ken thomson, leslie evans, professor— leitch, ken thomson, leslie evans, professor devi sridhar, the first minister— professor devi sridhar, the first minister of wales mark drakeford and former— minister of wales mark drakeford and former deputy first minister of northern— former deputy first minister of northern ireland michelle o'neill. is northern ireland michelle o'neill. is that _ northern ireland michelle o'neill. is that correct?— northern ireland michelle o'neill. is that correct? yes. you produce no messaues is that correct? yes. you produce no messages with _ is that correct? 13:3 you produce no messages with these individuals is that correct? 133 you produce no messages with these individuals in your first _ messages with these individuals in your first statement, is that correct _ your first statement, is that correct chris neal yes, but i said in the _ correct chris neal yes, but i said in the statement, those messages would _ in the statement, those messages would have been extremely limited. if i would have been extremely limited. if i take _ would have been extremely limited. if i take john swinney for example, if i takejohn swinney for example, it has never been a practice, not just during the pandemic, but generally, to text, i don't think i have ever sent to whatsapp tojohn swinney and certainly if i have it would be the exception, absolutely the exception, but text messages will be very occasional and the nature of the text messages i would have a john swinney would be, are you free to speak, or can i pop in to see you. it's never been in the nature of it. with some of the others, catherine calderwood was one of those in st andrew's house with me, the number of people in the scottish government, however many thousands of people working in the scottish comic that i hold a mobile phone numberfour is scottish comic that i hold a mobile phone number four is extremely limited. it was not by method of communication with mark drakeford and michelle o'neill, these are discussions with other government leaders that would have been recorded through the normal systems. so i again want to be very clear that it was not my practice to not just not to take decisions through informal messaging but have substantial, or lengthy or detailed discussions about government decisions through these means. it's not my style, is not my practice, it's never been my practice. not least because i don't think it is a good or effective or helpful way of reaching decisions, notjust taking decisions, but it's not a helpful process in reaching decisions either.. ~ :, h ,, process in reaching decisions either.. :, x ,, ,, either.. whatsapp messages between ourself, either.. whatsapp messages between yourself. humza _ either.. whatsapp messages between yourself, humza yousaf— either.. whatsapp messages between yourself, humza yousaf and _ either.. whatsapp messages between yourself, humza yousaf and miss - yourself, humza yousaf and miss lloyd _ yourself, humza yousaf and miss lloyd were produced by you and your second _ lloyd were produced by you and your second statement. where did you get them? _ second statement. where did you get them? , , :, :, them? they were provided to me throuuh them? they were provided to me through the _ them? they were provided to me through the scottish _ them? they were provided to me| through the scottish government. them? they were provided to me - through the scottish government. you do obviously didn't have those on your own — do obviously didn't have those on your own devices because you deleted them _ your own devices because you deleted them i— your own devices because you deleted them. �* :, them. i didn't retain them in line with the procedure _ them. i didn't retain them in line with the procedure i _ them. i didn't retain them in line with the procedure i have - them. i didn't retain them in line | with the procedure i have already talked about. pare with the procedure i have already talked about.— talked about. are you creating a distinction _ talked about. are you creating a distinction between _ talked about. are you creating a distinction between deletion - talked about. are you creating a . distinction between deletion dotted but you _ distinction between deletion dotted but you had deleted them, how do not trust in _ but you had deleted them, how do not trust in yellow deletion, i think, forgive — trust in yellow deletion, i think, forgive me, it sounds as if there was a _ forgive me, it sounds as if there was a not — forgive me, it sounds as if there was a no :, forgive me, it sounds as if there wasano was a not bothering to check whether information was _ was a not bothering to check whether information was being _ was a not bothering to check whether information was being retained. - was a not bothering to check whether information was being retained. i - information was being retained. i was very thorough, notjust in the pandemic but in working government to ensure things were appropriately recorded, but in line with the advice i had already been given since my first day in government, probably, was not to retain conversations like that on a phone that could be lost or stolen and therefore not secure. but that could be lost or stolen and therefore not secure.— that could be lost or stolen and therefore not secure. but did you delete them? _ therefore not secure. but did you delete them? yes. _ therefore not secure. but did you delete them? yes. and - therefore not secure. but did you delete them? yes. and as - therefore not secure. but did you delete them? yes. and as far - therefore not secure. but did you delete them? yes. and as far as| therefore not secure. but did you i delete them? yes. and as far as the other messages _ delete them? 133 and as far as the other messages are concerned that you couldn't produce yourself between _ you couldn't produce yourself between you and all these others, you deleted all of those as well? in the you deleted all of those as well? the manner you deleted all of those as well? in the manner i have, and after the process i have set out, yes. share the mannerl have, and after the process i have set out, yes. are you also set produced _ process i have set out, yes. are you also set produced some _ process i have set out, yes. are you also set produced some direct - also set produced some direct twitter— also set produced some direct twitter messages you mentioned between — twitter messages you mentioned between professor leitch and professor devi sridhar, who also produced — professor devi sridhar, who also produced those messages slightly later than you in december. did you have discussions with her about the production— have discussions with her about the production of those messages? | have discussions with her about the production of those messages? i let her know i have _ production of those messages? il3t her know i have found messages and will provide them to the inquiry. there was contact between you in relation _ there was contact between you in relation to— there was contact between you in relation to those messages. as a courtesy to _ relation to those messages. as a courtesy to let — relation to those messages. as a courtesy to let her _ relation to those messages. as a courtesy to let her know, - relation to those messages. 33 a courtesy to let her know, yes. relation to those messages. as a i courtesy to let her know, yes. could i have a look. _ courtesy to let her know, yes. could i have a look, please _ courtesy to let her know, yes. could i have a look, please that _ courtesy to let her know, yes. could i have a look, please that in - courtesy to let her know, yes. could i have a look, please that in 0, - i have a look, please that in 0, 000. _ i have a look, please that in 0, 000, 287766? we are both being admonished for speaking too quickly for the _ admonished for speaking too quickly for the stenographer. if you can both— for the stenographer. if you can both try— for the stenographer. if you can both try to— for the stenographer. if you can both try to speak a little more slowly. — both try to speak a little more slowly, that would be appreciated. these _ slowly, that would be appreciated. these are — slowly, that would be appreciated. these are some extracts from messages between yourself and liz lloyd _ messages between yourself and liz lloyd. starting with the 27th of october — lloyd. starting with the 27th of october 2020 at 7.10 stopped reading through. _ october 2020 at 7.10 stopped reading through. it _ october 2020 at 7.10 stopped reading through, it says, i'm having a bit of a crisis. — through, it says, i'm having a bit of a crisis, this is you speaking. i'm of a crisis, this is you speaking. i'm having _ of a crisis, this is you speaking. i'm having a _ of a crisis, this is you speaking. i'm having a bit of a crisis in decision—making and hospitality, not to mention _ decision—making and hospitality, not to mention i — decision—making and hospitality, not to mention i haven't slept. the public— to mention i haven't slept. the public health argument says to stick with 6pm. _ public health argument says to stick with 6pm, n o, public health argument says to stick with 6pm, n 0, no alcohol for level three _ with 6pm, n 0, no alcohol for level three was— with 6pm, n 0, no alcohol for level three was that i suspect the industry— three was that i suspect the industry could go mad and i worry we could _ industry could go mad and i worry we could derail— industry could go mad and i worry we could derail the debate. i suspect that won't— could derail the debate. i suspect that won't happen. we can commit to listening _ that won't happen. we can commit to listening and changing if necessary. liz lloyd _ listening and changing if necessary. liz lloyd replies, my instinct is 6pm. — liz lloyd replies, my instinct is 6pm, that's the same as the central belt now— 6pm, that's the same as the central belt now but some more places open for that— belt now but some more places open for that they have offered further mitigation so we work with them on delivering _ mitigation so we work with them on delivering the extra mitigations and review— delivering the extra mitigations and review at— delivering the extra mitigations and review at that point. she then follows — review at that point. she then follows up, the only alternative would — follows up, the only alternative would be — follows up, the only alternative would be 8pm, but no alcohol, and restaurants— would be 8pm, but no alcohol, and restaurants would like you for that! you say _ restaurants would like you for that! you say it's — restaurants would like you for that! you say it's the same as non—central belt places— you say it's the same as non—central belt places opening but only for food, _ belt places opening but only for food, non—alcohol. hpn would be better _ food, non—alcohol. hpn would be better i— food, non—alcohol. hpn would be better. i guess but not sure we can make _ better. i guess but not sure we can make much— better. i guess but not sure we can make much of a public health argument for 8pm, alcohol at level two. argument for 8pm, alcohol at level two and _ argument for 8pm, alcohol at level two. and 8pm, no alcohol at level three _ two. and 8pm, no alcohol at level three was— two. and 8pm, no alcohol at level three was up this lloyd replies, that's— three was up this lloyd replies, that's why— three was up this lloyd replies, that's why would stick with 6pm but if you _ that's why would stick with 6pm but if you want— that's why would stick with 6pm but if you want to compromise it would be about— if you want to compromise it would be about giving people regulated places _ be about giving people regulated places to be the winter rather than unregulated homes. but no alcohol because _ unregulated homes. but no alcohol because it — unregulated homes. but no alcohol because it changes behaviour. the difference — because it changes behaviour. the difference from now would basically be it is _ difference from now would basically be it is colder and darker so people will be _ be it is colder and darker so people will be less— be it is colder and darker so people will be less likely to be outside. you say, — will be less likely to be outside. you say, ok, we should probably stick— you say, ok, we should probably stick with— you say, ok, we should probably stick with six. it's all so random but l _ stick with six. it's all so random but l think— stick with six. it's all so random but i think we need to be prepared for a _ but i think we need to be prepared for a bit _ but i think we need to be prepared for a bit of— but i think we need to be prepared for a bit of a backlash. i have also gueried _ for a bit of a backlash. i have also queried whether we really need the last entry— queried whether we really need the last entry times and if we do whether— last entry times and if we do whether we should give on 9.30, 1030 _ whether we should give on 9.30, 1030 as— whether we should give on 9.30, 1030 as it — whether we should give on 9.30, 10.30 as it stands. there is nothing to say— 10.30 as it stands. there is nothing to say we _ 10.30 as it stands. there is nothing to say we haven't listened to the industry — to say we haven't listened to the industry. this lloyd replies that level— industry. this lloyd replies that level to — industry. this lloyd replies that level to 8pm is listening to them. she follows up, allowing restaurants and pubs _ she follows up, allowing restaurants and pubs to stay open, you say, i propose — and pubs to stay open, you say, i propose. she says there is quite a lot recently. they will still be grumpy — lot recently. they will still be grumpy but there it is, i think it is meant — grumpy but there it is, i think it is meant to— grumpy but there it is, i think it is meant to say. this is an example of a messaging exchange that would be relevant to someone who would be interested _ be relevant to someone who would be interested in knowing how decisions interested in knowing how decisions in this— interested in knowing how decisions in this regard have been arrived at. yes, _ in this regard have been arrived at. yes. but _ in this regard have been arrived at. yes. but in — in this regard have been arrived at. yes, but in many respects i think this exchange illustrates the answers i have been giving you. for context and i will be corrected if i am wrong, i think this is 7.20 in the morning in october 2020. i was in the car going to a cabinet meeting from glasgow. these were decisions cabinet was about to arrive at and i am simply talking about the things i would then go into cabinet and i would talk about and would be recorded in cabinet minutes and the decisions we took. i was probably later that day standing on a public platform talking about some of the decisions we had faced, the options we had and why we had arrived at the decision we have arrived at the decision we have arrived at. i can't see it right now, there is a reference to, i have queried, that's a reference, something i had obviously fared in as a question to the advisers who would have been preparing the cabinet minute papers. i look at this and i don't consider that there is anything in that that wouldn't be reflected through the decision—making and the evidence of the decision—making of the government and undoubtedly hospitality, and the impact on hospitality, and the impact on hospitality, the different time limits, that was all very, very much to the fore in public discussion at the time and i am certain i would have been talking openly about some of these choices and the fine balances of the very difficult decisions we were having to take. will we find in the corporate record or some _ will we find in the corporate record or some other record that your position— or some other record that your position was, we should probably stick— position was, we should probably stick with— position was, we should probably stick with six. it is also random? the message exchange starts with, and again i said earlier on, the reason i don't think whatsapp messages should be used to have substantial government discussions is because we can look at them almost four years later and they are open to different interpretations. that message exchange you read out started with me perhaps, this is the kind of thing i prefer not to be on the public record, a crisis of decision—making is perhaps not what i wanted people to know, and that i hadn't slept. at the 27th of october 2020, i wouldn't have had a day off since much earlier that year, before march, and had been working, and i am not saying that for simply, that was myjob and duty. there were moments in that where the decisions we were taking felt almost impossible, whatever we did we would cause difficulty and harm to somebody somewhere. and so a phrase like, it's all so random, that probably simply reflects how i felt at 7.20 that morning when i hadn't had much sleep. by the time i got to cabinet i am sure i would have collected my thoughts and we would have had a proper discussion and reached a decision that was properly recorded, with a good and robust process around it. this recorded, with a good and robust process around it.— process around it. this is a discussion _ process around it. this is a discussion related - process around it. this is a discussion related to - process around it. this is a discussion related to an i process around it. this is a - discussion related to an important discussion— discussion related to an important discussion made during the course of the management of the pandemic. that would have the management of the pandemic. trust would have then been discussed at cabinet and recorded through, and you have seen all the minutes of the cabinet, but the minutes of the cabinet, but the minutes of the cabinet meetings, they don'tjust record the decision we arrive at. they will record if there is a paper giving different options. they will record that. and they will record a summary, of the points made in the discussions. summary, of the points made in the discussions-— summary, of the points made in the discussions. does that record record that our discussions. does that record record that your position _ discussions. does that record record that your position was _ discussions. does that record record that your position was as _ discussions. does that record record that your position was as it - discussions. does that record record that your position was as it stands, l that your position was as it stands, there _ that your position was as it stands, there is— that your position was as it stands, there is nothing we can point to to say we _ there is nothing we can point to to say we have — there is nothing we can point to to say we have listened to industry? i say we have listened to industry? would, i say we have listened to industry? i would, i don't have the cabinet minute from that date in front of me, but i absolutely am certain that around this point in particular, i will have spoken notjust in cabinet meetings but publicly about the need to listen to industry, to listen to different groups in scottish society, as we arrived at the decisions. we were trying to take decisions. we were trying to take decisions that none of us wanted to be taking, and we were trying to reach those decisions in a way that we thought struck the right balance. i'm sure we will come on to talk later about the four harms approach the scottish government took, and in that we were listening as much as we could to different viewpoints. we were not always able to take account of those viewpoints because of the nature of the decisions, so i am absolutely certain that it would not have been news to anybody that we were struggling with the impact on industry of some of these decisions and we were at pains to show that as far as we could, given the nature of the decisions we were taken, we were listening to reasonable points that were being made. bloom i do think an interested member of scottish society, or indeed this inquiry, should take no interest at all in the process by which this decision is made in this discussion is arrived at, including the fact you say, it is all so random and there is nothing we can point to to say we listened to industry liz lloyd's response, her involvement in the discussion generally or in this specific issue. i'm not saying there should be no interest from the inquiry, the inquiry does have an interest in this and the wider scottish public would. what i'm saying is i do not accept that it would have been unknown to the public at the time that these were theissues public at the time that these were the issues we were grappling with. every day i was taking the public through the different issues we were grappling with, the balances we were trying to strike, the trade—offs we were having and the different viewpoints that we were trying as best we could to balance. in a sense this is an example of an exchange that, we look at it now in whatsapped, and i don't consider that there is anything in that exchange that would not have been known that was either in the record and through the cabinet minutes, or in public statements, that these were exactly the kind of issues we were exactly the kind of issues we were trying to reach considered and balanced judgments on.— balanced 'udgments on. thank you. can i balanced judgments on. thank you. can i take you _ balanced judgments on. thank you. can i take you to — balanced judgments on. thank you. can i take you to another _ balanced judgments on. thank you. can i take you to another documenti can i take you to another document now _ can i take you to another document now this— can i take you to another document now this is— can i take you to another document now. this is another exchange, this is not _ now. this is another exchange, this is not a _ now. this is another exchange, this is not a group that features you, but it _ is not a group that features you, but it is— is not a group that features you, but it is another piece of evidence we have _ but it is another piece of evidence we have seen and i would be interested in understanding your reflection on some of the content of the exchange. this is in your capacity— the exchange. this is in your capacity as former first minister, and first — capacity as former first minister, and first minister at the time up this is— and first minister at the time up this is a — and first minister at the time up this is a whatsapped group chat called _ this is a whatsapped group chat called covid outbreak. these messages were provided to the inquiry— messages were provided to the inquiry by doctorjim mcmenaminn of public— inquiry by doctorjim mcmenaminn of public health scotland who did not delete _ public health scotland who did not delete his messages, and not by the scottish— delete his messages, and not by the scottish government or its officials _ scottish government or its officials. an exchange on the 27th officials. an exchange on the 27th of august— officials. an exchange on the 27th of august 2020, you will recognise no doubt _ of august 2020, you will recognise no doubt the individuals involved, kenyes absolutely. jason leitch points out, dg absolutely. jason leitch points out, 06 level— absolutely. jason leitch points out, dg level input there. mr thomson says. _ dg level input there. mr thomson says, plausible deniability are my middle _ says, plausible deniability are my middle name is. now clear it again. jason— middle name is. now clear it again. jason leitch— middle name is. now clear it again. jason leitch says, done. nicola steadman, me too. and somebody called _ steadman, me too. and somebody called dahmer bell, and me. were you aware _ called dahmer bell, and me. were you aware in _ called dahmer bell, and me. were you aware in your— called dahmer bell, and me. were you aware in your capacity as first minister— aware in your capacity as first minister that these sorts of exchanges took place and that a senior— exchanges took place and that a senior member of the civil service considered — senior member of the civil service considered plausible deniability to be his— con
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11
