RICHARD Lochhead, the Rural Affairs and Environment Secretary is in Italy today, attending the Milan Expo. The vast international jamboree is the great, great, great grandchild of London's Great Exhibition of 1851, housed in the purpose-built Crystal Palace. Back then the purpose was to celebrate the unstoppable march of Victorian technology. This year's theme also reflects the mood of the times: how to feed the world without ruining the environment. Before setting off, Mr Lochhead took the opportunity to call for action to reduce the amount of food waste generated across Europe each year. The 89 million tonnes Europeans chuck out was "jaw-dropping," he said.

As Mr Lochhead was boarding the flight to Milan, his colleague Aileen Macleod, the environment minister, was welcoming new figures showing a long-term reduction in air pollution.

Reading their comments together, you might think to yourself, they're a pretty green bunch, the Scottish Government, aren't they?

That's certainly what they'd like you to think but seeing the SNP's true colours isn't easy because the Scottish Government has been shockingly evasive about two big decisions with significant environmental implications.

Consider fracking. Ministers imposed a moratorium on unconventional oil and gas extraction eight months ago, pending an "evidence gathering" exercise and a public consultation.

Yet the government has repeatedly refused to say whether the temporary ban covers test drilling and what the evidence gathering involves or even whether it has begun. As for the public consultation, we are completely in the dark about when that might get underway.

In the meantime, Ineos, the Grangemouth-based petro-chemicals giant which has bought up extraction rights across large swatches of central Scotland, is confidently preparing to frack. Since his private meeting with Nicola Sturgeon on the day the moratorium was announced, Ineos chief Jim Ratcliffe has pledged to hand profits of up to£2.5billion to the communities which welcome the companies' drilling rigs.

At least the Scottish Government seems to be interested in the evidence on fracking.

There is no evidence they studied anything much at all before banning GM crops, a decision that was greeted by surprise and dismay by Scotland's scientific community.

Thanks to some persistent questioning by Murdo Fraser, the Scots Tory MSP, Nicola Sturgeon finally admitted this week that the decision was "not based on scientific considerations". Mr Fraser will not be alone in finding that "flabbergasting," given that Scotland's pioneering life sciences sector receives star billing as potential growth area in the government's recent economic strategy.

The admission, by the way, came after days of obfuscation over whether Mr Lochhead's chief scientific adviser, Professor Louise Heathwaite, was consulted on the GM ban. We still don't really know but, Ms Sturgeon suggested, it doesn't really matter.

The reason for the decision was to protect the "clean, green" image of Scots produce at home and abroad. But, again, it seems ministers were happy to do without any hard evidence to suggest the reputation of Scottish food and drink was under threat or might be enhanced by banning GM crops.

There is another Scottish Government policy to factor in at this point: the plan to halve air passenger duty when the flights tax is devolved to Holyrood in a couple of years. Airlines have already promised more flights as a result and that, claim the Scottish Greens, would make it almost impossible for the Scottish Government to meet its carbon reduction targets.

The evasions on the part of the Scottish Government simply invite speculation and there is a growing suspicion within Holyrood's opposition parties that the unexpected decision to ban GM crops was nothing more than a green-tinged gesture.

The fracking moratorium has failed to dampen the view that the Scottish Government is keen to allow unconventional oil and gas developments. All the ducking and diving only adds to the perception that ministers' main priority is to delay a decision until after next May's election.

We know the government is also keen on environmentally-unfriendly air travel, so banning GM might be the way to give its green credentials a badly-needed polish.

Such big decisions are rarely taken with so little recourse to evidence or consultation. As things stand, no-one can know whether the possible economic benefits to the country's food and drink industry outweigh the potential negative impact on the Scottish science and research. The GM ban might tick the right boxes when it comes to drawing up an election manifesto but it is no way to run the country.