectly compatible with the concept of Unionism.

If my strand is making all the running culturally,how would that make you feel uncomfortable any more than if you lived in Southall with an indian temple on your doorstep and curry houses galore in your neighbourhood.?

My expression of my culture is a lot less invidious peer pressure than the nonsense leeching into your head from your repubnlican friends I fear. You'd be no less a Unionist if you hated everything Scottish or Orange or Protestant -the weakness I perceive in your Unionism is that it has no root, beyond the economic and cultural links with Britain, most of which are homogenised by common influences from USA and EU anyway, so that Dublin could be really just a regional UK city.

I invite and welcome any evidence to the contrary and I don't criticise you for sharing the mindset of what Trimble used to call the "post-Unionist" section of NI. I criticise your antipathy to a perfectly valid form of Unionsm, which, I reassert, is more vibrant and has a longer pedigree and greater vibrancy than what we have heard from you to date.

Now's your platform to proslytise your from of Unionism as being equally vital to the unionist family as a whole.

Biffo

Nice try but the use of the source was in the context of the was the usage of Irish by Protestants as a community language. The Presbyterian Church sent Gaelic speakers to evangelise among Roman Catholics (and if I recollect correctly that they had to recruit speakers from Scotland).

As I also mentioned the historical argument is largely irrelevant as the reasons for learning a lesser used language in the 21st century are different than why it was learnt in the 18th century.

UO

The Ordnance Survey material was about the usage of Scots not about its status. For example the surveyor in my family's home parish of Drumtullagh made the following comment "The Scotch language is spoken in great purity".

The status argument is over, Ulster-Scots is recognised and is being treated as a language.

In fact it was one of the few policy success stories of the UUP in the recent past but if you want to denigrate a political achievement of your party that is fine by me.

Fair Deal
"Ulster-Scots is recognised and is being treated as a language"

Would you mind clarifying, by whom exactly?

"AFAIK the Presbyterian Historical Society founded its (North of) Ireland branch in 1907. The Royal Scottish Country Dance Society founded its NI branch in 1923. The Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association founded its NI branch in 1950, and the first NI World Champion Pipe Band event was held at Balmoral Showgrounds, Belfast in June 1956. My mother's Presbyterian minister was using Ulster-Scots in his sermons in the same era"

erm steveo, read again - all the dates in that section are all 20th century - I have not the faintest clue where you suddenly got this 1865 from.

"Or what about when Sir Hugh Montgomery built a "great school" in Newton (ie Newtownards - where your constituency association meets) he granted the students a green where they could play golf? (golf is recorded as having been played in "

If my memory serves me right, that was the model primary school he founded, which is not the place that Strangford association meets, they meet in the town hall which was the original market hall. By the way Newtownards was not called Newtownards then, then it either Nove Ville (to the english settlers) or Baile Nua (to the Irish inhabitants).

"With respect, most rural working class Ulster-Scots kids don't take / can't afford dance lessons. But that's your experience, and that's fair enough"

Well, I apologise most sincerely for being middle class, although in fairness all the dance classes I went to were always very busy, yes even the irish dancing classes.

"It's a state of affairs I was not aware of."

Biffo, he is preaching Ulster Scots, of course he is not going to allow reality to get in the way.

"how would that make you feel uncomfortable any more than if you lived in Southall with an indian temple on your doorstep and curry houses galore in your neighbourhood.?"

I wouldn't mind that at all, you see they wouldn't be trying to convince me I am something that I am not, unlike the Ulster Scots crowd.

"you would equally feel uncomfortable if Unionism included a strand of gaelic playing Irish speaking Roman Catholics in Royasl crossmaglen ( which incidentally would be perfectly compatible with the concept of Unionism."

no, because again, that is diversity, I am not protesting about Ulster Scots per se, I am irritated because suddenly to be a unionist you have to an Ulster Scot.

"My expression of my culture is a lot less invidious peer pressure than the nonsense leeching into your head from your repubnlican friends I fear. You'd be no less a Unionist if you hated everything Scottish or Orange or Protestant -the weakness I perceive in your Unionism is that it has no root, beyond the economic and cultural links with Britain, most of which are homogenised by common influences from USA and EU anyway, so that Dublin could be really just a regional UK city."

again, rude, patronising, is this because I don't agree with you David?

Don't be so daft as to assume I make up my mind by listening to what other people tell me, as I recall that was a feature of the young unionists when I first joined in 2000 that annoyed me. By the way people in the republic don't really care as much about Northern Ireland as your siege mentality paranoia would have you believe. Dublin is a remarkably apolitical, especially where I go to college.

I do not hate everything orange, scottish and protestant, I am protestant myself so I'm not likely to hate protestantism, many of my relatives are in the orange so I am hardly likely to hate the orange. And as for Scottishness, I don't hate that, I just don't identify with Ulster Scots. Don't try to convince me otherwise, it really won't work, I had to spend an evening over the summer being lectured and yelled at by someone involved with Ulster Scots so rest assured, belittling me will not suddenly turn me into an Ulster Scot.

"The Scotch language is spoken in great purity".

How do you know they are talking about Ulster Scots? It sounds more like they are talking about Scots Gallic.

maca

There are no rules which say you can or can't do things like this, every living language does it and this is especially true of 'langualects' like Hiberno-English or U-Scots which are strongly influenced by the more dominant languages on the island.

Why would you use a spelling of a word from another language when there is already a spelling in the language being spoken??

"Those are Gaelic words that are used in English (normal English as well as "Hiberno-English"), not Gaelic spellings of English words." --- So?

So you’re not comparing like with like.

unionist observer

I was not saying it was their main language, I was simply trying to get the point across that it was almost certainly in use.

You said that 200 years ago “we were all speaking Gaelic”. We weren’t.

How do you know they are talking about Ulster Scots? It sounds more like they are talking about Scots Gallic.

You mean Scots Gaelic. “Gallic” means “French”.

And it is highly unlikely that they would be talking about Scots Gaelic, since Drumtullagh was not a Gaelic area. It would have been inhabited by Protestants, the descendants of "planters" from Lowland Scotland.

You're exposing a fair degree of ignorance, if you don't mind me saying. Honestly, we're not misleading you: Ulster Protestants did not speak Gaelic, they spoke English or Scots (just English if you want to argue that Scots is a dialect).

U-O:

To clarify 1865, see my post of Jan 6 10.32. The term "Ulster Scot" has been in literary usage for at least 140 years. This year is 2005. That means its usage as a distinct term goes back at least as far as 1865. No doubt people with more historical info will be able to provide a precise date, and one much earlier than 1865.

Newtownards is where the Strangford UUP association meets - I was referring to the town not the building - and I cited the Sir Hugh Montgomery example to give you a geographically relevant example of a centuries-old Scottish custom.

"...it either Nove Ville (to the english settlers) or Baile Nua (to the Irish inhabitants)..."

Yes - and to the Scots is was "Newtown". You can check out the Scots contribution to the establishment of Newtownards in John Harrison's "The Scot in Ulster", published 1888. The Scots started to arrive there in spring of 1606, and in 1613 Newtown became a borough with the right to send two members to Parliament.

It is a shame when the presentation of a catalogue of perfectly valid evidence detailing some examples of the impact of Scottish culture and practices on Ulster is rhetorically dismissed as "preaching".

"You mean Scots Gaelic. “Gallic” means “French”."

yeah but you pronounce the word gaelic when you are referring to Scots gaelic and the way it is pronounced sounds like gallic.

"You're exposing a fair degree of ignorance, if you don't mind me saying. Honestly, we're not misleading you: Ulster Protestants did not speak Gaelic, they spoke English or Scots (just English if you want to argue that Scots is a dialect)."

Well, its not something that any of us can prove one way or the other so I think we should probably agree to disagree what guesses are about our forefathers.

"The term "Ulster Scot" has been in literary usage for at least 140 years"

but if the scots arrived in 1605, why did it take around 200 years to coin a term for their influence?

And surely Newtown in Ulster Scots should be something like Newtoun?

"It is a shame when the presentation of a catalogue of perfectly valid evidence detailing some examples of the impact of Scottish culture and practices on Ulster is rhetorically dismissed as "preaching"."

Yes, I am aware that the Scots came over to Ulster in their droves in the 1600s, fleeing from famine, poverty etc. There is evidence of the Scots in Newtownards but there is also the 1600years before the Scots came to Newtownards which was made up of Normans, Vikings and the gaelic Irish. The Scots are only one phase of settlement, certainly nothing to get so excited about. It'd be alot more helpful to NI society to celebrate all the strands.

Unionist Observer,
many of Ulster's Protestants have Irish names so they either intermarried or were indiginous who switched religion, so I would assume that many of them did speak Irish at some time.

I also agree with your earlier point about Ulster-Scots being divisive. Are the majority of Northern Ireland Protestants not Anglo-Irish like their southern brethren?

Scots-Irish prayer I found which seems to sum them up people perfectly:

"Lord please make me always right for Thou knowest I am hard to turn."

"...It'd be alot more helpful to NI society to celebrate all the strands..."

Precisely. Which is why, with Ulster-Scots as a long-ignored but now-recognised additional strand is so valuable.

It has the potential - particularly linguistically - to straddle the "two communities" if allowed to do so.

And that surely is a good thing.

unionist observer

yeah but you pronounce the word gaelic when you are referring to Scots gaelic and the way it is pronounced sounds like gallic.

But you were writing, not speaking. Do you write "Beaver" instead of "Belvoir"?

Well, its not something that any of us can prove one way or the other so I think we should probably agree to disagree what guesses are about our forefathers.

I asked you earlier what was the basis of your belief that Ulster Protestants mostly spoke Gaelic. You didn't answer. I ask again. There must be some reason why you make the claim.

