Readers' Letters: Women are no longer a priority for Scottish government
Reader is outraged at the loss of a dedicated Minister for Women’s Health
It was disappointing to see the SNP government reject Scottish Labour MPs’ calls to reinstate a dedicated Minister for Women’s Health ( your report, 26 M ay). Kirsteen Sullivan MP and her fellow signatories were right to make the call.
Five years ago the SNP promised to finally start treating women’s healthcare with the seriousness it deserves with the launch of its Women’s Health Plan.
But now they’ve scrapped the ministerial role meant to drive that change. That tells women exactly where we stand.
Putting women’s health back into the broader health brief risks it slipping down the agenda again instead of it being treated as the priority it should be. At a time women are waiting up to nine years for an endometriosis diagnosis, struggling with unequal access to reproductive healthcare and still being let down on menopause care, it is an astonishing signal to send.
Even the government’s own Women’s Health Plan acknowledged that women’s health has too often been dismissed as “women’s problems”. Women don’t need that explained to them – we experience it every day.
Any government genuinely serious about tackling health inequality should understand that women’s health is not some niche concern. Women make up more than half the population and our health is a societal issue.
But instead of taking this seriously, responsibility has been fragmented across NHS boards, policies and short-term initiatives, with very little clear accountability at the top. And when nobody is clearly accountable, progress stalls.
John Swinney says he wants to lead a government for all of Scotland. Right now, plenty of women will hear this decision loud and clear: we are no longer a priority.
Elizabeth Carr-Ellis, Tayport, Fife
All or nothing
With regard to Independence, when is John Swinney going to be honest with us?
He says that once we are independent and members of the EU and free of the UK everything will be wonderful. Has he forgotten the bitter divisions between communities, friends and families caused by the last referendum?
If however he did achieve his dream, how would the massive costs involved be funded? We would be a foreign country with regard to the rest of the UK. Leaving, for a moment, the obvious problems of border control, currency etc, we would need some form of defence, at least coastal defence. Where would we get the ships – dare I mention ferries? – and the officers and crews to man them?
Also in this new EU country we’d need to set up our own postal service and print stamps. We couldn’t use the Royal Mail, Ireland doesn’t use it. We would need to set our own vehicle registration as we couldn’t use the DVLA, Ireland doesn’t use that. How would we ever fund all that?
So, Mr Swinney, answers please because you could no longer expect any funding or help from the UK, it’s all or nothing.
Charles Sinclair, Kirkcaldy, Fife
Leave it alone
Ian Waugh (Letters, 26 May) seeks a Yes/No question in any future referendum. It has already been established that a biased question gives an automatic advantage to Yes as it is much easier emotionally to say Yes than it is to say No.
This was evident during the referendum when people said those wanting No were fighting a negative campaign. Electoral Commission guidance is clear – the question should not be encouraging voters to consider one response more favourably than another. It is for that reason Yes/No was formally considered and rejected as an option for the Brexit vote.
As we already had a “once in a generation” vote, I hope we will not see another for at least 20 years, but if we do the question must be set by Westminster, given the outcome affects the entire UK even if only Scots vote. Leave/Remain is well established as a more neutral question, and is the better option for testing voters’ views than Yes/No.
Mr Waugh does voters a disservice – Leave/Remain is clear and gives no advantage to either side of any future campaign.
Brian Barbour, Haddington, East Lothian
Voting habits
Before he has his first round of Indyref2 debates, John Swinney should look at the first-past-the-post results, especially the turnout of people eligible to vote.
Four areas had a turnout of more than 60 per cent and only one of these returned an MSP for the SNP. Nineteen areas had a turnout of less than 50 per cent and all the winning candidates were SNP. The other results saw success for a mix of parties with turnout between 50-60 per cent.
What didn’t happen was what John Swinney had asked pro-independence voters to do... turn out and give him a majority. The majority of voters showed their opinion by non-voting and apathy – they were fed up and did not want independence.
Elizabeth Hands, Armadale, West Lothian
Shallow thinking
Now into my eighties, I look back at the politics of yesterday and fear for future generations at the “shallowness” of modern political thinking.
Firstly, we were offered “change” at the last election but only now is Labour thinking they need to formulate what that means.
Secondly, we are asked to pay “extra" for fuel to contribute to a greener world, but then asked to pay extra to ship fuel from the middle east when we have it on our own doorstep (does this not add to the CO2 problem?).
Thirdly, we are offered slight “temporary” relief on mushrooming fuel costs (reported to be replaced by increased costs in January) although it is us who are contributing mounting tax costs to government through the petrol taxation.
Fourthly, we are told everyone is to blame for bed blocking and it is difficult to solve; yet we brought temporary “hospitals” into service overnight during Covid and we solved the problem of housing illegal immigrants overnight by commandeering hotels!
Fifthly, we proudly claim to have brought in vast sums of investment, though we still seem to need to borrow more to satisfy our “wants" (paid for by our grandchildren) – only to find our defence is compromised through purchasing Chinese printers that can access our defence information; our electric cars could be halted in their tracks at the whim of the Chinese manufacturers and we proudly announce we are letting China build a huge embassy, with some unknown facilities, right beside a sensitive source for government information.
Is it time to bring back some politicians with work experience who won’t rely on “academics” with theoretical solutions?
James Watson, Dunbar, East Lothian
Hands in pockets
Both Brian Barbour and Steven Robertson are angry that Police Scotland has said that they could not fully support the annual taxi drivers’ ride for children, thus leading to it being cancelled (Letters 27 May).
Well gentlemen, you must realise that economies are needed to pay for the eye-watering salaries of the top brass.
Chief Constable Jo Farrell is paid £281,522. Three Deputy Chief Constables are on £230,582. And others at the Assistant Chief Constable level receive £161,231.
And let's not forget the contributions to their gold-plated pensions that the public are forced to pay.
Perhaps Jo Farrell could persuade her highly paid team to contribute financially to ensuring that this annual good deed goes ahead.
Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian
Battery boon?
We have businesses all over Scotland in the process of building battery storage facilities to take advantage of the current surplus of green energy generated during off-peak periods during a 24-hour period.
This surplus energy is sold off at a low price on the basis of “better some income than zero”. Battery storage facilities store energy purchased at low rates to feed into the grid during peak demand, helping to even out energy supply and provide a source of income for those investors as a by product.
I’ve recently seen companies advertising to supply storage batteries to home owners based on the same premise of buying cheap to offset higher rate home energy usage during the day.
On the surface the idea makes real sense and would be a boon to home owners looking for ways to offset present high energy costs. However, before rushing into this new “good thing” we need to take a look at where we are in terms of energy supply and usage.
At present we frequently have a mismatch in green energy supply and use at various times of the day which filters into high vs low price energy costs to the consumer. Given the present rush to large-scale AI facilities we could quite easily see the present mismatch disappear almost overnight given the high energy demands of these facilities, leaving the dream of reducing energy costs of the home owner through battery storage up in smoke. Only those with alternative sources of power, such as solar panels, would make any savings.
Obviously, before taking on an investment of home battery storage we should be careful to ensure that the sums predicted as savings are achievable over the medium term, at least given potential large-scale energy usage throughout the 24-hour day and the impact that this would have on energy pricing.
As an aside, we have to wonder as to the strike price the current battery farms have negotiated with our government as this could be yet another white elephant that the UK consumers have to fund!
A Lewis, Coylton, Ayrshire
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, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.