Languages and Parliaments Publication Marten

Languages and Parliaments
The Impact of Decentralisation on Minority Languages
Heiko F. Marten Freie Universitt Berlin, Berlin/Germany Rzeknes Augstskola, Rzekne/Latvia
Table of Contents Tables ____________________________________________________________________ 6 Figures ___________________________________________________________________ 8 I Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 10 1 Parliaments in a Minority Language Context __________________________________ 10
1.1 Gaelic in Scotland and Smi in Norway in the Light of Recent Changes in Parliamentary Structures ____________________________________________________________________ 11
2 Theoretical Approaches to Minority Language Analysis ________________________ 16

2.1 Language Policy and Planning in an Ecolinguistic Frame _________________________ 16 2.2 Indigenous Peoples and their Position in Minority Analysis ________________________ 19 2.3 Minority Languages and Language Maintenance and Revitalisation_________________ 20 2.4 Linguistic Rights ___________________________________________________________ 24
3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights ___________________________________ 27

3.1 Private Language Use _______________________________________________________ 27 3.2 Public Bodies ______________________________________________________________ 28 3.3 Education _________________________________________________________________ 30 3.4 Economy/Work-Place_______________________________________________________ 32 3.5 Further Domains ___________________________________________________________ 33 3.6 Subsidiary Domains of Minority Language Status Planning ________________________ 34
3.6.1 Corpus Planning _______________________________________________________________ 34 3.6.2 Domains of Language Rights in their Relation to Attitudes and Prestige Planning _________ 35
3.7 Summary: Monitoring Language Rights Implementation __________________________ 37
4 Parliaments, Political Representation and their Relation to Language _____________ 38

4.1 General Aspects of Parliamentary Functions_____________________________________ 38 4.2 Linguistic Practices in Parliaments of Multilingual States__________________________ 40 4.3 The State and Parliaments and their Relevance for Linguistic Minorities _____________ 42 4.4 Hierarchies of Parliaments and their Impact on Minority Policy ____________________ 44 4.5 Examples of Parliaments' Impact on Language Policy ____________________________ 47
II Smi Policy and Developments towards Minority Parliamentarianism in Norway ___ 49 5 The Smi Language in Context _____________________________________________ 49
5.1 Smi as a Minority Language in Europe ________________________________________ 49 5.2 Languages in Northern Scandinavia ___________________________________________ 51 5.3 Smi Today: Linguistic and Demographic Basics ________________________________ 53
5.3.1 Smi Demography and the Smi Languages_________________________________________ 54 5.3.2 Codification of the Smi Dialects__________________________________________________ 58
5.4 The Historical Development of the Position of Smi in Norway ____________________ 59

5.4.1 Early Days and Centuries of Relative Laissez-Faire Attitudes___________________________ 60 5.4.2 An Age of Assimilation Policies ___________________________________________________ 61 5.4.3 The Slow Emergence of Smi Organisations and Resistance ___________________________ 63
3
5.4.4 Policy Changes after the Alta Case_________________________________________________ 66
5.5 Smi Identity Today ________________________________________________________ 69

5.5.1 Important Cultural Aspects of Sminess ____________________________________________ 70 5.5.2 The Smi Conflict between Tradition and Modernity _________________________________ 72
6 Smi in the 1980s in the Theoretical Scheme __________________________________ 74

6.1 Smi in Norway Placed into Minority Language Typology _________________________ 74 6.2 Smi Legislation in Norway Before 1989 ________________________________________ 75 6.3 Smi in the Domains of Language Use in Norway in the 1980s _____________________ 77
6.3.1 Public and Private Domains ______________________________________________________ 6.3.2 Public Bodies__________________________________________________________________ 6.3.3 Education_____________________________________________________________________ 6.3.4 Economy/Work Place___________________________________________________________ 6.3.5 The Media and Arts_____________________________________________________________ 6.3.6 Further Domains of Smi Rights and Policies _______________________________________ 6.3.7 Corpus Planning and Symbolic Values and Attitudes/Prestige _________________________ 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
6.4 Smi Language Policy in Norway around 1989 ___________________________________ 86 6.5 Factors Influencing Smi Maintenance and Policy _______________________________ 87 6.6 Prospects on the Eve of the Sameting __________________________________________ 89
7 The Sameting ___________________________________________________________ 93

7.1 The Sametings Establishment ________________________________________________ 93 7.2 The Sameting in Relation to Theoretical Ideas on Parliaments _____________________ 95 7.3 The Sameting in the Norwegian Political System_________________________________ 97
7.3.1 The Sameting in the Model of Parliament Types _____________________________________ 97 7.3.2 Smi Ways of Influence on Decision-Making ________________________________________ 99 7.3.3 The Sameting and Other Political Bodies __________________________________________ 102 7.3.4 Models of Smi Politics in Norway _______________________________________________ 104
7.4 The Sametings Role Concerning Language____________________________________ 108
8 Language Policy in the Sameting until the Mid-1990s__________________________ 111

8.1 The Smi Language Act and Other Legislation Relevant for the Smi Language ______ 111 8.2 Smi Language Use in the Sameting __________________________________________ 113 8.3 Smi Language Policy as Reported by the Norwegian Government_________________ 114 8.4 Smi Language Policy as Reported by the Sameting _____________________________ 117 8.5 Scholars' Comments _______________________________________________________ 121
9 Language Issues and the Sameting in the First Years of the New Millennium _____ 124
9.1 Smi Issues in the Norwegian State ___________________________________________ 124
9.1.1 Norwegian-Smi Relations and Language Issues____________________________________ 124 9.1.2 The Norwegian-Smi Relations in the Light of Self-Determination Rights _______________ 125
9.2 The Development of the Smi Language Budget________________________________ 126 9.3 Language Issues around 2002________________________________________________ 129
9.3.1 The Road to the New Millennium ________________________________________________ 9.3.2 Principles and General Aims of Language Issues in 2002 _____________________________ 9.3.3 Concrete Language Projects by the Sameting_______________________________________ 9.3.4 The Smi Language in the Sameting in 2002 _______________________________________ 129 130 132 136
4
9.4 Policies and Language Domains _____________________________________________ 138
9.4.1 "True" Language Issues________________________________________________________ 9.4.1.1 Language Centres _____________________________________________________________ 9.4.1.2 Terminology Work ____________________________________________________________ 9.4.1.3 Information Services____________________________________________________________ 9.4.1.4 Smi in IT _________________________________________________________________ 9.4.1.5 Research ___________________________________________________________________ 9.4.1.6 Language Motivation Stimulation __________________________________________________ 9.4.2 Education____________________________________________________________________ 9.4.2.1 Kindergarten ________________________________________________________________ 9.4.2.2 School education in general _______________________________________________________ 9.4.2.3 Primary Schools ______________________________________________________________ 9.4.2.4 Secondary Schools _____________________________________________________________ 9.4.2.5 Higher Education and Research____________________________________________________ 9.4.2.6 Teaching material, teacher training and adult education_____________________________________ 9.4.3 The Media and Cultural Domains ________________________________________________ 9.4.3.1 The Media _________________________________________________________________ 9.4.3.2 Culture____________________________________________________________________ 9.4.4 Other Domains _______________________________________________________________ 9.4.4.1 Economy/Work Place __________________________________________________________ 9.4.4.2 Health/Social Services__________________________________________________________ 9.4.4.3 International Relations__________________________________________________________ 138 138 139 139 140 141 141 142 143 143 144 145 145 146 147 147 149 150 150 151 152
III Gaelic Policy in Scotland ________________________________________________ 153 10 Scottish Gaelic in Context________________________________________________ 153
10.1 The Linguistic Situation in Scotland: English, Gaelic, Scots and Beyond ___________ 153 10.2 The Development of Gaelic Demography in the 20th Century _____________________ 155 10.3 Gaelic in the Context of the Languages of the World ____________________________ 158 10.4 Scottish Gaelic: Status, Situation, and Organisations ____________________________ 159
10.4.1 In the Past___________________________________________________________________ 159 10.4.2 The State of Affairs of Gaelic in the Late 20th Century _______________________________ 160
10.5 Language and National Identity in Scotland___________________________________ 164

10.5.1 History _____________________________________________________________________ 164 10.5.2 Recent Changes in Value of Gaelic as an Identity Marker ____________________________ 166 10.5.3 "Old" vs. "New" "True" vs. "Untrue" Minority Culture___________________________ 167
11 Scottish Gaelic in the Late 20th Century in the Theoretical Scheme ______________ 172
11.1 Scottish Gaelic Placed into Minority Typology _________________________________ 172 11.2 Gaelic Legislation in Scotland before 1999 _____________________________________ 173 11.3 Gaelic in the Domains of Language Use ______________________________________ 175
11.3.1 Public and Private ____________________________________________________________ 11.3.2 Public Bodies ________________________________________________________________ 11.3.3 Education ___________________________________________________________________ 11.3.4 Economy/Work Place _________________________________________________________ 11.3.5 The Media and Arts ___________________________________________________________ 11.3.6 Further Domains of Gaelic Rights and Policies_____________________________________ 11.3.7 Other Issues _________________________________________________________________ 11.3.7.1 Corpus Planning_____________________________________________________________ 11.3.7.2 Symbolic Values_____________________________________________________________ 11.3.7.3 Prestige and Relation to Mainstream Society___________________________________________ 176 176 179 181 183 184 185 185 186 186
11.4 Putting Gaelic Language Policy in Scotland before 1999 into Theoretical Frames_____ 188
11.4.1 Typologies of Language Policy __________________________________________________ 188
5
11.4.2 Factors influencing Gaelic Policy and Maintenance _________________________________ 189
11.5 Prospects on the Eve of the Scottish Parliament ________________________________ 191

11.5.1 General Demands by Scholars and Activists _______________________________________ 191 11.5.2 The Inbhe Tharainte/Secure Status Document ___________________________________ 193
12 The Scottish Parliament _________________________________________________ 197

12.1 The Road to a Scottish Parliament throughout the 20th Century ___________________ 197 12.2 Gaelic Hopes towards the Scottish Parliament on its Eve ________________________ 200 12.3 The Scottish Parliament and Gaelic in relation to Theoretical Ideas on Parliaments __ 201 12.4 Gaelic Presence in the Scottish Parliament ____________________________________ 207 12.4.1 Demands by the Inbhe Tharainte/Secure Status Document _________________________ 207
12.4.2 Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament ________________________________________________ 208
13 Gaelic Policy in Scotland after the Scottish Parliament's Establishment __________ 215
13.1 Party Attitudes to Gaelic in the 1999 Election Campaign _________________________ 215 13.2 Steps Taken on Gaelic Issues in Scottish Parliament since its Opening_____________ 218
13.2.1 The First Months _____________________________________________________________ 218 13.2.2 The First Gaelic Debate _______________________________________________________ 219 13.2.3 Educational Issues and the Preparation of the Education Bill Debate __________________ 220
14 Gaelic Policy after the Promising Start (2000 2003) __________________________ 224
14.1 The Result of the Education Bill Debate ______________________________________ 225 14.2 The Difficult Road to More Action: The Macpherson and Magog Reports __________ 226 14.3 Gaelic Broadcasting and the Milne Report ____________________________________ 231 14.4 The Establishment of Brd na Gidhlig ______________________________________ 235 14.5 The Private Member's Bill on Gaelic by Michael Russell_________________________ 237
14.5.1 The Proposal_________________________________________________________________ 14.5.2 General Support for the Bill_____________________________________________________ 14.5.3 Calls for Improvements ________________________________________________________ 14.5.4 The Scottish Executive's Reaction to Russell's Proposal _____________________________ 237 238 239 241
14.6 Minor Gaelic Issues in the First Term of the Scottish Parliament __________________ 243 14.7 Summary of First Term Achievements________________________________________ 249
15 From the 2003 Elections to the 2005 Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act ____________ 251
15.1 Gaelic in the 2003 Elections_________________________________________________ 251 15.2 The Scottish Executive's Gaelic Bill__________________________________________ 253
15.2.1 The Draft Gaelic Bill by the Executive____________________________________________ 254 15.2.2 Reactions to the Draft Executive Bill _____________________________________________ 256 15.2.3 Educational Issues Coming up again ____________________________________________ 258
15.3 The Road to the Gaelic Language Act (November 2004 April 2005) ______________ 259
IV Results _______________________________________________________________ 264 16 An Evaluation of the Development of the Situation of Smi in Norway __________ 264
16.1 Scholars' Views ___________________________________________________________ 264 16.2 Placing the Situation in Spmi Today into Domains of Language Use _____________ 269
16.2.1 Public Bodies ________________________________________________________________ 269 16.2.2 Education ___________________________________________________________________ 271
6
16.2.3 The Media and Arts ___________________________________________________________ 273 16.2.4 Economy/Work Place and Further Domains ______________________________________ 274 16.2.5 Corpus Planning, Symbolism and Attitudes _______________________________________ 275
16.3 Smi in Models of Language Policy __________________________________________ 278
17 An Evaluation of the Development of the Situation of Gaelic in Scotland _________ 281

17.1 Scholars' Views ___________________________________________________________ 281 17.2 Models: Domains _________________________________________________________ 283
17.2.1 Public Bodies ________________________________________________________________ 17.2.2 Education ___________________________________________________________________ 17.2.3 The Media and Arts/Culture ___________________________________________________ 17.2.4 Economy/Work-Place and Further Domains ______________________________________ 17.2.5 Corpus Planning, Symbolism and Attitudes _______________________________________ 284 286 288 289 291
17.3 Gaelic in Models of Language Policy _________________________________________ 295
18 A Comparative View of Gaelic and Smi Policy ______________________________ 298

18.1 Domains of Language Use _________________________________________________ 298 18.2 Answers to the Questions of the Extended Edwards List_________________________ 300
19 Conclusion: Parliaments, Political Processes, and Minority Languages __________ 303

19.1 Summary: The Sameting and its Impact on Smi _______________________________ 303 19.2 Summary: The Scottish Parliament and its Impact on Gaelic _____________________ 306 19.3 Identity Issues ___________________________________________________________ 308 19.4 Parliaments and Minority Language Policy____________________________________ 310
19.4.1 The Sameting and the Scottish Parliament and their Functions _______________________ 19.4.2 Smi and Gaelic Language Policy in Light of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament___ 19.4.3 A Gaelic Autonomous Parliament?_______________________________________________ 19.4.4 What Can Parliaments Do for a Minority Language? ________________________________ 310 312 315 317
References ______________________________________________________________ 319

Tables Table 1: A Typological Framework of Minority-Language Situations according to Edwards 1992...................21 Table 2: Ranked Edwards Minority Language Classification Questions..........................................................23 Table 3: Domains of Language Planning in this Book.....................................................................................27 Table 4: Core Issues of Multilingual Policy: Public Bodies ...............................................................................30 Table 5: Core Issues of Minority Language Policy: Education..........................................................................32 Table 6: Minority Language Status Planning Domains and Their Main Aspects ............................................37 Table 7: Proportions of Official Language Speakers in Monolingual Government States (Laponce 1987).........40 Table 8: Balancing of Languages in Government Use in Multilingual Government States (Laponce 1987) ......41 Table 9: Parliamentary Types according to the Political Unit and the Distinction Between Parliaments for Minorities Only vs. Parliaments for the Entire State...............................................................................45 Table 10: Parliament Functions and Relations between Parliaments and Language..........................................46 Table 11: Languages Spoken in Scandinavia according to Haarmann (2002) .................................................50 Table 12: Numbers of Smi Speakers according to Dialects and Countries ......................................................56 Table 13: Adult Smi Speakers in Norway in the Areas Assigned as Smi by the Report Commissioned by the Smi Language Council in 2000 ...........................................................................................................58 Table 14: Legal Documents and State Institutions Dealing with Smi Issues in Norway until the 1980s.........76 Table 15: Norwegian Government and Storting Documents Important for Smi Policy in the 1980s................76
7 Table 16: The Situation of Smi in Norway in Public Bodies in the 1980s .....................................................79 Table 17: Smi in the Educational System in Norway in the 1980s................................................................80 Table 18: The Situation of Smi in Norway in Education in the 1980s..........................................................81 Table 19: Smi Presence in Several Media Sectors in the Late 1980s ..............................................................82 Table 20: Minority Language Status Planning Domains and their Main Aspects: Smi in Norway in the Late 1980s....................................................................................................................................................85 Table 21: Smi Policy before in 1989 in the Cooper Model .............................................................................87 Table 22: Core Evaluation and Demands for Future Development of Language Rights: Smi in Norway in the Late 1980s according to Scholars and Activists......................................................................................92 Table 23: Parliamentary Types according to the Political Unit and the Distinction between Parliaments for Minorities Only vs. Parliaments for the Entire Population Applied to Smi ........................................97 Table 24: Funding of the Sameting according to Norwegian Government Departments in 2002 .....................105 Table 25: The Sameting and Ideas of Parliament Functions and Relations between Parliaments and Language ............................................................................................................................................................110 Table 26: Norwegian Government Reports Dedicated to Smi Issues Since 1990 ..........................................115 Table 27: Direct Language Issues in the Sameting 1990-1994 .....................................................................118 Table 28: "Indirect" Language Issues in the Sameting 1990-1993................................................................119 Table 29: Student Numbers in Smi Instruction in Norway in 1990, 1994 and 1999.................................123 Table 30: The Sameting's Education Budget 2000-2002 (Sametinget 2001c)...............................................127 Table 31: The Sameting's Budget on Culture 2000-2002 (Sametinget 2001c) ..............................................127 Table 32: The Sameting's Budget on Language 2000-2002 (Sametinget 2001c) ...........................................127 Table 33: The Sameting's Budget for Language Projects outside the Smi Administrative Area 2001 (Sametinget 2002c).................................................................................................................................................128 Table 34: Suggested Budget Increases by the Sameting 2003 ..........................................................................128 Table 35: Major Issues in the Sameting's Language Department 2001-2002................................................134 Table 36: Language Issues in the Sameting's Council, 2001-2003................................................................135 Table 37: Major Language Issues in the Sameting's Plenum, 1999-2003 .....................................................135 Table 38: "True Language Issues" by the Sameting and their Relation to other Domains...............................142 Table 39: Pupils in Smi Education according to Language Courses and Dialects 2002-2003 ......................144 Table 40: Pupil Numbers at Regional Schools in Finnmark with Smi as Subject 1993-2002 .....................144 Table 41: Development of Student Numbers in the two Smi Secondary Schools 1993 2004......................145 Table 42: Languages Spoken in the UK according to Haarmann (2002) ......................................................159 Table 43: Some Major Organisations Working for the Promotion of Gaelic...................................................161 Table 44: Gaelic Presence in Several Media Sectors in the Mid-1990s...........................................................162 Table 45: Development of Gaelic-Medium Student Numbers 1993 1999 ..................................................163 Table 46: Gaelic in the Educational System in Scotland in the 1990s ...........................................................164 Table 47: Summary of Determining Factors for Gaelic and Smi Identity......................................................171 Table 48: Legal Documents Dealing with Gaelic in the UK until 1997/98..................................................175 Table 49: Acceptable Status in Public Bodies: Gaelic in Scotland before 1999...............................................179 Table 50: Core Issues of Minority Language Education Policy Compared to the 1990s' Scotland...................181 Table 51: The Legal Status of Gaelic according to Domains, and General Outlines of Status and Policy Practices in the 1990s, including Demands for Improvements ..............................................................................188 Table 52: Gaelic Policy before 1999 in the Cooper Model..............................................................................188 Table 53: Core Issues of the Inbhe Tharainte/Secure Status Document and Other Further Demands on Gaelic Status before the Establishment of the Scottish Parliament ....................................................................196 Table 54: Scottish Parliament Referendum Results 1997 and 1979 ..............................................................198 Table 55: Scottishness and Britishness in Scotland 1986-1997 in % of Population .......................................199 Table 56: 1999 Scottish Parliament Election Results....................................................................................199 Table 57: Parliamentary Types according to the Political Unit and the Distinction between Parliaments for Minorities Only vs. Parliaments for the Entire Population Applied to Scotland .................................205
8 Table 58: Inbhe Tharainte/Secure Status Demands on Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament and how they Are Fulfilled...............................................................................................................................................213 Table 59: The Scottish Parliament and Ideas of Parliament Functions and Relations between Parliaments and Language .............................................................................................................................................214 Table 60: Gaelic in the First Year of Scottish Parliament Work ...................................................................223 Table 61: Gaelic Spending 1998-99 and 2000-01 .......................................................................................224 Table 62: Gaelic Spending 2000-02 in Detail ..............................................................................................224 Table 63: Gaelic Issues Discussed in the Scottish Parliament's Bodies 2000 2003 .....................................244 Table 64: Main Gaelic Issues in the First Term of the Scottish Parliament....................................................250 Table 65: 2003 Scottish Parliament Election Results....................................................................................251 Table 66: Core Evaluation and Demands for Future Development of Language Rights: Smi in Norway in the Late 1980s and Today ........................................................................................................................268 Table 67: Acceptable Statuses in Administration and Court: A Comparison to the Situation of Smi in Norway ............................................................................................................................................................270 Table 68: Smi in the Educational System in Norway in the 1980s and around 2003 .................................272 Table 69: Smi in Norway in the 1980s/around 2003 in Comparison to Core Educational Rights Issues....273 Table 70: Smi Presence in Several Media Sectors in the Late 1980s and around 2003................................274 Table 71: The Legal Status of Smi in Various Domains, and General Outlines of Policy Practices in the Late 1980s, including Demands for Improvements........................................................................................277 Table 72: Domain Check List for Smi Today.............................................................................................278 Table 73: Smi Policy before 1989 and after 2000 in the Cooper Model; Changes are Marked.....................278 Table 74: Acceptable Statuses in Public Bodies The Situation in Scotland Today .......................................285 Table 75: Core Issues of Minority Language Policy Education The Situation in Scotland Today ................287 Table 76: Examples of Symbolic Presence of Gaelic in Scotland.....................................................................292 Table 77: Changes in Status and Policy Practices of Gaelic in Various Domains since the 1990s ..................293 Table 78: Core Issues of the Inbhe Tharainte/Secure Status Document and Other Further Demands on Gaelic Status before the Establishment of the Scottish Parliament and Today...................................................294 Table 79: Domain Check List for Gaelic Today ...........................................................................................295 Table 80: Gaelic before Devolution and Today in the Cooper Model ..............................................................295 Table 81: Comparative View of Changes in Status and Practices for Smi and Gaelic since the Constitutional Changes ...............................................................................................................................................299 Table 82: Evaluation of Status (Progress) of Smi and Gaelic according to Domains .....................................300 Table 83: Smi and Gaelic according to the Categories of the Extended Edwards List Today ........................302 Table 84: The Reciprocal Impact of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament on Identity ..............................310 Table 85: The Sameting and the Scottish Parliament in the Frame of Ideas of Parliament Functions and Relations between Parliaments and Language .......................................................................................312 Table 86: The Role of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament for Smi and Gaelic....................................315 Figures Figure 1: The Kaplan/Baldauf Model on Forces at Work in a Linguistic Eco-System.....................................19 Figure 2: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Norwegian Spmi, without Policy Parts.................52 Figure 3: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Norway, without Policy Parts................................53 Figure 4: The Smi Languages and their Ecolinguistically Determining Neighbour Languages.........................53 Figure 5: Map of the Distribution of Smi Speakers in Norway According to their Proportion of the Population, by Municipality......................................................................................................................................57 Figure 6: Assumed Reference Points of Smi Speakers in Norway...................................................................75 Figure 7: Smi in Norway according to the Laponce Model .............................................................................75 Figure 8: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Norwegian Spmi, with Policy Parts .....................88 Figure 9: A Classification of the Sametings Tasks........................................................................................100
9 Figure 10: The Sameting's Budget Development 1990 2002......................................................................105 Figure 11: Institutions in Norway Dealing with Smi (Lewis 1998).............................................................106 Figure 12: Influence on Smi Issues in the Norwegian Political System (Broderstad 1995).............................106 Figure 13: The Presence of Smi Issues in the Norwegian Political System .....................................................107 Figure 14: The Smi Administrative Area in Norway and Possible Extensions............................................112 Figure 15: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Scotland, without Policy Parts ...........................155 Figure 16: Gaelic and Its Ecolinguistically Determining Neighbour Languages ..............................................155 Figure 17: Numbers of Gaelic Speakers, 1881-2001, according to MacKinnon (2003a)...............................156 Figure 18: Assumed Reference Points of Gaelic Speakers...............................................................................172 Figure 19: Scottish Gaelic according to the Laponce Model ............................................................................173 Figure 20: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Scotland, with Policy Parts................................190 Figure 21: The Presence of Gaelic Issues in the Scottish Political System ........................................................206 Figure 22: Party Attitudes towards Gaelic in the 1999 Scottish Parliament Election Campaign ....................217 Figure 23: Gaelic Organisations: Old/New Structure (Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic 2001)............229 Figure 24: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Norwegian Spmi, with Policy Parts .................280 Figure 25: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Scotland Today, with Policy Parts .....................297
3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights
10
I Introduction 1 Parliaments in a Minority Language Context

In July 2004, a controversy erupted in the European Parliament on the question which languages could be used in its proceedings after the enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 25 member states. It centred on the Parliament rules which only allow the use of national official languages in its proceedings. The use of Catalan, a non-national official language, by a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) attracted wide attention and led to a heated debate, in which the Parliament's President, himself Catalan, announced that the speech could not be understood and would therefore neither be translated nor included in the session's minutes. The decision by the MEP to use Catalan, despite the risk that other MEPs might ignore the speech, clearly indicates that the member saw the use of the language in the Parliament as being an important symbol in the struggle for political recognition and for focussing attention on a language spoken by several million people in Europe (Bos Sol 2004). Also in 2004, the Parliaments of the Czech Republic and of the German Land of Schleswig-Holstein debated suggestions on linguistic legislation which attracted wide attention among minority-language groups and within parts of the respective societies. The Czech Parliament discussed a proposal to establish Czech as the only language to be used in certain official contexts. The suggestion, which would have caused severe problems for minority languages in the Czech state, was rejected by the majority of MPs (Josika 2004). In SchleswigHolstein, parliamentarians sent a clear signal in favour of the North Frisian language minority by announcing support for the language group and passing an (albeit very weak) Act which provides the basis for the use of Frisian by certain public bodies (Schleswig-Holsteinischer Landtag 2004). Despite their differences, the two parliamentary debates had in common that they both considerably influenced the future of the official status of the two minority languages in question. These recent examples indicate two important facts underlying the research interest of this book. First, minority language issues play an important role in political debates today. Second, parliaments as institutions are not only important symbols for minorities through their debating and legislative potential; they are also fundamental players in decision-making and create possibilities for groups of society to participate in power. It is a triviality to state that parliaments play an important role in Western democracies in shaping the political frame of a state and in discussing majority-minority relationships, and as reference points of groups within a political unit. It is thus surprising that, when looking at the analysis of minority language policy, we often
11
find that the political institutions are taken for granted in a specific context. Differences between political systems are often only implicitly part of policy research, and parliaments, as players in language policy, are largely underrepresented in the discussion of political decision-making on minority languages. In this book, I intend to contribute to closing this gap. I will address the role a parliament can play in minority language policy. Its aim is to highlight ways in which parliamentary institutions at different levels have empowered minority speech communities to influence their affairs and thereby have contributed to language maintenance. The underlying hypothesis is that without these parliaments, a lot less would have been achieved. In the analysis of parliamentary processes of dealing with minority language policy-making I will in particular address the exchange of ideas between politicians on the one hand, and demands raised by the speech communities on the other. In this way, the potential of parliaments for empowering minority language speakers to influence the future of their language will be looked at. As case studies, I will use recent developments of language policy in Scotland and Norway as examples of two very different types of such parliaments. In Norway, I will focus on Smi language initiatives taken by the Sameting, the autonomous parliamentary body for the Norwegian Smi. In Scotland, I will discuss steps originating in the Scottish Parliament towards the Gaelic language. Besides concrete policy issues, I will also touch upon issues of identity in these contexts.
1.1 Gaelic in Scotland and Smi in Norway in the Light of Recent Changes in Parliamentary Structures
Smi and Gaelic are particularly useful examples for the purpose of the volume. Both the UK and Norway experienced a considerable increase in attention towards minority languages since around 1980, as well as fundamental constitutional changes with regard to minority issues. Awareness of the rights of minorities and the value of minority cultures and languages during that period increased considerably, also among parts of mainstream society. This development led to a number of political changes, which have by far not yet come to an end. With the transfer of a certain range of powers from the central Westminster administration to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, 1999 saw one of the most fundamental constitutional changes in the UK in recent history. This so-called devolution process established a more decentralised structure in the UK and brought politics closer to the people of Wales and Scotland. As a consequence, policies dealing with Welsh or Scottish matters today have a chance to receive much wider attention in their respective regions than previously. Similarly, the re-evaluation of the Smi position in the Norwegian state in the 1980s, culminating
12
in the establishment of the Sameting in 1989, led to the most fundamental change in Smi policy in Norway since the 19th century. This study provides an overview of how Smi and Gaelic issues have been dealt with in the changed political frameworks. This includes both the symbolic and the practical dimensions of minority language policy, i.e. the way Gaelic and Smi are represented in parliaments and other state bodies, as well as general policies regarding minority language support. On the one hand, I will take a rights-based approach and look at the official positions of these two languages through the law and legal guarantees that have been given to their speakers in line with demands by the speech communities. On the other hand, I will look at policy development and the positions of the languages in various domains of language use in order to get an impression of Smi and Gaelic prosperity and the likelihood of language maintenance. The perception of similarities in the development from centralism to new structures does not contradict the fact that there are, of course, fundamental differences in the political systems in Scotland and Norway. The Scandinavian welfare tradition, for instance, makes an approach by the state to care for the needs of a particular group in society much more likely than the tradition of much more distant state-citizen relations in the UK. I will focus in this book more on the question as to what degree language policy initiatives get a chance and within this area compare the situation before and after the establishment of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament. When doing so, the individual political contexts have to be kept in mind. The two case examples are also two models of entirely different types of parliaments: On the one hand, the Scottish Parliament is a decentralised regional parliament in the classical sense, which takes a representative role for the entire population of Scotland. On the other hand, the Sameting is an assembly for the Smi population only. Logically, minority issues are at the core of its proceedings, but its impact on legislation and decision-making in Norway is much more limited. These two examples thus also lead to the discussion as to from what parliamentary type a minority language is likely to profit more. Why address this topic at this time? Today, several years have gone by since the constitutional changes in both countries, thus allowing an analysis of the state of affairs at a point when enough time has passed for changes to have an effect. I will thus also be able to compare Smi language policy issues today with issues raised at the beginning of the Sameting's operation, i.e. at a point in time when the Sameting was at a similar stage of policy development as the Scottish Parliament has been in the past years. Let me finally add why I am looking at the Norwegian side of the Smi, given that similar developments have taken place in recent years in Finland and Sweden. Norway is the country with the largest Smi population. It is also the example which the Smi usually look at not only
13
because of its outstanding position in demographic terms, but also because it serves as a model for the political and institutional achievements of recent years. From the presentation of the underlying interests, one can directly arrive at the aims of this book. It wishes to take up a new aspect of the theoretical discussion of minority groups and language policy: How can parliaments contribute not only to the political representation of minority groups, but also to dealing with their demands, and thereby empowering minority language speakers with the aim to get more influence on decision-making on issues which are of direct relevance to them. How do parliaments in practice take up perceptions of minority language groups of what should be done for their language and for the role of the group within a state? And in what way may different parliamentary approaches influence the development of minority language policy in distinct ways? At the same time, the book discusses recent developments in Gaelic and Smi language policy. In this respect, it will also show where Gaelic and Smi affairs are positioned in the structure of both the Scottish and Norwegian political institutions and in what way the existence of the Scottish Parliament and the Sameting in Norway have influenced the position of both languages in various domains of language use and as to the legal status, and how speakers have been affected. At the core of this analysis lies therefore also the question if recent developments have made the long-term survival of Gaelic and Smi more probable. After this introduction, the remaining chapters of part I of this book provide the theoretical frame relevant for this analysis, most importantly issues of minority language wellbeing and maintenance, and their relation to parliaments and political representation. I have chosen to discuss Smi before Gaelic, because the developments leading to the establishment of the Sameting in Norway started earlier than changes in Scotland. Therefore, Part II deals with Smi issues. After applying the theoretical frame established in Part I to the Smi state of affairs in times before the Sameting, I will place the Sameting into the theoretical parliamentary framework. I will then analyse Smi language policy since 1989, with two focuses on the developments in the first years of the Sameting and on selected issues since the turn of the millennium. Part III does the same for Gaelic, with a focus on issues since the Scottish Parliament's establishment, culminating in the development leading to the adoption of the Gaelic Language Act in 2005. The concluding Part IV compares the situations before and after the constitutional changes and suggests a revised evaluation of the sociolinguistic situation of the two languages. This will finally lead to the discussion of the relevance of parliaments for minority
14
languages in general and of which model of parliamentary bodies serves minority languages in a better manner. The primary data of this book from Norway and Scotland was generated through the analysis of current documents from the political players involved, most notably of documents from the Sameting and the Norwegian government, and the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. These include minutes of sessions, but also press releases, bulletins, reports and speeches by politicians, administrators, researchers and organisations of various kinds working for or with Smi and Gaelic. In addition, a large number of interviews with language planners, politicians and scholars were carried out in various parts of Spmi and Scotland in 2002 and 2003. In addition, academic writing, by minority language scholars from Scandinavia and the UK have been taken into consideration, whereas the theoretical ground of minority language policy is based on recent writing and theory-making in language policy, language rights and minority languages research. Let me conclude this introductory section by adding a number of comments. Citations in this book from languages other than English and German have been translated by the author and I claim total responsibility for any misunderstandings which may arise from these. This applies mostly to sources and literature in relation to Smi policy in Norway, where this volume is based on the Norwegian versions of the documents. For the sake of readability and to keep the amount of space needed for footnotes to a minimum, I have not included the original versions in the text. As regards the use of place and personal names, I am aware that it is sometimes necessary to compromise between the interests of a minority language, and of sticking to certain conventions for the sake of readability. In this book I have used the versions of names most commonly used in texts written in English. I am aware that this is problematic in the sense that I will thereby often use names in a majority language version. To avoid this dilemma, there would be two obvious solutions: Either I could use the Smi/Gaelic versions only, which would lead to considerable confusion among those readers who are not specialists in these areas. Or I could use bilingual forms throughout the text which would make the text much more difficult to read. Thus, sticking to the versions of names most commonly known to the international reader happens to be a purely pragmatic reason, and I apologise for any expectations I disappoint by following this practice. In this context, let me also comment on choosing the version Smi for both the people and the language. The traditional term Lapps is perceived as pejorative, whereas the versions Smi,
15
Saami and Sami are equally acceptable. During this work, I will stick to Smi as coming closest to the original Smi version, which also seems to be slightly dominant in English texts today, and which is also used by scholars such as Magga in their English writings. Similarly, there are several possibilities for a terminology of Scottish Gaelic. Throughout this volume, I have chosen to use the simple term Gaelic for Scottish Gaelic, as is common in most inner-Scottish discourse. When referring to Irish and Manx Gaelic, I will explicitly call these languages Irish and Manx.
16
2 Theoretical Approaches to Minority Language Analysis
2.1 Language Policy and Planning in an Ecolinguistic Frame

The following part deals with relevant theoretical approaches in the field of minority language policy analysis. They will be used throughout this book for analysing the status of Smi and Gaelic and the impact that policies originating in the Scottish Parliament and the Sameting have had on them. Scholars from all over the world have contributed to the discussion of minority language policy with their personal perspectives. Their points of departure have resulted in numerous angles from which to look at these issues, depending on the individual personal or linguistic situation, the underlying ideology, and the role of the author as a scholar, activist, or language planner. In fact, components of language policy analysis have been borrowed from just as many scientific disciplines. These reach into various fields of the social sciences and the humanities far beyond linguistics, including political science, sociology, philosophy, history, and law. This section aims at presenting views that are of particular relevance for the two cases under discussion. One important approach in analysing minority language policy is the one by Cooper (as quoted at Kaplan/Baldauf 1997: 54-57). In his view, language policy can be summarised in terms of eight questions that should be answered: "Which Actors influence what behaviours of which people for what ends under which conditions by what means through what decision making processes to achieve what effects?" This guideline includes both the theoretical and practical aspects of policy, at all stages and by all people involved. The actors and the decision-making processes lie at the core of this book's focus on parliaments: What political bodies are involved, who is appointed to these bodies and how are they related to the language users? One important mechanism of language policy is language legislation. Legislation is the regulation at state or sub-state levels to guide, specify and implement language policy, based on beliefs and relating to practices. In Cooper's terms, it is one (very important) part of the means of planning. In order to highlight some aspects of language planning in detail, the actors, as one of Cooper's categories, are of particular importance for shaping the basic form of a language policy, as we will see in the cases under discussion in this book. Classical political actors, i.e. politicians, administrative officers and the apparatuses behind them, are important players in the issues. Reducing the analysis just to them, however, is today generally rejected as being much too narrow. Kaplan/Baldauf (1997: 5-13) identify four major groups of actors:
17
Government: All government agencies with the direct task of carrying out language policy, either within the regular administration (e.g. government departments), or in separate bodies (e.g. language boards). Education Agencies: Education is certainly one of the most crucial fields of language planning. Institutions involved are mostly self-explicatory, from preschool to tertiary level. They may be under the responsibility of the state at the national, regional or local level, but also of churches or private organisations. Non/Quasi Government Organisations: This category includes organisations, such as hospitals, cultural institutions, but also courts. semi-official
Other Organisations: Any organisation may have a language policy. Strictly speaking, every company that takes a decision on which language to use at the workplace or in advertising carries out language planning. As a sub-group of other organisations we can include private groups or even individuals. Spolsky (2004: 10) suggests that any parents who correct their children's usage of lexemes or phonology in order to promote one linguistic variety rather than another, probably a less prestigious one, are actively carrying out language policy. In the course of this work, however, my focus will be on the state and state agencies. These will be set into relation to the aims and demands made by actors of the other categories, and the way in which state decisions, including legislation, influence individual planning prospects. Another prestigious approach which will be used throughout this book is the concept of linguistic ecology or ecolinguistics. In line with biological ecology, focuses on the diversity of "inhabitants" within a given area, and the relationship and links between them. These relations are dynamic, and create a mutually supportive system (cf. e.g. Mhlhusler 1996: 4-5). The major implication for language planning is to look at the linguistic whole, taking into consideration the linguistic varieties and the wishes of speaker groups in an entity, and establishing links between as many of them as possible. Linguistic diversity is seen in line with biological diversity "A laissez faire policy towards a natural environment is equally hazardous as a laissez faire policy towards languages" (Mhlhusler 1996: 14). Phillipson/Skutnabb-Kangas go even further: In their analysis of the role of English in several polities, the "Diffusion of English" paradigm stands in direct opposition to an "Ecology of Language" paradigm, which takes into account aspects such as human rights, equality, multilingualism, and the maintenance of sovereignties (Phillipson/Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 144). Several options have been suggested for analysing the linguistic ecology of a region. Calvet, for instance, suggests the use of questionnaires: One questionnaire approaches the topic from the perspective of a particular language and its contact situations: Which functions does a certain language have, and in what way is it in contact (and conflict) with other languages, and in
18
which domains of language use. 1 Additionally, Calvet presents two questionnaires for the ecolinguistic situation of languages in a given country, or, alternatively, in a town (Calvet 2002: 81-83, 85-87). Questions refer mostly to the number and origin of languages, to the degree of their official recognition, and the fact where they are most frequently used. The desired result is a list of languages within the entity, according to size and status. In a last questionnaire, Calvet tries to describe, classify and evaluate a language policy regime within a state (Calvet 2002: 83-84). The questions asked all refer to an official policy by the state, at different hierarchical levels (national vs. regional), and as to what degree the policy includes which domains of language use. This questionnaire technique is by far not as exhaustive as other models are; however, its advantage is that at least the official political degree of support for a language can quite easily be measured and compared to other languages. However, in this volume, I will mostly stick to a model developed by Kaplan/Baldauf. By presenting an abstract geographical situation of a variety in a given entity, languages are related to each other. At the same time, the model incorporates the actors of language planning, on the one hand, and factors, motives and ideas influencing policy on the other (Kaplan/Baldauf 1997: 311). On the actors' side, these are the actors of language planning that we have encountered in the previous section: government agencies, education agencies, communities of speakers, nongovernment organisations, and other bodies (and possibly individuals). The factors that influence language policy are: language death, language survival, language change, language revival, language shift, language amalgamation, language contact, and literacy development. Again, some of these factors (e.g. language death and survival) are closely interrelated, and many of these correspond to concepts named differently by other scholars.
I will get to a detailed analysis of linguistic domains important in the minority language context in Chapter 6.
19
Figure 1: The Kaplan/Baldauf Model on Forces at Work in a Linguistic Eco-System
As an example, they present the chart in Figure 1. The circles 1 to 7 represent linguistic varieties other than the main national language in the system. As with any other model, it is obvious that additions or a change of nuances would be possible, for instance regarding a distinction of language planning types, aims or approaches. Yet, most of these may also be seen as sub-functions of the fundamental linguistic factors, the actors and the ecological situation as a whole. We will therefore work with the model as it is, and deal with further concepts in a different frame.
2.2 Indigenous Peoples and their Position in Minority Analysis

A special component in the discussion of ethnicity and identity is the role of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are traditional groups which have kept specific ways of life, culture and beliefs, despite often harsh efforts of colonialist efforts by a stronger, "modernised" neighbour. According to Clech Lm, there is still no clear definition of what indigenous peoples are, even though the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169 from 1990 takes the position that indigenous peoples are the traditional residents at the time when an area was invaded by another population. Additional characteristics are that the group sticks to a traditional common identity, and that it is not the most powerful group in the specific societal context (Clech Lm 2000: 6). Of particular importance is the self-identification as indigenous. Hylland Eriksen points out that indigenous individuals may in some cases be part of the government of a state, but that their "regressive way of life makes them particularly vulnerable to modernization of a state" (Hylland Eriksen 2002: 125). For Firsching, indigenous peoples are "ursprngliche Einwohner eines
20
Landes, welche im Laufe der Geschichte immer grere Verluste ihrer ursprnglichen Rechtsposition hinnehmen muten. () Im Gegensatz zu anderen Volksgruppen steht bei I.P. vor allem deren unterschiedliche ethnische Identitt, deren besonders ausgebildete Kultur, Tradition und Lebensweise sowie deren spezielles Verhltnis zur Natur im Vordergrund" (Firsching 2002: 135). An important aspect of indigenous peoples is the idea of specific rights because of their position. The president of the Sameting, Sven Roald Nyst, expressed in a speech in October 2002 his perception that "peoples' right to self-determination is an ideological, political and juridical principle, it is a dynamic right in the phase of development. Latest developments indicate that more and more UN organisations explicitly recognise indigenous peoples' rights to self-determination" (Nyst 2002c). Nyst's perception seems to be right: It is in the context of the slowly emerging human rights debate in the course of the 20th century that also indigenous peoples called for specific rights. Moral claims were made and translated into political demands, of which language was (and is) an important part. Compared to non-indigenous minorities, there is a much stronger notion of ethnicity, of separate cultural systems, and of an intense relation to land and water as the basis of individual cultures. Land and water rights issues are under debate in many indigenous peoples until the present day. Since the beginning of this process of indigenous awareness creation, a lot has been achieved: It was not until the ratification of ILO Convention 169 that the first international document on indigenous peoples was established, at a time when general human rights catalogues had become a common standard. The UN took up the issue in 1982 by creating a Working Group on Indigenous Populations. This initiated a process of drafting a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and establishing a Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples.2 We will get back to indigenous issues in relation to the Smi later.
2.3 Minority Languages and Language Maintenance and Revitalisation

Another important way of analysing minority language policy success is through the application of lists of factors which influence the well-being of a language and its speakers. Hyltenstam/Stroud/Svonni, for instance, make such a suggestion, and also famous names such as Fishman or Crystal have worked on such lists. One famous list which I will work with is suggestion by Edwards (1992: 49). In Edwards' typology, geography is again only one of eleven categories, the others being demography, sociology, linguistics, psychology, history, politics/law/government, education, religion, economics, and media. All of these dimensions are related to the three categories of the speakers, the language itself, or the sociolinguistic setting:
2
For an introductory discussion of the beginnings of indigenous rights claims cf. Paine 1985.

___________________________________________________________________________ Category A Category B Speaker Language Setting ___________________________________________________________________________ Demography 1 2 3 Sociology ... Linguistics Psychology History Politics/law/government Geography Education Religion Economics ... The media 31 32 33 ___________________________________________________________________________
21
Table 1: A Typological Framework of Minority-Language Situations according to Edwards 1992
Combining the eleven variables of the first with the three variables of the second dimension, we get a framework of 33 variables for determining the minority language type. For each of these, Edwards provides a sample question to illustrate how the variable can be approached. To name a few examples, the demographic side can be approached by questions about the number of the speakers (speaker category), the extent of the language (language category), and a rural-urban setting of the language (setting category). For the political category, Edwards' sample questions refer to rights and the recognition of the speakers, the degree of official recognition of the language, and the status of the area where it is spoken (Edwards 1992: 50). In total, however, also Edwards model is far too complex to be useful as a multidimensional scheme in which languages can easily be grouped. Even if a low number of standard answers were given to choose from for all the questions of his list, this would result in endless combinations of possible answers for the variables. Therefore the aim of this model can only be to provide a basic understanding of the aspects involved when approaching minority languages. However, even if it is not suitable as a typology, the strength of the models by Edwards and Hyltenstam/Stroud/Svonni lies in reducing the complexity of factors to a list of handy questions useful for receiving an overview of the situation of a language from various perspectives. Over the years, suggestions for new items to be added to the Edwards model have been made. One important aspect is technological development, which may strengthen languages that already have a dominant position. English as the most important of these is used, for instance, in computer technology instead of other economically important languages such as German or Spanish. At a lower level, the position of languages such as Spanish and German is reinforced in opposition to smaller contact languages: The Catalan authorities are strongly urging computer companies to issue Catalan versions of the most common software to prevent Catalan from
22
loosing ground in these developments. This situation is particularly precarious in contact situations where most speakers are bilingual. Haarmann (2002b: 34-38) gives the example of a typology of minority languages according to their position in the digital world: Traditional small languages with top-down language promotion (mostly well-promoted minority languages in Western countries, e.g. Catalan, Welsh etc.). Immigrant languages with language policy as a response to bottom-up pressure (e.g. Arabic, Bengali, Turkish, etc. where a migrant population is sizable enough for companies to see potential profit in offering their products in these languages). Languages not participating in digital literacy yet, but with chances of top-down promotion (e.g. Sorbian in Germany or Vepsian in Russia, where a certain economic potential exists). Small languages without digital (or even traditional) literacy thus the vast majority of small languages outside of the Western world. It thus makes sense to add a category "adjustment to technological development" to the Edwards model, which includes the aspects addressed by Haarmann. The model by Edwards has also been criticised and extended by Grenoble/Whaley (1998: 31-42). They suggest that literacy should be added as a further category. Second, they argue for a ranking of the variables: For instance, many categories such as the presence of the language in the media depend on the economic situation, which should therefore rank much higher on the scale than other categories. Finally, Grenoble/Whaley see a need to distinguish between several levels of macro-variables, e.g. a distinction of local, regional, national, and extra-national levels. This distinction is in line with the remarks on reference entities in typology, including the discussion of parliaments at various hierarchical levels within a state. As a whole, the suggestions help in establishing an exhaustive typology of minority language settings. It should be kept in mind, however, that these amendments add even more factors to an already complex model.
Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Category Politics/ Law/ Government Education Check List Questions in Order of Relevance for Smi and Gaelic Rights and recognition of speakers Degree and extent of official recognition of the language Degree of autonomy or special status of the area Speakers attitudes and involvement regarding education Type of school support for language State of education in the area Group representation in media Language representation in media General public awareness of area Economic health of speaker group Association between language(s) and economic success/mobility Economic health of the region Socio-economic status of speakers Degree and type of language transmission Nature of previous/current maintenance or revival efforts Linguistic capabilities of speakers Degree of language standardisation Nature of in- and out-migration Language attitudes of speakers
The media
Economics
Sociology
Linguistics
Psychology

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Aspects of the language-identity relationship Attitudes of majority group towards minority Numbers and concentrations of speakers Extent of the language (see also geography) Rural-urban nature of setting Individual speakers' literacy Production of texts in minority language Rate of literacy in state by minority and majority Participation of speakers in technological developments Adaptation of language to technological standards Technological development of area Religion of speakers Type and strength of association between language and religion Importance of religion in the area History and background of the group History of the language History of the area in which group now lives Geographic outline according to White (unique/adjoining/cohesive) Geographic outline according to White (unique/adjoining/cohesive) Geographic outline according to White (unique/adjoining/cohesive)
23
Demography
Literacy
Technological development Religion
History
Geography
Table 2: Ranked Edwards Minority Language Classification Questions
Table 2 is an extended version of the Edwards model according to the suggestions by Haarmann and Grenoble/Whaley. The categories of technological development and literacy are added, and I suggest a ranking of items according to their importance in the cases of Smi and Gaelic. The most important categories for these two languages are, in this order, politics/law/government, education, media, and economy. They lie at the heart of this book and are most frequently addressed by political initiatives in order to increase chances of language maintenance. Sociology, linguistics, psychology and demography are of secondary importance: They are fundamental for the well-being of Smi and Gaelic, but they may not be as directly influenced through political action. History, geography and religion, finally, seem to have the least influence on survival and maintenance of Smi and Gaelic even though these aspects also matter when it comes to the understanding of languages' position in society. In addition, the two categories of technological development and literacy seem adequately placed in the intermediate section of the table as they are also of importance for language maintenance, but are not as prominent as politics, education, media or economics. Edwards' sample questions (and the ones added) are provided in the order Speakers Language Setting. The discussion of the more detailed minority language typologies leads directly to models which aim at identifying factors which determine the state of well-being or decline of a minority language. A short remark shall be made on the life-and-death terminology commonly used in minority language debates, and that I am also applying throughout this book. Terms such as language death and killer languages are, of course, metaphors (languages cannot die; only people
24
can). Yet, many authors consider them to be of great use. Nettle/Romaine (2000: 6), for instance, note that these metaphors illustrate that languages are undoubtedly connected to humans lives. As a whole, this terminology convincingly clarifies what happens to languages. There have been several attempts to classify the degree of endangerment of a language and the resulting implications for language policy. One of the most famous (yet also criticised) attempts has certainly been Fishman's GIDS model, which provides an order of domains in which language maintenance or revitalisation efforts should be approached. In this book, I will mostly stick to the Report on Language Vitality and Endangerment by the Unesco Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages for analysing the state of affairs of Smi and Gaelic. This report concludes with a list of nice factors relevant to the evaluation of the situation of a language (Unesco 2003). Six of these factors are directly linked to usage patterns of the linguistic variety: Intergenerational language transmission, the absolute number of speakers, the proportion of speakers within the total population, shifts in domains of language use, the response to new domains and media, and the presence of materials for language education and literacy. In addition, it identifies two attitudinal factors: governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies, including official status and use, and community members attitudes towards their own language. The ninth factor is the type and quality of documentation of the language. These factors are graded on a six-step scale ranging from 0 (least favourable) to 5 (very favourable situation).
2.4 Linguistic Rights

As the last aspect in this context, I will shortly address issues of Linguistic Rights. The Universal Declaration on Linguistic Rights, proclaimed in Barcelona in 1996, is no legal document, but only a declaration of activists, and is therefore to be looked at from a perspective of wishful thinking and of further demands that are being made by scholars and activists (Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights 1998). In many respects, it reads like a utopian model of a global linguistic diversity. It is certainly written in the awareness that many of the demands are unfulfilled, even in countries which have been supportive of minority languages. The most important underlying beliefs of the declaration are that all languages must "be able to enjoy the conditions required for their development in all functions", and that all language communities have equal rights to "organize and manage their own resources so as to ensure the use of their language in all functions within society". Its main goals touch political, cultural and economic aspects of language development. The declaration's article 3 expresses the most fundamental principles of rights, which include both individual and collective rights. Inalienable personal rights shall include
25
"the right to the use of one's own language both in private and in public, the right to the use of one's own name", and "the right to maintain and develop one's own culture". Collective rights of language groups, in addition to the rights attributed to the members of language groups individually shall be "the right for their own language and culture to be taught, the right of access to cultural services, the right to an equitable presence of their language and culture in the communications media", and "the right to receive attention in their own language from government bodies and in socio-economic relations". At the same time, these demands "must in no way hinder the interrelation of such persons or groups with the host language community or their integration into that community." Towards the end, the Declaration contains a paragraph requiring the public authorities to "take all appropriate steps to implement the rights proclaimed in this Declaration and to establish adequate sanctions to be applied in cases of violation". Finally, it makes a proposal to establish a Council of Languages within the UN system and a World Commission on Linguistic Rights. In general, the underlying principle of the Declaration is that individuals have the right to use one's own language in all respects, to identify with the language, but also to learn any other language. The latter is meant to prohibit the marginalisation of groups by not giving them access to the main language of the territory. In some respects, demands go very far, for instance, by also including migrant language rights. Other far-reaching demands concern, for example, language rights in private companies, or the right to be served within the language of the territory in any context. This seems largely impossible in practical terms as it means that everybody would have to learn any and every language in a territory. We will get back to the Declaration in more detail in the section on domains of language use in ch. 3. The Universal Declaration as a catalogue of demands leads us to other ideas on language rights expressed in recent debates. In line with much of the Universal Declaration, Blumenwitz as well as Skutnabb-Kangas/Phillipson suggest a number of future arrangements. Blumenwitz calls for general agreements, binding to international law, providing suitable means to ensure compliance (Blumenwitz 1996: 186-188). Main aspects of such regulations should be cultural autonomy for minorities, i.e. elements crucial to minority identity such as language, culture, or education should be subject to the minority group's administration. This, however, should not be to the detriment of integration into majority society. Further, Blumenwitz calls for the acceptance of minority languages as official languages following the territoriality principle. Concerning minority schools, future legislation should combine the territoriality and personality principles: Generally, the territoriality principle should be applied. Wherever this seems impossible due to insufficient student numbers, transportation to a minority education institution should be
26
provided. Finally, the state should subsidise minority organisations at least in the same way as other cultural organisations, this being a relatively moderate demand. A similar proposition is made by Skutnabb-Kangas/Phillipson (1995: 98-100). The difference between the two concepts lies less in their content than in the way it is presented. Whereas the Blumenwitz proposition seems to be oriented mostly towards what seems to be possible and is carefully explained, Skutnabb-Kangas/Phillipson present what they see as the most basic linguistic rights in the form of a manifesto, similar to the Universal Declaration: Every social group has the right to positively identify with one or more languages and to have such identification accepted and respected by others. Every child has the right to learn the language(s) of his/her group fully. Every person has the right to use the language(s) of his/her group in any official situation. Every person has the right to learn fully at least one of the official languages in the country where s/he is resident, according to her/his own choice. Here, we also find the general right to learn the language of one's choice, to use and identify with it at all (personal and public, administrative, etc.) levels. Focus is also laid on integration into majority society. We also find similar concepts about learning non-native languages: The right to learn the official language of the country is part of the list of linguistic human rights. Everything beyond that should be guaranteed as an enrichment-oriented linguistic right, but it is considered to be at a lower level than the core demands. The fact that these propositions aim at applying their standards to all possible situations without exception distinguishes them from the official documents we have looked at. It would no longer be subject to the states to decide how far they wish to go. One issue of particular importance is education, where international documents do not guarantee minorities some of the most basic linguistic rights, such as teaching in one's mother tongue at all levels of education (Skutnabb-Kangas/Phillipson 1995: 106). This is a clear example of how much needs to be done to achieve equality of minority and majority languages.
27

Having presented ideas about linguistic rights, I shall take a look at the application of these rights to different domains of language use as one of the major frameworks of analysis in this book. There are various classifications of language domains. Spolsky (2004: 39-56), for instance, distinguishes the domains of the family, schools, religious organisations, the workplace, and supra-national groupings. Blumenwitz (1996: 164-180) makes the broad distinction between private language use (to which personal names may be added), and official use which includes administration and court, education, the media, culture and heritage, and international relations, without mentioning economy, the work-place or religion. The Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights distinguishes personal rights, administration, court, education, media, culture, and socioeconomic issues. Other domains which may be added are police and prison, and the health sector, which could arguably be subsumed in the administration section, but in some situations play a distinct role. Also, language legislation has to be mentioned in this context, which has been dealt with in the previous chapter. Parliaments can similarly be subsumed in the category of public bodies, but as the core topic of this volume, they will mostly be treated separately. In addition to these domains of status planning, symbolic language use is another category that directly relates to attitudes towards a language as part of prestige planning. As a last aspect, corpus planning does not strictly deal with specific domains of language use, but it will be included here as it is frequently mentioned as another important field of language planning.
Status Planning: Private language use Status Planning: Official language use Private/Public sphere Personal Names General Legal Status Public Bodies: Administration, Court, Police/Prison, Health Education Economy/Work-place Media, Arts, Culture and Heritage Religion International cooperation Corpus Planning Issues: Standardisation, Terminology Development etc. Symbolic use/Attitudes
Corpus Planning Prestige Planning
Table 3: Domains of Language Planning in this Book
3.1 Private Language Use

To start with, I would like to comment on the distinction between the private and the public sphere of language use and implications for it due to language planning. Much need not be said about the private sphere. Being the most personal sphere of every individual, it is fundamental for personal identity. Consequently, the dignity of the private sphere is a general human right and no specific language legislation is needed. This also applies to the use of the
28
minority language in personal conversation occurring in public, and the legal right to personal (first and family) names in the form preferred by every individual (cf. Puschmann 1996). However trivial this might seem, history is full of examples where this right was not granted. We have mentioned that it was forbidden to speak Basque or Catalan in Spain in the era of Franco, as was for many years the use of any language other than French in France. In these cases, an authoritarian central government considered the use of minority languages to be a threat to its control of what was going on within its boundaries. In addition, language planning in support of private language use is important for encouraging inter-generational transmission and language awareness within the community. Often, this goes hand in hand with prestige support. Personal names are also an important part of the Universal Declaration. All language communities shall have the right "to preserve and use their own system of proper names in all spheres, to use, establish, preserve and revise autochthonous place names, and to refer to themselves by the name used in their own language". It is important to note that these rights are not restricted to usage within the group, but are also effective in relation with the majority.
3.2 Public Bodies

It becomes more difficult to determine how the use of minority languages can be supported and should be granted when we look at domains of official use, where minority language speakers interact with speakers of a majority language. Blumenwitz (1996: 166-180) lists administration and courts as direct representations of state power, the media, education, culture, tradition and heritage, and international relations. Spolsky adds religion and the work-place or economy in general; the Universal Declaration contains a section on socio-economic linguistics rights as well. Other domains that will be referred to are the police, prisons and the health sector as parts of public bodies, and parliaments also belong to this group. Again, the use of minority languages in public bodies does not only give the language prestige, it is also of utmost importance for opposing tendencies to marginalise minority languages by not giving them practical functions in important domains of life. From a rights-based approach, giving all persons the right to deal with official matters in their native tongue is a fundamental part of the state's equal treatment of all citizens. Blumenwitz identifies three basic types of situations of minority language use regulation in official use. In the first, the national and official language is identical, often due to formal, bureaucratic, or financial reasons, because of the small number of speakers of a minority language. In this case, in order to fulfil linguistic rights, an interpreting service should be available free of charge for all minority language speakers. The second case is that several official languages in a state co-exist. In this
29
case, Blumenwitz identifies three common ways of dealing with multilingualism. The first way is when all (or at least several) of the languages have official status, e.g. such as Swedish and Finnish in Finland. The second type is that, in addition to the dominant language of the state, there are regional official languages, e.g. as in Catalonia, where Catalan is the second official language besides Spanish. These two options correspond to the territoriality principle. Finally, there is a solution based on the personality principle: every individual has the right to use his/her language everywhere. The third type of situations occurs in countries where the speakers of the different languages live relatively segregated from each other. Here, the minority language is the only official language of the region where it is spoken, regardless of the status of the majority language, e.g. as in Belgium. However, the problem may be that speakers from other parts of the country become a new minority within the minority region. Again, this type is a strict application of the territoriality principle. In all situations, court trials should be carried out in the native language. Communication in courts differs from other official communication due to the individual nature of every case. Therefore, the right to use one's own language is even more fundamental when trying to achieve equal justice. In reality, this condition is usually fulfilled only at the most basic level of the legal system. When transferring a case to a higher than a local legal authority, respect for the minority language usually gets lost. However, the example of Belgium, where the German-speaking minority can use German up to the level of the highest national court, proves that a positive exception is possible. The Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights goes further than Blumenwitz in that it calls for general rights regardless of the territoriality principle. All language communities should be "entitled to the official use of their language within their territory, including the right to interrelate with and receive attention from the public authorities in their own language." It is important to note that this right should be applied to all administrative entities to which the language community belongs, i.e. also to public bodies of the central state. An important part of this are also official documents such as forms, administrative documents, and public registers. The same criteria apply to jurisdiction in that the Declaration demands the right to use the minority language in "laws and other legal provisions, and a general usage within courts." In the context of this volume, it is important to recall that the Declaration also demands that "representative Assemblies must have as their official language(s) the language(s) historically spoken in the territory they represent". Going beyond these lists, the categories of police, prison, and health services are sometimes listed as separate domains, even though they are usually part of the public services,
30
and as such belong to the relation between the individual and the state. In general, similar criteria as for the administrative sector apply. In the health sector, the main idea is to make sure that potentially fatal disadvantages for minority language speakers due to a lack of language proficiency are not created. In police and prison, similar rules as to court proceedings shall apply. Investigation shall take place in a language understood, although it is not seen as being a basic human right to the same degree as the use of one's language in a court trial is. In a minority setting, however, the right to use one's language in communication with the state applies to police, prison and health service just as to any other public service. Table 4 summarises proposed language rights requirements in public bodies:
Status Administration: National and official language are identical Adm.: Several co-existing languages: identical official status Adm.: Several co-existing languages: national vs. regional languages Adm.: Several co-existing languages: Personality Principle Adm.: No national, only regional languages Court: Personality Principle Police/Prison/Health Services Implication by Blumenwitz Interpreting service free of charge All languages to be used everywhere Regional languages allowed according to Territoriality Principle All languages to be used everywhere Only regional languages according to Territoriality Principle; problem: new minorities are created Trial in native language everywhere Right to ensure understanding (personality principle), and to use language of territory in any case (only implicitly by Blumenwitz) Universal Declaration Right to use language in communication with public bodies regardless of linguistic regime; in regional bodies in area of linguistic community: Territoriality Principle; for national public bodies: Personality Principle Native language in any legal proceedings No specific reference, but implied in general public bodies section
Table 4: Core Issues of Multilingual Policy: Public Bodies
3.3 Education
Another of the most fundamental domains of minority language use is education. Whereas the use of minority languages in administration is crucial for public visibility and the state-individual relation, education serves the preservation and support of the minority and its culture and language (cf. Blumenwitz 1996: 170-177 and Maraun 1993: 413-442). In schools and other educational institutions, minority language speakers become acquainted with their own linguistic and cultural backgrounds from the early childhood onwards. Here native speakers become native speakers in the sense that they learn the linguistic and cultural heritage to such an innate level that the individual identity is irreversibly linked to the minority language. Minority language use in education is thus both an important element of language rights and crucial for language maintenance.
31
A distinction must be made between situations where all (or at least several) school subjects are taught using the minority language as the medium of communication, and the teaching of the minority language as a second language. According to Blumenwitz, the teaching of the minority language as a subject should be guaranteed everywhere. This requires only a small number of students. The teaching in the minority language requires a certain number of students (and teachers). In Europe, for most minority languages, at least L2 education is provided at the level of primary education. However, Blumenwitz argues that minority-language-medium teaching at all levels should be the ultimate aim. In practice, this depends largely on the number of minority language speakers in relation to the majority population. Another problem exists where minority speakers are spread over large areas. In this case, Blumenwitz proposes that at least transportation to minority schools should be provided free of charge. At the same time, it should be noted that education only in the minority language should not be the aim. Without bilingual minority-majority education, social segregation becomes a threat. This may lead to a lack of chances of minority-language speakers to gain influence at the national level. A recent example of that danger is that of Catalonia: here, cases are reported in which the Spanish (Castilian) knowledge of Catalonian school children is in danger. Bilingual education can take place in two ways: either schooling is given in both the minority and the majority language, or the majority language is taught intensively as a second language. In secondary and higher education, it is more difficult to ensure minority language education, and, thus, approaches are a lot more heterogeneous. Provision and success depend largely on the number of speakers and are often connected with the question as to whether there is a co-national state where the minority language is an official language, e.g. as for Swedish in Finland. In these cases, the minority language can be supported from abroad, and speakers may have access to higher education in the neighbouring state. Another issue is the supervision of schools and of curricula. Blumenwitz calls for a decentralised system to ensure that attention is paid to minority-language issues, ideally in cooperation with minority organisations. Besides language instruction, all other aspects of culture preservation, including religion, the specific history, and the co-national state of the minority (if it exists) should also receive attention in educational institutions. The demands by Blumenwitz in the educational field are mirrored in the corresponding section of the Universal Declaration, which postulates that "all language communities have the right to decide to what extent their language is to be present, as a vehicular language and as an object of study, at all levels of education within their territory: preschool, primary, secondary, technical and vocational, university, and adult education." Education has both the task of serving language maintenance and development and of
32
maintaining linguistic and cultural diversity. Teaching is to be carried out by "properly trained teachers and through appropriate teaching methods." In total, the multilingual and multicultural pattern of a region shall be visible at all levels of education, for both the minority and the majority populations. Table 5 summarises the claims on education:
Educational Aspect of Minority Languages according to Blumenwitz Minority Language as a second language Minority Language-medium education Minority Language education in noncohesive situations Segregation prevention Minority Culture education Co-operation with minority organisations Impacts To be ensured everywhere As often as possible, according to the number of pupils Transport to minority schools to be ensured wherever possible Education partly in the majority language, or at least as second language Cultural Background as part of minority identity Decentralisation of curriculum Linguistic Rights Declaration Minority language learning as L2 is too considered to be not sufficient Has to be guaranteed at all levels within minority territory Not mentioned, but included in general demand for minority language education right in territory Right to learn any language of the territory To be guaranteed for any linguistic community Minority speech communities as the core decision-makers
Table 5: Core Issues of Minority Language Policy: Education
3.4 Economy/Work-Place
It is surprising that Blumenwitz does not mention economy as a distinct category. It is generally considered to be of primary importance for the well-being of a minority language that it can be used at the work-place and in business affairs. Without success and potential in business, a minority language remains at the margins. It is an understandable truth that economic well-being is more important for many minority language speakers than the preservation of their culture and language. An additional problem is that prospects for language survival are much more limited for a language whose speakers are spread over large areas than in a viable community where speakers can stick to their common culture and language. Hale (1998) illustrates that of the Navajo and the Jemez speech communities in the US, Navajo has by far more speakers today. However, prospects for language survival are much smaller than for the small Jemez community, of whom a significant number of speakers are able to maintain their traditional communities. Contrary to this, many Navajo are forced by economic necessity to migrate to English-speaking environments. The result is that Navajo has declined alarmingly (Hale 1998: 215). The Universal Declaration summarises its socio-economic demands in one extended section. Demands include the right to use one's language "in all socio-economic activities within one's territory" which means that "all the means necessary for the performance of their professional activities, such as documents and works of reference, instructions, forms, and computer equipment, tools and products" should be
33
available in the minority language. The language also has to have full legal validity in economic transactions and socio-economic organisations. Furthermore, on the territory of the language, "their language shall occupy a pre-eminent place in advertising, signs, external signposting, and in the image of the country as a whole", including "products and services proposed by commercial establishments, such as instructions for use, labels, lists of ingredients, advertising, guarantees and others", and "public indications affecting the safety of persons". Finally, users and customers shall be able to use their language in "relations with firms, commercial establishments and private bodies and to be served or receive a reply in the same language." It is interesting to note that demands here mostly refer to the "language proper of the territory." It is thus not seen as a general human right, but restricted to the territoriality principle. In practice, some of these demands go extremely far. It needs a lot of political will and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that personal communication between a customer and a company can be guaranteed in the minority language, and it is obvious that public influence on such linguistic patterns is much more difficult than in the communication between individuals and public bodies. There are, however, examples which show that this is possible, for instance in the Basque country, where "watchdog" organisations have worked successfully in identifying companies which ignore the official language regime (cf. Hartsuaga 2004 and Behatokia 2005).
3.5 Further Domains

Culture, tradition, and heritage also play a significant part in minority language rights and well-being. Following Blumenwitz, the state should not only allow, but actively support cultural traditions. This also applies to the media. Access to minority language print media is a basic human right which is usually not difficult to achieve, given a certain minimum number of speakers. Concerning the enormous costs of radio and television production, the state should privilege minority radio and TV broadcasting, e.g. by providing extra funding and a fixed broadcasting time. Co-operation with the co-national state where the language is the main language (if there is one), including the adoption of radio or TV programmes, should be granted. Again, the underlying idea is that a minority language shall be present in as many domains as possible to make life in the language "normal" and prestigious. Religion is a domain where minority languages often survive longest. One very clear example is the use of otherwise extinct languages such as Latin or Old Church Slavonic for religious purposes. A reason for this is that community feeling is strongest in atmospheres where spiritual habits prevail. Here, it is most difficult for intruders to gain access and to change linguistic patterns. In addition, the state often does not intervene as much into religious spheres as into other fields. Where the state does, however, e.g. by sending priests carrying and spreading
34
majority society ideology, the results may be even more detrimental for the endangered language than in other domains. In terms of language rights, religion can be seen in a similar light as any other part of the public sector: full free use in religious services should be possible. Where there is something like a state church, minority speakers should be represented and have access to religious services in their language. In particular in personal communication with priests for spiritual welfare, an aspect as personal and fundamental to life as little else, the need to express oneself in the language closest to one's heart is absolutely crucial. International relations with linguistic groups in other states form a last domain of public support of linguistic rights. This may refer to a state where the minority language is the majority language, to other states where the minority is present as a minority, or even to other minorities to which a minority feels culturally close. Not only radio and TV programmes, but also free communication, trade, cultural exchange, and the reciprocal acceptance of educational diplomas are essential in this context. States must guarantee that this kind of international co-operation can be carried out without problems or interference. The Universal Declaration again postulates demands in line with the ideas presented by Blumenwitz. Concerning media and new technologies, core demands include that all language communities should be able to "decide the extent to which their language is present in the communications media in their territory", for which they need to "have at their disposal all the human and material resources". In cultural affairs, all communities shall have the right to "use, maintain and foster their language in all forms of cultural expression" and every language should have a dominant position in cultural events and services of its territory. The Declaration names in this context "libraries, videothques, cinemas, theatres, museums, archives, folklore, cultural industries, and all other manifestations of cultural life".
3.6 Subsidiary Domains of Minority Language Status Planning

3.6.1 Corpus Planning Before leaving this chapter, I will briefly comment on corpus and prestige planning. Corpus planning, albeit not directly related to the survival or decline of a language in a specific domain, is an important part of language planning for minorities as well. Often, one problem of minority languages is that speakers believe that their language cannot be appropriately used in certain domains. This relates primarily to issues in which the status of the language is low and in which another language traditionally has been dominant. If a minority language has not been used as a language of politics or administration, it is likely that there is a lack of terminology in these fields. Similarly, in technological developments such as the rise of computer technology in recent
35
decades, minority languages were often left by the wayside. This implies that it is entirely unlikely that a minority language will be used in the media or at work-places which operate with these technologies, especially if the relevant vocabulary does not exist. It is thus of crucial importance that language planners create the necessary corpus without which a language will not be able to gain access to these domains. Similarly, standardisation is also fundamental for its use in education and the development of education materials.
3.6.2 Domains of Language Rights in their Relation to Attitudes and Prestige Planning In all theoretical reasoning, it is important to keep in mind that the reality of language planning might look considerably different than the theory. What is right and necessary for one language group may be detrimental to another group. In some cases, the decision to stick by demanding certain rights may be counter-effective in that a language group puts understanding by majority speakers in jeopardy when their demands are put forward with too much force and without relating to the general linguistic climate. An example of this is the North Frisian speech community in Northern Germany, which in 2004 put forward a suggestion for a Frisian Act in the parliament of the German state of Schleswig-Holstein. The demands in this proposal are by far weaker than what has been discussed in previous sections. However, Frisian activists consciously decided to look for general consensus and have limited their demands to gain permission for municipalities to be allowed to use Frisian in certain official contexts, rather than to receive guarantees for language use. In total, this was seen as a step by which support for Frisian issues was much more likely to be achieved, even if this would clearly have been legitimate from a linguistic rights perspective (Schleswig-Holsteinischer Landtag 2004). In other words, it is more important to guarantee a positive attitude of the majority group towards the minority language than to stick to specific rules. In spite of the discussion on rights, negotiation is often more likely to reach acceptance for the speakers of the language than confrontation. This brings us back to the notion of prestige and of attitudes towards a language, both by the majority and the minority groups, as discussed in chapter 2 in the context of basic definitions and terminology of language policy and planning. Again, this is no domain of language use in the sense of specific usage patterns, but it is an important field of language planning. Psychological aspects of an individual situation are as important as demographic and sociological variables, or official status and policy of a minority language. Only when all aspects are taken into account can a true picture evolve. It is this picture which should be the basis of policy measures. The crucial question to be kept in mind is always: How can a language achieve the rights it deserves? How are the speakers of the language able to use the language in the way
36
they wish? And how can language maintenance be ensured? After all, the discussion is about people, not about languages in their own right. As Winter (1993: 313-314) puts it: "Languages are used because people want to use them; languages cease to be used when people cease to want to use them. () Obviously wishes can be manipulated to a certain extent, but the more wishes and their implications become rationally understood, the greater the chance that manipulation will not succeed. () If survival of a language is worthwhile, the best thing to do is to strengthen the speakers' motivation." The example of compulsory Irish teaching for school children in the Republic of Ireland since independence indicates that there is no point in language legislation without positive attitudes. In Northern Ireland, on the contrary, Irish enjoys popularity among some parts of the Nationalist population, exactly because of its prestige as a marker of Irish unity. Similar patterns emerged for enforced Russian teaching in former communist Eastern European countries: The prestige of Russian as a duty with little practical value was low and language competence has remained negligible for many people despite years of schooling. Contrary to this, the success of English teaching in many Western European countries reflects a positive attitude to the English-language dominated culture. Yet, even if prestige is an important factor, it is not sufficient without further support. In this context, we have to distinguish between prestige among minority and majority speakers. Minority speakers' prestige is more important for language maintenance, but is of course also influenced by the majority speakers. Contrary, prestige may also differ in that minority speakers see their language as an obstacle to economic success, while majority speakers see it as a romantic part of nationhood. Both groups influence each other, and positive attitudes of both groups have to go hand-in-hand. The analysis of the multi-fold situation of Smi and Scottish Gaelic in the following parts of this book will be based on a complex whole which incorporates prestige as well as language use in domains. In this context, a brief comment on the role of acquisition planning seems to be appropriate. Even though acquisition planning lies at the heart of language maintenance and revitalisation, I will refrain from establishing another category. Language acquisition is an important part of many other domains of language planning. It is closely linked to attitudes and prestige planning, as acquisition more than other things requires the willingness to deal with the language. Of course, acquisition also requires the necessary support, mostly in the domains of education and media, which are responsible for creating the opportunities to learn a language once desire has been evoked. However, for the purpose of this book, the implicit nature of acquisition planning will be sufficient.
37
3.7 Summary: Monitoring Language Rights Implementation

Table 6 summarises the theoretical ideas about the ideal state of minority languages according to domains:
Domain Use in private communication General Legal Status Administration Court Police/Prison Health Services Education Economy/Business Culture/Heritage Media/Arts Religion International Relations Corpus Planning Symbolic Language Use Attitude/Prestige Planning Main aspects/demands No restrictions whatsoever, including the use of personal names Official recognition as a language with rights and legal status according to individual constitutional and legislative tradition of the state Communication in native language according to Territoriality or Personality Principle, depending on regional or national body Personality Principle: Trial in native language/free interpretation everywhere Personality Principle anywhere; Territoriality Principle in minority region As in administration Provision of minority language education on all levels, where possible as medium of education No restrictions; some obligations and support according to Territoriality Principle Special support of minority activities State funding of minority programmes No restrictions, state support of minority languages as other state support for religious groups Free reciprocal communication; exchange and acceptance of documents etc. Providing an adequate corpus for language participation in all domains Presence of minority language in representative settings Acceptance of value of language and linguistic community by both minority and majority speakers, if necessary supported by state through motivation campaigns
Table 6: Minority Language Status Planning Domains and Their Main Aspects
The findings from above can be used to go one step further and to suggest a check list as a tool for minority language status evaluation. Is the status of language use satisfactory in the individual domains? And if not, what do political players in terms of language planning and linguistic legislation do about it? In cases where the situation is acceptable or even better, is there some kind of monitoring that the situation remains as it is? Such a list may help to make the situation more clearly visible. If we add such additional columns to the overview tables presented in this chapter, they can be used both for a static description of a language at a certain point of time, or for a dynamic, comparative evaluation of changes within a certain period. I will get back to using this check list idea in the chapter on results of Gaelic and Smi policy in recent years.
4 Parliaments, Political Representation and their Relation to Language
38

4.1 General Aspects of Parliamentary Functions
The last chapter of this theoretical part will deal with parliaments as the political body in focus in this work. In the course of this volume, two main aspects of language in parliament will arise: The use of language in parliament bodies on the one hand, and policy initiatives taken by parliaments on the other. Parliaments are one of the most fundamental elements of modern representative democracy. A parliament is usually one of the highest constitutional organs within a democracy, and it is here where the expression of the population's will takes place (Nettle/Romaine 2000: 203). Recalling the list of identity reference points by Laponce (1987: 45; cf. ch. 4.2.2), along with language we find the categories state, region, and national origin. Individuals are identified with a state or a political sub-unit in positive and negative ways, whenever dealing with public bodies, in official documents, or when travelling. These aspects affect the national and the regional level, mostly depending on whether a person is inside or outside the country of residence. In almost all societies, public bodies are the link between the individual and the state and determine the identification with ones state or region. Through the process of electing and being elected to local, regional, and national parliaments, individuals participate in affairs that affect peoples lives in the state, region, or community. Therefore authorities and parliaments representing one of these levels are important as reference points of identity for political life. Apart from the symbolic side, parliaments are, of course, also important because of the concrete policy steps that may result from parliamentary processes. They provide therefore a possibility for minority groups to gain influence on political decision-making in a representative way, as opposed to influence by participation of groups in society, i.e. through lobbying or in any other way of civil society involvement (Myntti 1998: 35-66). As we will see, the Smi as a collective group have in the past years moved from participation to representation. In Scotland, Gaelic speakers largely remain in the participative model until today. In general, it largely depends on individual circumstances as to which solution is practical. Following Hague/Harrop (2001), parliaments are characterised by their typical functions: representation, deliberation/debating, legislation, authorising expenditure, and the making and scrutinising of governments. Broderstad (1995), in the context of the Norwegian Sameting, discusses three core functions of parliaments directly relating to the population. First, parliaments speak on behalf of the various groups within the political entity. Second, they are representative, i.e. they display the structure of the population according to certain criteria such as age, class,
39
gender, or language. These two functions are generally in line with the Hague/Harrop function of representation. In opposition to these is the third function, the responsiveness to wishes and demands and the promotion of these at different layers of decision-making through debates, legislation, funding of projects and electing a government. This function is closely related to what has also been labelled as the canalising of grievances (Winetrobe 2001: 181). Turan (1994: 105-108) establishes a similar distinction in the specific context of the Turkish Parliament, but the observations are also plausible for parliamentary bodies in general. One focus of representation lies on the characteristics of a population and how these are reflected in a legislature. Patterns in the population translate into patterns in the parliament, e.g. concerning ethnic or racial groups, religion, sex and age distributions, even though Turan notes that it is impossible to represent all characteristics in an elected body. We have to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant characteristics. It is obvious that linguistic and other minority groups whose identities are strongly characterised by being different from the majority count as relevant. This perception of relevance may change; e.g. sex was not considered to be important until some decades ago but today it certainly is. A similar rise of awareness could take place with regard to minorities. On the responsive side of a legislature Turan identifies four dimensions: policy, service, allocation, and symbolism. Symbolic responsiveness implies a focus on attitudes towards the legislature, rather than the behaviour of the legislators per se. The other three dimensions closely relate to the Hague/Harrop functions of legislation, expenditure and government. The legislative function of parliaments leads us to a remark by Lord Hope of Craighead (1998) who distinguishes two fundamental dichotomies in the positions of parliaments. On the one hand, it is the question of whether a parliament is law-making or not. Prototypical parliaments certainly are law-making; however, if the focus in a parliament is rather on the idea of a representative assembly, parliamentary institutions may be limited in their legislative competences. The second dichotomy relates to the question if a parliament is sovereign or not. Sovereignty implies that there is no higher-level institution which sets limits to the parliament's functions and decisions. Sovereign parliaments are thus usually the parliaments of sovereign states, whereas non-sovereign parliaments usually are regional or local parliaments which have to stick to the constitutional frame of the political entity. A special position in this can be assigned to the national parliaments of the member states of the European Union, which have transferred parts of their sovereignty to the European level.
40
4.2 Linguistic Practices in Parliaments of Multilingual States

It is of interest to examine different ways in which multilingual states deal with the languages spoken on their territories within their parliament and their government bodies. Laponce's (1987: 94-136) findings from the late 1980s are slightly outdated by now; however, his general conclusions have remained unaltered:
The Government is... Monolingual % of Speakers of the Dominant Language > 90 50 - 90 < 50 > 90 50 - 90 < 50 Number of States 73 27 47 9 16 7 % of States 41 15 26 5 9 4 Examples UK, France, Germany China, Iran, Romania, Peru Ghana, Indonesia, Bolivia Finland, Ireland, Malta Norway, Israel, Canada India, Kenya, Cameroon
Multilingual
Table 7: Proportions of Official Language Speakers in Monolingual Government States (Laponce 1987)
As Table 7 indicates, the first striking phenomenon in Laponce's listing is the fact that out of the 147 countries listed as having an officially monolingual government (as opposed to only 32, or less than 20% of these, states with a multilingual government/parliament, in 47 this official language is spoken as a mother tongue by less than 50% of the population. These are mainly post-colonial states, mostly in Africa. In an additional 27 states the percentage lies between 50% and 90%, these states being as diverse as China, some Latin American countries, Iran, and Romania. This leaves only 73 states (or just below half the total) in the above-90% category, among them most Western European states including the United Kingdom, i.e. countries with considerable linguistic minorities. The position of Norway is interesting to note. The country is placed in the 50-90% category, but this does not refer to Smi, but to the use of the two written standard varieties of Norwegian. We can conclude that the vast majority of these states declare themselves as being monolingual, despite the fact that this does not correspond to linguistic reality (Laponce 1987: 96-99). For the states whose executive and legislative bodies operate multilingually, we shall concentrate on how this institutional multilingualism is organised (Laponce 1987: 102). According to Laponce's list, out of the 32 multilingual states listed, only three are trilingual (Luxembourg, Sri Lanka, and, at the time, Yugoslavia), and only one quadrilingual (Singapore), the remaining states being bilingual. Again, we have to distinguish between symbolic and functional bilingualism. There are a number of officially bilingual states that do not even provide bilingual bank notes or postage stamps. In parliaments, it is necessary to distinguish between the highly symbolic plenary sessions and the committees or other subgroups where most of the actual work is done. Table 8 indicates that in almost all cases, the use of official languages is
41
unbalanced, with only Belgium as an exception (Laponce 1987: 106). In our context it is only important to notice that the vast majority of these states behave monolingually at their highest level, despite the fact that this does not correspond to linguistic reality (Laponce 1987: 96-99).
The use of the Official Languages is... Very Unbalanced Unbalanced Nearly Evenly Balanced Number of States 21 10 1 % of Multilingual States 66 31 3 Examples India, Ireland, Cameroon, Finland Switzerland, Canada Belgium
Table 8: Balancing of Languages in Government Use in Multilingual Government States (Laponce 1987)
In most of the states Laponce lists as being officially multilingual, members can use the official language of their choice in parliament. In cases where not all persons can be expected to understand all official languages, this means that interpretation facilities have to be provided. Whereas the representation of a minority language in the plenary sessions of a parliament is of fundamental symbolic value, its presence in committee meetings rather stems from the linguistic right to use ones mother tongue in all situations possible to secure equality of opportunity. Practices depend largely on the number of speakers and the sociolinguistic type and strength of the minority language, the level of bilingualism, and on financial resources. Laponce notes that language use in cabinets, where the aim is not to give room for consideration, but to provide for quick decision-making processes, differs largely from the use in the plenary bodies. Therefore, in most countries, the most common of the official languages is either extremely dominant or used exclusively with a few exceptions such as Belgium and Canada, i.e. two countries where neither of the two official languages is a minority language spoken by only very few people. Other examples of parliaments which operate multilingually are given by McLeod in an article from 1998, at the time when the decision on the Scottish Parliament had been taken, but the shape of its organisation was under debate. He explicitly comments on the situation in Canada, Ireland and India. Whereas parliamentary proceedings in Canada are largely bilingual, Ireland and India are cited as examples where a functional approach is taken. In both cases, tribute is paid to the fact that there are dominant languages in parliament proceedings, namely English in Ireland, and English and Hindi in India. However, to recognise the importance of other languages in the country, also Irish and twelve other official languages in India may be used in the respective parliaments, with translation into English, but not from English into the other languages. McLeod (1998) in summary calls for a similar method in Scotland to compromise between practical considerations and recognition of minority rights.
42
4.3 The State and Parliaments and their Relevance for Linguistic Minorities
For an understanding of the role of parliaments for language maintenance it is important to look at the question of what the findings on parliamentary functions imply for linguistic minorities. How are parliaments of importance for linguistic minorities? Given the central position of parliaments in a political system, it is remarkable that parliaments have only very marginally been part of the discussion of language policy and language maintenance. Copeland/Patterson argue that "parliaments must maintain the capacity to represent or link constituencies to the parliament, legitimize the activities of the government, and be a part of the problem-solving mechanism for the policy problems facing their polity" (Copeland/Patterson 1994: 160). If minority policy and language policy are seen as problems (or, more neutrally, challenges) for the polities, this statement underlines the importance of parliaments within the process of minority rights development. McRae's (2001) observations on minorities in political systems confirm that in most circumstances, minorities can achieve better representation in a pluralist, parliamentary multiparty system. Similarly, parliamentary bodies at various levels ensure minority influence on sub-state level decision-making. Wilson/Stapleton (2003: 27) identify four themes in which language becomes a topic in parliamentary contexts, which may overlap in individual cases. First, a right to free language choice in a parliament can be seen in the context of linguistic human rights. Second, language in parliaments has to be seen in terms of formal proceedings: Which linguistic rights are formally given in such an important public body? Third, language use may be a political symbol, e.g. where a parliament recognises a linguistic variety, but also where individual language choice is deliberately in opposition to accepted use. Finally, language analysis in parliamentary contexts may be seen from a pragmatic perspective (or a "form of agreed and formally recognised communication", as the authors call it), relating to aspects of practical organisation or a cost-benefit perspective. All of these aspects may be of relevance for minority languages. Individual linguistic rights are of particular importance in the context of minority representation. Whether these rights are granted, or where they are not, the unofficial use of the language is a clear symbol to the linguistic group. In addition, legal recognition is also an important part of practical language policy as is the question of official rights in the parliament body. And questions of practical usage may also become important, e.g. when a parliament deals with translations and interpretation facilities. In cases where not all speakers of a minority language have a sufficient command of the dominating language, there are in fact practical disadvantages if the language is not present in the parliament. However, even where this problem does not occur, what matters is the perception of the minority group of being different. As Haberland (1991: 189) puts it: The point is not, "Do Danes
43
in Flensburg need a sign Socialforvaltningen alongside with Sozialamt to find their way?" (...) The point is whether the minority group (...) is recognised by the majority independently of how it defines itself. Along these lines, the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (1998) includes an article on Parliamentary Representation (Article 19): 1. Representative Assemblies must have as their official language(s) the language(s) historically spoken in the territory they represent. 2. This right also applies to the languages of the communities established in geographically dispersed locations referred to in Article 1, Paragraph 4. The second paragraph implies that it shall also apply to nomad peoples within their area of migration. This article thus stresses the importance of recognition of minority languages in parliamentary bodies. The parliamentary functions discussed above (Ch. 7.1) are all of potential relevance for minority language speakers. With regard to representation and deliberation, the symbolic value of multilingualism in a parliament bridges the abstract concept of a political unit and the individual. Parliaments are in this way one piece of a mosaic of items contributing to personal linguistic identity. Only when the population feels genuinely represented in such an institution does the political entity which the parliament refers to have a positive value, similar to other symbolic measures of multilingualism such as postage stamps, bank notes, and passports. In the case of minorities, presence in legislative and executive bodies is necessary apart from certain minority rights which have to be granted independently of decision-making levels. It is here where it can be measured as to what degree a state fulfils representative demands. The importance of parliaments has to be seen in the light of general institutional disadvantages for minority languages, as the Euromosaic (1996a, also as quoted at Darquennes/Weber 2001: 104) survey also finds: "So knnen Sprecher von Minderheitensprachen im Unterschied zu den Sprechern von Mehrheitssprachen nicht in einem ausreichenden Ausma auf soziale, politische und institutionelle Strukturen in ihrer Muttersprache zurckgreifen, die die Existenz, die Relevanz und die Gleichberechtigung ihrer Sprache im Staat sichern wrden." Parliaments are certainly particularly outstanding components of the political and institutional structures. Representation of minority issues at such an outstanding position in the political system thus guarantees a certain degree of awareness of minority issues in a state. On the responsiveness side, language policy making is linked to legislation as the basis of policy making. Authorising expenditure is related to the provision of services and the allocation of means for the funding of language planning projects. The factors of the making and scrutinising of governments, finally, are of potentially least practical relevance for minority
44
language speakers it needs a considerable degree of strength to directly influence the formation of a government which minority language speakers usually do not have. May (2001: 146) also discusses parliaments and their relation to linguistic minorities. In the persisting political structure with nation-states as the fundamental unit of political action, parliaments have kept their dominant position as the centres of pluralist policy-making. In order to enable minorities to participate adequately in power structures, linguistic minority groups should have distinct rights in the form of self-government or special representation. The role of parliaments includes the two functions of legitimising a language through official legislation, and of institutionalising it through its regular use in official bodies. The ultimate aim is that language varieties different to the dominating one shall become "normalised", i.e. taken for granted in any context, including within parliaments. Summarising, we can thus broadly assign two relevant components for linguistic minorities to parliaments. On the one hand, they are a highly symbolic part of the domain of public bodies, where minority language speakers should be adequately represented. On the other hand, through its language policy and planning potential, parliaments are responsive to wishes of a linguistic minority and enable it to participate in decision-making, in particular with regard to legislation and the distribution of means.
4.4 Hierarchies of Parliaments and their Impact on Minority Policy

Besides the fact that parliaments and linguistic minorities are related to each other in general, it is evident that the type of parliament and its position in the political hierarchy of a state also have a significant impact on the role language plays on the political agenda. The choice of the Scottish Parliament and the Sameting in this book is to be understood as an exemplification of different types of parliamentary institutions. A classification of parliaments according to geographical levels and their relevance for minorities is closely linked to the question whether a linguistic minority is seen as a genuine part of the identity of the country, or at least a region or another political unit suitable for identity marking. The presence of the minority language usually increases with the percentage of its speakers in the area for which the parliamentary body is responsible. The recognition of the minority group at the national level demonstrates to the entire nation that the group exists and that its wishes have to be taken into account. In a regional or local parliament, on the other hand, the chance of political influence is considerably higher. An important aspect here is the distribution of power and the question of whether a system is centralist, or if a fair degree of power lies within the regions.
45
Both the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament are decentralised parliamentary bodies. As the recent decentralisation of parliamentary power and their impact on the empowerment of minority language speakers lie at the heart of this volume, it therefore makes sense to briefly define this central term. The Encyclopedia of Democracy (Lippert 1995: 335) defines decentralisation as "the devolution of power in a state to elected local authorities", which in practice is closely linked to democratic principles. This delegation of power to subordinate bodies implies that decision-making is distributed more widely and brought closer to the point of service or action. Applied to linguistic minorities, it is obvious how decentralisation is for their benefit: The likelihood that minority members are part of a parliament increases proportionally with the decrease in size of the political entity and its population. In other words, it is much more likely that e.g. Gaelic speakers are represented in the Scottish Parliament which stands for roughly 5 million people, than in the Westminster Parliament in which over 50 million people are represented. The second difference between types of parliaments is the distinction between minorityonly parliaments and representative organs for the whole population. The amount of time, energy and money devoted to minority issues is much higher in a body whose main task is to look after this group. However, it depends very much on the willingness of the political mainstream in the country whether such an institution remains a debating club, or whether it has an impact on wider political affairs. A decision on minority policy in a parliament where all groups of society are represented, on the other hand, is rare and much more difficult to achieve. Once taken, though, chances of implementation are considerably higher. Decisions are usually backed by a stronger financial frame, and do not depend on the good-will of another institution within the same political unit (though they may very well depend on institutions at a higher hierarchy level or on administrative obstacles).
Inter-/Supranational Super-state bodies, e.g. the European Parliament Minority Cross-Border Representative Bodies National Any regular National Parliament Minority Representative Bodies Regional Any regular Regional Parliament Minority Representative Bodies with regional competence only Local Any regular Municipality Council Minority Representative Bodies with local competence only
Representation of all Parts of Society Representation of Minority Only (Rare)
Impact on Legislation Chance to Establish Minority Influence
Table 9: Parliamentary Types according to the Political Unit and the Distinction Between Parliaments for Minorities Only vs. Parliaments for the Entire State
46
Table 9 provides an overview of possible positions of a parliament according to the two criteria just discussed. A broad hierarchical categorisation may classify parliamentary bodies as being supra- or international, national, regional, or local. However, these usually differ considerably according to their legislative and other functions. The second distinction, whether a parliamentary body represents the entire population of a given political unit, or only for a minority group, is very rare in reality, at least if we mean an elected parliament here, and not the participative model of lobby groups. An interesting aspect of identity in this context is the idea that the parliamentary presence of the minority group and society have a reciprocal relationship. The presence or absence of a minority in the parliament is not only important for minority identity; it also influences the identity of society as a whole, and is crucial for the role of the minority in the entire countrys identity and self-awareness. The major difference here is, of course, the fact that much depends on the willingness of the majority. Mainstream society has, in opposition to the minority group, the choice to what degree it wishes to take notice of the minority. However, if such willingness exists, the presence of the minority group in a parliament may result in a wide-spread acceptance of the minority as an integral part of the countrys identity. The following table, again, summarises the main theoretical concepts just discussed:
Topic/Author Political Participation: Myntti Parliamentary Function: Hague/Harrop, Broderstad, Turan Lord Hope of Craighead Parliaments and Language: Wilson/Stapleton Parliaments and Linguistic Minorities: Laponce Issues Influence by participation vs. by representation Shape of influence outside the parliament direct vs. indirect Representation: Speaking on behalf vs. Pattern of population Responsiveness: Policy/legislation, service, allocation/expenditure, symbolic, deliberation/debate, governments Law-making vs. Non-law-making Sovereign vs. Non-sovereign 4 Relations of Language and Parliaments: Individual choice, Formal rights, Symbolism, Practical considerations High symbolic value of parliaments for minority identification with a state as an identity point Summarising: two major components of parliaments for linguistic minorities: Symbolic part of public bodies vs. Policy and planning potential: responsiveness to wishes; participation in decision-making, legislation and distribution of means Normalised language use as aim Legitimising/institutionalising functions of parliaments Minority language us to be permitted in parliaments Mono- vs. multilingual governments of mono- and multilingual states Usage patterns of officially multilingual bodies Supra-state vs. national vs. regional vs. local Minority assemblies vs. general assemblies with minority participation Shape of state influences minority as well as minority presence influences state identity
May Universal Declaration Parliaments of multilingual states: Laponce, McLeod Types of parliaments: Hierarchical Differences Minority-only Parliaments Reciprocal relationship minority state
Table 10: Parliament Functions and Relations between Parliaments and Language
47
4.5 Examples of Parliaments' Impact on Language Policy

After this theoretical part, the importance of parliaments for linguistic regimes shall be illustrated with a few examples. One of the most famous examples of the impact of a change in political structure on language policy is the decentralisation of Spain after the reestablishment of democracy in the 1970s. The new constitution provided a certain level of autonomy for the Spanish regions, and the emergence of language policies in these in favour of, most prominently, Catalan and Basque, but also a number of other languages have been among the most exciting incidents of language normalisation. On a smaller scale, the change of government in 2004 again provoked hopes by language activists that a more supportive approach to regional languages would be taken. As the Ciemen Institute reported in June 2004 (Mercator Legislation 2004): "The introduction of multilingualism in the upper chamber is a matter of political will and now this will has become reality: the Standing Orders of the Senate be reformed in order to enable the use in its sittings of the languages which have official status in any Autonomous Community, i.e. Galician, Basque and Catalan." Another example of where political decentralisation has directly resulted in status improvement of a small language is the establishment of the Nunavut Territory in Canada, through which the Inuit population managed to receive control over vast land areas in the north of Canada. After its establishment, the Nunavut government soon became engaged in launching a language policy in support of Inuktitut, the language traditionally spoken by the Inuit, including its usage as government language to a degree without precedence (Government of Nunavut 2004). On the Isle of Man, the extinct language Manx is still used for symbolic purposes e.g. in the Manx parliament. This is another example where language use in parliament bodies is important as a political symbol. Wilson/Stapleton (2003) report of a debate on language use in the Northern Irish Assembly, where the two languages besides English, Irish and Ulster Scots, both carry clear political values as languages of Republicans and Loyalists, respectively. The authors confirm the importance of the devolved Assembly for language issues, as these are one area in which discourse differs considerably from Westminster, and language as a subject has thus become much more dominant with the advent of devolution (Wilson/Stapleton 2003: 6). There are, of course, also counter examples in the sense that the existence of a distinct parliament was not necessary for the stimulation of a language policy. In chapter 2.5, the work by the Welsh Language Board was quoted as an example of successful language planning. This institution came into being before decentralisation, at a time when Wales, like the rest of the UK, was governed from Westminster. The 1967 Language Act had removed the limitations on the use of Welsh in the courts. After two unsuccessful Language Act attempts, the 1980s also saw a
48
number of important steps, such as the first statement of government policy in support of Welsh, financial support for bilingual education, or the establishment of a Welsh language television channel. Since the 1993 Welsh Language Act, the Welsh Language Board as a statutory body has had the function "to promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language", including performing certain duties for the public sector and the courts so that Welsh and English are treated on an equal basis. However, in Wales, even if the existence of the Welsh Assembly was not necessary for the establishment of the Language Board, the Assembly has certainly moved the Board closer to the Welsh population and the speakers of Welsh. In democratic terms, representation and responsiveness are much closer now. The most significant section of the Welsh Assembly Act on language states that "The Assembly may do anything it considers appropriate (...) to support the Welsh language". In addition, it also established Welsh and English as the working languages of the Assembly. As the Welsh Language Board reports, "The Welsh Assembly Government reacted very quickly and purposefully to the report by issuing within a month a policy statement, Dyfodol Dwyieithog: Bilingual Future. This reiterated that the Assembly Government was wholly committed to revitalising the Welsh language and creating a bilingual Wales" (Scottish Parliament Education Committee 2003d ). In the debate on a Private Member's Bill on Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament in 2003, John Walter Jones of the Welsh Language Board (Jones 2003) commented on effects of a minority language being used in a Parliament: "One unintended spin-off from the legislation is the number of members of the Assembly who have decided in the past four years to learn Welsh. They have inspired their constituents to do likewise. People like me are inspired by the fact that members use Welsh as often as they can in debates (). No one has told them, "Thou shalt learn Welsh"; it is their decision to do so, and they are enjoying it." How can experience from reality better emphasise the importance of parliaments for minority language? Before applying the theoretical findings to the developments of Language Policy in favour of Scottish Gaelic and Smi in Norway, we therefore have to keep in mind that today, the perception prevails among scholars that all cases ultimately have to be approached and evaluated individually. It is valid what Spolsky (2004: 222) writes: "In all of this, the potential success of language management will depend on its congruity with the language situation, the consensual ideology or language beliefs, the degree to which English (or, one might add, any other dominant language) has already penetrated the sociolinguistic repertoire and its consistency with a minimal degree of recognition of language rights."
6 Smi in the 1980s in the Theoretical Scheme
49
II Smi Policy and Developments towards Minority Parliamentarianism in Norway 5 The Smi Language in Context
5.1 Smi as a Minority Language in Europe
The first case study, the Smi language in Norway, will be approached with an overview of Smi's place in the context of its genealogical sister languages, of the languages of the world and its ecolinguistic context. In chapters 9-12, we will then examine language policy before and after the Sameting's establishment. The discussion of the number of languages spoken in the world usually circles around the figure of approximately 6,000 (cf. e.g. Hale 1998: 192 or Nettle/Romaine 2000: 6-7). Of these, only very few are languages with high speaker numbers. Estimates that have been cited frequently in the debate in Scotland show that many languages are seriously threatened and that only between 50% (a very optimistic view) and 10% (the most pessimistic views held) of the world's languages are likely to survive the 21st century. With five-digit speaker numbers, Smi and Gaelic do not belong to the extremely small languages, with many languages below 10,000, below 1,000, or even below 100 speakers. When, for instance, looking at the categories provided by Haarmann (2002: 81-82; 99-100), the category of languages with between 20,000 and 50,000 speakers, to which Smi belongs, is placed at the centre of the scale, with Mandarin Chinese in China with 800-850 million speakers at the top end, and extinct languages (e.g. more than 30 languages in Australia) and languages below 10 speakers (e.g. Iowa in the US) at the opposite end. Thus, in terms of speaker numbers, there are many languages in the world which are far worse off Smi. In every part of the world, there are also small languages which are considerably more heavily endangered, let alone the vast number of (recorded or un-recorded) languages that are moribund or have died. However, the number of speakers is only one component: Even a very small number of speakers, if they live in a stable environment where the language is used and transmitted, are much more likely to maintain their language than a comparatively larger number who are under strong pressure from a dominant language. In line with most minority languages in Europe, Smi speaker numbers and in particular the experience of radical language discouragement and decline throughout the 20th century are reasons for serious concern. Yet, they are both at levels where political action may not be too late, if taken seriously. When looking more closely at the situation of languages in Europe, it is interesting to note that Europe is the continent showing least linguistic diversity (Skutnabb-Kangas 2004). Haarmann identifies only 143 languages in Europe of the 6,417 languages word-wide, of which
50
44 (30.7%) are languages with at least one million speakers, 69 (48.3%) minor languages and 15 (10.5%) extremely minor languages with less than 1,000 speakers. This is an extremely unusual pattern in relation to 4.2% of languages world-wide with at least one million speakers, 64.8% minor languages and 30.8% extremely minor languages (Haarmann 2002: 32). The major languages in Europe, with more than 50 million speakers, are Russian, German, French, English and Italian. Examples of extremely small languages are Livonian in Latvia and Karaim in Poland and the Ukraine with a few hundred speakers each. Smi appears at the level of languages such as Sorbian or Faroese. Within the Finno-Ugric languages, Smi is much smaller than its closest relations, Finnish (4-5 million) and Estonian (over 1 million), which are both national languages of independent states. On the other hand, other Finno-Ugric languages are about as small as Smi (e.g. Menkieli in Sweden) or even considerably smaller, such as many languages of culturally similar peoples in the Arctic regions of Russia, such as Nenets or Komi. The most important contact languages for Smi are Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish and Russian. Haarmann (2002) provides the following figures for languages in the Scandinavian countries:
State Norway Sweden Finland Languages Spoken Norwegian (3-4 million speaking dialects close to Bokml, 0.5-1 million speaking dialects close to Nynorsk), Smi (20-50,000), Finnish/Kven (5-10,000), immigrant languages Swedish (7-8 million), Finnish/Menkieli (0.2-0.5 million), Estonian, Romani (20-50,000), Smi (10-20,000), Latvian (5-10,000), immigrant languages Finnish (4-5 million), Swedish (0.2-0.5 million), Russian (10-20,000), German, Smi, Romani, Somali, Albanian, Pashto (1-3,000)
Table 11: Languages Spoken in Scandinavia according to Haarmann (2002)
These numbers include monolinguals (in cases where there still are any) as well as bilinguals. We thus receive a general idea about their position in the European language context. Clearly, the Finno-Ugrian language family belongs to the minor language families in Europe, and Smi is again a small member within its family, even if even smaller languages exist (Haarmann 1995: 56-70). More relevant for the status of a language, however, is the number of speakers as a proportion of the total population in the country or region. In Norway, Sweden and Finland, Smi speakers are by far less than 1% of the population. On the other hand, we must not forget that there are regions, in which proportions of Smi speakers are considerably higher, most notably the Spmi core area referred to above. As mentioned, Smi belongs to the Finno-Ugric language family, which again is part of the larger language family of the Uralic languages, with the Samoyedic languages (Nenetsi and other Siberian languages) as its second branch. The Finnish part of the Finno-Ugric branch is usually separated into the branches of Permic and Finno-Cheremisic and further sub-levels.
51
Smis closest relatives are the Finnish languages (Finnish, Estonian, Karelian, Vepsian, Votian, Livonian all languages spoken in the Eastern Baltic area), but the distance is too large for these languages to be intelligible for Smi speakers. Finnish and Smi derive from a common ProtoFinnic language and were separated around 3000 years ago, whereas the several Smi dialects formed one Proto-Smi language until around 800-1000 A.D., before they developed into the modern dialect scheme (cf. Magga 1997: 142; Svonni 1996: 15).
5.2 Languages in Northern Scandinavia

Like most other language groups, the Smi have been in contact with neighbouring people throughout their entire history. They had to adapt to a variety of attitudes and behaviours imposed upon them, ranging from peaceful cooperation to open assimilation and aggressive attempts to destroy their traditional culture.3 It is impossible to identify exactly from which time onwards it is reasonable to speak of a distinct Smi language and population. In general, however, it is assumed that the Smi originally split from other Finno-Ugric groups around 1000-1200 years ago (Magga 1997: 139). Since then, the ecolinguistic situation has more or less been as we know it today. The strongest contact in recent centuries occurred with the two Germanic languages Swedish and Norwegian. The Northern and Eastern dialects have additionally been in contact with Finnish and Russian. Both lexical and morpho-syntactic influence of the contact languages is visible in Smi dialects. Today, semantic fields where official terminology is involved, such as in administration, are particularly open to long-lasting influence by contact languages, and it is in these areas where differences between, for instance, North Smi in Norway and North Smi in Finland are most apparent. The Norwegian part of Spmi is a traditionally trilingual area, in which the Smi are the oldest residents. Norwegian settlement gradually increased since the Middle Ages. As a third group, the small ethnic group of the Kven, descendants of Finnish migrants, have kept their language and traditions. Of these three languages, Norwegian always carried the highest prestige. Bull (1995) describes how a trilingual village at the Norwegian coast became largely monolingual in the course of a few decades, a situation typical for Spmi. In areas where living conditions and cultural patterns among the three ethnic groups were fairly similar, traits that could reinforce Sminess, on the other hand, most prominently reindeer breeding, often helped Smi linguistic and cultural maintenance.4
3 4
For an account of languages in Scandinavia in total, consult Vikr 1993. For a more detailed account of reasons for assimilation cf. chapter 8.4.2.
52
Whereas Smi is an important and visible part in the traditional Smi areas of Norway, it only plays a marginal role in relation to the whole of the country. In their report on languages in Norway, Engen/Kulbrandstad (1998: 84-113) list the following languages: Norwegian, including the two written standards and various dialects European languages, mostly English, historically also German, and some other languages Languages of the Nordic neighbours Immigrant languages (predominantly Urdu, Vietnamese, languages of the former Yugoslavia, Spanish, Arabic, Turkish, Albanian, Somali) Autochthonous minority languages: Smi, Finnish, Romanes/Romani. Among the autochthonous minority languages, Smi is the strongest one (compared to Finnish/Kven and Romanes/Romani), albeit its demographically weak base.
Smi (North, Lule, South)
Kven Finnish
Norwegian (Bokml, dialects dominating in Spmi, Nynorsk) Other languages English Swedish
Immigrant languages
Figure 2: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Norwegian Spmi, without Policy Parts
In Finland and Sweden, the ecolinguistic situation with regard to Smi is similar to that of Norway: The two countries lack the Norwegian distinction between two written standards, and the Finnish situation is different with regard to the existence of Swedish as a nationally recognised minority language. There is relatively little effect through this on the situation of Smi, however, as both Nynorsk in Norway and Swedish in Finland are of minor importance in the Smi areas. The situation in Russia is different in that the Smi are an even smaller minority with less recognition in a by far bigger country. Chances for support and prospects of survival are smaller in an economic climate of poverty and shortages. In general, assimilation is much more advanced, and initiatives and political awareness are less developed.5
5
A comprehensive volume on the Smi in Russia today from various perspectives, is Seiwert (ed.) 2000.
53
Romanes, Romani Kven Smi (North, Lule, South)
Other languages, with varying distance to Norwegian and importance (e.g. English, Swedish, German)
Norwegian, with division Bokml Nynorsk, and dialects
Immigrant languages
Figure 3: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Norway, without Policy Parts
Another option of presenting the ecolinguistic situation of a language is to take the position of the language as a starting-point. Smi is thus in the centre (with its different dialects and the distinction between core area, periphery and diaspora). The other languages are represented according to their influence:
Finnish Norwegian A A NORTH SMI AREA B LULE SMI AREA D Swedish B D E English C D AREAS OF OTHER DIALECTS E SMI PERIPHERY/DIASPORA Russian C SOUTH SMI AREA
Other modern languages
Immigrant languages
Figure 4: The Smi Languages and their Ecolinguistically Determining Neighbour Languages
5.3 Smi Today: Linguistic and Demographic Basics

One common trait of Smi and Gaelic speakers and cultures is that popular perceptions of these include remote land areas, mountains and the sea, and a cold and wet climate. Many
54
people immediately associate Smi with reindeer, colourful clothing and a semi-nomadic way of life (cf. e.g. Magga 1995: 28 about perceptions that only reindeer-breeding Smi are "real" Smi). Gaeldom, on the other hand, is often linked to folk music, dance and poetry, strange sports competitions, and a history of Highlanders cloaked in mystery. The Smi and Gaelic languages are often seen as strange, impossible to learn and linked to anti-modern, rural cultures which add a folkloristic notion to Scandinavia and Scotland, but which have little to do with the 21st century. Despite a certain degree of truth, however, in that many of these clichs are, in one way or another, connected with Smi and Gaelic culture, the reduction of Smi and Gaelic speakers to these views is, of course, drastically oversimplifying matters, and is an obstacle to viewing them as equal participants in modern society. Similarly, traditional approaches to the two languages at best perceive them as being interesting and significant remains of old cultures, but seldom as usable in any context, just as any other language would be, and questions such as if it is possible to be Smi and participate in the modern world remained dominant until not long ago (cf. e.g. Stordahl 1996: 79). There has been a history of overcoming these stereotypes in recent decades, but the notion of open support for minority languages and the idea of linguistic rights have only very slowly been taken seriously by governments and mainstream society at large. When, in the course of this book, looking at recent developments and at the present state of the Smi and Gaelic languages, I will show that both languages are today perceived as a part of their modern societies.
5.3.1 Smi Demography and the Smi Languages Due to the lack of regular censuses in recent decades, numbers of the Smi population and of Smi speakers are rather vague. A comprehensive and current introduction to recent Smi affairs, including current demographic data, is the overview volume by Htta (Htta 2002). The electorate registers for the Smi Parliaments in Finland, Sweden and Norway provide some data but these are far from accurate, as there is no intention by the authorities of forcing any Smi to register if he/she does not wish to do so. Winkler (2002: 244-245) distinguishes Smi speakers from persons with Smi ethnicity. According to him, there are more than 20,000 speakers of Smi, whereas the number of ethnic Smi is considerably higher, between 50,000 and 100,000. Magga (1997: 137), on the other hand, speaks of 30,000 40,000 speakers and 54,000 68,000 ethnic Smi. His criterion of being a Smi is whether the first language of a person, or of at least one of his or her parents or grand-parents, is Smi. In establishing these numbers, there is also the problem of the degree of competence which is seen as being relevant when counting as a Smi speaker: Is fluency or even native competence necessary, or is it sufficient to have a certain competence in any of the skills of understanding, speaking, reading and writing? Svonni (1996:
55
20-22) reports on these differences in language proficiency, which are often based on the place of residence and the involvement in traditional Smi community structures, in particular in relation to reindeer herding. In general, at least written competence is not seen as being necessary in order to be counted as a Smi speaker as many Smi are in fact illiterate in their own language. The traditional area of Smi settlement is commonly referred to as Spmi, meaning "the Smi world of land and water, people and culture" (cf. for instance Huss 1999: 76). Smi speakers are spread over four countries: Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Kola Peninsula in north-western Russia. Magga (1997: 139) estimates that Smi settlement areas around 1500 covered the entire northern half of the Scandinavian peninsula and most of what is present day Finland. Today, Smi settlement stretches as far south as the Idre area in Sweden and the Norwegian Engerdal municipality, south of the city of Trondheim, i.e. to areas much further south than the common perception of Smi land by large parts of the Scandinavian public (cf. Figure 5). The eastern boundary is the eastern coast of the Kola Peninsula, but modern Smi settlement is not completely adjoining this. Labour migration has resulted in a considerable proportion of Smi living outside the traditional areas, mainly in the national capitals. Of the four countries, Norway has by far the highest number of Smi: Winkler (2002: 244) estimates around 40,000 in Norway, between 15,000 and 25,000 in Sweden, 7,000 in Finland and 2,000 in Russia. Magga (1997: 137) broadly confirms these numbers, speaking of 30,000 40,000 in Norway, 17,000 20,000 in Sweden, 5,000 6,000 in Finland and, as Winkler stated, 2,000 in Russia. There is a core Smi area in which the Smi even today are in the majority. This area covers a coherent area in the Norwegian-Finnish-Swedish border region. The Norwegian part of this area is usually related to as Inner Finnmark. When dealing with the number speakers of Smi, it is important to keep in mind that the term Smi language is in fact misleading, as there are several largely unintelligible Smi languages with several sub-dialects. However, Smi see their languages as part of a common culture, tradition, and social position of their speakers, which results in the perception of one Smi language. A political decision taken by Smi organisations in 1971 manifested this view officially (Magga 1997: 141). Differences are, however, important enough to be taken into consideration when these pertain to language planning. Even if the Smi dialects are not all mutually intelligible, there is a geographical continuum so that neighbouring dialects are, with the exception of the boundary between North and Inari Smi. In cases where neighbouring dialects are nonetheless quite far apart from each other, this situation is the result of dialect death caused by a shift to the dominating language. There are different traditions of classifying these dialects (Magga 1997: 139-141), but the most common
56
today is the distinction of three main dialect groups: Eastern Smi, Central Smi and Southern Smi. The dialects within each of these groups are intelligible. Magga as well as Svonni (1996: 1617) name 9 different dialects, whereas Winkler (2002: 244-248) and the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL 1997) speak of 10. From south-west to north-east, South Smi and Ume Smi, which is close to extinction, form the southern branch. The Central Smi group consists of North Smi and the two smaller Smi languages Pite Smi, which is also close to extinction, and Lule Smi, still spoken by an estimated 1,500 speakers, both named after the major rivers in the area. North Smi is the major Smi language, with the lions share of speakers around 15,000 in Norway, Sweden and Finland, with a Smi core area in the border region of the three countries between Karasjok and Kautokeino in Norway, Enonteki in Finland, and Karesuando in the Kiruna municipality in Sweden. The eastern branch, finally, includes the small languages of Inari, Skolt, Kildin, and Ter Smi, each with a few hundred speakers, adding around 80 speakers of Akkala Smi as a separate dialect, according to Winkler. Inari Smi is spoken around Lake Inari in the Finnish part of Spmi, whereas the other Eastern Smi languages are spoken on the Russian side, stretching from the Norwegian and Finnish borders to the eastern end of the Kola Peninsula. Skolt Smi used to be spoken in the Neiden area in the eastern-most part of Norway, but has been reduced to small remains in the 20th century. Table 12 summarises the Smi dialect demography, providing numbers as given by Winkler (2002) and EBLUL (1997):
Smi Dialects South Smi Dialects South Smi Ume Smi Central Smi Dialects Pite Smi/Arjeplog Smi Lule Smi North Smi East Smi Dialects Inari Smi Skolt Smi Akkala Smi Kildin Smi Ter Smi Numbers according to EBLUL (1997) 500 10 Ca. 10 2,000 30,000 400 500 8 700 20 Numbers according to Winkler (2002) several hundred close to extinction close to extinction 1,500 15,000 330 200 80 several hundred several hundred Country/-ies
N, S S, N (extinct) S, N N, S N, S, FIN FIN FIN, RUS, (N) RUS RUS RUS
Table 12: Numbers of Smi Speakers according to Dialects and Countries
For Smi speakers in Norway only, data is available from a report commissioned by the Smi Language Council in 2000. Based on statistical evidence from interviews with thousands of individuals in the areas assigned as Smi areas, the report assumes a number of over 25,000 Smi speakers in Norway (Smi Ealhus- ja Guorahallanguovdd 2000: 1). There is a traditional core area where the vast majority of people are Smi, a surrounding area where Smi speakers are
57
fairly frequent, and the rest of the country where migration has resulted in a considerable spread of Smi speakers, in particular in Oslo. The area with the highest proportion of Smi speakers in Norway is the Smi Administrative Area (cf. ch. 11.1). In the municipalities of Kautokeino and Karasjok in Inner Finnmark, more than 90% of the population have some Smi proficiency. The other municipalities in this area as well as the neighbouring Kvalsund municipality have between 35 and 75% Smi speakers (Smi Ealhus- ja Guorahallanguovdd 2000: 14) In these municipalities, there is presumably a far higher proportion of Smi speakers in the inland than in the coastal regions. In addition to these areas, relatively high proportions of Smi speakers can be found in the entire northernmost county of Norway, Finnmark, and most of the neighbouring Troms County. Additionally, as the map in Figure 5 indicates, there are also higher proportions of Smi speakers also in municipalities in the counties of Nordland, North and South Trndelag, and Hedmark.
Figure 5: Map of the Distribution of Smi Speakers in Norway According to their Proportion of the Population, by Municipality6
6
The overview map of the municipalities is taken from NAF 2001: 636; I have indicated the proportion of Smi
58
The three dialects spoken mostly in Norway at present are the dialects that will be dealt with in this volume. As already pointed out, the North Smi language by far outnumbers the Lule Smi and the South Smi languages when it comes to speakers. Again, numbers of the speakers of the Smi dialects in Norway may be based on the Smi Language Council's Report, which estimates the following figures for speakers of the Smi dialects in the Smi areas in Norway (Smi Ealhus- ja Guorahallanguovdd 2000: 15-16):7
North Smi Lule Smi South Smi Other Smi Dialects 14.550 1.720 1.020 500
Table 13: Adult Smi Speakers in Norway in the Areas Assigned as Smi by the Report Commissioned by the Smi Language Council in 2000
In addition to these, the report estimates that there are approximately 5,000 adult Smi speakers outside these areas in Norway, and around 4,000 young persons under 18 who were not included in the survey. These figures add up to the careful estimation of "over 25,000 Smi speakers in Norway" referred to above. The regions in which the dialects are spoken in Norway can again be identified in Figure 5. North Smi covers most of the Smi area. Lule Smi is only spoken in two municipalities (Tysfjord and Hamary) slightly south of the North Smi area. South Smi is spoken in a variety of municipalities a lot further south. Smi languages in the area in between seem to be extinct by now. Thus, there is a strong difference within the Smi municipalities between the remote, very lowly populated inland areas with a considerably higher proportion of Smi speakers (often still based in the traditional reindeer economy) and the coastal areas.
5.3.2 Codification of the Smi Dialects In the context of Smi dialects, codification has been an important issue in Smi language planning history and development (on the history of codification cf. Htta 2002: 117-120, Svonni 1996: 17-18, Magga 1997: 150-154). As opposed to Scottish Gaelic with its century-long written tradition, Smi was codified slowly by Scandinavian missionaries and scholars at, in European terms, a rather late time. In the course of history, Smi went through a confusing variety of such efforts, starting in the 17th century. The two earliest books in Smi date back to 1619 and were a prayer book and an ABC book, issued on the Swedish side of the South Smi language area.
population based on the figures given in Smi Ealhus- ja Guorahallanguovdd Samisk Nrings- og Utredningssenter 2000. 7 Note that these figures include persons who speak more than one Smi dialect (e.g. of the respondents who claimed to understand Smi in the Lule Smi area, 92% understood Lule Smi, and 24% understood North Smi).
59
Subsequent publications followed throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. As the North Smi lived in much remoter areas, the first book in their language, a catechism, was published more than 100 years later in 1728. Remarkably, as early as 1648 the Swedish priest Johannes Tornus issued what he hoped could become a common orthography for all Smi languages, based on field work, with the help of Smi interpreters from different areas. A Bible translation into South Smi was published in 1811. The first codification efforts used combinations of graphemes common to European languages for the representation of Smi phonemes. Two names deserve mentioning when it comes to the efforts of introducing an orthography with special graphemes for Smi phonemes, such as for tj: The Danish scholar Rasmus Rask issued his suggestions on North Smi in 1832, which were adopted by the priest Nils Vibe Stockfleth in his grammar of 1840. During this period, a number of mainly religious works were translated into Smi, and in several universities, Smi studies emerged. It was not before the 20th century, however, that standardised orthographies were generally accepted: In 1948, Knut Bergsland for the Norwegian Smi and Israel Ruong from the Swedish side introduced a common North Smi orthography. At the same time, a North Smi orthography was also developed in Finland, based on more similarities to Finnish orthography (e.g. by using o instead of the Norwegian/Swedish , which does not exist in Finnish). It was as late as 1979 that a common orthography for North Smi was agreed upon, based on a compromise between the different traditions. Similar agreements have been reached for most other dialects since the establishment of the Northern Smi language committee in 1971 (Htta 2002: 117). Today, there are eight Smi orthographies: This is considered necessary, given the differences between the Smi languages. There is one orthography for each of the following: North, South, Lule, Inari, and Skolt Smi, and two based on the Cyrillic alphabet for the dialects spoken in Russia. In addition, an older North Smi orthography is still preferred by some Smi as the language of the Bible translation traditionally used.
5.4 The Historical Development of the Position of Smi in Norway

After this introduction to Smi language and demography, it is now time to approach policy and attitudes towards the Smi people, first from a historical perspective. Broadly, four periods can be identified in this: Laissez-faire, repression, revival, and recent policy changes.8
For a detailed overview of the history of the Smi and their relation to the Norwegian state and the Norwegians, cf. for example Brstad Jensen 1991 or Magga 1997.
6 Smi in the 1980s in the Theoretical Scheme 5.4.1 Early Days and Centuries of Relative Laissez-Faire Attitudes
60
The ancestors of the Smi came to Scandinavia from the plains of what is now Northern Russia. We find historical accounts on a population in the far north in the works of Homer, Herodotus or Tacitus, although it remains purely speculative if these descriptions refer to the Smi. Early contact with Scandinavians was characterised by the retreat of the Smi to the North. The Smi usually avoided open conflict by moving to land where they could live peacefully (cf. Htta 2002: 40-41). Considerable conflict arose as soon as the invasion by Scandinavian people had reached dimensions which led to a lack of land for the needs of Smi culture. In the historical account of Northern Scandinavia by Ottar at the court of Alfred the Great in England in the 9th century, the Smi had to pay taxes to the Scandinavian chiefs. This situation did not change when the Nordic kingdoms came into being as we know them today. Even though there were no clearly defined boundaries in the areas of Smi settlement between the medieval states, the Smi were forced to pay tribute to either the Norwegian, Swedish or Russian crown, sometimes even to several at the same time. For centuries, this largely remained the only form of contact of Smi and Norwegians the only interest by the Norwegians in the area in the north was to prevent the neighbouring states from expanding into their spheres. This situation continued throughout the Middle Ages, even though Norwegian settlement gradually increased, thus leaving more and more Smi under more direct Norwegian influence. It was also in this period that the Smi were gradually forced to abandon their ancient beliefs in favour of Christianity (cf. Arnesen 1986: 101, Htta 2002: 43-45). The modern period first saw rather careful approaches of Scandinavians towards the Smi. Some Smi adopted the Norwegian way of steady settlement, despite the fact that climate changes led to a decrease of the Norwegian population in the 16th and 17th centuries. That period also saw the taming of the reindeer, which replaced previous practices of following wild reindeer on their migratory travels, with taming being the exception. More systematic missionary work resulted in more and more border disputes, as the new churches built were in many cases the first unambiguous claims of national territory in many Smi areas. Priests generally showed a certain respect for the Smi language, as long as it served as a medium to spread the word of God. In 1751, a general regulation on Smi land rights was set up, which remains fundamental to the present day. After centuries of dispute between DenmarkNorway and Sweden-Finland, the two empires demarcated the border between their territories in the far north. This meant that a modus vivendi for the nomadic Smi had to be found, who still followed their reindeer on their annual movements regardless of boundaries. This need resulted in the Lappecodicillen, the Lapp Codex. The Smi were forced to decide which country they
61
officially wanted to be citizens of, but their traditional way of life could continue. Arnesen (1986: 103) argues that the humanist tradition of the time demanded from the states that they provide decent living conditions for their citizens. Apparently, just as important was that both countries were extremely cautious not to drive the Smi into the arms of the neighbouring state. This relatively liberal approach by the Norwegian state remained unchallenged until the 19th century. Assimilation rather depended on the individual within a region. In the coastal areas, Smi usually adopted a Norwegian life style. In some cases, this meant also cultural and linguistic assimilation, whereas other Smi groups kept their customs and language. In other areas, especially for the reindeer Smi, contact was limited to an exchange of goods. Developments in the first half of the 19th century were contradictory in their effect on Smi culture and living conditions. On the one hand, the priest Lars Levi Lstadius (1800-1861) introduced new rites into the Lutheran church. The Smi could easily identify with the strong images of the language used by Lstadius referring to the every-day experience of the Smi (Htta 2002: 53). The new faith also came closer to the Smi way of life in the clan structure, in opposition to an authority-based church whose priests did not respect Smi traditions and often did not speak the language. On the other hand, Norwegian settlement increased again after some centuries of decline. One reason was the securing of borders within the developing system of nation states, supported by improved communication and other technology. Additionally, modern mining techniques were used to exploit natural resources to a degree without precedence. The period of the traditional culture being slowly driven back by migration and economic change thus came to an end. It was replaced by an ideology of open assimilation.
5.4.2 An Age of Assimilation Policies An important milestone for assimilationist policies was a riot in Kautokeino in 1852. Young Smi reacted against the increase in the Norwegian population in the area, and the legal and illegal alcohol business. Resistance started by Smi protests against a priest who, in their eyes, did not lead a life according to the spartan expectations of Lstadianism. The protests culminated in the deaths of a tradesman and a government official. The reaction of the Norwegian state was quick and effective: Death penalties for a few and long imprisonment for several dozen Smi crushed Smi opposition for decades. In the verdict, the Norwegian Superior Court displayed its approach to the Smi: The lowest class of Society was to be hindered from tearing down all natural borders between themselves and the higher standing classes, by which it wished to enforce an equality that would destroy all civilisation (as quoted at Htta 2002: 56). As in Scotland and in many other parts of Europe at the time, the minority language was perceived as a threat to the nation state.
62
This attitude prevailed until after World War II. The Smi way of life changed most substantially, including language use, identity and social structure. Road building, until that time widely uncommon in the northern strokes of Scandinavia, increased considerably. The Smi were confronted with a completely new way of communication. New legal regulations came into being which aimed at excluding the Smi from businesses, in particularly the large mining companies that exploited traditional Smi soil. Land that had been used by Smi for generations, and that had Smi names for just as long, was given Norwegian names. The most discriminating policy was probably the 1902 land rights law. The relation of the Smi to their land, in line with most indigenous nations, was based on traditional beliefs and a century-long evolution of the cultivation of the land in which people and nature formed a symbiosis to the benefit of the entire eco-system. The Norwegian government decided that land ownership in Finnmark was bound to the knowledge of the Norwegian language, thereby automatically excluding most Smi (Htta 2002: 127). The traditional reindeer movement routes in the vast land areas that had never known private ownership were suddenly threatened by private rights. This rule was officially upheld until 1965, and it is no surprise that until today land rights continue to be among the most disputed aspects of modern co-existence of the Smi with modern states (Htta 2002: 244-146). Thereby language was directly used as a tool of assimilation, which shaped the ground for a long-term determination of power relationships between Norwegians and Smi, including detrimental psychological effects on the Smi culture and languages. As a result of cultural assimilation, the number of Smi speakers declined tremendously during that period. Bjrklund (1986: 67) reports of a fjord area traditionally inhabited by Sea Smi, where the number of people claiming to be of Smi ethnicity declined from ca. 1,000 to merely 50 within 80 years. Reasons for this were not out-migration, but the successful assimilation in various fields of everyday life. For centuries, language shift to Norwegian had been an indirect effect of the economic and cultural assimilation rather than an explicit aim of Norwegian policy. The most detrimental direct impact on language from the late 19th century onwards was schooling policy. Norwegian teachers without any command of Smi were sent to schools in Smi areas, and previous informal policies of providing places for Smi at teachers colleges or of developing teaching material in Smi were abandoned. At the same time, new centrally directed institutions came into being, such as state boarding schools, aimed at Norwegianising minority children (Minde 1986: 84; Htta 2002: 56-57). This policy culminated in the 1889 Law on the Peoples Schools in the Countryside that imposed that teaching take place in the Norwegian language. Smi was only allowed as support language, mostly in religious studies. Support of teachers and education authorities was strong, with only few opposing voices heard, even in the churches. Brstad Jensen (1991: 60) reports of
63
direct threats against Smi teachers who were active in Smi organisations or media. As late as in the 1930s, the Norwegian government established a secret committee to coordinate Norwegianisation efforts and the general plan for teaching from 1939 did not mention Smi at all. A few Smi school books were published in the 1950s, but in general the 1889 law remained in practice until 1963. Htta (2002: 58) remarks that the effects of its spirit continued throughout many years even beyond that time. Hom claims that the 1940s were one of the most intense periods of change. At that time, the traditional Smi way of life, family structure and economy also changed in the areas where the structure of settlement had remained relatively homogenous, i.e. the inland. Generally speaking, identity shift from Smi towards Norwegian took place within the scope of two generations. Selfidentification as Smi often meant disadvantages and prejudices by the authorities. A common reason given for denying ones Smi background was that I have had to suffer enough from being Smi I want to spare my children having to go through the same process" (Hom 1986). In total, there were thus various reasons for assimilation, but Minde (1986: 84) argues that three factors were particularly disastrous: First, modern technology resulted in expanded settlement by Norwegians in traditionally homogenous Smi areas, bringing along new agricultural practices which destroyed Smi techniques of self-subsistence. The new settlers expected a net of administrative and legal institutions, in line with their own cultural background. This was based on the second cause for assimilation, the prevailing ideology of Social Darwinism, which regarded the Smi as a backwards culture that deserved to be "led into modern times". Third, security aspects also played a role: The geopolitical location, close to Russia, caused the Norwegian authorities to want to control the Smi population using its more 'reliable' citizens.
5.4.3 The Slow Emergence of Smi Organisations and Resistance Throughout the assimilation period, possibilities for political influence by the Smi were very limited. Even in the committees that dealt with policies relevant to the Smi, the overwhelming majority were without Smi representation. Smi institutions were weak, and the general attitude towards them too negative to give them a voice in politics. Resistance to cultural pressure remained limited and was based on individual achievements. First efforts started fairly simultaneously by Northern and Southern Smi in Norway as well as in Sweden (Minde 1986: 88). The first Norway-wide conference was held in 1917. Political campaigns by Smi, however, were viewed with great suspicion by the majority population and the governments. In the media, Smi pressure was also very limited; publications depended on individual efforts. Minde reports that it was the milieu around one of the Smi periodicals, Sagai Muittalgje
64
(The News Narrator), where the first political steps were taken (Minde 1986: 87). In the 1906 and 1909 Storting elections, Isak Saba, a Smi school teacher active in the school movement, was elected to the Storting on a shared list with the Labour Party, which at that time was so small that it was dependent on co-operation with other organisations. However, even among his fellow Labour Party MPs, Saba found little understanding for the particular needs of the Smi population, although he was extremely moderate in his demands when compared to modern views, for instance calling only for the use of Smi as an auxiliary language in class-rooms, instead of suggesting Smi-medium teaching (cf. for example Brstad Jensen 1991: 58-59). Efforts in the 1920s for similar cooperation, also in other Smi areas, failed. The Smi were too weak to be attractive to a Labour Party on the road to power, which at the time was careful not to frighten potential voters because of its cooperation with the Smi. As a consequence of the lack of success, the Smi movement became more and became passive once again. It was not until after World War II that the attitude towards the Smi in Norwegian society began to change, albeit very slowly at first. It is during this period that the first longerlasting pro-Smi organisations were created. As in other parts of the world where the war had led to an increase in rights for previously deprived people (e.g. for members of the British Army that were of colonial origin), the Smi had also played an important role in Scandinavia, having had special knowledge of their lands. The Smi had shown that they were reliable in the fight against the German occupation, just like the ethnic Norwegian population. At the same time, the culmination of racist ideology in Nazi Germany had led to a general decline of such beliefs in European societies, once the regime had been defeated. As outlined in previous chapters, the establishment of the UN system also led to an awareness of the heritage of the world's cultures. Institutional developments started in 1947, when a school council was established to develop an alternative to the policy of Norwegianisation (cf. Htta 2002: 143-146 for a detailed account of the developments since World War II and 169-185 on the emergence of Smi organisations). In these years, all three Nordic countries established a limited radio presence of Smi. Also in 1947, the Norwegian Smi Reindeer Herders Association (Norske Reindriftsamers Landsforbund, NRL) was created, followed by more official bodies dealing with Smi issues in the 1950s. In 1953, the Smi Council for Finnmark was established as an advisory body. 1956 saw the establishment of the Smi committee as a body the Norwegian government could relate to when dealing with Smi issues. In a time of prospering inter-Nordic co-operation, it was not surprising that a Nordic Smi Council was also created in 1956 as an institution for common lobbying of Smi interests. One of the most visible symbols of its activity was the official recognition of the
65
Smi flag in 1986. Since 1992, the Russian Smi have participated in this institution under the new name of Smi Council (Samerd). Emerging local Smi activist groups were soon to issue suggestions on specific topics such as Smi schooling. In 1959, the Smi committee presented suggestions for maintenance and development of Smi language and culture. For the first time, the particular value of Smi culture was recognised, and at the same time Smi was to become part of general Norwegian society. In 1964, the Smi Council for Finnmark was replaced by the nation-wide Norwegian Smi Council. It served as an advisory organ for public bodies all over Norway. In 1980, it was made part of the Norwegian government's Department of Local Affairs and Labour. Since 1965, cultural affairs were dealt with by yet another institution, the Norwegian Cultural Council. The change in attitude by the Norwegian government was one thing; however, the acceptance by the population in the area of Smi settlement was a completely different story. Outside Inner Finnmark, many of the former Smi settlements, especially at the coast, had by this time become entirely Norwegianised. At the same time, policies which followed from the welfare ideology of the Norwegian government had increased living standards in Smi areas as well, leading to a sub-conscious feeling of thankfulness towards Norwegian society by many Smi. All this resulted in a fairly uncertain Smi identity among many people and a debate on whether it was at all possible to be Smi, and at the same time participate in the modern world. In the socalled Easter Resolution from 1960, a group of Smi in Karasjok declared that the Smi feel equal to the other population of the country and do not wish any special rights or special duties in relation to the other population. Concerning language, the signing parties openly declared that we will most vigorously oppose that Smi will be used as anything but a support language" (as quoted at Brstad Jensen 1991: 7677). The wish to build a society with equal rights and prosperity for everybody led in particular many Labour Party supporters to oppose any special provisions for the Smi population a view which was common even among many Smi and which can be seen as the culmination of linguistic self-denial. These differences continued until the 1970s, even if the Storting had already developed a coherent policy towards cultural pluralism in 1963. The Nordic Smi Institute was founded in 1973. In 1976, the Smi Education Council came into being, followed by Smi cultural centres. The arguably most important of these organisations is the Norgga Smiid Riikasearvi (Norwegian Smi National Association, NSR), founded in 1968 by merging Smi organisations from Finnmark and Oslo. The NSR is a Norway-wide organisation which has become the major activist for Smi interests in Norway. Its first aim is to advocate the rights of the Smi people vis--vis the Norwegian authorities and the Norwegian public (as quoted at Htta 2002: 181).
66
Also in the educational sector, the attitude change was reflected by the establishment of a number of Smi-speaking institutions. A Smi High School opened in Karasjok in 1969. Since 1953, special training courses for teachers preparing for work with Smi children have existed at the Troms teachers' college. In 1970, a department of Smi opened at the teachers' college in Alta. In 1974, the Nordic Smi Institute opened in Kautokeino with departments for economy, environment and law, language and culture, as well as education and information. In addition to the Smi departments at the Universities of Oslo and Troms, the Smi College in Kautokeino opened in 1989. In 1971, a cultural programme as the basis for further Smi policy was started. Other achievements included the 1972 renewal of cross-border rights (i.e. in practice a confirmation of the Lappecodicillen), and the 1978 law which established that only Smi who had at least one parent/grandparent involved in reindeer breeding have the right to commercial reindeer breeding in Norway. In total, the institutional situation of Smi had improved by 1980. However, it needed another wave of protests to trigger dramatic changes.
5.4.4 Policy Changes after the Alta Case The positive developments until the 1970s had altered attitudes among many parts of Norwegian society, despite continuing intolerance among others. Yet, Smi issues came onto the agenda in the 1970s. Stordahl (1986: 97) reports from the 1969 NSR meeting that Norwegian authorities started to feel the necessity that the Smi side set up their own responsible bodies. This can certainly be seen as a turning point: The officials accepted that Smi issues could not only be dealt with in the institutions established by the Norwegian government, but that the Smi were entitled to their own representative organisations. One major issue was how representation of the Smi in decision-making on Smi issues could be ensured. For some time, seats reserved for Smi representatives in the Storting were under discussion, but this idea was soon abandoned (Brantenberg 1991: 77-78). In 1980, the 11th Nordic Smi conference launched an essential resolution claiming recognition as a separate people, legal rights and self-government. This so-called Troms programme had as its main points the following common Nordic Smi goals: "We, Smi, are a people and the national borders shall not divide the community of our people. We have our own history, our traditions, our own culture and our own language. () It is our inherent right to take care of and develop our forms of livelihood and our communities according to our circumstances and together we want to take care of our fields, natural riches and our national inheritance for the benefit of the coming generations" (Smi Political Programme, ratified by the 11th Smi Conference in Troms, June 16th-19th, 1980; as quoted at Brantenberg 1991: 78).
67
In Finland a Smi Parliament had already been established in 1972, and it was during the 1970s that this idea became popular in Norwegian Smi organisations as well. To the NSR and the NRL, the Norwegian Smi Council in the way it was shaped was insufficient, as it did not guarantee representation of the Smi and Smi influence on its members was limited. Interestingly, at that time, a further Smi organisation was created, the Smi National Association (Samenes Landsforbund, SLF), which opposed further demands and which saw the Smi future within the existing structures. The turning point during that period was the hunger strike of a group of Smi at the Storting building in Oslo in October 1979. The participants protested against the intended damming of the Alta-Kautokeino River for electricity production in the traditional Smi heartland in Finnmark. The government plan from 1978 had intended to force 500 Smi to leave their traditional home grounds. The Smi considered this as a fundamental denial of their land rights. As a result, Smi self-awareness was strengthened, supported by solidarity among parts of Norwegian society. The main Smi organisations supported the strike by delegating negotiators to demand a democratic representative Smi body of the Norwegian government. As Brantenberg (1991: 80) puts it, the hunger strike forced the government into presenting its policies with regard to the Smi. For the first time, Smi issues received wide-spread attention in Norwegian society, at a time when the Norwegian government acted as a defender of human rights in many other parts of the world. The hunger strike and the blocking of the road to the Alta damming site led the government in October 1980 to establish a Smi Rights Committee to discuss Smi rights and land issues and prepare a representative body for the Smi. Members of the committee represented Smi organisations, the national and regional government departments dealing with Smi issues, as wells as academics and representatives of agriculture and fishing. And yet, in Smi scholars' and activists' writing in the 1980s, one can still find a desperate thread in their account of Smi language and culture. The Smi are still characterised as a people without rights, suppressed by a mainstream society unaware of the needs of a distinct Smi culture in its own right (on Smi rights from an international perspective in the 1980s, cf. Arnesen 1986: 104-109). The organisational structure of the Smi in the 1980s was still based on economic support for individual Smi initiatives by the government through the organisations mentioned (NSR, NRL, SLF) (Stordahl 198: 97). The role of the NSR, which was often understood as the head organisation for Smi issues, remained unclear at the time: The support by the population varied, as well as the self-perception as a spokes-organisation for the Smi. In 1986, Stordahl (1986: 98) remarked that the question of true representation of Smi interests remained unsolved.
68
Before 1989, the Smi Council was responsible to the Minister of Local Affairs (since 1980, before that it was responsible to the Minister of Agriculture). Its 18 members were half Smi and half non-Smi, and at the same time half nominated by Smi organisations, and half by municipal and county bodies of Smi areas. It was chaired by a Smi. Since 1982, it was responsible for the Smi Development Fund as one crucial item of influence. In addition to the Smi Council, an Office for Smi Affairs existed in the government since 1980, as part of the Department of Local Affairs, with a coordinating Committee on Smi Affairs. This was the main institution were Smi policy from the government's side was developed (Lewis 1998: 57-58). Even though the Alta power station was eventually built, the protests against it had led to a break-through in the Smi position in Norway. The committee under its president Carsten Smith evaluated Smi issues according to international laws on minority rights. Following the UN International Convention on Civil and Political Rights on the rights of minorities to cultural maintenance, the Norwegian state accepted its duty for positive discrimination against the Smi, i.e. extra provision of services and support (for a comprehensive overview of the change in attitude to Smi rights, cf. Smith 1995). On the other hand, a major set-back of the 1980s was that developments still took place under an agenda set by the Norwegian state. Stordahl (1996: 90-91) notes that it took until the 1990s that the political discourse of Smi issues was led by Smi. The Storting supported the interpretation of the Smi Rights Committee and thus shaped the ground for a coherent policy towards the Smi as a separate people within the Norwegian state, which eventually led to the Sameting as an independent political body for their interests. The relevant document, the Odelstings proposisjon 33 (1986-87), which was supported by government and parliament, states: "The state must be considered as having the duty to give active support to minority groups. Furthermore, the concept of culture () must be understood as including the material basis for culture as well" (Odelstinget 1986). By this, the Norwegian government also explicitly accepted a modern understanding of the term culture, comprising all values and traditions of a people. This development culminated in 1988 in the change of the Norwegian Fundamental Law, the Grunnlov. The Norwegian state thereby acknowledges its responsibility to create conditions under which the Smi can maintain and develop their culture, language and way of life. As a result of these developments, the Smi Rights Committee developed a plan for the establishment of a Smi parliament, the Sameting. It was opened by King Olav V. on October 9th, 1989. The Sameting and policy evolving from it will be looked at in detail in chapter 10.
69
5.5 Smi Identity Today

As the underlying part of the Central questions in the complex debate on Smi identity today are: Who are the Smi? And what constitutes Sminess today? Language is one fundamental component of Sminess as a whole, even though it does not have to be for every individual. Also many Smi who have lost their language usually see language as being important for Smi identity. Another fundamental aspect of Smi identity is their crossborder nature. Common symbols, including language or the Smi flag, are seen as a binding element of Smi nation building across present-day state borders, despite differences in dialects and traditions. Partly, this is comparable to a common Celtic identity, but it is even closer in that there is no distinction as between Scottish and Irish Gaelic. At the same time, although Smi nation building has been important for the development of Smi political initiatives, it has hardly ever taken the notion of political separatism and the call for a Smi state.9 In 2003, for instance, the Sameting's president, Sven-Roald Nyst, called the development of Smi nation building an important aim, but also strictly related to the Norwegian state as the frame in which this process should take place: "We are in the middle of a process of Smi nation building. () At the same time as we develop our lives as Smi, we shall also participate as citizens in our respective states' societies" (Nyst 2003b). The question of ethnicity of the Smi is relatively easy to answer. Clearly, the Smi are ethnically not Norwegians, based on solidarity and a common ancestry. Overlapping identities may arise in that the Smi usually also have an identification as citizens of the Norwegian (or Swedish, Finnish, or Russian) state. The official Norwegian definition of Sminess is, accordingly, that the Smi are "an ethnic minority and a distinct people, but also Norwegian citizens". The criterion for registration in the special Smi electoral list is a combination of the individual perception of feeling as a Smi, and a linguistic criterion. Alternatively, someone may enrol who lives according to the Smi way of life and is recognised as a Smi by the community, or whose parents or grandparents fulfil these criteria. In total, however, language is an important aspect in this debate. It is at this stage important to get a picture of the cultural context of the Smi. Many of the following issues will become more evident when keeping in mind in what way the traditional Smi way of life differs from the Scandinavian majority cultures. Some of these aspects are relevant to all Smi, whereas others are of importance only for parts of the Smi population. The Smi are heterogeneous in their traditional way of life which results in a common classification of Smi into several groups. Traditionally, Smi are distinguished according to the place of life and their means of self-subsistence economy. Firsching, for instance, lists five
9
For a detailed account of Smi nation building, cf. Stordahl 1996: 89-100.
70
categories: Fjell Smi, Forest Smi, Sea Smi, Fish Smi and East Smi; he also cites older encyclopaedias which distinguish Mountain Smi, Forest Smi, Sea Smi, and River and Lake Smi (Firsching 2002: 67). In many parts of Scandinavia, assimilation took place over centuries and resulted in a geographically dispersed settlement pattern which made common Smi awareness more difficult. One reason which is often given in this context is that the Smi were traditionally a very peaceful people. They would usually choose to retreat rather than to fight for their position.10 The Smi are also clearly an indigenous group, as clearly underlined by their dependency on nature and natural resources (e.g. the reindeer) as well as the adaptation of language, traditions and ways of life to their places of settlement. Although the Smi were forcefully christianised many centuries ago, their traditional mythology has remained important in many parts of Smi thinking, and traces of animistic religion regarding to, for instance, places with special meanings exist until today. Therefore, the right to land and water in the traditional area is of particular importance, for both symbolic and practical reasons. Htta stresses that many Smi central myths deal with ecological awareness and sustainability. This refers also to reindeer herding, which is still of particular importance as a symbol of Smi self-identification, even for those Smi who traditionally never dealt with reindeer (Htta 2002: 58-59). Less than 10% of the Smi are engaged in reindeer farming nowadays, which is as profit-oriented as any other professional activity and has thus both cultural and economic value. Through the so-called Reindeer Agreement in Norway (Reindriftsavtale), the management of reindeer herding is protected. Whereas in Finland everyone may be active in reindeer farming, in Sweden and Norway this is restricted to the Smi (in Norway this applies only to the Smi core areas). Further, the Smi are also recognised as an indigenous people with special responsibility put on the Norwegian state through the ratification of the ILO-Convention 169. With their distinct culture and language, the Smi as a group have the same rights as the Norwegian majority population. Fundamental in this context is the application of the principle of positive discrimination, which implies that the pure majority principle in a democracy does not apply to minority issues.
5.5.1 Important Cultural Aspects of Sminess An important part of Smi identity creation today is a focus on traditional cultural traits, such as music, mythology, religion, or literature. As in Scotland, traditions and common heritage
An argument which I found repeatedly emphasised in personal communication with Smi residents of Kautokeino on their tradition and their place in Scandinavian society.
10
71
are often connected with modern society. The particular importance for Smi identity in this lies in the fact that these elements clearly distinguish the Smi from their Nordic neighbours. As most indigenous peoples, the Smi for most of history only had oral literature. Written texts until around 1900 existed only in religious contexts. Early Smi publications included, for instance, an account of Smi life from 1910. An increase in production, albeit still at a low level, took place after the 1970s. Since then, a couple of famous names have appeared in the Smi literary scene, with financial support by the state. Matti Aikio is often seen as the most important Smi poet, and Hans Aslak Guttorm was awarded the Nordic Literature Prize in 1984. Since the 1970s, Smi painters, influenced by traditions as well as modernity, have become known as well, and museums for traditional and modern exhibitions have been created in the Smi areas. An outstanding genre of Smi culture is the Joik, the traditional guttural singing technique. Joiks are often dedicated to a particular person. Traditionally, they also had religious contents, but today they are increasingly political and comment on issues in society. Nils Aslak Valkeap, the possibly most important figure among Smi artists who died in 2001 was a master of Joiks, but he was also famous for his poetry and other literary styles. Mari Boine, finally, has more than probably any other musician linked traditional Smi tunes to modernity and Western-style popular music. Of similar importance as the Joik is the Duodji, the traditional handicraft technique. Originally denoting goods of every-day use in a society to which modernism's l'art pour l'art concept was unknown, Duodji production has in recent times taken the character of art and is thus another important connection of traditions with modernity and economic survival. The commercial production of Duodji increasingly provides its producers with a decent income. As the last aspect in this context, language has to be mentioned among the cultural aspects with importance for identity. The fundamental Smi political programme, which I will deal with later in more detail, stresses the importance of the Smi language as part of crossborder identity. This is of particular importance given the pattern of Smi dialects and various spelling systems (cf. Svonni 1996). Even where the language is not strong anymore, it is perceived as an important feature of group distinction: "The Smi language is primarily a symbolic feature of ethnic identity for these individuals, and not an instrument of communication" (Svonni 1996: 124). Smi who have lost their language often mark their Smi identity by using some Smi standard phrases, e.g. in greetings. This happens even within families and also towards strangers to find out whether a person has a Smi background.
6 Smi in the 1980s in the Theoretical Scheme 5.5.2 The Smi Conflict between Tradition and Modernity
72
In line with the discussion on essentialism and dynamism, the notion of what constitutes Sminess has been changing over time. Thuen already in 1985 stressed the individual perception of modern Sminess: "There are no objective and undisputed criteria for a definition of who is a Smi. Belonging to the Smi is an issue of subjective identity, and not a categorisation which can be based on external characteristics. At the same time, however, is the identity based on the judgement of the community" (Thuen 1985: 9). On the transition from Smi to Norwegian identity, Thuen argues: "An overview of Smi society today shows that the process has had quite different impacts in the various areas. Even if no fraction of the Smi population has remained unaffected by the Norwegian majority society and its institutions, some areas were able to oppose this influence better than others" (Thuen 1985: 10). Today, Smi culture thus exists between tradition and modernity, between the Western way of life and partial preservation of old patterns. Partly, this goes hand in hand with social problems, even though many young Smi today manage well and work in all areas. Smi symbols helped defining Sminess similar to other nation building processes, partly using old symbols (the language, the traditional clothing Kofte, or the Joik), but also creating new symbols such as the Smi flag. In total, Smi society has become increasingly diverse and has included a great deal of internal Smi discussions on what Sminess includes. Amft explains the variety of possible Smi identities, often co-existing even within the same individual. Here, we find the same dichotomy between essentialist "true" Smi and dynamic, modernist points of view. "True" Sminess is usually related to reindeer breeding, despite the small percentage of Smi actively participating in the reindeer economy today. At the same time, many Smi today participate in modern urban life and do not see any contradiction to their Smi identity, even though instances of pejorative labellings such as "semi Smi" occur. Amft concludes that one particular feature of identifying oneself as Smi is to be of Smi descent: "Smi Society is a network of persons who in one way or another are related to Smi living today (synchronic) or have a kinship relation with other Smi in the past (diachronic)" (Amft 2000: 170). What happens more and more is that individuals, who have lost their Smi culture and language decades ago, start to reinvent their Smi background, in line with increasing cultural pride. Stordahl explains how Smi identity was reconstructed (Stordahl 1996: 82). In the 1950s, the Smi had to reinvent their symbols, and to reverse the prestige of stigmatised existing symbols, such as the Kofte, the Joik, and Smi language use. In a second step in the 1960s and 1970s, the Smi re-established their relationship with the Norwegian mainstream. Stordahl compares the Smi movement to the Black movement in the U.S. due to its calls for a collective fight against suppression. The third and last phase and the question as to what being Smi really
73
consists of was raised around 1980. After the successful construction of modern Smi identity and a Smi society, the aim was to demand equality with the Others. At the same time, the Smi revival was accompanied by demands for participation in the development of modern Western society. As a result, public perception as well as official views today usually take the dynamic view of Sminess. Hovland gets to the core of modern multi-identity Sminess: "A young Smi may live in Kautokeino or in Oslo, may dress in a Kofte or leave it, may speak Smi or not, may work with reindeer or not, can participate in the Sameting elections or not, may look like a Smi or not (anyway, what does a Smi look like?!). He or she may be strict in what they are: Smi only, or he or she can say: I am both, both Norwegian and Smi, and possibly also slightly Finnish" (Hovland 1996: 159). Or, as Hylland Eriksen puts it: "If a Smi who plays lead guitar in a rock band can present himself vis--vis other Smi and greater society AS A SMI, then it is a social fact that one can be authentic Smi and play lead guitar" (Hylland Eriksen 2002: 130). And yet, problems remain. Hylland Eriksen reports of contradictions between "old" and "new" Smi in a coastal area, where Smi who had started revitalising their language were often not accepted by other Smi (Hylland Eriksen 2002: 130). At the same time, some anti-Smi prestige patterns prevail. A study on Smi assimilation (Eidheim 2002) clearly shows how the ethnic stigma remains in an area at the Smi periphery: Some Smi still overemphasise their Norwegianness in public, even though they speak Smi at home. At the same time, even if a Smi background is mostly hardly visible for outsiders, in the community as a whole it is still clear who is originally Smi and who is not (as quoted at Hylland Eriksen 2002: 29-30). Let me briefly point to another important aspect of Smi identity in Norway: the role which the Smi play for the identity of Norwegian mainstream society and Norwegian statehood. As we will see, there is a crucial difference to Gaelic and Scotland in this. As a tendency, Gaelic has been seen as an important notion of Scottishness by many people over the past centuries, whereas Norwegianism and Smi identity were always seen as contradictory. Latest developments which may integrate Smi as well as Norwegian and European identities within the same individual largely do not affect mainstream society. It is unlikely that ethnic Norwegians outside the Smi core areas feel that the existence of the Smi in Norway has any impact on their personal identity, whereas Scots anywhere in Scotland may see Gaelic as an important part of their perception of nationhood. Of course, this depends on individual perception. I will get back to the idea of a reciprocal relation between the identity of the majority and the minority in the discussion on the importance of parliaments for minorities.
74

In the following, the models of the theoretical chapters shall be applied to the situation of Smi in the late 1980s. In this, we have to keep in mind the heterogeneity of the Smi language communities. In 1986, Jernsletten classified three types of Smi language communities: monolingual Smi language communities, where Smi is used in any context, bilingual language communities, where the use of Smi often depends on individual language competence and settings according to traditional sociolinguistic parameters such as relation to the interlocutor, age etc., and Norwegian-dominant communities, where Smi serves as a social and cultural identity marker (Jernsletten 1986: 60-64). In the following, all three types of Smi communities shall be taken into account in order to achieve a picture of the Smi languages in Norway.
6.1 Smi in Norway Placed into Minority Language Typology

In order to understand the relationship of the Smi people and the political bodies in the Norwegian state, it is advisable to look at the reference points of a minority group in a political entity in line with Laponce (1987). The most important reference points for Norwegian Smi are undoubtedly in Norway given that Smi policy in Norway takes place within the Norwegian political framework. This leaves the question as to where the centre of orientation is for the Smi in Norway. Upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the choice largely depends on whether we perceive the Smi area as having a closed boundary, thus defining the minority area as the area with a relatively coherent Smi-speaking population in the heartland. Considering that a large proportion of Smi speakers live outside this area, in other traditional Smi areas, but also in the cities, however, the use of an interrupted boundary symbol seems to be more appropriate. Possible centres of orientation for individual Smi speakers depend largely on the place of residence. As such, we can broadly make a distinction between the core area (i.e. Inner Finnmark), other traditional Smi areas in the North Smi area which have maintained a certain degree of Smi identity, the Lule and South Smi areas, a Smi periphery where traditional Smi patterns only marginally survive, and the rest of Norway which we can label as diaspora. The centre of Smi affairs is surely the core area with its Smi institutions. In addition, Smi from the other traditionally Smi areas will usually look at a sub-centre, in particular Lule and South Smi speakers who feel a lack of presence of their languages in the heartland. All Smi, however, also have to look at the majority society institutions. The following figure illustrates possible reference points for the various groups of Smi speakers. The size of the lines indicates the importance of the reference points:

Smi speakers in The Diaspora The Periphery The Core Area South Smi Area
75
Lule Smi Area
Oslo
Local centres
Inner Finnmark
South Smi Area Centre
Lule Smi Area Centre
Figure 6: Assumed Reference Points of Smi Speakers in Norway
A possible solution for drawing a model is to include several centres: The Smi heartland as the most dominant Smi area is located at the periphery of Norway, and has a penetrable boundary, showing that there are Smi speakers both inside and outside this area. Its centres of orientation are located inside, at the boundary, and outside of the circle, representing the various reference points in Norway. In addition, there are centres of orientation outside Norway, which again may be adjacent to the core area (such as the Smi-dominated municipalities in the Swedish and Finnish continuation of the Smi heartland) or not (such as the Smi areas further apart, or the national capitals):
Norway Local Centres at the Core Area's Periphery (e.g. Tana) Local Centres outside the Core Area Lule and South Smi Centres Oslo Centres outside Norway (e.g. Rovaniemi, Stockholm) The Core Area (Inner Finnmark; Smi Administrative Area) Kautokeino, Karasjok Local Centres in the Core Area outside Norway (e.g. Utsjoki (FIN), Kiruna (S))
Figure 7: Smi in Norway according to the Laponce Model
6.2 Smi Legislation in Norway Before 1989

As seen above, the most important document on Smi issues (although not necessarily on the Smi language) was the Lapp Codicil from 1751, including several amendments from the late 19th and 20th centuries. Lewis (1998: 92-93) provides a list of Smi-relating legislation until the 1980s. Most of these deal with education, but the most wide-reaching are, of course, the Smi Act and the amendment to the Grunnlov from the late 1980s. With direct regard to the Smi language, efforts to improve status did not lead to legal guarantees. In 1969, a school law was the
76
first legal document, which was amended twice. This, however, remained the only reference to the Smi language in Norwegian legislation until the 1980s (cf. Magga 1990: 429). These findings are summarised in Table 14 (L standing for language-related):
Year 1969 1974 1975 1978 1982 1985 1987 1988 Document/Institution Primary Schools Act: right to Smi lessons on parental request Secondary Schools Act: right to Smi lessons in Smi core area Establishment of Smi Education Council New Reindeer Herding Act New Kindergarten Act obliging municipalities to arrange pre-school education in cooperation with the children's homes Primary Schools Act amendment: Smi as language of instruction for the first three years Smi Act: Creating the Sameting Constitution Amendment recognising the Smi as a distinct people Related to Language? L L (L) Non-L (L) L (L) (L)
Table 14: Legal Documents and State Institutions Dealing with Smi Issues in Norway until the 1980s
Apart from these legal documents, it is interesting to see that the increased interest in Smi affairs is also mirrored by an unprecedented amount of reports issued by the Norwegian government and the Storting from the 1980s onwards. Whereas the first of these documents reflected the development of more and more Smi rights, the latter ones are accounts of the state of affairs after the constitutional changes had been put in place. Today, there is an annual report on the Sameting's activities (cf. Htta 2002: 213). Table 15 lists the most influential of these documents in the 1980s:
Year 1984 1985 1985 Annually since 1980s 1986-87 1987 1987 1988 1989-90 Document Type NOU (Norwegian Official Report) NOU NOU St.meld (Storting Report) Ot prp (Odelsting Report) nr 3311 NOU 1987 NOU 1987 NOU 1988 St.meld nr. 60 Document Title Om samenes rettsstilling (About the Legal Position of the Smi). Videregende opplring for samer (Secondary Education for the Smi population). Samisk kultur og utdanning (Smi Culture and Education). Om Norsk samerds/Om Sametingets virksomhet (About the Norwegian Smi Council's/The Sameting's Activity). Om lov om Sametinget og andre samiske rettsforhold (About the Act on the Sameting and other Smi legal issues). Handlingsplan for samisk ungdoms utdanningsmuligheter (Action Plan for Educational Opportunities for Smi Youth). Samisk kultur og utdanning (Smi Culture and Education). Nringskombinasjoner i samiske bosetningsomrder (Economic Combinations in Areas of Smi Settlement). Samisk sprk. (Smi Language).
Table 15: Norwegian Government and Storting Documents Important for Smi Policy in the 1980s
Concerning Smi organisations, I have already mentioned the development towards a more varied landscape after World War II. The three major Smi organisations, NSR, NRL, and later SLF, operated as lobbyists for Smi interests and were as such recognised and supported by
11
The Odelsting is one of the two Chambers of the Storting.
77
the Norwegian state. This lobbying took place via the regular channels within Norwegian society, i.e. the municipal, regional and national parliaments and authorities. In addition, a number of institutions dedicated to Smi issues were created, the most important being the Norwegian Smi Council. This structure included a certain degree of Smi participation in the form of appointed representatives of Smi organisations. Several departments of the Norwegian government remained in charge of Smi policy, and any development of Smi policy influenced by Smi politicians has to be seen in the light that it has taken place under these government departments' auspices. In terms of representative channels, from the time when the Smi organisations were allowed to send members to these bodies, these acted as spokespersons for the Smi and were responsive to Smi needs, but included no element of representation of groups within Smi society, let alone democratic representation of the Smi population in total. These bodies created official Smi policy, but decisions remained under the direct control of the Norwegian state. Smi representatives in the political bodies of the general Norwegian political system were rare. In the Storting, there was no Smi member between the 1910s and 1993, despite Smi election lists in the 1960s and 1970s. There are few reports on Smi presence in regional and municipal councils even from areas with a majority of Smi. In addition, these bodies were generally perceived as reflecting the Norwegian state's system. Most Smi were reluctant to participate in democratic institutions and were thus not using the chances which they could have had given the high proportion of Smi voters in a few municipalities. The tradition of assimilation and of low prestige of the Smi language for purposes related to the state was too dominant.
6.3 Smi in the Domains of Language Use in Norway in the 1980s12

We have seen in previous sections that the status of Smi issues had improved somewhat since the 1950s. However, the situation was still far from satisfactory, and the common perception on Smi language in the 1980s was mostly characterised by despair. Keskitalo (1980: 161) wrote: "Most language users will find it incomprehensible that the language, which is held as a supreme value by an overwhelming majority of its speakers, nevertheless does not have a corresponding place in the official picture. This readily leads to resignation and passivity in concrete situations of choice, in daily life and in the political field. Only a determined policy can in the long run save the Smi language from being "privatised" even in the core area." In the following, I will examine the position of the language according to linguistic domains at a time before new measures could show results. For this purpose, it is impossible to
12
For an account of the situation of the Smi languages at the time in Finland and Sweden, cf. Aikio 1990 and Helander 1990. Note that in a situation such as in Spmi with quite well-established cross-border cooperation, in domains such as the media, the accounts for the different countries overlap, as products and services can and are meant to serve Smi in all countries.
78
take an exact point of time as reference point. The following is a general description of the state of Smi language affairs in the second half of the 1980s, which will later be used for an evaluation of achievements by the Sameting in language policy since its establishment.
6.3.1 Public and Private Domains As we have seen, there was no official recognition of the Smi language in the 1980s, except in the field of education. The only positive change to assimilationist times was that the use of Smi in private or public was no longer officially restricted. Restrictions were of more practical nature. Many Smi who had completely lost their language were not able to participate in a Smi language community any longer. Language prestige had to be altered wherever stigmatisation and mental objections to using Smi prevailed. This fact was reinforced by a low economic profile of many Smi compared to ethnic Norwegians in the same area. Due to the extended bilingualism of Smi speakers, the Smi language was always in the weaker position in Norwegian-Smi language contact. The government committee on Smi culture noted in 1985 that children with mixed Norwegian-Smi parents were mostly raised as speakers of Norwegian, and even when it came to children with two Smi-speaking parents, one third had Norwegian as their first language. Similarly, in areas with a vast majority of Smi speakers (e.g. in Kautokeino), Smi was underrepresented in communication. The presence of only one non-Smi speaker was usually sufficient for a whole group to turn to Norwegian. This depended considerably on the area: In the heartland, the language stood strongest, and among the population in the heartland, families active in reindeer breeding were most likely to maintain Smi. In the Smi diaspora, pressure was much stronger. The government report of 1985 (Regjeringen i Norge 1985: 14) gives the example of the two municipalities of Kfjord and Tana. Both communities still showed a relatively stable Smi community, with figures of Smi speakers in relation to the overall population showing a similar pattern of language use. However, pressure and language loss in Kfjord were much stronger than in Tana, possibly because Kfjord does not adjoin to the rest of the Smi core area, whereas Tana does. In the South Smi area, despite its low number of speakers, there was still a lively Smi-speaking community in a few areas dominated by reindeer herding, but this group was also under strong linguistic pressure. Finally, in the Sea Smi areas in the coastal regions of Finnmark and Troms, and anywhere outside the traditional Smi area, language loss had reached a point where even strong measures seemed to make it unlikely that Smi could regain equal status in society as Norwegian. From a legal point of view, but only from such a perspective, there was no limitation on the use of the Smi language in any context anymore. Despite the right to use Smi without restrictions, however, common language practices restricted the use of Smi.
6 Smi in the 1980s in the Theoretical Scheme 6.3.2 Public Bodies
79
The times of a complete lack of Smi presence in public bodies had passed by in the 1980s. Yet, this position was still a very weak one. As late as in 1990, Smi was not used in any branch of municipal or state administration as a main language, even in the core area. However, during the 1980s some municipalities had developed certain Smi services on their own. From 1982 on, some experiments with interpretation services for the public and in meetings were started in a few municipalities, and some documents were translated into Smi. Of the several options suggested by Blumenwitz for acceptable official language regimes, the two options of several co-existing languages on a territorial basis as well as the application of the personality principle seem possible. However, even the weaker option, the usage of a regional language besides the national language in the minority area, was not given in Norway, let alone the right of personal use of Smi anywhere in the country. In court, the use of Smi according to the personality principle, as demanded by Blumenwitz or the Universal Declaration, was not granted. Interpreters were used on personal request, but Magga (1990: 429-431) reports that permission for interpretation was often turned down when there seemed to be no need a discussion similar to what we will encounter in the Scottish context. A similar approach was dominant in the domains of the police and prison, and the health service. Several hospitals offered Smi services, but always according to the individual need and the personal decision of the persons in charge. The following Table 16 summarises this situation by adding a Smi column to Table 4:
Status Administration: National and official language are identical Adm.: Several co-existing languages: identical official status Adm.: Several co-existing languages: national vs. regional languages Adm.: Several co-existing languages: Personality Principle Adm.: No national, only regional languages Implication by Blumenwitz Interpreting service free of charge All languages to be used everywhere Regional languages allowed according to Territoriality Principle All languages to be used everywhere Universal Declaration Right to use language in communication with public bodies regardless of linguistic regime; in regional bodies in area of linguistic Situation in Norway Not applicable: Norwegian only official language, some interpretation services No official status of Smi; in practice, some use of Smi on an ad hoc basis; No legal guarantee; in some communities individual ad hoc Smi use Not fulfilled: Smi in administration throughout Norway usually not usable Not applicable due to the dominant position of Norwegian Not fulfilled: Limited use of Smi in court after special application which is individually decided upon; no granted right to do so Not fulfilled: Only individual cases without legal guarantee according to individual decisions
community: Territoriality Principle; for Only regional languages according national public to Territoriality Principle; problem: bodies: Personality new minorities are created Principle Court: Personality Principle Trial in native language Native language in everywhere any legal proceedings Police/Prison/Health Services: Personality Principle Right to ensure understanding (personality principle), and to use language of territory in any case (only implicitly by Blumenwitz) No specific reference, but implied in general public bodies section
Table 16: The Situation of Smi in Norway in Public Bodies in the 1980s
6 Smi in the 1980s in the Theoretical Scheme 6.3.3 Education
80
The previous chapters showed that educational bodies used to be an important part of the system of suppressing Smi. Today, most Smi RLS efforts see schools as one of the most crucial domains: "There is no doubt that schools have or may have a big impact for a child's linguistic development in Smi and by that also play an important role, maybe even the most decisive for long-term Smi language maintenance" (Svonni 1997: 151). Educational arrangements for Smi taken in the course of the 20th century had improved the situation tremendously by the 1980s. In the 1960s, Smi schooling had been established on parental request. The 1969 law, which was the first to state the right to have Smi as a school subject, was revised in 1974 and 1985 to include the right to Smimedium education. Until 6th grade, parents could choose Smi for the children, and from 7th to 9th grade the children could decide to replace one of the two Norwegian standard varieties (usually Nynorsk) by Smi. Whereas Smi kindergartens existed in many areas, and also Smi primary schooling (until 9th grade) took place in the core area to a certain extent in the Lule and South Smi areas, and in Oslo, as well the situation in higher education was much worse. In secondary school (10th 12th grade), Smi was taught as a subject in a few schools in the core area. Smi teacher training was introduced in the 1970s. As a university subject, Smi could be studied in the philological tradition from 1866 onwards in Oslo, and from 1986 on in Troms. Teacher training colleges in Alta, Bod and Levanger gave Smi courses up to first-year level. At the University College in Alta, a special department for teachers for Smi schools was established in 1974. A Smi educational board had operated since 1975 for the promotion of Smi education at all levels and had focussed on instruction material. Usual problems dealt with were the lack of text books and other teaching material as well as competent teachers proficient enough in the language.13
Level Primary Secondary Tertiary Smi-medium education Wide-spread in the core area Only individual cases in the core area Certain teacher-training programmes Education in Smi as a second language Wide-spread in the Smi areas, individual classes throughout Norway Some schools in the core area Since 19th century university subject as philology in Oslo, since 1980s in Troms
Table 17: Smi in the Educational System in Norway in the 1980s
Some of the demands listed by Blumenwitz and the Universal Declaration thus seemed to be fulfilled. Provision of Smi education, however, decreased from primary to secondary schools, and it generally depended largely on the area. Whereas the core area and especially the two municipalities of Karasjok and Kautokeino were already well equipped, other areas offered much less. In addition, the lack of teachers and adequate material caused further concern. The following table summarises the deficient state of affairs in Smi education in Norway in the 1980s:
13
For an account of the state of Smi education in the 1980s, cf. Regjeringen i Norge 1997.

Educational Aspect of Minority Languages Minority Language as a second language Minority Languagemedium education Impacts Linguistic Rights Declaration No comment; L2 minority language learning is too weak Has to be guaranteed at all levels within minority territory Situation in Norway
81
To be ensured everywhere As often as possible, according to the number of pupils Transport to minority schools to be ensured wherever possible
Available in the core area and some other parts of Norway (Oslo), in primary and (to a lesser extent) secondary education Fairly wide-spread in primary education in the core area and some areas outside, limited legal guarantees No
Minority Language education in noncohesive situations
Segregation prevention
Minority Culture education
Not mentioned, but included in general demand for minority language education right in territory Education partly in Right to learn any the majority language of the language, or at least territory as second language Cultural To be guaranteed for Background as part any linguistic of minority identity community Decentralisation of curriculum Minority speech communities as the core decision-makers
No danger given the dominant position of Norwegian If Smi education is present, it usually contains some degree of culture education; however, main adoption of Smi curriculum to contain Smi needs and traditions not present Smi organisations as part of state institutions play a role; municipalities in core area involved; only partly in the rest of Norway
Co-operation with minority organisations
Table 18: The Situation of Smi in Norway in Education in the 1980s
6.3.4 Economy/Work Place When thinking of Smi economic activity, reindeer farming is the first thing that comes to people's minds as the traditional core element of the Smi economy. Even if it today only involves a small group among the Smi, it is here where the language is strongest. Reindeer farming, in line with a few other areas such as the Smi churches, is an area in which outsiders are rare. The importance of the reindeer in Smi tradition makes it most crucial to Smi identity, and it has for centuries been given a special position in society even by the Norwegian state, e.g. as the cause for the Lappecodicillen. In mainstream economy, there was very limited use of the Smi language in the 1980s even in Smi areas. There were no official restrictions on using Smi within business practice, at the work place, or in everyday shopping, but obstacles were common due to the lack of Smi proficiency in any but the most locally-based proceedings. The fact that there was no encouragement to use the language in economic activity caused a lack of demand among Smi and a lack of awareness among the, often Norwegian-speaking, business people even in the Smi heartland. There are numerous reports of the discrimination of Smi in the economy, based on prejudices such as laziness as a feature of the Smi character, e.g. in job applications. It was not an advantage to display one's Smi origin too openly, and socio-economic patterns prevailed in which Smi were much more likely to belong to lower social spheres than their Norwegian
82
neighbours. Similarly, jobs which required Smi knowledge were rare. One area touched upon beforehand was Smi teaching, but other areas such as tourism and the production of special Smi goods, which could possibly attribute a positive value to Sminess, were only very slowly starting to emerge. As a whole, when compared to the theoretical literature on minority languages, but also to specific writings on Gaelic and other languages, it is remarkable how little attention was given to the use of Smi within the economy at the time.
6.3.5 The Media and Arts In part I of this book, the media were identified as another domain of particular importance for the development of minority languages. As we have seen, the first Smi papers date back to the beginning of the 20th century. Yet, in the 1980s, there was one weekly journal in Smi on religious issues (Nuorttanaste, established in 1898), and the paper Smi Aigi, published twice weekly. The Norwegian state also supported the paper Sagat as a means of distributing information among the Smi, which, however, had turned into an almost exclusively Norwegianlanguage paper by the 1970s. Since 1946, Smi on the radio had a very limited presence, which by the late 1980s had been extended to short daily broadcasts in North Smi (six hours per week, including occasional Lule Smi transmissions), and a mere 22 monthly minutes in South Smi. Occasional TV programmes had existed since 1967, but regular programmes still didn't, in spite of government promises to react to such demands (Magga 1990).
Medium Radio broadcasting Television Periodicals Daily newspapers Smi presence 6 hours weekly of North Smi, a few minutes monthly of South Smi Practically non-existent One weekly, one with two issues per week No
Table 19: Smi Presence in Several Media Sectors in the Late 1980s
Where Smi was quite strong was in the arts. As a heritage language, Smi had always remained in use in cultural events, and with the rise of Smi consciousness, the number of such events also increased.14 Smi music played a role in the Smi community, and in recent decades also in mainstream society. Whereas many Smi musicians kept to traditional forms, modern inspired singers, with Mari Boine being the most influential, connected traditional techniques with modern developments. Mari Boines texts are also a good example of how music came to play a political role in the Smi rights movement, using modern means of production and distribution. Smi written literary activity had extended on an initiative by the Norwegian Cultural Council from 1971 onwards; grants for Smi writing enabled 5-10 Smi annual publications. On
14
For an overview of the Smi cultural scene in the 1980s, cf. Regjeringen i Norge 1985.
83
stage, the 1980 success of the Beaivvs theatre company had led authorities to increase funding. A few museums existed to show Smi traditional art. These included Smi painting, but Smi artists were rare, even though some succeeded in bridging traditional motives with recent developments. Nils Aslak Valkeap's work included a variety of artistic domains, including joiks, poems, drawings, and duodji. As seen above, these are extremely important for the maintenance of Smi identity and tradition. These aspects are not directly related to the status of the Smi language, but are essential for providing a shape in which Smi life (and thus culture) may prosper. All in all, there were no legal restrictions to Smi cultural activity in the 1980s, and after an increase in support by the Norwegian state, it had come into a phase of slight prosperity. However, in all parts of Smi cultural activity, the use of the Smi language was also in decline, and outside the heartland community, there was little constant cultural development. Much depended on achievements by individual artists.
6.3.6 Further Domains of Smi Rights and Policies If there was one domain of public life where the Smi language had remained relatively strong throughout the decades, it was within the church, despite temporary assimilation tendencies on their part. There were no legal restrictions on using Smi in church, and, in addition, practical obstacles remained much less dominant than in most other domains. At the same time, the position of Smi in the church was also strongly influenced by the fact that the church in Norway is part of state responsibility. The Norwegian state imposed regulations on priests working in Smi areas: already from 1848 onwards they had to have some knowledge of Smi (cf. Stortinget 1992-93: 99-100). Here, the Smi language survived the assimilation period better than in most other domains ensuring that the Smi were able to follow the word of God was seen by many as even more important than the nationalist ideology. As the last domain to touch upon, the use of Smi in international relations and crossborder contact shall briefly be mentioned. As explained above, the Smi perceive themselves as one people across the Scandinavian borders. Co-operation between the Smi in Norway, Sweden and Finland has been organised since the 1950s, resulting in an institutionalised problem-solving of issues such as orthography development, but also of political issues such as the Smi national symbols. One of the major results of the Nordic Smi Conferences was a coordinated attempt to bundle political demands, i.e. the Troms Programme of 1980 referred to above. The amount of activity across national borders in the 1980s was quite remarkable. There were no limits on such co-operation, and as soon as Smi organisations had come into being, these ties were extended. It has to be taken into account that this was based on the generally
84
excellent Nordic cooperation, without which Smi cooperation would have raised much more scepticism, and which resulted in the establishment of the Nordic Smi Council as early as 1956. However, the degree of achievements depended on national political situations with Norway after the Alta case certainly being the forerunner. It is thus clearly visible that developments in the different countries benefited from each other. In the late 1980s, more contact with the Smi in Russia was initiated, made possible by the new geopolitical situation and the opening of Soviet society. However, these contacts remained limited compared to inter-Nordic cooperation.
6.3.7 Corpus Planning and Symbolic Values and Attitudes/Prestige The one activity which had received widest attention over the years was corpus planning. As outlined above, Scandinavians with varying intentions attempted to invent standardised Smi orthographies over the centuries. Throughout the 19th and well into the 20th century, academic debates aimed at finding solutions to these problems for the various Smi dialects. The most farreaching decisions in this process had been taken by 1980, but in minor aspects it continued beyond that point. There was, however, little beyond this standardisation process in fields such as terminology development. The Samisk Sprknemnd (Smi Language Board), after its establishment in 1971 under the auspices of the Nordic Smi Council, at first focussed on the orthography question. This seems logical in so far as an accepted standardisation is usually the first step of corpus planning before cultivation makes sense. With regard to symbolic use of Smi, the attitudes of speakers and prestige of the Smi language, Chapter 3 explained how the Smi language and Smi identity are interrelated and that language policy involves the symbolic presence of minority issues for the individual's own impression that he/she is being accepted in society. This relates to the share of attention the group receives in majority society, i.e. to all aspects organised by the centre of administration, as well as to the perception of who actually possesses the minority groups own heartland. There was extremely little presence of Smi which could be considered important as a symbol, even in the heartland. Smi visibility on shop signs and similar instances was extremely limited, let alone at or on public buildings. Bilingual names of municipalities were not possible yet, and road signs also lacked Smi names. Not surprisingly, there was no symbolic use by politicians either. The aspects where symbolic Sminess appeared had to come from the Smi themselves. The introduction of the Smi flag in 1986, displaying the sun, the moon, and the traditional Smi colours of clothing, was probably the most far-reaching of these steps, but this symbol also had to be invented by activists, i.e. they were at the time in no way used officially. Smi language
85
prestige planning, which would badly have been needed, was thus left to the Smi, and was rather seen as a side product of the changing legal position of Smi affairs.
Domain Use in private communication General Legal Status Administration Main aspects/demands No restrictions whatsoever, including the use of personal names Official recognition as a language with rights and legal status according to individual constitutional and legislative tradition of the state Communication in native language according to Territoriality or Personality Principle, depending on regional or national body Personality Principle: Trial in native language/free interpretation everywhere Personality Principle anywhere; Territoriality Principle in minority region As in administration Provision of minority language education on all levels, where possible as medium of education No restrictions; some legal obligations and state support according to Territoriality Principle Special support of minority activities State funding of minority programmes No restrictions, state support of minority languages as other state support for religious groups Free reciprocal communication and exchange and acceptance of documents etc. Providing an adequate corpus for language participation in all domains Presence of minority language in representative settings Acceptance of value of language and linguistic community by both minority and majority speakers, if necessary supported by state through motivation campaigns Situation in Norwegian Spmi (1980s) No restrictions, but tradition of low prestige Individual mentioning of Smi in legislation, in particular in education; no general legal rights. No rights, little state support, only individual instances Usually no use of Smi in courts No rights, hardly any Smi use; traditionally very delicate Little, depending on individuals Some Smi schools, but no legal right; needs improvement in particular at higher levels and outside Core Area No official restrictions; no state support; practical restrictions due to low support; common usually only in traditional Smi businesses (reindeer) Support to quite an acceptable degree Some, but not sufficient No restrictions, use of Smi within State Church often possible No restrictions, established cooperation between Smi in Norway, Sweden and Finland Regular, dealing with fundamental issues (codification) Little symbolic use of Smi; other symbols (e.g. flag) Traditionally low prestige of Smi language and low self-esteem of Smi; slowly changing in past decades
Court Police/Prison Health Services Education
Economy/ Work-Place
Culture/Heritage Media Religion International Relations Corpus Planning Symbolism Attitude/Prestige Planning
Table 20: Minority Language Status Planning Domains and their Main Aspects: Smi in Norway in the Late 1980s
Along these lines, it is not surprising that there was no presence of Smi issues in mainstream Norwegian society at all, and it needed the Alta campaign to bring Smi issues into the more general debate in society. This relates directly to the reciprocity component of identity: Norwegians for most of history had not taken notice of Smi an attitude which was only slowly changing and ultimately required a hunger strike. In total, there was no role of the Smi for Norwegian state identity at the time, whereas the Smi often felt that they were Norwegian citizens and had learned to deal with the Norwegian state. Similarly, attitudes towards the Smi language were slowly changing, both among parts of mainstream society and among many Smi in their rise of ethnic awareness. Among both groups, however, changes were slow, and traditional scepticism was difficult to overcome. All in all, the symbolic presence of the Smi
86
language in the 1980s mirrored the attitude of the time, and for a long time did little to encourage Smi language use and transmission, let alone acquisition of those who had lost the language. The summary of this sub-chapter on domains again takes place in form of a table. For this purpose, Table 20 is the revised Table 6 to which a Norwegian column has been added.
6.4 Smi Language Policy in Norway around 1989

Having identified the state of Smi in the major domains of language use, and a classification according to international legislation, it is now time to look at how official policy tried to overcome these problems and to place Smi language policy before 1989 into the terminology and models presented in chapters 2 and 5. Issues for Smi in the 1980s mostly dealt with status planning and the selection of norms. Some corpus planning issues were also important; among these in particular was the project of a common orthography. Within status planning, the selection of the position of Smi was much more important than issues of cultivation, even though implementation in some parts followed quickly after the establishment of first institutions, in particular concerning the sector of culture and arts. Prestige planning was seen as being important by Smi politicians, who called for overcoming stigmatisation as the basis for a normalisation of Smi affairs, but it was to a much lesser degree carried out by Norwegian officials. When moving to the Cooper model, actors of Smi language policy were Norwegian government officials as well as Smi groups, who intended to increase the use of Smi in some domains in order to provide better offers for the Smi population and ensure language survival. These efforts were subject to the histories of assimilation and prejudices, which were only slowly beginning to change. The Norwegian state was perceived as having to care for its citizens; at the same time a new pride of a younger Smi generation developed. Means were mostly the provision of funding for Smi projects, media and education, directed by the institutions within the Norwegian political structure and through lobbyist groups from the Smi side. Decision-making took place in the Councils put into place by the Norwegian government and under the supervision of government departments, with some, but little participation by Smi. Effects in the 1980s had reached a point in which Smi had become present in some areas of life, but where general language maintenance still needed a long way to go.
Cooper Element Which Actors What behaviours Of which people For what ends Under which conditions Situation in Norwegian Spmi before 1989 Norwegian government officials, Smi groups Increase the use of Smi Smi, both speakers and non-speakers Language maintenance and RLS History of assimilation and prejudices

By what means Through what decision-making processes To what effects
87
Funding of Smi institutions and projects Council decisions within the system of Norwegian political bodies More presence of Smi, but no secure status
Table 21: Smi Policy before in 1989 in the Cooper Model
Policies until the 1980s were thereby rather top-down than bottom-up. Language planning had started due to demands by the Smi population, but actual development and implementation was carried out by government bodies, through government funding and educational programmes. This picture changed only slightly when opposition around the Alta case increased first, because the Alta case dealt little with the Smi language directly, but also because again, activists started a process with the aim of persuading government officials to change their policy. Local initiatives in the way of language projects etc. remained rare.
6.5 Factors Influencing Smi Maintenance and Policy

In the following, the findings of the shape of language policy and the situation according to domains and linguistic rights shall be applied to the Unesco list in order to get a differentiated picture of the endangerment of Smi in the 1980s: 1. Intergenerational language transmission: Smi showed traits of Levels 3 (Definitely endangered) to 2 (Severely endangered): It was used mostly by the parental and grandparental generation, although some children used it regularly, but only in limited domains. 2. Absolute Number of Speakers: The number of Smi speakers was in decline, although it had in total not yet reached levels where immediate extinction was a threat. 3. The proportion of speakers within the total Smi population: Level 3: A majority of Smi still spoke the language, although to highly varying degrees, depending on the generation and the place of residence. 4. Shifts in domains of language use: Level 3 (Dwindling domains): Smi was used only in very limited contexts outside the private sphere. Many homes used Smi, but Norwegian had started to penetrate these domains, too. 5. Response to new domains and media: Around Level 3 (Endangered language): There was some Smi usage in new media, but only to a very limited degree. 6. Presence of materials for language education and literacy: Level 4: A standard orthography had been developed by the 1980s, and texts of different types were produced, but only to very limited degrees. School education in Smi existed, but the language was rarely use for administrative purposes. 7. Governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies, official status and use: Level 3 (Passive assimilation): The degree to which maintenance policy existed was very limited, and Norwegian was absolutely dominant in any public domain. Yet, the times of active assimilation had gone. 8. Smi attitudes towards Smi: Level 3: Many Smi supported language maintenance, but some resistance continued to exist even among Smi, in particular in the parental generation.
88
9. Type and quality of documentation of Smi: Level 4: In the 1980s, the level of documentation of Smi was already quite advanced. Grammars, dictionaries and some linguistic texts of different types existed. Yet, there were high chances of improvement, in particular for the lesser-used Smi languages. The next step in the application of theoretical models on Smi is to focus the Kaplan/Baldauf ecolinguistic model. In this context it is necessary to distinguish clearly between aims of Smi organisations and those of the Norwegian state. The Norwegian state bodies largely provided some degree of infrastructure for Smi language activity, but in a way of a service provision for existing demands of Smi speakers rather than for ensuring the survival of Smi, which were demanded by Smi organisations. Factors that influenced Smi language policy as a result of contact between Smi and its surrounding languages were, of course, language death as the major threat for the language, and language survival as the core element of all efforts to stop decline and the loss of domains. This meant at the same time a reversal of language shift. Language revival where the language had been lost was hardly openly demanded at that time, given that ensuring the use of Smi where it was still alive needed enough efforts. Language change played a lesser role of course Smi was changing and accommodating to Norwegian, but in total it was not perceived as being a major issue. Literacy development was an issue for many Smi who spoke their language but had received formal education in Norwegian only and thus never learned to read and write Smi. Language amalgamation, finally, played no role.
LANGUAGE CONTACT Smi (North, Lule, South) Finnish LANGUAGE SHIFT LANGUAGE SURVIVAL Other languages LANGUAGE REVIVAL LANGUAGE DEATH Swedish English Norwegian (Bokml, dialects dominating in Spmi, Nynorsk) Kven
Immigrant languages
GOVERNMENT
EDUCATION
BODIES
SMI COUNCIL
SMI
ORGANISATIONS
INDIVIDUALS
Figure 8: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Norwegian Spmi, with Policy Parts
89
Regarding the actors of language planning at the time, the vast amount of initiatives was taken by government bodies, including government-dependent education agencies and quasigovernment organisations such as the Smi Council. Other organisations not directly linked to Smi interests hardly took an interest in Smi. Of the non-government organisations, only some of the Smi organisations dealt with language issues. Smaller private initiatives or local activities by individuals were rare, except for a few scholars and activists who usually had some tie to the Smi organisations. In Figure 8, the dimensions of linguistic factors and actors are added to the Kaplan/Baldauf model for Norwegian Spmi. Arrow sizes again indicate the importance of individual factors.
6.6 Prospects on the Eve of the Sameting

To conclude this chapter, the findings concerning the position of the Smi language in Norway before the establishment of the Sameting shall be summarised in an attempt to compile an outlook for changes that were seen as being necessary. Concerning demands by the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, besides the issues which have been dealt with in the section on language use domains, personal rights were largely fulfilled. There was no restriction in being recognised as a Smi, to use the Smi language and Smi personal names, to maintain Smi culture and interrelate with other Smi. However, this only referred to a lack of open legal discrimination, which was common in the assimilation period, but uncommon since World War II. A completely different story, however, was the recognition of collective rights, as also demanded in the Declaration. As shown, access to Smi education and cultural services was limited, and the presence of Smi in the media remained rare, let alone speaking of the right to receive attention in Smi from government bodies and in socio-economic relations. Similarly, demands for linguistic rights by scholars such as Blumenwitz and Skutnabb-Kangas/Phillipson were rarely fulfilled. The right to use one's mother tongue anywhere when coming into contact with authorities was something unthinkable. This applied to practically any language domain, and outside of a very limited community, communication in Smi was impossible. Exceptions to this, albeit mostly restricted to unsatisfactory extents or to the Smi core areas, were education, media and culture, and the church. Demands going even further, such as legal guarantees for the use of Smi in certain domains or self-administration, were without perspective as a whole. In line with this summary, accounts of the Smi language in the early and mid-1980s by Smi scholars and activists were characterised by pessimism and a focus on the history of assimilation (e.g. Jernsletten 1986). In 1982, Helander (1982: 74-75) summarised achievements
90
and targets for the future, culminating in a plea for legal guarantees: "The line of active Norwegianisation has been left, if by that is meant that there it is no longer an expressed wish that the Smi shall be Norwegianised. () Increased interest in the Smi language among its users and a more positive attitude by the authorities can be seen as a good basis and a necessary prerequisite of an active language community. Yet, it is by itself no sufficient step to have changed from discouraging Smi language use to arguing that the language shall be used. Smi also needs legal protection." In the 1985 report on Smi issues which was one of the results of investigation after the Alta case, the Norwegian government listed a number of steps to ensure Smi language survival. The report stresses the necessity of developing a coherent overall policy to improve the Smi languages status in several domains simultaneously. The overall aim of such a policy should be to satisfy the Smi communication demands and to support the Smi languages prestige and status, to increase respect for the Smi cultural heritage in Norway, and to vitalise Smi interest in language maintenance (Regjeringen i Norge 1985: 172). Such a coherent policy approach had to include schooling, adult education, kindergartens, language use in public bodies, support of the physical language milieu (e.g. place names), literature, media, theatre, and language consulting (i.e. a central body to give advice on language issues; Regjeringen i Norge 1985: 171). The Smi Political Programme, adopted during the proceedings of the 13th (Nordic) Smi Conference in August 1986, reflects this perception of a lack of rights from the perspective of Smi activists and politicians. In a list of demands in order to gain adequate rights for their people, they stressed the importance of legal guarantees for the language through a Language Act. The section on Smi Language and Culture (Sections 36 41) stated demands which generally corresponded to minority language views held by scholars (as quoted at Lewis 1998: 241-247): A language law establishing official status, including official status in the core area and the practical application of such status, the status afforded to the language outside the core area, the requirement of Smi language skills for some positions within the state administration, and the use of Smi forms of place and personal names The Nordic Smi Language Committee as the sovereign on Smi language issues Safeguarding the teaching of Smi culture and language, both as a second language and Smi-medium, including a right to Smi as a second language at all schools and textbooks on Smi geography and history in Smi written by Smi Smi-ruled media development, most prominently a Smi TV station A clear state obligation to implement these demands. The Smi Culture Committee had already drafted a proposal for such an Act. Magga (1990: 435) concluded: "The aim of the Act is to ensure the Smi the right to use their own language in contact with local officials in the core areas and in the courts. Such an Act would regulate in detail the rights of individuals
91
and the obligations placed on the authorities. () These two remedies would mean a new era for the Smi language in Norway, and consequently in the world. From being a language condemned to disappear from the surface of the globe only a few decades ago to becoming an official language, at least regionally, of a modern state is really a remarkable change." Magga regarded obligations made upon government authorities and binding practical guidelines as proposed as a major step towards official status of the Smi language in Norway. Magga argued, however, that the main effect would be more political and moral rather than legal, in particular given the Norwegian governments generally positive attitude to Smi issues. Yet, he saw a secure official status as a prime target and it is remarkable that this corresponds to prime demands by Gaelic activists in the 1990s. Among issues beyond legal guarantees which were seen as being of particular relevance for the Smi language, was terminology development. Problems arose from the position of North Smi as the dialect which was much more advanced than the other dialects, which were often neglected. A special point was the inter-Scandinavian perspective, and political co-operation remained important to initiate similar legal processes in Sweden and Finland. Apart from official steps, more initiatives from the bottom up were needed. Todal reports of a Smi community in Tysfjord, where a change in attitude among Smi speakers in 1989 eventually led to a vibrant Smi-speaking community. The process started when a group of parents established a Smi-language kindergarten and decided to speak Smi at home. "This was the start of a new linguistic development in the village, and we experienced a reversal of the on-going language shift." Writing about the situation in Tysfjord in new millennium, Todal (2002c) summarises that "there are several jobs related to Smi culture and social life, there is an active Smi political scene, (), there is a Smi-language kindergarten in the village, Smi is the daily language of many families, and there is teaching both of and in Smi in Primary School." Yet, even if such private language initiatives were possible, attitudes and Smi self-esteem still needed considerable enhancement at a time when policy was only changing. Aikio (1990: 22) reported of what she called the "Ethnic Dilemma". In this way she labelled "the burden which makes the Smi silent." Consequently, she considered it to be "inadequate to ask the Smi why they do not demand services in their mother tongue in hospital, at the doctor's etc. Even after the introduction of a Smi Language Act in Scandinavia, () old attitudes and low prestige of the own background, culture and language will for a long time continue to influence Smi when they in delicate situations are confronted with representatives of the majority culture who have higher status." All these demands made a coherent language policy as part of a coherent Smi policy the prime target to be sought after. There is an important similiarity to Gaelic in this, where demands for such a holistic approach have to a much larger degree received the notion of a political slogan. Helander in 1990 summarised the needs for successful Smi RLS and
92
development along these lines (Helander 1990: 414-416), calling for "1. Status (meaning legal status), 2. Institutional support (the use of the language in official contexts), 3. Experienced need and interest (by the speakers in order to see a practical use for Smi language use), and 4. Use of the language in daily life")15. Table 22 summarises demands by institutions and persons dealing with Smi language issues from the 1980s as well as from a modern scholarly perspective:
Scholar Smi Political Programme Major Further Demands Language Act: official status in the core area and the practical application of such status, regulations outside the core area, Smi language skills as requirement within state administration, Smi place and personal names Nordic Smi Language Committee as the sovereign on Smi language issues Teaching of Smi culture and language, both as a second language and Smi-medium, including a right to have Smi as a second language at all schools Textbooks on Smi geography and history in Smi written by Smi Smi-ruled media development, (TV station) State obligation towards these demands Language Act based on Smi Political Programme as constitutional amendment to guarantee use in administration and courts Coherent language policy within school education, adult education, kindergartens, language use in public bodies, the support of the physical language milieu, literature, media, theatre, and language consulting Legal protection Legal status, institutional support, experienced need and interest, use in daily life Ethnic dilemma: Overcoming low self-esteem More access to education and cultural services, presence of Smi in the media, and the right to Smi use in government bodies and in socio-economic relations Right to use Smi in any official situation, especially in court Self-administration Right to use Smi in any official situation, especially in court Legal guarantee for Smi teaching on sufficient demand and free transport from other areas
Magga 1990 NOU 1985
Helander 1982 Helander 1990 Aikio 1990 Universal Declaration Skutnabb-Kangas /Phillipson Blumenwitz
Table 22: Core Evaluation and Demands for Future Development of Language Rights: Smi in Norway in the Late 1980s according to Scholars and Activists
15
Helander's article concentrates on Sweden, but demands apply similarly to Norway.
7 The Sameting
93
7 The Sameting
7.1 The Sametings Establishment
The previous chapter examined the state of Smi affairs at a point of time when attitudes and policies were changing to a degree without precedence. This process culminated in the establishment of the Sameting as a democratically elected, autonomous parliamentary institution for the Smi population in Norway. This chapter looks at the Sameting's establishment and its impact on the position of Smi affairs in the Norwegian political system, before the subsequent chapters will deal with language policy since the Sameting has been operating. The conclusions by the Smi rights committee of the 1980s were generally accepted by the Norwegian government and resulted in the Smi Act of 1987, based on the recognition that the Royal Kingdom of Norway is established on the territory of two peoples, the Norwegians and the Smi, and that the Smi have thus lived within and by the present Norwegian state borders as long as Norway has existed as a State. This fact distinguishes the Smi from other minority groups in this country (Regjeringen i Norge 1989). The Norwegian Grunnlov was amended by a new paragraph (Section 110a) which states that it is the obligation of the State authorities to create the conditions necessary for the Smi to protect and develop their language, their culture and their society (Regjeringen i Norge 2004). This is also the first paragraph (Section 1.1) of the Smi Act, whose complete name is Act on the Sameting and other Smi Rights Issues. The Smi, through it, gained a legal and political guarantee for the protection and development of their language and culture (cf. also Henriksen 1999: 36). The political dimension of this new attitude was the opening of the Sameting in October 1989. Its 39 members are directly elected by Smi all over Norway in 13 constituencies. Section 2.6 of the Smi Act regulates enrolment in the Smi register, based on two criteria. First, selfperception as a Smi counteracts any possibility to be labelled as a Smi by others or to be excluded from the election registers. The second criterion adds a more objective notion to prevent non-Smi from registering: To enrol, you have to have Smi as your home language, or at least one of your parents or grand-parents had to be able to speak the Smi language. The role of language as a core identity reference point for the Smi thus becomes fundamental in this practical context. The Sametings highest body is the plenum. In addition, a parliamentary council consisting of five members organises the meetings and has strong influence on the agenda. The Sameting elects a president as the highest Smi representative in Norway. It is further entitled to establish councils or other sub-institutions according to its own decision (Section 2.12 Smi Act). The Sameting is completely free to raise any issue that it considers to be important (Section 2.1
7 The Sameting
94
Smi Act). The law also guarantees the Sameting's right to contact any public or private institution in Norway. At the same time, public institutions dealing with issues within the Sameting's range of work are obliged to give the Sameting a possibility to raise its point of view. Financially, the Sameting is dependent on the Norwegian government's departments. Consequently, the struggle for an increased budget has been one of the prime issues in the course of its existence. The Sameting also has to report annually to the Norwegian state about its activities. Among the first major topics that it dealt with were statutory guarantees for the Smi language, questions concerning reindeer breeding and fishing, and the Norwegian military's plans to use traditional Smi territory as a training ground. Concerning language, Section 1.5 of the Smi Act establishes that Smi and Norwegian are equal languages. The paragraph refers to chapter 3 of the Smi Act which was not included in 1987, but was one of the prime issues in the Sameting's work until the Smi Language Act was passed in 1992. Since 2001, language issues in the Sameting have been dealt with in a Language Department under the Sameting's direct rule, replacing the more quango-like Smi Language Council. Since this restructuring, the Sameting has included the departments of Language, Education, Planning and Administration, Societal Issues, Culture and Economy, Library and Information, Environment and Cultural Protection. The main reason for this change in structure was the wish to enable the Sameting to develop policies with a clear political and administrative responsibility and to use resources more efficiently. Apart from the work on concrete policy issues, the departments participate in the Sameting's committees, work groups etc., support the Sameting's members, and do necessary work on these issues such as translations. In addition, they closely follow what is going on in the Sameting's plenum and promote international cooperation in their respective fields. Since 1989, the elections to the Sameting have taken place every four years on the same day as the Storting elections. Since then, the NSR has been the strongest group, with the Labour Party as the most important opposition. Other groups were mostly smaller local election lists. In the elections in 2001, the NSR for the first time ever could not get an overall majority, but it remains the dominant group and with the support of several individual members still holds the most important positions, primarily the Sameting's president.16 It is noteworthy that apart from the developments in Norway, similar institutions were erected in Finland and Sweden after corresponding political processes and due to strong influence across borders, despite slightly differing functions. The Smi Parliaments have been
16
On election results cf. the Sameting's Handbook issued every term "Sameting i navn og tall" or the Sameting Web Site at www.samediggi.no.
7 The Sameting
95
eager to establish institutionalised cooperation across boundaries, but the bodies established so far (the Smi Parliamentary Council, and the Nordic Smi Language Council, cf. below) are still hindered from gaining supra-national powers due to state boundaries and sovereignty issues.
7.2 The Sameting in Relation to Theoretical Ideas on Parliaments

In June 2003, the Sameting's president Sven-Roald Nyst in his speech at the NSR's national convention recalled the underlying principle of the Sameting as a representative body for the Smi in Norway, and stressed the idea of positive discrimination as fundamental for the position of the Smi in the state: "I would like to point out that the government and the Storting established the Sameting in order to represent the Smi people as one people. At the same time, this development was based on the principle that specific measures must necessarily be applied to the Smi which go beyond their size in numbers, so-called positive discrimination." This principle has been established by law: "It must not be possible to abolish inherited rights through more or less arbitrary majority votes" (Nyst 2003b). In what sense is representation thus given in the Sameting? Brantenberg (1991: 91-92) summarises the discussion of the Smi Rights Committee on how the Sameting's members would be determined. The major options were appointment, indirect elections, and direct elections. There would certainly be only a limited representative character if members were appointed by associations, administration or government bodies. In such a case, the appointing bodies would be represented, but not the Smi population in total. Hence, this option was not seriously under discussion: It would not have been a significant step forward in comparison to the previous Smi Council, even if only Smi were now members, instead of both Smi and Norwegians. Indirect elections, for instance by bodies elected through popular vote, such as local and regional councils, would also have caused problems: Which local councils would be allowed to participate? And how should differences in Sminess in the different municipalities be taken in account? Yet, this was the model favoured by the SLF, who feared that too strong political peculiarities for the Smi could be a threat to integration into society. As explained above, the model chosen in the Committee, in fact by a very close vote, was that of direct elections. A fear was seen by the need to establish an electoral register, which may lead to a segregation of "insiders" and "outsiders". This model was favoured by the NSR and the NRL, which, however, failed to get guaranteed corporate representation for its organisation (i.e. reserved seats to be elected by reindeer herders only). In the following, the Sameting will be placed into the theory on functions of parliamentary institutions. In the dichotomies of law-making vs. non-law-making and sovereign
7 The Sameting
96
vs. non-sovereign, it is clearly not law-making, let alone sovereign. It has only administrative power, but not legislative: Its impact on legislation is limited to suggestions that it can address to the Norwegian government. It is also clearly non-sovereign, given that it was established by the Norwegian government and is still dependent on it. In comparison to the Scottish Parliament, its tasks are even more clearly limited it may raise any issue, but the budget for new policy fields has only slowly been transferred to the Sameting. How are the functions of a parliamentary body given in the Sameting? On the side of representation, the Sameting has explicitly been established to speak on behalf of the Smi population, and as such represents the Smi in their relation with the Norwegian state. It is also spokes organ and lobbyist. Myntti (1998: 233), however, points out that "even though the Sameting is a body elected by the Norwegian Smi population, the Ting has in the Smi Act not explicitly been given the exclusive right to function as the Smi spokes organ or to represent the Smi population." In other words, besides the Sameting's special position in the political system, the corporative element of interest groups and their chances of influencing all political bodies in Norway remain. Representation of the population according to certain patterns, on the other hand, such as statistic sub-groupings, is not given. The Sameting's members are elected, and are thus as representative for the electorate as in any other democratically elected parliamentary body. This does, however, not mean that the members can represent the Smi according to all socio-demographic criteria. As argued before, the number of criteria is too high to be able to be represented in a parliament, but with the number of just 39 representatives, it is even less likely than in other bodies. The individual outcome of an election and the voting system play their part the limited number of representatives always only allows representation according to political groupings and geographical areas, with complete arbitrariness when it comes to other characteristics. There is no quota of any particular group of Smi according to age, gender, profession etc. Responsiveness, or the canalising of grievances, is one of the prime tasks of the Sameting, from the citizens to the Sameting, and onwards to the Norwegian state. This does not refer so much to the shaping of general policy, let alone legislation. The Sameting provides an intense room for debates on Smi issues, but policy-making is restricted by constitutional and budgetary limits. We have seen that law-making does not take place in the Sameting, but that it can only suggest legislation to the Norwegian government. Neither does the Sameting have any direct impact on the shape of the government: it provides and scrutinises its own Smi Parliamentary Council and the Sameting's President, but their competences are restricted to clearly limited fields. Service dedication for the Smi is certainly given, but the same restrictions mean that the Smi also have to deal with pure Norwegian bodies. The same applies to the allocation of power to
7 The Sameting
97
direct Smi policy and the funding of Smi projects, but it only controls the budget which is provided to it by the Norwegian government departments. To the degree possible, the Sameting plays an important role, but only under the supervision of the Norwegian state. Compared to most other parliaments including the Scottish Parliament, there are therefore significant differences in particular concerning the law-making function. Symbolic importance, finally, is obvious for the Smi as a minority which now has a channel to be heard. In total, responsiveness to wishes and expectations certainly plays an important role, but decision-making power to work on these issues is limited.
7.3 The Sameting in the Norwegian Political System

7.3.1 The Sameting in the Model of Parliament Types The summary of the Sameting's functions leads directly to the question of how Smi issues were present in the Norwegian States structure when the Sameting was established, and how this situation differed from the time before its establishment. It is therefore also time to investigate where the Sameting can be placed in the types of parliaments within a society. Institutions with elected representatives of all parts of society in Norway exist on the national, regional, and local levels through the Storting and the regional and local councils, although we have to keep in mind that they have considerably differing functions, in particular concerning legislative power which is limited to the Storting. The Sameting, on the other hand, is a national minority-only body, without corresponding regional or local bodies. At the international level, the Smi Council and the Smi Parliamentary Council deserve mentioning, the former as a body established by the governments of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia, the latter for co-operation between the Sametings in Norway, Sweden and Finland. However, these two institutions have no parliamentary structure (cf. Henriksen 1999).
Representation of all Parts of Society Representation of Minority Only Inter-/Supranational European Parliament (applies only to Sweden and Finland), Nordic Council Assembly (Nordic Smi Council, Smi Parliamentary Council) National Storting Sametings in Norway, Sweden, Finland Regional County Parliaments Local Municipal Councils ?
(Regional Autonomy for Smi thinkable, but not practical)
Impact on legislation Chance to establish minority influence
Table 23: Parliamentary Types according to the Political Unit and the Distinction between Parliaments for Minorities Only vs. Parliaments for the Entire Population Applied to Smi
7 The Sameting
98
The existence of the Sameting as a body for all Smi in Norway does not make it unthinkable that the Smi could also be guaranteed representation in the Storting. The low proportion of Smi in the population of Norway would, however, need special regulations, given the unsuccessful historic attempts by Smi lists in Storting elections. If such a mode were found (as e.g. in the Danish Folketing with its two seats each reserved for the Faroer Islands and Greenland, despite considerable proportional over-representation), this would provide for additional Smi influence on Norwegian political affairs. Indeed, Josefsen (2003) reports that such suggestions were made in the 1970s. Yet, even with one or two guaranteed Smi representatives in the Storting, it would still depend on the willingness of the majority if Smi issues are raised. In total, the space for Smi discussions provided by the Sameting seems to make it more adequate for Smi political decision-making. Consequently, Josefsen (2003: 22) also reports that "the idea of Smi representation in the Storting has in total never been very popular among Smi." It was always an own parliamentary body which was the aim. Concerning the reciprocal relationship between the Smi and Norwegian society, there is rather little influence by the Smi on Norwegian mainstream society outside the circles dedicated to Smi affairs. However, there are today very few Norwegians who do not have some very basic knowledge about the Smi. This has only to a very limited degree had an impact on seeing Smi as part of mainstream Norwegian identity. Where this is so, the Sameting as a constant voice in Norwegian politics has played a decisive role in keeping Smi issues on the agenda. In this, there are important differences between the regions. In the North of the country, Smi issues are quite apparent, in the Smi heartland to the degree that these areas are also perceived as being Smi areas by the general public. In the southern part of Norway this is much less the case. The impact on the Smi by the Norwegian state is thus still much higher than the impact of the Smi on Norwegian identity, despite increased awareness over the past years. The Sameting's existence does not mean that the Norwegian government and the Storting do not deal with Smi issues. According to the Smi Act, the Sameting has to report annually to the Norwegian King and the government on its activities. In addition, once every four years (i.e. once every parliamentary term) the government has to present a report on the general directions of Smi policy. Yet, the Sameting provides the place for far more intensive discussions on Smi topics when compared to the Storting, and these are also guaranteed whenever the Storting is not willing to take up an issue. However, the limits of decision-making competence remain strong obstacles. Fundamental decisions about Smi politics still depend on the Norwegian government and the Storting as the legislative body. In the hierarchy of parliament bodies and the distribution
7 The Sameting
99
of power and budget competence, the Sameting thus takes a special position. Given the low proportion of Smi within the entire Norwegian population, it seems reasonable to provide a separate body for adequate Smi representation. This does, on the other hand, not go as far as regional autonomy as in Nunavut, as this would be a wrong signal to the Smi living outside the area to which such a solution would apply. As explained, the Smi have always stressed their unity across Scandinavia, and would hardly accept such segregation. Another obstacle would be the settlement pattern of Smi, Norwegians, and Kven who live side by side in many areas.
7.3.2 Smi Ways of Influence on Decision-Making So what did Smi scholars and activists think about the Sameting's role when it was still in the planning phase? Despite the fact that the Smi Rights Committee had listened to Smi voices, there was scepticism from the Smi side on the role of the Sameting in Norwegian politics. Demands were based on ideas of self-determination and the political programmes of the 1980s as outlined above. As Stordahl (1987: 69-70) wrote at the time, the fundamental prerequisites for a Smi Parliament were fulfilled: "We have in Inner Finnmark Smi people who are confident and politically aware. We want to make the decisions about our own affairs, including the management of resources." Demands were high, to the degree of calling for an autonomous political body without restrictions. What was needed to respond to Smi claims was "a Smithing, certainly, but not if it is just going to mean a new name for the Norwegian Smi Council. The Smithing proposed by the Smi Rights Committee is nothing like the Storting. () It is an advisory body like the Norwegian Smi Council and the Greenland Provincial Council." The discussion of the expectations on the Sameting leads to a more detailed account of the Sameting's tasks. The Smi Acts Section 2.2 states the original intention of the Norwegian State: Other public institutions ought to give the Smi Parliament the opportunity to make a statement before making decisions in questions within the Smi Parliaments area of activity (Sara 2002: 18-20; also in the following). The Sameting itself, however, wishes to go beyond this advisory power, and has defined its mandate as being twofold: (1) to be the Smi elected political body, and (2) to carry out the administrative tasks delegated to it by the Norwegian state. In his opening speech to the Sameting in 1989, the Minister for Local Affairs declared that the most important among Sametings tasks is that it will become an active political forum that will work for Smi interests and demands towards the
authorities" (my highlighting). It became thus clear right from the beginning that the
government saw the Sametings tasks as being more administrative than political, comparable to an organisation of activists and lobbyists.
7 The Sameting
100
Nyst, on the other hand, summarised in 1990 (1990: 79) the Smi perspective of the Sameting's tasks which emphasised the political implications. As a political body, the Sameting shall be representative of the Smi as "the most important body for Smi issues" and "the natural centre for Smi political debates". It shall "take initiatives and promote Smi issues", and "be able to take care of the rich variety of Sminess." In its role as an administrative body, the Sameting "shall distribute funding to various Smi projects on behalf of the state, provide opinions in hearings, carry out other tasks according to laws royal resolutions or departmental decisions, (), and develop suggestions on Smi measures for the State Budget." Nyst emphasised the Smi economy, the use of the Smi area and cultural protection, language, schooling and educational issues, and rights to natural resources as fundamental to the Sameting's work, but he also stressed that "it is ultimately the Sameting itself which decides what issues it deals with!" Sara (2002) stresses that there are two types of mandates on the political side. Besides the mandate given to the Sameting through formal and legal legislation, "the political mandate given by the Smi people is at least just as important for the Sami Parliaments as the mandate given via the respective Smi Acts. () The elected representatives of the Smi Parliaments have a strong political and moral obligation to their voters to fulfil the political position entrusted to them in accordance with their political programmes." Henriksen (1999: 47-48) points out that the political mandate given by the voters through free and democratic elections is the absolute heart of any elected body. The limits of the Smi Parliaments political mandate can be debated, as can the question of whether political decisions can transgress these limits. An evaluation of these limits has to consider the mandate given through the Smi Act as well as the Sametings political and moral obligations, even though the Sameting already plays a central role within the national constitutional system in relation to Smi questions. Sara summarises the Sameting's functions in the following figure:
The Sametings Tasks Administration Mandate by legislation Political Representation Mandate by the people
Figure 9: A Classification of the Sametings Tasks
The 1992-93 government report on Smi policy points to the development of the government's opinion regarding the Sameting's functions (Stortinget 1992-93: 60-62). At first, the Sameting should only have the same advisory competence as its predecessor, the Smi Council, and additionally receive the control over the Smi Development Fund, which was previously under the control of a separate board nominated by the Norwegian government's Department of
7 The Sameting
101
Local Affairs and Labour. Areas of the Sameting's tasks included Smi Economic Projects (on a provisional basis), funding for municipalities and counties in the Smi Administrative Area, funding of cultural projects through the Smi Cultural Councils (previously by the Norwegian Cultural Council) and of duodji, Smi heritage protection, and funding of Smi organisations. All these clearly relate to administrative rather than political, let alone legislative tasks. However, the report also stressed that the Sameting's competence was under development. Smith (1995: 70) puts this development the following way: "In the first instance the Smi Parliament was granted only general counselling powers. The Smi Rights Committee stated, however, that the decision-making authority of the Smi Parliament could be developed in line with the assembly's own opinions and the more general view of society on the position of the Smi people in Norway." Since 1993, the Sameting has had the right to take decisions on Smi issues for the entire part of the Norwegian budget dedicated to Smi issues. "Decisions by the Sameting supported by the Smi Act are final, which strengthens its position as a Smi body" (Myntti 1998: 234). However, it is important to point out that this decision-making competence does in no way mean legislative competence; power is restricted to the distribution of resources within the given frame. In the course of the Sametings history, the extension of authority has been a priority of the Sametings political activity. In fact, debates have had some success: Constantly more aspects of administration have been transferred, but it should be noted that there has not been any fundamental re-evaluation of its formal political authority which is still limited to the original advisory function. As Sara (2002: 22-23) points out, this struggle has also meant that the Sameting has so far given priority to its political rather than its administrative activity: The Smi Parliament wishes to avoid administrative tasks that could just as well be carried out by other bodies that are either under the authority of the Smi Parliament or independent of it. Similarly, the Storting report on Culture from 1991-92 reports: "In the preparations of the Smi Act it was emphasised that the Sameting's authority should not be fixed once and for all, but developed in line with the Sameting's own perception and the entire society's perception of the Smi position in Norway. If Smi culture shall survive also in the future, it will be necessary that the Smi will have a substantial degree of self-determination in questions which relate to them" (Stortinget 1991-92: 230). This renegotiation took place regularly, with the Sameting in a constant fight for more competence. In 1991, for instance, Magga (1991: 6) argued that "it is necessary to ensure that the Sameting in practice is given the possibility to prioritise. It is also necessary that the Sameting has the necessary financial means." The question was raised as an own agenda topic in the Sameting (R 5/92 Transfer of tasks and authority to the Sameting), but it appeared also in the context of the participation of Norway in the European Economic Area (R 54/92). In total, demands were
7 The Sameting
102
rather careful at first, but have today reached a momentum of strong self-confidence on the Smi side. Yet, the ambiguous place of the Sameting in the political system of Norway is still expressed by its President, Sven-Roald Nyst, in a speech given in October 2002 (Nyst 2002c): "It is difficult to identify the place of the Sameting within the Norwegian system it is neither within a clear hierarchy (local-regional-state), nor within the system of legislative and executive power." The Sameting's relative independence has to be weighed against the possibilities of influence which a compulsory participation in society would provide. In Nyst's view, the state sees the Sameting as part of the regular system, as a devolved part of the Norwegian state, subordinate to the government: "The Central Authorities behave towards the Sameting in a way which I mean can easily be understood as if the Sameting shall be made a 'Delegated State Authority'." Nyst denies this view, pointing to the right of self-determination: "The Sameting in my opinion cannot be considered a Delegated State Authority. The Smi have inherited a historic right to govern themselves. () The tensions which we experience between the Sameting and the Norwegian government system in shaping policies in Smi areas can in my opinion be understood in a corporative frame in which there is an on-going struggle about strategic power relations." Yet, Myntti (1998: 246) comments that the Smi in Norway today are an "important political actor in Norwegian politics. Their political influence is apparently considerably higher than what their numerical size should normally suggest." Besides the state duties in administration that the Sameting carries out, it is thus also a political player on behalf of the Smi.
7.3.3 The Sameting and Other Political Bodies How is the Sameting in its decisions related to other bodies in the political system? Broderstad (1993) headlines that the Smi Act "asks other public bodies to give the Sameting the opportunity to express its opinion before decisions are taken on tasks within the Sameting's working field." There are, however, "no rules that force state, regional, or local bodies to co-operate with the Sameting." This illustrates how the Sameting had to do a lot of work in order to get heard by local, regional and state authorities. By some public bodies, the Sameting was warmly welcomed. Others, however, perceived a separate Smi political structure as a threat to their own competence. The key concepts discussed by Broderstad on the influence of the Sameting on Smi politics are "corporative system" vs. "system of elected representatives": "The establishment of the Sameting has resulted in a structural change from a former corporative system of Smi interests to a system with elected representatives for the Smi people." However, the present structure is still criticised: "It is a problem that the Sameting as a central body is lacking subordinate bodies at the regional and local levels", because "a positive attitude at several administrative levels can contribute to creating bigger legitimacy for the Sameting and Smi issues among the Smi electorate as well as in public opinion in general." Besides structural questions, the
7 The Sameting
103
Sameting needs stronger enforcement mechanisms: "To ensure that the Sameting's decisions result in the implementation of policies with consequences for Smi society, it is a prerequisite that the Ting can take decisions binding both for itself and for other bodies, and it simultaneously demands that the Ting has resources for implementing its decisions" (Broderstad 1993: 114-116) . Josefsen (2003: 33) classifies Smi influence on politics in Norway along similar lines, as a difference between an indirect channel, i.e. influence via the Sameting, and a direct channel. The latter is the participation of Smi in mainstream political organisations, e.g. as candidates of political parties in national elections. Since the 1960s, Smi lists have managed to win seats in regional and municipal councils. The first two Smi representatives in the Storting since the early 20th century were elected in 1993 for Labour and the Centre Party, respectively. According to Josefsen, Centre Party's Johanne Gaup tried to keep an overview of Smi issues dealt with in the various Committees besides the Committee of Local Affairs which held the main responsibility for Smi. Her suggestions were well-received by her colleagues to the degree that she received considerable influence on Smi affairs by being seen as the "natural" expert on these issues. Yet, we have to keep in mind that this was made possible only by a positive general attitude towards Smi affairs at the time both in and outside her party, without which her representation would have been much less influential (Josefsen 2003: 21-22). It is in this context interesting to note that the role of Smi organisations as spokesorganisations for Smi issues has been reduced since the Sameting's establishment to the benefit of mainstream political parties and Smi participation in them. Josefsen reports of advantages, but also dangers in this: Smi issues receive wider attention and Smi politicians can be made responsible to a wider audience. On the other hand, Smi politicians may also have to negotiate between their positions as a party politician and as a Smi (Josefsen 2003: 37). All Norwegian parties represented in the Storting with the exception of the populist right Progress Party have established an official Smi policy, and recent political programmes of the individual parties show support for Smi issues, albeit with varying opinions on the extension of present Smi rights.17 So far, most mainstream parties have participated in Sameting elections, but only Labour (since 1989) and the Centre Party (since 1993) have regularly been able to win seats. Both parties have established formal structures for Smi issues. As Josefsen (2003: 33) concludes, "that Norwegian political parties have participated at the Sameting elections has contributed to making Smi questions visible in the parties, encouraged Smi party members to become active, and led to the decision to develop policies in Smi
17
Cf. for a detailed account of Norwegian political parties' recent Smi policies Marten 2004b, and Marten forthcoming a and b.
7 The Sameting
104
issues." In addition, Smi have occasionally had a strong influence on local affairs, and they were sometimes in the position of being decisive for majority formation in a Council. In addition to the mainstream parties, a specific Smi Party was founded in 1999, which did not succeed in winning a seat in the Storting elections of 2001. In the Sameting elections of the same year, it won one seat, and it has also participated in elections on the regional and local levels, with limited success so far.18
7.3.4 Models of Smi Politics in Norway How can the Sameting and Smi issues thus be placed into models of Norwegian political bodies? Within the Norwegian government, the Department of Local and Regional Affairs is the coordinating body for Smi questions. However, funding is complex and comes from various departments. Sources in the state budget include a number of explicitly labelled Smi posts, but also a support under more general headings. The level of funding has increased considerably since the late 1980s. In 1986, the post Special Measures for the Smi Population amounted to less than NOK 14 million, of which the highest sums went to the Smi Development Fund and to a post labelled Support of Smi Measures. The latter in practice meant mostly funding of a number of Smi institutions which were either political, predominantly the NSR and the SLF, or related to Smi handicraft and traditions. In 1988, this funding was almost doubled, mostly through the inclusion of support of municipalities for Smi measures (figures taken from Stortinget 1988). After the turn of the millennium, this sum had increased considerably. The Sameting's first budget in 1990 had been NOK 31.7 million. In 2001, this amount had risen to almost NOK 200 million. The entire state expenses for Smi issues are difficult to estimate as they include various posts within the budgets of several government departments beyond the sum transferred to the Sameting's responsibility, often taken from posts which are not directly labelled as relating to Smi issues. The highest posts in addition to the funding of the Sameting on Smi issues were the funding of Smi education by the Department of Education (more than NOK 140 million in 2001) and of reindeer economy support by the Department of Agriculture (approximately NOK 160 million in 2001, Stortinget 2002-03b).
18
In the 2003 elections, for instance, it received only 4.7% of votes, or 2 out of 35 seats in the Finnmark County Council elections. In the Municipal elections in the two municipalities with the highest proportion of Smi, Karasjok and Kautokeino, it gained 18.9% (4 out of 19 seats) and 8.9% (2 out of 19 seats) resepctively. Plans for a common list of the Smi People's Party and the NSR for the Storting elections 2005 were at the time of writing under discussion. For the election results, cf. http://odin.dep.no/krd/html/valgresultat2003.
7 The Sameting
105
Figure 10: The Sameting's Budget Development 1990 2002
Evaluating the Sameting's budget, we have to note that the increase is also based on the regular transfer of competence to the Sameting. Yet, Figure 10 serves as a clear indicator of increased influence of Smi on Smi funding and policy making.19 The sum transferred to the Sameting's responsibility in 2002 came from the following government departments:20
Norwegian Government Department Local and Regional Affairs (KRD) Church, Education, Research (KUF) Children and Family (BFD) Culture (KD) Nature Protection (MD) Social and Health Affairs (SHD) Funding of the Sameting in 2002 (1000 NOK) 120100 25687 8113 29100 1000 5800 189800 Share of Funding (%) 63.3 13.6 4.3 15.3 0.5 3.1 100
Table 24: Funding of the Sameting according to Norwegian Government Departments in 2002
The structure of funding leads directly to the spectrum of institutions involved in Smi politics in Norway. Lewis suggests a model for Norwegian state institutions dealing with Smi affairs, which displays both governmental and non-governmental sides. However, this model seems to be too narrow, as it does not include the channels of influence by the Smi electorate (Lewis 1998: 57; the translations of names of institutions are adjusted to this book's terminology):
19
Taken from Stortinget 2002-03b: The abbreviations of the departments of the Norwegian government are: KRD Local and Regional Affairs, HD Health, UFD Education and Research, KKD Church and Culture, BFD Children and Family, Fond Smi Development Fund, MD Nature Protection, LD Agriculture, UD Foreign Affairs. 20 Sametinget 2001c at November 27th, 2001. Note that there are differences in the government departments as in Figure 18 due to a restructuring of the Norwegian government.
7 The Sameting
Storting Department of Local Affairs Office for Smi Affairs Coordinating Committee on Smi Affairs Government/ Departments Municipal/County Corporations Department of Local Affairs Office for Smi Affairs
106
Smi National Organisations
Norwegian Smi Council (until 1989)/ Sameting (since 1989) Figure 11: Institutions in Norway Dealing with Smi (Lewis 1998)
The fundamental peculiarity of the Sameting is that it stands outside the established political hierarchy, and the Smi population in Norway has with the establishment of the Sameting passed the step from a solely corporative model of participative democracy to representativity (Broderstad 1995: 4-5). Broderstad thus sees the Sametings establishment as the starting point of a distinct Smi political system. For her, the double function of the Sameting as a political and an administrative body can also be seen in the light of participation within the Norwegian political system on the one hand, and the establishment of a separate Smi system on the other. Within the Norwegian system, similarly to the previous Smi Council, the Sameting is close to a non-departmental public body under control of the Department for Local Affairs, and in cooperation with other government departments. As the most prominent figure in a separate Smi system, however, the Sameting is a political body of the Smi people. Going beyond the model by Lewis by including the electorate as well as hierarchical levels, Broderstad (1995: 7) suggests the following schematic representation:
Storting Sameting Regional Councils Local Councils Elections Smi Parties/Lists Smi Organisations Electorate Elections Norwegian Parties Smi Organisations Electorate Elections
Figure 12: Influence on Smi Issues in the Norwegian Political System (Broderstad 1995)
7 The Sameting
107
As Broderstad stresses, this model emphasises the political role of the Sameting in a localregional-state hierarchy at a level between the Regional Councils and the Storting, separated from the main system. The perception as a parallel structure may serve as a starting point for yet another figure which lists the most important channels of Smi influence on policy making. What is left out by Broderstad is interaction between parliamentary and governmental bodies, which may even take the form of lobbying in cases where a local or regional council tries to influence legislation or administrative practices on behalf of Smi interests. What is clearly visible in Figure 13 is that the Sameting is outside the usual hierarchy of political bodies of administration and legislation. Nevertheless, it deals with issues at all levels of competence and interacts with various institutions. The shaded circles, and the areas separated within some of the circles by lines, indicate the varying presence of Smi issues in these bodies. The Smi electorate has a combination of direct and indirect channels of influence, or participation and representation at its disposal. Smi vote for the Storting, regional and local councils as well as the Sameting. They participate in any Norwegian political party as well as in special Smi parties and in Smi organisations. These may participate in political processes through lobbying of Smi and Norwegian parties, administration and government bodies at all levels, and the Sameting:
Figure 13: The Presence of Smi Issues in the Norwegian Political System
7 The Sameting
108
7.4 The Sametings Role Concerning Language

To conclude this chapter, the Sameting's position in decision-making on language policy shall be addressed. Concerning language use in the Sameting, Section 2.13 of the Smi Act regulates that the Sameting operates completely bilingually: Everybody may use Smi or Norwegian in all parliamentary proceedings, and all documents including the official signage are in both languages. With this, the Universal Declaration's ideas on the unrestricted presence of a minority language in an assembly are fulfilled. Compared to the structure before the Sametings establishment, it is important to point out that initiatives previously taken by the Smi Language Council now come from the Smi parliament directly and thus from Smi representatives, whereas before, only some members of the Language Council were Smi. A problem in this context is the dominant position of North Smi: Given the small number of Lule and South Smi speakers, it is not surprising that developments concerning these two languages are by far slower, also in the Sameting. In total, language policy is, of course, only one of many issues discussed in the Sameting and it is not always easy to draw a line between language and other issues. Given the importance of language for Smi identity, it is not surprising, however, that it is one of the primary issues, but others such as land rights questions are just as prominent. Language policy in the strict sense today is carried out by the Sameting's Language Department. It replaced the Smi Language Council in 2001, which was not so directly under the Sameting's administrative rule, even though it also had some impact on its activities. The Language Department's tasks are monitoring that the Smi Language Act and the Place Names Act are adhered to, developing a data base of Smi terminology, speaking for Norway in the Nordic Smi Language Cooperation through the Samisk Sprknemnd (see below), authorising interpreters and interpretation, and giving advice in concrete linguistic problems. The Language Department is located in Kautokeino in the Smi heartland, but has sub-offices in the Lule and South Smi areas. It has 9 employees and administers a budget of ca. NOK 34.5 million, of which ca. NOK 29 million are dedicated to the support of bilingualism and language projects. Language plays a strong role in the Sameting's aim to create a "pluralist society based on Smi values, basic human rights and international solidarity." The Language Department's strategy is published in the Sameting's political plans for each term (cf. Sara 2002). In 1997, in addition to language planning activities carried out by the Norwegian Sameting, the three Smi Parliaments and the Smi Council established the Samisk Sprknemnd as a joint Nordic Smi Language Board. As Sara (2002: 11) describes it, the Board is "the Samis supreme decision-making body in joint Sami language issues." Its objective is "to protect and develop the
7 The Sameting
109
cultural heritage associated with the Sami language" and it both "an expert and competent body in co-ordinating and adapting tasks with use and tending of the Sami language", and a "mediator between national Sami language bodies." The Board has 12 members from all Smi dialects in the four countries, who are elected for four years. The Sprknemnd is supervised by the Smi Parliamentary Council which has "the supervising political responsibility for the common Smi language planning." On a non-political level, the Nordic Smi Institute as an institution in the system of the Nordic Council of Ministers has since 1974 contributed to Smi language co-operation across boundaries, mainly through linguistic research. Originally working mostly on more traditional linguistic topics (in particular on syntax and phraseology), it has in recent years also concentrated on sociolinguistics (Sara 2002: 12). When placing the Sameting's relation to language into the four approaches identified by Wilson/Stapleton on the analysis of the relation of language and parliaments, it is apparent that individual choice to use Norwegian or any of the three Smi languages is guaranteed through a formal right, which also postulates a language policy on making the Sameting an institution which functions in the Smi language. Practical considerations play a certain role, e.g. in the provision of the necessary staff, but are in total of relatively low significance when compared to the strong desire to give Smi its public space. The symbolic side, finally, is obvious not only in the use of Smi in the Sameting's internal proceedings, but also as guidance to other public bodies and in communication with the general public. May's idea of a normalised language use in parliament is mostly given, at least in the political proceedings. Within the parliamentary administration, the road to this type of normalisation has been taken, but this aim is not yet fulfilled in all areas and circumstances. Both May's legitimising and the institutionalising functions of parliaments for languages are thus largely given Smi receives legitimation by being used at such a high symbolic level, and the Sameting strengthens its position by also providing a space where it is used within an institutionalised basis. It is important to keep in mind that, despite the fact that the Sameting in Norway may decide on language issues, there is still a much differentiated system of financing and managing Smi language aspects. Municipalities are financed by taxes and have their own budget which they, of course, may use to promote Smi issues (e.g. in administration of the core Smi areas). The Sameting has some influence on the amount and type of Smi media, but these are financed by the central authorities. In fact, one core aim of the Sameting is to receive competence on these issues as well. This shows again that the Sameting is both an elected body for lobbying, and an
7 The Sameting
110
administrative body dependent on the central state. The Sameting is thus only one parliamentary reference point for the Smi population among others, these being the Municipal and County Councils, and the Storting. Table 25, similarly to previous tables, again summarises the results of this chapter:
Issues Influence by participation vs. by representation Shape of influence outside the parliament direct vs. indirect The Situation for Smi Representation; this leads to participation Direct influence in the Sameting and the Norwegian mainstream institutions; indirect influence in mainstream and distinct Smi organisations and parties; separate system of Smi institutions Speaking on behalf of Smi, pattern of population largely given Symbolic and debating responsiveness, service, expenditure under restrictions, policy, legislation only indirectly, no influence on government Non-law-making Non-sovereign Individual choice guaranteed; formal Language Policy; high symbolic value; few restrictions by practical considerations Identification with the Sameting as Smi state body absolutely given; no impact on Storting Symbolic part provided; policy potential under restrictions; high responsiveness with restrictions on implementation; participation in decision-making, legislation and distribution under restrictions of general system In the Sameting as aim, the way to fulfilment sometimes difficult Both legitimisation and institutionalisation highly given Unrestricted presence of Smi Multilingual Sameting, including its leadership; little influence on other bodies in Norway National body Assembly for Smi minority only Only very limited awareness by state of Smi
Representation: Speaking on behalf, Pattern of population Responsiveness: Policy/legislation, service, allocation/expenditure, symbolic, deliberation/debate, governments Law-making vs. Non-law-making Sovereign vs. Non-sovereign 4 Relations of Language and Parliaments: Individual choice, Formal rights, Symbolism, Practical considerations High symbolic value of parliaments for minority identification with a state as an identity point Summarising: two major components of parliaments for linguistic minorities: Symbolic part of public bodies vs. Policy and planning potential: responsiveness to wishes; participation in decision-making, legislation and distribution of means Normalised language use as aim Legitimising/institutionalising functions of parliaments Minority languages to permit in parliaments Mono- vs. multilingual governments of mono- and multilingual states Usage patterns of officially multilingual bodies Supra-state vs. national vs. regional vs. local Minority assemblies vs. general assemblies with minority participation Shape of state influences minority as well as minority presence influences state identity
Table 25: The Sameting and Ideas of Parliament Functions and Relations between Parliaments and Language
8 Language Policy in the Sameting Until the Mid-1990s
111
8 Language Policy in the Sameting until the Mid-1990s

It is now time to look at how the Sameting has dealt with language issues. The following results are based on the analysis of documents by the Sameting itself and on comments by institutions and persons in the vicinity of the Sameting. The Sameting's language policy is in its own perception based on the Norwegian Grunnlov's Section 110a and the Smi Act's guarantee for the Smi to freely develop their language. Other documents which the Sameting explicitly refers to are the ILO Convention 169, the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages, and article 27 in the United Nations' 1966 convention on civil and political rights. The latter was incorporated into Norwegian law in 1999, confirming previous legislation on the right of minorities to live their culture, religion, and language (Sametinget 2002a).21
8.1 The Smi Language Act and Other Legislation Relevant for the Smi Language
According to Section 1.5 of the Smi Act, "Smi and Norwegian are equal languages. They are to gain equal status according to the regulations given in chapter 3 of the Samelov." The major language issue dealt with in the first term of operation of the Sameting, from 1989 to 1993, was the adoption of the Smi Language Act in December 1990 which adds such a chapter 3 to the Smi Act. The Language Act creates the Smi Administrative Area, consisting of the municipalities Karasjok, Kautokeino, Nesseby, Porsanger and Tana in Finnmark, and Kfjord in Troms County. This is the area where the Smi language is strongest, and Smi in many parts are in the majority. Despite the limitation to six municipalities, the affected area is immense, given the extremely low population density in Northern Scandinavia. In total, it consists of 26535 km, which is 8.2% of Norway. The five municipalities in Finnmark County make up more than half of the county (52.5%). The population of these six municipalities, however, amounts only to 16,000-17,000, or 0.3-0.4% of the population of Norway. The Administrative Area may also be extended, and such suggestions have been made on several occasions. Concerning the geographical area of application of the Act, there are further distinctions: Apart from the Smi Administrative Area, some educational rules apply to Smi districts
For an overview of legislation with Smi language reference, cf. also Funderud Skogvang 2002: 132-133. In addition to Norwegian laws guaranteeing language rights and international duties of the Norwegian state, Funderud Skogvang also refers to the regulations that the leader of the Smi Radio Programme shall always be a member of the Norwegian Radio Council, and that there shall be Smi representation in the councils of the three northernmost church districts in Norway, which are often neglected in such listings.
21
112
(which cover a larger area than the Administrative Area). A few rules apply to Finnmark and Troms Counties, and some rules, mostly in education, apply anywhere in Norway.
Figure 14: The Smi Administrative Area in Norway and Possible Extensions
The following implications of the Language Act apply to the Administrative Area: Section 3-2. The translation of laws, rules, announcements and forms that are of special relevance to the Smi Section 3-3. The right to receive oral and written services in Smi by local and regional public bodies Section 3-4. The extended right to use Smi in jurisdiction: The right to use Smi in any juridical proceeding, written or orally, and the right to use Smi in communication with the police and in prisons Section 3-5. The extended right to use Smi in the health and social services Section 3-6. A right to individual Smi church services Section 3-7. The right to paid study leave for employees of local or regional institutions. The following rules apply anywhere: Section 3-8. A right to education in Smi (cf. the relevant amendment to the Education Act) Section 3-9. The possibility of a municipality to decide to use Smi equally with Norwegian in its administration Section 3-10. A possible extension of the Administrative Area Section 3-11. There is a right to go to court if public bodies do not follow the rules Section 3-12. The Sameting shall supervise Smi language care.
113
The new regulations for Smi in Elementary Schools referred to in the Language Act were passed in 1998. The new Section 40a regulates the right to Smi primary education until 9th grade. These rules are not restricted to the Administrative Area, but apply to all areas in Norway where Smi live. This is of particular importance for the Lule and South Smi areas which are not covered by the Administrative Area. All primary school pupils in Smi areas have the right to Smi education, as Smi-medium or as L2 education. Municipalities may also decide that Norwegian-speaking children receive compulsory instruction in Smi as a second language, which has been introduced by four municipalities. Todal (2002c: 4) rightly calls this step "a radical step in policy-making". Outside Smi districts, anywhere in Norway, Smi can demand Smi elementary education, and have a right to such wherever three children within one district demand it. As the last major legal step affecting the Smi language, already in May 1990 a Place Name Act was passed which puts Smi place (and Finnish/Kven) names on an equal footing with Norwegian names: Wherever an object has a Smi and/or a Finnish name in addition to the Norwegian name, and wherever they are used by the resident population of the area, both or all names shall be used as a rule (Stortinget 1990). This rule applies to all state institutions. Wherever a place has only a Smi name, that name shall be used without translation. In areas with a Smi-speaking majority, the Smi name shall be used first.
8.2 Smi Language Use in the Sameting

How is the Smi language present in the Sameting's proceedings? It has been stated above that the Sameting in principal operates bilingually and is thus in compliance with demands on minority language use in parliamentary bodies. However, how does bilingual operation work in practice, and which obstacles arise? In 1992, the Sameting adopted general regulations for the use of Smi within its own affairs (Sametinget 1992). These rules are characterised by a lack of confidence in the employees' Smi language skills. The main aim is to stimulate the use of Smi in the Sameting and strengthen Smi competence in all three dialects. Anything in Smi shall be given priority. The employees shall have the chance to follow the language rules and have sufficient time for learning to speak and write the language, including the right to study leave. There shall also be certain incentives for the written use of Smi on an every-day basis. According to the visions of the language managers, these measures shall enable 50% of the employees to write Smi and at least 80% to speak and understand Smi within three years.
114
Internal documents, including protocols, are to be written in Smi and Norwegian. The same applies to press releases, advertisements and other documents for external attention. A crucial aim of this policy is to make the Smi language visible in the context of broader society. Consequently, also correspondence with local and regional institutions, both public and private, in the Administrative Area is to take place in Smi. Correspondence with institutions outside the area is to take place in Smi and Norwegian. Letters addressed to the Sameting are to be answered in the language originally used. I will get back to these aims in the account of latest events and evaluate how they have been put into practice.
8.3 Smi Language Policy as Reported by the Norwegian Government

The Norwegian governments documents on Smi issues indicate that Smi policy at that time was undergoing a considerable change. Reports are characterised by statements of what the situation should be like and of how the government departments via committees or other measures are trying to improve the situation. The report of the Sameting's activities in 1989, as all other reports issued by the Sameting, but published by the Norwegian government, still looks as if it was written by the government and not by the Sameting. This is not surprising given that this institution was only established that very year. The section directly relating to language is restricted to the discussion of the Smi Language Act, indicating that there had not been a coherent Smi language policy up to this point compared to what one can find in the later years. The original propositions by the government are juxtaposed to the views of the Sameting wherever these differ from each other (Stortinget 1990-91: 8-9). In 1990, direct reference to language again appears only in relation to the Language Act. There is a certain focus on the Smi language in the media (the Smi Radio towards the Year 2000 plan, a slight increase in TV broadcasting, and the funding of Smi publications) In education, there is emphasis on programmes to enhance teaching material development and teacher education (Stortinget 1991-92b: 6-8). In 1991, we finally find a more coherent account of Smi language policy. Concerning the Smi Language Act, the Sameting expresses its happiness about the establishment of the Language Council and the close cooperation between the Norwegian government and the Sameting. A top priority is the establishment of a Smi data base. The report also calls for more support for South and Lule Smi, including two investigative committees. For a new Place Name Act, the Sameting suggests an equal positioning of names within minority areas (Stortinget 199192a: 18).
115
In addition to the documents by the Sameting itself, the Norwegian government also issued several documents to comment on the state of affairs of Smi policy. Important documents dealing with Smi issues since 1990 are listed in the following table:
Year 1992-93 1996-97 1997-98 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 Document St.meld nr. 52 St.meld nr. 41 St.meld nr. 18 St.meld nr. 55 St.meld nr. 33 St.meld nr. 34 St.meld nr. 55 Title Om norsk samepolitikk (About Norwegian Smi Policy). Om norsk samepolitikk (About Norwegian Smi Policy) Tillegg til St meld nr 41 (1996-97) Om norsk samepolitikk. (Supplement to St.meld nr. 41 (1996-97) About Norwegian Smi Policy Om samepolitikken (About Smi Policy) Tilleggsmelding til St.meld. nr. 55 (20002001) Om samepolitikken (Supplement to St.meld nr. 55 (2000-2001) About Smi Policy) Kvalitetsreformen. Om hyere samisk utdanning og forskning (Quality Reform. About Higher Smi Education and Research) Om norsk samepolitikk (About Norwegian Smi Policy).
Table 26: Norwegian Government Reports Dedicated to Smi Issues Since 1990
In addition to these, the report Culture in Our Time contains a special chapter (21) on Smi Culture, relating to literature, music, the visual arts, handicraft, theatre, and a special provision for young Smi (Stortinget 1991-92c). Tasks are often, but by far not always, carried out in cooperation with the Sameting. It is therefore not surprising that the discussion on the transfer of tasks to the Sameting is here also seen as a prime aspect of Smi policy. In general, the report is dominated by an account of the state of affairs, which are mostly seen as far from prefect. Initiatives have been taken to establish plans to close the gaps identified. Achievements of the past years include a scholarship for Smi writers and the long-term establishment of the Smi theatre company. Fields in which action is promised are mostly institutions which can serve as coordinators and guides for Smi cultural activity, e.g. in the fields of music and publishing. Concerning Smi children, three foci are mentioned for future activity: a Smi art school, the development of games and outdoor activities based on Smi traditions and measures to strengthen childrens Smi identity in South and Lule Smi areas. The Storting Report on Norwegian Smi Policy from 1992-93 provides a comprehensive overview of achievements in Smi policy until 1993 from the Norwegian governments perspective (Stortinget 1992-93). Besides the value of the document concerning a policy listing, it is also enlightening to see to what degree the Sameting was involved in policy development. The prime achievement reported is the Smi Language Act. Other concrete measures focussed on in the report are (Stortinget 1992-93: 90-93): Terminology development in several domains, especially in jurisdiction and literature, official information in Smi wherever Smi interests are concerned and investigation concerning where these needs are, the use of Smi within certain ranges of the military and the police,
116
paid leave for officials within county and municipality administration to acquire written communication skills in Smi, financial support for the development of bilingual services in the Administrative Area, to which the distribution was transferred to the Sameting in 1993, an evaluation of the effects of Smi funding, the right of both Smi and non-Smi to learning the Smi language, and financial support for adult Smi learners. Concerning education, the report stresses measures at all levels of the educational scale. The aim is for Smi pupils to completely master the Smi language and feel at home in both Smi and Norwegian culture. A major focus was on the planned Centre for Smi Teaching Material. Concerning the legal situation, the changes made in the Elementary School Act were a major step forward. The Sameting, however, called for even further improvement: It demanded that all children in the Smi Administrative Area should have compulsory Smi education; those with Smi as mother tongue through the medium of Smi, Norwegian children as L2. Further achievements included the introduction of coordinated planning for the two Smi secondary schools, and the establishment of the Smi College in Kautokeino in 1989, which also helped to overcome the lack of teachers. A new Smi centre at the University of Troms started to increase research on Smi issues, and to spread knowledge about the Smi in Norway and abroad. An amendment to government plans for the first time ever created a coherent Smi kindergarten plan, which was approved by the Sameting in February 1993. This is a typical example of how the Sameting has been involved in policy development. The most important principles were to strengthen Smi identity and respect for the manifoldness in Smi culture, and within a multicultural society as a whole (Stortinget 1992-93: 103). Some initiatives were also related to the church. In 1991, Inner Finnmark was established as an own district of the State Church, to which the Smi administrative rules apply, and from 1993 onwards there has been a new Smi church council (Stortinget 1992-93: 99-100). In the section on culture, the report names the following achievements which are relevant in the context of language policy (Stortinget 1992-93: 84-89): An institutionalisation of the Smi theatre, the funding of Smi books through the Norwegian Cultural Council, the documentation of problems concerning the spread of Smi literature and music, also through the Norwegian Cultural Council, the establishment of a Smi library committee under participation of the Sameting, a long-term solution for Smi archive (on behalf of the Sameting), the establishment of Smi Cultural Centres, referring to Sameting item 7/93 to develop principles for a network of Smi cultural funding,
117
the funding of production and distribution of Smi newspapers and books through the Department of Culture, and the development of a Smi media plan under observation and support of the Sameting. The transfer of the distribution of the state funding for Smi publications to the Sameting was, however, postponed. Finally, some aspects of social and health policy were also reported. A Smi Health and Social Plan was drafted to take care of special Smi needs. The Sameting was involved in naming representatives to a committee dealing with these issues. Language skills were to be promoted among staff to overcome suspicion, in particular by older people who have not always been able to master the Norwegian language very well and often have little confidence in these institutions (Stortinget 1992-93: 108-109). Summarising, it is legitimate to state that through the report the government displayed awareness of Smi issues across domains and applied an approach of an all-encompassing, holistic policy, referring to all major domains of the Smi language. Policy development took place in cooperation with the Sameting, despite the fact that the government still only very slowly transferred responsibilities to the Sameting. Compared to the time before 1989, Smi issues across domains in 1993 had become part of official Norwegian policy, and the Smi through the Sameting had received considerable influence in the shaping of this policy.
8.4 Smi Language Policy as Reported by the Sameting

Having seen how the Norwegian state saw the state of affairs of Smi policy in the early 1990s, it is interesting to turn to the Sameting and Smi politicians. In the agendas of the Sameting's bodies, documents labelled with an R refer to the Sametings Council, documents labelled with an S to the plenum's leadership, and documents without an initial letter to the plenum. The number after the slash indicates the calendar year, whereas the number before the slash denotes the agenda item in chronological order. As one clear distinction between the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament, all items dealt with here by definition relate to Smi issues. In the following, I will distinguish two types of documents according to their relatedness to language: Some issues have a more distant relation to language status and revitalisation, e.g. media and educational issues, whereas the following issues may be directly labelled as language-relevant:

Item No. S 26/90 S 129/90 S 147/90 S 200/90 R 34/91 R 141/91 R 201/91 R 218/91 R 58/92 R 63/93 R 80/93 R 23/94 12/90 24/91 35/91 23/92 25/92 41/92 5/93 22/93 24/94 26/94
118
Issue Draft on rules on the use of the Smi language, final decision The Smi language in Nordland County Ot.prp nr. 60 (1989-90) Smi language, on changes in the Smi Act, the Primary School Act and the Court Act Hearing Lule Smi Establishment of a Smi Word Data Base Smi language appointment of groups to investigate means to strengthen the South and Lule Smi languages Instructions on the Sametings language rules Smi Act Language Regulations new suggestions Rules for the use of the Smi language in the Sameting Appointment of committee to strengthen the Smi language in the Ofoten and South Troms areas Change of municipality name Kfjord Appointment of new member of the Sametings committee to strengthen the Smi language in the Ofoten and South Troms areas Draft of rules on the use of the Smi language Hearing Smi Word Data Base relation to Smi language Council localisation of Language Council Office Rules on the Smi Acts language rules Hearing Bilingualism in Smi municipalities Hearing Rules for the use of Smi in the Sameting Primary School Act Suggestion on changes Suggestion on rules of proceeding for distribution of financial support for bilingualism Report of group to investigate means to strengthen the South Smi language Rules of proceeding for distribution of state support for Smi interpretation services and bilingualism in the Smi Language Administrative Area Report of group to investigate means to strengthen the Lule Smi language
Table 27: Direct Language Issues in the Sameting 1990-1994
The general impression one gets from this table is that the Sameting in its first years was in the process of developing coherent policies. The number of hearings and discussions on general issues which could lay the groundwork for further proceedings is remarkable. Similarly, investigative groups first provided the necessary information for later decisions on specific issues, in particular concerning the position of the Smi language outside the core area. The following table lists issues not directly linked to language, but which are still important for the status of the language in society. Those items that have been dealt with in more than one of the Sametings institutions are listed only once. General issues such as the Sameting's annual reports or budget negotiations, in which language issues of course play an important role, are not listed. The list is not meant to be comprehensive it would be impossible to establish such a list without having to list everything the Sameting has dealt with, as almost any issue concerned with Smi politics also involves language to a certain extent, including for instance issues dealing with Smi economy, reindeer breeding, or the participation in international organisations. In many cases the influence on the Smi language is given in that only anything vaguely Smi will help support the status, prestige, and range of use of the language.

Item No. S 109/90 S 123/90 R 95/91 R 82/91/R 83/91 R 96/91 R 143/91 R 198/91 R 32/92 R 59/92 R 119/92 R 125/92 R 183/92 R 13/93 R 32/93 R 46/93 Issue Higher Education in Finnmark Smi Publishing Change in rules for the program council of the Smi Department of the State Broadcasting Company Smi radio broadcasting towards the year 2000 Smi Secondary Education Changes in the rules for the program council of the Smi Department of the State Broadcasting Company Smi Publishing Budget for the Smi College Bilingualism in Smi municipalities Centre for Smi Teaching material General on Smi Culture and Cultural Policy On the ILO convention and its application by the Norwegian state Kindergarten Strategy Smi school in Troms County Scholarship regulations for Smi youth
119
Policy Field Education Media Media Media Education Media Media Education Administration Education Culture Legislation Education Education Education
Table 28: "Indirect" Language Issues in the Sameting 1990-1993
Again, there is a focus on policy development for the future. The major fields were the media and education. The lack of issues relating to legislation and administration is not surprising, given that the Language Act was established during that period and legislation and administration did not seem to need specific attention anymore. One gets an additional idea of what the Sameting considered as important for the Smi language when looking at further documents. The Sametings information strategy focuses on the perceived lack of knowledge among the Smi population on the change in political structure and rights. A guide to the Smi Acts language rules points in the same direction. The Sameting's policy plan for 1991-1993 still focuses on general issues. One reads for instance that "the Sameting shall be a model in observing the Smi Language Act." Another important point is linguistic development which shall be intensified in order to meet demands regarding Smi use in public bodies (Sametinget 1990). Also, the Sametings Annual Report of 1992 still stresses the rules on the proceedings relating to interpretation services and bilingualism. The Report of 1993 then indicates that the Sameting turned from the phase of establishing rules to other areas. As major issues in language policy, it names South Smi, an increase in budget which is seen as necessary, and the support of Smi kindergartens. In addition, it provides an account of the Smi Language Councils activities, which includes a substantial number of, but not only corpus planning issues. The Smi Language Council's Annual Report of 1993 summarises that a core target is the active and practical development of the use of the Smi language in the Administrative Area on the basis of the funding of bilingualism in compliance with the Smi Act. The municipalities have to become more aware of their duties to offer language courses and other duties to comply with the Language Act. A priority has to be set with
120
regard to kindergartens, the development of South and Lule Smi, work on a word data base and other terminology collections, and a strengthening of the Samisk Sprknemnd. The Language Council in total supports the Sameting's objective that "the Sameting shall prioritise the development of linguistic measures relating to Smi language support outside the Administrative Area" (Samisk Sprkrd 1993). As South Smi was one of the major issues named by both the Sameting and the Language Council, the Sameting also established a Task Force on South Smi (Holm Bull/Persson Toven/Dunfjeld 1992). Its principle aim was to identify measures so that "South Smi will also in the future be a living Smi language and an important cultural element and driving force in South Smi culture." For this, the Task Force's report names four sub-goals: "South Smi speakers shall be able to use their language both orally and written, South Smi shall gain official status, South Smi children's identity shall be strengthened, and a common Smi identity shall be strengthened" (Holm Bull/Persson Toven/Dunfjeld 1992, chapter 11.2). As methods of achieving these aims, the report primarily suggests an increase in South Smi teaching, focussing on children's Smi identity. As a conclusion of the Sameting's work in its first four years, one finds that it was dominated by defining its tasks. The most important basis for language was the Language Act, but also negotiations with the government on the Sameting's tasks laid the groundwork for the time to come. In addition, a couple of concrete steps were taken. Policies by the government and the Sameting mostly headed in similar directions. Here, it is necessary to keep in mind that the government was still in charge of many aspects of Smi policy, and it generally showed its responsibility in approaching many topics. The Sameting focused more on investigations and the development of strategies, whereas the government often saw its task in funding institutions such as in the cultural field. In total, the Language Act and other measures indicated that the government continued to develop a Smi policy, now in cooperation with the Sameting. The government and the Sameting were thus working towards the common goal of giving Smi more room and the guarantee for a lively Smi-speaking community.
121
8.5 Scholars' Comments

How were these events evaluated by scholars and Smi activists in the mid-1990s? Lewis (1998: 155-158) gives a generally positive picture of the measures taken in Norway. On the other hand, he also sees the problems still underlying the political structure: "While the Smi assembly can negotiate, it certainly cannot make decisions nor generally act on behalf of the Smi people. Even its capacity to negotiate, and to stand up for the collective interests of the Smi people vis--vis the state, is seriously constrained by the problem of inadequate State funding commitments." Jernsletten (1993: 130-131) is carefully optimistic in his evaluation of the Language Act: "It is appropriate to question whether it is too late to heal the wounds of the prior policies of Norwegianization. () Language provision of the Sami Act and educational legislation can help arrest the Sami language's negative development in Norway. But the influences of Norwegian and English on TV and video programs, music cassettes, etc., tend to stimulate the opposite development." Magga (1995: 231) is more positive on the Smi Language Act in arguing that "it is undeniable that the new rules are a big step forward." However, he remains critical on the subject that not enough has changed in many domains of language use. Commenting on the significance of the laws in principle and in practice in various areas, Magga writes in 1995: "The legislation enlarges the area of application of the Smi language substantially, most strikingly in the courts and the police" (Magga 1995: 226). Concerning education, Magga welcomes that the law applies to all children in the Smi area, and that Smi education can be made compulsory by local bodies. He also expresses his hopes that the Smi Language Council will be able to work more systematically than the previous Smi Language Board (Magga 1995: 229). However, he also admits that "although Smi is now in principle equal with Norwegian, these regulations clearly do not ensure full equality." Points to generate criticism are the territorial limits of the Act, and opposition to the Language Act which has to be overcome. There are no changes in social/health welfare, where Smi has not yet received formal recognition. Further obstacles include the limitation to the North Smi area, inadequate rules on study leave, which should apply for all bodies where Smi is required, and the perception that the "regulations are maximally general" (Magga 1995: 230). Magga concludes that "the problem today is not so much to fight for rights but how to practically implement the Smi Language Law. () Little work on language cultivation and terminology has been done, and few people are good at written Smi. The education system has had too little time and too few resources to have been able to equip us to meet the many challenges we are confronted with" (Magga 1995: 231). In 1997, Magga confirms this carefully positive view: "The year 1992 saw a break through of public use of Smi. In that year, both Norway and Finland established legislation which guaranteed Smi speakers the right to be understood and to receive answers in Smi and the right to individual service in Smi in public" (Magga 1997: 159). He also reports that the measures taken have had an immense impact
122
on attitudes towards the Smi language, which for the first time had left its unofficial niche: "The measures which had been started had a positive impact primarily on attitudes towards the Smi language. But if they are really sufficient for securing a future for the language is far from certain" (Magga 1997: 160). Besides this insecurity about the future, there are also further political targets which remain to be addressed: "A long-term goal has to be that public employees can communicate in Smi, orally and written." In this context, we must not forget that there also was an important symbolic value in these measures. By giving Smi official attention, the government sent a clear signal to both Smi and Norwegians that the times of low prestige of the Smi language were over. Greller (1996: 95-97) supports this ambiguous view: "All in all, the situation of the Smi languages shows a diverse picture, which leaves only partly room for the hope of survival. () The future of the language can only lie in growth. For this purpose, urgent action is needed to spread the language among non-Smispeaking Smi. But learners need a welcoming environment ()." Despite policy changes, he reports that there was still very little public visibility of the Smi language in every-day life in the 1990s a picture which remains unchanged until the new millennium: "The language provision at the moment is not very eye-catching. In the entire Smi settlement area, bilingual signs are largely missing." Due to this, an important psychological sign for the Smi, but also for awareness-raising among outsiders, is still missing. Other areas where improvements were needed, according to Greller, included terminology and word creation, several fields of education, such as secondary schooling or the creation of mono-lingual teaching environments (e.g. by establishing language centres), and the lack of any legal guarantees for Lule and South Smi. On the use of Smi in administration, a study by zerk/Eira in the mid-1990s commissioned by the Smi Language Council provides the perspective that Smi society was rapidly changing and had a strong need for more services in Smi. In order to provide for these, "it is necessary to make use of the resources and potentials available by individuals. An extension of Smi usage in public administration touches bilingual awareness at all levels in society." Especially in the Administrative Area, "there is a big need for Smi-Norwegian productive bilinguals". However, given that "a considerable proportion of employees in these municipalities have () at least one area of competence in Smi", adequate "compulsory educational offers" and "systematic career planning" could improve the situation in comparatively short time (zerk/Eira 1996: 41). Todal reports of an increase in student numbers, which he perceives as a clear sign of successful RLS measures. The number of students who received instruction in the Smi language in Norway almost doubled in 9 years, from 1214 in 1990 to 1698 in 1994 to 2347 in 1999. Of these, also the number of pupils in compulsory education receiving instruction in Smi as a first language had increased from 593 in 1990 to 971 in 1999, i.e. by 63.7% (Todal 2002c: 5-6).

Year 1990 1994 1999 Students receiving Smi education in Norway 1214 1698 2347 % of 1990 100 139.9 193.3 Students receiving Smi L1 education in Norway 593 789 971
123
% of 1990 100 133.1 163.7
Table 29: Student Numbers in Smi Instruction in Norway in 1990, 1994 and 1999
Summarising, most scholars thus generally agreed on the positive effect of the Sameting on Smi Language Policy during the 1990s. At first, the general frame of future Smi policy was shaped, with the Language Act as the most crucial milestone. When these issues had been determined, policy went back to concentrate on minor issues, including general plans for an increase of Smi usage, but also corpus planning. In total, the Smi language was strengthened, and Smi influence had come a lot closer to the decision-making process. Yet, many items still remained unresolved. Brantenberg (1995: 28) emphasised that language issues are only one part of Smi policy. Apart from the positive developments in language issues, few changes in central fields such as land rights had been achieved. In 1993, "the old Smi issues of self-government and territorial rights were once more surfacing in the public debate. Smi rights to land, sea and freshwater, and Smi customary law the most basic indigenous issues still remained unrecognised and proved to be highly contentious. Recurrent conflicts over management of natural resources in Smi areas could be seen to express a continued lack of clearness and ambiguity in the new governmental Smi policies."
9 Language Issues and the Sameting in the First Years of the New Millennium
124
9.1 Smi Issues in the Norwegian State
The previous chapter dealt with the initial effects that the establishment of the Sameting had on Smi language policy. Now it is time to look at the situation a decade later, by analysing issues that the Sameting has taken up in the first years of the millennium.
9.1.1 Norwegian-Smi Relations and Language Issues The government's position on the transfer of competence to the Sameting is exemplified by a Storting Report from 2003-2004. In the chapter on "Smi culture and language", the subsection "Cooperation with the Sameting" reports (Stortinget 2003-04, Chapter 4.1): "In 2002, the administration of a number of cultural institutions was transferred from the Department of Culture and Church to the Sameting, including the Smi Special Library, artists' scholarships, the control of the Smi language law, and Smi museums, archives, music festivals and theatres. The Sameting now administers a frame budget on culture, and it is up to the Sameting to choose priorities." The Sameting's President, Sven-Roald Nyst, in January 2004 commented on the Storting's report on culture (Norske Samers Riksforbund 2004): "The government has not followed its responsibilities. () The perspectives which are named for Norwegian culture in the report must also be valid for Smi culture." The Sameting here unambiguously points to the state's responsibility for Smi culture, and expresses its expectations that the state will provide the necessary steps for its development. Nyst repeatedly called for an improvement of the status of Smi. In his speech at the turn of the year 2001-2002, he also pointed to the on-going struggle for more Smi influence, despite some achievements (Nyst 2001). And also in his speech at the NSR's national convention in June 2003, Nyst (2003b) explained a number of aims that needed to be addressed, among which were also several language issues. Of central importance was the planned extension of the Smi Administrative Area. Nyst welcomed the application of Tysfjord municipality to become part of the area, as well as discussions on possible applications of the Evenes, Sknland and Snsa municipalities. As a matter of fact, the inclusion of Tysfjord had by the end of 2004 been positively received by the Norwegian government (Regjeringen i Norge, Kultur- og Kirkedepartmentet 2004). In total, however, language was not among the prime issues any more in Nyst's characterisation of current affairs on January 1st, 2003. The most important issues were general Smi rights and right to negotiations with the state as equal partners, and not as supplicants
125
(Nyst 2003a). Achievements in language rights had reached a point at which the focus could be directed to other, just as fundamental, issues. This lack of public attention today, however, does not mean that language work has lost its importance it is simply carried out more quietly, at a time when most fundamental decisions have, at this stage, been taken.
9.1.2 The Norwegian-Smi Relations in the Light of Self-Determination Rights A central issue in Nyst's speech in June 2003 was the discussion of the special Law on Finnmark County, the Finnmarksloven. In its preparation, the Sameting chose a strategy to cooperate with the non-Smi population in Finnmark against the proposals by the government in Oslo. This is interesting in the context of making the Smi issue a regional one, in which the old opposition between Smi and Norwegians, or the coastal against the inland population, is replaced by a centrum periphery conflict. The Finnmarksloven directly affects the relation between the Smi and the state in that duties towards the Smi population as guaranteed by human rights and international law have to be created in a dialogue between the Sameting and the Norwegian authorities. That the relation of the Smi to the Norwegian state is still seen as far from perfect becomes clear when looking at how more Smi influence on political decisions can be achieved. In a speech on December 31st, 2001, Nyst reminded his listeners that "important activities are going on healing the Smi wounds of previous Norwegianisation policies. But reconciliation requires that something is done to compensate for privation." He focused on a fund for the Smi people which had been promised, but not yet realised. From a Scottish perspective, as will become apparent later, it is remarkable to what degree the discussion centres on Smi rights and the compensation of the state for previous injustice: "The historic pains of the Smi people are still visible () when parents of Smi children even today complain about a lack of Smi schooling for their children, even though they have a right to it by law. We need to talk to the Prime Minister about this. () Reconciliation, renewal, equality and partnership have to be central aims, and the Smi People's Fund will be important to help in this" (Nyst 2001). It is exactly this the nature of negotiations of equal partners which the Sameting in its 2001 Annual Report called for as the basic principle for the development of Smi-Norwegian relations in the future: "In line with indigenous peoples in the whole world, also the Smi are stressing that they have a right to self-determination." The content of this self-determination "has to be defined through negotiations between two equal partners. () A central moment is that indigenous peoples do not negotiate in order to get rights, but on how inherited rights shall be incorporated into respective national law." That these rights are not considered to be fulfilled is made explicit when stating that "the Sameting is not satisfied by the way the
126
central authorities have so far dealt with the lawful Smi demands of self-determination" (Sametinget 2001d). Such an argumentation indicates the general discourse under which negotiations takes place a position that Gaelic speakers in Scotland can only dream of. The reasoning for negotiations based on self-determination becomes even more explicit in the 2002 speech by Nyst already referred to above. He develops political aims to comply with the right of the Smi to self-determination within the Norwegian state: "In the past years I have to an increasingly strong extent experienced that the state has established the Sameting in order to secure control over the Smi. () The discussion about Smi self-determination is therefore to a high extent a discussion about the Sameting's strategic position in the Norwegian political system. Shall the Smi through the Sameting have their own say in the management of their own future? Shall the Smi have the control over the development of knowledge about themselves, and the control over possession over their economy, natural resources and culture?" (Nyst 2002c). However, Nyst also points out that nation building in the sense of political separatism is not the aim: "Implicitly, and sometimes directly, we are asked if our aim is an own Smi state. Those who follow what we are doing understand that our policies do not aim at creating new borders, but quite contrarily try to abolish the obstacles which state borders constitute for Smi life and co-operation" (Nyst 2002c). As a whole, there is thus a big gap between the Sameting's expectations and its position, although Smi politicians recognises the general will of the government to transfer further competences to the Sameting. These documents show that the fight for more Smi rights is not over. In the Sameting's eyes, only a negotiation model on budget and policy issues will help to lay a reliable ground for the Sameting's work. These issues should be dealt with by two equal partners, instead of the Sameting appearing as supplicant. More competence for the Sameting also means a higher budget to be able to carry out additional tasks. In addition, there is the problem that government departments seem to withdraw their financial support once the decision-making competence is transferred to the Sameting. According to the Sameting (2001d), its "aim is that all public bodies have a shared responsibility for Smi community development."
9.2 The Development of the Smi Language Budget

In order to identify the development of the financial means available for Smi language policy, a brief look at the development of the language budget from 2000 to 2002 is useful. As explained above, the Sameting is dependent on funding from various government departments, with the Department of Municipal and Regional Affairs providing the lion's share. The Sameting's expenses did indeed increase considerably between 2000 and 2002. Concerning the education budget, one has to keep in mind that these are only expenses on
127
Smi education in addition to the usual expenses by the Norwegian state within the general educational framework. From 2000 to 2002, this budget increased by 14.1%, including a small new post for scholarships and a high increase in funding of instruction material:
Budget Post Teaching material Scholarships Kindergartens Education Budget 2000 (1000 NOK) 10954 0 7200 18154 2002 (1000 NOK) 12204 1000 7510 20714 + 1000 NOK 1250 1000 310 2560 +% 11.4 4.3 14.1
Table 30: The Sameting's Education Budget 2000-2002 (Sametinget 2001c)
The cultural budget even saw an increase by 74.8%. This can mostly be explained by the transition of competence from the government to the Sameting, as indicated in the new posts for the Smi theatre, scholarships, festivals, and sports, whereas the budget for organisations and the cultural foundation decreased, and posts for publishing and cultural centres remained stable:
Budget Post Smi Cultural Foundation Smi Publishing Smi Cultural Centres Smi Cultural Organisations Festivals Sports Beaivv Smi Theatre Artist Scholarships Budget on Culture 2000 (1000 NOK) 9475 1500 4443 1583 0 0 0 0 17001 2002 (1000 NOK) 9000 1520 4228 1093 1128 500 10700 1300 29469 + 1000 NOK - 475 20 - 215 - 490 1128 500 10700 1300 12468 +% - 5.0 1.3 - 4.8 - 30.1 73.3
Table 31: The Sameting's Budget on Culture 2000-2002 (Sametinget 2001c)
The language post was further divided into the areas of bilingualism measures in the Administrative Area, projects outside that area, and language centres. The general goal of funding is to achieve fully bilingual administration to provide equal services in Smi and Norwegian.
Budget Post Bilingualism Language Projects Outside Administrative Area Language Centres Language Budget 2000 (1000 NOK) 16650 2956 0 19606 2002 (1000 NOK) 25050 2450 2000 29500 + 1000 NOK 8400 - 506 2000 9894 +% 50.5 - 17.1 50.5
Table 32: The Sameting's Budget on Language 2000-2002 (Sametinget 2001c)
Funding for language projects outside the Administrative Area in 2001 was distributed equally to the three dialects, plus a small amount for a language motivation prize. However, applications for projects amounted to more than double the sum, namely NOK 5,387,393 in 2001, coming from a total of 22 applicants.
Budget Post North Smi Area (incl. coastal and fjord areas in Ofoten and South Troms) Lule Smi Area South Smi Area Language Motivation Prize Further Language Projects NOK 798 668 798 668 798 668 10 000 2 406 000
128
Table 33: The Sameting's Budget for Language Projects outside the Smi Administrative Area 2001 (Sametinget 2002c)
The Sameting's budget suggestions for 2003 confirm that Smi politicians considered even more drastic increases necessary, with the total budget almost doubling from 2001 to the 2003 suggestions. It is interesting to note that of the core issues in our context, language increased proportionally, whereas culture and education were among the posts where highest increases were demanded (of 229.8% and 116.9% respectively; Sametinget 2001c). The relative importance of language issues thus remained stable at around 13.5%, whereas culture and education increased their share from 11.8% to 20.0% and from 14.5% to 16.1% of the entire budget suggestions.
2001 (1000 NOK) 8548 45845 1800 22210 17235 19856 1970 5762 21064 1300 0 0 0 145590 % 2001 2002 (1000 NOK) 11060 48168 3412 21630 29719 29200 10515 4900 20714 1100 5200 4182 0 189800 Sugg. 2003 (1000 NOK) 11060 60456 5412 24630 56843 38250 22294 4900 45687 1100 6400 5500 1500 284032 % Sugg. 2003 3.9 21.3 1.9 8.7 20.0 13.5 7.8 1.7 16.1 0.4 2.3 1.9 0.5 100 + 1000 NOK (2001 Sugg. 2003) 2512 14611 3612 2420 39608 18394 20324 - 862 24623 - 200 6400 5500 1500 138442 +% (2001 Sugg. 2003) 29.4 31.9 200.7 10.9 229.8 92.6 1031.7 - 15.0 116.9 - 15.4 95.1
Operating Expenses Political Leadership Operating Expenses Administr. Special Operating Expenses Economy Development Culture Smi Language Environment/Culture Protection Other Funding (Political) Education International Cooperation Health and Social work Library Busses Gender Emancipation Sameting Budget
5.9 31.5 1.2 15.3 11.8 13.6 1.4 4.0 14.5 0.9 0 0 0 100
Table 34: Suggested Budget Increases by the Sameting 2003
So what did Smi politicians think about these developments and the suggestions made by the government? A press release by the Sameting from October 2002 demands a higher increase of the Sameting's budget. Some increased funding is only labelled as changes in budget position or price adjustments (Sametinget 2002f). The same tone dominates one year later, when the low increase is again criticised and central needs of the Smi community are seen as not being matched (Sametinget 2003d). Even though Nyst gives credit to the Norwegian government for the increases, he stresses that "the state budget does not represent any true focus on the development of Smi
129
society." His main demand gets back to the relation between the Sameting and the Norwegian state. Instead of a budget attributed to the Sameting by the state, he calls for true negotiation between equal partners also in this context: "Time is ripe for obligatory budget negotiations between the Sameting and the government. () The State Budget for 2004 represents the absolute minimum in relation to needs by Smi society, and can not be called a budget based on visions" (Sametinget 2003d). Practical reasons for these increased demands are the need of the fulfilment of the right to Smi education, increased demands for Smi scholarships, an increased need for language development in modern technology, the extension of Smi media and publishing to make Smi more present in everyday life, and the wish to distribute Smi services all over the Smi-speaking area. Smi politicians' views were in sharp contrast to the position expressed by the government: "The government has by providing NOK 5 million in 2003 and by a suggested NOK 7 million for 2004 met the recommendations given in the report to increase the bilingualism means for work in the municipalities by NOK 12 million" (Stortinget 2003-2004). It is obvious what this means for the relation between the Sameting and the Norwegian government. The budget situation was thus in line with the demand for a change in the negotiation pattern as seen above. In total it is legitimate to conclude that through the on-going transfer of competence to the Sameting, the position of language issues has declined but only relative to other areas such as culture. In absolute numbers, the past years still saw a considerable increase in the Sameting's budget. This is, however, still seen as being insufficient by Smi politicians in order to fulfil the duties imposed on the Sameting by the government, and according to the Sameting's wishes.
9.3 Language Issues around 2002

9.3.1 The Road to the New Millennium Having seen which political and budgetary issues dominated the Sameting's agenda in recent years, the state of language affairs in the first years of the millennium will briefly be explained by the Sameting's Policy Agendas for the periods 1994 1997 and 1998 2001. In both, we find a desire to consolidate the achievements of the years before, in particular concerning the rights established by the Language Act, and to continue this development. In the 1994 1997 plan we read: "It is important to take care that the Smi Act's language rules are followed." The Sameting will try to be "an active promoter for that the Smi population will get the language offers they have a right to." For further developments, we find statements such as that "it is a challenge to strengthen the use of the Smi language in public administration also outside the Administrative Area. This is necessary for improving the language's status and by this stimulating an increased use of Smi in these
130
areas." In order to achieve these aims, the Sameting will work for "plans with concrete language measures in South Smi and Lule Smi areas, as well as the Ofoten, Senja and South Troms areas" and for that "the Administrative Area for Smi will be extended to include more areas and dialects." Measures are to establish centres and summer schools for Smi, and that "Smi training efforts will be established under the control of the budget for the labour market" (Sametinget 1993a). In 1998, an analysis of political aims of the Sameting's language work by the Sameting and the Councils for Smi Language and Education came to the conclusion that the major topics to be dealt with in the following years were an active follow-through of language work outside the Smi Administrative Area, ensuring the receipt of grants for diverse language support projects, terminology development, language use research, and official examinations for interpreters for in order to provide them with an official certificate for their work (cf. Stortinget 2000/01). The policy plan for the period 1998 2001 names as a major aim that "Smi language work shall be strengthened and developed in all regions" and that "Smi and Norwegian shall be equal languages in Smi communities". The major challenge is "to get more Smi to actively use the Smi language." At the same time, it is an important task to "overcome attitudes which hinder this development." As policy measures, language centres have to be strengthened, and individuals shall be encouraged to use "the Smi language in any context, both in public and private." That the Language Act provides a very valuable tool for argumentation is exemplified by the intention to "follow that the work concerning language development in municipal and regional bodies in the Smi Administrative Area and in State bodies which have a lot to do with the area, are in line with the Act's intentions." The general tone of the 1990s can thus be summarised in that after the achievement of legal guarantees, it was now time to implement these rules, and to overcome obstacles for implementation. After the rights-based approach of Smi language policy had ensured Smi usage in different domains in theory, policy now aimed at influencing attitudes and values, and at creating more language competence. The following will show more closely what these efforts have been able to achieve.
9.3.2 Principles and General Aims of Language Issues in 2002 As the basis for its work on language, the Sameting in its 2001 Annual Report wrote: "Language is the most important human device of expression and communication and a central factor in identity creation. Language is the basis for cultural development. Whenever the language which a culture is bound to disappears, the most important cultural distinction is gone" (Sametinget 2001d). Apparently, Smi officials still felt the need to emphasise the essentialist role of language for the Smi, which they still perceived as threatened. Also, concerning cross-border Smi cooperation, Nyst stressed that
131
"according to the common perception of the three Sametings' Presidents, the work with the Smi language and education shall receive the highest priority in the Smi Parliamentary Council in the next years" (Nyst 2002b). In addition, the repetition of the aims of the Smi Act's Language Rules in the report shows that the fundamental pattern of language issues has not changed (Sametinget 2001d): The opportunity for Smi speakers to use Smi in public bodies shall be created. The authorities have a duty to use Smi. There is a need for information both for public administration and for Smi users of public services. In relation to information efforts it has to be made explicit that Smi speakers are able to decide for themselves when they wish to use Smi. This is to be seen in the light of Smi maintenance in the future. The Sameting's Council in October 2001 issued a general statement on current projects (Sametingsrdet 2001). The basic aim with regard to language was to put into practice the equal position of Norwegian and Smi. As concrete measures, it suggested increased efforts for the socalled lost generation and the extension of the Administrative Area referred to above. Project priorities by the Sameting's Language Department according to its Annual Report 2001 included the areas of terminology work, the creation of meetings of different generations to cooperate in Smi language use and communication, literacy development in Smi, children and youth projects, and a language motivation prize. The Sameting should be authorised to decide what exactly shall be translated into Smi, and shall be given the right to establish more detailed rules for the translation of laws, forms and official information. Concerning language development work, the report conveys: "Individuals have to be motivated, information has to be provided for the authorities and for those who are opposing the use of Smi, suggestions for language initiatives have to be made, and it has to be ensured that individuals receive language services according to their rights. In all this, the Sameting has a guiding function" (Sametinget 2001d). Smi is still to be regarded as a threatened language, given the small number of users in only a few widespread language milieus. Concerning political competence, the Sameting should have the full competence to administer the Smi language in Norway. In education, a coherent, holistic approach is called for. Traditional Smi values, language and culture should be integrated into modern knowledge society. Smi identity and feelings of belonging to the Smi society are to be strengthened. Schools are central for the transmission of values among the generations. The Smi College is to be upgraded to university level, with the long-term goal of creating a Smi University. Other measures to enhance include Smi health and social services according to specific Smi values, language and culture, under direct participation
132
of the Sameting, and an adequate economic basis for Smi culture. Smi artists, museums etc. are asked to cooperate closely with the Sameting. One focus of the Sameting's language work in recent years was the establishment of a number of language centres. As an example, Nyst's speech at the official opening of a centre in Tana in November 2002 recalls experiences that show that these centres create interest in Smi language and culture and manage to strengthen and maintain Smi language and culture in everyday life and in public contexts: "The language centres' aim is to involve local people to contribute with their knowledge and competence to the offers provided. Language instruction is carried out through writing courses and "Language Baths". The Language Bath model is based on that the language shall be heard and used in relation to traditional activities. () The language centres offer Smi language services for children, adolescents and adults and shall be a place where it is natural to speak Smi" (Nyst 2002a). Therefore such centres remain a priority for the Sameting's language work. At the same time, Nyst stresses the importance of local activity, without which these centres are unlikely to succeed, if they are perceived as imposed from outside, without the demand by the community.
9.3.3 Concrete Language Projects by the Sameting Having identified general aims of Smi language policy by the Sameting, concrete language tasks by the Sameting around 2002-2003 were based on the fundamental perception "that there is need for it and the possibility to use it in a natural way, not just in private, but also in public circumstances, that it is able to develop itself through its use and preservation, and that it is strengthened both in areas where it is strong and where it is weak. The Smi languages are nowhere in a safe position" (Sametinget 2002d). The underlying, long-term vision is that Smi speakers shall be able to use Smi in all areas and levels of society as a natural communication device ("to manage in the Smi language"). For this purpose, the two major target areas are children (especially through kindergartens) and administration. Where the language has been lost, revitalisation shall be given a chance. The Sameting thereby intends to develop a coherent language policy for the entire Smi population. For a further analysis, once again the Sameting's documents of that time will be used. The document Merknader til virksomheten i Samisk sprkrd (Annotations to activities of the Smi Language Council) consists of the following sub chapters, which give an overview of the most important language policy areas (Sametinget 1999: 31-33): Language use investigation, the use of bilingualism funding, the right to Smi education, terminology work, the Smi word data base, language work outside the Administrative Area, and the Smi Nordic Language Council. In addition to these, the overview on language issues under the heading "Work concerning the Smi
133
language" also mentions rules for interpreting, language use in public bodies, and scholarships for Smi youth (Sametinget 1999: 54-55). In addition, the Sameting's Policy Agenda 2002 2005 has a comparable list of linguistic aims (Sametinget 2001a): 1. Maintenance, vitalisation, development of Smi language as basis for the future of Smi culture, which 2. requires active use in the Smi population in all situations of every-day life both at home and in public. 3. To motivate everybody to use Smi in all contexts, everywhere in Smi society, and to contribute to the linguistic campaign "Smegielain birge!". 4. Further work on the Smi word data base. 5. Further development of Language Centres. 6. Increased use of Smi by Norwegian and Smi authorities in order to show its official position to the Smi and to demonstrate its status. 7. Calls for a monitoring body to control language use in public bodies. 8. The Smi population must get to the point where it does not take it for granted anymore that their language cannot be used in diverse public and private contexts. 9. A visualisation of the Smi language. 10. Research on the linguistic and cultural consequences of technological developments. 11. Demands for a holistic Smi Language Policy in entire Spmi. 12. Intensification of solutions for the use of Smi in IT. In comparison to previous agendas, the fundamental principles of language work remain. However, the measures targeted have become more detailed. In many cases, the tone is more optimistic: It seems as if language work has already shown some success. After more than a decade of intense language planning, the focus has changed from initiating basic investigation and programmes to advanced follow-ups, evaluation and monitoring. The fundamental threat to the Smi language, however, has not gone. The list of agenda items presented in Table 35 indicates that issues discussed in the Sameting's Language Department in 2001 and 2002 point towards similar foci. It shows at the same time how regularly language issues were dealt with (not presented in this list are agenda items dealing with the internal organisation only; Sametingets Sprkavdeling 2001/2002).
Item SG 004/01 SG 005/01 SG 006/01 Issue Terminology Work Language motivation project: organisation Miscellaneous: Lule Smi Newspaper Introduction of bilingual name for the County of Finnmark Means for Smi language work Language technology Smi orthography Computer terminology list Introduction of trilingual (Norwegian-Smi-Kven) name for municipality of Porsanger Task Description for Lule and South Smi Language Consultants Language motivation prize The Sameting's Language Policy Rules for the Sameting's language motivation prize Labelling of milk and dairy products in Smi Nordic Smi cooperation in language issues Establishment of terminology groups Acceptance of computer word list Acceptance of meeting word list Acceptance of word list for reindeer act South Smi terminology Lule Smi terminology Administrative names Miscellaneous: Orthography of Smi place names Change in Place Names Act Details of Smi Language Support Action Plan South and Lule Smi areas Language consultants work Report on Smi education outside the Administrative Area hearing Translation of expressions referring to the Smi /the Sameting in Norway Lule Smi terminology South Smi word list acceptance Acceptance of Word list for Alta secondary school North Smi word list for the University of Troms Acceptance of word list of pedagogical and psychological terms Miscellaneous: linguistic control of Smi school books Orthography of Smi place names Language motivation prize 2002 Demand for Smi computer language support Influence of new name law on Smi names Smi names of the Norwegian government departments The Sameting's Language Policy Expenses for bilingualism in municipalities and counties Acceptance of mathematics word list Miscellaneous: Language in school books Use of pronunciation accents Availability of older Smi books Language in school text books The words oahppo-, oahppa- and oahpahus (education, knowledge) Text book orthography The Sameting's report on the Smi language Acceptance of new South Smi words Miscellaneous: Threat to close down Elg Smi centre Evaluation of Smi Act's language rules Lavangen municipality Smi schooling request Lule Smi terminology group Administration terminology Domain Corpus Planning Attitudes Media Administration, Symbolism General Media Corpus Planning Media, Corpus Planning Administration, Symbolism
134
SG 009/01 SG 010/01 SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG 012/01 013/01 014/01 04/02 05/02 06/02 07/02 08/02 09/02
SG 10/02 SG SG SG SG 11/02 12/02 13/02 16/02
General Attitudes General Attitudes Economy International Cooperation Corpus Planning, Media Corpus Planning Corpus Planning, Administration Corpus Planning, Economy, Traditions Corpus Planning Corpus Planning Administration Corpus Planning Legislation, Symbolism Attitudes General Corpus Planning Education Corpus Planning Corpus Corpus Corpus Corpus Planning Planning Planning, Education Planning, Education
SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG
20/02 21/02 22/02; 23/02 24/02 25/02 28/02 29/02; 30/02 31/02 32/02 33/02 34/02 35/02 36/02 37/02
Corpus Planning, Education Education Corpus Planning Attitudes Media Legislation Administration, Symbolism, Corpus Planning General Administration Corpus Planning Education Corpus Planning Media Education Corpus Planning, Education Corpus Planning, Education General Corpus Planning General, Motivation Legislation Education Corpus Planning Corpus Planning, Admin.
SG SG SG SG SG SG
40/02 41/02 42/02 43/02 44/02 46/02
Table 35: Major Issues in the Sameting's Language Department 2001-2002
135
In the Sameting's Council, language was, of course, not as frequently dealt with as in the Language Department, but also here, the wide presence and range of language issues was displayed. Table 36 shows which items these were for the years 2001-2003 (Sametingsrdet 20012003):
Item R 38/01 R 48/01 R 52/01 R 79/01 R 127/01 R 14/02 R 17/02 R 18/02 R 45/02 R 54/02 R 61/02 R 65/02 R 66/02 R 80/02 R 84/02 R 92/02 R 98/02 R 106/02 R 08/03 R 17/03 R 34/03 Issue Language motivation project Establishment of work group Smi media policy fundamental aims and principles Smi archive, documentation and information centre Hearing law change for the introduction of bilingual name of Finnmark county Rules for language scholarship for Smi youth in secondary schools Rules for Smi art scholarships Organisation of teacher education Hearing Evaluation of Smi book production Rules for funding of Smi publishing Study leave rules for teachers to additional education in Smi Smi IT signs Stortingsmelding 34 (2001-2002) Quality reform on higher Smi education and research Stortingsmelding 55 (2000-2001) and 33 (2001-2002) On Smi Policy South Smi Action Plan Rules for Sameting's Language Steering Stortingsmelding 34 (2001-2002) Quality reform on higher Smi education and research Smi teaching outside the Administrative Area Rules for funding of language support projects outside the Administrative Area Smi Administrative Area extension Smi pre-school teachers' and teachers' education curricula Rules for language projects within the Smi Administrative Area Domain General, Attitudes Media Culture, Media Administration/ Legislation Education Culture Education Media Media Education Media Education General General General Education Education General Administration/ Legislation Education General
Table 36: Language Issues in the Sameting's Council, 2001-2003
In the Sameting's plenum in the period of 1998-2002, language issues were discussed in depth only in the annual reports. This shows that most language issues were not seen as so fundamental anymore as to give them room at the very highest political level, but were now mostly delegated to the working level, where they appeared in sub-committees, but also as part of budget discussions and the comments to the government's policy. Some central issues, however, existed despite these developments, including (cf. Sametinget 1999, 2001c, 2002c, 2002d):
Item 21/99 22/99 Mtebok 2/01 07/02 32/02 02/03 Issue Smi Cultural Centre Common Smi Language cooperation Smi media policy fundamental aims and principles Smi book production South Smi area policy Extension of Administrative Area (Tysfjord) Domain Culture International Cooperation Media Media General Legislation, Administration
Table 37: Major Language Issues in the Sameting's Plenum, 1999-2003
Much of what has been said about the change in the nature of policy issues above is thus also true when looking at these three tables of agenda items. Fundamental issues which
136
established the frame for further policy development are much less frequent than previously. What dominates are corpus planning issues, education, minor legislative issues and attitude policies. The situation is still perceived as being bad mainly outside the core area, e.g. for South Smi, but also in other areas where language centres have become regular institutions. It is thus possible to conclude that channels of language planning were well-established and consistently used. The large amount of corpus planning efforts, particularly through the establishment of word lists, strikingly shows how more and more linguistic domains were to be won for the Smi language. The conclusion from above, however, remains also true that the basic fear about language survival has not gone.
9.3.4 The Smi Language in the Sameting in 2002 In the overview of language policy around 2002, I get now back to Smi language use in the Sameting itself. Even though, as outlined, general demands to minority language presence in parliaments were fulfilled in the Sameting from the start, ideas about the enhanced usage of Smi in the Sameting's every-day work were much more ambitious. In particular concerning the selfperception as a model for public bodies and the role for Smi identity, this is of great importance for the position of the Smi language: If not even the highest political body is able to carry out its business in Smi, how are other institutions supposed to do so? As a report from a work group in the Sameting in March 2002 on language use stresses, the Sameting also functions as a large and attractive place of work. It is a challenge for all who wish to work there to learn Smi and for the Sameting to enable all employees to use the language during their work (Sametinget 2002i). Regarding the Sameting's internal language planning rules from 1992, the report comes to a negative conclusion: "The internal language rules have not been put in practice." Several aspects of the 1992 decisions have not been realised. A clear signal of this is the fact that the document has still not been taken to the point were a concrete date was fixed, onwards from which these rules apply. Neither have negotiations between the Sameting's Council and employees' organisations have taken place, which were also part of the 1992 agreement. Yet, the 1992 aims are still seen as a reasonable point of departure for concrete language rules. Concerning the Sameting's staff's language skills, research on the Sameting's employees' language competence from 2001 comes to the conclusion that "the Sameting has a lot of Smi language competence. It is a challenge for the managers to distribute this competence in a way that the Sameting can function in Smi." Of 99 employees, 64 can write Smi, an additional 11 speak Smi, and 13 can only understand Smi. This means that only 11 employees have no Smi competence at all.
137
However, concerning the practical use of Smi in the different departments, the result is far more negative. Only 40% of internal information in the Sameting is in Smi. Internal notes are even 95% in Norwegian. Work on applications and other administration issues is mostly carried out in Norwegian, and minutes are usually taken in Norwegian and translated into Smi. Interestingly, this is not because of the reluctance of the employees to use the language: Many employees would wish to use Smi more regularly, and those with a lack of proficiency call for increased chances for learning. An exception to the rule is the Language Department, where also every-day tasks are mostly carried out in Smi. In total, it is remarkable that linguistic culture in the different departments is different. However, the attitude of employees to the language is generally positive. And also concerning the employment of new staff, the Sameting has established basic principles, e.g. in that good Smi competence, orally and written, shall be given attention when it comes to employment. Whenever applicants' competences are seen as being equal, Smi competence shall be the decisive factor. Employees in the Sameting must also have Smi cultural competence. For future developments, the report issues a number of suggestions for strengthening the use of Smi in the organisation: "The rules on language use in the Sameting's administration have the principal aim to realise the use of Smi as the main language in the Sameting and strengthen competence in all three dialects." All internal documents shall be written in Smi and translated into Norwegian. Press releases and announcements shall also be written in Smi first; forms shall be issued in Smi and Norwegian. Letters shall be written in Smi to organisations in the Administrative Area (including to private companies). Outside the area, letters are to be bilingual. Finally, the Sameting suggests a project for language development which shall contribute to fulfilling the requirements of the Sameting's language policy through a concrete plan and thus live up to the model role the Sameting takes for all institutions dealing with Smi issues. It shall also prepare internal language development and teaching, which is to be adjusted to individual competence and working needs. As a long-term goal, all employees in the Sameting are to use Smi as their main language. In total, the report comes to the conclusion for the present state of Smi use in the Sameting that a persisting language nihilism must be overcome and that the employees' Smi competence must be developed and, where existing, made use of. Every-day administrative work shall ultimately take place in Smi, and managers must follow decisions and rules on language use. However, in direct comparison to the rules established in 1992, the underlying tone is much more optimistic. The use of the Smi language seems to occur on a much more regular basis. Generally, the propagation of equal bilingualism Smi-Norwegian (with the undertone that it will take some time to achieve this aim) is replaced by the propagation of Smi-dominant bilingualism.
138
9.4 Policies and Language Domains

In the previous section, language issues that the Sameting dealt with were identified from a perspective of agenda items and regarding lists of aspects that are seen as being important for the future. A more systematic evaluation of the state of the Smi language in Norway shall now take place based on the distinction of language policy according to domains of language use. The following points are based on a variety of sources and relevant institutions. From a government perspective, I will look at activities according to the Storting Report from 2003-2004 on the Sameting's activities in 2002 (Stortinget 2003-2004b). Relevant documents by the Sameting are on the one hand the plenary documents on comments to the Storting Reports (55 (2000-2001) Om samepolitikken and 33 (2001-2002) Additions to the Stortingsmelding 55 (2000-2001) Om samepolitikken). An even clearer picture of the Sameting's perspective on language is given by its 2001 and 2002 annual reports, which both include sections on Work in the Sameting. Other documents such as the Sameting's press releases, wherever they relate to language, give an additional picture. These are often more negative than the annual reports, as it is usually here where one particularly negative development is commented on.
9.4.1 "True" Language Issues I will again first look at direct language planning, often on the corpus planning side, as opposed to issues where language features only implicitly. It is important to keep in mind that many of the aspects named in the following are also interrelated with other domains of language use, such as the motivation project for kindergartens to education. As general guidelines of its work, the Sameting's Language Department named a focus on multilingual names of counties and municipalities, budget regulations for interpretation and bilingualism means in the Administrative Area, an approval of new terms and word lists, language motivation projects, and work to direct attention to the language situation in neglected areas.
9.4.1.1 Language Centres One particularly promising way of implementing RLS policies are the Smi Language Centres. These are of particular importance outside the Administrative Area. Responses to these centres, collected by the Sameting, largely showed that they proved to be successful for the development of language work as "an arena where Smi can be spoken, heard and made visible, and at the same time be a resource centre for the region" (Sametinget 2002a). In addition to existing centres in
139
Porsanger, Kfjord, Tysfjord and South Troms, a new centre opened for Varanger dialects in Nesseby in 2001 (Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). The language centres play a particular role in activating older people to teaching their knowledge to children and adolescents where Smi is not spoken at home and in the neighbourhood anymore. At the same time, the Sameting also expressed its wish for further improvements: "The language centres should also be able to offer secretary services for companies and organisations." As a consequence of this evaluation, "the Sameting will continue to establish further language centres" (Sametinget 2002a).
9.4.1.2 Terminology Work Another important field was terminology work. One focus was laid on the collection and registration of Smi place and personal names to make these names accessible for all users. The issue of place names carries a strong symbolic value, in particular in the context of a people so closely related to nature and their traditional area. The Sameting has constantly worked for the introduction of bilingual place names, and the municipalities in the Administrative Area have received bilingual official names, as well as the Counties of Finnmark and Troms. Porsanger municipality even has an official trilingual Norwegian/Smi/Kven name. The 2002 annual report additionally demands that Smi place names must be made much more visible in the public space which requires provision of information for local and regional public bodies. The fact that the Smi name consulting service was transferred to the Sameting's responsibility in 2002 is another example of how the Sameting manages to gain more competence. The task of the service is to administer Smi name issues and provide information for the public (Sametinget 2002a, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). The word data base is one of the long-term projects by the Sameting. It aims in particular to collect terms related to traditional ways of life which may get lost by changes in Smi society. It is essential that it includes words from all Smi language groups and dialects, in cooperation across borders. The collection of Smi terminology, in particular of non-standard dialects, is also to be one of the major tasks of the language centres. For this purpose, the Sameting's language department in 2001 published a guide as to how terminology work can be carried out.
9.4.1.3 Information Services The Sameting generally aimed at developing a Smi information service, primarily for spreading what is happening in the Sameting, but also including other events relevant for the Smi population. This requires considerable efforts and financial resources (Sametinget 2002a).
140
The Sameting's communication strategy is based on a research of needs. In 2002, there were 19,108 incoming and outgoing documents. The "Work in the Sameting" document in 2002 reports of a constant increase in information demands by individuals, companies as well as state and private organisations. On the other hand, a special strategy is needed for those Smi who still do not wish to identify with Smi culture. The Report 2001 also calls for an extension of the Sameting's web services, including the publication of all the Sameting's documents since 1989. The vision is to establish a serviceoriented administration, open to users 24 hours a day, including, for instance, web-based services of the Smi library. Again, the report does not fail to mention that "some of these measures are costly, and will need the dedication to financing by the Norwegian authorities" (Sametinget 2002a). A bilingual Smi-Norwegian web site was launched, including a short orientation in English. According to the report 2002, the site was well received by the public. Direct on-line transmission of the Sameting's plenary meetings was on a trial run in 2002 and was established in 2004. In addition to the services by the Sameting itself, the Sameting has also worked to convince other institutions to offer Smi services, e.g. in the frame of the Finnmark on the web (Finnmark p nett) project, a common web site for the municipalities of Finnmark.
9.4.1.4 Smi in IT IT in total is a crucial field if Smi is not to lose ground due to technological developments. One priority by the government was the development of Smi web sites, starting in 2003 as part of a campaign to make Smi more visible. The Sameting has participated in a work group on Smi IT signs as part of the government's plans for electronic services in Norway and has strongly urged the Norwegian government to support a set of signs which allows the easy use of Smi graphemes (Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). In addition, the project aims at contributing to "a growth of quality content in Smi, to Smi participation in relevant international IT cooperation, and to a continued development of the Smi IT branch" (Sametinget 2001d). The Government Department of Local and Regional Affairs established a competence base for the Smi language and IT called SamIT. In the eSpmi project, online services are to be developed in cooperation with the Department of Local and Regional Affairs, with financial support by the Department of Economy and Trade. Topics within this project are the support of Smi in IT, a Smi letter set for mobile phones, Smi orthography and other text software, and the preparation of a Smi language data base (Sametinget 2002a). As in many other minority language contexts, the data industry has not developed such products. The ministers responsible for Smi issues of Norway, Sweden and Finland and presidents of the three Sametings thus
141
launched an appeal to the IT industry to provide Smi IT equipment. A very positive example of what is theoretically possible also by private initiatives is an IT company which launched a Smi web reader. The company was officially praised by the Sameting in a Press Release in January 2003: "Now a Norwegian software company demonstrates that support of the Smi language in computer programmes is first a matter of will. () I hope that today's incidence is a first step in a development in which the computer branch contributes to visualise and care for the Smi language" (Sametinget 2003b).
9.4.1.5 Research Another important field was research on language knowledge, use and attitudes. In 1999/2000, research on the implementation of the Language Act by public bodies conveyed that it was still necessary to strengthen the Smi language as a language of every-day administration. In 2001, the Sameting initiated a large-scale research project on the population's attitudes and knowledge on Smi issues, on language competence and opinions on Smi culture and language, as well as on the awareness of the Smi population of their rights. The research showed that language, culture and education were among the issues that the population most strongly wished the Sameting to focus on and deal with. It was also seen as necessary to increase general knowledge on the Smi people. From 2003 to 2005, the Government's Department of Local and Regional Affairs, in cooperation with the Sameting, has carried out a project to improve knowledge on Smi. In particular children and young people are an important target group (Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget).
9.4.1.6 Language Motivation Stimulation As the last direct language planning issue, language motivation stimulation as an aspect directly affecting attitudes and beliefs was also of crucial importance. The basic aim of such projects is "to motivate individuals to use Smi in any context and anywhere in Smi society. This implies that we have to work for strengthening language competence so that it is possible to use Smi whenever it is natural or desirable, without having to give any explanation or experiencing resistance" (Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget) a statement which clearly illustrates the persisting power relation between Norwegian and Smi speakers. An annual prize is given to individuals or organisations that have contributed strongly to strengthen and develop the Smi language. The two prizes of 2001 and 2002 were respectively awarded to a Smi Language Group in South Troms and to an individual from the Kfjord Sea Smi area, where the Smi language has become very weak. The reason for awarding the prize in
142
2001 read as follows: "The Language Group in Sknland and Evenskjer has managed to motivate young people, adults, and older people for local language development" (Sametinget 2001b). The Annual Report stressed that "the language group has also succeeded in making use of the different generations in the work with Smi language tasks" (Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). Similarly, the Press Release in 2002 explains that "Harry Solhaug was born in 1935 and is today one of the youngest speakers of the Smi dialect of Manndal. He has worked with the registration of place names and explanations to these, Sea Smi terminology and cooperation with kindergartens, schools and the Language Centre in Kfjord. () It is important that there are persons () who care for their dialect and pass it on to younger generations" (Sametinget 2002j). A similar project, for a five-year period with a possible extension, was initiated for early teaching in kindergartens which "accompanies the children from kindergarten until they have been at school for several years" (Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). Table 38 summarises the issues labelled as "True Language Issues" and relates them to other domains of language planning:
Issue Language Centres Terminology Work Information Services Smi in IT Research Language Motivation Stimulation Related Domains Attitudes, Corpus Planning Corpus Planning, Administration Media Media, Economy, Corpus Planning Education Attitudes
Table 38: "True Language Issues" by the Sameting and their Relation to other Domains
9.4.2 Education I will now turn to education as one of the prime domains of minority language maintenance. Core educational issues for the Sameting, as expressed in 2001 and 2002, included a demand for Smi to become a means of communication at all levels through Smi-medium teaching in all school subjects. Additional costs for the municipalities are to be covered by the government. The Sameting also wished to receive administrative responsibility for education, including the curricula, in which alternative educational models based on Smi traditions should be included. As a long-term aim, every Smi-speaking child should have a right to a Smi-medium education. And last, increased cultural awareness had caused more demand for adult education, which also required better possibilities of study leave for employees (Sametinget 2002a). These demands will reappear in similar forms when now turning attention to sections of Smi education.
9 Language Issues and the Sameting in the First Years of the New Millennium 9.4.2.1 Kindergarten
143
In 2001, the Sameting took over the responsibility for Smi kindergartens. This was seen as a particularly crucial step, as kindergartens are seen as especially important for the development of Smi language and culture. 48 Smi-medium kindergartens were supported by additional funding. The Sameting also supported demands for a general right for all Smi children to have and be taught Smi in kindergartens. In particular outside the traditional Smi area, this is seen as being quite important for language maintenance (Sametinget 2002a). Two conferences on Smi kindergartens were held with this aim in 2001 and 2002, and a Smi pedagogical journal was launched (Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). The Sameting also urged the government to include a Smi perspective to the proposed reframing of the regulations for kindergartens in Norway. In general, information and counselling was seen as necessary for the use of Smi content in kindergartens, bilingual methods, and Smi teaching materials (Sametinget 2002a, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget).
9.4.2.2 School education in general The discussion on Smi school education circled around the demand to extend the right to Smi schooling. As the Sameting's vice president Ragnhild L. Nystad said in November 2002: "Smi pupils shall have the same right to Smi instruction, independent of their Smi background and their place of residence in Norway. The Sameting therefore wishes to contribute actively to good cooperation patterns between municipal, regional and national actors" (Sametinget 2002e). The underlying reasoning for this is that all Smi children have a legal right to Smi education, but not to Smi-medium education. This is what the Sameting tried to achieve, at both primary and secondary levels (Sametinget 2002c, Plenary Agenda Item 46/02). At the same time, Smi contents are to be part of the national curricula in all schools (Sametinget 2002a, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). This also included the demand for Smi in all school subjects in order for the children to get used to specific terminology at an early age. This is in particular important for overcoming traditional prejudices against the suitability of using Smi as a language in "higher" domains such as science. The Sameting supports teaching by providing guidance and other information for Smi teaching at primary and secondary levels. The Sameting also established a Smi Educational Network, oahpponeahtta, as an information and support tool for schools, kindergartens and parents (Sametinget 2002a, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget).
144
In general, the Sameting in 2001 concluded that "the intentions in the Education Act are not fulfilled in all contexts" (Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). An issue was also Smi schooling in Oslo, for which the Sameting offered local school authorities its help.
9.4.2.3 Primary Schools In primary schools in so-called Smi areas, which are not identical to the Administrative Area, all primary students have a right to Smi schooling as L2 and Smi-medium. Outside Smi areas, a right to Smi-medium schooling exists on demand by ten students in one municipality; if students drop out of this group, the right persists as long as at least six students remain in the group. In addition, any Smi student anywhere has a right to Smi L2 teaching (Regjeringen i Norge 1998, Section 6-2). In practice, Smi schooling has become the rule in the core areas. In total, there were 2618 primary students within Smi education in 2002-2003. These were, when separated according to the nature of the classes and the Smi dialects, the following (Stortinget 2003-2004b, chapter 5, Table 5.1 Elever etter sprktiltak 2002-2003):
Language Course Smi as First Language Smi as Second Language Smi Language and Culture 1037 754 827 Dialect North Smi Lule Smi South Smi 2358 138 122
Table 39: Pupils in Smi Education according to Language Courses and Dialects 2002-2003
Table 40 provides an example of the development of Smi schooling in the past decade. The example refers to schools run by the County of Finnmark (as opposed to municipal schools and schools in other counties), but it is generally representative of the situation. As we can see, numbers have indeed increased considerably, in particular the number of pupils receiving Smi schooling as their first language (Stortinget 2003-2004b, chapter 5, Table 5.3 Elevtallsutvikling ved fylkeskommunale skoler i Finnmark med samisk i fagkretsen):
Subject Smi as First Language Smi as Second Language Smi as Further Foreign Language or Elective Total 1993/94 4 26 55 85 1999/2000 70 36 67 173 2001/2002 110 35 59 204
Table 40: Pupil Numbers at Regional Schools in Finnmark with Smi as Subject 1993-2002
A positive development in this context was the opening of a South Smi school group with Smi as a first language (Sametinget 2002b). A remaining major reason for a denial of these rights to education in some areas, however, was the lack of adequate teachers and funding for
145
new teachers in the municipalities. The Sameting in 2001 also called for an intensification of the information being spread on Smi rights in the schools, in particular outside the Administrative Area. In total, however, the picture can be seen as quite positive.
9.4.2.4 Secondary Schools The situation in secondary schools was much less ideal, despite the individual right to secondary education for Smi pupils all over Norway. On the one hand, schools receive additional funding for every student who chooses a Smi programme to provide more incentives to make these attractive. In 2002, around 400 students received scholarships to go through Smi programmes by the Sameting. On the other hand, the personal right to Smi education in secondary schools is not given in reality, in particular outside the Administrative Area (Sametinget 2002a, Section Work in the Sameting). In the two entirely Smi secondary schools in Karasjok and Kautokeino, the number of students did not increase as has happened in the primary schools. It was rather unstable over the years, even though it has recently reached a higher level than at the start of the 1990s (Stortinget 2003-2004b, chapter 5, Table 5.2, Elevtallsutvikling ved de to samiske videregende skolene):
Institution Karasjok, General Secondary School Kautokeino, Vocational Secondary School Total 1993/94 120 110 230 1999/2000 118 68 186 2001/2002 88 71 159 2003/2004 115 138 253
Table 41: Development of Student Numbers in the two Smi Secondary Schools 1993 2004
The Sameting also demanded to be given direct responsibility for these two schools. In this context, the Sameting developed curricula for duodji and reindeer economy teaching, which started in 2002. Despite this development, however, the Sameting still complained about a lack of a coherent Smi curriculum for secondary schools as well as for Smi content in any Norwegian school (Sametinget 2001d).
9.4.2.5 Higher Education and Research In 2001, the Sameting expressed its wish to strengthen Smi research and academic competence, including a 10-year programme on competence building on research focusing on Smi society. Important aspects in this context are the Smi language and language development, sustainable use of nature and resources, and Smi education and ways of life. One of the major challenges for the Sameting was to overcome the low number of Smi students at universities and
146
colleges, in particular to counterwork the lack of teachers, including Smi students from the nonNorwegian parts of Spmi (Sametinget 2001d). As a principle, the Sameting's demand to be given the responsibility for Smi educational institutions included tertiary education: "The Sameting's prime aim is that institutions of Smi Education and Smi Higher Education continue to be developed under Smi control" (Sametinget 2002a). This would require efforts for a holistic policy. In cooperation with the Sameting, the government developed a new curriculum so that Smi issues will become part of any ordinary teacher's education, which raises hopes for an improved status of Smi in Norwegian society. From the government's side, 2003 saw a continuation of a Smi journalist education programme at the Smi University College in Kautokeino, and a cooperation with the College in Oslo on duodji as an academic subject. The demanded status improvement of Smi included the use of Smi as language of scientific research in order to maintain and develop the language: "The Sameting has the vision that separate Smi bodies will be established which lay the ground for Smi Higher Education and research" (Sametinget 2001d). A central issue in this context was the upgrading of the Smi University College to a scientific college, which would include post-graduate programmes (Sametinget 2002g). In general, future prospects for this were quite positive, given that the Department of Local and Regional Affairs supported this project, as well as a common centre of Smi research which would concentrate the Nordic Smi Institute, the Smi Archive and other relevant institutions within one complex.
9.4.2.6 Teaching material, teacher training and adult education The development of teaching material was another focus of educational activity, with a concentration of the future development of such devices on digital media. Since 2003, a Smi Teaching Net (Samisk Lringsnett) has been in operation: "The Sameting considers it to be important that institutions of Smi instruction, from kindergarten to secondary school, have a common web location which particularly takes care of needs in Smi instruction. Everything which will be published via Samisk Lringsnett will be in two languages, Smi and Norwegian. Texts in Smi will be in North, Lule or South Smi." (Sametinget 2003a). However, the problems concerning the use of Smi in IT, as discussed, also influence the output of Smi digital material. The material developed in 2002 included 43 items in various technologies, 26 for North Smi, 9 for Lule Smi, and 8 for South Smi. Given the limited resources, Smi teaching material production was progressing quite fast. The Smi centre for teaching material operates successfully with 8,000 book titles and 418 video programmes. Yet, the Sameting started a programme in 2002 to produce even faster and to recruit as well as involving even more authors, including lectures on pedagogical issues (Sametinget 2002a, Section
147
Arbeidet i Sametinget). With regard to opportunities for further training for teachers in order to adapt to Smi schooling, there have been a number of considerable achievements. Plans for such programmes exist for Smi as a First Language, Smi as a Second Language, Norwegian as a Second Language for students with Smi as a First Language, and a course called Smi Language and Culture (Sametinget 2001d). Smi adult education also became increasingly important in recent years, in line with increased Smi cultural awareness and confidence. It is not uncommon that "parents who have lost the Smi language wish their children to acquire it at school or kindergarten. In this context it happens often that the parents themselves also demand Smi language instruction." The Sameting in this respect urged the government to formulate clear directives on which authority is responsible for this part of education: "The Sameting must receive the authority and the resources so that they can fulfil the responsibility of a general development of adult education for Smi in cooperation with central authorities." The Sameting also aimed to improve the quality of such education, and is involved in providing teaching material for adults (Sametinget 2001d).
9.4.3 The Media and Cultural Domains 9.4.3.1 The Media The situation of Smi in the media is still far from perfect, despite general achievements during the 1990s and the political will to increase content. Problems around 2002 centred on obligations towards the Smi media provision and the influence of the Sameting on the media, which the Sameting took up in August 2003: "The Sameting's Language Board is quite critical to the fact that NRK Dagsrevyen (the major daily news programme on the state TV station) no longer wants to send features in the Smi language produced by the NRK Smi Section. NRK Smi is the only general broadcasting service for the Smi population. () That Smi is heard in Dagsrevyen is important for the spread of information and the creation of tolerance for Smi " (Sametinget 2003c). This shows quite clearly the situation of the Smi media, having to depend on the good-will of Norwegian mainstream institutions. In this context, a general thread of Smi argumentation is to point to the responsibility of the Norwegian state regarding Smi needs. In October 2002, a similar statement was issued: "The Sameting regrets that the broadcasting leader in NRK does not wish to prioritise Smi in the national media. () To make the Smi language visible in national media contributes to an increase in language status." Based on the fact that Smi is an official language, the Sameting argues that "it is not only the Smi population which is responsible for the Smi language" (Sametinget 2002h). Along the same lines, the Sameting asks the government to increase press funding for Smi media and Norwegian-
148
speaking media with Smi content, which until 2003 remained under the government's responsibility. The Department of Local and Regional Affairs acknowledged in this context the principle that people must be able to use a language to secure its maintenance. "This implies that society as a whole also allows e.g. the Smi language to get access to other areas than those that only affect the Smi population, for instance in national media or as parallel text in various public documents" (Stortinget 20022003a, ch. 12.11). The government was in general willing to discuss the transfer of the administration of the media to the Sameting, under the condition that "funding administration guarantees the necessary distance and independence in the relation between Smi political bodies and Smi press." This indicates that many policy aspects even in recent times are still at the planning stage, and many fundamental aspects remain far from being solved. In total, by far not as much seems to have changed since 1989 when compared to what has taken place in educational domains. From the Sameting's side, there was funding of one magazine each for adolescents, children and women, including articles in all three Smi languages. For these publications, however, the financial situation was difficult. In 2001, the Sameting stated that "it is important that these three publications will be part of a permanent annual funding arrangement" (Sametinget 2001d), and in 2002, we read that "the financial situation for these three publications has been unsatisfactory for several years" (Sametinget 2002a, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). Similarly, for a Smi version of Donald Duck (called Vulle Vuoja), the Sameting sees a strong necessity to "work for future financing of regular editions" (Sametinget 2001d). In the field of libraries, the biggest challenge perceived was to "secure competence, resources and the will to develop library services for the Smi population". One focus was laid on "Book Busses" which were seen as "a contribution to widely insufficient Smi library services" (Sametinget 2001d). Since 2002 these have been under the Sameting's responsibility. Again, the demand for guaranteed financial support was a prime focus: "It is, however, a precondition that the Department of Culture and Church provides sufficient means for the distribution of operating grants." Here as well, more competence transfer needs to be achieved: "Operating grants for the Smi Book Busses were transferred to the Sameting in 2002, whereas grants for physical investments into the Book Busses were not transferred" (Sametinget 2002a, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). Another focus is the "Smi Special Library" in Karasjok as a "Libraries' Library", with the role of developing Smi library services. As the 2001 Annual Report states: "The Smi Special Library is a national institution of Smi Culture. () The Sameting has to be provided with the resources necessary for a development of the Smi Special Library in the direction intended by the Sameting." In this context it deserves mentioning that a Smi bibliography project at Troms University started in 1997, in cooperation with the Special Library. Its aim is to make Smi literature more accessible, e.g. by creating an online network of libraries (Sametinget
149
2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). As a last aspect, there was a strong desire by the Sameting to create an exhaustive Smi archive as a head organisation for all Smi archives, under the Sameting's responsibility: "It is decisive that the establishment of Smi institutions continues and that Smi society is given the opportunity to administer knowledge on their own history and present time affairs" (Sametinget 2001d). In 2002, as a first step, the Norwegian National Archive, as requested by the Sameting, started investigating how a future archive service for the Smi population could be structured and organised (Sametinget 2002a, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget).
9.4.3.2 Culture Fundamental for Smi cultural work is the Smi Cultural Fund which is a body for the coordination and funding of films, exhibitions, festivals, etc., including projects for children and young people. In general, the number of applications increased over the years, so that the Sameting in 2001 complained that "due to limited resources, many projects had to be postponed until 2002" (Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). One device for strengthening Smi culture are the Smi cultural centres. In the investment plan of the Department of Culture and Church for the period 2004 2007, ja Smi Centre in Kfjord, for instance, receives funding of in total NOK 29 million (Stortinget 20032004a). However, in order to stimulate further development and to guarantee maintenance of the present state, the Sameting's 2002 report calls on the Storting to "increase the frame for Smi cultural projects. An own fund for Smi Cultural Centres should be established. () Both in a societal perspective and in a perspective of cultural policy, Smi art and culture must keep the same freedom of expression as previously" (Sametinget 2002a). The general impression was that the Sameting demanded extension of existing measures, and an increase in rights to administrating these financial means. In most cases, however, support was already there, so there was no starting from scratch. Festivals were supported through a permanent festival order, since 2001 under the Sameting's responsibility. Aspects of the Sameting's work concerning literature included the funding of fiction, scholarships to support new Smi writers, and the funding of translations into Smi to increase the amount of Smi publications. In 2002, eight new Smi authors received scholarships (Sametinget 2002a, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). Also in this field, the 2001 report comes to the conclusion that a model of negotiation between the Sameting and the government would "improve the dialogue and cooperation for the sake of good solutions for the challenges to come" (Sametinget 2001d). The Norwegian Sameting was largely the only institution to finance the publication of fiction in the Smi languages, even though there was "considerable demand for publications adjusted to the Smi population". Problems remained regarding publications in South and
150
Lule Smi: There were hardly any applications for funding of South Smi publications, and the Sameting acknowledges that there was a lack of individuals with enough proficiency in Lule Smi even for translations (Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). Music also has a high priority within the cultural field in the form of CDs, concerts and festivals. The Sameting also supports education in Smi music, including joiks, but here as well it demanded an increase of state funding, which had remained at the same level for several years, despite an increase in the numbers of applicants. In 2002, 5 CDs were published with funding by the Sameting (Sametinget 2002a, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). The Sameting stressed the necessity of taking into consideration the various musical tastes in the population (Sametinget 2001d). The theatre landscape has been relatively stable since the first initiatives in the 1980s. Smi theatres also have an important role for the expression of Smi culture and for the use of the Smi languages. Beaivv Smi Tehter as the most prestigious of them has existed as a permanent ensemble since 1981, but there is also a theatre company in the South Smi areas, the arjelhsaemien Teatere. The Sameting in 2002 called for more economic security, so that theatres could operate in the entire Smi area. In 2002, the Sameting reports that "Beaivv Smi Tehter is a good example of responsibility transferred to the Sameting in recent times" (Sametinget 2002a, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). In addition to these two professional projects, amateur theatre is seen as important as a means of getting the Smi youth involved in Smi culture, and to create a feeling of a Smi community. In this context, the youth theatre projects are interested in cooperating with international projects as a way of spreading knowledge about the Smi to other European countries (Sametinget 2001d). To conclude the section on culture, films are a rather new medium for the Smi language. There has been a strong increase in Smi film projects in recent years, but the absolute number remains at a low level. In 2001, the first Smi film festival was held in Kautokeino. The number of video and film artists increased, leading to an increase in applications for film projects. In total, the Sameting has repeatedly argued for a strong support of Smi film and video production.
9.4.4 Other Domains 9.4.4.1 Economy/Work Place To conclude the discussion of Smi domains, a few minor, yet important areas of Smi language policy activity shall be mentioned. As outlined above, the economy is of vital importance for a likelihood of a language to survive. This relates both to mainstream economy and special fields of the Smi economy, in particular reindeer breeding. In the Smi area, private
151
businesses are generally characterised as small and have only limited means. As the Sameting's report 2001 remarks, "in addition, businesses are characterised by low formal competence and orientation towards local markets. This hinders innovation, product development and increased value increases" (Sametinget 2001d). The problem thus lies in the creation of a sustainable economy where Smi can prosper and which is not identified with low prestige. Priorities to strengthen genuine Smi economy are the creation of economic organisations and networking as a coordinated approach to improve product quality. An important tool for supporting Smi economy is the Smi Development Fund, but the Sameting also wishes "to be able to contribute to regional partnership in Smi areas, but also stresses the regional bodies' independent responsibility for Smi measures (Sametinget 2001d). Another economic field where work needs to be done is tourism. Here, the Sameting in 2001 saw "particular opportunities through organised use of the potential which is available in nature and Smi culture" (Sametinget 2001d). In fact, Smi culture seems to create interest among many tourists and here the developments of ethnotourism could be a focus. Those offers that exist are wellreceived, even though the number of tourists is limited, given the remote location of the Smi areas for most tourists. In 2001, the Sameting (Item 10/01) initiated a development programme for duodji as another element with economic potential for small handicraft businesses and tourism. However, here we also find the complaint that "the Sameting does not have own resources to finance the programme" (Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). Concerning the reindeer economy, the Sameting is broadly satisfied with government support. Here as well, the Sameting calls for the relevant administration of reindeer and other Smi-related issues to be carried out in the Smi language and thus make use of Smi terminology.
9.4.4.2 Health/Social Services In the health and social services sectors, the Sameting works for equal services for the Smi. A proposal on the establishment of a special Smi Doctors' Service has to date been unsuccessful. A national centre for psychic treatment for the Smi population has been established, as well as a Smi centre for health research. The Sameting has also funded an implementation of the plan for health and social services for the Smi people in Norway as identified in the government's NOU 1995: 6 Report (Plan for helse- og sosialtjenester til det samiske folk i Norge; Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). In total, however, the Sameting accepts that "it is the health institutions and regional and municipal institutions in the areas of Smi settlement which must have the responsibility for an integration of the Smi perspective in the health and social services" (Sametinget 2001d).
9 Language Issues and the Sameting in the First Years of the New Millennium 9.4.4.3 International Relations
152
International relations are the last domain of Smi policy to look at. Around 2002, a lot of activity was going on, and it is not wrong to say that the Smi belong to the most active linguistic minorities when looking at the whole in an international perspective. In line with the political separation of Smi territory, Smi cooperation across borders is a central issue. The three Sametings cooperate in the permanent institution of the Smi Parliamentary Council (SPR), and the Sametings' presidents also hold regular meetings. An important project in this context is the work on an international Smi convention. Fields of particular relevance in cross-border Smi cooperation are language and education. In addition, the meetings also provide a forum for the coordination of international activity, in the Nordic and supra-regional contexts. The cooperation at the Nordic level between the Sametings and the governments can be characterised as being well-functioning, both at the political and the administrative levels. There are annual meetings between the governments' ministers with responsibility for Smi affairs and the Sametings' presidents. On the other hand, Smi representation in the institutions of Nordic cooperation was in 2001 still seen as an unsolved problem (Sametinget 2001d, Section Arbeidet i Sametinget). The Norwegian Sameting's international activities beyond the Nordic frame include the participation at conferences, such as a conference on Kola Smi perspectives in Russian Spmi in 2001, or the participation of the Special Library at an international libraries' conference in Sweden. Smi cooperation with other Arctic peoples from Russia in the Barents Sea Council and the Arctic Council exist, but were described as unsatisfactory due to limited resources. The Sameting, finally, also expressed its hopes with regard to the UN Permanent Forum of Indigenous Issues and a subsequent increase in recognition of indigenous rights within international law. However, progress was not seen as being satisfactory, even though the first president of the Norwegian Sameting, Ole Henrik Magga, was elected as the first Chairman of the Forum (Sametinget 2001d).
10 Scottish Gaelic in Context
153
III Gaelic Policy in Scotland 10 Scottish Gaelic in Context

After looking at how Smi policy has developed throughout the past decades, it is now time to approach the second case study of this book: language policy developments in Scotland with regard to Gaelic. Again, after a short introduction, the theoretical part will be applied to the situation of Gaelic before parliamentary decentralisation, which took place in Scotland in 1999. This will later serve as a basis for the comparative analysis of the developments in recent years.
10.1 The Linguistic Situation in Scotland: English, Gaelic, Scots and Beyond
When looking at the ecolinguistic situation of Scotland, it is important to keep in mind that there are additional languages to English and Gaelic, including another autochthonous language: Scots.22 In contrast to Gaelic, Scots as a distinct language has only recently attracted more attention. Alladina/Edwards (1991) in their volume on languages in Britain do not mention it at all. Neither does it appear in Haarmann's statistics of European languages. The problem of accepting Scots as a distinct language is linked to the fact that it is a Germanic language closely related to English. Its character as being close to an English dialect becomes evident when looking at statements even by proponents of Scots that "there are strong Scots elements in the speech of something in the region of five million Scots" (European Bureau for Lesser used Languages 1995: 39), often without being aware of it. However, when looking at the linguistic history of Scotland, it becomes more evident that there have indeed been two distinct Germanic varieties in Scotland over the centuries. Originally a north-eastern version of Old English, Scots' predecessor started penetrating Scotland in the 7th century (European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages 1995: 2931). In the second half of the 11th century, Scots gained wider influence. At this time, Scottish Gaelic, which had first reached Scotland as a descendant of Irish around 500 A.D., had almost completely expanded over modern Scottish territory and started to be driven back to the western parts of Scotland (European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages 1995: 8-11). In the following centuries, several languages co-existed: several varieties of Old English, Scandinavian dialects forming a language called Norn, which could be found on the Northern Isles of Scotland until the 17th century, and Gaelic. It was north-eastern English which became the language of political
22
A short but useful introductory account of the minority language situation in Scotland and the historical interconnection between Gaelic, Scots, English, and further languages spoken in Scotland throughout the centuries is given in The European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages 1995. Cf. for languages in Britain in general also Alladina/Edwards (eds.) 1991, and Price 2000. For an overview of Scotland's linguistic history, see also Thomson 1994.
154
power. In the following centuries, a standardisation process set in as the basis of a second standard variety based on Old English dialects. The language spread throughout administration, grammatically independent of English, lexically absorbing a number of words from contact languages of the area, including Gaelic, and it formed an independent literature. The decline of Scots began in the 16th century. After the Reformation, due to the lack of a Scots Bible translation, the English version was used. When England and Scotland became a political unit, in 1603 by the Union of the Crowns, and by the Union of the Parliaments in 1707, the centre of the state was transferred to London. Scots was replaced by English as the language of administration. Although it is said that Scots remained a spoken language in Scotland among all classes, at least its written form started a rapid decline from which it never recovered. In this, Scots had a fate similar to that of its Celtic neighbours at various stages of history: The process started in Cornwall in the 9th century, Wales was absorbed by England in 1536, and Ireland became formally part of the UK on 1801. In all cases, the English-oriented elites were "mostly interested in enhancing their own spheres of influence and control" and "were hostile to any form of indigenous social organization or power, and perceived the vernacular languages as dangerous expressions of just this kind" (Nettle/Romaine 2000: 139). Measures to destroy local culture reached from legislation to open violence, in the Scottish case most crucially in the so-called Highland clearances in the 1700s and 1800s, following the last attempts to regain sovereignty for Scotland. Yet, Scots has never been completely out of use. Even in the most difficult times, poets and novelists such as Robert Burns or Sir Walter Scott included Scots when writing about folk culture, in songs or dialogues. There has also been a small but lively Scots literary production since the beginning of the 20th century until today. In 1983, the New Testament was translated into Scots. In recent years, efforts have been made to give Scots the status of an officially recognised language. Language societies have worked for more awareness, dictionaries have been produced, and at schools and in the media it has gained a limited presence. All this has to be seen as a reaction to more awareness of Scottishness in general. In total, however, the perception that Scots is just a dialect of English is still common and explains why it has been given considerably less attention than Gaelic in Scottish politics. 23 When applying the Kaplan/Baldauf model to illustrate the ecolinguistic situation of Scotland, the languages to include are: English (i.e. Standard Scottish English), Scots, Gaelic, dialects of English and Gaelic, and immigrant languages:
Cf. for example Grant (2000) on Scots and the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, in which Scots appears only in part II, and not in part III, as Gaelic does.
23
155
Gaelic with dialects Scots with dialects English: Standard Scottish English, dialects Other languages
Immigrant languages
Figure 15: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Scotland, without Policy Parts
In line with what I did in the Smi chapter, the Kaplan/Baldauf model shall be adjusted to reflect the perspective of the Gaelic language. Gaelic is in the centre of the model, which is far less complex than the corresponding Smi model:
GAELIC LANGUAGE HEARTLAND English REST OF SCOTLAND Scots Immigrant languages Other modern languages
Figure 16: Gaelic and Its Ecolinguistically Determining Neighbour Languages
10.2 The Development of Gaelic Demography in the 20th Century

According to the latest UK census in 2001, 58,969 individuals in Scotland responded that they were Gaelic speakers, or 1.21% of the Scottish population. An additional 7,094 individuals claimed to be able to read and/or write the language, whereas 27,538 people claimed that they were able to understand Gaelic, adding up to a sum total of 93,282 people with any Gaelic competence (cf. MacKinnon 2003a). A number often cited in the 1990s is based on the 1991 census, when around 66,000 people in Scotland claimed to speak Gaelic. MacKinnon in several of his articles compares the statistics of 1891 and 1981 to get a picture of the decline of the language. 24 These figures indicate that the
24
For the development of the state of Gaelic during the past decades, cf. MacKinnon's articles on various
156
decline was indeed drastic in the 20th century, from about 300,000 to approximately one fifth. This decline took place despite the fact that it was precisely at the end of the 19th century that a wave of Celtic consciousness developed and first promotion organisations were founded. As the population of Scotland concurrently increased from 3.5 million to almost 5 million, the percentage of Gaelic speakers in the whole of the country decreased even more dramatically, from about 8.5% to just above 1%. There are virtually no monolingual Gaelic speakers left today, compared to about one sixth of the Gaelic-speaking population one hundred years earlier (MacKinnon 1998: 189). The reasons for language shift will be discussed in more detail later on; here it is sufficient to mention pragmatic and identity-related aspects, such as the pressure from the English-speaking mainstream and the lack of opportunity to use the language, and attitudes resulting in the individual decision of people not to pass on their language to their children.
Figure 17: Numbers of Gaelic Speakers, 1881-2001, according to MacKinnon (2003a)
The Gaelic-speaking population was historically located in the Western and Northern Islands and Highlands. This picture remains true when looking at the percentage of the population within a region with knowledge of Gaelic. When looking at the absolute numbers of Gaelic speakers, however, we get a different result (MacKinnon 1998: 190-193). It is surprising that already in 1891 the highest number of Gaelic speakers (around 25,000) in one administrative district was in Glasgow. Inverness shared second place (around 20,000) with one of the most remote communities of the country on the Outer Hebrides island of Lewis. Even in the 19th century, the image of Gaelic as a language exclusive to the rural periphery was thus imprecise. In 1981, the picture had changed even more drastically. In all parts of the country, the number of speakers had dramatically decreased, with the exception of the Outer Hebrides and
sociolinguistic aspects of Gaelic. For the pre-1999 situation, cf. in particular MacKinnon 1993, 1996 and 1998.
157
some parts of the Inner Hebrides (Isle of Skye), where the decline was not as pronounced. Today, there are considerable numbers of Gaelic speakers in Glasgow, Inverness, and Edinburgh. Even though the absolute numbers of Gaelic speakers in these cities have also decreased, the relative numbers of speakers compared to those in the traditional Gaelic areas have increased. According to the 2001 census, only 55.55% of Gaelic speakers live in the Gidhealtachd. About half of these, or 26.8% of all speakers, live on the Western Isles. At the same time, this means that almost half of Gaelic speakers do not live in the Gidhealtachd. As Dunbar put it in 2003: "In and around Glasgow, there are around 10,000 Gaelic-speakers. There is one Gaelic school in Glasgow. There are over 3,000 Gaelic-speakers in Edinburgh. Now, these numbers are small in comparison with the total population of the areas but, at the same time, these numbers are significant regarding where the Gaelic-speakers live" (Dunbar 2003b). It is therefore wrong to say that the vast majority of the Gaelic speakers today live in traditional areas. Decline is also explicit when looking at the percentage of Gaelic speakers living in areas with a majority of Gaelic speakers. It is only here where Gaelic can be expected to be a regular vernacular. In 1981, only 16% of the speakers lived in areas where at least 75% of the population claimed to be Gaelic speakers. An additional 16% lived in areas with between 50% and 75% Gaelic speakers. Added together, this means that over two thirds of the Gaelic population in 1981 lived in areas where the majority did not know Gaelic, and where Gaelic therefore was unlikely to be used much in public life. It is very likely that this trend has continued until today. MacKinnon (2004) compares his previous findings to the results of the 2001 census. In the decade since 1991, the decline continued, even though it has somewhat slowed down. The decline of 7,326 speakers, from 65,978 to 58,652, equals 11.1% of all speakers, or a decline from 1.37 to 1.21% of the population in Scotland. In the core areas, the Western Isles, the Highland Council area, and Argyll and Bute, the number of Gaelic speakers decreased by between 13.9 and 19.6% and has reached a level which is considered to be extremely critical. McLeod puts it that "someone said earlier that there are areas where Gaelic is still strong but even in Stornoway on the Isle of Lewis it is quite difficult to find capable people who speak Gaelic. Gaelic is in a poor, sad situation." (McLeod 2002b). On the other hand, many Lowland areas, in particular the cities, saw small increases in Gaelic speakers. The Highland-Lowland split of Gaelic speakers, which had been at 88-12% in 1881, was from 1991 to 2001, as indicated above, further reduced from 61-39% to 56-44%. We can therefore assume that not only is the general demographic loss continuing, but that also traditional migration patterns from rural to urban areas prevail (MacKinnon 2003a). The decentralisation process of Gaelic speakers has several consequences. First, it means that wherever Gaelic is not the everyday vernacular, obstacles for a survival of the language and the maintenance of Gaelic by the next generation are even more difficult to overcome. The spread of
158
Gaelic speakers all over the country means that educational and cultural support cannot be limited to the traditional areas. In contrast, Gaelic support has to be provided to any community with Gaelic speakers, in particular to the cities. The proportion of Gaelic speakers in the age group of 3-24 year olds between 1991 and 2001 has remained stable at around 21% of all Gaelic speakers, despite a small increase in absolute numbers of young Gaelic-speakers between 1991 and 2001 (e.g. from 7,092 to 7,435 in the age-group 3-15), probably because of Gaelic education. A positive development is the slight increase of Gaelic speakers from 1991 to 2001 in the youngest age group (5-11 years), but there is no similar increase in the 16-19 group, which indicates the problem of a lack of secondary Gaelic schooling. MacKinnon's main conclusions for the 2001 census are that the rates of decline have halved, and the annual loss has been reduced from over 1,300 to 700. There are some local examples of intergenerational transmission, and Gaelic-medium education efforts in the 1990s have produced some growth among young speakers, but these are not nearly sufficient to stop the overall decline. The Gaelic heartland remains in a state of economic and demographic crisis. MacKinnon (2004) concludes that the policies in the 1990s generally seem to have failed to maintain the language. Contrasting these results to census numbers for Welsh speakers in Wales, MacKinnon (2003e) concludes that dedicated planning efforts may result in ensuring language transmission to younger generations as the bearers of the language in the future. The increase of people all over Scotland who are learning the language has also resulted in a change in the social distribution of Gaelic speakers. Formerly considered to be a language of the rural areas and of the lesser-educated parts of the population, the transfer of Gaelic to the cities has raised interest among larger parts of society. In recent years, the number of welleducated speakers has risen, and the establishment of Gaelic-medium education institutions is a sign of this process. MacNeil has come to the conclusion that the shift in attitude and in the profile of the speakers has caused "a demand for Gaelic-speakers in the job-market (...), associated with a demand for training the additional speakers needed." Increased chances of leading a complete life in Gaelic, including its use at the work-place, are encouraging steps forward (MacNeil 1996: 102). An important role in this process has been played by the CLI the Gaelic Learners' Organization. This is in line with an increased awareness of Scottishness and a certain importance assigned to Gaelic when it comes to Scottish identity, which will be discussed in more detail later.
10.3 Gaelic in the Context of the Languages of the World

In the list by Haarmann of language in the world, Gaelic appears at the same level as Smi. In the Celtic language family, all languages suffered from an extreme decline during the past
159
centuries, which resulted in the extinction of Manx and Cornish as native languages and a severe decline of Breton, Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Welsh, of which Scottish Gaelic is today the smallest language. 25 The most important contact language for Gaelic is, of course, English. Haarmann (2002: 32) provides the following figures for languages in the UK:
State UK Languages Spoken English (more than 50 million), Welsh, Hindi (0.5-1 million), Pashto (0.2-0.5 million), Bengali, Chinese, Gujarati, Punjabi (0.1-0.2 million), Romani, Scottish Gaelic, Thai, Turkish (50-100,000), Irish, Arabic, Yoruba (20-50,000), Cornish, Manx (100-1,000); other immigrant languages
Table 42: Languages Spoken in the UK according to Haarmann (2002)
Again, these numbers include monolinguals as well as bilinguals. As the Finno-Ugrian languages, also the Celtic languages belong to the small language families in Europe, and as Smi, Scottish Gaelic is a small member of its family (Haarmann 1995: 56-70). This applies also to the number of speakers in proportion of the total population. In contrast to Wales, for instance, where about one sixth of the population, or 17.3%, speak Welsh, less than 2% of the Scottish population speak Gaelic, which amounts to only 0.1% of the population of the entire UK. Of the six Celtic languages spoken today, Welsh and Breton are part of the Britannic branch, with Cornish as an additional extinct but recently revived language (Haarmann 1993: 71). The second branch of the Celtic languages is the Goidelic branch featuring Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic, the latter again being a language whose last native speaker has died and which is now in the process of revival. Scottish Gaelic itself derived from Irish settlers who came to Scotland in the first centuries AD and spread their language over most of what is now modern Scotland until it was driven back to the more remote parts of the country in the west and north, starting around the 11th century (MacAulay 1992a).
10.4 Scottish Gaelic: Status, Situation, and Organisations

10.4.1 In the Past As opposed to Scots, there has never been any doubt about the existence of a distinct Celtic language in Scotland.26 As indicated previously, Scotland has for most of its history been multilingual (cf., for instance, MacKinnon 1998: 175-178, and MacAulay 1994: 137-146). After its replacement by Scots as the language of court and administration from the 11th century onwards, Gaelic retreated to the more remote Northern and Western parts of the country. Already in the
For a comprehensive overview of the Celtic languages and their demographic development see Price 2000. MacKinnon 2000 provides a comprehensive overview of Scottish Gaelic's sociolinguistic development and current state. In the same volume (Price 2000), there is also a similar account of Scots and the other languages in the British Isles. On the decline of Gaelic see the volume by Durkacz 1983: 214-229.
26 25
160
17th century, Gaelic could only be found in the Highlands and on the Hebrides, areas which had maintained much of their traditional clan structure. Efforts to replace Celtic culture and the Gaelic language by the central English- (or Scots-) speaking authorities have to be seen in connection with gaining control of these areas. Matheson/Matheson (2000: 219) note that "while Scotland was never conquered by England, in terms of hegemony Scotland has many attributes of a colonised country. () The Media and formal education have attacked its native languages and Scotland's literary and historical heritage has been neglected in favour of those of another country". Traditional Gaelic culture has suffered a similar fate as Smi culture. It was not before the end of the 19th century that Gaelic speakers started to create their own organisations to fight this decline, and it is only fairly recently that attitudes by non-Gaelic speakers have started to change.
10.4.2 The State of Affairs of Gaelic in the Late 20th Century In 1891, the first general organisation (An Comunn Gidhealach/The Highland Association) was formed, whose most prominent task is to organise the Royal National Mod Festival of Gaelic Culture (MacKinnon 1998: 182-183). From the 1960s onwards, it also became involved in socioeconomic issues and local politics. Since 1963, there has also been a Gaelic Books Council, which considerably advanced publishing in Gaelic. State funding for Gaelic was introduced in 1979/80 through a grant to An Comunn Gaidhealach. In the 1980s, together with increased public consciousness about Gaelic, a number of new organisations emerged. 1982 saw the publication of a report, Corn a Gidhlig, as an initial step by the government to increase Gaelic activity. Comunn na Gidhlig (CnaG), the most important Gaelic institution since then, was established by the government in 1984. It serves as a head organisation for political activities and the promotion of Gaelic, whereas An Comunn Gidhealach remains in charge of culture. In 1986, CnaG published a first report on steps to take in favour of language maintenance. In 1997, CnaG submitted a report to the Scottish Office recommending measures to secure the status of Gaelic, including recognition similar to Welsh by the Welsh Language Act of 1993. Other activities to advance Gaelic included the Western Isles Council's decision to pursue bilingualism in administration since 1975. The Gaelic Learners' Organisation CL completes the picture of important Gaelic organisations today.27
Organisation An Comunn Gidhealach Comhairle nan Leabhraichean Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Comunn na Gidhlig
27
Function Cultural events Gaelic Literacy Western Isles Regional Council Gaelic Political Head Organisation
Year of establishment 1891 1963 1975 1980s
For an overview of Gaelic organisations, periodicals, education and web sites cf. Cl Gidhlig 2005. For a list of important steps for the development of the Gaelic institutionalisation, cf. also Cain 1996.

Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich Comann nam Prant Comunn Luchd Ionnsachaidh Gaelic Pre-School Council Parents' Organisation Gaelic Learners' Organisation 1982 1984 1984
161
Table 43: Some Major Organisations Working for the Promotion of Gaelic
Today, there is a lively scene of Gaelic organisations in a variety of domains. These vary considerably in aim, size, and members from local to Scotland-wide, from publicly initiated to purely private. Many of these deal with traditional Gaelic arts or music, such as choirs, festival organisations, or traditional instrument groups (e.g. at Plockton High School). Others promote language acquisition, such as Gaelic-medium education units all over the country which are eager to convince parents to try Gaelic for their children. Yet others deal with aspects as diverse as heritage maintenance, libraries, playgroups, or traditional Gaelic sports (e.g. Shinty, a game similar to hurling in Ireland, and distantly related to hockey, which is sometimes labelled by its players as Scotland's National Sport or Scotland's oldest game). Publications vary from small leaflets to very professional brochures and periodicals, also in areas traditionally not affiliated to Gaelic affairs, such as the Aberdeen City Council Gaelic News. Often, English-language leaflets of organisations not directly related to Gaelic include a Gaelic page to stress the presence of the language. With regard to economic opportunities for Gaelic speakers, there are certain job prospects in education, the media and arts, and public services, but also in some areas of private businesses in any branch in which companies sell their goods to an increasing number of Gaelic-conscious consumers.28 At the same time, the presence of Gaelic increased also in the media, although at a very low level (MacKinnon 1998: 182-183; European Bureau for Lesser Used languages 1995: 20-21). In 1997, there were 42 hours per week of Gaelic radio broadcasting, both by the BBC and by private stations. The amount of Gaelic television programmes remained at the rather symbolic level of 300 hours per year in 1993, which equals less than one hour per day, although even this was a strong increase compared to only 100 hours just a few years earlier. The nature of the programmes and the fact that Gaelic is rarely broadcast during prime time do not improve the prospects of a wider regular audience. Yet, the emergence of a number of small local TV producers, which also train Gaelic youth in film production, was an important step forward in the early 1990s. In terms of print media, there is one all-Gaelic periodical (Gairm), but daily newspapers only include occasional Gaelic features such as in the Scotsman and a number of local papers. Other print media include publications of many organisations, which sometimes include a Gaelic page in their regular editions, and journals focussing on specific topics, such as Cothrom, the Gaelic Learners' bilingual quarterly issued by CL. Finally, there is a professional Gaelic Theatre Company, Tosg, as well as regular amateur theatre projects for children and adults.
28
Cf. for example the brochure Bith Be ann an Gidhlig Gaelic Career Opportunities (CnaG 2000).
10 Scottish Gaelic in Context Table 44 sums up the presence of Gaelic in Scottish media in the 1990s:
Medium Radio broadcasting Gaelic Television Periodicals Daily newspapers Other publications Gaelic presence 42 hours weekly 300 hours yearly One all-Gaelic journal (Gairm) Occasional features in several national and local papers Leaflets, journals, individual pages of various organisations
162
Table 44: Gaelic Presence in Several Media Sectors in the Mid-1990s
With regard to Gaelic Arts, the 1998 Ealain 21 Conference on The future of the Gaelic arts provided an overview of the situation at the time (Ealain 21 1998). Main organisations present at the conference included the National Gaelic Arts Project, the Gaelic Books Council, the Royal National Mod as the major Gaelic Festival, Fisean nan Gidheal, an organisation for the promotion of Gaelic drama, song and music, or the An Lanntair Gallery. Many projects were supported by the Scottish Arts Council and the Enterprise Network, consisting of the Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) coordinating body and local companies, which cooperated with CnaG in Gaelic projects. In 1999/2000, the network's budget for Gaelic was 340,000, whereas the Scottish Arts Councils provided 521,689, divided among 42 projects (Scottish Parliament Information Centre 2000). The aims which Ealain 21 identified for the following years were largely characterised by an increase in activities, awareness and funding. For literature, an increase in Gaelic literacy, the production of various media, and the extension of existing summer courses were major demands. More translations were called for, and more intensive collaboration and interaction between players in the field. In terms of drama, both non-competitive and professional groups were to be strengthened. Visual arts needed better marketing and a professional support system. In the musical field, besides better marketing, more motivation and more responsibility of education authorities were needed, as well as a better coordination of activities, e.g. in a database. For heritage preservation, the national archives were to recognise Gaelic as a cornerstone of Scottish identity, and not just to aim at a conservation of traditions. In total, in order to create more awareness of Gaelic issues, the conference also demanded more broadcasting and much more dedication by educational bodies to Gaelic issues. When looking at the 1990s' state of Gaelic in education, it should first be mentioned that Gaelic has been part of a university degree in Celtic Studies since 1882. At that time, these were highly influenced by the establishment of philological disciplines, which meant a historical and theoretical approach to the Celtic languages and cultures, but not teaching the language as a contemporary means of communication. The 1918 Education Act at least allowed Gaelic to be taught in schools in Gaelic-speaking areas (cf. MacKinnon 1998: 184-186). A general provision for Gaelic in Scottish education was not included in the 1872 Education Act, which remained
163
fundamental for education in Scotland into our days (cf. Durkacz 1983: 169). The position of Gaelic in the Scottish education system throughout the 20th century therefore differed significantly from the situation in Wales or even Ireland, where the respective Celtic languages have been considered much more important to national identity and where the promotion of Celtic culture and language reaches a much greater proportion of the population. However, there is a certain degree of education both through and about Gaelic in Scotland as well. In this context, it is necessary to distinguish between teaching Gaelic as a second language, and Gaelic-medium education. In most parts of the country, it is now possible to learn Gaelic as a second language. Since 1958, Gaelic has been in use as a teaching medium in a few schools in the country. The number of regions providing Gaelic education in kindergartens and primary schools has increased rapidly since the 1970s, partly as Gaelic-only programmes, partly bilingually Gaelic-English. In 1997, there were 52 Gaelic-medium units in primary schools throughout Scotland, and 9 in secondary schools. The number of Gaelic pre-school groups rose from 40 in 1987 to around 140 accommodating roughly 2000 children in 2000. Since 1983, it has been possible to receive tertiary education in Gaelic at Sabhal Mr Ostaig, the Gaelic College on Skye, which was upgraded to become part of the University of the Highlands and Islands in 1998. Gaelic-medium education in general increased considerably during the 1990s, as the following table indicates. Strongest increases took place in nurseries, but also the number of pupils in primary and secondary education increased (MacIver 2002):
Nurseries Pupils in nurseries Primary Education Units Pupils Pupils in Secondary Units 1993 3 69 45 1080 129 (1994) 1999 33 276 59 1831 232 Increase in % 1993-1999 1000 300 31.1 69.5 79.8
Table 45: Development of Gaelic-Medium Student Numbers 1993 1999
Gaelic thus seemed to be widely established in primary education in the Gidhealtachd areas, often as Gaelic-medium education. In the rest of the country, there were relatively good chances of learning Gaelic as a second language, particularly in the big cities. Here as well as on the Western Isles, secondary or even university level education in Gaelic was also possible. In general, however, secondary education in Gaelic was still not widespread. Sutherland (2000: 204207) stresses the lack of suitably qualified teachers as one major obstacle to more Gaelic teaching. A limited degree of governmental assistance to local authorities was given by the central authorities, but in general "policy determination has in some degree been left to local authorities who have made the decisions on the creation of Gaelic-medium units, instead of a coherent central policy. Gaelic education also suffered from fears that education focussed on Gaelic may distract attention from
164
other subjects. It was thus of great importance that a prominent study in the 1990s showed that these fears are without reason. Indeed, the study revealed that pupils receiving Gaelic-medium education score even slightly better in subjects such as mathematics than students attending English-medium units (Johnstone et al. 1999). In secondary education, 14 schools presented candidates in Gaelic for proficient speakers for the final exams in 1999 with student numbers from 1997 to 1999 remaining stable, at 163, 169 and 165 respectively (Scottish Parliament 2000c). Table 46 gives an overview of Gaelic education in the 1990s:
Level Primary Secondary Tertiary Gaelic-medium education Units throughout Scotland, high density in the heart-land, wide availability in other parts since 1970s Several units throughout Scotland, predominantly in the Gidhealtachd, restricted to some subjects Since 1983 teaching in different subjects at Sabhal Mr Ostaig Education in Gaelic as a second language Wide-spread in the whole of Scotland Relatively wide-spread Since 1882 as philological subject; plans to establish modern post-graduate programmes
Table 46: Gaelic in the Educational System in Scotland in the 1990s
To conclude this chapter, I shall make a few remarks on a comparative view of Gaelic and Smi in history. Despite crucial differences in aspects such as ethnicity, both languages went through many similar periods. Both Gaelic and Smi have a long history as languages of independent cultures. Contact with an aggressive neighbouring culture resulted in considerable decline of the territory where the language was used. In both cases, the language was seen by the ruling classes as backwards and its speakers as barbaric. Yet, both Smi and Scottish Highland culture were only indirectly driven back for centuries, which first changed in the 18th and 19th centuries, when eradication and assimilation of cultures perceived as inferior and potentially dangerous to the ruling powers became the ideology of the day. Today, both languages still suffer from the decline following this change in policy, despite the slow emergence of countermovements since the early 20th century. These, however, needed almost a century to receive relatively wide attention in Scottish and Scandinavian mainstream societies.
10.5 Language and National Identity in Scotland

10.5.1 History In line with what I did in the part on Smi, also for the Gaelic speech community in Scotland it is important to understand the importance of the language for the identity of the speakers and for Scotland as a whole. The Celtic movements on the British Isles in the 19th and 20th centuries are prime examples of the interplay of language, identity, ethnicity and nationalism. First, it was primarily Ireland where Home Rule, i.e. autonomy in terms of administration and parliament, became a core issue of politics in the second half of the 19th century (Tieger 1991:
165
42-48, or, more detailed, Elvert 1993: 331-396). Apart from political demands, which eventually resulted in the independence of the Irish Republic after World War I, cultural aspects also played a crucial role. This involved groups cherishing the separate Irish heritage, such as folk songs and tales, which established a network of organisations all across the country. Central to identifying with Irish culture, however, was the revitalisation of the Irish language and efforts to overcome language decline (cf. Edwards 1984: 284-287). In Scotland, in contrast, the situation was different in so far as many Scots had viewed English cultural dominance much less as an occupation by a foreign power than had the Irish. The fact that Ireland had been conquered and colonised, whereas Scotland had more or less voluntarily entered a union with England, accounts for the differences in perception of the political situation (cf. Edwards 1981: 447-448). Yet, Scotland also saw the establishment of a number of nationalist cultural and political groups, including organisations working for the revitalisation of Scottish Gaelic (cf. Robertson-Wensauer 1991: 227-290). As McCrone points out, "as Scotland was losing its identity both politically, culturally and economically, so it appropriated that which had flourished in the currency of the Romantic movement the Gaelic vision" (McCrone 1992: 18). However, a strong distinction between European-oriented Lowland culture and rural Gaelic Highland culture remained. The Lowlands started accepting Highland culture as distinctively Scottish, but this did not go as far as promoting the Gaelic language as a language for all Scots. Nonetheless, Gaelic may or may not be seen as part of this by individuals.29 The adoption of Highland culture as a distinct heritage element as a reference point for Scotland did not to such a high degree depend on having its own language, particularly since by that time, the use of Gaelic had declined and was geographically restricted.30 An indicator of the complex relationship between Scotland, the Highlands and the Gaelic language is the term Gidhealtachd, as the core concept for referring to the cultural space of Gaelic. Etymologically stemming from Gaelic/Gidhlig, it generally includes the geographic region of the Highlands, with the exception of those parts of the Highlands where no distinct Gaelic culture exists. It was only in the 20th century that the term developed a clearer geographical connotation, culminating in its use as the name of the administrative entity of the Highland Region. This administrative unit, however, does not include many of the Scottish west coast islands and other parts of the traditional Gaelic cultural area, which are undoubtedly part of the cultural concept of the Gidhealtachd (Newton 2000: 235).
29
30
For the role of Highland culture for the development of Scottish identity, cf. Trevor Roper 1983/1996. For the Political Culture in Scotland in history as well as modern times, and an account of how Gaelic became important as a marker of Scottish identity in the 19th century, cf. Paterson 1994. The role of language has been debated by Grlach 1997, Taylor/Thompson 1999, Glaser 2002.
10 Scottish Gaelic in Context 10.5.2 Recent Changes in Value of Gaelic as an Identity Marker
166
In addition to the limited extension of Gaelic today, the strong tradition of the Scots language as another distinct Scottish vernacular has also lessened the need for an additional language as a marker of identity (cf. e.g. Hardie 1995/96: 141-147). This contributes to the relative lack of Gaelic language awareness in Scotland throughout history when compared to Ireland or Wales. In Scotland, it is rather a feeling of political injustice which causes separatist attitudes, as Henderson (1999: 138) indicates: "If individuals are wont to feel themselves as outside the nation in Scotland, it is more likely because of the political values that they hold rather than on account of their language of ancestry." Even among nationalists, there are many persons who do not focus on the role of Gaelic. Grlach (1997) notes: "Whereas the "Celtic" regions of Wales and Ireland had Welsh and Gaelic to fall back on for national identity, no such option was available for Scotland, Scots Gaelic being too marginal geographically, and Scots being too discredited. Above all, linguistic nationalism appears to be largely absent from Scotland" (Grlach 1997: 10). The question then is what this means for the speakers of Gaelic. It can be expected that Gaelic speakers are interested in declaring their language an important part of Scottishness if they do not wish to remain neglected at a time when their country is being bestowed more autonomy. Non-Gaelic speakers should become aware of the multilingual situation in Scotland and start seeing Gaelic as a vital part of the identity of their country, possibly even to the degree of learning Gaelic themselves. A Gaelic speaker in an essay in the newspaper The Herald in May 1998 put it as follows: "If you want to understand more about your country, then embrace Scots and learn Gaelic" (as quoted at Kelly 1999: 88). Here, the functional aspect of language is clearly less important than the symbolic one. Part of the awareness of Gaelic for Scottishness is its representation in official institutions, where the role of Gaelic as a minority language becomes evident for the entire country. I will look at this general acceptance of Gaelic as an identity marker by non-Gaelic speakers in Scotland and I will find that the picture of the complete absence of any importance of Gaelic as described by Grlach has changed. The connection between a distinct language and national identity has also found its place in people's minds in Scotland. As Glaser notes, the awareness of Gaelic issues in recent decades began to spread in the 1970s, followed by more systematic lobbying in the 1980s. At this time, the ground was prepared for more government recognition of the language and, eventually, steps towards Gaelic media and education (Glaser 2002). She identifies this 'Gaelic Renaissance' as a "clearly language-centred movement whose main mission has been the re-invention of Gaelic as a modern language which belongs to all Scots, and, indeed, to Europe and humanity as a whole." On the other hand, "language has played a variety of roles in relation to Gaelic identity. Gaelic has served as a reminder of a cultural link of indigenous Highlanders to the
167
traditional Gaelic-speaking community of Ireland. At the same time, Gaelic has functioned as a boundary marker towards the Lowlands." Cultures and languages of Scotland had at this stage already been so mixed that Gaelic could have served as a marker for all of Scotland. Today, Gaelic does seem to play a role for some people all over Scotland. Taylor/Thomson (1999) present data for the importance of Gaelic for Scottish national pride. According to their figures, 11% of respondents claimed that Gaelic was a source of pride when it comes to being Scottish (as opposed to, however, 32% on a respective question in Wales). On the other hand, the Tartan tradition is much more important for Scottish national pride, with 39% of Scots assigning relevance to it for Scottishness. This confirms the view that Highland symbols in total have entered Scottish minds to a much stronger degree than Gaelic traditions have. On the other hand, these figures also indicate that Gaelic is important for far more people in Scotland than just the under 2% of Gaelic speakers (Taylor/Thomson 1999: 127). Macdonald (1999: 101) notes: "One of the particularly notable features of this [so-called Gaelic] renaissance is the fact that it is not confined to the Highlands but that its spread is, if unevenly, throughout Scotland; and () that it is being seen as a Scottish matter." He also expresses the view that "many within Scotland felt that Scottishness should not be located in Gaelic, a language spoken by such a small minority of the population." Nonetheless, he argues that there has been an attempt to link Gaelic to Scottish nationalism since the 1960. In this context, "one clear feature is a movement towards defining Gaelic as Scottish and this is reflected in the movement of Gaelic developments outwith the Highlands and Islands" (Macdonald 1999: 110-111).
10.5.3 "Old" vs. "New" "True" vs. "Untrue" Minority Culture Another important aspect in the debate on the layers of Gaelic identity in Scotland is the reaction of Gaelic speakers to changes in society. As briefly touched upon previously, Glaser describes tensions and the complexity of the modern Gaelic community in her dichotomy of essentialism and dynamism (Glaser 2002). The core question is What is Gaelic?: Essentialism or Purism denotes the perception that traditional Gaelic culture at some point in the past is the only true Gaelic culture, and is also the only acceptable one. Any cultural reactions to changes in society move Gaelic away from the one and only preservable past. Dynamism or Situationalism, on the other hand, takes exactly this into consideration. As any other culture, minority cultures are also influenced through contact and rightfully change according to developments in society and technology. As a whole, this co-existence makes Gaelic identity extremely complex. Macdonald illustrates Glaser's dichotomy by giving two examples of Gaelic speakers, exemplifying the older and the newer generation of attitudes: for the older generation, Gaelic is as a marker of the traditional community: "I speak it not because I have to but because it is what we speak.
168
() But if it's going to become something artificial, then, well, I won't feel like speaking it at all." Macdonald underlines this by referring to reports of the Stornoway Gazette which "finds the over-forties most against the pro-Gaelic developments". For the younger generation, in contrast, the notion of insiders (having Gaelic) vs. outsiders is by far not as present: "Gaelic has ceased to be primarily embedded in local social relations and has become more of an 'in itself" matter. () Culture and identity have become 'objects' in their own right which can be disembedded from immediate social relations" (Macdonald 1999: 113-115). This problem is also stressed, for instance, by CLI, the Gaelic Learners' Organisation, who has repeatedly reported of a lack of recognition for their organisation on the grounds of "not representing true Gaelic culture" (Cl 2005; also in personal communication). For essentialists, "Gaelic is perceived to have an almost physical presence in native speakers' minds and hearts. Even at the point of fluency, learners continue to be labelled as 'learners'." Comments such as "'Learning the language doesn't mean knowing the culture', or he or she 'will never be a real Gael'" have been made. Newton (2000: 285-290), for instance, is a strong defender of the essentialist paradigm. When commenting on efforts by the BBC to make Gaelic programmes attractive to a young, mainstream-oriented audience, he argues that this "causes many aspects of Gaelic tradition to be neglected in preference for translating what is essentially the culture of the English-speaking world into Gaelic. () Gaelic and English could become slightly differing ciphers for the same set of ideas and aesthetics." In this, Newton is in line with notions of Gaelic speakers being an own ethnicity. In another volume, he even refers to "a distinct world view", comparing Gaelic culture to Native American and other indigenous cultures (Newton 1997: 26). Here, he describes "Gaels" as a cultural group, and reports of strong kinship ties, and a strong affiliation to one's home village/island/valley. All this can indeed be seen as a strong indication of a distinct ethnicity of Gaelic speakers within Scottish society. Macdonald also refers to some attempts of Gaels to identify themselves as a distinct ethnic group but despite these efforts, Gaelic is seen as relevant for all of Scotland. Ethnicity is thus far more complex as in the case of the Smi. Only if the essentialist paradigm is dominant, a distinct ethnicity becomes debatable: "As yet, this development is much less prominent than the definition of Gaelic as Scottish, though it indicates nevertheless an interesting alternative identity trajectory along which increased Gaelic activism in Scotland could also develop" Macdonald (1999: 103). However, a weakness of essentialism is that it does not take into account that the Gaelic community is extremely heterogeneous in itself: "Boundaries which are objectively created by Gaelic run right across the community, where they result in dichotomies such as 'heartlands vs. periphery', 'elite vs. grassroots' and 'native speakers vs. learners'. () Boundaries also run through individuals. Being a Gael does not by definition exclude all other national and ethnic identities. It is increasingly experienced as relative, contextual, ambiguous and negotiable" (Glaser 2002).
169
This heterogeneous nature of Gaelic speakers and their possible multi-identity is empirically confirmed by the 1994/95 Euromosaic study of speakers of Gaelic (reported by MacKinnon 2001). On a scale of strong, weak, or no identity, approximately 60% of respondents claimed a strong identity as Gaels. Almost 90% of respondents in the Western Isles additionally claimed a strong local identity (as opposed to only just above 50% elsewhere in Scotland). Around 80% also claimed a strong Scottish identity. Levels of British and European identities, on the other hand, remained fairly low, with 10% and lower having a strong identity, and almost 60%/almost 70% having no British/European identity at all. As a whole, a distinct ethnic "Gaelic" identity was thus not as strong as a Scottish or a local identity, even in this study of exclusively Gaelic speakers (MacKinnon 2001b: 178). This study thus confirms that Gaelic speakers have largely become part of mainstream society. Again Glaser: "The semantic content of terms like 'Gaeldom' has almost entirely been reduced to symbolic practices and what one could describe as residual mental heritage (values and outlooks), while the public upgrading of the language and related cultural practices into assets of the whole country or region (i.e. Scotland) means that such practices are likely to lose some of their boundary creating potential." The dynamic approach rightfully takes this heterogeneity into account: It "allows individuals to think of themselves as members of the Gaelic community as long as they show genuine interest and commitment (), which may, but need not, require ability in the ancestral language.". Glaser eventually tries to present a solution to the questions raised by these seemingly contradictory attitudes: "Turning language maintenance into an overriding mission () incorporates elements from both paradigms. It acknowledges the ancestral code as an evident link to historic fixed points (), but it promotes it in ways that are much more reminiscent of regionalism and new social movements than of classic ethno-nationalist projects. () The greatest challenge consists in determining which balance between the two works most effectively in which setting." Such a view is frequently confirmed by Gaelic activists, such as by representatives of the Gaelic Development Agency CnaG, who report of the long, yet inevitable struggle to accept that the Gaelic language and its cultural component today are not what they where one generation ago.31 One solution to determining who belongs to a certain group is to apply the criterion of self-perception. Where this happens (e.g. vis--vis members of minority groups in the DanishGerman border region), it is not uncommon that people consider themselves to be part of the minority, to share their tradition and culture, but without showing proficiency in the minority language, and we have seen above that this method is also used in the Smi context. Granting minority status to individuals based on self-identification seems to be the appropriate way to guarantee every individuals right of identity, regardless of the language predominantly used.
31
Personal discussion at the CnaG's headquaters in Inverness in May 2003.
170
Part of the question on whether a distinct Gaelic ethnicity exists is whether the cultural link between the speakers of Gaelic, the solidarity based on a perceived common cultural distinction and ancestry is strong enough, or if it is only their language in which Gaels are different. One important component is the organisational structure of Gaelic speakers. The rise of Celtic consciousness has gone hand in hand with the emergence of cultural festivals, cultural organisations, etc. There is no doubt that many activities linked to Gaeldom are linked to language, and can only be performed completely when one knows the language. However, again, the notion of Celtic heritage has spread far beyond just Gaelic speakers. Given that large parts of Scottish society claim to have strong Gaelic roots, it is questionable if one should postulate a distinct ethnicity for Gaelic speakers, despite there being a different linguistic identity. In addition, it is highly doubtful that the life of the Gaelic speakers differs considerably from their English(or Scots-) speaking neighbours. This refers to both the Gidhealtachd and the Gaelic speakers in other parts of Scotland. The way people lead their lives will usually be determined much more by factors such as if they live on a remote island of the Outer Hebrides or in Glasgow, regardless of what vernacular they use. Gaelic has undoubtedly had its influence on both Scottish identity as a whole, and on the specific identity of Gaelic speakers. The question now is as to what degree distinct features of tradition and culture are maintained in the Gaelic-speaking community, which have not penetrated mainstream Scottish heritage activities. This is where, at last, traces of a separate Gaelic ethnicity can be found, even if activities are carried out only rarely. Some special traditions for Christmas or wedding ceremonies prevail. Of particular importance is crofting, the traditional self-subsistence agriculture in the Gidhealtachd, which is closely related to the Gaelic language. Yet, it is again very unlikely that these traditions are not similar to those of non-Gaelic speaking residents of the area. The question of a distinct Gaelic ethnicity therefore remains unsolved. Gaelic speakers often have a specific identity based on their language, but only in the same way as other parts of society have their own identity. This is no real ethnicity: several identities within Scotland merge without clear boundaries. Gaelic appears as one part of Scottish identity, ranging in its intensity from complete knowledge of the language and culture to only marginal feelings about some Celtic heritage. The perception of being culturally and linguistically different from the rest of the Scottish population depends on the individual. In some cases, this distinctiveness will support the feeling of being Scottish as opposed to being British. On the other hand, we have to acknowledge that traces of ethnicity cannot be completely denied. As a last remark, it is important to note that an analogous discussion takes place in many similar contexts: Glaser discusses the same discourse patterns in the Sorbian area in Germany,
171
and similar records have been made in Brittany. In the case of Smi, as we have seen, legislation has adopted the dynamic approach. Anyone can identify as Smi (with some restrictions) and many Smi today live a modern, Western-style life which shows that this approach is in fact chosen by many Smi. Concluding, we thus find that both Smi and Gaelic identity have a variety of aspects, and that identification of oneself and of others is complex. In this light, it is only reasonable that the Scandinavian states have chosen to make personal identification as a Smi the core feature of official recognition as Smi. What, however, is crucially different to Scotland is that the distinction between Smi and non-Smi in the Scandinavian societies is by far stricter, and that there is no doubt about a distinct Smi ethnicity, whereas this is questionable for Gaelic speakers. Unlike Scotland, where some Scots choose to make Gaelic part of their identity as Scots, a true Norwegian (or Swedish or Finnish) identity will never incorporate parts of a Smi identity, whereas, vice versa, Smi commonly have an identity as state citizens. Smi and Scandinavian identities may co-exist in one individual but they largely co-exist as two distinct concepts, whereas a Gaelic identity may exist as one feature of an overall Scottish identity. The following table summarises identity aspects of Smi and Gaelic speakers. As we can see, language is in both cases important as a marker of a distinct identity and discussions such as the opposition between dynamists and essentialists are similar but differences exist, for instance, in that the polarisation between the minority culture and language and the cultural mainstream is much clearer for Smi than for Gaelic.
Important Identity Components Ethnicity and Indigenousness Role of language Gaelic Language and traditional Highland communities; music, poetry and art, tradition as language in Scotland; Clear sign of distinction from England Disputed; Gaeldom as one part of Scottishness For many the only criterion of Gaeldom; policies are mostly language-oriented; for essentialists, language is not sufficient for being Gaelic; being Gaelic without knowing the language is unlikely Strong differences between essentialists and dynamists; no official group definition; anyone interested in Gaelic may benefit from policies Gaelic seen as distinct part of Scottishness by many; by others only as part of Highland culture Smi Ethnic minority, but also state citizens; common Sminess: language, flag, hymn, traditions: Joik, Duodji, reindeer, relation to nature Clearly given; Norwegianness and Sminess as two clearly separated concepts Extremely important as identity marker; however, not the only ethnic criterion; language is only one aspect of Smi policy; Smi ethnicity without language knowledge is possible Dynamic approach dominates; official definition of Sminess according to selfperception State recognises Smi as distinct group; but very little impact of Smi on Norwegian state identity
Discussion Old vs. New Group Importance for State Identity
Table 47: Summary of Determining Factors for Gaelic and Smi Identity
11 Scottish Gaelic in the Late 20th Century in the Theoretical Scheme
172

11.1 Scottish Gaelic Placed into Minority Typology
Similarly to the Smi chapter, the theoretical framework will now be applied to the sociolinguistic state of Gaelic in Scotland before devolution. For this purpose, I will again start with localising the major political reference points of Gaelic speakers in Scotland relevant for their identity. Except for a certain relevance of political affairs in London and Brussels, there is hardly any direct political reference point for Gaelic outside Scotland. As for Smi, it is therefore appropriate to use an interrupted boundary for the Gaelic heartland, given that there are Gaelic speakers anywhere in Scotland, but that the Gidhealtachd exists as a traditional reference area. Seen from the Gidhealtachd, there are several possible centres: the Council of the Western Isles and the Highland Council are important in administrative terms and for Gaelic organisations. The Isle of Skye with its relatively high proportion of Gaelic speakers and institutions such as the Sabhal Mr Ostaig is an important reference point for education. Besides these centres of reference which are located within the minority area, however, the central Scottish administration in Edinburgh is unquestionably also of vital importance for the Gaelic community, not only because of the Scottish Parliament. Additionally, the city with the largest absolute number of Gaelic speakers is Glasgow, with Gaelic organisations and education facilities. These reference points are outside the core minority area. Figure 18 illustrates the multi-layeredness of reference points of Gaelic speakers in and outside the Gidhealtachd, following the approach for Smi:
Gaelic speakers in the Gidhealtachd Gaelic speakers in the rest of Scotland
Western Isles
Edinburgh Glasgow
Skye/Other Local Centres
Figure 18: Assumed Reference Points of Gaelic Speakers
Transferring the reference points from Figure 18 to the square-circle-dot structure, we get a minority area with a penetrable boundary at the periphery of the political unit. Centres of Gaelic are located both inside and outside the circle, denoting the reference points indicated above:
173
Glasgow
Skye
Western Isles Edinburgh The Gidhealtachd Scotland Other Local Centres, Inverness
Figure 19: Scottish Gaelic according to the Laponce Model
11.2 Gaelic Legislation in Scotland before 1999

When looking at legislation on Gaelic in Scotland before 1999, it is remarkable that, unlike other countries, public bodies never paid a lot of attention to language (cf. for instance Ager 1996: 40-53). The Celtic languages were driven back more by sociodemographic processes than by law. In Wales, English became the official language of administration and the court in the Welsh Act of Union of 1536, whereas in Scotland, English was never officially made the language of administration. In education, English was imposed in the early 17th century with an impact remaining up to today. As MacKinnon stated in his submission to the debate on the Gaelic Bill introduced by the Scottish Executive in 2003: "It is now time to repeal by statute the 1609 Statutes of Iona and their ratification by the 1616 Act of the Scottish Privy Council as a clear signal that times have now changed, and that official policy no longer regards the language as barbaric or uncivil or the practitioners of its culture as vagabonds or outlaws." Its reasoning shows clearly the dominant ideology at the time, stating that "all his Majesties subjectis, especiallie the youth, be exercised and trained up in civilitie, godliness, knowledge and learning, that the vulgar Inglishe toung be universallie plantit, and the Irishe [i.e. Gaelic] language, which is one of the chief and principall causis of the continwance of barbarities and incivilite amongis the inhabitantis of the Iles and Heylandis, may be abolisheit and removit" (as quoted at MacKinnon 2003b). In Wales, Welsh became the official language by the Welsh Language Act of 1993, which followed a first act on its promotion from 1967. In Scotland however, official recognition was until recently considered unnecessary. Generally, policy concerning Gaelic and in particular Gaelic funding was carried out on a demand-oriented basis, despite the lack of official recognition. Matheson/Matheson (2000: 212) note that "Scots Law is independent from English Law and yet Scotland is officially monolingual, while Wales has been officially bilingual since 1967, despite its Law having been replaced by that of England since the Union of 1536-43". In 2002, MacKinnon had already summarised Gaelic language legislation, explaining that "lack of clarity regarding the official status of the Gaelic language in Scotland has impeded Gaelic development for a long time." The fact that there was no language legislation as in Wales "has given the impression that
174
the Gaelic Language has no official or legal status and it has been used erroneously as an excuse by organizations such as the Lottery Heritage Fund to turn down applications for funding for Gaelic playgroups, and by British Telecom to refuse similar facilities for Gaelic as it provides for Welsh" (MacKinnon 2002). Gaelic legislation was thus clearly seen as an important step for linguistic well-being. Despite this lack of status, however, a number of official documents dealt with Gaelic in specific domains in recent years. According to Ager (1996: 49), Gaelic has been subject to official recognition in four legal documents. First, in provisions for small landholders, the crofters, whose agricultural techniques of self-subsistence are considered to be a substantial part of rural Gaelic tradition, the inclusion of one Gaelic-speaking member in the Land Court and the Crofters Commission was made a requisite already in 1886 (MacKinnon 1993: 492). Second, the 1981 Nationality Act recognises Gaelic (besides English and Welsh) as a language sufficient to satisfy the language condition of the naturalisation law. Third, in local government, some official forms in Gaelic and bilingual road signs had been allowed. This policy is surprising insofar as its explicitly permissive character contradicts the usual laissez-faire approach towards Gaelic. Finally, the 1990 Broadcasting Act required the support of a Gaelic Television Fund with public donations in order to promote Gaelic television programmes. It was succeeded by the 1996 Broadcasting Act to include the funding of radio programming, which eventually led to the establishment of a Gaelic Broadcasting Committee. Its report on Gaelic broadcasting stated in this context that "the breakthrough made by Gaelic television in the 1990 Broadcasting Act was a dramatic and defining moment for the Gaelic community. () Without that scale of cultural intervention it is highly likely that the loss of cultural confidence, so evident by the 1980s, would have continued to accelerate and the Gaelic decline would by now be terminal" (Scottish Parliament Education Committee 2001b). It is worth noting that education does not appear in this limited legislation on Gaelic, despite the fact that the establishment of Gaelic schooling, together with radio and television, uses the highest proportion of Gaelic funding. This is mainly due to the lack of inclusion of Gaelic in the 1872 Act referred to above, which despite its dated character, is still regularly referred to.32 In addition to Agers findings, however, Dunbar mentions two further documents (Dunbar 1999a). The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 forces authorities, in a rather vague manner, to teach Gaelic in Gaelic-speaking areas. Further, there are the Grants for Gaelic Language Education (Scotland) Regulations from 1986, which provide the legal basis for the funding of Gaelic-related education. However, as Dunbar points out, this legislation remains extremely unspecific, and does not correspond to increased demands. The Local Government (Gaelic Names) (Scotland) Act from 1997, finally, allows local authorities to adopt Gaelic-only names which the Council
32
For example by Fionnlagh McLeod in the Scottish Parliament Education, Culture and Sports Committee (McLeod, Fionnlagh 2000).
175
of the Western Isles, which had adopted a bilingual name in 1975, used in 1998 to change its name to Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (CNES). Additionally, some important national documents were already produced by the Scottish Office in Gaelic, as incidences of rather covert, non-legally funded language policy. At the level of local administration, besides the CNES bilingual policy, the Highland Council established a Gaelic Development Strategy in 1998; and Argyll and Bute Council for some years had a policy of accommodating enquiries from Gaelic speakers wherever possible.
Year 1886 1918 1975 1981 1984 1985 1986 1990 1996 1998 Document Gaelic speaking member required in Crofters Commission Teaching of Gaelic allowed Council of Western Isles/Comhairle nan Eilean Siar starts operating bilingually Gaelic recognised as one language sufficient for achieving naturalisation in the Nationality Act Erection of bilingual road signs following the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 National Heritage (Scotland) Act provides further funding of Gaelic activities Legal basis for funding of Gaelic-related education in the Grants for Gaelic Language Education (Scotland) Regulations Support for Gaelic Television Funding in the 1990 Broadcasting Act Establishment of Gaelic radio funding and the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee after the 1996 Broadcasting Act Renaming of the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar as the only name of the Western Isles Council following the Local Government (Gaelic Names) (Scotland) Act 1997
Table 48: Legal Documents Dealing with Gaelic in the UK until 1997/98
Concerning legislation granting general rights for Gaelic, the only parliamentary attempt failed in Westminster in 1981. Donald Stewart (SNP MP for the Western Isles) introduced a Private Member's Bill, but it failed to gain any significant support. Official recognition on the whole has been a strong issue of Gaelic promotion campaigns for some time, using the development of the status of Welsh in Wales as a main reference point, but until the late 1990s it had not had any official impact. Gaelic activists have consistently pointed out that the status is far from sufficient. As McLeod put it in his submission to the 2002 debate on a Private Member's Bill in the Scottish Parliament, "language legislation is fundamental and necessary if the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament are serious about defending and developing Gaelic." That there can be no real progress without such legislation "is the lesson to be learned from those countries that have experienced success with their language development policies" (McLeod 2002b). A discussion of this shall follow later when dealing with general future ideas on Scottish Gaelic.
11.3 Gaelic in the Domains of Language Use

According to McLeod's view in 1999 (1999: 2), "the two fields where Gaelic initiatives have been most significant and successful are education and broadcasting (on both television and radio), though a range of other developments, principally of a cultural and artistic nature, are also important." This view is confirmed by a look at spending by the Scottish Executive on Gaelic issues, which saw a considerable
176
augmentation from the mid-1980s to 1998. In total, funding rose from under half a million to more than 12 million pounds. Of this, expenditure on education increased from 250,000 to almost 3.5 million and cultural grants from between 100,000 and 200,000 to over 700,000. Funding of Gaelic Broadcasting was first introduced in 1991 and has remained fairly stable at between 8 million and 10 million. In the following, the position of Gaelic policy according to language use domains will be analysed more systematically.
11.3.1 Public and Private The first domain to be treated will again be the use of Gaelic in personal communication in both private and public. The picture here is quite positive: If there is one domain where Gaelic is still used on a regular basis, it is at home. In addition, there are no restrictions on using Gaelic personal names in private communication. However, research has shown that even here Gaelic is in decline, mainly in families where Gaelic speakers meet non-Gaelic speakers (MacKinnon 1993: 501-514). Similarly, the use of Gaelic in the local community is threatened as soon as there is a single non-Gaelic speaker involved in a conversation. Examples have been given where the local shop in a village community is taken over by a non-Gaelic speaker from outside, and all conversation at this public meeting-point is suddenly carried out in English. We can thus conclude that individual rights are granted in that there are no legal objections to using Gaelic in the private and personal public spheres. However, there are practical obstacles to using Gaelic in all parts of every-day life. There is no point for a Gaelic speaker in insisting on using his/her mother tongue in a local shop, if the shop-keeper does not understand what he/she demands. Reality thus determines clear limits.
11.3.2 Public Bodies The question of the position of Gaelic and of how linguistic rights are granted becomes more complex when looking at public bodies. At this point, we come back to the three possible structures of official language use identified by Blumenwitz. According to the first option, English would be the only official language. In order to fulfil language rights requirements, Gaelic speakers should be able to use their language in all situations according to the personality principle. The second suggestion is the multilingual solution. Gaelic could become official alongside English, either in the whole of Scotland or on a regional level. Until the 1990s, even though Gaelic had no official status on either level, in practice the regional territoriality solution had been applied for some time. As we have seen, since the restructuring of regional government
177
in Scotland in the 1970s, there had been a considerable recognition of Gaelic by the Western Isles Council with the aim that "the Western Isles should be a fundamentally bilingual community in which Gaelic and English are used concurrently as the languages of communication, so that the people of the area can have the choice of language in as many situations as possible" (cf. and as quoted at Gillies 1987: 36), and also the Highland Council had launched a Gaelic policy. However, there are also doubts that these aims had been fulfilled. According to Dunbar, there have been some meetings of the Comhairle with Gaelic as the working language, but it has often been difficult to find staff with both the necessary knowledge of Gaelic and the skills needed in the given position (cf. Dunbar 1999a). Public buildings on the Western Isles and Skye were largely bilingual (Euromosaic 1996b), and the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar encourages employees to use Gaelic wherever possible. Major documents, reports, agendas and minutes are produced in bilingual format. Most importantly for our topic, the public is encouraged to use Gaelic when dealing with the Council. Non-Gaelic speaking staff was supported in taking Gaelic classes, and there have been Gaelic-only days at the Comhairle to support Gaelic knowledge (Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 1999). However, all this is relativised considering that it is done "within the resources available" (Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 2000c). Besides internal dedication, the Comhairle has been active in supporting Gaelic education and a number of projects supporting and cataloguing Gaelic culture by new technological devices such as through the establishment of a Gaelic Internet Channel, a project to digitise Gaelic sound archive material, or the support of digital television (Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 2000a). It seems as if efforts to enable people to deal with the authorities in their native language have been taken seriously. Similarly, it was "the first local authority to produce a Gaelic Development Strategy and it now has a very robust Gaelic Education Policy". Measures taken included the production of a Gaelic Development Plan and Gaelic Community Learning Plans, implemented throughout the Highlands (Highland Council 2002). McLeod in the context of the 2002 debate on the Private Member's Bill remarks on the important position of local public bodies and their responsibility for Gaelic prosperity, and calls for "active offer". Referring to the creation of Gaelic development posts in several regional councils, he notes that "even in areas where Gaelic is still strong, there are doubts about Gaelic. () People need encouragement and we need to explain that services are readily available through the medium of Gaelic and that we welcome work in the language" (Highland Council 2003b). Concerning Scotland-wide institutions, the Scottish Office had followed already for some years before devolution the practice of replying in Gaelic to letters written in Gaelic. There had also been Gaelic versions of important national documents, and bilingual press releases in cases dealing with Gaelic matters. (Dunbar 1999a). In legal proceedings, however, the use of Gaelic
178
was extremely limited. Except for the Crofting Courts mentioned, where the use of Gaelic has been allowed throughout the 20th century, but where it is uncertain that this has in fact ever happened, a litigant cannot testify or present a case in Gaelic unless he or she has insufficient command of English. Translation services will be available in criminal court cases whenever the defendant does not understand English. However, as Dunbar points out, this is a general principle of jurisdiction (Dunbar 1999a). A famous case in this context is the 1982 Taylor vs. Haughney case, where the use of Gaelic was rejected on the grounds that the accused was able to communicate in English (Smith 2000: 182). With regard to the domains of the police, prisons and health and social services, it is remarkable that these hardly appear in the Gaelic discussion. One of the few instances where a more extensive account of health-related Gaelic use is given is by MacNeil/Stradling/MacNeil (1996). The authors suggest the development of adequate networks of Gaelic health officials, doctors and other personnel, and for the inclusion of health issues in Gaelic education. On the one hand, there is an (albeit decreasing) group of Gaelic speakers who feel more comfortable in Gaelic than in English. For these speakers, the use of Gaelic when consulting a doctor may transmit information which may get lost if only English is used. Especially in very personal communication, involving a high degree of confidence in the doctor, this is crucial for personal well-being. Just as important, however, is the attitudinal effect of the use of Gaelic in, for example, health promotion campaigns. Gaelic speakers whose English is no obstacle to successful medical treatment will be much more likely to listen to campaigns in Gaelic. From the foregoing, we can therefore draw an ambiguous picture of the status of Gaelic in public bodies until 1999. On the one hand, within the region of the Western Isles, Gaelic was established as a language in which individuals could address local officials, following the territoriality principle. In other regions, however, it was difficult to use Gaelic in communication with local authorities. In terms of national authorities, the personality principle seemed to be established to a very limited extent, but even where Gaelic versions of official documents were available, these were limited, assuming that all Gaelic speakers are capable of reading English. The main problem, however, is that these steps were taken without any legal status. This also meant that a government which would openly want to deprive the Gaelic community of any language rights could do so without legal obstacles. The situation of Gaelic in administration and court did thus not correspond to most theoretical ideas laid out by scholars. This summarising Table 49 adds a Scottish column to Table 4:
Status Implication by Blumenwitz Universal Declaration Right to use language in Situation in Scotland until 1999 Not applicable: English only official language, no interpretation
Administration: National Interpreting service free of charge and official language are

identical Adm.: Several coexisting languages: identical official status Adm.: Several coexisting languages: national vs. regional languages Adm.: Several coexisting languages: Personality Principle Adm.: No national, only regional languages Court: Personality Principle Police/Prison/ Health Services: Personality Principle communication with public bodies regardless of linguistic regime; in regional bodies in area of linguistic community: Territoriality Principle; for national public bodies: Personality Principle
179
All languages to be used everywhere
Regional languages allowed according to Territoriality Principle All languages to be used everywhere Only regional languages apply according to Territoriality Principle; problem: new minorities are created Trial in native language everywhere Right to ensure understanding (personality principle), and to use language of territory in any case (only implicitly by Blumenwitz)
services Very limited application: No official status of Gaelic, however: in practice, Gaelic letters are answered in Gaelic etc. in the central administration Partly fulfilled: Gaelic as a language of administration in some regions, however: no real official status Not fulfilled: Gaelic in administration throughout Scotland usually not usable Not applicable due to the dominant position of English Not fulfilled: No use of Gaelic in court, exception: Crofters Commission Not fulfilled: No guarantees for Gaelic use; individual instances possible
Native language in any legal proceedings No specific reference, but implied in general public bodies section
Table 49: Acceptable Status in Public Bodies: Gaelic in Scotland before 1999
11.3.3 Education Looking at the provision of Gaelic education in the 1990s provides a picture similar to that concerning the use of Gaelic in public bodies (Euromosaic 1996b, ch. 3.1). In the Western Isles and parts of the Highland Region, Gaelic-medium pre-school and primary school was widely available. In the rest of the country, some Gaelic-medium units at a few places such as Glasgow were established, however, without general availability. Alternative means such as the transport of Gaelic children to those schools was usually impossible due to large distances. Gaelic as a second language, on the other hand, was available in almost all parts of the country. The picture gets worse when looking at Gaelic-medium secondary education. One main factor was and still is the lack of suitable teachers. Within the range of the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, there were five secondary schools offering Gaelic-medium units. Additionally, Gaelicmedium secondary courses in Glasgow and Inverness existed for some time. In the rest of the country, there were the same limitations as for primary education. One major problem in this context was the decline of the number of students in Gaelic-medium education from primary to secondary level. Only 40% of Gaelic-medium pre-school pupils chose Gaelic-medium primary schooling, and less than half of these continued to secondary level. The same applied to Gaelic learners. Despite the increasing number of classes teaching Gaelic as a second language, only few
180
of the students continued on to an advanced level. 33 The availability of advanced Gaelic education thus needed to be increased considerably (cf. Comunn na Gidhlig 2005). This view is in line with a statement on the need of Gaelic teachers from the early days of the Scottish Parliament. According to an estimate by education authorities, an additional 220 teachers for Gaelic-medium education would be needed up to 2007, 150 for primary school, and 70 for secondary school. In comparison to the total number of 154 teachers in Gaelic-medium education in 1997, this would mean an increase of 143% within 10 years. Even though the Scottish Executive started funding Gaelic teachers' courses from its start of operation, this would require considerable further efforts by the Scottish government, as the number of graduates from teachers colleges had only increased from 12 in 1995-96 to 18 in 1999-2000 (Morrison 2000). The Highland Council provided a good example of what local authorities could already do in the 1990s to benefit Gaelic education, provided the political will existed. With regard to the statement that "English and Gaelic should have equality of status in the school environment", and that parents "have the right to Gaelic medium pre-school and primary education on request (subject to certain stated practical conditions)", the policy "sets out a minimum level of provision for Gaelic medium secondary education, seeks to extend access to the teaching of Gaelic as a second language, in the primary and secondary sector and seeks to involve other organisations, including parents' groups, in this work" (Highland Council 2002). Robertson in 1999 thus summarised the state of Gaelic education, confirming that substantial progress had been made in some areas, particularly concerning the provision of Gaelic-medium pre-school and primary education. However, as he writes (Robertson 1999: 253-255), "buoyant and burgeoning as the Gaelic-medium development would appear to be, it is, nevertheless, a tender and fragile flower." Further steps considered necessary included the guarantee of a secure status for education rights for Gaelic, a closer partnership between local and national government, the establishment of specialised teacher training, and a dedication to include Celtic and Gaelic elements of Scottish heritage, life and culture in the curriculum of every school child in Scotland. To summarise, the situation in Scotland will again be compared to the previous Table 6:
Educational Aspect of Minority Languages Minority Language as a second language Minority Languagemedium education Linguistic Rights Declaration Impacts Situation in Scotland
No comment; L2 minority To be ensured everywhere language learning is too weak Has to be guaranteed at all levels As often as possible, within minority territory according to the number of pupils Not mentioned, but included in general demand for minority Transport to minority schools to be ensured wherever
Minority Language education in non33
Available in most parts of the country Fairly wide-spread in the Gidhealtachd, only very limited elsewhere, in particular in secondary schools, no guarantees No
Cf. Cox' quote of what he calls an apocryphal tale: You can find a Gaelic nightclass anywhere but only at level one, Cox 1998: 81.

cohesive situations Segregation prevention language education right in territory Right to learn any language of the territory possible
181
Education partly in the majority language, or at least as second language Minority Culture To be guaranteed for any Cultural Background as part education linguistic community of minority identity Co-operation with Minority speech communities as Decentralisation of minority organisations the core decision-makers curriculum
No danger given the dominant position of English Usually part of Gaelic education Influence of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar on curriculum and teacher education in cooperation with minority organisations; only partly in the rest of Scotland
Table 50: Core Issues of Minority Language Education Policy Compared to the 1990s' Scotland
11.3.4 Economy/Work Place When looking at Gaelic in the domains of the economy and the work-place, the Universal Declaration's demand to use Gaelic "in all socio-economic activities within one's territory" is given in so far as there are no objections to using Gaelic in any way. However, when looking at the specifications, we find that many of "the means necessary for the performance of their professional activities" are mostly not present. It is also the exception that Gaelic can be used in economic transactions, with employers' or trade organisations, and also signposting and advertising in Gaelic is rare. The chances of using Gaelic as user and customer depend on the individual company, the opportunity being greater in the Gidhealtachd areas than in the rest of the country. Leaving the pattern of rights and legislation, however, and turning to language development, the picture is slightly more optimistic. The Gaelic Arts Agency in its submission to the Report on Gaelic broadcasting, for instance, found in 2001 that "over the past ten years Gaelic television has, for the first time in centuries, enabled real investment in Gaelic cultural production, significantly raised the public profile of Gaelic and reshaped the self-image of the Gael" (Scottish Executive 2000a). There are also reports on an increase in number of Gaelic-related jobs in the 1990s in other sectors involved in the transmission of the language, such as culture or other parts of the media. Some local companies began to recognise increased Gaelic consciousness and created more posts in which knowledge of Gaelic is not only an advantage for applicants, but where Gaelic is the working language. Examples such as exclusively bilingual employment advertisements, however, remained exceptions (for the use of Gaelic at the work place and in advertisements, cf. Cox 1998, MacKinnon 1993, or Euromosaic 1996b, ch. 3.6). The same is still true with regard to the use of Gaelic at work. Wherever Gaelic speakers work together with English monoglots, only English is used. This situation is dominant at virtually all work places in areas outside the Gidhealtachd. Within the core Gaelic areas, the situation is not as extreme, but also here migration from outside has had its impact. In total, it
182
remains true that there is no obligation for anyone to use Gaelic in these fields, and that the individual attitude of the work-place is decisive for the role of Gaelic in its proceedings. Yet, despite this rather discouraging picture, the role of the economy began to receive more attention from Gaelic activists. That it is one of the most crucial parts of language revitalisation is, for instance, illustrated by the saying "No jobs, no people; no people, no Gidhealtachd; no Gidhealtachd, no language" (Highland Council 2001). This refers mainly to the continuing climate of economic despair in many parts of the Highlands and Islands which still force many, especially young people, to migrate to the Central Belt of Scotland. It also refers, however, to the amount of time most people spend at work if their language cannot be used during one of the most dominant activities of life, this surely is to the strong detriment of the language. As a result of this renewed interest, there is now an increasing number of studies referring to the role of the economy for Gaelic. MacKinnon reported in 1994 that Gaelic knowledge was highest among semi-professional (teaching, nursing), semi-skilled (predominantly the crofting community) and among those who claimed no occupation (mainly housewives). The socioeconomic position of the speakers is highly important for the attitude of both Gaelic speakers and non-speakers to the language only where attitudes are positive and prestige high, will Gaelic not have the reputation of "backwards" and be attractive to people, especially the youth (MacKinnon 1994: 125). Sproull (1996) examined in detail the reciprocal influence between Gaelic and economic activity. In particular, he drew attention to opportunities for Gaelic tourism and the development of small businesses, especially in the service industry. In addition, the impact on self-confidence of the region could be a positive factor for a more energetic economy, which may again lead to migration into the area including the re-migration of people who have left the area for higher education. Similarly, Highlands and Islands Enterprises (HIE) as a government-supported development agency for the Gaelic heartland developed a Strategy for Gaelic Development. Here, it lists "the development of Gaelic language and culture for raising self-confidence and stimulate economic and social development" as one major aim. Fields with such a potential include tourism, Gaelic Arts, broadcasting, and teaching facilities. In total, the aim is to "create training programmes and consolidate integration of economic, social and environmental development" (Highlands and Islands Enterprise 1992). MacNeil (1996: 102) thus concludes that "a demand for Gaelic speakers in the job-market is beginning to emerge, associated with a demand for training the additional Gaelic speakers needed. There is, therefore, a valueadded dimension here, in that the demand for speakers is closely linked with the economic opportunities within the Gaelic-speaking communities." Galloway (1994: 144) concluded similarly that there was a "small but significant job market". According to his estimations, Gaelic was essential for around 450, and an
183
asset for another 2,000 posts. However, these numbers indicate that this is a long way from being of a size sufficient to support a Gaelic economy, and that an aim of Gaelic economic development has to be to increase these numbers. It seems that the Gaelic economy, despite some improvements, still needed much attention. The following chapters will indicate the degree to which these needs have been taken into account by Gaelic policy in recent years.
11.3.5 The Media and Arts It is in the media where the most considerable changes benefiting Gaelic occurred during the 1990s, mostly through the two Broadcasting Acts on Gaelic which were passed in the 1990s. The Blumenwitz demands thus seem to be widely fulfilled: There are no limits in Gaelic print media, and the per capita number of publications in Gaelic seems to prove this. Radio and TV programmes receive the lion's share of Gaelic government funding. With regard to heritage maintenance, there have in recent times been no limits, and the number of groups promoting folk festivals and other events shows that such cultural maintenance was least endangered. When turning away from the perspective of linguistic rights and looking at an evaluation of policy reality in the 1990s, it is important to understand the connection of media and arts with economic prosperity of Gaelic and educational perspectives. In total, achievements benefiting Gaelic in the 1990s were successful and well-received by the audience. As the Gaelic Arts Council notes: "Over the past ten years Gaelic television has, for the first time in centuries, enabled real investment in Gaelic cultural production, significantly raised the public profile of Gaelic and reshaped the self-image of the Gael" (Priseact nan ealan/The Gaelic Arts Agency 2001). Sproull/Chalmers (1998) show that demand for Gaelic Arts (live events including exhibitions etc., products such as books, CDs, videos, radio and TV) very well exists. The Scottish Executive notes in the discussion on the Broadcasting Report (cf. ch. 17.3) that also "teachers hold very positive attitudes about the use of Gaelic television programmes as a teaching medium and as a teaching resource" (Scottish Executive 2001g). CnaG notes that "some programmes have attracted figures of 150 200k and the weekly current affairs magazine Eorpa, transmitted on BBC 2 from Glasgow, regularly attracts a high level of audience satisfaction among non-Gaelic speakers as well as Gaelic speakers. Programmes with sub-titles attract the non-Gaelic speaker and those who are Gaelic learners" (Comunn na Gidhlig 2001). The Gaelic Arts Council summarised key Gaelic arts and broadcasting interactions in the decade from 1991-2001. Projects of the Proiseact nan Ealan (PNE), the Gaelic Arts Agency, and the Comataidh Croalaidh Gaidhlig (CCG), the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee, display a wide variety of activities, including the Gaelic Arts and Media Training Programme which offers pioneering
184
short courses for writers, actors, directors and musicians, Gaelic Youth Theatre graduates who now work in all sectors of the Gaelic media, a film-animation-in-schools project, a TV documentary of the successful Gaelic/Scots Doric touring theatre production, Craobh nan Ubhal/The Aipple Tree, set on a North Sea oilrig, which was a vital step in the creation of the CCG supported theatre company Tosg, or a database of Gaelic artists which has resulted in a casting service for TV dramas (Priseact nan ealan/The Gaelic Arts Agency 2001). However, despite this generally positive picture, room for improvement remained. NicNill (2001: 105) argues that expectations have to be met for the various groups of the Gaelic audience. In particular, young speakers must not loose interest in the language: "They want modern, up-to-date programmes. They want, as do the adult viewers, their Gaelic programmes to be credibly representative of their own Gaelic-based life experiences." Similarly, the abandoning of both the Gaelic drama series Machair, and the news programme Telefios at the end of the 1990s show that also the improvements achieved must not ultimately be taken for granted: "Both programmes were made from the Western Isles and the decision to discontinue these two programmes without any replacements has had a very detrimental effect on the Gaelic television industry within the islands in terms of employment opportunities, training and the provision of ancillary services" (Comunn na Gidhlig 2001). The direct impact not only on the media landscape, but also on the Gaelic economy, is obvious. Dunbar (2001b) adds that "the 1990 and 1996 Broadcasting legislation provide relatively little guidance" and criticises the lack of emphasis on linguistic revival which "would have very important implications for funding levels, institutional structures, legislative frameworks, and so on, not only in respect of broadcasting, but also in respect of Gaelic-medium education, the Gaelic arts, community development, and so forth." 11.3.6 Further Domains of Gaelic Rights and Policies In terms of the remaining domains of Gaelic rights, there were no legal restrictions, but there was also no or very little policy support. This applies to international relations, where activities of cooperation with other Celtic cultures, with minority networks, or with Gaelic speakers overseas largely remained at the level of individuals. Scottish Natural Heritage is a good example of what an organisation involved in heritage protection could voluntarily do for Gaelic: "Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has prepared a Gaelic policy in order to ensure that SNH's messages on the natural heritage are disseminated in the new communication arena that is available through the use of Gaelic, and to develop consistency in the use of Gaelic in communication relating to the organisation's remit and activities." Key steps taken include, for instance, the appointment of a Gaelic Public Relations Officer for promoting natural heritage issues in the Gaelic media, the translation of published material and letters into Gaelic, bilingual signs, booklets and videos, Gaelic workshops, and the use of Gaelic in advertisements (Scottish National Heritage 2002).
185
In religious contexts, much holds true that has been said about most of the other domains. There are no legal obstacles for Gaelic use. Gaelic in fact stood strongest in some settings on the Western Isles with traditional religious attitudes. However, these communities, too, were endangered by increasing numbers of non-Gaelic-speaking residents, and by reduced Gaelic proficiency among the younger generations. Even if Gaelic services were still regular in the Western Isles and on Skye, and clergy of all denominations were Gaelic-speaking, there were to varying degrees problems in securing young Gaelic-speaking priests (cf. Euromosaic 1996b). A further problem arose with the position of Gaelic learners who may not support the traditional contexts of religion. Religion was thus also related to the dichotomy between essentialists and modernisers discussed above. All of this leads to the conclusion that most fundamental rights to Gaelic seemed to have been fulfilled in Scotland on the eve of the Scottish Parliament. Everything beyond this fundamental level, however, left considerable room for improvement. This included the legal foundation of policy as well as any political efforts to strengthen the language.
11.3.7 Other Issues 11.3.7.1 Corpus Planning When getting back to the aspects of language planning which are not directly part of status planning domains, it is remarkable that corpus planning is only very marginally part of the discussion of Gaelic planning, in particular in comparison to the regular efforts of Smi corpus planning. For instance, it is not mentioned a single time as a possible area of activity on Brd na Gidhlig's the Gaelic Language Development Agency's web site (Brd na Gidhlig 2005). One reason for this is that the long tradition of Gaelic as a literary language, as opposed to the relatively new extension of Smi to written domains, has made it unnecessary to deal with the most basic issues of, for instance, orthography. Even if McLeod remarks that "there is no standardised pronunciation or grammar, orthographic standardisation is incomplete," and that "lexicographic resources are patchy", he also admits that "the orthographic and grammatical codifications developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries continue to provide some foundation." On the other hand, similarities exist concerning the use of Gaelic in modern technology and in politics: "Nevertheless, there is an increasing disjuncture between the growing use of Gaelic in formal and official settings (most notably the new Scottish Parliament () and the inchoate state of corpus planning" (McLeod 2002c). Gaelic is also, to a much higher degree than Smi, perceived as one language, and differences between dialects are not seen as potentially detrimental to unity in the struggle for a better status. Another reason may
186
be that policy development has not yet made as much progress. In Smi policy, movements to word collections also mostly started only after gaining status and awareness. It will be interesting to see whether this situation changes in the discussion of Gaelic policy over the years.
11.3.7.2 Symbolic Values Regarding symbolic issues in the relation of Gaelic speakers to Scottish society, it has often been argued that symbolism must be strictly distinguished from mere tokenism, where a single sign in Gaelic is believed to be sufficient dedication to the language (cf. for instance Cox 1998). In Scotland as a whole, symbols of Gaelic presence are limited. A number of official documents have been published in a Gaelic version, which carries a certain symbolic significance, but there have been only very limited references to Gaelic versions of passports, stamps etc. In the Gidhealtachd, the picture is different. In the way the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar and the Highland Council developed bilingual policies there is also, besides practical implications, a symbolic importance. The presence of bilingual road signs demonstrates visibly to everyone that an area is home to another language besides English. In this respect, arguments that bilingual road signs may distract drivers' attention completely ignore that this practice exists in many areas around the world. In legal terms, local governments have been allowed to erect bilingual road signs since 1984 as one of the few elements of legislation where Gaelic is directly involved. In fact, in various parts of the Highland Region, but at individual instances also all over Scotland, road signs today are bilingual. On the Western Isles, road signs are sometimes even monolingual Gaelic. And the renaming of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar in its Gaelic version only, as mentioned, is another instance of highly symbolic value (cf. Dunbar 1999a; Euromosaic 1996b). An evaluation of the symbolic presence of Gaelic thus turns out to be highly ambiguous. On the one hand, it is widely recognisable by road signs and local government in the Gaelic heartland. On the other hand, throughout the rest of the country and in matters where the entire country would clearly be confronted with the presence of Gaelic, further steps should be taken. In no way is the situation close to, for instance, Ireland, where Irish is visibly dominant everywhere. Additionally, there is still only very little visible presence of Gaelic in the private sector, even in the Gidhealtachd. 11.3.7.3 Prestige and Relation to Mainstream Society Regarding attitudes and prestige, the conscious and sub-conscious beliefs surrounding Gaelic, we find that among the Gaelic-speaking population itself, the attitude to Gaelic is fairly positive. The Euromosaic study revealed that there is strong support for Gaelic measures and
187
that Gaelic is seen as relevant for a "true" Highlands and Islands identity. Roughly 85% of Gaelic speakers support the notion that Gaelic should be necessary in order to acquire a job in the public sector in the Western Isles. Negative statements as proposed by the study, e.g. on the low class status of Gaelic, of Gaelic as a dying language, or of Gaelic being unsuitable for usage in business or science, were broadly rejected (as quoted at MacKinnon 2001: 173-176). The submission by Priseact nan Ealan/The Gaelic Arts Agency to the Broadcasting Report Discussion in the Scottish Parliament confirms that 1994 research had concluded "that the image of the language both within and beyond 'heartland' areas was being positively changed, especially by Gaelic television and Gaelic music". The 1998 comparison confirmed that "the extent to which these early perceptions have been maintained and deepened is clearly evident from the survey evidence" and noted "the positive impact of Gaelic arts output (especially live events and television) on the attitudes of the relatively young" (Scottish Executive 2000a, Appendix 4, Section 6.3 (1)(2)). All this has, however, to be seen in the light of the long tradition of low prestige of Gaelic in Scottish society. In spite of changes, Gaelic still had little importance for Scotland as a whole, even though it was more important than Smi for the identity of Norway. We have seen how Highland culture and some features of Gaeldom have been used as marking Scottishness also in non-Gidhealtachd areas. Gaelic speakers usually see themselves as Scots, more than Smi see themselves as Norwegian citizens (this again being interlinked with ethnicity), but many still lacked the feeling of their language and culture being part of Scottish society. An attitude change has also to lead to more language acquisition. Only if Gaelic is seen as a normal part of life in Scotland by both Gaelic speakers and non-speakers, will people eventually be motivated to learn the language, or to ensure that they pass it on to next generations. This is by no means the dominant attitude as yet, and reports of patterns that Gaelic speakers automatically turn to English whenever someone from outside the community is present (even if that person is not directly involved in the conversation) prevail. For the time being, we will stick to a summary of the state of Gaelic in Scotland in the late 1990s in the following Table 51:
Domain Use in private communication General Legal Status Administration Main aspects/demands No restrictions whatsoever, including the use of personal names Official recognition as a language with rights and legal status according to individual constitutional and legislative tradition of the state Communication in native language according to Territoriality or Personality Principle, depending on regional or national body Personality Principle: Trial in native language/free interpretation everywhere Situation in Scotland in 1999 No restrictions, but tradition of low prestige Individual occurrences of Gaelic in legislation, no holistic planning or rights-based approach Territoriality Principle on the Western Isles, very limited possibility to use Gaelic elsewhere No possibility of speaking Gaelic in court
Court

Police/Prison Health Services Education Personality Principle anywhere; Territoriality Principle in minority region As in administration Provision of minority language education on all levels, where possible as medium of education No restrictions; some legal obligations and state support according to Territoriality Principle Special support of minority activities State funding of minority programmes No restrictions, state support of minority languages as other state support for religious groups Free reciprocal communication and exchange and acceptance of documents etc.
188
Gaelic use depending on individuals; no rights Depending on individuals Wide-spread on the Western Isles and as Second Language, very limited elsewhere, no legal guarantees No restrictions, some Gaelic used in local businesses in the heartland, little Gaelic elsewhere, very limited state support No restrictions; state funding No restrictions; state funding, but all in all only on a limited level No restrictions, use of Gaelic common in traditional parishes on Western Isles Strictly speaking not applicable; no restrictions on co-operation with other Celtic countries Little Corpus Planning only Individual instances of symbolism (bilingual signs, CNES name) Traditionally low prestige, today high prestige among Gaelic speakers, but little focus on motivation planning
Economy/WorkPlace Culture/Heritage Media Religion
International Relations Corpus Planning
Providing an adequate corpus for language participation in all domains Symbolic Planning Presence of minority language in representative settings Acceptance of value of language and linguistic Attitude/ Prestige Planning community by both minority and majority speakers, if necessary supported by state through motivation campaigns
Table 51: The Legal Status of Gaelic according to Domains, and General Outlines of Status and Policy Practices in the 1990s, including Demands for Improvements
11.4 Putting Gaelic Language Policy in Scotland before 1999 into Theoretical Frames
11.4.1 Typologies of Language Policy As in the Smi Chapter, the models of language planning shall now be applied to the situation of Gaelic before devolution. Gaelic policy is a clear example of status planning. Language planners in Scotland had gone through a period of problem identification in the sense of awareness creation, and the process of allocating norms. To a degree, an implementation stage had been reached, e.g. concerning broadcasting. All of this included some underlying prestige planning, even though this was not the focus of activity.
Cooper Element Which Actors What behaviours Of which people For what ends Under which conditions By what means Through what decisionmaking processes To what effects Situation in Scotland before 1999 Government, CnaG, private organisations and individuals Increase the use of Gaelic Gaelic speakers and any other person in Scotland Language maintenance and RLS Language decline, history of anti-Gaelic attitudes, limited government support Funding of Gaelic institutions and projects, individual campaigns Some government activity, lobbying, individual efforts More presence of Gaelic, but no halt of decline or even normalisation
Table 52: Gaelic Policy before 1999 in the Cooper Model
Applying the Cooper model, the actors were the government, including the funding of organisations such as CnaG, but mostly private organisations and individuals. These tried to
189
influence the behaviour of Gaelic-speakers to use Gaelic everywhere, but also the attitudes of the rest of the Scottish population. The ends were, of course, language maintenance and RLS. The conditions under which these efforts took place reflected a very limited degree of government support, language decline, and a tradition of anti-Gaelic attitudes. The means included funding, individual campaigns for more language use through some government activity, but mostly lobbying and individual efforts. The effects that had been achieved were a certain increase of the presence of Gaelic, but no halt of the decline, and by no means a general normalisation.
11.4.2 Factors influencing Gaelic Policy and Maintenance The next step in the application of theory on Gaelic in the 1990s is to return to the approaches of measuring the degree of language endangerment. The following is an evaluation of Gaelic according to the factors of the Unesco list: 1. Intergenerational language transmission: Between Level 2 and 3. Gaelic was mostly used by the parental and grand-parental generation. Some children used it, but only very few did so also outside the most private domains. 2. Absolute number of speakers: The number of Gaelic speakers had been in decline for decades. Yet, similarly to Smi, it was not extremely small compared to other speech communities. 3. The proportion of speakers within the total population in Gaelic areas: Because of the question of Gaelic ethnicity, it is difficult to say who should count as potentially Gaelicspeaking. In the Gaelic heartland, a majority of the population spoke the language, whereas in many other traditional Gaelic areas, only very few people spoke Gaelic (Levels 1-3). 4. Shifts in domains of language use: Level 3 (Dwindling domains): Gaelic was rarely used outside the most private domains; in homes and neighbourhoods, English was gaining ground. 5. Response to new domains and media: Level 3: Gaelic was used in many modern domains and media, albeit to very limited degree only. 6. Presence of materials for language education and literacy: Between Levels 3 and 4. Gaelic had been used as a literary language for centuries, but in modern times, it was only rarely used in education and administration, and the production of media and other texts was very limited. 7. Governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies, official status and use: Level 3, passive assimilation: Similarly to Smi, there was no clear language policy by the government, but the use of Gaelic was neither openly discouraged. 8. Gaelic speakers' attitudes towards Gaelic: Level 3: Although some members of the Gaelic community were conscious of language issues, many others saw practical advantages in using and bringing up their children in English. 9. Type and quality of documentation of Gaelic: Levels 4-5: Gaelic was well-established as an academic discipline, although the documentation of modern Gaelic could increase.
190
The next step is to place Gaelic in the 1990s in the Kaplan/Baldauf model. Again, influences on Gaelic policy were similar as on Smi, with language death as the main threat and language survival as the ultimate aim of efforts to reverse language shift. Language revival was the other core element, in order to regain ground for Gaelic in lost domains. Language contact with English was, of course, the major reason for the threats to Gaelic, and some linguistic changes influenced the patterns of language policy (e.g. in more modern Gaelic varieties, for instance by learners), but it was not the focus of attention. Language amalgamation and literacy development did not play a role. With respect to the actors, as we have seen, language planning was carried out by numerous organisations and individuals, but mostly through government activities, including education agencies and other bodies under government influence. These efforts, however, needed rethinking, in particular at the national level, whereas regional language planning was more advanced. With regard to non-government organisations in the context of this model, the foundation and funding of CnaG was an important step. Many other activities were carried out by private organisations or individuals, in particular with respect to language promotion. However, besides some groups explicitly working for Gaelic, there was little Gaelic activity by "mainstream" organisations or companies that did not have any affiliation to Gaelic. It was necessary to remove Gaelic from its core of specialists, to a situation where any organisation could feel that a Gaelic policy would make sense in line with ideas on linguistic normalisation.
LANGUAGE CONTACT LANGUAGE SHIFT Gaelic with dialects Scots with dialects LANGUAGE SURVIVAL LANGUAGE REVIVAL
Other languages
English: Standard Scottish English, dialects
LANGUAGE DEATH
Immigrant languages
SCOTTISH OFFICE
REGIONAL COUNCILS
BROADCASTING, ARTS ETC. AGENCIES
CNAG
OTHER INDIVIDUALS GAELIC ORGANISATIONS
Figure 20: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Scotland, with Policy Parts
191
11.5 Prospects on the Eve of the Scottish Parliament

11.5.1 General Demands by Scholars and Activists The classification of the situation of Scottish Gaelic on the eve of the Scottish Parliament according to domains of language use and in relation to ideas about linguistic rights has shown that the most fundamental rights were generally granted, but that there was much room for improvement, in particular concerning the active promotion of language maintenance. In the following, demands for improvements shall be named as Gaelic activists and scholars working in the field perceived them at the time. Of the linguistic human rights catalogue by Skutnabb-Kangas/Phillipson, the right of free identification with Gaelic was met. The right to a complete education in both the minority and majority language, i.e. Gaelic and English, were at least partly granted. However, the situation was different with regard to the criterion of the right to use Gaelic in any official situation. When going beyond these fundamental rights, however, a number of improvements seemed necessary, some of which have been discussed in detail through the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. Any ideas of self-administration were not even under discussion for the Gaelic speakers in Scotland. The demands by Blumenwitz regarding the right to use a minority language in official settings do not go as far as Skutnabb-Kangas/Phillipsons, as he in some cases accepts the provision of interpreting services as sufficient, but not even these were fulfilled. Blumenwitz also calls for the establishment of minority-language teaching units on sufficient demand, and free transportation for students living outside these areas, which was not guaranteed in Scotland at all. Besides the application of these general ideas on linguistic rights, there were also a number of proposals relating to Gaelic itself. In MacKinnon's opinion, the 1990s were successful in improving the perspective of Gaelic in Scotland. However, improvements were still necessary, e.g. through the establishment of an all-day Gaelic radio station. Most important would be a better co-ordination of Gaelic activities and organisations consistent with a single national policy: "These demands in education and the media are reminders that there is yet no coherent national policy for language in general nor for Gaelic in particular. (...) Some definition of national policy for Gaelic in Scotland is very long overdue. Even its legal status is very much a moot point. There is no one single authority, forum or public watchdog for the interests of the language, its culture and its speakers" (MacKinnon 1998: 194). A possible solution would be to establish a coordinating authority for the various cultural, political, and linguistic organisations: "Some form of national Gaelic language development unit would be clearly desirable, as for example the Welsh Language Board in Wales, and Bord na Gaelige in Ireland" (MacKinnon 1998: 194).
192
Based on his theoretical remarks, Johnstone in 1994 provided a list of implications "Towards Gaelic 2001" (Johnstone 1994: 76-80). He generally drew a positive evaluation of achievements up to 1994, e.g. concerning education and broadcasting. These had helped revitalise language and culture in some domains and had generated positive expectations. However, public support remained highly necessary. As an agenda towards 2001, he saw the switch from RLS to language maintenance as necessary. He perceived Gaelic survival as L1 survival as very unlikely, so that "the longer-term future of the language lies with its being used by a significant minority of Scotland's population as a CHOSEN FIRST LANGUAGE, enabling them to maintain or to find a Gaelic identity and way of life that at the very least matches their English-speaking identity and way of life" (Johnstone 1994: 77). How should sufficient opportunities to use the language thus be created? Mostly, Johnstone saw the necessity of raising the profile of Gaelic as a language of both public and private domains (not just private, as previously). Another point was to strengthen the link between home and school, e.g. by immersion programmes. Home and workplace were the two key areas of improvement; these had to be accompanied by a consolidation of programmes in education, broadcasting and arts. The traditional community view should be extended to a "technical community" (i.e. communication with people outside the traditional neighbourhood through technical devices) and across different domains. Ultimately, this "cross-fertilisation" across domains should lead to "a life-cycle of Gaelic experience": Gaelic should be available everywhere throughout one's life. Dunbars analysis of the state of affairs in 1999 also denounced the view of Scottish Gaelic as a land of plenty (Dunbar 1999b). He, too, recognised the improvements of the 1990s, but warned strongly against believing that the process of decline had come to an end. A central point also for him was the legal position of Gaelic. In the sections on different domains of Scottish Gaelic, I quoted Dunbar's focus on the limited access of Gaelic speakers to decision-making. In other words, Dunbar considered a rights-based approach to be essential for the survival of Gaelic. A number of factors are relevant for Dunbars negative evaluation of Gaelic's situation. First, as outlined above, the number of speakers was still in decline, a process which continued until the 2001 census. Despite an increase in Gaelic-medium teaching, only a minority of children were still enrolled in such classes (26% on the Western Isles, despite estimates that about 70% of the students in the area would be eligible). Dunbar (1999b) also cites that Fishmans transitional scheme of language decline applied well to Gaelic, i.e. the shift from Gaelic-only speakers via minority-dominant and majority-dominant bilingualism to English monolinguals in only four generations. Step three of this scheme, English-dominant bilingualism, had already been reached. Finally, there was in fact a certain increase in Gaelic learning by English monoglots, but the
193
numbers were not precise: there were many learners on low levels, but hardly any fluent speakers. McLeod in 1999 thus gave the following perspective as an outlook for the new millennium: "The Gaelic renaissance is real. Public investment and hard work have brought about genuine change, putting the language to use in new fields (). Yet at the same time, very little seems to have changed. () Family after family () has abandoned Gaelic in favour of English. That process has now reached the very last Gaelicspeaking communities (). The challenge for coming years is to () design concrete, specific programmes with the goal of maintaining and increasing the actual use of Gaelic as a fully living language" (MacLeod 1999: 10). The key idea in this is that of Linguistic Normality, or Normalisation. MacKinnon (2001: 255) explains this concept by calling for Gaelic to be seen as a normal part of life in Scotland, and for Gaelic speakers to see their wish to use the language in any situation as something normal. In order to achieve this, Dunbar (2001a: 254) promotes the idea of Active Offer the encouragement by public bodies to use Gaelic and the information on linguistic rights (wherever and whenever they are implemented), and the obligation to introduce language commissioners, ombudspersons and planning bodies. All this shows that the general tone of opinion and views on the state of Gaelic and the needs for improvement including hopes directed to devolution was thus carefully optimistic. Despite the recognition of achievements, however, there was still a long way to go.
11.5.2 The Inbhe Tharainte/Secure Status Document The central document for the legal foundation of normalisation in the 1990s was the proposal of Comunn na Gidhlig called Inbhe Tharainte dhan Ghaidhlig/Secure Status for Gaelic (Comunn na Gidhlig 1999a). As the central reference point in Gaelic rights' demands, it explains how the status of Gaelic could be ensured via legislation. First published in 1997, and amended by a Draft Brief for a Gaelic Language Act in 1999, its perspective remained unchanged until the discussion on a Gaelic Bill in the Scottish Parliament in the first years of the new millennium. The proposal consists of four sections, each dealing with a different domain of language use: education, public bodies (including the Scottish Parliament), law, and broadcasting. Taking the Welsh Language Act 1993 as a model, it calls for a Language Act giving Gaelic and English equal validity in Scotland. It thus calls for a rights-based approach, demanding that "this principle would imply certain basic rights with respect to Gaelic-medium services to all users of the Gaelic language, regardless of where in Scotland they happen to live" (Comunn na Gidhlig 1999a: 1). Inbhe Tharainte demands equal access to Gaelic-medium education, from pre-school to tertiary level, based on a sufficient number of teachers and school material. Gaelic units should be established on demand by five pupils/students in an area on all levels of education. In public
194
bodies, Gaelic should be equal to English wherever Gaelic speakers are a minimum of 30% of the population. In areas with at least 10% or a total of 2,500 Gaelic speakers, there should be a limited degree of equality. All public bodies in Scotland should develop a Gaelic policy within three years, providing measures for communication with the public, public signage, social services, and provision of education. Equal validity of English and Gaelic is also a core issue in the courts. The use of Gaelic in court proceedings should generally be possible, although the authors accept a requisite of prior announcement to ensure the presence of adequate translation facilities. In legal documents, Gaelic should be used as widely as possible. Moreover, in order to ensure that the measures taken by the Language Act will be implemented, a number of control institutions should be established, such as a special Gaelic ombudsperson. In broadcasting, the aim is a full-time Gaelic service, guarded by an authority closely co-operating with Gaelic organisations. However, according to Dunbar, despite the fact that the Secure Status suggestions generally corresponded to views by scholars, even these demands were not sufficient. Dunbar's objections were based on a criticism of the rights-based approach: "To summarise, then, the CNAG proposals are primarily concerned with the establishment of legally enforceable rights to certain minority-language services. In this sense, they are broadly in keeping with the approach taken in other countries." The true objectives for the future, however, should go further: "They at least begin to address the issue which I have identified as being as important as the rights themselves: that is the issue of accountability to and control over the minority-language services being offered" (Dunbar 1999a). In other words, Dunbar reflected the fear that even if the legal position of Gaelic were guaranteed, Gaelic speakers would still exercise very little control over Gaelic policy. The persons making decisions should be democratically accountable to the people for these decisions. If Gaelic speakers had this kind of self-determination, self-respect and willingness to take responsibility would increase. Dunbars suggestion was, therefore, for the Scottish Parliament to not only deal with Gaelic legislation, but that part of its competence would be devolved directly to the Gaelic language community. Even if this were to create problems with respect to who would be allowed to participate in the political processes involved, the establishment of a Gaelic Council democratically elected by all Gaelic speakers would be a solution to provide sufficient autonomy and control over all political aspects related to Gaelic. The creation of a coherent, normalising policy for Gaelic also has to be seen in the light of attitudes to the language. Although the profile of Gaelic among both Gaelic-speakers and nonGaelic-speakers had changed to the positive, Wood (2002: 31) argues that the survival of Gaelic is dependent upon a shift in the age profile of its speakers and better employment opportunities in the Gaelic heartland, to which attitudes of both Gaelic speakers and monolingual English
195
speakers have to change further: The aim should be to create pride in Gaelic language and culture. Secure legal status is in this context seen as an initial aid, but it is far from being sufficient. Also MacKinnon (1999: 2) classifies Secure Status as one thing, but not the only action required: "In Scotland we shall need not only 'secure status' for the language which is the present priority but a national strategy based upon an understanding of current realities and trends. () We need initiatives in research to find out what turns people on to speaking the language." Again, it is a matter of individual dedication to the language upon which maintenance ultimately depends. In order to support research, one device could be a Gaelic acquisition agency. Smith (2000: 187) summarises from a perspective at the beginning of the Scottish Parliament's work: "Although no Act of Parliament yet articulates the 'secure status' for Gaelic as urged by CnaG, progress has been made. The legal provisions are in place, it is now up to the political will of those in power to accord beneficial recognition for the Gaelic language. () The tide of change is turning. It remains to be seen if the boat has been missed." In other words, what was generally called for was a holistic policy in line with, for example, Wales. This is in fact a fundamental contrast to Smi policy, which through the Norwegian Smi Council had received a body with an advisory function for public bodies in the entire country already in 1965. The establishment of CnaG channelled Gaelic activities in their relation to the government, but this was in no way similar to a coordinating body as the Smi Unit as part of the Department of Local Affairs of the Norwegian government had been from 1980 onwards. Even if Smi policy at this stage was not under Smi control, and even if there were still several Norwegian government departments involved, the Smi had received a body for a holistic Smi policy at a time when there was hardly any Gaelic policy in Scotland at all. Table 53 again summarises demands, both by the Secure Status document and by scholars and activists in general, from a perspective of the late 1990s:
Domain Basic Assumptions Demands Equal validity of Gaelic and English in the whole of Scotland A rights-based approach: Basic rights for Gaelic speakers everywhere in Scotland Legal guarantees through a Language Act Co-ordination of Gaelic activities and organisations and a holistic approach to language planning through a national Gaelic language development unit Programmes with the goal of maintaining and increasing the use of Gaelic as a fully living language Normalisation as key term Active Offer Equal access to Gaelic education from pre-school to tertiary level Sufficient teachers and teaching material Establishment of Gaelic units everywhere on sufficient demand: 5 pupils Equality of Gaelic and English where there are at least 30% Gaelic speakers; limited equality where there are 10% or 2,500 Gaelic speakers Gaelic policy to be worked out by all public bodies within 3 years Sub-sections: communication with public, public signage, social services, educational provision Regular use of Gaelic in Parliament Right to use Gaelic in any official situation, especially in court General right to use Gaelic in court on prior announcement In legal documents, Gaelic should be used as widely as possible Acceptance of the Gaelic Language Act not only by the Scottish Parliament, but also by Westminster.
Education Public Bodies
Law

Establishment of control bodies, such as a special ombudsperson. Full-time Gaelic radio and TV service, guarded by an authority co-operating with Gaelic organisations. Continuation of Funding Recognition to the role of broadcasting as a means of linguistic revival Modern, up-to-date programmes Introduction of linguistic schemes for funding by economic development agencies Increase of Gaelic use in economic life, even within the Gaelic sector itself Devolution of decision-making processes: Autonomy and control over Gaelic policies by some kind of Gaelic Community Council
196
Media/ Arts Economy Further Demands
Table 53: Core Issues of the Inbhe Tharainte/Secure Status Document and Other Further Demands on Gaelic Status before the Establishment of the Scottish Parliament
To sum up this section, it can thus be stated that in the late 1990s, there was wide consensus among scholars about the need to establish a secure legal position of Gaelic in Scotland. The Secure Status document was just one proposal, albeit the most influential. The positive developments until the end of the 1990s were only based on the goodwill of the central administration, and broadcasting remained the only aspect of Gaelic policy explicitly dealt with in legal terms. The legal situation of Gaelic needed tremendous changes according to Secure Status. Yet, Dunbar argued that a long-term aim should even go beyond these proposals. Further, legislation was just one of many important parts of language policy called for. It will be assessed later in what way the establishment of the Scottish Parliament has contributed to the improvement of the situation of Gaelic.
12 The Scottish Parliament
197

12.1 The Road to a Scottish Parliament throughout the 20th Century
In the Smi section, it became visible how much the Sameting has contributed to efforts in Smi Language Policy over the past 15 years. The question to examine now is whether similar events have started to take place in Scotland since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. As was the case when looking at the Sameting's establishment, it is not possible to do this without taking a brief look at the history of the process which led to decentralisation in Scotland. I will then deal with party attitudes towards Gaelic and representativeness issues of Gaelic and the Scottish Parliament as discussed in the theoretical part before addressing Gaelic policy issues discussed since the Scottish Parliament's opening.34 After the abolition of Scotlands historic parliament in 1707, the rise of Celtic consciousness during the 19th century and the establishment of the Irish Free State nourished the hope in some parts of Scottish society that a similar process could start in Scotland (cf. Brown/McCrone/Paterson 1998: 16-26). Very broadly, all of these groups demanded that Scotland be given the status of an independent Dominion in the Commonwealth. In 1934, several of these groups merged to form the Scottish National Party (SNP) we know today. It was not until the 1960s that the SNP began to play an influential role in Scottish politics. In a time of economic problems, the central government proved less and less able to provide the social welfare the population had become used to and in the 1970s, hopes for economic independence created by the discovery of oil in the North Sea increased the impression that Scotland could in fact be better off without being ruled from London (cf. Ehm 1988). In the general elections of October 1974, the SNP increased its number of seats to eleven (cf. Gallagher 1991). Under these circumstances, interest of other political parties, especially Labour's, in devolution increased and led to a first referendum in 1979. The result, however, was negative: Optimism concerning its outcome had led to the adoption of very high criteria, requiring not only a majority of those actually voting to support an own Scottish Parliament, but also a minimum of 40% of the entire electorate. A small majority of the voters (51.6%) voted in favour, but amounted to only 32.9% of the entire electorate (cf., for instance, The Scottish Parliament.com 1999). In the era of the Conservative Thatcher and Major governments, devolution was not an issue. In order to attract Scottish (and Welsh) voters, devolution therefore became part of Labours election manifestoes in the 1990s. At a time when the welfare state was in severe danger, the Scots more than ever
After the successful devolution, a number of volumes were published on the issue. For such an account of the road to the Scottish Parliament, cf. for instance Taylor 1999.
34
198
voted for parties that would ensure the maintenance of the old system. Both Labour and the SNP benefited from this trend: Labour as the traditional welfare party, the SNP as the party playing on separatist feelings. The results for the Conservative Party were an extreme consequence of this attitude, declining to 10 of the 72 Scottish seats in the general elections of 1987, and with not a single constituency won in Scotland in 1997, when Labour gained power in London. Keeping their promise, Labour had the elections followed in September 1997, only half a year later, by a new referendum. The constitutional frame followed the suggestions of a convention set up in 1989, consisting of Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green and Communist representatives, among them most Scottish MPs. The Conservatives refused to co-operate, and the SNP withdrew when it became clear that complete independence for Scotland was not to be considered seriously. The issues of the new referendum differed mainly from the 1979 proposals in that they sought to ensure that the influence of London on the new Parliament would be limited. Further, the European dimension was stressed. Of the two questions put to vote, the first considered whether Scotland should have its own Parliament at all, whereas the second asked whether this Parliament should have tax-varying powers (Brown/McCrone/Paterson 1998: 62-69). Majorities in all major parties except the Conservatives supported this initiative, at the time known as the Yes-Yes Campaign (on the referendum campaign cf. Jones 1997).
Referendum 1997: Scottish Parliament 74.3% 25.7% Referendum 1997: Tax-varying powers 63.5% 36.5% Referendum 1979 51.6%35 48.4%
Yes No
Table 54: Scottish Parliament Referendum Results 1997 and 1979
Both questions were clearly supported by the voters. 74.3% voted in favour of the Parliament, 63.5% in favour of the increased tax-varying powers. Only in two of the 12 regions was there a no-majority for the question on taxes, whereas the Western Isles as the region with the highest proportion of Gaelic speakers in both questions supported the referendum above the national average.36 The result was not surprising, assuming that a tendency to see Scottish identity as more important than British identity favours support for devolution. In a survey carried out in 1997, 62% of Scottish respondents considered themselves "more Scottish than British" or even "only Scottish". For only 8% the opposite was the case, leaving slightly more than one quarter of the respondents for whom both identities were of equal importance (Henderson 1999: 128-129; Brown/McCrone/Paterson 1998: 208-216). This view is confirmed by Allan (2000: 127), who
Referendum failed due to poor turnout (only 32.9% of the entire electorate voted yes; the necessary quota would have been 40%). 36 There are several web sites where the referendum results can be found. Both detailed and easily readable is the relevant site of the Scottish Liberal Democrats at http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/elect/scottish/referend.htm. For a sociopolitical analysis of the referendum cf. Pattie et al. 1998.
35
199
holds the view that the number of people identifying themselves as both British and Scottish compared to those with a predominantly Scottish identity has decreased considerably in younger generations in recent decades. The assumed relation of these attitudes to opinions on devolution is confirmed by Taylor/Thomson (1999: 50-51), whose research identifies a linear relation between voting for devolution and the identity of Scottish vs. British.
Identity Scottish not British More Scottish than British Equally Scottish and British More British than Scottish British not Scottish None of these 1986 39 30 19 4 6 2 1991 40 29 21 3 4 3 1992 19 40 33 3 3 1 1997 23 38 27 4 4 4
Table 55: Scottishness and Britishness in Scotland 1986-1997 in % of Population
The first elections to the new Scottish Parliament took place on May 6, 1999. The electoral system used combined elements of the first-past-the-post method and proportional representation: In addition to 73 constituency seats, 56 seats were given to the parties according to their proportion of votes in each region, with every voter having one vote for the constituency, and one for the regional party lists. The result of the elections confirmed the shift in British politics of the late 1990s towards the Labour Party, which won in 53 constituencies, reaching a total of 56 Members of Scottish Parliament (MSPs) including regional vote. 37 The Scottish National Party gained 35 seats, of which 28 came from the regional votes. The Conservatives again were not able to win a single constituency, but their 15.4% of the regional votes pushed them up to 18 MSPs. The Liberal Democrats managed to win 12 constituencies plus 5 regional seats. In addition, the regional votes resulted in one seat each for the Green and the Scottish Socialist Parties.
Party Labour SNP Conservative Liberal Democrats Scottish Greens Scottish Socialists Others % Constituency Vote 38.8 28.8 15.6 14.2 0 1.0 1.7 Constituency MSPs 53 7 0 12 0 0 1 % Regional Vote 33.6 27.2 15.4 12.4 3.6 2.0 5.7 Regional MSPs 3 28 18 5 1 1 0 Total MSPs 56 35 18 17 1 1 1
Table 56: 1999 Scottish Parliament Election Results
The fact that Labour as the biggest party only won 56 of 129 (or 43.4%) of all seats meant that there was a need for a coalition government. As had generally been expected, it did not take long until Labour and the Liberal Democrats agreed to form such a coalition.
37
For the election results see e.g. Alba.org.uk 1999. For a brief analysis cf. Denver/MacAllister 1999.
200
12.2 Gaelic Hopes towards the Scottish Parliament on its Eve

What does the existence of the Scottish Parliament thus mean for the Gaelic language and its speakers? We have previously seen the way in which language is one part of individual and of group identity and that minority-language representation in official bodies is of vital importance for the identification of the minority population with the state. Parliaments, even if the use of minority languages in them is often symbolic, are of special importance as core reference points, and positive as well as negative signs are carefully watched. In Scotland, the Parliament is seen as an identity marker for a distinct Scottishness and a symbol of more autonomy from the central government in London. As Boyd (1997: 35) put it at the time: "The establishment of a Scottish Parliament provides a unique opportunity to legislate for Scotland in Scotland, to bring government closer to the people of Scotland and to provide a focus for a Scottish identity in the United Kingdom. Gaelic speakers were very keen to see how they would be represented in a Parliament a lot closer to them than Westminster. Iain MacLeid in the Debate on a Petition on Gaelic education for children in autumn 2001 put it that "when the Scottish Parliament opened in these lovely buildings in Edinburgh, we were full of hope about what would happen with regard to Gaelic." Macdonald (1999: 100) recalls an SNP MP's remark in 1998: "'What if people want to speak in Gaelic?"' and asks "Will Gaelic be one of the official languages of the parliament? And will it be given recognition as an official language in Scotland?" McLeod (1998: 68) notes that "there has also been a widespread desire to establish the Parliament as a distinctively Scottish institution, firmly linked to Scotland's traditions and aspirations". It is because of this traditional aspect that the Scottish Parliament is of such crucial importance for understanding the situation of Gaelic. Again McLeod (1998: 69): "The new Parliament is the most important forum where this new openness toward Scotland's languages can be institutionalised and developed". Paterson et al. summarised in 2001 that "there is currently a real sense in Scotland that everything is changing, that nothing can be taken for granted." This climate of change is inevitably linked to strong hopes for the Parliament: "Some social attitudes that would normally alter only slowly have taken apparently wild swings in the last few years for example, the expectations of the new parliament" (Paterson et al. 2001: 167). It is obvious that this may apply in particular to a genuine Scottish topic such as the role of Gaelic. Maxwell in the 1999 Guide to the Scottish Parliament explained that "the Westminster Parliament developed the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty which kept the public at a respectful distance from the processes of legislation and scrutiny of government. If the Members of the Scottish Parliament remain true to their parties' promises and the expectations of the Scottish public, the Scottish Parliament by contrast will engage Scottish society in an active and wide ranging collaboration in legislation and in scrutinising the Executive" (Maxwell 1999: 133). McAteer/Bennett (1999: 111) add that "the simple fact that the Parliament will exist as a legislative body focused on governing Scotland means that the Executive, and committees, of the
201
Parliament will have more time to introduce and enact legislations affecting Scotland." On the other hand, they also stress that the relation to local authorities (and thus the potential for a demand-based Gaelic policy) at first will not change the Scottish Parliament is simply given some rights formerly exerted by Westminster. McCarthy/Newlands (1999: 91-93), along similar lines, comment on hopes for an improvement and more effective regional development agencies and the potential impact of the Scottish Parliament on local government. The authors warn, however, of having expectations which are too high, especially with regard to the economic impact that many hope for. Two aspects where expectations may be fulfilled, however, are education and the funding of local authorities both issues which may benefit Gaelic. However, here too, not too much should be expected on the whole (McCarthy/Newlands 1999: 169). Lynch (2001: 121) summarises the impact of devolution on political decisions in terms of pressure group influence: "Westminster offered limited opportunities for pressure group action because of the closed nature of its procedures and the small extent of Scottish business. () Devolution introduced a much more promising political environment for pressure group Scotland. () It produced a lengthy legislative process of guaranteed pre-legislative consultation, multiple access points for discussing legislation with MSPs in committees and in plenary, and opportunities for further consultation with committees." It is obvious that Gaelic too may profit from these opportunities. As Buchanan still argued in 2002: "The creation of a devolved administration in Edinburgh offers unparalleled opportunities for ancient and ongoing difficulties to be remedied and for Gaelic to become normalised in the cultural life of Scotland." Yet, it seemed to be important to point out that "unless an adequate level of resources is willed to the needs of the language, then the fine words and founding pledges are not worth the breath they are spoken with or the paper they are written on" (Buchanan 2002: 272). All of this shows that Gaelic activists were sceptically optimistic with regard to the Scottish Parliament as a starting point for new chances for Gaelic.
12.3 The Scottish Parliament and Gaelic in relation to Theoretical Ideas on Parliaments
Having seen which hopes were attributed to these political developments, the Scottish Parliament and Gaelic speakers will now be evaluated in the context of theoretical ideas on parliaments. According to the criteria of "law-making" ability and sovereignty, the Scottish Parliament is clearly "law-making". Given its dependence on legislation established by the British government, it is at the same time "non-sovereign" in the sense of complete autonomous sovereignty in international law. Restrictions on the Scottish Parliament are established by the Scottish Parliament Act which clearly defines its competences, as well as by the integration into European politics. The division of competences follows the principle of negative definitions, and
202
is thus in sharp contrast to the Sameting: the Scottish Parliament has the competence in any area which is not explicitly declared as reserved. Important reserved areas are the macro economy, foreign and defence policy, aerial and rail transport, trade, but also broadcasting. The 1980s campaign group on a Scottish Parliament in their document for the road to devolution (Charter 1988: 2004) had postulated on representation and participation that "members of the Scottish Parliament should reflect the diversity of Scotland's population and give voice to Scotland-wide interests. Standing Orders should provide for imaginative ways to increase participation." Similarly, Iain McLoid (McLoid 2002) of the Gaelic Society of London looked back at the expectations still existing with regard to the Scottish Parliament after it had been in operation for some time. In his submission to a debate in the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee in 2002, he comments on differences between the roles of the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Parliament: "We have realised that many members in the House of Lords and House of Commons were seeking rights for the Gaelic language. They wanted equality for Gaelic and Welsh." Yet, what McLoid considers to be decisive for the decisions taken was the fact that there were no Gaelic speakers in Parliament, whereas there were many Welsh speakers in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. And after devolution ideas had become realistic, Gaelic policy was postponed because "those who knew that there was going to be a Parliament in Scotland left the matter of Gaelic to the Scottish Parliament and thought that things would start moving when the Parliament came to the north." This view directly relates to the presence of Gaelic in a Parliament as crucial for possible benefits to Gaelic. What is thus Gaelic's position in relation to the function of the Scottish Parliament? And to what degree does the establishment of the Scottish Parliament contribute to democratic representation of Gaelic issues? According to Myntti's categorisation of political influence of representation opposed to participation, Gaelic through the Scottish Parliament has received increased participative opportunities, i.e. chances that targeted lobbying takes place and that interest groups will be heard. Representation, however, is not guaranteed: The Scottish Parliament represents the people of Scotland according to general, non-minority specific democratic rules. There is no particular representation of Gaelic speakers, Gaelic speakers only having the same rights as any other voters. The Scottish Parliament is representative of the Scottish population to a degree as any other parliament, i.e. representation of a specific criterion such as language is limited and arbitrary. Yet, representation of Gaelic speakers has until now worked quite well, given that there were in fact Gaelic speakers elected to the Scottish Parliament. In practice, the number of Gaelic speakers amongst MSPs and amongst those generally in favour of Gaelic issues seems to be acceptable, or even slightly over-represented, compared to the
203
number of Gaelic speakers in proportion to the entire population. There are far more representatives from Gaelic areas and Gaelic-speaking representatives in the Scottish Parliament than in Westminster. However, there is no representation in the way that Gaelic speakers could vote for representatives according to the language criterion. It could thus happen in a future poll that no Gaelic-speaking candidates are elected. In a changed climate, lobbying could also be much more difficult: The Scottish Parliament speaks on behalf of Scottish citizens, and as such also on behalf of Gaelic speakers. However, the degree of attention accorded to the needs of Gaelic speakers varies greatly. Even when Gaelic issues are taken up, it is thus difficult to say that the Scottish Parliament in fact speaks in the name of Gaelic speakers. Gaelic speakers certainly accept MSPs as their spokespersons, but according to political parties and constituency representatives, not as spokespersons for Gaelic speakers. This leads us directly to ideas on an own assembly for Gaelic speakers, in which these difficulties could be overcome. However, in such a case, new difficulties would arise. The idea of a representative body for Gaelic speakers only is not entirely unknown to Gaelic activists. As Dunbar (2000: 68) notes, the annual CnaG congress is "as close as we come to a 'Parliament of the Gaels'". Looking at the key distinction between a "corporative system" vs. a "system of elected representatives" as discussed in the context of the transition of the former to the latter in the Smi case, in Scotland, the corporative, traditional lobbying system is still dominant. Also the establishment of the Gaelic Language Board, Brd na Gidhlig, in 2002 does not change the situation. Brd na Gidhlig only means that Gaelic decisions are now officially placed under one roof, integrated into an official channel in the government system, as opposed to CnaG's more unofficial position before. When looking at the likelihood of an assembly of Gaelic speakers, we soon reach the limits of practicability concerning the debate on Gaelic ethnicity and the question of who would be allowed to participate in elections to such a body. Only if a clear distinction of who is a Gael could be found, could this solution be viable for all of Scotland, or limited to the heartlands but this would automatically exclude Gaelic learners and other persons without the relevant ethnic background. Such a representative body for Gaelic speakers only would clearly stress the notion of a group which is not just different in language, especially if general political issues (besides culture and language) were tackled by such a body. This issue was also raised in the discussion of the Gaelic Bill in 2005 on a suggestion by the Highland Council, which argued that "as well as having appointments to quangos, we should have direct elections to them. However, the Education Committee defied this idea as unfeasible "as it would be very difficult to identify who the electorate would be and therefore Ministerial appointments to Brd na Gidhlig () is the most appropriate
204
route" (Scottish Parliament Education Committee 2005b). In the distinction between essentialists and dynamists, this would thus strengthen the essentialist side and make Gaelic less important for Scotland's identity as a whole. Given the heterogeneity of Gaelic speakers, it is this unlikely that such a model would be helpful. Regarding the question as to whether the different prototypical parliamentary functions are fulfilled in today's Scottish system, direct representation within the Scottish Parliament is thus backed up by Brd na Gidhlig. When getting back to its role in the chapter on recent developments in Gaelic policy, it will be outlined that the Brd is hardly satisfactory in terms of representation, and that its powers are strictly limited by the Scottish Executive's decisions. On the other hand, compared to the structure before devolution, the situation has probably improved to the best possible solution at present, although improvements in status would be possible. Gaelic speakers are still represented mostly through lobbying of Gaelic groups. As in the past, when representation was limited to such lobbying, mainly through CnaG, this is indeed a potentially successful option. The fact that the Scottish Parliament is much closer to Gaelic than Westminster makes it much more likely that such lobbying will be successful. Yet, the lobbyist function always depends on individual efforts and personal dedication, as well as on the functioning of communicative channels to parliamentarians. The Scottish Parliament is certainly responsive to Gaelic demands speakers and organisations have the possibility to call for their rights through petitions, they may directly influence politicians etc. The Scottish Parliament initiates and debates Gaelic policy issues and has a legislative function under the restrictions given by the constitutional arrangements, which enables law-making on Gaelic. The same applies to Gaelic service functions, and it is certainly a point of allocation of policy initiatives and resources for the benefit of Gaelic. Gaelic speakers are thus closer to the functions of interrelation with the executive and also of budget control, at least for those issues that are under the Scottish Parliament's control, which include most issues relevant for Gaelic. Gaelic organisations have used the opportunity to submit petitions in a way which would have been very unlikely under the old system. The fact that Gaelic is dealt with, and that lobbying takes place to quite a substantial degree, confirms this. The Scottish Parliament also elects and scrutinises the Scottish government, although there is little direct influence by Gaelic speakers in this, given the comparably low importance of Gaelic for Scottish politics as a whole. The symbolic side of responsiveness of Gaelic in parliament is fulfilled; its presence in parliament proceedings is a clear symbol to the outside world and the Parliament's attitude thus reflects the importance of Gaelic for Scotland. Enhanced chances created by an increased importance of
205
regional political bodies are also given in Scotland and it will later be examined to which degree this applies. This is also true in that regional/local councils in the Gaelic heartland deal much more with Gaelic than others. In total, the dimensions of responsiveness of a legislature are largely given. Comparing the Smi and Gaelic minorities, it should be noted that representation in both situations has gone through a long change. It is right to say that both groups started out with the status of the responsive, in other words, the most unrepresentative definition of representation. It is in this context that the developments towards more democratic representation have to be seen and in which the two groups have achieved very different positions within their respective societies until now. I will now come back to the table with the hierarchy of elected representative bodies at different political levels, and the question of whether all or just the minority is represented in it. Again, it must be noted that functions, in particular concerning legislation, differ greatly.
Inter-/Supranational European Parliament, (Westminster Parliament) ? National (Westminster Parliament) Scottish Parliament Autonomous Parliament Body for Gaelic speakers? Brd na Gidhlig (elected by whom, with what competence?, at present no parliamentary body! Regional Scottish Parliament, Regional Councils in Scotland Regional autonomy for Gaelic speakers?, Brd na Gidhlig (with what competence?) on a regional basis? Local Municipality Councils ?
Representation of all Parts of Society Representation of Minority Only
Impact on legislation
Chance to establish minority influence
Table 57: Parliamentary Types according to the Political Unit and the Distinction between Parliaments for Minorities Only vs. Parliaments for the Entire Population Applied to Scotland
The Scottish Parliament is certainly an assembly at the national level, with Westminster Parliament at a higher level within the UK. Regional and local councils are assemblies at lower levels, although these have no legislative competence. However, they may initiate and fund language projects, which is indeed done by several assemblies. All of these bodies are clearly not restricted to Gaelic speakers. In Scotland, we thus find parliamentary representation of all parts of society on all hierarchical levels. The representation of a Gaelic minority alone is a different story. Ideas of autonomous administration of Gaelic speakers, as sketched, exist, but would cause considerable problems and are thus unlikely to come into being. The bodies speaking on behalf of Gaelic issues thus clearly take the participative way as lobbyists rather than assuming an
206
assembly character. In the Scottish Parliament as a parliament for the whole population of Scotland, the necessary willingness of the political mainstream to deal with Gaelic seems to be given. Decisions on Gaelic are difficult to reach in the Scottish Parliament, but once taken, there is no other body which may intervene, and implementation and monitoring are thus guaranteed. Even though the devolution process in Britain has brought Gaelic affairs a lot closer to parliamentary representation, it is obvious that all things Gaelic, including language, will only play a minor part on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament. With regard to the reciprocal relationship between the minority and majority society, the role of Gaelic is enhanced through its symbolic presence in the Scottish Parliament as well as by policies discussed and initiated. Scottish mainstream society is willing to accept to a certain degree the role of Gaelic for the entire country. This situation differs considerably to Norway, where the Storting and the population as a whole hardly take notice of Smi issues, even though several government departments deal with it regularly. Smi issues are thus hardly incorporated in Norwegian identity, unlike in Scotland.
Figure 21: The Presence of Gaelic Issues in the Scottish Political System
The participation of Gaelic speakers in Scottish politics can be displayed as in Figure 21. Its major difference to the corresponding Smi figure is the lack of a separate Smi political system with the Sameting and special Smi parties as additional channels of both representative
207
and participative democracy. Besides this difference, Gaelic issues are dealt with by similar bodies to Smi issues in Norway to varying degrees by regional and local councils, the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Executive. Circles in the figures again vary from bodies where Gaelic is not dealt with at all to bodies which devote a substantial proportion of their work to Gaelic. As opposed to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive as a successor of the Scottish Office which was responsible for Scottish affairs on behalf of the government in Westminster is no truly new player in the system. In addition, Brd na Gidhlig appears as the coordinating body dependent on the Scottish Executive, to which lobbying takes place by Gaelic organisations and individuals. At a position above the Scottish level, a number of issues, most prominently broadcasting, remain under the control of the Westminster Parliament. Here, Gaelic plays an even smaller role than in Scottish national bodies, coming close to practical non-existence. To sum up, the impact of the Scottish Parliament was seen as moving Gaelic closer to democratic representation, to decision-making processes and the centre of power. Statements of people involved imply that there was careful optimism that Gaelic could benefit from these developments. Concerning representation, Gaelic speakers are one part of Scottish society and they are represented as any other group of citizens. The Scottish Parliament is responsive to Gaelic demands, as it is to the demands concerning other issues. Gaelic is one aspect to look at when controlling whether parliamentarians really reflect the population until now, election results have ensured a Gaelic presence among parliamentarians, but there is no guarantee that this situation will continue in the future. Lobbying may take place, and it is indeed carried out to a considerable degree. In total, the situation is completely different than in Spmi, mostly due to identity issues. Instead, a corporative solution with Brd na Gidhlig as a body for Gaelic issues is reasonable, even though it remains much more dependent on the Executive. On the other hand, all degrees of representation of Gaelic exist to a much greater extent than they did in the Westminster Parliament. The question is to establish the degree to which Gaelic organisations and the corporative, participative democratic model can guarantee representation and responsiveness of the Gaelic population from a long-term perspective.
12.4 Gaelic Presence in the Scottish Parliament

12.4.1 Demands by the Inbhe Tharainte/Secure Status Document After this theoretical account of the Scottish Parliament, the question is how Gaelic is present in parliamentary proceedings. According to McLeod (1998: 69), it was widely accepted
208
that the Scottish Parliament's internal language policy has to be "practical and realistic; there should be no doubt that English must be the main working language of the Parliament". The Universal Declaration's article 19 on parliaments remains very vague in demanding that "representative Assemblies must have as their official language(s) the language(s) historically spoken in the territory they represent". On the other hand, the Secure Status document by CnaG goes much further, by listing six aspects already touched on by the report by the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament (CSG Report) on Gaelic. First, there should be a general provision of interpretation facilities. Second, members wishing to speak in Gaelic should give prior notice of their intention. Both suggestions are accepted by CnaG, under the condition that the system is as flexible as possible, and that the period of pre-announcement should not exceed four hours, although it is arguable whether this requirement guarantees spontaneity. Third, the Scottish Parliament should decide whether to offer interpretation from English into Gaelic (or other languages), which is welcomed by CnaG. Fourth, bilingual signage should be installed. Here, CnaG calls for equal status of English and Gaelic, taking into consideration the high symbolic value at relatively low costs. Fifth, Gaelic speeches in Parliament should be published in Gaelic, despite the fact that the Official Report normally would only be in English. Again, CnaG demands are moderate, but CnaG also calls for a suitable translation service, so that MSPs who use Gaelic would not have to rely on their own resources. Finally, the Parliaments public information centre should publish Gaelic bulletins. However, the Secure Status document includes also some more demanding proposals which were not mentioned by the CSG Report and which went clearly beyond a strictly pragmatic approach. First, CnaG demands the regular use of Gaelic on in-house teletext services, websites etc. Second, it is considered fundamental for official recognition that correspondence between the public and the MSPs should be possible in Gaelic. Third, Gaelic staff needed would include an information and an executive officer, a translator, and a technician. Fourth, Gaelic versions of parliamentary documents should be issued. Interestingly, there are no demands for an equal status of Gaelic with regard to English in legal proceedings: "We acknowledge that English should be the sole language used for legislation, regulations, and statutory instruments" (Comunn na Gidhlig 1999a: 7). Finally, and considered to be most fundamental, there should be a Gaelic committee. The Minister with responsibility for Gaelic should chair a task force to inaugurate such an institution. Members should not only be MSPs, but also representatives of Gaelic organisations.
12.4.2 Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament The use of Gaelic was dealt with right from the beginning of the Scottish Parliament's operation, when the general regime of proceedings was established. Simultaneous interpretation
209
facilities are generally provided: "Procedures are in place to provide simultaneous interpretation services when Members wish to speak in a language other than English during meetings of the Parliament or committee proceedings" (Scottish Parliament 2000a). Instead of four hours, however, the required period of notice is a minimum of 24 hours: "(Members) should notify the Business Clerks in the Chamber Office of their request and should provide the following information: (a) the date and item of business on which they wish to speak; (b) details of the language in which they wish to speak; and (c) the estimated length of the address" (Scottish Parliament 2000a). Hence, the necessary spontaneity cannot be said to be given. It is also important to note that the final decision on whether interpretation is provided is in the hands of the Presiding Officer (Scottish Parliament 2000a). This procedure is based on the Scottish Parliament Standing Orders Rule 7.1: "The Parliament shall normally conduct its business in English but members may speak in Scots Gaelic or in any other language with the agreement of the Presiding Officer." This applies also to "any person addressing the Parliament on the invitation of the Parliament" (Scottish Parliament 1999d). Even if parliamentary practice has shown that Gaelic use has generally been made possible, this is in clear contradiction to the demand of "normalised" use of Gaelic in the Parliament. The Parliament's Procedures Committee also at a very early stage discussed the question whether motions should be allowed in Gaelic (and Scots). Despite general support (as MSP Paterson, SNP, put it: "It seems so illogical. If we accept that members can address the chamber in Scots or Gaelic, it seems stupid if I may use that word not to receive the motion in Scots or Gaelic"), committee members saw practical obstacles (Scottish Parliament Procedures Committee 1999b). The committee agreed, however, that this should be possible, if it was ensured that an English version of the motion was available and checked to ensure that the texts are identical. In what way has Gaelic then been used in the Scottish Parliament's proceedings? At the very beginning of every term, MSPs are obliged to take the oath of allegiance. The Standing Orders require that this is done in English, but additionally they allow the member to "repeat the oath of affirmation in a language other than English" (Scottish Parliament 1999d, Rule 1.2, 2). In fact, a number of members beyond the few native speakers in 1999 and 2003 did so in Gaelic.38 It is important to note the highly symbolic notion of the use of Gaelic in this procedure. However, this symbol is relativised when considering that the text of the oath in 2003 was available in Scottish Gaelic, Scots, Cantonese, Punjabi, Urdu, Gujurati and Hindi, "on the basis of the extent of usage (of these languages) in Scotland" (Scottish Parliament 2003a). In parliamentary business, Gaelic has been used at several occasions in both plenary and committee sessions. The first use since 1309 of Gaelic in a Parliament debate on March 2nd, 2000 was a highly symbolic act, this symbolism being stressed by several MSPs during the debate, sometimes taking it to rather
Cf. e.g. Scottish Parliament Procedures Committee 1999a; on the 2003 oath procedure, cf. The Scotsman 2003 for a very informative as well as entertaining account.
38
210
absurd levels when labelling it "the language of Eden" (Ewing 2000). The content of the debates held in Gaelic will be dealt with in the following chapter when looking at Gaelic policy aspects. Seaton/Pay provide a summary of the occasions when languages other than English have been spoken by MSPs in debates. A prominent occasion was a debate on the European Day of Languages in September 2001, to which MSPs contributed in a variety of languages, including Gaelic, French, German, Italian, Russian, Dutch, Basque and Latin. The authors also report 11 occasions in the first term of the Scottish Parliament when the English text of a motion was accompanied with a version in another language, seven in Gaelic, two in Scots, and one each in Latin and Basque. Three questions were lodged with Gaelic translations. In legislation, the Private Members' Bill on Gaelic by Michael Russell was the only Bill to be accompanied by a Gaelic translation (Seaton/Pay 2003: 6-7). Finally, a report by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on the support of languages other than English in education and culture in 2003 was the first Committee report to be published in Gaelic, as well as in Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Punjabi, Scots and Urdu (Seaton/Pay 2003: 8). When returning to the CnaG demands, we find that interpretation from English into Gaelic is not dealt with in the Scottish Parliament at all, based on a lack of practical need (McLeod 1998: 71). Bilingual signage is present on a general basis; apparently there has been a willingness to demonstrate this wide-spread symbolic presence (Dunbar 1999b). Still in 1999, the first call for a Gaelic Officer was launched, and on March 9th, 2000, the Scottish Parliament issued the necessary advertisements (Scottish Parliament 2000f). The Gaelic Officer was appointed in September 2000. First important tasks included the development of the Gaelic web service (Scottish Parliament/Prlamaid na h-Alba 2004), the publication of a number of Gaelic parliamentary publications, and the installation of links with parliaments and assemblies in other Celtic nations. In 2001, the use of Gaelic in parliamentary business continued with support by the Gaelic officer, including a Gaelic-medium meeting by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee in Stornoway on the Isle of Lewis to collect evidence on Gaelic broadcasting (Scottish Parliament 2001a, ch. Other Activities). In 2002, the service expanded to a second officer who works as a Gaelic Information Officer.39 The Gaelic Outreach Officer's duties include acting as a spokesperson for the Parliament to the Gaelic media, advising Members and Parliament staff about Gaelic issues, producing Gaelic education and information material, cooperating with the Scottish Executive's Gaelic Unit, arranging visits to the Parliament and outreach visits about the Scottish Parliament in Gaelic, and answering queries in or about Gaelic. The latter range from
39
Cf. for an overview of Gaelic services and the use of Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament MacCaluim 2003.
211
detailed questions about the business and procedures of the Scottish Parliament to the use of specific Gaelic terms and requests to translate birthday greetings. The Gaelic Information Officer's report on What's happening in the Scottish Parliament of October 2003 indicates that these tasks had remained stable into the beginning of the Parliament's second term (Gundry 2003). On December 18th, 2001, the Procedures Committee debated the state of Gaelic in parliamentary proceedings, referring to steps taken since the first such debate in 1999. Commenting on these developments, Wilson McLeod said: "The Parliament has made a great deal of progress in its work so far, but a great deal remains to be done. () There are many ways in which Gaelic is on the margins of the Parliament's work. The Parliament must project a more bilingual image (). More bilingual documents must be published. Many people do not attach any worth to Gaelic, whereas others see it as being very worthy. At the end of the day, the Parliament is trying to keep the peace by not doing too much" (McLeod 2002c). According to McLeod, more people are needed for "a real Gaelic office, which would employ a team of people." In total, McLeod also criticised the lack of a coherent policy for Gaelic in office documents: In spite of welcoming the first publication of a Gaelic version of the Parliament's Annual Report in 2001, "the Parliament still has no policy on the use of Gaelic in official parliamentary documents. Some things appear now and again on an ad hoc basis, but that is unstable and uncertain." Also the obligation to give 24 hours' notice in advance before intending to speak Gaelic in parliamentary proceedings had not been abolished, to which McLeod argued that "although members will not use Gaelic often, it is important that they have the opportunity to do so and that it is possible to use Gaelic naturally and regularly" (McLeod 2001c). Along similar lines, MSP John Farquhar Munro in October 2001 argued: "We have Gaelic signage in the Parliament. () However, that is tokenism and makes a museum piece of us unless the language is spoken and used" (Munro 2001). And also Dunbar in 2001 was critical to the state of affairs. There was no absolute right to use Gaelic, given that the Presiding Officer has to agree, and he disapproved of the fact that Gaelic was permitted for motions only as an additional language to English, and not at all for questions to the Executive. He summarised that practices had not been established by statute: "Both the Parliament and the Executive have taken steps to increase both the profile and the actual use of Gaelic. However, none of these endeavours have been put on a firm statutory basis, and there has not yet emerged a clearly-stated policy with respect to the use of Gaelic nor a clearlystated strategy for the use of Gaelic in either institution" (Dunbar 2001a: 248). The ad hoc-practice of many issues of language use was overcome by the publication of an official language policy for the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament in November 2004 (Scottish Parliament 2004). It includes a description of how Gaelic is included in the Parliament's work, including its position in the Standing Orders, but also explains what it does to ensure
212
participation and information of Scottish people speaking languages other than English: "There are strong historical and cultural reasons for the Parliament to carry out work in Gaelic, as well as encouraging the use of Scots, and there are strong access reasons for carrying out work in other languages, including sign language." English is considered to be the normal working language, and legislation takes place in English only. In debates and for bills, motions and questions, any language may be used, but this still has to be approved by the Scottish Parliament's administration. As Seaton/Pay (2003: 6) note, this practice is not only in line with the recommendations by the CSG, but also takes into account that MSPs who do not understand Gaelic must be able to follow a discussion. The Parliament provides interpretation of debates and other proceedings, including for witnesses called to give evidence to any parliamentary committee, but written texts should be translated by the responsible MSP. The Official Report incorporates a Gaelic statement in a plenary or committee meeting before the English interpretation, as opposed to any other language for which only the English translation is included. Motions and questions have to be in English, but the submitting MSP may in addition provide a version in any language. Petitions may be addressed to the Scottish Parliament in any language, and there is information on how to submit a petition in Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, English, Gaelic, Punjabi and Urdu. These are also the languages for which printed and web information is made available. In addition to the Official Reports, news releases on a variety of issues are regularly published in Gaelic. Adequate material is also published in British Sign Language. Documents of particular relevance to a Gaelic audience are provided in a Gaelic version, and the Gaelic services try to ensure that policy overviews are available in Gaelic (Seaton/Pay 2003). In a similar way, the web sites of the Scottish Parliament are also bilingual (Scottish Parliament 1999c). Correspondence with the Public Information Centre, one of the major linguistic rights, is possible in Gaelic, and has in fact also been carried out in other languages.40 Apparently the Scottish Parliament's officers are taking their citizens seriously. For international visitors, basic information is available in French, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish and, notably, Catalan. Generally, the parliament welcomes written correspondence in any language and tries to respond in the same language. Summarising, it can thus be acknowledged that the pragmatic approach taken by the Scottish Parliament guarantees that Gaelic is mostly used when desired. Parliamentary services for the public ensure that any individual can address the Parliament in Gaelic. Full translation of any document would be extremely time and money-consuming, which would stand in no relation to the demand for these products. In addition, there are also practical obstacles, as for instance McLeod reports in his submission to the Bill by M. Russell: "In some areas, it will be difficult to find
Information from direct communication with the Parliament's public information services, e-mail: sp.info@scottish.parliament.uk.
40
213
people with Gaelic as the Scottish Parliament learned recently. They wished to employ two people and, as it happened, only one person was appointed initially. The Parliament did as much as possible to find someone and the post will be re-advertised in the near future" (McLeod 2002b). The final demand made by CnaG in its Secure Status call, the plea for a Gaelic committee, leads to the section of political initiatives. A task force meant to reorganise public support structures for Gaelic was indeed established in December 1999, whose aim was to start "an analytical process that will ultimately lead to a coherent strategy and structure for Government involvement in the future development of Gaelic" (Scottish Executive 1999b). A basis for the task forces work was a constant dialogue between the Deputy Minister for Gaelic and Gaelic organisations. Members of the task force came from different branches including broadcasting and the oil industry. The Task Force's results were the starting point for further steps on a coherent Gaelic policy in the following years, which will be dealt with later.
Demands by CSG proposal Demand Provision of interpretation facilities 4 hours of prior notice of Gaelic speaking intention Interpretation from English into Gaelic Bilingual signage Gaelic speeches to be published in Gaelic, official report only in English Gaelic bulletins to be published by public information centre Regular use of Gaelic in teletext, web-sites etc. Correspondence between public and MSPs possible in Gaelic Reality Provided for plenum and committees No concrete rule on announcement period Not provided Provided Gaelic speeches are published in official reports along with the English interpretation Regular publications of a variety of issues
Further demands
Partly provided, in particular on web-sites Provided; correspondence between public and Public Information Centre possible in Gaelic as well as in other languages Sufficient Gaelic staff: information and executive officer, 2 Gaelic officers translation, technician Gaelic versions of official parliamentary documents Only very exceptional Gaelic versions Official Gaelic committee, prepared by a Gaelic task Provided; Task Force established in December force of Parliament officials and Gaelic spokespersons 1999, followed by further steps
Table 58: Inbhe Tharainte/Secure Status Demands on Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament and how they Are Fulfilled
Table 58 illustrates that not all parts of the Secure Status catalogue are given. Whereas a number of steps were taken quite promptly, on both the symbolic and practical levels, other demands remain unfulfilled. In total, however, we can state that the Scottish Parliament dedicates considerable attention to Gaelic within a pragmatic frame, both in its internal proceedings and concerning its responsive function to Gaelic speakers. In particular in comparison to other public bodies, Gaelic is given a voice, and the status of the language is taken seriously. When now returning to the four perspectives on language in a parliament identified by Wilson/Stapleton, it can be stated that also these may generally be applied to the Scottish Parliament. The use of Gaelic is possible as a right to the language of one's choice; the Scottish
214
Parliament thus corresponds to this criterion of individual rights of representatives. Second, there is a formal legal right to the use of Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament, including the use by persons addressing the parliament from outside. Further, Gaelic usage is perceived as a clear political symbol. Fourth, pragmatism is the dominant concept of Gaelic usage (sometimes to the frustration of Gaelic activists), as given by certain restrictions already mentioned, e.g. concerning the prior notice for speaking Gaelic in parliament proceedings. Regarding the Universal Declaration, its demand to enable Gaelic to be used in the Scottish Parliament is, with the restrictions cited, fulfilled. Yet, it would be wrong to speak of a normalised language situation. Normalisation is a frequent demand by activists, and steps taken by the Scottish Parliament are encouraging, but until now they only carefully point into that direction. Yet, Gaelic has certainly gained legitimisation through its regular presence in the prestigious domain of the Scottish Parliament, and institutionalisation has also contributed to language development. Table 59 summarises the situation of the Scottish Parliament for Gaelic:
Issues Influence by participation vs. by representation Shape of influence outside the parliament direct vs. indirect Representation: Speaking on behalf vs. Pattern of population Responsiveness: Policy/legislation, service, allocation/expenditure, symbolic, deliberation/debate, governments Law-making vs. Non-law-making Sovereign vs. Non-sovereign 4 Relations of Language and Parliaments: Individual choice, Formal rights, Symbolism, Practical considerations High symbolic value of parliaments for minority identification with a state as an identity point Summarising: two major components of parliaments for linguistic minorities: Symbolic part of public bodies vs. Policy and planning potential: responsiveness to wishes; participation in decision-making, legislation and distribution of means Normalised language use as aim Legitimising/institutionalising functions of parliaments Minority languages to permit in parliaments Mono- vs. multilingual governments of monoand multilingual states Usage patterns of officially multilingual bodies Supra-state vs. national vs. regional vs. local Minority assemblies vs. general assemblies with minority participation Shape of state influences minority as well as minority presence influences state identity The Situation for Gaelic No guaranteed representation, mostly participation Direct influence in mainstream institutions, indirect through Gaelic lobbying organisations, No separate Gaelic parties or institutions No guaranteed representation according to language criterion; the Scottish Parliament speaks on behalf of Gaelic speakers only as for any other Scots Responsiveness of the Scottish Parliament to Gaelic issues as to other areas: strong symbolism and service, part of policy, legislation, expenditure, debate, little influence on government Law-making Sovereignty clearly restricted Possibility to choose Gaelic, formal right to it, strong symbolic presence, frequent limits by practical considerations Gaelic use in the Scottish Parliament carries high symbolic value for Gaelic speakers; Both symbolic value and policy potential given, although Gaelic only plays a marginal role in Scottish politics
Normalisation only as a very distant aim The Scottish Parliament legitimises Gaelic use on highlevel domains and provides an institution where it can be developed General right to Gaelic with announcement restrictions The Scottish Parliament is English-dominated; however, Gaelic has a presence unknown previously in the context of public bodies National body General assembly with Gaelic presence, but without guarantees to such Gaelic with increasing importance for Scotland
Table 59: The Scottish Parliament and Ideas of Parliament Functions and Relations between Parliaments and Language
13 Gaelic Policy in Scotland after the Scottish Parliament's Establishment
215

13.1 Party Attitudes to Gaelic in the 1999 Election Campaign
To start the section on Gaelic policy, it is reasonable to look at the attitudes that the political parties as the major players in parliamentary proceedings held to Gaelic when the Scottish Parliament started operating. In the 1999 election campaign, at the time when the devolution issue itself had been decided, Scottish politics returned to the usual political agenda of any nation (cf. Jones 1999). Mostly questions of taxation ruled the debate, in addition to the fact that the elections were overshadowed by the NATO actions against Serbia. This also meant that questions of Scottish identity did not play an outstanding role, and also Gaelic issues appeared only at the extreme margins of the debate. At first, I will look at Labours attitude towards Gaelic. A special paper on Gaelic and the Scots language was issued in December 1998 with regard to the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections. Here it is acknowledged that "Labour believes that the Gaelic language enriches not only the lives of individuals, but also sustains the social and cultural heritage of the communities in Scotlands Gaelic heartlands. The Scottish Parliament with its extensive powers to legislate in every major area of Scottish domestic policy (...) will bring power back to the people of Scotland, and thereby ensure an even stronger voice for our Gaelic-speaking communities" (Scottish Labour Party 1998). More specifically, Labour's Gaelic policy referred to Gaelic-medium teaching at both the primary and the secondary levels, which should be more actively supported. The provision of such education anywhere in Scotland according to parental demand should at least be discussed with local authorities. In their First Year Policy Consultation document, Labour listed an additional 11m of government spending on Gaelic education, both for schools and the Sabhal Mr Ostaig (Scottish Labour Party 1998/99: 9-10). Besides education, the Gaelic and the Scots Language document mentioned improvements to TV, and the development of a Gaelic heritage centre. Additionally, the Culture, Sports and Gaelic document stated that "the Gaelic language and culture have a proud and central place in Scotland's heritage" (Scottish Labour Party 1999). Besides promises for increased support of education, broadcasting and inter-Celtic relations, Labour also commented directly that "we are working with Comunn na Gidhlig to ensure secure status for Gaelic" (Scottish Labour Party 1999). It is therefore possible to conclude that some of the core demands of Gaelic activists did indeed appear in the Labour Party campaign. The Scottish National Party (SNP)s Gaelic policy also covered a wide range of aspects. A policy statement published in 1993, but still valid in 1999, was generally more demanding than Labours (Scottish National Party 1993). Yet, when looking at the 1999 manifesto, we again find
216
that Gaelic only plays a minimal role (Scottish National Party 1999). Also with regard to the reasoning on the way to Scottish independence, Gaelic is not referred to as a marker of Scottish identity. In education, we find the general promise to "ensure that Scotlands diverse linguistic and cultural heritage, including the Gaelic and Scots languages and Scottish History have an enhanced place in the classroom" (Scottish National Party 1999: 24). In the Culture and Arts section, the manifesto is more detailed in proposing a Gaelic sub-committee in the Scottish Parliament. More important, however, is the reference that "English, Gaelic and Scots must co-exist on an equal basis in Scotland, and we will grant Scots and Gaelic secure status in the Parliament and national life. We will actively support Gaelic-medium teaching and Scots language initiatives as well as art and culture expressed in other languages in common use in Scotland" (Scottish National Party 1999: 30). In general, the 1999 SNP campaign took Gaelic seriously, but also here it remained a side issue. In the Conservative election manifesto, Gaelic is mentioned only in one single sentence (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party 1999). There is no reference to Gaelic in the sections on education or broadcasting, but only in Arts & Culture, at the very end of the manifesto. Here the Conservatives promise that "the Gaelic language and culture continues to receive a fair level of funding" (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party 1999: 34). In other words, the Conservatives considered the amount of attention Gaelic received at the time as sufficient. This certainly is in sharp contrast to the propositions of a secured status and ideas for a further development of Gaelic infrastructure as found in activists documents and the other parties manifestos. In the Liberal Democrat manifesto, Gaelic issues play a role in the two sections of community and education. The reference to Gaelic in the Arts subsection of the community section of the manifesto is short, but important: "We will support teaching in the Gaelic language and seek to win official status for it" (Scottish Liberal Democratic Party 1999, Comm. section). This shows that both the demands for legal recognition and the support of Gaelic-medium education are an issue. Further, the education section promises to "guarantee teaching in Gaelic and of Gaelic as a second language where there is a demand" (Scottish Liberal Democratic Party 1999, Education section). What is missing, however, is any remark on broadcasting or on the way Gaelic issues are to be taken care of by government bodies. Despite some very unambiguous statements, Gaelic remains a side issue, also in contrast to Labour and the SNP. Much need not be said about the Scottish Socialist Party. By demanding "the provision of Gaelic language lessons for all children and adults in Scotland who wish to learn the language", the party is in line with the other parties except the Conservatives in that they showed a generally positive attitude towards Gaelic, without any further specification (Scottish Socialist Party 1999). The Green Party, finally, is the only party that gives Gaelic an extremely explicit position. The Equality
217
and Diversity section of their election manifesto proposes a distinct communication plan. The importance of this is that the equality of Gaelic here becomes a separate issue not just included in a much wider section (Scottish Green Party 1999a). Going beyond the manifesto, the approach to Gaelic in its intensity cannot be compared to anything which was identified above, with the possible exception of some aspects of the SNP's proposals. The first striking fact is that in 1999, they were the only party to provide at least the most basic principles of their policies in a Gaelic and a Scots version (Scottish Green Party 1999c/1999d). Furthermore, there was a detailed statement on Gaelic policy under the heading Language and Culture: Gaelic is considered to be "an important part of our identity and key to our cultural heritage" (Scottish Green Party 1999b). A list of policy points is made, divided into short-term, medium-term and long-term aims. Topping the list is the support for the Secure Status campaign. Gaelic radio and TV broadcasting on a national level is supported and a national policy is to be created reviewing the place of Gaelic in all parts of national life. In the long run, the necessary cultural infrastructure shall result in "a multi-lingual and multicultural Scotland within which her languages will flourish as essential and defining aspects of her everyday life and identity" (Scottish Green Party 1999b). It is both the long-term orientation of the Green Party Gaelic policy and the explicit reference to Gaelic as an identity marker which make the Green party's programme unique in the Scottish political landscape. To conclude, it can be summarised that Gaelic was surely not a core issue of the 1999 elections. However, it did play a subordinate role in all parties manifestos insofar as it was a topic the parties felt they could not leave out. Almost all parties advocated change in a positive direction, and in some cases there was talk about the legal position and the movement for secure status. The two exceptions to this conclusion are clearly the Conservatives and the Greens. As Dunbar (2000: 80) notes, there is no party with which Gaelic speakers usually affiliate, as opposed to other countries where specific minority parties exist. This in itself is understandable, as any party that would stress its Gaelic side too much would become less likely to succeed among non-Gaelic speakers. This also means that Gaelic speakers have the chance to persuade the political party of their personal affiliation to the importance of Gaelic. The chances for Gaelic issues to succeed are greater if support can be achieved by several political orientations, even if it may be considerably harder to gain the support within one party at first. The following figure summarises the 1999 election campaign attitudes to Gaelic:
Accepting the status quo Conservative Moderate changes Liberal Democrats SNP Labour Scottish Socialists Drastic changes Greens
Figure 22: Party Attitudes towards Gaelic in the 1999 Scottish Parliament Election Campaign
218
13.2 Steps Taken on Gaelic Issues in Scottish Parliament since its Opening
13.2.1 The First Months As seen above, the Scottish Parliament right from the beginning introduced the use of Gaelic in a number of aspects of its work. The following will deal with policies relating to Gaelic discussed in the Scottish Parliament in its first year. In this, the main difference to the situation before devolution lies in the parliamentary process. Previously, Gaelic issues were dealt with in the Scottish Office, the government body for Scotland under Westminster control. The Labour government in 1997 had created a first move towards a more coherent Gaelic policy by including the position of a Minister for Gaelic under the roof of the Scottish Office. However, Gaelic issues never received the degree of attention possible under a devolved institution with much more consciousness of Gaelic affairs. Right from the start, Gaelic was an issue within the Written Questions and Answers which any MSP may direct to the Executive. SNP MSP Michael Russell only a few weeks after the first elections launched two questions about Gaelic officers and Gaelic requirements for positions within the Scottish Parliament. At the time, on July 12th, 1999, these were answered negatively, but this was to change soon (Written Answers of July 12th, 1999; Scottish Parliament 1999-2006). These questions and answers will be addressed in more detail later. Two of the focal points of Gaelic activities in the Scottish Parliament in the first months were the appointment of a Gaelic Officer and the Gaelic Task Force. It was explained above how important the symbolic use of minority languages in Parliament is, and the establishment of the task force was a crucial step towards more intense Gaelic policy making in the first year. At the beginning, the Deputy Minister for Highlands and Islands and Gaelic, Alasdair Morrison, played a crucial role. He was one of two Gaelic native speaker MSPs in the Scottish Parliament's first term. Both Morrison (Labour) and his colleague John Farquhar Munro (the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Education and Heritage Gaelic Language and Culture) come from the traditional Gidhealtachd, Morrison representing the Western Isles (Morrison 2001b), whereas Munro represented the Ross, Skye and Inverness West constituency (Munro 2003). Additionally, a number of MSPs were reported to have learned some Gaelic. Morrison did not lose much time in launching the first steps of his governments Gaelic policy. On June 8th, 1999, less than a month after May 14th, when the Labour Liberal Democrat government was agreed upon, Morrison was present at the Comunn na Gidhligs annual general meeting to address four key issues signalling the direction of Gaelic policy of the new administration (Scottish Office 1999b). He announced plans to set up designated Gaelic schools in Glasgow and on the Western Isles and to publish new Gaelic teaching material for pre-schools,
219
the latter as a policy priority: "Standards should be no less for children in Gaelic provision than they are for children in English language groups" (Scottish Office 1999b). Further development of Gaelic education would be carried out in co-operation with the responsible local authorities. Second, a broadcasting task force was announced, to continue the developments in broadcasting reached during the 1990s. Third, as an important step of corpus planning, Morrison acknowledged the need for a Gaelic dictionary of Parliament terminology. Finally, and most importantly, the minister expressed his commitment to work towards giving the language a legal framework. The first official step to follow with regard to Gaelic, however, dealt with a different matter: On October 6th, the transport minister gave permission to the Highland Council to erect bilingual road signs. As positive as this symbolic step is, it is nothing new in itself, as there had been Gaelic road signs both on the Western Isles and in the Highland Council area before (Scottish Executive 1999i). October 8th marked another highly symbolic milestone, when Morrison opened the Royal National Mod (the major annual Gaelic cultural festival), and for the first time a government minister gave an entire speech in Gaelic (Scottish Executive 1999k). Another step was the first Gaelic-language meeting of the Parliament's Enterprise and Lifelong Learning committee in Inverness on October 20th. November 3rd saw the agreement in principle to appoint the Gaelic Officer for Parliament as shown in the preceding chapter. On an invitation by the Irish Minister responsible for the Irish Language, in mid-December 1999 Morrison visited the Irish Republic to get insight into Irelands handling of language policy (Scottish Executive 1999a). It was only two days later, on December 16th, that the task force for Gaelic discussed above was announced. According to Morrison, this marked the beginning of the second phase of the review of the scope and effectiveness of government support for Gaelic, the first phase of which had consisted mainly of consultations with different Gaelic organisations. The next official step was the production of the Gaelic dictionary of procedural terms partly funded by the government, based on a Welsh dictionary produced for the Welsh Assembly (Scottish Executive 2000f). CnaG as the producing institution considered the dictionary to be "fundamental to the ongoing development and linguistic integrity of Gaelic and crucial in terms of planning for Inbhe Tharainte (Secure Status) for the language" (Comunn na Gidhlig 2000c).
13.2.2 The First Gaelic Debate March 2nd, 2000 saw the highly symbolic first Gaelic debate in a parliament in modern times on the governments proposals to develop and expand Gaelic policy, followed on March 9th by the publication of the recruitment advertisements to appoint a Gaelic Officer. The debate was based on a supportive motion by Alasdair Morrison:
13 Gaelic Policy in Scotland after the Scottish Parliament's Establishment "The Parliament welcomes the Scottish Executives programme of action in support of the Gaelic language, in particular its support for Gaelic-medium education; recognises the cultural, economic and social contribution of Gaelic to Scotland; supports the Scottish Executives participation in the Columba Initiative (Iomairt Chaluim Chille) to strengthen the links between the Gaelic-speaking communities of Scotland and of Ireland, and commends the work of local authorities, schools, colleges, universities and voluntary bodies in making available Gaelic-medium education at all levels from pre-school to tertiary and continuing education and in promoting the Gaelic arts" (Scottish Parliament 2000d).
220
As one of the participants said, what ensued was not so much a debate but a dialogue. It can be considered of high significance that there was general agreement between all parties, and speakers generally expressed their support of the steps taken by the government. The special role of the debate, full of emotions, became clear as several MSPs included personal anecdotes on how the position of Gaelic in their families had declined but started to be revitalised again. The core opinion was hence to emphasise the importance of Gaelic language and culture as part of Scottish heritage. The status quo had improved tremendously over the past decades, but further efforts were badly needed. Main aspects of the debate related to education, Secure Status, broadcasting and the development of the co-operation with Celtic communities world-wide. A suggestion regarding the establishment of a cross-party Gaelic group was generally welcomed, which eventually met for the first time on June 21st. Disagreement in the debate primarily related to the evaluation of the Gaelic jurisdiction by the Tory government before 1997. Following the harmonic atmosphere during the debate, the motion was unanimously agreed to. Three further Gaelic events occurred in March 2000. First, on March 16th, the Gaelic Youth Parliament was opened in Northern Ireland. Morrison used the opportunity to emphasise the importance of cultural links between Scotland and Ireland (Scottish Executive 2000i). The next day, a Gaelic Youth Theatre was launched (Scottish Executive 2000j), and on March 28th, increased funding for the Royal National Mod was announced (Scottish Executive 2000m).
13.2.3 Educational Issues and the Preparation of the Education Bill Debate Following Morrisons announcement regarding the priority of Gaelic education, it is not surprising that many of the first steps taken to promote Gaelic related to educational matters. The core direction of all these was similar. More funding should be given to Gaelic educational institutions, partly in order to improve existing institutions, partly in order to establish new teaching units. On February 7th, 2000, the Deputy Minister for Education and Children visited the teachers-training unit at Sabhal Mr Ostaig and announced funding to increase the number of Gaelic-medium teachers (Scottish Executive 2000h). Morrison stressed the importance of shaping Gaelic education according to parents views. Gaelic-medium schooling anywhere on
221
request of a minimum number of parents (without, however, specifying the required number) was announced to be included in the framework of national priorities to be part of the planned Education Bill (Scottish Executive 2000n). On April 3rd, 2000, First Minister Donald Dewar presided at the official opening of the first Gaelic-medium-only primary school in Glasgow. A visit by Morrison followed about six weeks later. Both politicians stressed the importance of Gaelic-medium education for the maintenance of a community of fluent Gaelic speakers, taking the Glasgow Gaelic Primary School as a model for the entire country. Finally, the government expressed its commitment to guarantee up to 75% of the costs of Gaelic education through specific grants (Scottish Executive 2000c; 2000o). The most important, yet highly controversial step regarding Gaelic education was the preparation of a Gaelic section for the Standards in Scotland's Schools Bill. In this context, the first appearance of Gaelic in parliamentary work took place, i.e. in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee meeting held on October 20th, 1999 (Scottish Parliament 1999a). At this meeting, the chairman of CnaG and representatives of Sabhal Mr Ostaig were present, all of whom spoke Gaelic. In their speeches, the Gaelic representatives focussed on the increased attention minority languages had begun receiving in Europe during the last years. Participants voiced strong arguments against prejudices about Gaelic being of no benefit besides personal interest, pointing to the development of a Gaelic economy and to advantages of Gaelic learners in the curriculum, e.g. concerning the ability to learn foreign languages. In this context, the lack of teachers able to carry out Gaelic-medium teaching was perceived as a major problem. Participants also focussed on the legal status of the language and the shift of attitude of Gaelic speakers from being "beggars" asking for a luxury item to claiming Gaelic-medium education as a fundamental right. Further committee meetings relating to Gaelic education all have to be seen in the context of the Education Bill. In the Education, Culture and Sport Committee meeting of March 7th, 2000, a petition (PE82) by the Gaelic parents organisation Comann nam Prant (Niseanta) was discussed for the first time (Comann nam Prant 2000). The petition called for Gaelic-medium education to achieve a statutory basis. Legislation should be introduced to require local authorities to provide Gaelic-medium education in parity with education in English. Just after the first Gaelic debate in the main chamber, parents wanted to be given a clear signal about the recognition of their concern. In this first meeting however, it was decided to postpone the issue to the Stage 2 consideration of the bill. In a second petition on Gaelic support, the Celtic League called for the requirement of local authorities to provide access to Gaelic as a second language upon reasonable demand, to legislate for the provision of suitable courses for teachers, to set up
222
an independent body to monitor Gaelic education programmes of local authorities, and to include these proposals in the Bill (Celtic League 2000). The Public Petitions Committee meeting of April 25th, 2000 passed the petition on to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, which on May 23rd, 2000 did nothing but to draw the petitioners attention to the discussion of the Standards in Scotlands Schools Etc. Bill (Scottish Parliament Education Committee 2000a). The Education, Culture and Sport Committee at its meeting on May 2nd, 2000 first addressed these demands (Scottish Parliament Education Committee 2000c). By inviting Gaelic activists and carrying out the meeting in Gaelic, it showed that the Gaelic issue was given attention. Not surprisingly, CnaG chairman Allan Campbell expressed the desire that Gaelic have a place in the Bill, despite the promise to establish a separate Gaelic Act later. One of the main problems for the participants was the lack of recognition of Gaelic in the Education (Scotland) Act of 1872, which meant that authorities could justify their unwillingness to support Gaelic by referring to the absence of Gaelic in Scottish education legislation. According to Campbell, Gaelic and English should be mentioned in the Bill as the languages used on an equal basis to teach children in Scotland. Three headings characterised these demands: rights, equality and continuity. To achieve this, Gaelic should be treated as a normal part of education, in line with a normalisation of Gaelic issues. Participants went on arguing that an amendment to the bill as it was in its first version (which mentioned Gaelic very briefly only on one occasion; Scottish Parliament 2000k; Scottish Executive 2000r) should aim at security for Gaelic-medium education. Gaelic education should not be forced on everybody, but provided on request by parents. Sufficient money should be provided to ensure Gaelic rights. Including Gaelic in the bill would give equality of opportunity to students and parents, increase the number of teachers, and improve parents position when dealing with local authorities. Further demands stemmed, for instance, from Comhairle Nan Sgoiltean Araich (The Gaelic Playgroups Council), whose leader Fionnlagh MacLeod argued that Gaelic and English should not be discussed as separate entities. In the bill, any mention of education should in principle mean Gaelic-medium education as well as English-medium; services and resources for these should be identical. Other points addressed in order to guarantee successful Gaelic education were differences in curricula for children fluent in Gaelic and for non-fluent children in Gaelic-medium education, at all levels of schooling including pre-school. An increase in the number of Gaelic units was also seen as necessary to reduce long commutes and in order not to hinder the mobility of a family. In total, it can thus be concluded that Gaelic issues were given consideration in the debate on improved education, and that a variety of opinions were articulated. This summary can also be applied to Gaelic issues in the first year of the Scottish Parliament in general. Table 60
223
gives an overview of Parliament and Scottish Executive activities within this time, differentiated according to domains of Gaelic use, as well as to a difference between symbolic aspects of the use of Gaelic in Parliament and policies relating to Gaelic outside Parliament. It is obvious that the events involved vary greatly in importance. The way in which Gaelic played a constant role in the Scottish Parliaments agenda in its first year was thus indeed an important step forward compared to the times before devolution. All this nourished hopes for a coherent Gaelic policy in the future, including the final version of the Education Act. However, the following chapters will show that Gaelic policy as it followed turned out to be highly disappointing.
Date 08.06.99 06.10.99 08.10.99 20.10.99 03.11.99 14.12.99 14.12.99 16.12.99 04.02.00 07.02.00 29.02.00 02.03.00 07.03.00 09.03.00 16.03.00 17.03.00 21.03.00 27.03.00 28.03.00 03.04.00 02.05.00 09.05.00 23.05.00 21.06.00 Domain General policy, Symbolism Symbolism Culture, General policy, Symbolism Education, Use in Parliament Use in Parliament and Administration, Legal Status General policy Use in Parliament Legal Status, General policy Use in Parliament Education Use in Parliament General policy, Symbolism Education Use in Parliament and Administration Education, Internat. cooperation Culture, International co-operation Symbolism Education Culture Education Education Education Education General policy Event Morrison at the CnaG Comhdhail: 4 key issues of Gaelic policy Highland Council to erect bilingual road signs Morrison at the Royal National Mod: the first Gaelic speech of a government minister Enterprise and Lifelong Learning committee meeting on Gaelic issues in Gaelic Agreement to appoint Gaelic Officer for Parliament Morrison Gaelic policy study visit in Ireland Procedures Committee meeting on the use of Gaelic and Scots in motions Announcement of Gaelic Task Force Announcement of Gaelic dictionary for parliamentary and legal terms Increased funding of Gaelic teacher training announced after Deputy Minister for Education and Children's visit to Sabhal Mr Ostaig Procedures Committee prepares Gaelic debate First Gaelic debate in a parliament in modern times Education, Culture and Sport Committee meeting on Gaelic parents' organisation petition Publishing of recruitment adverts for Gaelic Officer Opening of Gaelic Youth Parliament in Northern Ireland as part of the Columba Initiative Opening of Gaelic Youth Theatre as part of the Columba Initiative Rural Affairs Committee on Gaelic in National Parks Increased funding of University of the Highlands and Islands announced by First Minister Increased funding for Royal National Mod announced Official opening of first Gaelic-medium-only Primary School in Glasgow Education, Culture and Sport Committee meeting in Gaelic with Gaelic activists on the place of Gaelic in the Standards in Scotland's Schools Etc. Bill Education, Culture and Sport Committee meeting on amendment on Gaelic to the Standards in Scotland's Schools Etc. Bill Education, Culture and Sport Committee meeting on Celtic League petition First meeting of cross-party Gaelic group Gaelic Policy + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gaelic in Parliam. + + + + + + + + + + +
Table 60: Gaelic in the First Year of Scottish Parliament Work
14 Gaelic Policy after the Promising Start (2000 2003)
224

As outlined in the previous chapter, the first year of the Scottish Parliament's work was quite promising for Gaelic. To give an impression of the financial frame of Gaelic policy, Scottish Executive Gaelic spending had increased slightly, by 5.9%, from 1998-99 to the planned figures for 2000-01, i.e. from pre-devolution to the second year of a devolved Executive (figures in thousands of pounds; Szymoszowskyj 2000), mostly due to increases in Education and Culture. The lion's share of spending went to broadcasting, a figure which remained stable over the years:
1998-99 ( 1,000) 3,275 658 8,500 12,434 2000-01 ( 1,000) 3,932 739 8,500 13,171 % of Gaelic Spending 2000-01 29.9 5.6 64.5 100 + 1998-99 2000-01 657 81 0 737 +% 20.1 12.3 0 5.9
Education Culture Broadcasting Committee Total
Table 61: Gaelic Spending 1998-99 and 2000-01
Spending from 2000-01 to planned spending in 2001-02 increased again slightly, by 3.6%. In education, spending increased by 6.2%, of which only the Specific Grants for Gaelic benefited. Funding of cultural organisations remained stable, whereas the section of other cultural grants increased by 33.8% due to the inclusion of Sabhal Mr Ostaig funding (Scottish Parliament Finance Committee 2000). As a whole, however, Gaelic spending by the Scottish Executive in the first years of devolution reflected only partially the increased role attributed to Gaelic.
Budget Post Gaelic Education Scheme of Specific Grants Gaelic Pre-school Grant Scheme Gaelic In-service Teacher Training Secondary Course Development National Gaelic Resource Centre Total Gaelic Education Gaelic Culture Gaelic Cultural Organisations Comunn na Gidhlig Comann An Luchd-Ionnsachaidh An Comunn Gaidhealach Proiseact nan Ealan Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich Total Gaelic Cultural Organisations Other Cultural Grants Columba Initiative Cultural Grants Sabhal Mr Ostaig Total Other Cultural Grants Total Cultural Grants (Organisations + Other) Comataidh Craolaidh Gidhlig (Broadcasting) TOTAL GAELIC SPENDING Budget 200001 ( 1,000) 2,634,000 300,000 200,000 25,000 80,000 3,239,000 Provisional 200102 ( 1,000) 2,834,000 300,000 200,000 25,000 80,000 3,439,000 + % 2000-01 Prov. 2001-02 7.6 0 0 0 0 6.2
300,000 22,100 100,000 43,000 143,000 608,100 128,000 2,900 130,900 739,000 8,500,000 12,478,000
300,000 22,100 100,000 43,000 143,000 608,100 128,000 2,900 250,000 380,900 989,000 8,500,000 12,928,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191.0 33.8 0 3.6
Table 62: Gaelic Spending 2000-02 in Detail
225
14.1 The Result of the Education Bill Debate

After these first promising developments, the result of the debate on the Education Bill caused the first serious set-back. As was often the case, the economic aspect of Gaelic education was used as an excuse by politicians refusing to guarantee more Gaelic rights. Dunbar in 2002 clearly dismisses this argument, but similar reasoning has been reoccurring in many debates on rights to Gaelic education: "Instead of considering Gaelic-medium education as giving support exclusively to Gaelic, we must consider it first as education and then as a way of pushing Gaelic up the agenda. () There may be a little extra cost at the beginning for example there is a teacher training system for books and resources within schools and costs will be involved in getting those. However, once we have them, there will not be much more to spend money on" (Dunbar 2002). Here, Dunbar takes up the notion of normalisation of Gaelic in education also. The debate on the Education Bill, as Dunbar (2000: 86) explains, "put the question of Gaelic firmly within the political arena." In terms of party politics on Gaelic, the Bill "also showed that clear differences are beginning to emerge between the political parties, particularly between Labour and the SNP, on how to approach Gaelic". So what had happened? At Stage 3 of the debate, after the complaint about the lack of inclusion of Gaelic by several organisations, the discussion culminated in two opposing amendments on Gaelic, one by the Executive (Peter Peacock), one by Michael Russell (SNP). When Peacock gave evidence for his amendment on June 7th, 2000, he said that "we are lifting Gaelic-medium education from a position of no official status to one in which it is proposed to become one of Scotland's top priorities in educational activity", and that "we are sending a clear message that Gaelic is an important part of our education system" (Scottish Parliament 2000i). Still in 2003, the Executive referred to the 2000 Education Bill: "The 2000 Act sets out three specific issues which must be addressed in an education authoritys annual statement of improvement objectives, and in their annual progress reports also. One of these is the ways in which or the circumstances in which they will provide Gaelic-medium education and, where they do provide Gaelic-medium education, () the ways in which they will seek to develop their provision of such education. () These are significant duties placed on education authorities and were specifically designed to recognise Gaelic medium education and encourage its development" (Scottish Executive 2003i: 23-24). However, most Gaelic activists did not share this view. This becomes evident in the amendment by Russell, whose proposal was supported by Comunn na Gidhlig, Comann nam Prant Niseanta and Liberal Democrat MSP Munro. It intended to "provide for the first time a statutory right to Gaelic-medium education. () There is no doubt that what is crucially required is a legal right to education in the language. () The Executive amendment does not provide that legal duty" (Scottish Parliament 2000i). Russell's amendment would thus have imposed a rights-based approach to Gaelic education. Russell then also called for compliance with the duties imposed on the Executive by the European Charter, in particular the obligation by the State to "take into consideration the needs and wishes expressed by the groups which use" minority languages. In Russell's
226
opinion, the Executive amendment is not in the spirit of the Charter, as it "does not represent resolute action, it does not safeguard Gaelic at this critical time and it does not provide appropriate forms for the teaching of Gaelic at all stages. Most crucial, it flies in the face of the express wish of Gaelic organisations and parents in this matter" (Scottish Parliament 2000i). That the Executive was not willing to meet the demands of Gaelic organisations becomes evident when looking at the reasoning for rejecting the amendment. Peacock criticises the lack of specification of "reasonable demand": "The amendment refers to "reasonable demand" for Gaelic education, but it does not successfully define what constitutes reasonable demand, nor does it define a mechanism or a responsibility for determining reasonable demand. That would mean that matters were quickly dragged into the courts for them to determine" (Scottish Parliament 2000i). This shows very clearly the reluctance to overcome obstacles which could certainly have been solved if commitment had been there. This becomes even more obvious when looking at the rejection on mere philological grounds: "Amendment 34 seeks to place duties on "education authorities", in the plural, yet authorities, in the plural, are not a recognised legal entity. It is therefore not possible to place a duty on them" (Scottish Parliament 2000i). Dunbar notes in this context that arguments by the Executive such as that the amendment suffered from "drafting problems" could easily have been overcome had the Executive only been willing to provide its own satisfactory amendment in line with CnaG's Secure Status demands. The failure to do so, despite the putative Executive' commitment to Gaelic, makes it, in Dunbar's (2001: 43) words, "impossible to describe the legislative provision in the 2000 Schools Act as 'resolute action to promote' Gaelic". Voting on the amendments brought the expected results, in line with the distribution of power in the Scottish Parliament: Labour and the majority of the Liberal Democrats voted against the Russell amendment, the SNP, a minority of Liberal Democrat MSPs including Munro, and the two MSPs by the Greens and SSP voted in favour, while the Conservatives abstained.
14.2 The Difficult Road to More Action: The Macpherson and Magog Reports
After the education debate, Gaelic hopes were directed to plans for a holistic solution. In September 2000, the Task Force set up in December 1999 published its report on the state of Gaelic, known as the Macpherson Report. The report is mostly a description of the state of affairs and aims at initiating further planning. It calls for immediate action and describes the situation as devastating. It concludes that "without government support, Gaelic will not survive the 21st century. Future public funding must be needs-driven, project-based and community-oriented." It adopts a vision that "Gaelic is a foundation-stone in the building of the new Scotland. The Gaelic language will be an integral and dynamic component of a self assured community with economic and social stability and pride in its linguistic
227
and cultural identity." In this, it relates Gaelic very clearly to identity questions; it stresses the importance if not for all of Scotland, at least for a group of Scots (Scottish Executive 2000q). As a whole, the report touched on four areas: Education and learning; arts, culture and heritage; economic and social development; and language planning and development. The key recommendations of the report were that the Scottish Executive should continue funding, Gaelic should be represented at senior level within the Executive, a Transitional Advisory Group should be established, a Gaelic Development Agency responsible to the Parliament and the Executive should produce a strategy and facilitate the process of Secure Status, the Gaelic Development Agency should consist of a CEO and a Board representative of the Gaelic community, as sole channel of Gaelic government funding, it should incorporate parts of existing public bodies, and its tasks should include administration and monitoring. CnaG welcomed the report and commented that "the recommendations reflect many of the suggestions we have made in our own submissions and build on the success of our past work." Hope is expressed that the report would be followed by a constructive debate to implement a national Gaelic plan (Comunn na Gidhlig 2000b). However, the report did not lead to the beginning of more resolute action in Gaelic affairs. The Executive established the Transitional Advisory Group for a more detailed investigation, but this in turn meant that any other steps were postponed until the results of that group were published. This led already in summer 2000 to very critical remarks by opposition MSPs, who called the report a further example of the lack of commitment to Gaelic. Winnie Ewing (SNP) commented on September 7th, 2000 on a speech by the First Minister which highlights that not even basic signs of recognition of Gaelic were unambiguously accepted by the Scottish Executive: "I was disappointed and shocked to read in yesterday's edition of The Scotsman that Labour's manifesto promise has been broken. (The First Minister) said: 'We do not want to go down the Welsh road and end up with a situation where public bodies in Scotland would have legal obligations to conduct their business in Gaelic and to have bilingual road signs'" (Scottish Parliament 2000h). Similarly, Michael Russell in August 2001 expressed sharp criticism of the Scottish Executive. After a hopeful start, very little only was continued, and he explicitly stressed a tendency towards reports instead of action (Russell 2001: 28). And also MacCaluim/McLeod agree that the Macpherson report "is a very disappointing report in a number of respects", because its
228
recommendations "do not constitute a paradigm shift for the language and could not be expected to bring about significant revitalisation of Gaelic without some important revisions and without the passage of a Gaelic language act" (MacCaluim/McLeod 2001: 25-26). In particular in the light of general Gaelic policy, the proposal to establish a Gaelic Development Agency, without the general support of a language strategy, would be powerless. It was also during the year 2001 that the Australian language planner Joseph LoBianco, who had been in charge of the introduction of a coherent language policy in Australia in the 1980s and 1990s, visited Scotland and investigated steps necessary for Gaelic survival (LoBianco 2001, cf. also The Scotsman 2001). In general, LoBianco calls for "a national agency for languages and literacy co-ordination to bring about an over-arching programme of co-ordination, information exchange and efficient delivery". The key recommendations of his report focus on a coherent support for Gaelic and all other languages spoken in Scotland. Regarding Gaelic, "all local authorities should commit themselves to () expanding provision for Gaelic instruction including through Gaelic medium education schools, so that it can be seen as a common education experience for young people as it is in Ireland." Government and education authorities' action should be sided by "a research programme to examine how many speak Scots, how we teach foreign languages, keep languages such as Gaelic and Scots alive and encourage ethnic (i.e. allochthonous) minority languages". LoBianco thus not only generally calls for more support of Gaelic and multilingual measures, but clearly adopts the concept of coherent, holistic language planning, based on sufficient research, and carried out under the guidance of a central agency which coordinates efforts of all language planning institutions involved. All this shows that the report of the Advisory Group established as a result of the Macpherson Report, which became known as the MAGOG (Ministerial Advisory Group of Gaelic) or the Meek Report (after the group's chairman Donald Meek), was long expected in a climate in which further improvements were urgently called for. The report was published in two parts. Part 1 was called A Fresh Start for Gaelic, Part 2 contained a proposal for A National Plan for Gaelic. The first part was published in December 2001, about two years after the establishment of the first Task Force in 1999, and about one year after MAGOG had been set up. In his written evidence for the Russell Bill in winter 2002/2003, Meek came back to a summary the report: "The MAGOG presented the Minister for Gaelic with a draft Language Bill for Scotland, which (a) recognised Gaelic as one of Scotland's national languages, (b) defined Gaelic as a national asset in Scotland, and (c) empowered BGA (the Gaelic Language Board) to act as the principal planning agency for the development of Gaelic in Scotland" (Meek 2002). The main difference to the Macpherson Report
229
lies in its much more specific suggestions for political measures. Its key recommendations, in compliance with Gaelic organisation expectations, were (Scottish Executive 2000q): immediate action for a Gaelic Language Act, the immediate establishment of a Gaelic Language Board (Brd na Gidhlig) as a nondepartmental public body with a CEO and a board, located in Inverness, with national powers, adequately funded, and with a duty of other public bodies to cooperate, increased funding for Gaelic-medium education, and the establishment of a Gaelic Liaison Unit within the Scottish Executive. The old linear structure of communication between the Gaelic community and the Executive should be replaced by a network with the Language Board as the main coordinator of wishes and activities:
Old: Scottish Executive Funding Partners Gaelic Community Brd na Gidhlig Brd na Gidhlig by and for the Gaelic Community Other Language Agencies New: Scottish Executive
Figure 23: Gaelic Organisations: Old/New Structure (Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic 2001)
Part 2 of the report, the National Plan for Gaelic, was published on March 27th, 2002. It specified many of the suggestions made before and was considered by its authors as the "first holistic development plan for Gaelic in Scotland". The suggestions are based on the experience that "although many of the tools for language maintenance have been in place for 20 years (e.g. without first Gaelic playgroups and Gaelic-medium education intergenerational transmission is likely to have collapsed by now), statistical evidence indicates that the scale of the operation is still much too small" (Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic 2002). The major recommendations of the plan are to give Official Status to Gaelic, to establish Brd na Gidhlig (with a detailed description of its internal organisation), and a general restructuring of Gaelic support. Education is the prime, but by no means the only target for RLS. Major activities in order to raise speaker numbers should be the introduction of Gaelicmedium education at all levels, the enrichment of Gaelic cultural activities and the creation of social and economic rewards. Brd na Gidhlig as a focused language planning agency should be empowered by the government, coupled with partnership of public bodies, private and voluntary sectors, and all of the community. Another strategic priority should be the development of a National Policy through a National Plan. The intended outcome is nothing less than a state of
230
Normalisation, to which a Gaelic Language Act should contribute by ensuring a right of access to and use of Gaelic. Priorities in education should be a National Plan for Gaelic Education, education delivery at all levels, teacher recruitment and training, promotional activities, and legislation in parental rights. Players involved should be parents, the Scottish Executive, local authorities, universities, and teacher education institutes. The Arts, Culture, and Heritage section focuses on a National Gaelic Culture Plan for the delivery of culture and arts, career strategies, and promotion. Policies should be carried out in cooperation with the Arts Council, broadcasters, museums, and historical and heritage societies. In Economic and Social Development, targets should be a Gaelic Community Plan, and Gaelic tourism. Cooperation should take place with Enterprise Networks, VisitScotland, local authorities, and the private and voluntary sectors. Finally, broadcasting is supported, in particular TV and full-time radio channels. In the aftermath of the two reports, Gaelic activists desperately waited for action by the Scottish Executive. In parliamentary business, the issues came up again in September 2002 through a petition by the Gaelic Students' organisation Str nan Oileanach (Students' Struggle) to give children better opportunities to learn Gaelic. Support for the petition came from people throughout the world who, in the words of MSP Cathy Mary MacMillan (SNP) "find it incredible that our own Government does not see the worth of the language" (Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee 2002). This opposition voice was even supported by some MSPs of the governing parties, albeit moderately. Maureen Macmillan (Labour) defended that "the Executive has progressed Gaelic through Gaelic-medium education and so on, but not quickly enough for many Gaels who feel that time is running out." Specific steps were urgently demanded, simultaneously rectifying wrong perceptions of Gaelic legislation as occasionally given in the media: "Gaelic would not be forced on anyone. All we ask is the justice that we are due secure status for Gaelic throughout Scotland through an act of Parliament, and the implementation of the recommendations of the Meek report without delay. I would ask the committee to ask the Executive to avoid measuring the cost of a Gaelic act exclusively in financial terms, and to concentrate on the immeasurable loss it would be if this worthy language were wiped out" (Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee 2002). The Executive's view on the petition was expressed by Mike Watson in a letter to the Public Petitions Committee, which again postpones specific steps: "On 14 June I announced that the Executive would set up the (Gaelic) agency later this year. () Overall, progress in Gaelic has been made, consistent with the aims of Secure Status. The advocates of Secure Status, including the Petitioners, are calling for legislation to give recognition to Gaelic as a language valid for public business in Scotland. As we are setting up a new public body for Gaelic, it would be appropriate to seek its advice on the terms of such legislation" (Watson
231
2002). Even if this view proves generally open to a Gaelic Language Act, there is a clear lack of commitment to urgent action. Robert Dunbar in his submission calls for such a wide-reaching initiative: "It is agreed by all those who have considered the situation that we desperately need a Gaelic language bill based on the Macpherson report and the Meek report." However, he goes even further than that: "All those who are involved in Gaelic development know that we desperately need a Gaelic bill based on Commun na Gidhlig's recommendations." Again, he cites examples from around the world where legislation was necessary to start a process of action by local authorities: "If there is any lesson to be learned from other countries, it is that, in any place where a minority language is given any rights such as Catalonia, the Basque country, Canada and the north of Italy that happens because it has some kind of legal status. () Until we acknowledge such lessons, we will not make much progress" (Dunbar 2002). Other Gaelic experts were even harsher in their scepticism to the Executive's commitment, such as Iain M. Macleid: "We have been told that the Government must take advice from bhrd Gidhig na h-Alba but, as Rob Dunbar says, that is just another excuse to delay the bill. The Government already has the information that is needed, which was given to it many years ago." With regard to a question by John F. Munro, who agrees that "we have seen very little progress," Macleid stresses that without the need of a language act, and without involving high costs, one step could be to increase the numbers of Gaelic-medium pupils. However, this would require "support from the local authorities to maintain and strengthen the system. () Because the councils are not willing to pump money into the system, we have no security and are not able to give parents the right to have their children educated in a Gaelic-medium system where that is desired." And also "more Gaelicmedium teachers would be available if they were given better facilities and support" (Macleid 2002). To summarise, we thus find that the hopes nourished by the initiation of the Macpherson and Meek reports were not fulfilled up to 2002. The Executive lacked the commitment to have true action follow the reports.
14.3 Gaelic Broadcasting and the Milne Report

Another Gaelic core issue in the first term of the Scottish Parliament was broadcasting. As one of the issues still under Westminster rule, the Scottish Parliament's influence in this area is generally limited. Yet, the Scottish Executive set up a Task Force to investigate the current state of affairs of Gaelic TV, whose recommendations have to be seen in the light of the constitutional framework and of the two Broadcasting Acts from 1990 and 1996 referred to above. The discussion in the Scottish Parliament centred around the report of that Task Force issued in 2002, also known as the Milne Report, named after its Chairman Alasdair Milne, a previous BBC director-general. Its rationale was to investigate "the future of Gaelic broadcasting in the context of the convergence of broadcasting, communications and information technology." Its main proposition is
232
a dedicated Gaelic television channel, based on legal provisions included in the forthcoming UK broadcasting legislation. As a whole, "a coordinated approach to the implementation of policies and strategies is needed." It further suggests the establishment of a Gaelic Broadcasting Authority whose prime responsibilities would be to "oversee the establishment of a Gaelic Service embracing the converging media of the 21st century, administer the funds which the service will receive, appoint the senior staff who will run the service, have overall responsibility for the scheduling and the broadcast of the service, and to designate the sustaining services which will broadcast when Gaelic programmes are not being transmitted" (Scottish Executive 2000a). The Gaelic Service should be available free to air on all digital platforms. The amount of broadcasting should be three hours of original programmes per day in peak time, of wide range and high quality. In total, the role and commitment of the BBC in Gaelic Broadcasting, Television and Radio nan Gaidheal should be further strengthened, for instance by an extension of BBC Radio nan Gaidheals transmission hours and a transmission throughout Scotland. The task force report was then discussed by the Scottish Parliament's Education Committee, including evidence by institutions involved in Gaelic broadcasting as well as scholars working on Gaelic. On the whole, the response to the report was positive, and the Education Committee thus concluded that the report should form the basis for further action. The Committee acknowledged the progress made, but identified weaknesses, the principal one being the separation of commissioning and funding. Legislation at Westminster was seen as necessary to provide for these changes, which should ultimately result in a full Gaelic channel, perhaps with some subsidiary cultural programming (Scottish Executive 2000a, Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions and recommendations). So how did Gaelic activists react to the report and the ensuing debate? According to McLeod, the prime function of Gaelic broadcasting should be revitalisation and expansion of the language, rather than only to provide services for the existing Gaelic audience, "and all other objectives should be secondary" (cf. Scottish Parliament 2001e). He also raised four major issues. First, programming should be directed to all generations of Gaelic speakers, referring to the dominance of traditional programmes aimed at the older generation, e.g. on community life in the Western Isles in history. These have to be flanked by programmes for a much younger and wider audience: "I suggest a wider range of programming for learners of various levels, programmes that reflect the increasing diversity of the Gaelic community, and programmes that appeal to young people (especially those in the 15-29 age range, which are unlike young children often neglected at present)." Second, Gaelic should be used as the working language in Gaelic Broadcasting, thus contributing to the status of Gaelic and creating jobs in which Gaelic is needed. This would require expanded investment in language
233
training for employees of various professions. Third, despite a Gaelic channel, McLeod argued that Gaelic must not disappear completely from mainstream TV to ensure a role of Gaelic for all of society. Gaelic radio should be provided all day, and be available in all of Scotland. Dunbar in his submission supports most of McLeod's points, for instance by stressing that "the prime objective of all government policy with respect to Gaelic should be the maintenance and regeneration of the Gaelic language community in Scotland." He also points to a number of dangers which have to be given careful consideration: If Gaelic broadcasting is expanded, "a rapid expansion in Gaelic broadcasting could result in a rapid expansion of employment opportunities for non-Gaelic speakers in Gaelic broadcasting." In a Gaelicspeaking environment, "the implications for broader Gaelic language development may, ironically, be adverse." In addition, Dunbar takes up the issue of representation within the public bodies dealing with Gaelic broadcasting: "How can we be certain that those appointed are actually representative of the Gaelic community? () The Task Force report goes on to state that the Secretary of State "should", in exercising his or her power, consult with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister, that the membership [in the Broadcasting Authority] "should" comprise a geographical, gender and skills mix, and that all members "must" be Gaelic speakers. In my view, this would be an inadequate response" (Dunbar 2001b). Similar opinions were heard by most voices raised in the debate. The Gaelic Arts Agency also confirms that much has been achieved in the 1990s, but adds that the current state is seen as still far from ideal: "Although the 1990 Broadcasting Act was a major breakthrough at the time it was more the consequence of urgent necessity and inspired opportunism than holistic consideration of the most effective and efficient design for a lasting Gaelic broadcasting service" (Gaelic Arts Agency 2001). In this, the Arts Agency fully supports the Milne Report. The proposed dedicated digital Gaelic broadcaster should be adequately funded and be independent of other broadcasters. Its management body should feature representation from the community and other sectors such as arts and education. As a whole, it should be seen as a "key element in Scotland's cultural infrastructure and a means of promoting Scotland's cultures to ourselves and the wider world." The channel should be based in the Western Isles to contribute to the economic development of the region, a demand in which it is supported by Western Isles Enterprise in its submission (Western Isles Enterprise 2001). The Argyll and Bute Education Development & Support Officer for Gaelic, Rosemary Ward, adds a perspective from local education authorities. In spite of a positive impact of the development of Gaelic broadcasting on Gaelic education in the 1990s, "it is imperative that funding for Gaelic broadcasting be increased in order to increase the range of educational opportunities which can be made available to pupils and parents accessing the Gaelic Medium Education option. Local education authorities will need the support of CCG to () create the "cool" image for the language that it so important to young people." This
234
necessity starts among the very youngest already: "The development of Gaelic pre-school education is going to require to be supported through a range of age-appropriate Gaelic programmes for very young children". CnaG in its argumentation demands that Gaelic media should "make regular reports to both the Scottish Parliament and the Gaelic community as to the linguistic impact of its operations and programming. The structure of such a service should ensure that its executive is representative of and accountable to the Gaelic community." As a whole, more funding to create jobs in the Western Isles is needed, as many Gaelic jobs rather seem to be created in the Central Belt. Further, media training courses are necessary to ensure quality. In total, "legislation is necessary to establish a coherent and cohesive Gaelic broadcasting service to cover radio, television and the internet with the capacity for growth to meet audience, listener, and consumer demands and to enhance the role of broadcasting in the development of the language in the fields of education, the arts training and employment opportunities." Michael Russell then raised the issue of how this cooperation between the BBC at the UK level, and the CCG in Scotland would be structured, and where the CCG's place between the BBC and a range of independent broadcasters would be: "One of the problems that you alluded to in your opening statement is the difficulty that the CCG has in operating across that divide." Russell then called for more action and raised a number of further questions to be addressed: "What sectors should Gaelic broadcasting be playing to? Should it be spending more money on education? What are its key priorities for the next 10 years?" The Scottish Executive's response to this debate was expressed in a paper by Alasdair Morrison. Morrison also comes to the conclusion that "broadcasting is of crucial importance to the maintenance and development of Gaelic" and that it is "one of the key components in a co-ordinated strategy of language planning" (Morrison 2001a). On funding, he recalls that "the Executive's funding of 8.5m for the CCG, which accounts for over half of its expenditure on Gaelic, makes a substantial contribution to Gaelic broadcasting." In total, however, Morrison remains very vague and admits that "the cost of three hours a day's Gaelic programmes, as recommended by Milne, would be substantial." As a whole, "the Milne Report's recommendations are being considered by the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive in conjunction with Whitehall Departments." Morrison repeated his call for the necessity of UK legislation based on the Milne report, when giving evidence to the Education Committee on September 18th, 2001: "If Gaelic broadcasting is to be sustained in the competitive digital environment of the 21st century, it must be placed within the framework of regulation and it must be established under UK legislation. It must be normalised, not marginalised." Morrison again stresses both linguistic and cultural tasks that Gaelic broadcasting fulfils: "It is important that a minority-language broadcaster in the digital age is equipped to deal with the dual set of expectations linguistic and cultural that are held by the community." In answer to Russell's position, Morrison agreed on the difficult position of the CCG as an administrator of funding
235
with no real broadcasting competence. He confirmed his support of Russell's views, but his answers again remained vague: "We are retracing our steps in relation to the weaknesses of the current arrangements. () Mr Russell's question is fundamental and it must be addressed during the process. In an ideal world, Gaelic broadcasting would be working across the same sectors that one would expect any broadcasting facility to work across." On the whole, however, even if Morrison appeared to be honestly sympathetic to Gaelic, he hardly announced any specific steps, without going into details or giving clearer evidence of what will be done.
14.4 The Establishment of Brd na Gidhlig

The next issue to address is that the Executive in 2002 finally fulfilled one of the major demands of Gaelic activists by establishing the Gaelic Language Board, Brd na Gidhlig, as a central institution for Gaelic issues, in line with the Meek Report. At the CnaG congress in June 2002, Mike Watson, who had followed Morrison as the person responsible for Gaelic in the Scottish Executive, announced that the Executive would set up a Gaelic Agency by the end of the year. The Board's Chairman Duncan Ferguson, the headmaster of a Gaelic-medium school, was appointed in October 2002. The Board then took its first steps in January 2003, and was officially established by the Scottish Executive in April 2003. Its 7 other members came from varying backgrounds, including academia, broadcasting, and public authorities. An office with 6 employees was created in Inverness to carry out the decisions on a day-to-day basis. Brd na Gidhlig is a non-departmental public body with responsibility for the strategic overview of Gaelic development and the duties of promoting Gaelic, drawing up plans for the language and co-ordinating activities in support of Gaelic. Its fundamental aims for their strategy for the next years are to "increase number of speakers and users of Gaelic (areas: Pre-school and School Education, Teaching, Lifelong Learning), to strengthen Gaelic as a family and community language (areas: Home, Community, Work), to facilitate access to Gaelic language and culture throughout Scotland (areas: Media, Arts, Publishing), to promote and celebrate Gaelic's contribution to Scottish cultural life, (areas: Gaelic Promotion, Culture and Heritage), and to extend and to enhance the use of Gaelic in all aspects of life in Scotland (areas: Language Usage, Language Planning, Research)" (Brd na Gidhlig 2005). The Brd was funded by the Scottish Executive with 274,000 in 2002-3 and 825,000 in 2003-4. According to its first Annual Report, Brd na Gidhlig in 2003-4 focussed on stimulating the debate on a Gaelic Act, working with the major Gaelic bodies to prepare operational plans,
236
approving 69 funding applications worth more than 750,000, and carrying out a conference on Gaelic-language publishing. It also held public meetings throughout Scotland to provide opportunities to present the Brd and to discuss the Gaelic Language Bill proposal. The Brd also emphasises the establishment of links with other Gaelic organisations and with public bodies (Brd na Gidhlig 2004). In the context of representation of Gaelic speakers, we find that the composition of the Board tries to reflect a variety of sections of the Gaelic community. However, members are appointed by the government and thus clearly dependent on political will. Gaelic organisations strongly tried to impose its ideas on the Board's composition, and the Executive to a certain degree seems to have taken notice of these attempts. Yet, the Brd is, of course, clearly not representative in any democratic sense. Its members are not elected by Gaelic speakers (or at least the members of particular Gaelic organisations), and the influence of Gaelic speakers remains thus indirect. In the Scottish Parliament, there was hardly any debate at the time when Brd na Gidhlig was established, as its establishment was based on a decision by the Executive. Reactions were positive in principle, and Gaelic activists were eager to show their patience and to wait and see how the Board would be able to enhance new policy steps. On the other hand, they stressed that the Board was only one of a number of substantial demands to Gaelic policy, and that the establishment of such an institution could only be another starting point for further activities, without which the position of Gaelic would not change at all. The lack of a legal basis of the Board, leaving its shape, its competence and ultimately its entire being open to possibly arbitrary political decisions was another moot point. In the debate on a written answer by Mike Watson to the Public Petition Committee Meeting on September 24th, 2002, Robert Dunbar seized the opportunity to come back to the demand for a language act as the second major consequence of the Meek Report besides Brd na Gidhlig. After several years of waiting, the tone became harsher: "I do not know the policy of the Executive or the Parliament on Gaelic. Is there a policy to save Gaelic? If so, what does that mean? Does it mean maintaining the number of Gaelic speakers or increasing it?" (Dunbar 2002). Strong hopes were also placed by Gaelic activists in the educational sector, considering the fact that after a number of years of steady growth it appears that progress has begun to stall. The ongoing shortage of teachers is causing serious concern to many parents, education professionals and local authority officials. The newly created Brd na Gidhlig, should have an excellent opportunity to make a positive impact on the situation if the Government gives it proper backing (McLeod 2003b: 129-130). The development had thus by no means reached a satisfactory level and the debate continued.
237
14.5 The Private Member's Bill on Gaelic by Michael Russell

