I read, with mounting disbelief, the Scottish Government’s “route map” out of lockdown (see here). The fundamental human right of freedom of movement has been reduced to something called “getting around”. The advice – we have yet to see whether it can be enshrined in law – is that from next week people may drive 5 miles for outdoor leisure and exercise. Then four weeks later the Scottish Government is saying people should still only be allowed “to drive locally for leisure purposes”. Effectively, if enforceable, this would confine people living in urban conurbations to the towns for the next seven weeks and effectively ban for most people most of the activities that come under access rights, from hillwalking to birdwatching to kayaking.
There is absolutely NO justification for this in terms of reducing the risks posed by Covid-19 – as the countryside is the safest place anyone can be – and it is thus a fundamental breach of human rights. There may still be a case for limiting where people can stay overnight and the premises they can enter, but there is no case for preventing people from going for a walk in the countryside.
On Friday I was on the BBC arguing that preventing people from walking in the countryside has never been justified from the start of the corona crisis and, for example, that car parks at supermarkets pose far greater risks than car parks in the countryside. In arguing this, I am not someone who believes in “herd immunity” or who believes that all businesses should simply open again. On the contrary, I have spent much time over the last three weeks – hence the lack of posts – looking into the Scottish Government’s handling of the Care Home crisis (my old field of work). The Commonweal published my report on Wednesday (see here) (and you can get the short version as presented by STV (here)).
My view is that the Scottish Government has failed to take effective action in some areas, particularly settings like hospitals and Care Homes where the virus is still rife, while imposing unnecessary controls in others. Some failures and mistakes were inevitable, even had we continued with contact tracing from the start (see here), but others were not. The new route map enshrines the mistakes that have been made with respect to Outdoor recreation by limiting people’s ability to travel. The consequences for people’s physical and mental health and the rural economy will be serious.
How countryside outdoor recreation is being treated compared to other activities
To understand what’s going on, it’s worth comparing how the Scottish Government intends to treat informal outdoor recreation in the countryside, as covered by access rights, compared to other activities in the next few months.
Under Phase 1 (three weeks from 28th May – 18th June (possibly))
The good thing is the Scottish Government, three weeks after England, intends to change the law so people can legally go outside for their well-being as well as for physical exercise
“Seeing family and friends: we are planning in this phase to change regulations to permit people
to use public outdoor spaces for recreational purposes, for example to sit in a public space.
We are also planning for one household to meet up with another household outdoors, in small
numbers, including in gardens, but with physical distancing required.”
This is a fundamental human right restored and in theory should have allowed people to enjoy outdoor recreation again. However, the ability to exercise this right will remain severely constrained:
“Getting Around. You will also be permitted to travel short distances for outdoor leisure and exercise but advice to stay within a short distance of your local community and travel by walk, wheel and cycle where possible.”
Now contrast that with:
“We are also planning for outdoor workplaces to resume with physical distancing measures in place
once guidance is agreed.”
So, you can travel into say the Loch Lomond National Park for work outdoors but not for outdoor recreation. What’s more:
“Sport, culture and leisure activities: In this phase we are planning to allow unrestricted outdoors
exercise adhering to distancing measures and non-contact outdoor activities in the local area –
such as golf, hiking, canoeing, outdoor swimming, angling – consistent with the wider rules and
guidance applicable to any activity in this phase.
This sounds great too, until you realise the implications of the 5 mile travel restriction. Most people living in urban areas effectively won’t be able to exercise these freedoms while the freedom of people living in rural areas will continue to be severely constrained. Effectively this allows mainly middle class men to play golf again, while preventing anyone else from doing much. I support the right to play golf but why is golf less of a risk than walking say 30 miles away from your house? A few weeks ago one commentator on this blog went to great lengths to point out that Covid-19 could in theory be transmitted when playing golf by touching the side of the holes, touching flags and picking up droplets from the grass. For a nine hole course that’s around eighteen potential transmission points. No-one is likely to touch that many gates on a walk in the countryside so why is golf being allowed but walking away from home not?
Under Phase 2 (possibly 18th June – 9th July)
“People will be able to drive locally for leisure and exercise purposes.”
In other words it is proposed to continue the travel ban so that activities like hillwalking are impossible for almost all the population. Meanwhile:
“Indoor non-office based workplaces can resume, once relevant guidance has been agreed – including factories and warehouses, lab and research facilities –with physical distancing”
So, the Scottish Government is effectively saying that to travel 30 miles by yourself and go for a walk outside is MORE dangerous that going into an indoor workspace. Moreover:
“Physical distancing: Pubs and restaurants can open outdoor spaces with physical distancing and increased hygiene routines”
So, you can sit outside while stationary and have a drink from a bar but NOT go for a walk 30 miles from where you live, AND ”
“Sport, culture and leisure activities: In Phase 2, we are planning a reopening of playgrounds and sports courts with physical distancing, and a resumption of professional sport in line with public health advice.”
So contact sports like football might be able to start again but you still cannot go for a walk in the countryside even if you are alone.
And finally there is this for both Phase 2 and 3:
“There may be geographical differences in approaches to transport depending on circumstances.”
There is no attempt to explain the thinking behind this but it appears to be code for saying that people may be prevented from visiting certain areas in the countryside indefinitely.
This attempt to stop people going to the countryside, even for day visits, for the foreseeable future is completely wrong. Cars don’t spread Covid-19 and nor do people walking, as long as they stay apart. What should be clear now is that the Scottish Government is discriminating against people who want to enjoy outdoor recreation and they are doing this through trying to deny people their right to freedom of movement.
Why is Outdoor Recreation being discriminated against in this way?
I believe there is only one way to explain this and that is about fear in the countryside. I have been thinking about this for nine weeks now and will look at in more detail in another post. But the basic point is that while there is understandably fear among people living in rural areas about Covid-19 being brought into the countryside, the more extreme manifestations of that fear – and I don’t believe these views are representative – have for the last 10 weeks dominated the political landscape. The dominant message, whether expressed by certain members of mountain rescue teams (see here) or politicians like Ian Blackford, who have been railing for weeks against anyone coming into the Highlands (see here), is KEEP OUT.
These are extremist views. If members of Mountain Rescue Teams don’t want to offer a service, that is absolutely their right, but that does not give them the right to decide where people can and cannot go. While millionaire Neil Gaiman was singled out for travelling across the world to Skye, he only got there because 8,000 people a week have been coming through Glasgow from the airport without any tests and hardly a murmur. Which is the greater scandal and why weren’t vigilantes out on Glasgow’s streets?
This fear and these extremist views coming from rural areas should not be allowed to justify the Scottish Government preventing people from exercising their fundamental right of freedom of movement, which includes being able to undertake day visits to enjoy outdoor recreation in the countryside. Someone driving to a car park in the countryside to go for a walk, or indeed walking past someone’s front gate, is not going to introduce Covid-19 into rural communities.
The latest evidence from the Lakes (see here for link to text below), where there were all sorts of scare stories of visitors overwhelming the countryside, is that since legal restrictions were lifted even popular places can be managed successfully with a little bit of common sense and help from public authorities:
While I doubt any country car park is worse than the supermarket, alerts that car parks are busy, distancing measures and the patrols put in place by the Lake District National Park all help re-assure people. Our National Parks and Public Authorities in Scotland should learn from that for later in the summer when visitor numbers normally peak. We should not, however, have to wait for our public authorities to get their act together – they have had ten weeks now to prepare for this – to re-open the countryside for day visitors. Scotland has far more space than England and there never has been a good reason not to use it for day visits.
What needs to happen
The Scottish Government needs to recognise that the proposed travel restrictions in its route map intended to keep people within a 5 mile radius of their homes are disproportionate, discriminatory and contrary to fundamental human rights of freedom of movement. They need to be removed and outdoor recreation needs to be placed at the heart of Phase I of its route map out of the lockdown.
Only when people living in the countryside start seeing visitors again and realise that they don’t pose any serious threat will the fear in the countryside start to abate. Effective tracking and isolation of people with Covid-19 – which is due to start this week – will also help reduce the risk of anyone infected transmitting the virus, whether in their own area or outside of it. That should provide added re-assurance to people living in rural areas who are unnecessarily worried about visitors walking or even driving past their front door/gate.
Until outdoor recreation re-starts, it will be impossible to re-start any aspect of the rural tourism industry which was the bedrock of the rural economy. Unless the Scottish Government allows day visits now, it’s almost impossible to see how they could allow self-catering and other such businesses – where there is very low risk of Covid transmission – to open by the school holidays. The financial collapse of rural businesses, which I will consider in a further post, has already reached devastating proportions and threatens to make the economic fall-out from the Foot and Mouth Crisis appear a picnic.
There is a large overlap in the interests of outdoor recreation and the rural tourism sector, as the Foot and Mouth crisis in 2001 proved, and there is now an urgent need for a plan that incorporates the interests of both. Unfortunately the latest Scottish Government route map fails to do this. Its starting point should be that because rural tourism is outdoor based, those activities that take place outdoors or don’t require people to mix indoors (like staying overnight in self-catering accommodation) should re-start as soon a possible. The more complex activities, where there is some potential for the virus to be transmitted, should then follow at a later date.
Hello Sir. I fully agree with you on all points you make. I have been traveling to hill run and walk in the last month and no harm is done. Tinto and Arrochar Alps to name two. More power to your elbow.
Cheers
David White
Maybe no harm done because it was just yourself (even that is a mute point as you may have needed rescue) but if everyone suffered from your selfish entitled attitude it would make things a lot worse through the spread of the disease and pressure on services.
Very much agree with this post. There is just no equivalence of risk on Covid transmission between getting out into the hills and some of the other activities allowed in and before phase 3. The media did it’s best to create conflict between residents and visitors in the Lake District, including stationing reporters on walkers car parks ready to pounce for any story but apart from the very odd isolated incident it just didn’t happen. The National Park has been quiet and when people are visiting they are tending to avoid the towns and villages. We could do without this division that is being created between visitors and residents in rural areas (and I speak as a resident).
Thank you Andy. I know of a lot of people in rural areas who disagree with the divide and rule between residents and visitors but don’t feel able to speak out, Nick
The media have been deeply hypocritical throughout this crisis and should be held to account. They have taken their “essential” status as carte blanche to travel anywhere they like and carry out totally unnecessary outdoor interviews while flogging the “don’t leave the house you’ll kill people” message for the rest of us. They have gone into hospitals, even ICUs and care homes where people cannot visit their closest relatives. The BBC are among the worst and reply to complaints about this with their usual “We are right and will do whatever we want”.
Of course they control the message and will never let any criticism of their actions be broadcast.
Hi , Sorry but I don’t agree with you here , until proper testing is in place and everyone can either be tested or test to find out if they have had the virus and are either safe to travel and mix with different communities then it is just selfish to impose your possible infections on other people by visiting more locations on your journey. I understand the argument of traveling 30 miles on your own and climbing a mountain on your own , no risk of contamination there but as is shown regularly people get themselves in trouble accidentally by tripping, falling , crashing their cars etc all which require emergency services to come and put themselves in harms way because you were too impatient to wait for a few more weeks , the restrictions made by the Scottish government and the WM government are not about removing your personal liberties it’s about preserving life … everyone’s life where possible. Once you start wandering outwith your area be it 5 miles or 10 the further you go the more risk . I live in the west highlands and during the summer months we have traffic accidents virtually everyday on the A82 and with many deaths which cause total road closures, resulting in hundreds of people in hundreds of cars stuck both sides of the accident very often with no division of less than 50-100 mile detour. Let’s surmise that a fatal accident happens in Glencoe around 4 pm with hundreds of cars heading south . No restaurants yet open to wait in , no toilets for people to use , police , ambulance and fire brigade in attendance, I would recon on 30 services personnel having to attend increasing the chances of infection and then the risk of them bringing it back home to their community.
I would ask you to reconsider your action in this matter and be patient, the hills will be there for many years to come but traveling the virus to another community may very well kill someone who cares for or works in and around those hills you so desire. Stay safe and we will too
I live in tiny rural community in Wales within two miles of one of the most popular tourist beach – there will be thousands of visitors this summer if lockdown eases – and I say GOOD! Where else do we think these people going to go – to their local shopping centre or park – which do we think is more dangerous overall? There is nothing morally particular about our local communities – we need to look at the big picture not inventing fears or somehow suggesting that ‘ousiders’ will come in and infect us – that is wrong in fact and shabby in spirit. We in rural areas are lucky to have the landscape on our doorstep , but we do not own it – the national parks are there for all, just as the national stadium and national museum is for all people of Wales and not just the people of Cardiff.
There is also something of a lack of reciprocity – something deeply ungenerous – in the attitude of those who would opt for fearful retrenchment to keep others away. Well I for one, am deeply grateful to all those thousands of people from the towns and cities who have supplied us with food, fuel, infrastructure, medical services…. – all the essential requirements that we have needed for our putative isolation and safe haven these last ten weeks. Now that the lockdown is easing I believe we have a moral duty to welcome them and share what we have on our doorsteps – not in a reckless way, but sensibly, carefully and most importantly without fear or resentment.
If this infection scenario was remotely credible then the fact that people have been going to supermarkets and other shops in the central belt in large numbers since the start of this would mean that the infection rate would be spiralling upwards in these areas. It is in fact spiralling downwards as the virus has run its course.
Only 1 in 400 people now have the virus, so there is little risk from anyone traveling around the country, I don’t think nick suggest the masses should head to Glencoe, but people should be able to travel a reasonable distance for outdoor recreation where the risk of passing on the virus is as good as zero. Maybe it’s a lost opportunity for rural communities, in Glasgow, more and more cafe and restaurants are opening for a take away service by the day, cafes in small towns could start doing the same, generating income and safe guarding jobs.
Why would there be enhanced risk to emergency services, front line services have good procedures and PPE in place to deal with covid 19, they coped well during the peak, so I am sure they will also cope well while the virus is suppressed. And how often are the A9 or A82 closed for a whole day due to fatal accident? Certainly not every day, once a week? Once a month?
The First minister has being dishonest when she claims we are behind the curve thus need a three week longer lockdown, or stats and scientific evidence suggest the virus levels peaked at same time as England with transmission rates less than Scotland than the UK, the only reason we are still in lockdown is the Scottish government never planned ahead to recruit the contact tracers, and this combined with messing up going into lockdown two weeks too late the Scottish government has decided to be ultra cautious and not ease lockdown until the contact tracers are in place, even though community transmission are extremely low and we could have came out of lockdown two weeks ago.
No one is suggesting we open up the country to a free for all, but sensible limit of travel say 1 hour from home would be much better advice.
Shroud waving alert!
More people have accidents at home doing DIY than doing outdoor pursuits. Lockign people indoors is a threat to life and limb and you can take your insane submission to actual Fascism and ram it sideways. The government says hillwalking is safe and no threat to spread coronavirus. Then they make it impossible to go hillwalking. That is the issue.
I understand where you’re coming from regarding the emergency services. However if for example an accident did happen, the emergency services will be equipped with the correct Covid PPE so there likelihood of contracting it would be minimal. Because the there’s no cafes, pubs etc open, the risk of passing it to a local is low. Particularly when consider some of the images of Portobello beach, Edinburgh people very much in close proximity but you don’t see policemen blowing there whistles telling folk to move on.
And there would be far less people on Portobello beach if the car parks to all the beaches further along the coast hadn’t been closed off. The closure of car parks is concentrating people rather than making it easy for people to disperse
The best and brightest rarely go into politics so whilst incredibly frustrating I don’t suppose we should be surprised by their inability to see their way through COVID.
Not convinced they have the authority to do all that they’re doing so I say XXXXXXXXXXX to them. The benefits of outdoor exercise significantly outweigh any likelihood of harm.
Good points well made. For someone who fishes and kayaks the proposed route map presents no real opportunities for the for what could be 2 months, possibly more. I’m interested to see how the point relating to the distance being advisory works out following on from the 28th.
XXXXXXX
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-52796903
The link is appreciated, the comment not. Please try and be constructive. I would suggest a constructive message should be around NOT going for a walk beyond your skill levels. The fact these people got lost – and there was very little risk to anyone as they were led off the hill while staying apart – does not justify banning the many people who can navigate. Sadly, the longer the unnecessary restrictions on access to the countryside, the more people more are likely to do something beyond them out of sheer frustration.
The facts are that they should be at Home.
Many times on your blog you pass comment on the illegal ,or borderline nature of some legal, activities, where more thought could perhaps reduce impacts of the actions that some do. All fair enough
Yet in this instance you continue even with daily briefings pointing out that you should stay at home etc, you know the pat you appear to condone the actions of the Motherwell 3.
In my own area there is a lad with cystic fibrosis, a pensioner recovering from cancer and another with COPD. Now we all behave to reduce the risk to them and to ourselves. Strangely enough there has been no cases of Covid19 in my area, can we say that of yours or Motherwell?
Dare say you may stand up for Cummings next?
Cummings was a total hyprocrite and so was Boris Johnson going to chequers. They had created rules saying stay at home and broke flaunted them. What’s more Cummings was infected.
I know lots of vulnerable people but whether I go out in the countryside or not makes NO difference to their safety. Actually, I believe that people who need to shield should also have the right to go out and, if our public authorities were doing their job properly, they would have put rules in place (like has happened in supermarkets) to reserve green space for a time each day just for vulnerable people so they could go out with confidence that someone wasn’t to accidentally get close to them. If it would help, I would also support the distancing rules in those places and those times to be increased to 4m so people in say wheelchairs could go out with confidence. Everyone should have a right to experience the fresh air. It would of course make it easier for people with cystic fibrosis and other conditions go to local parks or other places if generally people were able to disperse through the countryside rather than being concentrated in a few places
Sorry and would I should also have said is that it’s not right the “Motherwell 3” should have been at home, right from the beginning there has been a legal right to go out and take exercise without limit (it was only the guidance and not the law that put a limit of one hour on this). I absolutely defend their right to go hillwalking. What they did that was wrong was to go out in those conditions when they didn’t have the navigation skills to do so. I would criticise them for doing that whether Covid-19 or not. People should not being going out at any time doing things where there is a high likelihood they need to be rescued. What’s different under Covid is the risk to rescuers and I would defend their right not to put themselves at risk and not to rescue people. People go for a walk across fields without expecting to be rescued and it should be the same in the hills
Oh look another one.
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/gamekeeper-carries-missing-north-east-man-to-safety-on-his-quad-bike1/
Well at least from today you can travel 5 miles for exercise.
Oh wait Motherwell to cobbler(s) or Aberdeen to Tarfside?
Let us all hope that with the move to track and trace people are honest,but in light of dear old Dom, looks like a forlorn hope.
PS well done to the gamekeeper for risking his, and his fellow house residents health for the goodnight the rule breaker.
Another who? Very interesting story and unusual for anyone to be out 3 days in just a shirt and jacket. I wonder what was going on for his man? But what the gamekeepers did was great and though I don’t agree with much of what they do, it is ridiculous that some of them have been stopped from certain work in the outdoors on grounds of it being inessential. Outdoors is generally safe, both to work and for leisure, and attempts to people restricting people from doing either have been misguided and had unnecessary economic and social consequences. As for Dominic Cummings, had we had an effective track and trace system, what Mr Cummings did would have come apparent 2 months ago instead of now. If he had wanted to go to Durham, he would have had to have asked and accepted the result. I am 99% certain public health would have said no. But in other cases, where people weren’t infected and had wanted to see a dying relative, I suspect public health would also have approved arrangements to enable them to do so safely. That could have prevented a lot of suffering.
The virus is truly worrying for the old, and people with serious medical conditions, and we need to do what we can to protect the above.
But the stay home message has been damaging in certain ways, especially for Scottish people with low levels of vitamin D after a long dark winter, I think the advice has been damaging in that respect, my parents are 67 with my dad having a heart condition and at risk, but they rightly seen that they were more at risk from staying at home, the effect it would have on there mental and physical health and immune system, so they have both been out walking everyday, stopping to have a picnic and break on benches, and both averaging walking 150 miles a month, doing this boasting there health and vitamin D levels has protected them far more than staying at home. The Scottish government should be making provision for the more vulnerable to get outdoors, maybe following Spain in having safe times in local parks etc especially for vulnerable people.
It’s unrealistic to tell vulnerable and older people to stay indoors for next two years or however long until a vaccine comes, so we need to start having a discussion as a nation that is not just based on stay at home.
We need to take steps out of lockdown while protecting the most vulnerable, the truth is if your under 65 and have no underlying health conditions and your not overweight or obese then the virus poses little or no threat to you, so we can’t have the country lockdown for ever as long term economic damage and effect it has on NHS an society will be way worse than the intital virus effect.
And when it comes down to it, the vast majority of deaths in this country, maybe around 2500 are directly caused by government failings such as not locking down in time despite evidence the virus was spreading out of control and at same time failing to protect care homes, people going for walks outside have not contributed to the horrific death toll
I live in north west Sutherland and I don’t think it is true to say that only extremists consider that ‘strangers’ should keep away. The predominant view within this community and most others up here is: we don’t want visitors, be they hill walkers, campervanners or whatever. I am not saying that this is a scientifically rational point of view but it is the predominant one and I don’t see it shifting quickly. Many people here, and there are many who don’t earn a living from tourism, are enjoying the absence of visitors. It is good not to feel exploited. That said I fully appreciate the arguments in favour of getting outdoors.
See Mark Charlton’s reply above. And the next time some project needs “The Funding”, remember where it comes from.
Superb post – I read the Scottish rules exactly the same way and am fearful that Wales will go the same way. The fearful retrenchment of a few locals (backed by similarly fearful authorities) has been deeply damaging to outdoor recreation here. Meanwhile, in France they are planning on opening up mountain huts with sensible policies and to public applause – see here
https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/auvergne-rhone-alpes/deconfinement-reouverture-refuges-montagne-partir-du-2-juin-1831986.html?fbclid=IwAR1UPtnktaStjnjcsfg_vA1TaeTBdrvuW8BVVFxL3bHicgzyk3EtqK4B134
And also mountain biking – see here
https://www.facebook.com/office.tourisme.valleedaulps/
I agree with your view of the situation, Nick. I studied the road map, worked out its consequences for people without hills on their doorstep, and burst into tears. To describe hillwalking as “exploitation” is unfair to anyone who cares deeply about these places and goes there for the benefit of their mental health as much as anything else. The majority of walkers have respect for the places they enjoy and stay within their walking capabilities out of respect for the MR (always, not just in the current situation) . The argument that people will have a road accident, a walking accident, they’ll involve the rescue services … well, on that basis, surely no one should do anything or go anywhere for the foreseeable future. There should be no golf, no kayaking, no fishing, no professional sports, nothing. No (motor) bikers heading out for a scenic ride, no racing cyclists enjoying their 100 mile round trip. Many of our most scenic places are overwhelmed with visitors for a large part of the year and I can understand that local residents will be enjoying the peace and quiet lockdown has brought; but to seek to continue to exclude non-locals from frequenting these areas for many weeks if not months to come is opening up a huge can of worms. It may be a cynical view, but I’m willing to be bet there will be foreign tourists arriving at our airports before walkers are allowed back on the hills.
So disappointing to see the otherwise open and sensible SNP being so successfully lobbied by the land owners. I’m yet to hear any rep of the Government justifying suspension of the SOAC.
Try and look into the Scottish government Ineos noise pollution saga and how easy it is to lobby the Scottish government where night time eu noise limits were thrown under the bus for a bluff .the ferret. Ineos tries to block pollution then read down to(kept secret) then ask yourself what would they want to keep secret
In a point made earlier in private..separately. This question of opening up is not about excluding people from the remoter areas out of a sense of selfishness or relief of locals now relishing the peace and quiet. People arguing about this should remember there are so few locals who live year round in these outlying highland places which they love to visit for holiday breaks. They should respect the fact that their holidays to remoter places depend on these few to provide them fuel, counter service in the few shops, rescue them when they break down or get stuck , and care for them if they sprain their ankle, or need toilets or camping spots. Scotland now faces implementation of the slightly unreal dream of ” track or trace” (T&T ) regulations. ( however impractical across highland areas that are still willfully and knowingly denied mobile signal strength, broadband speeds, and connectivity through Scottish government “let sleeping dogs lie” turpitude.) others in more significant political constituencies now take this connectivity for granted ) These T&T regulations seem certain to require those who are notified to self isolate. The period is set out as 14 days should they be ‘pinged’. Failure to obey could be criminalised? So, our happy-go-lucky touring masses will find that because one T&T alert ‘pinger’ goes off, Suddenly there is no staff left in the shop to serve them, no one to provide them fuel, no one at the local surgery, no one capable of driving the recovery truck when they misjudge the road , break down or get stuck. Perhaps all those who wish things were back to normal have overlooked this real denial of service possibility .? It’s not just about spreading the highly infectious virus anymore. This discussion should address the very resilience of small and partially locked down populations to cope with the influx through any enforced track and trace self isolation ?
Tom, I think that’s a valid point to make. I am not, however, suggesting that I or anyone else should immediately be permitted to roam the length and breadth of Scotland for outdoor recreation. What I am questioning is a draconian 5-mile restriction that the SG seems to want to maintain until the end of Phase 2, whenever that might be. I am also left wondering why it is that someone from Fort William can theoretically now head off to tackle the Ben by the North Face, which is clearly a risky undertaking, while many others are denied a go at the grassy wee pimple 10 miles along the road. I think it’s also worth pointing out that for someone like me who lives in the Central Belt but has effectively been self-isolating since 23rd March, with fortnightly supermarket trips the only “close” contact I have experienced with other people in all that time, there is a sense of being subjected to a postcode lottery that I cannot hope to win.
The concern that “Track & Trace” (via a mobile phone app) in rural communities will result in “no staff left in the shop to serve them, no one to provide them fuel, no one at the local surgery, no one capable of driving the recovery truck when they misjudge the road , break down or get stuck”, reflects a misunderstandiung of how such an app will work and be applied. Only contacts sustained for a lengthy period of time will be flagged up (15 minutes in close proiximity has been mentioned). So popping into a shop to buy something, or into a garage to buy petrol or diesel would be very unlikely to be flagged. And then, as I understand, contacts will be contacted directly to check whether the flagged interaction was likely to have risked virus transmission.
I think we do have to have a massive dose of perspective around this. The outdoors is a safe place to be and we do need to look to the future and understand a life where we can do more but there seems to be an overly cautious approach with regards outdoor recreation. This needs to be re-examined and sooner than the timetable that the Scottish Government has layed out. A forward thinking and leaning Government should be able to have a more agile approach and adjust plans accordingly. I also find comments from people such as Ian Blackford to “Keep Out” pretty small minded. He is not the custodian of these Mountains and cannot decide who shall and shall not pass just as much as I cannot decide who and who should not come to a city and shop in a supermarket. What is going to change in the next 2, 4 or 6 weeks that will materially change anyone enjoying the great outdoors. I would suggest nothing so lets get on with looking to open the Great Outdoors for all.
Spot on again Nick .And good debating. What the first minister is doing is dangerous. People now have to much time on their hands ,and will be looking closey at what she is doing with our civil liberties. It more safer to be out doors or in your car than in shops or public transport . What the Scottish government has done sending infected patents back to care homes is criminal. The press are letting the public down on the way old people have being culled in ..Scotland Any Veterinary will tell you you never send infected patents back with healthy patents, birds fish animals or human beings so why do wee need the experts that the first minister has surrounded her self with.When the caravan and camping sites open in England many people will head South and they will get a eye opener on turisom.The lake district The broads Wales The money that Scotland badly needs will be gone.In the news 2 hotels one in Luss the other close by are being shut permanently Scotland will be come a waste land all to prove who can run a country better
Nobody sent infected patients into care homes. That’s just a Yoon smear.
The trouble is that people have been brainwashed by the constant repetition of the lie that you can’t leave your house. There is not a single credible scientist who would put their name forward to support the ban on outdoor activity. Not one! The fact is that the numbers of people infected rose after the lockdown started as people were sharing their houses 24/7 with others who were infected and caught the virus, whereas they would normally be spending 10 hours minimum of every day apart. Increased contact time means increased chance of passing on the infection.
I am sure it is a total coincidence that the same weirdo countryfolk who require massive subsidies from my taxes to continue their cosseted lives are the same ones happily slaughtering our wildlife while there is nobody around to catch them.
They cleared the hospitals, which are set up for infection control. Some of those cleared were put into nursing homes, which are not set up for infection control. These people were not tested before they were transferred. This had an inevitable result. And all based on dodgy models with a hopeless track record which were demonstrably wrong.
reasoned- albeit occasionally provocative- opinions from Nick here.
Problem is perhaps best exemplified by your first comment: not following ‘the rules’, and in fact boasting about it.
Hence the need for what to many are chafing and unnecessary strictures: give some folk an inch….
And I think for those of us ‘managing ‘ the return, two things. First, it will be harder- more complicated- to open up, than it was to close down. (Know any contractors willing to clean the lavvies several times daily?) Not a reason not to, of course, but a bit of forebearance and mutual understanding would be welcome.
Second, paradoxically, it might make things ‘easier’ being open than being closed. Currently, most of the folk we meet are being openly- and knowingly- transgressive: not fun. We’d rather be helping folk enjoy the countryside responsibly.
And some hopeful evidence for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP78iIdKd0A&fbclid=IwAR2rq95dRmNJxHlq1c1JJZLU_8rs0XfCSrLrkL_hXbON1mtt3uPGgyTyP28
Let’s hope for a responsible- and resourced- return to the countryside of the ‘Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken…people’. Something we all need.
Thanks for that, Eric. Good to hear a measured tone. There’s not been much of it around lately.
Hi Eric, sorry for the delay in replying. I don’t regard the defence of fundamental civil liberties as “boasting” and, had we had lawyers etc challenging the legality and rationality of what our governments have been doing, I would not have needed to comment on areas far from Parkswatch’s normal scope (like the rights of 90 year olds to sit on a park bench without being accosted by the police). I like you fear that opening up will be far harder than closing down, that was exactly the experience of Foot and Mouth, and also agree that not doing so will be a recipe for conflict. Its a horrible feeling you might be challenged for being somewhere and some people respond by being aggressive. The problem police have faced is that in asking some people to leave areas like Loch Lomond is that they haven’t really any rational argument for doing so. I think people would listen to police/rangers who said “this area is getting a little crowded now, it might be getting hard to observe physical distancing, you could go to x, y, z” but to tell people that they are being dangerous just for being outdoors has been ridiculous. Lastly, on toilets, the toilets in hospitals, workplaces that are open are being cleaned – whether enough and whether private cleaning contracts may help explain why Covid-19 is so persistent is another questions – and I suspect there are plenty of people out of work in rural areas who would do the job given the right PPE and if they were paid properly. The problem of course is these essential jobs are poorly paid and availability of PPE is still an issue. Nick
Nick, the ‘comment’ in question was the first BTL, by David White. I should have made that clearer.
