BY a strange coincidence, an opponent of the Scottish Languages Bill this week proposed the diversion of funds from the promotion of Gaelic to more “useful languages like French” (Dec 2). This at precisely the time when one of our ancient universities – Aberdeen – is planning to remove from its syllabus not just Gaelic but also French and all the other European languages currently studied there.
READ MORE: Aberdeen University accused of 'cultural vandalism' over Gaelic cuts
I am not privy to the reasoning behind the university’s plans but note with dismay that it comes in the wake of our withdrawal from the wonderfully enriching Erasmus programme and closely reflects the thinking of a London government bent upon insulating the population from European influences felt to be damaging.
A major part of the Scottish Government’s electoral strategy is its plan to take the country back into the EU at the first opportunity. However, the further the country is distanced from what is going on in the European mainstream, the less purchase on the electorate this strategy will possess. There is, as yet, no evidence that Scots are eager to ditch the socio-democratic systems shared with western Europe in favour of the free-market jungle of the Anglosphere. But sustained propaganda and diminution of meaningful European contact can change this.
READ MORE: University of Aberdeen faces backlash over languages degrees changes
Everyone would agree that competence in the languages of our French and German neighbours is “useful”, but practical utility is probably not what degree-level courses are ultimately about. I would argue that, in an off-shore island like ours, the underlying function of language degrees is to supply and maintain, within the community, a significant pool of people with a sound understanding of the different ways in which our on-shore neighbours speak, think and organise their societies. Without ready access to such knowledge of alternative ways of doing things, progress in our own ideas and socio-economic organisation can only be held back.
Anthony Lodge (Prof)
Anstruther
READ MORE: Reversing language decline ‘crucial’ for independent Scotland in EU
ON December 6 a new bill proposing the disestablishment of the Church of England, which would formally separate it from the British state, will be introduced in the UK Parliament by Liberal Democrat peer Paul Scriven. This is the core message of secularism and we strongly support the bill.
In May of this year, Charles Windsor kissed a bible whilst swearing to maintain the C of E. It is not permitted for a Catholic to be head of state. 26 Anglican bishops are given seats as of right in the House of Lords. The only other sovereign country similarly to have unelected religious clerics in government is Iran.
The still-unfolding scandal of child abuse within churches makes it an absurdity that they continue to run tax-funded schools and the C of E’s continued opposition to marriage equality shows it to be ridiculously out of step with the attitudes of most UK citizens.
Separation of church and state would be good for everyone. The non-religious and non-Christian majority would no longer be frustrated and embarrassed by a belief group claiming to represent all, and, freed from having to justify itself to the country, the church could with impunity stick to its own traditional doctrines.
Our world is full of religiously derived conflicts which, rather than seeking a secular sharing compromise, often resolve in hard cultural and geographical divides.
We hope that in 2024 the UK will lead the change in protecting religious belief as a free and respectable personal choice but removing its divisive unelected power and privilege.
Happy Christmas to our fellow letter writers and all National readers.
Neil Barber
Edinburgh Secular Society
JONNY McFarlane’s excellent article on Monday makes a good case for the sale of alcohol to the “non-corporate attendees” at Scottish football matches.
However, he makes statements which are really way off the scale of believability, one of them being “we have all-seated stadia and good stewarding”. If we have “good stewarding”, how in heaven’s name are pyrotechnics getting into the stadia?
Scotland does have a problem with alcohol but nobody wants to hold their hand up and sort it. Before Gartloch Psychiatric Hospital was closed there was a ward affectionately referred to as the “Carlsberg Ward”, the occupants who all suffered from the “Special Brew” sold over the counter. We may not have Gartloch Hospital any more but we still have the “Special Brew” problem.
I’m not against alcohol being sold at sporting events and would enjoy a couple of beers or a glass of vino at half time with my pie, but we’re talking about a large crowd, many of whom don’t treat alcohol with respect.
Who is going to control the sale of alcohol to the terracing supporters?
The point is made that on “Old Firm” match days, alcohol sales could be suspended. Why, when a number of junior football clubs have their own bigotry and rivalry? Who’s going to police them?
The football clubs could always set up affordable and controlled “hospitality units” in specific, trial areas, policed by trained and accredited stewards.
I’m not optimistic about alcohol sales being allowed at football matches until the supporters accept responsibility for their actions.
Jim Todd
Cumbernauld
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here