About you
3. What is your name?
Name
Dòmhnall MacNèill
Organisation details
1. Name of organisation
Name of organisation
(Required)
Comunn na Gàidhlig
2. Information about your organisation
Please add information about your organisation in the box below
Comunn na Gàidhlig (CnaG) was established in 1984 as the key body to revitalise and take forward Gaelic language development priorities. Between 1984 and 2005 it undertook a critical role in developing and implementing new strategic priorities, and lobbying for change – including the establishment of Gaelic Medium Education, and campaigning for the Gaelic Language Act (Scotland)
Since 2005/6, with the approval of the Act, and the establishment of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, CnaG has refocussed its activities towards providing social and extra-curricular opportunities for young people to use their Gaelic beyond the classroom. It does this at a local and national level, through local officers working with young people in communities across Scotland; and through a national programme of camps, outdoor activities and competitions. This work is almost entirely funded by Bòrd na Gàidhlig.
Comunn na Gàidhlig is a registered Charity with Company status.
Since 2005/6, with the approval of the Act, and the establishment of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, CnaG has refocussed its activities towards providing social and extra-curricular opportunities for young people to use their Gaelic beyond the classroom. It does this at a local and national level, through local officers working with young people in communities across Scotland; and through a national programme of camps, outdoor activities and competitions. This work is almost entirely funded by Bòrd na Gàidhlig.
Comunn na Gàidhlig is a registered Charity with Company status.
Question page 1
1. Did you take part in any consultation exercise preceding the Bill and, if so, did you comment on the financial assumptions made?
Please provide your response in the box provided.
Comunn na Gàidhlig did take part in the previous consultation exercise. It dealt with 4 substantially important questions for Gaelic development (each would have been worthy of their own separate consultation) but we recall seeing no financial assumptions made whatsoever. If it was there, it was well-hidden and not in the least highlighted.
The question box asks us to ‘provide the response in the box provided’. Because the previous consultation was so far-reaching Comunn na Gàidhlig made a very comprehensive response. It stretches to 22 pages, in Gaelic. We would be more than happy to forward this response to the F&PA Committee if asked.
Had questions on finance been specifically asked during this consultation exercise Comunn na Gàidhlig would undoubtedly have provided an appropriate response. As it is, we did take the opportunity to highlight how woefully inadequate is the Scottish Government's investment in Gaelic.
The question box asks us to ‘provide the response in the box provided’. Because the previous consultation was so far-reaching Comunn na Gàidhlig made a very comprehensive response. It stretches to 22 pages, in Gaelic. We would be more than happy to forward this response to the F&PA Committee if asked.
Had questions on finance been specifically asked during this consultation exercise Comunn na Gàidhlig would undoubtedly have provided an appropriate response. As it is, we did take the opportunity to highlight how woefully inadequate is the Scottish Government's investment in Gaelic.
2. If applicable, do you believe your comments on the financial assumptions have been accurately reflected in the FM?
Please provide your response in the box provided.
Please see the response above. Our comments in relation to the Scottish Government investment in Gaelic language development have certainly not been accurately reflected in the FM.
3. Did you have sufficient time to contribute to the consultation exercise?
Please provide your response in the box provided.
In essence, yes. However many of the organisations working in Gaelic language development (beyond the Public Sector ones) are small and tightly-resourced. Having this consultation exercise running alongside others is a resource challenge.
4. If the Bill has any financial implications for you or your organisation, do you believe that they have been accurately reflected in the FM? If not, please provide details.
Please provide your response in the box provided.
Overall, the Bill and the FM fundamentally fail to address the critical position of the Gaelic language, and the urgent and focused action required to halt further decline. We believe it is critically important that MSPs on both the F&PA and EC&YP Committees understand this position. Indeed we think all of Scotland's MSPs and anyone else involved in policy making should clearly appreciate the fragile nature of the Gaelic language, and have some understanding of the effort needed to reverse this.
Specific comments in relation to the Financial Memorandum:
Paragraph 6 outlines that many responses were received in relation to the Scottish Government's consultation in late 2022. It goes on to say that 'the provisions of the Bill take account of the consultation responses.' Comunn na Gàidhlig's response dealt strongly with the funding inadequacies facing Gaelic development. We have no doubt that many other responses would have done the same. We see none of this discussion reflected in the current Bill or FM.
Paragraph 8 states that: "Scottish Government expenditure for Gaelic and Scots has remained relatively stable since 2010/11." We cannot comment in relation to Scots, however in the case of Gaelic "relatively stable" can be seen as a euphemism for 'declined significantly in real terms'. We have made the point strongly, and often, that the funding for Scottish Gaelic development is woefully inadequate.
We will refer specifically here to Bòrd na Gàidhlig funding, because this is the key body that in turn funds most, if not all, of the development activity taking place in Gaelic speaking communities across Scotland. If the Bòrd's funding is limited, this directly impacts the funds available for other organisations like Comunn na Gàidhlig.
In 2007/8 the Bòrd budget was £5.46M. In broad terms it has sat at a similar level ever since. In 2023/24 they received £5.48M. This represents an enormous real terms decline and impact. Had this funding increased in line with inflation the 2023/24 award would have been very nearly £10M. This sustained decline in the value of the Bòrd's funding has a very real and tangible impact on the Gaelic development effort across Scotland. Of course this analysis highlights a shortfall of £4.5M in one financial year; cumulatively the decline since 2007/8 is massively significant - several tens of millions, and will have had an unquantifiable effect on the grass-roots development work. To describe this position as 'relatively stable' could be justified through a particularly narrow semantic lens, but would not be accepted by anyone with the simplest grasp of real terms values and the impact of inflation.
This year there has been a further reduction in this already reduced budget. The Bòrd have had no option but to cut their development funding, and this has led directly to the loss of valuable and important posts in grass-roots organisations across the country, many in the most fragile and remote communities. The impact of this has been highlighted by the BBC in the last few days (w/b 26th Feb.)
Paragraph 13 states: "....provisions do not create wholly new costs or a requirement for wholly new spend." Once again, and in a similar vein to our comments above, this might be strictly true through a narrow consideration of the Bill provisions. Such a contention does not address the language reality in schools and communities across Scotland.
Paras 29-34 deal with 'Areas of Linguistic Significance'. In a general sense we and others believe that this policy aspiration is excessively vague. There is no explanation of what these areas might involve, and deferring the details to future consideration by unspecified local authorities only heightens the confusion. In the current financial climate we believe it is extremely unlikely that any Local Authorities would seek this status without a great deal more clarity on what would be involved, and we would imagine, an expectation of appropriate funding. Again, Gaelic Language development cannot be sustained at current spending levels. The all-too-obvious declines in language vitality will simply be maintained.
In relation to Gaelic the remainder of the FM continues in the same vein: 'no additional investment needed'. We acknowledge the good work of Scottish Government officials in taking the Bill to this stage, and understand that they are working within tight parameters (unacceptable ones in our opinion) however if Gaelic is even to be maintained as a living language it has to be clear to all concerned that this cannot happen without increasing real terms investment.
To stress again, all of this does have financial implications for our organisation and others. We can clearly see the decline in the health of Gaelic, we can see at least some of the actions needed to try and reverse this, but we cannot deliver these under current funding levels.
It might be argued that other funding streams might be used to complement those of the Scottish Government. We would agree with this in principle however such streams, for example Lottery funding, often mirror the spending priorities of Government. Gaelic is currently nowhere to be seen as a specific funding priority here.
In making all of our arguments in relation to inadequate funding we believe this reflects a marked lack of ambition in relation to the Scottish Government's ambitions for Gaelic.
If we consider other similar minority language contexts we note that in Wales, the “Cymraeg 2050” strategy includes stated objectives for 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050; and the percentage of reported daily use to increase from 10% to 20% in the same timescale.
In Ireland ( a comparable minority language context to Scotland ) the “20 year strategy for the Irish Language, 2010-2030” outlines two specific objectives: that the number of daily speakers of Irish increases to 250,000 (from 83,000); and that the number of people with a knowledge of Irish increases to 2 million (from 1.66 million). We do not know enough about the language context in these countries to assess whether or not these may, or may not be realistic or achievable, but at very least they are clearly stated, and a marker by which to judge progress.
By contrast, the headline vision in the National Gaelic Language Plan 2023-28 is “a measurable increase in the numbers of people, speaking, learning, using and supporting Gaelic.” There is no further explanation of how much (or how little) would constitute a ‘measurable increase’, whether 10 or 10,000.
These direct comparisons do not reflect well on the ambition of those with responsibility to oversee and manage Gaelic language development in Scotland. Without such targets there is nothing to drive the understanding of appropriate and necessary investment.
Specific comments in relation to the Financial Memorandum:
Paragraph 6 outlines that many responses were received in relation to the Scottish Government's consultation in late 2022. It goes on to say that 'the provisions of the Bill take account of the consultation responses.' Comunn na Gàidhlig's response dealt strongly with the funding inadequacies facing Gaelic development. We have no doubt that many other responses would have done the same. We see none of this discussion reflected in the current Bill or FM.
Paragraph 8 states that: "Scottish Government expenditure for Gaelic and Scots has remained relatively stable since 2010/11." We cannot comment in relation to Scots, however in the case of Gaelic "relatively stable" can be seen as a euphemism for 'declined significantly in real terms'. We have made the point strongly, and often, that the funding for Scottish Gaelic development is woefully inadequate.
We will refer specifically here to Bòrd na Gàidhlig funding, because this is the key body that in turn funds most, if not all, of the development activity taking place in Gaelic speaking communities across Scotland. If the Bòrd's funding is limited, this directly impacts the funds available for other organisations like Comunn na Gàidhlig.
In 2007/8 the Bòrd budget was £5.46M. In broad terms it has sat at a similar level ever since. In 2023/24 they received £5.48M. This represents an enormous real terms decline and impact. Had this funding increased in line with inflation the 2023/24 award would have been very nearly £10M. This sustained decline in the value of the Bòrd's funding has a very real and tangible impact on the Gaelic development effort across Scotland. Of course this analysis highlights a shortfall of £4.5M in one financial year; cumulatively the decline since 2007/8 is massively significant - several tens of millions, and will have had an unquantifiable effect on the grass-roots development work. To describe this position as 'relatively stable' could be justified through a particularly narrow semantic lens, but would not be accepted by anyone with the simplest grasp of real terms values and the impact of inflation.
This year there has been a further reduction in this already reduced budget. The Bòrd have had no option but to cut their development funding, and this has led directly to the loss of valuable and important posts in grass-roots organisations across the country, many in the most fragile and remote communities. The impact of this has been highlighted by the BBC in the last few days (w/b 26th Feb.)
Paragraph 13 states: "....provisions do not create wholly new costs or a requirement for wholly new spend." Once again, and in a similar vein to our comments above, this might be strictly true through a narrow consideration of the Bill provisions. Such a contention does not address the language reality in schools and communities across Scotland.
Paras 29-34 deal with 'Areas of Linguistic Significance'. In a general sense we and others believe that this policy aspiration is excessively vague. There is no explanation of what these areas might involve, and deferring the details to future consideration by unspecified local authorities only heightens the confusion. In the current financial climate we believe it is extremely unlikely that any Local Authorities would seek this status without a great deal more clarity on what would be involved, and we would imagine, an expectation of appropriate funding. Again, Gaelic Language development cannot be sustained at current spending levels. The all-too-obvious declines in language vitality will simply be maintained.
In relation to Gaelic the remainder of the FM continues in the same vein: 'no additional investment needed'. We acknowledge the good work of Scottish Government officials in taking the Bill to this stage, and understand that they are working within tight parameters (unacceptable ones in our opinion) however if Gaelic is even to be maintained as a living language it has to be clear to all concerned that this cannot happen without increasing real terms investment.
To stress again, all of this does have financial implications for our organisation and others. We can clearly see the decline in the health of Gaelic, we can see at least some of the actions needed to try and reverse this, but we cannot deliver these under current funding levels.
It might be argued that other funding streams might be used to complement those of the Scottish Government. We would agree with this in principle however such streams, for example Lottery funding, often mirror the spending priorities of Government. Gaelic is currently nowhere to be seen as a specific funding priority here.
In making all of our arguments in relation to inadequate funding we believe this reflects a marked lack of ambition in relation to the Scottish Government's ambitions for Gaelic.
If we consider other similar minority language contexts we note that in Wales, the “Cymraeg 2050” strategy includes stated objectives for 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050; and the percentage of reported daily use to increase from 10% to 20% in the same timescale.
In Ireland ( a comparable minority language context to Scotland ) the “20 year strategy for the Irish Language, 2010-2030” outlines two specific objectives: that the number of daily speakers of Irish increases to 250,000 (from 83,000); and that the number of people with a knowledge of Irish increases to 2 million (from 1.66 million). We do not know enough about the language context in these countries to assess whether or not these may, or may not be realistic or achievable, but at very least they are clearly stated, and a marker by which to judge progress.
By contrast, the headline vision in the National Gaelic Language Plan 2023-28 is “a measurable increase in the numbers of people, speaking, learning, using and supporting Gaelic.” There is no further explanation of how much (or how little) would constitute a ‘measurable increase’, whether 10 or 10,000.
These direct comparisons do not reflect well on the ambition of those with responsibility to oversee and manage Gaelic language development in Scotland. Without such targets there is nothing to drive the understanding of appropriate and necessary investment.
Question page 2
5. Do you consider that the estimated costs and savings set out in the FM are reasonable and accurate?
Please provide your response in the box provided.
Please see our reply to Q 4
6. If applicable, are you content that your organisation can meet any financial costs that it might incur as a result of the Bill? If not, how do you think these costs should be met?
Please provide your response in the box provided.
Please see our reply to Q 4
7. Does the FM accurately reflect the margins of uncertainty associated with the Bill’s estimated costs and with the timescales over which they would be expected to arise?
Please provide your response in the box provided.
Please see our reply to Q 4