Fob, Fob, Fobbing Along
We have received a further reply from the Crown Office.
Alert readers may note that while Wings has repeatedly noted that the misappropriation of the fundraiser money by the SNP could constitute either fraud OR embezzlement (or both), entirely separate to the embezzlement FROM the SNP by Peter Murrell, the Crown Office continues – as its agent John Logue did in a recent BBC interview – to address only the possibility of fraud, which would be by far the more difficult of the two to prove, and to ignore the elephant in the room, which is that no less a personage than the First Minister has already admitted to spending all of the money on a purpose other than that which it was raised for.
The response is therefore plainly unsatisfactory, which we will deal with in our own reply within the next 24 hours, which will again be drafted by counsel. We will of course publish it here once it’s sent, so stay tuned.
I think a Judicial Review might end up being the only way to prove it was fraud if COPFS and their 2 KCs insist it wasn’t. If they have nothing to hide, then let other KCs review it if they dont think the public are smart enough to think it was.
It seems to me that if it wasn’t fraud then it was definitely embezzlement of the ‘ringfenced” fund by the former and Current First Minister and Treasurers/ Peter Murrell and the NEC of the SNP as they all took and spent money which didnt belong to the SNP?
I know a Civil case in the courts has also been discussed and donors should be insisting on recovering the money?
Unbelievable! A completely insulting reply that ignores the blatant fact that a crime has been committed and the person or persons responsible must be brought to justice.
There should be a case of the public being able to charge these fake patrons of justice with negligence, corruption or incompetence.
I ain’t no legal eagle but fund raising for one ring fenced campaign and using the money for other purposes if fraud and fraud is a crime.
This involves many innocent people whose hard earned cash has been stolen.
Should this crime be ignored can I launch a fund raiser mental health and spend the funds on luxury holidays as they make me happy?
I think the problem will be this:
If you say ‘The purpose for which the money was raised was to fund an independence campaign at some unknown date in the future’, the reply will be that spending on such a campaign _now_ is not really a different purpose, particularly given that Westminster is never going to agree again to spend ‘UK-taxpayers money’ on a referendum.
And if you say ‘In reality the purpose for which the money was raised was to pay back the Weirs’, that fact would be hard to prove unless somebody had said such a thing in the hearing of witnesses.
“If you say ‘The purpose for which the money was raised was to fund an independence campaign at some unknown date in the future’, the reply will be that spending on such a campaign _now_ is not really a different purpose, particularly given that Westminster is never going to agree again to spend ‘UK-taxpayers money’ on a referendum.”
Then in law what you have to do is give the money back.
Quite – if you raise money to ‘ring fence’ it for a specific purpose, referendum campaign, and then you decide that the purpose is not really ever going to arise, you don’t just hang on to it and say you’ll spend it on something that, given a fair wind, is similar, like general party expenses, or possibly a GE Campaign, so ‘that’s all right’. You ask for permission to spend it on the other purpose(s) or you pay it back. Anyway, in what world was paying back the Weirs funding a referendum campaign?
As you know, they Powers that Be are hardly likely to pick up the baton on this, so it’s private prosecution, JR (is that even possible) or see this peter out.
I’m paraphrasing here:
“We know exactly what’s gone on and we don’t want to pursue it because….. ALL Hail Saint Nicoliar. Now would you please just feck-off with your insistence and your persistence, or we’ll arrange to have the elephant step on your internet connection!”
Thank you, Rev.
At least you’ve got the facts at your fingertips and it’s a straightforward matter so you don’t need to waste much time batting this back.
I note no name for the COPFS signatory. How rude/cowardly.
Sarah, is it a case no one is prepared to put their name to it!!
@ 100%Yes: Probably!
I’ve said this to you many times over the last year, I wish Alex was around to see this coming to a head. I only hope that the court case to clear his name once and for all isn’t mired in the same “ping pong over the net back and forth with the facts” nonsense that these two bodies are displaying. What you have uncovered, proven and shown is staggeringly shameful on the part of the Police and the Crown P. This needs to be lanced, drained, cleaned and set right. A scottish reset would be nice, but who to lead such a thing? All the good guys are gone :/
” I only hope that the court case to clear his name once and for all isn’t mired in the same “ping pong over the net back and forth with the facts” nonsense that these two bodies are displaying.”
It’s a civil matter and will therefore definitely go ahead, thanks to the generous funding of Paul McManus.
I see you have had another anonymous communication. Unless of course there really is a Mr Enquiry Point.
Mr Enquiry point KC if you dont mind.
