I have the honour of contributing a very small footnote to the history of this young Parliament—indeed, to the history of the Scottish Parliament in general—as I was the first person to speak in a debate in the Scottish Parliament in the proud language of my forebears.
It is a language that played a critical part in the soundtrack of my childhood in Glasgow and Tiree.
In my maiden speech in 1999, I made the point that I spoke haltingly in Gaelic—and I speak it even less well now—because of attitudes to Gaelic in the Scotland that I grew up in.
Active decisions were taken to minimise the use of Gaelic and to make no real provision for Gaelic education for the island and Highland diaspora in our cities.
There were many like me who lost the language that they listened to and lived with every day, and there were people such as my grandmother, who through politeness and good manners often spoke in not her first but her second language, believing somehow that she needed to be the person who reached out in order to engage with other people.
During my childhood in Glasgow, the only provision for children like me was to go to interminable Gaelic classes, at which we learned exactly where Mary was—in front of the house, to the side of the house, or on the other side of the house—but which bore no relation to, or gave me any capacity to speak to my family in, the language in which they spoke to one another all the time.
I am glad that there seems to be a consensus on the need to address the question of Gaelic.
Things were not always this way, and we should remember that.
There was hostility, discrimination and lack of understanding that led to people losing the language that their forebears had treasured.
While recognising the progress that has been made, we must recognise those problems, and we need to learn from the journey rather than presume that victory has been won.
I commend those who continue to put pressure on Government at every level in the fight to sustain their language.
They have been innovative and creative in how they have tried to take the language forward.
They have demanded that the needs of Gaelic-speaking communities be met both in the Highlands and in the cities.
They have understood the power of harnessing Gaelic and its culture to address modern culture by giving the language a modern face in music, song and the arts.
That has not just provided a renaissance in traditional Gaelic culture but enriched that culture and, indeed, all our cultures.
That shows the diversity of cultures that have shaped modern Scotland.
On Ted Brocklebank's point, I think that Gaelic has a richness that Scotland can present to the world.
It provides an economic interest for the tourism industry, which is helped by the fact that we have that diversity.
As the very proud auntie of a nephew who is the Gaelic voice of Charlie in the children's television programme "Charlie and Lola", I know that Gaelic can exist in many places beyond the traditional ceilidh.
We must listen to those who understand the connection between the need to sustain Gaelic and the need to will the means for that to happen.
There is a critical connection between the survival of Gaelic and support for Gaelic-medium education, and at the core of my speech is the recognition that Gaelic's fragility is not accidental and that making it secure cannot be accidental either.
That presents a real challenge to every level of Government about how to act.
This is not a time to be feeble.
I welcome the draft language plan, but I caution the minister not to listen to the quiet impossibilists who sometimes give advice to ministers.
What we need is not assertion or appearance but some guarantees.
The phenomenal progress in Gaelic-medium education and the consequential optimism for the language was due to active political decisions by the previous Administration, which are now being built on, and the courage of local authorities such as Glasgow City Council, which now has a Gaelic-medium nursery school, primary school and secondary school.
In particular, we should recognise that the introduction of free nursery places accelerated the development of Gaelic by offering a critical place for Gaelic-medium education that has reached out not only to families in which Gaelic had been lost but, in a wonderful way, to families that had no prior connection with the language.
The minister will acknowledge the pressures that are on local government and the anxieties among equality groups generally about the vulnerability of soft budgets during a time of pressures.
It is understandable that there is an anxiety about culture budgets, education budgets and other budgets that have supported the development of Gaelic, and I urge the minister to recognise the vulnerability of traditional Gaelic culture and how young people are reshaping it.
Support is required at every level.
In my final minute, I want to make one or two points about BBC Alba.
We celebrate the channel's early success, and we recognise its critical role and its potential in sustaining the language.
I commend Alasdair Allan—I am not one who is often gracious in the chamber—for becoming an accomplished Gaelic speaker from a starting point of zero.