The point being, that not everyone is ‘responsible’, i.e. prepared to sacrifice their own privilege for the sake of the greater good. Exemplified at the heart of UK government.
Ethics 1.01: ‘what if everyone decided to do as you do?’ is lost on them. Either because they know not everyone has the wherewithal,(daddy’s estate, with conveniently empty property) or because they know most folk wont, because they care.(see Rutger Bregman’s latest).
But yes, I agree a more nuanced approach would be welcome. The broad brush leads inevitably to illogicalities and inconsistencies :’unintended consequences’. However it’s a big ask of government in the middle of a crisis. And it’s really down to the relevant agencies- SNH, Park Authorities, etc- to come up with the goods. In my experience, they are trying to do so, in good faith: not so easy when your organisation has been distanced/furloughed/isolated/etc., and when agencies you might depend on to manage or deliver the policy- Local Authorities, NTS- find themselves underresourced. But that’s another story, for another day…
Eric, I appreciate the message you deliver..then you refer an element for another day. Now as we begin to emerge from enforced lockdown across remote areas too,there appears one one point to stress. When nearly a decade ago Scotland gave up regional policing in “preference” to the convenience (and claimed economic efficiency) of centralised control, an important element for proportional response was surrendered. Without truly autonomous regional Police commanders, often born and bred in the outlying communities they served, the “greater good” for all Scotland had to suffice. The single HQ based service became a single deck of cards, impractical to run in any sort of regional manner, in response to conflicting local needs. Invested originally as a service to help and protect the Public at several levels the Urban command centre was no longer familiar with conditions within any local “patch” Within command and control “ivory towers ” far from those they serve, flexible approaches to local difficulties become impossible to manage. For this new generation in Scotland to Imagine that surveillance cameras and digital tracking of the movements of everyone is the only preferred and affordable future for Scot society , and that mass observation alone will suffice for proportional law enforcement, is counter intuitive of the human condition for those small communities across outlying regions of Scotland. It has taken Covid-19 to point up ‘control freak’ failings in Scottish governance. The shut down of the Highlands as if one massive theme park, fits exactly with the concept of ‘one-size-fits-all’ HQ based Policing. Across Scotland blanket restrictions imposed on small communities without local input were – and will remain-daft.
In regards to public toilets (both those operated by the NP and local councils), it is imperative these are re-opened in the next few days. They should have never been closed throughout the lockdown as they are still required by key workers, delivery drivers, mobile care workers etc, many of whom are finding those they usually use e.g. in shops and other business premises, houses, are either closed or they are not being permitted to use. Even local people on essential journeys (often, by default, longer for those living out with cities and towns) make use of these facilities.
Now, with the easing of restrictions, there is even more of a need to re-open these facilities. Even if people only travel within a 5 mile radius for exercise or whatever, it is highly likely the ‘call of nature’ will be needed at some point. I think its fairly obvious what the end result of this will be. While there’s nothing wrong with ‘nipping behind a bush’ where appropriate, what is totally unacceptable is the number of people who think nothing of not clearing up after themselves, leaving a disgusting mess of used tissues and worse.
From driving into work this morning, its fairly obvious people are desperate to escape and enjoy the countryside at last (and who isn’t) – the dangerously parked cars and piles of litter at Finnick Glen last night and this morning demonstrating this. With the weather forecast for the weekend predicting high temperatures and blue skies, everywhere is going to be busy, hopefully with people still physically distancing, but without access to public toilets, I dread to think what state these places will be left in. I was therefore astounded to read the information release from the NP this morning, stating that public toilets would remain closed this weekend and with no proposed opening date.
While there are potential issues with cleaning public facilities, these can be fairly easily dealt with. For a start, they can be temporarily closed if cleaning is taking place during the day, which avoids the cleaners coming into close contact with people. Other than that the normal protective gloves and maybe a face mask that should be all that is needed. Like Nick says, work place toilets are continuing to be cleaned (in some cases for large numbers of people), so public toilets should be little different. The potential clean up required from these facilities not being open could be far worse and much harder to deal with safely.