From stewartb:
Today (1 June) the Daily Record tells its readers that the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland is complimenting the SNP Scottish Government’s handling of the virus in Scotland. Yes, that is correct! He is reported as saying: “On the whole, I think they’ve handled it well. I think they’re precautionary approach is one that we support.” I’m sure the Scottish Government is mightily relieved to have his positive endorsement!
But in this are we seeing a split, a difference of opinion between Mr Leonard and that of Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray MP?
Despite this and in what looks like a struggle for relevance, the Daily Record still grants Mr Leonard the opportunity to take a swipe at the Scottish Government. According to the Record, he is claiming that the Scottish Government’s response to coronavirus is not being submitted to enough parliamentary scrutiny. The purpose of the Record’s headline (below) is clear: it’s framing is designed to be negative. However the article is free of any evidence from Mr Leonard in support of his contention.
‘Scottish Government pandemic response not facing enough scrutiny from MSPs, says Richard Leonard
The Scottish Labour leader said MSPs were not being given enough opportunities to question the fight against coronavirus.’
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-government-pandemic-response-not-22117920
Candidly, it is too easy to refute Mr Leonard’s claim by using information from the Scottish Parliament’s website – unless of course Mr Leonard or the Daily Record wish to specify what is and is not in their view the appropriate benchmark for ‘enough opportunities to question’. And that benchmark they have failed to provide.
The Parliament website lists all active parliamentary committees and their recent/current business agendas. This includes the specific, focused Covid-19 committee which has already convened seven meetings. It also lists the other parliamentary committees that have addressed Covid-19 matters of relevance to their own remit. A search of the Parliament’s website reveals that 12 individual committees have addressed Covid-19 matters on at least one sitting.
In addition there have been c. 11 First Minister Questions sessions since mid-February, including extended sessions. In addition there have been opportunities for ’topical questions’ and ‘urgent questions’ put to government ministers to answer.
There is also a lengthy archived account now of debates in the Holyrood chamber that addressed Covid-19 related matters, numbering c. 25 at least.
Source: https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/DebateBrowse.aspx?year=2020
In response a Scottish Government spokesperson states: ”Ministers across all portfolios have continued to put themselves forward for committee appearances to ensure legislation and decisions are properly scrutinised as we navigate our way through and out of the coronavirus pandemic, and are making every effort to maximise time in the parliamentary chamber to devote to the issue.” The record of parliamentary business posted online by the Holyrood authorities supports the government spokesperson’s account.
So it is incumbent on Mr Leonard to justify why ‘accountability’ – something important to our democracy – has been deficient. Quality political journalism on such an important subject would do more than simply quote an opposition politician’s claim: the journalist surely should ask even just one question of Mr Leonard in order to elicit evidence to justify his claim. This is not ‘rocket science’!
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Correct , if Leonard thinks there has not been enough scrutiny that is his failing . He is there to scrutinise the government actions tell them where he thinks things should have been done differently and the reasons why, he has not done any of that , he has had plenty of opportunities, he is condemning himself and showing up his inadequacies ! .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Coincidentally, Mr Jackson Carlaw deployed exactly the same argument regarding accountability. I wonder if both were reading from the same brief from, say, Scotland in Union?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Leotards enemies are not in front of him, but behind—-in the form of Baillie and Murray.
Murray, especially wants to strip Holyrood of powers in a form of “radical federalism” which appears to be the diometric opposite of federal.
He also thinks that winning a mandate (again!) for Indyref2 in 2021, the SNP will sit on its collective thumb until 2024 when Labour(having somehow gained 10 seats in Scotland) will veto the whole idea, and Scotland fade into its traditional obscurity under a Labour government.
By 2024 we will either be independent, or negotiating independence.
Murray will can carry on peddling his fantasies at Speakers Corner, but no one in Scotland will hear his pish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you don’t ask the question
You don’t get the answer
So newspapers and BBC don’t ask the appropriate questions
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m about to write something unforgiveable and I apologise in advance. My only excuse is that I am Grammar Nazi by training.
I worked for a couple of Scottish councils and wrote papers, proposals for projects, bids for funding and so on for a living. My councillor and even my directorate colleagues didn’t always appreciate the importance of good grammar and punctuation, but I hung out with enough inspectors and Scottish government officers to know how their eyebrows shot up when they came across bad grammar. Journalists didn’t matter. Most of them wouldn’t recognise good grammar if it bit them on the arse.
Some posts on this blog need proofreading and sometimes editing. On today’s post:
<<He is reported as saying: "On the whole, I think they've handled it well. I think they're (= they are) precautionary approach is one that we support.”
<<The purpose of the Record’s headline (below) is clear: it’s (= it is) framing is designed to be negative.
This is an important blog and as it gathers more and more readers, presentation becomes more important. It's important not to slow down the publication but there must be people out there who are prepared to do a quick proofread.
LikeLike
Oh dear.
Look what I found on the front page of your own blog:
‘I’m thinking of the man who said on TV Britain had managed before the EU and would fine after Brexit, adding ‘After all, we still have the Empire.’’
I wonder what ‘Britain ‘ will do with all that loot they will generate from the fines they issue – perhaps pay for grammar lessons?
LikeLike
I’ll has u no eye got a Cee in Higher English as recently as 1968! Proof read? This is my blog. ‘Published’ from a ‘study’ shared with all the garbage we cant get in the garage or the loft.
LikeLike
There is no wish on my part to compare professional credentials with contributors. They’re entitled to share or to remain reserved as their interests dictate. However, the quality of writing in this their favourite blog may be of interest to many of its readers. It’s possible that some regard its adherence to ‘good grammar’ as crucial to its credibility. It’s also important for its readability. It’s for this reason and for the reputation of its editor and its contributors, that I respond.
Firstly, on the reference made to the incorrect use of ‘they’re’, this appeared in a quotation. It is taken directly, exactly as it appeared, from the Daily Record. Now the TuSC writer or editor could have inserted ‘sic’ (‘intentionally so written’) but candidly, would this have risked the TuSC’s status as a pomposity-free zone?
As to the missing apostrophe, it wasn’t the first and it won’t be last even with best endeavours.
Notwithstanding my response, I too agree on the importance of good grammatical standards. I await further scrutiny in the days, weeks and months to come.
LikeLike
Ya rotter. I feel as if I’ve been watchingUniversity Challenge and somebody has just went and beat me tae the punchline.
LikeLiked by 1 person