"Having worked in the Scottish NHS for 40 years, I despair once more at the announcement by Humza Yousaf for extra funding to bring waiting lists down. Governments of all colours in the UK and Scotland have used these initiatives repeatedly, and while working I spoke fiercely against them, because a) they are hugely expensive, as the staff are paid grossly exaggerated rates for these extra sessions, and b) they are a sticking plaster that sometimes deal, albeit temporarily, with a particular need, but the underlying causes of elongating waiting lists are not tackled.

We have a chronic and increasing shortage of trained clinical staff, medical and nursing, and other supportive staff in our NHS, and no government has adequately dealt with this. And this headline announcement that extra funding will be poured in over the next three years, in order to reduce waiting lists, will simply not work. Radical funding measures for our NHS are needed, providing appropriate staff on a permanent basis, and equipment to match. We need to provide employment conditions that make working in our hospitals and clinics a pleasure, not an unbearable burden because of inadequate staffing and resources. We are losing valuable nursing staff because they are exhausted, and finding themselves unable to adequately care for their patients. We need to retain the staff we have.

So, Mr Yousaf, the headline of extra cash for waiting list initiates will not work; the desire is good, but the NHS needs a long-term solution, not short-term cash. The SNP Governments have repeatedly diverted the Barnett consequentials which were earmarked for the NHS, thus our Scottish NHS has been further underfunded for these years. That is a major reason that our Scottish NHS has declined so far.

So, I am sorry, First Minister, but this headline seems good on the surface, but is guaranteed to fail in the long term.

Alasdair H B Fyfe, Carmunnock

Unhappy state of affairs on energy

It is important to answer the points raised by Ian Moir since he has missed the point of my letter. Namely the need for a National Energy Authority (NEA), staffed with appropriately skilled independent professional power engineers, ecologists and financial experts. A NEA would replace the present uncontrolled and reckless free market solution and determine an optimal energy strategy to deliver energy at lowest cost and maximum security.

Wind has a place, as an opportunistic minor contributor, in an overall electricity supply system employing a mix of dispatchable synchronous generation technologies. Only an independent organisation such as a NEA could determine an optimal energy strategy to deliver energy at lowest cost and low risk.

I am not in a position to propose an optimal solution such as burning hydrogen in a gas turbine or anything else, neither are our politicians, and vested interests will prioritise quick financial gain over national interest.

Where does Ian Moir think the vast amount of hydrogen will come from? Steam reformation – a huge producer of CO2, or electrolysis using wind turbine electricity for electrolysis of hydrogen?

Transport and storage of hydrogen poses huge technical and financial challenges. In any case burning hydrogen in air (4/5th nitrogen) creates unacceptable nitrous oxide pollution.

Ian Moir’s references to unit costs for electricity, while partially making a valid point is too simplistic. My argument returns to the need for a NEA which would be able to calculate whole system levelized cost comparisons across all the possible generation solutions.

A final word. On October 16th, Scotland exported zero electricity and, with only one Torness reactor running, was probably in a high risk state. Across the UK, wind was contributing 5%, gas 49%, nuclear 12%, imports from Europe 10%, biomass 6%, coal 3% and the balance from solar, hydro and pump storage. Not a happy state of affairs.

Norman McNab, Killearn

So what about cats and dogs?

The vegans, vegetarians, the climate apostles and those in the lucrative climate industry want us in the UK, amongst other far too numerous restrictions, to eat less meat to save the planet, saying that farm animals emit harmful greenhouse gases. That would mean culling livestock and depriving farmers of their livelihoods and their farms which for generations have helped feed the nation.

There are 13 million dogs and 11 million cats in the UK. They too emit millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases and the manufacture of their food creates millions of tonnes more. Do we cull them as well or restrict their numbers by introducing a large climate licence fee for each cat and dog? Wait a minute, in 1900 the world population was 1.7 billion; today it is 8.1 billion and by Net Zero 2050 it will be 9.8 billion. Many would suggest that the climate doomsday disciples are looking in the wrong places to cut greenhouse gases.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow

Who knows what will happen

I applaud the work of Steve Clarke and the players who have succeeded where so many others have failed in qualifying for a major international tournament.

That said, could the media please temper this achievement with a dose of realism? Rather than starting now to fantasise about how far into the knockout stages we might progress, is it possible, at least until the tournament actually begins, just to revel in what has been achieved? Let's continue to acknowledge the effort it has taken and build quiet confidence for participation in what will, undoubtedly, be a very competitive tournament. For once we can say we deserve to be there, have the chance to test ourselves against the best in Europe and, with continued hard work, who knows what can happen?

John O'Kane, Glasgow

With a little help from a professor

An interesting letter from Brian J Logan regarding the numbers game (Letters, October 17).

In terms of 2027 being expressed as a product of prime numbers this is expressed as 2027=2027 sine as it is already prime.

Looking at 2028 however gives us 2×2×3×13×13 as it is composite.

I must confess that I had more than a little assistance in my answer from my brother who is a professor of mathematics at Magdalene College, Cambridge.

James Martin, Bearsden

Sign up for the Letter of the Day newsletter.


Confusion more than clarity

“I want to be clear with you”. When I hear any politician utter these words, I am now very clear that I should prepare to contact confused.com. Jim Proctor, Paisley