THERE appears to be some degree of outrage being vented within the Tory/Ukip-centric south-east of England, at the privatised use of streams and stream sides, rivers and their banks, estuaries and shores, and seashore beaches, to deal with raw sewage from privatised combined sewer overflows.
This same EU-phobic area is also expressing some degree of outrage in respect of their Tory privatised domestic water supplies not only being restricted for use on English gardens and crops, but also for English home tap use.
Fortunately, Scotland, despite the best efforts of ConDemSlab, managed to retain domestic sewerage and water supply within public ownership.
READ MORE: Tory MP John Redwood called out for spreading misinformation in Scottish water rant
Rather than dividends being paid directly to the wealthy, and/or indirectly to the quite wealthy via savings products and private personal pension schemes, measures have been ongoing by Scottish Water for decades to update water and sewerage infrastructure.
Measures taken have been somewhat incremental, but Scottish Water, together with the 32 unitary local authorities, has been addressing the interlaced problem of rainfall leading to surface water getting into combined sewers (carrying surface water and sewerage), leading to combined sewer overflows into watercourses, which themselves then become combined watercourses, which then overflow into ponding surface water, which in turn gets into surface water sewers and/or combined sewers, etc, etc, etc.
In respect of water supply, Scottish Water has indeed also reduced the number of reservoirs and associated treatment works, choosing to rationalise the system, thereby reducing the immediate direct cost to the public (embedded austerity).
READ MORE: Tories plot 'Great Boris Canal' shipping water from Scotland to England to tackle drought
This rationalisation may well have to be addressed as part of any resilience strategy (austerity reversal) adopted by an independent Scotland (EU). Like any insurance against infrequent events there is an instant direct cost, but substantive deferred, indirect benefits.
It is simply one of those things that all areas of any catchment (subject to rainfall) contribute to flooding/sewer discharge, and consequently measures to alleviate the problem are required in all areas of the catchment.
This is where the EU water and flood directives assist in joined-up thinking by the public bodies of Scotland, but are sadly eschewed by the EU-phobic south-east of England. They have in many ways “made their own bed,” and now are having to lie in it.
Such “day job” issues require not only Scotland to be an independent EU nation state (austerity reversal), but to have the currency of choice and capability to balance instant direct public costs with deferred indirect public benefits.
Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow
GERRY Hassan’s Tuesday article deals with the issue of privatisation (The Thatcher era is over and politicians need to break free of its stifling legacy, Aug 16). The privatisation of the NHS gathers pace. US and Chinese companies are waiting. The pandemic and lockdown have been a cash register to business interest, profits swelled, tax havens rejoiced.
Helping the process, some with the money have jumped the NHS queues and gone private, others waited their turn or had no option. Tory philosophy at its best. “Let the devil take the hindmost”. A decent, fair-minded Scotland awaits with independence.
Iain R Thomson
Strathglass
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here