Aberdeen's spread was in hospitality areas so she had to lock them down. Glasgow's was in houses so people were banned from each other's houses.
Convenient, eh? That there was nothing happening in pubs (allegedly)
When Aberdeen had an issue with pubs she introduced measures restricting travel and stopped people visiting homes. She closed pubs AND cafes, restaurants etc - even though there have never been any cases in those places. Despite it starting in pubs, she said it was necessary to stop the spread. Surely, if there is an outbreak in Glasgow, no matter where it starts, the response should be to stop the spread and closing pubs and restaurants is part of that. She closed the entire city which runs a very long and narrow east to west. My mum, just outside the city (3 miles) could come and go freely, but someone 14 miles to the west of where the problem was had to lock down. Make no mistake, closing Aberdeen and not Glasgow was a political decision, not a scientific one.
Giving the exact same solution to different scenarios would have been bloody stupid.
This is what she is doing now. Many areas in Scotland have really low numbers. Clacks, as noted earlier has negligible cases. The Highlands and Islands, a vast rural area is barely affected. When Shetland first had an outbreak, they were left to their own devices. Can you imagine the outcry if they locked down the whole of central Scotland so that Shetland was protected? But, do it the other way round and people just have to get on with it.
I’m glad NS has taken the view that stronger measures need to be in place, but moving away from the local lockdown scenario is a mistake. She did so because she knows Glasgow is the problem but politically it would be suicide to make Glasgow alone, deal with it.