Happy St Andrew’s Day
Astute readers, and
in most cases that means all of you, will note that our publication date this
week is a Thursday, and not a Friday as it has been for all the other 338
issues; this is because today is St Andrew’s Day, and this is the first time it
has been officially recognised as a holiday in Scotland.
We
may be a little optimistic in classing it as a holiday this year, for it was
only this year that the Scottish Executive (oor government) was dragged kicking
and screaming to accept this as a holiday, but with their penchant for acting in
a grudging fashion on all things Scottish the holiday has to be swopped for
another one, so it is not a St Andrew’s Day holiday really. We understand that
employers can pick and choose what holiday they can swop it with, and perhaps
some will exchange it for Christmas – or New Year? When an SNP member asked if
it could be swopped with the Queen’s birthday, the Executive fairly bristled!
Anyway, it would be too late for any arrangements to be made for this year, so
we do not expect masses around enjoying themselves. However, it is now an
official holiday, even if a second class one in the eyes of our Executive, but
then they are accustomed to being second class..
Changes to the
Flag.
This week also we
change things around a bit; the Political Flag and the Cultural Flag are both
here untouched, but you can download them separately, or not at all as the case
might be. We did have complaints about the length of time it took to download,
somewhat alleviated by the use of Broadband, and we thought to freshen things up
a bit by making a front page on which the only change will be the Issue Number
and date. We’ll see how that progresses.
POLL AXED
The underlying
(what an appropriate word) reasons for New Labour’s frantic attacks on the SNP at
a sparsely attended conference in Oban are now becoming clearer. Amidst a
veritable blizzard of opinion polls showing how well the SNP was doing, and
Labour’s denials thereof, apparently their own private poll, which only they
were privy to, was showing the SNP 8 points ahead.
I
found the Prime Minister’s approach very revealing; here was the ageing
football chairman heaping praise on the hapless football manager, and expressing
every confidence in him. (Boak!) The difference here is of course that the
chairman not only did not appoint the manager, he is powerless to get rid of
him; he perhaps should take advice from Pat Lally, once upon a time Glasgow
Labour Party leader, expelled at the instigation of the then Secretary of the
Scottish Labour Party, who took them to court and was reinstated. His buddy,
Alex Mosson, similarly expelled, was also reinstated and went on to become
Glasgow’s Lord Provost, and welcomed the aforesaid Labour Party Secretary to
the city; by this time the secretary had metamorphised into the First Minister.
The Prime Minister said a few things that chimed with me; he said that
Scotland’s financial industry now employed more people than the shipbuilding
industry, the fishing industry and the whisky industry put together. That was a
rather foolhardy statement, as Westminster saw off most of the shipbuilding
industry, they are in the process of closing down the fishing industry, and
probably working on how to cripple the whisky industry. Also as regards
Trident, and our determination to get rid of it he said: “Will the radiation
cloud stop at the Border?” presumably unaware that there are still levels of
radiation in South West Scotland from the Chernobyl accident – many more miles
away than London.
It is a pity that this might well be the last visit he pays as Prime Minister; I
envision the massed SNP choir singing, with tears in their eyes; “Will ye no
come back again.”
THE LONDON
CHORUS LINE
The “Scottish”
Labour Party conference was also regaled by their real high heid yins; among the
accusations made against Alex Salmond was the epithet of the “absentee” leader;
none of them seemed to be aware that they themselves were up on a day trip from
London.
Douglas Alexander, a cocky young man, sneered at Alex and called him an old man
in a hurry! A bit of ageism here; however, Alex is 51, and as Alexander’s
mentor, Gordon Brown, is 55, perhaps the youth might put his brain into gear
before opening his mouth.
John
Reid also had a go at Alex; I do not think it is actual dislike, but it is
certainly fear. What Reid, Alexander , Darling and Brown all have in common is
that they see independence for Scotland as a threat to their livelihood; no
Westminster, no Westminster MPs, no Westminster MPs, no Cabinet jobs, big cars
and virtually limitless expenses. Their tune is : “Oh no, they can’t take that
away from me.”
They were all at pains to point out that the Scottish election must be fought on
Scottish issues, and not on the popularity of the Labour government in the UK,
Iraq etc; if that is the case, what were they all doing up here then? They are
also incapable of admitting that they are responsible for the government’s
unpopularity, and up to their knees in Iraq. Some of them, can’t quite remember
who, as all the streams of vitriol were similar, mocked a Scottish army, also a
dangerous tactic, as the British Army is a shadow of itself, and now has to be
classed as a defence force, as it is not big enough to be an army. This
happened on Labour’s watch, and not accidentally, and if a seat on the UN
Security Council depended on the size of the armed forces, Mexico or Poland
would be taking Britain’s place- but of course, they don’t have Trident.
