View Full Version : Referendum on Gaelic Roadsigns (Part II)
A year ago I conducted an Org referendum on Gaelic roadsigns (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=71327).....
Bilingual roadsigns are evidently still a big issue in the county. The Groat has been running a poll online for a long time but you can vote in it as many times as you wish and I have heard claims that pressure groups from both sides have been doing exactly that. Yesterday's Groat (http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/6317/Referendum_call_made_on_Gaelic_signs.html) reported a request for a referendum. Let's have an Org referendum.
I have used the same wording and the same 3 choices as the Groat poll.
Should Caithness have bilingual road signs?
The poll is secret, no-one can see how you voted.
The outcome was clear, 5 to 1 were against Gaelic roadsigns.
Since then both sides have conducted public love-ins. Has anything really changed in the last year? To try to find out, I ask again......
Should Caithness have bilingual road signs?
Would it not be actually Democratic to have a REAL local referendum on this issue
They would in the States, just shows you the sham of the so called democratic system we live in.
I have voted 'Yes' :D.
I have no objection to Gaelic road signs provided they are introduced only as and when the existing road signs need replacing and that they do not cost anymore because they are bigger or have more lettering on them.
I do object however to place names and their meanings being changed to suit a nebulous Gaelic past.
I acknowledge that Caithness has an interesting history but this is the 21st Century and the world is changing more rapidly than at any other time in human history.
PS. Can anyone tell me what the Gaelic is for 'Broadband'? ;)
and that they do not cost anymore because they are bigger or have more lettering on them.
They will cost more if they are bigger and have more lettering :eek:
I've voted maybe because I do not yet understand the case for and against. :confused
Metalattakk
14-Apr-10, 15:05
I voted 'No', same as last time.
It's not the initial cost that is the issue, the problem lies in the constant cost of cleaning/replacing them when they are inevitably defaced.
I voted no as it's a disgrace that they are wasting money on these signs when there are cutbacks going on in all our schools and hospitals.
All you anti Gaels may have not noticed, but Stagecoach Buses have already gone multi lingual on their Bus Stop Timetables, at the top of the timetable there is "Buses from this stop" or a similar phrase, in both English and Gaelic in Caithness. Well done Brian Soutar [lol]
I am still at a loss as to why there needs to be gaelic road signs. Can' gaelic speakers read English?
Stack Rock
14-Apr-10, 19:11
All you anti Gaels may have not noticed, but Stagecoach Buses have already gone multi lingual on their Bus Stop Timetables, at the top of the timetable there is "Buses from this stop" or a similar phrase, in both English and Gaelic in Caithness. Well done Brian Soutar [lol]
I think its actually the cooncil that put up the bus timetables.
No, complete waste of money.
John Little
14-Apr-10, 21:23
Once I was in a wee shelter on North Uist waiting for the foot ferry to Uist and two fishermen came to work at their boat. They did not know I was there and talked long and loud in Gaelic, of which I understand not a word save a few rude ones.
But even though I did not understand it I thought it a most beautiful melodic sounding language that sounded like every word should be poetry. Maybe when I retire I might set to learning it.
I am most certainly not anti- Gael and no longer live upo there. But did Caithness ever count as Gaelic Scotland? It was not even part of Dalriada I think; if it's an attenpt to key in to the heritage past then maybe the signs could be in Norwegian and English?
How many inhabitants of Caithness speak Gaelic?
Invisible
14-Apr-10, 21:42
No, complete waste of money.
Do you know the amount it was cost to implement?:confused
Aaldtimer
15-Apr-10, 03:00
Once I was in a wee shelter on North Uist waiting for the foot ferry to Uist and two fishermen came to work at their boat. They did not know I was there and talked long and loud in Gaelic, of which I understand not a word save a few rude ones.
But even though I did not understand it I thought it a most beautiful melodic sounding language that sounded like every word should be poetry. Maybe when I retire I might set to learning it.
I am most certainly not anti- Gael and no longer live upo there. But did Caithness ever count as Gaelic Scotland? It was not even part of Dalriada I think; if it's an attenpt to key in to the heritage past then maybe the signs could be in Norwegian and English?
How many inhabitants of Caithness speak Gaelic?
John, you come to this debate a little late, perhaps reading through the pages of Crayo's previous poll might be a good start.
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=71327
;)
northener
15-Apr-10, 09:23
Problem is, Crayola, that you've only given an option for 'Bilingual signs' - not Gaelic.
I've no objection to Gaelic signs where they are relevant whatsoever, but to be fair I personally would like to see Norse translations for Norse placenames.
So I can't vote.
Even Chance
15-Apr-10, 09:26
Problem is, Crayola, that you've only given an option for 'Bilingual signs' - not Gaelic.
I've no objection to Gaelic signs where they are relevant whatsoever, but to be fair I personally would like to see Norse translations for Norse placenames.
So I can't vote.
Im with you on that one Northener! A fair balance for all interested parties, AND a chance for tourists to learn more about this part of Scotlands heritage. Win-Win as far as Im concerned.
Boozeburglar
15-Apr-10, 12:44
All you anti Gaels may have not noticed, but Stagecoach Buses have already gone multi lingual on their Bus Stop Timetables, at the top of the timetable there is "Buses from this stop" or a similar phrase, in both English and Gaelic in Caithness. Well done Brian Soutar [lol]
Hold fire! Maybe it translates as "No Gays". . .
;)
I voted "No" as before. However, with the roads in the state they are in, soon nobody will be able to go on them anyway so it won't matter what language the signs are in as there will be nobody to see them.
annemarie482
16-Apr-10, 00:07
I voted "No" as before. However, with the roads in the state they are in, soon nobody will be able to go on them anyway so it won't matter what language the signs are in as there will be nobody to see them.
i also voted no. and quite agree with the above!
I said recently on another thread that I have no opposition to the signs, so long as any new, bilingual ones, are routine replacements for old, or damaged ones...like we have been told they would be (and also like we were told that the funds wouldnt be taken from the budgets of other services)...and not all signs changed en mass.
However, I feel that on such signs, it is the English/Current names that should take precedence...in the bolder colour and larger letters...and be put on top, with the Gaelic underneath.
So far as the Caithness debate is concerned, this idea would also actually serve as a compromise with those putting forward the Loss-of-Norse/unique-heritage-in-place-names as an 'anti' argument. The names with precedence on the signs would be just the same as we know them now, with the Gaelic 'translation' underneath.
Where the place-names are already Gaelic, or Gaelic-derived, the two would, of course, be similar, or even match. Where the names are Norse, or otherwise derived, there would, then, be a notable difference. This would then stand as a visible statement of Caithness' unique heritage, while also serving the Pan-Scotland uni-Gaelic-language/heritage argument, the educational argument, and the quaint tourist-impressive argument on the 'pro' side.
Unsurprisingly I voted 'No'. I'm pretty sure I've made my reasons clear elsewhere, so I wont bother going into them again.
Hold fire! Maybe it translates as "No Gays". . .
;)
It's 'No Gay Licks.' :eek:
northener
17-Apr-10, 09:04
I said recently on another thread that I have no opposition to the signs, so long as any new, bilingual ones, are routine replacements for old, or damaged ones...like we have been told they would be (and also like we were told that the funds wouldnt be taken from the budgets of other services)...and not all signs changed en mass.
However, I feel that on such signs, it is the English/Current names that should take precedence...in the bolder colour and larger letters...and be put on top, with the Gaelic underneath.
So far as the Caithness debate is concerned, this idea would also actually serve as a compromise with those putting forward the Loss-of-Norse/unique-heritage-in-place-names as an 'anti' argument. The names with precedence on the signs would be just the same as we know them now, with the Gaelic 'translation' underneath.
Where the place-names are already Gaelic, or Gaelic-derived, the two would, of course, be similar, or even match. Where the names are Norse, or otherwise derived, there would, then, be a notable difference. This would then stand as a visible statement of Caithness' unique heritage, while also serving the Pan-Scotland uni-Gaelic-language/heritage argument, the educational argument, and the quaint tourist-impressive argument on the 'pro' side.
I'm not sure I understand this.
To summarise:
So are you saying that Norse-derived names such as, say, Freswick would be in large letters with the modern (Freswick) name above a Gaelic translation?
Problem is, Crayola, that you've only given an option for 'Bilingual signs' - not Gaelic.
