This post takes a look at the Scottish Government’s increasing drive to restrict when and how people – including staff working for the NHS on the frontline – can leave their homes for their own mental and physical health and how this fits with our access rights and human rights.
Shifting “medical” advice
When the corona crisis broke on us, Professor Jason Leitch, Clinical Director of the NHS in Scotland, became something of a media star. His confident messages stood out in contrast to the bumbling messages from his colleagues in England, where it was clear medical leads were simply covering up the UK Government’s failure to act in time and the run down of the NHS. The messages he has been trying to promote, however, have changed significantly in the last three or so weeks.
- Just before the lockdown was announced, Professor Leitch was telling people it was fine to play golf, as long as people were careful not to touch the flags. Since then, of course, all our golf courses have been shut down, though in England there is now some talk of opening them up to the public to walk on – like we can do in Scotland under access rights.
- Last Monday, Professor Leitch was on the radio defending the trip his former boss, Dr Catherine Calderwood, took to Fife (see here), stating that she had observed social distancing at all times.
- At the end of the week on Friday Professor Jason Leitch was on the media again, claiming that “only 30-60 minutes of exercise outside was allowed each day but warned it should not be looked at as recreational” (see here). He stated “Can I just emphasise that exercise is exercise, not recreation and not your hobby” and “It’s not the time to go mountain biking. You need to just use it for 30 or up to 60 minutes from your home to exercise to stay healthy – and then stay at home” and “Every time you do it, literally lives are saved.”
In other words, Professor Leitch’s message has changed to “Stay at Home”. Our knowledge about how COVID 19 is transmitted has not changed fundamentally in this same time period. The virus is transmitted by people being too close to each other and touching the same surfaces. This means that in some places, like COVID wards in hospitals, you are perhaps 99.9% likely to catch the virus unless you wear protective equipment but in others, like being out on the hills, there is virtually no risk at all. This truth did not prevent Professor Leitchmplying at the end of last week that if you are lucky enough to live in one of our National Parks or the countryside and go for a walk that lasts three hours, rather than one, that “literally” lives will be lost. That, I am afraid, is complete and utter tosh, an abandonment of science.
If you want to understand why Professor Leitch has changed his ground, the statement he made on Friday was at the daily briefing where he was standing alongside Nicola Sturgeon, our First Minister. These utterances are political. Professor Leitch, just like Catherine Calderwood before him, is issuing advice and guidance NOT on the basis of medical science, but on the basis of what our governments want.
Confirmation of that came just a few hours later in the BBC’s UK-wide Ten o’clock news. Sophie Rayworth, in a summary of what you can or cannot do,said:
“You can leave home to exercise once a day, locally, alone or with members of your household. There is no set time limit on this.”
This statement, however, is not correct either as the law, as set out in the Coronavirus Health Protection Restrictions Regulations 2020, allows you “to take exercise, either alone or with other members of their household”. There is no restriction to once a day. Nor should there be on the basis of what we know about the importance of exercise to physical and mental health: most people get their exercise in doses, whether its children going out to play or older people taking several short walks. If politicians want to limit people to going out for exercise, whether this is to just once a day or just for an hou,r they need to be able to justify this.
If we set aside the clampdown on travel, there is no justification for our politicians to try and limit the number of times that people who live in rural areas or the edge of towns go out into the countryside for exercise. That’s not going to affect the spread of the virus, it’s not going to save lives. Scotland has large amounts of open space where its very easy for people to keep 2 metres apart, particularly given our access rights which don’t limit people to paths.
Even in towns, however, maintaining physical distancing is not a great problem when out of doors. I stay in Nicola Sturgeon’s constituency on the southside of Glasgow. Since the lockdown I have been running every day in Pollok Park. Some days I run – jog is probably a more accurate description! – one hour, sometimes two. I have no idea how long other walkers, runners and cyclists are going out but, what I do know, is that in three weeks I have not had any difficultly in observing the distancing rules. Almost every person I have seen is doing the same yet, instead of respecting this, our governments appear to want to restrict our rights even further and are trying to do this through their medical mouthpieces like Professor Jason Leitch. I have to say I feel sorry for him, the pressure must be immense. The pressure, however, on people who are needlessly being told to stay at home, with all the social and health consequences that has, is even greater.
