Thursday, August 27, 2020

Kevin Hague: Wikipedia editor

As requested by Professor John Robertson, a quick post about the Wikipedia entry on GERS.  Until I mentioned this on Twitter a few hours ago, the three most recent edits to the page were made by none other than Kevin Hague.  The most significant edit was to the "criticisms" section - a standard feature on Wikipedia to provide balance on any given topic.  Before Hague's intervention, the section briefly summarised a number of criticisms of GERS, exactly as it should have done.  Hague changed that in an attempt, at considerable length, to undermine the criticism made by Professor Richard Murphy.  This is what was added - 

"When pressed by a Holyrood parliamentary committee, none of the assembled panel agreed with his criticisms, he admitted that even if GERS were restated as he suggests the impact would only be "a couple of percentage points or so of the stated Scottish deficit ... maybe" and conceded that he could think of no example of a country following the accounting technique he was advocating."

To state the obvious, Hague's rather garbled edit was wholly inappropriate.  The criticisms section is not there to mock the people making the criticisms, or to put them in the dock.

Incidentally, Hague incorrectly labelled another of his edits as "minor" - implying that it was merely a spelling correction or a similar unimportant change.  In fact it added an entire sentence intended to bolster confidence in GERS.  He also made a "minor" edit to the entry on the Barnett Formula to add the following - 

"More recently, during a time of low absolute spending increases, application of the formula has in fact lead [sic] not to a "squeeze" but to a divergence in spending per head in Scotland's favour."

Oh, and just for good measure he also put in a propaganda link to the "These Islands" website.  Pretty "minor" stuff, huh?


  1. This highlights a dilemma for the SNP: the fundamental defense to the GERS argument, is that GERS figures prefer to accounts and projections for Scotland-as-a-region-of-the-uk. But an 'independent' Scotland that did not have its own central bank and currency would not be independent in these government-finance terms (nor would it be able to join the EU).
    If this contradiction is obvious to me, it will have been blazingly obvious for many years to the leadership of the SNP.
    So: do you think the leadership of the SNP hopes that I (and everyone else who wants Scotland to be independent) are just too stupid to understand the point? Or what?

    1. It wouldn't have control of monetary policy, so be able to set interest rates or print money but it would have total control of fiscal policy, all taxation & spending plus other influential factors: immigration policy, trade policy (EEA?) etc etc.

      A sterlingised iScotland is a world away from North Britain.

      (Although I personally agree and would like to have monetary control as well.)

    2. The fundamental defence against GERS is that it is lies and propaganda.

    3. Ha ha what joy it brings me to see your angry, petulant and childish fear. You are "up to your knees" in your own bile :)

  2. Replies
    1. I always understood the SNP 'advocated' continued sterling currency union knowing that the rUK would say no to this (which it has), ergo Scotland would walk away debt free, just as every other former colony has. For a currency union to work, Scotland would need an equal say in it; that's never going to happen.

      At the same time, it makes Scotland look very reasonable, and the rUK like bastards for saying no. Generated a 2% or so swing ahead of 2014.

      I thought folks understood this.

      It's not a contradiction in any way.

      The £ Scots can be kept at parity with for as long as needed, then decoupled as it suits. Currencies are easy to set up. What you need is trust in that currency if you want to freely float it. No reason Scotland would be less trusted than Denmark or Norway, especially if debt-free.

  3. Has anyone gone back into Wiki and revised KH's drivel? I would but I am too linguistically challenged to do it the justice it so thoroughly deserves.

  4. There is a difference between 'currency union' and 'sterlingisation'. In a currency union, Scotland could at least exercise some influence on central bank policy. Currency union was the policy of the SNP going in to the first independence referendum, and the complete rejection of currency union by all unionist parties was a serious setback to the campaign. If the SNP's policy is now for continued use of the pound sterling after independence, that policy is properly described as sterlingisation, and sterlingisation does not provide for any control or influence of the Scottish government over the pound. So the 'GERS' analysis would continue to be the appropriate one to use.

    1. Sorry, but when George Osborne flew up to say no to a currency union, Yes gained at least 2% that never went away. It was very much the opposite of a setback; it panned out exactly as hoped.

      I think the SNP should continue to push for keeping the 'pound Scots' in a sterling union openly, knowing that the UK will ostensibly refuse this, so pushing more people to Yes.

      It's not as if when folks vote Yes, there will suddenly be no cash the next day. If so, England would run out of gas and oil in a matter of days for example. How could they pay for it if Scotland had no currency?

      A post-indy currency change is something that will only occur many years after a yes vote and likely a good many years after official independence day. It's why the public don't really care that much. If you ask them they say it's important, because it is, but it's not a deciding factor for them. We are coming on for 55% Yes with zero currency plan!

    2. As GERS is a complete fantasy there is no time it is relevant and certainly not after independence. Because at that time we will have figures based in reality.

  5. Clearly dog food is not going so well; devil makes work for idle hands

  6. From day one of independence Scotland would use a SCOTTISH pound, the value of which, as with all independent countries, depends one the natural resources and production of that country, not tied to any other country.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. James: In the name of common decency PLEASE SERIOUSLY CONSIDER removing / blocking/ barring ‘William Boris et all’ from this site, or reporting them to a higher authority who can institute some form of retribution for their continued tribal chants.

    1. The answer to each of your requests is "how?".

      The only remaining option is turning on full pre-moderation, which would solve the problem - at a heavy cost.

    2. You’d’boss o’ this show..!
      Presume you get notifications when there’s a post (from wherever)... you should be ready to instantly delete said post...!

    3. Instantly? I can't be on standby 24 hours a day.

    4. Prior to the 2014 referendum when Newsnet Scotland came to prominence(primarily because the BBC who allowed comments in those days banned any mention of them) they called for volunteers to help them moderate the flood of comments that were overwhelming them. I am one of what Prof Devine classed as an economic migrant of the 1960s and volunteering as a moderator was the only way that I could participate in any way in helping the cause of Independence. Since I live in a different time zone that is several hours behind the UK I was able to moderate a lot of these overnight comments that came in. These volunteer moderators carried on for about a year before Newsnet resumed their own moderating. Latterly we were only a small group of perhaps three or four but I think we did a pretty good job of keeping the trolls and personal abusers off the site. You might want to consider doing something similar. Your blog is too important to let it be restricted by the efforts of trolls to overwhelm genuine comment.

    5. I didn't mean to post as unknown by the way - the site has said I was posting as Derek Thomson, which is who I am.

    6. By the way, is what I meant.

  9. James: You have my sincerest sympathy -- though it looks as though you may never know this!

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. Why are the SNP saying GERS isn't an accurate reflection of Scotland's fiscal position, particularly with respect to the entirely different scenario of independence?

    It's just that some are claiming they are secret unionists, so the above makes no sense at all. Surely, if so, the SNP should be saying GERs is, sadly, spot on, so we should be cautious about iref2 right now?

    As for Kevin Hague, is he the failed dog food salesman?

  12. Still, it's amusing seeing the BBC saying the SNP need to work on the economic case for independence, when Yes is in majority.

    Technically, the SNP don't need to do anything at all. It's unionists that need to make the economic case for the union.

    As things stand, the unionists have lost the economic case for the union, while the SNP have already won it for indy.

    I think unionists need to understand that when you are on the losing side in polling, you need a completely different campaign strategy.

    1. I think that’s now the central point in the debate. In 2014 a ‘stronger, stabler U.K.’ was all that needed said after every Yes proposal was rubbished roundly. With Brexit and Covid, the shambles of Westminster, the extreme right wing of the Tories taking over government And ‘brown shirts’ running around knocking doors of asylum seekers bedrooms, it’s no longer possible to paint Westminster and the British economy as ‘strong and stable’ unless it’s in a neo-nazi kind of way. Westminster will need to set out its plans openly to deal with huge debt, deficit, business crashing and unemployment. People will be able to compare plans and governments.

  13. If Scotland's economy is as shit as non economist KH says then surely he's proclaiming the utter failure of his precious union. Other countries similar in size, population, assets, natural wealth etc have done way better. KH and his union are failures and it's now being realised by many. Game's up Kev. Nobody buys your pathetic and simplistic take on the 'credibility of GERS. Your argument's massively flawed. It's just a wee bit of a shame you just can't see it.

    1. Scotland must be unique in the world in having a right wing whose message is "sit back, don't improve yourselves, sponge off somebody else".

      Must be obsessed with the flags. ;-)

  14. I am pleased to see that William Boris has taken my advice and gone to get medical treatment for his distressing case of repeatitisis. Don't rush back.

  15. I'm always still taken aback by the way British unionists claim they are lazy subsidy junkies and desire to remain so.

    I certainly am not in receipt of any handouts, and don't want such. If there are any going around, they must be going to unionists, explaining their No vote.

    1. James has a job, unlike unionist scroungers who laze away their days trolling his blog when he's at work.

  16. Apologies for accidentally deleting this comment from John Jones -

    "To Winston boris- Please go away you silly child . The adults are talking."

    1. Winston please try engaging in an adult conversation as in explain the rational for your repetitive comments. Thank you.

  17. In addition to the wonderful Yes vote generating machine that is 'No section 30', it also completely destroys the 'Scottish subsidy' myth in one fell swoop.

    Cameron, unlike the imbecile Johnson, was very clever. He understood this; it's why he so readily agreed to one.

    1. When Cameron was like 'Well, ok you Scots, if you want indy well you can go for it. Will save us English a few bob certainly', Scots were 'Oh, maybe it's true and we are getting a better deal than the English'.

      Fuckwit Johnson has Scots now completely satisfied that the whole subsidy thing is a crock of shit and Scotland's being milked for all it's worth. GERS has lost any meaning at all; people now nod along when the nats point out that its not accurate.

      Nobody believes for a second that the English Tories would subsidise the jocks. Cameron's section 30 appeared to support this at the time.

      Johnson's no Section 30 confirms it to be 100% true. There is no Scots subsidy; it's the other way around.

  18. Without the Union in 1970 England could have laid claim to just 4% of North Sea oil. Precious Union indeed. And they don't do sharing, do they.
    Ian Murray MP in the Edinburgh News was so gleefully on his knees to London and slavering over the GERS figures.
    It would make ye boak.
    As the last man standing for Labour, does he never ask himself IS THIS WORKING or would I do more good in the Lords wi my pals.
    If the STOP SCOTLAND lot are after an MP that can win both Tory and Labour votes then IAN'S YER MAN!

  19. Most people now accept GERs as Unionist propaganda. It is important that in conversations we remind people that it is meaningless drivel created with estimates based on a "mini-UK" model.

    The boy who cried Wolf parable - people now ignore GERs.

  20. Looks like Leonard's jaiket's on a shoogly peg for not being better at defending the Union.
    I can mind the time when Labour were a socialist party and were more into trade-unionism.
    Maybe the Tories saying 'I agree with Richard Leonard' at FMQs let the cat out the bag.
    Twa cheeks o the same erse. Need skelpin!

  21. When the English hard right used to say stuff like 'You jocks are subsidy junkies' it used to piss me off.

    Then I realised that well, who could blame them. When you watch Scots unionists talking about GERS, you realise they are subsidy junkies, or at least really want to be. So, in light of that, how can we blame the English for insulting them to that effect.

    And that's who the insults are directed at; the English are calling Scots unionists subsidy junkies, not us nats, obviously. Nats support indy, so very obviously don't fit into the subsidy junkie category.

    So while the likes of GWC, Geacher etc big up the union and their friends south of the border, in reality, down in England, they are seen as lazy assed subsidy junkies living the high life of the backs of the English.

    So I don't mind such insults are they are not directed at me. Why unionists take it I don't know. Just to keep the imagined subsidies flowing?

    1. The north British unionists have a problem - they are the drug and subsidy junkies. Us Scots/nats are fine.

      Britain is ‘cocaine capital’ of Europe as Class-A drug use soars by 300% in a decade

    2. Drug control is of a course a Westminster reserved matter, meaning all junkies in the UK are British.

  22. GERS, as the Treasury would have it, is a testimony to the structural inadequacy of the Union. It is suggesting a situation akin to the economic disarticulation that blights developing nations. That this should be put forward as a defence of the Union when every other western European nation is perfectly capable of running their own economies is incomprehensible to me. GERS is a statement of UK strategic economic failure at a fundamental level. Unionists take this failure and daub themselves with it in some sort of weird, slightly disturbing, ritual to appease their graven images. False gods dedicated to a UK that doesn't exist and probably never has or never will exist. It is also an exercise in self flagellation but I suppose everyone should have a hobby.

    Against this backdrop, Kevin is simply a Unionist cheer leader (albeit sans presentable knees) and clearly a political activist. However, editing Wiki pages is troll territory and smacks of desperation (or a touch of the Colin Robinsons).

    I can't say I find GERS troubling or even worth looking at. It is a Treasury declaration of incompetence not a blueprint for an independent Scotland.

  23. Mind-blowing though (I guess I'm just naive) how uniformly gers is presented in virtually every organ of the press as simply, straightforwardly showing "an independent Scotland's deficit".... Just like that, as if it's simple fact. It's hard to imagine a clearer example of unadulterated propaganda.... God how I detest the UK state, while loving all the nations that make it up

  24. Lol.

    Britain Elects

    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 40% (-2)
    LAB: 40% (+1)
    LDEM: 6% (+1)

    7:51 pm · 29 Aug 2020·TweetDeck

    Britain Elects

    Preference for Prime Minister:
    Boris Johnson: 34% (-)
    Keir Starmer: 32% (-1)

    , 26 - 28 Aug
    Chgs. w/ 14 Aug

    1. Johnson's honeymoon coming to an end in England; crossover starting.

  25. The main problem I see for unionism is that it's still 'campaigning' like it has a healthy lead in the polls.

    The negative campaigning approach only works short term; it loses to positive in the longer term. It was ugly, but worked ahead of 2014, allowing them hold onto part of the huge lead they started with. It was/is a rearguard action only. A last throw of the dice.

    However, it's not 30% Yes / 70% No any more. Not even 45% Yes / 55% No. Some polls - historically the least Yes friendly - are now 55% Yes / 45% No. The situation is completely reversed. Most Scots now back indy. That's the normal, mainstream position.

    Unionists need to completely reverse their strategy go all out positive if they want to win folk back. Forget GERS, forget 'you'll be kicked out of the EU'... 'we'll take your scots pound of you!', 'you lot are subsidy junkies' and focus entirely on the positive future of the UK. Offer devo super max with a stay in the EU type NI deal Scotland can have..

    Ok, forget it. They're fucked.

    1. Hey Skier, stop giving the Britnats ideas.

    2. the unionists a shining beacon of intelligence and enlightenment

  26. I see the toilet duck has taken a hammering early doors today ��

  27. Waste of time arguing facts with that.

    Had one earlier, gave them this and left.

    GERS was invented in 1992.

    Holyrood opened in 1999

    That detail alone, speaks volumes.

    GERS are propogandised as 'Scotsgov's figures" by unionists.

    Yet there was NO SCOTSGOV in








    So NOT 'Scotsgovs' figures at all then...����

    WM figures to suit their anti Scots indy agenda.

    A fact borne out when all but 2 of the data sets used for GERS are WM FIGURES VIA THE ONS and the vast majority of those are ESTIMATED figures (code for: pick a scary number, treble it, present as factual).

    Scots are not buying this propoganda any more, from a tory gov not willing to subsidise a SPARE BEDROOM in a house, even if its used for essential storage of medical aid equipment (you lose £14/week per extra bedroom from your benefits) yet who expects us to believe Scots are subsidised to the tune of the ENTIRE SCOTTISH NHS BUDGET every year, and at least another £1bn on top of that, because ...reasons...��������

    And lets go deeper into the detail of the con.

    What IS this claimed £15bn 'Scottish deficit' exactly ?

    Well, it is the amount that WM says it spends on Scotland's 'behalf' on RESERVED aspects, Defence, pensions, aspects of non devolved social security etc.

    Which is interesting to know, as we can use those numbers to calculate how much it costs to run Scotland at its highest cost.

    Devolution budget = £30bn.

    Barnett Consequentials = £3.5bn.

    Reserved WM Spending = £15bn

    Grand Total for ALL Scottish spending (to run Scotland within the Union) = £48.5bn/year.

    According to GERS itself, Scotland raised £64bn in general taxation last year.

    Note: not ALL revenue, just from general taxation.

    £64bn minus £48.5bn = £15.5bn.

    That £15.5bn is NOT a deficit, it is a SURPLUS !!!

    EVEN IF an iScotland used the GERS figures as our future budget model (£8bn for defence, as if, etc) we would have £15.5bn left in the bank after the end of year ONE of indy.

    And thats just from GENERAL TAXATION raised in Scotland, and DOES NOT include a 98% share in current oil receipts (gers is based on an 8.4% share).

    Add at least another 90% of oil revenues to that £15.5bn surplus.

    If GERS allocates Scotland £1bn/year from oil, that would expand to over £10bn post indy !!

    So suddenly, the SURPLUS is over £25bn/year, and that is nearly DOUBLE the current Scotsgov Health budget !!

    An iScotland could invest an immediate £2.5bn into Health and education and STILL sit on £20bn in the bank.

    Thats enough to build THIRTEEN Queensferry crossings/YEAR !!!

    Imagine the rapid improvement in an iScottish infrastructure with such immense spending power?

    Jobs, increased tax take, economy on superboost, we would likely need a large chunk of inward migration just to keep up, which means more houses, more shops, more jobs, even higher tax take and so on.

    A veritable 'Arc Of Prosperity'.

    GERS merely proves we are severely held back as a country, by being part of this stinking, ever toxic, union.

    If we had voted Yes in 2014, all the above would already kicked in, and you would have 60 million English people asking WM politicians some rather 'uncomfortable' questions.

    And thats using GERS 'spending/income' as the blueprint !!!

    1. Ignore 1st 2 lines, those were from my original post to someone, referring to a unionist troll.

    2. Sure. It's why the majority of Scots support independence now.

    3. Now that Yes is greater than 50%, GERS doesn't mean anything any more. At best, yes might be 56% rather than 55% in its absence.

    4. If GERS is to be believed, then the union is a complete f'n disaster for Scotland. It would be the least successful union of countries in global history; an economic ruin for all except England.

      Unionists don't seem to see how that isn't a actually selling point, which explains why they used to be on 70% and now are down to 45%.

    5. Given that Ireland and Scotland have very similar economies you are probably best to use it as a model.

      If GERS allocates Scotland £1bn/year from oil, that would expand to over £10bn post indy !! how exactly will a magic fairy wave a wand? your accountancy is so bad they should send you back to school

      I support indy but your just making a laughing stock of us with your imaginary figures

    6. Ringobrodgar - GERS is total mince served up to the dim people. Methinks you are making a laughing stock of yourself. Westminster only allocates a small percentage of oil revenues to Scotland in GERS but at the same time allocates expenditure to Scotland for all sorts of expenditure in England.

  28. Yer maw oot oan the pish again Winston? Left ye unsupervised?

    1. Away and get a job you lazy scrounger.

    2. You are the freeloader posting without contributing to the site financially.

  29. No Section 30 = Lazy English cowards too scared of standing on their own two feet scrounging off the backs of hard working Scots.

    1. You are the freeloader posting without contributing to the site financially.

  30. People across the world are laughing at England for being too scared to go it alone without wee Scotland. I work in an international company and everyone is saying England is chickenshite.

    How humiliating. Imagine shitting yourself so much about standing on your own two feet.

    England isn't a country; it's too scared to be. Pathetic.

    'Oh Scotland, please don't go. We can't be alone. We won't survive without our precious union where you keep us afloat! We'll stop you leaving! No, we won't let you go! Boo-hoo!'

    Land of cowards and weaklings, wetting it's pants with wee
    It's to scared of hard work, to give a Section 30!

    1. Arlene fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down

    2. Politics aside I'd much prefer to shaft Michelle O'Neil than Arlene as ypu're right she's fuck ugly.

  31. For posterity, my comments were for our resident troll.

    However, they/it highlight how pathetically comical the case for the union has become thanks to Johnson.

    Scots are now to believe the English Tories are subsidizing them to the tune of £18b*, and that subsidy is being forced on Scots against their will through the refusal of a Section 30.

    It's beyond parody. Johnson has completely destroyed the unionist campaign with what he's done.

    I mean shit, there's not even any need to vote for a unionist party now. If he'll just say no, you can safely vote SNP or just stay at home. Right?

    Maybe we can all just not even bother working. I mean if England will just pay for our public services anyway, then why on earth bother?


    *Is the deficit not in fact to pay for the 10% of Scotland's population that are 'proud English' migrants; you know, the equivalent of Micheal Gove, but for Scotland? Are these people the 'subsidy junkies' Winston was on about? They overwhelmingly voted No while Scots born voted Yes in 2014 after all.

  32. How come the e.g. German and French furlough schemes are running until at least until the end of 2021, but the UK's ends in a couple of months, with mass unemployment on the cards?

    I thought being in the UK 'protected Scottish jobs'?

    1. If the English are happy bailing out Scots, why can't they pay to just give everyone in Scotland a job until covid passes? Why not gives us huge subsidies for this? I thought that's how the union works no?

  33. Why has the snp said there is imminent independence referendum in the s30 court case?

    1. Why fight a court case in the first place right now. The Section 30 refusal has created a Yes majority. It was the breakthrough needed to push Yes into permanent majority, which is what happened immediately after the refusal (assuming the >50% is maintained).

      Johnson has piled enormous pressure on himself, as his stated reason for no S30 was that 'Scots didn't want independence', with the polling backing him up. Now he's created the opposite situation, and the longer he says no, the more pressure he puts on himself as Scots turn permanently away from the union. It's not a matter of the economy etc any more, but about basic human/democratic rights. If you want someone to vote for you, don't take away their right to vote. Look at Belarus right now, and unlike Lukashenko, Johnson's no baws.

      Scots thought they were in the UK voluntarily. English Johnson said they were not. That turned Scots from pro-UK to pro-indy, just as you'd expect. I said millions of times on here that's what would happen, and it did. The moment he said No.

      Best to milk that to the max ahead of May 2021; that and the fact Johnson is going to make thousands of Scots unemployed while the rest of Europe keeps furlough schemes going. German economy is already looking far stronger than the UK as a result of better management. UK is tanking ahead of a hard brexit.

      Maybe threaten a court case. Start talking about one, but let that vote generation machine keep running at full pelt up to voting day! After all, it's a bit late now for iref2 in this parliament; covid is too high on the agenda and if it's a Yes, we need a parliament / government that has got only a matter of months left in it.

    2. Thanks for the new way of thinking

    3. No problem. Personally, I don't understand why the SNP would challenge their own referendum bill in court anyway. If it's not challenged successfully, it's legal; the law of the land. It would be pretty stupid therefore for them to challenge it themselves. That could end up with the SNP defeating their own bill in court while the UK government watches on bemused.

      Better maybe to see if the UK government has the balls to challenge and send Yes soaring to unrecoverable levels. And not necessarily even win the case...

  34. I thought the SNP didn't want independence?

    On independence: "before the end of Parliament, we will publish a draft Bill, setting out the proposed terms and timing of an independence referendum, as well as the proposed question that people will be asked in that referendum".
    2:50 PM · Sep 1, 2020

    1. Of course the argument will be made that she promised a draft bill in 2016:
      "We will publish for consultation a draft Referendum Bill, in order that it is ready for introduction should the Scottish Government conclude – and decide to seek Parliament’s agreement – that independence is the best or only way to protect Scotland’s interests in the wake of the EU referendum."

      and yet none appeared.

    2. Erm, it was published as promised. It's here:

      1. On 20 October 2016, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on a draft Referendum Bill. [1] The consultation paper set out the Scottish Government's proposals for legislation for a possible referendum on independence for Scotland...

      At the same time, an initial Section 30 request was made. The incumbent UK narrow Tory majority government responded to this request by collapsing itself, completely body-swerving the issue. It hoped to get a stronger majority to deal with Scotland and Brexit.

      The SNP then took a kicking in the 2017 UKGE, with support for indy dropping to lower than 2014, with some polls showing only 39% Yes / 61% No.

      At the same time, the Tory majority was replaced by a minority Tory government supported by the DUP who were not exactly receptive to agreeing to voting through a Section 30.

      From this weakened position, the SNP, sensibly, decided not to pursue the S30 request with this new UK government, and licked it's wounds.

      The alone came Yes Scotland's white knight in the form of English Johnson who made Scotland officially pro-indy as one of his first moves as PM.

    3. I’m glad you’re here to keep my spirits up!

  35. Why doesn't Lukashenko just refuse his people a Section 30? That would prevent them ever having independence from him surely?

    Some bloggers are saying democratic, political pressure doesn't work, and all Johnson has to do is say no.

    If so, why does Lukashenko feel the need to send in the jackboots? Why can't he just ignore the growing political pressure like Johnson can apparently do - forever - with the Scots?

    If most Belorussians were pro-union, sorry pro-Lukashenko, say by 55% to 45%, he couldpretty much ignore the protests. Hell, he could even hold an iref, sorry preselect and win. But once most are anti-Lukanshenko, say by 52..53..54..55%... that's not possible any more and so he needs to cave in or send in the jackboots in front of the world if the people put pressure on him.

    Every country in the world that wanted indy from the UK got it because when that desire becomes the majority view, it becomes impossible to stop. Union becomes occupation. Mother of parliaments becomes 'Europe's last dictatorship'.

    The reason we still are not independent is not because of the SNP. It's because Scots didn't want it enough. Anyone who tells you different is misguided or a unionist.

    And starting another indy campaign wouldn't help. This started formally in 2011 and has never really stopped. It is centre stage in Scottish politics. Unlike 2014, holding an iref will unlikely cause a shift; bigger events are driving that now. Which poses a huge problem for unionists, as events are not going their way, and times are changing.

    We are 6 years on from 2014 now and so much has changed. Scots are now becoming ready for what they were not back then.

  36. 154 Covid cases yesterday, the highest per capita in the UK, hospitalisations rising ICU numbers rising. More than a third of all patients in the UK in hospital are in Scotland which has a thirteenth of the population.

    1. Scotland's population is 10% English migrants, while England is only 1% Scottish.

      If you were wondering why GERS shows Scotland in deficit; the 'subsidy' is to pay for public services for English migrants.

    2. England's population is rising Scotland's isn't, so with birth and death rates pretty much the same, as many people are leaving as arriving.

    3. Scotland's population is rising due to mass migration, mainly from England. Now 10% English.

      This is why GERS shows cash going north; to subsidise the English that have moved here; well at least the No voting ones anyway that are too scared of independence and want more subsides.

      Scots born/identifying voted Yes in 2014. It was the brits and the English that were too scared of indy.

    4. 0.15 million in 10 years is nothing, particularly compared to the UK population increase and EU immigration into the UK.

    5. Both populations have increased by 5-7%.

      That's not the point. Scotland is now 10% English migrants. That requires funding.

    6. UK population in 2010 - 63 459 808, 2020 - 67 866 011, Scotland went from 5.26 to 5.46 million in the same time. UK much larger increase.

  37. Barnett formula uses a per capita population basis not dependent on place of birth.

    1. Yes, but Scotland's population has increased by 10% due to migrants from England, mainly pensioners who are not earning / working.

      Most voted No to get more subsides. Only the brave, hard working ones voted Yes.

    2. Are you telling 'proud Englishmen' ((c) UK unionists) living in Scotland they are not English?

      That's racist anti-English hatred.

    3. Don't know where to start with that. 10% of the Scottish of the Scottish population being born in England doesn't equate to a 10% increase because Scots also head in the opposite direction. You can't even define English or Scottish a 'Scot' (someone who considers themselves to be Scottish) could be born in England and return or vice versa. Different sports have different rules and often result in players playing for a country they don't consider to be their own nation. There are taxation rules for residency and country of domicile which can also give different and conflicting results. There is no Scottish or English passport.

    4. Racism is related to race not country of origin/birth/residency. Both countries have people from various races living in them.

    5. Scots migrants* make up just 1% of England, so 1% of the English public services budget.

      English migrants* make up 10% of the Scots population, so 10% of Scotland's public services budget.

      So, English migrants are 10x the burden on the Scottish budget (and housing, the NHS etc) than the other way around.

      This is simple maths.

      Anyway, you are the one who has been calling 'proud English' people in Scotland 'subsidy junkies'. They are, after all, the people who voted No in 2014, i.e. for Westminster cash.

      And are you saying Micheal Gove isn't Scottish? That Andrew Marr and all the other 'proud Scots' in England are not Scottish? So much for unionism; you hate the Scots and the English.

      *Born in one country, then migrated to the other. Clearly definable as a migrant.

    6. Not within the same country it isn't. Scottish or English has no relevance other than psychologically unless you're going to represent one or other in a sporting capacity. Its residency that matters for everything else.

    7. And race is defined by nationality / citizenship. Calling the French 'frogs' is racist.

      It's only nazis that think race is mainly based on genes / genetic purity.

    8. Someone who was born in England, then migrated to Scotland to live here is an English migrant, i.e. a migrant originating from England.

      It doesn't matter what flag they wave, international team they support, they are still an English migrant.

      Scotland is 10% English (born) migrants, England is 1% Scots (born) migrants.

      This is primary school level stuff.

      Scotland's budget needs to account for an extra 10% population which moved here from England. That's 10 x the 1% Scots migrants England needs to budget for.

    9. If 500,000 people move from England to Scotland, increasing the population from 5 to 5.5 million, that needs a 10% increase in housing, transport, schools, utilities...

      So a 10% increase in budget. Hence the GERS deficit.

      These are unionist figures of course, not mine.

      I don't believe there is deficit.

    10. There's also a 10% increase in funding, probably slightly higher given the workings of the Barnett formula.

    11. You sound like something out the UKIP Brexit party propaganda playlist.

    12. You don't cross an international border moving from England to Scotland, it's no different from moving from Bristol to Norfolk.

    13. Migration is defined as moving from one place to another, this might be across international borders or local administrative ones.

      Scotland has it's own budget. If half a million people move from the administrative region of England into Scotland, that requires schools, homes, police, roads, NHS for these migrant arrivals to be accommodated.

      You even said yourself that the barnett formula is per capita based so would need to be increased by 10% to match the 10% increase in Scottish population.

      10% of the money send to Scotland is for English migrants.

    14. You're point is completely irrelevant unless a future independent/federal Scotland decides to expel all English born people which is for the birds.

  38. Race isn't predominantly used that way in the vernacular sense. people understand racial profiling not to mean English or Scottish. The French don't have a history of being discriminated against, abused or enslaved and don't care if you call them Frogs because they eat frog legs.

    1. Race is defined as per my link, not by someone random on the internet.

      If you scream 'Fucking frogs, go back to France!' at a group of french tourists, the police will charge you with a racially motivated offence, even if they were all the same skin colour as you.

      If I do similar to an e.g. Yorkshireman in an English football top who's lived in Edinburgh for 20 years, the same will happen to me.

      Anyway, it's unionists that talk of 'anti-English' this and that. Now you are saying there is no such thing as English?

    2. When have you ever heard of a single instance of anti English/Scottish/French racism in the media or any protests marches etc. The Welsh scream at English tourists all the time and they don't get charged. Scots were doing it recently at the border over Covid.

    3. English as of right now is little more than a psychological construct except for sporting possibly other cultural representation. It has a historical basis but for all practical purposes its area of residency or being a UK citizen or British that matters.

    4. In the UK anti-Scottish hatred is considered acceptable, yes.

      Anti-English abuse isn't, hence unionists never stop accusing indy supporters of it.

    5. English is a legal reality. Hence we have NHS England... English local elections (which only English residents can vote in) etc...EVEL parliamentary votes etc

    6. Britain is mainly a social construct / identity. There is no British language, birth certificate, legal system, health service, school system.

      There isn't even really a British culture. Ask people to describe this and they normally speak of something English like Shakespeare (or even Scottish).

    7. English law, NHS England, English local elections all based on residency not an English or Scottish nationality which is the point I was making.

    8. Sure, but I don't know what point you are making.

      Someone who moves to Scotland from anywhere else in the world is a migrant to Scotland. If they moved from England, they are an English migrant. If they moved from France, they are a French migrant.

      It's only racists who somehow see an inherent difference between migrants from England and those from e.g. France, like my wife.

      All add to Scotland's population and require to be budgeted for equally in terms of public service, housing provision etc.

      10% of Scottish spend is for migrants who were born and lived in England before migrating to Scotland. Like Richard Leopold. This is a simple statement of fact.

      Only 80% of the budget is spent on non-migrants, i.e. native Scots who were born here.

      By contrast, England only needs to spend 1% of it's budget on Scots migrants; 1/10th of the Scottish equivalent.

    9. Not sure nativism will get you very far, it's not SNP policy. People move around big deal, not sure what your point is. Pretty much all the parties in Scotland want to increase rather than decrease immigration.

    10. Sure, my wife is French and I'm an Irish passport holder that voted Remain, so I don't understand your interest in nativism.

      However, this doesn't change the fact that 10% of Scotland's budget is to fund public services for migrants from England. Another 10% funds migrants from the EU and beyond. 80% funds those born here.

      It's you that trolled this blog calling English migrants to Scotland 'scroungers' for voting in 2014 to keep supposed 'Westminster subsidies' (the 10% of the Scottish budget spend on them). Scots born / identifying voted for independence. So it's you calling the English 'scroungers'.

    11. Distinguishing or prioritising natives over immigrants is nativism, you're the one doing it.

  39. I see Scottish Labour MSPs are going after 'proud Englishman / Yorkshireman' Richard Leopold.

    MSPs call for Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard to quit

    1. In his resignation statement, Mr Kelly said that Mr Leonard's personal polling ratings were particularly low - even among the party's own supporters.

      "Even among the party's own supporters" LOL

    2. Richard Leonard is Scottish as per your own definition.

    3. Yes, Leonard is an English migrant and Scottish citizen.

      Unionists describe him as a 'proud English' in the same way Andrew Marr is 'proud Scottish'.

    4. Do they got some evidence of that?

    5. Evidence of what? Proud Scotness?

      Only unionists seems to be 'proud Scots'. Normal Scots like me are just Scottish. I'm neither proud nor not proud; it's just my country.

      It goes without saying that if unionist Scots are 'proud Scots', the unionist English folks are 'proud English' surely?

    6. Evidence that Unionists describe Leonard as 'proud English' as you state. None of those links relate to that. Unless you are making stuff up i'm assuming you have evidence.

    7. Are you saying Leonard isn't English or at least isn't proud of that?

      Lots of 'proud english' out there. When saying 'English' is Leonard not included? Why do you exclude him?

    8. I'm neither excluding or including him. You stated:
      Unionists describe him as a 'proud English'

      I'm just asking for the evidence for that. You are very hot on people providing evidence for any claims they make on here so you need to do the same. If not i'll just assume you made that statement up.

    9. Straight from the horses mouth.

      The leader of the Scottish Labour party has claimed that some people north of the Border will not vote for him because he is English...

      The MSP, who defeated Anas Sarwar in the race for the leadership, has previously said that when Scotland play England at football or rugby he still supports the country of his birth.

      Doesn't seemed particularly ashamed of the fact either, and no reason to be.

    10. His own (former) countryfolk calling him a 'scrounging subsidy junkie' because he voted No in 2014 is pretty shameful though.

      Doesn't attract me to unionism.

    11. Are you saying unionists don't include Leonard in their pride in being English as a group (as per the links)?

      That's not very nice. Is it because he's moved to Scotland? I still see him as English and he can be proud of that if he likes. An Englishman and Scottish citizen.

    12. Again i'm not saying anything i'm simply asking for evidence of you statement:
      "Unionists describe him as a 'proud English'"

      To make that statement you must of have evidence (as previously mentioned you criticise other posters for posting statements without links to back up) so I am assuming you do. I look forward to seeing them.

    13. Maybe you should take some English lessons, starting with inverted commas and paraphrasing? As a Scot, I've taken the time to learn English, even though that gesture isn't as a rule returned.

      I ask again; are you denying Leonard is 'proudly English', openly admitting, as a unionist, with pride, his Englishness and support for England over Scotland on the international stage?

      If so, you need some links...

    14. Coming back to my point, which people of less intelligence might miss...

      Why are Scottish unionists so proud of their Scottishness? Why is that not relegated in favour of more inclusive britishness?

      Why do Scots unionists insist they are proudly Scottish, wanting to distance themselves from the English to the point of even disputing Richard Leonard is English and openly proud of it?

      I have zero problem with Richard Leonard taking pride in his Englishness. Why force him to be Scottish or British and not proudly English?

      If it's ok to be a proud Scot, why must Leonard's obvious pride in his English heritage be denied?

      Unionism is so confused and contradictory.

    15. No, hes said he supports England (in sports), do you have a problem with that?

      Inverted commas are used to show a quote therefore you will have a link to the source that you quoted from.

      Paraphrasing is the rewriting of something in your own words - so again you will have a link to the source material that you paraphrased.
      I'm sure you have them ready to provide in your next post.

    16. I, like most scots, am bilingual.

      Nobody speaks 'British' by contrast. Doesn't exist, just like there's no British culture.

    17. Scots are not bilingual, they speak English with a few coloquialisms thrown in. Nobody understands BBC Alba. Go ahead speak Scottish ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...............

    18. And British does exist as a language, the brythonic language of the Brits is spoken in Wales, Cornwall and Bretagne. Hence Grande Bretagne

    19. Which bit of this are you struggling with?

      The leader of the Scottish Labour party has claimed that some people north of the Border will not vote for him because he is English...

      I understand English and can explain if needed.

      I paraphrase once more; as a unionist, Richard Leonard is 'proudly English' and openly admits to supporting the nation of his birth over Scotland on the international stage, so taking pride in his Englishness.

      Which I have zero issue with, but you seem to.

      Are you anti-English? Why is Richard Leonard's English pride an issue for you? Do you hate him for it?

    20. I, like most scots, am bilingual

      Again another statement with no supporting evidence. Of course completely untrue. 99% of Scots speak English and only 31 speak Scots/Gaelic) so the majority of Scots cannot be bilingual*
      Bilingual in the sense of speaking both English/ Scots or English /Gaelic or Scots/Gaelic

    21. And British does exist as a language, the brythonic language of the Brits is spoken in Wales, Cornwall and Bretagne. Hence Grande Bretagne

      These are not a single 'British/UK' language, but 3 different ones of similar origin from the ancient lands of Wales, Cornwall and Brittany.

      Like Danish and Norwegian, or Scots and English. There is no single 'pan-British' language, if there was, I'd have, as a Scot, taken classes in 'British' at School. Instead, I learned English and some scots, mainly speaking the latter at home and with friends.

      Out of interest, do English kids learn Scots literature like we Scots read English texts such as Shakespeare? Or does racism mean this doesn't happen?

    22. The brythonic language was spoken across Britain by the Brits i.e. Aberdeen, Aberystwyth. It has led to three seperate languages and people dispersed following the arrival of the romans, angles, saxons and normans.

      Shakespeare is studied across the world probably because its significant and interesting. Do you study Welsh texts or are you racist.

    23. I never said there was a British language your making stuff up again. Just pointed out that you lied when you said most Scots were bilingual.

      Just spoke to my English wife and she can remember reading /studying Treasure Island and Peter Pan at school as an example of two, so no racism there.

      As is normal in Education you study people who were eminent in the field , so in English that would be of course people like Dickens, Shakespeare, Keats, Austen, Tawin, Barrie, Wild, Doyle. Were they came from has nothing to do with it, its is the impact they and or their books had. In the future I have no doubt that J K Rowling will be added to the list for the impact her books had.

      I'm sure that clears up any concerns you have.

    24. I never said there was a British language your making stuff up again.

      No I did muppet, pay attention.

    25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    26. Treasure Island and Peter Pan were written in English.

      I meant texts written in Scots or Gaelic.

      I kinda thought that was obvious. Sorry, I can read quite well in more than one language so assumed this would be clear.

      At school, I read texts in Scots and English. Also some Gaelic works with translation.

  40. 156 new confirmed cases of COVID-19; this is 1.0% of newly tested individuals.

  41. Germany, France and other EU countries extending furlough schemes out to end 2021 at least.

    Here's the reason the UK won't 'protect Scottish jobs' as promised in 2014...

    Coronavirus: No tax rise 'horror show', Rishi Sunak tells Tory MPs

    We can look forward to millions out of work UK-wide, just like the last time it had a strong Tory majority.

  42. Have to say that it was very pleasant to read SgP after the efforts made to curtail the useless posters. I will shortly give up again - is that the basic aim of these useless morons; to make this site mostly useless? Just when that 'other' James Kelly woke up to find his party's dilemma?

  43. It’s all going just great on the EU negotiation front. Not that we will get told much about it by our broadcasters.

  44. The last census showed 30% o Scots spoke the Scots leid tho its weel-seen that maist o the ither 70% wad hae a guid understaunin o thair ain local form o Scots.
    Argae amang yersels whuther that makes maist Scots bilingual/twa-leidit.
    Whit naebody can dae is deny that Scots and its speakers are particularly prominent in the YES movement.
    Also those most in favour of the UK union seem least appreciative of Gaelic and Scots.

    1. So in the 2011 census :
      62% could not read speak or write Scots
      24% could read speak or write Scots

      Whilst the other 14% had some understanding of Scots.

      To be clear I don’t care if people want to speak Scots, Gaelic or any other language. Just don’t go around making claims that the majority of Scots are bilingual to score some sort of political point.

    2. Your statistics shame the British state; a legacy of racism white English colonialism, which you continue in your post.

      But let’s dig down….

      30% of the Scottish population say they can speak scots (2011 census); the pretty fluent speakers.

      When my folks were young, unionists gave you the belt for speaking Scots or Gaelic in school instead of English. British propaganda was clear ‘Scots isn’t really a language, it’s just bad English’ which is why…

      There is widespread agreement (64%) that, " I don't really think of Scots as a language - it's more just a way of speaking" suggesting that for most adults in Scotland, Scots is not considered a language

      Is it really a surprise that only 30% say they are fluent in a language that most are not sure is one?
      Which is why:

      Likewise two thirds (67%) agree, " I probably do use Scots, but am not really aware of it "

      Looks to me that at least 83% of people who knew that Scots is a internationally / legally recognised language agreed they could speak it.

      Now, coming back to the 30%...

      Only around 83% of people in Scotland are ‘natives’, i.e. born / grew up here. It’s not a shock that neither my French wife or Richard said they can’t speak Scots. So in fact we have 36% of Scots born saying they fluent in Scots.

      But Scotland is a strange country, with many Scots born not seeing themselves as that, but as British in whole or in part.

      62% are ‘Scottish only’ in identity. If we assume our 30% is in that group, it makes up nearly half of ‘Scots first and foremost’. That’s remarkable given how Britain attempted to destroy the language and it's not even formally taught.

      Anyway, when language experts ask the right questions (the census approach was poor polling-wise):

      Information was collected initially on the proportion of adults speaking Scots, with some 85% in total claiming to do so, and a substantial proportion (43%) claiming to speak Scots a lot/fairly often. Amongst this large majority most either speak Scots when socialising with friends (69%) or when at home with family (63%). Significant, but much lower, proportions also use it when out and about (31%) or at work (25%).

      By far the most common reason given for not speaking Scots (amongst the 280 adults who claimed that they never spoke it) is 'I am not Scottish'. 38% of this group cite this as a reason for not speaking Scots - significantly more than for any another reason given.

      In comparison to spoken Scots, use of Scots when writing, or when reading news, literature, stories, etc. is much less common.
      Around half indicated they ever read in the Scots language and around a third ever use Scots when writing. Moreover those who do tend to read/write in Scots tend to do so only occasionally or rarely.

      So my original point stands. Most people in Scotland are bilingual to varying degrees. Only around 30% of people are fluent though, thanks to colonialism.

      If you'd been to Scotland, you would have noticed this.

      Of course, if someone Scots meets an English person they don't know well (or even know well!), they will almost invariably switch to English for ease of communication, meaning the latter may think they only speak that.

      I speak to English people (such as on here) in English because they can't speak Scots. This is natural. My wife switches from French to English in the same situation for the same reason.

      I speak to Scots in Scots or Scottish English depending on the situation; at work more Scottish English, but socialising more Scots.

    3. Polite people invariably switch to the language most widely spoken in a group so as not to exclude people. It's quite the contrast to racists who would deliberately use language to exclude those who didn't speak it.

      On SGP, I know if I use English, my posts would be accessible to most readers, including English English and English Scots, both of which read this site.

      Other posters do the same because they are not 'anti-English', unlike those anti-Scottish posters who mock them for 'not using Scots' etc.

    4. Erm I live in Scotland you patronizing prick. Hence how i know that English is the most widespread spoken language.

      Of course even the Scottish Government does not either bother translating important documents into Scots, this as an example:

    5. And this is another bit of nonsense:
      I meant texts written in Scots or Gaelic

      No English children do not learn Scots or Gaelic, why would they? Nor do most countries are they racist as well.

      You are really a small minded little man.

    6. Most states only comprise of a single country with a single shared common language. France and French. Germany and German. Denmark and Danish...

      The UK is a multinational state comprising a number of different countries their own languages. Normally, in such cases, more than one official language is used. In the EU union parliament, all member state languages are permitted, with official pronouncements historically in French or English.

      As 'British' doesn't exist, the UK could use Scots and English as official main languages, while allowing all UK languages to be used in Westminster (Cornish, Welsh, Irish, Scots, Scots Gaelic, English) with translators as required.

      But it doesn't. Why? Why does the EU do that but not greater Englandshire?

    7. And when I go to France, I make an effort to speak French. If I move there, I will become full fluent.

      In my experience, most English people who have moved to Scotland don't make any effort in Scots, not even for very common Scots used by almost all natives on a daily basis.


    8. Erm I live in Scotland you patronizing prick. Hence how i know that English is the most widespread spoken language.

      Resorting to insults now I see. Clearly you are losing the argument.

      Scottish English and Scots are the most widely spoken by Scots. English people use English standard English.

      You didn't seem to be aware that most Scots use at least some Scots every day. If someone says to you 'Aye' rather than Yes, 'A ken' rather that 'I know' 'kindae' rather than 'kind of', 'wee' rather than small... then they have used Scots that day. The two are mixed fluently.

      How could you be in Scotland and possibly fail to notice this? Unless you are hanging around with English people or are English yourself, so Scots use English with you?

      85% - the % Scots born - use some scots on a regular basis, yet you seemed to think only 30% did.

      You can understand my confusion.

    9. From a man who has no problem in insulting people that's rich.

      Have you ever actually been to England or spoken to many English people. Clearly not or you would know that words like Aye and Wee are regularly used in parts of England.

      But thanks for making the case that 'Scots' is not a language but just a dialect of English. Scots use Aye and wee in the same way that someone from Yorkshire would - its just the dialect of English used in that area.

      People from Newcastle say 'Gannin Yem' instead of going home for example as that is part of the Newcastle dialect in the same way that Kindae is part of the Scottish dialect.

      Anyhow as a champion of Scots i'm sure you are outraged that the Scottish Government does not provide documents in a Language that (according to you) the vast majority of the people in Scotland use.

    10. Also why does Nichola and other MSPs only speak in English, why does she only tweet in English? Why do they dual tweet in Scots and English. Welsh politicians do this regularly as do European politicians. Why are they ignoring the language that 85% of the people in their country speak (your figures).

      Maybe you should look closer to home if you have a problem with the language people speak rather than highlighting people from other countries...only small minded racists do that.

    11. Yes, I've been to England a few times; it's not an important business destination for my industry, so mainly just passing through. Also, Scotland is 10% English, so I know most of the accents / dialects. English obviously contains some words that are in Scots. Also has adopted a lot of French. Given English and Scots are both germanic sister languages, I don't understand your point? Scots is closest to Northumbrian old English but is heavily influenced by Gaelic.

      Newcastle has no language, just a dialect. Scots is a legally recognised language, including at international level (recognised under Scots, UK and EU law).

      I often hear Scots politicians use Scots, Gaelic and Scottish English, so again I don't understand your point. They tend to do so in social situations rather than formal for obvious reasons.

      You clearly know nothing about languages. My wife is French, yet speaks / posts on facebook mainly in English as that is the language that most of her friends here in Scotland (and France) understand. She only uses French when addressing French people only. This is common politeness.

      Sturgeon speaks in English mainly because she is polite and not racist. She is FM, and addresses everyone in Scotland using a language that all will understand, including English / European migrants. If she used Scots all the time, it would be parochial and racist, deliberately excluding people like yourself (I assume you don't speak Scots). I can't believe you don't understand that.

      I am speaking to you in English for the same reason - so my post can be read by you and others who don't speak Scots (I am assuming you don't as you didn't even realise it was a legal language).

      I was just out at Tennis. The coach spoke mainly English; around 10% Scots. But then my French wife was there, so naturally he used more English without even thinking about it.

