Issues of Linguistic Status for Scots and Ulster-Scots
Language, Identity and Politics in Northern Ireland by Aodán Mac Póilín From: Ulster Folk Life Vol. 45, 1999. (Published by Ulster Folk & Transport Museum, Cultra) The political attractiveness of Ulster-Scots for Unionists is fairly easy to explain. There is a long-standing sense of affinity between the north of Ireland and Scotland based on geographical proximity and millennia of contact and interaction. The Northern Ireland accent is heavily influenced by Scots, and there is a high proportion of Scottish surnames in Ulster. Although this sense of affinity is not confined to unionists, they can gain particular political benefits from emphasising the Scottish connection. Scotland, for instance, can offer a version of a British political identity which is not English, and therefore not associated with the sense of betrayal which many unionists feel towards Westminster. Presbyterianism, which originated in Scotland, is the largest Protestant denomination in Northern Ireland. All in all, the combination of a sense of origin in Scotland combined with a sense of common religious allegiance and a shared cultural heritage makes for a very attractive package. Language, dialect, variant?: The linguistic status of Ulster-Scots As spoken in its traditional communities, Ulster-Scots is wonderfully vivid: 'Snickit and cauld and far atween like a stepmother's kiss to her foreganger's wean'.22 'Whun A sa the owl clat that had made wer meat A wuz ready tae boak mae guts up'; 'Stannin there wae a boo in yer bak lake a pishin coo'.23 It is comparatively accessible, and even at its most intense can be understood fairly easily with the help of a glossary. Ulster-Scots also has a slender but fascinating literary tradition. The linguistic status of Ulster-Scots, indeed of Scots itself, has been a matter of some dispute. While Scots and English descend from the same root, most authorities accept that sixteenth century Scots can be described as a distinct language. The Concise Scots Dictionary (which curiously describes standard English as a dialect; it actually derives from a sociolect based on an amalgam of dialects) summarises the historic relationship between Scots and English as follows: ... in the later fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there were two national languages in use in Britain, metropolitan Tudor English in the kingdom of England, and metropolitan Older Scots in the kingdom of Scotland. Though these languages were politically or socially separate, linguistically they were distinct but quite closely related dialects, much as is the case with the Scandinavian languages today. 24 What is implicit here is that although Scots and English came from the same root they developed in parallel and on a basis of equality. However, the argument for the distinctiveness of Scots and English as 'politically and socially separate languages' changed rapidly in the following centuries. With the Union of the Scottish and English Crowns in 1603, Scots ceased to be a politically separate language. Even under an independent Parliament until 1707 the language of administration in Scotland switched quickly from Scots to English. That Scots lost its social prestige after 1603 is clear from the complete abandonment of Scots as a literary medium for over a hundred years. Its claim to be a socially separate language has also been weakened by the fact that for almost four hundred years it has been in a subordinate position to a standard English norm and has been in a continuous process of converging towards English. However, there is a strong lobby made up mainly of Scottish nationalists which argues either that Scots continues to be a distinct language, or that, as Derrick McClure puts it 'Unquestionably Scots was once a language; unquestionably it has the potential to become one again'.25 Their arguments have been taken up by Ulster-Scots enthusiasts, with one interesting variation. While most argue that Ulster-Scots is a dialect or variant of Scots, some have argued or implied that Ulster-Scots is a separate language from Scots. The case for Ulster-Scots being a distinct language, made at a time when the status of Scots itself was insecure, is so bizarre that it is unlikely to have been a linguistic argument. It may reflect, in emblematic cultural terms, an ideological division within unionism between a British political identity (within the UK) and an 'Ulster' political identity, the latter finding its most extreme form in a movement for an independent Northern Ireland, or, as its advocates put it, an independent Ulster. Minority language movements often give prominence to eccentric linguistic theories which would be ignored by more secure language communities. In the case of Ulster-Scots some of these eccentricities have been placed centre stage, partly for political reasons. Because the potential Ulster-Scots offers itself as a unionist equivalent to Irish, and because the only linguistic model available to unionists is Irish, some of its advocates feel that they must go into direct competition with Irish at all levels, including the level of its linguistic status. As a result, issues of spelling and grammar have acquired a distinct political tinge. Unfortunately, it is much easier to make the case for the distinct linguistic status of Irish than for either Scots or Ulster-Scots. Even in the sixteenth century, the common origin of Scots and English was reflected in the fact that Scots was called 'Inglis' (= English) as often as it was called 'Scots'. Since that time, as has been noted, Scots has been in a process of converging again-in some cases almost merging-with English. Speakers of all varieties of Scots range from those who demonstrably speak English with a Scots flavour and those whose Scots diverges markedly from standard English. It is only at the further end of the spectrum that the case for Scots being a separate language can be sustained, but it must be acknowledged that even at this level of difference its status is still often questioned. A. J. Aitken, former editor of The Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue, after studying this issue over a long period, ultimately came down firmly on both sides of the fence: '... if Scots is not now a full "language" it is something more than a mere "dialect". A distinguished German scholar once called it a Halbsprache-a semi-language'.26 In an earlier essay, memorably entitled, 'The Good Old Scots Tongue: Does Scots have an Identity?', he was rather less positive. He measured Scots against the widely-accepted typology devised by William Stewart in 1968 (standardisation, autonomy, historicity and vitality), and came to the conclusion that: '... Scots qualifies as no more than a Dialect and neither as a Standard or a Classical language', adding that: 'Equally, of course, there is no sense at all in which Scots could count as a national or an official language according to the terminology proposed in the 1951 UNESCO report on Vernacular Languages'.27 Much of this debate is now redundant. On 4th June 1998, the UK Government stated its intention to sign the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, specifying '... the Welsh language in Wales and ... the Gaelic language in Scotland ...', and '... the Irish language in Northern Ireland at an early date'.28 Interestingly, the reference to '... the Scots language' was not specific to any territory. On 8th March 1999, the UK Government published a Draft Statutory Instrument to enable the setting up of six cross-border Implementation Bodies, one of which was for language, and to include Irish and Ulster-Scots. Called 'Ullans'-the term used in the Belfast Agreement-Ulster-Scots was defined under the Order as: '... the variety of the Scots language traditionally found in parts of Northern Ireland and Donegal'29 (emphasis added). One of the criteria for deciding the linguistic status of a speech-form is whether or not it has been accepted as a language by the state. Swedish, Danish and the two standard varieties of Norwegian are regarded as being a single language, using strictly linguistic criteria. However, they are recognised as separate languages, because they have been designated as such by their governments.30 Scots is therefore, by government decree, a language, and Ulster-Scots is by government decree a variety of that language. It is notable that the first legislation relating to the linguistic status of Scots was formulated, in response to a political imperative, for Northern Ireland rather than Scotland. Maximally differentiated Ulster-Scots This development could be beneficial to the development of Ulster-Scots, as its advocates now need not feel that they must enter into direct-and unequal-competition with Irish on the issue of linguistic status. Previously, some enthusiasts appeared to believe that they could make their case only by using a maximally differentiated form of Ulster-Scots-a form as far removed as possible from standard English, and as incomprehensible as possible to English-speakers. Advocates of the position that Ulster-Scots is a different language to Scots suffered from the added complication of having to fight on two fronts. Maximally differentiated Scots, it should be added, except among a declining number of rural speakers, is essentially a phenomenon of the printed page and the public platform. The maximally differentiated Ulster-Scots we have seen to date reflects a number of contradictory strategies, whose only common denominator is to be as different to English, and occasionally Scots, as possible. In vocabulary, this has involved the use of a disproportionate quota of obsolete words and of neologisms invented in Northern Ireland (e.g., 'langblether' for telephone; 'stour-sucker', a direct translation from German, for 'vacuum cleaner'). Germanic forms are particularly favoured, although there is a ready acceptance of French and Latin-derived vocabulary which was either never used or has become obsolete in English. Spelling sometimes draws on redundant 16th and 17th century spelling conventions ('qoho' for 'who' etc.), now rarely if ever used in Scotland. This alternates with an erratic spelling which sometimes reflects everyday Ulster-Scots speech rather than the conventions of either modern or historic Scots, and sometimes does not (terminal 't' in 'it' and 'at', is pronounced in Ulster-Scots with a full glottal stop, but is usually spelt according to the English convention). Unstressed vowels, which often merge into a neutral vowel sound, are often changed in Ulster-Scots writing; where Scots writers are content to write 'the', some Ulster-Scots writers use 'tha'. In style, the approach appears to favour a form of folksy nativist purism, manifesting itself as a pastiche of rural speech, and based apparently on the assumption that the native speaker of Ulster Scots can aspire to neither abstract thought nor the passive voice. The result is a jumble of clashing registers far removed indeed from the grace of modern Synthetic Scots, and a very distant cousin to Hugh McDiarmaid's interrogation of eternity or William Lorimer's wonderfully earthy version of the New Testament. It is also often incomprehensible to the native speaker. This is one of the most acute problems facing the Ulster-Scots movement. Enthusiasts rightly point out that Ulster-Scots has been marginalised and stigmatised, and that its speakers have been imbued with a false sense of inferiority. However, if the movement were to concentrate on linguistic maintenance, through restoring a sense of pride in their speech to these communities, it would have to endorse a high proportion of standard English speech-forms. The drive to establish its linguistic status has resulted in forms of maximally differentiated Ulster-Scots, which, if accepted as being the 'correct' form, could reinforce the sense of inferiority among native speakers the enthusiasts are trying to combat. The following is an example from an Ulster-Scots version of a government advertisement published in the press on February 9, 1999. The original English of the first sentence of the advert is as follows: Applications are invited for the post of Sub-Editor (English and Ulster-Scots) in the office of the Official Report (Hansard) of the New Northern Ireland Assembly, which is located at Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast. In the maximally differentiated Ulster-Scots version we have: It's noo apen fur tae pit in jab foarms fur tha ontake o Unner-Editor (Inglis an Ulster-Scotch) wi tha Chammur o tha Scrievit Accoont (Hansard) o tha New Ulster Semmlie sittin at tha Tolsel Biggins, Stormont, Bilfawst. Of the thirty-five lexical items here, only five common words (it's, in, editor, new, at) and less than half of the proper nouns (Ulster, Hansard and Stormont) correspond to their Standard English equivalent. A word-by-word rendering of this into standardised English spelling, but leaving in their original form the terms 'Scrievit' and 'Tolsel Biggins' would read as follows: It's now open for to put in job forms for the ontake of Under-Editor (English and Ulster-Scots) with the Chamber of the Scrievit Account (Hansard) of the New Ulster Assembly, sitting at Tolsel Biggins, Stormont, Belfast. An analysis of some of the elements of this sentence may be useful. 'It's noo apen fur tae pit in jab foarms fur tha ontake o' as an equivalent for 'Applications are invited for the post of' requires no comment. 'Biggin' (= building) is a word of Norse origin, and is still in use in Ulster-Scots in the much more restricted sense of 'outhouse'. 'Chaummer' {= chamber} is a French-derived word, now referring only to an upper room in a house or outbuilding, according to the Concise Ulster Dictionary. It appears to be used here only because it is not the word 'office'. 'Scrievit', one of the permitted words of Latin origin, means 'written'. It was once common north of the Humber, but survived into modern times only in the north-east of Scotland, according to the Concise Scots Dictionary. 'Scrievit Accoont' (written account) is an adequate if not quite accurate and totally unnecessary translation of 'Official Report'. The use of 'Tolsel' for 'parliament' is particularly eccentric. The word derives from an Old English term for a tollbooth, later expanding its meaning to incorporate the town courthouse or guildhall. The Oxford Dictionary indicates that the term survived longest in Ireland; there is a Tholsel in Kilkenny and Carlingford. It does not appear to have been used as an equivalent of the French-derived 'parliament' before the publication of the advert. (It is possible that the original Tholsel building of Kilkenny was used by the Catholic Confederate Parliament of 1642, or even by the Irish Parliament during its occasional sessions in the town between the 13th and 15th centuries, but the term 'parliament' refers to a gathering of legislators rather than to the building they meet in.) 'Parliament', spelt 'Perlament' or 'Pairlament' in the 16th century, is a perfectly acceptable Scots word, and was the official title of the Scottish Parliament. It is rejected here presumably on the grounds that the same word is used in English. 'Ulster' as the Ulster-Scots translation of 'Northern Ireland' is particularly interesting, and represents a new departure in official policy. It may be the first official government document since the days of the Ulster Yearbook to use 'Ulster' for the territory defined by law as Northern Ireland. This departure may indicate a political agenda on the part of the translator(s). As has already been noted, the terminology used in Northern Ireland to name Northern Ireland is contested; 'Ulster', when used to mean the six counties of Northern Ireland, is an exclusively unionist term.
