Sir, – The present situation the NHS finds itself in is troubling. I have the deepest sympathy for those with lengthy waits for treatment and for the overstretched staff who are working flat out to assist their patients.
It appears the main cause is delayed discharge/bed-blocking. Could the management have brought that on themselves by past decisions? In Aberdeen, we had Tor-Na-Dee, at Milltimber, used for convalescent stays. In their wisdom, it was sold off for housing, leaving them reliant on privately run care homes to fill the gap.
That decision has backfired spectacularly.
Politicians, of all ilks, have meddled in the NHS over the decades. Their actions led to myriad new management positions being created, many at eye-watering salary levels.
What is needed is significantly more frontline staff, not additional managers. To encourage them, proper remuneration and excellent conditions of service are required.
Too many NHS- trained nurses and doctors leave the country because of the way they are treated here. That has to stop if we are to retain any form of the NHS as we know it now.
The ageing population timebomb has been ticking for decades with, it appears, little planning to deal with it.
We all want to be treated with dignity and compassion in our dotage. At the end of the day, funding is a major issue.
We, the taxpayer, have to accept that we are going to have to dig deeper if we want to retain this national treasure.
Ron Campbell, Richmond Walk, Aberdeen.
Scotland: a colony, not a partner
Sir, – The Supreme Court’s judgement on Holyrood’s power to hold a referendum on Scotland’s independence was made on the basis of the Scotland Act 1998 – a change made to the British Constitution only 25 years ago.
The Supreme Court itself is a very recent addition to legal resources in Britain: it came into existence as a result of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and began business in 2009.
It is allowed to comment on whether Westminster legislation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but it has no power to force a change in UK law – that power remains very firmly with the politicians.
The point is, surely, that those politicians at Westminster obviously feel free to meddle with the unwritten “British Constitution” whenever they feel like it.
This has included endowing that same Supreme Court with final jurisdiction over our Scottish legal system, including the Scottish Court of Session itself.
We should remember too that Westminster politicians recently demonstrated, with their illegal prorogation of Parliament, that they are prepared to ignore the “British Constitution” when it suits them, to break international treaties without shame and to deliver bare-faced lies to the constitutional monarch.
It seems very clear therefore, to observers domestic and foreign, that the “Great British Constitution (unwritten)” is an extremely malleable, indeed wobbly basis on which to suppress and entrap, permanently, one of its last imperial colonies.
That’s where the Supreme Court made its vast ironic error, by confirming Scotland is indeed a colony of the British State.
It was certainly the first; it bears vivid telltale marks of 300 years of military garrisons and occupation, exploitation and abuse of native population, suppression of culture, asset-stripping and disenfranchisement.
Now, one of the oldest nations in Europe is “not allowed” to vote for independence.
The British Empire has never surrendered any colony peacefully, gracefully, honourably or benevolently – just ask the USA. More recent histories of how colonies like India, Kenya and Ireland won independence (against shameless tactics) are remarkably similar as a series of steps.
It may be cold comfort for some of us who are getting too old to be patient, but Scotland is on the very same path, taking the same steps, experiencing the same gas-lighting, same amoral attempts to “divide and rule”, the same relentless attacks on political leaders.
Now the Supreme Court has removed itself from the frame, our next step is surely to re-establish our Scottish Constitutional Convention.
With the world watching, Scotland’s rights of self-determination will be set against our situation: not an equal partner in a voluntary union, but a colony, suppressed and entrapped by a very dodgy, internationally discredited, so-called “constitution” and a London administration despised and distrusted throughout the world.
Frances McKie, Ash Hill, Evanton.
Kincardineshire county lives on
Sir, – The article in today’s edition of your paper (Thursday December 1) regarding competition for a new flag for Aberdeenshire serves as a timely reminder that those of us who live south of the River Dee and north of St Cyrus still reside in the County of Kincardineshire and therefore have no part to play in choosing a new flag.
