Question of cashThe PM, Chancellor and other high-flying MPs have failed to understand simple arithmetic. They claim that the country is very short of cash and therefore there is no money to give assistance to the very poor. Also, for financial reasons, they have reduced the strength and capability of many sections of the armed forces.

The PM, Chancellor and other high-flying MPs have failed to understand simple arithmetic. They claim that the country is very short of cash and therefore there is no money to give assistance to the very poor. Also, for financial reasons, they have reduced the strength and capability of many sections of the armed forces.

Suddenly there is a terrorist attack in France and there is talk of France and other European countries retaliating. All of a sudden the UK has to be involved. Maritime reconnaissance aircraft are ordered from America, the airbase has to be refurbished, more troops are needed, and there are many more expenses, plus the nuclear submarines costs have risen steeply. There seems to be money available for all these things.

How and why is money available for all these military requirements for a purpose which is totally unclear, with no chance of a good outcome, and the almost definite probability of this leading to greater disasters?

Dr Evan L Lloyd

Belgrave Road, Edinburgh

Changes are real

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Clark Cross is simply wrong (Letters, 1 December). Every academy of science in the world agrees that human activities are the primary cause of global warming. Scientists from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have repeatedly highlighted the massive risks we are taking with people and the planet.

If Mr Cross had been at Scotland’s Climate March, he would have heard Voltaire Alferez, an inspirational climate advocate from the Philippines, talking about the effect that climate change is already having on people who are not able to adapt to more frequent and more severe weather events – exactly what is predicted in many regions of the world, as global average temperatures increase.

Perhaps Mr Cross should spend some time listening to people who are already suffering the effects of climate change.

Gail Wilson

Campaigns Manager, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, Rose Street, Edinburgh

Climate clash

At a kindergarten level, everyone accepts climate changes and greenhouse gases may raise global surface temperatures, but beyond that the science rapidly breaks down.

The sheer number of variables, not to mention the interplay and feedback loops that exist between them, mean that at present climatic predictions are little better than guesswork.

The green jolly in Paris won’t stop India or China building coal-fired power stations and only the delusional believe anyone is going to sign up to legally binding carbon-emissions.

Dr John Cameron

Howard Place, St Andrews

Paris problems

The UN climate talks in Paris have started. Over 50,000 politicians, activists, lobbyists and journalists travel by air, car and train for the 12-day conference.

A clear case of don’t do as we do do as we tell you.

Clark Cross

Springfield Road, Linlithgow

Health funding

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In the build-up to the 2014 independence referendum, we heard a lot from the Nationalists about inequality in Scotland and how “Westminster” was to blame. We heard frequently about how life expectancy in deprived areas was far lower than in affluent neighbourhoods. The Nationalists were short on detail, but happily reassured Scots that independence was the answer.

Now, a year after the referendum, we find that the SNP government provides GP practices in deprived areas with less funding than their colleagues providing healthcare to middle class Scots (Your report, 1 December). The difference in funding equates to around 2,000 fewer appointment slots per year in each practice serving deprived communities.

The news will not be a surprise to avid Scotsman readers – in December 2012, it was reported that Audit Scotland had said “health inequalities were “long-standing and entrenched” throughout the country, and that “resources should be better targeted at those who require them most”.

In the same report, the British Medical Association urged the Scottish Government to “use the unique relationship GPs have with their patients and in their communities to target healthcare to those who need it most”.

Audit Scotland said it was unsure how much money NHS boards and councils were spending on the issue – and what it was being spent on. Progress was not being measured as no targets had been set.

In response to this damming criticism, the SNP established a “taskforce”. Although this is welcome, it is clear that the most basic recommendation made by Audit Scotland has not been delivered three years later – healthcare resources are not being targeted where they are needed most.

Yet again, it appears we have a government in Scotland which is long on rhetoric but short on action.

