ANOTHER day, another attack on the Scottish Government. It’s expected for the government of the day to be challenged by opposition spokespersons and members of groups with interests in contentious policy areas. This is correct and part of the democratic process, even if the opposition in Scotland often get confused by having conflicting ideas with their masters in Westminster and confused over what powers have actually been devolved to the Scottish Government.
There is something sinister, however, when large multinational companies start taking the democratically elected governments to court to try and prevent them expressing the stated will of the people. The subject in question is fracking. That is the process of injecting liquid at high pressure under the ground to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas.
The Scottish Government carried out a consultation to help guide its stance on fracking. Of the 60,000 respondents, 99% were vigorously against any form of fracking or exploration to help establish fracking opportunities. The fear from the people consulted, and backed by large amounts of scientific evidence, is that fracking poses an unacceptable risk to the environment, the climate and people’s health. In the days when 65% of people being against something (Brexit) is not enough of a mandate in this country, surely 99% sends a clear message on public opinion?
A moratorium on fracking has been in place since 2015 following the consultation. Using planning regulations the Scottish Government have effectively banned fracking in Scotland. Ineos and Reach GSG, two large chemical companies, are taking the Scottish Government to court stating that the government exceeded its powers and lacked competence to impose a ban.
Ineos has spent millions of pounds acquiring fracking licences (from Westminster – the Tories support fracking) and obtaining planning permission for drilling sites which will now be rendered worthless by the Scottish Government’s effective ban. Ineos promises jobs and money for local communities. Why is it that initiatives the general populous are against are always sold by promises of jobs and money to help struggling communities? Trident anyone? The beneficiaries are the billionaire owners and shareholders sitting far away from any potential impact of fracking.
The billionaire owner of Ineos, Jim Ratcliffe, has just been announced as Britain’s richest man, having increased his fortune last year by £15 billion. Should he be allowed to make even more money while the public have to take the risks?
Some may consider everything the Scottish Government does as wrong, and somehow driven by their wish for independence, but consider that seven of eight planning applications for fracking-related activity have been rejected by councils in England. One of these a Tory- run council.
At the time of the Union of Parliaments in 1707 the people had no voice and were venomously against any such union. The leaders at the time, described by Burns as “such a parcel of rogues in a nation!”, were the equivalent of our modern-day multinationals. Only interested in themselves and how to make a profit with no consideration for the good of the people. This was again demonstrated during the Highland Clearances when titled land owners forcibly removed people from their land to better exploit the potential wealth for their own selfish benefit.
The difference between then and now is that our ancestors had no voice and could not express their will. Now we can and do through our democratically elected government in Edinburgh. There is a loud and clear message to these multinationals who seek to hoodwink us and blind us with shiny baubles. The message is load and clear – frack off!
Paul Malloy
Address supplied
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel