LIKE everyone, the pandemic and lockdowns were a difficult time for me and my family and while part of my job was scrutinising the UK Government, I was also just trying to do my best in the most difficult circumstances that many of us have ever faced.
With that in mind, I welcomed the idea of a public inquiry into the handling of the pandemic, to put those life and death decisions under the microscope and see what we as a country, as legislators, as people, could or should have done differently.
Not to be alarmist but Covid was unprecedented, “lockdown” was something that happened in movies, and there are no guarantees something similar won’t happen in the future.
READ MORE: Ruth Wishart: Covid Inquiry is missing the point - as is Starmer's Labour
So, if for no other reason than to know what not to do next time, an inquiry was an important opportunity for us.
For obvious reasons, I haven’t been able to watch the whole inquiry, but I have watched some of it and some very important questions have been asked, some very useful information has been gathered. However, so much of it has been a mix between gossip mag reporting and a show trial.
Trawling through personal WhatsApp messages where people were either venting frustration or making the odd joke as a coping mechanism for the incredible stress they were under does us all a disservice. It belittles and undermines the importance of the process.
It has turned what should have been an operational assessment of decision-making into a hyper-partisan point-scoring contest and an opportunity for some in the media to settle perceived scores.
Just take a look at your own private WhatsApp messages and tell me you haven’t said something you don’t actually mean, just as a way of venting to someone you trust.
Now I do realise that politicians should always be open to scrutiny – and I’m not questioning that in the slightest.
READ MORE: All UK governments should join Scottish WhatsApp review, SNP say
However, it seems to me that some of the opinion, commentary and analysis press pieces on Nicola Sturgeon’s evidence were written in people’s heads – if not already on paper – long before she said a single word.
The deliberate twisting of evidence to suit predetermined attack lines has been plain to see and really should embarrass all involved.
But realistically they were never going to forgive Nicola for showing the people of Scotland that a country can be led by serious and dedicated individuals instead of the rotating door or circus characters Westminster keeps throwing our way.
This was always going to be their moment to tear her down.
Thankfully, this particular politician is not for tearing down and she handled herself with integrity, grace and honesty.
That’s not to say that every decision made in Scotland was the right one or that there was nothing that could have been done better. I am sure there are a whole host of things that could and should be done differently next time – as Nicola herself has said – but will the inquiry be allowed to actually find out that important information or will it all be lost as we talk endlessly about who called who an “arsehole”?
Maybe we should have had a gossip inquiry so the parochial partisans could have a feeding frenzy and then let some professionals get to the bottom of the decisions taken with the available evidence in the real inquiry.
Of course, there are people who are still grieving and want answers, and in some cases, they want someone to blame.
My criticism is not aimed at them. I lost nobody in the pandemic and how can I ever know how they felt and still feel? My concern, however, is that the answers they want will get lost in the gossip element of it.
We must also be aware that there are a lot of people out there willing to feed on that grief and use it for self-promotion or to advance their political narrative, more interested in misogynistic conspiracy theories and soundbites than anything else.
It does the country no good to be able to say we tore down this or that politician of any party – and, though this is a topic for another day, the violence behind that language needs to stop – if all we have is a scalp and no better understanding of how to protect lives if or when the next pandemic hits.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel