Not a single comment after 20 hours!

Hah! What are Baillie and Murray doing chatting to socialists? I bet Daniel, Soryia and Rubio are a bit less keen on nuclear weapons and NATO bombing in the Middle-East than those two Blairites are.

Daniel likes Bernie Sanders and Evo Morales a lot and Soriya likes Jeremy Corbyn. Remind me, what do Baillie and Murray think of Corbyn?

Needless to say, they think they’ve found another stick to beat the SNP with and will use socialist research if need be.

The report in question was produced by Scientists for Labour. I’m OK with that and the Scotsman do mention that. They have an agenda and so do I. As long as you’re open about it and use reliable evidence for your arguments, I’m sure we’re all willing to listen.

At the outset, there is a problem with expertise, lack of it. None of the 5 authors is an epidemiologist like Prof Bauld at Edinburgh for example, or a virologist, like the three profs at Edinburgh, Stirling and Glasgow. That’s not a fatal weakness, but again, worth noting.

Regrettably there are shocking omissions in the report which for all its efforts make its conclusions worthless and open to exploitation by politicians:

There is no mention of the SAGE meeting where CMOs and chief scientific advisers from the devolved administrations could only listen in, could not ask questions and instead had to submit them in writing beforehand and so does not explore what this suggests about the UK Government’s ability to control the first phase of the response.

There is no mention of Dominic Cummings, his presence at SAGE, the secrecy of the files, his ideological attachment to the herd immunity strategy and his influence on the PM as evidenced in phrases like ‘take it on the chin.’

There is no mention of the Four Nations Approach, based on promises of funding and of consultation, which tricked the devolved areas into lock-down delay as the Johnson regime began a herd immunity strategy.

There is no mention of the inability of the devolved areas to fund lock-down measures with, for example, furlough schemes, nor of the fact that the devolution of powers over lock-down were only granted from 25th March, nearly three months after the first cases.

There is no mention of the UK Government’s reserved policy failure to control the many thousands daily, of asymptomatic air travellers arriving in Scotland and the clear evidence that they are the major cause of transmission.

So, once more, apparent effort but ideologically blinded research leading to nothing of value. Indeed reading it, I was reminded of Churchill’s put-down of Attlee’s speeches:

Like a trip to Woolworths, everything in its place but nothing above sixpence!’