Warnings from energy company Ineos that Scotland will miss out on jobs and economic opportunities if it turns its back on fracking should not be lightly dismissed.

Spokesman Richard Longden says we are in danger of falling behind the rest of the UK which is already claiming jobs, investment and energy security which might otherwise go here. Meanwhile he points out that the UK as a whole currently imports 60 per cent of our energy needs.

The cynical reaction is to reject his comments on the basis that "he would say that, wouldn't he?" It is true that no-one would expect Mr Longden to argue otherwise.

However he is not alone in warning that Scotland needs to be realistic about its future energy mix.

In working out how best to meet our energy needs in the future, all options should be on the table and it would help if there was less posturing about it. Much of the opposition to fracking is based on partial information and prejudice.

Environmental concerns are real, but there is little or no evidence yet about the risks or otherwise of using the technique in Scotland. Proponents of fracking argue it can in fact contribute to tackling climate change by offering a low-carbon alternative to existing fossil fuels.

One of the arguments against this type of shale gas extraction is that we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, not develop new ways of exploiting them. But a ban on fracking in Scotland, as voted for by MSPs this week, could be a largely symbolic gesture. After all, we are currently importing fracked gas from the United States and electricity from English coal-fired power stations. This makes any pride in our shiny national green credentials as a nation rather hollow.

We need a comprehensive, mixed energy policy to ensure the lights stay on. We need electricity and gas to heat our homes and power our businesses, while gas also provides raw materials for important chemical manufacturing industries. There are arguments in favour of fracking - particularly the scale of the economic opportunity, and particularly in the light of drastically reduced tax revenues from North Sea Oil.

That is not to say that the fracking moratorium should not continue, or an eventual ban not be introduced. But it is far too early to say.

The issue is a deeply problematic one for the SNP, given the economic advantages and Scotland's need for alternative sources of power to replace ageing power stations and to mitigate the fluctuations of wind power, but also given the entrenched opposition to fracking among a significant majority of the party's grassroots members.

When former energy minister Fergus Ewing announced the moratorium last year, it was to allow for a public consultation on the controversial drilling technique, and to give time for a full public health assessment.

That was the right approach then and its outcome should not be pre-judged. If fracking can be shown to be safe, it is naive to reject it out of hand for political reasons.