this is a bad-faith argument:

> It's baseless to believe that the home office would target something in Sturgeons constituency on some particular day, especially when there's no political advantage to be drawn by said act.

Judging by #10's behavior as a predictor for future behavior there is every reason to believe it was very much on purpose (and far from "baseless"). And even it wasn't on purpose it would now be on them to apologize and try to straighten things out - which ofc they don't.

If you were trying to argue your point in good faith you would have provided some examples of the behaviour you are talking about, of which I know of no examples.

To be specific I can't think of a time that #10 have gone out of their way to do something like this, or anything else to directly antagonise Sturgeon.