Readers' Letters: We should get behind Streeting's controversial obesity plan
The two Labour ministers most determined and able to reform their departments are Wes Streeting and Liz Kendall. Their chances of success are interlinked; if the Health Secretary can reform the NHS and get people into work, many for the first time, the DWP Secretary can reduce the benefits bill threatening to bust the economy.
Obesity costs NHS England £11 billion (around £1bn in Scotland). Streeting has studied other health services, especially Singapore, and last week's announcement of a major trial of weight loss drugs was welcome, if controversial. The drugs cost around £1,000 per person a year. The UK can’t afford £26bn a year to treat an estimated 26 million obese adults, even if it worked in every case, so only 49,000 who fit the right profile will be chosen.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdBut this initiative has grabbed the headlines, communicated the seriousness of the problem and determination to fix it, and highlighted core factors such as the blizzard of advertising, suffocating presence of unhealthy food in shops and takeaways and need for better health and diet education.


I sincerely hope Mr Streeting gets the backing of his party, opposition parties, the NHS, and the population, many of whom are currently eating themselves into poverty, depression, avoidable long term illness and early death, and need help and encouragement not just to realise that, but to embrace the measures designed to prolong, and increase the prosperity of, their lives.
Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire
Partner up, NHS
When I read the letter from Dr Andrew Docherty (19 October), I thought I had travelled backwards through time.
He suggests taking to the streets to protect the NHS, but surely this puts matters completely the wrong way round? We are not here to protect the NHS, the NHS is here to protect us, so if private companies can deliver a complementary service to the NHS at a reasonable cost, and in doing so address patients’ suffering, reduce waiting lists, and take pressure off the NHS, let them to do so, and do so again and again.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdScotland spends £19,000 million on the NHS annually. Yet despite the best efforts of so many of its staff, it fails on dentistry, access to GPs, on waiting times in A&E, on providing timely treatment for people suffering, and on ambulance services.
Throwing more money at the NHS year after year has not delivered the goods. Despite more staff and money than ever, the NHS is delivering poorer outcomes for what should be its priority, patients.
Scotland already uses private sector capacity for things like cataracts. When used, patients are treated promptly with good outcomes, efficiently and cost-effectively. The NHS needs to take advantage of this type of capacity when it cannot do things itself promptly. I cannot understand why some people would prefer people to languish in pain than use private sector capacity.
Surely the question is not “NHS or Private sector?”, but rather “How can both sectors work together to deliver a service that meets the needs of patients at an affordable cost?”. That way, the focus is on better outcomes for patients and for the taxpayers who fund the service. Whatever the question, taking to the streets is certainly not the answer.
Brian Barbour, Berwick Upon Tweed
Apply pressure
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdIt’s encouraging to see the Scotsman editorial advocating a ceasefire in Gaza (19 October), but let’s face it, you are whistling in the wind. There is only one solution and that is for Hamas to surrender and return the remaining hostages, but they have no intention of laying down their arms. Their charter calls for the destruction of Israel and it’s very difficult to eradicate an ideology.
Recently on Al Jazeera a representative of Hamas stated that 80 per cent of those killed in Gaza are freedom fighters or their relatives. The media call them civilians, Hamas call them martyrs. With Hamas in disarray, perhaps this is an opportunity for the US to pressure Qatar to stop hosting any remaining Hamas members.
Lewis Finnie, Edinburgh
Word of difference
William Loneskie (Letters, 19 October) misses the point of my letter. Firstly, there is a huge difference from being a “climate change denier”, which contrary to Mr Loneskie’s view I did not accuse anyone of, and a “man made climate change denier”, which were the words I used. The first concerns denying natural climate change, the second denying causal human intervention, which is undeniable given that the recent acceleration in warming coincides with the mass burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution.
Secondly I argued that here in the South of Scotland, where Mr Loneskie lives, we pay more for our electricity per unit than the UK average yet Scotland produces more renewable electricity, the cheapest form of generation, than the country needs, to the extent that it exports ten times as much electricity as it imports. It could be argued, therefore, that, at a time of escalating electricity prices, power generated here through cheaper renewables is lowering UK wholesale electricity prices, yet users in Scotland pay more due to the vagaries of the market. There is nothing in Mr Loneskie’s letter to disprove this; in fact he makes no attempt to tackle the argument.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdIt’s clear Mr Loneskie is against renewables and foreign ownership in a sector that employed 42,000 people in Scotland and contributed over £10 billion of economic output here in 2021, according to the Fraser of Allander Institute. He may have preferred coal-generated power stations like Longannet “near markets”, but they latterly largely relied on foreign coal and had a detrimental impact on the climate.
Neil Anderson, Edinburgh
Lyre, lyre?
Got to be wondering if John Swinney plays the fiddle?
Michael Officer, Bridge of Earn, Perthshire
Write to The Scotsman
We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.