|
Symposium on Language
and Politics - Belfast (23 - 25 August 2001)
Talk given by Irene McGugan
 Thank
you for the warm welcome, and for the invitation to visit Belfast for
the first time, to take part in this very important debate on our
languages and the importance of political and legislative measures for
their future.
I am a Scottish National Party Member of
the Scottish Parliament — advocate of independence for our country,
SNP Depute Minister for Children, Education, Culture and Sport and part
of the principal opposition to the Scottish Executive.
I am speaking to you today principally as
the Convenor of the Cross-Party Group in the Scottish Parliament, on the
Scots Language and as President of the Scots Language Society.
You may not be aware that in the Scottish
Parliament speaking contributions are restricted to 4 minutes — which
makes a speech of nearly half an hour something of a marathon.
No one would dispute that Governments do
have a role to play in preserving and nurturing the languages of the
peoples whom they govern. Not to do so is offensive to human rights and
to international treaties imposing obligations, sometimes very specific
obligations on their government signatories.
Governments spend their peoples’ money
on education systems and in promoting the framework in which these are
regulated.
Through all its channels,
direct and indirect, taxation funds arts and libraries and cultural
life.
Through law-making,
appointments, administration and pervasive influence, governments also
have a greater or lesser say in such matters as broadcasting and
publishing, and crucially for languages, in making them seem to their
citizens worthwhile or pointless to preserve.
There is a vast body of
international experience that can inform dealing in good faith with
minority and threatened language communities, through the adoption of
effective policies. There is equally a sad history of the destruction of
languages by discouragement and neglect.
Let me give you a little
bit of Scottish political history — before the Union of the Crowns in
1603, virtually everybody in Scotland, who did not speak Gaelic, spoke
Scots. Scots was the State Language. It was spoken at Court, it was the
language of the Scottish Parliament and the State Records were in Scots.
Oh happy days!
After Scotland lost her
parliament (temporarily) in 1707, Scots came to be represented in
education and in public life as a corrupt form of English. Generations
of Scots have had to come to terms with a situation where the way of
speech natural to them was officially regarded as unacceptable and
unsuitable for formal use.
In an age of despotism at
the end of the 18th century, even Robert Burns was advised by the
anglicised elite at the head of Scottish society not to write in Scots,
as it would be dead within a few generations. Thankfully for world
literature, Bums kennt better and continued to express in his mither
tongue, songs like the great radical hymn "Is There For Honest
Poverty" which so movingly opened our Parliament and established a
new democracy for Scotland in 1999.
Despite this
establishment death wish, Scots is still alive and thriving. You can
still find brilliant examples of the rich diversity of dialects within
Scots all of them essential to the true expression of their own
locality. Scots survives, but whereas in the past it could survive on
its own, like many fragile living things, it now needs support and help.
It is reckoned that up to
one and a half million Scots speak the language, yet few have access to
knowledge of it and most remain ignorant of its brilliant cultural
legacy.
But with the advent of
the Scottish Parliament new opportunities have arisen, and perhaps it
should not be unreasonable to expect a radical change in public
attitudes in Scotland to what was formerly the State Language.
Surely, you would think,
our new Scottish democracy must recognise the culture and speech of the
mass of the people if it is to approach the ideal of inclusivity
cherished by all those who have worked for the creation of the
Parliament?
Because for many, their
desire for a Scottish Parliament was always tied in closely with the
assumption that it would naturally offer direct support and
encouragement for the indigenous culture. As yet this has not happened.
This core strand of Scottish culture is marginalised and our new
democracy I would contend, will not be successful until Scots is brought
in from the margins to play the crucial role it merits in the cultural
life of the people and the nation.
I’ll give you one
example of this. A broad alliance of Scots language organisation
supported the case to have a question on Scots included in the 2001
census. This case was successively rejected by the Scottish Office and
then by the Scottish Executive apparently on the grounds that definition
of terms would be too difficult, and any research conclusions on Census
figures obtained might therefore be unsound. It was one of the most
depressing days of my life to take part in a debate where negative
attitudes towards the language remained and prevailed. No alternative
research approach has yet been proposed by the Executive, although it
would seem only logical that an effective policy for Scots should be
soundly based on valid research.
So how can we make
progress?
Well! One of the tangible
benefits of the re-establishment of a Parliament in Edinburgh is that is
has created an accessible political focus for interest groups on a whole
range of activities. The founding principles of the SP include in fact,
accessibility.
Among the mechanisms for
translating ideas into long-term political strategies is the cross-party
group, which works on the principle of involving outside bodies and
individuals with MSPs of all parties interested in their activities.
For the first time in
centuries, possibly ever, the status, condition and future of the Scots
language are being given serious consideration at parliamentary level.
