Readers' Letters: Why are parties so silent on sewage?

People have been spending leisure time in rivers rather than at the beach due to recent pollution alerts (Picture: Ian Forsyth/Getty Images)

The general election has produced a yawning silence over dealing with the foul pollution of our streams, rivers and sea. There are causes that have been ignored by everyone, including the Greens, for years.

If we build more houses – all parties are committed to do this – then obviously we increase the demands on the sewage system.

Our population has increased, with immigration, by 6 million – obviously we increase the demands on the sewage system.

Climate change has pointed to a potential increase in storms and rainfall – obviously we increase the demands on the sewage system.

The changes in farming practices to increase yield – obviously we increase the pollution in rivers etc. with run off.

As a youngster, some 60 years ago, we were urged to drink only bottled water in France; increasingly we see pictures of lorries taking bottled waters to communities let down by our water supply! It has reached such a stage that, listening to a talk by Water Aid recently and hearing of £25 water treatment answers for families in the Third World, I wondered if it might be a good investment for our home!

James Watson, Dunbar, East Lothian

Time for change

This month has shown how unfitted a “general” election is to selecting wise, local, conscientious legislators. Imposition and snap dismissal of external candidates, frantic selection processes, footling ephemeral stories (Diane Abbott, D-Day, inside betting, Israel/Palestine disavowals), opportunistic hucksterish bribery attempts (triple-lock, tax “giveaways”), instant demagoguery (Nigel Farage), deceitful “news” stories – all of these mask the democratic purpose

A fixed three-year rotating cycle of constituency elections would muffle out last month’s nonsenses. No, my vote does not elect a leader; it does not select a First or Prime Minister, it does not even choose a party. It is to appoint an individual legislator. We deserve better.

Keith Wallace, Newport-on-Tay, Fife

Cost of Labour

The good news for readers is that this election could be the last gasp of the phoney electioneering trend which developed in politics since the days of Margaret Thatcher.

The Tories had learned how to play skilfully on fear and prejudice (think about Michael Gove's claims that within the European Union we will be overrun with Turkish immigrants).

Their one big idea was; “we are strong and stable”. But even that was wrong – they are strong and unstable and are likely to choose Nigel Farage as their next leader. And why not – look at how well Donald Trump has done?

Labour has negated the frenzied attack on its so called profligate “luvvy” tendencies by created a solid defensive line, clearly showing their leader is in charge and there will be no new taxes.

But with the conservatives using their undoubted propaganda skills to make this a phoney election, where neither of the big parties can promise new taxes, the consequence is that we get a Labour victory with a huge cost. We will struggle on with a crippled NHS, discontented public service workers – who keep aiming to leave sinking ships if they can – and a Labour government could do only so much about our problems.

Does the Labour Party not care? Have they given up being luvvies? I think not. No, they hope to at least address things like environmental issues honestly – once the myth of the safer hands of Conservative governments has been finally lanced.

And if growth can't come along with their priming plans for the economy then another election may be needed to get realistic, but costed, choices put back on the table. And the public will have to lump the fact that after 14 years of Conservative inefficiencies that is the best that can be done.

It’s sad – but how did we get here?

Andrew Vass, Edinburgh

Back to Samaria!

Ian Petrie wants to “offer a welcome to our brothers and sisters from stricken parts of the world” (Letters, 29 June). This may come as a shock, Mr Petrie, but the huge majority of us do not. Those crossing the Channel are not genuine refugees since, if in fear of their lives they would have claimed asylum/safe haven, in Europe.

Instead they crossed the Channel knowing full well that UK migrant charities and greedy UK legal aid lawyers would make sure they were never deported but be housed and fed and given pocket money. There are already 271,000 people, including 123,000 children, in the UK assessed as homeless.

Does Mr Petrie expect UK and Scottish taxpayers to provide housing and welfare benefits to immigrants and also allow them to use our overstretched NHS? To be self-supporting, migrants would have to earn £32,000 a year.

Will Mr Petrie and others of the same ilk prove their Good Samaritan credentials by taking into their own homes, and at their own expense, a refugee/asylum seeker/Channel fraudster for a period of two years or until their guests get a job?

Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian

The back of Jack

It seems Scottish secretary Alister Jack is being considered for a peerage in Rishi Sunak’s, probably outgoing, honours list as the Tories grasp at one last opportunity to ennoble themselves before being put out to grass.

May I suggest he takes on the title Lord Jack of Kempton Park given his predilection for a flutter?

D Mitchell, Edinburgh

No choice

It is worrying that the mighty USA can only find two such defective candidates for election to President. Clearly, nobody sane wants the job.

Malcolm Parkin, Kinnesswood, Kinross

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.