Harold Wilson was much given to pithy comment. He it was who reminded us that a week is a long time in politics. How true.

And the former Prime Minister spoke for many when he warned that Royal Commissions of inquiry were inclined to “take minutes and waste years”.

We can but hope that this cynical view does not attach itself to the full-scale inquiries which have now begun examining the Covid pandemic.

Of course, we will have ample time in which to reach our own verdicts about the worth or otherwise of said inquiries.

READ MORE: Brian Taylor: The FM’s top aim is to tackle poverty. Here’s a progress report

They will indeed take years, whether wasted or not.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I believe it to be entirely right that there should be a collective examination of our response to the hideous plague.

However, I feel we need a little certainty about what these inquiries can – and cannot – be expected to achieve.

Perhaps we might usefully start by acknowledging what the inquiries, both UK and Scottish, are not.

They are not criminal trials. Nobody is in the dock. Nobody will be convicted or sentenced. The questions from learned KCs are intended to be inquisitorial, not adversarial. To discern the truth, not apportion guilt.

READ MORE: Brian Taylor: SNP may freeze income tax rises

Secondly, the Scottish hearing is not a Fatal Accident Inquiry. Nor is the inquiry in London a coroner’s inquest.

They are not, in short, focused solely upon fatalities, however tragic and numerous.

The two investigations will range from governmental responses, in London and Edinburgh, through clinical endeavour and public behaviour.

It is entirely understandable that the initial focus should be upon the bereaved. Upon those who lost loved ones to this grim tsunami of suffering.

My sympathy is with them all. Their continuing pain is evident and tangible.

They are entitled to ask: why did this happen? Could something have been done differently in order to pre-empt the loss endured by our family?

The inquiries will seek answers, where feasible. To provide a measure of peace, if possible.

In which regard, this week’s controversy over the provision of evidence by Scottish Ministers, serving and former, is scarcely helpful.

It is little wonder that the First Minister felt obliged to apologise to the bereaved for any distress caused by what he suggested was a lack of clarity over WhatsApp messages exchanged within government.

Were messages routinely deleted? Retained? Was it up to individuals?

Frankly, this entire episode was a guddle, a muddle, a bourach.

The problem was, of course, compounded by the challenges directed at Nicola Sturgeon, Mr Yousaf’s predecessor. Had she kept every message? Would she supply them to the UK and Scottish inquiries?

Understandably, the Opposition pounced. The Tories detected the “stench of secrecy”. Labour reckoned Mr Yousaf had lost control. The Liberal Democrats noted that “even Richard Nixon wasn’t shameful enough to destroy the Watergate tapes.”

Now, folk may not entirely buy these claims. But the reassurances offered by Ministers have yet to embed themselves.

Little wonder that the bereaved felt disquieted. The hazard now is that they may suspect that the inquiries have been hampered from the outset, that their final reports will consequently fall short.

However, I believe it is entirely possible that the inquiries themselves will be able to surmount any such concern.

By Monday, the Scottish Government will supply 14,000 WhatsApp messages, while noting that key decisions were all centrally recorded in documents, already handed over.

Further, by diligent and close questioning of key individuals, the inquiries should be able to ascertain the disputes and anxieties which underlay key decisions taken in both London and Edinburgh.

Still, the bereaved will fret. I understand and sympathise.

Which brings me back to my core argument. One purpose of these dual inquiries is to allow the bereaved to ventilate their concerns – and seek replies.

But that is not the sole – or even primary – purpose. The inquiries are not only about the tragically deceased.

They are not only about those of us who were spared, who survived the pandemic.

They must be about generations yet to come, about the unborn. They must be about learning practical lessons to be applied in future. Not just about apportioning blame for past behaviour.

Now it is entirely understandable that there will be a blame game. Folk are angry and, to be blunt, Opposition politicians sense an opportunity to reflect that anger to their own advantage.

It seems likely that more blame will fall upon Boris Johnson and his UK Conservative colleagues than upon SNP Ministers at Holyrood. I stress, comparatively speaking.

Only this week, we heard claims at the UK inquiry that Mr Johnson could not lead, that he offered the view in private that the pandemic was “nature’s way of dealing with old people”, and that his government had a Covid strategy, but no plan.

Now, the situation in Scotland will be examined by the UK inquiry – but probably through the prism of co-operation, or otherwise, with Downing Street.

It is likely that critical Scottish issues will also arise from the Edinburgh inquiry, which was conceded in response to concern from bereaved families north of the Border.

Those are likely to prove challenging for Scottish Ministers, present and past. Especially when those bereaved families are following every word. Once more, I understand and empathise.

Again, though, we must keep the broader picture in mind, both in London and Edinburgh.

In an inquiry, there can be a hazard of focusing too closely upon minutiae – like a scientist poring over a microscope, while ignoring the ogre who has entered the room, growling with subtle menace.

From this week alone, three fundamental topics emerge. One, who should manage a crisis? Downing Street? Scarcely, yet could decisions be handed to unelected experts? A balance perhaps, involving Holyrood.

Treatment. When should patients be shifted to care homes? This may well prove the most contentious item. I understand the anger while noting that, at the time, there was a genuine fear that hospitals would be swamped.

Then after care. I hear – and endorse – concerns that long-term Covid is being underplayed. Perhaps these inquiries could prompt further research and action.

Let us all try to learn lessons. Calmly. If possible.