IT may be unfashionable to point out but football can create really joyous occasions. Take last Saturday’s FA Cup Final at Wembley with 21,500 people in the stadium, an intimation that normality is again conceivable.

There was an emotional quality to the singing of Abide With Me, dedicated to victims of the pandemic. “When other helpers fail and comforts flee; Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me”. Old words with special meaning as people came together after so long, in this way.

Then there was the game itself, turning on two acts of beauty – the goal from Youri Tielemans which won it and the save from Kasper Schmeichel that thwarted Chelsea. So Leicester, one of our cities hardest hit by the pandemic, had its morale lifted to the heavens.

The occasion was possible through a balanced approach to risk. Putting 21,500 people into Wembley’s open air must carry a scintilla of risk. But keeping them out and playing this special game behind closed doors would surely have done far more harm than good.

In Scotland, such thinking is taboo. Even before the latest Glasgow shutdown, there were to be just 600 supporters inside Hampden for the Scottish Cup Final. Now the vast terraces will be empty. To what good effect or elimination of risk, I wonder?

Last Friday I was in Glasgow Airport, a place of eerie silence these days but suddenly raucous sound announced the arrival of a flight from Belfast which disgorged a platoon of Rangers tops, clearly here for a party. I should make clear the colour of tops is irrelevant to the thrust of my argument.

If anyone had doubts, this confirmed that the following day’s celebrations were going to be a big event attracting supporters from far and near. Given that entry to Ibrox stadium was precluded, the logic pointed to a big event somewhere else – ie the streets, bridges and squares of Glasgow. Who had decided that this was a good – or at least, less bad – idea?

It seemed basic common sense – which would have applied equally regardless of which club had something to celebrate – that the thousands congregating in Glasgow should be allowed to do so in their preferred environment, their own stadium. The choice was not between whether or not people would congregate; only where.

I have still to hear any rational explanation of why it was thought preferable for this to happen in the aforementioned streets, bridges and squares where, as soon transpired, absolutely no rules would apply, than within the confines of a stadium where they all wanted to be and within which some degree of regulation would have been possible.

Then, while I was waiting for my flight, a friend in the hospitality industry phoned in despair to tell me about the latest disaster – the decision not to move Glasgow down to level 2. At this point, the contrast between what everyone knew was going to happen the following day and the latest extension of Glasgow’s lockdown moved from being merely irrational to grotesque.

I have never quite understood why it is forbidden to have a glass of wine with a meal within permitted hours. However, the idea this would continue to be banned in Glasgow on public health grounds while the same politicians and experts had put exclusion from a football stadium before all the blatantly obvious risks inherent in the alternative now appeared incomprehensible and irresponsible.

Yet who does one turn to for an explanation? Who can the beleaguered hospitality industry ask for the right of appeal, based on reason? In what respect is the public health advice in England different to that in Scotland? There are so many questions and after more than a year of this, so few detailed, satisfactory answers.

READ MORE: Scottish Government rejected Rangers' proposals to have fans inside Ibrox for trophy lift

The decision makers hide behind the mantra that anyone who challenges their edicts is less interested than themselves in public health or protecting the community. That has never been true and should have been called out long before now. The longer this goes on, the more urgent the need for scrutiny.

Keeping Glasgow closed is a blunt instrument which fails to recognise vast differences within its boundaries. Concentrating on postcode areas seems more sensible than relying on boundaries which were drawn in the 1990s for entirely different reasons – primarily to keep more prosperous areas out of Glasgow.

The idea that people are not going to travel from Glasgow for a meal in Bearsden or Kilmacolm does not accord with reality. So the major impact of this blanket ban within the confines of the city is not to limit the spread of the virus but to put another nail in the coffins of good, responsible businesses that are struggling to survive.

If the politicians believe their own rhetoric, why did they not act last Friday to limit the public health damage from the Rangers party? Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf could have made a recording of his pious strictures to be released around 6pm. and then taken the rest of Saturday off. What did he expect in George Square? Community singing of Abide with Me?

Ditto the First Minister who should surely have seen the need for containment within her own constituency? The lesson is that while it is easy to ban things it is within your authority to ban, a greater talent is required for seeing a bigger picture – and that is what they made a complete mess of last weekend.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.