Historic Day As Msp Takes Oath In Three Languages (from The Herald Election Site)

The man who will go down in SNP folklore for securing an historic election victory will today take his Holyrood oath in Gaelic and Doric as well as English.

David Thompson, who came second in the Ross, Skye and Inverness West seat, came to greater prominence on Friday when he spotted an error in the returning officer's calculations at the Highlands & Islands List declaration.

The final declaration of the election was going to give Labour four list seats, the Tories two, Greens one and the SNP none be- fore Mr Thompson's intervention.

But once the error was spotted the winners' list was revised giving Labour three, the Tories two and the SNP two with the final seat going to Mr Thompson himself.

He will now become the first MSP to use all three of Scotland's languages when taking the oath. Previously MSPs have taken the oath in Gaelic and English or Doric and English but never in all three. Members must take their oath first in English but are then permitted to use any language they choose.

Mr Thompson said: "I want to advance all the traditional languages of Scotland and want to reflect my background of being brought up in the north-east of Scotland by using Doric but also the importance of Gaelic in the Highlands where I have made my family home and learned to speak the language."

Bashir Ahmad, the Scottish Parliament's first Asian MSP, will take his oath in his native language of Urdu. The SNP politician, who came to Scotland from Pakistan at the age of 21, topped the regional list in Glasgow.

It is good that Mr Thompson can take the oath in three languages, but I do not think that the Gaelic language is that important to the Highlands today. The recent name change of the Isle of Skye council ward to the Gaelic name Eilean a Cheo by Highland Council was roundly condemned by the people of Skye, who perceived their political representatives as being well out of touch. The Gaelic and Doric languages are definitely worth preserving, but lets keep things in perspective!

John the name change was no such thing, it was just intended as the new name for the parliamentary constituency.

Storm in a tea cup.

Sorry John, just re-read your post.
Of course you're absolutely right, and it's well past my bed time.

Doric is not a language - get a grip. Is it a seperate 'language' from Scots-English then? What about Geordie? A bit of perspective here. Those campaigning for these dialects would get far more respect an support (and rightly so, in my opinion) if they accepted them as such.

'S e Gaidhlig canan na h-Alban.

And what was the language of those who tried to fiddle David Thompson out of his seat - Britspeak?

The language of the meadia in Scotland; Waht language is that? It's the Sun wot done it, helped by the rest.

It is laudable that a person should choose to learn a traditional language in his or her free time. Mr Thompson is clearly a gifted linguist, but I hope that in his wish to promote Gaelic more generally in the Highlands he will be mindful of the fact that most people have difficulty learning other languages and generally prefer to spend their free time on other things. It would be unfortunate to see Gaelic promoted just for political reasons in circumstances where it is not wanted.

An Taghan wrote:
Doric is not a language - get a grip. Is it a seperate \'language\' from Scots-English then? What about Geordie? A bit of perspective here. Those campaigning for these dialects would get far more respect an support (and rightly so, in my opinion) if they accepted them as such. \'S e Gaidhlig canan na h-Alban.

You are quite right....Doric IS a dialect..it is a widely used dialect of the Scots language...Scots is as different from English as Danish is from Swedish.

Scots is an indigenous language of Scotland, just as Gaelic is. People campaigning for official staus for Gaelic have nothing to gain by attacking other indigenous languages.

So lets put in a vote for ALL the indigenous languages of Scotland and all their rich and varied dialects..

Sandy Mathers

Quite correct Sandy Mathers - Doric is a dialect of Scots, and Scots is a distinct language. That should be official. Switzerland seems to have no difficulty with 4 official languages.

How about adding Govanese? After all, if Rab C Nesbitt can get national airtime speaking it then surely it should be on the official language list? It's a language of its own as well!!!

Forget 'complicated' ballot papers. The fact that the regional list calculation system is so flawed as to allow arithmetic errors is absolutely scandalous. It's absolutely unbelievable.

Let's not kid ourselves. Nobody speaks Scots 'the language' these days. I don't know what you'd call the dialect of English that's influenced by Scots, but that is what some people speak.

Angus McIonnach wrote:
Let\'s not kid ourselves. Nobody speaks Scots \'the language\' these days. I don\'t know what you\'d call the dialect of English that\'s influenced by Scots, but that is what some people speak.

Well, I'll resist the temptation to write to you in Scots, but be very sure that the Scota language is indeed alive, well, and in everyday use all across Scotland. I grant you that it's there in chunks rather than as it was originally constructed and spoken by ALL the people of Scotland............but words and phrases like "scunnert", "dreich", "sonsie", and "cheuch" are used in every workplace and school playground across the nation, amongst hundreds..maybe thousands of others...and it is in no danger whatever of dieing out as you suggest. We do need however, like all worthwhile things, have a responsibility to nurture and care for those things that demonstrate that our culture is peculiar to us, thatb we're proud of it, and that we are NOT now, if indeed we ever were "North Britons" ....a long hated term used for Scots.

Should not the oath to the Scottish Parliament be taken in the official languages of Scotland. Gaelic, Scots, English. I don't really see the relavence of Doric (but could be persuaded) but I certainly see the use of Urdu as a startiling development.
Urdu is a foreign language. The oath to the Scottish Parliament should not be taken in a foreign language.
The number of people who see a foreign language as their first choice for their daily lives is quite frankly a very worring lagacy for the future - as for taking a formal oath in a Scottish parliament in a foreign language I think it is illegal (perhaps someone can confirm).

The SNP's Bashir Ahmad has already placed his cultural cards on the table with his disgraceful behaviour at the Catholic School in his constituency.

Scotland has very strong culture and identity and if someone decides to make their life here they should realise that their foreign culture is always going to take a background role.

Would a Scottish/Itllian be "admired" for taking the oath in Itallian? Of course not.

Well, I'll resist the temptation to write to you in Scots

No doubt some academics could write to me in Aramaic or ancient Greek. It's completely irrelevant to the 'aliveness' of the language.

words and phrases like "scunnert", "dreich", "sonsie", and "cheuch" are used in every workplace and school playground across the nation, amongst hundreds..maybe thousands of others...and it is in no danger whatever of dieing out as you suggest.

You make my point for me. Scots has already died out. The school kids you talk of speak English with the addition of a few wonderfully expressive words from the now-defunct language of Scots. They dont speak a language called Scots, and no amount of wishful thinking will make it the case.

The SNP's Bashir Ahmad has already placed his cultural cards on the table with his disgraceful behaviour at the Catholic School in his constituency.

I'm worried that Ahmad's main ambition is to have state-funded Islamic schools in Scotland. Given the potential seperatist, supremacist nature of Islam, it is sheer folly to be entrenching that seperatism in Scotland's schools.

Sectarian education is discredited already, let's not extend it even further. My worry is that lobby groups of determined religionists will always be more powerful than the general sentiment of enlightened individuals, especially when political correctness is factored into the equation.

Why can't people wake up to the fact it is now 2007, we speak English in Scotland - like it or not - and this nonsense of having the oath spoken in multiple languages is just another example of political correctness gone mad in that embarrasing spectacle otherwise known as the Scottish Parliament. I am Scottish and while i don't object to independence (though i'm not convinced we have the right leadership) i do really object to the ability and competence -supposedly a core requirement for MSPs - that has been sadly lacking in Holyrood in the last four years - are these characters the best we can come up with?
i wonder if those of you shouting for underused and overfunded traditional languages are the same people that couldn't understand how to complete the ballot papers - reading some of the comments i just think no wonder this country loses its best talent to England and abroad. This country doesn't need to close its borders and go back in time - that's the last thing it needs. We need to evolve - like every other thing on this earth - if we (Scotland) are to survive.
Where's ma passport??

Angus McIonnach

I think you make a good point about the dangers of separatism becoming entrenched in our schools. You use the example of Islam to justify your argument, but I would argue that there should not be any separatism in state education (private education is another big issue!) unless a compelling and authoritative case is made for it. Unfortunately we already have a movement towards separatism in Gaelic education: Sleat Primary School in the Highlands was made a dedicated Gaelic school against the wishes of most parents. If dedicated Gaelic schools are seen as a good way forward by our elected leaders, on what legitimate grounds could they possibly object in principle to a dedicated Islamic school?

[quote][bold]John(1)[/bold] wrote: Angus McIonnach I think you make a good point about the dangers of separatism becoming entrenched in our schools. You use the example of Islam to justify your argument, but I would argue that there should not be any separatism in state education (private education is another big issue!) unless a compelling and authoritative case is made for it. Unfortunately we already have a movement towards separatism in Gaelic education: Sleat Primary School in the Highlands was made a dedicated Gaelic school against the wishes of most parents. If dedicated Gaelic schools are seen as a good way forward by our elected leaders, on what legitimate grounds could they possibly object in principle to a dedicated Islamic school? [/quote] One is a school where an indigenous language of Scotland is used as the medium for a modern education - children of all colours and creeds are welcome. The other is a seperatist (and indeed supremacist) school where religious fairly tales are used to build even more division into Scottish society. The gradual entrenchment os a tiny Pakistani Muslim group into a gheto of their own making. And yes I am against Catholic, Jewish and Jedi schools as well. Religion has no place in a modern western education system.

John(1) wrote:
Angus McIonnach

I think you make a good point about the dangers of separatism becoming entrenched in our schools. You use the example of Islam to justify your argument, but I would argue that there should not be any separatism in state education (private education is another big issue!) unless a compelling and authoritative case is made for it. Unfortunately we already have a movement towards separatism in Gaelic education: Sleat Primary School in the Highlands was made a dedicated Gaelic school against the wishes of most parents. If dedicated Gaelic schools are seen as a good way forward by our elected leaders, on what legitimate grounds could they possibly object in principle to a dedicated Islamic school?

One is a school where an indigenous language of Scotland is used as the medium for a modern education - children of all colours and creeds are welcome.

The other is a seperatist (and indeed supremacist) school where religious fairly tales are used to build even more division into Scottish society. The gradual entrenchment os a tiny Pakistani Muslim group into a gheto of their own making.

And yes I am against Catholic, Jewish and Jedi schools as well.
Religion has no place in a modern western education system.

John (1) - "If dedicated Gaelic schools are seen as a good way forward by our elected leaders, on what legitimate grounds could they possibly object in principle to a dedicated Islamic school?"

I am a Glaswegian SNP voter who helped to place Bashir Ahmad in his elected position. I have to say that if I had known of his past disruption of Catholic religious ceremonies I would have not voted for him (and indeed will not vote for him again).

John (1) - there is comparason between a Gaelic medium school and a Muslim school. It is laughable that you even make the comparason.

Whether a linguistic variety is considered a dialect of another language, or a language in its own right is not a question which is decided on purely linguistic criteria. However they do have a part to play and purely on linguistic criteria a very strong case can be made for regarding Scots as a language distinct from English. For example the way the vowel system of Scots is organised is fundamentally different from anything found in any variety of English. All dialects of English shade into one another gradually, but there is a sharp linguistic boundary between Scots and the dialects of northern England. In terms of vocabulary Scots typically shows a far higher percentage of words and forms distinct from those of Standard English than any English dialect. There are also grammatical and syntactic differences which mark Scots off quite clearly from English. Cultural factors strengthen the linguistic case. Scots has a body of literature which is far greater in both quantity and quality than anything found in English dialect literature. Uniquely for an "English dialect" Scots also has its own distinctive orthographical tradition, which is why we still spell the word heid with an ei. If Scotland had remained an independent country and Scots had undergone the same processes of standardisation which characterised other European languages in the Age of Enlightenment there would be no dispute at all about its status as a different language. I live in Spain and speak Spanish and Catalan as well as English and my native Scots and a smattering of Gaelic. The differences between Catalan and Spanish are of the same order as the differences between English and Scots. The only difference is that Catalan has been standardised and "normalised", whereas Scots sank to the level of a patois during the 18th century and ever since has been under constant and intense pressure from English - a language to which it is closely related. When two closely related languages come into contact in this way, typically what happens is that the language of lower prestige becomes considered a corrupt form of the high prestige language and becomes increasingly penetrated by features originating in the higher-status language. One linguistic term for such languages is "langues manqu�es". One feature which is noticeable in langues manqu�es is that they are often referred to by local names - speakers lose the notion of the the linguistic unity of the dialects which make up the language - so people refer to Doric or Glaswegian instead of Scots. Scots consists of a group of dialects, as all languages do, but all Scots dialects have far more in common with each other than any of them do with English. Doric is a particularly well-defined set of Scots dialects which show distinctive treatment of initial wh- and the old Scots vowel written ui. The North-Eastern or Doric dialect of Scots happens to have survived the pressures from Standard English rather better than other dialects of Scots and this has increased its perceived individuality and distinctiveness. Gaelic is universally recognised as being a distinct language. However on purely linguistic criteria it is about as distinct from Irish as conservative Scots dialects are from Standard English. In the case of Gaelic and Irish, the intermediate dialects of East Ulster and Galloway and Ayrshire have died out which sharpens the sense that we're dealing with two different languages. Even so, speakers of south western Scots Gaelic dialects and speakers of Donegal Irish can understand one another with a wee bit of effort. A sociolinguistic factor in Scotland was illustrated by JH from Glasgow. Unlike Spain where the language issue is hot political stuff, no one in Scotland really cares that much about Scots or Gaelic. We tend to look on them as nice auld aunties whom we love deeply but are a bit embarrassed when they come to visit. (And god forbid they'd ever want to stay.) Partly this is due to the unique situation of having not one but two national languages, but also because a distinctively Scottish form of Standard English has now arisen and the sense of a Scottish identity is not tied to any one particular language. (And it can certainly be argued that that is a very good thing.) In this respect Scotland is markedly different from the Basque Country, Catalunya or Wales. Scotland has a unique linguistic heritage, and we'd be a poorer nation for losing it. We are the only nation in Europe with not one but two national languages. And we are the only nation in Europe where the national languages lack full equal status with the dominant language. I am not in favour of compulsory Gaelic and Scots classes in schools, you cannot force people to learn a language they don't want to learn. However what you can do is to give people a reason to want to learn Scots and/or Gaelic, and that means more investment in creating Scots and Gaelic media (Why no national tv channel in either Scots or Gaelic?), making the languages equally official alongside English, and insisting that a certain proportion of government employees are at least bilingual which is the only way to ensure that those who choose to do so can deal with officialdom in their language of choice. That will give people a reason to want to learn and use Scots and Gaelic. Teaching should certainly be available through the medium of Gaelic and Scots. To ensure the survival of a language it's not enough merely to teach it as a subject. This does not necessarily mean there should be parallel education systems in each of the official languages, language units can be integrated into existing schools where there is parental demand. A serious political commitment to the future of Scottish languages means creating that parental demand.

Whether a linguistic variety is considered a dialect of another language, or a language in its own right is not a question which is decided on purely linguistic criteria. However they do have a part to play and purely on linguistic criteria a very strong case can be made for regarding Scots as a language distinct from English. For example the way the vowel system of Scots is organised is fundamentally different from anything found in any variety of English. All dialects of English shade into one another gradually, but there is a sharp linguistic boundary between Scots and the dialects of northern England. In terms of vocabulary Scots typically shows a far higher percentage of words and forms distinct from those of Standard English than any English dialect. There are also grammatical and syntactic differences which mark Scots off quite clearly from English.

Cultural factors strengthen the linguistic case. Scots has a body of literature which is far greater in both quantity and quality than anything found in English dialect literature. Uniquely for an "English dialect" Scots also has its own distinctive orthographical tradition, which is why we still spell the word heid with an ei. If Scotland had remained an independent country and Scots had undergone the same processes of standardisation which characterised other European languages in the Age of Enlightenment there would be no dispute at all about its status as a different language.

I live in Spain and speak Spanish and Catalan as well as English and my native Scots and a smattering of Gaelic. The differences between Catalan and Spanish are of the same order as the differences between English and Scots. The only difference is that Catalan has been standardised and "normalised", whereas Scots sank to the level of a patois during the 18th century and ever since has been under constant and intense pressure from English - a language to which it is closely related. When two closely related languages come into contact in this way, typically what happens is that the language of lower prestige becomes considered a corrupt form of the high prestige language and becomes increasingly penetrated by features originating in the higher-status language. One linguistic term for such languages is "langues manqu�es".

One feature which is noticeable in langues manqu�es is that they are often referred to by local names - speakers lose the notion of the the linguistic unity of the dialects which make up the language - so people refer to Doric or Glaswegian instead of Scots. Scots consists of a group of dialects, as all languages do, but all Scots dialects have far more in common with each other than any of them do with English. Doric is a particularly well-defined set of Scots dialects which show distinctive treatment of initial wh- and the old Scots vowel written ui. The North-Eastern or Doric dialect of Scots happens to have survived the pressures from Standard English rather better than other dialects of Scots and this has increased its perceived individuality and distinctiveness.

Gaelic is universally recognised as being a distinct language. However on purely linguistic criteria it is about as distinct from Irish as conservative Scots dialects are from Standard English. In the case of Gaelic and Irish, the intermediate dialects of East Ulster and Galloway and Ayrshire have died out which sharpens the sense that we're dealing with two different languages. Even so, speakers of south western Scots Gaelic dialects and speakers of Donegal Irish can understand one another with a wee bit of effort.

A sociolinguistic factor in Scotland was illustrated by JH from Glasgow. Unlike Spain where the language issue is hot political stuff, no one in Scotland really cares that much about Scots or Gaelic. We tend to look on them as nice auld aunties whom we love deeply but are a bit embarrassed when they come to visit. (And god forbid they'd ever want to stay.) Partly this is due to the unique situation of having not one but two national languages, but also because a distinctively Scottish form of Standard English has now arisen and the sense of a Scottish identity is not tied to any one particular language. (And it can certainly be argued that that is a very good thing.) In this respect Scotland is markedly different from the Basque Country, Catalunya or Wales.

