Apart from sounding vaguely like an election result from a Banana Republic, the headline figures following the Scottish Government’s Consultation are almost certainly correct.

But is this the whole story?

This consultation had a high political profile, coming after a moratorium on ‘unconventional oil and gas’ exploitation in Scotland, and considerable pressure from environmental and community pressure groups.

We have been reading the full Analysis Report that was prepared by Dawn Griesbach and her team. It is in almost every respect an excellent piece of analysis, particularly in the way it sets out competing arguments in a complex technical environment. As an example of best practice, we commend it to Institute members who need to produce or procure qualitative analysis of comparable consultations. We particularly appreciate the definitions used for categorising responses, particularly those emerging from various organised campaigns.

They received 60,535 ‘responses’ but of these,

• 21,077 were ‘standard campaign responses’, based upon a standard text provided by campaign organisers
• 31,033 were petition signatories
• 8,425 were ‘substantive responses’ – essentially in the respondent’s own words or where a campaign’s draft text had been personally edited by the responder

Now is it reasonable to regard all these as ‘responses’ to the consultation? The Report correctly publishes the texts provided by the eight separate campaigns and the five separate petitions, and whilst some addressed most or all of the consultation’s twelve ‘open’ questions, some were very generalised statements of opposition. It would be fair to surmise that the vast majority of the 54,110 who ‘responded’ through these campaigns never saw nor considered the comprehensive consultation paper that outlined both sides of the issue.

Again, correctly, Griesbach only used the substantive responses for its qualitative analysis, but included all responders in the overall numbers. Hence, we assume the 99% headline.

The exercise does, however, raise some other interesting issues:

1. A conscious decision seems to have been taken not to seek demographic information that would normally be gathered in a public consultation. Respondents gave their address, (though seems to have been optional) so that their geographical profile is mostly understood. Also, they were asked to identify themselves as individuals or as organisations, splitting the latter into Business/Industry; Academic/Research; Professional/Trade Body; Public bodies; Third Sector/NGOPs or Community Groups. In all, 186 organisations participated. However, there is no information about age or gender; neither is there any of the analysis we are accustomed to take for ensuring compliance with Equality legislation.

2. The entire Scottish Private Sector appears to have been absent from this consultation. Of the top 50 private firms in the Country, only one responded – though two or three others may have had their views represented by a Trade Association. So:

• Did they perceive the issue to be irrelevant? Which is odd given the claims made for major economic benefits if the technology was exploited? Or
• Are Scottish Companies insufficiently targeted through the Scottish Government’s consultation process? Or
• Is there a reluctance by the Scottish Private Sector to engage publicly in matters of political controversy if it believes its views to be counter to prevailing public opinion?

3. Consultations frequently yield results that are predictable given the tone and tenor of the consultation narrative. One of the interesting features of the consultation paper was that on one of the main points of debate, it may have steered readers towards a particular point of view. Whereas in 2014, Public Health England had concluded that the potential risks to public health … will be low if the operations are properly run and regulated, Health Protection Scotland’s advice, per the Consultation Paper was that ‘the evidence considered was inadequate’. With the Scottish Government’s declared policy of observing the ‘precautionary principle’, it is therefore unsurprising that most respondents declared themselves opposed to fracking.

A ‘yes’ to any of these questions should be a cause for some concern.

Finally, is the age-old question of representativeness. Self-selected consultations that engage approx. 1% of the population are, as always, treated with some suspicion, though a qualitative analysis of the arguments is of enormous value. Without better demographic data, we are even more than usually in the dark about whose views exactly have been heard. Moreover, we have no idea whether those who signed petitions or submitted campaign responses were different in any meaningful way from substantive responders.

However, we do know that, for UK as a whole, public support(per the Dept of Business & Energy’s Energy and Climate Change Public Attitudes Tracker) for fracking now stands at 16%, with opposition views held by 33%. Note that, according to this authoritative long-term survey 51% of the population have no view either way, so of those with firm opinions, it is two-to-one against the new shale gas extraction technology.

That’s very different from the 99% against that the Scottish Government quotes. Either Scotland is very different from the rest of the UK – which is possible. Or maybe we have to be a little more cautious in interpreting the data emerging from a consultation – no matter how well organised.