TODAY I looked askance at the wording of the article written by Matthew Fitt (The National, January 14) which was a mixture of English and words that were meaningless to me — have travelled the length and breadth of Scotland and the Highlands and Islands, and never ever have I heard any Scot speak in that manner.

I am from a working-class background and, with no disrespect to Matthew Fitt, I do not recognise this as a language spoken by Scots anywhere in Scotland.

I note Matthew Fitt has called it “Yer ither national language” and noted at the beginning of his article he wrote, “When he wis in the hospital, eh drove”, then in paragraph five Mr Fitt wrote, “Sae eh’m drehven aboot Dundee”. Make up your mind Mr Fitt – is it “drove” or “drehven”?

Fair play to you, Mr Fitt but I do take you to task for writing “At least no until lest Thursday when The National went mad mentul and prentit the warld’s first front page entirely in Scots” – because globally you are giving the impression that this is “Scots”.

It is not – it is purely and simply local slang which differs throughout Scotland – mainly spoken by city folk. I have had conversations with many, and all agreed that Scotland does not have a Scots language – the Scots were parochial – living within their own parish/village and each had a Scots dialect which was peculiar to their own environment, and not understood outwith their local area.

When my family were children, if I heard them say “eh” I asked them if there was a sheep in the house and, if so, to put it outside.

I have read about Dundee from the 12th century and worked with many women who spent their days working in the jute mills and majority spoke English with a Scots lilt and it was attractive, and many told me they had done well at school – however, they had to work in the jute mills after school as the family needed the money. And these women made sure their own children worked hard at school and grew up – either remaining in Scotland to work in well-paid employment or to travel abroad to make a new life for themselves.

There is a point to my ramblings. I was born in 1940 and left school to go to work armed with a good, basic education – the “three Rs” – and this is what the children of today require, not to be encouraged to speak with a dialect that is only understood among their friends. They should be encouraged to speak decent English – it has served me well – and also to question why this push to have every child in Scotland taught to speak Gaelic. Why?

All Scots use the odd word that sounds “quaint” to the ear of those who are not Scottish – eg, “wee”. This word is used a lot – “fetch the gentleman a wee chair” (when he is six foot plus).

Scots never forget their roots – that is commendable – but, to be honest, with what is currently going on in Scotland regarding this obsession with separating from the rest of the UK it has not shown us up in a good light. It has brought out the worst side in many Scots characters, based on a narrow, bigoted parochialism. It is embarrassing and it is short-sighted.

I am now embarrassed to say I am a Scot. What I am is a Briton who is a Scot. I do believe the majority of Scots will agree with me that there is no such thing as a Scots language. The Scots language could be described as a “multi-lingual regional dialect that is rich in diversity and tone”, giving the character of the region and a joy to hear – often not understood outwith their own abode.

Wee Ginger Dug – who is he to consider others are ignorant and prejudiced? Smoke and mirrors spring to mind.

A working class Edinburgh lass.

Name and address supplied

HOW long do we wait before it is safe to speak ill of the dead? I refer to David Bowie’s flirtation with Fascism during his Diamond Dogs period, an embarrassing event which is never spoken about. I remember him telling the press: “I mean fascism in the real sense, not Nazi”.

Presumably he could have meant non-racist fascism as distinct from Nazism, the latter being based on a theory of racial supremacy. Fascism without racism has indeed been practiced, for example in Chile under General Pinochet: an authoritarian one-party state, based on extreme nationalism, brutalised patriotism, militarism and suppression of opposition.

Personally, I do not believe for a moment that David Bowie espoused such views. Rather he was probably imagining a “benevolent” autocracy under a charismatic leader, hero worship, a powerful party logo and plenty of well-designed banners and smart uniforms. A kind of rock star of politics. In any case he recanted, passing it off as a period of confused thinking, and the whole thing blew over.

But it is just as well he wasn’t a politician. If a politician is found to have expressed unsavoury or controversial views in their past, the matter is never forgiven or forgotten. And that is my point. Perhaps, before we judge a politician on their past, we should consider the human ability to change.

Jeff Fallow

Fife





DAVID Bowie was probably right, there is Life on Mars, and David Cameron obviously lives there as he’s totally out of touch with what’s happening on Earth. £1 billion for the National Citizens Service to help teenagers into voluntary service?! How is that going to help the cash-flow problems of families forced to use food banks and to run up unaffordable debt in order to pay mortgages and keep warm? Encouragement to save?! If you can hardly, if at all, meet your bills and afford decent food how on Earth can you save? Cameron needs to come back down to Earth, take a reality check, and see how the people of this country really live.

Jackie Scott-Mandeville

Strathlachlan, Argyll





GORDON MacIntyre-Kemp’s weekly lessons in how the UK economy works (or doesn’t) are a godsend for economic dunces like me (The National, January 15).

His 10 reasons outlining the likely causes of the next “crash’’ are clear and unambiguous.

However, I would have added an 11th to his list – the next Labour government, if there is one, and regardless of who leads it, will make little difference to the scenario he has laid out. Their macro-management of the economy, both before and after the financial masters of the universe broke the banks, has offered little that is fundamentally different from the Tories.

As the good ship UK ploughs care-freely towards the next economic iceberg, a change of captain on the bridge will not save the passengers from the collision to come. And don’t look for a place in the lifeboats – they have been bought and paid for by the one per cent and are already on their way to join their money on an off-shore island account well out of harm’s way.

James Mills

Johnstone





HAVING oil is always an asset and through various taxes always adds to government revenues. To be clear, financially, oil is something all countries would wish to have.

Oil price falls simply reduce current revenues to governments.

The oil producers themselves respond by reducing supply and effectively leave it in the ground for the future. In order to smooth the effects of low prices governments can borrow and repay when prices are high.

An alternative might be to put away a portion of revenue each year in order to draw from during low prices.

Current low oil prices would have reduced the prospective revenue available to Scotland had independence occurred. In order to fully assess the impact this would have had on proposed budgets we would need to have known the financial settlement between the UK and Scottish governments.

All the current debate surrounding Scotland’s budget and fiscal framework for devolution is essentially based on guesswork.

David Campbell

Glasgow