THE “revelations” about WhatsApp messages, their content and their absence abound, continuing to energise the media and generating more heat than light to us, the general public.
It appears that these new “convenient and secure” messaging systems have overwhelmed the protocols and processes that our parliamentarians in all of the parliaments follow, and taken them by surprise.
READ MORE: Kate Forbes 'wasn't invited' to Gold Command Covid meetings
Should they “bare all” in terms of these messaging systems content? Some, the media and anyone with an axe to grind say aye. Others agree these informal, non-approved communications systems should be considered essentially private thoughts and discussions, where complex issues are discussed and aired in order to first understand issues and ramifications.
Ultimately, decisions will be arrived at and the rationale(s) behind each decision must be captured and stored for scrutiny.
Several commentators on this complex piece of our lives have suggested that all discussions on WhatsApp should be retained as evidence of the decision-making processes. This suggested requirement immediately throws the parliamentary protocols and procedures under a bus.
When people discuss issues, during the process there are times where discussion throws up unpalatable suggestions and comments which are not held by the commentator but are inserted into the discussion and information points. Being a “critical friend” or a “devil’s advocate” are typical of these types of comments.
READ MORE: Andrew Tickell: We must protect experts such as Devi Sridhar who speak up
No-one would make these types of helpful comments on messaging systems if, in a few months’ time, when all of the immediate drive and panic has past, they would be submitted to an inquiry, thus the discussions would be “censored”. That cannot be a good process to allow to develop where freedom of speech is muzzled.
Capturing then storing these messages for later “picking though” using FOI requests is only the start. Should parliamentarians’ meetings with “lobbyists” be minuted? Should the capturing of meetings in the building or even in the pub, where MPs or MSPs are talking to government officials or councillors, require to be saved and captured or minuted? Better still, let’s use the police interview system where all discussions are recorded.
Maybe Elon Musk’s company NeuraLink has seen the future where even our thoughts can be captured and picked over without a word being said.
Politicians are humans, some more than others, so let’s not set rules for the bad ones.
Lets make sure the screening processes weed out the bad ones, before they get hold of the steering wheel or brake.
Alistair Ballantyne
Angus
ALTHOUGH Michael Gove’s report was published months later, it had almost certainly been under consideration around the time of the unexpected, unexplained and unnecessary visit to Scotland by Boris Johnson on January 28 2021, during the time when only essential travel was allowed. That visit appears to have been triggered by a series of polls favouring independence that culminated in a Times poll with 54% in favour of independence.
If anyone is in doubt about the purpose of the visit, they only need look at the itinerary and the official announcements. Downing Street claimed that his visit was to ensure that Boris Johnson remained “visible” as the “physical representative” of the UK Government while stressing the benefits for Scotland of being in the UK.
READ MORE: Michael Gove's secret 'risk to Union' report revealed at Covid Inquiry
Judging by the photo shoots, his visit appears to have been very limited: the airport, the UK Government-funded test lab and the UK Army in Glasgow followed by the UK Government contracted vaccine manufacturer in Livingston.
Officials reported that Westminster had delivered more than one million rapid lateral flow test kits to Scotland to date, paid for 62% of testing kits in Scotland and was funding the Lighthouse Testing Lab in Glasgow. They even had the brass neck to include the £8.6 billion that the UK Government had eventually allocated to the Scottish Government to support public services. The lack of that funding had delayed the imposition of lockdown in Scotland (and the other countries in the Union).
Boris Johnson had apparently briefed that the vaccine programme “was being administered across the United Kingdom by our armed forces, who are helping to establish 80 new vaccine centres across Scotland”, as this appeared in several papers. That must have come as a surprise to the Scottish Government.
READ MORE: Anger as Michael Gove pens secret 'state of Union' report mid-pandemic
Regardless of what Michael Gove claims, people will suspect that the report had been languishing in a drawer waiting for an appropriate moment to blame the Scottish Government for a resumption in independence campaigning.
The public now know that UK Government supremacy was never far from the minds of UK Government ministers throughout the pandemic.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
LEAVING aside Michael Gove’s use of the Covid inquiry to rubbish the Scottish Government, his report to the UK Government about Scottish independence being the second-biggest risk to the the UK makes it quite clear what that risk is. Gove is not worried about independence harming Scotland: he either knows it wouldn’t or doesn’t care.
He is clearly worried that the rUK would be unable to sustain itself without the income to its Treasury from Scottish oil, gas and renewable energy. In short, Gove (probably inadvertently) makes a strong case for Scottish independence.
Derek Ball
Bearsden
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here