New national restrictions in Scotland

[devon_metro]

It is questionable whether it was the students either - the time of year when cases started to rise was when cases if respiratory viruses always start to rise. I don't think it's helpful to go blaming this or that group.

I wasn't meaning to personally blame students. The mass mobilisation of people who wish to socialise is bound to cause some spread of virus. I do not blame students for the increase. The treatment of students by the government was atrocious. However, having seen the neighbourhood data for Edinburgh, there can be no question that it rapidly accelerated around areas popular with students. And this is not unsurprising given the density of student flats.

Oh no wait, I was too early there.

The SNP have bullied the BBC in to promoting, daily, the SNP on the BBC for party political gain whilst they are in government during a pandemic which the SNP are mishandling going by many post on here.

Wouldn't a failing government want the least amount of publicity possible?

This is getting wilder and wilder by the minute.

Is it not true that Nicola Sturgeon uses the daily briefing to discuss non-covid issues? Interestingly the BBC dropped the daily briefing, but you could argue, were bullied into re-instating it. It would be interesting to see the mix of those people who cried outrage who support the SNP.

 

[Journeyman]

Oh no wait, I was too early there.

The SNP have bullied the BBC in to promoting, daily, the SNP on the BBC for party political gain whilst they are in government during a pandemic which the SNP are mishandling going by many post on here.

Wouldn't a failing government want the least amount of publicity possible?

This is getting wilder and wilder by the minute. Honestly, this is hilarious now. hahaha

@Skite Train I'd leave it now, if I were you. You raised the political angle, and you've got a bunch of responses you clearly don't like, so perhaps we should all move on here?

 

[Wynd]

@Skite Train I'd leave it now, if I were you. You raised the political angle, and you've got a bunch of responses you clearly don't like, so perhaps we should all move on here?

The political aspects were raised long before I made a contribution in a number of very pointed posts. I absolutely did not start that.

Im totally indifferent to the responses, merely examining them for consistency or even sanity in some cases.

Didn't someone raise the topic of free-speech/debate a few posts back?

Are you suggesting my contributions should be suppressed here?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2020 ==

I would suspect you were from SNP central office, but I doubt their policy is to insult and belittle anyone who disagrees with them...

Worth pointing out that the arguments are being critiqued, not the individual. Careful distinction there.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Worth pointing out that the arguments are being critiqued, not the individual. Careful distinction there.

Are you deliberately ignoring the arguments I have raised in response to your question regarding mishandlings in post #115?

 

[Journeyman]

Im totally indifferent to the responses, merely examining them for consistency or even sanity in some cases.

Didn't someone raise the topic of free-speech/debate a few posts back?

Are you suggesting my contributions should be suppressed here?

You're just not doing yourself any favours here, and it's very obvious there's a strong political bias to your opinions. You've attacked everyone who has questioned SNP policy. It's not really helping anyone, and I think we're getting into unpleasant and abusive territory. You just keep belittling the evidence that a lot of people are presenting.

 

[Wynd]

You're just not doing yourself any favours here, and it's very obvious there's a strong political bias to your opinions. You've attacked everyone who has questioned SNP policy. It's not really helping anyone, and I think we're getting into unpleasant and abusive territory. You just keep belittling the evidence that a lot of people are presenting.

Its very very interesting and revealing that having the temerity to bring balance to clearly anti SNP views must mean that I am pro-SNP. One does not follow the other in fact. You making an assumption, an invalid one. With the utmost respect, I would request you take a less polarised view and one with more shades of grey in it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2020 ==

Are you deliberately ignoring the arguments I have raised in response to your question regarding mishandlings in post #115?

I responded to this in asking what government has not failed on those subjects.

 

[Butts]

Can I suggest members detract from the political inferno for just a few moments to answer post 152 - your input would be much appreciated.

 

[Scotrail12]

Divide & conquer has clearly been successfully achieved.

 

[DB]

Its very very interesting and revealing that having the temerity to bring balance to clearly anti SNP views must mean that I am pro-SNP. One does not follow the other in fact. You making an assumption, an invalid one.

I have seen no evidence of anti SNP comments here. Being critical of their handling of this is not being anti SNP.

Are you intending to continue to ignore the points raised by RomeoCharlie71?

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I responded to this in asking what government has not failed on those subjects.

Pardon my ignorance but I cannot find this post - could you please link it? I can only see the one where you snapped at me assuming I was an unhappy Aberdonian who was put under more restrictions than were required.

Can I suggest members detract from the political inferno for just a few moments to answer post 152 - your input would be much appreciated.

I don't know is the simple answer. Things will probably change every day this week at this rate.

