The Herald’s Fantasist at Large, Neil Mackay, along with Macwhirter, Fry and McKenna, those big supposed Yes supporters, but regular writers of SNP critiques based on SFA evidence rules, is back with more imagined worries for you.

He opens with:

THERE’S a new book out by Ian Pattison, the writer behind Rab C Nesbitt, called Burning Down the House, which imagines life in a newly independent Scotland.

As someone who hopes he’s a moderate, considered Yes voter, that’s the one thing I don’t want: Scotland metaphorically burning down the house on the path to independence. If independence ever comes it has to be done safely, calmly – no Scexit for me, thanks. No patriotism in place of pragmatism.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19749236.neil-mackay-indy-cause-not-worth-destruction-nhs-snp/

‘A moderate, considered Yes voter?’ Is it ‘extreme’ and ‘unconsidered’ to know that the UK is a wholly dysfunctional state wedded to deep inequality, cruelty, paranoid hostility toward Europe, delusions of global power and still keen, Tory or Labour government, to intervene, ie bomb, civilians in other parts?

Wanting to leave this behind by a democratic process is considered and moderate, I’d say.

As for the dystopian future the Rab Nesbitt author imagines, why on earth would we think that likely?

Only just over a month ago, I offered a more realistic assessment of what the SNP has done for the NHS:

1. 50% more nurses and midwives than England, significantly more GPs and consultants.
2. Nearly twice as many beds and admissions falling way below the February peak.
3. Far lower total infection and death rates.
4. Higher vaccination rates and far higher for teenagers.
5. No surge in cancer deaths.
6. Less than 2% of surgery postponed due to resources reasons.
7. A&E performance far better that England and far far better than Wales.

The buck for all the above stops with the SNP?

And, only last week:

In the above BBC Scotland report, based on research by the medical journal Eurosurveillance, with ‘analysis’ by Lisa Summers we read:

Researchers estimate that 86% of deaths in Scotland among the over-60s were averted by vaccines.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59416242

However, there’s not a word on how well the vaccine rollout worked in other parts of the UK. Here’s why:

England actually does relatively well coming 8th out the 31 surveyed but at only 68% of deaths averted by the vaccine programme, Scotland did 26.4% better.

Why? Easy.

Had the vaccine rollout in England followed JCVI guidelines properly in, for example, vaccinating care home residents fully, before all other groups, around 18 000 lives from this sample could have been saved.

There have been more than 125 000 deaths, in total in England, only 74 000 sampled, so well over 30 000 lives could have been saved.

The BBC Scotland ‘analysis’ ignores the the effect of Scotland following the JCVI advice to the letter and England not doing so.

The BBC Scotland report deliberately avoids the data for England, staring the reader in the face, for political reasons familiar to us now.

The BBC Scotland report does not headline this survey but comments from Anas Sarwar based on anonymous whistle-blowers reporting supposed child deaths in a Scottish hospital, does.

BBC UK, England and Wales ignore the research.