Language, Identity and Politics in Northern Ireland by Aodán Mac Póilín From: Ulster Folk Life Vol. 45, 1999. (Published by Ulster Folk & Transport Museum, Cultra) The political attractiveness of Ulster-Scots for Unionists is fairly easy to explain. There is a long-standing sense of affinity between the north of Ireland and Scotland based on geographical proximity and millennia of contact and interaction. The Northern Ireland accent is heavily influenced by Scots, and there is a high proportion of Scottish surnames in Ulster. Although this sense of affinity is not confined to unionists, they can gain particular political benefits from emphasising the Scottish connection. Scotland, for instance, can offer a version of a British political identity which is not English, and therefore not associated with the sense of betrayal which many unionists feel towards Westminster. Presbyterianism, which originated in Scotland, is the largest Protestant denomination in Northern Ireland. All in all, the combination of a sense of origin in Scotland combined with a sense of common religious allegiance and a shared cultural heritage makes for a very attractive package. Language, dialect, variant?: The linguistic status of Ulster-Scots As spoken in its traditional communities, Ulster-Scots is wonderfully vivid: 'Snickit and cauld and far atween like a stepmother's kiss to her foreganger's wean'.22 'Whun A sa the owl clat that had made wer meat A wuz ready tae boak mae guts up'; 'Stannin there wae a boo in yer bak lake a pishin coo'.23 It is comparatively accessible, and even at its most intense can be understood fairly easily with the help of a glossary. Ulster-Scots also has a slender but fascinating literary tradition. The linguistic status of Ulster-Scots, indeed of Scots itself, has been a matter of some dispute. While Scots and English descend from the same root, most authorities accept that sixteenth century Scots can be described as a distinct language. The Concise Scots Dictionary (which curiously describes standard English as a dialect; it actually derives from a sociolect based on an amalgam of dialects) summarises the historic relationship between Scots and English as follows: ... in the later fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there were two national languages in use in Britain, metropolitan Tudor English in the kingdom of England, and metropolitan Older Scots in the kingdom of Scotland. Though these languages were politically or socially separate, linguistically they were distinct but quite closely related dialects, much as is the case with the Scandinavian languages today. 24 What is implicit here is that although Scots and English came from the same root they developed in parallel and on a basis of equality. However, the argument for the distinctiveness of Scots and English as 'politically and socially separate languages' changed rapidly in the following centuries. With the Union of the Scottish and English Crowns in 1603, Scots ceased to be a politically separate language. Even under an independent Parliament until 1707 the language of administration in Scotland switched quickly from Scots to English. That Scots lost its social prestige after 1603 is clear from the complete abandonment of Scots as a literary medium for over a hundred years. Its claim to be a socially separate language has also been weakened by the fact that for almost four hundred years it has been in a subordinate position to a standard English norm and has been in a continuous process of converging towards English. However, there is a strong lobby made up mainly of Scottish nationalists which argues either that Scots continues to be a distinct language, or that, as Derrick McClure puts it 'Unquestionably Scots was once a language; unquestionably it has the potential to become one again'.25 Their arguments have been taken up by Ulster-Scots enthusiasts, with one interesting variation. While most argue that Ulster-Scots is a dialect or variant of Scots, some have argued or implied that Ulster-Scots is a separate language from Scots. The case for Ulster-Scots being a distinct language, made at a time when the status of Scots itself was insecure, is so bizarre that it is unlikely to have been a linguistic argument. It may reflect, in emblematic cultural terms, an ideological division within unionism between a British political identity (within the UK) and an 'Ulster' political identity, the latter finding its most extreme form in a movement for an independent Northern Ireland, or, as its advocates put it, an independent Ulster. Minority language movements often give prominence to eccentric linguistic theories which would be ignored by more secure language communities. In the case of Ulster-Scots some of these eccentricities have been placed centre stage, partly for political reasons. Because the potential Ulster-Scots offers itself as a unionist equivalent to Irish, and because the only linguistic model available to unionists is Irish, some of its advocates feel that they must go into direct competition with Irish at all levels, including the level of its linguistic status. As a result, issues of spelling and grammar have acquired a distinct political tinge. Unfortunately, it is much easier to