The Scottish Government has recently conducted a public consultation on proposed legislation on the Gaelic and Scots languages. As matters of our indigenous linguistic tradition are central to the reason for the Royal Celtic Society’s existence, it was thought appropriate for the society to deliver a formal response to these proposals, to ensure the bill that comes before Parliament next year delivers the kind of protection and development our native tongues require. A sub-committee was formed of members coming from both Gaelic and Scots-speaking traditions to formulate such a response, consisting of Alan Hay, Gordon Hay, Dr Hugh Dan MacLennan, Professor Wilson McLeod and Lord Minginish.
A single page summary is contained in the society’s winter newsletter. The full text of our response is as follows:
Section 1 – Education
Question 1 – Thinking of barriers, obstacles and solutions – What are the key aspects you feel should be included in a new strategic approach to Gaelic medium education?
In our view the Scottish Government should play a more direct role in the development and direction of Gaelic-medium education (GME), ensuring a more co-ordinated national approach.
It is clear that existing measures have not been sufficiently forceful to generate a sufficient number of teachers to meet the demand (and potential demand) for GME. More proactive measures and a greater seriousness of purpose on the part of all players in the education system, including local authorities and providers of initial teacher education (ITE), is required.
Question 2 – What steps do you think should be taken to support and promote Gaelic education and to ensure that any new strategic approach to Gaelic medium education is implemented?
We believe that all parents in Scotland should be given an enforceable legal right to GME at the primary level and perhaps the nursery level. The current system does not provide sufficient guarantees and places too heavy a burden on parents. It is unacceptable that so many local authorities continue not to offer GME even though they have adopted statutory Gaelic language plans.
The Scottish Government should establish national targets, increasing over time, for the proportion of pupils enrolled in GME and should agree individual targets with all local authorities, preferably as part of outcome agreements or other formal funding arrangements. Targets, again increasing over time, should also be established for local authorities and ITE providers in relation to the proportion of teachers or graduates who are able to teach through the medium of Gaelic. Additional language programmes should be developed (and funded) to facilitate this transition, and improved financial incentives should be provided, as is currently the case in relation to recruitment of STEM teachers.
Question 3 – Are there any other points you would like to make about the provision of Gaelic medium education and Gaelic learner education in Scottish education?
It is important to open up as many pathways into Gaelic as possible, particularly bearing in mind that GME cannot be accessed after primary 1. The current offer of Gaelic for learners in secondary schools, particularly in Lowland areas, is seriously inadequate. The offer in primary schools is even more inadequate and it is particularly disappointing that the number of primary schools offering Gaelic for learners has declined sharply in recent years. A national strategy, again directed by the Scottish Government, is required to ensure that Gaelic becomes widely available across Scotland and ideally that all pupils in Scotland should study Gaelic at some point during their schooling.
Section 2 – Gaidhealtachd
Question 1 – Do you have views on what measures should be in place to support Gaelic speakers in areas with significant numbers of speaker?
The way the consultation is framed suggests that support of this kind might take the form of the creation of a “Gaidhealtachd”. What follows focuses on that suggestion rather than other ways in which Gaelic-speaking communities might be strengthened.
We have reservations about the creation of a Gaidhealtachd for several reasons.
Firstly, it is not clear what the practical benefits of such an approach might be.
Secondly, there is the difficulty of geographical definition, of drawing a logically coherent line on a map. For example, whilst the Western Isles may well be taken to be a homogeneous Gaelic-speaking area, what of the Isle of Skye, only parts of which (the Sleat Peninsula in the south and the Trotternish peninsula in the north), have strong, or, at least, relatively strong, Gaelic-speaking communities? Further, if a threshold of Gaelic speakers required to be set in order to define a Gaidhealtachd area, what should that threshold be? We have heard 20% suggested, but even if it was to be as high as 25%, that would mean 75% of the population would be non-Gaelic-speaking. Would the intention be that all within that area would be eligible for additional support, or would there have to be a further threshold of ability in Gaelic to be met before individuals or families could access the additional benefits? If so, what should that threshold be? A “universal” approach would mean than many people with no interest in Gaelic but who happened to live within these areas would receive the additional help while Gaelic-speaking individuals and families outwith these areas would not. A selective approach would have its own problems, leading to differential treatment of people within the same communities which might be socially divisive and legally difficult.
