JEALOUS doesn't even begin to cut it.
Damn you, every one, on yesterday morning's 6am flight from Edinburgh to Faro. I have a very finely curated list of must-visit places and I've always been careful to choose my flights wisely, not wanting to waste carbon footprint or annual leave or money on a holiday for holiday's sake.
Fly me anywhere now, though. I'm desperate to see family in Australia and New Zealand. Zanzibar and the Galapagos and New Orleans still call to me but at this rate I'll happily jet to Edinburgh just for the experience.
Though... just because we can now fly overseas again, should we?
John Swinney said yesterday that travel is still only permitted for essential reasons. When the BBC spoke to passengers preparing to depart for Portugal they listed their reasons as a reward after a year of studying; that it's "always nice" to get a bit of sunshine; and after a year of restrictions, travel is "well deserved".
Fair enough. "Essential" is a term open to interpretation. For some, a wedding is essential. For others, more pragmatic others, a wedding is possibly the least essential event you could dream up.
A last visit to someone ill; a meeting with a new infant - these are unarguably essential.
A holiday for holiday's sake takes a bit of rhetoric round about to justify it, but you can justify a holiday after 14 months of pandemic restrictions without too much heavy lifting.
Looking at the green light travel options I'm pleased to Australia and New Zealand on the green list, for personal reasons, but they won't let us in. Good luck finding a straightforward route to the South Georgia and Sandwich Islands - I suspect many would have to Google them first.
St Helena, Tristan de Cunha and Ascension Island are fairly outre choices as well. My friend Janet went to St Helena a few years ago. She had a lovely time but the trip involved an RAF troop carrier and a voyage on the last remaining Royal Mail Ship.
So options are limited for green lights. Last week a flight left England for Spain and, on arrival, those who were there for a holiday were put on another flight and sent home again. Amber gambling might not be wise.
How to decide whether to fly. The Scottish Government advice, as described, is to avoid overseas travel. Yesterday, Dr Jillian Evans, head of health intelligence at NHS Grampian, told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme that case numbers are rising again and a third wave is not ruled out.
"It would be far better," she said, "And far safer to do the cautious thing now and plan your summer holiday for next year."
It seems like a lot of buck passing. If people are chided for choosing to go on holiday then they can point to the fact the airlines are selling tickets abroad.
If the airlines are pulled up for the fact they are selling tickets abroad they can point to the government, which has given the green light for them to go ahead.
If there's condemnation on the government for encouraging overseas travel then - get out of jail free - they can point right back to the people making the choice to go and say it's all about personal responsibility.
It feels like a blame game in the style of pass the parcel.
It's hard to blame airlines for laying on flights to holiday destinations. The industry has been devastated by coronavirus - along with airports - and is looking at years of recovery ahead. Of course the travel industry is going to restart as soon as it can.
This disconnect between the Scottish and UK governments is jarring also - caution here and encouragement there.
Is leaving people to exercise common sense on this issue the best way forward in lockdown easing, particularly when those in charge can't decide?
Doors are already cross checked and to manual so we can but hope for a safe landing on the other side.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel