Also, Gaby McKay in his recent article (” Starmer swerves reparations … but does Britain have a price to pay?”, The Herald, October 20) refers to the substantial infrastructure which the British Empire left to former colonies but asserts that that infrastructure was paid for by those former colonies. Nevertheless that infrastructure includes physical, economic and political elements, tangible and intangible, much of which remains in place to this day, in some places barely altered since the days of the Empire. Whatever the emerging nations paid for that infrastructure many years ago, these include valuable elements which they would not have acquired without the involvement of the Empire and these may be seen as a legacy which might also be brought into the calculation.
There is also to be taken into account the contributory wrongdoing by those nations who caused or permitted the rounding up of the innocent victims who came to be transported in British-flagged vessels and which nations should not receive any reparations.
Account might be taken also of one legacy left to the world by the Empire and that was the notion of a world order based on the liberty of the individual and the rule of law, a notion which was not necessarily applied at all times. The British Empire was the first or at least the largest international organisation based upon those values and extended over so much of the globe that some of those who eventually set up the League of Nations such as Jan Smuts, one of the most influential political leaders of the 20 century, suggested the recognition of the British Empire as an empire of the world. However, neither the Empire nor the League of Nations secured worldwide support and they were supplanted by the United Nations, which some would say has not succeeded either. Nevertheless the United Nations is the nearest that we have to a world order based on the rule of law, in succession to the British Empire.
These are at least some of the factors to be considered before the extent or even the existence of any indebtedness can be ascertained.
Michael Sheridan, Glasgow.
Read more letters
Descendants should pay up
IT’S all over the media: Commonwealth leaders “defy” Keir Starmer on reparations. Who knew he was the boss of all these countries? Sir Keir does not want to talk about the subject of recompense, but it should not come from the UK taxpayer.
We have a record of the UK slave owners who were paid off when they released their slaves, and we know that the English royal family were in the van of slave trafficking. The descendants of the people and institutions who profited should be assessed and make good to those whose families suffered enslavement.
GR Weir, Ochiltree.
Insult of the Commonwealth
I SEE Charles Mountbatten-Windsor is presenting himself at a meeting of Commonwealth presidents and prime ministers in Samoa as some kind of leader. I would like to point out to all involved that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor is not elected to lead anything nor even does he have any right to claim to represent me or my country. His inherited privileges that set him apart from the entire population (outside of his family) of this country and the British state have no place in 21st century democracy.
If the remnant of the English/British Empire known as the Commonwealth is to have any continued relevance then the two-thirds or so of member states that no longer consider the English monarch as their head of state should lead the rest in rejecting him as head of their organisation.
I should say that I consider the name “Commonwealth” to be an insulting throwback to the days when it granted the colonial power the right to cart off whatever resources it desired due to some presumed shared ownership. There is a clear parallel to the relationship between England and Scotland there.
Once the Commonwealth of Nations has thrown off the leadership of the English monarch perhaps they should give their organisation a more fitting title reflecting their recent common history as liberated former colonies. Maybe Scotland will be able to join in the not-too-distant future.
Ni Holmes, St Andrews.
Cut our losses on devolution
RECENT events in Holyrood have merely confirmed my long-held conviction. I have been against devolution since the word go and voted accordingly over the years. There was no family pro-Union element or tradition whatsoever, it was simply a gut feeling of what was right and what was wrong. My views were much the same as the late Tam Dalyell MP, who saw through the whole thing and envisioned almost exactly what has come to pass.
It may have been a well-meant idea. But once nationalism and nationalists became involved, all bets are off. With them, instead of trying to make devolution work and Scotland a better place, the whole focus is on separating and being different and breaking up what exists, at whatever the cost. It has not worked. It would be much better if we cut our losses and had a revamped and updated version of what served us for many years before at a tiny fraction of the cost today. The billions saved could be used on worthwhile projects.
It is not too late to turn back.
Alexander McKay, Edinburgh.
Time to look at land values
“DO the SNP or Labour really care about the poor?” runs a letters headline today (October 24). Of course they don’t, nor does any party. Their sanctimonious hand-wringing on the subject is truly nauseating; if they did give a damn, they’d be proclaiming our birthright in land, our “wee bit hill and glen” (even if it’s a poky high-rise).
Specifically they’d be calling on the Scottish Government to implement the 2022 recommendation of the Land Commission that a full cadastral survey be undertaken, with a view to fiscal redistribution. The trousering of land/location values, publicly created through infrastructure investment, must end.
Green MSP Mark Ruskell has tabled a written question, to chivvy up the Scottish Government, and a reply is expected at the end of the month. But given the dilatoriness of the Government so far (Lord knows why), we in the Scottish Land Revenue Group are not holding our breath.
George Morton, Rosyth.
Decision time for Reeves
CHANCELLOR Rachel Reeves has a simple choice to make, and that is whose side she is on.
It is an indisputable fact that our capitalist economic system is deliberately constructed so that less than 0.1% of the population takes a disproportionate amount of the wealth created by all of us. We live in a world for example where the chairman of British Gas is paid £8.2 million while some of his customers can’t afford to turn their cooker on.
In a world of fiat currencies there is and can be no shortage of money, it’s just that currently it is being funnelled into the pockets of the Establishment rather than the wealth we the general public have created being used to provide first-class public services.
If Rachel Reeves does not at least start to reverse the inequality in the distribution of wealth in the UK she will clearly show what side of the fence she is on. But we know that already.
David J Crawford, Glasgow.
Horrific and tragic irony
THE Nazis had a now-clearly-documented strategy for the eradication of the hundreds of thousands of Jews trapped in the Warsaw ghettos in the 1940s.
Destruction of infrastructure was followed by a communications blackout, the blocking of access to fuel and food supplies and indiscriminate violence. This all led to widespread starvation and a rapid rise in infectious diseases to go along with the massacres and displacements.
Is what we’re now witnessing in Gaza, the world’s most horrific and tragic irony?
Douglas Simpson, Fortrose.
Defence and attack
I AM contributing money to the latest Disaster Emergency Committee Middle East Humanitarian appeal, but the irony, that I, along with other ordinary taxpayers, have already contributed through my taxes and the Government to the offence industry to aid and abet the disaster in the first place, does not escape me.
Ken Kennedy, Stornoway.