George

Are the majority of Northern Ireland Protestants not Anglo-Irish like their southern brethren?

No.

"I do not hate everything orange, scottish and protestant, I am protestant myself so I'm not likely to hate protestantism"

Of course I never accused you of hating any of these aspects Rebecca- though if I recall before Chridtmas you were posting that you would never describe yourself as Protestant- a bit of consistency please.

You repeat and endorse the nationalist smear that Ulster Scots ethnicity is a pre-requisite for Unionism. No it isn't. It doesn't even follow that an Ulster Scot would be a Unionist, even though the Whig ideal of government which so influenced the formation and development of the UK is a profoundly Scottish Presbyterian influenced belief, and would sit naturally with the Union of the Kingdom.

I'm not patronising by asking you to expand on why you are a Unionist -unless it 's patronising to ask for more than the vague ramblings you've posted on this thread, in which case i expect your lecturers patronise you a lot too. It's called challenging assumptions in order to make you think. they used to do that at Universities once upon a time...

Willow understands the point I have been trying to make, and his Unionism may possibly share my ethnicity and your political viewpoint, so disproving your contentions about Ulster Scots.
Believe me, if you don't identify with US that's no problem-there's more haggis for us on Burns' night.

BTW "David Trimble's first mistake was..."? Still waiting!

Willowfield,
any chance of proferring more than a simple no.

There are many more Anglicans than Presbyterians and there are as many names of Irish and English origin as there are Scottish so why are you so sure?

Willowfield,
Whoops, more presbyterians than Anglicans, which would probably explain your no.

"You repeat and endorse the nationalist smear that Ulster Scots ethnicity is a pre-requisite for Unionism."

but no nationalist or republican has ever said to me that you need to be an ulster scot to be a unionist, the person who made that clear to me was a unionist!! To be honest I don't think nationalists even take it seriously enough to bother smearing Ulster Scots.

"you would never describe yourself as Protestant- a bit of consistency please"

yep and it does make me uncomfortable to label myself religiously but you had me backed into a corner by accusing me of hating protestantism.

So why are you a unionist David?

"But you were writing, not speaking. Do you write "Beaver" instead of "Belvoir"?

Well, its not something that any of us can prove one way or the other so I think we should probably agree to disagree what guesses are about our forefathers.

I asked you earlier what was the basis of your belief that Ulster Protestants mostly spoke Gaelic. You didn't answer. I ask again. There must be some reason why you make the claim."

wow, chill out willowfield. as I mentioned before I am currently writing my dissertation on the history of my town and I am finding out more and more about the influence of the gaelic irish in my towns history whereas Ulster Scots sources would have you believe there was never any gaelic irish anywhere near the town. Up until the Scots arrived in the 1600s Newtownards was mostly gaelic irish, the normans had been but then left again so the majority of people in the town then would have spoken Irish. The Scots undoubtedly influenced the town, you can see that today with the sheer number of presbyterian churches in the town. However it is doubtful that all the Scots who came over were english speaking lowlanders, there had to be a few of the gaelic speaking highlanders too. Also unless they killed off the entire native irish settlement in the town, there would still have been a gaelic irish component.

This is proved by the catholic graveyard at Kiltonga which dates from 1600s to 1800s, entirely separate to the protestant graveyards at Movilla and the old priory.

This of course is all specific to Newtownards, however I think we can safely assume the pattern was the same in other towns across Ulster, especially in Down and Antrim. The point of this all is that it is unlikely that the Irish language entirely died out when the Scots came, the settlers who came to the area would have had to learn the language to communicate with others and live there.

Sorry thats so long winded.

Pictures of David Brewster in a kilt should be emailed directly to me for potential publication on Slugger. Faces can be Photoshopped to protect the guilty.

LOL!

Anyway, I think David and Rebecca's argument is interesting, in that it clearly delineates two valid strands within unionism.

David's seems (to me) more emotional, a bit more nationalist, influenced by religion and based strongly on tradition.

Rebecca's seems more secular, perhaps more internationalist, less emotional, maybe a bit more bland and self-interested (a kind of civic unionist whose unionism isn't based so much on an attachment to the union, but the benefits of it).

Horses for courses really. I do feel that Rebecca has got the wrong end of the stick if she assumes that because someone tells her she "has" to be an Ulster Scot to be a unionist it is representative of how Ulster Scots think.

Unfortunately, many of those who claim to represent the Ulster Scots have no idea how to do so, and revert to a very narrow definition of the term. Sadly, I have come across a few people who've bumped into Laird and his colleagues, only to be force fed a lecture on why they should join the Ulster Scots movement.

Mr Brewster does not appear to be one of those people, so perhaps Rebecca's criticisms are misdirected?

For the most part, I have been impressed by the way those claiming to be Ulster Scots on this board have refused to allow it to be defined in a purely ethnocentric way.

Sadly, it often seems to admit to having an interest in Ulster Scots is to invite a torrent of abuse upon oneself, and frequently unjustified criticism based on myths and a lack of knowledge.

Many of the criticisms should be directed at the Ulster Scots Agency, as it has done more to define Ulster Scots in recent years than any other group. I actually find it very odd to hear grass roots U-S activists discuss their culture and how it should be promoted, but in a completely different way from the U-S Agency.

Perhaps if the U-S Agency listened to those on the ground, who were celebrating their culture and speaking the dialect long before the Agreement came about, it might be more widely accepted. I find it bizarre, for example, that the U-S Agency HQ is in Belfast, when U-S is strongest in rural areas and is only really spoken in rural areas. (I know they are opening an east Donegal office, but... so what?)

I also find it strange that the U-S Agency seems to primarily concentrate on the cultural, non-linguistic aspects of U-S, when developing a codified form of U-S should maybe be the priority for funding.

That the U-S Agency has worked to isolate itself from Scots is also disturbing, given the co-operation and goodwill it could get from across the Sheugh - it seems incredibly inward-looking, until it comes to junkets to America.

Equally, those applying the peer pressure on Rebecca and others should also wise up. You cannot force someone to be part of a cultural movement. Well, if you do, it kinda defeats the whole point of celebrating a common tradition. And it's very stupid, as a typical Ulster Scot is more likely to do the very opposite of anything s/he feels pressured into doing!

Rebecca-Once again,where did I accuse you of hating anything? I said anyone could be a Unionist and hate Protestantism, but if the cap fits...

If someone said you had to be an Ulster Scot to be a Unionist he's a fool and wrong on both sides of his equation. And you should know better than to let him away with it.

You're not getting off with batting the question back at me. Why are YOU a Unionist? In the words of the song, after reading your post I felt "Is that all there is?".

However, if you want a starter for ten-I'm a Unionist because of (in no particular order) ethnic links primarily to Scotland-a constituent part of the Kingdom; political identification with the constitution of the UK as grounded in the whig principles of constitutional monarchy which are consistent with my religious and political beliefs; an intellectual judgment that the Union is economically, and culturally best for the people of Ireland, based on its past achievements; past and present family ties to the UK through service -military and otherwise; family ancestors originating from the other parts of UK and family members currently resident there; a shared history ;and various oaths of loyalty to the monarchy which I have sworn which place a personal obligation upon me. And that's only half way through a cup of coffee-there's bound to be twenty more constituent parts to most Unionists beyond your "it's my country, like", which I look forward to hearing from you now.

Gonzo you swine-I've never worn a kilt, which is a highland device, despised by the lowland Scot. And I don't play the pipes because my wife says my singing is nearly as bad- she is not an Ulster Scot, but one of the Anglo-Irish(sadly not any of the ones with dosh) but her dad was a pipe major for over 30 years in a pipe band-what does that say about Ulster's ethnic soup?

Now a nice pair of tartan trews in the Loyal Orange Institution dress tartan would do the business for the haggis massacre and might persuade me to release photos- but only if that other vital part of Ulster Scots culture is furnished- the glory that is a fine Islay malt.

BTW going back to U/S words in everyday use- or perhaps more accurately Scots words in use in Ulster-surely Donnie uses the word "sleekit", one of the many adornments of our vocabulary which makes us far more capable of being thrawn than the anodyne Englishman!

JD

But so-called "false etymology" is still a completely valid way for a language to evolve.

Indeed. Although 'false spellings' like 'doubt' and 'delight' were not evolution, but rather decisions made by supposedly educated people who were specifically trying to base the spellings on 'correct etymology'!

steveo

Britishness is an invention

This I would dispute. To give one of many examples, the common-law system to which even the monarch is bound is integral to Britishness but is evolution, not invention.

Gonzo

all tradition is invented anyway.

I disagree and refer you, in very British manner, 'to the answer I gave some lines ago'!

The codification of tradition is of course artificial. But 'Britishness' is all about not codifying things - 'evolution, not revolution', or more negatively 'doing things because that's the way they are done'.

Sitting around codifying and standardizing a single 'identity' or 'cultural package' is just not in the British tradition. As Clemenceau once described Austria you could also describe the UK - 'ca qui reste', loosely 'that which is left over (once everyone else has defined themselves).

Again, if I'm understanding correctly, I think that is U-O's point. The whole idea of having 'our language', 'our culture' or 'our whatever' (that belong, by definition, exclusively to 'us', whoever 'we' are) just doesn't ring true to most people brought up in the British tradition, wherever that may be.

"If someone said you had to be an Ulster Scot to be a Unionist he's a fool and wrong on both sides of his equation. And you should know better than to let him away with it."

oh believe me, I didn't, I ranted for at least an hour at the person!!!

"You're not getting off with batting the question back at me. Why are YOU a Unionist? In the words of the song, after reading your post I felt "Is that all there is?"."

