I WOULD like to make a few points in relation to RG Clark’s letter (Many trad musicians are virtually unheard, January 22).

With regard to the points concerning Celtic Connections, I’ve been fortunate to attend every festival in various capacities from the first year. Throughout the years I have been supportive of the festival and have enjoyed hearing many roots musicians from around the world that otherwise I may not have seen or heard.

However, like many others in recent years I have noticed that the face of the festival has slightly changed, with artists appearing that you would normally associate with more mainstream festivals.

READ MORE: I grew up with trad music and The White Heather Club never made me cringe

Some now consider it as being to a certain extent not a celebration of Celtic Connections but a winter music festival with some dubious Celtic Connections. I don’t totally agree with them, but in some ways I do understand their concerns.

Whilst not criticising the overall output of the festival, perhaps Celtic Connections should be very careful in not branching out too much, which could undermine its main aspect in featuring roots music which has made it so successful.

One aspect of the festival that has disappointed me over the years is how it has virtually ignored the vibrant traditional music session scene in Glasgow.

In many festivals throughout the world, especially in Ireland, the sessions are an integral part of the festival experience and many patrons like to end their night after a concert with some live impromptu music.

The sessions which happen every night in Glasgow continue during the festival but are not really recognised by the festival. It’s a pity that is the case, as many of the musicians you can hear at the sessions are just as good as some on the main stage (myself excepted of course!)

Some recognition in the programme of where and when these sessions take place would be welcomed by these grassroots musicians who play and promote our national music day after day without the recognition they deserve.

These session musicians can be seen as the backbone in preserving our traditional/folk music heritage, and should be recognised in contributing to our tradition in the same way as those who perform on television or radio or at festivals.

With regard to the points made about Burns, I would agree that his songs or indeed his poetry should not be confined to just the celebration of his birthday.

Recently I have been doing extensive research into Burns songs. This is in preparation for presenting later this year a series of programmes on Celtic Music Radio covering all the songs associated with Burns (except for obvious reasons some from his collection of Bawdy Songs in the Merry Muses of Caledonia).

The programmes will feature around 400 songs. As such I am almost demented when I watch or listen to programmes celebrating Burns where you tend to hear the same six to ten songs time after time.

Now, I realise the artists or producers are playing safe and think that is what the public want to hear. Is that the case though, if that’s all that’s being offered? His memory deserves more than lip service to a few songs, irrespective of how good they are. Artists should be more adventurous and at least include some of his other songs, which are just as worthy of exposure as his better-known songs.

Gordon T Hotchkiss
Glasgow

A WES fair disjasket ti rede Richard Walker in wrytin at the Scots tung pege provokit the maist feim frae redars abies onie ither maitter (How Celtic Connections helped to shape my politics, January 21). A dae wiss at ye cuid finnd the fushion the stert thur up agane, ein gif in a smaw wey.

A bene propalin Scots fur a whein eirs an ye sune leir whitwey the jaggie thrissel is the naitiounal taiken. Ye git on-faws frae ilka airt.

READ MORE: Richard Walker: How Celtic Connections helped to shape my politics

Bot the verra fak at it up-steirs sae monie fowk suid insense intil ye at it is the best fend agin the tynin o identitie at is the cause o the Scotch crulge at maks hit sae sair ti wun our leibertie. Monies o the bodies at is supponed ti heize ti Scots hae mair on les forleit hit – The Saltyre Soshitie, Creatif Scotland an The Scottis Gubernment lichtlifie hit. The’r nae “Higher” intilt. The corss-pairtie gruip on Scots feinist fur the waant o MSPs ti sit on’t.

Gif ye yaise a couthie Scots ye’r telt hits a daialek. Gif ye ettil at a braid an mensefu styall, ye ar telt at hit’s sair ti follae. That’s kiz hits a differand langage at souns unco. Hit hes saiprit spells, vocabular an graimmar. The anerle gate at fowk wul cum ti be yaised tilt is ti sei hit in guid gray prent.

Iain WD Forde
Scotlandwell

English translation:

I WAS absolutely downcast ti read Richard Walker in The National writing that the Scots language page provoked more fury from readers than any other subject. I do wish that you could find the energy to start up these columns again, even if in a small way.

I have been putting forward Scots for a few years and you soon learn why the prickly thistle is the national emblem. You get attacks from every direction.

But the very fact that it stirs up so many people should convince you that it is the best defence against the loss of identity which is the cause of the Scottish cringe that makes it so hard to win our liberty. Many of the bodies that are supposed to help Scots have more or less abandoned it – The Saltire Society, Creative Scotland and The Scottish Government disdain it. There is no Higher in it. The cross-party group on Scots finished for the shortage of MSPs to sit on it.

If you use a cosy Scots you are told it is a dialect. If you attempt an extended and dignified style, you are told it is hard to follow. That's because it is a different language that sounds strange. It has separate spellings, vocabulary and grammar. The only way that people will get accustomed to it is to see it in good grey print.

Iain WD Forde
Scotlandwell

READ MORE: The status of the Scots language isn’t merely down to opinion

TOM Devine, in his article decrying the renaming of the David Hume Tower, argues that Hume could not have been guilty of racism, as the term only appeared in English in 1902 (Devine brands Hume decision a ‘shambles’, January 23). So, by this logic, Genghis Khan could not have been guilty of genocide since the word was first used by Raphael Lemkin in 1944.

How absurd to use a linguistic argument to excuse a clear failure on Hume’s part to recognise the common humanity of people irrespective of colour. This is a variant of the excuse for the prevalence of racism among older people in Britain that their views are the product of their times. Whatever the times, we all have a moral sense, as exhibited by Burns in his beautiful song The Slave’s Lament, written in the time of David Hume.

Douglas Currie
Edinburgh