ON Scottish NHS funding, the Barnett formula and misunder­standing of it is the problem ("Warning £450m in NHS cutbacks over next two years", The Herald, September 16).

Although Labour introduced it in 1978-79, when our funding was already 20 per cent more per head than England, they never administered it, leaving office in 1979.

While the Conservatives applied the formula, they also put more in that it allowed, so our per capita lead stayed at 20 per cent.

The formula lays down that we receive a straight 10 per cent population ratio of year-on-year enhancement England receives, but as we spend 20 per cent more, we need 12 per cent. Assuming £100 for England, then Scotland would be £120. That means if England receives five per cent- that would mean £5, but we would also get £5, but on our £120 it represents only four per cent, so on a block grant of £25 billion that one per cent shortfall would be £250 million every year.

If we assume the NHS is half the block grant, its shortfall would be £125m, so if we needed to restore the NHS figure, we would need to take £125m from the other half (for education, police, housing, and so on) which has already suffered its own shortfall of £125m.

That demonstrates the nature of the dilemma - no wonder the Unionist politicians never explain it.

Paradoxically, Barnett was applied strictly only when devolution came in.

However, the problem was alleviated when Labour decreed, in 2003, that National Insurance contributions should rise by one per cent for employees and employers to cover English NHS reforms which we were not doing, so our £800m "share" arrived as a windfall, available to spend on any of our programmes.

But the Scottish economy suffered as businesses had the burden of the extra tax, and employees lost spending capacity. Furthermore, our public sector also suffered cuts as it had to remit its employers' share back to the UK exchequer.

So, it is within that scenario that our NHS funding has to be viewed - and, unsurprisingly, the disclosure from a so-called whistle-blower about an alleged £450m black hole, failed to mention the Barnett effects.

All Scottish programmes are adversely affected by Barnett, so it is incongruous to have the vow from David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg boasting about its continuation. We don't have the details about their proposed tax-raising powers, but if we do increase the tax rate, would the proceeds come off the block grant? If not, that will antagonise the English who are already incandescent about our excess funding (which actually is reducing annually through Barnett) without our increasing it with the new power - which would serve only to make up for the Barnett squeeze.

But the major scandal is the U-turn from Alistair Darling, who has been denying that there was a funding problem for our NHS, but who is now implicitly saying that we need the further tax to sustain it, whereas it is tax reductions we need to boost our economy, but that is never part of Labour's vocabulary.

Douglas R Mayer,

76 Thomson Crescent,

Currie.

AS the independence referendum approaches I don't think I'm alone in being someone who basically wants Scotland to remain in the UK, yet may well end up voting Yes.

In fact, those of us in this position are probably going to be the decisive voters come Thursday. So why are the Westminster parties doing so little to address the substantive issues that are making so many people who are essentially non-nationalists consider voting for independence?

Vague promises of more devolved powers are insufficient - if Westminster is serious about getting a No vote it should be addressing the bread-and-butter issues which are making Scots wonder whether there is anything left for them in the UK.

The first issue on their list should be the NHS - specifically the consequences of the Transantlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) which is designed (among other things) to open up British (and European) public services to the tender mercies of the global multinationals. This treaty is effectively a way of making neo-liberal economic policies legally compulsory, with corporations being able to sue nation states for damages if the latter dare to enact policies that negatively affect the profits of the former.

Alex Salmond is, of course, not opposed to this any more than he is opposed to tax cuts for these same corporations. However, he has at least stated, on the BBC's Andrew Marr show, that he would have the NHS exempted from the TTIP. David Cameron, on the other hand, has refused to exempt the NHS from this legally-binding treaty.

The assurances from the Better Together campaign that the NHS in Scotland is safe because health is a devolved matter will carry little legal weight once TTIP is implemented, as the treaty will apply to the UK as a whole. I know it would take something like desperation for Mr Cameron and co to cede an inch in their drive to shovel public money into private pockets, but if they don't want the UK to be history by Friday, they may have to. And they should start by explicitly exempting the NHS from the TTIP.

Stephen Small,

69 Oban Drive,

Glasgow.