Readers' Letters: Why is union interfering in medical matters?

I am curious as to how a trade union set up to debate and protect workers’ rights is now stepping into healthcare by proposing a motion to force the government to dismiss the findings of the Cass Report (“SNP U-turn urged over gender Cass review amid discrimination claims”, 11 April). It was a comprehensive report that both NHS England and Scotland (after its own review) accepted and implemented.

The Scotsman reports that the STUC motion claims that because puberty blockers are used in precocious puberty but have been paused for young people with gender identity issues, that it is discriminatory.

In medicine there are many situations where the benefit of a medication for a certain condition is balanced against the risk and deemed suitable for that condition but not others. A body of knowledge will be built up for use of the medication for that specific circumstance. Given there were other needs that weren’t being met in the young people with gender identity issues, it seems entirely right to pause the indiscriminate use of puberty blockers for this group of patients, where there is little evidence to date, of their efficacy or safety.

Scottish Conservatives shadow equalities minister Tess White has called on the Scottish Government to give 'short shrift' to TUC calls to U-turn on their support of the Cass Report

Where there are long waiting times for support with these other identified needs is where resources should be concentrated and not the over medicalisation of a group of “vulnerable young people”.

They are indeed a vulnerable group – vulnerable to social media influences, activists and ideology. The very least they deserve is healthcare which is compassionate, individualised and evidence-based.

If the STUC feel strongly they have to bring a motion about gender, perhaps they could lobby government to do more to reduce gender-based violence which, statistically, will be directly affecting quite a proportion of their members.

Rona McCall, Gairloch, Highland

Economic disaster

It was interesting to read staunch nationalist Stan Grodynski responding to Robert Scott's (Letters, 10 April), who had pointed out that “throughout history nationalism has always led to trouble and strife”. Mr Grodynski, rather than disputing that, tried to conflate it with the armed struggles in Ukraine/Gaza.

Hopefully Mr Grodynski read Professor Ronald MacDonald’s letter (11 April) in which he demolished Jim Finlayson's argument (Letters, 10 April) that somehow an independent Scotland would be able to borrow on the markets at less cost than the likes of Greece and Ireland. The good professor simply pointed out that if an independent Scotland inherits a GDP deficit of 10 per cent or more (currently 10.4 per cent), and still intends to retain Sterling as its currency, the markets will require a significant premium to lend in such a situation.

In addition they would require a cogent economic plan by the government to substantially reduce that deficit. This, of course, would result in austerity worse than anything suffered up until now.

This would be the case as the only realistic way to reduce the deficit would be by a combination of a reduction in public services and increases in taxation (Scotland, of course, is already the highest taxed part of the UK). This economic plan would also have to take into account the reduction in GDP that would result from a hard border separating Scotland from its largest market.

Have you heard any nationalist say Brexit has been anything but an economic disaster for Scotland (which I totally agree with, by the way). If that is the case, how can Scexcit not be far worse? Scotland exports to the rest of the UK 61 per cent of all goods sold.

Now, Mr Grodynski may want to actually respond to these economic arguments without any nationalist hubris. The main reason 55 per cent of people voted No in the Independence referendum was not that in principle it would be a great idea for Scotland to be independent, it was that no answers had been given to the above questions, and they did not want to become poorer than under the existing set-up.

Make no mistake, in my opinion Scottish independence (at least in the first ten years) would be an economic disaster for both Scotland and England – unless, of course, Mr Grodynski has a realistic answer on the economic questions highlighted.

George Godsman, Perth

Solid Britain

I always find the letters by Stan Grodynski puzzling. He loves making up silly names for the great nation he lives in, namely the UK. The UK is filled with people who have fled here from failing nations and conquered states, just as in 1940. Maybe he has even known one or two of them? They fled here to escape German conquest under Nazi leadership, followed by Russian conquest under Communist leadership, but found sanctuary in Great Britain, even those who now sneer at our generosity of spirit.

Why does Mr Grodynski say the UK is “broken” when he knows full well it is the state the Europeans are asking to defend them with our nuclear deterrent? Does he not know that we led the way in defending the Ukraine, just as we led the way with Covid vaccination and bailing out Ireland in 2009 when they went bust. We don't own Ireland, Mr Grodynski, but we help them as our good friends, neighbours and kith and kin. That's the sort of people we are.

Does he mean the UK, which helped sort out the Balkans, which is defending the Baltic nations and standing up to Russia? That “broken” Union?

I suspect he is getting a little confused with the broken party, hammered at the last election, that hasn't dualled the A9 and that almost bankrupted the Scottish fishing industry; that didn't bail out BiFab. The government that can't build ferries in time without cracks? The government with a 10 per cent (£22.7 billion) deficit, maybe? If anything is broken, then it is that party.

Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh

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.