Oh, so they uncovered evidence of embezzlement then. Well that’s interesting.
Certainly I’ve read the sentence a couple of times and I’m struggling with any alternative interpretation.
“That investigation did not uncover sufficient evidence of fraud, or for any crime, other than the crime of embezzlement”
‘The only crime we could find sufficient evidence for, was embezzlement. Nothing else, of all the crimes which exist, embezzlement was the only one we found sufficient evidence for’
Am I interpreting that incorrectly, is it a reading comprehension fail?
It may just be an oversight that the sentence did not include the word ‘potential’ or similar caveat – potential evidence, potential crime because it currently (again, to me) reads that evidence of an actual crime of embezzlement was found, not a mibbes aye, mibbes no, but a de-facto crime.
So I must assume prosecution for the crime they found was ‘not in the public interest’ or ‘we are aware of the crime, but we can’t work out who did it, it must have been a big boy who ran away’ or somesuch handwaving
So put in a complaint naming Nicoliar, LLB, who knows what ring-fenced means, and has been taught how to read accounts. Name also Colin Beattie, who is an “international banker” according to his Wikipedia.
Isn’t “international banker” rhyming slang?
@ Skip_NC: after years of exposure [!] to Wings, that thought crossed my mind too. 🙂
£660k+ was donated and acknowledged.
The money has gone.
John Swinney says it was spent.
John Swinney refuses to show what it was spent on.
There are no audited accounts showing the money being received or being spent.
I’m no lawyer or copy, but even I can tell there must be fraud somewhere in that.
Rev, curious to know what options are on the table? Much like the Indy Referendum and WM repeatedly saying no, what’s to stop the Crown Office repeatedly fobbing you off until they decide you’re a trouble maker and stop replying to you?
How can you force this case to be reopened when they continue to insist that all evidence was considered and no crime was committed?
COPFS are simply going to tough this out. They dont answer to anyone……well maybe except some folk in Thames House, London.
“………well maybe except some folk in Thames House, London.”
======
Their top guy in Scotland was Lord Advocate,James Wolffe, a few years back.
A deal has been agreed Peter would admit A and B-Z would be ignored. What no one expect was a man from Bathgate living in Bath prepared to argue for Independence Fund and the Scots who give willing money to it.
I have to ask what can you do in Bath you can’t do in Bathgate apart from Piss off the SNP the Scottish government, well done lad.
Sadly, all these letters will result in nothing legal–however, good they are at embarrassing the SNP government.
An agency can ALWAYS claim they didn’t find “sufficient grounds” for doing something, since “sufficient” is by definition a judgment call. And they’ll never release all the evidence so that the public can review the agency’s judgment.
The only solution to this is for the voters to throw the SNP government out–which (again, sadly) they don’t seem willing to do–and vote in a non-SNP government that will reopen the investigation.
“An agency can ALWAYS claim they didn’t find “sufficient grounds” for doing something, since “sufficient” is by definition a judgment call. And they’ll never release all the evidence so that the public can review the agency’s judgment.”
All the evidence is already public. There’s nothing to uncover. Nothing being hidden. The SNP have admitted they’ve spent the money.
I note that the former Lord Advocate has received a suitable reward for her sterling service in the role.
The Herald reports that the fragrant Dot Bain is to become a judge, a Senator of the College of Justice, in January next year.
link to archive.is
One of the “chaps”..
Job well done and all that “old girl”..
Who’ll ever forget her embarrassing performance down in London at the (so called) Supreme Court?
Seventh level of hell awaits, the anecdote does go that lawyers are trained liars doesn’t it..
and now Dorothy Bain has been appointed as a Judge according to the Herald
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Everybody Knows..
“Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died
Everybody talking to their pockets
Everybody wants a box of chocolates
And a long-stem rose
Everybody knows
And everybody knows that you love me baby
Everybody knows that you really do
Everybody knows that you’ve been faithful
Ah, give or take a night or two
Everybody knows you’ve been discreet
But there were so many people you just had to meet
Without your clothes
And everybody knows”
Judicial Review/Wordie framework test?
Fundraiser?
Stu, how much to raise to fight this?
When all this is finally over will the Rev. Campbell please turn some of his considerable forensic abilities and rhetoric in the direction of Historic Environment Scotland? This is the custodian of many of our cultural assets and there is a clown show afoot there which should shame the nation. But we lack information as to what is actually going on. Over to Wings.
Giving the money back wasn’t the only option. The SNP could easily have offered donors the ability to have their money used for a different purpose or to have it returned. But I suppose that horse has bolted.
The lying scum who dictated that reply claims:
“The further information you have provided – – – does not raise any new matters that were not part of the original investigation”
That suggests that Sturgeon or Swinney had already admitted to them at the time of the original investigation that the “ringfenced” sum had already been spent on something else, that is, it had already been embezzled, if not defrauded.
They have known this all along but have protected the criminals.
The fobbing off will continue for ever.
When and how can you take real action and force the corrupt bastards and bitches at Police Scotland and the Crown Office to charge Sturgeon and the lot for fraud and or embezzlement?
There’s always the possibility that it’s just the sheer laziness of these characters.
Umpteen KCs looked at it but it’s all irrelevant as they lazily struck a plea bargain deal to keep those involved happy and appearing to “do something” after years of institutionally flawed typical speed of a melting glacier progress.
“We got a conviction”, “aren’t we efficient – because you know how frightfully difficult it all is”..
That to me is the bottom line, they got an easy pled-guilty conviction, justified their expensive existence and everything else that would have dragged out in a tiresome trial now gets buried as by-product of the deal and is sealed firmly closed.
Am I wrong?
It’s just typical superannuated “leave well alone” laziness and now hard faced “pensions defence” obfuscation..
They’ll just be regretting now that they didn’t time-bar release to the public of any documents.
Overpaid incompetents.
It’s actually more revealing than that. I think it’s extremely likely that one of the KC’s was Dorothy Bain KC, so it would be fascinating to know what input and direction she had (of course that would be privileged, so the only way to know would be a humble address in the House of Commons). The other KC most likely was just asked to confirm that the evidence against Peter Murrell was strong enough to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
That 2nd KC would be whoever the COPFS would instruct to lead the prosecution case if Peter Murrell had not plead guilty. It’s unlikely that this person was asked to do a review of the entire investigation to establish if further evidence should be collected and further charges should be brought.
People with establishment jobs and careers are generally reluctant to set out on a course of action that would logically result in a former FM and a current FM in the dock.
I’m happy to put on record that I can see where they’re coming from. I’ve worked in environments where deviation from orthodoxy brought nothing but trouble. I’ve worked for bosses with a “my way or the highway” mindset. Frankly, I’ve recognised that attitude as the key to getting things done.
Perhaps all the social justice warriors calling for action on this could give us examples of how they have previously put their jobs and careers on the line in pursuit of their perception of justice.
After all, people who have spent their entire lives keeping their heads down, not making waves, and going with the flow, shouldn’t expect others to go over the top on their behalf.
Because that would just be hypocrisy.
IF you were to go forward for a judicial review of the COPFS decision to IGNORE the THEFT of the ring fenced referendum funds would breathy Bain now sit on the judicial panel reviewing your appeal after her promotion
Mr Enquiry point KC if you dont mind.
Are you using the same counsel that drafted the original correspondence. If so, it’s high time COPFS paid attention to Wings because then they would have seen with whom they are dealing.
The “ring?fenced” status itself is legally ambiguous.
Unless the SNP created a legally distinct fund, with formal restrictions and clear accounting separation, the Crown Office must prove that donors were given explicit assurances that created a legal obligation.
If the assurances were informal, political, or rhetorical, then prosecutors must show that donors were knowingly misled.
That is extremely difficult.
Historically, political finance controversies involving ambiguous internal accounting without personal enrichment and without falsified documents almost always end in regulatory reprimands, compliance notices, or no action at all.
Criminal fraud requires a “smoking gun.”
Regulatory breaches only require sloppy paperwork.
The SNP can plausibly argue that all spending was in pursuit of independence, making fraud very difficult to prove.
After all, the SNP was founded in 1934 with the sole purpose of pursuing Scottish independence. It could be argued that all donations to the party are ring-fenced for that purpose.
Regulatory breaches are far more likely than criminal charges — and a “slap on the wrist” is the most probable outcome… if even that.
In the end the SNP will deny any wrongdoing, claim all spending served the core mission, blame administrative confusion, cooperate with regulators if it comes to that (unlikely), accept minor sanctions (if any), and then move on.
The SNP will claim the money was spent in pursuit of its core mission.
It will say:
This makes the SNP’s intent almost impossible to challenge.
The Crown Office knows this and has responded accordingly and with confidence.
No fraud to see here, folks – if pushed hard the SNP will argue it was just sloppy paperwork and administrative confusion… and what then, eh?
