Scottish Referendum debate - watch with Mumsnet

I don't know for sure but I'd imagine resources etc will be scarcer and possibly more expensive. But tbh I don't believe in segregation in state schools whether that's due to language, religion or anything else. Just my opinion though as I know that many people don't agree

Does an entire Gaelic school cost more than a standard school? I always assumed it was just like a normal school, but taught in Gaelic?

As a language choice at school -fine. I am very unconvinced about having entire schools dedicated to gaelic though. Edinburgh now has a specific gaelic language school after the original gaelic language unit was full. But then I know of a fair few folk who at least considered the gaelic option because the secondary school unit is in one of the best high schools in Edinburgh where getting an out of catchment place is virtually impossible...

Not my experience as a scientist Numenoid. We don't really like to cut ourselves off from possible funding sources and even if iScotland ends up in the EU eventually the transition period would be long enough to end, or at least stall, a whole bunch of careers. I can see good scientists leaving if they don't know where their funding comes from for a few years.

It was my impression that artsy/creative people were more likely to be yes?

I'm not sure. I think certain professions can show a leaning to a certain side, although I don't trust any of the polls out there. I think the main job categories of Yes voters I know would be computer science, science (biomedical, physics, chemistry, etc.), linguistics and general office workers. But that's just me.

I'm fairly pro-Gaelic, I grew up in a traditionally Gaelic speaking part of Scotland (though it isn't anymore sadly) and it was on offer as a language choice at school.

Gaelic instead of pensions made me go, WTF? As well, lol.

The languages collected by the ICHEL include Gaelic. This is not really referendum-related, but Gaelic is interesting because it is so old. The study of dead languages is historically important, not only with Gaelic, but often to allow us to understand documents/writings of historical importance.

To be fair I'm a linguist, so I think the decline of language learning in the UK is sad, and find all languages fascinating, so would deem any of them worthy to be taught/kept 'alive' (so to speak).

I imagine both sides cringed at the pensions/Gaelic comment at the debate.

Yep!

That's interesting thanks.

There is a requirement for councils in EU countries to provide native language classes to children of EU citizens OOAOML. In the multilingual forum on a German parenting website they talk about that quite often. I have never bothered with it because I feel it is my responsibility to teach my children my language and not that of an already cash-strapped council which is strugging to keep the smaller schools open and to provide for children with special needs but it is something the Polish community in your area could look into. Especially if there are many Polish children it would be more cost effective than for my two.

I actually think a lot more should be done for languages like Polish - our school had a Polish learning assistant for a while until the council cut the budget. We have a growing Polish population in the area.

I don't think rebranding government departments is to do with tourism though. And encouraging the language is one thing, but spending large amounts of money on Gaelic schools in areas that are not traditional Gaelic areas when other schools are struggling for space and resources doesn't seem the best use of public money to me. As far as I'm aware, it was never the language of the whole country but that's not the impression given.

I imagine both sides cringed at the pensions/Gaelic comment at the debate.

I agree, Gaelic is a tricky one. It is nowhere nearly as widely used as Welsh, but somehow it seems very wrong to let a language die out. I suspect things like roadsigns are just as much to do with tourism as preserving the language.

I think it's nice to keep Gaelic going, but it's certainly not anywhere near as important as paying pensions (which was what that comment was in response to, the daft audience member who asked why we were worrying about pensions rather than Gaelic!)

I think there is a bit of an industry split, artsy/wannabe artsy folk do seem to subscribe to the "fairer, more creative" country vision more than those in other industries (I'm talking at a high level, there will always be exceptions of course!)

It's overwhelmingly 'Yes' among people in the arts as far as I can see. Unconvinced they're representative of the entire nation though.

I saw that, but am not sure how representative it is of the referendum as a whole? It was my impression that artsy/creative people were more likely to be yes?

• Time

The Times magazine no less:

time.com/3110714/scotland-independence-referendum/

"The Gaelic language obsession takes us backwards, rather than forwards IMO - why are we trying to shut ourselves out of the modern world?"

Or another way of looking at it, is that the Scottish Government give a toss about minority groups in it's country and don't like to focus on the majority who speak English. I don't personally speak Gaelic, but I don't have a problem with Gaelic signs everywhere, especially for children being brought up speaking Gaelic. What's the first thing children rely on to learn language? Signs when they're out and about. Signs everywhere in every day life.

I'm not in favour of it, as I've said upthread. But I think it is actually really poor for a government report to be quoting figures from the press as if they are gospel.

Plus, it doesn't in any way distinguish disabilities - not every person who they will class as ill/disabled will require adaptations to their house. I'd actually expect that the majority won't, or certainly won't require significant or costly adaptations.

Even if that estimate is wildly off, you're still talking about thousands of families and a huge bill for local authorities to remove and put in adaptations.

The big issue is the lack of smaller properties, it doesn't free up housing stock if there simply aren't enough properties to move people into, you're then just charging people for having something they have no choice about.

It appears the 80% is the % of people affected who contacted the CAB - this scottish goverment report quotes the number on page 5 and references it to the Sunday Herald, despite doing a huge amount of its own research later.
So basically bollocks

The amount of money isn't more...because social housing rent is lower anyway.

The problems with it are...

There is only the housing stock that exists, there simply aren't enough smaller properties for people to move into.

The rules about whether a bedroom is spare or not isn't linked to how many people live in a property, but, in line with who can share rooms without counting as being overcrowded. So a family of 4 in a 3 bedroom property has a spare bedroom depending on the ages of the children.

80% of the families affected by the charge have an adult with a disability living there, many of them in homes adapted to suit that adult. Not only are these families already vulnerable, but it's a huge waste of public money to take away the adaptations so that someone else can live there and adapt a smaller property if one can be found for the original family and that's assuming the so called spare room isn't needed for equipment or aids related to the disability.

It was not a bedroom tax, or all people with excess bedrooms would have to pay it - for housing benefit paid to private landlords, there has been a limit on the claim based on the number of bedrooms required. Why should social renters getting housing benefit be paid an excessive amount compared to private renters?

"He's pretty easy on the eye as well. "

Ha, you're no kidding FannyFifer!! He's gorgeous!

Just googled him. Not hideous, but clearly it takes all sorts as he's really doing nothing for me.