2007 - 2021

Lunch Postponed

The fracking ban represents a massive breakthrough for the Scottish NGOs that have been campaigning for it for years, lobbying and pressurising the Scottish Government but also contributing research such as the Commonweals ‘The Economics of Shale Gas Extraction’, but much more than that it represents a huge victory for grassroots activists and communities who would have faced ruin as a result.

The ban will be confirmed by a vote in the Scottish Parliament later this year but as only the Tories oppose it, it will be a formality. Although energy policy is reserved to Westminster, Holyrood’s control over the planning system means they can block any application to frack.

But now as the Scottish Government take a historic decision to halt fracking, an unholy alliance of the Conservative government threatening a power grab over environmental policy, the GMB union and INEOS shrieking at the iniquity of it all threaten to combine to act against it.

INEOS’s reaction is inevitable and hardly surprising, they had a lot of investment riding on this, but will no doubt redirect their efforts to find communities to pollute elsewhere now. Maximum solidarity must now be extended to protect communities and enforce environmental justice wherever else fracking is proposed and lessons should be learned about who you mobilise effective opposition.

INEOS, which holds fracking exploration licences across 700 miles of Scotland, also warned it was weighing up its legal options, including whether to sue the Scottish or UK governments over £50 million of lost investment.

Good luck with that.

But the GMB’s response was more dishonest. They write that the Scottish Government’s decision to ban fracking is: “mired in dishonesty and represents and abandonment of the national interest”, before going on to make the claim that fracking is linked to fuel poverty.

They wrote: “Against a backdrop of dwindling domestic supply from the North Sea and over a quarter of households in Scotland living in fuel poverty, GMB has accused the Scottish Government of ignoring the realities of the country’s needs.”

Read the full GMB statement here.


Get this: fracking as an answer to fuel poverty makes as much sense as GM technology as an answer to food poverty. This is a defeat of corporate exploitation and a victory for environmental justice.

But its also an example of a functioning democracy. The Scottish Government Fracking consultation was 2nd biggest in history of devolution with over 60,000 replies – and with 99% opposed to fracking.

That’s some serious public participation and to ignore that and go with the needs and interests of INEOS would have been obscene. It’s difficult to imagine that level of participation prior to the referendum.


As with GM we hear the recurring theme of “evidence” – and the idea that Scotland is diminished by operating as a functioning democracy.

Tom Pickering, Ineos Shale’s operations director, said: “It is a sad day for those of us who believe in evidence-led decision making. The Scottish Government has turned its back on a potential manufacturing and jobs renaissance and lessened Scottish academia’s place in the world by ignoring its findings.”

He added: “It speaks volumes about Scottish leadership on the world stage and sends a clear and negative message to any future investors in Scotland. Expert reports have clearly stated that this technology can be applied safely and responsibly – but it will be England that reaps the benefits.”

Lunch date cancelled

Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Tories’ Shadow Finance Minister, said: “This is a short-sighted and economically damaging decision which is nothing more than a bid to appease the green elements of the pro-independence movement.”

Sadly it looks like Murdo and Ian’s gloating lunch date may have to be cancelled.


We really need your support to develop and we’d like to ask you to support us by donating to us here.

We’ve got big plans to launch our new site, to launch new publishing and events projects, and to extend our platform of writers – but all of this needs your support.

Bella Caledonia remains free (and ad-free) and takes me hundreds of hours a month to research, write, commission and edit. If you value what I do, please consider supporting with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing. GoCardless to set up a small monthly donation to support independent journalism in Scotland.



Comments (7)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. w.b.robertson says:

    Had this thinking prevailed 150 years ago there would have been no coal industry in Scotland, no iron and steel industry, no nasty steam trains on our rail network, indeed no industrial revolution. Is this decision an admission that a Scottish Govt and its scientific advisors in the 21st century could neither devise strict controls nor effective monitoring of fracking safety? Is this a case of nuclear power stations (and stored nuclear weapons) good, new style fracking technology bad?

    1. Kenny Smith says:

      Sorry mate hardly a fair comparison, fact is people don’t want it. Most of the population regardless of yes/no or party leanings understand we need to move away from fossil fuels. Renewables can and should be our next oil boom. And in any case if nothing else it was worth it just to put Radcliffe in his place, him and people like him have no interest in your fuel security or the overblown amount of jobs it would create. I heard a guy on the news say it was only poor regulations that caused the problems in America and it would be stricter here, nae bother pal, we have a rabib Tory government who left the EU over red tape/regulations they would never allow it on their private lawns so why should we accept it in our public spaces. Great result, well done Scot gov

  2. Wul says:

    The fossil fuel experts howling about “evidence” are missing a crucial point. Scotland’s people have said that we don’t want fracking here. It’s our country. End of. Now Frack Off.

    It feels good to have actual democracy taking place for a change.

    Anyway, if its so useful, that shit will still be in the ground in a hundred years, if we need it later we can still get it.

    Meanwhile, back up at ground level, in the bonny fresh air, there’s a giant fusion reactor in the sky, distilled water falling from the clouds and enough wind & tidal energy to power another, less smoky industrial revolution if w.b.robertson wants one.

    1. Mathew says:

      You’re spot on.

  3. w.b.robertson says:

    o.k. so what is next? A ban on all dairy products because of those cows farting in the fields and polluting our atmosphere?

    1. Kenny Smith says:

      You think your so clever with what you think as smart answers. You are doing yourself or whatever cause your trying to push no favours. It’s not needed or wanted what is so hard about that?

  4. w.b.robertson says:

    pushing no particular cause or party line. just interested in making people think.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.