The SNP is still of use to the British state – the absolute power in Scotland – in maintaining its territorial integrity, and until its usefulness expires the SNP will be maintained and protected.
Ring?fenced should, of course, read ring-fenced.
I changed text editors recently and it looks like the new one is inserting some ASCII code into my text – probably something I’m doing – that WordPress converts to a question mark. Not a big deal, but annoying.
I’ll figure it out… eventually.
I think you are overestimating the scale of the challenge here Northcode. I don’t believe for example, that donors would be need to be given an explicit assurance that, as a matter of law, the donations would be ring fenced.
If you look at the invitations to the fundraiser that the Rev has posted, it’s clear that funds were being raised for two separate purposes;
1) to support the activities of the SNP; and
2) to help fight a future referendum campaign.
In my view, this description of the two funds is very clear as a factual matter. In Scotland fraud is a common law offence, but if we look south of the border the equivalent offence would be “fraud by false representation” in statute, which is helpful as it breaks down the offence into its four requisite elements:
1, Representation
2, knowledge that the representation is untrue
3, dishonesty
4, personal gain.
So if we focus on one, I think this is clearly a representation rather than a political aspiration because it was completely with the gift of the SNP as an organisation to maintain the ring fencing. The manner of the fundraiser also clearly solicited donations from those who did not want to fund the activities of the SNP, but explicitly did want to fund the referendum campaign. Even for SNP supporters, they might quite legitimately feel that they didn’t want the party spending lots of money on overheads and staffing prior to the referendum, but wanted as big a war chest as possible for when the referendum. So if we broke the representation down into two parts, those donating would have a legitimate interest in maintaining the ring fencing, and the SNP agreed to meet that legitimate interest by maintaining the ring fencing.
I think the only way around the for the SNP would be to show that the ring fences funds were not spent on ordinary SNP expenses, but were used to fund activities in connection with a future referendum or the campaign to secure that referendum. That could be for example legal fees incurred from their intervention in the Supreme Court case. Whilst that would be sailing very close to the wind, I think you would have to say that elements 2, 3 and probably 4 of the similar English offence were not made out.
Of course if the fundraiser was actually used to pay back the Weirs, and that was the intention at the time the funds were raised, then again in my view it’s clear all four elements of the offence are made out.
So close, Northy.
You got all the way to your penultimate paragraph with an excellent example of a logical, reasoned, reasonable post.
But then you just couldn’t maintain the pretense any more and had to weld on your final disjointed paragraph of sophomoric, moon-howling, “they’re all agin us” conspiracy.
Here’s a fact you omitted to mention. Whether or not the SNP is captured by crims, grifters and the laughably incompetent, whether or not they fulfill a much needed function for the shadowy, deep British state, we Scots still turn out to vote for them in sufficient numbers to give them an iron grip on Scotland.
Until we Scots wake up, this is all just pissing in the wind.
I can’t speak for anyone else but I for one appreciated this pun:)
Good spot, MH, but no pun was intended. It never crossed my mind.
Unless …
Who can tell how deep the tentacles of the colonialising oppression penetrate? How can any of us trust even our own thoughts, crushed daily under the occupier’s jackboot as we are?
Only Fanon knows, and he’s deid.
Northcode, as Scottish courts are fond of quoting court cases from foreign countries, I would observe that Carlill v Carbolic Smoke-Ball Co. is relevant here. Despite the defendant’s protestations that they never actually meant it, Carlill won and got her 1,000 quid.
Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co – that takes me back 40 years to Contract law!
An interesting article about how “independent” Ireland, enmeshed in the EU, and trussed like a chicken by US big tech, has voluntarily decided to take the money and keep it zipped:
link to theguardian.com
Honestly, folks, they really do need the money!
The real question is “how “independent” Ireland” and independent Norway etc etc etc has twice the GDP-per-capita of plundered colonised Scots, despite our arguably far greater resources?
Who gives a damn about £400k or even £660k when the theft in front of our eyes is costing Scots at least £150 billion every year:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
But we’ve already established, including by your own admission, that the figures you’ve used (and therefore the conclusions you’ve reached) are wrong. GDP per capita in Scotland is around the same as Finland, higher than France, lower than Sweden. Nobody takes Ireland’s GDP figure seriously (including the Irish central bank) because of the extensive use of base shifting profit erosion tax avoidance that takes place there.
Same old snake oil.
You missed your true vocation in life Alf. You should have been a butcher with the endless streams of mince you produce.
So where does the cash go, Adrian?
Westminster.
You and your half-wit chum below you are a pair of fucking unionist charlatans.
Scotland’s Imaginary Debt;
In 2022-23 Scotland raised £87.5bn in tax which goes directly to Westminster. However, the Scottish Government only received a budget back of £59.7bn, a difference of £27.8bn staying in London .Scottish Budget: 2024 to 2025 – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)
64% of revenue is reserved to London and 36% devolved to Edinburgh. While 41% of expenditure is reserved to London and 59% is devolved to Edinburgh.
The Scottish Government can borrow £3 billion for capital expenditure in the term of a parliament with the annual limit for 2023/24 set at £450 million. Resource borrowing is set at £500 million annually. The Scottish Government legally can NOT overspend its budget outside of the agreed borrowing limits, which leads me to my next point.
It was reported for 2022/23 Scotland had a deficit of £19.1bn. The media and unionist politicians mistakenly or deliberately report this as Scot Gov overspending. However, it is a lie. There are some very interesting figures within Scotland’s ‘deficit’, for example: the figure of £9.1bn under the name of ‘Reserved public sector debt interest’ is Westminster debt being allocated to Scotland; debt Scotland had no part in creating or spending. That is 47.6% of Scotlands ‘deficit’, almost half is being created by debt loading from Westminster. If this debt was not being allocated to Scotland, the nation’s deficit would go down from 9% of GDP to 4.7%. I would like to note another interesting point: this debt Scotland is allocated actually stems from the 1707 Union. One of the terms was that Scotland would be paid £398,085 to offset Scotland being allocated a share of England’s debt for all of time. That in 2021 prices is £71,260,439 million. As you can see, that was not nearly enough to offset the burden on Scotland of England’s debt, Scotland has paid more than £9 billion more in one year on their neighbours debt than the whole amount that was supposed
to offset it forever.
Scotland is also allocated £4.5 billion for defence, but the UK government only spends £1.9bn on defence in Scotland. £2.6bn of Scotland’s money is being spent outside of Scotland, where it would better be used in the country to bolster the nation’s defence.
I’ll finish off with a question; first let’s look at this statement: Andrew Bowie, Tory MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine admitted in an interview for the BBC “We now tax oil and gas companies 75% on their profits that they make, that 75% tax has gone towards paying for half of everybody in this country’s energy bills over the past winter[2022/23]. Oil and gas is important and it will be with us for the next 25-30 years.”
How can a nation of 5.5 million that has 90% of the UK’s oil reserves and roughly 60-65% of the gas reserves subsidise 34 million people’s energy bills for a whole winter but run a deficit and apparently be subsidised by its southern neighbour? The answer is; it can’t. Someone is lying: it’s the establishment in our neighbour’s capital that benefits tremendously by having Scotland shackled to it.
Well done in the copying and pasting a huge body of text from somewhere else with or without any paragraph spacing.
The difference between revenue raised in Scotland and expenditure overseen by the Scottish government goes on programmes that are delivered at a U.K. level like defence that you’ve mentioned, but also things like the state pension, driving licenses and passports etc. This is assigned by GERS on a per-capita basis but actually the public sector workforce is higher as a percentage of the population compared to rUK meaning that more is spent in Scotland that Scotland is assigned as expenditure in GERS (paid for by rUK).
The UK’s debt has been disproportionately accrued servicing Scottish spending, because whilst revenue per head is similar in Scotland and England, spending per head is just under 20% higher in Scotland. So GERS significantly underestimates Scotland’s share of the national debt by accruing it only on a per capita basis. The more accurate approach would be to work out for each year where govt bonds are outstanding, how much debt was accrued servicing Scottish spending, and then apportion the interest accordingly. At the moment that cost is apportioned to rUK rather than Scotland.
Imagine Fatso thinking he’s convinced anyone that he actually wrote that copious bilge. 😀
Also: PARAGRAPH BREAKS, idiot. Ever heard of them?
“He didn’t answer”….”
Do you twats always go around in twos?
That’s right, Adrian. Scotland is really wealthy in the ‘union’ eh? Scotch folk can look out their windows and see the fruits of their own resources managed by London. Witness; crumbling third world infrastructure. Marvel at the Victorian ports, comical public transport systems and pot holes in the roads. Working folk going to food banks and the highest fuel bills in the world.
Norway has a multi-trillion wealth fund thanks to oil revenues. Scotland has more oil than Norway, so, where’s ours? Go on, Adrian, tell us where it went. Tell us.
Tosser.
I suppose, Wally Winky Walrus, you could always have got yourself a job.