Dr Scott Arthur

Buckstone Gardens, Edinburgh

Paying the price

In their rush to bash the SNP, your correspondents (Letters, 1 December) make very simplistic points about the NHS in Scotland.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

GPs do get extra payments in the most deprived areas, but in affluent areas GPs have many more elderly patients who need frequent consultations as they get older. Similarly, the increase in health spending in England has mainly gone to privatised services and no-one in the medical profession thinks that the NHS in England is in a better state than NHS Scotland.

Despite having to operate under much more stringent financial conditions, the SNP health record is much better than the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat administration that was intent on closing A&E departments and imposed draconian PFI funding contracts.

Along with ageing demographics, poverty is the main cause for the unprecedented demands on our health service – but Labour voted against devolving the taxes and powers required to tackle this in Scotland, preferring Westminster rule, whereby Labour and the Conservatives support spending billions on renewing nuclear weapons and misjudged foreign adventures rather than tackling the wealth gap.

“Bairns not bombs” is as relevant today as it was during the referendum campaign.

Fraser Grant

Warrender Park Road, Edinburgh

Respect is due

John Cameron (Letters, 30 November), is wrong to disparage junior doctors and accuse them of greed. In earlier times, Scotland and the Church were a source of medical help to poor countries. Now we are ripping them off! Some 40 per cent of our NHS staff were trained abroad, including one in three hospital consultants.

I have a son and a niece who were junior doctors once, so I know how much it takes for a young person to reach that stage. Of course we can get them cheaper from India or Africa, but this is real greed and a slap in the face for the poor countries which have trained them.

Let us give the doctors the respect and remuneration they are due and hope this will allow more into the profession so that we can let poor countries keep more of those they have trained.

George Shering

Newport-on-Tay, Fife

Listen carefully

Interesting in the present circumstances to read today of the concerns of your columnist (Inside Politics, 1 December) over the accountability of MSPs.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Members elected to public office seem to quickly forget that they are elected to be our deputies; to represent us, the electorate and to fulfil our wishes and aspirations as best they can. The contrast between the Labour Party and its free vote on Syria with the SNP and their preference for toeing the party line in all circumstances is an interesting situation.

Neither, I would suggest is particularly admirable. A major political party should have policy to give clear guidance, whilst allowing its members to react to that guidance in the light of the wishes of their constituents and their own knowledge of the situation.

Free votes and three-line whips seem to me to often be an avoidance of the best principles of democratic government.

A “U-turn” when a politician has listened and then adapted or amended or changed policy is, I would have thought, a cause for celebration, and not chastised as implied weakness.

We do need a good effective checking process on our politicians in order that government is undertaken to reflect the will of the electorate and not just party members and those elected to serve in public office.

Any party in power is there by virtue of having been elected by a minority (in this country at the moment anyway!) but each elected member is elected to represent the whole of their constituents, not just those of the same political persuasion. I feel that too often elected members do not see their greater responsibility and may prefer to represent their party more readily than their constituents.

David Gerrard

Spylaw Park, Edinburgh

Secular issues

That Spencer Fides of the Scottish Secular Society should think the selection of Sophia Coyle as SNP regional candidate is “worrying” (Letters, 1 December) is itself deeply disturbing.

Apparently because she does not agree with the Scottish Secular Society’s views on abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia she is “unacceptable”. Is this the Brave New World that the militant secularists want us to live in – one where only those who accept certain views are eligible to be politicians?

David A Robertson

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Moderator, Free Church of Scotland, St Peters Free Church, Dundee

Isn’t the idea of democracy that a diverse range of views can be presented, with the electorate deciding? A party endeavouring to be broad in its appeal, such as the SNP, is surely right to include diverse views on issues of conscience.

Secularism claims to challenge religious privilege, but usually seems to just demand that religious views be excluded because they don’t like them.

Richard Lucas

Colinton, Edinburgh

Taxing times

The UK government will reduce Scottish income tax by 10p in the pound as of April 2016, leaving the Scottish Government to apply the new Scottish income tax.

What concerns those living in Scotland will be the cost and ­efficiency of collection of this new tax which may well dilute its effectiveness. If the experience with Scottish income tax is similar to the new land and buildings tax we may well be in for some unexpected surprises.

Dennis Forbes Grattan

Bucksburn, Aberdeen