The state is the main force anglicising the gaeltacht

There are at least three ways in which the 26-county state has actively undermined the Gaeltacht:

The support mechanisms set up for Irish in the early years of the state have been progressively dismantled. Almost all requirements for state employees to be qualified in Irish have been removed, and Irish has been undermined through changes to the Education system.

Hindley's view is that Irish governments have done everything they can to support the language since independence, and yet the decline has continued. He sees the decline as being due to economic & social forces which are beyond anyone's power to control. However, he ignores the fact that the state directly controls a large part of the Irish economy. The section on Migration shows how the facts which he himself quotes contradict his interpretation.

When the 26 Counties became a member of the EEC (now EU) in 1973, Irish was the only official language of a member state which was not made an official language of the community. The EEC negotiators actually offered to make it an official language, but the Lynch government refused the offer, and kept this shameful fact a secret. This symbolic blow to the status of the language coincided with more serious attempts to downgrade the status of the language and to obliterate the Gaeltacht by swamping it with English-speaking migrants.

All the members of Bord na Gaeilge were government appointees. In Shaping The Future the Bord's Advisory Planning Committee openly rubbished the aim of an Irish language revival as undesirable. Bear that in mind as you read the following extracts from the report.

(p41) "...the administrative agencies of the state have been among the strongest forces for anglicisation in Gaeltacht areas".

p9 "Over 15 years ago, the CLAR report drew attention to how the Gaeltacht branches of central and local government, regional and semi-state bodies were staffed largely by English monolinguals, the use of English being usual in both the activities of personnel in the local setting and the relationships between local agencies and their central administration... There is no reason to believe that the position has changed substantially since then".

p108 "The degree of political will and commitment behind official declarations of purpose is questionable. For example, policy guidelines for the use of Irish in the public service are quite detailed but there is really no obligation on the organisations concerned to abide by these. There are no penalties or sanctions in cases of non-compliance. Bord na Gaeilge's Action Plan for 1983-86 was given formal approval by the Government but this support was not reflected in the funding of the Bord's activities..."

p102 "Because public agencies have done so little to reform themselves since CLAR reported in 1975 it must be assumed that their resistance to change will continue. If this is so it can only be concluded that their strength as anglicising forces in the Gaeltacht will remain. When rationally organised systems of public administration persist with a modus operandi which produces unwanted outcomes - at least as defined by official state policy - and when such outcomes are foreseeable and avoidable then they must logically be seen as constituting part of the de facto set of objectives of the agencies concerned. For whatever reason the declared goals of the state (e.g. saving the Gaeltacht) are contradicted by the operating objectives of its agencies. In this sense the anglicising consequences of public service agencies must be seen as deliberate, intended or acceptable outcomes of their behaviour rather than as an 'unconscious' process, in which they are powerless to intervene".

p89 "current state policies appear to be tending towards... anglicisation by stealth"