14.5.1 The Proposal As time was passing without any further steps in the direction of legal status following, Michael Russell abandoned his strategy of encouraging the Executive by raising questions concerning Gaelic, and on November 13th, 2002 introduced his own legal suggestion in form of a Private Member's Bill, which was briefly referred to above. Such a Bill can be introduced by any MSP to the Scottish Parliament, as soon as it receives the support of a minimum of 11 other MSPs. The Bill's stated aim was to help halt the decline of Gaelic "by taking the first steps towards making Gaelic a normal part of everyday life in Scotland and at the same time reminding many Scots of its existence. () The purpose of the Bill is to place a duty on certain public bodies to prepare, publish and implement a Gaelic language plan. When these public bodies prepare such plans they are to give effect to the principle, that in exercising their functions, they will treat Gaelic and English on a basis of equality" (Russell 2002a). Every public body which "exercises any of its functions" (Bill, Section 3 (b)) in a specifically designated area would thus have been obliged to publish a 5-year-plan on Gaelic. These plans should at a minimum contain provisions on the following issues: How will the public body respond to persons who communicate with it in Gaelic? Which documents and other materials for internal and external use will the public body make available in the Gaelic language? Which translation services will the public body, on request, make available for materials which it does not propose ordinarily to make available in Gaelic? Which services will be provided exclusively for users of (including those learning) the Gaelic language? Which staff will be designated contacts for internal or external enquiries in or about Gaelic? Which training and acquisition opportunities in the Gaelic language will the public body provide for its staff? In which posts will the public body treat the holders ability to communicate in Gaelic as an essential requirement? The public body would have duties to consult the public and implementation duties. A failure to establish or implement such a plan would have been regarded as a service failure, in accordance with the general regulations on the Scottish Ombudsman. In contrast to many other suggestions regarding language acts, the Bill was initially not meant to apply to the whole of Scotland, but one of the prospects was that its area of application would be extended. At first, it would have been limited to the Gaelic core areas of Highland Council, the Western Isles, a part of Argyll and Bute and the islands of Arran, Great Cumbrae and Little Cumbrae a restriction which met with widespread opposition.
238
It was the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's task to deal with the Bill at Stage 1 of parliamentary proceedings. The Committee took oral evidence in February and March 2003 from scholars, activists, public bodies, and organisations. In addition, the Committee received 43 submissions of written evidence, including by two members of the MAGOG, by other scholars, by Gaelic organisations such as Commun na Gidhlig, Cl, Na Gaidheil ra (The New Gaels), but also other organisations whose major purpose is not to deal with Gaelic, e.g. the Scottish Arts Council, Scottish Natural Heritage. Finally, the Scottish Executive and Michael Russell himself explained their views. The Committee in the end issued a report based on these submissions.
14.5.2 General Support for the Bill Of the large number of statements on the Bill, I have again chosen a selection of comments particularly well-founded and exemplary for the views raised for further discussion. Participants in the debate generally expressed their, with the notable exception of the Scottish Executive. Brd na Gidhlig supported the Bill under the condition of three changes: It should be applied to the whole of Scotland, provide a statutory basis for the Brd and allow the Brd, rather than the Ombudsman, to deal with Gaelic plans. Donald Meek (also on behalf of MAGOG) considered in general that "the Russell Bill does what the Executive fails to do". In his oral evidence on December 10th, 2002, he raised a number of issues, calling for "a foundation that will not be changed according to which Government or which party is involved. We want stability for Gaelic for future generations" (Scottish Parliament Education Culture and Sport Committee 2003b, Annex C Oral Evidence and Associated Written Evidence). He also stressed the time aspect: "People () in places throughout Scotland where Gaelic is spoken, are losing confidence. () Also, the number of people who speak Gaelic is ever decreasing, especially in the Western Isles. () We are tired of reports in the Gaelic community; we want action now. Brd na Gidhlig is the first action, but there should be a Gaelic act alongside it. We need to implement the bill as quickly as possible for many reasons." Similarly, Dunbar in his submission summarised that "the Bill represents a potentially significant step forward for Gaelic development." However, "the Bill is only one of many steps which must be taken, and taken as a matter of urgency. In particular, legislative action must still be taken in a number of other areas" (Dunbar 2003b). Donald Martin of CnaG in his evidence on December 17th, 2002, naturally related the proposition to CnaG's Secure Status proposals, which had received the overwhelming support of the Gaelic community in a consultation process from 1997 to 1999, accompanied by a petition with over 10,000 signatures, presented to the Scottish Executive in July 1999. Although the Draft Brief of a Language Act had been requested by the then Minister for Gaelic at the Scottish Office, no formal response was ever given. Martin confirmed the principal view that after a hopeful start,
239
most promises by the Executive were not kept. CnaG's response to the Bill was on the whole positive, primarily because of the great achievement of having put Gaelic on the agenda. Martin also demanded that "the Board needs to have power, founded on a legal act in the same way as is the case with the Welsh Language Board in Wales." He also argued for a pragmatic approach: "We must be aware that the level of support given to Gaelic in the Western Isles and some parts of the Highlands would be different to the level of support provided in places such as Glasgow and Edinburgh." 3 recommendations based on Secure Status and the Meek Report were put forward (Martin 2002). A first step could be "a short Bill stating as its first principle recognition by the Parliament and the Executive of the Gaelic language as one of Scotland's national language." Second, the Bill should establish "a basis of equality between the Gaelic and English languages in Scotland", and third, empower Brd na Gidhlig "to prepare and implement a National Policy for Gaelic in Scotland, in conjunction with the relevant public, private and voluntary bodies." As regards public bodies in the Gaelic heartland, the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar supported the Bill as "the formal recognition by the Scottish Parliament that Gaelic is the major indigenous language of Scotland and deserves formal, legal status", in particular as it is a clear signal "that the Scottish Parliament is committed to the maintenance, revival and development of the Gaelic language and culture." On a practical scale, any implementation "will require additional financial resources, but there appears to be no provision for this in the Bill" (Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 2002). Also the Highland Council generally supported the Bill, stating for that the "Scottish Parliament and the Executive must lead by example and make provision for the Gaelic language and its associated culture through a form of legislation, which would give the language credibility and standing." The Scottish Parliament should make "a concentrated effort to take forward a standard Bill which will be adequately supported, developed, and financed", instead of a Private Bill only. The Highland Council thus argues, in line with the demands by many other submissions, for enhanced cooperation with Brd na Gidhlig, for a solid implementation of the Secure Status and MAGOG recommendations, and equal parity for Gaelic through a bill applying to the whole of Scotland. It is remarkable that in this, two of the local authorities most crucially involved in Gaelic issues lend their full support to the Bill (Highland Council 2003b).
14.5.3 Calls for Improvements One general strong criticism, raised for example by HIE and Brd na Gidhlig, was with regard to the geographical limitation of the Bill. A lack of application to public bodies across the whole of Scotland could lead to a division in the Gaelic community, considering the large numbers of speakers living outside the proposed area. Dunbar in his oral evidence suggested that application should rather be on a demand-oriented basis: "The areas defined seem to be derived from some understanding of an historical "Highland line", rather than on current demographics." Dunbar then got
240
back to the CnaG proposals, which "anticipated that all public bodies would have to prepare a Gaelic language plan, but that the obligations imposed on public bodies would be tailored to meet local needs and local linguistic and other resources" (Dunbar 2003b). CnaG also criticised the geographical limits and feared "that the Executive would make excuses by saying "You have a Gaelic Bill and you do not need anything else". It is possible we would never see the bill extend to other parts" (Comunn na Gidhlig 2002). The Committee thus summarised that "It is clear from the evidence that the duty to produce Gaelic language plans should apply to the whole of Scotland, therefore ensuring that the principle of treating Gaelic on a "basis of equality" with English is adopted Scotland-wide", even though some practical difficulties could arise. The Committee identified several options to overcome these difficulties and recognised "the need for flexibility in the content of language plans so that they are appropriate for the area where they are being introduced." The period for preparation of such plans could be extended from the proposed two to five years. Supervision of the process should best be done by Brd na Gidhlig. Generally, the Committee thus applied a very pragmatic, balancing approach. Another core debate centred on compulsion and enforcement: The main line ran between consensus orientation and scholars' demands for compulsion. For instance, in his written evidence, Dunbar argued that "the requirement to give effect to the principle that Gaelic and English are treated on the basis of equality is subject to a limitation. It only requires the implementation of this principle to the extent 'appropriate in the circumstances' and 'reasonably practicable'. This, however, may be subject to abuse. It is inappropriate to leave the determination of the extent of the limitation wholly up to public bodies themselves." He also called for two major steps of improvement: First, clear obligations should be imposed on public bodies to create an element of compulsion. Second, Dunbar again quoted examples from other countries where rules for the enforcement of these obligations had been found: "In many jurisdictions, the element of compulsion is introduced through giving users of the language a legally enforceable right to use it in their dealings with public bodies. In others, it is introduced through the creation of binding obligations." A mere enabling legislation would not be needed, as there had not been any restrictions to public bodies to introduce a voluntary Gaelic policy along the line with the Bill "and yet, very few appear willing to do so. Only two local councils, the Highland Council and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, have prepared Gaelic policies and even there, the number of council services that are available through both the medium of Gaelic and English appear to be very limited." And also Russell himself agreed that there were no strong sanction mechanisms in his Bill: "The only sanction in the bill is naming and shaming, which is not much of a sanction" (Russell 2002b). One more core issue was Brd na Gidhlig's role in policy implementation and supervision. The general opinion was that the Board should be put on a clear legal basis and assume duties which in the Bill are assigned to the Ombudsman. The Committee finally also
241
addressed the costs involved. The general view was that costs were extremely difficult to measure, but many scholars argued that there were many areas which would not cost much more. The Bill would probably lead to some initial investments, but once services were established, there would be no fundamental difference between offering these in Gaelic or English. The opinion of the Welsh Language Board, with several years' experience of language plans, is of special interest in this regard: "Too often, investment in Welsh-medium or Gaelic-medium education or public services is perceived as investment in Welsh or in Gaelic. That perception is mistaken. Such investment should be seen primarily as investment in education or better service provision, rather than as something additional. Language () should not be seen as something that is apart from society" (Welsh Language Board 2003). Similarly, McLeod (2003d) argued: on the costs of Gaelic services that "there is a perception that services through the medium of English are free and that it is expensive to do anything through the medium of Gaelic." This notwithstanding, the Executive used unclear costs as one argument to refuse support.
14.5.4 The Scottish Executive's Reaction to Russell's Proposal When looking at the Scottish Executive's view on the Bill, it is necessary to recall that the government initially took a number of steps encouraging the position of Gaelic. In the submission to the Bill, we find: "The commitment to provide secure status for Gaelic through a Gaelic Language Act was confirmed in the Partnership Agreement for a Better Scotland and then in the First Ministers statement on the Executives legislative programme. We believe that the Gaelic language is important to all of Scotland and is a unique part of our culture and heritage. To underpin the support that we will give to the language, we will legislate to give Gaelic secure status enshrining the Gaelic language in Scots law for the first time" (Scottish Executive 2003c). However, in the oral and written submissions by the Scottish Executive in January 2003, it became clear that this did not apply to the Russell Bill: "Although there is much in this Bill that is commendable, the Executive is unable to support it. The bill runs contrary to our current priorities, it carries the potential for dividing the Gaelic community, there are financial and technical uncertainties and it does not give due recognition to the role and functions of Brd Gidhlig na h-Alba." Mike Watson on January 21st provided an Executive report on Gaelic achievements and justified his refusal to support the Bill by commenting on the debate on "official status" of Gaelic: "I want there to be no doubt that I believe the Gaelic language in Scotland has official recognition and official status. Several points signify that. I am appearing before the committee as the first Cabinet minister with responsibility for Gaelic" (Scottish Parliament Education Culture and Sport Committee 2003a.) Yet, activists made clear that they wished official status for Gaelic, but they also showed that they believed that this had to imply further duties. Watson then went on to list the establishment of Brd na Gidhlig and other achievements by the Executive such as the deployment of bilingual Gaelic/English
242
road signs in the Highlands. In total, Watson listed 16 items of Gaelic policy, including the opening of the Glasgow Gaelic School, the publication of "An Leabhar Mr" (the "Big Book of Gaelic"), the establishment of the St Columba Centre on Islay, a prize awarded to Sabhal Mr Ostaig, and the appointment of a second Gaelic officer in the Scottish Parliament. This list reflects that, without any doubt, some progress had been achieved by Executive action but by no means had there been true change of policy. By citing issues such as road signs, which can be labelled tokenism or the stating of something very natural, Watson showed a lack of awareness of the scale of endangerment, as perceived by the Gaelic community. In addition, Watson cited the Education Act as a success for Gaelic: "The Executive in the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act 2000 has provided that education authorities in their annual improvement statements must set out their plans for Gaelicmedium education. () Gaelic is available at all levels of education, with improved resources and materials, and is included in the framework of national priorities in education. The Executive monitors and measures the extent to which education authorities respond to parental demand for Gaelic. Those measures were secured through legislation." As outlined above, activists here, too, had a clearly different view on the issue. The Executive then commented on the ombudsman and Brd na Gidhlig's role as the main carrier of Gaelic policy. "The establishment of Brd Gidhlig is our main priority for Gaelic; in itself it confers significant status and recognition of the language and culture. I expect it to look at the role of possible legislative support for that plan or any other part of Gaelic development. Our support for the current Bill would, therefore, undermine this position and by implication our current policy priorities and the importance we have invested in Brd Gidhlig na h-Alba" (Scottish Parliament Education Committee 2002). As indicated, the status of Brd na Gidhlig was also evaluated in a different way by Gaelic scholars. Finally, Watson also rejected the Bill on the grounds of its unclear financial implications: "Without a clearer estimate of those uncertain costs for public bodies and what their response is the Executive cannot support this bill" (Scottish Parliament Education Committee 2002). Given these views, it is not surprising that Dunbar as early as January 2003 expressed his astonishment: "After the evidence we have just heard, I must say that I feel I have stepped back one hundred years. Many people in this country do not understand what minority groups' rights are within Europe in the present day. I am extremely sorry to have to say that, but that evidence was unbelievable" (Scottish Parliament Education Culture and Sport Committee 2003b). In its concluding remarks on the Stage 1 discussion on the Bill, the Committee thus summarised that evidence showed that the intention underlying the Bill was mostly welcomed and that it should "not be seen as a panacea but as a start of a process." As a main recommendation, the Committee generally supported the Bill: "Whilst the Committee is aware of the limitations of the Bill and provisions of the Bill which need to be re-examined, it believes, on balance, that the general principles of the Bill should be agreed to." The report concluded that "further evidence on this issue would need to be taken prior to
243
the consideration of amendments at Stage 2. Major changes should be made concerning the application to all of Scotland, the supervising role of Brd na Gidhlig instead of the Ombudsman, and that more cost calculation would be needed" (Scottish Parliament Education Culture and Sport Committee 2003a). Further evidence was initiated by the Education Committee in March 2003. After the Bill had passed Stage 1, it was time to discuss amendments. However, this discussion did not have a chance to come to a successful end, given the end of the first term of the Scottish Parliament and the new elections on May 1st, 2003. In view of the sharp criticism by the Executive, it is also highly unlikely that the Bill would have passed. It is thus surprising to read in the Gaelic Language Bill 2003 Consultation Paper by the Scottish Executive, which looks back at the Russell Bill: "The evidence showed that there was strong support for a Gaelic Language Bill to secure and protect the Gaelic language. () At the Stage 1 debate in Parliament, notwithstanding a number of express reservations about particular aspects of the Bill, the general principles of the Members Bill passed unanimously. Lack of time meant the Bill fell towards the end of the last session of the Parliament" (Scottish Executive 2003c). Michael Russell in his submission to the Executive bill seems to come a lot closer to the real reasons for the failure of his Bill: "The Members Bill of which I was the sponsor and which was introduced in November 2002 did not fall because of lack of time. () The Members Bill could have been passed had the Executive been willing to ensure its passage" (Russell 2003). On the whole, it is thus legitimate to summarise that the dividing line which appeared in the debate on the Education Bill was reinforced: the SNP, in line with Gaelic scholars and organisations, was in opposition to the Scottish Executive. Yet, individual MSPs from the ruling coalition with a personal relation to Gaelic issues also held a more supportive view.
14.6 Minor Gaelic Issues in the First Term of the Scottish Parliament
Besides the major issues discussed so far, Gaelic featured more regularly in the Scottish Parliament's work in its first term, most often through the medium of questions to the Scottish Executive. Table 63 is a list of occasions where Gaelic issues were discussed in Plenary or Committee meetings between summer 2000 and the end of the first parliamentary term. Most debates included contributions in Gaelic with simultaneous translation.

Date 2000:0 7.06 15.06 16.06 29.06 05.07 07.09 06.12 19.12 2001: 17.01 24.04 11.06 18.06 27.06 04.09 11.09 18.09 26.09 25.10 20.11 27.11 28.11 18.12 2002:1 5.01 12.03 23.04 13.06 19.09 24.09 10.10 29.10 31.10 05.11 14.11 26.11 26.11 10.12 10.12 17.12 2003:0 7.01 14.01 14.01 21.01 28.01 06.02 06.03 11.03 17.03 Part of Scot. Parl. Plenum Plenum Rural Affairs Com. Plenum Plenum Plenum Education, Culture, Sport (ECS) Com. Procedures Com. ECS Committee ECS Committee ECS Committee ECS Committee ECS Committee ECS Committee Public Petitions Committee ECS Committee Plenum Plenum Public Petitions Committee ECS Committee Plenum Procedures Com. Public Petitions Committee Public Petitions Committee Procedures Com. Plenum Plenum Public Petitions Committee Plenum ECS Committee Plenum Public Petitions Committee Plenum ECS Committee ECS Committee ECS Committee Rural Development Committee ECS Committee ECS Committee ECS Committee Public Petitions Committee ECS Committee Subordinate Legislation Com. Plenum Plenum ECS Committee ECS Committee
244
Topic Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill: Stage 3: Amendments moved by Russell/Munro for GME guarantees voted down by Lab, LD Early Education and Child Care, includes Gaelic issues in the aftermath of Education Bill Gaelic and Scots in National Parks Gaelic: Question by M. Russell to A. Morrison about Executive plans to Gaelic Bill Motion by Michael Russell to prescribe the use of Gaelic in National Parks; disagreed (only SNP and a few Highland MSPs (LD/Con), in favour) General debate Gaelic policy (European Year of Languages 2001), esp. on Secure Status Subordinate Legislation: Discussion of State of Affairs of Gaelic in Education after School Bill Petition on more acceptance of Gaelic in Parliament communication Gaelic Broadcasting Gaelic Broadcasting Gaelic Broadcasting (Meeting on the Isle of Lewis!) Gaelic Broadcasting Gaelic Broadcasting Gaelic Broadcasting Ensure appropriate access to Gaelic education and prevent Gaelic education from becoming socially exclusive (based on petitioner's negative experience in Edinburgh) Gaelic Broadcasting, including oral evidence by Alasdair Morrison European Day of Languages: Multilingual debate, much symbolism, little politics National Cultural Strategy Petition PE 385 Gaelic Education: Recognition of Gaelic and accessibility of Gaelicmedium education; it should be provided centrally by the Executive and not left to each education authority to determine the level of provision Gaelic Broadcasting Gaelic-Medium Education, Motion by Maureen Macmillan; rejected Consultative Steering Group Principles Inquiry; Evidence by Wilson McLeod Petition PE 437 Gaelic Language: to secure the future of the Gaelic language through the creation of a Gaelic language act and to develop a co-ordinated strategy for the language in partnership with local authorities and Gaelic organisations Petition PE 437 Gaelic Language: Petitions asks for Language Act; answer refers to action taken Languages in Parliament Education: Gaelic used by Conservatives as example on private initiatives in schooling where parental demands would be matched a lot better Culture (Educational Development of Young People) PE 540 "A Fresh Start for Gaelic": Several experts, including Rob Dunbar, give evidence arguing for Secure Status and a Bill as soon as possible Inverness Bid for European Cultural Capital 2008, including its importance for Gaelic language and culture and Celtic cultures in general Budget 2003-2004: M. Watson on Gaelic funding; denies necessity for more teachers etc Broadcasting/Print Media. Motion by M. Russell, including short debate on Gaelic support Petition PE 437 Gaelic Language and PE 540 "A Fresh Start for Gaelic": Answer refers to Russell Bill National Cultural Strategy: Includes the position of Gaelic, and first comments to M. Russell's Bill introduced one day before On Report on Scotland's languages to Gaelic, Scots, and community languages Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Beginning and agreement on whom to invite for hearing Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1 Cairngorms National Park Designation: Amendment by John Munro to include a direct Gaelic translation of the Park's name Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1 Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1 Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1 Petition PE 437 Gaelic Language and PE 540 "A Fresh Start for Gaelic": Answers refer to Russell Bill and debate around it Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1, including Oral Evidence by Mike Watson: Account on what the Executive has done on Gaelic Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1 Questions to Watson on Gaelic support, esp. on GME (disagreement concerning necessity of more funding; Watson's commitment to Gaelic remains vague) Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1: Presentation of Bill by Russell; general debate Work Programme Debate including a longer debate on the Gaelic Bill Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2 (amendments to be discussed)
Table 63: Gaelic Issues Discussed in the Scottish Parliament's Bodies 2000 2003
245
Press releases by the Scottish Executive on activities in the Gaelic field presented, for instance, on February 3rd, 2001, a statement on the strategy to strengthen Gaelic links between Scotland and Ireland as a result of the Columba Initiative funding would be shared between the Irish Republic, the Northern Irish Assembly and the Scottish Executive; main steps were the creation of an Executive Board and appointment of a Chief Executive (Scottish Executive 2001b). On March 27th, 2001, the Westminster and Scottish Executive ministers started an initiative for co-operation between Scotland and the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, based on the common Gaelic tradition, family ties, and examples of entrepreneurship by people of Gaelic ancestry (Scottish Executive 2001c). Other examples reported of the launch of a digital history of Gaelic Scotland (May 11th, 2001; Scottish Executive 2001a), on a Boost for Islay Gaelic centre (September 11th, 2001; Scottish Executive 2001d), on Funding for Gaelic broadcasting and teaching (October 12th, 2001; Scottish Executive 2001e), on the perception of Gaelic growing more popular (March 16th, 2002, relating to a conference on Gaelic-medium education, Scottish Executive 2002a), on that Gaelic spreads into cyberspace (March 26th, 2002, in relation to the Gaelic online dictionary; Scottish Executive 2002b), on a Silver medal for Gaelic poem (July 9th, 2002; Scottish Executive 2002c), Gaelic roots run deep in Glasgow (November 2nd, 2002, on a Gaelic promotion day in Glasgow; Scottish Executive 2002d), that Minister views Gaelic school's success (November 18th, 2002, referring to Mike Watson; Scottish Executive 2002e), and on several occasions on the establishment of Brd na Gidhlig (on June 14th, 2002, October 11th, 2002, January 9th, 2003, or January 17th, 2003; Scottish Executive 2002f, 2002g, 2003a, 2003b). On a day-to-day basis, the Parliamentary Cross-Party group also helped to keep Gaelic on the agenda. The group sees itself as "a forum, within the Parliament, enabling MSPs from all parties to meet on a regular basis with representatives of Gaelic communities throughout Scotland." As such, "it provided information on Gaelic issues and briefed the Executive and other public bodies on the development and promotion of the Gaelic language and culture" (Scottish Parliament 2001a, Chapter "Other Activities"). The group meets six times a year. Topics considered were, according to MacMillan, the group's convener, the provision of Gaelic services and support within the Parliament, broadcasting, Gaelic-medium education, student and teacher recruitment and training, the recommendations of the MacPherson Report and the MAGOG on funding and structures for Gaelic development, the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, the 2001 Gaelic Census figures, the Russell Bill, and the establishment of Brd na Gidhlig. MacMillan concluded that "I believe that the valuable role of the Cross-Party Group, over the past three years, has helped to raise awareness amongst MSPs of all parties of the significant part Gaelic has in Scotland's national heritage" (Scottish Parliament 2003c).
246
Another aspect to address in this context is the institution of Questions and Answers to the Scottish Executive, either in written form or directed orally to ministers during parliamentary Question Time. According to Gaelic Officer MacCaluim's information paper "Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament", there were approximately 100 parliamentary questions on Gaelic in the first term. Many of these came directly under the heading "Gaelic", others on Gaelic as part of another policy, from fields as various as Tourism, National Lottery Funding, Education, Teacher Training, or Census. The majority of questions were asked by the SNP, and most remarkably by M. Russell, but others came from MSPs of all major parties (Scottish Parliament 1999-2006). Some, but not all, questions by Labour MSPs aimed at policy aspects to the effect that the Executive seemed to have taken satisfactory steps and could usually be answered in a much more positive fashion. In general, however, it is noteworthy that the positive approach from the first year had changed over time, and towards 2002, the questions by opposition MSPs became considerably sharper. Answers were given by several members of the Executive, but most often by Alasdair Morrison, and later by Mike Watson as those responsible for Gaelic. The answers were, however, mostly very vague. Sometimes they referred to policy steps started by the Executive, but on hardly any occasion was any true commitment to Gaelic stated. When asking for specific facts (e.g. projections of Gaelic speaker numbers in the future), the respondents often failed to give well-founded information, sometimes because they did not seem to know better, but sometimes because they appeared not to care. One of the initiatives through which Gaelic activists tried to establish a role for Gaelic was the debate around the National Parks (Scotland) Act in 2000. They stressed the role of Gaelic for Scottish national heritage, which, according to their views, should result in a statutory place of Gaelic in national parks. This in particular related to a proposed duty imposed on national park authorities to develop a Gaelic policy, and to ensure signage and other public information in Gaelic. In its response to theses demands, the Executive acknowledged that Gaelic language and culture are important elements of Scottish cultural heritage, but held the view that "it will be a matter for individual National Park authorities to decide their policy on Gaelic issues to cater for any Gaelic communities within their areas", given that the Bill covers the whole of Scotland and thus many areas without a traditional affiliation to Gaelic (Scottish Executive 2000q). MacCaluim/McLeod (2001) comment on the proceedings in preparation of the Bill: "In many cases, no account has been taken of Gaelic at all, such as in the National Parks Act where no mention was made of Gaelic despite concerted lobbying by Gaelic agencies. Secure status, whether interpreted as an act or a process, appears to be dead as far as the Scottish Executive is concerned."
247
Gaelic also featured in Scotland's National Cultural Strategy Report, issued in 2000, together with Scots and other languages (Scottish Executive 1999l). The general commitment to languages as "cultural expressions and as means of accessing Scotland's culture" was accompanied with an awareness that "the dominant position of English arguably has a negative effect upon Scotland's other languages". In other words, another parliamentary report again realised the problems of the dominance of English for Gaelic. The report then listed initiatives and activities taken, but included little which have not been looked at so far in this volume. Examples include multilingual multimedia, such as a CD-ROM on Viking history, with texts in English, Gaelic, Irish, and Danish. Specifically for Gaelic, the report lists, for instance the Gaelic Arts Youth Tuition Festivals, arts promotion, achievements in Gaelic-medium primary schools and Gaelic teaching material, or the work in the Broadcasting Committee and the Task Force on Broadcasting. Announcements made are on the basis of "continuing to support, e.g. Gaelic-medium education on sufficient demand, teacher training material". Overall, there is thus little of substance for further Gaelic policy, which was also stressed by MacCaluim/McLeod (2001): "Key government legislation and policies such as the National Priorities for Education scheme and the National Cultural Strategy, for example, made commitments to Gaelic which fell far short of the minimum aspirations of the Gaelic community and which were so weak as to be virtually meaningless." In corpus planning, the most important step was the publication of a dictionary for Parliament use (Faclair na Prlamaid) in May 2001. McLeod (2001c) called this an "important tool for the Gaelic community and a significant step forward in the process of Gaelic development"; but there was also sharp criticism, for instance concerning the lack of some important terms, ambiguities, or issues of orthography. Another issue briefly touched on was the use of Gaelic in courts. Dunbar reports that from June 2001, Gaelic could be used in sheriff courts in the Highlands, Islands and Grampian in oral evidence and written addresses. However, this required 14 days prior notice, which Dunbar (2001a: 245) sees as far from satisfactory. He also criticised that not all Gaelic speakers in Scotland have the right to use Gaelic in court. The issue of education was again taken up in November 2001, through a motion by Labour MSP Macmillan: "That the Parliament notes the critical situation facing Gaelic-medium education as a consequence of the current shortage of Gaelic teachers; further notes the continuing shortage of university graduates intending to enter Gaelic-medium teaching, and urges the Scottish Executive to put into place without further delay (a) a review, update and implementation of the recommendations contained in Comunn na Gidhlig's proposed national policy for Gaelic Education, Framework for Growth, which was submitted to the Scottish Office in 1997 and (b) the recommendations contained in the report by the General Teaching Council for Scotland Teaching in Gaelic-medium Educationrecommendations for change which was submitted to the Scottish Executive in 1999" (Scottish Parliament 2001d).
248
There was general support for Gaelic by the responding MSPs. However, great differences arose again in the evaluation of achievements by the Scottish Executive. Again, Michael Russell raised his voice, highlighting that of the estimated 7,000 children who can speak Gaelic, only 1,862 were in Gaelic units "which is only 100 more than there were four years ago." The reason for this is not a lack of interest: "Parents are always writing to me, saying that they are struggling to find a place in a Gaelic unit for their children. The problem is the shortage of teachers. () The burden of the argument is not that nothing is being done, but that not enough is being done" (Scottish Parliament 2001d). Kenneth MacIntosh (Labour) took a moderate view in this debate, providing specific suggestions of what could be done. It is remarkable that a Labour MSP quite clearly criticised the Scottish Executive: "Fundamental changes need to be made to the initial (teacher) training arrangements, in student selection, course design, certification by the General Teaching Council for Scotland and the organisation of the provision offered. () The Scottish Executive must reaffirm its commitment to the revitalisation of Gaelic by putting in place a national policy that brings together the essential elements of provision and funding. It must start by increasing investment in Gaelic-medium education" (Scottish Parliament 2001d). Gaelic also appeared in the debate on the Inverness application for European Cultural Capital 2008 on October 10th, 2002, when Macmillan stressed the potential of Gaelic for culture and identity as a unique selling point: "Gaelic is a cornerstone of the bid. (). It is the element that sets the Highland bid apart from every other bid for 2008. The proposals for the development of Gaelic are imaginative a language centre, a Gaelic teaching programme and the expansion of the Royal National Mod to include representatives from other Celtic countries" (Scottish Parliament 2002). As the last issue relating to Gaelic briefly presented here, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee discussed an inquiry into the role of education and cultural policy in supporting and developing Gaelic, Scots and minority languages in Scotland, as part of cultural policy and general strategy on culture. The Committee issued a report towards the end of the first term in early 2003, which, however, does not include very much on Gaelic. It is in this context that the report by the Australian language planner LoBianco referred to above was also discussed, with the conclusion that "Scotland needs a National Policy on Language because language and literacy policies are in the national interest and in the best interests of Scotland's citizens in the dynamic and uncertain world of the future" (as quoted at Scottish Parliament Education Committee 2003b). Three principles around which to centre language policy for Scotland should be "the conservation and revitalisation of Scotland's existing linguistic heritage, the integration of Scotland's language resources with public policy priorities, and the development of new and extended opportunities." The Committee report thus recommended the
14 Gaelic Policy after the Promising Start (2000 2003) promotion of bilingualism and multilingualism instead of monolingualism, recognition of the intellectual and economic benefits of such an approach,
249
increase in funding for initiatives which will maintain and promote Scots, Gaelic, Community Languages and British Sign Language, validatation of the status of the various languages of Scotland, provision of more in-service training for teachers, provision of access to more material in the various languages of Scotland for teacher training, creation of an inclusive, cohesive language policy, and undertaking of substantive research, consultation and reporting for the specific needs of each language. The report and submissions to it focussed, overall, more on Scots than on Gaelic, given that Gaelic policy was already discussed separately. On Gaelic, similar concerns as elsewhere were expressed, in the fields of broadcasting, education, and in particular concerning the desired Language Act. The report confirms that "recurring issues from the submissions include a lack of cohesion in policy terms with regard to Gaelic, the need for more resources to be made available, particularly for teaching materials, and the desire for the extension of Gaelic Medium Education." It also held the view that these concerns could be addressed through a cohesive National Languages Policy. On the whole, the report was thus another promising incidence for a further development of Gaelic policy.
14.7 Summary of First Term Achievements

Summarising the discussions and policies on Gaelic initiated between 1999 and 2003, the general impression towards the end of the first term of the Scottish Parliament was that much of the optimism of the first year had vanished. Despite recurring discussions on Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament and some improvements in specific areas, the breakthrough towards general Gaelic rights and a coherent language policy had still to come. Comparing the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive, McLeod argues that the Executive was "in some ways a continuation of the Scottish Office. Because the Scottish Parliament is new and new structures are being put in place, it is more open. Some old Scottish Office procedures continue in the Scottish Executive, so it does not seem to be as open as the Parliament" (McLeod 2001c). Some steps were taken by the Scottish Executive, but given the precarious situation of Gaelic and the demographic decline of its speakers, much more resolute action was needed. Four years were largely seen as enough time to initiate more enforcement than through the publication of two reports and the establishment of a Brd na Gidhlig whose legal position remained unclear. In addition, steps encouraged in the debate on the Education Bill, and most notably through the Private Bill by Michael Russell, made the real scale of necessities as
250
seen by the Gaelic community obvious to everyone involved. It was thus with considerable scepticism that Gaelic activists looked at promises with respect to Gaelic in the elections for the second term of the Scottish Parliament on May 1st, 2003. Before addressing these further developments, however, the following table summarises events in the first term of the Scottish Parliament:
Issue Date of Issuing/ Discus.; Minister for Gaelic 1999-2000; Morrison 2000; Morrison 2000; Morrison/ 2002; Watson 2000-2001; Morrison 2002; Watson Main Content The Scottish Executive's Opinion Gaelic Scholars' and Organisations' Opinion
First Issues Education Bill MacPherson/Meek Reports
Establishment of Task Force, first symbolic Gaelic appearances Education Bodies to issue statements on Gaelic Immediate action for Language Act, Gaelic Development Agency, and increased funding Establishment of dedicated Gaelic TV channel Established as a nondepartmental public body, responsible for overview of Gaelic development, promoting Gaelic, drawing up plans co-ordinating activities Language Act for Language Plans by Public Bodies Questions and Answers; National Parks; Cultural Policy etc.
Initiate process of giving Gaelic secure status Establish significant duties to ensure Gaelic recognition Achievements already in line with much of the reports; agency envisaged; further steps should be taken when agency is established Generally sympathetic; refers to necessary UK legislation Perceived as fundamental start of new Gaelic policy
Hopeful, yet sceptical observations Measures by far not sufficient, no statutory right to Gaelic education Strong support, in particular concerning the urgency of affairs
Milne Report Brd na Gidhlig Establishment
Positive to report; calls for more resolute action by Executive Careful hopes if backing by Executive follows; criticism of lack of statutory basis, only one of many demands to start a policy change Support of legal status; changes demanded concerning geographical limits, enforcement, role of Brd na Gidhlig General criticism to delays and lack of commitment
Russell Bill
2002-2003; Watson
No support on the grounds of "other priorities" No further dedication to Gaelic issues; general references to steps initiated
Minor Issues
2000-2003; Morrison, Watson
Table 64: Main Gaelic Issues in the First Term of the Scottish Parliament
15 From the 2003 Elections to the 2005 Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act
251
15.1 Gaelic in the 2003 Elections
Having seen that the achievements of the Scottish Parliament's first term were rather disappointing, I will look at the developments since the 2003 elections. In these elections, Scottish voters to a considerably higher degree voted for parties which would traditionally have had little chance of gaining parliamentary representation. Whereas Labour and the SNP lost some seats, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats kept their exact numbers of MSPs. At the opposite end, the Scottish Greens and Scottish Socialists were able to increase their representatives to sizable groups. The main outcome, however, remained the same: And so, Labour and the Liberal Democrats again formed a coalition government.
Party % Constituency Vote 2003 34.6 23.8 16.6 15.4 0 6.2 3.4 Constit. MSPs 2003 46 9 3 13 0 0 2 1999 2003 -7 2 3 1 0 0 1 % Regional Vote 2003 29.3 20.9 15.5 11.8 6.9 6.7 8.9 Regional MSPs 2003 4 18 15 4 7 6 2 1999 2003 1 - 10 -3 -1 6 5 2 Total MSPs 2003 50 27 18 17 7 6 4 19992003 -6 -8 0 0 6 5 3
Labour SNP Conservatives Liberal Democrats Scottish Greens Scottish Socialists Others
Table 65: 2003 Scottish Parliament Election Results
Much that was said about the 1999 campaign also holds true for the 2003 elections: Gaelic played only a marginal role in relation to other, much more dominant issues. It was now the American-British-led war against Iraq which overshadowed the campaigns. However, some Gaelic issues did play a role, which were in part more specific than four years earlier. Again, the parties' programmes will be looked at in the order of their strength in Parliament (for an overview of the 2003 election campaign cf. University of Glasgow Library 2003). The Labour manifesto this time also existed in a detailed Gaelic version. In the section on Culture, we read that "we recognise the importance of Gaelic as a unique part of Scotlands national living heritage. Through Brd Gidhlig na h-Alba we will secure the future of Gaelic by introducing a national language plan and an Action plan to guide the activities of a range of agencies supporting Gaelic." It is here that we also find the specific promise that "we will introduce a Bill to provide for the secure status of the Gaelic language." In the document The Road to the Manifesto, the section on Culture, Sport and Gaelic includes the promise of strengthened support for Gaelic-medium education throughout Scotland, but also relativises this dedication: We support the commitment to ensure Gaelic does not die out, but we believe that support for Gaelic should be balanced by support for other languages and cultures. Similarly, in the Taking
252
culture, sport and Gaelic forward Section, Labour acknowledges that "our country is unique; it is the only place in the world where Scottish Gaelic is spoken as a daily language". The document also promises "to secure the place of the Gaelic language in Scottish life. We will continue to invest in Gaelic-medium education to build support for the language now and in future generations." However, this dedication is again qualified by putting Gaelic on equal footing with other languages: "We will prepare a national language strategy to guide the development and support for all of Scotlands languages, including Gaelic, British Sign Language and ethnic languages" (Scottish Labour Party 2003). The SNP manifesto in the Children and Education Section states that "we will guarantee in law the right to a Gaelic medium education at primary level, where demand exists, and will continue to support community schools." Given the reluctance by the Executive, as seen for instance in the debate on the Education Bill, this is a far-reaching promise in line with efforts by Michael Russell and the SNP MSPs. In the Culture, Broadcasting and Sport Section, a paragraph Securing our languages promises that "the SNP in government will introduce a Languages Act, giving secure status for the Gaelic and Scots languages and encouraging community languages. We will build on the Gaelic Language Bill, the hearings on which have brought forward many positive suggestions for change. We will establish Bord Gaidhlig na h-Alba in statute and strengthen its ability to persuade public and private bodies to creatively consider their attitude to the language. We will introduce measures to assist the learning of Gaelic, including the learning of Gaelic as a second language in schools and adult learning" (Scottish National Party 2003). The Liberal Democrat manifesto promises in the Make Education for Life Section to "extend the teaching of foreign languages in primary schools and provide teaching facilities in Gaelic and other minority languages where there is demand." In the Invigorating Arts and Culture Section, we read that "language enriches our entire society" and that a policy principle is to "recognise the importance to Scotland's history and culture of our heritage languages of Gaelic and Scots. We will continue to be committed to helping these languages flourish." The Liberal Democrats also promised to "introduce a Languages of Scotland Bill which will give councils and other public bodies a responsibility to draw up a languages plan which reflects the communities they serve, and to place Bord Gaidhlig na h-Alba on a more secure footing by making it a statutory body with responsibility for drawing up a 'Strategy for Gaidhlig'" (Scottish Liberal Democrats 2003). Besides the fact that the Tories also provide a short summary manifesto in Gaelic, Gaelic policy issues in the Conservative manifesto are mentioned in the Education Section, however, without the promise of any legal guarantees: "Where there is a demand, we will also allow parents, teachers and communities to set up their own schools with state funding. This would foster the provision of other approaches to education such as Steiner Waldorf Schools and Gaelic medium education." As in 1999, the status quo is largely seen as sufficient: "Building on our record in Government, we will ensure that the Gaelic language and
253
culture continues to receive a healthy level of funding and we will support it by putting the Gaelic Board on a statutory basis" (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party 2003). The Greens in their 2003 manifesto had much less on Gaelic than four years earlier. One of the few remarks on languages can be found in the Social Justice Section, where is says that "we will enable all schools to offer languages reflecting Scotlands cultural and ethnic diversity, including Gaelic, British Sign Language, Hindi, Bengali, Urdu, Punjabi, and Chinese languages" (Scottish Green Party 2003). A possible explanation for this is that the Greens from supporting Gaelic moved to a focus on a more general multi-cultural policy. The SSP, finally, in its manifesto's Sport, Culture and Entertainment Section explicitly calls for giving "Gaelic and Scots equal legal status with English" and thus goes very far, without, however, mentioning any details of how such status should be achieved, and without stating what additional measures should be taken to support Gaelic, except for the promise to "provide Gaelic language lessons for all children and adults who wish to learn the language." Similarly, the education Section promised to "ensure that Gaelic is available for all school students who wish to learn the language" (Scottish Socialist Party 2003). Summarising changes from 1999 to 2003, we can thus state that awareness and support for Gaelic issues generally increased among all parties. The outstanding position that the Green Party held in 1999 has gone, whereas the Tories remain the most careful party. The Labour Party praises achievements of the first term, whereas the SNP calls the lack of dedication by the Scottish Executive to be overcome and seems to be the party most strongly in line with Gaelic organisations' views. Gaelic issues in total are thus still at the margins of politics, but a certain support has become mainstream among all parties. The most important of all statements was the Labour announcement to introduce a Gaelic Bill within the first six months of parliament business. As First Minister McConnell had said in the Scottish Parliament on March 25th, 2003 (Scottish Parliament 2003b): "We believe that the Gaelic language is important to all of Scotland and is a unique part of our culture and heritage. To underpin the support that we give to the language, we will legislate to give Gaelic secure status enshrining the Gaelic language in Scots law for the first time. As promised, the draft Gaelic language bill will be published in time for the historic 100th Md, which will take place this autumn." However, given the rather limited support of Gaelic in the first term, this announcement was seen with scepticism by the Gaelic scene.
15.2 The Scottish Executive's Gaelic Bill

What Gaelic issues have been dealt with since May 2003? The meeting of the Cross Party Group on Gaelic on September 24th, 2003 provided a first overview of current Gaelic issues. Besides an update on the work of Brd na Gidhlig and several minor issues (e.g. promoting
254
Gaelic within Scotland abroad, or the Glasgow Gaelic Cultural Centre), the two main topics were again a Gaelic Bill and broadcasting. The discussion on broadcasting circled around the establishment of the Gaelic Media Service (GMS), which would start operating in December 2003 and take over the functions, powers, budget and staffing of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee. It would also have powers to commission and produce programmes. A number of minor issues concerning Gaelic were highlighted by the Scottish Executive's Press Releases since the beginning of the second term of parliament, including announcements at various occasions such as Support for Gaelic education (June 12th, 2003; Scottish Executive 2003d), Funding for Gaelic arts tuition (August 21st, 2003; Scottish Executive 2003e), Gaelic medium education (September 16th, 2003; Scottish Executive 2003f), Ali champions Gaelic reading (October 10th, 2003, at a Gaelic reading competition; Scottish Executive 2003g), Great Book of Gaelic (October 17th, 2003, at an exhibition of this historical document; Scottish Executive 2003h), or Gaelic first for Glasgow (May 21st, 2004, at a Gaelic-medium secondary school; Scottish Executive 2004b). The major event, however, was the announced Gaelic Bill. Peter Peacock, the Minister for Gaelic in the new cabinet, confirmed that the Bill would be published at the Royal National Mod in October 2003. After a three month consultation period, the Bill would be considered by the Executive and the Committee on Education, Culture and Sport in summer 2004. It was envisaged that the Bill would be approved by Parliament in summer 2005.
15.2.1 The Draft Gaelic Bill by the Executive As pointed out, the Labour party promise to initiate a Gaelic Bill within six months was watched with scepticism by many. However, the Executive kept its promise and indeed presented a draft of a Gaelic Bill at the Mod in October 2003. Again, a process of opinion development, hearings, and mostly written evidence set in, and again, there was a lot of criticism. But before going deeper into reasons why this Gaelic Bill in its original version was once more not suitable to bridge the gap between the Executive and Gaelic enthusiasts, it is necessary to identify its contents.41 The Gaelic Language Bill Consultation Paper explains that the Executive reacts to "the clearly expressed wish of the Gaelic community. The Bill is also intended to secure the place of the Gaelic language as a living part of Scottish life, to promote the use of Gaelic in Scotland and increase the appreciation of its place and value in Scottish culture." The first major item of the bill is the establishment of Brd na Gidhlig with statutory functions. These functions are given as "(a) promoting the use and
41
For the text of the Bill, the consultation paper by the Scottish Executive and the submissions to the debate cf. Scottish Executive 2003k.
255
understanding of the Gaelic language, and (b) advising the Scottish Ministers on matters relating to the Gaelic language and Gaelic culture." Brd na Gidhlig's main aim is to "secure the status of the Gaelic language as one of the languages of Scotland through (a) increasing the number of persons who are able to speak or understand the Gaelic language, (b) encouraging the use of the Gaelic language, and (c) facilitating access, in Scotland and elsewhere, to the Gaelic language and Gaelic culture." Paragraph 2 places the duty on the Brd to prepare a national Gaelic language plan under consultation with relevant experts within 12 months. This plan must then be submitted to the Scottish Executive which must "(a) approve the plan, or (b) make such comments on the plan as they think fit and require the Brd to prepare and submit to them () a further plan taking account of those comments." The Brd must also prepare guidance for public bodies. The second focus of the Bill is on language plans by public bodies. Section 5 obliges every public body to "(a) determine whether it is appropriate to prepare and publish a Gaelic language plan, and (b) if the body determines that it is appropriate to do so, prepare and publish such a plan" within a period of two years. These plans' content shall be to "specify how the public body intends the Gaelic language to be used in connection with the exercise of that bodys functions." If a public body decides that it is not appropriate to prepare such a plan, it must notify the Brd of its reasons. The Brd, in turn, may send a report to the Scottish Ministers explaining why it is not satisfied with such a decision. After five years, the plans shall be re-examined (Section 7 of the Bill). As a supplement to the Bill there are two schedules. The first gives detailed notice on the Brd's members and its rights; the second establishes which bodies are affected by the language plans. Accordingly, Brd na Gidhlig shall have between five and eight members, appointed for three years, and a chair of the Brd, who is appointed by the Scottish Ministers for four years, for a maximum of two periods. The Brd has full legal rights as any other organisation, including the right to "(a) engage in any business or undertaking, (b) form or promote companies, (c) form partnerships with others, (d) with the consent of the Scottish Ministers, establish or take part in the setting up of organisations having functions similar to the functions of the Brd, (e) enter into contracts, or (f) make grants and loans." Public bodies that are required to make a statement on Gaelic plans are first and foremost the Parliament, any member of the Scottish Executive, any other office holder in the Scottish administration, any health service body, any local authority and institutions or individuals carrying out tasks on behalf of a local authority, other authorities such as any licensing board, any National Park authority, any police board, or any registered social landlord. In addition, the Bill lists 36 Scottish authorities from all domains of language use to whom the regulation applies, such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise, The Scottish Arts Council, The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, Scottish Natural Heritage, The Scottish Social Services Council, The Scottish Sports Council, or The Scottish Tourist Board.
256
Compared to the Russell Bill, the Executive Bill takes a considerably different approach to giving Gaelic official recognition by stressing Brd na Gidhlig's role. It also takes up criticism from the Russell Bill debate by not setting geographical limits. In total, however, the Bill remains very weak: in practice, one sole positive effect lies in that all bodies have to at least devote some time to thinking about Gaelic. Its main weakness, however, is the lack of any obligation to support Gaelic where an institution does not wish to do so.
15.2.2 Reactions to the Draft Executive Bill The following comments and criticism by scholars and language activists are taken from the written submissions to the Bill within the official hearing period between October 2003 and January 2004, based on 10 questions put by the Executive as reference points. Not surprisingly, the "usual suspects" again commented on the Bill, many of whom had already been invited to the Committee hearings on the Russell Bill. As a whole, it is remarkable how many comments during the consultation period were received, from dedicated Gaelic activists, from Scots from all parts of the country, but also from organisations and individuals from outside the UK, including Gaelic diaspora organisations from Canada, Australia, and the US. Support also came from many organisations such as the Church of Scotland and local authorities. The general tenor of the overwhelming majority was a broad support for the wish to promote Gaelic and achieve official status. However, there were also many extremely critical voices on the lack of strength of the Bill, mainly by those directly involved in Gaelic affairs. A very prominent example of this is the comment by Wilson McLeod, who argued that the "draft is disappointingly narrow and weak. It does not satisfy the aspirations or meet the needs of the Gaelic community, and it should be fundamentally reconsidered and reworked. () It is unacceptably vague in key areas and weak with regard to obligations and powers it creates" (McLeod 2003e). Or, as Michael Russell (Russell 2003) put it: "In conclusion, whilst there is much in the Bill to commend, it needs considerable strengthening." Compared to the CnaG Secure Status report, the 1993 Welsh Language Act and the 2003 Official Languages Act in the Republic of Ireland, where "minority-language speakers are imbued with defined, enforceable rights and public agencies are placed under binding obligations", the Bill is extremely weak. "The Scottish Executive thus appears to be unaware of international norms" which demand measures of positive discrimination, if the survival of a minority language is to be guaranteed: "In minority protection, views and demands by groups should not be balanced to compromise with other (e.g. public bodies') views" (McLeod 2003e). MacKinnon in his submission referred to the question of "official recognition": "This draft Bill would be considerably strengthened by the addition or inclusion of the principle of equal validity with the English Language written into the preamble. () This would not mean or imply that it gave a right or duty to
257
provide bilingual public signage throughout Scotland, nor that all official documents would have to be translated into Gaelic. What it means is simply that anything written or displayed in Gaelic would have the same legal status as if it were displayed in English" (MacKinnon 2003b). As main omissions of the Bill, McLeod listed: There is a total lack of reference to education. In the legal system, there is de facto a prohibition of Gaelic, as its use may only be demanded by persons who do not understand English (which is a general human right in any case, thus "Gaelic speakers are treated in the same fashion as Mongolian and Zulu speakers"). There is no reference to the Gaelic media, in particular the Gaelic TV channel Signage should be possible in Gaelic without local bodies having to ask for permission of the Executive (as presently the practice). The private sector is completely omitted. McLeod does not demand obligation for the private sector (as in practice in places such as Quebec or Catalonia), but a company should be obliged to make a statement if it wishes a Gaelic policy. Public bodies, on the contrary, should not only be asked to contemplate whether they wish to develop a Gaelic policy, but public bodies in Scotland should be obliged to do so. Finally, there was a lack of any enforcement mechanism in cases when Brd na Gidhlig was not satisfied with decisions of a public body. Similarly, most comments by other scholars agreed that the draft was by no means strong enough. MacKinnon, for instance, called for provisions for a corpus planning authority. He also commented on the lack of obligation as a "particularly weak get-out or loophole which can be used by any public body wishing to avoid or obviate the business of formulating a language plan. Any board, committee, authority, chairperson or chief executive who was unsympathetic to the provisions of this legislation merely has to say that this matter was considered but it was decided that it was not regarded as appropriate." Further, the Bill should be unambiguous in that "public bodies are expected to formulate language plans, and that the duties of the Brd will be to consult with them, liaise, co-operate and assist them in this process" (MacKinnon 2003b). Michael Russell for this purpose suggested that "at the very least Name and Shame provisions should be included in the bill, so that those bodies which choose not to wholeheartedly enter into the spirit of the bill can be identified. In addition there should be a legislative definition of the minimum requirements of a Gaelic Language Plan (both national and local)." Comhairle nan Eilean Siar also took a similar view. It generally supported the Bill, but demanded that "there should be a categorical statement in the Bill that Gaelic is a national language with equality of status with English." Other points raised included the obligation to produce language plans for all national public bodies, a right to Gaelic-Medium Education on reasonable demand, and a Gaelic TV channel.
15 From the 2003 Elections to the 2005 Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 15.2.3 Educational Issues Coming up again
258
Once more, education was a particularly prominent issue in the debate. The Edinburgh branch of the Gaelic Parents' Organisation, Comann nam Prant, was worried about the lack of education as the keystone of support for Gaelic and called for the "incorporation of a secured, robust Gaelic-medium education system within the legislation." Parents should have "the statutory right to have access to Gaelic-medium education for their children, where there is a reasonable demand for this, extending to all levels of the education system" (Comann nam Prant (Dun Eideann & Lodainn) 2003). MacKinnon used his answer to the question of whether Brd na Gidhlig should have a role in advising education authorities and the Scottish Executive on plans for Gaelic-medium education (Question 9 of the Executive list on the Draft Language Bill submission process) to call for a holistic approach to language planning also in education: "Acquisition planning implies policies for the role of the language throughout the stages and sectors of the education process: preschool, primary, secondary, further and higher, adult and life-long learning. In our own case this implies not only policies for Gaelic medium education but also policies for Gaelic as a second language, and it includes the delivery of further, higher and adult education courses through the medium of Gaelic." If RLS by consistent education as in Wales were desired, "the Brd must have a clear and explicit education role written into the Bill to enable it to happen. It is not happening with the present ad hoc and unsystematic lack of central initiative in this field which pertains in Scotland" (MacKinnon 2003b). The lack of inclusion of education in the Gaelic Bill was also taken up by two parliamentary questions in September and October 2003, one by Maureen Macmillan on progress in developing Gaelic-medium education under the provisions of the 2000 Act, the second by Fergus Ewing (SNP) on responses from local authorities to the legislative requirement that provision be made for Gaelic-medium education as a national priority. In his answer, Peter Peacock, despite the fact that the Executive must have been aware of the criticism of it, still referred to the requirements by the 2000 Act "to address Gaelic-medium education in their annual statements of improvement objectives and annual progress reports. Many authorities have used the improvement framework established by the 2000 act to embed their policies around Gaelic-medium education fully into their wider strategy for school education." Peacock regarded improvement as necessary with regard to education authorities which will be issued with a clear reminder of their duty to address Gaelicmedium education, local authorities which will be asked to establish thresholds against which they will assess parental demand for Gaelic-medium within their area, and Brd na Gidhlig which will be invited to review the performance measurement against which Gaelic-medium education development is measured. It is tempting in this context to believe Peacock's statement that he took "the advancement of Gaelic-medium education very seriously." Yet, we should keep in mind
259
that this only referred to the limited Education Act obligations, and that the lack of commitment to more legal duties remained unaltered in Peacock's explanations as well. Finally, to touch upon yet another aspect which is of particular interest in our context of parliamentary functions, Glaser (2003) introduced the importance of Grassroots Democracy to the debate: "Given the place that Brd na Gidhlig is to occupy within Scotlands power structures it might be advisable to consider legislation for the establishment of a democratic grassroots counterpart, i.e. an umbrella organisation whose members would be elected by and therefore able to represent in a direct manner all of Scotland's Gaelic-related groups and clubs, agencies and interested individuals. Their closer connection and direct accountability to the Gaelic-speaking public would be a valuable source of advice to members of the Brd and might increase the confidence that Gaelic speakers will have in any new decision-making structures." In our context, this parliament-like body for representation of Gaelic speakers is the closest to the structure of the Sameting that has been suggested. Although it is just an initial idea which would require a long debate to clarify its shape and composition (Who would have active and passive voting rights?), it could be a clear signal for democratic self-determination of Gaelic speakers. This would, in turn, also mean shifts in Gaelic identity for all of Scotland, and have implications along the essentialist-dynamist line. Care would also have to be taken that this would not result in a division or lack of acceptance by other Scots. However, as an initial thought, the idea is very provoking. To conclude the discussion of the Draft Executive Bill, let me cite an example of an individual seizing this opportunity to comment on the Executive's Gaelic policy. Patrick Hanley from the Isle of Canna called the bill a "pointless gesture" and "toothless". He called for a "worthwhile provision in areas where there is a significant Gaelic presence/heritage" (thus as one of few commentators taking up the idea of a specific geographical area), by including "a right to Gaelic-medium education, to conduct public business in Gaelic etc." He concluded with the disillusioned remark that "what we dont need is more politically-correct or tourist-orientated tokenism better to abandon the thing altogether than waste money on paper exercises" (Hanley 2003). This demonstrates well the degree of frustration and cynicism prevalent among many inhabitants of Gaelic areas on government efforts to Gaelic policy, and summarised the lack of support for the draft in the Gaelic Community.
15.3 The Road to the Gaelic Language Act (November 2004 April 2005)
After the process of hearing opinions, the Executive introduced the Bill to the Scottish Parliament on September 27th, 2004. The Executive did indeed react to a number of suggestions
260
made throughout the consultation process. Changes to the draft most notably strengthened Brd na Gidhlig's competence to advise public bodies, and added a (weak) section on the power to issue guidance on education. The Bill now covered all Scottish public authorities. The National Gaelic Plan was now to be based on the functions of the Brd, and the Brd could require public authorities to prepare plans, approve them, and report to the Executive on a failure of a public authority to implement the plan. Issues which appeared during the consultation and which were not taken up, on the other hand, included a statement on the equal validity of Gaelic and English, a right to Gaelic education, and a requirement that all public authorities must produce language plans (for a detailed summary of the Consultation process cf. Scottish Executive 2005). Again, a process of opinion collection commenced in the Education Committee, similar to the proceedings during the Russell Bill, with oral evidence and written submissions by a number of the "usual suspects". The overwhelming majority of submissions welcomed in principle the changes made, but called for further strengthening along lines similar to before. An Comunn Gaidhealach, for instance, recalled that "the action plan to save Gaelic and ensure its future prosperity must not be primarily based on the extent of public demand, but rather on what is 'necessary' to increase the number of speakers and extend its range of use." Other issues included the basis of equality between Gaelic and English in the delivery of public services, a call for "a parental right to Gaelic education in this Bill, subject to a reasonableness test that can be agreed with Bord na Gaidhlig", and provision for Gaelic broadcasting, in particular the continuing lack of a satisfactory solution with respect to a Gaelic TV channel (An Comunn Gaidhealach 2003). An interesting point raised concerned the membership of the Brd, which "should be extended to include a wider representation from the Gaelic community, comprising some form of direct election from within the community, rather than the current system of Executive appointment, which leaves the Bord open to the perception that they lack an independent outlook in the exercise of their functions." There was thus a clear call for a representative notion, although its practical organisation was not specified. On the other hand, An Comunn Gaidhealach also took a rather moderate view in acknowledging that "this does not mean that we are advocating that all public authorities should make their full range of services available in Gaelic. A degree of reasonableness is needed so that services appropriate to their local situation could be delivered, in consultation with Bord na Gaidhlig." CnaG broadly took up the same issues: "Our concerns can be summarised under the headings of Equal Status; Rights of Gaelic Users (particularly in relation to Gaelic Medium Education); Application of Gaelic Language Plans to non-Scottish bodies (but which exercise substantial public service functions in Scotland); Gaelic Broadcasting and the incorporation in the Act of the relevant undertakings agreed by the Government in respect of Gaelic under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages." The regulations on
261
education, for instance, "fall far short of the aspirations of the Gaelic communities who have constantly asked for the legislation to confer rights on parents for Gaelic Medium Education where a reasonable demand has been made." As an additional point, CnaG raised the issue of courts: "Provision should be made in the Bill for the use of Gaelic, as appropriate, in both civil and criminal proceedings as well as other areas of Administration of Justice, such as tribunals" (Comunn na Gidhlig 2004). Comhairle nan Eilean Siar stressed the importance of full Executive support to Gaelic Policy as a prerequisite to all other steps, including the development and implementation of a coherent, holistic strategy, enabled through adequate funding: "It is imperative also that Brd na Gidhlig be given not only the power to carry out its allocated functions but also the resources to deliver them." (Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 2004). A view of the Bill which was typical of many contributions was expressed by Helen Ross: "I agree with the general principles of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, and support the statutory establishment of Brd na Gidhlig. While the Bill is weak as regards a legal right to Gaelic medium education, it may be the best option available at present" (Ross 2003). This shows clearly that the Bill was not seen as truly good, however, the chance to do something at all about Gaelic, even if limited to a low level, was better than aiming for an ideal legislation which would never see the light of the day. In the parliamentary debates on the Bill, both in the Education Committee and in the Plenum, at all stages of parliamentary proceedings, between November 2004 and April 2005, all speakers were generally positive to the Bill. Despite the fact that many called for improvements and a different approach, all lent their support because a failure would be devastating. The Executive defended its very moderate, careful approach: "An appropriate balance requires to be struck between responding to the needs of the Gaelic community and ensuring that a Gaelic language burden is not introduced where there is no demand for it." Opposition MSPs clearly argued that the Bill could only be a beginning and tried to strengthen the Bill through amendments. Some SNP MSPs argued in favour of a rights-based approach, in particular concerning education. The lack of inclusion of broadcasting was another important point of critique. Throughout the proceedings, the distinction between the rights-based and the planning approach reappeared. The most important controversy ultimately arose concerning the wording Equal Validity vs. Equal Respect. The former was rejected by Peacock with a philological argumentation: "Validity" would potentially cause jurisdiction to argue for entirely equal services in all respects which is of course not what is meant by the Bill. The major argument here (and concerning other issues) was flexibility: The Act was to be as flexible as possible to adjust practices to needs, for instance concerning the way how public authorities deal with language plans, etc. The most important dividing-line ran again
262
between the SNP and the Scottish Executive Parties. Munro, one of the most outspoken Gaelic experts of the Liberal Democrats, however, supported many opposition ideas. Of the other major parties in the Scottish Parliament, the SSP and the Greens were more in line with the SNP, whereas the Conservatives mostly supported the Executive line. Changes to the Bill for Stages 2 and 3 included the introduction of a duty to update the National Plan every five years, and a consultation duty to the Scottish Parliament, which also has to give its final consent to the plan. Further, public authority plans have to take account of the potential to develop the use of Gaelic, an education strategy has to be included in the national Gaelic plan, and the Brd has to report on the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. Critical aspects which came up during the debate included similar lines of argumentation as before, in particular the principles of a rights-based vs. a planning approach and the debate on equal validity vs. equal respect. The differing opinions between parties culminated in three amendments on the day when the Bill was passed in the Scottish Parliament's Plenum. Alex Neil (SNP) introduced a motion for an amendment to call for equal validity of Gaelic. The Executive had already opposed this wording in the Committee debate because it feared that "there would be a real danger that certain constructions could give rise to unintended and undeliverable consequences on a Scotland-wide basis" (Scottish Parliament Education Committee 2005c). The bill was then only amended to include reference to equal respect of Gaelic and English. Fiona Hyslop (SNP) tabled an amendment which would explicitly have stated that the Executive has prime responsibility for Gaelic Education. Both propositions were rejected by Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives. The third amendment, which caused a division within the Scottish Parliament, was supported by a more unusual coalition of forces. John Farquhar Munro (LibDems) proposed that Brd members must be Gaelic speakers, which would have made it more difficult for the Scottish Executive to choose members solely based on their political affiliation. Even though the amendment was supported by the SNP, the Conservatives, the Greens and the SSP, it failed to succeed because of opposition by Labour and all other Liberal Democrat MSPs (Scottish Parliament 2005). Further, Alex Neil had at Stage 2 already suggested an amendment to include guidance on Gaelic Broadcasting, which also failed to gain further support. The Bill was passed on April 21st, 2005 unanimously, despite continuing criticism on its weakness and a general perception that the Act should only be the start of a determined Gaelic policy; however, the underlying spirit of consensus on "doing a good and necessary thing" was maintained throughout most of the debate.
263
In summary, the Gaelic Language Act as passed thus provides for a statutory basis of Brd na Gidhlig and for the publication of a National Language Plan by the Brd. The Brd may require public authorities in Scotland to publish Gaelic Plans and has to approve and to monitor their implementation. Where there is disagreement between Brd na Gidhlig and a public body, Scottish Ministers have the final say. Finally, Brd na Gidhlig also provides advice on Education. To conclude, it can be stated that ultimately, a legislative frame came into force which was generally supported by all political players and activists. The urgent need for a legal document was recognised however, this did not change the opinion of scholars, etc. that, generally, more should have been aimed for, and that a rights-based approach would have been better for the language. Another dominant view was that the Act is a necessary, but not a sufficient step. Implementation has to be monitored, and further steps are needed. Much also depends on the action of the relevant institutions involved e.g. through a consequent application of the "Active Offer" principle. Even if most activists agree that the Act is an important step forward, critique concerning the Act's weaknesses remains. McLeod argued that "the Bill should be amended so as to make clear that the national Gaelic language plan is legally binding and that the Executive will have a legal obligation both to implement it". On education, he repeats the demand for a rights-based approach: "Local education authorities should be required to make available Gaelic-medium education whenever reasonable demand is demonstrated." In addition, he also touches on further areas which had come up repeatedly during the various stages of the consultation process, but which had largely been omitted from the Parliamentary debate, such as the topics of courts and the private economy: "Any persons appearing before any court of general jurisdiction () in Scotland should be entitled to use Gaelic. () Grants from public bodies to private companies over a certain size in Gaelic-speaking areas should be conditioned on the development and implementation of Gaelic language plans by such companies" (McLeod 2003e).
16 An Evaluation of the Development of the Situation of Smi in Norway
264
IV Results 16 An Evaluation of the Development of the Situation of Smi in Norway

In the course of the argumentation of this book, I first examined the positions of Smi and Gaelic at points in time before fundamental changes in the political structures of Norway and Scotland took place, based on a number of recognised theoretical models in the field of minority language policy analysis. The analysis of political proceedings following the establishment of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament highlighted that both institutions generated a considerable amount of activity in several fields of language policy. In many cases, the opinions of the speech communities were heard during these processes, even if this did not always result in the desired political steps. Yet, despite some fundamental differences in proceedings, both languages thereby share an increase in attention resulting from the establishment of the two parliamentary bodies. It is now time to evaluate these developments. For this purpose, the state of affairs of Smi and Gaelic today will be compared to the situations before 1989 and 1999, respectively. Their current situations will be placed into the framework of domains of language use, and into the models relevant for minority language policy in general. Then, the results from the two countries will be contrasted. Finally, I will discuss general conclusions on the impact of parliaments on the well-being of minority languages.
16.1 Scholars' Views

In the following, I will again start with Smi before addressing Gaelic. In previous chapters I showed how the parameters of Smi language policy have changed since the late 1980s. The overview of current affairs provided an understanding that the road to security for the Smi language is still difficult, in spite of existing legal guarantees. The following will outline how scholars and activists at the centre of Smi issues are viewing the state of Smi around the turn of the millennium and after. In general, the positive evaluation of developments is confirmed. Huss (1999: 58), for instance, writes: "In Norway, it is quite evident that the strong legal position of the Smi has greatly influenced the development of a wide Smi infrastructure. North Smi has entered the domains of primary, secondary and university level education, research, public affairs, media and cultural activities during the last decade." In her conclusion, North Smi revitalisation appears as a model for RLS, also in the context of a difficult attitude pattern: "The case of the North Smi in the Smi core areas has proved that it is indeed possible to reverse language shift and develop a former heavily stigmatized language into a modern language used successfully in most spheres of life" (Huss 1999: 191). Measures also seem to have succeeded in other
265
parts of the Administrative Area: "The use of Smi has also risen remarkably in other parts of the Smi Administrative Area where Smi has at least partly survived as a family language" (Huss 1999: 186). On the other hand, elsewhere the picture is different: "In coastal areas of Norway and in many areas in Finland and Sweden, Smi has at most survived as a spoken language among elders. Therefore, the reintroduction is difficult to realize although attitudes have changed and many Smi favour revitalization." In these areas, careful attempts mostly depend on individual efforts, such as language nests, or through the collection of traditional terminology. Similar conclusions can be drawn for Lule and South Smi, where obstacles are also much more difficult to overcome. It is here where language centres as a means of generating awareness and creating opportunities for learning and linguistic exchange have become particularly valuable. Remaining problems, however, are still fundamental, for instance, concerning the lack of teaching material. Summarising, Huss (1999: 187) still calls for a coherent approach to language planning which incorporates various methods and resources: "Language activists can not succeed alone. To accomplish permanent changes, such as fostering a new generation of Smi-speaking children after a generation of majority language monolinguals, is a task that requires extraordinary effort on the part of the parents and the whole local community." Todal (2002) explicitly sees the 1990s as a turning point in language shift because of the changes regarding legal status, the establishment of new Smi institutions and the strengthening of their older counterparts. He even argues that the increase in children with Smi as mother tongue was probably a result of the fact that Smi became official in Norway, mainly because of the considerable improvement of attitudes caused by these measures. These policies were not imposed on people, but based on the explicit will of the population which Todal (2002b: 214) calls a good point of departure for further Smi policy development. New pro-Smi policies vice versa also influenced language attitudes, which then led to a change in linguistic behaviour. He thus summarises that empirical data points "to a consolidation of the Smi language in the core area in the 1990s" (Todal 2000: 30), in the sense that there were probably more school children with fluency in Smi in 2000 than in 1990 (Todal 2000: 34/Todal 2002c: 8). Among pupils, there was a 64% increase with Smi as first language from 1990 to 2000, and positive attitudes also dominated among students with Smi as second language. Even though instances of organised opposition existed (for instance, by organisations founded in Kfjord and Tana; the latter caused the abolishment of plans for obligatory Smi schooling in Tana), these did not seem to have a great impact on parents' choice of language learning in primary school. Concluding on the impact of political efforts on language competence, Todal cautiously argues: "The strengthening of the Saami language at the micro level took place at the same time as the Norwegian government radically changed its Language Policy towards the Saami people. However, the only proven fact is that the timing for both of these
266
developments coincided in the 1990s. Based on this alone, we cannot draw the simple conclusion that the increase in the number of children with Saami as a first language is a result of the new public policy. But the figures at least indicate that the official policy at the macro level harmonized with attitudes and desires of large groups of Saami at the micro level." (Todal 2002a: 128). The two main reasons for what he calls a "tendency to RLS in the Saami areas in Norway in the 1990s" were, thus, changed attitudes as a result of long-term Smi selfconfidence movements, on the one hand, and official policies to enable Smi usage in more situations and to create opportunities for Smi speakers, on the other (Todal 2002b: 210). Looking ahead, however, Todal (2002b: 211) also identifies a number of continuing obstacles. As Huss, he stresses that most achievements were related only to North Smi. Speaker numbers are still declining in some areas because of higher death rates than birth rates. The implementation of many guarantees has yet to be observed, and the position of Smi in the media is still perceived as weak despite improvements. The schools in the 1990s also played an ambiguous role: "The schools did not succeed in developing models to meet new parental demand (and the political will) to vitalisation and reversal of language shift" (Todal 2002b: 215-216). Similarly, Magga (2001) provides a carefully positive outlook. People still have to be made aware of the potential and value of their language, and forums where it can be taught and used have to be created. Cultural projects are of fundamental value, but funding remains too low. On the other hand, Magga acknowledges the change in attitudes by the majority population as a prerequisite for future developments. In his final remark, Magga (2001: 76) summarises this moderately optimistic evaluation: "Our hopes lie in that the legislation, the institutions that have been established in order to develop our culture and the political decisions that have been made, shall prove to function as a guarantee for the existence of our culture and language in the future. It is therefore a possibility that Smi language and culture will live, prosper and develop in the Nordic countries and Russia for many years to come." There are, however, also clearly pessimistic voices. Jansson (2001: 76), for instance, is sceptical, despite the legal protection: "This does not however seem to imply any automatic administrative structure and any automatic allocation of resources which actually secures that these goals are obtained". She gives examples illustrating that Smi schooling resources outside the core area do not work well; or that in the South Smi area, Smi school funding is sometimes included in the budget for disabled children, leaving school authorities with a tragic decision. In her view, attitudes of Smi being of no benefit to children ("you get nowhere with Smi") still prevail, and intergenerational transmission is not guaranteed which is a clear contradiction to, for instance, Todal's opinion (Jansson 2001: 78). A certain degree of Smi media boom, according to Jansson's informers, has not overcome a huge lack of sufficient media, including school books. She concludes by weighing positive and
267
negative changes: "The situation is in many respects very promising. A strong language shift is being reversed through increased schooling and nursery school services. More and more families want to give the Smi language to their children. At the same time there are a lot of restraints impeding quick progress. A challenge for the future is to remove as many of these restraints as possible" (Jansson 2001: 81). Similarly, Sara (2002: 10) still reports that "the active use of Sami has been considerably weakened, and in many areas has completely disappeared. This development is now reaching the traditionally safest areas for Sami language." He also reports that "many Sami institutions demonstrate a lack of will and economic ability to follow-up the minimum requirements in the body of laws in relation to the Language Act and the Place Name Act." This applies even to dedicated Smi institutions, where requirements to use Smi are often only met by translating documents into Smi instead of using Smi as a working language. There is thus a considerable gap between legal rules and their implementation. The only notable exceptions to this are the Sameting's Language Department, the Smi University College and the Place Name Consultant for Smi place names in Norway. Furthermore, the report on Smi language use already cited above concludes that many Smi policy aims remain unfulfilled (Smi Ealhus- ja Guorahallanguovdd 2000: 113-114). The status of all Smi languages has to be strengthened, with South Smi being in a particularly precarious position. There is a great difference between the Administrative Area and outside, e.g. in relation to intergenerational transmission. Many institutions in the Administrative Area also tend to contravene the Language Act, e.g. their duty to answer Smi requests in Smi, with dedicated Smi institutions as a generally positive exception to this. In total, respondents claim that they wish to be able to use Smi a lot more in contact with public bodies, most prominently in the health sector. The report then lists a number of suggestions for further measures. These include information campaigns, literacy programmes, language acquisition programmes (especially in areas where many children of Smi speakers do not speak the language), an institution to monitor the use of Smi in public bodies, and the penalisation of institutions that contravene the Language Act. The Administrative Area could also be extended to cover all municipalities with at least 8% Smi speakers (Smi Ealhus- ja Guorahallanguovdd 2000: 1-2).
Scholar Smi Political Programme Major Further Demands Language Act: official status in the core area and the practical application of such status, regulations outside the core area, Smi language skills as requirement within state administration, Smi place and personal names Nordic Smi Language Committee as the sovereign on Smi language issues Teaching of Smi culture and language, both as a second language and Smi-medium, including a right to have Smi as a second language at all schools Textbooks on Smi geography and history in Smi written by Smi Smi-ruled media development, (TV station) State obligation towards these demands Fulfilled Yes/No/To What Degree? Mostly fulfilled by Language Act
Nordic Smi Language Council as highest body Given; no right to Smi as a second language for any individual everywhere Given partially, needs extension Some Smi media in the Norwegian state network; needs considerable extension

Magga 1980s/ 1990 NOU 1985 Language Act based on Smi Political Programme as constitutional amendment to guarantee use in administration and courts Coherent Language Policy within school education, adult education, kindergartens, language use in public bodies, the support of the physical language milieu, literature, media, theatre, and language consulting Legal protection Legal status, institutional support, experienced need and interest, use in daily life Ethnic dilemma: Overcoming low self-esteem More access to education and cultural services, presence of Smi in the media, and the right to Smi use in government bodies and in socio-economic relations Right to use Smi in any official situation, especially in court Self-administration Right to use Smi in any official situation, especially in court Legal guarantee for Smi teaching units on sufficient demand and free transport from other areas
268
Fulfilled Constitutional amendment on Smi given, but not relating to use in administration and court Yes: Coherent Language Policy carried out by the Sameting Yes Yes; use in daily life can be extended Partially given; attitude change in many, but not all parts of society Strong Smi presence in education and culture; media needs extension; Smi in government bodies only locally; in socioeconomic relations with non-Smi rare Restricted to local government, in courts: Yes Self-administration within the legal frame of the Sameting Smi teaching guarantees for Smi; transport not applicable
Helander 1982 Helander 1990 Aikio 1990 Universal Declaration SkutnabbKangas/ Phillipson Blumenwitz
Table 66: Core Evaluation and Demands for Future Development of Language Rights: Smi in Norway in the Late 1980s and Today
Based on the developments as presented above and their evaluation by scholars, Table 66 juxtaposes the present situation to the demands by Smi activists in the 1980s. Summarising the comparison between the 1980s/early 1990s and today, the general opinion is that a lot has been achieved. Besides these achievements, however, general remarks that Smi use "should be encouraged" remain consistent. Demands for further activities focus on the sustainability of improvements. The dominant aim is to raise long-term awareness and to create new generations of speakers for whom the use of the Smi language is normal. Many scholars perceive present legislation and policies as a great opportunity, but these have yet to prove that they may lead to long-term changes. Especially in the media and in parts of Smi-medium education, the situation remains challenging. Remaining scepticism towards Smi issues among some fractions of both the Smi and non-Smi communities continues to be a threat. In addition, information on Smi rights and resources has to be disseminated. Finally, it cannot be stressed enough that the positive changes largely apply to the Smi centres only. In both the North Smi periphery and in the entire Lule and South Smi areas, the language remains weak, and voices for more policy action are only slowly being heard.
269
16.2 Placing the Situation in Spmi Today into Domains of Language Use
The next step is to place the changes in policy from the 1980s up to today into the framework of linguistic domains, in order to understand how the wishes of the speech community have been taken up by the law-making authorities. Concerning its legal framework, the Smi language's position in Norway was changed most fundamentally through the Smi Language Act. In addition also the Education Act which grants Smi schooling rights, and other legal regulations such as the 1995 Day-Care Centre Act or the new regulations on place names, allow the conclusion that there has been a fundamental re-shaping of the legal grounds of the Smi language and Smi Language Policy in Norway.
16.2.1 Public Bodies The role of the Smi language in public bodies today is generally defined by the Language Act. This does not only apply to local and regional administration in the Smi Administrative Area, but includes any aspect of state bodies in the Norwegian state i.e. rights to use Smi in courts and other juridical proceedings, in communication with the police and health and social service, and in the state church. Sammallahti (2000: 19) reports of the practical consequences of this: In Kautokeino, for instance, Smi is the dominant oral language in every-day life and administration, and municipal council meetings take place in Smi with Norwegian translation. Yet, improvements remain possible. Many scholars refer to obstacles in implementation, and to the differences between various Smi areas. Huss (1999: 157) again distinguishes clearly between the core area and others: "In contrast to the fairly safe official position of North Smi in the Smi Administrative Area, North Smi outside this area and Lule and South Smi in Norway share a much weaker position." Similarly, the SEG Report (Smi Ealhus- ja Guorahallanguovdd Samisk Nringsog Utredningssenter 2000) distinguishes between different levels of fulfilment. The use of Smi in Smi institutions is regular, but can also still increase, even in the Sameting. In non-Smi institutions, Smi use is better in municipal than in county or state institutions. But even here, only 40% of the area covered by the report state that they would respond in Smi when addressed in the language. And even in the Administrative Area, only one third of the institutions provide all documents in a Smi version.
Status Administration: National and official language are identical Adm.: Several Implication by Blumenwitz Interpreting service free of charge Universal Declaration Right to use language in communication with public bodies regardless of Situation in Norway before 1989 Not applicable: Norwegian only official language, some interpretation services No official status of Smi; Situation in Norway around 2003 Norwegian continues to be only national official language No official status of Smi
All languages to be used

co-existing languages: identical official status Adm.: Several co-existing languages: national vs. regional languages Adm.: Several co-existing languages: Personality Principle Adm.: No national, only regional languages Court: Personality Principle Police/Prison/ Health Services: Personality Principle everywhere linguistic regime; in practice, some use of in regional bodies Smi on an ad hoc basis in area of linguistic community: Territoriality Principle; for national public bodies: Personality Principle on national basis
270
Regional languages allowed according to Territoriality Principle
All languages to be used everywhere
No legal guarantee; in some Considerable changes: communities individual ad Smi as regional official hoc Smi use language besides Norwegian in Administrative Area, in practice to varying degrees Not fulfilled: Smi in Not fulfilled: Smi in administration throughout administration outside Norway usually not usable Administrative Area usually not usable Not applicable due to the dominant position of Norwegian Not applicable
Only regional languages apply according to Territoriality Principle; problem: new minorities are created Trial in native language everywhere
Native language in any legal proceedings No specific reference, but implied in general public bodies section
Right to ensure understanding (Personality Principle), and to use language of territory in any case (only implicitly by Blumenwitz)
Not fulfilled: Limited use of Smi in court after special application which is individually decided upon; no granted rights Not fulfilled: Only individual cases without legal guarantee according to individual decisions
Considerable changes: General right to use Smi in court Considerable changes: General right to use Smi at police/prison; in state health service as in administration in general
Table 67: Acceptable Statuses in Administration and Court: A Comparison to the Situation of Smi in Norway
Sklnes/Gaski (2000: 41) also confirm that the Smi Act's regulations have led to different practical situations. There is a high degree of Smi competence in Karasjok and Kautokeino, but in other municipalities only individual sections display a high level of Smi use, the extreme being Kfjord, where 80% of the employees cannot communicate in Smi. The authors also report that customers are generally pleased with public services in the Administrative Area. However, "what is still apparent is that users in several municipalities partly do not experience that there are bilingual services, be it in the (state) health station, or the offices for social affairs or labour. () Even in Kautokeino and Karasjok, users do not always experience that they can use their daily language of choice" (Sklnes/Gaski 2000: 79). Table 67 summarises Smi in administration by adding another column to the chart on demands of minority language use in administration.
16 An Evaluation of the Development of the Situation of Smi in Norway 16.2.2 Education
271
Legal changes in the educational sector have also meant extended Smi rights. The differences today as compared to the pre-1980 period are not as substantial in practice as in administration, as some Smi schools had already existed for some time. What is fundamental, however, is the fact that the Smi population now has the right to Smi education, and that Smi education takes place all across the country. According to the Education Act from 1998, all Smi have a right to primary education in Smi, and all Smi in the so-called Smi districts have a right to Smi-medium education. Outside these districts, there is a demand-based right to Smimedium education. In secondary schools, Smi have a right to education in the Smi language. In practical terms, Sammallahti (2000: 20) notes that education is rapidly changing. The usual language of instruction in lower grades in the core area is now Smi, including pre-school and kindergartens, whereas this varies considerably in high schools. One focus of educational councils is to develop adequate teaching material. Huss (1999: 59) thus reports that "the mean educational level in the Smi area that had lagged far behind the national average up to the 1960s shows signs of having caught up with it by 1990." The SEG Report summarises that Smi education seems to be the most important device of language maintenance. There was an increase of pupils in Smi primary school education by about 200% during the 1990s. However, some schools still do not offer Smi education although they have Smi native speakers as pupils. The situation is far worse in secondary schools, where Karasjok and Kautokeino remain the only municipalities to offer Smimedium education. In kindergartens, there has been an increase from 35 to 55 Smi kindergartens, and an increase in pupils by 20%. At the tertiary level, previous offers have been substantially extended. Despite a continuing lack of legal guarantees, teacher training courses and other Smi-medium university programmes have been made available at the Smi College in Kautokeino. Other centres of Smi education are the University of Troms, Bod University College (for Lule Smi) and Levanger University College (for South Smi). Yet, much remains to be done. The report on Smi secondary education calls for more legal guarantees, such as rights to Smi-medium secondary schooling on demand by five students, to Smi schooling for all students who had Smi schooling in primary schools, and to Smi text books and curricula, according to the Sameting's wishes. Improvements are also considered necessary with regard to curricula, teaching material, teacher training, and research (Smi Instituhtta 2000: 287-290). One area in which the Sameting has tried to improve Smi education in recent years is the lack of implementation of the legal rules, as outlined in the section on recent educational issues in the Sameting. Another recurring theme is the supply of adequate funding of Smi teaching,
272
including the development of teaching material and methodological research. The Sameting also worked towards having responsibility for Smi secondary schools transferred to them, and towards the up-grading of the Smi College to University level. With regard to the content of Smi education, Huss (1999: 136-137) finally writes: "The big challenge for Smi education is to develop models of instruction where knowledge from both the Smi and the non-Smi worlds are combined () to create an education that prepares the young for "both worlds". The ultimate aim of education of young Smi persons should be to provide a learning environment which fulfils both the Norwegian national goals and the aims of the Smi, e.g. with regard to the transmission of knowledge on reindeer. To summarise, Table 68 again adds a column to the table with the findings of the 1980s:
Level Smi-medium education before 1989 Wide-spread in the core area Only individual cases in the core area Certain teachertraining programmes Education in Smi as a second language before 1989 Wide-spread in the Smi areas, individual classes throughout Norway Some schools in the core area Smi-medium education around 2003 Wide-spread in Smi areas Kautokeino and Karasjok as only full Smi Secondary Schools; some individual cases elsewhere Smi College, some other colleges, for teacher-training programmes and others Education in Smi as a second language around 2003 Wide-spread in Smi areas and wherever demand exists Moderately spread
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Since 19th century university subject as philology in Oslo, since 1980s in Troms
Extended to include several more colleges and universities
Table 68: Smi in the Educational System in Norway in the 1980s and around 2003
Similarly, Table 69 again compares the rights-based table on education from the 1980s to the situation in recent times:
Educ. Aspect Impacts of Min. Langs To be ensured Minority Language as a everywhere second language Minority Languagemedium education Minority Language education in non-cohesive situations Segregation prevention As often as possible, according to the number of pupils Transport to minority schools to be ensured wherever possible
Linguistic Rights Declaration No comment; L2 minority language learning is too weak Has to be guaranteed at all levels within minority territory
Situation in Norway before 1989 Available in the core area and some other parts of Norway (Oslo), in primary and (to a lesser extent) secondary education Fairly wide-spread in primary education in the core area and some areas outside, limited legal guarantees No
Situation in Norway in the first years of the Millennium Right for any Smi pupil; compulsory for Norwegian pupils in parts of Smi core area Legal right in Smi areas; outside Smi areas on demand; to a lesser degree in secondary education outside core area No
Minority Culture
Not mentioned, but included in general demand for minority language education right in territory Education partly in Right to learn any the majority language of the language, or at least territory as second language Cultural To be guaranteed for background as part any linguistic
No danger given the dominant position of Norwegian If Smi education is present, it usually contains
Still no danger given the dominant position of Norwegian Smi content partly given; area of negotiations;

education of minority identity community some degree of culture education; however, main adoption of Smi curriculum to contain Smi needs and traditions not present Smi organisations as part of state institutions play a certain role
273
establishment of reindeer breeding and duodji as subjects in Smi schools
Co-operation with minority organstions
Decentralisation of curriculum
Minority speech communities as core decision-makers
The Sameting as important co-operating institutions
Table 69: Smi in Norway in the 1980s/around 2003 in Comparison to Core Educational Rights Issues
16.2.3 The Media and Arts Compared to education, the situation of Smi media remains much less ideal. There are few guarantees, as shown, for instance, by the arbitrary reduction of Smi presence in mainstream media. For the Sameting, recurring themes here include the dependence on funding by the Norwegian state, and calls for influence on media and cultural institutions. Sara lists in 2002 that there are roughly 30-40 annual hours of Smi TV programmes by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) with Norwegian sub-titles, which equals far less than one hour per week. There is also an NRK TV text service with pages in all three Smi languages. It is thus not surprising that the SEG Report calls for an extension of Smi TV production. 1600 hours of radio broadcasting, or almost 4.5 hours daily, are much more satisfactory (Sara 2002: 6). These figures are even extended when adding the (more limited) Smi radio broadcasts from Sweden and Finland also available in Norway. On the other hand, the process of funding has resulted in a relatively lively landscape of publications, and the number of Smi musicians and other artists is promising. With regard to print media, there continue to be three Smi newspapers two in Smi, u and Min igi (published twice weekly), and one in Norwegian, Sgat (three editions a week). There are some other periodicals, for which funding is often difficult, with a few issues yearly. Smi book production amounts to approx. 50 titles per year. Finally, Smi theatre projects, museums, libraries, cultural centres etc. continue to receive funding at rather acceptable levels. Smi scholars interestingly express contradictory views on the state of Smi media. In Huss' (1999: 158) opinion, "in Norway, the mass media are domains where North Smi is relatively strong." Todal (2002b: 213), on the other hand, emphasises that English and Norwegian media are still clearly also dominant for Smi speakers. On the whole, it is apparent that any type of Smi media needs public support, given the low number of potential consumers. There are few efforts to offer services in the Smi languages which are aimed at a more general public, for example through sub-titles. In culture and arts, on the other hand, funding works quite well and the range and extension of projects is promising. All in all, Smi media offerings have only seen partial progress:

Medium Radio broadcasting Television Periodicals Daily newspapers
274
Smi presence before 1989 Smi presence around 2003 6 hours weekly of North Smi, a few minutes 1600 hours p.a. remain a relatively monthly of South Smi acceptable level Practically non-existent Considerable increase, but still at a very low level: 30-40 hours p.a. One weekly, one with two issues per week Some newspapers issued twice weekly, several journals No No
Table 70: Smi Presence in Several Media Sectors in the Late 1980s and around 2003
16.2.4 Economy/Work Place and Further Domains The status of Smi in economic activity remains of utmost importance for language maintenance, but it is a field in which it has proven difficult to initiate political measures which result in a change of language practices. The problem of low formal competence of many Smi businesses continues, although the potential of duodji and other parts of Smi culture for tourist purposes has been extended. Sklnes (2001: 103-104) provides one of the few direct comparisons of Smi and Gaelic from the perspective of local development. She argues that one of the common developments between Scotland and Spmi, despite the differences in political structure, is the role of language policy for the economic potential in the heartlands, where Gaelic and Smi may serve as the basis for prospering linguistic communities. However, the further development of institutions for the support of the languages and the establishment of networks of speakers and activists are in both cases seen as the fundament of such prosperity. On the other hand, the extension of Smi education, especially on higher levels, is creating a new generation of well-qualified Smi who wish to use their language in better posts. Due to improved attitudes, and the need for Smi competence created by the Smi Act, Huss (1999: 167) reports that "in some areas Smi are gaining importance in the labour market. In the Smi Administrative Areas, people with Smi competence are sought for many jobs. () Young people in Karasjok consider bilingualism in Norwegian and Smi to be a prerequisite for participation in societal life in the municipality today. Competence in Smi is considered as an advantage or a requirement in filling vacancies within official administration." Todal (2002b: 212) also reports that a Smi language labour market is slowly being established: In the core area (but rarely in other areas), bilingual applicants for many posts have a clear advantage. In addition, increased funding of Smi projects leads to an increase in Smi jobs. For instance, the establishment of Smi IT equipment results in jobs which require Smi competence in entirely new areas. However, as explained, Smi by no means is always the working language in Smi institutions, let alone in institutions in the Norwegian state system or which are run by Norwegians. On the whole, despite some achievements, a lot must still be changed. This also applies to the visibility of Smi in private businesses. Even in the core area,
275
where bilingual information in shops may obviously attract a wide audience, examples of Smi advertising, signage, etc. remain rare. It has already been discussed that the other domains identified with the state (health and social services, police and prison, church) are largely included in the Smi Act. From the Sameting's work it can be deduced that the process of incorporating Smi language and content into the relevant bodies is still in progress. The SEG Report states that Smi competence in church institutions is better than in health and social services, where it is still better than in legal institutions. An important improvement was the reform of the church districts in 1991 which created Inner Finnmark as a separate entity situated entirely within the Administrative Area. In addition, a Smi Church Council was established in 1993 to provide Smi-language services, and the work with Smi Bible translations and other religious texts continued on behalf of the state (cf. Stortinget 1992-93: 100). In international relations, it was outlined that the three Smi Parliaments have established regular consultations, and that the Norwegian Sameting regularly uses its right to participate in international projects on both a regional and global scale.
16.2.5 Corpus Planning, Symbolism and Attitudes It was portrayed above that Smi corpus planning dealt for a long time with fundamental issues of codification and orthography. The increased use of Smi in public settings has now brought about entirely new areas of corpus planning. Most prominently, terminology development in various areas plays an important role in domains where Smi now stands a lot stronger than previously, such as in administration or IT. On the other hand, traditional areas such as reindeer breeding have also seen an increase in planning. Besides terminology development, the second major field of corpus management is related to the increase in cultural awareness. Individuals have started data collections on threatened dialects, or on Smi place names in largely Norwegianised areas, aimed at securing cultural knowledge before it becomes entirely extinct. The Samisk Sprknemnd as the coordinating Nordic Smi language body in this context is not only an example of successful language planning, but also of international cooperation between Smi in the different countries. As previously demonstrated, language centres play a particularly important role in Smi terminology collection. They are not only meeting points for Smi of all generations, in which corpus planning projects are linked to intergenerational transmission of Smi culture, they are also of prime importance for aspects of attitudes towards the Smi language, of both Smi and non-Smi. In this context, we also have to name various language motivation stimulation efforts,
276
for instance the annual prize. In total, attitudes have changed in the past decades among both the Smi and the majority population, as a continuation of the process slowly started after World War II. The fact that Smi now receives official backing has created awareness among many parts of the majority population, but it is, of course, also of prime importance for the Smi themselves. A clear example of how changing policies may have a direct impact on attitudes, and as a result from this also on the Smi economy, is given by Todal (2002c: 13): "In the 1980s and 1990s, a large group of well-educated Smi moved back home to Tysfjord, and they succeeded in creating new Smi-based jobs in the community. These jobs are today to a large extent concentrated in (the Smi Centre of) Arran in Drag, and Arran is the biggest employer in the village. This has without doubt contributed to a local enhancement of prestige of the Lule Smi language." On the other hand, there are also accounts of how complicated it is to change prestige patterns which have been dominant for generations. Huss (1999: 166-167) notes that "the old pattern of defining official or semi-official situations as majority language situations still persists in many areas." Following his findings on increased opportunities for bilinguals in job applications in the core area and the positive impact of Smi media on Smi awareness, Todal in 2002 concludes that language policy has thus largely contributed to more positive attitudes. Young children are now much more likely to be raised in Smi; sometimes even to the extent that children from Norwegian-Smi parents may be raised in Smi, which previously was extremely unlikely. Youngest children now have much better Smi knowledge than in the 1980s, and most students express positive attitudes to the language.
Domain Use in private communication General Legal Status
Main aspects/demands No restrictions whatsoever, including the use of personal names Official recognition as a language with rights and legal status according to individual constitutional and legislative tradition of the state Communication in native language according to Territoriality or Personality Principle, depending on regional or national body Personality Principle: Trial in native language/free interpretation everywhere Personality Principle anywhere; Territoriality Principle in minority region As in administration Provision of minority language education on all levels, where
Situation in Norwegian Spmi Situation in Norwegian Spmi before 1989 Today No restrictions, but tradition of low No restrictions, increased prestige prestige Individual mentioning of Smi in legislation, in particular in education; no general legal rights. No rights, little state support, only individual instances Constitutional position of Smi; Smi as co-official language in Administrative Area, wide-reaching rights-based legislation with focus on education Considerable improvements: Rights according to Smi Act in Administrative Area; not always fulfilled in practice Considerable improvements: General Right to Smi use Considerable improvements: General Right to Smi use As in any state body according to Administrative Area; in practice not always given Improvements: Legal rights in Smi areas, outside on demand, remaining
Administration
Court
Usually no use of Smi in courts No rights, hardly any Smi use; traditionally very delicate Little, depending on individuals Some Smi schools, but no legal right; needs improvement in
Police/ Prison Health Services Education

possible as medium of education particular at higher levels and outside Core Area No restrictions; some legal No official restrictions; no state obligations and state support support; practical restrictions due according to Territoriality to low support; common usually Principle only in traditional Smi businesses (reindeer) Special support of minority Support to quite an acceptable activities degree State funding of minority Some, but not sufficient programmes No restrictions, state support of minority languages as other state support for religious groups Free reciprocal communication and exchange and acceptance of documents etc. Providing an adequate corpus for language participation in all domains Presence of minority language in representative settings Acceptance of value of language and linguistic community by both minority and majority speakers, if necessary supported by state through motivation campaigns No restrictions, use of Smi within State Church often possible No restrictions, established cooperation between Smi in Norway, Sweden and Finland Regular, dealing with fundamental issues (codification) Little symbolic use of Smi; other symbols (e.g. flag) Traditionally low prestige of Smi language and low self-esteem of Smi; slowly changing in past decades problems to overcome Some increased state support and opportunities, in general still low
277
Economy/ WorkPlace Culture/ Heritage Media
Continued funding of various projects Increased funding of various projects, far from sufficient in TV, in spite of improvements General right in Administrative Area; the Church as state body Extension of co-operation between Smi in Norway, Sweden, Finland, (Russia); Participation in various regional and global networks Considerable changes: more advanced levels: terminology development, data collection Symbolic use remains at a low level; some improvements, e.g. road signs Considerably improved as result of official status and state projects; applies to both Smi and non-Smi
Religion
International Relations Corpus Planning Symbolic use Attitude/ Prestige Planning
Table 71: The Legal Status of Smi in Various Domains, and General Outlines of Policy Practices in the Late 1980s, including Demands for Improvements
The symbolic use of Smi, finally, was rather low until the 1980s, with other symbols being more important to the Smi. Today, the fact that municipalities in the Administrative Area are obliged to produce documents in Smi is also an important symbol. Other instances of symbolic use which have been created are road signs and signage in official buildings. Here, the Sameting with its internal language policy, which is not only strictly bilingual, but which also goes beyond North Smi to include instances of Lule and South Smi, is again of prime importance. Another such aspect is the use of Smi place names in official contexts, such as the tri-lingual policy established in Porsanger. Overall, however, as in most other policy fields, symbolic Smi presence leaves room for improvement, and it is mostly restricted to the core area and individual Smi-dedicated institutions outside. Even in the core area, by no means have all institutions, let alone private companies, adapted symbolic instances of Smi usage, such as bilingual signs on shop windows. To sum up this chapter on the position of Smi in the various domains of language use, Table 71 is again a comparative chart of the situation in the late 1980s and in the first years of the millennium. A next step deriving from these findings is the proposed Domain Check List. The following table summarises the state of affairs in the domain categories by evaluating whether the
278
situation today is acceptable according to theoretical ideas on language maintenance requirements and linguistic rights, or whether policies have at least started making changes for the better:
Domains: Smi Use in private communication General Legal Status Administration Court Police/Prison Health Services Education Economy/Business Culture/Heritage Media/Arts Religion International Relations Corpus Planning Symbolic Language Use Attitude/Prestige Planning Acceptable Status/Progress in Status Change? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recent improvements, but further changes needed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recent improvements, but further changes needed Yes
Table 72: Domain Check List for Smi Today
16.3 Smi in Models of Language Policy

The changed situation of Smi also requires a considerable re-evaluation in the Cooper model. Although the basis of Smi language policy still deals with increasing Smi use by Smi people to contribute to language maintenance and RLS, actors, conditions, decision-making processes and effects have changed tremendously. Through the Sameting, Smi are much more directly involved in decision-making. Legal guarantees have created entirely new conditions to the effect of increased language use in many domains, and improved prestige. The means of policy still include a lot of funding, but also display a greater variety, including legal proceedings, research, and motivation stimulation.
Cooper Element Which Actors What behaviours Of which people For what ends Under which conditions By what means Through what decision-making processes To what effects Situation for Smi before 1989 Norwegian government officials, Smi groups Increase the use of Smi Smi, both speakers and non-speakers Language maintenance and RLS History of assimilation and prejudices Funding of Smi institutions and projects Council decisions within the system of Norwegian political bodies More presence of Smi, but no secure status Situation for Smi in the First Years of the 21st Century THE SAMETING, Smi organisations, Norwegian government Increase the use of Smi Smi, both speakers and non-speakers; NON-SMI IN SMI AREAS Language maintenance and RLS LEGAL GUARANTEES FOR SMI AND RECOGNITION OF SMI AS DISTINCT CULTURE; CHANGING ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE SMI LANGUAGE AMONG SMI AND NON-SMI Funding of Smi institutions and projects, LEGAL ENFORCEMENT , MOTIVATION PROJECTS THE SAMETING takes administrative decisions; INSTITUTIONALISED SMI INFLUENCE on political decisions taken within the Norwegian political system LEGAL STATUS OF SMI, INCREASED USE IN MANY DOMAINS, whereas Smi remains weak in other domains and many Smi areas
Table 73: Smi Policy before 1989 and after 2000 in the Cooper Model; Changes are MARKED
279
As the next step, I will evaluate the current position of Smi in the list of factors according to the Unesco index of language vitality and endangerment: 1. Intergenerational language transmission: Unsafe (Level 4): Most Smi children, but not all, speak Smi as their first language; there are restrictions in certain domains, but these tend to be increasingly limited as long as the children stay within the core communities. 2. Absolute number of speakers: It is fundamental to stress the difference between North Smi and the other Smi languages, but for all Smi languages the loss of old speaker seems to be, at least partly, balanced by new generations of speakers. 3. Proportion of speakers within the total Smi population: Between Unsafe (4) and Definitely endangered (3): Again, the situation differs considerably between the areas: In the heartland, nearly all Smi speak the language, whereas in remoter areas various lower levels of Smi competence apply. 4. Shifts in domains of language use: Universal use (Level 5) in the heartland: Smi is used with very few restrictions. Level 4 (multilingual parity) in large parts of Spmi, in particular in the Administrative Area, with Norwegian-dominant bilingualism in public domains. In other areas, Smi is restricted to private domains, but Norwegian is not gaining ground anymore. 5. Response to new domains and media: Level 5 (dynamic): In particular due to the efforts by the Sameting, Smi is used in basically all modern technologies and media but the dominance of Norwegian media remains. 6. Presence of materials for language education and literacy: Level 5 Smi orthography is standardised, a literacy tradition in all kinds of texts is developing, and Smi is used in education and administration. 7. Governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies, official status and use: Level 5: Smi is protected and promoted by the Norwegian state. 8. Smi attitudes towards Smi: Between Levels 5 and 4: Most, but not all Smi support revitalisation efforts although positive attitudes have increased in the past decades. 9. Type and quality of documentation: Between Levels 5 and 4: Smi texts of all sorts are produced regularly; yet, the degree of documentation and language flow could increase. How has the classification thus changed in the Kaplan/Baldauf ecolinguistic model? Whereas the positions of the Smi languages in relation to other languages remain mostly unchanged, there have been considerable changes in the linguistic processes influencing Smi: Language survival and revival have gained ground, whereas language shift and death have become much less important. This applies similarly to the Sameting as the dominant player in the field today in its relation to other actors. In addition to the Sameting, the Samisk Sprknemnd as an international body appears as a new actor, whereas other organisations (non-Smi companies or other institutions) remain weak in their impact on Smi policy. Yet, in the way how the Sameting represents the Smi population in Norway, and how it takes up the wishes of both individuals and interest groups in its own decisions and its negotiations with the Norwegian government, the Smi population has gained a degree of influence on its linguistic affairs without precedence.
280
LANGUAGE CONTACT Smi (North, Lule, South) Finnish LANGUAGE SHIFT LANGUAGE SURVIVAL Other languages LANGUAGE REVIVAL LANGUAGE DEATH English Immigrant languages Swedish Kven
Norwegian (Bokml, dialects dominating in Spmi, Nynorsk)
GOVERNMENT
EDUCATION
BODIES
SMISK SPRKNEMND
SAMETING
SMI INDIVIDUALS ORGANISATIONS
Figure 24: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Norwegian Spmi, with Policy Parts
17 An Evaluation of the Development of the Situation of Gaelic in Scotland
281

17.1 Scholars' Views
Having placed the present state of Smi in Norway into the theoretical framework, it is time to do the same for Gaelic. Most scholars working in the field have also been active in the recent policy debates, which highlighted where deficits in the present position of Gaelic are perceived. These related often to legal guarantees for Gaelic with adequate enforcement mechanisms in public bodies, rights to Gaelic education, and improved media services. On the other hand, the establishment of Brd na Gidhlig had also raised hopes for a normalisation of Gaelic in terms of a coherent policy. Scholars were generally positive as to many of the steps initiated, but the parliamentary hearings around the Education Act, the Bill proposed by Michael Russell, and the Gaelic Act by the Scottish Executive also showed that recent changes could only be the beginning of a long process. To summarise the position by scholars from a more distant perspective than when directly arguing in response to the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Executive, the following statements set these opinions in a wider frame. MacKinnon, for instance, takes the 2001 Census as a point of departure. Among his conclusions on implications for Gaelic policy are that "current policies are not holding Gaelic in the 'heartlands' or wider Gaidhealtachd. Gaelic medium education only reaches 25% of primary pupils in Western Isles. New philosophies are needed. Here and elsewhere current levels can only slow the rate of decline. () Language planning needs to be based on enhancement of confidence, appropriate research, local and national secure status, and action in family, community and local economy. Policies need implementation at community and national levels (MacKinnon 2003a). The steps initiated during the 1990s are thus seen as not having reached any significant improvements. Demands call for dedicated policies in the most fundamental aspects of language policy, such as education, at the community level, or affecting the economy in the entire country. In 2004, the essence of this perception remains unchanged, when MacKinnon (2004: 27-28) stresses the importance of Gaelic well-being in families and communities, the latter for instance through initiatives at the local level on the Western Isles. More research is still needed, especially on attitudes, to find out about the psychological reasons for people to turn to English. In this context, MacKinnon still considers it crucial to overcome "outmoded nineteenth century ideas" which "still inform public opinion and official policy-making", e.g. arguments in the utilitarian tradition which ask for the practical advantage of the use of a minority language. "The promotion of new attitudes, philosophies, images and policies is long overdue. These could be based on civil and language rights, Gaelic-speakers as wealth creators and tax-payers, cultural opportunities, creation of conditions for growth, and bilingualism as normal in a Scotland that is part of a
282
globalising, multilingual world" (MacKinnon 2004: 28). Gaelic should be the rule for everyone in the heartland, especially in schools. Nicolson/MacIver (2003) provide a view of the state of affairs in the context of Gaelicmedium education. From a linguistic perspective, they call for a debate on overcoming the perception of monolingualism in Scottish society, and on the role of Gaelic for Scottish identity. From an educational point of view, the authors stress the role of languages in Scotland's schools. They draw attention to the historical discrimination against Gaelic and the resulting differences in todays needs of Gaelic education, depending on individual previous knowledge and local demography. Politically, Nicolson/MacIver in line with most other scholars point to a secure legal position, a wider integration of Gaelic into the educational system, and the prevailing lack of support among many politicians. Summarising, the authors draw a moderately positive conclusion: On the one hand, they call Gaelic-medium education one of the success stories of recent Scottish education. On the other hand, they also emphasise that several major issues remain unsolved, and if Gaelic as a language is to survive into the next century, (), then Gaelic-medium education will require attention as one of several key language planning factors (Nicolson/MacIver 2003: 73). McLeod (2003a) comments on the importance of Gaelic presence in public bodies and in service provision: "It introduces the minority language to prestigious new settings, spurs the creation of new terminology and registers, raises the status of the language among both the minority and the majority language communities, and creates new incentives for the acquisition of the minority language." However, there may be many reasons for the persistence of barriers for more service provision, of practical or of ideological nature. Among parts of society, the perception prevails that Gaelic services are not necessary ("if you can speak English, you must speak it"). Other reasons are the competition between several minority languages (in many areas of Scotland, there may be more support for Scots or immigrant languages than for Gaelic), and the lack of willingness by public bodies to adjust their internal organisation to a multilingual pattern. In addition, traditional stereotypes of Gaelic as a subordinated language are still alive in parts of Scottish society. But even if these ideological obstacles are overcome, practical challenges of implementation may be just as detrimental. The cost-benefit ratio is often perceived as inadequate, for instance in the case of a Gaelic TV channel, which is rejected on the grounds of limited audience numbers. There is also a lack of the necessary skills and personnel in both public bodies and education, and there is low demand for Gaelic services, in particular in areas with a low density of Gaelic speakers. Many speakers are unaccustomed to Gaelic use in formal environments and it is here that the concept of Active Offer gains particular importance. Corpus planning challenges include a lack of vocabulary, for instance in technical domains. And finally, there is a danger of tokenism and superficial changes
283
which do not lead to fundamental alterations, even where well-meaning officials think that they have been supportive to Gaelic. These views demonstrate clearly the persisting perception that a lot remains to be done. In the following, these findings will again be systemised according to domains of language use.
17.2 Models: Domains

Recalling the high hopes assigned to the Scottish Parliament on its eve (cf. Chapter 15.2), the evaluation of developments in Gaelic status is ambiguous. A number of promising steps were taken in the first months of the Scottish Parliament, but controversial views on Gaelic legislation prevailed, and it needed many detours until the Executive introduced its own Gaelic Act. The debate on the inclusion of Gaelic rights in the Education Bill was the first clash of the two opposing approaches: The rights-based approach by the opposition, similar to the introduction of Smi rights in Norway, stood in sharp contrast to what has been labelled a language-planning approach by the Executive. The following account of Gaelic status in language domains is thus characterised by the language-planning approach. The Gaelic Act provides a legal position for Gaelic, in particular concerning Brd na Gidhlig and its role to develop a national Gaelic policy and to call for and monitor Gaelic policy by public bodies. One of the foci of the debate was the question of whether Gaelic through the Act has received Official Status or Equal Status with English. The Scottish Executive argued that Gaelic already had official status in Scotland, given that it was in use by some public bodies at various occasions. It is obvious that Gaelic is not completely equal to English in the sense that anybody could demand services in Gaelic anywhere in Scotland. However, without further action to follow, official or equal status alone will not help the language, even though it may be important as a symbol. Concentrating on rights and developments in the domains of language use, the fact that the Gaelic Act does not use a rights-based approach makes it difficult to evaluate changes in many domains. Where these occur, they are results of policies rather than of legal changes. This is in strong contrast to Smi where explicit rights are often granted, most notably in public bodies in the Administrative Area, and in education. To start with the private sphere, restrictions on the use of Gaelic in private conversation, both at home and in public, can be taken out of the discussion. Government action influencing the degree to which Gaelic is spoken at home is restricted to general campaigns to use Gaelic, and the moral support and acceptance as an identity marker which is enhanced by an increased symbolic use and an improvement of attitudes towards Gaelic. Ceremonies where Gaelic is used
284
by government officials or the use in parliamentary bodies have an impact on the awareness of the language, both by traditional speakers and by learners. Where Gaelic projects are supported, the degree of organisation of Gaelic speakers improves, thus enabling the establishment of a Gaelic infrastructure. In this sense, very indirect support of private usage in both public and private domains may indeed have been encouraged by the new focus on Gaelic policy.
17.2.1 Public Bodies A much more direct, yet ambiguous, impact of policies on Gaelic can be found in public bodies and courts. There continues to be hardly any use of Gaelic in courts, except for the general human right to ensure understanding of legal proceedings. In the European Year of Languages in 2001, an initiative allowed the use of Gaelic in the courts of Portree, Lochmaddy and Stornoway, but results showed that not many people chose this option (Scottish Parliament 2001c). For public bodies, the use of Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament has model character, through the practice of information services, signage, and the use in parliamentary proceedings. The use of Gaelic in debates and the bilingual signage is also important at a symbolic level. What links the Scottish Parliament to other public bodies in Scotland, however, is the lack of legal rights. Even if Brd na Gidhlig may now demand from public authorities that they publish plans for Gaelic services, and even if many public bodies, notably CNES and Highland Council have for some time provided such services, the situation is entirely different to that in Spmi. If a body is reluctant to meet such demands, Brd na Gidhlig may call Scottish politicians to duty, but the danger of creating a hostile climate may ultimately be contraproductive to Gaelic. This clearly shows a major lack of commitment in the language-planning approach. On the other hand, it should be remembered that wherever positive opinions on Gaelic dominate, public bodies are providing quite extended Gaelic services, in particular in the heartland, and many others are generally positive in their responses to meet demands. A problem remains with those bodies which relate to reserved policy items. Brd na Gidhlig's statutory position does not guarantee influence on bodies remaining under UK legislation, even though the Board is encouraged to find cooperative solutions for these institutions. In the Parliament debate on February 2nd, 2005, several MSPs focused on the need for strong implementation mechanisms far beyond the instructions given to Brd na Gidhlig by the Gaelic Act. In a call for an approach close to the idea of "active offer", John Farquhar Munro argued that "a weak minority language requires special support to ensure that it is healthy and viable as a living community language. If we ask only that public bodies respond to requests that are received from a minority group, we cannot make the required progress" (Munro 2005). The cross-party support of further measures
285
becomes evident when looking at Conservative MSP Jamie McGrigor, who reasons along similar lines that "the brd will ensure that councils meet the demand for Gaelic where the need exists, but the difference between the demands of people and the needs of the language is a key point if Gaelic is to have the chance of survival" (McGrigor 2005). In contrast to Spmi, the domains of the Police and Prison, and Health Services still rarely appear in the debate in Scotland, and are perceived as part of administration and public bodies. Health institutions as public service institutions are included in the list of bodies which have to decide on Gaelic language plans under the supervision of Brd na Gidhlig. The same applies to any joint police board in Scotland, i.e. the regional police councils. Given the nature of the Gaelic Act, however, this does not imply that Gaelic will necessarily be used much in these institutions. Table 74 summarises the changed position of Gaelic in public bodies.
Status Universal Declaration Right to use Administr: language in National and communication official langs with identical All languages to be public bodies Administr.: used everywhere regardless of Several colinguistic regime; existing in regional bodies languages: in area of identical linguistic official status Regional languages community: Administr.: allowed according to Territoriality Several coTerritoriality Principle Principle; for existing lgs: national public national vs. bodies: regional lgs Personality Adm.: Several All languages to be used everywhere Principle co-existing lgs: Personality Principle Only regional Adm.: No national, only languages apply according to regional Territoriality languages Principle; problem: new minorities are created Trial in native Native language Court: language everywhere in any legal Personality proceedings Principle Right to ensure understanding (personality principle), and to use language of territory in any case No specific reference, but implied in general public bodies section Implication by Blumenwitz Interpreting service free of charge Situation in Scotland until 1999 Not applicable: English only official language, no interpretation services Very limited application: No official status of Gaelic; in practice, Gaelic letters are answered in Gaelic in the central administration Partly fulfilled: Gaelic as a language of administration in some regions, however: no real official status Not fulfilled: Gaelic in administration throughout Scotland usually not usable Situation in Scotland Today Not applicable: English remains dominant and the natural language to be used
Partly fulfilled: Gaelic as a language of administration in many national public bodies, but no rights-based approach: Language plan duty according to Gaelic Act Partly fulfilled: Gaelic as a lang. of administr. in some regions, but no rights-based approach: Language plan duty according to Gael. Act Generally not fulfilled: No possibility to use Gaelic in bodies where it has been accepted that they do not prepare a language plan Not applicable due to the Situation unchanged: Not dominant position of applicable due to the dominant English position of English
Generally not fulfilled: No use of Gaelic in court, exception: Crofters Commission Not fulfilled: No guarantees for Gaelic use; individual instances possible
Police/ Prison/ Health Services: Personality Principle
Partially fulfilled: Use of Gaelic in court only if understanding is not guaranteed (general human right); some test uses, but no rights-based approach Not generally fulfilled: no rights-based approach: Language plan duty according to Gaelic Act
Table 74: Acceptable Statuses in Public Bodies The Situation in Scotland Today
17 An Evaluation of the Development of the Situation of Gaelic in Scotland 17.2.2 Education
286
Education has been one of the issues of Gaelic policy dealt with most prominently by scholars and in political proceedings and in which a lack of political changes was also most apparent. Much of what was found for public bodies also applies to education: the lack of rights and of enforcement where services do not correspond to public demands. Again, however, this does not mean that the situation of Gaelic education in many places has not improved, especially in places such as Glasgow where Gaelic schools have been established in recent years. In the Gidhealtachd, Gaelic education flourishes in many places, and elsewhere many education authorities have tried to react to demands. It is stressed by several authors that Gaelic primary school education developed successfully during the 1980s and 1990s (cf. McLeod 2003b; or MacLeod 2003 for a historical overview). However, as outlined, even within the core area, only about 25% of pupils choose Gaelic-medium education. Despite the availability, many parents still prefer to send their children to English-medium schools. It is thus a change of attitude that policy has to focus on. In areas outside the heartland, Gaelic schooling is not available everywhere, and there is no legal guarantee for such provision on demand. In secondary education, the situation continues to be far worse. McLeod (2003) reports Gaelic-medium units at only 18 secondary schools throughout Scotland. Even where these exist, Gaelic-medium schooling is limited to a number of subjects, usually geography, history and a few others. The problem is thus one of continuity, illustrated for instance by the fact that in 2003-04, there were 1972 primary pupils, but only 284 secondary pupils in Gaelic-medium education (cf. Scottish Parliament Education Committee 2005a). The situation in education has a detrimental effect on the attitude towards Gaelic. The lack of continuity of Gaelic provision in advanced schools, which lay the foundations for professional qualification, may be perceived as a pertaining lack of importance of Gaelic for professional purposes, for real life. Wherever a positive attitude to Gaelic has been developed through primary education, it is questioned as soon as pupils reach further educational stages. MacLeod (2003: 11-12) concludes that despite the achievements that have resulted in an infrastructure without precedence, Gaelic-medium education has still not reached the point of speaker-number reproduction. Even if demand has increased in most parts of Scotland, student figures in the Gaelic heartland are still in decline. Continuing problems also include the lack of qualified teachers and of teaching material. This makes it easier to understand why the Executive refuses to establish a legal guarantee for Gaelic teaching knowing that reality at present prevents fulfilment. It remains to be seen how ideas to overcome these problems by an action group established by the Executive in 2005 are put into practice. The fact that education is included in the final version of the Gaelic Act after it
287
had been lacking in its draft version shows that the Executive was willing to meet at least some demands. However, as with public bodies, all that the Act does is to provide Brd na Gidhlig with a channel to raise demands and to cooperate in Gaelic education provision. John Farquhar Munro in the Parliament debate on February 2nd, 2005 also expressed the view that much more could be achieved in education: "We know that Gaelic has suffered as a consequence of the denial of education in Gaelic many generations ago. Thankfully, steps have been taken to reverse that policy, but the Executive needs to extend its support for education. We need to see maximum impact in the delivery of Gaelic education at all levels, in both Gaelic-medium education and learners classes" (Munro 2005). As with the perception that the Act establishes only minimum requirements in public services, Fiona Hyslop (SNP) also calls for an Active Offer approach for education: "The SNP supports a right to Gaelic-medium education for primary children in the first instance where there is sufficient demand. () Gaelic education () must be mainstreamed in the operation and delivery of authorities that are responsible for education." For this, "Gaelic-medium education on its own will not preserve and promote the language, but the teaching of Gaelic as a second language will" (Hyslop 2005). On the whole, a rights-based approach to education as in Norway would certainly be a much stronger element. Table 75 again provides a comparative summary to the state of Gaelic education:
Educat. Aspect of Min Lgs Min Lg as a second language Minority Languagemedium education Linguistic Rights Declaration No comment; L2 minority language learning is too weak Has to be guaranteed at all levels within minority territory Impacts Situation in Scotland before 1999 Available in most parts of the country Fairly wide-spread in the Gidhealtachd, only very limited elsewhere, in particular in secondary schools; no rights-based approach No Situation in Scotland today
To be ensured everywhere As often as possible, according to the number of pupils
Available in most parts of the country Fairly wide-spread in the Gidhealtachd, increasingly available elsewhere; continuing problems in secondary schools; no rightsbased approach No
Min Lang education in noncohesive situations Segregation prevention Minority Culture education Cooperation with minority organisations
Not mentioned, but included in general demand for minority language education right in territory Right to learn any language of the territory To be guaranteed for any linguistic community Minority speech communities as the core decision-makers
Transport to minority schools to be ensured wherever possible Education partly in the majority language, or at least as second language Cultural Background as part of minority identity Decentralisation of curriculum
No danger given the dominant position of English Usually part of Gaelic education Influence of local education boards on curriculum and teacher education in co-operation with Gaelic organisations
No danger given the dominant position of English Usually part of Gaelic education Influence of local education boards on curriculum; cooperation with Brd na Gidhlig (advice and language plan supervision) and Gaelic organisations
Table 75: Core Issues of Minority Language Policy Education The Situation in Scotland Today
17 An Evaluation of the Development of the Situation of Gaelic in Scotland 17.2.3 The Media and Arts/Culture
288
Arts and Culture before devolution already belonged to the areas in which Gaelic prospered most. Funding for arts and cultural projects continued at acceptable levels. Similar applies also to print media, where production remained low and was largely limited to some local papers. There have not been many important government activities in Gaelic culture, aside from the very symbolic appearance of government ministers at the Royal National Mod, with the highlight in 2003 when the Draft Gaelic Bill was presented to the public. Some institutional changes took place, for instance the establishment of the Gaelic Arts Strategic Development Forum (GASD), set up in November 2000 by Proiseact nan Ealan/The Gaelic Arts Agency. The most important Gaelic cultural organisations contribute to it, e.g. Proiseact nan Ealan, Fisean nan Gidheal, the Gaelic Books Council, An Comunn Gidhealach, the Gaelic theatre company Tosg, and the Gaelic Media Services. On the whole, considering the high degree of activities in the past, this relative lack of new attention is understandable. In broadcasting, the Gaelic Broadcasting Acts of the 1990s had cleared the way for Gaelic radio and TV services, and these continued to be in the process of improvement. The Scottish Parliament participated in the debate on future steps, in particular in relation to the Milne report, which it discussed intensely and welcomed wholeheartedly. Funding continues, and funding of Gaelic broadcasting projects, unlike broadcasting in general, is even a devolved matter, although the general structural necessity of cooperation with Westminster remains. All in all, however, changes in the period under discussion remained low. The core demand for a dedicated Gaelic TV channel, in particular, did not become reality, and a sustainable solution has not yet been found. As Munro (2005) put it: "I urge the Executive to work with the Westminster Government to establish a dedicated Gaelic television channel that would support the bill's valuable public service provisions. That would be a major step forward for Gaelic development." The replacement of the CCG by the Gaelic Media Services as a coordinating body, in operation since December 2003, has also helped to enhance Gaelic media production, and Brd na Gidhlig's representation in it is a sign of the incorporation of broadcasting into a coherent language planning approach. Gaelic Media Services also stress that changes in structures are necessary: "The UK broadcasting system is working against the Gaelic language, because the current Gaelic broadcasting provision is too patchy to have critical mass (Gaelic Media Services at Scottish Parliament Education Committee 2005a). On the other hand, Alex Neil (SNP) concedes that Gaelic media remain a prime element of Gaelic promotion: "To be fair to the BBC, its coverage of Gaelic on its main radio channels and its television channels has done enormous good for the Gaelic language in recent years" (Neil 2005). Overall, the statement by Iain MacAskill, CCG Chairman, when commenting on the
289
Annual Report for 2002/03 seems to be true: "This was a year of contrasting fulfilment for Gaelic broadcasting: celebration at one level; frustration and apprehension at another." Despite a number of successes, such as "continued support for a wide range of high quality programmes; inauguration of successful new projects; nurturing of effective partnerships; increased programme reach, especially in the elusive 16-34 and 3544 age groups, () the continuing constraints of funding and scheduling have made the current provision of Gaelic programmes deficient and untenable" (MacAskill 2003).
17.2.4 Economy/Work-Place and Further Domains With regard to the use of Gaelic in the economy and at the work-place, there has been little direct influence by Scottish politics in recent years. The major debates on Gaelic policy and legislation did not touch upon these areas, and the demand by McLeod (2003e) to include private companies in the list of bodies urged to develop Gaelic plans, or to apply conditions on funding for private businesses based on their interest in Gaelic was the vast exception. Previous channels of Gaelic economic development, the HIE and efforts by the Regional Councils, continued, and state-funded enterprises which work for economic development in the Highlands are included in the list of bodies which have to make a statement on a Gaelic Plan according to the Gaelic Act. In total, however, the economy remains marginal in contrast to prime issues of Gaelic policy such as education. Apart from political influence on the Gaelic economy, McLeod (2002: 68-69) concluded that the growth rate of Gaelic development was rapid, but mostly because the starting point was so low. Statements by development officers in Gaelic areas indicate that Gaelic is now recognised as a factor in regional economy. Agencies such as CnaG have contributed with plans to enhance Gaelic tourism, for instance through a dedicated brochure, and report largely positive responses. Another positive example is the Aros Centre of Gaelic Culture on Skye, which attracts a considerable number of visitors and guarantees several dozens of Gaelic-related jobs, which increase incentives for learning Gaelic (Aros 2005). Some Gaelic-related jobs have also been created with the increase of Gaelic administration, broadcasting etc. Stradling (2001) reports on the positive effect of public and private investment in the Gaelic economy, in particular caused by the increase in Gaelic broadcasting. Pedersen (2000: 152166) names translation, printing, advertising, Gaelic computer products, but also hotels and pubs with a Gaelic ambience, musicians and entertainers as well as the manufacturing of Gaelic goods as opportunities for Gaelic-related businesses. Pedersen thus stresses the importance of tourism, to which Gaelic culture can contribute as one of Scotland's "unique selling points", in particular in the light of Green Tourism and Cultural Tourism. Goods and services which can be offered
290
under such a heading include cultural events, food, and social experiences. Wood (2002) similarly reports that increased employment opportunities have indeed been created in areas such as tourism or the teleworking sector recently, but that a diversification of the existing patterns is needed. On the other hand, it is stressed that these developments must not only come from outside. Local projects are just as important, where forces are joined to create a common ground for Gaelic development in the context of the economy, media, the environment and community development. MacLean (1999) gives the example of such a small-scale community based project on the Isle of Lewis, which has successfully created a Gaelic-based community economy. However, the call for economic development in the Gaelic heartland alone is unlikely to increase Gaelic speaker numbers, and it has to be accompanied by linguistic strategies. In his submission to the report on Gaelic Broadcasting, Dunbar points to the dangers of this process, citing examples from Ireland, where the government started a policy of economic development in Irish-speaking areas. These policies, however, did not only create Irish-related jobs, "they have also, ironically, subtly encouraged the expansion of English at the expense of Irish. In addition to drawing Irish speakers back to the Gaeltacht, the employment opportunities also attracted non-Irish speakers, and in so doing, strengthened the presence, prestige and power of English in these areas." The conclusion to be drawn from this experience, however, is not "that the creation of jobs in Gaelic-speaking areas is unimportant () but that such development must be accompanied by a solid linguistic strategy" (Dunbar 2001b). Similarly, McLeod (2002: 65) calls for a dedicated strategy to link language development to economic development in the Western Isles: "Economic development that is not accompanied by explicit language planning will not, in and of itself, secure the position of Gaelic, and it may well add to its insecurity. If language development and economic development are to be successfully combined, increased sensitivity to the linguistic dimension is required." He summarises crucial steps which are still needed for Gaelic prosperity in the economy: These include "meaningful schemes to bring about the use of Gaelic as a working language within local authorities and other public agencies. Economic development agencies should introduce schemes of linguistic conditions to awards of financial assistance." And finally, "even within the Gaelic sector itself, the use of Gaelic at the work-place needs strong increases" (MacLeod 2002: 65-68). Much need not be said about the remaining domains. In parts of religion, Gaelic continues to have a strong position, in particular in conservative communities in the Western Isles sticking to an essentialist notion of Gaeldom. The state in Scotland, however, unlike in Norway, intervenes little in religious affairs in these areas with their variety of faiths. The Church of Scotland is not listed among the organisations which have to make a statement on a language plan, let alone other religious groups, and religion continues to be left at the margins by scholars.
291
International relations of Gaelic organisations have been enhanced in recent years, and in particular pan-Celtic initiatives with Ireland continued. Co-operation with Wales was important in the context of the significantly longer experience by Welsh language planning bodies, and in particular the Welsh Language Board contributed with its expertise on a number of occasions. Wales often served as a model in the discussion of what can be achieved in language policy in the UK. International cooperation with the diaspora of Gaelic speakers and other people of Scottish descent may also have been strengthened by the more visible discussion of Gaelic affairs in Scotland, as international submissions to the debates on the Gaelic Bills indicate. Gaelic scholars and politicians have also participated in international conferences on minority languages, and politicians regularly cited examples from other classic minority language policy areas, such as Catalonia, the Basque Country, or Ireland. In total, however, despite some increased funding, not much has changed, based on a situation in which there had neither been any restrictions nor encouragement in private cooperations before.
17.2.5 Corpus Planning, Symbolism and Attitudes Compared to status planning, corpus planning remains an absolute side-issue of language planning in Scotland. One of the prime instances of corpus planning was the publication of the dictionary of parliamentary terms, and the plans of Brd na Gidhlig for a larger-scale dictionary, but these remain notable exceptions in the debate. When coming back to the symbolic aspect of Gaelic policy, the first major finding is that the Scottish Parliament treats Gaelic in a way which may be a model of symbolic use. Full bilingual signage in the building is a clear indicator that the Parliament wants Gaelic speakers to feel represented. The debates in the plenary session, and also in the several committee meetings in Gaelic also have a high symbolic value, as Gaelic speakers here find their own language in active use at the highest level in politics. The fact that the oath of allegiance was taken by several MSPs in English and Gaelic and not only by the two native speakers is a further step of recognition of Gaelic. The visits of ministers to Gaelic events, while in some cases resulting from practical needs, also are highly symbolic. Besides the Scottish Parliament, a number of other symbolic issues had already existed before devolution, such as the name of CNES, or bilingual road signs. In many other cases, Gaelic has been introduced to previously monolingual English settings, such as through the decision to use Gaelic by some National Parks, an increase in road signs, and the development of visibly bilingual services and publications by other public bodies, notably Highland Council. The decision to introduce Gaelic to UK passports, taken in early 2005, is another such step, which is
292
also fundamental for the visibility of Gaelic beyond Scotland. Yet, more could also be done in these fields, such as the use of bilingual postage stamps, and even in the Gaelic heartland, the number of business, shops and institutions using bilingual signage leaves much room for improvement. Individual initiatives such as a campaign for bilingual shop signs in Inverness need more support to be able to contribute substantially to Gaelic presence. Thus, Table 76 summarises that the status of Gaelic has increased considerably:
Symbolic presence of Gaelic in Scotland Bilingual operation of the Western Isles Council since 1975 Before Bilingual Road Signs in the Gidhealtachd Devolution Renaming of the Western Isles Council into Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Complete bilingual signage in the Scottish Parliament Around 2005 Communication with the Parliament possible in Gaelic Gaelic used in Parliament debates and committee meetings Gaelic sections and visible policies by Highland Council Gaelic used in National Parks Gaelic to be used in new passports
Table 76: Examples of Symbolic Presence of Gaelic in Scotland
I will now get back to attitudes and to the prestige of the Gaelic language in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament's Education Committee in January 2005 reports of a survey conducted for Brd na Gidhlig in partnership with the BBC that revealed that "broadly speaking, 80 per cent of people in Scotland support Gaelic and think that the language should be made available to children whose parents want them to learn the language at school" (Scottish Parliament Education Committee 2005a). The predominantly positive attitude by many Gaelic speakers has thus been accompanied by similar attitudes of a substantial proportion of the majority population. The Scottish Parliament and politicians have certainly played a leading role in improving attitudes, and their symbolic and practical activities have contributed to making Scottish society much more aware of Gaelic issues. It is surprising how often politicians issued statements in which they show surprise regarding the devastating state of Gaelic. The fact that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive, public bodies at all levels, education agencies, as well as broadcasting and cultural institutions make Gaelic visible, is a substantial sign to Gaelic speakers that they have gained a more solid position in Scottish society. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that prejudices and hostility among some parts of society prevail. Language practices such as the Gaelic drop-out rate from primary to secondary schools and the fact that many Gaelic children choose English as their playground language makes it obvious that a lot also remains to be done as regards attitudes, in addition to the economic, educational and administrative obstacles involved. Steps to encourage more positive attitudes include an increased presence of the language in virtually any domain, with the ultimate aim of a state of normalisation. At the same time, the discussion surrounding contents of Gaelic media, for instance, has shown
293
that the simple presence of the language is not sufficient, and it is especially important to motivate the young generation to see Gaelic in a positive light.
Domain Use in private General Legal Status Main aspects/demands No restrictions whatsoever, including personal names Official recognition as a language with rights and legal status according to individual constitutional and legislative tradition of state Communication in native language according to Territoriality or Personality Principle, depending on regional or national body Situation in Scotld in 1999 No restrictions, but tradition of low prestige Individual occurrences of Gaelic in legislation, no holistic planning or rights-based approach Territoriality Principle in the Gidhealtachd, very limited possibility to use Gaelic elsewhere Situation in Scotland today No restrictions, prestige slowly increases Gaelic Act as legislation on the road to holistic planning, planning and serviceprovision approach instead of rights-based approach Legal Status: Gaelic Act and inclusion of Gaelic in Education Act, however, no rights-based approach. Expanded efforts and possibilities to use Gaelic; in the Scottish Parliament and several local/regional bodies; no right, but Brd na Gidhlig supervision of Gaelic service provision No legal guarantees besides general human right to ensure understanding; some individual instances of test use No general right; marginal inclusion in language plans scheme under Brd na Gidhlig supervision As in other public bodies: some service provision, but no right to it Increased efforts for Gaelic education in cooperation with Gaelic organisatns, inclusion in Brd na Gidhlig supervision, but no legal rights and disappointment in lack of commitment No restrictions, some increased demand for Gaelic in employment, continuing initiatives (tourism, HIE), but still limited chances and state support Funding continues; some symbolic presence of government officials Slightly increased services and attention; Gaelic TV channel demand remains unfulfilled Unchanged situation
Administration
Court
Personality Principle: Trial in native language/free interpretation everywhere Personality Principle anywhere; Territoriality Principle in minority region As in administration Provision of minority language education on all levels, where possible as medium of education No restrictions; some legal obligations and state support according to Territoriality Principle Special support of minority activities State funding of minority programmes
No possibility of speaking Gaelic in court Gaelic use depending on individuals; no rights Depending on individuals Wide-spread on the Western Isles and as Second Language, very limited elsewhere, no legal guarantees No restrictions, some Gaelic used in local businesses in the heartland, little Gaelic elsewhere, very limited state support No restrictions; state funding
Religion
International Relations Corpus Planning Symbolic Planning Attitude/ Prestige Planning
No restrictions; state funding, but all in all only on a limited level No restrictions, state support No restrictions, use of Gaelic of minority languages as other common in traditional parishes state support for religious on Western Isles groups Free reciprocal Strictly speaking not applicable; communication and exchange no restrictions on co-operation and acceptance of documents with other Celtic countries etc. Providing an adequate corpus Little Corpus Planning only for language participation in all domains Presence of minority language Individual instances of in representative settings symbolism (bilingual signs) Acceptance of value of language and linguistic community by both minority and majority, if necessary supported by state through motivation campaigns
More direct co-operation between Scotland and Ireland, participation in international networks Some important projects (dictionary), but remains at low level
Symbolic instances increase, in particular in the Scottish Parliament, symbolic presence of politicians Traditionally low prestige, today Attitudes towards Gaelic in mainstream high prestige among Gaelic society and among officials improves; speakers, but little focus on prestige or motivation initiatives remain motivation planning rare
Table 77: Changes in Status and Policy Practices of Gaelic in Various Domains since the 1990s
294
To sum up, Table 78 provides a summary of changes of Scottish Gaelic since devolution, according to domains and language policy fields. Table 78 then gets back to the list of further demands for Gaelic use and shows which of these have been fulfilled. In general, most farreaching demands have only marginally been fulfilled.
Domain Basic Assumptions Demands Equal validity of Gaelic and English in the whole of Scotland A rights-based approach: Basic rights for Gaelic speakers everywhere in Scotland Legal guarantees through a Language Act Fulfilment in Scotland today General use of Gaelic not possible Planning and service provision approach instead of rights: No legal rights for Gaelic speakers Legal provisions through Gaelic Act, but clearly limited compared to demands Largely fulfilled through Brd na Gidhlig establishment Some initiatives, but more service provision goals than community initiatives Normalisation as a long-term goal Very limited, mostly reaction to demands Gaelic in primary education in many areas; secondary with many more problems Lack of teachers and teaching material continues No right to Gaelic education on minimum demand; however, authorities try to react to demand No equality according to demographic criteria; service provision in many Gaelic areas Statement on Gaelic plans to be issued by all bodies; no guarantee to Gaelic services or to the application to certain areas Occasional Gaelic use in the Scottish Parliament No general right to use Gaelic No general right to use Gaelic in court Very limited use of Gaelic in legal documents No discussion of Gaelic Act by Westminster Brd na Gidhlig as control body No full-time Gaelic radio or TV Funding continues Broadcasting in order to revive Gaelic demanded, but only partly fulfilled Some initiatives, but not yet meeting all demands Gaelic generally not important for funding Gaelic use in economic life supported, but not generally given More direct influence of Gaelic speakers in their affairs due to close co-operation of the government with Gaelic activists; however: autonomy is no issue
Co-ordination of Gaelic activities and organisations and a holistic approach to language planning through a national Gaelic language development unit Programmes with the goal of maintaining and increasing the use of Gaelic as a fully living language Normalisation as key term Active Offer Equal access to Gaelic education from pre-school to Education tertiary level Sufficient teachers and teaching material Establishment of Gaelic units everywhere on sufficient demand: 5 pupils Public Equality of Gaelic and English where there are at Bo-dies least 30% Gaelic speakers; limited equality where there are 10% or 2,500 Gaelic speakers Gaelic policy to be worked out by all public bodies within 3 years Sub-sections: communication with public, public signage, social services, educational provision Regular use of Gaelic in Parliament Right to use Gaelic in any official situation, especially in court General right to use Gaelic in court on prior Law announcement In legal documents, Gaelic should be used as widely as possible Acceptance of the Language Act not only by the Scot. Parliament, but also by Westminster. Establishment of control bodies, such as a special ombudsperson. Media/ Full-time Gaelic radio/TV service, guarded by authority co-operating with Gaelic organisations Arts Continuation of Funding Recognition to the role of broadcasting as a means of linguistic revival Modern, up-to-date programmes Econ- Introduction of linguistic schemes for funding by economic development agencies omy Increase of Gaelic use in economic life, even within the Gaelic sector itself Devolution of decision-making processes: Furt. Deman Autonomy and control over Gaelic policies by some kind of Gaelic Community Council ds
Table 78: Core Issues of the Inbhe Tharainte/Secure Status Document and Other Further Demands on Gaelic Status before the Establishment of the Scottish Parliament and Today
To get back to the idea of a Domain Check List, it can also be summarised here that improvements have taken place in most domains, but that these are not sufficient and that
295
further changes are needed. This is most obvious from a rights-based perspective, but a lot also remains to be done from the position of the de facto status. Table 79 presents this Check List:
Domains: Gaelic Use in private communication General Legal Status Administration Court Police/Prison Health Services Education Economy/Business Culture/Heritage Media/Arts Religion International Relations Corpus Planning Symbolic Language Use Attitude/Prestige Planning Acceptable Status/Progress in Status Change? Yes Recent improvements, but further changes needed Recent improvements, but further changes needed Recent improvements, but further changes needed Recent improvements, but further changes needed Recent improvements, but further changes needed Recent improvements, but further changes needed No Yes Recent improvements, but further changes needed Yes Yes Recent improvements, but further changes needed Yes Recent improvements, but further changes needed
Table 79: Domain Check List for Gaelic Today
17.3 Gaelic in Models of Language Policy

In the Cooper list of language planning, changes mostly relate to new actors in the field (the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive, and Brd na Gidhlig), which also contribute to different decision-making processes. The aim continues to be an increased use of Gaelic by speakers and learners in as many situations as possible. The conditions have improved slightly in the sense of more awareness and a generally more positive attitude. The most important effect so far has been the Gaelic Act, which does not, however, imply changes in speaker numbers and maintenance probability. The list thus reads:
Cooper Element Which Actors Situation for Gaelic before 1999 Government, CnaG and other government-funded bodies, education and local authorities, private organisations and individuals Increase the use of Gaelic Gaelic speakers/any person in Scotland Language maintenance and RLS Language decline, history of anti-Gaelic attitudes, limited government support Funding of Gaelic institutions and projects, public services, education and broadcasting, individual campaigns Some government activity, lobbying, individual efforts More presence of Gaelic, but no halt of decline or even normalisation Situation for Gaelic Today Scottish Parliament, Scottish Executive, Brd na Gidhlig, CnaG and other government-funded bodies, private organisations and individuals Increase the use of Gaelic Gaelic speakers/any person in Scotland Language maintenance and RLS Increased awareness, government support, institutionalised channels, continuing decline Funding, campaigns, increased public services and education, legislation, language plans, monitoring through Brd na Gidhlig Scottish Parliament debates and legislation, discussions with public, Brd na Gidhlig intervention, lobbying, individual efforts Increased funding and services, public attention and awareness, but no normalisation; the decline of speaker numbers has only slowed down
What behaviours Of which people For what ends Under which conditions By what means
Through what decision-making processes To what effects
Table 80: Gaelic before Devolution and Today in the Cooper Model
296
The next step is again to put the recent situation of Gaelic into the Unesco list of language vitality and endangerment: 1. Intergenerational language transmission: Still mostly between Levels 2 and 3, with some limited traits of Level 4: The situation with a much stronger parent and grand-parent generation has only slightly been altered in favour of more children who use Gaelic. However, it cannot be said that all children use Gaelic at least in some domains. 2. Absolute number of speakers: Still at more or less the same level the loss of older speakers is only partially balanced by learners of all ages, although the speed of the decline has decreased. 3. The proportion of speakers within the total Gaelic population: No relevant changes still only a minority of the population speaks Gaelic (Level 3), and in the few areas with a Gaelic majority, proportions continue to deteriorate. 4. Shifts in domains of language use: Between Levels 3 and 4: Gaelic has gained ground in some domains, but it is still very limited compared to English, without multilingual parity. 5. Response to new domains and media: Between Levels 3 and 4: Efforts to increase the use of Gaelic in new media have been partly successful. 6. Presence of materials for language education and literacy: Level 4-5: Gaelic is used in every-day media, education and administration, albeit to limited degrees. 7. Governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies, official status and use: Between Levels 4 and 5 (differentiated support/equal support): Gaelic is protected and supported, but the use in public contexts remains the exception. However, a coherent language policy has been developed. 8. Gaelic speakers' attitudes towards Gaelic: Level 4: Most Gaelic speakers today support Gaelic maintenance and revitalisation, with some exceptions based on the practical usability of the language and some ideological aspects (essentialists). 9. Type and quality of documentation of Gaelic: Level 4-5 (Superlative): Gaelic continues to be researched and documented, although also here, the flow of materials could increase.
LANGUAGE CONTACT LANGUAGE SHIFT Gaelic with dialects Scots with dialects LANGUAGE SURVIVAL LANGUAGE REVIVAL Other languages English: Standard Scottish English, dialects
LANGUAGE DEATH
Immigrant languages
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
BRD NA REGIONAL GIDHLIG COUNCILS
BROADCASTING, CNAG ARTS ETC. AGENCIES
OTHER GAELIC ORGANISATIONS
INDIVIDUALS
297
Figure 25: Kaplan/Baldauf Ecolinguistic Model Applied to Scotland Today, with Policy Parts
In the model by Kaplan/Baldauf, the languages in the Scottish ecosystem and the linguistic factors influencing Gaelic remain largely unchanged, with some alterations in relative dominance. Where changes are more apparent, as for Smi, is the actors' dimension. Figure 25 includes the new players in the field which show in what way Gaelic speakers have gained additional opportunities of influencing the development of their language. As we saw in the detailed account of its proceedings, in particular the Scottish Parliament takes its duty to listen and respond to the population's views seriously.
18 A Comparative View of Gaelic and Smi Policy
298

The previous chapters summarised recent language policies in Norway and Scotland and compared the situation of the two languages today to the time before the major political changes in the two countries. As a result I have shown that the status of both languages has benefited from these developments, and that the speech communities in both countries have been given a much higher level of direct influence on their affairs, albeit to varying degrees. In the following, the political changes in both countries will be juxtaposed. To start with changes in the budgets for Gaelic and Smi issues, it should be kept in mind that it is difficult to draw an overall picture of expenses devoted to language issues as these are often hidden in other posts, for instance in education. The major difference between Gaelic and Smi lies in the nature of the Sameting as a body that directly controls and administers a considerable amount of funding. In contrast to spending on Smi issues, and in particular the Sameting's budget, the budget for Gaelic issues has not increased considerably over the years, in spite of regular calls for increased funding in both countries.
18.1 Domains of Language Use

For a last time, I return to the categorisation according to language use domains. Table 81 uses the results from previous tables for juxtaposing the present status of Smi and Gaelic. It summarises that there have been considerable changes in many domains, although there are others which still lack a satisfactory level. Whereas the most fundamental rights and general support is granted for both languages, the major difference is the rights-based approach chosen in Norway as opposed to the language-planning legislation in Scotland. This difference results in a gradually weaker position of Gaelic in many domains, although differences between theory and practical implementation also continue in Spmi. Table 82 summarises the evaluation of whether the efforts which have been made to improve the domains status are acceptable. In contrast to Table 81, it illustrates less the status of the languages, but more the improvements based on the points of departure, taking into account that it needs considerable time to arrive at drastic changes and that, at an initial stage, it may be more important that the problem has been recognised and approached. As becomes evident from this comparison of the Domain Check Lists, there are positive changes in both countries. For Smi, these have reached satisfactory levels in most domains. Gaelic, on the other hand, has only experienced the beginning of improvements in most domains, which should only be the basis for more changes. In the debates on Gaelic rights, it became apparent that reluctance by some
299
persons responsible to let these first steps follow further developments made it unclear what will happen in the future, despite a consensus of activists that the demographic basis is still very weak.
Domain Use in private General Legal Status Main aspects/demands No restrictions, including use of personal names Official recognition as a language with rights and legal status according to individual constitutional and legislative tradition of state Communication in native language according to Territoriality or Personality Principle, depending on regional or national body Situation in Norw. Spmi Today No restrictions, increased prestige Constitutional position of Smi; Smi as co-official language in Administrative Area, wide-reaching rights-based legislation, focus on education Considerable improvements: Rights according to Smi Act in Administrative Area; not always fulfilled in practice Situation in Scotland Today No restrictions, prestige slowly increases Gaelic Act as legislation on the road to holistic planning, planning and serviceprovision approach instead of rightsbased approach
Administration
Court
Personality Principle: Trial in native language/free interpretation everywhere Personality Principle anywhere; Territoriality Principle in minority region As in administration Provision of minority language education on all levels, where possible as medium of education No restrictions; some legal obligations and state support according to Territoriality Principle Special support of minority activities State funding of minority programmes
No restrictions, state support of minority languages as other state support for religious groups InterFree reciprocal communication national and exchange and acceptance of Rela-tions documents etc. Religion Corpus Planning Symbolic use Attitude/ Prestige Planning Providing an adequate corpus for language participation in all domains Presence of minority language in representative settings Acceptance of value of language and linguistic community by both minority and majority speakers, if necessary supported by state motivation campaigns
Legal Status: Gaelic Act and inclusion of Gaelic in Education Act, however, no rights-based approach. Expanded efforts and possibilities to use Gaelic, in Scottish Parliament and several local/regional bodies; no right, but Brd na Gidhlig supervision of Gaelic service provision Considerable improvements: General No legal guarantees besides general Right to Smi use human right to ensure understanding; some individual instances of test use Considerable improvements: General No general right; marginal inclusion in Right to Smi use language plans scheme under Brd na Gidhlig supervision As in any state body according to As in other public bodies: some service Administrative Area; in practice not provision, but no right to it always given Improvements: Legal rights in Smi Increased efforts for Gaelic education areas, outside on demand, remaining in cooperation with Gaelic problems to overcome organisations, inclusion in Brd na Gidhlig supervision, but no legal rights and lack of commitment Some increased state support and No restrictions, some increased demand opportunities, remaining problems to for Gaelic in employment, continuing overcome initiatives (tourism, HIE), but still limited chances and state support Continued funding of various Funding continues; some symbolic projects presence of government officials at events Increased funding of various Slightly increased services and projects, far from sufficient in TV, in attention; Gaelic TV channel demand spite of improvements remains unfulfilled General right in Administrative Area, Unchanged situation the Church as a state body Extension of co-operation between Smi in Norway, Sweden, Finland, (Russia); Participation in various regional and global networks Considerable changes: more advanced levels: terminology development, data collection Symbolic use remains at a low level; some improvements, e.g. road signs Considerably improved as result of official status and state projects; applies to both Smi and non-Smi More direct co-operation between Scotland and Ireland, participation in international networks Some important projects (dictionary), but remains at low level Symbolic instances increase, in particular in the Scottish Parliament, symbolic presence of politicians Attitudes towards Gaelic in mainstream society and among officials improves; prestige or motivation initiatives remain rare
Table 81: Comparative View of Changes in Status and Practices for Smi and Gaelic since the Constitutional Changes

Domain Use in private communication General Legal Status Administration Court Police/Prison Health Services Education Economy/Business Culture/Heritage Media/Arts Religion International Relations Corpus Planning Symbolic Language Use Attitude/Prestige Planning Smi: Status/Progress in Status Change Acceptable? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recent improvements, but further changes needed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recent improvements, but further changes needed Yes Gaelic: Status/Progress in Status Change Acceptable? Yes Recent improvements, but further changes needed Recent improvements, but further changes needed Recent improvements, but further changes needed Recent improvements, but further changes needed Recent improvements, but further changes needed Recent improvements, but further changes needed No Yes Recent improvements, but further changes needed Yes Yes Recent improvements, but further changes needed Yes Recent improvements, but further changes needed
300
Table 82: Evaluation of Status (Progress) of Smi and Gaelic according to Domains
18.2 Answers to the Questions of the Extended Edwards List

It is now time to give answers to the questions raised in the catalogue of factors influencing minority language by Edwards and its extensions by Grenoble/Whaley and Haarmann, which were ranked in Chapter 2 according to relevance for Smi and Gaelic. The answers will be given briefly in Table 83, for which it again should be remembered that generalisations may not take into account possible differences according to specific local, regional, or national patterns. The table thus summarises the states of affairs as identified above. Again, it can be seen that the situation in many domains is quite acceptable, although improvements remain possible in others. Contrasting Gaelic to Smi, the tendency is of a better situation for Smi in a number of the most relevant domains, such as legal rights to education and bilingual services, and, most notably, autonomy given through the Sameting. On the other hand, a number of persisting problems also remain similar, such as the low economic profile of Spmi and the Gidhealtachd.

Category Politics/ Law/ Government Check List Questions in Order of Relevance for Smi and Gaelic Rights and recognition of speakers Degree and extent of official recognition of the language Situation of Smi Today and Changes Since the 1980s Free identification as Smi Situation of Gaelic Today and Changes Since 1999
301
Education
Media
Economics
Sociology
Linguistics
Psychology
Demography
Literacy
Everyone is free to identify with Gaelic Official to varying degrees No limits of acceptance as own throughout Norway language; limited use in public (Administrative Area, Education) affairs; a restricted legal framework Degree of autonomy or special The Sameting as autonomous body No special status; no autonomous status of the area decision-making of Gaelic policies High level of awareness and High level of awareness and demands Speakers attitudes and for improvement; still increasing involvement regarding education demands Type of school support for Present at all levels; general right Gaelic education on all levels, not yet language to Smi education throughout the entire country; practical problems remain State of education in area Generally good and accessible Generally good and accessible Group representation in media Only limited nationally, to higher Few specific programmes on Gaelic degree locally issues, given that speakers are more a linguistic than another type of minority Language representation in Individual Smi programmes, Reaching beyond Gaelic speakers in media acceptable for radio, few TV Scotland, good radio service, programmes increasing, Gaelic TV station as major demand General public awareness of In Smi areas good recognition, yet Increasing recognition as part of area little awareness by mainstream national heritage society Economic health of speaker Poorer than national average Traditionally below average; group distinctions as mainstream society Association between language(s) Traditional patterns of Smi as Gaelic traditionally seen as mobilityand economic success/mobility mobility-hostile largely overcome hostile, slowly changing Economic health of the region Traditional Smi areas among Traditional Gaelic areas with poorest regions in the country economic problems Socio-economic status of Slightly below average, varying Slightly below average, varying speakers Degree and type of language Much intergenerational Intergenerational transmission not transmission transmission; lost generation always functioning traditional pattern has been overcome stigmatisation slowly overcome Nature of previous/current Strong improvement of previous Limited to certain points, holistic maintenance/revival efforts ignorance approach only starting Linguistic capabilities of Varying, generally high Generally high, different degrees of speakers learners Degree of language High after a long standardisation High standardisation process Nature of in- and out-migration Some migration to cities, but Tendency of migration from relatively stable heartland to cities Language attitudes of speakers Positive, after long tradition of low High level of awareness; still prestige increasing Aspects of the language-identity Strong after Smi consciousness Very ambiguous, ranging from relationship raising, also non-Smi speakers complete minority identity to hardly may be Smi any specific identity due to language differences Attitudes of majority group Increasingly positive More and more accepted as part of towards minority general Scottish heritage Numbers and concentrations of Core areas vs. periphery vs. Diminishing, high concentration in speakers diaspora; numbers quite stable some areas Extent of the language (see also Core area vs. periphery vs. In all parts of Scotland, core area vs. geography) diaspora periphery Rural-urban nature of setting Traditionally rural Traditionally rural, today almost 50:50 Individual speakers' literacy Varying, needs to be strengthened Generally high Production of texts in minority Low, state-supported Long tradition of literary texts; low language media presence Rate of literacy in state by High High

minority and majority Participation of speakers in technolog. developments Adaptation of language to technological standards Technological development of area Religion of speakers
302
Technological Development
High, as mainstream society More slowly than Norwegian High, as mainstream
High, as mainstream society More slowly than English High, as mainstream Varied In traditional areas high among some Gaelic speakers In traditional areas high, elsewhere low Traditional settlers of area Originally government language of Scotland, suppressed and in decline for centuries Long Lowland-Highland division Unique, non-cohesive, interrelated, non-minority within minority
Religion
History
Mostly distinct group within State Church Type and strength of association Varying between language and religion Importance of religion in the Diminishing area History and background of the Traditional settlers, driven back by group majority population History of the language Long suppression History of the area in which group now lives Geographic outline according to White and extensions Occupation and assimilation Non-unique, adjoining , noninterrelated, non minority with minority, (non)- cohesive, depending on perspective
Geography
Table 83: Smi and Gaelic according to the Categories of the Extended Edwards List Today
19 Conclusion: Parliaments and Minority Language Policy
303
19 Conclusion: Parliaments, Political Processes, and Minority Languages

19.1 Summary: The Sameting and its Impact on Smi
Having summarised changes in the status of Smi and Gaelic after the establishment of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament, I will now return to discussing the impact of these devolved parliament bodies on minority languages. It was one of the major outcomes of the analysis of Smi policy that the Sameting, predominantly through its Language Department, works consistently on creating awareness of language rights, encouraging the use of Smi in meetings, offering language courses for persons working in public bodies, administering project expenses, supporting language centres, issuing suggestions on geographical names, offering translation services, and initiating revitalisation projects in peripheral areas. The listing of these topics illustrates the Sameting's administrative function regarding to language. For these tasks, the Sameting receives a budget from the government with which it carries out the Norwegian state's duties towards the Smi language. The advantage of this system for the Smi speech community, which goes hand in hand with an increase in power, lies in the fact that the decision-making process largely remains in Smi hands. Besides this administrative function, it has become apparent that the Sameting also has a political side. The parliamentary character of the Sameting becomes evident in the way proceedings work. The plenum debates, amends and approves political demands and thus contributes openly to shaping Smi language policy. The Sameting's language work has clearly changed during the period since its establishment. At first, the fundamental position of the language in Norway had to be negotiated, a process which culminated in the Language Act. Today, language policy is characterised by much more practical work and corpus planning issues. It is today also at a stage of evaluation and of control of implementation of language rights. In terms of the status of the language in domains such as the media, the Sameting has also contributed to some achievements, even though the position is still weak. The Sameting as a whole has a lot of influence in these issues, and the democratic component of Smi decisionmaking has been strengthened. The system functions well, and the Sameting has constantly been able to acquire more power, above all through opportunities to decide over project funding. Through these new means of empowerment, social processes now taken place which give the Smi a stage for their issues. New possibilities of influence have been created, for which the examples chosen in the chapters on Smi policy have shown how activists, lobby organisations as well as individuals have been seizing these chances of a more direct influence through their participation through different channels of influence in the political system of Norway.
304
On the other hand, many items remain which have to be negotiated with the government. If government departments were to cut spending, there would be little the Sameting could do, despite legal guarantees (even though the position of Smi in the Grunnlov would make it difficult to abandon these rights completely). Therefore, this type of empowerment also has clear limits and thereby some risks of how Smi voices can be heard if the political climate changed. The legal position of the language is good, and concrete language questions deal rather with priorities and strategies. The policy approach by the Sameting is quite coherent, and the goal "to manage in Smi" has been achieved at least in most parts of the heartland. International cooperation in Smi language planning has become more important and quite institutionalised. Despite these efforts, however, the demographic basis of the Smi language is still weak. This applies both to the core area, with status problems remaining in many domains, and to the periphery, where RLS is still at the beginning. The budget for language issues could be extended, and there are areas in which the government did not follow the wishes of the Sameting. However, most fundamental language issues have been solved and a coherent language policy has been implemented, so that the controversial Smi issues of today are issues other than language. The Sameting has thus been able to develop a coherent language policy, with activities and positive results in many issues. It is certainly a model as a democratic institution, although many policy initiatives still depend on the Norwegian government. The development of the Smi Language Act took place with the participation of the Sameting, but it did not depend on it. The Sameting has reinforced Smi language legislation, but the Norwegian state still provides the Smi budget for a language policy executed by the Sameting. A difficult question to evaluate now is the degree to which this language policy has been enabled by the Sametings existence, or the degree to which similar initiatives would have been taken without the Sameting. The general minority-friendly political climate in Norway has contributed strongly to resolving Smi issues, without which efforts by the Sameting would not have led very far. One aspect in this is the representative character of the Sameting as a democratically elected body, which has made pressure much more powerful and legitimised. The Sameting has constantly brought up language issues and worked for them, and it has done so through regular contacts with state authorities, including occasional struggles against the original plans of the Norwegian government. Here, an influence of the Sameting can be detected which would have been difficult to achieve without such a separate body. It is interesting to speculate how the situation of Smi would have changed without the Sameting, i.e. only through the traditional policy channels in a changed political climate. Although
305
this is, of course, highly speculative, it is not wrong to believe that policy would also have changed under different conditions. Yet, this would not have happened in such a democratic way, in cooperation with an elected Smi authority. Further, Smi issues would probably not have been on the agenda as consistently. Even if the political climate should change, the Sameting as a statutory body is much more difficult to abolish than language policy carried out by regular government officials would be. To a substantial degree, however, the Sameting's success also depends on the overall positive attitude of the Norwegian state. Legal guarantees are one thing, but how the political institutions in the centre react, is another. At the same time, Smi language initiatives may ultimately be supported by politics, but they also depend very much on local will. The Sameting's establishment and initiatives have certainly played a role in strengthening the morale of language activists, so that it is possible to speak of a reciprocal reinforcement of political activities and language use. The Sameting would not exist without the generally favourable political climate, and there would not have been an increase in language initiatives, but the Sameting has certainly also reinforced and strengthened language awareness. The impact of the Sameting on Smi language policy may thus be summarised as follows. A consistent language policy has been established and maintained since the beginning of the Sametings operation. The establishment of the Sameting has contributed strongly to selfawareness, political organisation and thus determination and sustainability in putting forward the cause of the Smi language. Language planning can now be directed more efficiently, more coherently, and is centrally organised. Initiatives to support the Smi language are regular, aim at various aspects of language policy, and take place at different levels of the Sameting. They are targeted at numerous aspects of language policy, from highly political to mainly administrative, from core status questions to down-to-earth corpus planning. The Sameting is consistently striving for an extension of influence. The fact that the Sameting (and its Language Department) negotiates hard with the central government on financing more Smi language projects shows that pressure may be exerted and often proves to be successful. The Sameting perceives financial support for many areas as too low. Yet, in international terms, Smi language policy has certainly to be seen as extremely progressive. As a democratic institution, it is also the symbolism of the official recognition and the impact on identity which matters, rather than real political power. The identity of the Smi as a distinct ethnic group has therefore been strengthened. This in turn, however, also means that the role of the Smi within the entire Norwegian society identity remains at a low level.
306
The regularity of dealing with language shows that it is still a central issue. The overwhelming notion is that the Smi have finally gained responsibility for their language. In areas where the Sameting administers a budget for funding language planning projects, the Smi through the Sameting have received a body responding directly to the Smi population's needs. In those cases where the Sameting can only suggest policy and legislation to the government, the Sameting as an institutionalised body is much more likely to succeed than a less coordinated approach of lobbying would be. Smi efforts regarding language planning have thus been centralised and are in Smi hands to a much higher degree then they used to be before the Sameting's establishment. Finally, the Sameting also shaped the ground for Smi politicians to regain the initiative in the debate as demonstrated by examples of how the Sameting's President raises Smi issues. This had been the case until the affair around the Alta River damming, but not in the 1980s when the Norwegian state dominated the discussion. Despite some rights and budgetary guarantees, however, Smi language policy still depends on the financial and legal goodwill of the Norwegian authorities, and on the cooperation of the state, county and municipality authorities involved.
19.2 Summary: The Scottish Parliament and its Impact on Gaelic

In Scotland, the new structure of political institutions has similarly generated a considerable number of initiatives to improve the situation of Gaelic. Since devolution, far more parliamentary and government attention has been given to Gaelic issues than used to be the case. A number of improvements have been achieved, despite the fact that the degree of support for Gaelic is still unsatisfactory. With regard to the legal status of the language, the Scottish government after one term of waiting has demonstrated its willingness to improve the situation. These developments demonstrate that Scotland as a nation has become a lot more aware of its Gaelic heritage. The positive attitude to Gaelic of all groups within Parliament, and the fact that the new administration has devoted attention to Gaelic shows that the language is considered as one part of Scotlands multi-layered identity. On the one hand, it is therefore possible to draw a mostly positive conclusion: While the situation of Gaelic before devolution had already improved over the past decades, it has now become even stronger. There has been widespread support for Gaelic by the Members of the Scottish Parliament. The symbolic presence of Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament, e.g. in bilingual signage, the response to Gaelic communication, or the use of the language in debates and committee meetings, is important as a sign for Gaelic recognition in politics.
307
It can thus be concluded that, on the one hand, Gaelic issues are a constant part of the agenda of public bodies through the impact of the Scottish Parliament, albeit to varying degrees. The existence of the Scottish Parliament as a distinct Scottish institution has led to an increased amount of awareness of Gaelic. It has been fundamental especially for the Gaelic population's feeling of representation at the top level of politics. As a result, policy initiatives as well as the attention that the work of Gaelic activists or petitions to the Scottish Parliament on Gaelic have received have increased tremendously. Also in Scotland, the minority speech community of the Gaelic speakers have thereby gained a much higher degree of empowerment than previously. The new social processes which have been created have been used to influence matters of language rights and opportunities to use Gaelic according to the speech communities wishes. In particular the detailed account of the parliamentary proceedings have shown that the views of Gaelic organisations and individuals are being heard. In a similar way, the Scottish Executive has established a policy that supports Gaelic to a degree formerly unknown in the UK. The Scottish government's attention towards Gaelic and the steps taken have improved the situation of Gaelic in almost all domains, even if in many cases there has only been an expansion of previous policies. It is very doubtful that the responsible political authorities would have given so much attention to Gaelic issues without devolution. The symbolic presence of the language supports awareness of the Gaelic heritage in Scotland. In the Scottish Parliament itself, the presence of Gaelic enables Gaelic speakers to feel represented at the highest level of politics in democracy. In addition, the establishment of Brd na Gidhlig points towards a coherent policy. In the development of Gaelic policy in recent years, however, a hopeful beginning was followed by an ambiguous continuation. These setbacks in Gaelic policy development caused high levels of frustration among Gaelic scholars and the perception that valuable time was being lost. The debate on Gaelic in the Education Act, resulting in no right to Gaelic-medium education, was highly unsatisfactory. The Gaelic Broadcasting Report did not generate substantial commitment, and the reports on Gaelic commissioned by the Executive which could have served as a kick-off had little follow-up. The rejected Russell Bill was an opportunity for swifter action, but it needed until after the 2003 Elections promise before a Gaelic Bill was discussed seriously. As outlined, its first version was perceived as far too weak, and also the improved version as finally approved remains open to a lot of criticism, in particular concerning the lack of any rightsbased approach.
308
Despite general welcoming that the Gaelic Act provides a certain degree of official recognition, it has met with considerable criticism and disappointment by activists. Chances for rapid action were missed academic reports cannot replace specific policy measures. It is felt that much of the policy of the new administration is only lip service. Many parts of Gaelic policy would need obligation instead of recommendation, and policies should be much more binding for authorities. There has certainly been some commitment to Gaelic by the Executive, but the willingness to give legal guarantees has been limited. The service-oriented rather than rights-based approach is no true paradigm shift. Despite some positive changes, views among activists still range only from pessimistic to very sceptically optimistic. The position of Gaelic is still far from safe and its decline is unlikely to be stopped by the measures introduced. On the whole, therefore, there is also a down-side to these developments and by no means have all demands been fulfilled. They do not guarantee that the decline of Gaelic has been stopped, and the practical danger of long-term death of the language remains. Gaelic activists have moved an important step forward, but they have not won their battle in the fight for Gaelic survival. It remains to be seen in the years to come what the impact the new policy will have.
19.3 Identity Issues

Before concluding the evaluation of the potential of parliaments to improve minority language status, I will return to the discussion of parliaments, language policy and implication on the identity of minority-language speakers and on majority identity. The achievement of the present state in Norway and Scotland can be considered to be an important step forward in the position of Smi in Norwegian and Gaelic in Scottish political institutions, from both representative and functional perspectives of parliaments. With regard to the identity of the respective groups, the establishment of these two very different decentralised parliaments has led to extremely different results. In Scotland, where the ethnic component is far more complex than in the Smi case, some Gaelic speakers may have a distinct ethnic identity, but by no means do all, and Gaelic identity overlaps with Highland identity, which non-Gaelic speaking inhabitants of the Scottish Highlands may also have. Given the amount of attention Gaelic receives from the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive, it can be concluded that Gaelic does play a role in Scottish identity. Gaelic seems to be widely accepted as part of Scottish identity, even among many Scots who do not speak it, as shown by the positive attitude towards Gaelic among the Members of the Scottish Parliament. The inclusion of Gaelic at the highest level of political representation shows that decision-makers have accepted a Gaelic component in Scottish identity. Brd na Gidhlig and the
309
Language Act are encouraging steps for general acceptance as part of Scottishness, despite controversial opinions as to their shape. Gaelic is one core aspect which distinguishes Scotland from the rest of Britain and Gaelic seems to be accepted as belonging to Scottish identity in many groups beyond the core Gaelic community. The Scots' idea that Gaelic somehow belongs to them in one way or another helps to ensure that the required steps are taken to give Gaelic another chance. The higher level of participation of the Gaelic community has contributed to an important step forward in the position of Gaelic and its speakers in Scotland. For Gaelic speakers this means that they may feel included to a much higher degree in mainstream politics and institutions. Even if some indifference and opposition remain which reinforce the HighlandLowland division concerning Gaelics role for all of Scotland, it can be hoped that Gaelic is still close enough to many people to shape the ground for increased revitalisation efforts. In Norway, Smi collective identity as a distinct group in its own rights in the Norwegian state has been stabilised but the question remains as to what this means for the position of the group in the state, its acceptance by the majority population, and a Smi component as part of Norwegian society. As a clear difference to Scotland, there is no absorption of Smi identity into overall Norwegian identity. The fact that the Smi population has the Sameting as its own parliamentary body rather stresses the different traditions between the Smi and the Norwegian population. There is no creation of a common identity of Smi presence in Norway and a bridge between Smi and non-Smi identity. The ethnic component prevails, and the Sameting reinforces this difference. When looking at the core geographic areas, however, the situation is different: Many people here see the Smi element as distinctive for their region and thus support the presence of the Smi language in their local and regional administrative bodies. In this, the situation is comparable to the Scottish Highlands and Islands. Despite the acceptance of a Smi element in the regional identity, however, it is still important that this does not mean that Norwegians would adapt a Smi element to their own personal identity. Even in the core Smi areas, those who see Smi as part of regional identity would not see themselves as partly Smi themselves, even if they at individual instances choose to learn the language. Outside the traditional Smi areas, there are hardly any people who see Smi as important for Norway as a whole, whereas some Scots in all of Scotland see Gaelic as important. Both Gaelic-speaking as well as non-Gaelic-speaking Scots are more likely to feel different identities, e.g. Gaelic, Scottish, Highland, regional/local, to varying degrees and with varying ranking. As a whole, ethnic belonging is thus much more difficult in Scotland than in Norway. However, also in Norway the degree to which Smi are empowered through the way how their issues are taken up and have gained room in the
310
negotiation processes institutionalised in the political system have contributed to a higher degree of inclusion of Smi identity in Norwegian society as a whole. Table 84 summarises the reciprocal relationship of the two parliaments for Smi and Gaelic speakers:
Identity Impact of Language on Society as a whole through Parliamentary Representation Identity Impact of Parliamentary Representation on Language Group Scottish Parliament Society recognises Gaelic as integral part of a distinct Scottish identity Non-Gaelic speakers feel inclusive towards Gaelic Gaelic speakers may feel wellrepresented in top-level political institutions and included in society Sameting Society recognises presence of Smi as an own, distinct group in their society However, non-Smi exclude Smi from their identity Gap between Smi and non-Smi remains wide Smi may develop their identity as an ethnic group in their own right within the Norwegian state, but distinct from ethnic Norwegians
Table 84: The Reciprocal Impact of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament on Identity
19.4 Parliaments and Minority Language Policy

Having summarised recent Gaelic and Smi policy, the influence of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament on the two languages and on identity issues, I have arrived at the substantial conclusion of this volume: What can be deduced from the two case studies for the role that parliaments can play for minority language policy, their legal position and their status in society? How have the two parliamentary models involved influenced these factors to different degrees?
19.4.1 The Sameting and the Scottish Parliament and their Functions By presenting two quite different examples of parliaments, I have illustrated the spectrum of roles that such an institution can play. Political influence and decision-making works considerably different in the cases of the Scottish Parliament and the Sameting. Yet, it is important to note that both systems have indeed been able to promote language issues. Table 85 juxtaposes the characteristics of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament in their relation to Smi and Gaelic speakers according to the theoretical ideas on parliaments. There are a number of factors which are similar in both institutions, but there are also a number of important differences. The main difference is, of course, the nature of the Sameting as a parliament for the Smi only as opposed to the Scottish Parliament as a parliament for entire Scottish population. Just as important is the fact that the Scottish Parliament has real legislative power. In terms of representation of the language group, on the other hand, the Sameting has clear advantages to the Scottish Parliament, where representation of Gaelic speakers is not guaranteed and depends on election results. Responsiveness to the population's wishes is possible in both cases, but in the Scottish Parliament, debates and policy-making on Gaelic again depend
311
on its Members. On the other hand, if the Scottish Parliament is responsive to demands on Gaelic, it has full powers, whereas the Sameting has only restricted power on expenditure, and very indirect influence on legislation, let alone the impact on government formation. In terms of the relation between language and parliaments, the use of the minority language carries a strong symbolic value in both the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament, which enables identification by speakers through language use in parliament bodies. With regard to the importance of parliaments for minority languages through institutionalisation and legitimisation in such a high public body, institutionalisation is given in both cases, even if Smi is much more present in the Sameting than Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament. Legitimisation is restricted to the potential for impact on society. Overall, it can thus be stated that both parliaments fulfil many of the functions assigned to parliaments, but in most cases to very different degrees and in very different ways. These degrees depend on different guarantees and have clearly different impacts and potential to influence society beyond the parliament and the linguistic community. However, both speech communities have clearly gained a higher level of empowerment than before the two parliamentary institutions existed.
Issues Influence by participation vs. by representation Representation: Speaking on behalf, Pattern of population Responsiveness: Policy/legislation, service, allocation/expenditure, symbolic, deliberation/debate, governments The Situation for Smi Representation; this leads to participation Speaking on behalf of Smi, pattern of population largely given Symbolic and debating responsiveness, service, expenditure under restrictions, policy, legislation only indirectly, no influence on government Non-law-making Non-sovereign Individual choice guaranteed; formal language policy; high symbolic value; few restrictions by practical considerations Identification with the Sameting as Smi state body absolutely given; no impact on Storting Symbolic part provided; policy potential under restrictions; high responsiveness with restrictions on implementation; participation in decision-making, legislation and distribution under restrictions of general system The Situation for Gaelic No guaranteed representation, mostly participation No guaranteed representation according to language criterion; the Scottish Parliament speaks on behalf of Gaelic speakers only as of any other Scots Responsiveness to Gaelic issues as to other areas: strong service and symbolism, part of policy, legislation, expenditure, debate, little influence on government Law-making Sovereignty clearly restricted Possibility to choose Gaelic, formal right to it, strong symbolic presence, frequent limits by practical considerations Gaelic use in the Scottish Parliament carries high symbolic value for Gaelic speakers; Both symbolic value and policy potential given, although Gaelic only plays a marginal role in Scottish politics
Law-making vs. Non-law-making Sovereign vs. Non-sovereign 4 Relations of Language and Parliaments: Individual choice, Formal rights, Symbolism, Practical considerations High symbolic value of parliaments for minority identification with a state as an identity point Summarising: two major components of parliaments for linguistic minorities: Symbolic part of public bodies vs. Policy and planning potential: responsiveness to wishes; participation in decision-making, legislation and distribution of means

Normalised language use as aim Legitimising/institutionalising functions of parliaments In the Sameting as aim, the way to fulfilment sometimes difficult Both legitimisation and institutionalisation highly given Unrestricted presence of Smi Multilingual Sameting, including its leadership; little influence on other bodies in Norway National body Assembly for Smi minority only Only very limited awareness by state of Smi
312
Normalisation only as a distant aim The Scottish Parliament legitimises Gaelic use on high-level domains and provides an institution where it can be developed General right to Gaelic with announcement restrictions The Scottish Parliament is Englishdominated; however, Gaelic has a presence unknown previously in the context of public bodies National body General assembly with Gaelic presence, but without guarantees Gaelic with increasing importance for Scotland
Minority languages to permit in parliaments Mono- vs. multilingual governments of mono- and multilingual states Usage patterns of officially multilingual bodies Supra-state/national/regional/local Minority assemblies vs. general assemblies with minority participation Shape of state influences minority, as well as minority presence influences state identity
Table 85: The Sameting and the Scottish Parliament in the Frame of Ideas of Parliament Functions and Relations between Parliaments and Language
19.4.2 Smi and Gaelic Language Policy in Light of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament When returning to parliaments' impact on language policy, it was outlined that many of the developments in language policy in Scotland and Norway throughout history, including the second half of the 20th century, indeed displayed some parallels, in particular with regard to the long process of raising awareness and the slow establishment of first initiatives and institutions. Up to the early 1980s, policies in both countries had created some basic provision of the languages in, for instance, the media, traditional culture, and education, with a decisive lack of activity in other areas such as the economy, let alone legal status. In the careful move towards the use of Gaelic and Smi in official settings, developments were also not far apart, despite the fact that this development in Scotland was based on the official frame given by CNES, whereas it depended for Smi much more on individual decisions. In the 1980s, however, the developments changed. Whereas the Norwegian state accepted its duty and recognised the Smi as a distinct people with their own needs and rights, in Scotland developments continued to be slow. The assimilationist and colonialist effects on the Smi population had been even more drastic in previous eras than in Scotland on Gaelic speakers. Now, the net of institutions and legal provisions culminated in the Sameting and the Smi Language Act with guaranteed rights for the Smi as a people. It also enabled Smi representatives to develop their own language policy, which can be generally described as holistic and coherent. Today, not surprisingly, minority language issues still do not play a substantial role in the entire state society, but the establishment
313
of parliamentary institutions helped create a new role of minority language speakers in a state. At first, a fundamental clarification of minorities in society was needed, before specific policy steps closer to the wishes of the population could be undertaken. These developments were much slower in Scotland than in Spmi, but point into a similar direction. Many developments were also similar after the constitutional changes. The raising of awareness continued through the enhanced possibilities of the new structure. Legal proceedings culminated in Language Acts for both languages. Through increased discussions on minority languages, both languages profited from awareness and positive approaches by politicians and majority society as a whole. In Spmi, these changes were the beginning of a new era of minority language policy-making, from which, once the fundament was shaped, more specific projects could be targeted. The amount of time given for reforms to show an impact is an important factor in this. It is reasonable to argue that the time until the mid-1990s was too short for a real strengthening of the Smi language and that it was not before the early 2000s that considerable changes could be expected. A hospitable linguistic environment, successful intergenerational transmission and a vibrant linguistic community with sufficient language awareness to demand its use in any domains also among young Smi, at least in the heartlands, needed years to be re-established. In Scotland, after six years, the process is still today more at the beginning: the fundament has also been provided here (albeit to a less satisfactory degree than in Spmi), and it now remains to be seen whether a holistic Gaelic policy which takes language maintenance seriously follows. The state of affairs in many respects, with a Language Act a few years after political decentralisation, creates optimism for further status improvement. In both Scotland and Norway, majority society today largely supports that minority languages in principle should be supported and protected. However, there are fundamental differences concerning views on how far specific rights shall go, and which legal obligations should be imposed upon public bodies, education authorities etc. Areas where Gaelic lags behind Smi are legislation, the use in public bodies, not to mention issues of self-determination. Overall, status has improved for both languages, but for both cases, every-day practices also often still depend on political goodwill. Regular arguments in the debate are costs, legal restrictions, or respect for a majority that would not accept it if a certain limit was exceeded. The dividing line often runs between rather weak general support and a strong dedication to a paradigm shift of linguistic rights. In all this, much depends on individuals such as Michael Russell with his constant efforts to put Gaelic on the agenda in the first term of the Scottish Parliament.
314
In Norway, this paradigm shift has largely taken place through the consequent application of the rights-based approach. It is possible to deduce that a dedicated policy is able to improve the status of a minority language considerably, with the help of the Sameting as a major player to keep Smi issues on the agenda. The issues dealt with in Spmi today are still concerned with the fundamental aim of language maintenance, but within a decade, issues have changed from basic rights to much more specific planning issues. The task is now to create a framework for longlasting survival. This change was only possible because of a generally improved attitude in most parts of Norwegian politics and society. Yet, the struggle with respect to the relation with the state also continues for the Smi. It is remarkable how regular the demand to transfer more competence to the Sameting reappears. This has to be seen in the light of Smi self-determination, in particular concerning the right to land and water. Where language issues appear, however, they usually come up in the form of demands for more funding rather than as fundamental constitutional issues. The Scottish Executive, in contrast, has by now initiated a process of Gaelic policy development, but the language-planning approach does not go as far as was hoped by activists. The paradigm shift did not take place, and Gaelic language planners still have to deal with numerous public bodies and continue to fight the same battles for more support repeatedly. Yet, it was only after devolution that room for more responsiveness to Gaelic language issues was created through the Scottish Parliament. However, even if some parts of true holistic planning have come into being, political will by the majority of political groups for a paradigm shift as drastic as in the Smi case was not given. Yet, a relatively coherent policy has been started by the Gaelic Act and the establishment of Brd na Gidhlig under participation of Gaelic organisations, even if a lot more could have been achieved. On the whole, it may be concluded that there has been a strong, though fundamentally different, impact on the identity relationship of the minority group with the state and the majority. Both parliaments have focussed on language policy at some points, and in both cases the existence of the parliaments seems to have made a difference. However, despite the fact that Smi and Gaelic both have a certain degree of parliamentary representation, there are also major differences: The Sameting as a political body for the Smi population only can be more responsive to Smi language needs than the Scottish Parliament which represents all people in Scotland, of which Gaelic speakers are only a small minority. Smi language development is to a higher degree in Smi hands in a democratic way. Yet, for both language groups language promotion mainly depends upon the political goodwill of the majority. It has been a difficult task
315
for both groups to gain this goodwill, to use it when it is present, but not to lose it by exaggerated demanding. For the Sameting this means that despite formal authority, it is still the negotiations with the Norwegian government bodies that most issues depend on. In Scotland, the discussion has now entered the main political body of the country. The influence on political affairs is thus a lot closer to the centre of power but the status of Gaelic policy is less formalised and therefore even more insecure. The final table summarises the relationship between Smi and Gaelic and the two parliaments, and their impact on minority language status and maintenance prospects:
Parliament Role Identity impact for the state Attitude of Majority Population Power Representation Presence of Language Issues in Parliament Language Use in Parliament Language Policy Initiatives Decision-Making Proceedings Gaelic Relatively important Inclusive, positive Close to power, but dependent on good-will At central level, but weak Marginal Seldom, rather symbolic Various at different levels, basic Within core of decisions Increasing acceptance and rights Smi Widely separated Exclusive, indifferent Far from power, but with a clear legal framework At marginal level, but strong Central Permanent Various at different levels, advanced At the margin No guarantee of legal process after decision Clearly defined rights
Language Position in State
Table 86: The Role of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament for Smi and Gaelic
19.4.3 A Gaelic Autonomous Parliament? Could one conclusion to be drawn from the Smi paradigm shift that it is desirable for a group to take their fate into their own hands? Is the situation in Spmi a possible model for Gaelic and other languages and would it make sense to suggest a similar institution in the Scottish context? In some aspects, the situation in Norwegian Spmi may seem to serve as an ideal image for hopes for Gaelic, even if a lot remains to be done in the case of Smi, in particular outside the core areas and with respect to the Smi languages other than North Smi, and it must not be forgotten that for North Smi, also, achievements can easily be lost if a future generation should decide not to value Smi issues anymore. Yet, imagining a democratically elected political body with budget competence, which could constantly raise issues and exert pressure on Scottish public bodies, is tempting. On the one hand, there are some reasons why Gaelic autonomy could work. The debate on a distinct Gaelic ethnicity points to an element of a separate identity of Gaelic speakers. In terms of demography, speaker distribution, etc., there are also considerable similarities to the Smi. There is wide dedication for Gaelic among politicians of the Highlands and Islands, but a
316
certain lack of support from some Lowland politicians and parts of the general public which reinforces the Highland-Lowland division. However, there are major obstacles to the adoption of an autonomous political body. Many Gaelic speakers stress the importance of Gaelic within Scottish identity, not apart from it. In this, it differs substantially from the position of Smi in Norway. The establishment of an independent Gaelic parliamentary body could oppose efforts towards more recognition of the Gaelic community in Scotland and the general publics opinion to support Gaelic. Many activists also support the idea of making people in the whole country understand the importance of Gaelic. Even if an ethnic component based on traditional culture, crofting, kinship relations, and ingroup notions supports a separate Gaelic ethnicity along the essentialist line, opposite views in the Gaelic community are just as important. In self-perception, divisions within the Gaelicspeaking community run between essentialists and modernisers, native speakers and learners, native speakers who are bearers of Gaelic culture and bearers of the culture who have lost the language, and language purists and persons who are open to language change. The major obstacle is thus the unclear picture of Gaelic identity which can be summarised by the question: Who are the Gaels? Gaelic speakers are far too heterogeneous for an autonomous parliamentary body. In comparison to the Smi, there are too many different views relating to who exactly belongs to the Gaelic community. This would immediately result in practical problems, such as who would be allowed to participate in Gaelic autonomy. If there is not even consensus among Gaelic speakers, such a project would surely be destined to fail. Gaelic today benefits greatly from the attitude among many Scots that it is an important part of Scottish identity. Even if parts of Scottish society are still not encouraging Gaelic, attitudinal changes, for example as a result of efforts by the Scottish Parliament, should be used as a driving force for Gaelic support. Many non-Gaelic-speaking Scots also see Gaelic as important for themselves. A Gaelic autonomous body would contradict activists aims to establish the languages recognition in all parts of Scotland. The groups of Scottish society who are interested in Gaelic but do not belong to the traditional Gaelic community would be excluded in Gaelic policy processes. This would probably lead to a decrease in the acceptance of Gaelic in Scotland as a whole. Therefore, the approach chosen with the establishment of Brd na Gidhlig and a network of support for the language within the Scottish system seems to make more sense.
19 Conclusion: Parliaments and Minority Language Policy 19.4.4 What Can Parliaments Do for a Minority Language?
317
What can parliaments thus do for a minority language? In both our cases, the decentralisation of parliamentary power has resulted in an increase in language policy initiatives. Activists agree that the existence of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament makes a difference. Their establishment has directly resulted in a legal position of the languages. Yet, in Scotland classical lobbying is still very decisive for Gaelic to become part of the agenda. Political measures usually do not go as far as desired by many activists. Where a policy receives parliamentary support, however, far more of the political process has been mastered, implementation is controlled by the highest political bodies and is thus much more likely to succeed. In the Sameting, on the other hand, there is much more devotion to language issues than in the Scottish Parliament. But after a decision is taken by the Sameting, implementation, at least of far-reaching issues, still depends on negotiation with the Norwegian government. Both parliaments therefore have the potential of empowering the minority language speech communities and are indeed using it. The way of how this is done are manifold, but the years since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Sameting have proved that it is possible for minority language speakers to be heard to a much higher degree than previously, and that institutions are reacting by developing new plans, or changing existing ones. Both symbolism and representation on the one hand, and decision-making, legislating and the impact on expenditure on the other have thus been seized to improve the participation of Gaelic and Smi speakers. Legitimisation and institutionalisation are also fulfilled, albeit to different degrees. The Scottish Parliament and the Sameting have both contributed to multilingual awareness on the difficult path to normalisation. The Scottish Parliament provides the opportunity of representing multilingual rights and showing awareness for these within the existing framework. The Sameting, on the other hand, allows for a limited degree of selfgovernment. Gaelic and Smi can thus be used in at least some political bodies. Policy initiatives are now taken on behalf of Gaelic/Smi speakers in a more representative parliamentary way. In terms of the two parliamentary types involved, both models may have an impact on linguistic chances. Of course, it should be kept in mind that each individual case is different, and especially the impact of a parliamentary body on the identity of the language speakers and the role of the language for the state have to be taken into account. In general, however, it seems legitimate to draw a positive conclusion on the role of the parliaments for Smi and Gaelic. Yet, they were only one important component within a generally changing attitude in the countries. What is really needed for language maintenance is a paradigm shift. This has occurred in Spmi, whereas the struggle in Scotland continues. A parliament and the type of parliament offer opportunities
318
for such a change, but there are various options to achieve it. There is thus no clear conclusion as regards the question of which country the parliament is able to achieve more in. For Gaelic, however, it was argued that a solution similar to the one for Smi is not desirable. It can be concluded that it is reasonable to speak of a true potential of parliaments for minority language maintenance and Reversing Language Shift with decentralised bodies being of particular value. The answer, from the evidence presented, to the question of whether parliaments may contribute to the maintenance of minority language is a very careful Yes within clear limits. Language policy as initiated by these parliaments is a special case of responsiveness to the population's demands. Both the representative function of parliaments and the creation of awareness have substantially increased. In relation to the opportunity to carry out language planning, decentralisation of parliaments has brought minority language interests closer to decision-making. Parliament bodies may thus indeed ensure participation of linguistic minorities in mainstream decision-making, with increased prospects of a real language choice, and thereby empower minority communities through the channels of influence which they offer. And yet, their impact is clearly limited. Decisions ultimately still depend on the majority population, and positive changes to date have been restricted, either to certain domains of language use (Gaelic), or geographically (Smi). In both cases, the degree of status and rights for the minority languages was subject to the political will of the majority. Implementation and interpretation despite some structural improvements and legal guarantees still depend on negotiation with political bodies dominated by societal mainstream. Ultimate power is still with mainstream society. The two parliaments have created more control mechanisms and structural chances to empower minorities. But if the majority wishes to ignore these demands, it is still at liberty to. The example of the limited strength of the Gaelic Act shows that much more could be achieved. The establishment of the Sameting and the Scottish Parliament has thus surely helped the Smi and Gaelic languages in their struggle for survival. Yet, it is only one of many steps which remain necessary to reach long-term prosperity.
319
References
AGER, Dennis (1996): Language Policy in Britain and France. The Processes of Policy, London/New York: Cassell. AIKIO, Marjut (1990a): Samernas etniska dilemma, in: Erling WANDE (ed.): Att forska om sprkliga minoriteter (Stockholm studies in Finnish language and literature 7), Stockholm: Finska institutionen, Stockholms Universitet, 17-25. AIKIO, Marjut (1990b): Some Issuses (sic!) in the Study of Language Shift in the Northern Calotte, in: Troms Linguistics in the Eighties (Troms Studies in Linguistics 11), Oslo: Novus Press, 9-31. AIKIO, Marjut (1990c): The Finnish Perspective: Language and Ethnicity, in: Dirmid R. F. COLLIS (ed.): Arctic Languages. An Awakening, Paris: Unesco, 367-400. AIKIO, Samuli (1997): Samisk sprkharmonisering mer gemensam offentlighet, mindre byrkrati, in: Sprk i Norden 3/1997, 93-97. ALBA.ORG.UK (1999): The 1999 Scottish General Election, at http://www.alba.org.uk/scot99results.html. ALLADINA, Safder/Viv EDWARDS (eds.) (1991): Multilingualism in the British Isles 1. The Older Mother Tongues and Europe, London/New York: Longman. ALLAN, Alasdair J. (2000): Language and Politics: A Perspective from Scotland, in: John M. KIRK/Dnall P. BAOILL (eds.): Language and Politics. Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 1), Belfast: Queen's University, 127-132. AMFT, Andrea (2000): Spmi i frndringens tid. En studie av svenska samers levnadsvillkor under 1900-talet ur ett genus- och etnicitetsperspektiv (Kulturens frontlinjer. Skrifter frn forskningsprogrammet Kulturgrns Norr 20), Ume: Samiska studier, Ume universitet. AN COMUNN GAIDHEALACH (2003): Submission to Executive Bill debate, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk//business/committees/education/inquiries/gaelic%20lang uage/B_An%20Commun%20Gaidhealach.pdf. ANDERSON, Alan B. (1990): Comparative Analysis of Language Minorities: A Sociopolitical Framework, in: Durk GORTER et al. (eds.): Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages: General Papers (Multilingual Matters 70), Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 119-136. ARBEIDSGRUPPE VED SEKSJON FOR SOSIALANTROPOLOGISKE STUDIER, UNIVERSITET I TROMS (1993): Forvaltningen av samiske interesser i 1990-rene. Utredning fra en arbeidsgruppe ved Seksjon for sosialantropologi/samiske studier, Troms: Universitetet i Troms, Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap. ARNESEN, Arne G. (1986): Samene og norsk rett, in: Reidar ERKE/Asle HGMO (eds.): Identitet og livsutfoldelse. En artikkelsamling om flerfolkelige samfunn med vekt p samenes situasjon, Troms et al.: Universitetsforlaget, 100-108. AROS (2005): Web Site, http://www.aros.co.uk. AUBURGER, Leopold (1990): Linguistic Minority Relations, in: Ulrich AMMON/Klaus J. MATTHEIER/Peter H. NELDE (eds.): Minorities and Language Contact (Sociolinguistica. International Yearbook of European Sociolinguistics 4), Tbingen: Niemeyer, 169-190.
320 AWBERY, Gwenllian (1998): Welsh, in: Ailbhe CORRIN/Samus MAC MATHNA: Minority Languages in Scandinavia, Britain, and Ireland (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Celtica Upsaliensa 3), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 151-174. BALDAUF JR., Richard B. (2002): Methodologies for Policy and Planning, in: KAPLAN, Robert B. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: OUP, 391-403. BALL, Martin J. (ed.) (1993): The Celtic Languages, London/New York: Routledge. BALTO, Asta (1997): Samisk barneoppdragelse i endring, Oslo: Gyldendal. BARDOUR, Stephen (1994): Language and Nationalism: Britain and Ireland, and the Germanspeaking Area, in: M. Mair PARRY/Winifred V. DAVIES/Rosalind A. M. TEMPLE (eds.): The Changing Voices of Europe. Social and political changes and their linguistic repercussions, past, present and future. Papers in honour of Professor Glanville Price, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 325-335. BARTHOLY, Heike (1992): Sprache, kulturelle Identitt und Unabhngigkeit, dargestellt am Beispiel Maltas, Weiden: Schuch. BEHATOKIA (2005): Behatokia Observatory of Linguistic Rights Web Site, http//www.behatokia.org. BJRKLUND, Ivar (1986): Hvordan nordmenn ble flere og samer ble frre, in: Reidar ERKE/Asle HGMO (eds.): Identitet og livsutfoldelse. En artikkelsamling om flerfolkelige samfunn med vekt p samenes situasjon, Troms et al.: Universitetsforlaget, 67-73. BLOMMAERT, Jan (1999a): The Debate is Open, in: BLOMMAERT, Jan (ed.): Language Ideological Debates (Language, Power and Social Process 2), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-38. BLOMMAERT, Jan (1999b): The Debate is Closed, in: BLOMMAERT, Jan (ed.): Language Ideological Debates (Language, Power and Social Process 2), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 425-438. BLOMMAERT, Jan/Jef VERSCHUEREN (1998): The Role of Language in European Nationalist Ideologies, in: Bambi B. SCHIEFFELIN/Kathryn A. WOOLARD/Paul V. KROSKRITY (eds.): Language Ideologies. Practice and Theory (Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 16), New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 189-210. BLUMENWITZ, Dieter (1996): Das Recht auf Gebrauch der Minderheitensprache. Gegenwrtiger Stand und Entwicklungstendenzen im europischen Vlkerrecht, in: Karin BOTTBODENHAUSEN (ed.), Unterdrckte Sprachen. Sprachverbote und das Recht auf Gebrauch der Minderheitensprachen, Frankfurt: Lang, 159-202. BOCHMANN, Klaus (1991): Sprachenrechte fr Minderheiten - eine Analyse ihrer soziolinguistischen Bedingungen, in: James DOW/Thomas STOLZ (eds.): Akten des 7. Essener Kolloquiums ber Minorittensprachen/Sprachminoritten vom 14. 17.6.1990 an der Universitt Essen (Bochum-Essener Beitrge zur Sprachwandelforschung 10), Bochum: Brockmeyer, 3-15. BRD NA GIDHLIG (2004): Annual Report 2003-04, http://www.bord-nagaidhlig.org.uk/source/downloads/annrep04(E).pdf. BRD NA GIDHLIG (2005): Web Site, http://www.bord-na-gaidhlig.org.uk. BOS SOL, Alexia (2004): A linguistically diverse day in the European Parliament: Bernat Joan MEP uses Catalan, Bertie Ahern uses Irish, in: Eurolang News Agency, ID:2081, July 22nd, 2004, http://www.eurolang.net/news.asp?id=2081. BOTT-BODENHAUSEN, Karin (ed.) (1996): Unterdrckte Sprachen. Sprachverbote und das Recht auf Gebrauch der Minderheitensprachen, Frankfurt: Lang, 159-202. BOYD, Colin (1997): Parliaments and Courts: Powers and Dispute Resolution, in: St John BATES (ed.): Devolution to Scotland: The Legal Aspects, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 21-35.
321 BRANTENBERG, Odd Terje (1991): Norway: Constructing Indigenous Self-Government in a Nation State, in: Peter JULL/Sally ROBERTS (eds.): The Challenge of Northern Regions, Darwin: Australian National University, North Australia Research Unit, 66-128. BRANTENBERG, Terje (1995): Murky Agenda in the Mrketid: Norwegian Policy, Sami Politics and the Troms Conference, in: Terje BRANTENBERG/Janne HANSEN/Henry MINDE (eds.): Becoming Visible. Indigenous Politics and Self-Government. Proceedings of the Conference on Indigenous Politics and Self-Government in Troms, 8-10 November, 1993, Troms: The University of Troms, Smi Dutkamiid Guovds Centre for Smi Studies, 27-38. BRSTAD JENSEN, Eivind (1991): Fra fornorskingspolitikk mot kulturelt mangfold, Troms: Nordkalott-Forlaget. BRODERICK, George (1999): Language Death on the Isle of Man. An investigation into the decline and extinction of Manx Gaelic as a community language in the Isle of Man (Linguistische Arbeiten 395), Tbingen: Max Niemeyer. BRODERSTAD, Else Grete (1993): Myndighet og oppslutning, in: ARBEIDSGRUPPE VED SEKSJON FOR SOSIALANTROPOLOGISKE STUDIER, UNIVERSITET I TROMS: Forvaltningen av samiske interesser i 1990-rene. Utredning fra en arbeidsgruppe ved Seksjon for sosialantropologi/samiske studier, Troms: Universitetet i Troms, Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap, part II, 59-116. BRODERSTAD, Else Grete (1995): Samepolitikk interessemaksimering eller identitetsskaping? (LOS i Nord-Norge Notat 39), Troms: Universitetet i Troms. BROWN, Alice/David MCCRONE/Lindsay PATERSON (21998): Politics and Society in Scotland, Houndmills et al.: MacMillan. BUCHANAN, Joni (2002): The Gaelic Communities, in: Gerry HASSAN/Chris WARHURST (eds.) (2002): Anatomy of the New Scotland. Power, Influence and Change, Edinburgh/London: Mainstream Publishing, 270-276. BULL, Tove (1995): Language maintenance and loss in an originally trilingual area in North Norway, in: International Journal of the Sociology of Language 115 (1995), 125-134. BUNDESZENTRALE FR POLITISCHE BILDUNG (ed.) (1999): Menschenrechte. Dokumente und Deklarationen, 3., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage, Bonn: Bundeszentrale fr politische Bildung. CAIMBEUL, Tormod (2000): The Politics of Gaelic Development in Scotland, in: Gordon MCCOY/Maolcholaim SCOTT (eds.): Gaelic Identities. Aithne na nGael, Belfast: The Institute of Irish Studies, Queen's University/Ultach Trust, 53-66. CAIN, Christine (1996): Promotion and development of Service for Lesser used Languages: Scottish Gaelic, in: Neil BRUCE (ed.), Celtic Connections. Conference Proceedings 1996, Hamilton: Scottish Library Association, 75-86. CALVET, Louis-Jean (2002): Le march aux langues. Les effets linguistiques de la mondialisation, Paris: Plon. CAPOTORTI, Francesco/UNITED NATIONS (1991): Study on the Rights of Persons belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, New York: United Nations. CELTIC LEAGUE (2000): Petition PE153 to the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee. Gaelic Education in Scotland, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parl_bus/petitions.pe153.pdf. CHARTER 88 (2004): Web Site, http://www.charter88.org.uk/pubs/brief/sso_1.html. CIEMEN (2005a): Mercator. Linguistic Rights and Legislation, http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/Menu_nou/index.cfm?lg=gb.
322 CIEMEN (2005b): United Kingdom. The European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, at: http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/carta_res.cfm?EST=UKI&lg=gb. CLECH LM, Maivn (2000): At the Edge of the State: Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determination, Ardsley: Transnational Publishers. CL GIDHLIG (2005): Web site, http://www.cli.org.uk. COMANN NAM PRANT (2000): Petition PE82 to the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee. Gaelicmedium education in Scotland, http://www.scottish.arliament.uk/parl_bus/petitions.pe82.pdf. COMANN NAM PRANT (DUN EIDEANN & LODAINN) (2003): Submission to Executive Bill, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Arts-Culture/gaelic/17912/14625. COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR (1999): Press Release April 21st, 1999: First Ever Gaelic Day At Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, http://www.w-isles.gov.uk/w-isles/press/990421.htm. COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR (2000a): Gaelic development, http://www.wisles.gov.uk/develop/pilot/gaeldev.html. COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR (2000b): Gaelic development: Education, http://www.wisles.gov.uk/develop/pilot/gaeleduc.html. COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR (2000c): Gaelic development: Introduction, http://www.wisles.gov.uk/develop/pilot/gaelint.html. COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR (2002): Submission to the Scottish Parliament, December 17th, 2002, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports03/edr03-04-vol02-01.htm. COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR (2004): Submission to Executive Bill debate, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk//business/committees/education/inquiries/gaelic%20lang uage/A_Comhairle%20Nan%20Eilean%20Siar.pdf. COMUNN NA GDIHLIG (2000): Bith Be ann an Gidhlig Gaelic Career Opportunities, http://www.bithbeo.org.uk. COMUNN NA GIDHLIG (1997): Gidhlig plc: Executive Summary, http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/gplc/execsum.html. COMUNN NA GIDHLIG (1999a): Inbhe Tharainte dhan Ghaidhlig/Secure Status for Gaelic. "An issue of human dignity, of belonging, and of justice!". Draft brief for a Gaelic Language Act, Inverness: Commun na Gidhlig. COMUNN NA GIDHLIG (1999b): Development Plans 1999-2000, http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/geninfo/devplan.htm. COMUNN NA GIDHLIG (1999C): European Support for Proposed Gaelic Bill - 12/09/99, http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/secstat/eurobill.htm. COMUNN NA GIDHLIG (2000a): Gidhlig plc: Index, http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/gplc/index.htm. COMUNN NA GIDHLIG (2000b): Press Release 8 September 2000, http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/aithisgm.htm. COMUNN NA GIDHLIG (2000c): Press Release February 7th, 2000 Comunn na Gidhlig to commission Gaelic Public Business Dictionary, http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/pressrel/dict.htm. COMUNN NA GIDHLIG (2001): Submission to the Milne report on Gaelic Broadcasting, http:// www. scottish.parliament.uk/business/ committees/historic/education/papers-01/edp01-19.pdf. COMUNN NA GIDHLIG (2002): Evidence in the Scottish Parliament, December 17th, 2002, www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports-03/edr03-04-
323 vol02-01.htm. COMUNN NA GIDHLIG (2004): Submission to Executive Bill debate, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk//business/committees/education/inquiries/gaelic%20lang uage/A_Comunn%20na%20Gaidhlig.pdf. COMUNN NA GIDHLIG (2005): Web site, http://www.cnag.org.uk. COPELAND, Gary W./Samuel C. PATTERSON (1994): Changing an Institutionalized System, in: Gary W. COPELAND/Samuel C. PATTERSON (eds.): Parliaments in the Modern World, University of Michigan Press, 151-160. COUNCIL OF EUROPE (1992): European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/148.htm. COUNCIL OF EUROPE (1995): Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=157&CM=8&DF=6/ 9/2006&CL=ENG. COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2001): European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. An overview of the application and monitoring process of the Charter to Norway, http://www.ciemen.org/ mercator/Menu_nou/index.cfm?lg=gb. COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2002): Initial Periodical Report by the United Kingdom presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter, http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/menu_lleng.cfm?lg=gb. COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2005a): The state of signage and ratification of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/cadreprincipal.htm. COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2005b): Treaties signed but not ratified by the United Kingdom, http://www.coe.fr/eng/legaltxt/signstates/esignuk.htm. COWAN, Edward J./Richard FINLAY with William PAUL (2000): Scotland since 1688. Struggle for a Nation, London: Cima. COX, Richard A.V. (1998): Tokenism in Gaelic: The Language of Appeasement, in: Scottish Language 17 (1998), 70-81. CRYSTAL, David (2000). Language Death, Cambridge: CUP. CSCE (1990): Copenhagen Declaration, http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/1990/06/13992_en.pdf. CURTICE, John (1999): Is Scotland a nation and Wales not?, in: Bridget TAYLOR/Katarina THOMSON (eds.): Scotland and Wales: Nations Again?, Cardiff: University of Wales, 119-148. DAHL, Jens (1996): Arctic Peoples, Their Lands and Territories, in: SEURUJRVI-KARI, Irja/Ulla-Maija KULONEN (eds.): Essays on Indigenous Identity and Rights, Helsinki: Yliopistopaino Helsinki University Press, 15-31. DANSON, Mike (1999): Economic development: the Scottish Parliament and the development agencies, in: MCCARTHY, John/David NEWLANDS (eds.): Governing Scotland: Problems and Prospects. The economic impact of the Scottish Parliament, Aldershot et al.: Ashgate, 87-102. DARQUENNES, Jeroen (2002): Mit Blick auf die Basis Sprachminderheiten und Sprachpolitik im Rahmen kontaktlinguistischer Methodologie, in: Ulrich AMMON/Klaus J. MATTHEIER/Peter H. NELDE (eds.): Sprachpolitik und kleine Sprachen (Sociolinguistica 16), Tbingen: Max Niemeyer, 64-73.
324 DARQUENNES, Jeroen/Peter J. WEBER (2001): Streiflichter zur Sprachrevitalisierung im europischen Kontext, in: In: Peter H. NELDE/Rosita RINDLER SCHJERVE (eds.): Minderheiten und Sprachpolitik (Plurilingua XXII). St. Augustin: Asgard, 103-112.
DE VARENNES, DE VRIES,
Fernand (1996): Language, Minorities and Human Rights (International Studies in Human Rights 45), The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff.
John (1995): Language Policy and Regional Characteristiics of Minority Language Communities, in: Willem FASE/Koen JASPAERT/Sjaak KROON (eds.): The State of Minority Languages. International perspectives on survival and decline (European Studies on Multilingualism 5), Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 135-151.
DENVER, David/Iain MACALLISTER (1999): The Scottish Parliament Elections 1999: an Analysis of the Results, in: Scottish Affairs 28 (1999), 10-31. DEVETAK, Silvo (1996): Ethnicity, in: Hans GOEBL et al. (eds.): Kontaktlinguistik/Contact Linguistics. (Handbcher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 12.1), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 203-209. DI DOMENICO, CATHERINE et al. (eds.) (2001): Boundaries and Identities: Nation, Politics and Culture in Scotland, Dundee: University of Abertay. DILLON, Crsdean/Michael KLEVENHAUS (2001): Sealladh air eachdraidh agus leasachadh ha Gdihlig/berblick ber die Geschichte und Entwicklung des Schottisch-Glischen, in: Heinrich P. KELZ/Rudolf SIMEK/Stefan ZIMMER (eds.): Europische Kleinsprachen. Zu Lage und Status der kleinen Sprachen an der Schwelle zum dritten Jahrtausend (Schriften des Zentrum fr Europische Integrationsforschung/Center for European Integration Studies der Rheinischen Friedrichs-Wilhelms-Universitt Bonn 45), Baden-Baden: Nomos, 23-32. DIXON, John/Robert P. SCHEURELL (eds.) (1995): Social welfare with indigenous peoples, London/New York: Routledge. DUNBAR, Robert (1998). Gidhlig in Scotland - Devising an Appropriate Model for a Changing Linguistic Environment. In: Comhdhil Idirnisinta ar Reachtaocht Teanga: Tuarascil ar Imeachta na Comhdhla/International Conference on Language Legislation: Conference Proceedings, 160-183. Dublin: Comhdhil Nisinta na Gaeilge. DUNBAR, Robert (1999a): Gaelic in Scotland: Devising an Appropriate Legislative Model for a Changing Linguistic Environment, unpublished paper received from the author. DUNBAR, Robert (1999b): The Politics of Gaelic Development in Scotland, unpublished revised version of a presentation to Aithne na nGael in Belfast on 28 March, 1998. DUNBAR, Robert (2000): Legal and Institutional Aspects of Gaelic Development, in: Gordon MCCOY/Maolcholaim SCOTT (eds.): Gaelic Identities, Aithne na nGael, Belfast: The Institute of Irish Studies, Queen's University/Ultach Trust, 67-87. DUNBAR, Robert (2001a), Minority Language Rights Regimes: An Analytical Framework, Scotland, and Emerging European Norms, in: John M. KIRK/Dnall P. BAOILL (eds.): Linguistic Politics. Language Policies for Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 3), Belfast: Queen's University, 231-254. DUNBAR, Robert (2001b): Oral Evidence to Broadcasting Report, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports01/edr01-14-vol02-04.htm. DUNBAR, Robert (2002): Evidence at the Scottish Parliament's Public Petition Committee Meeting, September 24th, 2002, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ business/committees/historic/petitions/or-02/pu02-1402.htm.
325 DUNBAR, Robert (2003a): Oral Evidence to the debate on the Gaelic Bill by Michael Russell, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/education/reports03/edr03-04-vol02-01.htm#3g. DUNBAR, Robert (2003b): Submission to the Scottish Parliament debate on the Gaelic Bill by Michael Russell, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/education/reports03/edr03-04-vol02-01.htm#3g. DURKACZ, Victor Edward (1983): The Decline of the Celtic Languages. A Study of Linguistic and Cultural Conflict in Scotland, Wales and Ireland from the Reformation to the Twentieth Century, Edinburgh: John Donald. EALAIN 21 (1998): Conference on the future of the Gaelic arts, Eden Court, Inverness, March 1998, Conference Proceedings. EDWARDS, John (1984): Language, diversity and identity, in: John EDWARDS (ed.): Linguistic Minorities, Policies and Pluralism, London et al.: Academic Press, 277-310. EDWARDS, John (1985): Language, Society and Identity, Oxford/New York: Basil Blackwell. EDWARDS, John (1990): Notes for a Minority-Language Typology: Procedures and Justification, in: Durk GORTER et al. (eds.): Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages: General Papers (Multilingual Matters 70), Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 137-151. EDWARDS, John (1992): Sociopolitical Aspects of Language Maintenance and Loss: Towards a Typology of Minority Language Situations, in: Willem FASE/Koen JASPAERT/Sjaak KROON (eds.): Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages (Studies in bilingualism 1), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 37-54. EDWARDS, Owen Dudley (1981): Ireland and Nationalism in Scotland and Wales, in: Robert O'DRISCOLL (ed.): The Celtic Consciousness, Portlaoise: Dolmen/Edinburgh: Canongate, 445-458. EDWARDS, Viv (1984): Language Policy in Multicultural Britain, in: John EDWARDS (ed.): Linguistic Minorities, Policies and Pluralism, London et al.: Academic Press, 49-80. EGGINGTON, William G. (2002): Unplanned Language Planning, in: KAPLAN, Robert B. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: OUP, 404-415. EGGINGTON, William/Helen WREN (eds.) (1997), Language Policy. Dominant English, Pluralist Challenges, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. EHM, Dietmar (1988): Devolution in Schottland und Wales. Ethnonationale Vielfalt, Problembereiche staatlicher Entwicklung und territoriale Gestaltungselemente britischer Politik (tuduv-Studien, Reihe Politikwissenschaften 24), Mnchen: Tuduv. EIDHEIM, Harald (1995): On the Organisation of Knowledge in Sami Ethno-Politics, in: Terje BRANTENBERG/Janne HANSEN/Henry MINDE (eds.): Becoming Visible. Indigenous Politics and Self-Government. Proceedings of the Conference on Indigenous Politics and SelfGovernment in Troms, 8-10 November, 1993, Troms: The University of Troms, Smi Dutkamiid Guovds Centre for Smi Studies, 73-78. ELVERT, Jrgen (1993): Geschichte Irlands, Mnchen: dtv. ENGEN, Thor Ola/Lars Anders KULBRANDSTAD (1998): Tosprklighet og minoritetsundervisning, Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal. ERKE, Reidar/Asle HGMO (eds.) (1986): Identitet og livsutfoldelse. En artikkelsamling om flerfolkelige samfunn med vekt p samenes situasjon, Troms et al.: Universitetsforlaget. EUROLANG (2003a): European Parliament Passes Ebner Resolution as special Status for Languages such as Catalan is Rejected, http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/notidetail.cfm?IDA=618&lg=gb.
326 EUROLANG (2003b): Recognition of Minority Collective Rights in European Consitution has been Turned Down, http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/notidetail.cfm?IDA=651&lg=gb. EUROLANG (2005): The Ratification of the Constitution by the European Parliament, http://www.eurolang.net/news.asp?id=4872. EUROMOSAIC (1996a): Presentation, http://www.uoc.edu/euromosaic/web/homean/index1.html EUROMOSAIC (1996b): Gaelic in Scotland (United Kingdom), http://www.uoc.es/euromosaic/web/document/gaelic/an/i1/i1.html EUROPEAN BUREAU FOR LESSER USED LANGUAGES (1995): Scotland. A linguistic double helix (European Languages 2), Dublin: European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. EUROPEAN BUREAU FOR LESSER USED LANGUAGES (1997): The Smi. The Indigenous People of Northernmost Europe, Brussels: European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. EUROPEAN BUREAU FOR LESSER USED LANGUAGES (1999): Irish. Facing the Future (European Languages 8), Dublin: European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. EUROPEAN BUREAU FOR LESSER USED LANGUAGES (2003): Comment on the Draft European Constitution, http://www2.eblul.org:8080/eblul/Public/le_bureau/press_releases/ eblul_recommendation/view EUROPEAN BUREAU FOR LESSER USED LANGUAGES/Per DENEZ (1998): Brittany. A language in search of a future (European Languages 7), Brussels: European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. EUROPEAN BUREAU FOR LESSER USED LANGUAGES/Silvia CARREL (1995): Vom Recht des Einzelnen zum Recht fr Alle. Der Gebrauch der Minderheitensprachen in ffentlichen Behrden, Brussels: European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. EWING, Winnie (2000): Speech in the Scottish Parliament, March 2nd, 2000, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/session-00/or050401.htm. EXTRA, Guus/Durk GORTER (2001) (eds.): The Other Languages of Europe. Demographic, Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives (Multilingual Matters 118), Clevedon et al.: Multilingual Matters. FASE, Willem/Koen JASPAERT/Sjaak KROON (eds.) (1992): Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages (Studies in bilingualism 1), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. FENTON, Alexander/Donald A. MACDONALD (eds.) (1994): Studies in Scots and Gaelic. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Languages of Scotland, Edinburgh: Canongate/The Linguistic Survey of Scotland, School of Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh. FERGUSON, William (1998): The Identity of the Scottish Nation, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. FINLAY, Richard (1994): Independent and Free. Scottish Politics and the Origins of the Scottish National Party 1918-1945, Edinburgh: John Donald. FIRSCHING, Ansgar (2002): Die Samen, ihre Rechtsstellung in Schweden und ihre Rechtsstellung im Lichte der Indigenous Peoples weltweit (Schriften zum Staats- und Vlkerrecht 93), Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang. FISHMAN, Joshua (1989): Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective (Multilingual Matters 45), Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
327 FISHMAN, Joshua A. (1991): Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages (Multilingual Matters 76), Clevedon/Philadelphia/Adelaide: Multilingual Matters. FISHMAN, Joshua A. (1993): Reversing language shift: Successes, failures, doubts, and dilemmas, in: Ernst Hkon JAHR (ed.): Language Conflict and Language Planning (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 72), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 69-81. FISHMAN, Joshua A. (1996): In Praise of the Beloved Language. A Comparative View of Positive Ethnolinguistic Consciousness (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 76), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. FISHMAN, Joshua A. (1999): Concluding Comments, in: FISHMAN, Joshua A. (ed.), Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 444-454. FISHMAN, Joshua A. (2001a): Why is it so Hard to Save a Threatened Language?, in: FISHMAN, Joshua A. (ed.): Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective (Multilingual Matters 116), Clevedon et al.: Multilingual Matters, 1-22. FISHMAN, Joshua A. (2001b): From Theory to Practice (and Vice Versa), in: FISHMAN, Joshua A. (ed.): Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective (Multilingual Matters 116), Clevedon et al.: Multilingual Matters, 451-483. FISHMAN, Joshua A. (ed.) (1999), Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. FISHMAN, Joshua A. (ed.) (2001): Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective (Multilingual Matters 116), Clevedon et al.: Multilingual Matters. FRANCOPHONIE (2005): Web Site, at: www.francophonie.org. FROWEIN, Jochen A./Rainer HOFMANN/Stefan OETER (eds.) (1993): Das Minderheitenrecht europischer Sprachen, Teil 1 (Beitrge zum auslndischen ffentlichen Recht und Vlkerrecht 108), Berlin et al.: Springer. GAELIC ARTS AGENCY (2001): Submission to the Broadcasting debate in 2001, http://www.scottish. parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/education/papers-01/edp01-18.pdf. GALLAGHER, Tom (1991): The SNP Faces the 1990s, in: Tom GALLAGHER (ed.), Nationalism in the Nineties, Edinburgh: Polygon, 9-28. GALLOWAY, John (1994): The Gaelic Job Market, in: FENTON, Alexander/Donald A. MACDONALD (eds.): Studies in Scots and Gaelic. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Languages of Scotland, Edinburgh: Canongate/The Linguistic Survey of Scotland, School of Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh, 138-148. GASKI, Harald (1997): Voice in the Margin: A Suitable Place for a Minority Literature?, in: Harald GASKI (ed.): Sami Culture in a New Era. The Norwegian Sami Experience, Krjohka/Karasjok: Davvi Girji, 199-220. GILLIES, William (1987): Scottish Gaelic - The Present Situation, in: Gearid MAC EOIN/Anders AHLQVIST/Donncha HAODHA (eds.): Third International Conference on Minority Languages: Celtic Papers (Multilingual Matters 32), Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 27-46. GLASER, Konstanze (2002): Essentialism and Relativism in Gaelic and Sorbian Language Revival Discourses, paper given in the Department of Celtic and Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh, 30 January 2002, http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/celtic/poileasaidh/seminarwebversion2.html.
328 GLASER, Konstanze (2003): Submission to Executive Bill, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Arts-Culture/gaelic/17912/14840. GOEBL, Hans/Peter NELDE/Z. STARY/Wolfgang WLCK (eds.) (1996/1997): Contact Linguistics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. GRLACH, Manfred (1997): Language and Nation: The Concept of Linguistic Identity in the History of English, in: English World Wide 18 (1997), 1-34. GORNIG, Gilbert H. (1998): Sanktions- und Kontrollmechanismen fr die Durchsetzung eines wirksamen Minderheitenschutzes als Garant fr die Schaffung von Stabilitt in Europa, in: Dieter BLUMENWITZ/Gilbert H. GORNIG/Dietrich MURSWIEK (eds.): Rechtsanspruch und Rechtswirklichkeit des europischen Minderheitenschutzes (Staats- und vlkerrechtliche Abhandlungen der Studiengruppe fr Politik und Vlkerrecht 17), Kln: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 119151. GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT (2004): Language Policy, http://www.gov.nu.ca/cley/english/language.htm. GRABE, William (ed.) (1994): Language Policy and Planning (Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 14 1993/1994), Cambrigde: CUP. GRAMSTAD, Sigve (1997): The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, in: Unn RYNELAND (ed.), Language Contact and Language Conflict. Proceedings of the International Ivar Aasen Conference 14-16 November 1996 University of Oslo (Publications from the Ivar Aasen Institute 4), Volda: Volda College, 91-96. GRANT, Nigel (2000): Multicultural Education in Scotland (Policy and Practice in Education 3), Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press. GRELLER, Wolfgang (1996): Provision and Regulation of the Smi Languages, Caerfyrddin: Coleg y Drindod. GRENOBLE, Lenore A./Lindsay J. WHALEY (1998): Toward a typology of language endangerment, in: Lenore A. GRENOBLE/Lindsay J. WHALEY (eds.): Endangered Languages. Language loss and community response, Cambridge. CUP, 22-54. GRIN, Franois (1996a): Economic approaches to language and language planning: an introduction, in: GRIN, Franois (ed.): Economic Approaches to Language and Language Planning (International Journal of the Sociology of Language 121), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-16. GRIN, Franois (1996b): The economics of language: survey, assessment, and prospects, in: GRIN, Franois (ed.): Economic Approaches to Language and Language Planning (International Journal of the Sociology of Language 121), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 17-44. GRIN, Franois (1999): Language planning as diversity management, in: Peter J. WEBER (ed.): Contact + Confli(c)t (Plurilingua XXI), Bonn: Dmmler, 141-156. GUNDRY, Sarah (2003): Nach sinne a tha trang! Its all go for the Gaelic Service!, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/history/whisp/whisp-03/wh019-01.htm. HAARMANN, Harald (1993): Die Sprachenwelt Europas. Geschichte und Zukunft der Sprachnationen zwischen Atlantik und Ural, Frankfurt/New York: Campus. HAARMANN, Harald (1995): Europeanness, European Identity and the role of language, in: Ulrich AMMON/Klaus J. MATTHEIER/Peter H. NELDE (eds.): European Identity and Language Diversity (Sociolinguistica. International Yearbook of European Sociolinguistics 9), Tbingen: Niemeyer, 1-55. HAARMANN, Harald (2002a): Sprachenalmanach. Zahlen und Fakten zu allen Sprachen der Welt, Frankfurt/New York: Campus.
329 HAARMANN, Harald (2002b): Small languages in the information age: Strategies of survival, in: Sociolinguistica 16, 32-39. HABERLAND, Hartmut (1991): Reflections about minority languages in the European Community, in: Florian COULMAS (ed.): A Language Policy for the European Community. Prospects and Quandaries (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 61), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 179-194. HTTA ERIKSEN, Edel (1996): Jubileumshefte. Samisk utdanningsrd 20 r, Kautokeino: Samisk utdanningsrd. HTTA, Odd Mathis (1992): Sametinget i navn og tall. Hsten 1989 hsten 1993, Karasjok: Sametinget. HTTA, Odd Mathis (1998): Sametinget i navn og tall. Hsten 1997 hsten 2001, Karasjok: Sametinget. HTTA, Odd Mathis (2002): Samene. Nordkalottens Urfolk, Kristiansand: Hyskole Forlaget Norwegian Academic Press. HAGUE, Rod/Martin HARROP (2001): Comparative Government and Politics. An Introduction, Houndmills: Palgrave. HALE, Amy/Philip PAYTON (eds.) (2000): New Directions in Celtic Studies, Exeter: University of Exeter Press. HALE, Ken (1998): On endangered languages and the importance of linguistic diversity, in: Lenore A. GRENOBLE/Lindsay J. WHALEY (eds.) (1998): Endangered Languages. Language loss and community response, Cambridge. CUP, 192-258. HAMEL, Rainer Enrique (ed.) (1997): Linguistic Human Rights from a Sociolinguistic Perspective (International Journal of the Sociology of Language 127), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. HANLEY, Patrick (2003): Submission to Executive Bill, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/ArtsCulture/gaelic/17912/13530. HARDIE, Kim J.M. (1996): Scots: Matters of Identity and Nationalism, in: Scottish Language 14-15 (1995/96), 141-147. HARTSUAGA, Juan Inazio (2004): Behatokia: an experience on social control of linguistic rights, paper given at the II Mercator International Symposium Europe 2004: A new framework for all languages?, Tarragona February 27th-28th, 2004. HASSAN, Gerry (2002): Anatomy of the New Scotland: Power, Influence and Change, in: HASSAN, Gerry/Chris WARHURST (eds.): Anatomy of the New Scotland. Power, Influence and Change, Edinburgh/London: Mainstream Publishing, 13-26. HASSAN, Gerry (ed.) (1999): A Guide to the Scottish Parliament. The Shape of Things to Come, Edinburgh: The Stationary Office. HASSAN, Gerry/Chris WARHURST (2002): Future Scotland: the making of the new social democracy, in: HASSAN, Gerry/Chris WARHURST (eds.): Tomorrow's Scotland, London: Lawrence and Wishart, 5-25. HASSAN, Gerry/Chris WARHURST (eds.) (1999): A Modernisers' Guide to Scotland. A Different Future, Edinburgh: Centre for Scottish Public Policy/Glasgow: The Big Issue in Scotland. HAUGEN, Einar/J. Derrick MCCLURE/Derick THOMSON (eds.) (1980): Minority Languages Today, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. HEARN, Jonathan S. (1998): The Social Contract: Re-framing Scottish Nationalism, in: Scottish Affairs 23 (1998), 14-26.
330 HELANDER, Elina (1990): Situation of the Smi Language in Sweden, in: Dirmid R. F. COLLIS (ed.): Arctic Languages. An Awakening, Paris: Unesco, 401-417. HELANDER, Elina (1996): Sustainability in the Sami Area: The X-File Factor, in: Elina HELANDER (ed.): Awakened Voices: The Return of Sami Knowledge (Dieut 1996:4), Guovdageaidnu/Kautokeino: Nordic Sami Institute, 1-6. HELANDER, Nils ivind (1982): Den samiske sprksituasjon, in: Sprkundertryking. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget, 69-77. HENDERSON, Alisa (1999): Political Constructions of National Identity in Scotland and Quebec, in: Scottish Affairs 29 (1999), 121-138. HENRIKSEN, John B. (1999): Saami Parliamentary Cooperation. An Analysis (IWGIA Document 93), Guovdageaidnu/Kbenhavn: Nordic Smi Institute. HERRIMAN, Michael/Barbara BURNABY (eds.) (1996): Language Policies in English-Dominant Countries, Clevedon et al.: Multilingual Matters. HIGHLAND COUNCIL (2001): Gaelic Strategy, at: http://cgi.www.highland.gov.uk/cx/policies/gaelic.html. HIGHLAND COUNCIL (2002): Submission to the Scottish Parliament debate on Michael Russell's Gaelic Bill, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/papers03/edp03-01.pdf. HIGHLAND COUNCIL (2003a): Gaelic policy, http://www.highland.gov.uk/cx/gaelic/index.htm. HIGHLAND COUNCIL (2003b): Oral Evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Education Committee, January 7th, 2003, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/ committees/ historic/education/reports-03/edr03-04-vol02-01.htm. HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS ENTERPRISE (1992): A Strategy for Gaelic Development in the Highlands & Islands of Scotland. Inverness: Highlands and Islands Enterprise. HIMSWORTH, C.M.G/C.R. MUNRO (1998): Devolution and the Scotland Bill, Edinburgh: W. Green. HINTON, Leanne (2001a): Language Planning, in: HINTON, Leanne/Ken HALE (eds.): The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice, San Diego et al.: Academic Press, 51-59. HINTON, Leanne (2001b): Language Revitalization: An Overview, in: HINTON, Leanne/Ken HALE (eds.): The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice, San Diego et al.: Academic Press, 3-18. HINTON, Leanne/Ken HALE (eds.) (2001): The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice, San Diego et al.: Academic Press. HOBSBAWM, Eric J./Terence RANGER (eds.) (1983/1996): The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: CUP. HOM, Anton (1986): Samebarns oppvekstvilkr fr, in: Reidar ERKE/Asle HGMO (eds.): Identitet og livsutfoldelse. En artikkelsamling om flerfolkelige samfunn med vekt p samenes situasjon, Troms et al.: Universitetsforlaget, 38-52. HOLM BULL, Ella/Sig Britt PERSSON TOVEN/Sigbjrn DUNFJELD (1992): Forslag til tiltak p ulike sektorer for ke bruken av samisk i det srsamiske dialektomrde. Instilling fra Sametingets utredningsgruppe, Snsa. HORSBURGH, David (Dauvit HORSBROCH) (2002): When was Gaelic Scottish? The Origins, Emergence and Development of Scottish Gaelic Identity 1400-1750, in: BAOILL, Colm/Nancy R. MCGUIRE (eds.): Rannsachadh na Gidhlig 2000. Papers read at the Conference
331 Scottish Gaelic Studies 2000 held at the University of Aberdeen 2-4 August 2000, Obar Dheathain: An Cl Gaidhealach, 231-242. HOVLAND, Arild (1996): Kan det vre fint vre same?, in: Tormod IA (ed.): Ung p 90-Tallet, Cappelen Akademisk Forlag/UNGforsk, 155-166. HUSS, Leena (1999): Reversing Language Shift in the Far North. Linguistic Revitalization in Northern Scandinavia and Finland (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 31), Uppsala: Uppsala University. HYLLAND ERIKSEN, Thomas (1995): Small Places, Large Issues. An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology, London/Chicago: Pluto. HYLLAND ERIKSEN, Thomas (1997a): Identitet, in Thomas HYLLAND ERIKSEN (ed.): Flerkulturell forstelse, Oslo: Tano Aschehoug, 34-52. HYLLAND ERIKSEN, Thomas (1997b): Language in Identity Politics, in: Unn RYNELAND (ed.): Language Contact and Language Conflict. Proceedings of the International Ivar Aasen Conference 14-16 November 1996 University of Oslo (Publications from the Ivar Aasen Institute 4), Volda: Volda College, 25-44. HYLLAND ERIKSEN, Thomas (2002): Ethnicity and Nationalism. Anthropological Perspectives. 2nd Edition, London/Sterling: Pluto. HYLTENSTAM, Kenneth/Christopher STROUD/Mikael SVONNI (1999): Sprkbyte, sprkbevarande, revitalisering. Samiskans stllning i svenska Spmi, in: Kenneth HYLTENSTAM (ed.): Sveriges sju inhemsak sprk ett minoritetssprksperspektiv, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 41-97. HYSLOP, Fiona (2005): Speech given in the Scottish Parliament's plenary debate, February 2nd, 2005, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/ meetingsParliament/or05/sor0202-02.htm. ICHIJO, Atsuko (2001): Scottish Identity in the Age of European Integration, in: Catherine DI DOMENICO et al. (eds.): Boundaries and Identities: Nation, Politics and Culture in Scotland, Dundee: University of Abertay, 83-99. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION (2005a): Ratification Progress of Convention 169, http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/convdisp1.htm. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION (2005b): Indigenous affairs and Convention 169, http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C169. IWGIA (ed.) (1987): Self determination and Indigenous Peoples. Smi Rights and Northern Perspectives. Compiled and edited from the Seminar "Self-Determination and Indigenous Peoples" organised by the Oslo and Copenhagen Local Groups of IWGIA (IWGIA Document 58), Copenhagen: IWGIA. JAHR, Ernst Hkon (ed.) (1993): Language Conflict and Language Planning (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 72), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. JANICH, Nina/Albrecht GREULE (eds.) (2002): Sprachkulturen in Europa. Ein internationales Handbuch, Tbingen: Gunter Narr. JANSSON, Annika (2001): Cooperation between two minority languages exchange of good practices in the Smi and the Gaelic context, in: Sigrid SKLNES (ed.): Sustaining and supporting the lesser used languages, Oslo/Alta: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, 61-82. JERNSLETTEN, Nils (1986): Om sprket i samiske samfunn, in: Reidar ERKE/Asle HGMO (eds.): Identitet og livsutfoldelse. En artikkelsamling om flerfolkelige samfunn med vekt p samenes situasjon, Troms et al.: Universitetsforlaget, 53-66.
332 JERNSLETTEN, Nils (1993): Sami language communities and the conflict between Sami and Norwegian, in: Ernst Hkon JAHR (ed.): Language Conflict and Language Planning (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 72), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 115-132. JOHANSEN, Yngve (1999): Etnisitet og skolemotivasjon blant ungdom i samiske omrder (SARaporta/SH-Rapport 8), Guovdageaidnu/Kautokeino: Smi Allaskuvla/Samisk Hgskole. JOHNSEN, ge (2002): Devolusjon og det nye skotske parlament: En kommentar, in: Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidskrift 18 (01/2002), 58-69. JOHNSEN, Jon T. (1997): Samisk retthjelp. En analyse ov Rettshjelpkontoret Indre Finnmark, Oslo: Tano Aschehoug. JOHNSTONE, Richard (1994): The impact of current developments to support the Gaelic language: review of research, Stirling: CILT/Scottish CILT. JOHNSTONE, Richard et al. (1999): The Attainments of Pupils Receiving Gaelic-medium Primary Education in Scotland, Stirling: CILT. JONES, John Walter (2003): Oral Evidence Private Member's Bill debate in the Scottish Parliament, March 14th, 2003, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/ committees/historic/education/or03/ed03-0202.htm. JONES, Peter (1997): A Start to a New Song: the 1997 Devolution Referendum Campaign, in: Scottish Affairs 21 (1997), 1-16. JONES, Peter (1999): The 1999 Scottish Parliament Elections: From anti-Tory to anti-Nationalist politics, in: Scottish Affairs 28 (1999), 1-9. JOSEFSEN, Eva (2003): Samene og de nasjonale parlamentene. Kanaler for politisk innflytelse. Kautokeino: Kompetansesenteret for urfolks rettigheter, http://www.galdu.org/govat/doc/najonaleparlamentevajosefsen.pdf. JOSIKA, Peter (2004): Czech-only language law rejected (Eurolang News Agency 2048, July 1st, 2004), http://www.eurolang.net/news.asp?id=2048. JULL, Peter/Sally ROBERTS (eds.) (1991): The Challenge of Northern Regions, Darwin: Australian National University, North Australia Research Unit. KAPLAN, Robert B. (1994): Language Policy and Planning: Fundamental Issues, in: GRABE, William (ed.): Language Policy and Planning (Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 14 1993/1994), Cambrigde: CUP, 3-19. KAPLAN, Robert B. (ed.) (2002): The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: OUP. KAPLAN, Robert B./Richard B. BALDAUF Jr. (1997): Language Planning. From Practice to Theory (Multilingual Matters 108), Clevedon et al.: Multilingual Matters. KELLY, Elinor (1999): "Stands Scotland where it did"? An Essay in Ethnicity and Internationalism, in: Scottish Affairs 26 (1999), 83-99. KELZ, Heinrich P./Rudolf SIMEK/Stefan ZIMMER (eds.) (2001): Europische Kleinsprachen. Zu Lage und Status der kleinen SPrachen an der Schwelle zum dritten Jahrtausend (Schriften des Zentrum fr Europische Integrationsforschung/Center for European Integration Studies der Rheinischen Friedrichs-Wilhelms-Universitt Bonn 45), Baden-Baden: Nomos. KESKITALO, Alf Isak (1980): The Status of the Smi Language, in: Einar HAUGEN/J. Derrick MCCLURE/Derick THOMSON (eds.): Minority Languages Today, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 152-162.
333 KESKITALO, Jan Henry (1997): Sami Post-Secondary Education Ideals and Realities, in: Harald GASKI (ed.): Sami Culture in a New Era. The Norwegian Sami Experience, Krjohka/Karasjok: Davvi Girji, 155-171. KIRK, JOHN M./Dnall P. BAOILL (2001): Introduction: Language Policies for the Gaeltacht and the Scotstacht, in: John M. KIRK/Dnall P. BAOILL (eds.): Linguistic Politics. Language Policies for Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 3), Belfast: Queen's University, 1-21. KIRK, JOHN M./Dnall P. BAOILL (eds.) (2000): Language and Politics. Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 1), Belfast: Queen's University. KIRK, John M./Dnall P. BAOILL (eds.) (2001a): Language Links. The Languages of Scotland and Ireland (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 2), Belfast: Queen's University. KIRK, John M./Dnall P. BAOILL (eds.) (2001b): Linguistic Politics. Language Policies for Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 3), Belfast: Queen's University. KIRKPATRICK, Janice (2002): The identity that cannot speak its name, in: HASSAN, Gerry/Chris WARHURST (eds.): Tomorrow's Scotland, London: Lawrence and Wishart, 222-233. KORHONEN, Olavi (1997): Hur samiskan blev samiska, in: Eva WESTERGREN/Hans HL (eds.): Mer n ett sprk. En antologi om tv- och tresprkigheten i norra Sverige, Stockholm: Norstedts, 79-115. KRAMER, Johannes (1990): Sprachilloyalitt, in: Peter H. NELDE (ed.), Language Conflict and Minorities (Plurilingua X), Bonn: Dmmler. KRAMVIG, Britt (1999): I kategorienes vold, in: Harald EIDHEIM (ed.): Samer og nordmenn. Temaer i jus, historie og sosialantropologi. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk, 117-139. KVERNMO, Siv (1997): Developing Sami Health Service a Medical and Cultural Challenge, in: Harald GASKI (ed.): Sami Culture in a New Era. The Norwegian Sami Experience, Krjohka/Karasjok: Davvi Girji, 127-142. LABRIE, Normand (ed.) (1997): Etudes rcentes en linguistique de contact (Plurilingua XX), Bonn: Dmmler. LAMB, William (2001): Scottish Gaelic (Languages of the World/Materials 401), Mnchen: Lincom Europa. LAMBERT, Richard D. (1999): A Scaffolding for Language Policy, in: International Journal of the Sociology of Language 137 (1999), 3-25. LAPONCE, J.A. (1987): Languages and Their Territories, Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press. LEHTOLA, Veli-Pekka (1996): The Sami: A History of Our Own, in: Elina HELANDER (ed.): Awakened Voices: The Return of Sami Knowledge (Dieut 1996:4), Guovdageaidnu/Kautokeino: Nordic Sami Institute, 64-73. LEWIS, Dave (1998): Indigenous Rights Claims in Welfare Capitalist Society: Recognition and Implementation. The Case of the Smi People in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Rovaniemi: Arctic Centre, University of Lapland. LINDE-LAURSEN, Anders/Jan Olof NILSSON (eds.) (1991): Nationella identiteter i Norden ett fullbordat project? Sjutton nordiska underskningar (Nord 1991: 26), Stockholm: Nordiska rdet. LINDGREN, Anna-Riita (1990): What can we do when a language is dying?, in: Troms Linguistics in the Eighties (Troms Studies in Linguistics 11), Oslo: Novus Press, 259-270.
334 LIPPERT, S. M. (1995) (ed.): The Encyclopedia of Democracy. Volume II, London: Routledge. LOBIANCO, Joseph (2001), Language and literacy policy in Scotland. Stirling: Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (Scottish CILT). LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD (1998): Working with the Scottish Parliament: Judicial Aspects of Devolution. The Hume Lecture 1997, Edinburgh: The David Hume Institute. LUDWIG, Klemens (1995): Ethnische Minderheiten in Europa. Ein Lexikon, Mnchen: Beck. LYNCH, Peter (2001): Scottish Government and Politics. An Introduction, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. MACAFEE, Caroline (1985): Nationalism and the Scots Renaissance now, in: Manfred GRLACH: Focus on: Scotland (Varieties of English Around the World, General Series 5), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 7-17. MACASKILL, Iain (2003): Press Release as comment on CCG Annual Report 2002/03, http://www.ccg.org.uk/press/03/22.htm. MACAULAY, Donald (1992a): The Celtic Languages: An introduction, in: Donald MACAULAY (ed.): The Celtic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-8. MACAULAY, Donald (1992b): The Scottish Gaelic Language, in: Donald MACAULAY (ed.): The Celtic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 137-248. MACAULAY, Donald (1994): Canons, myths and cannon fodder, in: Scotlands 1 (1994), 35-54. MACCALUIM, Alasdair (2003): Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament, Publication by the Scottish Parliament's Gaelic Officer. Edinburgh: The Scottish Parliament. MACCALUIM, Alasdair/Wilson MCLEOD (2001): Revitalising Gaelic? A Critical Analysis of the Report of the Taskforce on Public Funding of Gaelic, Edinburgh: Roinn na Ceiltis agus Elas na h-Alba, Oilthigh Dhn ideann/Department of Celtic and Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh, http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/celtic/poileasaidh/ipcamacpherson2.pdf. MACDONALD, Sharon (1999): The Gaelic Renaissance and Scotland's Identities, in: Scottish Affairs 26 (winter 1999), 100-118. MACDOUGALL, Alison (2001): The development of the Gaelic television service and the importance that it holds for the survival of the Gaelic language, Celtic Civilisation Senior Honours Dissertation, Celtic Department, University of Glasgow. MACIVER, Margaret (2002): Structures for Gaelic-medium Education. In John Kirk/Dnall baoill (eds.): Language Planning and Education: Linguistic Issues in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland, Belfast: Cl Ollscoil na Banrona, 56-60. MACKINNON, Kenneth (1986): The Scottish Gaelic Speech-Community. Some Social Perspectives, in: Scottish Language 5 (1986), 65-84. MACKINNON, Kenneth (1987): Gender, Occupational and Educational Factors in Gaelic Language-Shift and Regeneration, in: Gearid MAC EOIN/Anders AHLQVIST/Donncha HAODHA (eds.): Third International Conference on Minority Languages: Celtic Papers (Multilingual Matters 32), Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 47-71. MACKINNON, Kenneth (1990): Language-maintenance and viability in the contemporary Scottish Gaelic speech-community: some social and demographic factors, in: Durk GORTER et al. (eds.): Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages: Western and Eastern European Papers (Multilingual Matters 71), Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 69-92.
335 MACKINNON, Kenneth (1991): The Gaelic speech community, in: Safder ALLADINA/Viv EDWARDS (eds.): Multilingualism in the British Isles 1. The Older Mother Tongues and Europe, London/New York: Longman, 49-67. MACKINNON, Kenneth (1992): An Aghaidh nan creag: Despite Adversity Gaeldom's Twentieth Century Survival and Potential. A report to Comunn na Gidhlig, Inverness: Comunn na Gidhlig. MACKINNON, Kenneth (1993): Scottish Gaelic Today: Social History and Contemporary Status, in: Martin J. BALL (ed.): The Celtic Languages, London/New York: Routledge, 491-535. MACKINNON, Kenneth (1994): Gaelic Language-use in the Western Isles, in: FENTON, Alexander/Donald A. MACDONALD (eds.): Studies in Scots and Gaelic. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Languages of Scotland, Edinburgh: Canongate/The Linguistic Survey of Scotland, School of Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh, 123-137. MACKINNON, Kenneth (1996): Gaelic and The Other Languages of Scotland in the 1991 Populations Census, in: Scottish Language 14-15 (1995/96), 104-117. MACKINNON, Kenneth (1998a): Gaelic in Family, Work and Community Domains: Euromosaic Project 1994/95, in: Scottish Language 17 (1998), 55-69. MACKINNON, Kenneth (1998b): Gaelic in Scotland, in: Ailbhe CORRIN/Samus MAC MATHNA: Minority Languages in Scandinavia, Britain, and Ireland (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Celtica Upsaliensa 3), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 175-198. MACKINNON, Kenneth (1999): Can the Heartlands Hold? Prospects of post-modern speechcommunities in the Celtic Homelands, Paper at the 11th International Congress of Celtic Studies, University College Cork, 25th-31st July 1999. MACKINNON, Kenneth (2000a): Neighbours in Persistence: Prospects for Gaelic Maintenance in a Globalising English World, in: Gordon MCCOY/Maolcholaim SCOTT (eds.): Gaelic Identities. Aithne na nGael, Belfast: The Institute of Irish Studies, Queen's University/Ultach Trust, 144152. MACKINNON, Kenneth (2000b): Scottish Gaelic, in: Glanville PRICE (ed.): Languages in Britain and Ireland, Oxford: Blackwell, 44-57. MACKINNON, Kenneth (2001a): Fs no Bs (Prosper or Perish): Prospects of Survival for Scotland Gaelic, in: KIRK, John M./Dnall P. BAOILL (eds.): Linguistic Politics. Language Policies for Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 3), Belfast: Queen's University, 255-258. MACKINNON, Kenneth (2001b): Identity, Attitudes and Support for Gaelic Policies: Gaelic Speakers in the Euromosaic Survey 1994/95, in: JOHN M. KIRK/Dnall P. BAOILL (eds.): Language Links. The Languages of Scotland and Ireland (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 2), Belfast: Queen's University, 171-180. MACKINNON, Kenneth (2002): Submission to the debate on the Gaelic Bill by Michael Russell, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/education/reports03/edr03-04-vol02-01.htm#3g. MACKINNON, Kenneth (2003a): Brd Gidhlig na h-Alba: New Thinking for a Fresh Start?, http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/celtic/poileasaidh/newthinking/gaelicincensus.html. MACKINNON, Kenneth (2003b): Submission to Executive Bill, http://www.scottishexecutive.gov.uk/about/ ED/SACBranch2/00017912/page1970206087.doc MACKINNON, Kenneth (2003c): Welsh and Gaelic speakers by age-group, http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/celtic/poileasaidh/newthinking/welshandgaelic.html.
336 MACKINNON, Kenneth (2003d): Submission to the Draft Executive Bill, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Arts-Culture/gaelic/17912/14670. MACKINNON, Kenneth (2004): Gaelic in the 2001 Census: A few green shoots amidst the gloom, in: Derrick MCCLURE (ed.): Doonsin' Emerauds: New Scrieves anent Scots an Gaelic/New Studies in Scots and Gaelic (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 11), Belfast: Queen's University, 24-35. MACKINNON, Kenneth/Cathlin MACAULAY (2000): Scottish Gaelic, in: Jan WIRRER (ed.): Minderheiten- und Regionalsprachen in Europa, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 46-63. MACLEAN, Angela (1999): Iomairt Nis Limited and Revitalisation within the Gaelic Heartland, Dissertation at the Department of Celtic, University of Glasgow (Prof. C. O'DOCHARTAIGH). MACLEAN, Fitzroy (1993): Scotland. A Concise History, London: Thames and Hudson, revised edition of the original 1970 edition. MACLEAN, Malcolm (2000): Parallel Universes: Gaelic Arts Development in Scotland, 19852000, in: Gordon MCCOY/Maolcholaim SCOTT (eds.): Gaelic Identities. Aithne na nGael, Belfast: The Institute of Irish Studies, Queen's University/Ultach Trust, 105-125. MACLEOD, D.J. (2003): An Historical Overview, in: Margaret NICOLSON/Matthew MACIVER (eds.): Gaelic Medium Education (Policy and Practice in Education 10), Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press, 1-14. MACLEOD, Finlay (2003): Submission to Executive Bill, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/ArtsCulture/gaelic/17912/14389. MACNEIL, M.M./R. N. STRADLING/C. A. MACNEIL (1996): Health Promotion and Health Education: Needs within a Gaelic Context, Sabhal Mor Ostaig: Leirsinn Research Centre. MACNEIL, Morag M. (1996): Gaelic: An Exploration of the Interplay of Sociolinguistic Factors, in: Scottish Language 14-15 (1995/96), 90-103. MAGGA, Ole Henrik (1990): The Smi Language in Norway, in: Dirmid R. F. Collis (ed.): Arctic Languages. An Awakening, Paris: Unesco, 419-436. MAGGA, Ole Henrik (1991): Samiske krav og forventninger til norske myndigheter med bakgrunn i ILOkonvesjon 169, Paper given at the Seminar om gjennomfringen i Norge av ILO-konvensjon 169, Krjohka November 26th, 1991. MAGGA, Ole Henrik (1995a): gjenreise urfolkenes kulturelle identitet, in: Terje BRANTENBERG/Janne HANSEN/Henry MINDE (eds.): Becoming Visible. Indigenous Politics and Self-Government. Proceedings of the Conference on Indigenous Politics and SelfGovernment in Troms, 8-10 November, 1993, Troms: The University of Troms, Smi Dutkamiid Guovds Centre for Smi Studies, 85-89. MAGGA, Ole Henrik (1995b): Etnisk identitet en menneskerett?, in: Samtiden 3/1995, 23-32. MAGGA, Ole Henrik (1995c): The Smi Language Act, in: Tove SKUTNABB-KANGAS/Robert PHILLIPSON (eds.): Linguistic Human Rights. Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 219-233. MAGGA, Ole Henrik (1996): Sami Past and Present and the Sami Picture of the World, in: Elina HELANDER (ed.): Awakened Voices: The Return of Sami Knowledge (Dieut 1996:4), Guovdageaidnu/Kautokeino: Nordic Sami Institute, 74-80. MAGGA, Ole Henrik (1997a): Samisk sprk, in: Allan KARKER/Birgitta LINDGREN/Stle LLAND (eds.): Nordens sprk, Oslo: Novus, 137-160. MAGGA, Ole Henrik (1997b): Status and Rights of Sami Language in Norway, in: Unn RYNELAND (ed.): Language Contact and Language Conflict. Proceedings of the International Ivar
337 Aasen Conference 14-16 November 1996 University of Oslo (Publications from the Ivar Aasen Institute 4), Volda: Volda College, 239-248. MAGGA, Ole Henrik (2001): Establishing Saami as a language for education problems and challenges, in: Bente MARTINUSSEN (ed.): Languages in a Multilingual Region. Report from CDCC seminar. Challenges and Approaches to the Teaching of Minority and Foreign Languages in a Multilingual Region Language Contact in the Barents Region as an Example, Council of Europe In-Service Training Programme for Educational Staff, Alta, 6-12 August 2001Alta: Finnmark University College, 65-76. MAGGA, Ole Henrik (2002): Preface to the Sameting's rsmelding 2002. MARAINEN, Johannes (1997): Jag en same i det svenska samhllet, in: Eva WESTERGREN/Hans HL (eds.): Mer n ett sprk. En antologi om tv- och tresprkigheten i norra Sverige, Stockholm: Norstedts, 12-25. MARAUHN, Thilo (1993): Die rechtliche Stellung der walisischen Minderheit in Grobritannien, in: Jochen A. FROWEIN/Rainer HOFMANN/Stefan OETER (eds.): Das Minderheitenrecht europischer Sprachen, Teil 1 (Beitrge zum auslndischen ffentlichen Recht und Vlkerrecht 108), Berlin et al.: Springer, 160-191. MARSHALL, David F. (1994): Language Maintenance and Revival, in: GRABE, William (ed.): Language Policy and Planning (Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 14 1993/1994), Cambrigde: CUP, 20-33. MARTEN, Heiko F. (2000): Glisch in Schottland: Neue Impulse durch das neue Parlament, in: pogrom. Zeitschrift fr bedrohte Vlker 207, 13-14. MARTEN, Heiko F. (2003a): Who Are the Gaels? Scottish Gaelic in the Light of Smi Policy in Norway, paper given at the 9th International Conference on Minority Languages (ICML-IX), Kiruna/Sweden, 6-7 June 2003. MARTEN, Heiko F. (2003b): Welche Rolle spielen dezentrale Parlamente fr den Erhalt bedrohter Sprachen? Ein Vergleich des Schottischen Parlaments mit dem Sameting in Norwegen, in: gbs-bulletin no. 8, Februar 2003, Kln: Gesellschaft fr bedrohte Sprachen, 42-49. MARTEN, Heiko F. (2003c): Why are Parliaments as Institutions so Often Neglected in Minority Language Research: Contemplations on Scottish Parliament and the Sameting in Norway, paper given at the First Mercator International Symposium on European Minority Languages and Research, Aberystwyth/Wales, 8-9 April 2003, published at http://www.aber.ac.uk/~merwww/ general/papers/mercSym_03-04-08/Paper%20Aberystwyth%20Heiko%20F.%20Marten %20Version%20finale.doc MARTEN, Heiko F. (2004a): Parliamentary Decentralisation and Language Policy: Smi in Norway and Scottish Gaelic (Linguistic Agency LAUD , Series A: General and Theoretical Papers 601), Duisburg/Essen: LAUD. MARTEN, Heiko F. (2004b): Political Parties' Views on Minority Languages. Setting Scotland and Gaelic into a European Frame, paper given at Rannsachadh na Gidhlig 3, University of Edinburgh, 2123 July 2004. MARTEN, Heiko F. (2004c): The Establishment of Scottish Parliament: What Difference Does it Make for the Gaelic Language?, in: Jeroen DARQUENNES/Peter H. NELDE/Peter J. WEBER (eds.): The Future has already begun. Recent approaches in conflict linguistics (Plurilingua XXV), St.Augustin: Asgard, 71-80. MARTEN, Heiko F. (2006): The Potential of Parliaments for the Empowerment of Linguistic Minorities: Experiences from Scotland and Norway, in: Martin PTZ/Joshua A. FISHMAN/JoAnne NEFF-VAN AERTSELAER (eds.): 'Along the Routes to Power': Explorations of
338 Empowerment through Language (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 92), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 199-216. MARTEN, Heiko F. (forthcoming a): Political Parties' Views on Minority Languages in Selected European Countries, paper given at the 10th International Conference on Minority Languages (ICML-X), Trieste, June 30-July 3 2005, to be published at http://www.slori.org. MARTEN, Heiko F. (forthcoming b): Hvor str samisk i Norge i dag? Samisk i de norske politiske partienes valgprogrammer i 2005 og i forhold til internasjonale krav om sprkvern, to be published by Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin, Nordeuropa-Institut. MARTIN, Donald (2002): Oral evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Education Committee, December 17th, 2002, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/ committees/ historic/education/reports03/edr03-04-vol02-01.htm. MATHESON, Catherine/David MATHESON (2000): Languages of Scotland: culture and the classroom, in: Comparative Education 36, 2/2000, 211-221. MAY, Stephen (2001): Language and Minority Rights. Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language, Harlow: Pearson. MCATEER, M./M. BENNET (1999): The role of local government. In G. Haasan (ed.) A guide to the Scottish Parliament. The shape of things to come. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. MCCARTHY, John/David NEWLANDS (1999) (eds.): Governing Scotland: Problems and Prospects. The economic impact of the Scottish Parliament, Aldershot et al.: Ashgate. MCCLURE, Derrick (ed.) (2004): Doonsin' Emerauds: New Scrieves anent Scots an Gaelic/New Studies in Scots and Gaelic (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 11), Belfast: Queen's University. MCCOY, Gordon/Maolcholaim SCOTT (eds.) (2000): Gaelic Identities. Aithne na nGael, Belfast: The Institute of Irish Studies, Queen's University/Ultach Trust. MCCRONE, David (1992): Understanding Scotland. The Sociology of a Stateless Nation, London/New York: Routledge. MCCRONE, David (1999): Opinion Polls in Scotland July 1998 June 1999, in: Scottish Affairs 28, summer 1999, 32-43. MCCRONE, David (2001): Who are we? Understanding Scottish Identity, in: Catherine DI DOMENICO et al. (eds.): Boundaries and Identities: Nation, Politics and Culture in Scotland, Dundee: University of Abertay, 11-36. MCGRIGOR, Jamie (2005): Speech in the Scottish Parliament's plenary debate, February 2nd, 2005, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/ meetingsParliament/or05/sor0202-02.htm. MCLEOD, Fionnlagh (2000): Oral Evidence to the Scottish Parliament Education, Culture and Sports Committee, May 2nd, 2000, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees /historic/education/or-00/ed00-1501.htm. MCLEOD, Wilson (1998): Scotland's languages in Scotland's parliament, in: Scottish Affairs, 24 (1998), 68-82. MCLEOD, Wilson (1999): Gaelic in Scotland: A 'Renaissance' without planning, paper at the Seventh International Conference on Minority Languages, Bilbao 1-3 December 1999. MCLEOD, Wilson (2000): Official Gaelic: Problems in the Translation of Public Documents, in: Scottish Language 2000, 100-115.
339 MCLEOD, Wilson (2001a), Faclair na Prlamaid: A Critical Evaluation, Edinburgh: Roinn na Ceiltis agus Elas na h-Alba, Oilthigh Dhnideann/Department of Celtic and Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh, http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/celtic/ poileasaidh/faclairrep.pdf. MCLEOD, Wilson (2001b). The State of the 'Gaelic Economy': A Research Report. Edinburgh: Department of Celtic and Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh, http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/celtic/poileasaidh/GAELJOBSREP3.htm. MCLEOD, Wilson (2001c): Oral Evidence in the Scottish Parliament's Procedures Committee, December 18th, 2001, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/ committees/historic/procedures/or01/pr01-1402.htm. MCLEOD, Wilson (2002a): Language Planning as Regional Development? The Growth of the Gaelic Economy, in: Scottish Affairs 38, winter 2002, 51-72. MCLEOD, Wilson (2002b): Submission to the Scottish Parliament debate on the Gaelic Bill by Michael Russell, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports03/edr03-04-vol02-01.htm. MCLEOD, Wilson (2002c): Gaelic in Scotland: the relationship between corpus and status planning, http://www.geocities.com/celeuropa/AlpesEuropa/Urtijei2002/Mcleod.html. MCLEOD, Wilson (2003a): Gaelic Medium Education in the International Context, in: Margaret NICOLSON/Matthew MACIVER (eds): Gaelic Medium Education (Policy and Practice in Education 10), Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press, 15-34. MCLEOD, Wilson (2003b): Gaelic-medium Education in Scotland, in: Maolcholaim SCOTT/Rise N BHAOILL (eds.) Gaelic-Medium Education Provision: Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 8), Belfast: Queen's University, 118-132. MCLEOD, Wilson (2003c): Ideological and Practical Barriers to Minority Language Service Provision: The Example of Gaelic in Scotland, paper given at the International Conference on Minority Languages IX Kiruna, Sweden, 6-7 June 2003. MCLEOD, Wilson (2003d): Oral evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Education Committee, January 7th, 2003, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/ committees/historic/education/reports03/edr03-04-vol02-01.htm. MCLEOD, Wilson (2003e): Submission to Draft Executive Bill, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Arts-Culture/gaelic/17912/14460. MCLEOD, Wilson (2004): Submission to Executive Bill, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/education/inquiries/gaelic%20langu age/D_McLeod,%20Wilson.pdf. MACLOID, Iain (2002): Evidence at the Scottish Parliament's Public Petition Committee Meeting on September 24th, 2002, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ business/committees/historic/petitions/or-02/pu02-1402.htm. MCRAE, Kenneth (2001): Conflict in a Multicultural World: A Theoretical Essay, in: NELDE, Peter and Rosita RINDLER SCHJERVE (eds.): Minorities and Language Policy. Minderheiten und Sprachpolitik. Minorits et lamenagement linguistique. Plurilingua XXII. St. Augustin: Asgard, pp. 319. MEEK, Donald E. (1996): The Scottish Highlands. The Churches and Gaelic Culture, Geneva: WCC Publications. MEEK, Donald E. (2000): God and Gaelic: The Highland Churches and Gae Cultural Identity, in: Gordon MCCOY/Maolcholaim SCOTT (eds.): Gaelic Identities. Aithne na nGael, Belfast: The Institute of Irish Studies, Queen's University/Ultach Trust, 28-47.
340 MEEK, Donald E. (2002): Submission to Russell Bill, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/ committees/historic/education/reports-03/edr03-04-vol02-01.htm. MERCATOR LEGISLATION (2004): Official Languages other than Spanish will be Used in the Spanish Senate and in Other Institutions, http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/notis-anual.cfm?lg=gb. MERCATOR LEGISLATION (2005): Web Site http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/index-gb.htm MERCATOR NETWORK (2005): Web Site http://www.mercator-central.org. MINDE, Henry (1986): Samebevegelsen og offentlig politikk historisk tilbakeblikk, in: Reidar ERKE/Asle HGMO (eds.): Identitet og livsutfoldelse. En artikkelsamling om flerfolkelige samfunn med vekt p sameness situasjon, Troms et al.: Universitetsforlaget, 83-93. MINISTERIAL ADVISORY GROUP ON GAELIC (2001): A Fresh Start for Gaelic, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. MINISTERIAL ADVISORY GROUP ON GAELIC (2002): The National Plan for Gaelic, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. MORGAN, Peadar (2003): Oral Evidence to Michael Russell Bill, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ business/committees/ historic/education/reports-03/edr03-04-vol02-01.htm. MORRISON, Alasdair (2000): Written Answer on questions by Fergus Ewing MSP (SNP), September 2000. MORRISON, Alasdair (2001a) Submission to the Broadcasting report, http://www.scottish. parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports-01/edr01-14-vol02-03.htm. MORRISON, Alasdair (2001b): MSP web site, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/biographies/w-isle.htm. MHLHUSLER, Peter (1996): Linguistic Ecology, London/New York: Routledge. MUNICIO LARSEN, Ingegerd (1997): Multilingalism in a Minority/Majority Perspective, with special Regard to the Question of Rights of Language Minorities, in: Unn RYNELAND (ed.), Language Contact and Language Conflict. Proceedings of the International Ivar Aasen Conference 14-16 November 1996 University of Oslo (Publications from the Ivar Aasen Institute 4), Volda: Volda College, 53-90. MUNRO, John Farquhar (2001): Speech on October 25th, 2001, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk /business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-01/sor1025-02.htm. MUNRO, John Farquhar (2003): MSP Web Site, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/biographies/ross.htm. MUNRO, John Farquhar (2005): Speech in the Scottish Parliament's plenary debate, February 2nd, 2005, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/ meetingsParliament/or05/sor0202-02.htm. MURKENS, Jo Eric with Peter JONES/Michael KEATING (2002): Scottish Independence. A Practical Guide, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. MYNTTI, Kristian (1998): Minoriteters och urfolks politiska rttigheter. En studie av rtten fr sm minoriteter och urfolk till politiskt deltagande och sjlvbestmmande, bo: bo Akademi. NAF (2001): NAF Veibok 2001, Oslo: NAF. NEFF-VAN AERTSELAER, JoAnne (2004): Language Policies in Spain: Accomodation or Alteration, paper given at the 30th International LAUD Symposium Empowerment Through Language, University of Koblenz-Landau, April 19-22, 2004.
341 NEGOTIATION DIARIES (1999). Diary of Scottish Liberal Democrat Negotiator: Ross FINNIE MSP and Diary of Scottish Labour Party Negotiator: Henry MCLEISH MSP, in: Scottish Affairs 28 (1999), 51-61. NEIL, ALEX (2005): Speech in the Scottish Parliament's plenary debate, February 2nd, 2005, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/ meetingsParliament/or05/sor0202-02.htm. NETTLE, Daniel/Suzanne ROMAINE (2000): Vanishing Voices. The Extinction of the Worlds Languages, Oxford et al.: OUP. NEWTON, Michael (1997): Gaelic in Scottish History and Culture, Belfast: An Clochn. NEWTON, Michael (2000): A Handbook of the Scottish Gaelic World, Dublin/Portland: Four Courts Press. NICNILL, Mrag (2001): Gaelic Broadcasting: On the Threshold of a New Era, in: Mercator Media Forum 5, 99-106. NICOLSON, Margaret/Matthew MACIVER (2003): Contexts and Futures, in: Margaret NICOLSON/Matthew MACIVER (eds): Gaelic Medium Education (Policy and Practice in Education 10), Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press, 63-73. NISBET, Jean (2003): A Local Authority Perspective, in: Margaret NICOLSON/Matthew MACIVER (eds): Gaelic Medium Education (Policy and Practice in Education 10), Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press, 47-62. NORSKE SAMERS RIKSFORBUND (2004): Kulturmeldingen: Ingen perspektiver for samisk kultur, http://www.nsr.no/website.aspx?objectid=1&displayed=3860. NOWAK, Elke (2001): Multilingualismus und Multikulturalismus in Kanadas Norden: NordwestTerritorien und Nunavut, in: Peter NELDE/Rosita RINDLER SCHJERVE (eds.): Minorities and Language Policy. Minderheiten und Sprachpolitik. Minorits et lamenagement linguistique. Plurilingua XXII. St. Augustin: Asgard, 227-234. NYST, Sven-Roald (1990): Den politiske organiseringen av samisk sjlstyre i Norge, in: Synnve HITLAND (ed.): Sjlstyre for urbefolkninger i Norge og Nicaragua. Om etablering av Sametinget i Norge og Autonomiregjerinene i Nicaragua (FDH-rapport 1990:7), Alta: Finnmark Distriktshgskole, 75-96. NYST, Sven-Roald (2001): Nyttrstale 2002, December 31st, 2001, Karasjok. NYST, Sven-Roald (2002a): Offisiell pning av Samisk sprksenter i Tana, November 7th, 2002, Tana. NYST, Sven-Roald (2002b): Samenes nasjonaldag, Speech at the Smi National Day 2002, February 6th, 2002, Hattfjelldal. NYST, Sven-Roald (2002c): Sametinget, demokrati og samfunnsstyring. Lecture given at the conference Indigenous Politics: Aspects of Power and Democracy, October 3rd-5th, 2002. NYST, Sven-Roald (2003a): Nyttrstale 2003, January 1st, 2003, Karasjok. NYST, Sven-Roald (2003b): Speech at the NSR's national convention on June 27th-29th 2003, Trones, Namsskogan Municipality. BUACHALLA, Breandn (2002): 'Common Gaelic' Revisited, in: BAOILL, Colm/Nancy R. MCGUIRE (eds.): Rannsachadh na Gidhlig 2000. Papers read at the Conference Scottish Gaelic Studies 2000 held at the University of Aberdeen 2-4 August 2000, Obar Dheathain: An Cl Gaidhealach, 1-12.
342 CORRIN, Ailbhe/Samus MAC MATHNA (1998): Minority Languages in Scandinavia, Britain, and Ireland (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Celtica Upsaliensa 3), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. DOCHARTAIGH, Cathair (1992): The Celtic languages in the British Isles yesterday and today, in: BLOM, Gunilla et al. (eds.): Minority Languages The Scandinavian Experience. Papers read at the conference in Edinburgh 9 11 November 1990, Arranged by the Department of Scandinavian Studies, University of Edinburgh, Oslo: Nordic Language Secretariat, 119-129. HIFEARNIN, Tadhg (1998): Irish, in: Ailbhe CORRIN/Samus MAC MATHNA: Minority Languages in Scandinavia, Britain, and Ireland (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Celtica Upsaliensa 3), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 199-220. ODELSTINGET (1986): Odelstings proposisjon 33 (1986-87) Om lov om Sametinget og andre samiske rettsforhold (Sameloven). ODNER, Knut (1995): Samisk identitet, in: Norsk Antropologisk Tidsskrift (6) 2/1995, 127-138. ODNER, Knut (1997): Utfordringer og reorienteringer i forstelsen av det samiske, in: Norsk Antropologisk Tidsskrift (8) 3-4/1997, 231-243. OGMIOS (2005): Ogmios Foundation for Endangered Languages. Web Site, http://www.ogmios.org/235.htm. IA, Tormod (ed.) (1996): Ung p 90-Tallet, Cappelen Akademisk Forlag/UNGforsk. OKEY, Robin (2000): Lesser-used Languages and Linguistic Minorities in Europe since 1918: An Overview, in: Geraint H. JENKINS and Mari A. WILLIAMS (eds.): 'Let's Do Our Best for the Ancient Tongue': The Welsh Language in the Twentieth Century, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 627-656. OLSSON, Sven E./Dave LEWIS (1995): Welfare rules and indigenous rights: the Sami people and the Nordic welfare states, in: John DIXON/Robert P. SCHEURELL (eds.): Social welfare with indigenous peoples, London/New York: Routledge, 139-185. ZERK, Kamil/Inger Marie G. EIRA (1996): Sprkrevitalisering og samisk-norsk tosprklighet i offentlige etater. En studie av bruken av samisk som forvaltningssprk i kommuner i forvaltningsomrdet for samisk sprk, Kautokeino: Samisk Sprkrd. PAINE, Robert (1985): The Claim of the Forth World, in: BRDSTED, J. (et.al. eds.): Native Power. Bergen et al.: Universitetsforlaget AS, 49-66. PARRY, M. Mair/Winifred V. DAVIES/Rosalind A. M. TEMPLE (eds.) (1994): The Changing Voices of Europe. Social and political changes and their linguistic repercussions, past, present and future. Papers in honour of Professor Glanville Price, Cardiff: University of Wales Press. PATERSON, Lindsay (1994): The Autonomy of Modern Scotland, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. PATERSON, Lindsay (1998): A Diverse Assembly. The Debate on a Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. PATERSON, Lindsay (2002): Civic Democracy, in: HASSAN, Gerry/Chris WARHURST (eds.) (2002): Anatomy of the New Scotland. Power, Influence and Change, Edinburgh/London: Mainstream Publishing, 56-64. PATERSON, Lindsay et al. (2001): New Scotland, New Politics? Edinburgh: Polygon. PATTIE, Charles et al. (1998): The 1997 Scottish Referendum: An Analysis of the Results, in: Scottish Affairs 22 (1998), 1-15.
343 PEDERSEN, Roy (2000): The Gaelic Economy, in: Amy HALE/Philip PAYTON (eds.), New Directions in Celtic Studies, Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 152-166. PEDERSEN, Steinar (1996): Saami Rights: A Historical and Contemporary Outlook. A Nordic Saami Convention and the Lapp Codicil of 1751, in: SEURUJRVI-KARI, Irja/Ulla-Maija KULONEN (eds.): Essays on Indigenous Identity and Rights, Helsinki: Yliopistopaino Helsinki University Press, 66-86. PEDERSON, Roy N. (1995): Scots Gaelic. An Economic Force. A paper delivered at the conference "Language Planning and Policy in the EU" held on the 28th & 29th April 1995 at The Institute of Irish Studies, The University of Liverpool. PHILLIPSON, Robert/Mart RANNUT/Tove SKUTNABB-KANGAS (1995): Introduction, in: Tove SKUTNABB-KANGAS/Robert PHILLIPSON (eds.): Linguistic Human Rights. Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-21. PHILLIPSON, Robert/Tove SKUTNABB-KANGAS (1997): Lessons for Europe from language policy in Australia, in: Martin PTZ (ed.): Language choices. Conditions, constraints, and consequences, 20th International LAUD Symposium, February 28th - March 3rd, 1995, University of Duisburg, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 115-159. PRICE, Glanville (2000): The Other Celtic Languages in the Twentieth Century, in: Geraint H. JENKINS/Mari A. WILLIAMS (eds.): 'Let's Do Our Best for the Ancient Tongue': The Welsh Language in the Twentieth Century, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 601-626. PRICE, Glanville (ed.) (2000): Languages in Britain and Ireland, Oxford et al.: Blackwell. PRISEACT NAN EALAN/THE GAELIC ARTS AGENCY (2001): Submission to the debate on the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee Report, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees /historic/education/reports-01/edr01-14-vol01-02.htm PUSCHMANN, Claudia (1996): Zur historischen Dimension der Sprachunterdrckung in Europa vom 18, bis 20. Jahrhundert, in: Karin BOTT-BODENHAUSEN (ed.): Unterdrckte Sprachen. Sprachverbote und das Recht auf Gebrauch der Minderheitensprachen, Frankfurt: Lang, S. 159-202. REGJERINGEN I NORGE (1985): Norges Offisielle Utredninger. Samisk kultur. Oslo: Government of Norway. REGJERINGEN I NORGE (1989): Sameloven, http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19870612-056.html. REGJERINGEN I NORGE (1997): Norges Offisielle Utredninger. Videregende opplring, Oslo: Government of Norway. REGJERINGEN I NORGE (1998): Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregande opplringa (opplringslova), http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-19980717-061.html. REGJERINGEN I NORGE (2003a): An overview of the 2nd monitoring round, http://odin.dep.no/kkd/norsk/samarbeid/internasjonalt/043041-220003/dok-bn.html. REGJERINGEN I NORGE (2003b): Election results, http://odin.dep.no/krd/html/valgresultat2003. REGJERINGEN I NORGE (2004): Grunnloven, http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-18140517-000006.html. REGJERINGEN I NORGE, KULTUR- OG KIRKEDEPARTMENTET (2004): Press Release December 12th, 2004, http://odin.dep.no/kkd/norsk/043041-070037/dok-bn.html. RINDLER-SCHJERVE, Rosita (2004): Minderheit/Minority, in: Ulrich AMMON et al. (eds.): Sociolinguisitcs. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, 2nd completely revised and extended edition, Volume 1 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 3.1), Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 480-486, p. 485.
344 RITCHIE, Murray (2000): Scotland Reclaimed. The inside story of Scotland's first democratic parliamentary election, Edinburgh: The Saltire Society. ROBERTSON, Boyd (1999): Gaelic Education, in: Tom G.K. BRYCE/Walter M. HUMES (eds.): Scottish Education, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 244-255. ROBERTSON, Boyd (2001): Gaelic in Scotland, in: EXTRA, Guus/Durk GORTER (eds.): The Other Languages of Europe. Demographic, Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives (Multilingual Matters 118), Clevedon et al.: Multilingual Matters, 83-101. ROBERTSON-WENSAUER, Caroline Y. (1991): Ethnische Identitt und politische Mobilisation: das Beispiel Schottland (Nomos Universittsschriften Kulturwissenschaft 1), Baden-Baden: Nomos. ROSS, Helen (2003): Submission to the Draft Gaelic Bill by the Scottish Executive, www.scottish. parliament.uk//business/committees/education/inquiries/gaelic%20language/D_Ross%20He len.pdf. RYNELAND, Unn (ed.) (1997): Language Contact and Language Conflict. Proceedings of the International Ivar Aasen Conference 14-16 November 1996 University of Oslo (Publications from the Ivar Aasen Institute 4), Volda: Volda College. RUSSELL, Michael (2001): Language and Politics in Scotland, in: KIRK, John M./Dnall P. BAOILL (eds.): Linguistic Politics. Language Policies for Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 3), Belfast: Queen's University, 23-28. RUSSELL, Michael (2002a): Private Member's Gaelic Language Bill, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/billsPassed/b69s1.pdf. RUSSELL, Michael (2002b): Oral Evidence to the Gaelic Bill by Michael Russell, http://www.scottish. parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports-03/edr03-04-vol01-01.htm RUSSELL, Michael (2003): Submission to Executive Bill, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/ArtsCulture/gaelic/17912/14843. SAMETINGET (1990): Sametingsplan 1991 1993, Karasjok: Sametinget. SAMETINGET (1992): Sametingets sprkretningslinjer, Karasjok: Sametinget. SAMETINGET (1993a): Sametingsplan 1994 1997, Karasjok: Sametinget. SAMETINGET (1993b): The Sameting's Information Strategy; Guide to the Smi Act's Language Rules, Karasjok: Sametinget. SAMETINGET (1999): Mtebok 1/99, Karasjok: Sametinget. SAMETINGET (2001a): Sametingsplan 2002 2005, Karasjok: Sametinget. SAMETINGET (2001b): Sprkgruppe i Sknland fr sprkmotiveringsprisen 2001, Press Release November 16th 2001. SAMETINGET (2001c): Mtebok 4/01, Karasjok: Sametinget. SAMETINGET (2001d): rsmelding 2001, Karasjok: Sametinget: SAMETINGET (2002a): rsmelding 2002, http://odin.dep.no/krd/norsk/dok/regpubl/stmeld/016001-040014/ved001-bn.html SAMETINGET (2002b): Oppblomstring for srsamisk sprk i skolen. Press Release September 26th, 2002. SAMETINGET (2002c): Mtebok 2/02, Karasjok: Sametinget. SAMETINGET (2002d): Mtebok 1/02, Karasjok: Sametinget.
345 SAMETINGET (2002e): Rett til samisk opplring utenfor forvaltningsomrdet for samisk sprk, Press Release November 21st, 2002. SAMETINGET (2002f): Sametingets budsjett nkkeltall, Press Release October 2nd, 2002. SAMETINGET (2002g): Samisk hgskole m utvikles som selvstendig hgskole, Press Release 30th April 2002. SAMETINGET (2002h): Samisk i riksmedia, Press Release October 1st, 2002. SAMETINGET (2002i): Samisk i Sametinget. Rapport fra en arbeidsgruppe i Sametinget, March 21, 2002, Karasjok: Sametinget. SAMETINGET (2002j): Sprkmotiveringspris til Harry Solhaug, Press Release November 25th, 2002. SAMETINGET (2002k): Statsbudsjett 2003: 5 millioner mer til tosprklighet, Press Release October 6th, 2002. SAMETINGET (2003a): Samisk Lringsnett Offisiell pning av nettstedet, Press Release January 16th, 2003. SAMETINGET (2003b): Samisk nettleser viktig for samisk sprk, Press Release January 10th, 2003. SAMETINGET (2003c): Sprkstyret kritiserer NRK Dagsrevyen, Press Release August 26th, 2003. SAMETINGET (2003d): Statsbudsjettet 2004: Ingen merkbar satsing p det samiske samfunnet. Press Release October 8th, 2003. SAMETINGET (2005): Web Site, at www.samediggi.no. SAMETINGETS SPRKAVDELING (2001/2002): Mtebker 2001-2002, Karasjok: Sametinget. SAMETINGSRDET (2001): Sametingsrdets tiltredelseserklring. Framlagt for Sametinget 16.oktober 2001, Karasjok: Sametinget. SAMETINGSRDET (2001-2003): Mtebker 2001-2003, Karasjok: Sametinget. SMI EALHUS- JA GUORAHALLANGUOVDD SAMISK NRINGS- OG UTREDNINGSSENTER (2000): Raporta Iskkadeapmi smegiela geavaheami birra/Rapport Underskelse om bruken av samisk sprk, Deatnu/Tana: SEG. SMI INSTITUHTTA (NORDISK SAMISK INSTITUTT) (2000): Samisk videregende opplring rettigheter og innhold. Evaluering av samisk videregende opplring under Reform 94 (Dieut 7/2000), Guovdageaidnu: Smi Instituhtta. SAMISK SPRKRD (1993): rsmelding 1993, Kautokeino: Samisk Sprkrd. SAMMALAHTI, Pekka (1990): The Smi Language: Past and Present, in: Dirmid R. F. COLLIS (ed.): Arctic Languages. An Awakening, Paris: Unesco, 437-458. SAMMALAHTI, Pekka (2000): Saami, in: Jan WIRRER (ed.): Minderheiten- und Regionalsprachen in Europa, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 11-22. SARA, Andde (2002) Regional Characteristics of Spmi and the Sami people, Presentation at the Conference: "The Regional Identity of Ethnic Groups in Europe", in collaboration with "The Land of Schleswig-Holstein, the Federal Union of European Nationalities and the European Academy Sankelmark" 13 - 14 June 2002, http://www.fuen.org/pdfs/20020614Saami_Sara.pdf. SARA, Inker-Anni (1996): The Social Ramifications of the Damming of the River Alta, in: SEURUJRVI-KARI, Irja/Ulla-Maija KULONEN (eds.): Essays on Indigenous Identity and Rights, Helsinki: Yliopistopaino Helsinki University Press, 101-104. SCHEININ, Martin (1996): Land Rights and the Right to Culture, in: SEURUJRVI-KARI, Irja/Ulla-Maija KULONEN (eds.): Essays on Indigenous Identity and Rights, Helsinki: Yliopistopaino Helsinki University Press, 87-100.
346 SCHIFFMAN, Harold F. (1996): Linguistic Culture and Language Policy, London et al.: Routledge. SCHLESINGER, Philip/William DINAN/David MILLER (2002): Closed Scotland?: Lobbying at Holyrood, in: HASSAN, Gerry/Chris WARHURST (eds.) (2002): Anatomy of the New Scotland. Power, Influence and Change, Edinburgh/London: Mainstream Publishing, 65-74. SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEINISCHER LANDTAG (2004): Gesetz zur Frderung des Friesischen im ffentlichen Raum (Friesisch-Gesetz FriesischG), http://www.landesregierung-sh.de/landesrecht/1881H.htm. SCHNEIDER, Axel (2000): Die auswrtige Sprachpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Dr. Rabes Doktorhte 2), Bamberg: Collibri. SCOTT, Maolcholaim/Rise N BHAOILL (eds.) (2003): Gaelic-Medium Education Provision: Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 8), Belfast: Queen's University. SCOTTISH CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY (1999): Scotland First, http://www.scottish.tory.org.uk/scotcons.neu/image/Manifesto.pdf. SCOTTISH CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY (2003): Manifesto, http://www.scottishtories.org.uk/manifesto.html. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999a): Alasdair Morrison visits Ireland on Gaelic language factfinding trip, Press Release December 14th, 1999, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/press1999_16/se1663.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999b): Alasdair Morrison appoints task force for Gaelic Press Release December 16th, 1999, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/press1999_16/se1699.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999c): CNAG supports new Task Force, Press Release December 17th, 1999, http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/pressrel/taskfor.htm. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999d): CNAG encouraged by Minister for Gaelic's address, Press Release June 7th, 1999, http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/pressrel/mincomh.htm. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999e): New impetus for proposed Gaelic Language Act, Press Release June 8th, 1999, http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/pressrel/gla.htm. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999f): Working for Secure Status top of the agenda says Minister for Gaelic, Press Release June 8th, 1999, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/releas99_6/pr1152.htm. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999g): Gaelic TV Task Force announced, Press Release June 9th, 1999, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/releas99_6/pr1161.htm. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999h): Strengthening Gaelic Arts Links across the Water, Press Release March 1st, 1999, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/releas99_3/pr0477.htm. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999i): Bilingual road signs get green light, Press Release October 6th, 1999, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/press1999_08/se0812.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999j): Alasdair Morission says Gaelic-medium report must be acted on, Press Release October 7th, 1999, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/1999_08/se0825.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999k): Alasdair Morission opens Royal National Mod, Press Release October 8th, 1999, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/1999_10/se0872.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999l): Scotland's National Cultural Strategy, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/nationalculturalstrategy/docs/cult-06.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000a): Gaelic Television. A Dedicated Channel. The Gaelic Broadcasting Task Force Report, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/ heritage/gbtf-00.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000b): Latha Na Gidhlig, Press Release April 11th, 2000:
347 SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000c): First Gaelic Primary School opened by Donald Dewar, Press Release April 3rd, 2000. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2000/04/se0954.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000d): CNAG call for Cross-Party Group in Holyrood, Press Release February 22th, 2000 http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/pressrel/crosspty.htm. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000e): Glasgow's Gaels to have new focus, Press Release February 25th, 2000 http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/pressrel/glaschu.htm. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000f): Alasdair Morrison welcomes production of Gaelic dictionary, Press Release February 4th, 2000 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2000/02/se0268.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000g): Comunn na Gidhlig to commission Gaelic Public Business Dictionary, Press Release February 7th, 2000 http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/pressrel/dict.htm. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000h): More school teachers to be trained in Gaelic-medium, Press Release February 7th, 2000 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2000/02/se0261.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000i): Alasdair Morrison and Brian Wilson say Columba Initiative helping Gaelic culture thrive, Press Release March 16th, 2000 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2000/03/se0727.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000j): Morrison and Wilson launch international Gaelic Youth Theatre, Press Release March 17th, 2000 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2000/03/se0749.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000k): Gaelic education breakthrough, Press Release March 19th, 2000 http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/pressrel/fogh0505.htm. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000l): Extra 1 Million for UHI, Press Release March 27th, 2000 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2000/03/se0853.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000m): Alasdair Morrison welcomes 28,500 cash boost for Royal National Mod, Press Release March 28th, 2000 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2000/03/se0875.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000n): A responsive education system is key to securing the future of Gaelic Alasdair Morrison says, Press Release May 24th, 2000, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2000/05/se1481.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000o): Alasdair Morrison says Glasgows Gaelic Primary School is letting the language flourish, Press Release May 24th, 2000, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2000/03/se0727.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000p): New Gaelic Plan Launch, Press Release May 6th, 2000, http://www.cnag.org.uk/beurla/pressrel/gplc.htm. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000q): Gaelic: Revitalising Gaelic a National Asset, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/heritage/gtfr-01.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000r): Standard of Scotland's Schools Etc. Bill, as first introduced, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parl_bus/bills/b6s1.pdf. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2001a). Digital history of Gaelic Scotland launched, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2001/05/se1251.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2001b): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2001/02/se0232.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2001c): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2001/03/se0809.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2001d): Boost for Islay Gaelic centre, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pages/news/2001/09/SE3079.aspx. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2001e): Funding for Gaelic broadcasting and teaching, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pages/news/2001/10/SE4167.aspx.
348 SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2001f): FAQ's: Gaelic, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/faq/gaelic.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2001g): Submission to the Milne Report, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports01/edr01-14-vol02-03.htm. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2002a): Gaelic growing more popular, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pages/news/2002/03/SE5529.aspx. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2002b): Gaelic spreads into cyberspace, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pages/news/2002/03/SE5596.aspx. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2002c): Silver medal for Gaelic poem, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pages/news/2002/07/SEED065.aspx. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2002d): Gaelic roots run deep in Glasgow, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pages/news/2002/11/SETCS083.aspx. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2002e): Minister views Gaelic school's success, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pages/news/2002/11/SEtc096.aspx SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2002f): Appointment to Gaelic Development Agency, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pages/news/2002/10/SEtcs073.aspx. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2002g): New Gaelic Development Agency, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pages/news/2002/06/p_SETC025.aspx. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2003a): Gaelic Development Agency takes first steps, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/01/2898. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2003b): First meeting of new Gaelic agency, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/01/2937. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2003c): Gaelic Language Bill Consultation Paper, Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive, available also at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/culture/glbc-00.asp. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2003d): Support for Gaelic education, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/06/3644 SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2003e): Funding for Gaelic arts tuition, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/08/3973. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2003f): Gaelic medium education, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/09/4127. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2003g): Ali champions Gaelic reading, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/10/4279. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2003h): Great Book of Gaelic, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/10/4313. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2003i): Gaelic Act Consultation Paper, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Arts-Culture/gaelic/17912/12313. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2004a): Gaelic Bill Consultation Analysis Response, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Arts-Culture/gaelic/17912/19812. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2004b): Gaelic first for Glasgow, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2004/05/5553. SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY (1999a): Caring for Scotland. Manifesto for Scotlands Parliament, http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/policies/manifest.htm. SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY (1999b): Language and Culture. Scottish Green Party briefing on
349 Language, Culture and Heritage, http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/policies/langpape.htm. SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY (1999c): Principles in Gaelic, http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/policies/gaelprin.htm SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY (1999d): Principles in Scots, http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/policies/scotprin.htm. SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY (2003): Manifesto, http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/id/4255/title/Reach_For_The_Future.html SCOTTISH LABOUR PARTY (1998): Gaelic and the Scots Language, Document 4th December 1998. SCOTTISH LABOUR PARTY (1998/1999): Partnership in Power. Education, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. 1st Year Policy Consultation Document. SCOTTISH LABOUR PARTY (1999): Scottish Parliament Election Manifesto. Culture, Sports and Gaelic, http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk. SCOTTISH LABOUR PARTY (2003): Manifesto, http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/manifestocontents/. SCOTTISH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS (1997): Referendum on a Scottish Parliament 11 September 1997, http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/elect/scottish/referend.htm. SCOTTISH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS (1999): Raising the Standard, http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/manifest/mani99.htm SCOTTISH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS (2000): Press Release March 2nd, 2000: Munro urges new Gaelic settlement, http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/press/0003022.htm. SCOTTISH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS (2003) Manifesto, http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/manifestos/se2003/. SCOTTISH NATIONAL HERITAGE (2002): Submission to the debate on the Gaelic Bill by Michael Russell, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/education/reports03/edr03-04-vol02-01.htm#3g. SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY (1993): Policy. Gaelic, Scottish National Party. SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY (1999): Scotlands Party, Scotlands Parliament. Manifesto for the 1999 elections, http://www.snp.org.uk. SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY (2003): Manifesto, http://www2.snp.org/html/election/index.php. SCOTTISH OFFICE (1999a): Gaelic TV Task Force announced, Press Release June 9th, 1999 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/releas99_6/pr1161.htm. SCOTTISH OFFICE (1999b): Working for Secure Status top of the agenda says Minister for Gaelic, Press Release June 8th, 1999 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/releas99_6/pr1152.htm. SCOTTISH PARLAMENT (2005): Official Report, April 21st, 2005, http//www.scottish. parliament.uk/business/ officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-05/sor0421-02.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (1999-2006): Written Answers, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/pqa/index.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (1999a): Official Report, October 20th, 1999, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/cttee/enter99-00/el0503.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (1999b): Agreement in principle to appoint Gaelic Officer for Parliament, Parliamentary News Release 0057/99 of November 3rd, 1999: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/whats_happening/news99_00/pa0057.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (1999c): Filte greetings,
350 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/welcoming_you/wy.html. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (1999d): Standing Orders, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parl_bus/sto1htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2000a): Business Bulletin 37/2000 of February 29th, 2000: General guidance for members who wish to speak in a language other than English, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/agenda_and_decisions/bb99-00/bb-02-29an.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2000b): Committee News Release CED021/2000 of May 2nd, 2000: Education Committee to discuss Gaelic medium education, Tuesday 2 May, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/whats_happening/news99_00/ced00-021.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2000c): Gaelic Fact Sheet, March 2nd, 2000, Edinburgh: The Scottish Parliament. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2000d): Official Report, Session March 2nd, 2000, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/session-00/or050401.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2000e): Scottish Parliament Gaelic Debate - in Gaelic (Notes for Media), Parliamentary News Release 013/2000, February 29th, 2000, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/whats_happening/news99_00/pa00-013.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2000f): Scottish Parliament to appoint Gaelic Officer, Parliamentary News Release 015/2000 of March 9th, 2000: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/whats_happening/news-00/pa00-015.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2000g): Written Answers September 4th, 2000, http:// www.scottish.parliament.uk/ business/pqa/wa-00/wa0904.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2000h): Official Report September 7th, 2000, http://www.scottish. parliament.uk/business/ officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-00/or080202.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2000i): Official Report June 7th, 2000, http://www.scottish. parliament.uk/business/ officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-00/or070102.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2000j): Business Bulletin 37/2000 of February 29th, 2000: General guidance for members who wish to speak in a language other than English, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/agenda_and_decisions/bb99-00/bb-02-29an.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2000k): Official Report, March 22nd, 2000, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/session-00/or050903.htm SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2000l): Scottish Parliament to appoint Gaelic Officer, Parliamentary News Release 015/2000 of March 9th, 2000: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/whats_happening/news-00/pa00-015.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2001a): Annual Report 2000-2001, at: www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/ anrep-accts/spar/ar-01/parlar01-07.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2001b): Business Bulletin 82/2001, May 21st, 2001, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk//business/businessBulletin/bb-01/bb-05-21f.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2001c): Business Bulletin No. 185/2001, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/businessBulletin/bb-01/bb-12-13a.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2001d): Official Report November 28th, 2001, http://www.scottish. parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-01/sor1128-02.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2001e): Paper 473, Session 1 (2001). SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2002): Official Report October 10th, 2002, http://www.scottish. parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-02/sor1010-02.htm.
351 SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2003a): 2003 - 2007 Session: A Guide to the Taking of the Oath of Allegiance or Solemn Affirmation (May 7 - 9.30am), Parliamentary News Release May 6th, 2003, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-03/pa03-024.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2003b): Official Report March 25th, 2003, http://www.scottish. parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-03/sor0528-02.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2003c): What's happening in the Scottish Parliament. Cross-Party Groups, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/ history/whisp/whisp-03/wh149-05.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2004): Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Language Policy, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/lang-pol.htm SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (2005): Plenary debate on the Education Bill on February 2nd, 2005. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2000a): Official Report May 23rd, 2000, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/cttee/educ-00/edmop0523.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2000b): Official Report May 2nd, 2000, at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/cttee/educ-00/ed00-1501.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2000c): Official Report, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/cttee/educ-00/ed00-1502.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2001a): Official Report December 18th, 2001, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/procedures/or-01/pr011402.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2001b): Report on Gaelic Broadcasting, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/heritage/gbtf-00.asp SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2002): http:// www.scottish. parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/education/papers-02/edp02-32.pdf. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2003a). Official Report September 3rd 2003, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/ committees/historic/education/or-03/ed030302.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2003b): 2nd Report 2003, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports03/edr03-02-vol01-02.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2003c): http://www.scottish. parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/education/papers-03/edp03-01.pdf. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2003d): www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/education/papers-03/edp03-02.pdf SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2005a): Stage 1 Report on the Gaelic Bill 2004, January 2005, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/education/ reports05/edr05-02-03.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2005b): Report on Gaelic Bill 2005, http:// www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/education/reports-05/edr05-02-02.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE (2005c): Official Report, March 2nd, 2005, at: www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/ committees/education/or-05/ed05-0602.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION CULTURE AND SPORT COMMITTEE (2001): 14th Report 2001, at: www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports01/edr01-14-vol02-03.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION CULTURE AND SPORT COMMITTEE (2003a): 4th Report
352 2003, http:// www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports03/edr03-04-vol01-01.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDUCATION CULTURE AND SPORT COMMITTEE (2003b): 4th Report 2003, Volume 2 Evidence, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports-03/edr03-04-vol02-01.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT INFORMATION CENTRE (2000): Subject Map Gaelic (March 2nd, 2000), Edinburgh: The Scottish Parliament. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (1999a): Official Report November 16th, 1999, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/cttee/proced99-00/pr0701.htm SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (1999b): Official Report December 14th, 1999, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/cttee/proced99-00/pr0902.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (2001): Official Report December 18th, 2001, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/ committees/historic/procedures/or-01/pr011402.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE (2002): Official Report September 24th, 2002, http:// www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/ committees/historic/petitions/or02/pu02-1402.htm. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT.COM (1999): Data of the 1979 referendum, http://www.thescottishparliament.com/devolution/79ref.shtml. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT/PRLAMAID NA H-ALBA (2004): Gidhlig, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/gaidhlig. SCOTTISH SOCIALIST PARTY (1999): The Scottish Socialist Party. A Socialist Vision for a New Scotland, http://www.scotsocialistparty.org/manifesto.htm. SCOTTISH SOCIALIST PARTY (2003): Manifesto, http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/ election03/manifesto.html. SEATON, Janet/Levi PAY (2003): The Parliament's Use of Languages, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/briefings-03/sb03-22.pdf. SEIWERT, Wolf-Dieter (ed.) (2000): Die Saami. Indigenes Volk am Anfang Europas, Leipzig: Deutsch-Russisches Zentrum. SEURUJRVI-KARI, Irja/Ulla-Maija KULONEN (eds.) (1996): Essays on Indigenous Identity and Rights, Helsinki: Yliopistopaino Helsinki University Press. SKLNES, Sigrid (2001): Language and Development, in: Sigrid SKLNES (ed.): Sustaining and supporting the lesser used languages, Oslo/Alta: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, 83-106. SKLNES, Sigrid/Margrete GASKI (2000): Tosprklig tjenesteyting. Brukerunderskelse i forvaltningsomrdet for Samelovens sprkregler (NIBR prosjektrapport 2000:17), Oslo: NIBR (Norsk institutt for by- og regionforskning). SKOGVANG, Susann Funderud (2002): Samerett. Om sameness rett til en fortid, ntid og framtid, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. SKUTNABB-KANGAS, Tove (2000a). Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human rights?, Mahwah/London: Lawrence Erlbaum. SKUTNABB-KANGAS, Tove (2000b): Kommentrat raportii Iskkadeapmi Smegiela Geavaheami Birra/Kommentarer til rapporten Underskelse om bruk av samisk sprk, Deatnu/Tana: SEG.
353 SKUTNABB-KANGAS, Tove (2004): The right to mother-tongue education the hot potato in human rights instruments, paper given at the II Mercator International Symposium: Europe 2004: A new framework for all languages?, Tarragona, February 27th-28th, 2004. SKUTNABB-KANGAS, Tove/Robert PHILLIPSON (1995): Linguistic Human Rights, Past and Present, in: Tove SKUTNABB-KANGAS/Robert PHILLIPSON (eds.): Linguistic Human Rights. Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 71-110. SMITH, Carsten (1995): The Development of Smi Rights since 1980, in: Terje BRANTENBERG/Janne HANSEN/Henry MINDE (eds.): Becoming Visible. Indigenous Politics and Self-Government. Proceedings of the Conference on Indigenous Politics and SelfGovernment in Troms, 8-10 November, 1993, Troms: The University of Troms, Smi Dutkamiid Guovds Centre for Smi Studies, 65-72. SMITH, Rhona K.M. (2000): Preserving Linguistic Heritage; A Study of Scots Gaelic, in: International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 7, 173-188. SMITH, Roz (1995/96): The Local Press: What's in it for You?, in: Scottish Language 14/15, 148157. SMITH, Roz (2004): Languages other than English in Scottish Newspapers, in: Derrick MCCLURE (ed.): Doonsin' Emerauds: New Scrieves anent Scots an Gaelic/New Studies in Scots and Gaelic (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 11), Belfast: Queen's University, 103114. SOLBAKK, John T. (1997): Sami Mass Media Their Role in a Minority Society, in: Harald GASKI (ed.): Sami Culture in a New Era. The Norwegian Sami Experience, Krjohka/Karasjok: Davvi Girji, 171-198. SPOLSKY, Bernard (2004): Language Policy, Cambridge: CUP. SPROULL, Alan (1993): The Economics of Gaelic Language Development. A Research Report for Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Gaelic Television Committee with Comunn na Gaidhlig, Glasgow: Caledonian University. SPROULL, Alan (1996): Regional economic development and minority language use: the case of Gaelic Scotland, in: GRIN, Franois (ed.): Economic Approaches to Language and Language Planning (International Journal of the Sociology of Language 121), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 93118. SPROULL, Alan/Douglas CHALMERS (1998). The Demand for Gaelic Artistic and Cultural Products and Services: Patterns and Impacts. Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University. STEINER, Ludwig (1993): Die Entwicklung des Minderheitenschutzes im Rahmen des Europarates, in: Dieter BLUMENWITZ/Gilbert GORNIG (eds.): Minderheiten- und Volksgruppenrechte in Theorie und Praxis (Staats- und vlkerrechtliche Abhandlungen der Studiengruppe fr Politik und Vlkerrecht 12), Cologne: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 2938. STORDAHL, Vigdis (1986): Samepolitisk organisering og representativitet, in: Reidar ERKE/Asle HGMO (eds.): Identitet og livsutfoldelse. En artikkelsamling om flerfolkelige samfunn med vekt p sameness situasjon, Troms et al.: Universitetsforlaget, 94-99. STORDAHL, Vigdis (1987): Smithing and Smi Committees - a Useful Political and Administrative Solution for the Smi in Norway?, in: IWGIA (ed.): Self determination and Indigenous Peoples. Smi Rights and Northern Perspectives. Compiled and edited from the Seminar "Self-Determination and Indigenous Peoples" organised by the Oslo and Copenhagen Local Groups of IWGIA (IWGIA Document 58), Copenhagen: IWGIA, 57-70, 69-70.
354 STORDAHL, Vigdis (1996): Same i den moderne verden. Endring og kontinuitet i et samisk lokalsamfunn, Karasjok: Davvi Givji. STORDAHL, Vigdis (1997): Samene: Fra "Lavtstaaende Race" til "Urbefolkning", in: Thomas HYLLAND ERIKSEN (ed.): Flerkulturell forstelse, Oslo: Tano Aschehoug, 139-152. STORTINGET (1988): Melding om virksomheten i Norsk Samerd 1988, Oslo. Stortinget. STORTINGET (1990): Lov om Stadnamn, http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19900518-011.html, Oslo: Stortinget. STORTINGET (1990-91): Stortingsmelding nr. 29 1990-91, Oslo: Stortinget. STORTINGET (1991-92a): Stortingsmelding nr. 52 1991-92, Oslo: Stortinget. STORTINGET (1991-92b): Stortingsmelding nr. 13 1991-92, Oslo: Stortinget. STORTINGET (1991-92c): Stortingsmelding nr. 61 1991-92, Oslo: Stortinget. STORTINGET (1992-93): Stortingsmelding nr. 52 1992-93, Oslo: Stortinget. STORTINGET (2000-01): Stortingsmelding nr. 55 2000-2001, Oslo: Stortinget. STORTINGET (2002-03a): Stortingsmelding nr. 48 2002-2003, Oslo: Stortinget. STORTINGET (2002-03b): Stortingsproposisjon nr. 1 2002-2003, Oslo: Stortinget. STORTINGET (2003-04a): Stortingsproposisjon nr. 1 20032004, Oslo: Stortinget. STORTINGET (2003-04b): Stortingsmelding nr. 10 2003-2004, Oslo: Stortinget. STRADLING, Bob/ Morag MACNEIL (2000): Home and Community: Their role in enhancing the Gaelic language competencies of children in Gaelic-medium Education, Sabhal Mr Ostaig: Lirsinn Research Centre. STRADLING, Robert (2001): Economic Research and Language Revitalization, in: Mercator Media Forum 5, 48-55. STREINZ, Rudolf (1996): Minderheiten- und Volksgruppenrechte in der Europischen Union, in: Dieter BLUMENWITZ/Gilbert GORNIG (eds.): Der Schutz von Minderheiten- und Volksgruppenrechten durch die Europische Union (Staats- und vlkerrechtliche Abhandlungen der Studiengruppe fr Politik und Vlkerrecht 15), Kln: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 11-29. STRUBELL, Miquel (1999): From language planning to language policies and language politics, in: Peter J. WEBER (ed.): Contact + Confli(c)t (Plurilingua XXI), Bonn: Dmmler, 237-248. STRUBELL, Miquel (2001): Minorities and European Language Policies, in: Peter NELDE/Rosita RINDLER SCHJERVE (eds.): Minorities and Language Policy (Plurilingua XXII), 45-58. SURRIDGE, Paula/David MCCRONE (1999): The 1997 Scottish referendum vote, in: TAYLOR, Bridget/Katarina THOMSON (eds.): Scotland and Wales: Nations Again?, Cardiff: University of Wales, 41-64. SUTHERLAND, Margaret B. (2000): Problems of Diversity in Policy and Practice: Celtic languages in the United Kingdom, in: Comparative Education 36 2/2000, 199-209. SVENSSON, Tom G. (1991): Samisk identitet i vr tid, in: Anders LINDE-LAURSEN/Jan Olof NILSSON (eds.): Nationella identiteter i Norden ett fullbordat project? Sjutton nordiska underskningar (Nord 1991: 26), Nordiska rdet, 267-277. SVONNI, Mikael (1996a) The Future of Saami - a Minority Language Spoken in Four Circumpolar Countries. In: WHEELERSBURG, R.P. (ed.) Northern Peoples, Southern States. Maintaining Ethnicities in the Circumpolar World. Northern Studies number 1. Center for Regional Science. Ume University.
355 SVONNI, Mikael (1996b): Saami Language as a Marker of Ethnic Identity Among the Saami, in: Irja SEURUJRVI-KARI/Ulla-Maija KULONEN (eds.) (1996): Essays on Indigenous Identity and Rights, Helsinki: Yliopistopaino Helsinki University Press, 105-125. SVONNI, Mikael (1997): Att lre sig samiska ett minoritetssprk. Vilken roll har skolan?, in: Eva WESTERGREN/Hans HL (eds.): Mer n ett sprk. En antologi om tv- och tresprkligheten i norra Sverige, Stockholm: Norstedts, 130-152. SVONNI, Mikael (1998): Sami, in: in: Ailbhe CORRIN/Samus MAC MATHNA: Minority Languages in Scandinavia, Britain, and Ireland (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Celtica Upsaliensa 3), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 21-50. SZYMOSZOWSKYJ, Steven (2000): 16th Scottish Parliament Finance Committee Report, November 2000, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/finance/ reports-00/fir0016-04.htm. TASKFORCE ON PUBLIC FUNDING ON GAELIC (2000): Gaelic: Revitalising Gaelic a National Asset, Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive. TAYLOR, Brian (1999): The Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh: Polygon. TAYLOR, Bridget/Katarina THOMSON (eds.) (1999): Scotland and Wales: Nations Again?, Cardiff: University of Wales. THE SCOTSMAN (2001): The way ahead, Summary of LoBianco Report, November 7th, 2001. THE SCOTSMAN (2003): The 2003 oath procedure in the Scottish Parliament, http://election.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=524512003&20050126235600. THE SCOTTISH OFFICE (1998): Report of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents-w5/rcsg-08.htm. THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT.COM (1999): The 1979 referendum, http://www.thescottishparliament.com/devolution/79ref.shtml. THE STATIONERY OFFICE (1999): Parliament. The shape of things to come. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. THOMSON, Derick (1980): Gaelic in Scotland: Assessment and Prognosis, in: Einar HAUGEN/J. Derrick MCCLURE/Derick THOMSON (eds.): Minority Languages Today, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 10-20. THOMSON, Derick (1994): Attitudes to linguistic change in Gaelic Scotland, in: M. Mair PARRY/Winifred V. DAVIES/Rosalind A. M. TEMPLE (eds.): The Changing Voices of Europe. Social and political changes and their linguistic repercussions, past, present and future. Papers in honour of Professor Glanville Price, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 227-236. THUEN, Trond (1985): Samisk og norsk i en nordnorsk kystbygd, in: Forskningsnytt fra Norges allmennvitenskapelige forskningsrd 6-7/1985, 9-13. TIEGER, Manfred P. (1991): Irland (Becksche Reihe, BsR 801, Aktuelle Lnderkunden), Mnchen: Beck. TODAL, Jon (2000): Samisk sprks stilling i skolen og lokalsamfunnet. Konferanse i Lakselv 28.29.11.2000, Karasjohka: Smediggi/Sametinget. TODAL, Jon (2002a): The Impact of the Official Norwegian Language Policy on the Micro-Level. Saami Language Maintenance: Revitalization in School, in: Lena HUSS/Antoinette CAMILLERI GRIMA/Kendall KING (eds.), Transcending Monolingualism: Linguistic Revitalisation in Education, Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 117-128.
356 TODAL, Jon (2002b): "jos fal ghttet gollegielat". Vitalisering av samisk sprk i Noreg p 1990-talet, avhandling til dr.art.-graden, Troms: Det humanistiske fakultet, Universitet i Troms. TODAL, Jon (2002c): Historia som faktor i vending av sprkskifte. Ein komparativ studie av glisk p East Sutherland og samisk i Tysfjord, prvefrelesing til dr. art.- graden ved Universitetet i Troms 7. juni 2002. TOLLEFSON, James W. (2002): Limitations of Language Policy and Planning, in: KAPLAN, Robert B. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: OUP, ch. 32, 416-425. TREVOR-ROPER, Hugh (1983/1996): The Invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland, in: Eric J. HOBSBAWM/Terence RANGER (eds.): The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: CUP, 15-41. TROMS LINGUISTICS IN THE EIGHTIES (1990): Troms Linguistics in the Eighties (Troms Studies in Linguistics 11), Oslo: Novus Press. TURAN, lter (1994): The Turkish Legislature: From Symbolic to Substantive Representation, in: COPELAND, Gary W./Samuel C. PATTERSON (eds.): Parliaments in the Modern World, University of Michigan Press, 105-128. TURI, Joseph G. (1995): Typology of Language Legislation, in: Tove SKUTNABBKANGAS/Robert PHILLIPSON (eds.): Linguistic Human Rights. Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 111-119. TURI, Joseph-G. (1997): L'intervention juridique des tats modernes en matire linguistique, in: Normand LABRIE (ed.): Etudes rcentes en linguistique de contact (Plurilingua XX), Bonn: Dmmler, 385-398. UGGERUD, Ken (1995): Samerett og samerettsutvikling, in: Mennesker og rettigheter 13, 4/1995, 336-359. UNESCO (2003): Language Vitality and Endangerment, Report by the Unesco Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages, http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.phpURL_ID=9105&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. UNITED NATIONS (1992): Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ d_minori.htm. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF LINGUISTIC RIGHTS (1998), Barcelona: Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights Follow-Up Committee, also at: http://www.linguistic-declaration.org. UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW LIBRARY (2003): Web Site on Election Manifestoes, http://www.lib.gla.ac.uk/elections2003/manifestos.html. VERMA, Mahendra K. (1996): Ethnic Minority Languages in Scotland, in: Scottish Language 14-15 (1995/96), 118-133. VIKR, Lars S. (1993): The Nordic Languages. Their Status and Interrelations (Nordic Language Secretariat Publication 14), Oslo: Novus Press. VIKR, Lars S. (1994), Sprkplanlegging. Prinsipp og praksis, Oslo: Novus. WARD, Rosemary (2003): Managing Provision: The School Perspective, in: Margaret NICOLSON/Matthew MACIVER (eds): Gaelic Medium Education (Policy and Practice in Education 10), Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press, 35-46. WATSON, Mike (2002): Letter to the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee, http://www. scottish.parliament.uk/business/ committees/historic/petitions/or-02/pu02-1402.htm. WELSH LANGUAGE BOARD (2001): 2001 census data, http://www.bwrdd-yriaith.org.uk/en/cynnwys.php?cID=6&pID=109&nID=173.
357 WELSH LANGUAGE BOARD (2003): Submission to Russell Bill Debate, http://www.scottish. parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports-03/edr03-04-vol01-01.htm. WEST HIGHLAND FREE PRESS (2003): Donald MacLeod Footnotes, October 17th, 2003, http://www.whfp.com/1642/focus.html. WESTERGREN, Eva/Hans HL (eds.) (1997): Mer n ett sprk. En antologi om tv- och tresprkigheten i norra Sverige, Stockholm: Norstedts. WESTERN ISLES ENTERPRISE (2001): Submission to Gaelic Broadcasting Report, http://www. scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/education/reports-01/edr01-14-vol0204.htm. WIGGEN, Geirr (1997): Majoritetssprk og minoritetssprk i et nordisk perspektiv, in: Eva WESTERGREN/Hans HL (eds.): Mer n ett sprk. En antologi om tv- och tresprkigheten i norra Sverige, Stockholm: Norstedts, 137-174. WILSON, Andrew (1999): Modernising the Scottish Parliament, in: HASSAN, Gerry/Chris WARHURST (eds.): A Modernisers' Guide to Scotland. A Different Future: Edinburgh: Centre for Scottish Public Policy/Glasgow: The Big Issue in Scotland, 275-284. WILSON, John/Karyn STAPLETON (2003): Nation-State, devolution and the parliamentary discourse of minority languages, in: Journal of Language and Politics 2:1, 5-30. WINETROBE, Barry K. (2001): Realising the Vision: a Parlament with a Purpose. An audit of the first year of the Scottish Parliament, London: Constitution Unit, School of Public Policy, University College London. WINKLER, Eberhard (2002): Samisch, in: Nina JANICH/Albrecht GREULE (eds.) (2002): Sprachkulturen in Europa. Ein internationales Handbuch, Tbingen: Gunter Narr, 244-248. WINTER, Werner (1993): Some conditions for the survival of small languages, in: Ernst Hkon JAHR (ed.): Language Conflict and Language Planning (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 72), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 299-314. WIRRER, Jan (ed.) (2000): Minderheiten- und Regionalsprachen in Europa, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. WOOD, Jacqueline M. (2002): Social and Economic Initiatives Involved in Maintaining Gaelic Language and Culture, Glasgow: Dissertation Department of Celtic, University of Glasgow (Prof. Cathair DOCHARTAIGH). WRIGHT, Jane (1998): Devolution in Scotland An Exercise in Internal Self-Determination, in: Regional Contact, Journal for the exchange of experience and ideas on regionalism, cross-border co-operation and cultural interchange between regions, preservation of cultural heritage of regions and ethnic groups and the protection of minorities in Europe, XII, 13 (1998), 243-252.

Languages and Parliaments Publication Marten

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Languages and Parliaments Publication Marten

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Languages and Parliaments

The Impact of Decentralisation on Minority Languages

Heiko F. Marten Freie Universitt Berlin, Berlin/Germany Rzeknes Augstskola, Rzekne/Latvia

2 Theoretical Approaches to Minority Language Analysis ________________________ 16

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights ___________________________________ 27

3.7 Summary: Monitoring Language Rights Implementation __________________________ 37

4 Parliaments, Political Representation and their Relation to Language _____________ 38

5.4 The Historical Development of the Position of Smi in Norway ____________________ 59

5.5 Smi Identity Today ________________________________________________________ 69

6 Smi in the 1980s in the Theoretical Scheme __________________________________ 74

7 The Sameting ___________________________________________________________ 93

7.4 The Sametings Role Concerning Language____________________________________ 108

8 Language Policy in the Sameting until the Mid-1990s__________________________ 111

10.5 Language and National Identity in Scotland___________________________________ 164

11.5 Prospects on the Eve of the Scottish Parliament ________________________________ 191

12 The Scottish Parliament _________________________________________________ 197

16.3 Smi in Models of Language Policy __________________________________________ 278

17 An Evaluation of the Development of the Situation of Gaelic in Scotland _________ 281

17.3 Gaelic in Models of Language Policy _________________________________________ 295

18 A Comparative View of Gaelic and Smi Policy ______________________________ 298

19 Conclusion: Parliaments, Political Processes, and Minority Languages __________ 303

References ______________________________________________________________ 319

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

I Introduction 1 Parliaments in a Minority Language Context

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

2 Theoretical Approaches to Minority Language Analysis

2.1 Language Policy and Planning in an Ecolinguistic Frame

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

Figure 1: The Kaplan/Baldauf Model on Forces at Work in a Linguistic Eco-System

2.2 Indigenous Peoples and their Position in Minority Analysis

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

2.3 Minority Languages and Language Maintenance and Revitalisation

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

Table 1: A Typological Framework of Minority-Language Situations according to Edwards 1992

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

Technological development Religion

Table 2: Ranked Edwards Minority Language Classification Questions

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

2.4 Linguistic Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

Corpus Planning Prestige Planning

Table 3: Domains of Language Planning in this Book

3.1 Private Language Use

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3.2 Public Bodies

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

Table 4: Core Issues of Multilingual Policy: Public Bodies

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights

Table 5: Core Issues of Minority Language Policy: Education

3 Domains of Minority Language Use Rights