Political survival put before defeating fuel poverty

The SNP has chosen for the party to survive rather than for us to thrive, but the decision could backfire, says Brian Monteith

There comes a point in the life of governments when a choice is made that, although not immediately apparent, is the turning point after which it is later possible to see it led to successful re-election or an ignominious defeat. It might be a cabinet reshuffle that provides a fresh sense of purpose and direction, such as when Margaret Thatcher sacked internal critics like Ian Gilmour and brought in Norman Tebbit and Nigel Lawson; or it might be a policy that proves to be of great benefit, such as Gordon Brown’s invention of five economic tests the UK had to meet before we could join the Euro.

Last week the Scottish Government took a decision that has the potential to make or break its reelection hopes in 2021 when it announced it would continue with its moratorium on exploring for and producing unconventional gas (fracking) in Scotland. At first glance it may seem an entirely predictable and unimportant decision, but it tells us a great deal about the nature of Nicola Sturgeon’s minority government since she lost her overall majority in May last year.

No matter what politicians say, be it a rallying cry for independence, a stout defence of the Union or prioritising education over, say, health or housing, the issue that is most often at the heart of any successful campaign is the economy. Politicians that ignore the fears or aspirations voters have for how economic fortunes will affect them do so at their peril.

There can be little doubt that Theresa May’s failure to promote the relative health of the UK economy under the Conservatives (especially in terms of high employment levels) or highlight the risk to economic welfare that the policies of Jeremy Corbyn and John Mcdonell presented, cost her the overall majority she enjoyed previously.

In deciding to forego the wide economic benefits to Scotland that successful fracking of shale gas could undoubtedly have brought, the Scottish Government has demonstrated two things: firstly that it puts alarmist scaremongering about manmade climate change ahead of helping the economic prosperity of Scots, and especially poor Scots. Secondly, it would rather Scots who are suffering from fuel poverty and unemployment continue to do so rather than seek the support of Conservative MSPS at Holyrood to achieve a majority in favour of fracking.

Those are strong charges to make, but the evidence supports my reasoning. Here are just seven reasons it would have made economic, moral and political sense for the SNP government to allow fracking in Scotland.

The Scottish Government commissioned not just one but six reports to provide reasoned evidence that would better inform its decision on fracking. Every one, bar none, gave qualified approval for fracking to go ahead so long as certain procedures and conditions about health and safety, none of which were insurmountable, were met by industry.

We know, because unconventional gas is being imported into Grangemouth on huge Chinesebuilt tankers, that there are significant cost savings to be had for Scottish industry and those among our population that rely upon gas for heating. Those savings are the only reason that Grangemouth petrochemical plant has not closed and could be of benefit to other industries in Scotland.

We know also that there was a possibility that a new car manufacturing plant could have been estab-