Look at the wording:
Scotland’s supply of PPE has been bolstered after 11 million face masks and 100,000 testing kits arrived from China. It comes after Chinese suppliers sent a shipment of 10 million masks earlier in the week. One million of the new masks will go to NHS Wales. Scottish businesses have also provided supplies and equipment to support the fight against Covid-19. The first minister has praised the more than 1,600 organisations and individuals that have helped.
Isn’t it likely that the Scottish Government took the initiative here, using its links to Chinese officials and industrialists, ironically often criticised by the opposition parties via BBC Scotland reporting? BBC Scotland’s wording suggest that some amorphous entity called ‘China’ just thought one day, ‘Let’s send 10 million masks to those struggling Scots!’
Did those Scottish businesses, likewise, just think one day, ‘Let’s provide supplies and equipment’ or were they perhaps contacted by a Scottsih Government department?
As for the First Minister, did she praise them for helping as they did, or for surprising her completely with the idea that they could?
Right at the end we read:
Jim Miller, director for procurement, commissioning and facilities at NHS National Services Scotland, said: “A big part of what we were doing in NHS Scotland procurement is to look at how the money we spend with suppliers can have a positive impact on the Scottish economy.”
Wait a minute, is he suggesting that a government department has a strategy and isn’t just waiting around for business folk, Chinese or Scottish, to come to them and wake them from their stupor, with a big idea? Surely not.
This is a nice example of unconscious bias. Nobody set out to understate the role of the Scottish Government. They just did what comes naturally, driven by well-established routines learned over years within a culture where the Union is normal and where the notion of the SNP Government as a positive force just does not compute.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Indeed indeed, it does appear the Scottish government actually forked out money and bought them, possibly after placing an order for them. It appears it wasn’t some random generous donation emerging from China:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Maxwellsnp/status/1253777198923866119
I’m sure we’ll hear about it if they cost a fortune and the SG has gone ‘over budget’, oh how we love to get our news from the MSM. I’m still waiting to hear how many of them will be getting contempt of court orders over seriously biased reporting before and during and after the Alex Salmond trial, the courts must be overwhelmed they are that slow to get them issued.
LikeLiked by 1 person
China is no fool on the geo political global stage
It is well aware this pandemic and the utter incompetence of D.Trump and the undoubted fiscal consequences upon their type of corporate capitalism will lead to US hegemony over the worlds commodities and markets can be ended for ever
Further more they see a opportunity in possibly aiding Scotland Indy knowing
Such presents them with the likely hood of Westminster becoming so impoverished that they cannot replace Trident then lose UN security council seat and the veto
It is called killing 2 birds with the one stone
Study Chinese history they never have had desires for colinisation of others and all policies are concentrated on benefiting
Their own people enmasse
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m not sure if you have covered the ScotGov report John? On the exit strategy stuff:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-framework-decision-making/
A bit repetitive in places and still says ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ a lot (all the waffly politics-speak) , but once you get through that it’s a nicely set out document and gives a good idea of ScotGov thinking – and I’m very pleased to see it involves thinking seriously about contact tracing as part of it, and generally the thinking about the plans has a solid basis and looks good. This looks like a proper break from the Westminster cull doctrine, though it does clearly state that the ukgov is in charge of borders, and they are very leaky at the moment (with no sign of being tightened).
Two things I’m curious about – what is the ‘national conversation’ stuff? I might try emailing the given address to see if they really do want our opinion. The other thing is a vague reference to *permanent* changes – with nothing noted on what they might be – does anyone have any clues to what they might be?
Anyway, it’s good stuff from ScotGov, and once they decide on a strategy they should be well able to organise it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Too much work for a hack like moi!
You?
You well?
LikeLike
I would say you’re just being lazy, but you are turning out articles by the thousand! (Almost) It’s not a long read though?
I’m well thank you, busy though; stupidly started doing decorating and stuff, but now work has picked up,,, oh it’s chaos. And why are folk so noisy as soon as the sun comes out? Why do people want to spoil the beautiful sunshine with their noise and,,, I’ve been stuck indoors too long!!
Are you still getting out on your mega-distancing walks? I’m guessing the dog demands it anyway 😀
LikeLike
Re- “I might try emailing the given address to see if they really do want our opinion.”
The ‘Feedback’ page at the link below looks sufficiently substantive to suggest that input is indeed wanted and being encouraged. Given that public consultations are such a major part of the SG’s legislative development process, I have no reason at present to doubt the genuine intention to extend the process of public engagement, albeit less structured, to assist in resolving present challenges and dilemmas.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-framework-decision-making/pages/10/
It will be interesting to learn over the next weeks what public take-up of the offer to input there has been.
LikeLike
Hi stewartb, Nicola Sturgeon sent me an email and said:
“Take time to read the document published today. If you have views, email them direct to: CPE@gov.scot”
So that’s the email address I was talking about. Did you not get an email? I’ve already written to my MSP about stuff, but I have a few ideas about creating opportunities for increasing the general hygiene levels in public that I might put in.
I’m not sure the public consultations are a substantive part of the legislative process in all cases though – they’ve passed legislation just the other day about representation on public boards, and happen to have redefined the meaning of *woman* already in that, so I guess I’ll have to resign myself to being in the category of non-man soon enough after all. This is unlikely to be popular and it’s not being done transparently (no published consultation data), so forgive my lack of trust, but as long as I see evidence – which I think there is with their Covid19 strategy – I will believe they are really involving public opinion in this, so all strength to them and I will engage with it.
LikeLike
Regarding this written by Contrary:
“I’m not sure the public consultations are a substantive part of the legislative process in all cases though – they’ve passed legislation just the other day about representation on public boards, …. ”
I can’t vouch for the ‘quality’ of consultation nor whether you would agree or not with either the majority view of contributors or how these were acted upon, but consultations there certainly were! (There may also have been a substantive Parliamentary Committee enquiry as part of the legislative process which also took evidence form ‘stakeholders’ – and then of course debate and vote/s in the chamber in Holyrood.)
Here are the consultations:
‘A Scottish Government consultation on Implementation of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018′
Source:https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-consultation-implementation-gender-representation-public-boards-scotland-act-2018/
and this:
‘A Scottish Government Consultation on the Draft Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Bill’
Source: https://consult.gov.scot/equality-unit/draft-gender-representation-on-public-boards/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Stewart! I didn’t find that, some interesting responses there too. From a random sample, most organisations broadly sort of agreeing and most individuals not really. Not sure I can be bothered to see if they do have analysis of them too. It’s just bizarre forcing 50-50 representation on a public board, but then saying, actually anyone who fancies it can be a woman, so then you can have an all male board anyway. Why bother making the legislation? Anyway, it’s done now, we’ll see how it pans out in due course.
LikeLike
Oops, no, sorry, its was a consultation on the implementing of the Act last year that wasn’t published – I only did a half hearted search after reading this piece:
https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/blog-shifting-sands-on-the-definition-of-woman-in-scots-law
LikeLike
My thanks are due (!) to the BBC News website for an article dated 22 April which shared a useful insight from a Tory government minister.
It’s yet something else to have ready for use when next we have British Nationalists/Unionists scaremongering – and if true to form, they will – about how an independent Scotland would suffer from not being able to rely on the ‘broad shoulders’ of the UK in a health emergency such as we are facing at present.
It’s from the Tory care minister, Helen Whately. According to the BBC: ‘she said there was an “international market” in PPE and stressed the importance of maintaining “reciprocal working relationships” with other countries.’
Presumably the maintenance of such important reciprocal relations in future crises would include with one’s nearest neighbour even after it had become an independent nation-state again?
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52378491
LikeLike
I don’t really know what will be made of the “conversation”. George Kerevan has a piece in Bella about the recruits to advise on changes to the economy. Says they are the same old, same old and awfy conservative when radical is needed.
I sent them the piece I found about Taiwan using digital means to enhance the democracy.
I’ve been thinking about the Scottish gov using borrowing powers to buy up land and property that becomes vacant as a result of covid and putting it to different purpose.About doing something instead of nothing about inequalities. Doing it locally, not centrally.
Have a go. Be adventurous.
LikeLike
I agree with this Sam and the more folk do and do so ‘adventurously” the better – the more impactful they may prove to have been over time.
I think this is all part of influencing the ‘Overton Window’, that range of policies politically recognised as being acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time.
I strongly suspect that visitors to this site will be familiar with the concept: I came across it first only about a year ago. Named after Joseph P. Overton, my (simplistic?) understanding is that the window frames the range of policies that a politician feels able to support without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office given the prevailing climate of public opinion.
So we the public need to keep demonstrating the nature and scope of what we wish to see happen in terms of policy and by extension what we will vote for.
LikeLike
I suspect, without much evidence, that the Yes movement is much more willing to be different (left?) than the Scottish government. Some huntin, shootin estates will be available for purchase and I hope the SG will buy them and try,if possible to change land use.
LikeLike