Scotland has a unique linguistic heritage, and we'd be a poorer nation for losing it. We are the only nation in Europe with not one but two national languages. And we are the only nation in Europe where the national languages lack full equal status with the dominant language. I am not in favour of compulsory Gaelic and Scots classes in schools, you cannot force people to learn a language they don't want to learn. However what you can do is to give people a reason to want to learn Scots and/or Gaelic, and that means more investment in creating Scots and Gaelic media (Why no national tv channel in either Scots or Gaelic?), making the languages equally official alongside English, and insisting that a certain proportion of government employees are at least bilingual which is the only way to ensure that those who choose to do so can deal with officialdom in their language of choice. That will give people a reason to want to learn and use Scots and Gaelic. Teaching should certainly be available through the medium of Gaelic and Scots. To ensure the survival of a language it's not enough merely to teach it as a subject. This does not necessarily mean there should be parallel education systems in each of the official languages, language units can be integrated into existing schools where there is parental demand. A serious political commitment to the future of Scottish languages means creating that parental demand.

[quote][bold]Thomas Cochrane[/bold] wrote: Should not the oath to the Scottish Parliament be taken in the official languages of Scotland. Gaelic, Scots, English. I don\'t really see the relavence of Doric (but could be persuaded) but I certainly see the use of Urdu as a startiling development. Urdu is a foreign language. The oath to the Scottish Parliament should not be taken in a foreign language. The number of people who see a foreign language as their first choice for their daily lives is quite frankly a very worring lagacy for the future - as for taking a formal oath in a Scottish parliament in a foreign language I think it is illegal (perhaps someone can confirm). The SNP\'s Bashir Ahmad has already placed his cultural cards on the table with his disgraceful behaviour at the Catholic School in his constituency. Scotland has very strong culture and identity and if someone decides to make their life here they should realise that their foreign culture is always going to take a background role. Would a Scottish/Itllian be \"admired\" for taking the oath in Itallian? Of course not. [/quote] I very much agree, he's not sitting in parliament in Pakistan. This is yet another time we see the out of control politically correct nonsense that is slowly taking over every aspect of our lives. For example, I am sure that someone DID in-fact think that it was strange but they didn't say anything for fear of being branded a racist. I think it is completely bizarre, does the language have any ties to Scotland? Well (i hear one of you human rights / PC activists shout) you could argue that the Arab nations gave us the numbers we use commonly today and farming techniques like rotating crops... it's a stretch but that's how you get words like "Brainstorming" changed to "Thought shower"... ridiculous.

Thomas Cochrane wrote:
Should not the oath to the Scottish Parliament be taken in the official languages of Scotland. Gaelic, Scots, English. I don\'t really see the relavence of Doric (but could be persuaded) but I certainly see the use of Urdu as a startiling development.
Urdu is a foreign language. The oath to the Scottish Parliament should not be taken in a foreign language.
The number of people who see a foreign language as their first choice for their daily lives is quite frankly a very worring lagacy for the future - as for taking a formal oath in a Scottish parliament in a foreign language I think it is illegal (perhaps someone can confirm).

The SNP\'s Bashir Ahmad has already placed his cultural cards on the table with his disgraceful behaviour at the Catholic School in his constituency.

Scotland has very strong culture and identity and if someone decides to make their life here they should realise that their foreign culture is always going to take a background role.

Would a Scottish/Itllian be \"admired\" for taking the oath in Itallian? Of course not.

I very much agree, he's not sitting in parliament in Pakistan. This is yet another time we see the out of control politically correct nonsense that is slowly taking over every aspect of our lives. For example, I am sure that someone DID in-fact think that it was strange but they didn't say anything for fear of being branded a racist. I think it is completely bizarre, does the language have any ties to Scotland? Well (i hear one of you human rights / PC activists shout) you could argue that the Arab nations gave us the numbers we use commonly today and farming techniques like rotating crops... it's a stretch but that's how you get words like "Brainstorming" changed to "Thought shower"... ridiculous.

[quote][bold]JH[/bold] wrote: Why can't people wake up to the fact it is now 2007, we speak English in Scotland - like it or not - and this nonsense of having the oath spoken in multiple languages is just another example of political correctness gone mad in that embarrasing spectacle otherwise known as the Scottish Parliament. I am Scottish and while i don't object to independence (though i'm not convinced we have the right leadership) i do really object to the ability and competence -supposedly a core requirement for MSPs - that has been sadly lacking in Holyrood in the last four years - are these characters the best we can come up with? i wonder if those of you shouting for underused and overfunded traditional languages are the same people that couldn't understand how to complete the ballot papers - reading some of the comments i just think no wonder this country loses its best talent to England and abroad. This country doesn't need to close its borders and go back in time - that's the last thing it needs. We need to evolve - like every other thing on this earth - if we (Scotland) are to survive. Where's ma passport??[/quote] Well Done ....you've just revealed to thousands of people reading this that your an intolerant, ignorant A******e !! Away an' work ya mug ye !!

JH wrote:
Why can't people wake up to the fact it is now 2007, we speak English in Scotland - like it or not - and this nonsense of having the oath spoken in multiple languages is just another example of political correctness gone mad in that embarrasing spectacle otherwise known as the Scottish Parliament. I am Scottish and while i don't object to independence (though i'm not convinced we have the right leadership) i do really object to the ability and competence -supposedly a core requirement for MSPs - that has been sadly lacking in Holyrood in the last four years - are these characters the best we can come up with? i wonder if those of you shouting for underused and overfunded traditional languages are the same people that couldn't understand how to complete the ballot papers - reading some of the comments i just think no wonder this country loses its best talent to England and abroad. This country doesn't need to close its borders and go back in time - that's the last thing it needs. We need to evolve - like every other thing on this earth - if we (Scotland) are to survive. Where's ma passport??

Well Done ....you've just revealed to thousands of people reading this that your an intolerant, ignorant A******e !!
Away an' work ya mug ye !!

[quote][bold]G[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Thomas Cochrane[/bold] wrote: Should not the oath to the Scottish Parliament be taken in the official languages of Scotland. Gaelic, Scots, English. I don\'t really see the relavence of Doric (but could be persuaded) but I certainly see the use of Urdu as a startiling development. Urdu is a foreign language. The oath to the Scottish Parliament should not be taken in a foreign language. The number of people who see a foreign language as their first choice for their daily lives is quite frankly a very worring lagacy for the future - as for taking a formal oath in a Scottish parliament in a foreign language I think it is illegal (perhaps someone can confirm). The SNP\'s Bashir Ahmad has already placed his cultural cards on the table with his disgraceful behaviour at the Catholic School in his constituency. Scotland has very strong culture and identity and if someone decides to make their life here they should realise that their foreign culture is always going to take a background role. Would a Scottish/Itllian be \"admired\" for taking the oath in Itallian? Of course not. [/quote] I very much agree, he's not sitting in parliament in Pakistan. This is yet another time we see the out of control politically correct nonsense that is slowly taking over every aspect of our lives. For example, I am sure that someone DID in-fact think that it was strange but they didn't say anything for fear of being branded a racist. I think it is completely bizarre, does the language have any ties to Scotland? Well (i hear one of you human rights / PC activists shout) you could argue that the Arab nations gave us the numbers we use commonly today and farming techniques like rotating crops... it's a stretch but that's how you get words like "Brainstorming" changed to "Thought shower"... ridiculous.[/quote] I agree 100% - where on earth is our country going? I am fully in favour of immigration and fully in favour of Scottish society and culture being influenced from the rest of the world - but what I am seeing is an enclave of an intact foreign culture in the centre of our cities... this is really an impossible situation. People should either decide to become part of Scottish traditions and culture or go elswhere!!

G wrote:

Thomas Cochrane wrote:
Should not the oath to the Scottish Parliament be taken in the official languages of Scotland. Gaelic, Scots, English. I don\'t really see the relavence of Doric (but could be persuaded) but I certainly see the use of Urdu as a startiling development.
Urdu is a foreign language. The oath to the Scottish Parliament should not be taken in a foreign language.
The number of people who see a foreign language as their first choice for their daily lives is quite frankly a very worring lagacy for the future - as for taking a formal oath in a Scottish parliament in a foreign language I think it is illegal (perhaps someone can confirm).

The SNP\'s Bashir Ahmad has already placed his cultural cards on the table with his disgraceful behaviour at the Catholic School in his constituency.

Scotland has very strong culture and identity and if someone decides to make their life here they should realise that their foreign culture is always going to take a background role.

Would a Scottish/Itllian be \"admired\" for taking the oath in Itallian? Of course not.

I very much agree, he's not sitting in parliament in Pakistan. This is yet another time we see the out of control politically correct nonsense that is slowly taking over every aspect of our lives. For example, I am sure that someone DID in-fact think that it was strange but they didn't say anything for fear of being branded a racist. I think it is completely bizarre, does the language have any ties to Scotland? Well (i hear one of you human rights / PC activists shout) you could argue that the Arab nations gave us the numbers we use commonly today and farming techniques like rotating crops... it's a stretch but that's how you get words like "Brainstorming" changed to "Thought shower"... ridiculous.

I agree 100% - where on earth is our country going?
I am fully in favour of immigration and fully in favour of Scottish society and culture being influenced from the rest of the world - but what I am seeing is an enclave of an intact foreign culture in the centre of our cities... this is really an impossible situation. People should either decide to become part of Scottish traditions and culture or go elswhere!!

