Slavery reparations are blatant opportunism and Britain must reject them for three reasons - William Clouston

First, just as it is morally right for an individual to account for their actions it can also be justifiable for societies to do so.

A nation which has aggressively invaded another state might reasonably be asked to repair the damage it has done. The criminal is rightly punished for criminal acts and the criminal state can likewise be justly sanctioned.

The error that reparations claimants make is to pretend that a modern nation-state is the same as the ancient one which perpetrated slavery over 200 years ago. Just as we don’t punish a child for the actions of its great great grandfather a modern nation should not be punished for actions which took place generations and generations ago. It has changed. Its citizens are different persons. It is not the same nation.

Secondly, guided by greats such as Clarkson and Wilberforce, Britain’s national moral reckoning on the question of slavery took place in the late 1700s, which led to the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act of 1807.

Britain subsequently - rightly and uniquely - suppressed the Atlantic slave trade through the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron, which seized over 1,600 ships, freed 150,000 slaves and cost the lives of over 1,500 British seamen.

Historians have described this act of slavery suppression as the most expensive international moral action in modern history.

Those who took part in this noble effort would surely be puzzled that six generations later people who had not practised slavery were being asked to both atone for it and to pay for it.Thirdly, embedded in the very concept of financial reparations is the concept of personal financial loss or detriment.

The idea that losses can - in a causal chain - traverse the generations is quite sound. The reparations claimants’ case stumbles not on the principle but, rather, on the facts. It’s not so much that their case struggles - it falls flat. Why? Because to claim a financial loss, you have to be able to demonstrate it.

The claimants’ conundrum is that the economic data does not bear what they seek. Perversely, it does the opposite. The social and economic welfare of Caribbean societies is vastly superior to that of states in West Africa.

For example, GDP per head in Barbados is $17,690, which compares to only $2,066 in present-day Ghana (Source: Capital Economics). Similarly, American blacks - many of whom are the descendants of victims of slavery - are the most economically prosperous of any black population in the world.

To modern progressives, these may be discomforting truths, but they are truths nevertheless. You can’t claim a financial loss if it doesn’t exist.

The British establishment has become notoriously weak in defending our national interests. On slavery, I believe Labour is particularly vulnerable because much of its member and supporter base already wants Britain to pay up.

This thinking forms part of an oppressor versus victim mentality which has spread throughout practically every institution in the country.

Further, in appointing David Lammy as Foreign Secretary, Starmer has foolishly placed into a key position someone who has publicly argued for slavery reparations - and who self-identified as a Caribbean while doing so. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a less fitting person to fight Britain’s corner on this particular matter. A costly and unjustified capitulation awaits.