Unconventional gas development (UGD) in Scotland – including shale gas, underground coal gasification (UCG), and coalbed methane (CBM) – is currently subject to a moratorium lasting at least until spring 2017. This and the impending transfer of new regulatory competencies regarding onshore oil and gas extraction from the UK have brought about a vigorous debate which pits two discourse coalitions against one another: a pragmatic pro-UGD coalition in favour of a ‘balanced’ energy policy and an activist-based anti-UGD coalition that warns against threats to public health, the environment, and Scotland’s ambitious climate and energy targets. The Scottish Government has repeatedly committed itself to an ‘evidence-based’ approach to UGD and (in October 2015) laid out an 18 months long timetable for further scientific studies and a comprehensive public consultation. This paper uses the framework of Hajer’s argumentative discourse analysis (ADA) to examine the controversy over UGD. Drawing on ADA’s main theoretical precepts and semi-structured interviews, the paper explores the argumentative dynamics of the two discourse coalitions and performs an analysis of eight different storylines that currently structure the debate. One core insight centres on the significance of the ‘evidence-based’ approach which has achieved a dominant (but not hegemonic) status in the debate, with all actors professing their support for a scientifically informed decision-making process. In practice, however, this means a gradual development of pilot projects for the pro-UGD camp and a precautionary approach for anti-UGD actors which would even lead to a complete ban and consideration of alternative energy futures. The ‘evidence-based’ approach championed by the Scottish Government can thus be understood as a discursive device for the management of political conflict and an expression of the government’s long-standing practice of ‘co-producing’ policy through consultation. However, a second insight relates to the ineffectiveness of this strategy. Part of the governing Scottish National Party’s (SNP) campaign for the Scottish Independence referendum (Sep 2014) was an anti-Westminster politicisation of UGD which has proved impossible to rein in. While the moratorium provides welcome breathing space, the ‘evidence-based’ approach is likely to founder in this politicised environment.
