Time to put NHS under an unsparing microscope

Second, the NHS has become a political football, and, as such, no political party will do anything but throw money at it. Third, science and medicine are discovering new ways of dealing with an ever-widening range of health problems; the financial and organisational cost will inevitably increase.

Fourth, young clinicians are being driven to nervous breakdown, suicide, or early death by a system that forces them to work, with little supervision, far above their pay grade; and nurses are being forced to strike. Finally, there’s good old British analysis paralysis – we prefer to discuss a problem rather than solve it.

First of all, we need to get the facts.

An independent organisation should be employed to discover exactly where the NHS’s problems lie – and what the alternatives are.
Doug Clark, Currie, Midlothian

Sanctifying a national failure

MORAG Black rightly points out that Europe offers no NHS panacea (letters, November 28), and all health care systems are struggling to reconcile the present and future health requirements of their populations.

However, in terms of comparative health care outcomes, the UK is demonstrably failing, and Germany (and other countries such as France and Austria) have more favourable survival results.

The UK is bottom of a league table of 18 countries for lung cancer, and second-bottom for colon, breast and stomach cancers. This verdict alone merits consideration, and some people travel to Europe for surgery.

Others likewise for dental treatments, and William Durward (letters, November 28) comments on the two-tier dentistry now present in the UK. Indeed, it seems curious that the demise of NHS dentistry has been greeted by barely a whimper by those in charge, and is now tacitly accepted by the public.

Perhaps Europe does have something to teach us about the practice of medicine today.

The NHS is indeed no longer the envy of the world and the public must desist from sanctifying a failing institution.
John Sinclair, retired consultant surgeon, Milngavie

We only get what we pay for

IN your letters page (November 28) William Durward and Robin Mather bemoan the fact that our NHS is unable to fund sophisticated, or sometimes even adequate, levels of healthcare.

Almost exactly one year ago, along with my surgeon, I speculated on how much more tax I would need to have paid over my working life to have a properly functioning NHS so that I would not now be paying the price of a small car for my new hip.

I’m not sure we came to a conclusion, but I do know this; expecting Scandinavian levels of healthcare on Tory levels of taxation was never going to work.

We will eventually emerge (hopefully) from more than 12 years of unnecessary austerity in accordance with Tory shibboleths, which have meant that health funding has lagged well behind the needs of an ageing population. For much of that time the UK Health Minister was our current Chancellor.

Mr Durward feels aggrieved that he can’t get top-level dental care without paying privately, and I feel aggrieved that I had to pay for a hip operation just to be able to walk. I have the excuse that at least I always voted for political parties that would have required me to pay more tax.

Mr Durward might well be in the same position, but there will be many of your readers who cannot claim the same; we only get what we pay for.
John Jamieson, Ayr

Rules must be the same for all

NICE of Mark Smith (“Anti-democratic Scots? You talking to me, First Minister?”, November 28) to give us his personal opinion on the constitution, but if there are “rules” then they must be the same rules for all, and 50+1 is the norm.

I do not recall the Labour party insisting that the EU referendum could not go ahead without a 60% vote share. No: an electoral minority sufficed.

Sir Keir Starmer stated in 2020 that a parliamentary majority at Holyrood entitled Scotland to have a second independence referendum but, like too many others, he has reneged on this commitment.

Mark Smith asserts a “different” route to an independence referendum exists, but doesn’t spell out what it is—perhaps because it differs from the UK norm.

I have tried, by letter, to raise my fears that the endless constitutional jiggery-pokery, and use of a veto, by British politicians would lead to unconstitutional methods similar to Ireland (it’s why they have the right to self-determination) happening in Scotland.

I pose a real question to Mr Smith and his ilk—what will you say if a bomb goes off, say on a gas pipeline or electricity interconnector? Use the ballot box?
GR Weir, Ochiltree

Is Starmer really a Labour leader?

BREXIT has been a disaster and will continue to be for many years, if not decades, to come. But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, as with his party in the 2016 referendum, appears unable or unwilling to challenge that.

Depressingly, he is now adopting catchphrases similar to those championed by the man who led us into this crisis – former Prime Minister Boris Johnson – to “make Brexit work” and “get on with what the country wants.”

Except I suspect it doesn’t. And in Scotland it never did. Hold a poll now and I would bet my house on a Remain vote throughout the UK.

But Starmer is adamant that freedom of movement with the EU will not return under his government. Say that from your pad in Westminster, Sir, but think of the rest of the country.

Of course, he has also ruled out allowing Scottish voters to make their own choice on Scotland’s future.

Is this really a Labour leader? John Smith, perhaps the best Prime Minister Britain never had, would, I am almost certain, have taken different decisions on both counts.
Andy Stenton, Glasgow

Yes, Scotland can prosper

WHILE democracy slips off the plate, as once again London’s establishment tells Scotland to shut up, this voluntary Union has failed, especially since Scotland’s many strengths and advantages are now widely known.

With abundant natural resources, renewable energy sectors, legendary engineering and scientific skills and an enterprising workforce, a fully independent Scotland would prosper and flourish.

Scotland’s ship of proven ability, with its sense of fair play and justice, along with its world-class brands, is set to sail away on fair winds, waters and tides around the world.
Grant Frazer, Cruachan, Newtonmore

A much better use for indy funds

GOVERNMENT money is taxpayers’ money, administered by government. Providing taxpayers’ funds to pursue independence may be illegal.

This includes the use of 25 civil servants working on the independence prospectus at £1.5 million a year; £20m to the referendum proposed in October 2023 (now shot down in flames), a substantial proportion of the £350 million budget of Angus Robertson, the constitution minister; and a reported £260,000 spent in preparing for and presenting last week in the Supreme Court.

The existence of food banks is a useful club with which to beat the Tories, but the funds squandered by the government of Scotland in pursuing independence would fill many stomachs in addition to providing heat and light.

My wife is involved with a food bank in Maryhill and thus my household has insight into current issues with living costs, accepting no lessons from the First Minister.
William Durward, Bearsden

FM’s pointless foot stamping

READER’S Digest version of Nicola Sturgeon’s current constitutional posturing: hijacking the general election to stage a de facto referendum is a foot-stamping exercise since the law doesn’t allow her to hold as many referendums as she wishes, whenever she chooses.

It’s immaterial whether she gets more or less than 50% of the vote – the UK and therefore the EU and UN won’t recognise her interpretation of the result. End of.
Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.