I've no objection to Gaelic signs where they are relevant whatsoever, but to be fair I personally would like to see Norse translations for Norse placenames.
So I can't vote.You could vote 'Maybe'.
The wording and options in the poll are the ones from the Groat.
northener
17-Apr-10, 16:45
You could vote 'Maybe'.
The wording and options in the poll are the ones from the Groat.
I could Crayola, but that could be interpreted by some as a blanket vote for Gaelic signs across the whole of Caithness. Which I certainly wouldn't agree with.
I could Crayola, but that could be interpreted by some as a blanket vote for Gaelic signs across the whole of Caithness. Which I certainly wouldn't agree with.Fair enough.
Should I create another poll with a Norse signpost option?
northener
17-Apr-10, 23:55
Fair enough.
Should I create another poll with a Norse signpost option?
Ah reckon so...
If nothing else it'll irritate those who gurn about polls on here!:Razz
Relevance is the key in this poll.
I'm not sure I understand this.
To summarise:
So are you saying that Norse-derived names such as, say, Freswick would be in large letters with the modern (Freswick) name above a Gaelic translation?
Yes, that is what I am suggesting. Another example would be Wick, in bolder/larger letters, or the brighter colour (or both, depending on how the sign was to be formatted), with its Gaelic translation Inbhir Ùige below it. This would respect the Norse-derived names for what they are, give them the precedence they deserve regarding the history of this county, and also serve the requirements of a policy regarding (English-Gaelic) bi-lingual signs.
Similarly, a name like Altnabreac would be given on the signs in that (modern) version...it being what is on maps, in guide books, etc...on the top with its older, Gaelic form, Allt nam Breac underneath.
Then, any Gaelic-derived place names in the county that are the same in both forms (Ruard?, Rangag?...I am guessing here) would obviously be printed the same twice on the sign, for consistency sake, but that is rather interesting linguistically to a lot of people, I suppose!
The Pepsi Challenge
20-Apr-10, 18:19
Not directly about Roadsigns, but an excellent piece of writing by my colleague, Helen Martin at the Edinburgh Evening News:
"IT WOULD have been rather nice if Gaelic had been extended and preserved in Scotland and we had all been brought up to be bilingual. In Ireland and Wales, compulsory learning of the native tongue to keep the language alive has proved very successful and gives an audible expression of identity and nationhood.
We didn't follow that path. Only 1 per cent of Scots now speaks Gaelic and it's simply too late to rescue it. Undeterred, Bord na Gaidhlig, supported by the Scottish Government, plans to spend GBP 1.5 million a year trying to do just that.
I know there are native speakers now living in the central belt who are committed to the cause and send their children to schools which will oblige with Gaelic lessons. Good luck to them I say, even if Tollcross Primary is to get an extra GBP 100,000 to expand its Gaelic teaching programme. I'm delighted that some people are prepared to keep it going for as long as they can.
The question is, should the rest of us now pay to broaden Gaelic out even further in a doomed attempt to revive it?
Part of the plan is that health boards will be roped in to provide information on Gaelic to 80 per cent of new mothers by September. Given that Scotland is now one of the few areas of the UK welcoming foreign immigrants with open arms because we need to repopulate, it's a fair bet that some of those 80 per cent will still be struggling with English, let alone taking on the Gaelic. Other targets include a 20 per cent rise in the number of early years Gaelic classes, with 25 per cent of those children's parents also being taught, and a 50 per cent rise in secondary pupils continuing with Gaelic rather than switching to another modern language.
It would take generations to have any real effect; generations during which budgets will be raised and slashed, political will is going to wax and wane, governments will change. The chances of consistency over such a long period are nil.
This at a time when economics and world-wide trade are paramount to Scotland and the UK's survival and prosperity. Turning out young people who are fluent in Gaelic is an esoteric dream for nationalists but hardly compares with the fundamental need to produce more who can read, write and count well enough to be employed in a corner shop.
If a language is necessary, wouldn't it be better to focus on one that is actually used and might ease trade with the new super-powers of the east?
