"If the science against it is solid then an investigation is a good thing."
Hmm. It rather depends what the brief for the investigation is.
I seem to recall an "evidence based" decision not to look further into Strict Liability which was preceded by an "investigation" which was clearly intended to not support Strict Liability, due to the very narrow restrictive parameters put in the brief for the investigation. And perhaps, we might add, the tacit complicity in burying Strict Liability from civil servants, Transport Scotland, etc.
Is the Scottish government "investigation" into tracking going to produce "evidence" that tracking will be absolutely fine, honest guv, due to a similarly restrictive brief? The Herald journalist certainly implies that the agenda is to find evidence in support of tracking: hence investigating how the effects may be lessened, what the community impacts may be, etc. The suspicion has to be that the government is looking for the answers it wants.
posts
