This is how we fight against the trolls decrying the Scottish language

Richard Walker’s article in The National describing the criticism the newspaper has received online for publishing Scots is very important for the future of our languages ​​and therefore our identity and culture (Hindsight is real, and it prevents us from seizing our independence, October 14). It details the objections that allow them to be refuted. Since they are based on willful ignorance, it is very easy.

The first one he lists is that “it is not a language”. Scottish is more different from English than many central European national languages ​​are from each other, and as different as the Scandinavian languages ​​are from each other. All of these are accepted by linguists as languages. All the major Scottish dictionaries of 1808 describe it as a language. The critic’s fear is that the Scots will reinforce the concept of a nation, Scotland.

Richard Walker says: “It is appalling that a language can be used less often in order to avoid unacceptable backlash.” Well said. We support the return of the Scots to The National thus resisting this pressure.

He also deplores the mistreatment of young women writers. This is an issue that is close to our hearts. Our youngest grandson recently graduated with a Masters in Literature and, uninvited, began to use Scots in poetry. The idea that she would be stopped from doing this revolts us.

The anerlie awnser is ti hae a fouth o braw braid Scottish cried frae the Corss sae the trowes hae hit pit wi virr afoir thair ein an pods. Mibbies thai suid consither leirin Scots at is the original language of flytin. (The only answer is to have a lot of loud and clear Scots posted so that the trolls vigorously put it in front of their eyes and ears. Perhaps they should consider learning Scots which is the original language of the jousting. literary.)
Iain and Susan Forde

WHEN Peter Thomson (Letters, October 15) says “it is time for the (metaphorical) claymores to come out of the stubble … but not quite yet”, isn’t it the problem that not only these claymores are not attached to the body, the SNP did not even remove them from their mounts above the chimney?

Even if we are convinced that the calendar of a referendum is in 2023, how can we have any confidence in it when there has never been any logic or reason given for this calendar, nor the route described as needed to get there, nor what is being done now to get there?

It’s not like this has to be a big secret. Westminster will know full well all we can and must do and is no doubt already well prepared to counter every step, which may well include taking formal legal steps to obscure and delay the process.

You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs. It is not possible to regain our independence without a certain degree of confrontation, the level of which is entirely at the behest of Westminster.

If we truly lived in a democracy, no confrontation would be necessary. But a British government defending “its” assets and denying the very existence of a Scottish nation presumed to be in a partnership when it clearly is not, does not evoke democracy.

Even now we have direct conflicts between the British and Scottish Parliaments. We should not have allowed Holyrood to be ignored on Brexit, we should have publicly protested until legal action was taken against the repatriation of delegated powers from the EU to Westminster, and our MPs should demand that all funds are disbursed through our Parliament, even when going out in protest.

Sorry, Mr. Thomson. The moment to wield these metaphorical claymores was during the Scottish elections, when the umpteenth term was issued, which amply demonstrated Scotland’s desire for independence in the face of a chaotic and generic British fiasco led by the Tories.
Jim taylor
by email

Oliver Mundell appears to have made statements on a BBC show which implied he was speaking on behalf of the million Scots who he says “voted for Brexit”. By claiming that others could not represent them, it implied that he could.

I treat Mundell’s claim with utter contempt. No one in Scotland voted for Brexit; it was an opportunity that was not given to us. A million of us, including myself, voted to leave the EU. That is all that was proposed in the referendum.

I did this because I was opposed to the political aspects of the EU which was heavily involved in undemocratic activity in Ukraine, which refused to respect the rights of the people in Catalonia and supported the big banks, not the Greek people. . So I voted in favor of leaving the EU, as many other Scots have done, for the same or similar reasons.

I had no choice but to vote for “Brexit”. Indeed, I do not know what “Brexit” is. All we got from the Conservative leadership on this was a meaningless statement that ‘Brexit means Brexit’. We never got a chance to vote for it, whatever it is. We did not get a vote on keeping the single market, which I and many of us would have supported. So Conservative leaders and people like Mundell cannot claim to speak for those of us in Scotland who voted to leave the EU. We have no responsibility for the Tories’ Brexit mess which is entirely their own creation and has nothing to do with us.
Andy Anderson

Rather than worrying about Brexit difficulties, now would be the time to get the most out of our own Scottish produce.

Hotels, restaurants and cafes provide individual servings of sugar, butter, jam, etc. They rarely come from Scotland. I was even served with marmalade imported to Dundee.

Buying local, especially in supermarkets, etc., reduces emissions and creates more local jobs.
Margaret pennycook

Previous The Guardian's gaze on French politics: the great spectacle of the moving right | Editorial
Next Award-winning novelist presented as a trio of male screenwriters