[quote][bold]logorrhoea[/bold] wrote: Whether a linguistic variety is considered a dialect of another language, or a language in its own right is not a question which is decided on purely linguistic criteria. However they do have a part to play and purely on linguistic criteria a very strong case can be made for regarding Scots as a language distinct from English. For example the way the vowel system of Scots is organised is fundamentally different from anything found in any variety of English. All dialects of English shade into one another gradually, but there is a sharp linguistic boundary between Scots and the dialects of northern England. In terms of vocabulary Scots typically shows a far higher percentage of words and forms distinct from those of Standard English than any English dialect. There are also grammatical and syntactic differences which mark Scots off quite clearly from English. Cultural factors strengthen the linguistic case. Scots has a body of literature which is far greater in both quantity and quality than anything found in English dialect literature. Uniquely for an "English dialect" Scots also has its own distinctive orthographical tradition, which is why we still spell the word heid with an ei. If Scotland had remained an independent country and Scots had undergone the same processes of standardisation which characterised other European languages in the Age of Enlightenment there would be no dispute at all about its status as a different language. I live in Spain and speak Spanish and Catalan as well as English and my native Scots and a smattering of Gaelic. The differences between Catalan and Spanish are of the same order as the differences between English and Scots. The only difference is that Catalan has been standardised and "normalised", whereas Scots sank to the level of a patois during the 18th century and ever since has been under constant and intense pressure from English - a language to which it is closely related. When two closely related languages come into contact in this way, typically what happens is that the language of lower prestige becomes considered a corrupt form of the high prestige language and becomes increasingly penetrated by features originating in the higher-status language. One linguistic term for such languages is "langues manqu�es". One feature which is noticeable in langues manqu�es is that they are often referred to by local names - speakers lose the notion of the the linguistic unity of the dialects which make up the language - so people refer to Doric or Glaswegian instead of Scots. Scots consists of a group of dialects, as all languages do, but all Scots dialects have far more in common with each other than any of them do with English. Doric is a particularly well-defined set of Scots dialects which show distinctive treatment of initial wh- and the old Scots vowel written ui. The North-Eastern or Doric dialect of Scots happens to have survived the pressures from Standard English rather better than other dialects of Scots and this has increased its perceived individuality and distinctiveness. Gaelic is universally recognised as being a distinct language. However on purely linguistic criteria it is about as distinct from Irish as conservative Scots dialects are from Standard English. In the case of Gaelic and Irish, the intermediate dialects of East Ulster and Galloway and Ayrshire have died out which sharpens the sense that we're dealing with two different languages. Even so, speakers of south western Scots Gaelic dialects and speakers of Donegal Irish can understand one another with a wee bit of effort. A sociolinguistic factor in Scotland was illustrated by JH from Glasgow. Unlike Spain where the language issue is hot political stuff, no one in Scotland really cares that much about Scots or Gaelic. We tend to look on them as nice auld aunties whom we love deeply but are a bit embarrassed when they come to visit. (And god forbid they'd ever want to stay.) Partly this is due to the unique situation of having not one but two national languages, but also because a distinctively Scottish form of Standard English has now arisen and the sense of a Scottish identity is not tied to any one particular language. (And it can certainly be argued that that is a very good thing.) In this respect Scotland is markedly different from the Basque Country, Catalunya or Wales. Scotland has a unique linguistic heritage, and we'd be a poorer nation for losing it. We are the only nation in Europe with not one but two national languages. And we are the only nation in Europe where the national languages lack full equal status with the dominant language. I am not in favour of compulsory Gaelic and Scots classes in schools, you cannot force people to learn a language they don't want to learn. However what you can do is to give people a reason to want to learn Scots and/or Gaelic, and that means more investment in creating Scots and Gaelic media (Why no national tv channel in either Scots or Gaelic?), making the languages equally official alongside English, and insisting that a certain proportion of government employees are at least bilingual which is the only way to ensure that those who choose to do so can deal with officialdom in their language of choice. That will give people a reason to want to learn and use Scots and Gaelic. Teaching should certainly be available through the medium of Gaelic and Scots. To ensure the survival of a language it's not enough merely to teach it as a subject. This does not necessarily mean there should be parallel education systems in each of the official languages, language units can be integrated into existing schools where there is parental demand. A serious political commitment to the future of Scottish languages means creating that parental demand.[/quote] <<<We are the only nation in Europe with not one but two national languages>>> Wales of course has 'Gogledd' (North Waleian Welsh) but not a different language as such.

logorrhoea wrote:
Whether a linguistic variety is considered a dialect of another
language, or a language in its own right is not a question which is
decided on purely linguistic criteria. However they do have a part to
play and purely on linguistic criteria a very strong case can be made
for regarding Scots as a language distinct from English. For example
the way the vowel system of Scots is organised is fundamentally
different from anything found in any variety of English. All dialects
of English shade into one another gradually, but there is a sharp
linguistic boundary between Scots and the dialects of northern England.
In terms of vocabulary Scots typically shows a far higher percentage of
words and forms distinct from those of Standard English than any
English dialect. There are also grammatical and syntactic differences
which mark Scots off quite clearly from English. Cultural factors
strengthen the linguistic case. Scots has a body of literature which is
far greater in both quantity and quality than anything found in English
dialect literature. Uniquely for an "English dialect" Scots also has
its own distinctive orthographical tradition, which is why we still
spell the word heid with an ei. If Scotland had remained an independent
country and Scots had undergone the same processes of standardisation
which characterised other European languages in the Age of
Enlightenment there would be no dispute at all about its status as a
different language.
I live in Spain and speak Spanish and Catalan as well as English and my
native Scots and a smattering of Gaelic. The differences between
Catalan and Spanish are of the same order as the differences between
English and Scots. The only difference is that Catalan has been
standardised and "normalised", whereas Scots sank to the level of a
patois during the 18th century and ever since has been under constant
and intense pressure from English - a language to which it is closely
related. When two closely related languages come into contact in this
way, typically what happens is that the language of lower prestige
becomes considered a corrupt form of the high prestige language and
becomes increasingly penetrated by features originating in the
higher-status language. One linguistic term for such languages is
"langues manqu�es". One feature which is noticeable in langues manqu�es
is that they are often referred to by local names - speakers lose the
notion of the the linguistic unity of the dialects which make up the
language - so people refer to Doric or Glaswegian instead of Scots.
Scots consists of a group of dialects, as all languages do, but all
Scots dialects have far more in common with each other than any of them
do with English. Doric is a particularly well-defined set of Scots
dialects which show distinctive treatment of initial wh- and the old
Scots vowel written ui. The North-Eastern or Doric dialect of Scots
happens to have survived the pressures from Standard English rather
better than other dialects of Scots and this has increased its
perceived individuality and distinctiveness. Gaelic is universally
recognised as being a distinct language. However on purely linguistic
criteria it is about as distinct from Irish as conservative Scots
dialects are from Standard English. In the case of Gaelic and Irish,
the intermediate dialects of East Ulster and Galloway and Ayrshire have
died out which sharpens the sense that we're dealing with two different
languages. Even so, speakers of south western Scots Gaelic dialects and
speakers of Donegal Irish can understand one another with a wee bit of
effort.
A sociolinguistic factor in Scotland was illustrated by JH from
Glasgow. Unlike Spain where the language issue is hot political stuff,
no one in Scotland really cares that much about Scots or Gaelic. We
tend to look on them as nice auld aunties whom we love deeply but are a
bit embarrassed when they come to visit. (And god forbid they'd ever
want to stay.) Partly this is due to the unique situation of having not
one but two national languages, but also because a distinctively
Scottish form of Standard English has now arisen and the sense of a
Scottish identity is not tied to any one particular language. (And it
can certainly be argued that that is a very good thing.) In this
respect Scotland is markedly different from the Basque Country,
Catalunya or Wales. Scotland has a unique linguistic heritage, and we'd
be a poorer nation for losing it. We are the only nation in Europe with
not one but two national languages. And we are the only nation in
Europe where the national languages lack full equal status with the
dominant language. I am not in favour of compulsory Gaelic and Scots
classes in schools, you cannot force people to learn a language they
don't want to learn. However what you can do is to give people a reason
to want to learn Scots and/or Gaelic, and that means more investment in
creating Scots and Gaelic media (Why no national tv channel in either
Scots or Gaelic?), making the languages equally official alongside
English, and insisting that a certain proportion of government
employees are at least bilingual which is the only way to ensure that
those who choose to do so can deal with officialdom in their language
of choice. That will give people a reason to want to learn and use
Scots and Gaelic. Teaching should certainly be available through the
medium of Gaelic and Scots. To ensure the survival of a language it's
not enough merely to teach it as a subject. This does not necessarily
mean there should be parallel education systems in each of the official
languages, language units can be integrated into existing schools where
there is parental demand. A serious political commitment to the future
of Scottish languages means creating that parental demand.

<<<We are the only nation in Europe with not one but two national languages>>>

Wales of course has 'Gogledd' (North Waleian Welsh) but not a different language as such.

Herald & Times Group
Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy © Copyright 2001-2009 A Gannett Company