ONE motive for voting Yes that I've heard from fellow Scots is "to protect the NHS".
I don't doubt the sincerity of their desire, but I think their method is sure to have the opposite effect, for three reasons: two will happen soon, a third more long-term.
First, it costs a lot of money to set up a new state; secondly, there is no plan B for the currency (opinion polls south of the Border show that the idea we can negotiate a currency union would be political suicide even if Westminster politicians wanted to give it the time of day, which they don't). Both these will limit finding money to throw at Scotland's health service early on.
The third problem is that this plan for the NHS has been tried before.
In 1997, Tony Blair was as sure as the SNP is today that an unfriendly government was the only real problem the NHS had. In 1997, there was money to throw at the NHS and they threw with vigour. Five years later, a common newspaper headline was: "If the NHS were a patient, she'd be on the critical list". This was no coincidence: the NHS then, as now, had more issues than just a government being mean to it, but politics got in the way of Mr Blair's ministers anticipating or addressing that. Five years on, with much money spent, these unthought-of issues took their revenge.
"Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it." This applies to things more recent than 1700 and the Darien Scheme. Mr Salmond is setting us up for a rerun of what did not work well the first time.
Those who vote for him "to protect the NHS" are setting themselves up for disappointment.
Niall Ross,
Carbeth,
Blanefield,
Stirlingshire
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article