I HAVE previously written regarding the absolutely outstanding levels of treatment and care I have received from numerous individuals within our wonderful Scottish NHS since being diagnosed with a couple of illnesses which can be treated but cannot be cured.

It saddens me when I read of individuals who have not received such outstandingly high levels of care.

It saddens me even more when I read of or watch a few list MSPs relentlessly criticising the Scottish NHS, often with the flimsiest of reasons. In my experience many within the organisation consistently go the extra mile and it must be thoroughly demotivating for them to receive constant criticism.

Is it naive to suggest that our wonderful Scottish NHS is too important to become a political football?

This week I read of an individual in England who has been given a hospital outpatient appointment for June 2025. He telephoned to query whether this was an error and whether it should in fact be June 2023. It was not an error.

The Tories in Scotland are led by an individual who wears many hats, one them being as an MP. Given his propensity for repeatedly raising issues in Scotland and often being left with egg on his face, this seems to be a reasonable case for him to raise in Westminster. I won’t hold my breath.

Stewart Falconer, Perthshire.

HERALD MUST LOOK AGAIN AT THE NHS

SEVERAL years ago The Herald published a special series that focused on the future of the NHS. I felt then that it was a major public service as the NHS was, some years ago, in crisis.

However the conditions in this vital service have declined to the point that the NHS across the UK is unsustainable in its current model.

From primary care with the near-collapse of the GP service, to ambulance services, emergency care, clinical operations delayed and post-hospital crises, it is time for The Herald to look again forensically at the NHS.

There is no question that Brexit has severely damaged the service – but that excuse hides more fundamental concerns.

As a life-long social democrat I have come to the conclusion that the funding structure needs changing, with a plural approach to paying for the service.

It was Harold Wilson as a Labour PM who introduced the three-tier dentistry model: private payment, NHS-assisted payment, and fully-funded NHS payment for the needy.

There are several global models to consider. I am urging The Herald to once again open its pages and look again at alternative models for the future of this great service. We no longer live in the 1940s and an urgent lock, stock and barrel review must take place soon.

Thom Cross, Carluke.

QUEBEC, CONTINUED

IN his original letter (November 25), Peter Dryburgh stated that it was “surprising and disappointing that Lord Reed resorted to comparing Quebec with Scotland. That comparison is regularly invoked by opponents of Scottish independence but is utterly spurious.”

The point of my letter, which Mr Dryburgh is now attempting to muddy (letters, December 1) was to make clear that it was neither surprising nor spurious for Lord Reed to deal with an issue raised by the SNP in its submission to the court, and thereby to counter Mr Dryburgh’s clear implication that Lord Reed was demonstrating political bias.

Robert Murray, Glasgow.

* TO Messrs Dryburgh and Murray – Don’t mention Quebec! I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it. (Signed, Lord Reed).

Grant McKechnie, Glasgow.

POLITICIANS MUST DEFER TO VOTERS

IT is always important to argue on the basis of agreed facts. It was, therefore, reassuring to note that, in his letter (November 30) Robert Murray has conceded that my facts regarding the establishment of the UK Supreme Court are correct.

I agree with him that it replaced the House of Lords as the ultimate Court of Appeal for the UK. One of the primary aims of this change was to separate the courts from the politicians.

However – and I think he missed it – the fact (my point) remains that Westminster politicians altered the UK unwritten constitution in order to create this new legal resource which has final jurisdiction over our separate, and very different, Scottish legal system.

Likewise, Westminster altered the unwritten constitution in 1998 in order to establish the Scottish and Welsh governments. The UK constitution, it has been demonstrated, is at the mercy of Westminster politicians.

Mr Murray’s own facts are, however, wrong when he claims that the Supreme Court “safeguarded the constitution” against the Tory Government’s illegal prorogation of Parliament.

The Supreme Court was able to denounce the prorogation as “illegal” but it had not stopped the Tory government: parliament was prorogued over September 9-24 and again over October 8-14, 2019.

The only authority that could have intervened, I believe, lay with our constitutional monarch but, as I also pointed out, Queen Elizabeth had already been subjected to barefaced lies and false assurances of legality by those same politicians.

Mr Murray clearly has his own version of the British Empire – but needs to understand that right now Scotland is being treated as a colony, denied the right to vote for independence and self-determination by Westminster politicians who flout the so-called UK constitution at will.

The Supreme Court, in fact, therefore, made it absolutely clear that this stand-off between the declared will of the Scottish Electorate and Westminster is indeed a constitutional crisis but it must be resolved by politicians. And politicians must defer to the electorate.

Frances McKie, Evanton, Ross-shire.

HONOURING DODDIE WEIR

WHILE agreeing with a recent correspondent (letters, November 29) that there should be some form of commemoration to this courageous man, I would disagree with his suggestion of a statue. Of more long-term benefit, in my opinion, would be the donation of all takings from one of the early 2023 Tests at Murrayfield to Doddie’s MND Trust Fund.

Bill Marshall, Stirling.