I'm not, I am just genuinely interested in the reasons people give for being unionist as I do find it quite hard to define. Its not easy to define your nationality.

hmmm, you do think this is a weak flimsy reason but I do just feel British, the idea of a united ireland to me is completely foreign, I couldn't imagine having my nationality reversed and being told that I was Irish. Nationality to Northern Irish people is very complicated I reckon, with so much intermarriage etc, no one can really claim to be of one ethnic group.

Anyway, I digress, politically I am an Ulster Unionist because I am right wing, their policies on real political issues mirror my own opinion and what I think is the correct, common sense way of governing a country. My unionism as gonzo says is more pragmatic rather than emotional.
Culturally I grew up going to watch the bands every year and feeling a surge of pride when I saw the big flags and banners.
Economically, it is simply the best thing for Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom.
Religiously I like the freedom and tolerance in the United Kingdom, there is not one religion that is accepted norm for everyone to be. Our laws reflect todays society (although its about time abortion was made legal in Northern Ireland like in the rest of the UK)
People wise, I like the ethos of Northern Ireland, the work hard, honest, just mentality of Ulster Protestants at their best.

Defining unionism is an interesting topic and something that political parties should focus on more in these days when unionism is coming under fire by governments and others. I suppose Ulster Scots is an attempt to do this but I do feel unionism is much bigger than this whole Ulster Scots thing.

Brewster,
How many generations have your family been here in Ireland and your primary ethnic links are still with those from Britain rather than this island?

You guys should get out more or your eyebrows will start meeting in the middle.

no it's not easy to define nationality rebecca, but I think you should consider how Unionism pre 1912 was very much an all Ireland movement, and Carson's Unionism was very different in emphasis from Craig's and certainly Brookeborough's. The reason was simply that the nature of the Uk had changed with the 26 secession. hence many southern Unionists did a Lord Dunsany or even a Bryan Cooper. Interestingly the Ulster Scots in East Donegal generally ignored the border and did not evolve into FG until relatively recently.

My point is simply that the U/S strain has teneded to be the most significant within Ulster Unionism-not necessarily the best- and undoubtedly has some of the Presbyterian arrogance which comes from being God's elect.

Your civic unionism -as Gonzo terms it- is no less valid, but is less effective (only because it is less proactive), and in many cases less durable ( because so much of it comprises Trimble's post Unionists, who tend to be middle class and based in urban greater Belfast and hence feel "safer")

Unionism would benefit greatly from more involvement of civic Unionists and from greater commitment from those already active. Trimble knew that and based his whole strategy on wooing that section . Bono and Blair got them out for him in 1998 (yup, another trait of many civic Unionists is that they are rather too trusting) since when there has been a great big nothing.

Because they don't see unionism in a struggle with nationalism, as people west of the Bann and in the border areas do, civic Unionists haven't had their value system placed under such strains as we have. I mean, when are you likely to have a Sinn Fein mayor in Newtownards, to give one small example? And there won't be too many released IRA killers turning up on the streets of Comber to gloat at their victims' relatives.

It's not just what your country does for you- it's what you can do for your country to misquote a charlatan. And BTW -the UUP's right wing?!!! If only.

IJP

I can accept your points. I thought the Hobsbawn reference might have struck a chord with some, as it gets a complex point across quickly, if not entirely accurately - but yes, culture and language evolves. In fact, as I said in my earlier rant, they SHOULD evolve. My earlier post (hope you read it!) suggested that U-S culture has not evolved as much as Gaelic culture, but that hopefully it will in time. I think the U-S Agency is actually hindering that evolution you refer to.

(Example. David Brewster said: "...going back to U/S words in everyday use- or perhaps more accurately Scots words in use in Ulster...".

You certainly wouldn't hear THAT from the U-S Agency, as it seems to be in denial about the influence Scots has had on local speech, and seems to view U-S dialect in isolation, rather than in historical context. This seems to be to ensure that U-S dialect is seen as something entirely separate from Scots. I'm not realy sure why though. Maybe for funding reasons, maybe to define U-S as a counterfoil to Gaelic culture and language. I dunno.

The point also stands in relation to the joke about kilts. Every time you see Lordy Laird, he's wearing a kilt - yet as DB says, this is nothing to do with his cultural background. An 'invented tradition' perhaps?! You would have a better idea than I, but do you get my drift?)

My point about codification was perhaps also badly made. It was in relation to the spoken form of U-S. In a nutshell - more funding should be spent on researching and publishing an U-S dictionary than on cultural events (especially if they are associated solely with one section of the community, IMHO, as there are many Ulster Scots who would feel uncomfortable in an Orange Hall).

Any thoughts?

why george, don't you know we po' white trash stick together ?

Willow
"Ulster Protestants did not speak Gaelic"

As I said earlier you really have to be more accurate. You can't make a general statement like that, it's simply false. Ulster Prods had a very proud tradition of involvement with the Irish language from the 16th century up until about 100 years ago. And it was used for more than simply 'communicating with the natives'.
Don't forget who founded Conradh na Gaeilge, Douglas Hyde.

"Tradition" is thorny IJP. One of things it's very easy to end up talking at cross purposes about!

"Your civic unionism -as Gonzo terms it- is no less valid, but is less effective (only because it is less proactive), and in many cases less durable ( because so much of it comprises Trimble's post Unionists, who tend to be middle class and based in urban greater Belfast and hence feel "safer")"

yes, I take your point but its the type of unionism most subscribed to, unfortunately it is also the type of unionist that generally doesn't vote.

The point about unionists who live in the greater belfast area and feel safer is a good point, there isn't likely to be a shinner anynear near Ards Borough Council, the SDLP are lucky to have representatives there.

After the experience of living outside the safehold of Newtownards, I have a huge deal of respect for those unionists who live in border and republican areas and remain active in unionism. People like the current chairmen of the Young Unionists, Danny Kennedy, Billy Armstrong, Derek Hussey etc. It would be very easy to just keep your head down and stay quiet but they don't, to me that is the strongest version of unionism. I was reading today in the newsletter about an orange hall in Tyrone that was burned out with various sectarian slogans daubed on the wall.

"Unionism would benefit greatly from more involvement of civic Unionists and from greater commitment from those already active. Trimble knew that and based his whole strategy on wooing that section . Bono and Blair got them out for him in 1998 (yup, another trait of many civic Unionists is that they are rather too trusting) since when there has been a great big nothing."

There must be some way of luring these unionists out to vote and participate. Although you do realise if they did all come out to vote, it would be for Trimble and the UUP, maybe you don't want them to come out!!

UO:

"...Defining unionism is an interesting topic and something that political parties should focus on more in these days when unionism is coming under fire by governments and others. I suppose Ulster Scots is an attempt to do this but I do feel unionism is much bigger than this whole Ulster Scots thing..."

This is where the major misunderstanding lies. Authentic Ulster Scots is not an attempt to define unionism. It is not political. It is cultural - and particularly through the language side it straddles "both communities".

Many try to present it as Unionist thing, but its not. Laird et al have tried to make it ultra-Orange to make it more appealing to the Unionist population. Many nationalists attack it to demonise it, and thus further dissuade Catholic folks from identifying with it and participating in it. Meanwhile the non-Ulster Scot unionists are bewildered.

"...Unionism is bigger than this Ulster-Scots thing..." - yes it is.

And Ulster-Scots is bigger than Unionism.

Fair play to the SF rep who condemned the attack on the Orange Hall.

which one was it who condemned it?

It really was horrible, someone wrote get out murdering orange bastards on the wall.

To be honest I don't recall, the aged parent was still rabbiting on about the main story of the day :)

Possibly of interest...

An Irishman's Diary by Pol O Muiri

Irish Times 6 October 1998

THE OPENING of the new Northern Ireland Assembly highlighted once more the fractious nature of cultural politics in the North. A few word in Irish from Sinn Fein were greeted with a fit of ill-mannered coughs from some unionists while supporters of Scots spoken in Ulster (`Ulster Scots') distributed the leaflets.

It is not surprising that things have developed in such a way. Sinn Fein has long been vocally round of its attempts to push the Irish language. Like all political parties, however, it has been less keen to admit its failings in this regard. The old policy of equating words of Irish with "bullets" in the fight for "national liberation" seems to have been quietly decommissioned as the party has sought to emphasize the cross-community importance of the language in recent times.

Partly, perhaps mainly, as a response to the republican cultural agenda, Ulster Scots has emerged as a counter-balance from unionist quarters. The argument put forward for it is, in many ways, a mirror image of the republican argument: "They have their language, we have our language" - and never the twain shall meet. Ulster-Scots was an anchor forged to stop Orange Ulster from drifting away in a sea of Gaelic green.

Cultural fabric

It would be a mistake, however, to let any political party or pressure group in the North set the cultural agenda. Writers and artists are the ones who should be doing that. It is through their work that the willfully constructed stereotypes of "our" culture and "their" culture are most effectively challenged.

Take, for example, the work of the Scottish poet Robbie Burns. His verses were part and parcel of the cultural fabric of the Donegal Gaeltacht since the beginning of this century. The novelist Seamus O'Grianna (or "Maire", to use his pen-name) spent his summers, as did many from that region, as an economic migrant in Scotland harvesting and navvying. (The Romanians of their time?) What drove him and his contemporaries was economic necessity, a necessity, it must be said, which did not die with the foundation of the Irish Free State.

In the first of his autobiography, Nuair a bhi me Og, O Grianna is introduced to the poetry and locale of Robbie Burns. It is an Odyssey of discovery and education for the young man and one which leaves an indelible mark on him. He litters on chapter of his autobiography with verses from Burns:

What's a' the jargon o' your schools,

Your Latin names for horns and stools?

If honest nature made you fools,

What sairs your grammars?

Ye'd better ta'en up spades and shools

Or knappin' hammers.

Costly investment

Without question, Burn's anti-authoritarian tone appealed to O Grianna. Tellingly, O Grianna is later asked: "Do you read often?" He replies: "Often enough.... But I have only one book, Burns. One book and that bought. An investment in literature that was undoubtedly costly for someone costly for someone forced to work like a mule for every penny he could collect."

What fascinates most is that this cultural exchange occurred almost unnoticed. The gaudy to-ing and fro-ing of contemporary literature has none of the lyrical honesty and heartbreaking poetry of O'Grianna's encounter.

Here was a man, like many of his generation, with pride in himself and his people, with ear for the music of the spoken word, learning from a neglected tradition. This cross-pollination and whispered discourse was to last well into this century. The Donegal poet Cathal O'Searcaigh, a man only in his 40s, remembers his own father returning from work in Scotland and reciting Burns.

Burns spoke to the native speakers of Donegal in a way, which was often magical. It is difficult to see Burns or the language he spoke as being "ours" or "theirs". It lived among the predominately Catholic, predominately monoglot Irish speakers on Ulster's western seaboard long before unionism decided it needed a counterbalance to a republican cultural agenda.

Michael Longley

An added twist is provided by the poem Phemios and Medon by Michael Longley. Longley takes the story from the Odyssey and rewrites the Greek into as near a living Ulster-Scots vernacular as you're likely to get:

Still looking for a scoot-hole,

Phemios the poet

In swithers, fiddling with his harp, jukes to the hatch,

Lays the bruckly yoke between porringer and armchair,

Makes a ram-stam for Odysseus, grammels his knees.

Then bannies and bams we this highfalutin blether....

{Still looking for a rat-hole, Phemios the poet

In hesitation, fiddling with his hard, ducks to the hatch,

Lays the brittle implement between porringer and armchair,

Makes recklessly for Odysseus, grabs his knees,

The cajoles and bums with this high-falutin' blether.....J

No navvy, Longley - educated in the classics at Trinity, born and raised in Belfast, on Ulster's eastern seaboard. His poem is further proof of the power of the Scots on the imagination. It is the words that matter: the imaged they evoke in the mind that count. The use that "them" and "us" make out language seems petty in the light and O'Grianna's and O Searcaigh's and Longley's epiphanies.

That, I believe , is how it should be and that is the challenge faced by all artists in the North, more so now then ever to send the needle on the cultural compass spinning between east and west while all the time searching for true North.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/learning/history/stateapart/agreement/culture/support/cul2_n032.shtml

Erse. That link has widened the thread, and I can't fix it on this PC. Sorry...

Great Link Gonzo, Thanks for sharing it.

is 'yoke' a scots/ulster scots word? I've never heard it used in the north but people in the south use it all the time. the last person I heard saying it was from waterford but had lived in louth (near that dermot ahern fella) for years.

Nice one Gonzo, Keep it real :)

Fraggle, we've always used "yoke" in the midlands. It's an English word though it's usage to mean "something whose name does not spring immediately to mind" is distinctive Hib-English.

Do ye use the word "rakes", meaning "many/a lot of"?

Yoke was also used in the Hades episode of Ulysses.

Yoke was also used in the Hades episode of Ulysses, says he feigning a deep and inciteful knowledge of said book :-)

We'd use buckets instead of rakes in Dublin.

I use rake(s) in that sense maca.

Let's have a rake o' Guinness for example :o)

Agree also George,

Buckets being more appropriate for Guinness than rakes.

:o)

Agree also George,

Buckets being more appropriate for Guinness than rakes.

:o)

Aye, sounds like a normal weekend, head to the pub with a rake a lads, drink buckets a Guinness, then feel sick as a box of frogs the next day. Grand!

As my brother says, "i've to take a jo-maxi to the moriarty but i've choice grades." Eh?

U-O

"How do you know they are talking about Ulster Scots? It sounds more like they are talking about Scots Gallic."

In this debate you raised a number of reasonable points but I am sorry that comment either shows incredible ignorance of the linguitsic history of the British Isles and Ulster or you've blogged yourself into a corner and are not prepared to realise or admit it.

I accept you are not an Ulster-Scot and this comment is not meant to pressurise you into adopting that identity but I do honestly think that that comment shows there is a part of the cultural mix that you do not understand or appreciate. Do not let your identification with the English and Irish cultural influences in Ulster act as a barrier to the impact of the Scottish influence. You can leanr to appreciate and understand it without becoming an Ulster-Scots.

George

Whoops, more presbyterians than Anglicans, which would probably explain your no.

