ISN’T R Mill Irving (Letters, June 2) detesting the British Empire while being a staunch monarchist something of an oxymoron?

What part of the monarchy is the pinnacle of the privilege system that generated obscene wealth for the few through subjugating and exploiting others while many ordinary folks did the dying to achieve it, did he not understand?

Apart from residual respect for the current monarch, rooted in the minds of some of our older citizens, and the constant drip feed of pro-monarchy propaganda by the mainstream media, shouldn’t any truly forward thinking, modern society have realised by now that not having an elected and accountable head of state, in a country without a written constitution, is a folly of the grossest inequality?

Perhaps if we taught in schools the reality of what the British Empire was, and the human suffering it caused in its creation at the behest of the few who got rich through it, from the monarch down the privileged elite it leads, then the clamour for change would reflect a modern, open and accountable Head of State founded on equality of opportunity rather than the accident of birth?

Perhaps once Scotland has regained its independence then such issues will be considered? However, won’t the drive for modernisation render any precedent reaching as far back to the Union of the Crowns in 1603 be irrelevant?

Jim Taylor

Edinburgh

WJ Graham’s letter (June 2) is wide of the mark on genocide. We are fortunate that neither courts nor historians define genocide etymologically. The term was coined by a lawyer for a specific purpose, which was to prosecute acts that had already been perpetrated.

The definition of the word was crafted carefully and retrospectively. It includes a list of acts any one of which comprises genocide if carried out with “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part” a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

The word should not always be prefixed with “attempted”, as WJ Graham proposes, because attempted genocide and genocide are two distinct crimes by law. Both have been committed on numerous occasions, and lawyers, historians and journalists need to distinguish between them.

It is worth knowing about the life of the lawyer who invented the term, Raphael Lemkin. His definition is available at the Genocide Convention.

Alasdair Gillon

Edinburgh

WJ Graham is undoubtedly right to protest against the misuse of the word “genocide” to mean simply “killing a lot of people”. His claim that actual genocide has never happened in human history is, however, dubious.

It is certainly the case that distinctive groups of people with common cultural identities have ceased in their entirety to exist as a result of deliberate human agency: the native inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego and Tasmania and the Beothuk Indians of Newfoundland are clear examples. There may still be individuals who have members of those groups among their ancestors, but the groups themselves no longer exist.

The Cree Indian protest singer Buffy Sainte-Marie, singing of “the genocide basic to this country’s birth”, is exaggerating to the extent that the native Americans have not been totally wiped out, many of them still being proudly aware of their tribal identities and vigorously intent on maintaining them; but there is no gainsaying the fact that many of the distinctive individual cultures have been irrevocably lost.

Derrick McClure

Aberdeen

IT is easy for royalists to look around the world and find dodgy elected head of states - but are they comparing like with like? Are they specifically looking at countries which have an alleged democratic history like the UK? Usually the answer is no.

As for the comment that the UK’s royal family is not interested in politics – where have you been? The Queen was widely reported as “purring” when the No vote happened in the first indyref and her involvement in supporting such as vote didn’t go unnoticed nor has the attempts by her grandson to shore up Gordon Brown’s feeble attempts of keeping us all prisoners in the BritNat Union.

It doesn’t matter what the royal family does – the dodgy allegations surrounding Prince Andrew, etc – won’t stop them continuing to hold their privileged position. However, an elected head of state would find it difficult to retain their position if their family acted in the same manner as the current House of Windsor.

Quite simply, a royal family is an anachronism in the 21st century. It’s bad enough having an unelected House of Lords without the nonsense of the royal family as well. If the UK wants to be a democracy – then both have to go. We know the BritNat establishment won’t ditch either, that’s why we need independence for Scotland, let’s ditch the royal family and all their hangers-on, let’s create a real democracy where everyone has the same rights.

Cllr Kenny MacLaren

Paisley