Sorry — that should be “guarantee lasting change”.

But I’m not saying “not now, but later,” I’m saying, “now, but not that.”

My argument: campaign for all ballots including this one. That would simultateously undermine any claims of politicking with the referendum, and guarantee lasting chance, rather than a one-off.

And it would cost no more in terms of effort.

The recent Bord na Gaidhlig survey, where over 50% of Scots wanted the opportunity for their children to be taught in Gaelic, and 90% for children in the Western Isles, would question the assertion that Gaelic is coupled with nationalism. Perhaps a survey of Daily Mail readers would be different, but for the majority, that is not the case.

Parity with Welsh is not impossible – MPs such as Ian Davidson have previously expressed support for such a move. When it is impossible, is when the Scottish Government is about as devoted to Gaelic as the Daily Mail. Sturgeon’s comments belied her incompetence and lack of knowledge on the matter. To claim that the referendum on an independent Scotland is not somehow important or wouldn’t set a useful precedent, when it is the most important legislation to arrive in Holyrood and has your own criteria of Westminster support – is illogical. Trying to use “not now, but later” arguments is what we’ve been promised for decades now, and it doesn’t wash. All ignoring the issue really says, is that we don’t care if the referendum is in Gaelic or not. Which is nothing short of abandoning Gaelic to English as we can all, so surprisingly to our Deputy First Minister, speak English well enough anyway.

“It would also bring us into line with the Welsh”

That was part of my point — a campaign to get equal footing with Welsh would be a Westminster campaign, which would have neatly decoupled the fallacious (but worryingly pervasive) link often drawn between Gaelic and nationalism, both small and big N.

Westminster’s devolution of language to Holyrood makes parity with Welsh effectively impossible, but we can (and must!) push on the issue of ballot papers in Westminster. If it was established in UK electoral rules, the referendum ballot would be bilingual, and bilingual ballots would have to continue post-referendum, whichever way the vote goes.

But the current debate focuses people’s energy on a one-off event, which would set no useful precedent, and would therefore have no lasting benefits to anyone.

‘S mathaid gum b’fhiach seo a radh sa Ghaidhlig cuideachd, ach canaidh mi sa Bheurla e gus an tuig a h-uile duine.

It would be a serious mistake to assume that a) Gaelic’s place on the ballot would be purely symbolic or that b) Gaelic’s place on the ballot paper should be considered only if it’s going to get a Yes vote. In the first instance, having your own language on the ballot paper – particularly in Na h-Eileanan an Iar and a’ Ghaidhealtachd – would be a vindication of the struggle for equal status and recognition of the fact that Gaelic is here to stay and grow. It would also bring us into line with the Welsh, who embarrass us even more than usual in this instance by having had the Police Commissioners ballot papers in both languages. If a few PC Plods down in Wales can be chosen in Welsh, I think it not only logical but blatantly bloody obvious that the most important question ever asked of the Scottish people be available to be answered in English and in Gaidhlig.

To the 2nd point, regarding the implications of Gaelic on the ballot for the actual result, there is absolutely no evidence of it causing any more anti-Gaelic feeling. Are we that ashamed we can’t let folk know that – shock horror! – there is another language in this country, spoken by a significant-if-shy minority? Are we truly scared of a few unsightly fellows under the bridge who will complain? There is no cost argument, since ballot papers will presumably be printed differently for each electoral region anyway. The most important argument against this train of thought, however, is that it sees Gaelic not as a language, not as a means of communication, but as a tool to be considered for the result of the vote. Aside from being illogical and insulting the intelligence of the Scottish people to think that they would be swayed to vote no because Alex Salmond is going to send them all to Bagh a’ Chaisteil to turn into Barrachs, it also ignored the substantial number of Gaels who shall – unless the SNP gets their act together – be voting No. Gaels in the Yes and No camps both need to make sure that Gaelic is heard, and for that reason a cross-campaign effort is needed so that the Edinburgh-centric parties sit up and take note.

I agree that the process by which they ruled out Gaelic was more than a little convoluted. But the whole process was born into a mire of controversy, with arguments over legitimacy and constitutional validity, and so sticking to the UK rulebook is (logically) the most defensible position.

I myself am in favour of independence, and even when support for independence was much lower than it currently is, I supported the idea of a referendum. My friends asked me “why go to the expense and inconvenience of a referendum if everyone’s going to answer no anyway?” and my answer was simple: because once it’s done, it’s done, and we’ll all have to quit arguing and live with the decision. I would say that it’s not just a matter of “don’t frighten the horses” but of “not rocking the boat”, because we’ll all still have to live with each other whatever the outcome.

Now, to put the boot on the other foot, where is the logic in the call for Gaelic on the referendum paper? You yourself talk about its “symbolic value”, and that is all it would have. In fact, this whole issue is more symbolic than you give it credit for – it is a symbol of the internet age, where we readily jump on a cause du jour which offers us an “easy” campaign with no long-term commitment, but similarly with no long-term benefit.

Sustainability is the watchword in modern development, with government grants and charity money increasingly going to those who can create something that can support and maintain itself, at least in part. But the referendum question is not sustainable, and pushing on it, even winning the argument, was never going to create any lasting effects, making it wasted effort. When the issue first arose, there was a narrow window where the momentum created by the referendum could have been used to drum up support to lobby Whitehall on the issue of all ballots.

But that opportunity was missed a long time ago.