Presbyterian or Anglican, Ulster Protestants are not “mostly Anglo-Irish like their southern brethren”. They are mostly descended from planters. “Anglo-Irish” refers to a particular class of wealthy Protestant (effectively landed gentry) whose ancestry is quite different to Ulster planters. I am an Anglican, my ancestry is both Anglican and Presbyterian, and my ancestors would not have been considered to belong to the “Anglo-Irish” class. They were of relatively humble background.

unionist observer

"But you were writing, not speaking. Do you write "Beaver" instead of "Belvoir"?
Well, its not something that any of us can prove one way or the other so I think we should probably agree to disagree what guesses are about our forefathers.

That answer makes no sense. Do you write “Beaver” instead of “Belvoir”? I assume not, which raises the question as to why you wrote “Gallic” instead of “Gaelic”.

wow, chill out willowfield. as I mentioned before I am currently writing my dissertation on the history of my town and I am finding out more and more about the influence of the gaelic irish in my towns history whereas Ulster Scots sources would have you believe there was never any gaelic irish anywhere near the town. Up until the Scots arrived in the 1600s Newtownards was mostly gaelic irish, the normans had been but then left again so the majority of people in the town then would have spoken Irish. The Scots undoubtedly influenced the town, you can see that today with the sheer number of presbyterian churches in the town. However it is doubtful that all the Scots who came over were english speaking lowlanders, there had to be a few of the gaelic speaking highlanders too. Also unless they killed off the entire native irish settlement in the town, there would still have been a gaelic irish component. This is proved by the catholic graveyard at Kiltonga which dates from 1600s to 1800s, entirely separate to the protestant graveyards at Movilla and the old priory.

Tell us why there would have to have been “a few of the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders”. I would have thought, on the contrary, that this would been highly unlikely. As for the “Gaelic Irish component”, this was, by definition, not Ulster Protestant, as you admit when you cite a “catholic graveyard” as evidence!

The point of this all is that it is unlikely that the Irish language entirely died out when the Scots came, the settlers who came to the area would have had to learn the language to communicate with others and live there.
Sorry thats so long winded.

No-one’s claiming it died out when the Scots came. The point is that Ulster Protestants spoke English/Scots, not Gaelic. If they learned Gaelic in order to communicate with Gaelic-speakers, then they learned it in the same way as we might learn French: as a second language.

You have singularly failed to offer any kind of valid argument that Ulster Protestants spoke Gaelic 200 years ago.

DB

Gonzo you swine-I've never worn a kilt, which is a highland device, despised by the lowland Scot.

Indeed. Bagpipes too, I believe. So why does so much Ulster-Scots activity involve pipe-playing and kilt-wearing?

maca

As I said earlier you really have to be more accurate. You can't make a general statement like that, it's simply false. Ulster Prods had a very proud tradition of involvement with the Irish language from the 16th century up until about 100 years ago. And it was used for more than simply 'communicating with the natives'. Don't forget who founded Conradh na Gaeilge, Douglas Hyde.

Sorry, maca, as you well know, as a general statement is perfectly true to say that Ulster Protestants didn’t speak Gaelic, even despite the small number of eccentric antiquarians like Hyde.

Indeed. Bagpipes too, I believe. So why does so much Ulster-Scots activity involve pipe-playing and kilt-wearing?

simple really Willow-it probably goes back to the Imperial fondness for a certain visual symmetry in things pertaining to the Scottish military, whether Highland or lowland, which then carried over into the numerous United States, Australian, NZ and particularly Canadian Scots diaspora- so in fairness the U-S agency is only treading old ground.

Also, much of the genuine Ulster-Scots commone affinity is from the Isles and The Mull of Kintyre which predates the Plantation and can belong to the people of the Glens of Antrim in particular. I happen to share much of the jaundice of my lowland-Scots ancestors which you can see clearly in the works of R L Stevenson and less obviously Walter Scott towards the Highland ideal, clan chieftains a la "Monarch of the Glen" etc- but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid means of expressing your scottish roots. it might be a bit synthetic but so , after all, is Irish dancing "The Quiet Man" etc which became part of the irish cultural self vision- because culture is always evolving.

If your ancestors didn't know what a kilt was , or what their clan tartan looke dlike, it doesn't mean you should reject how scottishness has evolved since then.

Don't forget BTW that a Unionist like Sir Samuel Fergusson was motivated to preserve and promote the irish language as a means of tying a distinct segment of irish society further into the Union- I presume in the same way Imperialists saw a role for the Indian Empire- distinctive yet complementary.

davidbrew

"..it might be a bit synthetic but so , after all, is Irish dancing.."

In what way is Irish dancing synthetic?

"If your ancestors didn't know what a kilt was , or what their clan tartan looked like, it doesn't mean you should reject how scottishness has evolved since then."

Maybe that's also a good reason to reject it all as fake and not any part of your heritage.

"Sorry, maca, as you well know, as a general statement is perfectly true to say that Ulster Protestants didn’t speak Gaelic,"

Not at all Willow, it's an inaccurate statement. You shouldn't generalise.
"eccentric antiquarians" - another assumption?

How many members of the Ulster Unionist community do you think are NOT descended from the Ulster Scots?