When local government was last changed, the local authority took the name of Aberdeenshire Council, although their boundaries extend over the County of Kincardineshire and part of Banffshire.
The public did not vote for this change and we still consider ourselves to live in Kincardineshire.
We have a Lord Lieutenant, Mr Alastair Macphie, appointed by our late Queen in 2020, and our title deeds, many satnavs and Royal Mail still refer to Kincardineshire.
Although north of the Dee, the town of Banchory and parish of Banchory Ternan are within Kincardineshire, as King Charles discovered when he visited the Deeside Railway at Crathes some years ago.
Torry, Kincorth and Cove were transferred to the City of Aberdeen some time ago.
Gordon Ritchie MVO DL, Deputy Lieutenant and Clerk to the County of Kincardineshire, Brewlaw, Catterline, Stonehaven, Kincardineshire.
4×4 tax plan makes no sense
Sir, – I note with concern a proposal put forward by Labour MP Geraint Davies that 4×4 vehicles should be taxed at a higher rate due to their alleged bulk taking up more road space etc (P&J, Monday December 5).
This proposal is clearly ill-founded, made by someone with no knowledge of his subject matter! The size of the vehicle is not affected by whether it is four-wheel-drive or not. One can readily buy a two-wheel-drive version of such vehicles.
I live in the Highlands at a level prone to heavy snowfall and icy roads far more so than down at sea level. I, therefore, choose to run a 4×4 for that reason.
Also alluded to in the same article is the fact that vehicles having a purchase price when new in excess of £40,000 are liable to road fund cost in excess of £500 annually for five years.
This is irrespective of the price paid by the new owner and is not due to any concerns about emissions or size, merely an excuse to soak the motoring public again.
This strikes me as the politics of envy, and Mr Davies should research his facts before putting them on record to Treasury ministers.
He may feel that his constituents in Swansea do not need a 4×4 but at least get his facts right!
Allan Martin, Farr, Inverness-shire.
Access issue a get-out clause?
Sir, – I enjoyed Rebecca Buchan’s piece in the Evening Express. As someone who has voted for Ian Yuill more than once, I was shocked that he stood for pedestrianisation of Union Street before the council elections, then immediately reversed that position once in power.
I expect he’d explain that his position was always contingent upon equal access for people with limited mobility.
I had naively assumed that access to a short, flat, pedestrianised area would not be an issue because every other town in the UK seems to have found a workable compromise.
After all, Buchanan Street, the poster child for Scottish retail, is three times longer and on a hill!
Would it be cynical to suggest the access issue was just a politically expedient get-out clause?
Arguably, it was the trend to new shopping malls that sucked the life out of Union Street, but at least Union Street remains.
It was always a main thoroughfare and perhaps it always should be. Certainly, from my father’s tales of how much he enjoyed himself before I was born, the old bus and tram layout seemed to work just fine. So perhaps it was the right decision for the wrong reasons.
Regarding public funding for a new AFC stadium by the beach, I do agree with Ian on that. Football clubs are businesses – they can go bankrupt or get bought out.
Can you imagine if the stadium ended up wholly owned by, say, the Trump empire? Best not to.
If a new stadium is to be part-funded by the city it should be owned by the city and leased to AFC, not the other way around. I’m sure a merchant banker could put together a suitable package.
I’m not convinced about that stadium anyway. Over 10,000 people attend the beach fireworks on a dreich November evening and the only way to handle the crowds is widespread road closure.
I’m not sure what having twice as many football fans walking into town would be like. Welcomed by some in the “hospitality” sector, perhaps, but feared by others, who would close for the day.
The area would be a no-go on match days as far as I’m concerned.
I share your frustration with Aberdeen’s resistance to change. I am also rather proud of it! I’m Aberdonian but I spent most of my working life in England.
I had great fun recently showing an old colleague around and explaining how little had changed since my student days in the ’80s. He liked it!
Simon Rae, Wellbrae Terrace, Aberdeen.
Conversation