Unfortunately, people are being made to feel like criminals just for going out for a walk. Nowhere is that greater than in the countryside where roads are being closed, laybys blocked off and keep out signs being erected.
Access Rights
It was very welcome therefore when last Tuesday Highland Council called for landowners to remove unlawful signs that prevent people exercising access rights (see here). Unfortunately, the impact of this call is likely to be limited because of the travel ban. First, its not clear that Access Officers will be allowed to go out and check on such signs without which, under existing procedures, its not possible to get signs removed. Second, Highland Council has since closed many of its car parks, making it difficult even for local people to go out and take exercise. I will come back to the impact of that in another post, but just like in the towns, people in Highland Villages are increasingly being forced closer together. That is daft.
Two days after Highland Council, the Scottish Government issued its own statement on access rights during the current coronavirus emergency (see here). While staring with an acknowledgement of the importance of Access Rights, almost all the rest of the content undermined this by statements claiming its no longer responsible for people to exercise their access rights except in a very limited way:
Claim: “Staying at home has become the only way of slowing the spread of this virus and giving our NHS the chance to cope and save lives.”
Comment: this is not true, the likelihood of people going out into the countryside for outdoor recreation spreading the virus is tiny.
Claim: “Under current guidance, it is only permitted to leave your home for specific reasons, including to take exercise, alone or with other members of your household, and no more than once a day.”
Comment: this is totally misleading, guidance is guidance and very different from law (see below). Guidance can suggest you to do something, that is not the same as “permitting” or not permitting something. The LAW says you can go out for exercise and puts no limit on this.
Statement: “Essential workers, including farmers who are helping to maintain the nation’s food supply and have important animal welfare responsibilities, must be allowed to go about their business without interference or fear of unnecessary exposure to COVID-19”.
Comment: the Scottish Outdoor Access Code was designed to allow land managers to go about their business and has done so very successfully. All that’s basically needed for that to continue – apart from some limited issues like farm gates (see below) – is for people to maintain a physical distance (2 metres) from farmers like everyone. So why is there any need for the Scottish Government to suggest otherwise? It just leads to more scaremongering.
Claim: “It is a requirement of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code that we all behave in a responsible way that is considerate of other people. This means that, during the current emergency, everyone should:
- Stay local – please do not travel in your car to take exercise; please make use of the paths, open spaces and quiet roads in your own local area”
Comment: Access rights don’t cover motorised transport but here we have guidance that is allegedly on access rights being misused to try and persuade people NOT to travel by car. Just a couple of weeks ago Jeanne Freeman, the Health Secretary, said it was fine to travel short distances and it is only two weeks since the National Police Chief’s Council (‘NPCC’) and College of Policing (‘CoP’) produced guidance on 31 March that made it clear “we don’t want the public sanctioned for travelling a reasonable distance to exercise. Road checks on every vehicle is equally disproportionate”. In England it still appears ok to travel by car to exercise your dog. The Scottish Government’s guidance is constantly shifting and becoming ever more authoritarian.
Statement: “Farmers and other land managers are entitled, and indeed encouraged, to put up signs when they have pregnant or young livestock in a field”.
Comment: this is not true, farmers are only entitled to put up signs that are compatible with access rights but as worded, the guidance gives farmers carte blanche to put up whatever signs they want, as has been happening across the country, signs that exclude not just dogs but people. The Scottish Government’s advice is far worse than that issued two days before by Highland Council.
Statement: “Avoid contact – try to avoid touching surfaces and if possible plan a route that does not require you to open gates”.
Comment: while sounding helpful, its every hard for many people living adjacent to the countryside to access it without opening gates (and the guidance of course attempts to “ban” people from travelling to places where there may be no gates), so in effect this could result in further blanket access bans. Instead of advising people to avoid gates, the guidance could have recommended that land managers attach hand gel to gates on popular routes or even that people took their own. If people did that, there would be no need to avoid any gate at all.
Unfortunately, nowhere in this Guidance is there any concept that the wide open spaces in the countryside could be playing a key role in relieving all the pressures that are on people in this crisis. I understand why it was necessary to shut down enclosed places where people gather, from football stadiums to workplaces, but to then shut down the one place where it should be really safe for people to go, the countryside, seems to me utter madness. Our government, from top to bottom, has lost all reason.
Human Rights and our liberties to go outdoors
The advice from the Scottish Government on access rights is also NOT proportionate in terms of Human Rights. Everyone who is concerned about the current assault on civil liberties should read the Briefing to Chair of the UK’s Joint (House of Commons and House of Lords) Committee on Human Rights(see here)). Below I consider the implications of that briefing for our rights to leave wherever we are living to go outdoors, whether in the town or countryside.
“This lockdown is the most significant and blanket interference with individual liberty in modern times. Such extreme measures can only be considered lawful, justified, necessary and proportionate if (1) the threat from disease and death remains sufficiently significant to justify such extraordinary measures; (2) the measures only interfere with human rights and civil liberties to the extent necessary; (3) the measures are enforced in a clear, reasonable and balanced manner; (4) enforcement is authorised, and does not go beyond what is prohibited, by law.”
And,
“The ‘lockdown’ restriction (Regulation 6) allows for people to leave their homes provided they have a “reasonable excuse”. There is a non-exhaustive list of what could be a reasonable excuse. In order to be proportionate, “reasonable excuse” must be interpreted broadly and in the way that least infringes with the right to private and family life and other civil liberties.”
So are the current measures being taken to restrict people to their houses being done in a way that least infringes on civil liberties? Clearly not. We have thousands of hectares of Scotland devoid of people, places where people could go quite safely, but are being denied from doing so because of the lockdown. The Human Rights Committee Briefing highlights these concerns:
“It is difficult to understand why a blanket “once per day” restriction on exercise might be considered necessary and proportionate, particularly given that these are blanket measure applying to many different situations.”
And,
“Additionally, it may be necessary specifically to consider what measures are proportionate to facilitate reasonable exercise for those living in crowded cities without ready access to outdoor spaces, where the policing and health risk challenges are very different from those living in rural or less populated areas”
Note, what is proportionate should vary from area to area (remember this is in a UK context and generally there is far more space in Scotland than London) and also how the Human Rights Committee assumes that government should be facilitating exercise, not preventing it.
The Briefing to the Human Rights Committee also emphasises the importance of the rule of law:
“It is crucial that enforcement authorities are clear on the law. Otherwise there are real risks in respect of the rule of law and potentially also Article 7 ECHR (no punishment without law).
“There are a number of different sources of information, in particular: (i) the Regulations which set out the law; (ii) Government guidance that is intended to try to explain the Regulations, for example to give examples of what might be a “reasonable excuse”; and (ii) Government advice that has no relation to the Regulations (or to criminal law) but suggests recommended best practice or behaviour. All of these differ in material respects and have become confused. Not least as the Government and police seem at different times to refer to all three as the “rules” even though only one of these three is legally binding law.”
This is important, the Scottish Government’s Guidance on Access Rights is NOT law and confirms it should never have said that exercise was “permitted” only once a day. The Government is making up the law as it goes along – as is evident by its attempts to impose ever-shifting guidance. On the importance of the rule of law see here.
“The regulations for England, Northern Ireland and Scotland allow for a person to leave the house for a “reasonable excuse”, which explicitly includes for taking exercise. However, there is no limit on the number of times a person can take exercise. Confusingly, the Welsh regulations do specify that individuals can only take exercise “no more than once a day”. Moreover, it is arguable that the correct approach in dealing with what appears to be a small minority of people creating a public health risk, is to take action to enforce the rules in respect of those people and/or areas which pose a threat, rather than putting in place unduly restrictive rules for all.
This supports what I have been arguing on parkswatch. Instead of trying to impose blanket restrictions on physical activity or on people driving or even cycling out to the countryside, whether to take exercise or simply sit in the sun, the presumption in Scotland should be that people can take responsibility for themselves in the outdoors just as happens under access rights (no-one wants to get ill). Where pressure points and potential health risks are identified, responsibility for dealing with this should be devolved to local areas along with the presumption that it is the role of our public authorities to facilitate rather than prevent access. The police would then have a back-up rule enforcing the physical distancing rules where these are being deliberately flouted.
For this to happen, the Scottish Government needs to take a fresh start. However, difficult to admit a volte face, it will need to do so eventually if we are to find any way out of corona crisis. If the Scottish Government cannot find a way to trust people going for a walk in the countryside without increasing health risks, it is NEVER going to be able to trust anyone going back to work.
Thanks Nick. Another informative article.
Do you have a link to the regulations?
Hi Martin, Scottish Regulations are here Regulations for England are structured rather differently but the provisions are the same – I have checked them, Nick
Thank you Nick, for an excellent and clearly argued blog post. I would like to add some specific detail re exercise outwith the home in rural areas.
I live at the edge of Grantown on Spey, in the Cairngorms National Park. With a population of c.2500, it is the second largest population centre in the National Park, after Aviemore. Here I am fortunate to have access to a variety of within and out of town walks.
Over the last 20 days (26th March to 14th April) I have recorded the length of my exercise walks (using a GPS watch) and the number of people encountered on each walk. ‘Encountered’ is defined as people, walking, running or cycling, who are on the same path or track as myself, or on either side of minor roads, and who intersect the route I am taking. People seen on other routes or in the distance are not counted.
Over these 20 days I have been on 36 exercise walks, total distance 125.8 miles (mean walk length 3.49 miles). Yes, I do usually go for more than one walk per day! All my walks start and finish at, and have been within a 4.3km radius of, my home. I have encountered 147 people. The mean number of people encountered per mile per walk is 1.17 (95% confidence limits 0.69 – 1.57). On 10 of these walks I encountered no one.
Of those 147 people, only a single person did not deviate from their line, and fleetingly passed within two metres of me, even though I had stepped to the side of the path. Everyone else , altered their line, stepped off the path etc, to ensure that physical distancing was maintained. It is notable how courteous everyone encountered has been.
I rarely have to go through gates, but when I do, I avoid touching them with my bare hands. Several are now permanently open, I assume to facilitate passage without having to open the gates. Thank you to the landowners!
I take the Covid 19 issue very seriously, and am more than happy to adhere to the Regulations. While the Regulations simply state that exercise is one of a limited number of “reasonable excuses” to leave home, the guidelines have sought to curtail this activity unnecessarily. Exercise is vital for our physical and mental health, the latter of particular concern as the pandemic and associated restrictions on our activities are expected to continue for weeks and probably months. As I demonstrated, above, taking outdoor exercise, especially in rural areas, presents virtually zero risk of virus transmission.
I wrote to my MSP and MP on the 3rd April asking them to “look to find ways to encourage outdoor exercise, starting from home, or close to home, which can be undertaken while observing all necessary physical distancing requirements. Revised guidance, targeted at rural areas, perhaps Scotland specific would be a great start”. As of today, I have not had a reply.
