I WAS very impressed by David Hayman’s recent documentary 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. Firstly 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. David Hayman’s presentation did hit the mark!
J Hamilton
Bearsden
WATCHING the David Hayman programme on Scotland’s role in the slavery trade was very uncomfortable viewing for me. I think its time we faced up to what happened, and we won’t like it.
David Ritchie
North Ayrshire
THE European Broadcasting Union’s News Xchange are making a big mistake in their argument that inviting Steve Bannon is acceptable under the banner of free speech (Hundreds expected at Bannon protest, November 14). They clearly confuse upholding the right to free speech with providing people with a platform. It’s like giving someone on a street corner shouting abuse at people a megaphone, which of course everyone would say is pretty ludicrous.
This, I find, is a key problem with the so-called “independent” media. They continuously argue that they provide a balanced view but instead they give megaphones to idiots. Media provides the means for extremism to promote itself. This because people with views that are otherwise shared with very few others get the same amount of airtime (or in the case of the BBC even more) than those people with views that are shared by many. This in return gives the impression that these minority views are far more mainstream than the really are.
For example, some Tory backbencher Brextremist (whose name I have forgotten) was given a long slot to rant on Radio Scotland yesterday morning. This person represents the views of a small minority of people in Scotland. Ian Blackford, who has views on the EU that are shared with the majority of people in Scotland – which voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU – was also offered to speak, but this interview was of course much shorter.
I firmly believe in free speech. I firmly believe that any means of promoting ideas that are racist or of a similar kind is not the same as free speech (and there are laws about hate speech in this country).
I also believe that the media does not have duty to give people with extreme views a platform, in fact they should be taking responsibility for their part in promoting extreme views and not keep hiding behind the free speech argument.
Maarten de Vries
Munlochy
JUST wanted to thank you for the letters in Tuesday’s National telling the First World War how it was. Would that they were replicated in the school curriculum!
Janet Cunningham
Stirling
CAN we really say that all BBC programmes made in Scotland are “Scottish”? I understand that Anne Robinson’s Weakest Link, for example, was produced in Glasgow!
Douglas Hunter
Ancrum, Roxburghshire
I WAS delighted to read your story, ‘Backlash over calls for UK to leave Unesco’ (November 14), as it would suggest that there are still members of the Tory party who believe in the UN and do not want to isolate the UK from the rest of the civilised world. Brexit has become a disease which is permeating UK society and may end up creating an independent Scotland and a united Ireland.
Thomas L Inglis
Fintry
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here