      I then went to the post office, where the guy behind the counter used ~50% Scots. Then the coop, where I was addressed in ~70% Scots. Then I read an email from a German client who's been in Aberdeen 20 odd years. He wrote in English, but used Scots words here and there because he was writing to me and other Scots.

      If people don't use Scots with you, it's probably because you are not using it with them. This again, is normal. If you don't use it, people will think you don't speak it so not speak it to you. If they hear you using it, they will respond in Scots, assuming they use it themselves.

      Do you speak more than one language? At home we speak 3, generally completely mixed in with each other. Sentences can be 1/3 English Scots and French. This again, is normal when all present speak all 3 variably.

      The fact I don't regularly use Scots on here show how, like Sturgeon and SNP politicians, I am not a small minded racists.

      However, those that attack Scots as some dialect only that nobody speaks very clearly are.

    12. I never attacked the Scots you lying once again I just pointed out what you were saying made the case for it being a Dyalect.

      Anhow I note you have not answered my question.

      Why does the Scot Gov /politicians dual tweet have dual websites etc. It works well in Wales, for example. They have the English Tweets site etc that everyone can understand and then the equivalent in Welsh.

      I'm amazed at how unworried you are about the lack of resources /effort the Scot Gov puts into a language you care so much about. Why are you allowing them to neglect the language so much? There would be uproar in Wales if the Welsh Goverment said they were no longer providing the website in welsh, a welsh twitter feed, etc, especially from Plaid Cymru.

      Yet you just seem to want to find a way to blame England for everything. Obviously doing that is more important than the Scots language being neglected - very telling.

    13. On a side note as Scots is such a widely spoken language in Scotland why does the Scottish Government not provide a Scots version of its website? Wales provides a Welsh one, the UK Gov follows this by providing a Welsh version of the UK Gov site.
      Does it not annoy you that the Scottish Government ignores the language that you say so many of its citizens speak?

    14. I said 'those that attack scots'. What made you feel this was a reference to you?

      I find it kinda weird you are so freaked out about my opinion on how the Scottish government is doing in promoting Scots. What on earth does it matter to you. I'm just some random on the internet. Above, I explain at length my thoughts here and reasons for that.

      I'm not parochial. I am a dual national with multinational family and I speak 3 languages. I am not some Brit with a blue passport that knows English only and just shouts loudly when abroad. I love that multiple languages are spoken in Scotland, from Gaelic, Scots to French to Polish...

      I think the Scottish government are promoting Scots sufficiently for now and I'm very glad they are not being all parochial and pushing officially it over English, which is spoken by the nearly 20% of migrants to Scotland. We've only had Scottish parties in majority for 9 years now, so rolling back centuries of English promotion takes time and well, isn't super high priority.

      I'm slightly surprised you are not aware of the wealth of Scots resources now available, e.g.

      The Scots language centre is doing a great job here. It's such a change from when I was young and Scotland was solidly unionist.

      So I don't see any neglect.

      Jeez, 85% already speak some Scots and 30% of people in Scotland (36% of natives) are fluent. That's hardly a dying / neglected language. By contrast, it's having a renaissance.

      I can understand why they are putting a lot of resources into the more 'at risk' Gaelic though.

      As for 'blaming'; it not disputed at all that British unionism and its pushing of English, often through brutal physical force, is a primary reason behind the demise of native languages within the empire, including Scots and Scottish Gaelic. This is typical of colonial powers, i.e. attacks on native cultures/languages as a means of subjugation. All empires did it variably.

      As for the Welsh... Wales shows how language is not really related to independence. Wales focuses a lot on Welsh as you say, yet is much further from independence. Scotland is much more distinct, historically retaining its own legal system, NHS, schools and culture. Scots has not really been under threat either, given it was so widely spoken informally. Welsh 'independence' has only started to return to Wales through devolution. So, the Welsh have historically clung onto their language more in promoting welshness, while that hasn't felt so necessary in Scotland to preserve a distinct Scottishness.

      Coming back to indy... for the Quebec situation, far too much focus was put on speaking french and that cost the Yes side votes; the non-fracophones feeling excluded from the independence movement.

      So I think things are fine within Scotland. We are on up to 55% Yes now without pushing the parochial language / culture angle. Meanwhile, the UK, which is pushing that for British, what with Brexit, migrants go home... BBC land of hope and glory our special, treasured union... is losing support.

    15. Are you saying that the Welsh Government are forcing Welsh on people by providing Welsh and English websites tweets? What a strange claim?

      To be honest if my own Government can't be arsed to produce stuff in a language then why should I bother speaking it. They obviously don't care about the language so why should I.

      You as per all racists just want to blame someone else. To be honest i'm amazed that you want Independence what are you going to do when you have not got another country to blame for everything.

      I agree with you, the UK Government is xenophobic currently. Any person organisation who repeatedly brings up imagination in their arguments tends to to be. Hence the fact that you managed to bring it up over 30 times (all related to England) in this short thread highlights this.

    16. The sad thing is I don't think you see that you are no different than a Brexiter. Blaming everything on the UK/England is no different than blaming everything on the EU. Writing posts about how much English Migrants 'cost' Scotland is no different than them writing about how much Migrants from other countries cost the UK/England.

      Scottish Nationalists standing on the Scottish border with England holding signs saying English go home etc is no different than English nationalists standing at Dover holding signs saying Migrants go home.

      But you think it is, every other form of nationalism is bad in your mind but Scottish nationalism is all good and nice.

      Such as shame.

    17. I voted Yes in 2014. It was a tough call but on balance I though that the Yes presented a more positive vision. It was not perfect, I knew that its financial projections were batshit crazy, but I supposed as I was not blinded by the nationalistic mindset that everything is going to be perfect if there was independence.

      There is no positivity now. Everything is framed as UK bad - Scotland good. Saying that a Indy Scotland could do better than than the UK (in the current state that its in) is not being positive - its like offering a condemed prisoner the choice of Hanging or shooting, both are crap options just one might be slightly worse than the other.

      There is no middle ground either. Say that you don't agree with the Scot Gov or criticise it in any way you are jumped on as a being a unionist.

      Scotland is fucked what ever happens either it will stay in the UK and become more and more divided. Or it will get independence and then as the hardcore nationalists realise realise that Independence is not the sunlit uplands they were promised and pro Independence politicians realise that they cannot deliver on their promises. See England post Brexit as an example of what happens when rampant nationalism fails to deliver on what it promised.

      As I said such a shame.

    18. Aye, You voted YES in 2014.
      That'll be right CONCERN TROLL!
      Scotland will be what we make of it.
      Under your UK Union we'll be whatever England decides for us.
      Your Union has been rumbled by the Scottish people.
      You could try recalibrating your 2014 VOW.
      Maybe it'll work twice?

    19. A good bit of fiction by unknown but I doubt it will win any literary awards. Try harder next time.

    20. Are you saying that the Welsh Government are forcing Welsh on people by providing Welsh and English websites tweets?

      No. You misread my post. They balance nicely it seems. Welsh needs better promotion like Gaelic. Only 19% speak it compared to 30% fluent in Scots. It's not as endangered as Gaelic, but more so than Scots.

      To be honest if my own Government can't be arsed to produce stuff in a language then why should I bother speaking it. They obviously don't care about the language so why should I.

      Well, just because the Tory government can't be arsed doing something doesn't mean I'll follow their lead. The Scottish government promotes Scots but not French. I know the former quite well and I'm become fluent in the latter. If the unionists took power again in Scotland and stopped all Scots promotion, I would still enjoy using it. I guess I'm just of independent mind.

      You as per all racists just want to blame someone else. To be honest i'm amazed that you want Independence what are you going to do when you have not got another country to blame for everything.

      Baseless insults = lost argument

      I agree with you, the UK Government is xenophobic currently.


      Any person organisation who repeatedly brings up imagination in their arguments tends to to be. Hence the fact that you managed to bring it up over 30 times (all related to England) in this short thread highlights this

      It's not xenophobic to complain about your own country's government and it's MPs. Boris wants me to complain about him. He won't even let me leave the room, but is trying to force me to stay so I can complain about him. It's not my fault he's my PM or that he's English.

      It's racist that English people can complain freely about English Westminster MPs but Scots are berated for this when they share the same government dominated by these.

    21. The sad thing is I don't think you see that you are no different than a Brexiter. Blaming everything on the UK/England is no different than blaming everything on the EU

      Except I voted remain, am of mixed nationality and love that, support unionism and full free movement, including with the countries of the UK, and am moderate centre left liberal. I can’t stand racism / parochialism either, hence I don’t e.g. demand the speaking of Scots, but am fine with the use of Scottish English for daily government function. I think it would be nice that, like all the Europeans I know (and also Welsh in fact), migrants from the rUK might use a bit of Scots, which wasn't my experience. Maybe in England they could teach English kids more about the other nations of the UK like we Scots teach? That's how you strengthen the union; respect and understanding.

      I don't 'blame England', I complain about my own government. Boris is my PM. It's not racist to say he's shit at that job. What is racist is telling Scots they can't complain about him because he's English, ergo complaints are ‘anti-English’. This is classic colonialism; the natives are just racist against the colonists! The natives are the problem, not the colonists who oppose their independence!

      It's comical to suggest I'm anti-English while I openly state I am using English and advocate Sturgeon does so, so as to be inclusive to English Scots and English folk in England. Here I am using English which is the language of the folk I am supposedly against.

      See England post Brexit as an example of what happens when rampant nationalism fails to deliver on what it promised.

      I don't know who has been selling you sunlit uplands. Certainly not the SNP or any senior Yes folk.

      I'm voting Yes to be a normal country, getting the government I voted for, and sitting as an equal amoung the others of Europe. It will be shit at times, ok at others. I will get governments I didn’t vote for and I don’t like. However, they will be my government that the folk in my country (or one of them) voted for rather than what the neighbours did.

      Also so that I don't have to argue Scottish is a language with some people any more. You don't have loads of Scandinavian unionists in Norway telling people that Norwegian isn't a language, just a dialect of Danish. I look forward to that.

      I don't know who you are so won't speak like I know you and pronounce judgement. I'll just debate with you and only say you are being and idiot if you are.

    22. Good for you if you voted Yes in 2014. Don't let the English Brits call you a 'scrounging brit-jock subsidy junkie vermin' for you are not; you had the guts to vote to stand on your own two feet.

    23. I don't know who has been selling you sunlit uplands. Certainly not the SNP or any senior Yes folk.
      They don't have to its 2020 they just need a Richard Murphy or Kevin Hague what they want to hear. Nothing to come back directly to you no need to have actual facts that you might have to defend. But your supporters can hold it aloft as proof that independence will be an economic navada or catastrophic depending on the point of view.

      Maybe in England they could teach English kids more about the other nations of the UK like we Scots teach?
      That's nationalism 101. Been used in countries all around the world forever and a day. Look at how badly England teaches its kids - it doesn't teach them properly so they come to Scotland and don't speak the language etc.
      Very common in far right nationalists - dam immigrants coming to our country and not speaking the language. Here in this country we teach our kids to respect other cultures /countries they obviously don't.

      As I said an English nationalist bemoaning the fact that immigrants from Libya (for example) are coming into England and not speaking the language is no different that a Scottish Nationalist bemoaning English immigrants coming to Scotland and not speaking Scots.
      Having an excuse of why you are nothing like other nationalists is a common response. Its a bit like when the BNP claimed that they were not a racist organisation because they had nothing specifically in there rules saying that non whites could join.

      stand on your own two feet.

      Two countries in the world can stand on their own two feet America and China. Even large economies like Germany are too reliant on geopolitics going the right way but have to little influence own there own to truly stand on their own feet.

      Every other country needs support. Again its that nationalistic mindset... let make Britain Great again / Scotland will thrive once it stands on its own.

      Scotland and the rUK are medium sized Western economies. The glory days of medium western economies are gone. Look at any prediction of the economic map in the next 10, 20, 30 years. An example below but all the predictions are about the same:

      Germany hangs on in the top ten due to is population size but that's it. Neither have the necessary resources (lots of people working for a low (by western standards) wage)to compete.

      I actually agree with you on the voting side of things thats one of the reasons i voted yes in 2014. That and the economic augment as well as the slightly more positive campaign from yes.

      For next time around i'm still yes on the vote side and fully expect both sides to be very negative so it hinges on the economic arguments. For that ill wait to see what actual economists make of each side of the argument and take it from there. Certainly not going to listen to the opinions of a tax accountant or businessman, who have no expertise in economics!

    24. Sorry, but I can't understand how teaching kids about other countries and cultures is 'nationalism 101'. It's the very opposite.

      Same for introducing them / teaching them the languages of other countries. That couldn't be less nationalistic!

      Also how wanting to be in union with 30 or so other countries is 'nationalistic'; again, it's the exact opposite.

      Speaking the native language of a country that you have moved to is not about nationalism, this is a simple matter of manners. It's bizarre that you think otherwise. How on earth is me learning French so when I am in France I can communicate with French people 'nationalistic'? How is an Englishman picking up some Scots words in the way my European colleagues and friends do 'nationalistic'? Huh?

      It is nationalistic to enforce a single language in all circumstance... tell people privately chatting on the train between themselves to 'speak English!'.

      It is however not remotely nationalistic to tell e.g. English kids 'In France, they speak French. Here are some examples of common French words'. It's nonsensical to suggest so. You sound ridiculous.

      I'm sorry but I cannot understand your logic at all. It makes no sense.

      And I am not voting economically nor will most people. It is about democracy for me, i.e. Scotland simply being the same as other countries in getting the government it voted for. I am voting for the normality that my wife and all my friends from other countries take for granted. Also for unionism (EEA/EU) and full free movement; again the opposite of nationalism.

      It's not weird or nationalistic. Nationalistic is support for an isolationist supranational (former) imperial power that 'punches above its weight on the world stage' to the sound of land and hope and glory. A country that illegally occupies others etc (Chagos Islands).

      Anyway, I don't think we can discuss more without just going in circles. As noted, your views on nationalism seem in direct contradiction to all normal definitions. It makes debate very difficult.

    25. You need to read what was written. I never stated that ‘Sorry, but I can't understand how teaching kids about other countries and cultures is 'nationalism 101'.’

      I said that it was a common trait in nationalists to state that children in countries are not taught about other countries hence the reason that they come to their country and don’t speak the language.

      Seeing as you did not read what I actually wrote the rest of your reply on this matter is irrelevant.

      If I stood in a street and when on social media and bemoaned the fact that immigrants from Lybia came into my country and did not bother to speak the language and that the schools in their country should teach them more about other countries (we no evidence to back up my claims) then people would rightly call me out for being a racist/ nationalist.

      The fact that you say the same about people from England openly and then see no problem with it as actually quite scary.

    26. If I stood in a street and when on social media and bemoaned the fact that immigrants from Lybia came into my country and did not bother to speak the language and that the schools in their country should teach them more about other countries (we no evidence to back up my claims) then people would rightly call me out for being a racist/ nationalist.

      What on earth does this have to do with what we were taking about though? Obviously I don't advocate this as stated. I often speak french to my wife and daughter in public. If I'm addressing them in private conversation it's up to me what language I use. If I am talking to someone else, I will adopt the language I think they are most likely to understand that I have at my disposal. I find it polite to try and pick up the basics if you are going to spend any notable length of time somewhere.

      We were talking about teaching school kids, our own included, about other countries, their culture, a little bit of their language.

      It's not possible from people to twist this into nationalism without sounding like an idiot.

      An English school teaching kids that the UK has 4 nations and six or so original languages...that in Europe... France they speak french etc couldn't be less nationalistic.

    27. We were talking about teaching school kids, our own included, about other countries, their culture, a little bit of their language

      How do you know that does not happen in England. Have you evidence of this?

      I'm amazed that you think its ok to single out imigrants from a certain country for not integrating properly when they are in Scotland by not speaking Scots.

      As i said if someone on a public forum said that people imigrants Libya should be taught at school about England and if they were properly they would not come to England not being able to speak English, they would rightfully be called out for being a racists, but you think its ok.
      I find it polite to try and pick up the basics if you are going to spend any notable length of time somewhere
      Don't necessarily disagree but the fact that you have only singled out immigrants from one country is wrong*

      *Of course if you have evidence that only emigrants from England don't try and speak Scots and immigrants from all other countries do.

    28. And I am not voting economically nor will most people

      Of course this is a silly statement to make. Of course economics will play a huge part. If not no one would care about GERS post indy currency etc etc, the fact that there is a debate over things like that this shows that it will play a part.

      Only an idiot would vote for something that would make them or their country worst off. You saw it with the hardcore Brexiters, all the experts telling them that the UK would be worse off were not telling the truth – it was all project fear. All that mattered was getting back control.

    29. How do you know that does not happen in England. Have you evidence of this?

      Are you saying this does happen in England, that English kids are taught a bit about Scotland and Scots language etc? That’s great if so, but you said this was racist / nationalistic, so oppose it?

      As i said if someone on a public forum said that people immigrants Libya should be taught at school about England and if they were properly they would not come to England not being able to speak English, they would rightfully be called out for being a racists, but you think its ok.

      What on earth does Libya have to do with this discussion? All the Libyans I know (which is quite a lot as it’s an oil and gas country) speak very good English; they learned before coming to work/study here. They also adopted Scots words after realising the difference. But that’s besides the point.

      Obviously, if you want to go and live in a country it’s good to learn the language, so most people do this, like you say. You don’t need to, but it is, as I’ve said countless times, rude not to. I don’t see what this has to do with racism, this is a simple matter of manners.

      For clarity, I wouldn’t expect a tourist to the UK to learn one or more of its languages. However, I would think it rude of an immigrant from any country coming to live in the UK not to learn at least a bit of the language to use when conversing with locals (in private conversations they can speak whatever language they like). It’s nothing to do with race or racism. It’s manners.

      And I'm not picking out a single country at all; same applies for all. My French wife speaks impeccable English and is very proficient in Scots too these days, much to the friendly amusement of the locals. Scots with a French accent is gloriously endearing.

    30. Are you saying this does happen in England, that English kids are taught a bit about Scotland and Scots language etc

      Of cause they do. I've probably got the presentations / workbooks etc of when they were taught from when my kids were in school in the loft (my wife has annoying habit of wanting to keep every bit of school work that is sent home with them at the end of the school year - got boxes of the stuff). From what i can vaguely remember they do the basics when they in the first year and then more in depth a couple of years latter when they are a bit older and know more). I never said that it was racist to do so - why do you feel the need to make stuff up - I said nationalist/racists accuse other countries on not educating there children properly on other countries.

      Saying 'all the Libyans I know' is irrelevant, unless you know a representative sample of all the Libyans in Scotland then can draw no conclusions from that. Its like me saying all the people a know vote Labour so Labour is going to win the Election next year, its just nonsense.

      I used Lybia as an example - ive seen alot in the news /online etc about the migrant crisis in the Mediterranean so it just sprang to mind.

      If you not picking out a particular country why did you single out England? Why not say migrants to Scotland should learn to speak some Scots? That way people clearly know that your are talking about immigrants from all countries. Pretty basic stuff.

      As above your wifes linguistic skills - whilst admirable- are irrelevant to the discussion. What she does cannot be used to draw any conclusions on a larger scale. My English wife can speak English as her first language Dutch (from her family) German (through education) fluently and conversational French but obviously cannot use the fact to make any statements about the linguistic skills of English people living in Scotland and more than your wife's linguistic skills being used to draw any conclusions about the linguistic skills of French people living in Scotland.

    31. Erm, you seem to have trouble with English. You can understand this?

      And I'm not picking out a single country at all; same applies for all.

