For every other health condition the system is simply not functioning and under the current plans outlined by Health Secretary Humza Yousaf you only need do the basic maths to work out that there is not a hope in hell of hitting the new targets.

For example, my partner needs an operation on both cataracts. His ophthalmologist has made a referral to Inverclyde Royal Hospital but said it would be quite a while before he’d be seen. We called the hospital to be told that the waiting time for an appointment would be a minimum of 70 weeks. We then asked how long after that could we expect an operation, would it be more than 70 weeks, to which the reply came, “very probably”. That would amount to a total wait of three years.

So even if you accepted that a year was an OK amount of time to wait from referral to operation that would mean the Ophthalmology department at the hospital would need to increase its output of operations by 300 per cent for a significant period of time, assuming that demand will remain at its current level. Given that waiting times have been high long before the pandemic the only resolution is to either significantly increase the number of doctors or nurses or do what we all thought was unthinkable decades ago and limit what is available for free on the NHS.The debate about what should and should not be provided would rage on for years but at the moment it is only helping those in acute need and the rest of us are left in limbo, having paid for something that’s next to non-existent. It can’t go on like this much longer before a total collapse of the entire service. We have to stop thinking of the NHS as some sacred cow and have a sensible discussion about its future role in society.

SNP leadership contender Humza Yousaf is Scottish Health Secretary (Picture: Lesley Martin/Getty)

Bill Gosbee, Kilmun, Argyll and Bute

No credibility

The Health Minister states that if he becomes First Minister he will get more money into drug services. Maybe someone should remind him that he has been presiding over the NHS in Scotland for some considerable time, during which drug deaths climbed. And then we must wonder why he voted to pass a budget that would cut spending on health matters in Scotland, something over which the ever-convenient Westminster bogeyman has no say whatsoever.

When he starts talking about closing down unnecessary pretendy embassies, for one example, and spending that cash on tackling drug deaths, maybe he will be taken seriously and treated with credibility.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Uninspiring

The STV screening of the First Minister debate tells it all. One of the candidates has his performance as Transport Minister, Justice Secretary and Health Secretary trashed. Another is said to be incapable of keeping even SNP members on board with her policies. The third, who claims the SNP has “lost its way”, does exactly that herself and her increasing discomfort simply confirms she is out of her depth. And these were all self-inflicted wounds not induced by participation from the audience or the interviewer!

At last the public can see the SNP for what they are now that they are washing their dirty linen in public. I wonder how the present incumbent enjoyed seeing her own record being ripped apart by two of the candidates and frantically defended by the other? And they still haven't even got round to education, the ferries, drug deaths, Bifab etc

I lost count of the number of times the word "inspire” cropped up. Can any of these three seriously hope to be able to inspire the Scottish people to believe they can sort out the mess left by Nicola Sturgeon? So much for the vast array of “talent” she claimed was waiting in the wings. The only worthwhile contribution from Ash Regan was to describe her opponents as “wishy washy” – and it applied to herself as well!

Colin Hamilton, Edinburgh

Own goal?

In STV’s SNP leadership debate, already regarded by many as right-wing on economic issues, Kate Forbes launched a blistering attack on Humza Yousaf – savaging his record in multiple governmental roles. Yet she has, since becoming an MSP in 2016, kept to herself her damningly negative views of Yousaf’s abilities and performance. If she deems him so talentless, wouldn’t it have been in the public interest for her to have spoken up before now?

Or, back then, was party discipline more important to her? Perhaps her criticism will resonate with SNP party members? Maybe she has dealt Mr Yousaf’s leadership aspirations a fatal blow – or perhaps many SNP members might now regard her as a power-hungry hypocrite, with her outburst leaving her own leadership hopes damaged?

Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire

Bad joke

It has been said a week is a long time in politics: make that an hour. In one hour of television the facade of competence built up over the last 16 years by the SNP was blown away by lightweight candidates arguing with no conviction over subjects that were beyond them. It was clear there is no policy direction, no details and no real ideas of the way ahead even collectively. The candidates showed each other up to be incompetent.

As an advert for Scottish politics it was a bad joke and whoever becomes the next First Minister will not be able to control the party. It is not the beginning of the end for the SNP bus route. It has reached the terminus now.

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Self-interest

At the start of the SNP leadership campaign I found it strange that Kate Forbes was being castigated for giving an honest view on a particular topic. It was maybe not what people wanted to hear, but it was honest. Today, she is being castigated again for telling the truth, namely that her main rival has exhibited years of failure in various posts. The Health Secretary has criticised this as “damaging for the party”.

If there is one thing that stands out a mile from this solely independence-focused affair, it is that none of the candidates seem to care about the state of the country. They are purely interested in themselves or “the Party”. What is even sadder is that the questions being asked of the candidates by the membership seem not to be concerned with the state of the country either. I have not heard any question challenging the Health Secretary on the SNHS, candidates on their plans for education and the economy, or whether nutty schemes such as the DRS will happen. For once, they cannot claim that the situation here is better than in England as all the recent Tory leadership candidates faced a thorough and often hostile grilling.

Kate Forbes’ honesty is welcome but do any of the voting members actually care about her perfectly valid claims or about how to govern a country?

Ken Currie, Edinburgh

Bad comparison

I am disappointed to see in yesterday’s Scotsman, the editorial comment on the asylum seeker situation, and the attempt by the UK Government to stop illegal immigration, being compared to the acceptance of Jewish people fleeing Europe to escape discrimination and likely annihilation by Nazi Germany in the last century.

Consider the following points: Why are “asylum seekers” fleeing Europe for the UK? What exactly are they fleeing from? Who is financing the travel of these people who are profiled as being destitute? Why is such a large proportion of asylum seekers young, fit males?

It is the UK taxpayer who ultimately has to provide the money for accommodation and benefits being paid to illegal immigrants, not to mention the impact on local communities which are being affected by the scale of non-indigenous people being dumped on them.

In this article, The Scotsman gives a profound disservice to its readers by not properly balancing the essential factors

Derek Farmer, Anstruther, Fife

Help migrants

The furore surrounding plans to promptly repatriate the passengers of the Channel’s “small boats” seems a trifle muddled, if not totally misplaced. While one’s sympathies may be with such people the fact is, if they are really refugees from some terrible regime or other, then, under the Dublin Convention they are entitled to seek sanctuary in the nearest safe country. Remote Britain is never that and they all have journeyed from an already safe France. On the other hand, if they are economic migrants then the arrivals are jumping the legal queue formed by those applying through the correct channels. The British loathe queue jumping.

Of course, Britain is not alone among developed nations having to deal with the curse of people trafficking. “Trump’s Wall” on the USA’s southern border wasn’t an isolated thought. That paragon of tolerance and decency, Denmark, was the to first come up with the plan to remove their “illegals” to Rwanda. France is making it far harder for Moroccans and Algerians to enter; the Dutch are planning creating refugee centres abroad; Germany already bribes those willing to be repatriated; and Italy facilitates its “boat people” on their journeys further north.

As history shows, migrants are symptoms, not causes. People don’t leave their homeland in droves just for fun. For that reason we all seem to be avoiding the pachyderm in the parlour which is the simple truth that the very best place to help such migrants is back in the countries of their birth.

Tim Flinn, Garvald, East Lothian

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.

Subscribe at www.scotsman.com/subscriptions

Scotsman Letters: Admit it, the National Health Service is dead

Comments