Hansard

I will begin my summing up by talking about the issue that James Dornan just touched on: the idea of a museum of slavery. There has been significant support for such a museum from a number of members across the chamber, and members have recognised the work that is going on. In her opening speech, the minister recognised the work that, I hope, will lead to such a museum. Tonight will be the Parliament’s first opportunity to express a view and agree to a motion that calls for that. I hope that we agree to that, and that that will add momentum to make sure that we progress towards the idea of having a place where we can reflect on and learn about that history, whether it is at the Hunterian, in what is currently called the Merchant City, or elsewhere.

James Dornan and Linda Fabiani both said that they would want the decisions to be informed by proper thought, analysis and the research that is being conducted, which is absolutely right. The intention of my amendment is to say that these issues—particularly street names—need to be addressed without being prescriptive about how they should be addressed. It should not be for this Parliament to tell local councils what they should do with this street name or that statue. Those are local decisions, and they should be taken with thought and consideration—not just consideration of they mean today, but consideration of whatever replaces them would mean tomorrow, in the next decade and in the next generation, so that all people are confronted with the truth. That is what this is really about.

I think that it was Jamie Greene who said that he was against ripping down statues and who mentioned the Glasgow museum of modern art. I do not think that anyone has proposed ripping down the GOMA, and I am sure that he was not intending to suggest that. However, we need to ask ourselves whether such buildings, statues and street names really serve as a reminder of our history. Do they? I suspect that far more people know something about who Edward Colston was after the events of the past few days than they did before.

It is interesting to reflect on the fact that the inheritors of the people who put Edward Colston on a pedestal had been blocking attempts—reasonable, modest attempts—to give a bit of context to the statue. In many ways, the Society of Merchant Venturers is an inheritor and manager of the economic wealth that came from slavery, and it had many slavers, including Colston, as members. The organisation actively argued against a change to the inscription—it tried to water down the reality of history. That is the erasure of history: the watering down of attempts to recontextualise these monuments.

The same arguments have been made in relation to Edinburgh and the Dundas statue. With many others, colleagues in my party have been part of the campaign to have something as modest as plaques or inscriptions from which, as Mr Dornan said, tourists who look at our history when they come here will learn the reality and the truth, rather than thinking that such people were in any way admirable.

In some ways, it is those who placed the monuments in the first place who seek to oppose change and the honest telling of history. It is notable that, in Bristol, one of those who worked with the Society of Merchant Venturers to oppose change was, and still is, a sitting councillor. Councillor Eddy described Colston as a “hero”. We need to reflect on the fact that not only are those monuments still there, but the ideas behind them are still in our society.

Ruth Davidson gave us an interesting and honest reflection on her view of these issues, particularly in the context of the US history of genocide against indigenous people, and Scottish and UK history. We need to recognise that, as she said, inequality that still exists needs an honest reflection of history. However, it also needs an honest reflection on the political ideas that are still current in our society. On-going white supremacy is unchallenged far too often. For example, in this country we have seen elected politicians being briefly suspended and happily reinstated, despite having made provocatively racist comments.

Anas Sarwar’s speech will have impressed everybody who heard it. He challenged all of us—it is an important challenge—when he said that our words are not enough and that actions are what counts. That was reflected in the letter from the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights to the First Minister that Ruth Maguire mentioned. I think that that letter, which sets out a clear demand for action, has been copied to all parties. CRER has also highlighted the on-going delay in getting a public inquiry—although it has now been established—into the death of Sheku Bayoh, which is to be the subject of a “Disclosure” documentary on the BBC tonight.

Those actions are absolutely necessary. I hope that in that list of actions will be one that says that all parties should resist any temptation to use the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill as a dog whistle to those who do not want to see their own prejudice challenged in our society.

There are many actions that we all need to take, but today’s words have meaning, and I am pleased that we will unite, as much as we can in the Parliament, on the proposals that come from the Government, the Labour Party and the Greens.