Nicola Sturgeon yesterday made the most eagerly anticipated speech since devolution.
With the country in lockdown for two months, people wanted to know when restrictions would be eased and normality restored.
The First Minister’s blueprint, while perhaps overdue, should be cautiously welcomed.
Deep down, we know that reckless moves would be disastrous in the fight against Covid-19 and set back the progress we have made.
Lockdown has been extremely difficult for many people so being able to meet family members outdoors is a significant and welcome step forward.
While not everybody plays golf, tennis or bowls, or visits garden centres, opening up these activities will be beneficial for physical and mental health.
It was also encouraging to see a plan which could get our economy moving again and schools reopening in August.
If we go backwards – a possibility the First Minister was honest about – it is unclear what the country’s plan B is other than lockdown.
The blueprint also offers little to the “shielded” – those people who cannot leave their homes because they are at high-risk of Covid-19.
We cannot have a situation where one part of the population is kept indoors.
Yesterday was a step in the right direction – but people will be understandably anxious about the future.
Wrong message
Just because you haven’t done something illegal, it doesn’t mean you’ve not done anything wrong.
That, in lay terms, is the broad conclusion of the Independent Office for Police Conduct inquiry into the relationship between Boris Johnson when he was mayor of London and US businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri.
There is no evidence, the report found, that “Mr Johnson influenced the payment of any sponsorship monies to Ms Arcuri”. So there will be no criminal investigation into the relationship.
But if public money was allocated to allow Acruri to join Johnson on trade missions, not on the basis of whether she was the most suitable or qualified individual but because of her “intimate” relationship with the mayor himself, then that is wrongdoing.
And that is good grounds for an investigation by the Greater London Authority whose funds were disbursed.
In English law there is no “not proven” verdict which allows Scottish juries to conclude that there is not enough evidence of guilt even though they think the accused has been up to no good.
The court of public opinion will have made up its mind about Johnson’s behaviour along the same lines.
