A HOUSE of Lords committee has slammed the UK water industry for the poor state of the UK water sector. Except that “UK” doesn’t include Scotland or NI, where water is publicly owned, or Wales where it is run by a non-profit, but just England where ten private water companies provide dirty and expensive water to consumers.

Water is essential for life, so why was it privatised under Thatcher? Never mind that she would have privatised her grandmother if she’d had the chance – did water privatisation deliver, as promised, a cheaper product more efficiently? No. Household bills are higher in England than in rUK; private equity firms and foreign governments feature prominently in the ownership profile; high profits and big shareholder pay-outs are common; the English companies are carrying a rising amount of debt, leaks are rife and they are routinely dumping live sewage into English waterways.

The clean-up costs required to rectify this sorry state of affairs most likely will be dumped onto consumers.

Now look at Scotland. Water is a publicly owned utility, answerable to the Scottish Parliament. Scottish Water has invested a record amount in infrastructure so that bills are lower than all the English companies and the water from the taps and in Scottish waterways is far healthier and cleaner.

Of these two alternative ways of providing a public good like water, which is preferable?

It’s not hard to extrapolate from this example that public ownership and regulation of other public goods such as energy, health, education and transport best serve the people’s interest, not the English model that enriches an international financial elite.

Leah Gunn Barrett
Edinburgh

PAGES 3 and 14 in Tuesday’s National definitely got an “oohhh” from me with The Calton Hill Declaration. I’m not yet a dedicated republican, but there’s no denying that post the Supreme Court ruling there is no constitutional road to independence. However, the articles quote “non-violent, direct action.” So, what next?

There is great precedent. Mahatma Gandhi was referenced and revered by many, including Martin Luther King Jnr, for his use of non-violent civil disobedience as a tool for mass action in colonial India: nationwide boycotts and protest marches being just two tactics on the road to independence.

I have another few questions. Is the Stone of Destiny going back to London? Is Scotland legally bound to return it? Was the return of the Stone conditional? Let’s skip the issue of “if you want to be crowned Scotland’s monarch, come here”, and let’s assume the Stone “must” be returned due to some agreement reached prior to the return of the Stone of Destiny on November 15 1996.

Are we happy with it actually leaving? When will it go? How will it go? Will there be pomp and circumstance surrounding its leaving and arrival in London? Will it be in a box, wrapped in brown paper and string, and put on the night sleeper to London? Perhaps it will be flown down as cargo, or could it be driven down in a hearse for all to see right to the door of the Abbey?

But if we, the people of Scotland, don’t want it to go, could we consider non-violent blocking of Edinburgh Castle, preventing the Stone from being carried off? Just imagine the need to helicopter it out!

Surely if blocking the Castle isn’t possible, it is possible for silent, non-violent action with people, armed with Saltires and banners, lining the route to the station, to the airport, noting our displeasure, our non-participation in the removal of such a valued cultural artefact, a respected and valued symbol of Scotland. Or doesn’t it matter enough for there to be action?

Selma Rahman
Edinburgh

IT is no surprise we in Scotland have one of the worst life expectancy rates in Europe, and leave this world sometimes decades before our neighbours in the English Shires.

Make no mistake, Scotland is held in a state of deprivation and poverty entirely on purpose by our lords and masters in another country, and you better believe it.

There are only so many warships, tanks and nuclear submarines, royal yachts and eye-wateringly expensive vanity projects that Scotland’s oil can buy for the Westminster government, so how on earth can they be expected to have to pay out the worst state pension in the so-called developed world to the Scottish nation? It’s far easier for them to keep Scotland in a state of permanent deprivation so the working classes and the poor people up here – fast becoming one and the same due to this right-wing authoritarian disgrace we see in Westminster – simply expire, and if we don’t, the disgraceful eat-or-heat state pension will hurry us all on our way. Anything else simply wouldn’t be cricket, old bean.

And still some “Scots” seem hell-bent on ensuring their children suffer the same fate.

Iain K
Dunoon