Thirdly, there is the danger, which the drafters of the consultation document clearly foresee, that the creation of a Gaidhealtachd might detract from the principle that Gaelic belongs to all of Scotland. More insidiously it might undermine the commitment of local authorities elsewhere, weak as it already is in many areas at the moment, to the promotion of Gaelic.
In summary, it seems to us that the difficulties and dangers which the creation of a Gaidhealtachd would cause outweigh what are, at the moment at least, very ill-defined benefits.
Question 2 – Do you have views as to how such areas should be defined?
As we have said above, this is a matter of great difficulty. Although we are not persuaded of the case for a Gaidhealtachd, were one to be created we would favour confining it, for the sake of clarity and simplicity, to the Western Isles, the Isle of Skye and Raasay, and the Isle of Tiree. The fact that Skye is not a homogeneously Gaelic community might just have to be lived with so as to avoid the need for threshold tests in different areas.
Question 3 – How would you balance the commitment to put measures in place in areas where there are significant Gaelic speakers with the principle that Gaelic should be a national language for all of Scotland?
Although most people would readily accept that Gaelic-speaking areas should get additional support so that they can retain that status, there is a risk that the principle referred to in the question would be undermined by a two-tier system, with local authorities and others outwith the Gaidhealtachd making it a convenient excuse to do less rather than more.
Question 4 – Are there any further points you would like to make about the commitment to explore the creation of a Gaidhealtachd and the associated commitments relating to Gaelic use in family and community?
As we made clear in our answer to Question 1, the views expressed here focus on the possible creation of a Gaidhealtachd. We are not persuaded by the case for it but we are supportive of anything else that can be done economically, in terms of employment and housing, educationally, linguistically or in any other way to try to ensure the continuation of Gaelic-speaking communities.
BÒRD NA GÀIDHLIG
Question 1 – Do you have any views on the current duties of Bòrd na Gàidhlig and any suggestions of how these could operate more effectively or efficiently?
The Bòrd’s present duties comprise an uncomfortable mix of roles in relation to the development and implementation of public authorities’ Gaelic Language Plans; it is expected to advise and work with authorities in developing their plans, give formal approval (or otherwise) to their draft plans, and then monitor these plans and ensure their effective implementation. Assigning responsibility for oversight and implementation to a Gaelic Language Commissioner might, we think, make for a more logical division of labour. Whilst experience in Wales and the Republic of Ireland suggests the creation and operation of such a post would not be without its difficulties the concept obviously retains sufficient value that a Commissioner is now to be appointed in Northern Ireland. If, contrary to that direction of travel, oversight of implementation is to remain with the Bòrd, it should be given the power, presently reserved to the Scottish Government, to issue enforcement orders directing that agreed language plans are implemented to the full extent required by the relevant plan. We understand that none of the complaints made by the Bòrd to the government has been actioned by the government which suggests that, in the absence of a Language Commissioner, the Bòrd should have its own enforcement powers.
Although we think more stringent duties should be imposed on the Scottish Government in matters such as Gaelic Medium Education, we oppose any move to bring the Bòrd closer to the government. That is primarily to preserve the independence of the Bòrd but also because it runs the risk that a perception which already exists to the effect that the Bòrd is remote from everyday users of Gaelic might be strengthened.
Question 2 – Do you have any views on structural changes at Bòrd na Gàidhlig which could strengthen the promotion of and support for Gaelic in Scotland?
This question is superseded by our response to Question 1.
Question 3 – Are there any further points you would like to make about the review of the functions and structure of Bòrd na Gàidhlig which seeks to ensure Scotland has the most effective leadership body and network of organisations for the promotion of Gaelic?
To some extent this question too has been superseded by our response to Question 1 but, at the risk of stating the obvious as well as going beyond the scope of this consultation, for the Bòrd to be effective it requires to be better resourced. Anecdotal evidence suggests that attritional opposition from certain public bodies results in unacceptably weak language plans being agreed. That is likely to be a function of personnel being too stretched to have the time to withstand such recalcitrance.
One final observation is that broadcasting is conspicuous by its absence from this consultation. That seems to us surprising, given its pervasive influence, but we understand there may be reasons for that such as broadcasting being a matter reserved to the UK government. Nevertheless sight should not be lost of its importance in any discussion as to how the position of Gaelic is to be strengthened.