Boris Johnson is using the Ukraine crisis to embellish his Churchillian persona

LE Borison makes a speech to congratulate the Ukrainians on their “finest hour”! Never outdone, the Borison uses it to spruce up its faux Churchillian persona to the max, wrapped in sound bites.

The Ukrainian resistance has been full of determination and momentum and it is still going strong, but it is not over yet.

However, historical analogies are misleading. Maybe the Union at Westminster could look back and have another “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” and look at our own past.

READ MORE: Ukraine visa delays could lead to legal action against Interior Ministry

The action of the British Empire with its invasion of the South African Republic at the start of the Boer War showed that the Boer resistance to treacherous Albion was their finest hour. Beyond the campaigns, the British treatment of Boer women and children held in concentration camps was a crime against humanity. Not our finest hour either.

Ukraine needs our support, but the failure also to issue visas by the Interior Ministry under Patel is a disgrace. Not our “finest hour” so far.

John Edgar
Kilmaurs

BORIS Johnson is obviously trying to distract the British public from his manipulation of the truth by addressing the Ukrainian Parliament.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Has anyone looked at the President of the United States the wrong way? Starting a war will sort them out. The patriarchy is busy bombarding women and children, how do we sort it out? Start another world war.

READ MORE: Tories snap up Ruth Davidson as Douglas Ross ‘liability’ in Scottish council election campaign

When will men realize that the answer lies in diplomacy? Women and girls in Ukraine and Russia have been working quietly for peace for years, they understand the importance of saving face from a powerful dictator. Not like the crazies in the White House and the British Foreign Office, with their jingoist attitude, reminiscent of the days of the British Empire. The Empire is dead, you understand?

Remove ALL men from positions of power, and women will give us peace.

Marguerite Forbes
Blanefield

In 1950s Wick High School, I was a student of English teacher John Ross. He imbued me with love and respect for the great English language. He also encouraged students to recognize Caithness, or Kaitness, the language that was all around us.

At the age of eight, in elementary school, I was “corrected” by a sharp-tongued teacher for saying “hoose” instead of “house”. His scolding caused me to not dare to answer a question for a month. It took me 25 years to write a song about it. Every time I sing it, I find a lively and positive response from the folk. The answer is 100% in favor of the right to say “hoose” even in the school environment. These people believe that we have the right to say “hoose” as part of the Scots language.

READ MORE: The REAL Scottish Politics: Here’s the TRUTH about the Scottish language

Modern Scots and Modern English are derived from the same mother tongue. Scholars will know his name. In some respects the Scots protected its elements better than the English. If you hear me say “Ay, Ah ken”, you will understand that I mean “Yes, I know”. “Ay” and “ken” both come from the ancient language, “ay” meaning “yes” and “ken” meaning “know”.

This is the strength of voice, arm and pen of Billy Kay, who has done so much to promote and protect our language and its status.

And here is the listening of George Foulkes before he speaks.

Listen to the song on YouTube, “Listen tae the Teacher” read by James Robertson.

Thanks to The National for publicizing this important issue.

Nancy Nicolson
Caithness

THE great Jewish linguist Max Weinreich demonstrated how the ongoing debate over the Scots language and the quest for independence are linked when he said: “A language is a dialect which has an army and a navy.

Dr. David White
Galashiels

A WEE bauchle with a title without yaise threips thair isna ony Scottis leid. Whitfer dae we paiye ony tent tae sic lyke clavers frae a wee mannie we aw ken tae be shouldit, nae mense an’ nae harns, a tuim tabart wha nou ettles tae haud Scotland in the Inglis grup? He guy delivers me. Wad the wee cuiff een unnerstaun whit I hae screivit?

R Moulin Irving
Gifford, East Lothian

LORD Foulkes considers Scottish grammar to be the same as English. If that means accepting that it is different from English in vocabulary, pronunciation, spelling, geography, history and ethos, that’s a step up for him. However, these features are so closely related to grammar that it is impossible to separate them. Here is a verse that George would have no difficulty understanding or reciting, for he is an impostor pleading ignorance of the language of his own ancestors…

“The boy has gaed singan by the craft / Whyle owre the loch, heich schane the mune.”

“The boy went to sing in front of the small estate / While above the lake, high shone the moon.”

laddie – common diminutive in Scots, especially Doric

gaed – distinct Scottish usage

singan – present participle different from singin – a verbal noun

by – Scottish usage

Whyle – English often

say wales for whales (originally “hw”)

owre – the “r” is pronounced as in French, a skill beyond much English

loch – the verb fricative is a problem at the BBC, as is the German Bach

heich – ei sounds ee, not like in English them

schane – thinks Sean Connery

mune – in Edinburgh as the French “little”

Even George’s name is problematic. Does it sound with the digraph like Scots Stow or English Stow in the Wold? Fooks, fows, people?

Iain W. D. Forde
Scotlandwell

Comments are closed.