Stations in Scotland saddled with Gaelic and English names nonsense

[rjhowie]

As a Scot born and bred here it niggled me when the move was made a modern wee while back to have every railway station not just in English but Gaelic as well. When you consider the number of Gaelic speakers it is damn ridiculous. In the 2011 census of Scotland 57,375 (1.1% of the Scottish population aged over three years old. That was 1,275 fewer than in 2001 so it was an absolute silly waste of money catering for such a tiny situation.[FONT=arial, sans-serif]


[/FONT]

 

[Bill69]

As a Scot born and bred here it niggled me when the move was made a modern wee while back to have every railway station not just in English but Gaelic as well. When you consider the number of Gaelic speakers it is damn ridiculous. In the 2011 census of Scotland 57,375 (1.1% of the Scottish population aged over three years old. That was 1,275 fewer than in 2001 so it was an absolute silly waste of money catering for such a tiny situation.

May be thought of as a waste of money but it could also be the beginning of a drive to stop the Gaelic language from dying out altogether.

Bill69

 

[pfx]

As a rule, Gaelic has been added to signs as they've needed replacing, just as it has been on road signs up the west coast of Scotland and onto the Western Isles (where it's common to see only Gaelic) precisely to minimise costs. Bi-lingual signage is interesting both culturally, in preserving the language (which my paternal great grandfather and maternal grandfather both spoke as a first language) for future generations and to encourage more people to learn the language, and just as much so, linguistically, in showing the etymology of anglicised place names, which come from Gaelic, Norse, Brythonic, Germanic, etc.

Nobody is forced to use Gaelic and I can think of many more pressing matters in the world than taking affront at a bi-lingual sign. To dislike or disagree with it is one thing but to call it nonsense is parochial.

 

[robd]

As a rule, Gaelic has been added to signs as they've needed replacing, just as it has been on road signs up the west coast of Scotland and onto the Western Isles (where it's common to see only Gaelic) precisely to minimise costs. Bi-lingual signage is interesting both culturally, in preserving the language (which my paternal great grandfather and maternal grandfather both spoke as a first language) for future generations and to encourage more people to learn the language, and just as much so, linguistically, in showing the etymology of anglicised place names, which come from Gaelic, Norse, Brythonic, Germanic, etc.

Nobody is forced to use Gaelic and I can think of many more pressing matters in the world than taking affront at a bi-lingual sign. To dislike or disagree with it is one thing but to call it nonsense is parochial.

Well said! I most certainly agree with your comment.

Rob.

 

[rjhowie]

No pfx and robd it is not parochial at all just a bit haughty on no deep basis! I have no issue with people wanting to learn what is a difficult language and there is even a Gaelic Secondary school here in Glasgow. But the point of such a cost for a language which IS tiny and even with small growth will never be a big thing is a waste so a passing swipe is pointless. Wales and Ireland have a far different situation but we are vastly totally different and it is a waste of money as not even a high proportion will ever be Gaelic speakers here. The stats prove that. Having indicated the smallness it was more political than definitive direction and is a total waste of money.