WE often think of the Thatcher years as the privatisation era, and indeed the Thatcher government overtly pawned the country’s equivalent of the family silver, as well as spending all the revenue from North Sea oil, to pay the costs of deindustrialisation and then to finance tax reductions. However, successive governments have found increasingly inventive routes to privatise remaining national assets without mentioning the word. The giveaway is usually some mention of the word “partnership”.

Like its predecessors, it is become increasingly clear that the incoming Labour government, constrained as it is by its self-imposed fiscal rules and taxation pledges, will be turning to private investment for public infrastructure. This PFI Mark Two – or privatisation by the back door – will, like its New Labour predecessor, saddle all our public services, from education through healthcare to prisons and beyond, with eye-watering repayment commitments for a generation into the future, thus making them an even greater drain on government finances than they are now.

In effect, this policy will simply siphon off more and more public money into the pockets of investment companies while maintaining the illusion that mobilising additional private finance in some way helps balance the books. The reality is that this mortgaging of public assets creates an ongoing drain on government revenues that accelerates with time in a giant Ponzi scheme. The inevitable result will be increased future taxation, or payment for public services at the point of use, to service the debt. Just because the debt is off the government’s balance sheet doesn’t mean the public don’t have to pay for it, but don’t worry, your taxes won’t go up. This is the very antithesis of a progressive society.

READ MORE: Calls to ban Israel arms exports after top Labour minister's comments

The fact is that government borrowing is always cheaper than private finance because whenever a private link is introduced into the chain of financial supply, it creates an additional risk premium on the cost of capital. The example of Carillion highlights the reality of this risk. The idea that private projects are somehow inherently cheaper than public projects is not born out, particularly when the contract for supply locks in inflexible payment terms associated with the ongoing operation of the asset.

Our problem here in Scotland is that as long as we are a part of the UK, we will be forced to follow England down this treacherous path. Without access to sovereign borrowing, which at this point would impact on Labour’s fiscal rules, and consequently be unacceptable to the UK Government, our only options involve additional taxation of one sort or another.

Unfortunately, the sums involved in financing the recovery of our crumbling public infrastructure are eye-watering, so raising this money through current income, even if we had total control of taxation, would be completely impractical. This is not to say that we should not be identifying what additional taxation options are available to help alleviate the current expenditure squeeze, but it can never be enough to pay for the amount of capital spending needed to deal with the accumulated infrastructure problems.

The only solution to this problem is access to sovereign borrowing, which means independence, now. I hope the Scottish Government is alive to this issue, and that all those who voted Labour, abstained or spoiled their ballot understand what they were doing because it was obvious well before the election that this was where we would end up if we didn’t deliver a majority for independence. The SNP may have given a good impression of a bag of bolts recently, but that doesn’t give anyone an excuse for anyone with a vote, in effect, supporting the Union.

Cameron Crawford

Rothesay

JUST watched a programme on BBC Alba which had to be a fantastic good news story about measures being promoted in Scotland towards Scottish Government aspirations for net-zero by 2045 titled Uaine. Why is it only on BBC Alba and not on BBC Scotland or a mainstream BBC channel? Why are we not shouting about our achievements?

And, while I’m in this mood, I listen to the lunchtime news on BBC Radio 4 today to hear how “the nation” will be watching the final of the Euros tonight. Which nation are we talking about?

Ian Lawson

Milngavie

UTTER human folly best describes the intention of building of more nuclear power stations. “Waste of money: Nuclear warning for GB Energy” was the outstanding front page headline of The National amongst all the newspapers (The National, July 11).

The recent decommissioning of Dounreay and the trainloads of radioactive waste rattling down to Sellafield are only one aspect of a power source based on uranium mining in Africa and Australia. Add the threat of nuclear weapons at the hand of dictators – such as those presently creating wars – in a world increasingly under pressure from hitting 1.5 degrees of warming – the impact of which is already being felt on food supplies and heat exhaustion deaths in parts of the planet.

We must not allow Starmer and his Westminster government to use Scotland as a base for advancing more nuclear dangers. This is no time for the world’s power hungry leaders to play political games. Wisely used, there is adequate power from tide, wind and sunshine. Give intelligence centre stage. Any thinking voter should be behind Scottish independence. No more nuclear in the interests of common sense, the safety of future generations and their environment. There is still hope.

Iain R. Thomson,

Strathglass.

ON winning the election, Sir Keir Starmer said he wishes to reset Westminster’s relationship with the devolved nations. The SNP – representing the wishes of many who would like independence – have on a number of occasions recently had their attempts to secure a second referendum undermined, first by the Johnson government, despite the nationalist majority in Holyrood and again by the Supreme Court in November 2022.

This perfectly outlines the constitutional relationship between Scotland and the UK.

Interestingly, Sir Keir Starmer, at the time of the court’s decision, said he would not allow a second referendum if he was in government, even if the Supreme Court agreed it was legal.

If the Prime Minister is serious about resetting the relationship between Westminster and the devolved nations, he must first set a level playing field. He must play fair and let the people of Scotland know what the democratic route to independence is.

Notably, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has recently refused to answer this question. A failure to provide clarification on this issue suggests that there is in fact no route. If this is the case, to avoid admitting this, however, the Labour Party seem to be hoping that the 2026 Scottish elections will bring the debate to an end.

With a Labour victory, the issue of independence can be sidelined, avoiding the need to present what might be the uncomfortable truth – that the Union of Scotland and the rest of the UK is not a voluntary one.

Stuart Smith

Aberdeen

DEAR the independence movement.

It’s time to stop bickering, stop back-biting, stop undermining each other.

None of you has the perfect vision for an ideal Scotland, and all of you have the perfect vision. They’re just different. That’s good; we need different ideas and methods to achieve them.

None of you are better than any other lot, and none of you are worse. Your ideas and processes are different, and we need that. There is a place for all of them on our journey to independence, and in the country we rebuild after.

None of you are our messiah, and all of you are vital. We don’t need any more messiahs who can be brought down. We need a movement – an unstoppable, irresistible movement.

Sorry guys, but your names are not going to be written in history, unless you get a grip and work together. If you want the respect of the people, you need to show it to each other first. Your own country is not going to support you, unless you stop bitching at each other. You need to be a team, an unrelenting team of voices representing ALL of Scotland.

You’ve ALL got talent, innovation, determination, passion, vision, and sometimes sheer brilliance. But it is worth nothing unless you get your acts together and stop infighting.

You don’t need to cede to anyone, just stop with the egos and the bitterness. You could be amazing if you pooled your skills. Together, you could be the people we WANT to lead us to independence.

Whether you’re a politician, a pressure group, campaigners, researchers, writers … whatever influential role you hold, for all our sakes, get over yourselves and put aside the past for long enough to work together to restore our overdue independence.

You can all yitter on for years on the rounds of interviews, talks and books about how dreadful the other guy was AFTER we are independent.

To those who’d say I’m living in a dream, expecting them to do this, aim your blame at the people currently sitting in all these vital organisations who won’t put their grievances aside. If they won’t do so, then it is time for others to do the talking and leave the bickering children to spit vitriol at each other in the corner.

Ruth Ritchie

Lockerbie

‘FOOTBALL’S coming home”, proclaim the English fans and media, as we look forward to the Euro final against Spain on Sunday.

This is intriguing, as if it was anywhere it should be “coming home” to, it should be to Scotland and not to our southern neighbours.

For it was the Scots who devised the modern version of the game as we know it. Without our civilising intervention, what England might have given the world was just another version of rugby.

What is now the English Football Association (FA) was formed at the instigation of a young solicitor from Hull, Ebenezer Cobb Morley, and what he proposed would be seen now as a basis for rugby with extra violence.

A more civilised code did emerge, but the English game was still mainly a question of head-down dribbling. It was the Scots who had the notion of artfully distributing the ball among the players. This started with young men, from Perthshire and the Highlands mainly, who gathered at Queen’s Park in Glasgow in 1867. They obtained a copy of the FA laws and amended them to conform with an almost scientific blend of dribbling and passing.

When they invented passing, these men had invented modern football. Far from being an English game, it was one that was conceived to confound the English because the Scots, being generally smaller than their opponents in football’s oldest international rivalry, could hardly afford to take them on physically.

Scotland’s interests in the Euros have long since subsided, and though the English borrowing our history is quite a compliment, the only downside is that it is sadly not acknowledged.

Alex Orr

Edinburgh