THE Yes campaign has been accused of "deliberately spreading fear" about the future of the NHS by the former medical director of a leading cancer centre.
Professor Alan Rodger, who helped transform the Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre into one of the best facilities of its kind, also launched a scathing attack on the SNP's health record.
The former oncologist said Nicola Sturgeon and her successor as health secretary Alex Neil were more interested in hiding bad news and attacking critics than improving the service, and said the Yes camp had hypocritically adopted the scaremongering tactics it has repeatedly accused the No side of using.
In England, private companies can bid to run NHS services and the Yes campaign has said that while health policy is devolved to Scotland, cuts to NHS funding south of the border as a result of privatisation, patient charging or austerity would have a knock-on impact and see Scotland's budget slashed, under current arrangements.
But Prof Rodger, who retired in 2008 and backs a No vote, described the claim as far fetched and said that Scotland's health statistics had remained worse than those in England.
He added: "It seems to me that the pro-independence [side] has hypocritically decided to adopt the strategy it has accused the No camp of following by deliberately spreading fear about the NHS and its future.
"Meantime the SNP government which has been in charge of guiding the Scottish NHS for over seven years continues to fail in its duty yet has the gumption to say that the Scottish NHS would be in danger if there is a Yes vote."
Prof Rodger attacked Scottish breast cancer surgeon Dr Philippa Whitford, who warned Scotland's NHS would wither away within a decade without a Yes vote, pointing out that the health service in Scotland also sends patients into the private sector.
He added: "That devolved government has been left to decide how to spend its money on health, education, transport, law and order - and future devolved governments will continue to do so if we sensibly vote no."
Prof Rodger, who spent 11 years in Australia before returning to Scotland to work at the Beatson, spoke out after Dr Anna Gregor, who led the country's successful cancer strategy and was recognised for her services to medicine with a CBE, said fellow doctors and politicians had told a "total and utter lie" by saying Scotland must become independent to protect the Scottish NHS.
However, the Scottish Government defended its record, saying its decisions had meant the NHS north of the border was a world leading organisation, and maintained that the NHS would be better protected in an independent Scotland.
A spokesman added: "Our NHS has brought levels of C. Diff to the lowest on record, has seen patient satisfaction continue to rise, has dramatically cut patient waiting times and has continued to increase the number of healthcare workers.
"Under current arrangements, any cuts to the health budget in England through austerity, privatisation or patient charging will have a knock-on effect which cuts Scotland's budget.
"That is one of the reasons why the Scottish Government believes that our health service would be better protected under independence.
"We are committed to protecting the founding principles of the NHS and maintaining it as a publicly-owned health service, free for everyone at the point of use. We believe that there should be constitutional protection for the NHS in an independent Scotland - which would ensure that the NHS will be in public hands for generations to come."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article