Has it actually been confirmed that the fire started in a vape shop? I can't see anything on the BBC feed that says it was a vape shop that was the culprit. Unless BBC are not reporting that due to it not fitting their narrative.
I was caught up in the beginnings of this coming back from Paisley at around half 4 yesterday afternoon and was still in the general area when the station was evacuated about a hour later as the fire really began to take hold. Walking round and getting as close as I dared on Union St before backing off, it definitely looked like a vape shop or at minimum a botique shop of a similar nature.
Small wonder it went up again after it seemed to be brought under control; lithium batteries - especially cheaply made ones - are extremely volatile when heated and can easily reignite if not cooled sufficently/properly (water is a absolute no-no as pointed out multiple times already).
I'm intrigued to know what the narrative supposedly is, and why the BBC are 'hiding it from the world'. I think I can hear a dog whistle in there somewhere, but surely nobody is going to announce the exact cause of the fire until there's been a proper investigation?
It would seem that it is likely a dodgy battery from the videos circulating, but I suspect that some people are want to imply something more sinister. Perhaps based on who usually work in vape shops (including phone repairs) which in my experience are nearly always non-white. I'm not about to log in to X but I am 99% certain there's going to be extremely crazy takes on there.
You will be unsurprised to find, if you do, that there is indeed a liberal sprinkling (!) of racism going on there regarding this incident. Plus some wilder conspiracy theories about it being an insurance job, which might well be applicable to some other fires but this one is well enough documented to be clear that that wasn't what went on.
It's Twitter/X. Not exactly renowned for being a haven for critical thinking skills and intelligent thought, especially in recent years. Such mindless drivel by such amateur potstirrers ought to be ignored.
As for the insurance job thing, while it's not unique to Glasgow of course, the city does have a reputation for buildings, usually older, long-abandoned ones (so it's not applicable here in the latter sense), going up in flames, being damaged to the point of needing to be demolished, hence the 'Tinderbox City' nickname.
Oftentimes the plot of land will lie vacant for years/decades as ownership/insurance entanglements ensure nothing is done with it - see the long-standing gap just a few hundred metres south on Jamacia St or the gap up on Sauchiehall St nr. the Pavilion Theatre after the 2018 fire - but as the land is often more valuable than the building on it, it will just as often have a newbuild on it within a few years, built with seemingly undue haste.
That is primarily what fuels this line of thought. Can't say I haven't thought it myself whenever this happens, but it's been more out of weary cynicism born out of the general malaise & decline of the city as a whole in recent years (again, not just a Glasgow thing) rather than me seriously believing it.
I digress. Like you say, best to wait and see what the investigation finds. Whatever the cause turns out to be, there has to be some good to come out of this sorry mess.