In the Herald today:
SNP urged to act as Scotland behind England in sewage monitoring: The Scottish Government has been told to better monitor sewage after it was revealed the country is lagging significantly behind England and Wales in reporting storm overflows….only 3.4% of storm overflows are monitored and reported on in Scotland, compared to 96% in Wales and 91% in England.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23666989.snp-urged-act-scotland-behind-england-sewage-monitoring/
Leaving aside the propagandist use of ‘SNP’ rather than the correct ‘Scottish Government’, what will look bad at first sight for some, is a classic example of misleading reporting of percentages. Scotland has 18 743 km of coastline compared to England’s 8 982, only one-tenth of the population and, crucially far fewer areas requiring monitoring.
Dr Simon Boxall of Southampton University, a leading expert on water quality, explained this in the National, in August 2022:
An overview of the most obvious data on bathing water quality superficially appears to show Scotland actually has poorer-quality bathing spots than England.
But this is only half the picture, according to one of the UK’s leading experts on water quality.
Scottish swimmers paddling in and around Scotland’s 18,743km coastline do enjoy cleaner water than those taking a dip down south, said Dr Simon Boxall, based at the National Oceanography Centre at Southampton University.
Looking at the monitored “bathing waters” in Scotland paints a slightly misleading picture of overall water quality in the country, he told The National.
Compared with England, Scotland’s monitored swimming spots are poorer quality: just 38% of the 85 identified locations were recognised as “excellent” according to EU standards, compared with 71% of those in England.
Most of Scotland’s waters are not cause for concern, he said, meaning they did not need the same level of monitoring as takes place in England.
He added: “I would say Scotland does a better job [of monitoring] than England does.”
“If we’re not going into some of the more remote parts, for example north-west Scotland, because there’s no need to, I know full well the beaches up there are phenomenally good,” he added.
“If they are focusing their efforts on areas which are likely to suffer from pollution, then they’ll get more positives – in terms of pollution – than if they are doing the fairly broad-sweep approach of looking at every 10km on the south coast of England.
“So, you are going to find patchiness – there are going to be parts of Scotland, if you look at the Clyde estuary for example where you’ve got a huge population, you’re going to have a higher level of pollution.”
“To be fair to Scotland, they’re actually not monitoring a lot of the areas which don’t need it,” he added.
“In England, they tend to take more of the, ‘we’ll do every, say 70km approach’.
“They’re bound to find more high-quality beaches because there are, particularly in the west coast of England, fewer potential inputs.”
https://www.thenational.scot/news/20833401.scotland-compare-england-water-beaches-closed-sewage-spills-south/
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
London drinking water is recycled a number of times. Drinking water in Scotland comes from the clear rivers, lochs and mountain tops. Filtered. Some gets bottled and sold off worldwide. No comparison. Swimming in lochs and sea in Scotland. Wild open spaces. Flowing waters from the peaks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Many countries in the eu do not put fluoride in their water , Scotland and Republic of Ireland do not put fluoride in the water supply but England and wales do put fluoride in their water.
Let’s face it you would have to be a complete idiot to think that water around Scotland was less clean than water around England
And yes , the Herald journalists are collectively complete idiots , just read the stupid stuff they write.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scientific monitoring of The Herald journos has revealed staggering levels of incompetence .
Academic study after study has shown that , regardless of the topic , The Herald journos are more than likely to spin and misreport ”facts” in order to show the SNP Government in a bad light .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Recycling old waste may sound a good principle, but when it’s David Bol with this nonsense from “The Marine Conservation Society” https://archive.ph/LR5bX it is pretty damned desperate.
As soon as I began to read it, the “19,590 sewage-related litter items” jumped off the page, having poured scorn on it when it previously was posted on this site perhaps a month ago ?
As observed previously, SEPA and SW agree priorities for sampling of CSOs, anything else SEPA turns up is traced to it’s point of origin, and very rarely does it turn out to be a SW problem.
As also observed previously on this recurring nonsense over Scottish waters, this is a blatant attempt to distract from England’s bad publicity over their water environment, and yet another court case for DEFRA to lose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe we should monitor far more. Imagine how much lower our percentage would be if we included all the water which didn’t need monitoring…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Then they would complain about it being a financial waste which should be better targeted…
Most all suspect CSOs in Scotland Water’s vast network have screens or catch bags fitted, so the claim of having counted off thousands of “sewage related items” that SEPA’s or SW’s inspectorate did not spot is highly suspect.
I’m not saying a rare event can’t happen, but the surveillance carried out by SEPA is most extensive, and they report regularly.
I’m absolutely convinced this is part of a massive distraction campaign due to fully justified public uproar in England over water pollution.
eg – There was a report on beach pollution in the media a few month back, where even Wales was tagged for 1 beach – The authors made no reference made to what was discharging from the River Severn into the Estuary on which this beach was located, nor were coastal discharges from the other side in England considered, it was simply presented as a Welsh problem.
We may not be able to trust our media, but we can definitely trust SEPA.
LikeLike
The problem with that is that Scotland has 9x the number of waterways as England and Wales combined; with a similar ratio of total volume. Factor in relative populations and there’s about 100x as much fresh water, per capita, to manage.
It would be a monumental waste of resources, just to counter the current narrative; where a lack of monitoring implies doubt, and/or even something to hide. Many of our bodies of water don’t need constant monitoring: they’re nowhere near large population centres; industry; intensive farming etc, etc…
There are better things to spend money on. Even if we scaled up to 34% from 3.4%, complete overkill, the “ah, but” wouldn’t go away.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry, that should’ve been a direct reply @ iusedtobeenglish.
LikeLiked by 1 person