Seòmar agus comataidhean

A thought occurs to me based, in particular, on your opening remarks. You mentioned that your job title includes the economy and Gaelic. Are those aspects exclusive or related? If we assume that they are related, what are the implications of excluding Scots from your title, and what economic outcomes would teaching Scots achieve?

On the assumption that your economy and languages briefs are related, what economic outcomes do you project from teaching of Scots?

It is not entirely the teacher’s choice to decide how to teach their class.

It feels as though it has been slightly longer.

My personal view, not the committee’s view, is that there is something in that that would be worth being appraised of. Perhaps the committee would be interested, too.

I welcome that, because some witnesses have expressed that as a view. I know that you will do that, because you have said that you will, so I am very grateful for that.

Earlier, you said that Gaelic education has been an enormous success story. Now we are talking about Scots. Therefore, whatever changes were made 20 years ago and since, given that Gaelic education has been an enormous success story, what type of duties does the Government intend to place on education authorities through the Scots language education standards? Although the financial memorandum does not deal with that, how much do you envisage that that would cost local authorities?

I am grateful to my colleague Willie Rennie.

Donald Macleod, on that point, designating an area of linguistic significance is a choice for the local authority, and you have just acknowledged that there will be a cost attached to making that choice. You spoke about Gaelic resources and access to learning, education and employment pathways.

You acknowledge the cost, and there will be a cost to consultation. Given that local authorities are not awash with cash on any analysis, is it likely that any local authority will choose to use the power?

James Wylie, I would like to stay on the point that my friend Michelle Thomson has raised. Your submission raises concerns that the bill uses the concept of what you call “Standardised Scots”, as seen in the translation of the bill, as opposed to recognising variants such as Orkney Norn. Can you develop that concern to help the committee understand it? Particularly, what does educating in Scots mean in practice for the likes of Norn or, indeed, Doric?

My final question picks up on something that Michelle Thomson explored earlier. You mentioned in your submission that there is a risk that the creation of a standardised Scots will come at the expense of Orkney Norn language and culture, and I presume that countering that will require resource and will involve cost. You also mentioned that the additional costs and staffing pressures have not been considered.

From looking into the process, do you have any idea what the financial consequences of the bill as drafted would be for Orkney Islands Council? In any event, do you think that Orkney Islands Council—given all the support that you have already put towards Norn—is in any position to take on extra costs to protect Norn that might arise from the bill?

That is an extremely important point, which begs a further question. You spoke earlier about getting the detail of the bill correct. What precisely did you mean by that? What requires to be changed in the bill to ensure that the different aspects of Norn are protected and not subsumed under a standardised category of “Scots”?