When is a fracking ban not a fracking ban? When it’s glossed over in court

It seems the First Minister has learned from her previous master (Alex Salmond), who I recall advising everyone that he had sought legal advice as regards Scotland’s membership of the EU should the people vote for independence. It transpired that at best he had been economical with the truth as he left it to his successor (Nicola Sturgeon) to tell the Scottish Parliament that actually no advice had been sought.

Now the current First Minister delegates the responsi- bility of advising the Scottish people that no fracking ban exists in Scotland to the Government’s lawyer, James Mure QC to advise in court proceedings that the “concept of an effective ban is a gloss”.

How extraordinary, bearing in mind that last October the First Minister declared in parliament that “those who, like me, do not believe that fracking should go ahead in Scotland should welcome the fact that fracking in Scotland is banned”.

Indeed on the SNP website it states: “The Scottish Government has put in place a ban on fracking in Scotland – meaning fracking cannot and will not take place in Scotland.”

However what is even more astonishing is the fact that the Scottish Government is prepared to commit Ineos to spending thousands of pounds in a court hearing to learn the truth about a supposed “fracking ban” (Scotsman, May 11).

This company employs many people at the Grangemouth refinery. This is Scotland’s only crude oil refinery and produces the bulk of fuels used in Scotland.

This shameful behaviour by the SNP Government in misleading an hugely important business and employer in Scotland and the Scottish people demonstrates that the SNP and in particular Nicola Sturgeon are completely untrustworthy to govern this country.

RICHARD ALLISON

Braehead Loan, Edinburgh Scotland is a cold country as our recent long winter showed. There are 649,000 households in Scotland in fuel poverty including nearly 40 per cent of rural households.

The SNP government has increased spending on “climate change measures” by 20 per cent to £558m which will not make the slightest difference to climate change but will increase fuel prices even further.

That sum could give every fuel-poor household some £860 to spend on heating.

But if, as Ineos have been told, the SNP has not banned fracking for cheap gas – which would substantially reduce heating costs – then that is a promising way forward to reduce heating costs. Perhaps now at last initial drilling can go forward to prove or disprove or disprove fracking’s supposed environmental downsides.

WILLIAM LONESKIE

Oxton, Lauder