Why is the Scottish Covid inquiry going ahead before the UK one?

One possible subtext of Nicola Sturgeon’s announcement of a statutory public inquiry by the end of this year to investigate the handling of the pandemic in Scotland was provided by Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice. “Boris Johnson should take note that his government can no longer be allowed to hold the process back from asking difficult questions,” said the group in a statement.

The Scottish first minister would never be so explicit, but it is hard to resist the idea that one reason for her announcement was to underline the contrast with the UK prime minister, who has promised a UK-wide inquiry “in the spring of next year”. When Johnson confirmed this timetable in May, he said it would be wrong to “weigh down” scientific advisers and take up “huge amounts of officials’ time” in what might be another rise in cases during the winter.

Such concerns didn’t hold Sturgeon back, allowing her to appear more nimble and more compassionate than the UK government, even if the difference in timing is not as great as it might appear. On Tuesday she announced a consultation on the “aims and principles” of the inquiry that would run to the end of September, so the inquiry itself won’t be set up until the end of the year.

When the Scottish inquiry is up and running, it is likely to overlap the work of the UK-wide inquiry, which is why some of Sturgeon’s critics ask whether it is worth duplicating so much of the work – and why they might think that one of its real purposes is simply to embarrass the Westminster government. In fact, the overlap may work in Johnson’s favour, because the way the Scottish government has handled the pandemic has never been very different from that of the UK government.

Sources in 10 Downing Street have also told me that Johnson is keen to get the UK inquiry underway because “there will be nothing in it we don’t know”. They think that a thorough and impartial inquiry would be bound to be more favourable to the government and the prime minister than the embittered inside account so far presented by Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s former chief adviser.

Cummings’s colourful testimony has been rude about the prime minister, but generally admiring of Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s scientific adviser, and Professor Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England. The government’s main defence is likely to be that at no point did the scientific advisers go public with disagreements, still less resign.

The difficult decision for both inquiries – or for all four if Wales and Northern Ireland also have separate investigations – will be the appointment of a chair. The Scottish government statement said that discussions are already under way to “identify and appoint a judge to chair the inquiry”. In No 10, meanwhile, I am told that the search for a chair might have to look abroad for someone who would be willing to take on the task, knowing that they would likely be criticised if they failed to ensure, for example, that the prime minister went to jail.