In a similar vein, I wrote to Grant Moir, CEO of Cairngorms National Park on 9th April saying “I am sure that residents of rural areas across the Highlands, and indeed Scotland, would welcome Scottish Government guidance that better related to, and reflected the reality, of the places where we live. It is absurd the CNPA putting out messages to stay at home, exercise once a day etc etc, when with a modicum of common sense and appropriate guidance, we could be out and about enjoying and benefiting from exercise as spring arrives. I am sure you have the ear of the Scottish Government, and it would be great if you and your staff could press for more nuanced guidance re outdoor exercise in this worrying time of Covid 19”. Grant Moir replied very promptly, but his reply repeated the stock phrases from government that we are all familiar with. He gave absolutely no indication that he or his staff had, were or would be pressing government for more nuanced guidance re outdoor exercise in rural areas. Tellingly, he did say “The Scottish Government’s directions are issued to protect the health of the population as a whole rather than individual local authority areas. We support our health colleagues in promoting this advice and consistency is a key part of this”. Promoting consistency in advice, even if in a local context that advice is not necessary and illogical, is not a good argument.
The situation is much the same here in Wales (see comments on previous posts) and it’s clear that the rules and messages are both sub-optimal, urban biased and ultimately irrational.
But I guess if I were to try and defend them (always good practice to at least try to do that) there would perhaps be an argument that although an individual taking say an hours ‘extra’ exercise is of minimal risk, if we were to multiply that by 20 million people doing the same, then the situation changes. At root, I think this is the logic they are pursuing – together with a view (perhaps not entirely unreasonable) that to introduce any nuance is just too complex – that the danger of it leading to a breakdown in the simplicity of the rules – even if not entirely rational – is not worth the risk.
Of the arguments above I think the second one is the stronger. The first fails because frankly, there are not millions of people who are going to go walking on coast paths and mountains. Just as it’s okay in some faiths for their priests and monks to be celibate because not everyone is going to take that path!!! That’s an odd example I know, but it makes the point that our rules are seldom governed by ‘what would happen if everyone did ‘x or y’ – rather we look at the actual case and its likely implications.
The argument about keeping the rules and messages simple seems to me to have more weight – but only in the early and most critical stages of the crisis. As we emerge from the panic – and as facts become clear – we must press for better and more rational approaches to the easing of restrictions which are in many cases counter-productive as well as worrying in their implications for our rights.
Hi Mark, another thoughtful comment. If we want a simple overriding rule though, which would cover almost all eventualities, both countryside and city, work and non-work, why not “keep 2 metres apart?”. There would be exceptions, of course, based on people sharing the same household and those needing to do so for “essential” work, e.g caring for people, but these would simpler to understand than all the exceptions to the stay at home message. Such an approach would not just allow people to go out for physical and mental health, it would allow jobs in the outdoors which have been needlessly shut down to start up again. Nick
Thanks for another clear article.
After Prof Leitch ‘hobby’ comments I wrote to Andy Wightman msp who had made some good comments in the national regarding how his statement didn’t help as many people’s outdoor hobby is used to deal with mental health problems (like I do with my anxiety). As communities msp I suggested that the government needs to take much more action to mitigate against a mental health crisis during and post virus, and the only real way to do this is with a positive strategy once we start to exit from the peak. Most people who are experiencing new anxiety as health anxiety, could be helped by letting people get outside for some solace in nature, which is best done anyway on your own coupled with having a science based exit strategy, that will give people confidence to go outside and a timeline back to ‘normal’, as anxiety is made worse by the unknown, a greater amount of uncertainty leads to increased anxiety. Without a more positive exit, there is a danger that people’s health anxiety will flip into general anxiety (what I have) which becomes a lifelong condition which can leave you unable to function for days at its worst. It will be especially problematic in rural areas that already struggle with mental health services, and where a lot of essential crisis support has already been stopped because of the virus. The only path left will be to prescribe anti-depressants, which can cause their own problems. I have a heard a lot of experts in mental health advocating a more positive strategy, but it is sadly going unheard which makes me think there is little consideration being giving to it by the government, apart from generic helplines.
As a resident of Keswick I can echo much of the above as it relates to the Lakes. The roads and hills are remarkably empty and it provides locals with a very welcome relief! However, I’m a bit concerned that our happiness is at the expense of others who could use a day in the hills. A few more people exercising responsibly wouldn’t go amiss.