Because after a
preliminary meeting in November 2000, the Cross-Pairtie Group i
the Scottish Pairliament on the Scots Leid was established in
January of this year, its purpose being "tae
forder the cause o the Scots Leid, lat memmers ken aboot the cultur and
heritage o the leid and shaw the need for action tae uphaud Scots".
We have made an excellent
start in gathering together a large and diverse range of individuals
from all areas of Scots language activism, and a small number of MSPs
from across the party spectrum. MSPs who can and do speak Scots in their
everyday lives. That is very significant!
Membership of this group
includes those at the very forefront of the SL campaign with phenomenal
expertise and talent. That being the case, it will come as no surprise
to anyone in this room that when I said that we had a
"diverse" range of individuals, that also applies to their
views.
However, we have been
busy. Four members of our group are reviewing the current status of
Scots within the context of international and European statements on the
language — such as the Barcelona Universal Declaration of Linguistic
Rights, in order to summarise the purposes and identify the articles
with most relevance to the unusual but not unique situation of Scots.
This Statement of
Principles will form the basis of our work in seeking to have Scots
recognised and respected. We are very conscious that in setting out our
aims, which we want to be ambitious for our language, we also need to be
realistic about what we can achieve. Success is likely to be measured in
small and incremental steps, but with no doubt about what our ultimate
goal should be.
A highly useful paper on
the state of educational policy and resources vis-à-vis Scots was
presented and we now have a standing sub-group on this important issue.
A member of the group has been asked to compile a Regional Dossier for
Scots for the European Union. This is good, because it is cannot fail to
highlight the vulnerability of the language, (as few official statistics
exist) and will certainly underline the current lack of political and
educational support for the language.
We are considering how to
build on the growing interest in Scots from school students and
teachers, against a background of disinterest in producing material in
Scots from mainstream publishers.
In terms of Cultural
Tourism, having identified serious omissions on the web-site of
Visitscotland, the group initiated a dialogue with the organisation, and
offered to collate information which would promote cultural tourism.
A related campaign issue
is the use of English terms for traditional Scots features, which
threatens to dilute our distinctive culture, e.g. the Forth Estuary.
As Convenor, I have to
remember that we are not a literary group, though writers, poets,
singers and broadcasters are very well represented in our membership.
Nor are we an academic group, though again we have representatives from
I think, every institution in Scotland with an interest or involvement
in the Scots language. We are a POLITICAL GROUP. I am very particular
about stressing the need to be positive and forward looking and about
avoiding getting hung up on the many details of policy and opinion that
might divide the Group.
The sort of thing I mean
is reflected to some extent in every discussion about Scots: Do we in
fact need to go right back to basics and make the case for Scots as a
language in its own right?
Should there be a Scots
word for everything or can we allow the common root with English to be
reflected in our spoken Scots?
Should there be a
standard form of spelling?
How do we get more
written Scots into the public domain?
And especially, how do we
make a case, when figureheads for the language such as myself to some
extent, put forward the case in English?
The discussions within
the CPG are lively and on target for being really productive. But I am
also aware that we will only really be making progress when these
discussions are taking place OUTSIDE the Parliament and in the streets
and houses and schools and pubs of every village and town in Scotland.
There is much criticism
by activists of the Scottish Parliament and its perceived lack of
recognition of Scots. Only three Motions have ever been lodged in Scots
— all by me — and an English translation also had to be submitted.
Signage throughout the buildings is in English and Gaelic only. We have
had whole debates in Gaelic with translators available, but not for
Scots. A Gaelic Dictionary of Parliamentary terms has just been
introduced. Nae word of sic a thing for Scots. We have a Parliamentary
Gaelic Officer, but not one for Scots.
Recognition by the
parliament is crucial for the languages’ survival and for the status
it will give to those who speak it.
I quote "The
Scottish Executive considers the Scots language to be an important part
of Scotland’s distinctive linguistic and cultural heritage".
Despite this, the Scottish Executive it has to be said has singularly
failed to come up with any commitment to the language —never mind
anything like the high level of state endorsement and funding which
Gaelic has enjoyed.
I take nothing away from
the efforts of the Gaels, the very survival of whose language is
threatened — the success of the Gaelic lobby in promoting its cause
results in part from the fact that it has been able in recent years to
present a united front, has a clear view of what it is seeking and has
possessed the resolution and resource to pursue its goals. Also there
can be no doubt that the popular image of the Scots language suffers in
comparison with that of Gaelic.
In many people’s eyes
Gaelic is indissolubly linked to the romantically attractive and
enduring perception of a magical Highland landscape enveloped in mists
and myths. In stark and unappealing contrast, the Scots language is
frequently portrayed as firmly enmired in the cauld and elaine kailyard.
So we need to be making
sure that Scots has proper respect too. But even the National Cultural
Strategy has failed us.
The paragraph devoted to
the Scots Language in the document is somewhat mealy-mouthed. First it
declares that Scots has been disparaged as a language for many years.
The fact that successive governments have been largely responsible for
that disparagement is glossed over.
It is also worth noting that the National
Cultural Strategy is not only printed in English and Gaelic, but is also
available I understand in Urdu, Cantonese, Punjabi, Hindi and Gujerati.
While I have no difficulty whatsoever with that, Scots speakers although
outnumbering these five groups put together, have to make do with the
English version.
What reasons could there be for this lack
of governmental support? Maybe consideration of the Scots language is
inextricably bound up with considerations of national identity, which
might fuel aspirations for separate nationhood and the consequent
fragmentation of the UK.
Maybe if the Scots language was to be
accorded greater recognition by the Scottish Parliament, there might be
increased political pressure for Scotland to become a signatory in its
own right to the international treaties which are relevant — but
foreign affairs is a matter reserved to Westminster.
And perhaps the most compelling reason of
all for the Government to resist pressures to recognise Scots as an
official language is financial. If implemented, the Articles of the
European Charter would incur a very heavy economic cost in the areas
particularly of education, culture and economic and social life.
These might sound insurmountable, but we
should also remember the other initiatives currently helping to keep
Scots to the forefront politically — the work that is being done for
the European Year of Languages; the ratification of the European Charter
for Regional and Minority Languages that took effect on 1st July this
year. Under Part 11 the focus is basically one of anti-discrimination
— there is no requirement which commits the UK Government to
protecting and preserving Scots. However, the Government is obliged to
report from time to time on progress.
These are all significant achievements,
which prove we are at least going in the right direction, at last.
Another significant development recently
is that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee of the Scottish
Parliament decided to undertake and inquiry and report on the role of
cultural and educational policy and provision in supporting and
developing Scots, Gaelic and minority languages.
I have been appointed by the committee to
undertake this enquiry! Evidence has already been received from a range
of organisations and individuals with and interest in and knowledge of
cultural and educational policy with relevance to the remit.
There will be many in the audience today
who have something to contribute, and with that in mind I have some
handouts giving information about how that can be submitted. We would be
most appreciative of input from Ireland, Germany, Norway and
Switzerland.
We know to some extent what needs to
happen to improve the status of the Scots language:
The twin elements of education and the
media are crucially important for the future of Scots. In general the
media in Scotland behave as if the Scots language does not exist,
although a majority of the population understand and employ some Scots
every day. In radio there has been some limited devolution to local
radio and to BBC Radio Scotland. However, television in Scotland is
almost entirely London-centred, so that even the small number of
dramatic productions originating here are expected to conform to a
pattern set elsewhere. Broadcasting unfortunately remains a matter
reserved to Westminster, and until the Scottish Parliament has some
control in this area, Scots will never be given its proper place in
radio and TV.
With regard to education,
for many teachers, the Scots Language component of English Language 5-14
curriculum did not cause them to change their provision of Scots
Language. A Scot poem to be learned by heart around the start of term 3
with very little explanation of what the words mean and where they come
from, is still in 2001 the only Scots Language provision offered by many
primary schools.
A teacher recently told
me that he visited primary schools whose names were comprised of some
basic Scots words. At Burnbrae, the P7 children knew neither the word
"burn" nor "brae" and at Bonnyholm Primary, the P6/7
composite class did not recognise the word "bonny". Even worse
it has now been established that in lots of schools, many pupils are
unable to pronounce the "ch" sound, using "k" —
lock for loch e.g.
But there is an appetite
for Scots in schools from pupils, teachers and advisers; it is now time
for the Government to participate more full in the development of this
essential aspect of Scottish life.
There is a general feeling that at last
the opportunity exists to effect significant changes in attitude and
allocation of resources to Scots, through the political process.
Wishful thinking may not yet be consigned
to the midden of history, but requests for political action,
particularly towards improving the treatment of Scots, can now be made
with greater confidence that they will not fall entirely on deif lugs.
We need amongst other things:
- recognition by the UK Government of
Scots, in parity with Gaelic under Part 111 of the European Charter
for Regional and Minority Languages;
- for the Scots Language to have
official status and be recognised in public life, including the
Courts and the Law, as a valuable part of our national heritage;
- for the Scots Language to be included
as an essential and integral part of the school curriculum both at
primary and secondary level;
- and in view of the fact that Scots can
be understood to a varying degree by the great majority of the
Scottish people, it should be given its rightful place in the media
as a valuable aspect of linguistic heritage.
In this new Scotland, there is no doubt
that Scots is still subject to the same tired old prejudices, but now,
maybe, we have the where with all to embarrass the establishment into
greater commitment to Scotland’s neglected Lowland tongue.
Irene McGugan
2001-08-19
|
