Here's me moonhowling. No, repeat no, explanation was given other than the ludicrious suggestion that there were different circumstances. There was no reasoning why the Aberdeen circumstances led to an extensive set of restrictions whilst the Glasgow circumstances led to a lesser set of restrictions. Nowhere has anybody tried to explain this. You suggesting that an explation has been given without showing what that explanation is, is trully moonhowling. If we knew why decisions were made this conversation wouldn't be happening.
Dismissing a legitimate question about a political decision doesn't mean the question isn't legitimate. It just means you don't want to consider it.




Reply With Quote