However, there are a couple of issues with this. The weekend immediately prior to lockdown was a nightmare here, as it was in many places. The good weather led to overcrowding with the inevitable result. The good weather has continued and without draconian measures the Easter weekend would have been a re-run of that. A balance is very hard to strike. I haven’t used my car for weeks now, as I don’t want to give offence, but even exercising from home makes me wary. Which brings me into my second reason. As a member of Keswick MRT, I am acutely aware of the problems caused in the event of someone having an accident on the fells, or even just off the road, as happened when a cyclist sadly died on Honister pass on 21 March. Any incident now raises enormous logistical problems for MRTs, including social distancing, use of precious oxygen, maintaining an airway (use of NPA/OPA devices is no longer permitted), post-rescue cleaning/disinfecting etc.
I’m not saying don’t go out for a walk or bike ride, but make sure you do so in such a way as to avoid calling out the rescue services. I think this is best practiced by reducing your downhill speed to much slower than normal. However, you can see why MRTs are asking people to stay off the hills. For locals, I guess it’s a judgement call. I’ve not seen anyone going climbing recently, even if they live in the same household, for example.
Nick, another very clear and informed post. The big problem is clearly that most of the decision- making has been taken because of the way people were acting in the biggest and most densely populated cities in the UK. Many was the night when the news showed bars and restaurants in London full to over-flowing, despite government advice to social distance, to the point where the government had to bring in the regulations. Also it is plainly clear that the transport system in London is totally inadequate and therefore people are packed into trains and buses like sardines in a can, as evidenced by the high number of Covid-19 related deaths. The same thing applies to the living conditions, London is the centre of the country, you need to live there to work, is a myth that has been propogated for decades. Lifting the lockdown restrictions will need to address this problem, but also businesses will need to think about other towns and cities to relocate to and operate from if this isn’t to happen again in the future. There needs to be a radical rethink on how infrastructure is built in the future so that people can exercise in pleasant surroundings without having to travel too far.
The “stay at home” message is potentially fatal. My neighbour, Barbara, who’s 77 and suffers from T2 diabetes and arthritis, did not receive a letter from HMG. She’s a farmer’s daughter from the Yorkshire Dales, now living in a semi-rural setting (much like AA above). Initially she said to the government’s “stay indoors” instruction (which it appears wasn’t directed at her anyway), very clearly, “Bugger that, they’ll not keep me in”, which for a while was true. Until, that is, her very anxious friend and neighbour Sonia, 75, told her in no uncertain terms to not set foot outside the door. So Babs and her terrier Millie weren’t seen for 3 days until we went to find out what had happened to them. Barbara was terrified out of her wits that there was something “out there” in the all-pervading miasma that would kill her stone dead. To cut a horrible story short, her near-fatal confusion due to a) misinformation and misinterpretation, b) high blood glucose causing confusion, and c) powerful painkillers for her arthritis caused her such terror that she thought that the end of the world had come. We talked to her as best we could (a decent and close community here in North Yorkshire), and told her that at 6.30 in the morning no-one would even be up, and that the best thing for her would be to get out for her walk with Millie, and then spend the rest of the day tending her very lovely garden. Thankfully, this has been the outcome, but without a very specific, nuanced and common-sense (which is my point, I guess) intervention, which in itself broke “the rules”, Barbara and Millie would most likely no longer be alive.
Adrian. I wonder how many others are in the same position and maybe don’t have the caring neighbours that you are.
That the messaging around the basic line of “stay at home, save lives, protect the NHS” is political, is surely beyond doubt. Over the last few days we’ve seen the consensus in elite circles collapse as the economic cost of 99% compliance with the guidelines becomes a bit clearer So now we’re being softened up for a phased return to work – which seems more like a phased return to the herd immunity strategy – and the likely second wave. Profits are being put before people’s health (just as they were when the 2016 Cygnus risk assessment of NHS pandemic (un)readiness was ignored).