The London chorus line was further enhanced by a member of the House of Lords,
the price of giving up his seat at the last Westminster election; Foulkes by
name, Baron Foulkes of Cumnock. After 25 years as a Member of Parliament, and a
couple of years in the House of Lords he seems to have decided that he would
like to be in the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps he doesn’t have a big enough
pension from Westminster and he needs the money?
Labour’s Scottish conference should be the occasion that the First Minister
should shine, after all it is his conference; I squirmed, as the leader of our
country was patronised.
DON’T CALL US –
WE’LL CALL YOU
The undernoted is
an extract from the Public Petitions Official Report of 17 November 2006.
Referendum on
Self-determination (PE1014)
The
Convener:
Our next petition is PE1014, by Neil Caple, on behalf of Independence First. It
calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate what moves it could make
to ensure the early presentation to the people of Scotland of a referendum on
self-determination. Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the
e-petition system, where it gathered 1,333 signatures and 132 discussion
comments.
Do members have any
suggestions on how we should deal with this petition?
Ms White:
First, I ask whether there is anyone here to present the petition. I note that
Neil Caple wanted to make a statement to the committee. Did he subsequently say
that he did not want to come along?
The Convener:
No. I did not ask him. The petition is straightforward and there was no
requirement for him to come along and give additional information. The petition
speaks for itself.
Ms White:
I am
not challenging that. I am just asking the question because Mr Caple ticked the
box on the form to show that he wanted to come and make a statement to the
committee. I thought that perhaps he was ill. I did not know whether he was
here.
The Convener:
Almost all petitioners tick the box, but I have to decide whether they are
required to come and give additional information. Because Mr Caple's petition is
fairly straightforward, there is no requirement for him to come and give
additional information.
Ms White:
I
was just asking for clarification. The situation has arisen on numerous
occasions and I always ask why there is no one here. I accept your explanation.
I might not agree with it, but it has clarified the matter for me.
As the petition
states, independence would be down to the Westminster Government, but the
Scottish Parliament has the power to consider the matter and, in particular, to
set up a referendum. Professor Munro, professor of constitutional law at the
University of Edinburgh, said:
"You have to make
the distinction between the reserved powers and what parliament can debate and
discuss ... there is nothing to stop the parliament arranging to hold a
referendum, because that would not involve a change in the law."
That view was
confirmed by the Labour-dominated House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee,
which reported: "constitutional matters are reserved but it is hard to see how
the Scottish Parliament could be prevented from holding a referendum on
independence".
I recommend that we
ask the Scottish Executive for its view on the petition.
The Convener:
I will make my position clear, Sandra, as you made yours clear. Starting next
April, we will have a debate called an election. Political parties will stand
for election and some of them will stand on their proposal to hold a referendum
on independence. If the outcome is that those parties win, they will be able to
take up the issue and debate it where it requires to be debated. However, the
present Scottish Executive does not support independence. I do not see why the
Parliament should use time to debate something that will be debated next April.
The petition is about publicising an event that the petitioner wants to take
place after the election. I think that we should let the election take place and
debate the matter after that.
Campbell Martin:
This might come as a surprise to you, convener, but I do not
agree with you. I agree to a certain extent—I hope that the matter will be
settled next May, but I hope that we will have a pro-independence majority in
the Parliament at that time. With the greatest respect, you are being a wee bit
disingenuous in that people do not vote only on the constitutional issue. We
know that they vote on a range of issues rather than on a single issue. The
petitioners are asking for all the other issues to be stripped out, leaving a
simple question.
After debate there
was a vote as to whether the committee would note and close consideration of the
petition.
The Convener:
There will be a division.
FOR
Baillie, Jackie
(Dumbarton) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
AGAINST
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The Convener:
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
It is agreed that we
will note and close consideration of petition PE1014.
SCOTTISH POWER – LESS
It is not so long
ago that the Kuwaiti Investment Company was trying to buy Thames Water; that
did not go through, but Thames Water which was owned by the German utility
company RWE was bought by an Australian consortium.
When
I read about issues like this, I think of the Tories and their plans for
Scottish Water; they want to privatise it, ostensibly to improve it (and if you
believe that you will believe anything) and in no time at all control of a vital
resource would go outwith Scotland. Don’t forget that the Tories are still
alive in England.
So now Scottish
Power is going to be bought by a Spanish company; Spanish firms have bought our
airports and Abbey National Bank, but woe betide anyone wanting to buy into
Spain. The Spaniards want to keep control of their vital assets, and we find to
our complete astonishment that the French and the Germans have the same
attitude, and that British businessmen castigate them for their temerity in
ignoring the EU rules!
It is this business
thing, the free market introduced by the Tories, who were then surprised when
control of British businesses started to go overseas, and blamed it on the
European Union! Most of the companies on the London Stock Exchange have their
headquarters outwith Britain, and the London Stock Exchange itself will soon be
under foreign ownership, Deutsche Borse was interested and Nasdaq is now in the
frame. The point is that British institutions are no longer British, and all
this nonsense about heritage and tradition are sold for a quick buck, or euro or
yen, whatever, and who cares what happens – it is all about money. And don’t
feel sorry for these companies, while they are paying their red braced bookies
millions, the cleaners of their offices are on strike for a living wage – not
much trickling down there.
Globalisation is the
name of the game, but any country worth its salt hangs on to its assets, and
there is a danger in handing over the power switch to another country.
Britain/England is selling off our industries; Scottish Power is being sold to
the highest bidder, and our Scottish Executive will just meekly acquiesce. They
will probably bleat that it is a reserved matter – oh for some Scottish Power.
FOOT IN THE
MOUTH NOTES
When looking up something on the House of Lords official website, I came across
the following : “House of Lords Principle Office Holders and Staff”.
This merely confirmed my long held judgment that the average member of the House
of Lords would not know a principle if it come in the street and spoke to him.
(Or her, in this politically, if not grammatically, correct world.)
There has been a rumpus because the BBC were offering reporters £100 incentives
to find new angles on the cash for peerages affair. The Labour Party in
particular questioned how the cash incentives were within the BBC’s own
guidelines on “integrity, independence and fairness”.
Cash for peerages, Labour Party, integrity ? You couldn’t make this up.
According
to PricewaterhouseCoopers, Britain has one of the most complicated tax systems
in the world; among the 20 leading economies, India has most pages of tax laws
at 9,000, followed by Britain with 8,300 and then Australia with 7,750.
Westminster
influence on the Commonwealth?
Many years ago, when I was an activist in East Aberdeenshire, the seat became
winnable when the Liberals adopted a candidate; this was because we considered
Liberal votes as second class Tory votes. Nowadays, hitched up to the Labour
Party, we consider them second class Labour votes.
Whichever way you look at it, definitely second class.
And on that very subject, it has been reported that Glasgow Labour Party has
opened talks with the Liberal Party about a coalition after the local government
elections in May 2007.
As Labour holds 69 of the 79 Glasgow Council seats, a fair indication of how
corrupt the present system is, or perhaps just a panic too far? (4 SNP seats, 3
Liberals, 1 Tory, 1 SSP and 1 Independent)
The deputy first minister accommodation expense affair just rumbles on, as he
says that claiming mortgage payments on a house jointly owned with his wife was
all a mistake and has now been rectified.
Now why does the phrase “A muddle not a fiddle” spring to mind?
The Working Life of Linda
Fabiani MSP
Click here to read SNP MSP Linda Fabiani's working diary.
Monday 27
November
SNP Leader Alex Salmond MP today (Monday) commented on the
Speaker's selection of amendments for the Queen's Speech. Mr Salmond said
that the Government had a narrow escape as if the SNP/Plaid amendment had
been selected, there was a good chance it would have carried in the House of
Commons.
Mr
Salmond said: "If the SNP/Plaid amendment had been voted on, it had an
extremely good chance of being carried. It was signed by no less than 104
MP's across 6 different political parties. It provides a powerful reminder
to the Government that what is required now is not just Delphic hints and
Chatham House speeches from the Defence Secretary but an exit strategy
presented to the House of Commons as to how they're going to extracate this
country from the blood soaked quagmire of Iraq.
"The key
obstacle to the selecting of this amendment today was the refusal of the
Liberal Party to come on board this cross-party amendment and instead to
pursue their own party political line. As a result we have lost a tremendous
opportunity to reassert parliamentary accountability over the Government.
Liberal supporters will be scratching their heads to understand a party
which has made so much of their opposition to the Iraq conflict yet was not
prepared to on this occasion to put Parliament and the people first."
Monday 27th
November 2006
Sex offenders
deemed at high risk of re-offending by social work and health professionals
should never be released the SNP’s Social Justice spokeswoman Christine
Grahame has said. Her comments came after it was revealed that one of three
men involved in the notorious Miss X case in the Scottish Borders has just
returned to the region.
43-year-old
Alexander Maben served only 4 years of a 7 year sentence for his part in the
torture and sexual abuse of a mentally handicapped woman, but during his
time in prison Maben refused to take part in rehabilitation programmes and
has said he will not co-operate with the authorities after he was given
automatic early release. MSP Christine Grahame has said that the time had
come to get far tougher with predatory, high-risk sex offenders like Maben
in order to protect the wider public and community. She said:
“What this man
and his two accomplices did is almost beyond comprehension. I think this
highlights the weakness and utter failure of the existing early release
programme and in my view we simply cannot allow for offenders like Maben to
be freely stalking the streets waiting for the next opportunity to claim
another victim.
“At the very
least he should have been made to serve the entire length of his sentence,
but the fact that he has failed to take part in rehabilitation programmes
and is still deemed to be at high risk of offending underscores the point
that he should never have been released.
“It is now
left to Scottish Borders Council’s social work department to divert
resources to ensure Maben is properly monitored. I have every sympathy with
the Council in this instance. The money they are going to have to spend
keeping an eye on Maben could instead be diverted towards support and
assistance for the community.
“Of course there
is cost in keeping people like Maben locked away in prison, but obviously
the chances of him carrying out another heinous offence like the one he was
convicted of, is removed completely.
“Over 30 years
of research and feedback from professionals working with this type of sex
offender concludes that the vast majority can never be treated. The costs
associated with continuous monitoring on their release only serves to drain
money away from financially struggling local authorities. Of course the
psychological cost to victims if such people reoffend is truly incalculable
and that is a risk I believe the state should not take with this group of
offenders.”
Tuesday 28th
November
SNP Shadow
Energy, Rural Affairs and Environment Minister Richard Lochhead MSP today
(Monday) called on the Labour and Lib Dem Government to demand the release
of the £38.7 million surplus of the Scottish Fossil Fuel levy being held
back in London coffers, money which could be spend on vital renewable
projects in Scotland.
Mr
Lochhead MSP said:
"Mr McConnell's government is sitting on its hands while £38.7 million of
cash for Scottish renewables is being held back in London coffers. This is
almost three times the amount of cash allocated by the Labour and Lib Dem
government to micro-renewables since 2003.
"This blows away the Lib-Lab administrations claims that they are serious
about the future of Scottish renewables.
"No wonder we have other countries racing ahead in the renewables sector
when we have a government that has renewables cash but isn't prepared to use
it.
"This is Scotland's money and it must be spent on our renewables future.
"It's time for a greener and more sustainable Scotland. Next year it's a
straight choice between a Labour government who have failed to realise
Scotland's renewable potential or an SNP government led by Alex Salmond
which will help Scotland become the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy."
Saturday 25th
November
Commenting on
the First Ministers speech to the Scottish Labour Party conference in Oban,
on the same day that new polling figures showed that Alex Salmond is
Scotland's top choice for First Minister, SNP Depute Leader Nicola Sturgeon
MSP said:
"Ten
years ago Labour were elected on the promise of education, education,
education. Now, after a whole decade Mr McConnell says education is to be
his top priority. What on earth has he been doing during his time in office?
"Clearly, Mr McConnell lives in a make believe Scotland oblivious to local
hospital closures, students facing mountains of debt, the crisis facing our
coastal communities, young couples with no hope of getting on the housing
ladder and pensioners scared of winter and sky high heating bills.
"None of these issues even got a mention from a First Minister so intent on
patting himself on the back that he has lost touch with reality.
"It doesn't matter what Mr McConnell says anymore, the people of Scotland
know that what he promises he doesn't deliver. It's time to take Scotland
forward with a SNP government, with the people of Scotland's choice of First
Minister, Alex Salmond."
Tuesday 28th
November
Reacting to reports that Scottish Power has backed a takeover offer from
Spanish company Iberdrola, SNP Depute Leader Nicola Sturgeon MSP said:
"We remain convinced that this deal is not in Scotland's national interest
as there is nothing in it that will make Scotland more competitive. Instead,
there are real fears that Scottish employees, Scottish consumers and
Scottish taxpayers will be worse off as a result.
"In
the short term, Scottish employees and local suppliers of Scottish Power
will be extremely concerned about their future prospects. It is vital that
we have assurances about jobs staying in Scotland as well as the company
itself."