The minister is a gracious person, but I regret her ungracious remarks about the public appointment of Alasdair Morrison as chair of MG Alba.
Whatever her views on his politics, I am sure that she recognises his intelligence, energy and abiding passion for his native tongue.
I hope that she will assure us today that the Scottish Government will do everything that it can to support BBC Alba, given its potential to normalise Gaelic in our communities.
The minister must recognise that the evident awareness of Scottishness that Gaelic presents is as much about celebrating the differences in our culture as recognising the commonality of some of our traits and characteristics.
This is an opportunity to reaffirm the important role of Gaelic in celebrating what everyone brings to the table and what makes us different and distinct—that is critical to our capacity to celebrate all of Scotland's cultures.
I commend the minister for the consultation on the draft language plan, and I look forward to her continuing energy in supporting this precious language.
30.12.08
Iain Gray's message at Christmas
24 December 2008
IAIN GRAY'S MESSAGE AT CHRISTMAS
On my first Christmas as leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament and I would like to wish all Scots a Merry Christmas.
The season of goodwill is not only a time for family and friends.
It is also a time to look out for those less fortunate: the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless and people with disabilities.
But this is something we, as politicians, must concentrate on every day of year.
Labour's core values focus on exactly this.
We believe in working together for a caring, fair society where we look out for each other, protect the vulnerable, work towards ending child poverty and give a hand up to those who need it.
Labour is about protecting public services that ensure we have a first-class health service free at the point of use, where education is always a priority and the economy is secure and stable so business can operate successfully.
However this Christmas many of us may be facing the New Year with some apprehension.
The events of the last few months have had a global impact.
Labour has not stood by.
We have taken decisive action.
We stepped in to save Scottish financial sector by investing £37bn in banks.
Another £2bn has been put into the pockets and purses of Scots to stimulate the Scottish economy. Interest rates and VAT have been cut and protection put in place for those with mortgage difficulties.
Most people appreciate we are all in this together.
Labour has played its part and will continue to do so to protect jobs and services.
There are tough times ahead but with right spirit, right attitude and right policies we can get through 2009 together.
Meanwhile a special thanks from all of us should go to the unsung heroes over the Festive Season.
Those who will keep our hospitals, ambulance and fire services running and will be policing our streets.
True public servants, working hard to ensure a safe and happy Christmas for us all.
IAIN GRAY'S MESSAGE AT CHRISTMAS
On my first Christmas as leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament and I would like to wish all Scots a Merry Christmas.
The season of goodwill is not only a time for family and friends.
It is also a time to look out for those less fortunate: the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless and people with disabilities.
But this is something we, as politicians, must concentrate on every day of year.
Labour's core values focus on exactly this.
We believe in working together for a caring, fair society where we look out for each other, protect the vulnerable, work towards ending child poverty and give a hand up to those who need it.
Labour is about protecting public services that ensure we have a first-class health service free at the point of use, where education is always a priority and the economy is secure and stable so business can operate successfully.
However this Christmas many of us may be facing the New Year with some apprehension.
The events of the last few months have had a global impact.
Labour has not stood by.
We have taken decisive action.
We stepped in to save Scottish financial sector by investing £37bn in banks.
Another £2bn has been put into the pockets and purses of Scots to stimulate the Scottish economy. Interest rates and VAT have been cut and protection put in place for those with mortgage difficulties.
Most people appreciate we are all in this together.
Labour has played its part and will continue to do so to protect jobs and services.
There are tough times ahead but with right spirit, right attitude and right policies we can get through 2009 together.
Meanwhile a special thanks from all of us should go to the unsung heroes over the Festive Season.
Those who will keep our hospitals, ambulance and fire services running and will be policing our streets.
True public servants, working hard to ensure a safe and happy Christmas for us all.
19.12.08
Budget Process -Speech in the Scottish Parliament 17th. December 2008
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I confess that I do so with a degree of trepidation, as someone who is not a member of the Finance Committee and is certainly not an economist.
One concern is that the budget is often presented in techie language as a hugely complex and complicated issue.
One is given the feeling that only the high priests of the financial world can comment at a level that is appropriate to the debate.
We should recognise that the budget is about the real world.
We need to talk about the budget in terms of its real-world consequences.
We all find it easy to speak at great length on what we care about and what we believe in, but the test for the Government is not just to say what priorities it cares about but to show how it wills those priorities through its budget process.
A central job of Government is not simply to assert policy commitments or even to elevate some of those to issues of principle; a Government must talk about what it will do when faced with conflicting issues of principle and with a number of things to choose between.
The challenge for the current Government—a challenge to which the previous speaker perhaps failed to rise—is to accept that it cannot simply presume as a self-evident truth that certain things are good because they seem to be good.
The budget process, which is the process of testing the budget, is about moving from assertion and belief to evidence that the proposals will make a difference.
Given that the test for the Government through the budget process is to identify priorities, to make choices and to justify those choices, the budget needs to be transparent and its assumptions need to be tested.
There are real concerns about the capacity of the draft budget to show what priority the Government gives to issues of equalities and social justice.
Last year, there were serious concerns about the lack of commentary in the budget documents on equalities, which was identified as a weakness.
This year's budget is weaker still.
Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission have commented on concerns about the capacity of local government to deliver on, or even to understand, its equality duties.
There is clear evidence that the budget process is not helping by providing certainty and confidence about the Government's priorities.
There is clear evidence that the Scottish Government has made political choices on the issues of the council tax and small business bonus scheme, but the rationale for those choices is missing.
That is where proper equality proofing—and anti-poverty proofing—would do a job.
I understand why people say that equality proofing is very complex and should not necessarily appear in the budget documents.
However, it should be at the heart of the process.
Regardless of the size of the cake, the issue is how the cake is shared out.
Therefore, equality proofing of the budget must be central to the process; it is not a bonus for the days when the sun is shining.
Equality proofing is even more—rather than less—important when budgets are under pressure.
On that basis, I come to the issue of single outcome agreements.
For me, there remains a central conundrum about single outcome agreements that has not been addressed by ministers.
On previous occasions, ministers have said that local authorities have a statutory responsibility to fulfil their equality duties.
However, local authorities say that single outcome agreements do not require equality impact assessments.
We do not know which of those positions is correct.
We need to know that, because otherwise there is a concern that those responsibilities will be deprioritised.
One explanation given is the timescales involved in single outcome agreements, but those timescales are entirely in the hands of the Government.
No guidance has been issued on whether single outcome agreements require equality impact assessments.
In the meantime, resource decisions are being made on the basis of what has been decided in single outcome agreements—not to mention the whole challenge of equal pay, which the Equal Opportunities Committee wants us to consider.
Let me give an example.
According to Scottish Women's Aid's analysis of single outcome agreements, only seven of the 32 agreements mention violence against women.
To be fair to him, in response to an oral question on violence against women, the Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell, said:
"I am sure that that is a priority for all councils throughout Scotland."—[Official Report, 4 December 2008; c 13112.]
However, the issue is not of sufficient priority for a significant number of councils to include it in their single outcome agreements.
What will the Government do?
What is the next stage?
Will the Government say to local government that single outcome agreements require equality impact assessments?
Will it say that issues such as violence against women should be mentioned in single outcome agreements?
When we come to that point, central Government steps back. In my view, that is not good enough.
The reality is that the budget will fail to take an equality impact perspective if, for example, a Scottish Enterprise skills strategy does not recognise the high number of people who have a disability among those within what used to be called the NEET—not in education, employment or training—group; or if modern apprenticeships face a challenge in relation to occupational segregation, which affects economic opportunity; or if the Government does not spend on infrastructure to address the particular needs of groups who are further from the labour force than others.
In such cases, the budget will fail to address equalities and poverty issues.
One concern is that the budget is often presented in techie language as a hugely complex and complicated issue.
One is given the feeling that only the high priests of the financial world can comment at a level that is appropriate to the debate.
We should recognise that the budget is about the real world.
We need to talk about the budget in terms of its real-world consequences.
We all find it easy to speak at great length on what we care about and what we believe in, but the test for the Government is not just to say what priorities it cares about but to show how it wills those priorities through its budget process.
A central job of Government is not simply to assert policy commitments or even to elevate some of those to issues of principle; a Government must talk about what it will do when faced with conflicting issues of principle and with a number of things to choose between.
The challenge for the current Government—a challenge to which the previous speaker perhaps failed to rise—is to accept that it cannot simply presume as a self-evident truth that certain things are good because they seem to be good.
The budget process, which is the process of testing the budget, is about moving from assertion and belief to evidence that the proposals will make a difference.
Given that the test for the Government through the budget process is to identify priorities, to make choices and to justify those choices, the budget needs to be transparent and its assumptions need to be tested.
There are real concerns about the capacity of the draft budget to show what priority the Government gives to issues of equalities and social justice.
Last year, there were serious concerns about the lack of commentary in the budget documents on equalities, which was identified as a weakness.
This year's budget is weaker still.
Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission have commented on concerns about the capacity of local government to deliver on, or even to understand, its equality duties.
There is clear evidence that the budget process is not helping by providing certainty and confidence about the Government's priorities.
There is clear evidence that the Scottish Government has made political choices on the issues of the council tax and small business bonus scheme, but the rationale for those choices is missing.
That is where proper equality proofing—and anti-poverty proofing—would do a job.
I understand why people say that equality proofing is very complex and should not necessarily appear in the budget documents.
However, it should be at the heart of the process.
Regardless of the size of the cake, the issue is how the cake is shared out.
Therefore, equality proofing of the budget must be central to the process; it is not a bonus for the days when the sun is shining.
Equality proofing is even more—rather than less—important when budgets are under pressure.
On that basis, I come to the issue of single outcome agreements.
For me, there remains a central conundrum about single outcome agreements that has not been addressed by ministers.
On previous occasions, ministers have said that local authorities have a statutory responsibility to fulfil their equality duties.
However, local authorities say that single outcome agreements do not require equality impact assessments.
We do not know which of those positions is correct.
We need to know that, because otherwise there is a concern that those responsibilities will be deprioritised.
One explanation given is the timescales involved in single outcome agreements, but those timescales are entirely in the hands of the Government.
No guidance has been issued on whether single outcome agreements require equality impact assessments.
In the meantime, resource decisions are being made on the basis of what has been decided in single outcome agreements—not to mention the whole challenge of equal pay, which the Equal Opportunities Committee wants us to consider.
Let me give an example.
According to Scottish Women's Aid's analysis of single outcome agreements, only seven of the 32 agreements mention violence against women.
To be fair to him, in response to an oral question on violence against women, the Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell, said:
"I am sure that that is a priority for all councils throughout Scotland."—[Official Report, 4 December 2008; c 13112.]
However, the issue is not of sufficient priority for a significant number of councils to include it in their single outcome agreements.
What will the Government do?
What is the next stage?
Will the Government say to local government that single outcome agreements require equality impact assessments?
Will it say that issues such as violence against women should be mentioned in single outcome agreements?
When we come to that point, central Government steps back. In my view, that is not good enough.
The reality is that the budget will fail to take an equality impact perspective if, for example, a Scottish Enterprise skills strategy does not recognise the high number of people who have a disability among those within what used to be called the NEET—not in education, employment or training—group; or if modern apprenticeships face a challenge in relation to occupational segregation, which affects economic opportunity; or if the Government does not spend on infrastructure to address the particular needs of groups who are further from the labour force than others.
In such cases, the budget will fail to address equalities and poverty issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)