Readers' Letters: Cutting the marathon from Commonwealth Games is a big mistake

The marathon is internationally recognised as an iconic endurance test with its origin dating back to ancient Greece c.490 BC. It has also been part of the Commonwealth Games, previously the British Empire Games, since the first Games in 1930, when Dunky Wright won gold for Scotland. Another marathon gold medallist from Scotland was my late friend, Joe McGhee, in 1954. Dunky and Joe must be birling in their graves over the decision that Glasgow of all cities is to exclude the marathon, apparently because of the cost.

Glasgow has plenty previous experience of organising successful marathons, including mass participation people’s marathons, as well as the 2014 Commonwealth Games marathon.

Current constraints on public expenditure are self-evident but surely there are potential sponsors who could be persuaded on the wider benefits of staging such a prestigious event. The fact that the marathon is a road race would be an excellent opportunity to showcase some outstanding landmarks of the great city of Glasgow to a multi-million-strong international TV audience, as well as attracting many thousands of live spectators who would be able to watch the only Commonwealth Games event free of charge.

I therefore urge the powers that be: raise your game and think again! Axeing the marathon would be an unforgiveable act of sporting and cultural vandalism. Glasgow with no marathon would be like Athens with no Parthenon.

Dennis Canavan, Bannockburn, Stirling

No reparations

There has been much comment recently about the possibility of financial reparations for slavery being paid by the UK. It would appear that guilt for this terrible injustice is being focused almost exclusively on the UK, and the UK taxpayer is being urged to pay for any perceived benefits the country may have received from slavery.

What is never mentioned in these demands is that the crime of slavery was made possible only by the eager participation of African tribal leaders in Dahomey, Nigeria and neighbouring countries. The slave ship crews never attacked the coastal villages to capture their victims but simply paid the local chiefs for prisoners captured from neighbouring tribes by these same chiefs. These African countries are at least as guilty as the UK, if not more so.

In a world where slavery was endemic, the UK was the first country in history to ban the slave trade and the Royal Navy subsequently spent many years patrolling the Atlantic and the Red Sea, freeing thousands of captured slaves, while other countries tried to break the British blockade. This surely is to the credit of the UK.

Incidentally, in 1778 Scottish courts refused to uphold the demand of an English slave owner for the return of slave known as John Knight, stating that slavery had always been incompatible with Scots law.

My ancestors were poor Highland crofters scraping a living in the harsh northern climes, and living in conditions akin to slavery with hard labour and minimal comforts. I cannot see how they benefitted in any way from slavery or were in any way responsible or liable for it. So why should my taxes be raised to pay compensation for the benefits that accrued almost exclusively to the aristocracy?

James Duncan, Edinburgh

Apologise now

With unseemly haste and within weeks of Chris Kaba’s death at the hands of a police officer in 2022, Green MSP Maggie Chapman, tabled a motion in the Scottish Parliament demanding justice for him. Another 12 MSPs were stupid enough to sign the petition before knowing of Chris Kaba’s criminal exploits.

If they do not publicly apologise to police officer Martyn Blake, who is now in danger, and the Met Police then their constituents should demand a recall petition to remove them all from office.

Michael Baird, Bonar Bridge, Highland

Migrants lesson

I write to support the idea that immigration should be a devolved issue, a suggestion Conservative leadership candidate Kemi Badenoch rejected at the weekend (Scotsman, 28 October).

It was reported recently that Scotland’s ageing population would have decreased without immigration. Our needs are far different from those of England, the South East in particular, and this would be recognised with such a policy.

Migration is a constant in human experience, the migrants themselves seeking the positives of a better life for themselves and their children. Far too often they are escaping unacceptable conditions, hardship and even wars. As well as being a positive for the migrants, it should surely be recognised that they provide a big contribution to society itself.

Just think of the massive input of Scottish émigrés worldwide, far too many of whom historically, have escaped dire poverty and even the Clearances, from which the Highlanders have not yet fully recovered. Migration is the ultimate reminder that our essential humanity is without borders, increasingly so, in our fragile world.

Ian Petrie, Edinburgh

Truss vs Reeves

I only got a ropey 2/2 in Economics from Edinburgh University in 1977 but I think I’m right in thinking there isn’t that much difference between Liz Truss borrowing £45 billion to fund income tax cuts that stimulate the economy, which cost the Teasury around £30bn to sort out, and Rachel Reeves, were told, planning to change borrowing rules to spend £50bn on “infrastructure” based on unpublished cost benefit analyses, perhaps, for example, on unprofitable “green” initiatives.

It will be interesting to see whether all or some of the £50bn is actually siphoned into boosting current spending. And almost impossible to tell what the impact actually is on economic growth, as opposed to a short-term “sugar shock” stimulus.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Sucked dry

“Scotland’s devolved government isn’t working,” say sections of the media. I agree. It is high time for Scotland to govern itself without interference from Westminster.

The Labour government are doing their best to leave Scotland penniless and powerless. They will destroy the refinery at Grangemouth but not find another business to employ its workers. Instead, they are enlarging the output capacity of two English refineries. Who gets the money? Not Scotland.

They allow more companies to build wind farms in Scotland so they can set up a dedicated grid to English cities. Will temporary jobs make Scotland rich? They will not, but cheap electricity goes to England and the foreign companies, who set them up, pay taxes to the London Treasury, not to Scotland. Remaining part of the UK is like bedding down with a leech. By the time you wake you have lost most of your blood, but the leech is much fatter.

We have an election in two years. I hope Scots will have learned to believe in themselves by then and vote for parties that will demand independence. Then we may rejoin the European Union and become the rich trading country that we used to be.

Elizabeth Scott, Edinburgh

Who benefits?

We appreciate T Lewis’s frustration with the wind industry (Letters, 26 October) but would like to clarify his point about habitations close to wind farm sites receiving compensation for inconvenience and possible noise pollution to the tune of £5,000 per Megawatt installed.

This implies that people owning the properties closest to the wind farm will receive compensation. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are the people who are affected not only by noise, and visual impact but often flicker both during the day and also at night from aviation lights on the turbines and who usually suffer depreciation in property value as a result. They are the collateral damage.

The financial benefit on offer is paid to “communities” many of which are located far enough from the site that they receive no negative impact from the turbines but are still close enough to be eligible to receive benefit. These communities often support wind farms because they are receiving money without suffering any hardship. What many don’t realise is that community benefit is voluntary and just because it is offered, in order to generate support, doesn’t mean it is paid.

Nobody wants to live next to a wind farm, other than those financially involved in and making a lot of money from the development, but if it is forced upon them then they deserve substantial compensation for the lifetime of the wind farm.

Aileen Jackson, Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor, East Renfrewshire

John who?

Like his predecessor, John Swinney has just issued another in a series of calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. Does he really think that Benjamin Netanyahu and his opponents in Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iran, et al, are once again rushing frantically to lay down their arms? The likelihood is no-one of importance has ever heard of him.

In any case, taking advice from John Swinney and his cohorts may not be advisable. They cannot build a ferry even with unprecedented funding; our finances are in an abysmal state; they struggle to define what a woman is; we could go on. Who in their right mind would want advice from people like these?

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.