GIVEN the devastating damage the pandemic caused to our NHS, the unveiling of National Treatment Centres to help tackle spiralling waiting lists for NHS treatment at least gave thousands of patients waiting for treatment some hope that their painful conditions would at some point in the near future be brought to an end. Now the revelations that only three flagship NTCs are up and running and that building work on some others has been 'paused', will shatter the hopes of many patients for a speedy end to their painful health problems ("Ministers ‘kept quiet’ over delays to treatment centres", The Herald, July 29).

While the media has rightly or wrongly painted some of our health secretaries as ranging from useless to devious, in reality these jocular tags and secrecy have allowed the Scottish Government to hide the fact that important policies which were lauded in a blaze of glory, have all but been abandoned. It seems that transparency, honesty and integrity are alien concepts to some of those in power.

Bob MacDougall, Kippen.

Get the Letter of the Day straight to your inbox.


• A REPORT on the English watchdog the Care Quality Commission has found a lack of clinical expertise among inspectors, a lack of consistency in assessments. Westminster Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting said: “I have been stunned by the extent of the failings of the institution that is supposed to identify and act on failings. It’s clear to me CQC is not fit for purpose.” What similar independent reviews of the Scottish watchdog Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) has the Scottish Government completed? Or is HIS a freewheeling organisation accountable to no-one but costing the Scottish people tens of millions of pounds each year?

Douglas JA Adamson (Dr), retired consultant clinical oncologist, Dundee.

READ MORE: Could Tories bite the bullet and become a party for Scotland?

READ MORE: Labour right up there with the Tories on heartlessness

Matters for the movement

IN the course of an interesting and thought-provoking article on the role and status of the SNP in relation to current Scottish politics Mark McGeoghegan makes reference to the "independence movement" on a number of occasions ("SNP must choose between governing or campaigning", The Herald, July 26).

The idea of a "movement" however when applied to Scottish independence campaigning meets with a real difficulty. The term movement implies a broad and diverse coalition of social, political, cultural and other elements drawn from wider civil society. The strength of such a movement is based on the fact that it transcends traditional party politics and can drawn in and engage with people who may be alienated from such politics. It may indeed acquire a degree of support and momentum which justifies the term "mass movement".

The weakness of a movement may be that its very diversity may result in a lack of discipline and the necessary direction to achieve the aims it seeks. The fatal weakness of the campaign for Scottish independence has been its failure to persuade people that a plausible and credible programme for independence exists. This involves specific not general propositions. Can a broad movement agree on such specifics?

Without being facetious, it is one thing to march up and down the streets of Munich playing bagpipes or to belt out Flower of Scotland at Murrayfield. Radical political change however is not based on emotion but the consideration of cold realities: pensions, currency, living standards, national security, cultural questions concerning the type of society we wish to live in.

These are the matters a "movement" for independence must address and agree on. It is a difficult and complex task.

Brian Harvey, Hamilton.

Filling in the black hole

I HAVE a suggestion for Chancellor Reeves about how to fill the “black hole” in the UK finances. Introduce a law that all money earned in the UK is fully taxed in the UK, whether it is banked in the UK, the Cayman Islands or anywhere else in the world, and authorise HMRC to claim any unpaid tax up to five years in arrears, as happens to the rest of us. Problem solved.

P Davidson, Falkirk.

Why not Stranraer?

KEIR Starmer's Labour Party keeps stressing the fact that the new amazing Great British Energy thing is to be headquartered in Scotland; it never favours us with an explanation of why this particular "region" of the UK has been singled out. I suggest that Stranraer might be a good choice as I have on one occasion been able, with the naked eye, to see Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Wales (the tip of Snowdon on the sea horizon) from the same place at the same time from a ferry crossing from Larne to Cairnryan.

Aberdeen has been touted by many, including Stephen Flynn MP, but it is surely too remote from the main UK centres of demand and population where energy is consumed. Sceptics have even suggested that it is a sweetener for the rebellious kilted, bagpipe-playing, haggis-eating caber tossers to soften the blow of being lumbered with another five years of colonial status with a government imposed on them by England before a single Scottish vote had even been counted.

Willie Maclean, Milngavie.

Nuclear must be way forward

JAMES Graham (Letters, July 26), is correct to say that the benefits of nuclear power outweigh those of wind generation. The scale of the Labour Government’s proposals to increase onshore and offshore generation are huge and how this output can be integrated into the grid are of great concern. What needs to be explained by the Government is the whole cost of wind, which will include higher transmission costs, back-up cost of gas turbines when there is little or no wind and the increased restraint payments resulting from these higher installed capacities. All these factors will increase the price of electricity and the greater installed capacity needed of gas turbines will increase carbon dioxide emissions. If all the gas turbines have carbon capture and storage installed this will increase the price of electricity even more.

Nuclear plants can now be designed to provide despatchable power, similar to gas generators, and be designed to reuse spent fuel (not waste as it is often described), thus reducing the need for deep geological storage of the so-called waste from civil and military plants. The answer is to get engineers to design our electricity system, not politicians.

Charles Scott, Edinburgh.

Don't give in to Israel blackmail

IT seems unlikely that Hezbollah would deliberately target the Druze of the Golan Heights, many of whom still identity as Syrian, when Hezbollah is allied to Syria ("Netanyahu warns Hezbollah ‘will pay heavy price’ for attack", The Herald, July 29). More likely they were aiming at IDF positions there.

Either way, Israeli retaliation will protect no one, as the cause of the deaths was the IDF and Hezbollah trading fire over the Gaza war. The IDF has already killed Lebanese civilians and children while targeting Hezbollah multiple times since October 7, and of course the IDF has killed many thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza and some in the West Bank and East Jerusalem too. And the IDF was doing it on a smaller scale even before October 7.

The only thing that would protect Israeli, Lebanese and Palestinian children’s lives would be an end to the Gaza war followed by two-state peace negotiations between all of Israeli’s elected representatives and all of Palestinians: who include Hamas, which won the last Palestinian Authority legislative elections.

Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli politicians are currently blackmailing the US government by hints that if they’re not supported in the Gaza war they could start a war with Hezbollah and possibly Iran too.

The US government, if it wanted to, could counter this by quietly suspending approval for more exports of ammunition and military spare parts to Israel. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said that the Israeli air force is almost entirely dependent on the US for supplies of advanced munitions for its aircraft.

Duncan McFarlane, Carluke.

Brian TaylorBrian Taylor (Image: Colin Mearns)

Top punditry is Taylor-made

SEEKING an alternative to Friday evening's Seine boat spectacular I switched over to the BBC World. A topical debate on the merits or demerits of Kamala Harris's declared presidential candidacy was in full flow.

Two American journalists, one Democrat, one Republican, voiced their views on the ever-changing presidential campaign. No interruptions, no personal denouncements. The viewer was afforded a clear albeit personal narrative.

Also present, contributing in his usual clear and concise tones, was Herald columnist Brian Taylor, albeit bereft of his trademark braces (trouser, not dental). Brian's concise appraisal of the current USA political turmoil should guarantee him many more TV appearances.

Allan C Steele, Giffnock.