Палестинцы подали в правительство Великобритании 400-страничный иск за нарушения прав в мандатный период

DESPITE efforts to erase this history, the suffering in Palestine today is directly linked to Britain’s colonial legacy. In 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration without legal authority and without the consent of Palestine’s Arab majority. For 30 years, British forces committed grave abuses against the Palestinian people, including torture, arbitrary detention and home demolitions, while systematically denying Arab self-determination. The parallels to today are evident. In 1948, Britain withdrew from a crisis of its own making, having done nothing to prevent the atrocities and mass expulsions that followed. Britain Owes Palestine submitted a 400-page legal petition to the UK Government in September 2025. Drafted by leading KCs and academics on behalf of 14 Palestinians, it documents systematic breaches of international law by British forces during the Mandate period. Despite nearly a year passing by, there has yet to be any response. As inconvenient as this history may be, Britain does itself a disservice by continuing to ignore it. Accountability is not weakness; it is the basis of progressive action to help secure peace in the region. READ MORE: 'Arrogant' Andy Burnham says referendum on Irish unity 'off the table' Andy Burnham now has the opportunity to do what his predecessor would not. A formal apology would not resolve this conflict, but it would mark an honest turning point and strengthen Britain’s hand in any future peace negotiations. We call on the new Prime Minister to apologise so that Britain can begin to make peace with its own past. Signed: - Munib al-Masri, lead petitioner, Britain Owes Palestine - Katy Clark MSP - Lorna Slater MSP - Jenni Minto MSP - Ross Greer MSP - Maggie Chapman MSP - George Adam MSP - Pauline McNeill MSP - Martyn Day MSP - Steven Bonnar MSP - Alan Brown MSP - Gillian Mackay MSP - Ariane Burgess MSP - Mark Ruskell MSP - Stuart McMillan MSP - Fulton MacGregor MSP - Paul McLennan MSP - Carol Mochan MSP - Kate Campbell MSP - Jack Middleton MSP - Pauline Stafford MSP - David Barratt MSP - Holly Bruce MSP - Iris Duane MSP - Kate Nevens MSP - Laura Moodie MSP - Q Manivannan MSP - Kayleigh Kinross-O’Neill MSP I VERY much doubt John Jamieson (Letters, August 27) has ever been told by an expert linguist that Scots is a dialect of English. Shaetlan however, is a dialect of Scots. Doric is also a dialect of Scots, while Lallans is a name for the literary variety of Scots. John, I’ve told you before that granting an ISO code does not mean a language variety is a language in its own right. It is common for dialects of multi-dialectal languages to receive their own ISO codes. Shaetlan is fully mutually intelligible with other varieties of Scots, particularly other varieties of Northern Scots. There are four ISO codes for different varieties of Sardinian, and three for varieties of Albanian. That does not mean there are four Sardinian languages or three Albanian languages. While we are on the topic, have you never paused to consider what the SC in the SCZ code for Shaetlan stands for? It stands for Scots, while the Z stands for Zetland; the very ISO code you keep banging on about implicitly recognises Shaetlan as a variety of Scots. That’s why the code is SCZ and not something completely different. Having things explained to you, with examples, in order to show you that you are factually incorrect is not the same as being viciously attacked. Paul Thomas via thenational.scot IT’S a little bizarre to see the complaints about Shell’s decision to move a number of development positions, and I emphasise the word development, out of Aberdeen. Practically every article in this newspaper on the subject of oil and gas, together with the policies of both Scottish and UK governments over the past few years, has argued for development of oil and gas in UK waters to cease. Is it then a surprise when an oil company concludes these development resources can be utilised more effectively in an office supporting developments in other parts of the world? The move reinforces the argument I and others have been making that if no further development is permitted on the UK continental shelf, there will always be countries around the world willing to take up the resulting slack. The net benefit to the environment will be, at best, zero. At worst, it will increase the volume of transport-derived emissions resulting from the shipping of hydrocarbons from the Middle East, Africa and from fracked US shale production into Europe. Climate change can only be addressed effectively by tackling the demand side of the market. Instead of ranting about Rosebank, and more particularly Jackdaw, we should be spending our energy lobbying for improved energy efficiency, more effective support for electric vehicle use, reduction in air miles, reduction in the use of plastics and other substitutable hydrocarbon-based materials, reduction in the use of cement, and changing fertiliser manufacture so that it uses electrolysis derived hydrogen in its production instead of fossil fuel derived hydrogen. As a country, we could make a much bigger impact on greenhouse gas emissions by concentrating on these actions that can actually make a real difference to the damage being done to the environment, rather than by the performative focus on local gas and oil production, which will not help the environment at all, as lost production here will simply be substituted by production elsewhere. Cameron Crawford Rothesay