The inquiry into Scotland’s Covid-19 response is under way and it would not be an exaggeration to say that it is the most important inquiry in the history of devolution.
Led by Lord Brailsford, it will investigate Scotland’s “response to the Covid-19 pandemic” to find out what worked and what did not.
The terms of reference are broad, given the scale of the task at hand. Beyond the current furore surrounding missing WhatsApp messages, one vital question is missing or is so buried in the bureaucracy that it is rendered invisible: did we go too far?
Many died around the world and each loss was a tragedy. But we lost more than life, we lost our liberties.
The restrictions robbed us of the ability to leave the house, see friends, dine out, or go to the pub. Students were forced into a cheap hologram version of university life. Businesses went over the cliff or teetered on the edge of it. Many Scots were unable to say goodbye to dying relatives, having to make do with cemetery by Skype.
Advertisement
It was a dark time for Scottish and British freedom. We didn’t all lose equally, but we all lost something.
We must know if every sacrifice was worth it or if, even if it is in one or two specific cases, the steps taken were excessive.
The list of core participants is discouraging in this regard. A glance at the list reveals a cadre of bodies who are likely to be on the Scottish government’s side, or at least on the side of caution. Few, if any, are set to be critical of the Scottish government’s response from a point of view of its impact on freedom.
It includes the Royal College of Nursing, Scottish Care, The Care Inspectorate, local councils, and other authorities who were at the coal face during the pandemic. It would not to be to sully their reputations to say that such organisations are more likely to urge caution and safety, even at the expense of liberty. That is the frightening consensus taking shape.
Worse still, it includes no organisations committed explicitly to personal freedom. This is, surely, a grievous mistake.
Advertisement
It is difficult to see where a voice arguing that the response was excessive will come from. And, without it, the inquiry will be impotent.
Lord Brailsford’s team has a unique opportunity available to it. It will shape a key area of policy for the foreseeable future. If it is to fulfil its remit, it must not seek refuge in the false security of consensus. It must also be aware that safety is not the only thing in society to treasure; freedom matters too.
To be worthy of the task ahead, it must ask the tough, necessary, questions. “Did we go too far?” would be a good place to start.
Alan Grant is a freelance writer and columnist
