a) I've not been in many pubs/restaurants of late, but the few times I've been in I can see immediately that guidance is not being followed. Either multiple households at one table or people moving about to speak to other tables etc. This may change with stricter penalties and more inspections going forward, but it still depends in trust of the information you get from customers. Instead of trusting a household of people you would invite over, you are trusting the actions of the people running the establishment you are in, plus everyone that happens to be in it.
b) Arguments that these controlled environments are better ventilated etc than home seems to be put forward as universal argument when that is clearly not the case. I've been in plenty establishments where ventilation is at a premium.
c) My garden is not a controlled environment. I am trusted to have people in my garden as long as I want. The risk is lower outdoors, but is a non-socially distanced catch up outdoors safer than a socially distanced catch up indoors?
d) The only outbreak of note that we have had locally (up here) has been in the "controlled" environment. There has been no issue with household to household within the local area. Yet, we are being told that we can still do the thing that caused the outbreak locally is allowed to continue, but something else that hasn't been an issue isn't allowed.
e) If it is that controlled an environment, what makes it become uncontrolled after 10pm?
f) Why were we allowed to meet indoors before we could go to a restaurant/bar indoors during the gradual easing of the original lockdown?
g) To parliament yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon basically said that she would shut pubs and hospitality if she had the ability to continue schemes like the Job Retention Scheme. The main reason they are remaining open is to protect jobs.
To me, it seems like they are risks with all interactions, and the main reason that we are allowed to meet people in an indoor environment with lots of other people rather than an indoor environment where there are just two households is because of the economy. I understand this reasoning from a national policy perspective, but trying to dress it up as scientifically backed is just nonsense. Then when you add in that we are now moving from a regional approach to a more national approach just leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Why in areas of low prevalence are we having as strict rules with areas with high prevalence? Why was this not the case in the Aberdeen lockdown? Why is there no 5 mile travel limit in the areas where stronger measures were required before?
I'm losing confidence in the Scottish government making good decisions around this. The less confidence I have, the less likely I am to abide by rules they set.