DO we really want an American author to tell us our language?

I can only presume that Diana Galbandon’s “quite a bit of research” has mainly relied on Anglicised versions of our history, culture and languages that were made our prime source following the defeat of the 1745 uprising.

The word “scotch” is a corruption of the word “Scots” and is mainly used by people who are unable or unwilling to master the ts sound at the end of the word.

READ MORE: Outlander's Diana Gabaldon issues statement after historical inaccuracy row

Contemporary rejection of the word “Scotch” is indicative of a desire to take back our history, our culture and our language from the powers in the south that have sought to assimilate Scotland into their country, using an airbrush to make Scots identify as much with Britain as with Scotland. More than that, rejection of the word is indicative also of a desire to take governance of our country back under our own control.

“Scotch” should never be used to indicate the people of Scotland or anything that comes out of the country whether it be whisky, pies, eggs, pancakes or anything else, including Jamie Fraser’s bunnet. The word’s correct use is indicated in the phrases “scotch the corruption of the word Scots” or “scotch the notion that Scotland’s interests are well served by a government in London”.

Ni Holmes
St Andrews

MA auld Scotch mither sent me oot, she said “Noo don’t be lang. Ah want Scotch pies, Scotch broth, Scotch eggs, an sing an auld Scotch sang”.

Faither wanted Scotch beef, Ah taen my wee Scotch dug, Ah bocht some Scotch bluebells an Butterscotch tae suck.

READ MORE: Diana Gabaldon claims SNP stopped use of term 'Scotch' in Scotland

“Tak tent”, he said, “Nae Irish hooch nor Jocky Daniels stuff. But usque baugh, that guid Scotch drink, for me that’s guid enough. But gin ye meet a Scottish man or wumman Scot, forbye, Ye huv tae ca’ them ‘Scots although Ah dinnae ken for why”.

Burns cried hisel a Scotch Bard, he had a guid Scotch tongue. But yasin “Scots” instead o “Scotch” is Scotch mist or dung.

Jim McLean

WHILE there has been much debate about the creeping privatisation of the NHS, especially under recent UK Governments, there has been little debate around privatisation elsewhere in our public services.

HMRC have introduced a policy of “Making Tax Digital” and time is fast running out for VAT returns to be submitted without using third-party software. This may appear like a logical step in today’s digital world, but for many who have simply made online submissions for many years, this enforced move requires changing accustomed procedures and some level of training.

READ MORE: Tories scorched with Burns' Night 'parcel of rogues' burn over Zahawi tax row

Calls to HMRC for assistance are met with the response that “free software” is available (links provided on the HMRC website) but there is no guarantee on the length of time such software will remain free. This could subsequently add significantly to the costs of the self-employed and those running small businesses.

While some exemptions may be granted, it appears that there is no alternative way to make a submission in the meantime as the online route (which superseded physical forms) is no longer available so those awaiting a decision will automatically be considered “in default”. This neither seems fair nor reasonable, especially for those who might struggle with new technology, such as the elderly or other groups disadvantaged by this latest example of quietly creeping privatisation.

Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian

WES Streeting (Labour) was on Question Time talking about the NHS and wanting more front doors into hospital. What is the use of that if back door blocked due to a lack of social care?

Who would ever have thought a Labour spokesman could only talk about what is wrong and not give any credit to what is good and how hard staff work. And of course not a mention of poor pay.

Winifred McCartney

READING the article “’People are going to be killed’: Clubs urged to clamp down on pyro, Jan 25” by Mathew Lindsay, I believe the solution is quite simple.

Whatever section of the stadium sets off a pyrotechnic flare, the game is stopped immediately, that section of the stadium is emptied and the game restarted.

Ah, I hear you all say! “What about the fans who don’t set off the flares?”

Well, they have a responsibility to protect the club, other fans and themselves by pointing out the culprit. If they don’t then they share equal responsibility for the section of the stadium being vacated.

There’s no “turning a blind eye” to this problem because if you don’t act then someone is going to be killed.

I can guarantee setting off pyrotechnic flares in tightly packed stadiums will stop immediately!

Those that are responsible for setting off the flare are then banned from the stadium for life.

Football, and sport in general, does not need these alleged “supporters”. These people are a scourge on sports and society in general.

Jim Todd