      Not only that, I apply the same to Scots. If I went to live in a Gaelic speaking community in the NW of Scotland, I'd work on my Gaelic so I could speak with the locals in their mother tongue.
      At the same time though, I think there is an obligation on native Gaelic speakers to learn some Scots and/or Scottish English to return the favour should they move to southern areas of Scotland where Gaelic has not been spoken widely for a long time.

      Do you think that 'racist' of me? If so, am I anti-Scottish, ergo anti-myself?

      I also have no idea where you are getting the idea that I said English people don't have linguistic skills. You just made that up to attack me. I was asking about their level of ability in Scots; a widely spoken (85%) language in the second partner country of the ‘precious’ GB union.

      Is your wife living in Scotland? If so, ~30% of the people she will meet will be native Scots speakers like myself. English isn't my first language, but one I learned as a second language, and which I use mainly for businesses purposes, with Scots and French socially. Over 8/10 of the people she meets will speak some Scots, from fully fluent to limited. They will happily use English with her noting she is English. It would be very nice if she returned that favour and spoke a little Scots would it not? It's not obligatory, but 'when in rome' as they say? It’s great if she does.

      You said you lived in Scotland. Can you speak any Scots? I have assumed you could not because of the way you thought hardly anyone spoke it.

      In your experience, do English people in Scotland you know use some Scots with Scots speakers? As you say, I only know a relatively small sample, and my experience is they use English, often in part keeping some of their original local dialect, but not so much as to not be understandable. Maybe you are right and it's much more common. After all, you thought very few folk spoke scots when 85% do, with 30% fully fluent. Certainly, with 26% of English immigrants backing Scottish indy, I would imagine a few of them would have 'gone native'.

      Does the PM speak any Scots? Surely he knows a few words, some Welsh, Cornish and Irish too?

      I can’t see how it would be racist for a people to expect their PM to speak a little bit of their native language certainly. It could however be seen as racist if he didn’t bother to learn any.

    32. And I'm not picking out a single country at all; same applies for all.
      No you picked England specifically see you post yesterday.

      They will happily use English with her noting she is English.
      How will they know shes English? Do you think she has a flag of St George tattooed on her forehead?

      I can read and understand enough Scots to understand the jist of a conversation or what is written, my spoken Scots is more limited. Ditto with my wife.

      From what I can see from a quick search he has spoken some Welsh
      His also (badly) tried to speak Gaelic
      He also seems to speak some Cornish:
      There was applause from the audience after a question was asked in Cornish by a member of the press and the Prime Minister responded in the language.

    33. And I'm not picking out a single country at all; same applies for all.
      No you picked England specifically see you post yesterday.

      They will happily use English with her noting she is English.
      How will they know shes English? Do you think she has a flag of St George tattooed on her forehead?

      I can read and understand enough Scots to understand the jist of a conversation or what is written, my spoken Scots is more limited. Ditto with my wife.

      From what I can see from a quick search he has spoken some Welsh
      His also (badly) tried to speak Gaelic
      He also seems to speak some Cornish:
      There was applause from the audience after a question was asked in Cornish by a member of the press and the Prime Minister responded in the language.

      Finally can you provide evidence to your claim that 85% of people in Scotland speak Scots. I can find no evidence of this anywhere. Just a link to the site that provided you with this figure will be fine. In the absence of this I will have to assume that its just something you made up and rely on the figures used by the Scottish Government (1.9 million people speak, read, write or understand Scots)

    34. Actually, don’t worry I see the problem, you are using a survey from 2009 as the basis of your claims. Of course, census figures are going to be more accurate that those extrapolated from a survey, especially when the survey predates the census.

      If you think I am wrong in this assumption I’ll be happy to be corrected just provide a link to a paper proving that surveys are more accurate than census results.
      In the absence of that will have to take the census figures are the most accurate figures available.

    35. The UK census found at 30% of people in Scotland spoke Scots fluently. 37% had skills in Scots, either written, understanding spoken and/or reading.

      That's 47% of those who nationally identify as Scottish in whole or in part, so close to half of people who call themselves in part Scottish. It is 61% of those who identify as 'Scottish only', which the majority of Scots do.

      Even if we ignore the poor wording of the census question and fact that so many didn't understand what they were speaking to be a legally recognised language (which should have been explained to counter British propaganda), this is a huge number of Scots users, and makes Scots more widely spoken than a number of European languages.

      There were also small numbers of Scots speakers recorded in England and Wales on the 2011 Census, with the largest numbers being either in bordering areas (e.g. Carlisle) or in areas that had recruited large numbers of Scottish workers in the past (e.g. Corby or the former mining areas of Kent).[49]

      I shall try to find the exact numbers, but it seems to be less than 1% from indirect calculation, which is disappointing given Scots have all learned English. Good on Boris for making an effort in this area.

      Anyway, I am involved in recruiting staff at my work, and we look for a high standard of English/Scots in candidates. If they can't speak at least one of these proficiently, they will not be given work. There is an expectation that they should have learned to speak the local language, with good written skills too depending on role.

      Contrary to what you say, this is perfectly legal and not considered racist at all. It applies to candidates from both Libya and England.

      So no, an expectation that immigrants to Scots pick up some local language is not racist. You either lied about that, or just lack knowledge in this area, so people can't trust your conclusions.

      The survey I quote remains more trustworthy as it was designed by language experts and made clear what was meant by Scots, rather than having the respondent try to decide that themselves; a schoolboy error in polling.

    36. Anyway, I'll finish by saying there's no excuse :-). I've spoken to you at length in English, which shows how polite I am. Are you polite enough to pick up a bit of Scots for the next time we bore everyone?

      'Gie it a shot' - OU offers free Scots language course

      A free online course has been developed that teaches the Scots language in the context it is spoken.

      Developed by The Open University (OU) and Education Scotland, the course also highlights the role of the language in Scottish culture and society.

      Great to see the Scottish government giving folks this opportunity.

    37. So not 85% then. Glad we have got that out of the way. If you have any problems with wording of the census you need to take it up with the NRS.

      What you employer is done is obviously ok - i have never said that it is illegal. As long as specify what skills are required and to what level in the advert and have a way of assessing these skills that is applied then that's fine. I am amazed that you think this is somehow something unique to your job. I'm a meteorologist when I apply for jobs the employer clearly states what qualification are required to even be considered for the job there not going to employ someone will no skills or qualifications in meteorology to be a meteorologists are they. Ditto my wife she is a Dutch/German translator. Obviously jobs she applies for would specify that she needs to speak either Dutch or German to a fluent standard. You seem to have a very narrow view of things if you think your employer is doing anything special

      Of course English is taught in Scottish schools as it is one of the Three national languages of Scotland. Its not one of the languages of England thus not taught. Again pretty basic stuff.

      I've never expecting immigrants to speak Scots was racist. I said that singling out immigrants from one country for doing so was. Maybe you should stop posting on here in English until you can comprehend the language enough to read what people write.

      Ill continue to speak in one of the national languages of the country I live in thanks.

    38. 85% according to Scottish government surveys, so a large majority if we meet in the middle with an average.

      I am using English with you. If you won't even try to reciprocate in my native language while in my country (even if virtually), I can only conclude you are rude and in a racist way.

    39. I can see you in Quebec shouting at the francophone locals in English 'But I am speaking your native language!"

    40. And also to the first nation peoples...

      'I'll continue to speak English with you because that's a Canadian native language!'

      English is not one of the native languages of Scots. It is a native language of some people who live in Scotland. Scotland has no legally official language.

      For many, like me, it is L2; English as a foreign language. You are conversing with me in what is a foreign language to me, refusing to use my native language, even though you could quickly pick up a few words. In effect, you are pushing - some might say forcing - English upon me by not speaking in Scots. It's like the Brit shouting in English at the spanish barman, making zero effort in spanish.

      I think it's obvious who the racist is.

    41. Erm i'm speaking the majority language of Scotland. If in Qubeck you would be the one shouting speak English (the language spoke by less people).

      In the census 62% of people had no skills in Scots. That leaves 38% who had some skills. Were are you persisting with this fallacy that is the majority language when its clearly not. I don't give a shit either way, i'm just going with offical data. It seems to really both you though.

      AS i have explained my language skills are not sufficient to converse in Scots to the standard required. What is rude, of course, knowing this is to keep pushing the issue.

      If you have a problem conversing in English then stop conversing and the conversation will end - its quiet simple.

    42. English is not the official language of Scotland, it is simply a popular one, native to some.

      It's not my native language and I am Scots. It doesn't matter if English is the native language of some Scots, it's not mine and you are talking to me. I've made this clear.

      English is a native language to some Canadians, French or first nations languages are to others. This doesn't mean you shout at Francophones in English telling them that's their native language so you'll be using it. That's racist.

      In Scotland, 80% of people self nationally identify as Scots. It's kinda obvious that should use that as the basis for the population that might use the language fairly fluently in different ways. 38/80*100 = 48% of people who say they are Scottish in national identity use Scots.

      Even using your numbers that's around half of Scots. It's a huge number of people, not some fringe thing. And studies indicate it's much higher than that.

      Yes, if you want to continue to shout at me in a foreign language even though I am happy to talk to you in your preferred one, then our conversation is over.

  45. Replies
    1. Well he is tweeting away. Perhaps he is thinking about coming off the fence but is still not sure where to position himself - indecision indecision?

    2. Coming off the fence about what, exactly? I can be accused of many things but not of lacking opinions.

    3. James Kelly - nothing to say about the draft independence bill announcement.

  46. @unknown/unbekent,If ye hae an interest in written Scots, hae a leuk at Witch Wood by John Buchan.
    A braw tale, wi rowth o guid Scots spelt the traditional wey.
    Inform yersel man.

  47. Bloody hell unknown has taken over from GWC as Skiers sparring partner. Like before it does nothing for the site.

    1. Sorry, I can't help it when there's no new polling to discuss!

    2. Skier - surely polls are not the only thing worth debating about Scottish independence.

    3. Sure. At least GWC was polite enough to speak to us native Scots speakers in that language sometimes.