ONE of the best things about returning home after 34 years living and working in England was being able to talk without thinking about which word to use. 20 years on it almost comes naturally!

I don’t know how much of my speech as child was influenced by my Gaelic-speaking grandmother. Did kist (storage box) and press (cupboard) come naturally because I heard, even if I didn’t understand, the Gaelic spoken? I do know that at primary school, in Cockenze, we were expected to speak the Queen’s English. I remember agonising over “capsized” when writing a homework essay. It couldn’t be English surely? It sounded too strange for English.

Now as a Gaelic learner I can see the relationship with all three languages but more particularly Gaelic and Scots. My “kist” is “ciste” in Gaelic and my “press” is “preas”. It’s more than just words – it’s sentence construction too.

It’s wonderful to have a much wider choice of words than a monoglot speaker would have. A new Gaelic dictionary to update Dwelly’s would be even more wonderful.

Catriona Grigg
Embo

MAX Cruickshank’s long letter (May 2) misses the point. The minimum pricing legislation is a very clever move by the Scottish Government that will encourage alcohol manufacturers to reduce the alcohol levels in their product to retain their sales levels. It will also take a number of dangerous products off the shelves. I have already talked to two retailers who will not anymore be stocking any of the two most popular rotgut ciders.

And can we have an end to the patronising pish that suggests the “poor” can only socialise by getting lots of cheap alcohol into them? This is deeply offensive.

The next step must surely be to get alcohol out of supermarkets, which is the real reason for the huge increase in alcohol consumption (and the closing of pubs and licensed grocers). Supermarkets are using vast seas of cheap booze as loss leaders much of the time and are actually huge tax collectors for the government as over half of the revenue they take in alcohol sales goes direct to the government. Very few people are aware that on every can of lager of cider they purchase there is about 50p tax –which gives you an idea of how much actual profit the retailer is making selling them at sometimes less than 70p.

A well controlled and friendly pub is the best place to socialise and partake of a sensible intake of alcohol at sensible prices. But for too many people the practice is to enjoy a cheap six-pack in the house and then go down to the pub late on a Friday or Saturday evening, well lubricated already, for maybe a pint, and wonder why the pub is closing next week.

David McEwan Hill
Sandbank, Argyll

ISN’T there something illogical about politicians propagating a free-market-driven system then seeking to impose anti-market restrictions and conditions for political, not commercial, reasons?

I can’t remember the last time I went into a bank branch. All of our major transactions are now conducted by internet or telephone contact, the limited cash now used coming out of an ATM or supermarket cashback.

The genie is now out of the bottle and isn’t it financially responsible for banks, who are neither charities nor social service providers, to question the cost implications of maintaining unprofitable branches?

There is the argument that branches are socially important to communities, but how is this the responsibility of commercial organisations? Closing little-used branches has its own imperative in the face of our technology-based society lifestyle, now an arguably sad fact of life.

So, for once, it’s not the Westminster Government’s responsibility to stop the closures; it has no right to interfere in commercial decisions, even when the government is the major shareholder on behalf of taxpayers.

Like it or not, we need to embrace the new practices offered by developing technologies. Where the government’s responsibility does lie is to ensure that all our communities have equal and unfettered access to those new technologies replacing conventional practices.

It’s long appeared sensible to me for the counters in Post Offices to facilitate the cash handling requirements of customers where a bank branch would be unprofitable. This has the advantage of providing service to customers while maintaining a valued Post Office presence in otherwise unprofitable locations. They, in conjunction with mobile facilities that cater to customers’ needs im remoter areas, provide the best opportunity for an economically viable banking service provision.

What is happening at RBS is the tip of the iceberg. They didn’t invent the technology-driven society, but if they don’t take advantage of it as others will, then we as the taxpayers bankrolling them will be quick to ask them serious questions.

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh