SNP leadership avoided a rebellion over fracking yesterday as members backed the Scottish Government’s moratorium by 550 votes to 427.
Members in favour of a full ban on fracking had proposed remitting the motion urging support for the Government’s position, effectively sending the proposal back to the SNP executive and asking them to think again.
Although the motion was defeated there seemed to be very little support for fracking amongst the delegates.
Callum McCaig, the SNP’s energy spokesman in Westminster, speaking in favour of the motion, said he was “personally ambivalent” about the process.
There was a standing ovation for Ian Black from SNP Members Against Unconventional Oil and Gas (Smaug) who argued the motion before conference should advocate a complete ban on fracking.
“The SNP is about helping communities,” he told delegates. “You can’t help communities if you destroy the land, if you destroy the air, if you destroy the water that we drink. There are too many unanswered questions, too many figures out there about cancer rates, about childhood defects and birth defects. The science is clear on these things. We do not need fracking.”
The motion, tabled by the party’s Leith branch, also called for the party to call on the Scottish Government to “consider extending the current moratorium on fracking to include the technologies used in underground coal gasification and unconventional gas extraction.”
McCaig said the party and the Government had to go through the correct procedures.
“But what I would like to see is a full analysis of the whole remit of this contentious issue being done from a source I can trust,” he said. “And conference, it will perhaps be no surprise to you that I trust our Government to do this and to do it correctly.
“We should not be ashamed at going through this in minute detail to make sure we come out at the right decision.”
Tony McAndles said the purpose of remitting the motion was for the Scottish Government to “make a stronger recommendation to ban fracking”.
He added: “The resolution as it stands is not strong enough and it’s been exploited by people claiming to be our partners in the run up to the referendum. I am sick to death of Green Party members telling me that the SNP supports fracking. It does not. It’s membership does not.”
McAndles ended by warning Ineos boss Jim Ratcliffe that “1,400 jobs at Grangemouth will not be held hostage” by the company, “blowing our country to pieces.”
Tommy Sheppard, the party’s MP for Edinburgh East and a long time opponent of fracking and underground coal gasification spoke in favour of the motion, claiming that any review or scientific study into fracking would ultimately lead to a ban.
“I believe that having looked at the evidence myself the only logical conclusion we can to is that fracking and UCG should have no part in a balanced energy policy of the future.”
Sheppard urged conference to back the motion, adding: “There is big money and very powerful interests in this debate and if we do not get the decision absolutely correct and beyond challenge then they will do everything they can to frustrate that.”
The vote, first done by a show of hands, was too difficult to call for the chair, who asked for a physical count of delegates. In the end it wasn’t that close with delegates supporting the Government’s position with a majority of 123.
The debate came as a poll for The Times showed 59 per cent of Scots backing a complete ban. Ineos are on a major charm offensive on SNP members in Aberdeen and have supposedly spent £4,000 on a stall at the conference.
Speaking after the debate WWF Scotland director Lang Banks said it was clear, the “vast majority of SNP members actually want a full ban on fracking.”
Mhairi Black: Divide and rule tactic lets the Tories deflect attention from their own shortcomings
Victory for Our Land campaign and members as land reform motion is rejected
Jim McColl's Ferguson shipyard wins £97m CalMac ferries deal
John Swinney: Councils will have the power to cut business rates
The National View, October 17: A good day for SNP members as party is made to think again
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 here