IN reply to Christopher H Jones (Letters, July 13), I have never claimed that the SNP Government "can do no wrong" but with regard to Humza Yousaf, I would say that he became SNP leader and First Minister at a very difficult time, and has responded to all the flak which has been thrown at him with dignity and even humour.

I note that Mr Jones does not mention that there have been no NHS strikes in Scotland, unlike in other parts of the UK, and that the new Health Secretary, Michael Matheson, appointed by Mr Yousaf, has negotiated a settlement with junior doctors which has seen them suspend strike action here, while in England doctors are extending theirs. Mr Jones also makes no mention of SNP policies such as the Scottish Child Payment, the baby boxes, no charges for university tuition, prescriptions and eye tests, to name but a few.

A lesser man than Mr Yousaf might have distanced himself from his predecessor, Nicola Sturgeon, but Mr Yousaf has stayed loyal to Ms Sturgeon (who is adamant that she has done nothing wrong), pointing out that she hasn't been charged with any offence and that everyone is innocent until proved guilty. That is the kind of leader I want for my party, firm but fair, and a loyal friend in good times and bad.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

Holyrood lacks powers it needs

THE heading on Christopher H Jones's letter "We deserve much better" is so true, in as much as the Scottish Government would agree: we do deserve better. But it is working with one hand tied behind its back, with no control over the Scottish economy because it has no borrowing powers and no control over the majority of welfare spending in Scotland, and no control regarding immigration. Three major issues, but there are many more that are having a detrimental impact on Scotland and I haven’t even mentioned the "B" word – Brexit – which has had a catastrophic impact on so many aspects of our lives.

Mr Jones goes on to analyse the First Minister's first 100 days in office and makes reference to a YouGov poll ("Half of Scots think Yousaf doing bad job after first 100 days as FM", The Herald, July 10). With current headlines regarding the SNP, I am sure no one will be surprised with the poll findings, least of all the First Minister.

Catriona C Clark, Falkirk.

Read more: So farewell, SNP. It's time to unite behind a non-party indy movement

Hammering a section of society

DESPITE warnings, the Scottish Government, with obvious Green input, has proposed its new "fairer" scheme for council taxation ("Council tax set to rise by 22% for those living in large homes", The Herald, July 13). The rather basic assumption that the bigger your house the more money you have is simplistic.

Homeowners have had a torrid time recently with higher energy costs and higher mortgage payments. Scotland already has a taxation system that is higher than in England plus a more expensive system of land and buildings tax than England. The potential for real harm to the economy and the housing market looms, but it appears no-one in the Scottish Government has considered this.

How will the constant hammering of only a specific section of Scottish society help Scotland prosper?

Scotland: the most expensive free prescriptions in the world.

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.

Making council tax fairer

IN its 2007 manifesto, the SNP committed to abolish council tax. Sixteen years on it has just announced proposals that merely add further inequality to an already unfair system.

The way to make council tax fairer is to base it on a property's square footage. If the rate in the pound was £1 then on this basis, a 1,000 square foot home would attract a charge of £1,000 and a 5,000 square foot home £5,000.

Furthermore, as councils approve plans or issue building warrants for extensions then it would be straightforward to cross-refer any future changes, thus ensuring householders always pay the appropriate amount for the square footage of their property.

In the past, prohibitive costs have been used to avoid wholesale revaluation but today’s digital technology is surely capable of assessing the square footage of the vast majority of Scottish properties.

Alasdair Gibbons, Bearsden.

Tell us winter NHS plans now

THIS may seem like a strange letter to send midsummer, but as a veteran of many Christmas, New Year and year-end production peaks I know the value of summer planning. In short, if you didn't put your workforce and facility planning in place then you were doomed to have a very difficult year-end with disappointed customers and missed revenue. Missing such targets were not considered acceptable and had job-threatening consequences.

That brings me to our NHS. Every winter, usually in November, we hear from our First Minister and Health Secretary of their Winter Plan. What we never hear is whether they achieved that plan. Statistically we know that the Scottish health service doesn't meet the necessary objectives with dire across-the-board waiting times last winter and for several years before.

First, can the Scottish Government tell us whether it met last year's Winter Plan objectives and if not why not, and what actions have been put in place to avoid the problems of last year.

Secondly, now is the time to plan for the winter so perhaps the Government can share its planning over the summer so it might at least have a fighting chance of preventing the usual winter chaos. If it doesn't think the public require this, at least do it for the very hard-pressed NHS staff. They deserve better.

Ian McNair, Cellardyke.

Benefits cap should stay

THE deliberately-emotive language used by Monica Lennon to highlight the two-child benefits cap ("Starmer under fire from Labour MSP over rape clause ‘U-turn’", The Herald, July 7), should be challenged. The so-called "rape clause" means that, in order to undermine government policy, a benefits-claiming single mother need only say that her third pregnancy was as a result of rape. Proof? There is none, unless, in rare cases, a conviction is made.

Is our society now so liberal, and afraid of causing offence, that taxpayers must accept that women have the right to proceed with as many pregnancies as they wish and expect the state to pay for the upkeep of their children?

Well done Sir Keir Starmer for holding to the policy that Labour will not overturn the benefits cap policy should it come into power at the next General Election.

Elizabeth Mueller, Glasgow.

Read more: Huw Edwards story proves one thing: we need a better media

Edwards deserves our sympathy THOSE amongst us who have not suffered the effects of a mental health condition will find it perplexing to grasp the agonies of such sufferers and may find it hard to come to terms with understanding the dark moments experienced by those caught up in mental turmoil.

Those amongst us who have experienced first hand the torments of such anguish will know only too well the tunnel into which such a condition can lead, where unpredictable decisions are too often taken with painful consequences for their loved ones.

Mental illness can strike anyone without warning.

Where the victims of such an onslaught used to be despatched to asylums to be kept away from the rest of us who felt immune to such illnesses, there is, or there ought to be, a greater appreciation of the difficulties such illnesses create for the families, friends and fellow workers of those who succumb to such unsought bouts of disturbed emotionality.

The public persona may be able for some little time to disguise the inner personal conflicts rising to the surface in their private lives but sooner or later they emerge into the open.

Huw Edwards is a high-profile example of such a sad situation ("Edwards ill, says wife amid BBC sex claims scandal", The Herald, July 13). Instead of condemnation for what are said to have been misguided immoral acts driven by his bouts of depression, he deserves full understanding, sympathy and the necessary medical help to restore his mental balance.

What was in the minds of those who used their newspaper in an attempt to expose his behaviour?

Did they think that this was such a wonderful scoop that the paper felt it had to hit the headlines with its injudicious investigation of the attendant facts on its front page? Surely that particular tabloid could not have had an ulterior motive in bringing this story to public attention for the sake of damaging the reputation of the BBC, which now appears to have been doing its best to show due care for one of its respected employees undergoing yet another bout of depression?

Understanding should always take precedence over any rush to judgment.

Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.