M-m-m-my Corona…

[sonofrgmsdad]

The explanation was given repeatedly. By all means question it but you can’t say it wasnt given. All these decisions are made out of a desire to protect public health. To suggest any different is just moonhowling nonsense

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.

[Mason89]

No, repeat no, explanation was given other than the ludicrious suggestion that there were different circumstances.

So there was one. There we go, got there in the end.

All you have to do now is work out what’s more ludicrous. That the experts in public health advising the FM based on the evidence at hand made an informed decision, or that Wee Krankie hates the NE.

[sonofrgmsdad]

So there was one. There we go, got there in the end.

All you have to do now is work out what’s more ludicrous. That the experts in public health advising the FM based on the evidence at hand made an informed decision, or that Wee Krankie hates the NE.

What is it about there being no explanation that you don't understand? No explanation has been given about why the restrictions were chosen for each location.None. They said the circumstances were different, fair enough but that doesn't answer the legitimate question being asked. It doesn't explain why certain sets of restrictions were appropriate for one and a considerably lesser set of restrictions were applied to the other. That has not been explained.
You talk about the experts advising the FM but she then makes a political decision but refuses to explain, as per the question above. To say a political decision was made on the experts advice without explaining why the advice (or as we expect) the political decision was made is unacceptable. Neither is calling reasonable questions of the government, trying to understand their decisions, ludicrious.

[Mason89]

They said the circumstances were different, fair enough

Righto.

[57vintage]

However the virus spread, either via stupid behaviour in pubs, or complacency in domestic visits, it's the lack of the five-mile limit on travel that we had to endure up here, in Lanarkshire and Clydeside, that is the mystery.

Surely the circumstances of the spread within the respective locations are irrelevant if people are carriers, and can then travel to spread it beyond the areas of high incidence?

Asymptomatic carriers, or those who are infected but are not yet displaying symptoms, heading out of the affected area are surely a huge risk in spreading the lurgy.

We had to suck it up, and it affected a number of important plans we'd made. We complied because we were told by experts that it was the right and proper thing to do, yet there could be visitors here, or elsewhere outside the area of concern, from the high-risk, high-incidence area, freely and unknowingly infecting others.

Has there been an explanation for that?

[sonofrgmsdad]

Righto.

Just like the politicians you are ignoring the question. Carry on sticking your head in the sand. Questions will still be asked. Just because the question isn't being answered doesn't mean it is not a legitimate question. The point you seem to be suggesting is the answer is only the start of the answer not the answer.

If we don't ask questions, and stick our head in the sand, we end up in a one party state. Opposition has a duty to ask, and hopefully expect, a full reply.

[Mason89]

Just like the politicians you are ignoring the question. Carry on sticking your head in the sand. Questions will still be asked. Just because the question isn't being answered doesn't mean it is not a legitimate question. The point you seem to be suggesting is the answer is only the start of the answer not the answer.

If we don't ask questions, and stick our head in the sand, we end up in a one party state. Opposition has a duty to ask, and hopefully expect, a full reply.

The question was answered though. You may not like the answer but it was certainly given. As for the other concerns raised, I’d just point out the same thing. The SG is reacting & planning to the best of its ability on the ever changing nature of this, based on the expert advice offered. If wee Jimmy Nippy disregarded that advice & it all went pear shaped, then she would get even more abuse than she already does.
I trust she’s doing her best. I absolutely know we’re in safer hands with her than any of the other pellets in Holyrood that want a shot. If anyone genuinely believes she’s wanting to f*ck over the NE, then they’re completely bushed

[57vintage]

The question was answered though. You may not like the answer but it was certainly given. As for the other concerns raised, I’d just point out the same thing. The SG is reacting & planning to the best of its ability on the ever changing nature of this, based on the expert advice offered. If wee Jimmy Nippy disregarded that advice & it all went pear shaped, then she would get even more abuse than she already does.
I trust she’s doing her best. I absolutely know we’re in safer hands with her than any of the other pellets in Holyrood that want a shot. If anyone genuinely believes she’s wanting to f*ck over the NE, then they’re completely bushed

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, but without an explanation for the lack of travel lockdown for the current areas of concern, there is the potential for uncontrolled spread of the virus into areas currently showing far lower rates on incidence. Did they learn from the Aberdeen lockdown that this wasn't a risk? I very much doubt that. We have a right to raise the question, but it seems that no **** is listening, or willing to explain. I can also see why some people would conclude from that that there is disparity of treatment across the otherwise homogenised country, and some others would take that a step further and read it as a political decision, not necessarily to the detriment of the NE, but to the economic and social advantage of the locked down area.

[sonofrgmsdad]

The question was answered though. You may not like the answer but it was certainly given. As for the other concerns raised, I’d just point out the same thing. The SG is reacting & planning to the best of its ability on the ever changing nature of this, based on the expert advice offered. If wee Jimmy Nippy disregarded that advice & it all went pear shaped, then she would get even more abuse than she already does.
I trust she’s doing her best. I absolutely know we’re in safer hands with her than any of the other pellets in Holyrood that want a shot. If anyone genuinely believes she’s wanting to f*ck over the NE, then they’re completely bushed

You keep sticking your head in the sand if it makes you happy.

You know the questions haven't been answered. The right or wrongs of the decisions taken are for peoples opinions. But that should be based on the facts. You refuse to accept the facts haven't been produced choosing to ignore the questions and lack of answers.

I do though object to words like ludicrious and bushed when simply asking questions which haven't been answered and have been noted by quite a few posters on here and in other forums. You are choosing to see only what you want to see.

Nicola may have been basing her decisions on what was the "right thing to do" but as a politician it is up to her to show that in her opinion (which is what we've got politicians for) she was doing just that. Despite your protestations she has consistently refused to do that instead resorting to denegrading those who ask the questions she should, for her benefit, answer.