Linda’s presentation has really made me question some of the assumptions that I had a language ideologies. Although linguistics formed part of my degree, I never really applied this knowledge to the context of Scots.

As part of the work I am doing for the Curriculum Improvement Cycle, I have been looking at how indigenous and minority languages are reflected in curricula across the world. While doing research, I came across the term “minoritised languages”, which I now see as an accurate way to describe the position of Scots.

I never really considered that beliefs about Scots often work at an unconscious level. This maybe explains why some people’s views about Scots feel fixed and go unquestioned. For me, this links to the definition of language ideologies as “sets of beliefs about language”, which shape how languages are valued and used in practice. Scots has not become a minority language but has been minoritised by these beliefs and through the education system.

History provides many answers to the current position of Scots. The dominance of English in Scotland was and is still today a form of cultural colonialism. English became associated with power, education and progress, while Gaelic and Scots became marginalised. The exclusion of Scots from formal education following the 1872 Education Act has had an impact that can still be seen today. This has contributed to the ideology that English is the language of success, whereas Scots is regarded as less valuable and even regarded as a dialect. Fortunately, the Scottish Languages Act is a step towards addressing some of these misconceptions.

What I found most important from the presentation was the discussion around terminology. Some loaded statements like “Scots is a dialect of English” or “just how some people speak” are not neutral. They reflect and reinforce hierarchies between languages. In the interaction between the speakers, one participant’s comment that “dialect… is a horrendous word”, shows how language labels can position speakers not just socially but also culturally. This reiterated the view that Scots is minoritised, not because of the language itself, but because of how it has been regarded by wider society.

What I think will be challenging for me is defining what counts as Scots as it exists within a continuum or “variation space”. This will have questions for the curriculum, teaching and even assessment. An important point for me is about raising the visibility of Scots within everyday life and normalising it as a language and it needs to be embedded at every opportunity.

Although I am not currently teaching Scots, I think more has to be done through the languages curricular area to support its status. I think by creating a safe space and inclusive environments where the language can be used and explored will begin to break down some of the barriers. Many of us were told when we were younger that we need to speak properly before we really had the chance to explore our own linguistic identities. I do not blame those who did this because the likelihood is that was also their experience. These negative experiences and gatekeeping have prevented generations from developing their language skills in Scots. We need to pivot away from this approach of correction and embrace the Scottish cringe to validate our linguistic repertoires in Scots. As practitioners, we should look at these language ideologies and have them reflect on how they see Scots. This can support critical thinking and challenge assumptions that have been taken for granted.

The presentation aligns with the work I have been doing on the CIC. Scots should have its place at the table and should not be optional or peripheral. It is an important part of Scotland’s cultural and linguistic heritage. The passing for the Scottish Languages Act is an important step in reframing the narrative around Scots. We need to move away from Scots being an add-on to it being an integral part of language learning.