Language evolves, especially as the world "shrinks". Right now, after 3,000 years, Aramaic - the language spoken by Jesus - is hanging on by a thread in the once remote Syrian village of Maaloula. Modern Arabic has taken over, especially since a new four-lane highway from Damascus runs just three miles away and has opened up the region to the influences of the outside world.
Aramaic is only spoken, not written, and in order to communicate with others around, the younger generation is abandoning it.
It's all very sad but inevitable. Scottish Highlanders and islanders, just like the people of Maaloula, need inward investment, jobs, opportunities and careers. Neither Gaelic nor Aramaic is going to be of much help in securing these unless there's a sudden boom in the traditional folk-singing industry.
Preserving Gaelic is highly emotive for the 1 per cent who speak it. Some people - and I'm one of them - like to pretend it is some kind of mother tongue and say "slainte" occasionally instead of "cheers" and feel a tickle of independence at the thought that tourists looking at street names and road signs in Gaelic will realise the north of Scotland once had a language other than English, albeit largely shared with Ireland. Not that most of us can - or ever did - use it. As a "national" language, it's a con. It's a regional language. I wouldn't say it's "useless", no language is that. But at GBP 1.5m a year, with no clear economic return and little chance of success, it's certainly an expensive irrelevance."
John Little
20-Apr-10, 18:32
I read what you say Pepsi but I do not agree. Hebrew is a language which was dead entirely as far as native speakers were concerned - it was used only in religion and in writing.
Yet it came back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_of_the_Hebrew_language
Gaelic is by no means as moribund as Hebrew.
Yet Gaelic was never the language of all Scotland and attempts to force its revival by compulsory learning and road signs would probably meet a lot of resentment and resistance.
The Gaelic League was highly successful in fostering a revival of Irish culture, language and letters from the 1890s onwards.
Such an active association, staging events, encouraging Gaelic usage succeeded in fostering an awareness of national identity in Ireland - or most of it.
Such a voluntary association, drawing on the best of Scottish tradition would surely meet with much support.
http://www.acgmod.org/
i think this may only be there start. What a supid waste of money. Who are they going to help. lovely idea if there was plenty of money to waste.
I suppose thats what highland council does. pink bus stops, excess number of speed bumps. atleast its there own tax contributions they are wasting too.
i wonder if this will be the future.....
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?5974faf04d.jpg
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?5974faf04d.jpg
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?5974faf04d.jpg
Ah reckon so...
If nothing else it'll irritate those who gurn about polls on here!:Razz
Relevance is the key in this poll.
Ok I'll do it when this thread has run its course.
Can you suggest a form of words for the question together with a set of answers?
I do not object to promoting the Gaelic language, but the road signs are a totally different issue. Foreign tourists (& locals?) maybe utterly confused. If the council was flush financially then maybe it wouldn't be such a big issue. But in my opinion there are more pressing things the council should be dealing with - potholes in the road, more money to education etc. No-one seems to be saying how much they wil be costing, but no doubt they will not be cheap - forms filled in, out to tender, meeting with councillors from all over the Highlands to discuss who gets the contract, further meeting to agree a service level agreement, making of the signs, recruiting a team to replace them, foremen to supervise to make sure they are put in safely, admin to do risk assessments, HSE officials, etc etc - it will not be as simple as ordering some signs no doubt!!!
Garlic signposts have raised their heads again in another thread so perhaps it's a good time to allow new members and those who missed it last time to top up this poll.
Road signs are basically to tell you where you are or to hlp you get to where you want to go. Will Gaelic road signs help? No.
If we have gaelic road sign then why do we not have road signs for other users who have an alternative language. Should we have French, German, Dutch and Italian signs also since those people probably come in greater numbers to Caithness than Gaelic speakers.
The gaelic political lobby is very much out of proportion in Highland area and indeed in the Sottish parliament. Gaelic gets far more regular channel TV time (see all that stuff I do not understand on BBC 2 every evening) and there is, of course, BBC Alba too. The language gets more spent on it per gaelic speaker by far than English and gaelic medium education is subsidies by the education system at the expense of the rest of the schools. Additionally the majority of children attending these units do not come from a gaelic cultural, even Scottish, cultural background and are in the system becuase it gets more cash and has smaller classes and not for support of the language.
Gaelic roadsigns have nothing to do with navigation. It's a purely political gesture.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.