make the case for the distinct linguistic status of Irish than for either Scots or Ulster-Scots. Even in the sixteenth century, the common origin of Scots and English was reflected in the fact that Scots was called 'Inglis' (= English) as often as it was called 'Scots'. Since that time, as has been noted, Scots has been in a process of converging again-in some cases almost merging-with English. Speakers of all varieties of Scots range from those who demonstrably speak English with a Scots flavour and those whose Scots diverges markedly from standard English. It is only at the further end of the spectrum that the case for Scots being a separate language can be sustained, but it must be acknowledged that even at this level of difference its status is still often questioned. A. J. Aitken, former editor of The Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue, after studying this issue over a long period, ultimately came down firmly on both sides of the fence: '... if Scots is not now a full "language" it is something more than a mere "dialect". A distinguished German scholar once called it a Halbsprache-a semi-language'.26 In an earlier essay, memorably entitled, 'The Good Old Scots Tongue: Does Scots have an Identity?', he was rather less positive. He measured Scots against the widely-accepted typology devised by William Stewart in 1968 (standardisation, autonomy, historicity and vitality), and came to the conclusion that: '... Scots qualifies as no more than a Dialect and neither as a Standard or a Classical language', adding that: 'Equally, of course, there is no sense at all in which Scots could count as a national or an official language according to the terminology proposed in the 1951 UNESCO report on Vernacular Languages'.27 Much of this debate is now redundant. On 4th June 1998, the UK Government stated its intention to sign the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, specifying '... the Welsh language in Wales and ... the Gaelic language in Scotland ...', and '... the Irish language in Northern Ireland at an early date'.28 Interestingly, the reference to '... the Scots language' was not specific to any territory. On 8th March 1999, the UK Government published a Draft Statutory Instrument to enable the setting up of six cross-border Implementation Bodies, one of which was for language, and to include Irish and Ulster-Scots. Called 'Ullans'-the term used in the Belfast Agreement-Ulster-Scots was defined under the Order as: '... the variety of the Scots language traditionally found in parts of Northern Ireland and Donegal'29 (emphasis added). One of the criteria for deciding the linguistic status of a speech-form is whether or not it has been accepted as a language by the state. Swedish, Danish and the two standard varieties of Norwegian are regarded as being a single language, using strictly linguistic criteria. However, they are recognised as separate languages, because they have been designated as such by their governments.30 Scots is therefore, by government decree, a language, and Ulster-Scots is by government decree a variety of that language. It is notable that the first legislation relating to the linguistic status of Scots was formulated, in response to a political imperative, for Northern Ireland rather than Scotland. Maximally differentiated Ulster-Scots This development could be beneficial to the development of Ulster-Scots, as its advocates now need not feel that they must enter into direct-and unequal-competition with Irish on the issue of linguistic status. Previously, some enthusiasts appeared to believe that they could make their case only by using a maximally differentiated form of Ulster-Scots-a form as far removed as possible from standard English, and as incomprehensible as possible to English-speakers. Advocates of the position that Ulster-Scots is a different language to Scots suffered from the added complication of having to fight on two fronts. Maximally differentiated Scots, it should be added, except among a declining number of rural speakers, is essentially a phenomenon of the printed page and the public platform. The maximally differentiated Ulster-Scots we have seen to date reflects a number of contradictory strategies, whose only common denominator is to be as different to English, and occasionally Scots, as possible. In vocabulary, this has involved the use of a disproportionate quota of obsolete words and of neologisms invented in Northern Ireland (e.g., 'langblether' for telephone; 'stour-sucker', a direct translation from German, for 'vacuum cleaner'). Germanic forms are particularly favoured, although there is a ready acceptance of French and Latin-derived vocabulary which was either never used or has become obsolete in English. Spelling sometimes draws on redundant 16th and 17th century spelling conventions ('qoho' for 'who' etc.), now rarely if ever used in Scotland. This alternates with an erratic spelling which sometimes reflects everyday Ulster-Scots speech rather than the conventions of either modern or historic Scots, and sometimes does not (terminal 't' in 'it' and 'at', is pronounced in Ulster-Scots with a full glottal stop, but is usually spelt according to the English convention). Unstressed vowels, which often merge into a neutral vowel sound, are often changed in Ulster-Scots writing; where Scots writers are content to write 'the', some Ulster-Scots writers use 'tha'. In style, the approach appears to favour a form of folksy nativist purism, manifesting itself as a pastiche of rural speech, and based apparently on the assumption that the native speaker of Ulster Scots can aspire to neither abstract thought nor the passive voice. The result is a jumble of clashing registers far removed indeed from the grace of modern Synthetic Scots, and a very distant cousin to Hugh McDiarmaid's interrogation of eternity or William Lorimer's wonderfully earthy version of the New Testament. It is also often incomprehensible to the native speaker. This is one of the most acute problems facing the Ulster-Scots movement. Enthusiasts rightly point out that Ulster-Scots has been marginalised and stigmatised, and that its speakers have been imbued with a false sense of inferiority. However, if the movement were to concentrate on linguistic maintenance, through restoring a sense of pride in their speech to these communities, it would have to endorse a high proportion of standard English speech-forms. The drive to establish its linguistic status has resulted in forms of maximally differentiated Ulster-Scots, which, if accepted as being the 'correct' form, could reinforce the sense of inferiority among native speakers the enthusiasts are trying to combat. The following is an example from an Ulster-Scots version of a government advertisement published in the press on February 9, 1999. The original English of the first sentence of the advert is as follows: Applications are invited for the post of Sub-Editor (English and Ulster-Scots) in the office of the Official Report (Hansard) of the New Northern Ireland Assembly, which is located at Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast. In the maximally differentiated Ulster-Scots version we have: It's noo apen fur tae pit in jab foarms fur tha ontake o Unner-Editor (Inglis an Ulster-Scotch) wi tha Chammur o tha Scrievit Accoont (Hansard) o tha New Ulster Semmlie sittin at tha Tolsel Biggins, Stormont, Bilfawst. Of the thirty-five lexical items here, only five common words (it's, in, editor, new, at) and less than half of the proper nouns (Ulster, Hansard and Stormont) correspond to their Standard English equivalent. A word-by-word rendering of this into standardised English spelling, but leaving in their original form the terms 'Scrievit' and 'Tolsel Biggins' would read as follows: It's now open for to put in job forms for the ontake of Under-Editor (English and Ulster-Scots) with the Chamber of the Scrievit Account (Hansard) of the New Ulster Assembly, sitting at Tolsel Biggins, Stormont, Belfast. An analysis of some of the elements of this sentence may be useful. 'It's noo apen fur tae pit in jab foarms fur tha ontake o' as an equivalent for 'Applications are invited for the post of' requires no comment. 'Biggin' (= building) is a word of Norse origin, and is still in use in Ulster-Scots in the much more restricted sense of 'outhouse'. 'Chaummer' {= chamber} is a French-derived word, now referring only to an upper room in a house or outbuilding, according to the Concise Ulster Dictionary. It appears to be used here only because it is not the word 'office'. 'Scrievit', one of the permitted words of Latin origin, means 'written'. It was once common north of the Humber, but survived into modern times only in the north-east of Scotland, according to the Concise Scots Dictionary. 'Scrievit Accoont' (written account) is an adequate if not quite accurate and totally unnecessary translation of 'Official Report'. The use of 'Tolsel' for 'parliament' is particularly eccentric. The word derives from an Old English term for a tollbooth, later expanding its meaning to incorporate the town courthouse or guildhall. The Oxford Dictionary indicates that the term survived longest in Ireland; there is a Tholsel in Kilkenny and Carlingford. It does not appear to have been used as an equivalent of the French-derived 'parliament' before the publication of the advert. (It is possible that the original Tholsel building of Kilkenny was used by the Catholic Confederate Parliament of 1642, or even by the Irish Parliament during its occasional sessions in the town between the 13th and 15th centuries, but the term 'parliament' refers to a gathering of legislators rather than to the building they meet in.) 'Parliament', spelt 'Perlament' or 'Pairlament' in the 16th century, is a perfectly acceptable Scots word, and was the official title of the Scottish Parliament. It is rejected here presumably on the grounds that the same word is used in English. 'Ulster' as the Ulster-Scots translation of 'Northern Ireland' is particularly interesting, and represents a new departure in official policy. It may be the first official government document since the days of the Ulster Yearbook to use 'Ulster' for the territory defined by law as Northern Ireland. This departure may indicate a political agenda on the part of the translator(s). As has already been noted, the terminology used in Northern Ireland to name Northern Ireland is contested; 'Ulster', when used to mean the six counties of Northern Ireland, is an exclusively unionist term.