ALASDAIR Galloway and Jim Lynch (Letters, November 14) are so determined to perpetuate the myth of Scottish victimhood that they even make apologies for the 17th century aristocrats who sold out to the English. This really will not do. The Treaty of Union between Scotland and England was a marriage of convenience between two ruling classes – not a colonial conquest. Scotland's rulers did very nicely out of the deal and were willing accomplices in the crimes later committed by the British Empire.
In contrast, the Act of Union forced on the Irish in 1801 was a shotgun wedding. Ireland was brutally subjugated and governed as a crown colony by a viceroy much like India. Both of these benighted countries had to endure centuries of racist exploitation before they finally drove out their colonial masters (a number of whom were well-to-do Scots). Comparisons would seem to be, at best, inappropriate and at worst downright insulting. The Scottish working class are no more hard done by than anybody else in Britain who lives one pay cheque ahead of disaster and wrapping their justified grievances in the Saltire does nothing to advance the socialist cause.
As to my willingness to lose a thousand elections to the Tories rather than run away from them, I must confess that Mr Lynch is quite right – I do like hyperbole – and Mr Galloway is also right that I would just end up losing a lot of elections. No doubt Tony Blair would agree with him but as our former Prime Minister so aptly demonstrated, winning elections is a bitter substitute for actually believing in something (which is why Jeremy Corbyn is now leader of the Labour Party).
When Mr Galloway quotes Bismarck on the art of the possible I have to wonder whose side is he really on? The ruling classes who will stop at nothing to keep the world the way it is, or the people who want to change it? Speaking for myself I much prefer a famous quote from one of Bismark's contemporaries: "Working men of all lands unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains and a world to win!"
Sean Pigott,
Flat 2/L, 13 Wilson Street, Largs.
I WAS very impressed by David Hayman's documentary on BBC2 (November 7 & 13) illustrating the part played by many Scots in the slave trade in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The extent of our country`s involvement came as a revelation. I recall also that the word “reparation" was mentioned more than once.
It would surely be accepted that any attempt now at putting a financial dimension on possible reparations would be for many reasons impossible.
I do sincerely believe that an independent Scotland should consider the matter seriously and carefully. For example, it could do two things, but only as an independent state. First, it could issue an absolute apology to every part of the West Indies for the wrong done to their ancestors by unnamed Scots, before and subsequent to 1707. Secondly, it could promote an educational programme on lines such as inviting those islands to nominate young people of pre-university age to accept courses at Scottish universities, free of charge, the numbers to be invited to be agreed, but their origins to be for decision by their authorities. Participating universities and placements could be advised by Scotland, but the courses of study would be a matter for student decision. Selection of candidates by their authorities should be on educational merit lines and no attempt should be made to “identify” those nominated.
The duration of such an arrangement would be for agreement.
The documentary did leave a feeling that some means should be made available on moral grounds to compensate for the behaviour of some Scots which has without doubt impacted now on the consciences of all
J Hamilton,
G /2, 1 Jackson Place, Bearsden.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel