Procedures Committee, 16 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999

Official Report 149KB pdf

---

Scots

If everybody is content about what has been decided, we can move to item 2, which is the Scots language. This matter has been remitted to us by Sir David Steel, and we have copies of his correspondence from Rob Fairnie and David Purves.

We should be aware that our remit on this is quite narrow. Much of what is proposed, particularly in the correspondence from Mr Fairnie and Mr Purves, is a matter for implementation and budget expenditure that is not within our remit. It is largely a matter for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which holds that budget.

I am not entirely certain that some other matters are in our remit, but it is appropriate for us to discuss and take a view on issues such as the Official Report, the swearing of oaths, and so on, which relate to business in the chamber.

The issues paper addresses those matters: first, the use of Scots in the oath of allegiance; and, secondly, the use of Scots in the Parliament and in the Official Report. We cannot address the issue of signage, as that is not in our remit. If members wish to explore that issue, we will listen to all points of view, but I think it is only those two matters that concern us here.

I have no difficulty with the idea that we should offer members a Scots language oath. I think that it was an oversight not to make one available. I dare say that, if it had been available, some members might have chosen to repeat their oath in the Scots language.

As I understand it—perhaps I should ask the official report to report on this—the official report is geared to receiving a whole speech in Scots, if notice is given, as it is with Gaelic. It is the responsibility of any member who wishes their remarks to be wholly or partly recorded in Scots to give notice and then to check how their speech has been reported. Speeches can be in Scots, if members want that, but a degree of responsibility lies with the member.

I am not sure what else we can do, but obviously the people who have written to Sir David feel that more could be done. I see that Mike Russell has a suggestion.

I do not have a suggestion, but wish to express strong support for Scots. This morning I received a copy of "A Scots Grammar" in the post from the author, David Purves. As I had already purchased one, I now have two copies—one will be an ideal Christmas gift for somebody. In his letter David, who is an authority on this, says that he feels like one of the last of the Mohicans.

There is a feeling that Gaelic, which I have learned and greatly support, gets substantial support, but that Scots is often forgotten. We should not forget it. It was a major oversight that the oath was not available in Scots. Having taken the oath in Gaelic, I would certainly have taken it in Scots as well. We must ensure that the oath is available in Scots next time.

I know that we have a narrow remit, but that does not mean that we should not express our views. The lack of Scots signage is a considerable difficulty. It should be rectified in the new building, and I hope that consideration will be given to rectifying it in that distinguished Scots building that we temporarily occupy at the top of the Mound.

Equally, in the Official Report, I know that notice has to be given, but I hope that the official report will be sensitive—as I notice it is—to the use of Scots phrases and words. I hope that we will be encouraged by that as we read the Official Report, and that we will no longer be ashamed to use the language with which many of us were brought up, and which all of us treat with affection and respect.

We have had many splendid examples of the use of Scots. I am sure that none of us is remotely ashamed to speak in that way. I have no difficulty with passing the suggestion forward to the corporate body that it should consider signage in the new building. It might demur a little about signage in our present building.

I apologise for not giving notice sooner. I only recently found out that this item was on the agenda this morning.

From the radio?

No. I was e-mailed about it.

You are quite wise to draw attention to the present arrangements, which I accept. They allow the degree of participation in Scots that most members probably feel they could give.

However, I am concerned when I hear Mike Russell talk about the signage. I refer the committee to the issues paper, which talks about the oath of allegiance and affirmation. It explains that, although it may have been a mistake to miss out a Scots oath or affirmation, the oath or affirmation was provided in Cantonese, Hindi, Gujarati, Urdu and Punjabi, which were identified as the most popular non-English languages in Scotland. I suggest that to choose to have signage in Scots as well as in Gaelic and English, but then to leave out those other languages would be absurd.

It may be that Scots has a great deal to offer to our current form of English. There is much in what we say that is drawn from it. But to suggest that people might want a whole report in Scots when it is not spoken in the chamber, or signage in Scots when it is not the common language that is used in Scotland, is to take this too far—almost to the point of political correctness. That will only serve to expose this Parliament to further ridicule that we would be wise to avoid.

I take up your challenge for a full report in Scots. We could easily do that.

We should ask Brian Monteith to repeat his argument in Scots.

I would be tempted to tell you to away and bile yer heid.

You say that regularly,

It is often said to him as well.

What is wrang with the whole thing is that we have to give notice that we will speak in Scots, even though it is the language of the Scots and is what the common people use. That can be demonstrated in almost every radio or television interview with children or adults, in which normal Scots people can be heard speaking very slowly—almost like foreigners—because they are thinking in Scots and speaking in English. You just need to travel the streets of Leith, Glasgow, or anywhere else, to find out what the real language is. It is a pity that the Parliament does not promote the Scottish language effectively.

I am a Scots speaker, but I am speaking English now. No one coming before a Parliament should need to say that they are going to speak in Scots. We have all got guid Scots tongues in wir heids in any case, so the reporters should be able to pick that up.

Scots should be a common and ordinary thing. The fact that we are having a debate suggests that there is a problem. The big, continuing problem is that people are told from an early age by teachers, parents and others to speak properly when they are speaking Scots. It is perceived to be the language of a gypsy or someone who is not quite whole in their being. The sooner that changes the better. It disnae happen when people speak in Dutch, although that is a derivative of German. It would be unthinkable that a meeting like this would take place there.

Something needs to be done. Speaking in Scots should be an ordinary thing. It should no be hyped up; it should be allowed to drift in of its own volition, withoot putting barriers in its way. People should not have to put up a flag and say that they are going to speak in a particular way today.

The problem is that Scots is not the same from one end of the country to the other. There are words in Rob Fairnie's letter that I have never heard anyone say. There are some words whose meaning I can only work out from the context. It is not wise to speak in that style for the Official Report without ensuring that there are reporters who are familiar with the various Scots dialects, there being many regional dialects in Scotland. It would be sensible for someone who wanted to have a letter like Rob Fairnie's printed in the Official Report to ensure that someone was present who knew what all those words meant, and how to spell them.

If members want to make points in Scots, they should do so sensibly. That does not show any disrespect to anybody, any more than it is disrespectful to tell people who speak Gaelic that the official report cannot cope with Gaelic unless notice is given. Presumably, the official report has to have an ear for whether Western Isles or Argyll Gaelic is spoken, as there are differences of vocabulary and pronunciation there too.

I do not think that we should have a linguistic debate on this matter—

It is difficult to avoid it.

The point that you made about Gaelic is simply not true. Quite clearly, there are dialect words in Gaelic as there are in English, and different words are used in different circumstances, but there is no doubt that virtually every word that is spoken in Gaelic in the chamber will be clearly understood by every Gaelic speaker. Certainly accents differ throughout the country, but they, too, are easily understood.

One of the problems with Scots is that there is occasionally, perhaps, a tendency for what a colleague calls hyper-Scots, which is when one goes into overdrive to ensure that everything is expressed in Scots. It is far better to be relaxed and natural about Scots, as David Purves and others are. I have to condemn Mr Monteith's view that there is something politically correct about this. There is nothing politically correct about giving a place in the sun to a language of Scotland that is, as Gil Paterson said, spoken by its people. That is not politically correct; it is human rights.

We should confine ourselves to what is within the remit of this committee. I do not have a problem with the oath being offered in Scots. We should not exclude anybody, no matter what languages they want to speak. However, for the Official Report, and other administrative reasons, we have to have some sort of—I do not like to use this word—standardisation. I agree with Murray Tosh that there are so many different dialects that it would be difficult to tie people down. We should consider what is in our remit. Signage comes under the remit of the bureau. We should not take this further than consideration of the oath in Scots.

Does anyone disagree with that?

I disagree profoundly with that. The oldest colonial trick in the book—I am sorry, Janis—was to say that people should not speak the language that they wanted to speak because it could not be understood, and that we should all speak the same language. Let a thousand flowers flourish and a thousand ideas contend. Let people speak what they have learnt to speak and let the official report catch up with them.

We are saying that the oath should be provided and allowed in Scots. Do we agree on that?

Yes.

We are saying that the issue of signage should be remitted to the bureau.

To the corporate body.

To the corporate body. Do we agree on that?

Yes.

Thirdly, if members want to speak Scots, they should be allowed to do so, and it should be recorded in the Official Report. Does anyone disagree with that?

No.

So what is the area of disagreement?

That is not what I was hearing around the table, but if we are all agreed on that, I am delighted.

Can I counter something that was said? In Switzerland three languages are reported in all situations, and dialects, too, are picked up. We are talking about a derivative, if you like, of the English language, but the minds of some people are struggling with the idea of recording it properly.

I do not think that there is any difficulty with recording it.

You started this debate by recommending a course of action that I do not think has been contradicted by anybody. Therefore, I think that we are getting into a right fankle for nothing. I am concerned about the way in which certain people are conducting this debate.

Absolutely.

We have all agreed on a course of action. We should move on and discuss other matters.

Do we concur on those three points?

I think so.

The question of whether notice must be given beforehand is an important issue. I do not think that people should have to give notice. A circular should be sent to all members, saying that, although we are happy to encourage them to speak in Scots, it is for them to ensure that their words are reported correctly in the Official Report. A lot of people who are happy to speak Scots, but who are not in the habit of writing it, might find the reporting of it quite difficult. It is up to the speaker to ensure that he is properly reported. The idea of having to give notice in advance is a symbolic inhibition that we could do without. I was not sure what your remarks meant.

I am not sure that every member of the official report staff would be capable of writing down Scots as it was spoken.

Och, they would get used to it.

I am not sure that they could cope with the dialects that are spoken in Orkney and Shetland, Aberdeenshire, Ayrshire and the Borders, where local vocabulary and pronunciations are vastly different. That would be quite a tall order. Anybody who wants to speak in this formal, literary Scots would be well advised to give notice, so that their remarks could be properly reported and written down for posterity. I presume that that is their point in speaking it.

The words "well advised" are, if I may say so, well advised. Rather than following a formal prescription, people should recognise that they are well advised to give notice and should accept the consequences if they do not.

Yes. That is perfectly clear.

If their speech is reported badly, that is their fault.

Yes. We are all agreed on that.