TO travel or not to travel? That shouldn’t be the question, says Keir Starmer, because the government should be making clear that holidays to “amber list” countries are banned. So why are UK Government ministers giving mixed messages about whether non-emergency trips are permitted?
The Prime Minister helpfully responds with a mixed message of his own, emphasising that that those making trips for “emergency or any … er … extreme, any extreme reason” have to self-isolate for 10 days and that there will be hefty fines for anyone who doesn’t “obey the quarantine”.
Which isn’t particularly helpful since, as most of us know by now, there is quite a big difference between “self-isolation” (at home) and “quarantine” (in a hotel). Just to emphasise the clear message that no-one should be taking holidays to amber-list countries, he throws in a wee joke, suggesting Starmer must be keen to have a break. I’m so glad to see he’s taking the potential importation of new variants seriously. If only he’d manage to contain himself, I’m sure there will be opportunities in just a minute to gloat about the English local election results.
READ MORE: Scots urged to chase up refunds for cancelled foreign holidays
Does Johnson know how many people are arriving daily from amber-list countries? No, he doesn’t (or he does, but doesn’t want to tell us) but here are some statistics about different things. Then here he goes again saying how nice it would be if the Labour leader would “back him up for a change, using what authority he possesses” and cueing gales of forced laughter from the Tory benches. I’m so glad they are all enjoying themselves when talking about these life-or-death issues.
If there was any doubt as to the Prime Minister’s position on a trade deal for Australia, it’s dispelled by his response to the SNP’s Ian Blackford, who asks if Australian farmers will be granted tariff-free access to the UK market for their lamb and beef. It’s a yes/no question, but Johnson decides he’d rather comment on the size of Blackford’s croft, then suggest crofters and farmers simply aren’t being ambitious enough when it comes to exporting their own produce. “Why’s he so frightened of free trade?” he asks.
That’ll be a “yes” then, presumably. Blackford says the response will send a chill across Scotland’s farming communities. Johnson seems to think it will give them a kick up the arse. Just incredible.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson's Brexit deal with Australia will 'force Scots farmers off land'
Ah, here comes Scottish Tory Andrew Bowie to give the Prime Minister that opportunity to gloat about the election results. Oh but wait, the Tories didn’t quite win the Holyrood election, did they? Not to worry. “The Scottish people decided that Scotland would remain at the heart of this newly invigorated global Britain,” he says. My goodness, did we? How strange that a party with Scottish independence as its raison d’etre won by a landslide. But never mind the details, isn’t cherry blossom lovely? I’m quite sure Johnson will clear his diary to go and plant a tree in Stonehaven, despite being too busy to show his face during the election campaign.
Hywel Williams of Plaid Cymru is similarly concerned about the terms of the trade deal with Australia, which of course means that he too is lacking in ambition. Tory Virginia Crosbie has an even bigger ambition, it seems, to commit serpentine manslaughter by “breathing fire into the nostrils of the Welsh dragon.” Does nobody proof-read these ridiculous questions?
I can understand the desire of the SNP’s Richard Thomson to correct the record after Andrew Bowie’s ridiculous blossom-tinted account of the Holyrood election result, but he might have worded his question more cunningly. We all know Johnson will never give anything approaching an honest answer to “Why does he think the SNP did so well and his own party did so badly?”, and instead use it as a launchpad to compare the result to that of 2011 and suggest that a landslide win is evidence of failings for which the Scottish Government is being held to account.
Gosh, a scattering of masked MPs can still make a right rabble when they get going – a Labour question about whether Johnson has a plan for social care reform prompts him to lay into the opposition party for failing to tackle this job years ago. Yes, he has a plan, and if Labour want to support it “without wibble-wobbling from one week to the next”, then he’ll be all ears. It couldn’t possibly be the case that he is still wibble-wobbling about it himself, could it? What a shame he forgot to set it out in the Queen’s speech.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel