Characteristically, it is Stu Campbell at Wings Over Scotland who calls attention to the First Minister’s back-pedalling on the aim of eliminating coronavirus in Scotland (Expressing a preference). His forensic eye spotted the relevant part of Nicola Sturgeon’s Programme for Government speech (see below). The following is my response to Stu’s understandable suspicion that the Scottish Government might “want to accept the prospect of the pandemic going on indefinitely”. I think Nicola Sturgeon may have had another reason for the back-pedalling. A reason not unrelated to what Stu Campbell suspects.
Total elimination of coronavirus in Scotland is as close to impossible as makes no difference. As long as the virus exists somewhere in the world it is still a threat and precautions still have to be taken. This is true of countries which control their borders. It must be even more true of Scotland where we have no such control.
Isolation is the key to eliminating the virus to whatever extent this may be possible. The point of eliminating it within the population of a country is that this allows a move away from individual, household and community isolation to isolation at a national level. Which is obviously far less intrusive and burdensome for the vast majority of people. Only those travelling across the border would be trouble by the precautions. Otherwise, life can return to something approaching what was previously considered normal.
I think Nicola Sturgeon has realised that if she hoped to achieve elimination of coronavirus in Scotland this would require that she confront the British government on the issue of border control and win that confrontation. Nicola Sturgeon does not do confrontational politics. We know that painfully well from her performance regarding the constitutional issue. She remains wedded to the Section 30 process for the same reason she has had to back-pedal on eliminating coronavirus. She will not do the kind of assertive – even aggressive – politics that would be necessary if she didn’t.
Which begs the question – is Nicola Sturgeon a leader for our time?
13 thoughts on “Is Nicola Sturgeon a leader for our time?”
She’s a good administrator, not a leader.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol, thats funny. Did you read that in the Daily Mail or the Express, even worse is it your grown-up opinion?
It’s quite a bit more grown-up than your infantile response.
I think you’re on the right track there Brian. In professional life management and leadership have entirely different meanings. True leadership requires vision on how to proceed in making things happen and reaching the desired goal. The vision of independence that most of us have will in my opinion fall short under the leadership of Nicola.
This is not to say that I don’t admire her management and administration qualities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No she is not. She is an administrator wedded to her legal brain’s outlook. Alex Salmond is a leader which is probably why all the “communicators” dislike and fear him. What the Independence movement needs today someone who will push back. And while I’m at it John Swinney is a deplorable leader but an administrator like Nicola. and it does not suit our cause to have two of the same at the top.
LikeLiked by 2 people
1. “She remains wedded to the Section 30 process” – she didn’t say that, so how would you know? See my reply on the previous article for what she DID say. And no, in reply to any question about my opinion, I’m not a mind-reader EITHER.
2. Elimination is not the same as eradication. And like you, I’m not a medical expert EITHER.
3. Campbell’s “foresensic” eye involves taking Tom Gordon’s opinion of what Sturgeon said. Eh? Who’s the next quoted authority – the DM? Oh – did that already in a previous article. Should have gone to Specsavers.
1. Nicola Sturgeon is on record as saying she is committed to the Section 30 process. Until she states otherwise, that remains case. Unless you want to claim she’s been lying all this time.
2. You don’t know me, fool. You have absolutely no knowledge of my areas of expertise or learning. Elimination is clearly enough defined and is the term used by the Scottish Government.
3. Stu Campbell’s article was prompted by the extract from the printed PfG which he displayed as an image. He provides sources for everything he cites. If you can demonstrate that he has misattributed something or misquoted someone, show us. Or shut up.
In future, think before you post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is really too easy.
1. You said “She remains wedded to the Section 30 process” but whatever she may or may not have said before, there is nothing in her statement yesterday, or the 139 page pdf, to show she is “wedded to the Section 30 process”, therefore your statement that “She remains …” fails any test of validity
2. I know enough about you to have noticed that in place of reasoned debate you get abusive. However, that doesn’t make you qualified as an epidemologist. But elimination is clearly enough defined, the Scottish Government has indeed used the term, but not in the way you assert.
3. His article has the image of Gordon’s article, and others, but fails to point out that these are not actual quotations but what the author says the person says. Perhaps he relies on the ignorance of his readers to make a point which is not actually valid, as the newspaper articles his points are based on are often inaccurate. For instance in a previous article he has an image of a newspaper article headlined “Bill to set out timing of Scottish independence referendum to be published within a year”. While accurate in that it will be published within a year, it is actually highly misleading in that what Sturgeon said, and I quote, was “… before the end of this Parliament, we will publish a draft Bill”. Parliament will be dissolved before the end of March, less than 7 months away, way shorter than “within a year”. So much for the “forensic eye”, which has long gone from his blog. Imagine quoting what Unionist media has to say and taking it as reality, that would never have happened in the old days.
In future, searching for the Truth will set you free. And that includes accuracy.
I’m not even going to bother reading that. Don’t you have to visit your shrine to St Nicola?
I meantg to say “published within a year” is correct but not accurate. It might as well say “published within a decade”, the idea being to give an impression that it will be kicked into the long grass without actually lying. That’s how the media works, and the Rev would in the old days, have been the first to jump all over it.
“I’m not even going to bother reading that. Don’t you have to visit your shrine to St Nicola?”
That’s your loss not mine. As for the attempted cheap shot, unlike yourself I’m non-aligned, no political party owns my mind or body.
‘Is she a leader for our time?’
No. She is the ‘gold standard’ head of a colonial administration, doing an extremely good job on behalf of our rulers. A ‘colonised mind’ par excellence.
Boris, Michael and Dominic can sleep easy at nights, whilst Nicola is in place.
Sadly, she actually may just be the “leader for our time”.
YES appears overflowing with those who shy away from any confrontation and want to be everyone’s friend. There is a strong streak of glass jawed politics being played against a state who has no such qualms.
Nicola is the leader for and of that majority view.