WHAT has been happening to many of those who arrived in the UK from the West Indies after the Second World War, and to members of their families is, of course, unpardonable and outrageous. It has been such a fiasco it is difficult to understand how the Home Secretary can retain her position (“Rudd faces grilling from MPs as 100 people call Windrush hotline for help”, The Herald, April 20.

While those who arrived all those years ago were invited to come to fill jobs which needed doing in places such as hospitals, farms, foundries, transport, and railways, their residence here was not always greeted with favour and indulgence by the population. Indeed, their presence was resented by many.

The West Indians who have come to Britain post-Windrush have clearly had much to contend with of an adverse nature in their efforts to live, work and thrive here. So much has been achieved with respect to improving race relationships and to their advancement in the political, economic, and social life of our country. It is entirely unacceptable not only that such progress should be prejudiced, but also that so much hurt and concern should have been occasioned through the incompetence, hard-headedness and lack of foresight of the Home Office.

The example of Lord Carrington of resignation in 1982 has so rarely been followed. Saying sorry in this situation is glaringly inadequate. It is time for the Home Secretary to go.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

PRIME Minister May’s belief that the Commonwealth might rescue Britain from the big hole that will be left when we quit the European Union has been sunk below the waterline. Plans for a new, non-imperial British trading empire have been further sabotaged by the embarrassing news that the Home Office may have unlawfully deported Commonwealth immigrants from the Caribbean who came off the Empire Windrush but whose citizenship rights were never properly recorded. Not really the best way to strengthen relations with potential trading partners.

The Commonwealth has more than two billion people and a few member states, such as India, are rapidly expanding markets. Ripe, thinks the Government, for a bit of commercial arm-twisting. The 53 nations of the Commonwealth account for just nine per cent of the UK’s global trade whereas the EU takes up 43 per cent, some great potential to do more here in terms of boosting trade one would think.

Probably not a great deal more however, because many of the Commonwealth countries count as developing countries that already get privileged access to the EU (and the UK) at low or nil tariffs for most of the stuff they sell.

Their main concern about Brexit is preserving privileged access to the UK when we leave the EU customs union. However, for the likes of India, the attraction of the UK is not as a product marketplace but as a place to get training, jobs and work experience that can then be exported back to Indian software and professional service companies.

As the residue of an almost-forgotten empire, the Commonwealth has no trading significance. It served its purpose as a place where Britain could once sell its manufactured goods, free of real competition. Those days are long gone. There is no reason, for example, for Caribbean nations to look across the Atlantic to Britain when the world’s biggest commercial market is in their backyard. Brexit is not a Commonwealth problem; there is no reason why the Commonwealth must provide a solution.

Alex Orr,

Flat 2, 77 Leamington Terrace, Edinburgh.

AT the recently-concluded Commonwealth Games held on Australia’s Gold Coast, amongst the competing nations were the four who make up the United Kingdom. I am puzzled, therefore, that at the Commonwealth Heads of Government (Chog) meeting currently taking place in London there is no such representation, with the so-called Home Nations apparently represented by the United Kingdom Prime Minister alone. Is this a deliberate snub?

Indeed it was significant to hear the Prime Minister of St Lucia, in a TV interview last evening (April 19) regarding the Windrush fiasco, referring to the fact that “England is leaving the EU”. Represented at the Commonwealth Games, unrepresented at Chog and her EU referendum vote to remain ignored, where stands Scotland now? Perhaps still a mere exploited colony as once were those countries who now proudly form the Commonwealth?

Neil Bowman,

96 Dunnichen Avenue, Gowanbank, Forfar, Angus.

MARK Boyle’s letter (April 19) extolling the political courage of Jacob Rees-Mogg seeks to paint the aforesaid politician selectively, as a man of principle and as a defender of our national morals. Had we been marooned in a cave on Mars for the last decade with no access to media of any kind then perhaps we could applaud Mr Boyle’s brave attempt to paint Mr Rees-Mogg in this light but alas this has not been the case. This paean to him is sadly very wide of the mark and ignores the real man and what he represents.

A fuller picture of the privileged and ambitious Mr Rees-Mogg would have to include a few less salubrious features.

Perhaps the Jacob Rees-Mogg who enjoys a £100 million fortune but eulogises the virtues of offshore tax havens? Or the Jacob Rees-Mogg who is in favour of slashing the foreign aid budget, who advocates the continuation of zero-hour contracts (he likes the flexibility they provide for the workers) and who praises the very existence of food banks?

Alternatively, the Jacob Rees-Mogg who advocated a Conservative alliance with Ukip and who met with former White House chief of staff and well-known right winger, Steve Bannon, last November to establish political common ground and who addressed the Traditional Britain group of right-wing extremists in May 2013 despite the fact that they had previously called for all black Britons to be deported?

Lastly, Mr Rees-Mogg was recently attacked in the press as a man who uses his religious faith to excuse his appalling attitudes in such areas as gay rights, same-sex marriage and abortion.

Mr Boyle should recognise that criticism of the rivers of blood speech and a defence of the plight of the Windrush immigrants is commendable but really just what common decency requires.

By seeking to rhapsodise about Mr Rees-Mogg, Mr Boyle runs the risk of acting as an apologist for his unacceptable social and political opinions.

Owen Kelly,

8 Dunvegan Drive, Stirling.