There have been continuing reverberations from Nicola Sturgeon’s appearance at the UK Covid Inquiry last week.

Every detail of her performance was recorded in a live blog by our Political Correspondent David Bol.

Read his blog here 👈

On Saturday, several of our readers delivered their verdict.

Read those letters here 👈

Today, one of our correspondents complains about the treatment the former first minister received at the inquiry.

Robert Menzies of Falkirk writes:

"Nicola Sturgeon’s critics were predictably out in full force last week. But what I found most disturbing was the treatment she received at the UK Covid Inquiry. For instance, counsel to the inquiry accused her of using the pandemic to promote independence. This was despite Ms Sturgeon pointing out that the Cabinet Secretary had written to the UK Government saying that work on this had been postponed during the crisis.

Furthermore, when she pointed out that she had specifically asked Boris Johnson to postpone work on Brexit so as to release more Scottish civil servants to work on the pandemic, counsel suddenly declined to investigate the politicisation issue further. So was he pursuing an agenda?

Subsequent discussion covered the consideration of the Covid experience in Scotland being used to inform the independence debate. We also had the anticipated future reaction of Spanish politicians to cancelling flights from Spain. However, both of these issues were referencing post-Covid events. As such they would have had no impact on any delivery issues during the actual pandemic. So what was the point of raising them as subject matter to be analysed?

Counsel then accused Ms Sturgeon of “sleeping on the job’ - ie not acting fast enough. Yet 10 minutes later he accused her of “jumping the gun” by banning mass gatherings ahead of the rest of the UK - ie acting too fast. By definition she cannot be simultaneously guilty of both.

He then went on to infer that the lack of minutes for Gold Command meetings was evidence of a cover-up as regards decision-making. But this was irrespective of the fact that Cabinet would still have had to approve any conclusions reached at these meetings. It is the key decision-making forum and its minutes are available. So again, what was the relevance of the allegation?

The bereaved families also claimed that the unavailability of such information could have been contributory to any deaths. But where is the evidence trail which leads to that assertion? They damaged their cause further by asserting that Ms Sturgeon’s tears were wholly artificial. None of us is in any position to make such a judgment.

Similar claims made by Alister Jack and Douglas Ross came as no surprise, however. Neither is seeking to retain their Westminster seat at the forthcoming election so they can indulge themselves in gutter politics without fearing a voter backlash. Nevertheless I can’t help but wonder what those who died would have thought if they knew that their deaths would be hijacked to score points off political opponents."

Click here to subscribe to the Letter of the Day newsletter.

📨 Read more in our Letters page
Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.