DEREK Miller (Letters, August 23) points out the contradiction of aiming for a greener future while trying to squeeze every last drop of fossil fuel from the North Sea, and asks on this basis how the Scottish Greens can support the SNP.
Quite simply we don't, and that's why we are different political parties.
I would not support any party which was unwilling to acknowledge the reality that Alan Sangster (Letters, August 23) points out; that the world has far more fossil fuels than we can afford to burn if we're remotely serious about the climate change commitments all parties have signed up to.
So if the referendum was a choice between supporting the SNP whose government in Edinburgh still backs the fossil fuel industry, or supporting the three UK political parties whose governments in London back the very same fossil fuel industry, the Greens might throw up our hands and wish a plague on all their houses.
Of course the referendum is not a choice between political parties. Greens have long debated independence on our own terms (sometimes disagreeing but doing so in a spirit of friendship, something we should all aim for over the coming weeks and beyond) and overwhelmingly we see more opportunity than risk.
Crucially, I believe that an independent Scotland would be forced to face the urgency of ending its reliance on an overvalued fossil fuel industry, and would have the political ability not only to harness our huge renewable potential, but also to reduce demand to sustainable levels and invest the proceeds of the industry for the common good.
If I thought for a moment that the UK Government was about to embrace this agenda, I might even be on the other side of the debate. But the briefest look at its track record tells me that we must take responsibility ourselves. That doesn't mean voting SNP. It means voting Yes.
Patrick Harvie MSP,
Room MG.05, Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article