 

[DB]

I responded to this in asking what government has not failed on those subjects.

Not really a response to the specific points though, is it?

 

[Wynd]

Pardon my ignorance but I cannot find this post - could you please link it? I can only see the one where you snapped at me assuming I was an unhappy Aberdonian who was put under more restrictions than were required.

I wouldn't worry, it was immediately dismissed by another member as political whatabootery.

 

[Journeyman]

Full disclosure - I am very anti-SNP and would be even if everything they did was perfect, because I'm opposed to independence, and let's be honest, that's the only thing they truly care about. That said, I'm trying to be reasonable in my assessment of how well the Scottish Government is doing. There's no easy answer to that. Part of me approves of the restrictions because my own experience thinks we need to get on top of this, and part of me despairs at the authoritarian horror unfolding before us.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Its very very interesting and revealing that having the temerity to bring balance to clearly anti SNP views must mean that I am pro-SNP. One does not follow the other in fact. You making an assumption, an invalid one. With the utmost respect, I would request you take a less polarised view and one with more shades of grey in it.

To make this post more credible, could you provide a (brief, if any) rundown of your opinion of the SNP handling of the pandemic?

You seem very eager to criticise any SNP-baaaad post.
---------------
As the above post, for full disclosure, I too am anti-SNP (pro-Union and anti-Tory if that matters - effectively politically homeless). But I do think the SNP have handled the leadership and communication of the pandemic better than the other UK governments, but that does not mean I agree with every decision that has made - because most certainly I do not.

 

[Wynd]

Not really a response to the specific points though, is it?

Em, are you asking me to address and defend the failures of the Scottish Government? I couldn't, nor would I.

 

[devon_metro]

Can I suggest members detract from the political inferno for just a few moments to answer post 152 - your input would be much appreciated.

As I understand it, travel to the common travel area (GB, Ireland) is illegal (though it would be an interesting challenge in court). Travel to the rest of the world is probably beyond the realms of Scottish government which is why they are looking into it. I believe Westminster would need to ban it (unlikely). It is permissible to travel via the common travel area to travel somewhere outside the common travel area. Though presumably this is all academic once the whole mainland is in Level 4, unless you have a valid excemption. Having recently travelled through Edinburgh airport, I can tell you that you are unlikely to face any issues.

 

[Wynd]

To make this post more credible, could you provide a (brief, if any) rundown of your opinion of the SNP handling of the pandemic?

You seem very eager to criticise any SNP-baaaad post.

Again, balance is the objective, not promoting any agenda.

Whats the additional aaaa's for? Is this an oblique reference to sheep, or cults? Are you trying to have a dig at Unionism here in suggesting they all repeat that phrase or something? Genuinely curious.

Whats telling is that providing balance is seen as promoting an agenda. That suggests there is an already established opinion that is accepted within the forum. Maybe there is, maybe not. But if providing balance gets a poster labelled as an SNP promoting right wing authoritarian devoid of compassion for those having mental health issues, then I would kindly suggest some posters reevaluate their positions on certain arguments.

 

[Journeyman]

As the above post, for full disclosure, I too am anti-SNP (pro-Union and anti-Tory if that matters - effectively politically homeless).

Likewise. It's often necessary to point that out, as a lot of hardcore nationalists will assume you're a full-on UKIP-supporting, anti-immigrant Hard Brexiteer if you don't support independence. My nationalist mother-in-law is convinced I'm some sort of fascist.

 

[Wynd]

Likewise. It's often necessary to point that out, as a lot of hardcore nationalists will assume you're a full-on UKIP-supporting, anti-immigrant Hard Brexiteer if you don't support independence. My nationalist mother-in-law is convinced I'm some sort of fascist.

Can I add "Hardcore Nationalist pro immigrant remainer" to "SNP promoting right wing compassionless authoritarian"?

I can now see that as some posters have outed themselves as fairly committed unionists, anything that doesn’t fit within their own political worldview would get someone labelled as biased towards the SNP.

Can we maybe get back on topic?

Tier 4 for the highlands is a bold move. Lockdown on Boxing Day likewise. Partly closing the border too. But how else are we proposing to reduce transmission of a virus that has just mutated to make itself even more transmissible? What are the alternatives?

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Tier 4 for the highlands is a bold move. Lockdown on Boxing Day likewise. Partly closing the border too. But how else are we proposing to reduce transmission of a virus that has just mutated to make itself even more transmissible? What are the alternatives?

If it was that transmissible then Greater Glasgow & Clyde would be in level 4 right now, because cases have been identified there through genomic sequencing. If there was serious threat nationwide then the level 4 restrictions would have been brought in at midnight yesterday (20/12/2020, like Wales), not on 26/12/2020.

This strain of the virus is thought to have originated in September, so it's hardly "just" mutated.

If travel restrictions are so "crucial" in stopping the spread, then why is Nicola Sturgeon still travelling to Edinburgh from Uddingston on a daily basis? Could her cabinet meetings, FMQs and daily briefings not be held remotely via video conferencing? It's quite obviously a good alternative given she is expecting education to be delivered that way for (at least) a week, commencing 11th January.

 

[Butts]

As I understand it, travel to the common travel area (GB, Ireland) is illegal (though it would be an interesting challenge in court). Travel to the rest of the world is probably beyond the realms of Scottish government which is why they are looking into it. I believe Westminster would need to ban it (unlikely). It is permissible to travel via the common travel area to travel somewhere outside the common travel area. Though presumably this is all academic once the whole mainland is in Level 4, unless you have a valid excemption. Having recently travelled through Edinburgh airport, I can tell you that you are unlikely to face any issues.

Thanks for replying & RC71's brief intervention.

I am going before the tier changes Wednesday December 23rd and was under the impression Foreign Travel was still permitted from a Tier 1 or Tier 2 area.

She did mention something about looking into it in her statement as it was only advised against.

We have heard that the Borders are going to have an extra Police presence (probably 2 cars instead of 1) to deter travel into England.

What if any similar measures are likely to be adopted at Airports and Railway Stations in Scotland ?

 

[Wynd]

If it was that transmissible then Greater Glasgow & Clyde would be in level 4 right now, because cases have been identified there through genomic sequencing. If there was serious threat nationwide then the level 4 restrictions would have been brought in at midnight yesterday (20/12/2020, like Wales), not on 26/12/2020.

This strain of the virus is thought to have originated in September, so it's hardly "just" mutated.

If travel restrictions are so "crucial" in stopping the spread, then why is Nicola Sturgeon still travelling to Edinburgh from Uddingston on a daily basis? Could her cabinet meetings, FMQs and daily briefings not be held remotely via video conferencing? It's quite obviously a good alternative given she is expecting education to be delivered that way for (at least) a week, commencing 11th January.

You’re not asking me to speak for the first minister are you?

All valid arguments, I think we should go faster and be more restrictive.

Bute house isn’t being nearly aggressive enough for me. Let’s just start tomorrow. I don’t see how else we even start to can this virus.

 

[Journeyman]

Tier 4 for the highlands is a bold move. Lockdown on Boxing Day likewise. Partly closing the border too. But how else are we proposing to reduce transmission of a virus that has just mutated to make itself even more transmissible? What are the alternatives?

I certainly don't have any easy answers there, but I think advance notice of tighter restrictions is sensible, because last night there was a panic exodus from London resulting in very busy trains, which is clearly dangerous.

Scotland's case numbers are lower, so I can see the logic in the delay. Wales is five times higher.

I guess we need to stop people fleeing from Tier 4 areas to the Highlands, but a certain number of people will do that anyway.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I certainly don't have any easy answers there, but I think advance notice of tighter restrictions is sensible, because last night there was a panic exodus from London resulting in very busy trains, which is clearly dangerous.

Scotland's case numbers are lower, so I can see the logic in the delay. Wales is five times higher.

I guess we need to stop people fleeing from Tier 4 areas to the Highlands, but a certain number of people will do that anyway.

I can certainly see the logic, especially re your first point. But the case numbers argument is fairly flawed logic - what if case numbers rocket as a result of having the delay in imposing strict restrictions (sorry, I hate calling it lockdown and will avoid doing so at all costs) and it effectively runs out of control early next week as a result (i.e. what happens this week will have an effect on numbers next)? Especially as there is "moderate evidence" that this variant seems to spread up to 70% easier/faster/whatever word is used...

I can't help but think travel restrictions are just a way of seen to be doing something, especially as the police have admitted they will not actively be setting up roadblocks (and neither should they be - there are greater issues ongoing at the moment, and there are rule breaches which pose more risk than going to Tesco Extra in your neighbouring LA rather than Tesco Express in your own).

Sorry if I'm not making much sense, I'm knackered and need to go to bed instead of posting on here!

 

[MattA7]

The R0 value of covid without restrictions is around 3-4. Restrictions reduce this often to just below 1 however the R0 will jump straight back up when the are relaxed. Until a large percentage of the population is immunized which will take a long time with no guarantee of success

However we also can’t put or lives on hold until if/when heard immunity is reached or drugs are invented that make the virus less serious - people’s metal health, physical health and the economic/financial consequences are too great. At the moment people aren’t living they are existing and if the government don’t start realizing this it will soon cause serious problems.

