The Scottish National Museum, like many museums in the UK benefits greatly from the UK's colonial history. They are filled with items from across the globe, procured in many different ways, ranging from purchase to "discovery" to looting. As far as looting goes, regimental museums are among the worst culprits. As the regiments scattered across the globe to grow and steady the empire they found curios and souvenirs to bring home with them. Some were stolen, some were taken from the battlefield, and of course, some were purchased fairly. Most of these objects are relatively small or minor so returning them would be difficult or impossible because they aren't really traceable or not notable enough to be missed. The wrongs that happened in the past are still wrong but not currently able to be redressed. From what I have heard the worst offender is the British Museum which holds large quantities of objects of immeasurable cultural value. These objects, taken by explorers, archaeologists, or purchased by rich collectors are highly controversial. Yes, they are displayed prominently for all to see in their current home but many people for whom they are culturally significant or whose nation's wealth they represented are unable to visit.
This is acutely illustrated by the fact that people from the middle east, Africa, or Asia must (quite frequently) negotiate a much more difficult landscape to enter the UK than someone from the Europe or the US/Canada. These people also tend to be less likely to have the means to take a trip to Europe. A good example of this is in Egyptian artifacts, many of which can be found in museums across the UK. Many people ask why they should over here when they can be displayed in the country of their origin? The response is rarely satisfactory and often quite orientalist. Arguments that the artifacts can be better kept and protected here raise the question of when developing countries will be deemed fit to take possession of their own history. That said, there are cases, such as when ISIL was targeting cultural ruins, that an argument could persuasively been made for the removal of valuable artifacts for their protection but once the threat is gone they should be returned. The objects displayed may be fascinating to the western imagination but if arguments that their presence is key for education and enlightenment are to be taken seriously then the west should box up and ship equally valuable relics of its history to other parts of the globe. If the British museum can hold the Rosetta stone or the Benin Bronzes then why shouldn't Micronesia get the Scottish crown Jewels or Liberia get the liberty bell.
An issue even larger than the presence of these objects is the omissions of the negatives of empire in most museums. The empire is mentioned as something that happened and framed the times but there is rarely an explanation as to why it caused an event to happen. Events that may be perceived as negative are labeled "controversial" and then its on to the next thing. That's not to say that there are no positives from the empire but rather the events that occurred within its time and because of it are not put in the greater context. The museum goer is not given much opportunity to question this massive theme in British history. Inclusion of more of a discourse on empire would greatly benefit museum goers and help preserve history, both the bad and good parts. It also might help the case to keep controversial objects if an explanation as to how they were procured and why they are controversial was provided. This does not remove the reasons that they shouldn't be there but rather acknowledges the errors of the past and adds another lesson to their presence partially justifying their presence. Overall there is no clear route to rectifying the situation with the most benefit for the most people but the status quo can definitely be changed for the better.