In another example, I was disappointed to see John Finney return to the idea that we’re not to be trusted and suggest closing the snow gates to prevent access to the highlands over the Easter weekend. Apart from being bonkers (it would have to be check-points so that all the Tesco and Co-op trucks could get through to deliver food and drink to the North), it’s a cheap shot that ignores the almost total compliance in order to play on people’s insecurities.
Hello Nick,
I came to your blog post in an around about way trying to research and find the exact regulations and rules on what is determined as ‘essential exercise’ currently in Scotland. Like you, I stay in the south side of Glasgow and have been frequenting the park (Queens park specifically) every second day to strength train on my gymnastic rings for one hour at around 8.30pm. Tonight, however I was asked to leave by the police with them stating ‘strength training not to be an essential exercise’. When questioned though, they were unable to stipulate the exact regulation instead saying to ‘look up Jason Leitch’ on Twitter which has led me to here ha ha! They left with the parting shot that my ‘behaviour was encouraging others to come and hang there gymnastics rings in the park’ – never have I heard a more out of touch sentence.
Like you I’m happy to follow the regulations and have others safety as paramount (training alone, maintaining distance, staying within time limits etc) but also find the need for common sense and context to be severely lacking. The point you make about mental health and exercise/being outdoors is poignant too. My job is as a personal trainer and I know full well the consequences of stagnation on the mind and body.
Anyway, thank you for the interesting post it fleshed out and helped me understand a bit better the importance of freedom of movement – both physically and psychologically – and also the need and right to question and ask why when these things are taken away from us.
Now off to try and find these regulations 🙂
Best wishes,
Patrick
Hi Patrick, the law is very clear, its a reasonable excuse to go out for physical exercise – there is no definition of what physical exercise is and the police were wrong to challenge you. Jason Leitch is a doctor and any advice he issues, and it does change, is just that, advice and not the law. I would just point the police to the regs Nick
Hello Nick,
Thank you for your reply.
I have spent the day reading through the official documentation and regulations and you are correct – nothing exists defining what is and is not essential when it comes to exercise.
I have printed off and highlighted the sections in question;
Restrictions on Movement Scottish legislation – shorturl.at/bfj12
Police Scotland Essential and Non-Essential Travel FAQs – shorturl.at/FGJ38
Scottish Governments Publication on Social Distancing – shorturl.at/cpLP4
I will be taking copies with me in my bag as I’m sure I will be getting stopped again next time I’m there.
Thanks again,
Patrick
Hi, another example of local councils unlawfully deny access to parks is Mugdock park North of Milngavie.
Yesterday while cycling I noticed the kyber pass entrance to the park to be blocked off by Heras fencing, this is obviously to deter cars from entering the car park. But the fencing is placed entirely across the entrance onto the vegetation at either side to mean it was impossible for walkers or cyclist to gain entry without moving the fencing to the side. This was no problem for myself, but I know of a fellow key worker friend who cycles to this entrance several times a week with his daughter on a chair attached to his mountain bike, access for himself would be extremely difficult, like wise for parents with buggies etc. The other tradgedy is Mugdock part is now almost completely empty, it’s a massive space but usually now I will see less than five other people when I cycle through it. I currently live in anniesland next to the canal, the canal being the only open space for most people in vicinity, and because of this it’s so busy with people, cycling, running or walking along it is just not fun. It’s madness when all the car parks for places like mugdock are blocked of, which causes congestion in other areas, people in my local area could easily drive for ten or 15 minutes and get acces to wide open space at mugdock, but instead are squeezed into a bottle neck along the canal where social distancing is impossible.
Daryl, this is just mad……………everyone who agrees please write and complain to Councillors and MSPs
Website links for anyone else who may be interested in what exactly constitutes travel and things like exercise during the lockdown.
They appear a little squashed in my comments above so here they are again in a more readable format;
Restrictions on Movement Scottish legislation – shorturl.at/bfj12
Police Scotland Essential and Non-Essential Travel FAQs – shorturl.at/FGJ38
Scottish Governments Publication on Social Distancing – shorturl.at/cpLP4
Best,
Patrick