Chamber and committees

My understanding of the financial issue is that the projected costs for the bill are estimates that are already being used for health and social care. This is not £1.5 billion that is coming from somewhere else; it is for care delivery that is already happening on the ground. That might be worth picking up.

My questions are about training and research. We have covered many of the issues around the necessity for training to be standardised, which could be part of a national approach to supporting staff. This is about what people who are in receipt of care want—the folk who are being cared for and the carers who provide the care want a national care service. They can see what could be fixed and they know what works. We know that self-directed support works really well in some places but doesnae in others. The creation of the national care service is about helping to support people on the ground, because that is what people want. I am interested in that and in the training that will deliver what folk are asking for.

I know that there will be additional money, but I am considering the complexities of the financing of care and care delivery through 1,200 providers and the people who provide care at home and in residential homes. The whole situation is really complicated, so the bill is looking to iron out the approach to that.

Sure. I will be quick. I am thinking about the bill and the fact that we have recruitment and retention issues across health and social care. We need to get people into the workforce and value them. Dumfries and Galloway College, for example, runs care courses that really consider career development.

I was a clinical educator—I was a nurse who taught nurses how to provide care at home, including central venous access and things like that. I am interested in the extent to which you think the bill will help to address recruitment and retention, especially if a standardised approach to career development is part of the proposals in the bill.

Kay McVeigh is looking directly at me, so perhaps she can start.

Colin, I am sure that you would welcome the fact that the bill says that

“The Scottish Ministers and care boards may ... provide training”,

because that has not been the case previously, and we know the importance of teaching people about moving and handling and infection control and prevention measures, especially given what we have seen during the pandemic. I take it on board that you think that the bill might need to go further, but do you welcome the fact that training is in the bill in the first place?

Donald Cameron mentioned Duolingo. There isnae a Duolingo fur Scots. Would he encourage a Duolingo being created to help folk speak Scots better?

The member talks about technology. One of the things that is happening in Dumfries and Galloway, when they are recruiting new nurses, is that they are yaising Scots so that, when the nurses look efter patients, when somebody says that they have a sair heid, it is something that even nurses from other countries can understand. Would you welcome that?

As the co-convener o the Scots leid cross-pairty group wi ma colleague Jackie Dunbar MSP, I am awfie chuffed tae speik and I will focus my contribution on Scots.

I want tae see legislation endorsin the Scots leid and I threap that we need an act fur the Scots leid.

The Scots leid is a michtie important pairt o Scotland’s cultural heirship, kythin in sang, poems and leeterature, and in ilkaday yaise in wir communities forby.

The 2011 census comprehendit a question anent the Scots leid fur the first time. Yin and a hauf million folk reportit that they could speik Scots and 1.9 million cumulatively reportit that they could speik, read, scrieve or unnerstaun Scots. I look forrit tae the results o the maist recent census—I jalouse that these nummers will be mair—fur tae see aw the nummers o oor folk wha speik, read, scrieve and unnerstaun Scots. Scots isnae jist a collection o regional dialects. There is a muckle history o this now evolvin leid.

Here is a wee quote fae Scots scriever, television presenter and broadcaister, Alistair Heather:

“The Scots have kent that they’ve had their ain leid fur the last six hunner year. It’s only in the last 40 that they’ve forgotten it.”

The activists fur Scots will mak siccar that wir wirds will be shared in aa ways—as I said, through sangs, poems and essays, on telly, radio and social media, and across the internet in monie forms.

Here in Scotland, we have soonds in place names and people’s names that dinnae match the spellings: Cullean castle is spelt Culzean; Mingies is spelt Menzies; Kirkgounyon—a village near Dalbeattie—is spelt Kirkgunzeon; and Dee-el is spelt Dalziel. Those names are all currently misspelled because they contain the letter yogh, which is the 27th letter o the Scots alphabet. It has been lost; it is tint. The yogh was replaced by Z or Y in early printers. At some point in the future, we should correct that muckle mistake and bring back the letter yogh.

As we have heard, Scots is our hame language. It is one of the three languages in use in Scotland the day. Words in Scots by the likes o Robert Burns, Walter Scott and Hugh MacDiarmid are scrievit on the foonds o the walls—the foundations o this buildin. Scots words are literally haudin up oor national Parliament.

The Scots Language Centre, Hands up for Trad, the Scots language awards, Wee Windaes, Oor Vyce, Scots Hoose and ambassadors sic as Lennie Pennie, Emma Grae, Billy Kay, my pal Susi Briggs fae Galloway—she is a braw storyteller—and sic a few mair help tae widen access tae Scots. Aa these folk, and mair, are daein fantastic work and they need supportit.

In session 4 o wir Parliament, Rob Gibson MSP convened the Scots leid cross-party group, which created the statement o principles tae advance Scots. As the statement o principles says, naebodie should be penalised or pitten doon fur speikin Scots. There are 13 statements o principle in Rob’s wee red book. Some o them are bein addressed the noo, but some havenae been yet.

Nummer 5 in the statement o principles shows that the Scots leid must receive mair fundin and investment. Currently, the Scottish Government provides £480,000 in funding fur the Scots leid each year. That compares wi £29.6 million spent on Gaelic. In nae way am I sayin that Gaelic isnae important. It absolutely is. Across Scotland, we hae monie historic ties tae Gaelic, includin place names in Dumfries and Galloway, where I am fae. However, my ask of the cabinet secretary is to increase funding fur the Scots leid tae secure its future. I hope that that can be addressed in the legislation.

The consultation that has been referred tae by monie folk, including the cabinet secretary the day—I encourage folk tae hae their say on that; ye have until midnight on 17 November—provides an exciting opportunity tae create a sustainable future fur Scots.

We aa need tae enhance the work of the Scots organisations, we need tae bolster the yaise o Scots in education and we need tae invest in Scots to mak siccar its future. Pursuin an act o the Scots leid is key tae deliverin the recognition that activists have been workin on fur monie a year. The Scots leid activists are daein a phenomenal job, and an act and funding support are crucial tae deliverin Scots education and awareness. As the auld Scots sayin goes, tak tent or it’s tint—take care or it’s lost.

I ask the cabinet secretary to comment on whether a Bòrd na Gàidhlig equivalent fur the Scots leid is needed, or can sicklike existing established bodies as the Scots Language Centre be vehicles to continue to deliver, as they are currently doing?

Again, I welcome the debate and look forrit tae ilka ither contribution.

Jamie Halcro Johnston mentioned Peter Chapman. He wanted tae join the cross-pairty group on the Scots leid. We dinnae have any Conservatives the noo. Would the member maybe do a bit of encouraging to see whether any o his colleagues will want tae join our cross-pairty group?

I understand that the consultation is looking at Scots and Gaelic but that there will not necessarily be a single revising bill. We will not even measure Gaelic and Scots, because you cannae measure them at the same time. I simply want to clarify the argument that Rhoda Grant is presenting.

It is clear that, in the current climate, the NHS faces recruitment challenges across the four nations in attracting people with the right skills from outwith the UK. Does the health secretary agree that comments such as those of Mr Sweeney’s UK party leader, Keir Starmer, do not reflect the welcoming nature of Scotland’s NHS, and that Brexit, which Labour now clearly backs, is a further barrier to recruitment in our NHS?