Hansard

I thank Stuart McMillan for bringing this important debate to the Parliament. His motion refers to a previous debate that was held in the chamber back in June, when, I am pleased to report, there was cross-party support to create a museum of slavery here in Scotland, and now we are considering where it should be.

Over the summer, we witnessed the appalling death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The terrible action of violence that was carried out by a police officer has led to widespread anti-racism protests throughout the USA and has sent shock waves across the world, including in Scotland.

As protests in Edinburgh and Glasgow encouraged us all to hold debate and discussion about how we build a more equal future here, we must not forget Scots’ participation in slavery. In his motion, Stuart McMillan refers to Inverclyde’s past, which we have heard more about this evening. The area prospered due to the slave trade, by importing slave products such as sugar. The great tobacco trade of the 18th century in Glasgow could not have existed without slave labour, and working on the plantations was a false choice for Scots who were seeking their fortunes in the late 18th and early 19th century. Historians have argued that Scotland’s relationship with transatlantic slavery is encased in a collective amnesia—a widespread lack of awareness of how our country participated in both the slave trade and slavery.?

In June, a group of protesters toppled the statue of a former slave trader, Sir Edward Colston. Following that action, there were calls from across Scotland to remove statues and street names that honour individuals who were involved in the slave trade. However, I have concerns about using the common moral standards of today as benchmarks by which to judge past behaviour. Is it right that the University of Edinburgh has taken the decision to temporarily rename David Hume tower because of the 18th century philosopher’s comments on race?

I believe that it is not possible to make a moral balance sheet of the past. I am not suggesting that historical figures should escape our moral judgment, but we have to accept that our past contains uncomfortable truths. Rather than hide our past from the future generations, surely it is better to change attitudes through education and museums, as we are talking about tonight. I agree with Sir Geoff Palmer, Scotland’s first black professor, who stated:

“if you remove the evidence you remove the deed.”

I believe that there is an opportunity to create a museum with the responsibility to reflect and debate history accurately, and, in doing so, to confront, challenge and learn from the uncomfortable truths of Scotland’s history and our past.

As we have heard tonight from Clare Adamson, she spoke in the debate in June about the profound experience of visiting the Canadian museum for human rights. Canada’s national museum is a unique exploration of the importance of human rights. It is located in a stunning building, and its mandate is to explore the subject of human rights, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, in order to enhance the public’s understanding of human rights, promote respect for others and encourage reflection and dialogue. I feel that such a model could be used to articulate and examine Scotland’s role in the slave trade and to explore the diversity of human rights, whether in relation to the Holocaust, the suffragette movement, employee rights or what is happening in China at the moment.

Inverclyde, with its historical links to the slave trade, may well be the right place to put the museum—we have heard a compelling argument for that tonight. It is important that the museum reflects the lived experience of individuals, preserves and promotes Scottish heritage, overcomes ignorance and inspires learning to do better today and in the future.