Ask us first Alistair! (Angela Sutherland)

The debate about fracking is full of disingenuous information and political hypocrisy. In an effort to discourage or ban fracking because it will produce hydrocarbons which will contribute to CO2 production, all manner of misinformation is being spread by the green lobby about its safety and possible contamination of groundwater which numerous reports have found to be unfounded provided it is carried out properly and within a rigorous set of rules which are properly monitored. The environmentalists should clearly distinguish between their objection to CO2 production, which may well be justified, and the improper stirring up of public concern on safety grounds which are based on dubious anecdotes which contradict the evidence so far and yet are beginning to convince the public.
This is in danger of going the way of GM where the issue around Monsanto’s ban on the re-use of its genetically improved seed without expensive licence dues clouded triggered an argument around GM and misinformation was fed which engendered a misconception on the safety of GM in the public view. It says a lot on our level of general scientific education and ability to question the “information” we are fed that on fracking and GM the public can be led so easily into taking unquestioning views based on misinformation put out by lobby groups, however well intentioned. It is also a shame that many journalists are equally poorly informed and even where they know better some look for sensationalism rather than a balanced objective view.
I am not at all sure whether the shale gas produced by fracking is intended for energy production. As far as I understand, Ineos is investing in Grangemouth to use shale gas as the feedstock for the chemical industry and will import gas from the USA. This is a hugely significant employer in the Scottish economy, and contributes to the production and development of modern materials (and if you greens are not sympathetic, just take a look through your modern outdoor garments to realise how dependent we are on such products).
However it cannot be claimed that we are energy sufficient, not even at the Scottish level far less UK level (and you did vote for retention of the Union, so it is the UK level that counts), and even if we clad our hills with windmills, including Shetland, what will you do on a still, cold winters night when there is no wind? There needs to be other means to generate electricity. Currently most of UK electricity production comes from gas-fired generation following the “dash for gas”. Since nobody has planned for when the gas runs out, the UK is now importing most of its gas, and will become increasingly reliant on imports unless an alternative is found. Politicians know this, and know that they have to consider the opportunity provided by shale gas reserves. However, approaching an election and in the face of hostile public opinion based mostly on false premises, politicians are, for now, rushing to appear to take an anti-fracking stance to get your vote. This is hypocrisy. They mostly know the scientific and economic arguments support fracking, despite what the public has come to think, and that they cannot afford to ignore this on the other side of the election, yet they will not come out and say it directly.
It would be far more realistic if the public demanded assurances that if fracking goes ahead, which is very likely, the monitoring of it will be adequate and properly resourced, and in the public domain – not hidden behind proprietary agreements with the licensee companies. It is important to at least ensure that no toxic substances are used in these processes (I don’t think any are), and that groundwater levels are maintained and left as they were before the process.
It would also be important to introduce some scheme whereby those living where fracking takes place could benefit from it. The crown owns the mineral rights below our feet, as far as I understand, and would benefit from the licenses granted. I would rather be a “citizen” and that the “state” owned these rights – but aren’t those just words and, in effect, mean the same thing? While I am a native Shetlander I live in Midlothian, and around here the land is riddled with old coal mine workings, some preceding any records, and most benefiting the various landowning families where the mineheads were located – up until coal was nationalised. Since the Crown is the license granter, do we not all benefit to some extent (and that before any taxes are levied)?
Furthermore, if fracking is properly carried out it will not be as damaging to the rock strata as mining, yet we live fairly comfortably with the results of mining and tunneling, with the occasional exception. The process will be less polluting than agricultural run-off, or many industrial processes that SEPA has made substantial progress in controlling. There is no reason that given the proper regulatory regime and resources SEPA can not adequately monitor shale gas extraction – and that regime, its funding, and its transparency should be what we voters should be focusing on.
There are no simple answers, but don’t climb blindly on any political or pressure-group bandwagon.

This man Ewing beggars belief. He calls for a Moratorium on Fracking for Scotland at the same time he advocates and promotes the destruction of rural Scotland with endless wind turbines. Only a totally scientific ignoramus cannot see fracking is infinitely cleaner and far less hazardous than offshore oil production which Ewing so promotes at every opportunity. I believe a politician such as this is actually a menace. Blind ignorance and a devotion almost to the point of religious zealotry for a pseudo green agenda can do Scotland immense harm. I just hope the electorate wakes up to the utter stupidly this man Ewing displays in his actions and rabid chase for votes. Just so typical of the SNP, do anything to undermine Westminster at any cost to us all.