Scotland Matters Letters

Could a modicum of reality finally hit the SNP? Already, Humza Yousaf has said that a two-tier health system would be “abhorrent” (“Health chiefs warn free-for-all NHS model ‘no longer works’, heraldscotland, November 21). It’s not ideal, but why? The SNP wants to make everything “free” or deploy the more inane term of declaring something a “human right” as if this magically makes it immune to price shocks, scarcity, bottlenecks or abuse. Do the individuals who work in extractive and chemical industries work for nothing? Do the people who labour on pharmaceutical production lines do it out of duty? Most of us know services aren’t free, but for some reason, some persist in this naive delusion, helped along by the SNP which has almost entirely ruptured the link between services and taxation. If I had to pay a fixed sum to see a GP, similar to dentistry, then so be it. I’d rather the entire service works. And I say this from no place of great wealth, working minimum wage for a “free” advocacy service. However, the NHS Scotland health board chief executives’ minutes are more succinct than me: “divorced from the reality of life and purpose of service”. This could sum up the last 15 years in Scotland. David Bone, Girvan.

Let’s hope that when the Supreme Court publishes its ruling on the referendum on Wednesday (November 23), the legality supports the reality, and the decision remains reserved to Westminster. A common complaint about the Brexit vote is that people were misled and not told “the facts” before the vote. In the case of Indyref2, the facts do not support the idea that Westminster should grant Scotland a referendum. Referendums are based on total votes for and against a proposition. At the 2021 Holyrood elections, only 64 per cent of the registered electorate voted. Of these, only 49% voted for parties advocating separation from the UK, indicating that only 32% of Scots engaged enough to vote were probable Yes voters. Furthermore, of the last 51 polls on independence, only six have shown a slight majority for Yes. There are few facts to consider on the issue of what Scotland’s status would be after separation. This can only be determined after a long, complex negotiation involving the politicians, civil servants and lawyers of both governments – a huge distraction and at considerable expense, with businesses reluctant to invest amidst the uncertainty. The Brexit experience demonstrates that years after the vote there are still negotiations ongoing, and we still do not know the true extent of the resultant damage or possible benefits. The UK Government has a responsibility to the entire UK population and together with Holyrood has more urgent problems to deal with than at any time in recent history. To allow less than three per cent of the UK electorate to impose this needless distraction on the rest would indeed be a “democratic deficit”, a term the SNP are very fond of. Mark Openshaw, Aberdeen.

How do we find out the cost and duration of the First Minister’s trip to Egypt? She was not part of the UK delegation. She is not the Head of a sovereign state so who was she representing? Since John Swinney tells us the cupboards are financially bare, what is the justification for this trip when Scotland’s contribution to global emissions is so ridiculously small compared to other nations of the world? Can we ever get some common sense and focused priority from the SNP? Derek Farmer, Anstruther, Fife

With the Supreme Court’s ruling on whether the SNP administration may hold a legal referendum without reference to Westminster due to be published tomorrow, the Yes movement is swinging into action. Tomorrow night, rallies are to be held across Scotland, outside Holyrood and in Selkirk, Dumfries, and even Skye, among other places. Further, on the following Saturday, All Under One Banner (AUOB) will hold a rally on the steps of the BBC Scot-land building at Pacific Quay in Glasgow, the site of a rowdy Yes demonstration in 2014. The organiser, Neil Mackay, tells us “we’ll be having a very prominent, very loud demonstration”. This being the UK, these demonstrations will take place without molestation. Minorities’ rights are protected, to the extent that the danger of a “tyranny of the majority” is prevented and we are now approaching the tyranny of minorities- see the Gender Recognition Reform bill as an example If the separatists win tomorrow, those at the rallies will celebrate. But if they lose, what will happen? True, their numbers tend not to be large, but it is clear organisers are intent on encouraging people not to accept a legal decision if it displeases them. What form that displeasure may take is not clear, but we have to hope it does not result in civil disorder. Hope may not be enough. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.

Share this entry