This article appears as part of the Unspun: Scottish Politics newsletter.

Despite the fact that most humans in the real world are relatively sane and can engage in an informed conversation where even if they vehemently disagree with you they do so without blood coming out of their eyes and their lips turning to foam, the online realm is not so chilled.

Yesterday, Elon Musk’s vile basement X was filled with allegedly fellow human beings gleefully cheering for Esther Rantzen’s death because: A, as someone terminally ill, she supports assisted dying; and B, she was outspokenly pro-vaccine during Covid. Bring those two points together and you’ve got a right-wing culture war posse after you.

So, I confidently predict a digital hate-troop quickly assembling to polish their pitchforks at the mere suggestion that maybe the Scottish Government could consider a formal apology for Britain's role in the transatlantic slave trade. Scotland was, evidently, a willing partner in empire, and benefitted hugely from slavery. 

The matter of an apology for slavery is front and centre – again – as the Commonwealth heads of government gather. Keir Starmer has made clear there should be no apology. Clearly, many Commonwealth citizens – whose ancestors were once slaves – disagree.

Slavery – along with vaccines, assisted dying, abortion, trans rights, and immigration – is cat-nip for nutcases. Indeed, part of me looks forward to the bug-eyed nonsense they’ll come out with on reading this article. One gets one’s fun where one can in straitened times.

In truth, I’m merely raising this issue – a possible Scottish apology – in the interests of intellectual exchange. While I certainly feel Britain should formally say sorry, I’m conflicted on the matter of reparations. 

And if reparations were on the table, what shape should – or would – they take: financial? Or some other form, like the building of museums and memorials in the Caribbean, or debt relief?

Read more Unspun from Neil Mackay:

The usual responses to calls for an apology come in the shape of old, wizened straw-men. First, there’s: why don’t the Vikings apologise? Well, the Vikings don’t exist anymore, and if they did who exactly would they be apologising to? I know of nobody who traces their lineage back to Viking slaves. Citizens in the Caribbean are acutely aware of their ancestors.

The same goes for the Romans, the Ottomans, and every other former slaving power. It’s astonishing the knots people will tie themselves in as opponents of apologising. You’d half-imagine they might quite like the idea of slavery, but that couldn’t possibly be true.

Or you’ll hear: well, I wasn’t alive when slavery happened, so what’ve I got to apologise about. Well, no you weren’t around, but your country was. It’s also notable that those who use this excuse are often the same people who say how proud they are of Britain for winning the Second World War. Yet, how can you be proud of Britain’s war record if you weren’t around then? If you’ve pride in your country’s history, you can feel remorse for your country’s history also.

Then there’s the argument that ‘well, Britain ended slavery’. Indeed Britain did abolish that evil trade. The problem is, though, Britain also played its role in the slave trade. It’s a struggle to praise someone for stopping an atrocity, especially when the British government compensated slave owners, while definitely not compensating former slaves.

I guarantee that if someone is being kicked in the head, and their attacker eventually stops, the victim won’t find much justice in that alone.

Finally, you’ll hear: but Africans helped enslave their own people. Yes they did, and they should apologise for that themselves. Such whataboutery has no bearing on Britain’s responsibilities.

The issue of an apology – and reparations – isn’t going away. Starmer, as is his wont, can hide his head under his technocratic wing all he wishes, but Caribbean nations won’t shut up. Rightly so. They had to build their societies on the rubble of slavery – while Britain continued exploiting them under colonial rule.


Now, add to this the fact that the SNP government imagines itself as super-progressive, right-on and hip – even though it’s none of these things. Still, if you imagine yourself perfect, maybe you should act perfect too. No?

The SNP aligns itself with good causes globally. Well, maybe step up now the issue of an apology for slavery is back on the global agenda.

There’s nothing preventing the SNP government saying that Scotland apologises for its own role in slavery as a willing participant in the sins of empire.

Read Neil Mackay every Friday in the Unspun newsletter.


Forgive me, there’s maybe one roadblock: the worst section of the SNP’s own base. There are some nationalists who wickedly conflate the historic bonded labour experienced by impoverished Scots, Irish, Welsh and English people with slavery. It was nothing of the sort. 

Indentured servants suffered for a limited period, and their servitude wasn’t handed down to their children. Yes, bonded labour was sinful and a crime, but it wasn’t genocide. Nor were the Highland Clearances a historic evil on a parallel with slavery as other nationalist fools have claimed.

But maybe John Swinney fears his base? Clearly, Starmer is worried about losing Red Wall votes should he dare apologise for slavery.

So I guess as long as two parties keep their extremists happy, history doesn’t really matter much, and nor does being a moral nation unafraid to do what’s right. Because isn’t an apology good for the soul? Even if that apology comes centuries too late?

Neil Mackay is The Herald’s Writer-at-Large. He’s a multi-award winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics.