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.