SO, will NHS Scotland have alliances with health services across the EU to ensure visitors to Scotland have already had Covid-19, and are therefore unlikely to catch it here? And will they also seek to reject potential visitors who test positive for the virus, whether they travel here by land sea or air?

Will NHS Scotland have a common certification system with the health services across the EU to deal with the issues surrounding Covid-19 infection, lack of infection, past infection, and vaccination?

READ MORE: Visit Britain sparks row as literature map features England only

The nub of these questions is centred around how to encourage EU citizens to visit/enjoy Scotland en masse. As this concept is anathema to the UK Government on just so many counts, it will have to be addressed by the Scottish Government working alone, but closely with the EU.

There is a quid pro quo in such arrangements, as the flow of people needs to move in both directions if close friendships between the current EU nations and their peoples are to thrive once again, post-Brexit and post Covid-19.

International standards will no doubt have to be agreed in due course, to free up international travel potential and the resultant friendship, cooperation and trade, and the leads taken by China and S Korea to date in developing rapid testing will no doubt be crucial.

So, the message needs to go out now (Mr J Carlaw having now publicly raised the Covid-19 and independence link) that Scotland seeks to resume normal EU membership as soon as Covid-19 and the citizens of Scotland democratically permit it.

Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow

JOE Farrell’s comment on Boris Johnson’s positioning of himself as a latter day Winston Churchill, and the current UK Government’s role, can perhaps be enhanced by paraphrasing his wartime speech: “Never in the field of disease control was so little owed by so many to so few.”

Archie McArthur
Edinburgh

JACKSON Carlaw has stated that if the SNP pursue the independence argument post-pandemic then the 2021 Scottish election result could be a Churchill/Attlee moment. Was he just referring to the post-war unexpected landslide election result or were we meant to take the analogy further?

The post-war Labour government included the genius and brilliant socialist Aneurin Bevan, chief architect of the NHS. He envisaged the creation of the NHS, with healthcare free at the point of delivery based on need not ability to pay.

Needless to say, the Churchill-led Tory party opposed such an idea. Conservative (including coalition) and ironically Labour governments since the 1980s have worked towards dismantling the NHS as a nationalised institution and moving towards a US-style insurance system.

On the eve of the birth of the NHS in 1948, Bevan commented: “No attempt at ethical or social seduction can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory party, so far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.” Not sure if this is the depth of analogy Carlaw was wanting us to reach to.

JC
Fife

I FOUND Gordon Millar’s letter in last Friday’s paper about SNP democracy somewhat disturbing. Due to age I have not attended a conference for some years, so have some questions.

Normal business meeting procedure would be to minute actions to be taken, and at the next meeting to review progress on action items from the previous meeting’s minutes. If this was done at conferences then action items not being done should surely stand out. Is it done this way, or as Gordon suggests they just disappear?

READ MORE: I don't agree with Alyn Smith that the SNP is 'brutally democratic'

Regarding committee (SOAC) decisions on the agenda, are all requests documented with reasons for rejection also documented and made available to all branches/members? Thirdly are branches encouraged to state their support for agenda requests? Of course this won’t happen unless they are made available to branches before the selection committee make decisions.

If none of the above takes place then one must agree with Gordon and question if the SNP is being run in a democratic manner.

James Macintyre
Lesmahagow

READING Gerry Hassan’s Sunday National article (Why there is no democracy in the UK, April 12), it would appear he has fallen into the trap of thinking that through Brexit we somehow no longer have a right to redress through referral to the European Court of Human Rights.

This tie-up between the European Union and the ECHR is a common fallacy; the two are not linked.

The Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted to bring rights enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights (not every ECHR article was included), which Britain was a founding and principal signatory to, into British law to allow cases to be tried in British courts.

READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: Why there is no democracy in the UK

Leaving the EU is irrelevant to our rights under the Convention as long as Britain remains a signatory to it; we will still have access to our rights through the European Court. However, there is the practical disadvantage that the legal cost of doing so would be prohibitive for most.

The reality is that human rights only exist for those who can afford to pursue the necessary action through our expensive court system to force those who would deny rights to accord them to those denied; either through their own personal wealth or the auspices of a charitable organisation fighting cases on behalf of others. For the majority of us, pursuing such cases is a pipe dream.

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

Scotland is in lockdown. Shops are closing and newspaper sales are falling fast. It’s no exaggeration to say that the future of The National is at stake. Please consider supporting us through this with a digital subscription from just £2 for 2 months by following this link: www.thenational.scot/subscribe. Thanks – and stay safe.