 

[Yew]

Mental health is a very valid and entirely appropriate point, but prevalence of the virus is exacerbating those issues. Reduce the virus and we reduce the drivers, somewhat not entirely, of anxiety, depression and loneliness.

No, the primary driver is the enforced inhumane isolation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2020 ==

I think you could only say that if we lived in a parallel universe where we could see for sure what would happen if we let the disease let rip. I've a feeling it wouldn't be pretty at all.

You're presenting a false dichotomy there, a desire to avoid general restrictions is not the same as 'letting it rip'.

 

[Butts]

So it seems we have the ridiculous dichotomy whereby residents in Level 1 & 2 Areas are free to travel abroad until the "regrading" on Boxing Day, but can't travel to the rest of the UK.

However you can transit through England and accidentally forget to join / miss your connection and legally remain for Christmas.

Did she drop a bollock by not regrading immediately or forget about the Foreign Travel eligibility of Tier 1 & 2 residents.

Seems enforcement is a bit half hearted with a few extra patrol cars in the borders and seemingly no intervention at Railway Stations and Airports.

Amazingly there has been no mention of this glaring anomaly in the media

 

[nlogax]

So you meant no one was monitoring who was coming and going either end or onboard ?

Are you surprised it's all empty rhetoric is it not ?

This was driving, not flying. No police at the top of the M6 or bottom of the A74M. May have been because I started out so early. Was out of tier 4 by 7.30am and had reached the border four hours later so maybe the police hadn't yet organised the coverage being reported in news stories.

 

[island]

Is it a £60 fine halved for prompt payment ?

Criminal or Civil offence ?

Travel by a Scottish resident from Scotland to the rest of the UK or to Co. Donegal in Ireland, unless An exemption applies, is a criminal offence. It can be punished by a £60 on the spot fine (halved for prompt payment), or reported to the PF with a maximum fine of up to £10,000. A person seeking to travel in breach of the law can be challenged by a constable, directed to return home, and ultimately arrested under section 1 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2016 should they attempt to persist in committing the offence.

Ah, you're in England. No, travelling out of a tier 4 area isn't allowed, even on Christmas day. The rules in Scotland are different. This thread is specifically about Scotland.

Actually, travel into or out of tier 4 is not prohibited in England, despite Boris and other government members making rumblings to the contrary. It is prohibited in Scotland.

 

[yorkie]

I think you better check the title of the thread we are in here.

Mental health is a very valid and entirely appropriate point, but prevalence of the virus is exacerbating those issues. Reduce the virus and we reduce the drivers, somewhat not entirely, of anxiety, depression and loneliness.

The way to reduce the prevalence of the virus above all else would be to impose really harsh restrictions really early on, and to not lift them. They could only be lifted if all movement was prevented into the relevant area, with exceptions only for people tested & quarantined. Otherwise, as soon as restrictions are lifted, cases would rise. You'd have had to have locked down around 10 months ago and continue to be locked down for several more months yet. This would have caused fr more anxiety, depression and loneliness.

FWIW, I too am fatigued by this whole thing, but we absolutely need to focus on getting the cases down. Travel restrictions are IMHO a very powerful tool to achieve that.

But you'd need to keep them in place; it's not as simple as adding restrictions then the issue goes away. It does not work like that.

Whats selfish is those disregarding rules designed to get us out of this.

The restrictions are not designed to 'get us out of this' and will not eliminate the virus; instead the restrictions are (rightly or wrongly, I'm not getting into that on this post) intended to reduce pressure on the NHS

Im not telling anyone how to feel. Its a very tough situation, everyone is experiencing it differently.

What we share is that we are living under prescribed rules that are for the greater good.

The rules are definitely not designed for the greater good of everyone; they favour certain groups over others. That is surely not in question; the question is surely whether or not the right issues are prioritised, which of course is not an easy debate to have.

You’re not asking me to speak for the first minister are you?

All valid arguments, I think we should go faster and be more restrictive.

Bute house isn’t being nearly aggressive enough for me. Let’s just start tomorrow. I don’t see how else we even start to can this virus.

If your aim is to have very low levels of the virus, this means very aggressive restrictions for a very long time, and not lift them. As soon as you lift them, cases will grow again (except in the Summer of course, but that's a very long way away right now!); how long do you think people would accept being in a state of aggressive restrictions for? I think you'd need to have harsh restrictions until the end of April if you wanted to ensure the virus remained at very low levels. From 1st May onwards you may still see a rise when they are lifted, but by then enough elderly people should be vaccinated that it won't matter if cases rise. But could you really lock people down aggressively until the end of April? How much would that cost? Such an act would put young lives in danger.