WHILE the media are consumed by the final outcome of Brexit, we are already seeing significant impact.
Interest rates have risen to address the inflation caused by the drop in the value of the pound. This has reduced our personal spending power and reduced economic growth and consequential tax income.
Theresa May is celebrating a trade deal with five African nations which is identical to that we already have from our membership of the EU, one of bilateral agreements with 61 nations that we will lose access to after leaving.
The government’s promises on the NHS, especially those relating to staffing levels, are now meaningless. On 31 July 2017, Jeremy Hunt promised 21,000 extra posts in the mental health sector by 2021, with the aim to “redress the historic imbalance” between the physical and mental health sectors. In 2012, the then Health Secretary set a target of 3,250 of medical graduates going in to general practice every year.
In October 2014 Jeremy Hunt promised 5,000 extra GPs by 2020. In January 2016, Mr Hunt watered down his commitment by removing any target date for the extra 5,000 GPs, effectively kicking the target into the long grass. In July 2017, NHS England announced that the number of full-time-equivalent GPs had actually reduced by 221 and in August it was announced that there were 350 fewer GPs than in September 2015, the baseline for the 5,000 extra target.
At the same time NHS England national director of primary care Dr Arvin Madan stated that they aim to recruit 600 overseas GPs ready for employment by April 2018. In spite of these promises there were 39,185 medical students at UK universities in 2016 compared with 41,422 in 2012, a drop of 5.4%.
You may remember that Liam Fox said that a deal with the EU would be “one of the easiest in human history”. If this is easy, I hope it never gets difficult.
More significantly, how can we continue to trust a government which makes such empty-air promises without any real ability to deliver them?
Pete Rowberry
Duns
I TAKE issue with Jim Lynch’s comments about the Scottish Green Party in Tuesday’s National (Letters, August 28). He states, rather disdainfully, that the Greens’ primary aim is the environment, not independence.
On the contrary, it is Patrick Harvie who is pressing for an early date for the referendum. Also is Jim Lynch not aware that all six of the Greens in Holyrood contribute regularly to The National? Did he not see Patrick Harvie’s rejoinder to a fellow contributor who spoke of “a loose alliance” between the SNP and the Greens? His response was that “the Green Party has voted more often with Labour than with the SNP”.
This indicates that the Greens are not bound to any one opinion. Like other parties, they can have different opinions, but beyond that, the Greens stand for social justice, and self-determination for everyone. Remember, Jim, when a Tory spokesperson pointed a finger across the Chamber taunting them as a bunch of “sandal-wearing, lentil-eating, grapefruit” for their support of the Budget which enabled the Scottish Government’s bill to be passed (amended, of course with a commitment to raise taxes). Jim should be cheering with the rest of us the radical stance of the Greens on this issue.
Jim could do worse than refer to co-convener Maggie Chapman’s “thank you” letter to her supporters in the European election. That letter summarises everything the Greens stand for. It has inspired me to continue, with renewed vigour, the campaign for independence.
Eva McCarthy
Haddington
READ MORE: Letters, August 28
AN epidemic is sweeping across the Unionist commentariat at record speed. This epidemic is ignorance; a fatuousness way beyond the malady of merely ill-informed.
Exhibiting clinical levels of ignorance, complete with wilful disdain for facts, British Unionist newspapers and neocon Nato warmongers at the Atlantic Council unleashed a variety of preposterous accusations against supporters of independence on Twitter.
They were aping the Russian troll farms, we are assured. All this so that #dissolvetheunion would trend on Twitter. It has all the hallmarks and absurdity of a McCarthyite witch-hunt.
The trouble for the Unionists with these assaults on the independence movement is that their rage is rooted in the ignorance of not caring to even determine the factual basis of their accusations.
The ignorance leaves the Unionist commentariat comfortable; with neither knowing nor caring that there is no evidential basis for any of their ludicrously comical accusations.
Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee
IF Mrs May wants to generate trade with the countries of Africa, I hope she is intending to write off third-world debt first? If not it is a totally immoral project, as it always has been.
Veronica Gordon Smith
Edinburgh
IT made very healthy reading on Tuesday with the chosen selection of readers’ contributions to The National. There was something to agree with in all of the letters.
It’s a fact that the indy movement is a broad-based, cross-party church which should make it all the more democratic and thus appealing to people. The SNP, for example, will be defunct once independence is achieved, and it makes interesting speculation as to what will take its place.
Meanwhile, warriors of the pen – unite in keeping up the pressure for a sustainable, prosperous future!
Janet Cunningham
Stirling
READ MORE: Letters: Scotland would make much better use of powers
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here