Britons are only proud of the NHS because of chronic myopia (unfortunately treatment is not available on the NHS). Britons are blind to the cost - about £200 per month per person, an amount that would pay for grand private healthcare indeed. Britons are blind to the poor service we all receive. Customer care? Waiting lists (rationing)? Filthy hospitals? Britons are blind to infinitely better overall semi-private solutions available to most in the US, and to all in France etc.
Posted on The Herald's website. The problem with national ideals is that no country can ever live up to them. You can imagine that flag-waving Americans are getting dewy-eyed over democracy and equality if you like, but the truth is that many are more interested in the principle of being able to own an assault rifle to shoot ducks and unfortunate trespassers. Guy Fawkes' Night might be a bit batty, but it's not self-serving nonsense masquerading as principle.
AF, Glasgow, by e-mail. I agree entirely that Burns Night should take precedence over St Andrew's Day and can't understand why everyone focuses on the latter. A saint's day is not an appropriate focus of national pride in the 21st century.
PR, by e-mail. VE Day is a better choice than NHS Day. Some people may try to subvert the spirit of wartime unity to suit their own ends but that's all the more reason to reclaim the date for a more positive purpose. It would also help remind younger people of what immense sacrifices their forbears made on their behalf.
The last Scottish veteran of the Great War died recently, and those who lived through the Second World War are also now of pensionable age. If it weren't for Guy Fawkes' Night, most people wouldn't know the story of the Gunpowder Plot. National days can serve an important purpose in encouraging remembrance of past sacrifices in the name of cherished ideals.
MM, by e-mail.
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