SNP Shadow Enterprise Minister Jim Mather MSP said:
"If this deal were to go ahead, the real winners, as in most mega-takeovers
will be the senior managers of both companies and those who make the mammoth
fees and commissions associated with the deal.
"Equally, we must be concerned about the impact this proposed deal will have
on the ability of the people of Scotland to share in the renewables bonanza.
Scottish Power has been a leader in investment in rewnewable energy and
carbon free technology and these commitments should be maintained.
"However, the key loss here is the potential for a locally headquartered
Scottish Power to be fully committed to the same objectives as the consumers
and businesses that it serves. That's why it's time for Scotland to control
its own economy."
Tuesday 28th
November 2006
SNP MP Pete
Wishart has lodged a Commons motion asking the government to match-fund the
total of the Farepak Relief Fund.
Speaking
today (Tuesday) Mr Wishart said: "The Farepak emergency relief fund is set
to close in the next couple of days and while there have been some generous
contributions it is a good way short of the £40 million lost by Farepak
families.
"It is now time for the government to play its part and put its hands in its
pockets and show the same degree of generosity and big heartedness.
"The government must now do their bit to help out those hundreds of
thousands of hard pressed people who have lost out so badly.
"The least the Government can do is to match the amount raised in this
appeal. This could also act as a good example to larger businesses and
financial institutions and encourage them to contribute too.”
SCOTLAND FOREVER
For sale
to the highest bidder, a lithograph of the above painting, the money to be
donated to the SNP’s Election Fund.
The
original is in the collection of the Leeds City Art Galleries; the artist is
Elizabeth (Lady Butler) Southernden Thompson. The picture is of the Royal
Scots Greys, swords in hand, charging at the Battle of Waterloo.
The
lithograph measures 28.5” x 14.5”; framed it measured 36” x 21”.
Contact:
comment@scotsindependent.org or
telephone 01259 730099
Aodach Moslamach
Chunnaic mi Alex
Salmond air an telebhisean a’ càineadh Jack Straw a chionn ‘s gun tuirt
Straw gun do dh’iarr e air boireannaich Mhoslamach an sgàilean a thoirt bho
an aodainnean. A rèir Alex bu chòir dhuinn a bhith a’ toirt urram do
dhualchas dhaoine eile is a’ faighinn tlachd às.
Ach
ciamar, nuair nach bi daoine eile a’ toirt urram don dualchas againn? Ann an
dùthchannan Moslamach cha bhi an aon saorsa aig boireannaich; cha bhi co-ionnannachd
aca ann an cùisean lagha; fo lagh Sharia gheibh iad bàs son adhaltranas agus
rudan moralta. Ann an Afghanistan chuireadh na boireannaich a-mach à obair.
Chan fhaigh tè foghlam, no cùram meidigeach ceart oir chan fhaod dotairean
fireann coimhead oirre. Ann an Saudi Arabia chan fhaod boireannaich
draibheadh, no fiù ‘s a dhol a-mach gu poblach far am bi fir nach bi an
dàimh riutha. Chan e sin ar dualchas agus rinn boireannaich strì san
dùthaich seo gus nach bitheadh iad beò ann an saoghal far an robh a leithid
ann. Ciamar a bheir sinn urram do bhoireannaich a tha ag iarraidh an
dòigh-beatha sin a thoirt an seo?
Mar a thuirt
Straw, tha an còmhdach a bhios cuid a’ cleachdadh a’ dèanamh balla eatorra
fhèin agus an sluagh. Chan e an aon rud idir a th’ ann am bonaidean beaga
nan Iùdach no croisean nan Caitiligeach. A’ fàgail don dàrna taobh a’ cheist
am bu chòir do a h-uile duine an creideamh a chumail dhaibh fhèin, chan eil
e ag ràdh san Koran gum feum boireannach a h-aodann a chòmhdachadh. Spàrr
fir an còmhdach air boireannaich airson smachd - a thoirt air falbh a h-uile
rud pearsanta gus an cumail às an t-saoghal. Ma bhios boireannaich a-nis a’
taghadh an t-aodach sin a chleachdadh chan e creideamh a th’ ann ach oidhirp
a bhith connspaideach, gu h-àraidh san àite-obrach. Feumaidh daoine eile a’
cumail ri riaghailtean slàinte is sàbhailteachd, agus ri modhan sgeadachaidh.
Tha e cunnartach
cuideachd oir dh’fhaodadh neach sam bith a bhith fon aodach sin. Chan
urrainn dhut fiù ‘s a bhith cinnteach gun e boireannach a th’ innte. Dè
chuireadh stad air eucoirich gan sgeadachadh fhèin mar sin?
Ma dhiùltas
boireannaich ar dualchas, dòigh-beatha agus aodach tha làn chead aca, mar a
bhios cuid ag ràdh. Ach tha sin a’ ciallachadh gu bheil làn chead againn an
dualchas, dòigh-beatha agus an t-aodach acasan a dhiùltadh.
Muslim Dress
I saw Alex
Salmond on the television criticising Jack Straw because Straw said that he
wanted Muslim women to remove their face veils. According to Alex we should
be giving respect to other peoples’ culture and getting pleasure from it.
But how, when
other people don’t give respect to our culture? In Muslim countries women
don’t have the same freedom; they don’t have equality in legal matters;
under Sharia law they get executed for adultery and moral matters. In
Afghanistan the women were put out of work. Females can’t get education, or
proper medical care because male doctors aren’t allowed to look at them. In
Saudi Arabia women can’t drive, or even go out publicly where there are men
who are not related to them. That is not our culture and women fought in
this country so that they wouldn’t have to live in a world with these types
of restrictions. How do we give respect to women who want to bring that way
of life here?
As Straw said,
the coverings that some wear make a wall between themselves and the rest of
the population. Jewish skull caps and Catholic crosses aren’t the same thing
at all. Leaving aside the question of whether everyone should keep their
religion to themselves, it doesn’t say in the Koran that a woman should
cover her face. Men imposed those coverings on women for control - to remove
all evidence of individuality in order to keep them out of the world. If
women are now choosing to wear that clothing it isn’t for religious reasons
but in an attempt to be controversial, especially in the workplace. Other
people have to keep to rules on Health and Safety, and modes of dress.
It’s also
dangerous because anyone could be under that clothing. You can’t even be
certain that it’s a woman. What’s to stop criminals dressing themselves like
that?
If women reject
our culture, way of life and clothing they have every right to do so, as
some have said. But that means that we have every right to reject their
culture, way of life and clothing.
SCOTLAND’S TWA LEIDS
Tho we may
miscaa the Scottish Executive fir aa kins o fauts, we maun awn that they dae
lat the voters ken o their plans afore they cairry them oot. Sic a plan,
nou aipen ti public observes, is the draft Naitional Plan fir Gaelic pit oot
bi Bord na Gaidhlig (ti see it, veesit
www.bord-na-gaidhlig.org.uk. )
As
naitionalists, we maun walcum ony ettle (offeecial or itherwise) ti bigg up
Scotland’s national identity, an Gaelic is an essential pairt o that
identity. But a Scots writer micht luik at the plan in anither licht. Lat us
uphaud the faur-raxan meisures that it propones ti gie a heize ti Gaelic:
lat us ask oorsels, at the same time, whit wey nane o them (or gey near nane)
are proponit fir Scots.
It wad tak
mair space nor A hae ti set them aa doun pynt bi pynt; a walin wul hae ti
dae. Mair Gaelic on signs an letterheads; mair Gaelic forms; mair Gaelic in
the oaffice or on the phone; mair Gaelic wabsteids; mair Gaelic yaisit i the
towrist industry; mair Gaelic publishin an braidcastin; eiks ti the
vocabular an graimmar o Gaelic ti fit it better fir the modern warld; an,
abune them aa, mair Gaelic eddication at aa levels. Bit the Plan is faur
mair nor a wuss-leet (first yiss o this new wird – Scottish Naitional
Dictionar please note!) Aa thir pynts, an mony ithers, are set oot sae as ti
fit intil a general policy ti bigg up the nummer o Gaelic speakers, an ti
gie them an inlat ti yaise their leid mair than they dae the nou, an in mair
aspecks o life. It wes ti thir twa ens that Bord na Gaidhlig wes set up. Nor
is it alane: we’ll can read i the Plan the names o nineteen bodies (moistly
peyed fir bi the Executive) fir the forderin o Gaelic. A dinnae grudge thir;
but lat us min that Scots (wi aboot twinty times as mony speakers as Gaelic)
haes ainly twa.
As this
airticle wes bean written, news cam ti haun that the Executive haed in min a
plan fir Scots an aa. It’s no lang sin they recogneesit, at lest, that
Scotland haed twa leids o its ain. Gin they are wullin ti uphaud ane o the
twa, in deeds an no juist wirds, they soud dae the same fir baith.