I know plenty of Scots who made fortunes during the oil bonanza, without much in the way of education or qualifications, just by being prepared to show up and graft.
So what’s your pathetic excuse for living through the biggest boom in Scotland’s history with SFA to show for it?
I have no doubt that outside of your filthy window there is nothing to see beyond piled up rubbish and scrap, but outside others windows you might see a modern, safe, clean and comfortable rail network, a recently build tram, three international airports, two of which have long haul services to the US and the Middle East, numerous small airports servicing the islands and remote communities, a network of comfortable and very cheap (to use) ferries, motorways connecting major cities and down to England, and so the list goes on. The potholes on Skye are a joke but that’s hardly a major problem in the scheme of things.
Most countries would love to have the level of infrastructure that Scotland has, and maintains at considerable cost.
“He didn’t answer….”
If funding of political parties are not clearly defined, and ‘ring-fenced’ is meaningless so long as your spending can be considered vaguely for the same purpose, then why did the investigation last years, and involve the NCA?
They could have gone to the lawyers early, closed it all down and saved the country at least a couple of million quid.
Money given to the SNP, all spent but in the cause of independence, case closed.
What were they doing and investigating?
Is the official position that buy Nicolas underwear, cosmetics and gym equipment was fighting for freedom?
what sort of fucking moron are you ai-dan? you spew lots of words but it doesn’t make the argument
link to worldometers.info
– the richest countries in the world are mostly our peers around us
But the position is even worse as the UK’s position is inflated by our wealth, and by its wealth inequality. The median salary is only 60% of the GDP per capita.,
Norway, might “only” be double, but it has this sovereign wealth fund that makes a yearly profit more than double the Scots budget. Not its worth, the profit on it. The norwegs also invest all round the world, outside the oil industry, so that e.g. UK companies are making profits for norwegian citizens. Amazing what you can do when you are indy.
Ireland’s pensions are double what they are in the UK.
LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU YOU RELENTLESS FUCKING KNOW NOTHING SHIT FOR BRAIN AMATEUR HOUR CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORIAN MY ARSE WINDOW LICKING CUM SUCKER ANGLO CUNTFACE
– none of these rich countries are in a fucking union with england and if they were, they would be on the same level as Wales (and the city skyscrapers would be twice the height)
None of you anglo bumboys has even the good sense to “stay away from the money talk”.
Aye, you can lead a horse to water …
BUT YOU CAN’T MAKE AN ANGLO THINK
Hey everyone! “Confused” is having another trademark sputtering “bum-referencing” meltdown because he doesn’t have a Time Machine and doesn’t know the difference between the UK and Norway, nor how much easier and more profitable their (greater) oil reserves were to extract etc.
Personally, I quite enjoy reading these for a chortle. I’m sure Aidan feels suitably chastised (not). 🙂
Can YL make it a “set”? Or is Memmi getting a shout out? 🙂
The Norwegian oil reserves are easier and more profitable to extract than UK resources because from exploration to production Norway provides more support than UK.
According to the Journal of Petroleum Technology which also says: “Although the UKCS is very mature, there’s still potential with discoveries being made, but this is being overlooked due to nongeological influences,” she said. “The investment is lacking in the entire life cycle from exploration through to production. Production rates are entering a period of unmanaged decline rather than a managed decline that would create value.”
No, I think you’ll find there are basic physical/geological factors at play, not merely “more assistance”.
You do seem to have a hard time facing awkward facts that don’t fit your narrative, eh Sam….
I know CC, what a fucking melt. We’re hearing this whole chesnut again about how the Canadian firm that built one Canada square did it with Scottish money.
Keep believing your own prejudices.
link to economicshelp.org
“Striking oil is no guarantee of success. But Norway is widely regarded as a role model on how to actually benefit from an oil and gas bonanza. So how did Norway go from a small economy based on fishing and shipping to the richest in the world? And an important thing is that this is not just a sleight of economic statistics. Whichever method of measuring living standards you use, health care, education, low pollution Norway is doing very well…
…When oil was discovered in the late 1960s, the Norwegian government laid down the principle that oil should be used to make a “qualitatively better society” (link). The industry was put under democratic control with the government retaining 70% ownership of the oil fields and companies. But in the UK, the election of Mrs Thatcher in 1979 heralded a very different economic philosophy. Thatcher was an adherent of free market economics. The mantra of the government was to privatise. Britoil and BP were all privatised in the 1980s. And unlike Norway, it left the UK government with no direct ownership of oil and gas.
In 1980 the UK cabinet office warned privatisation of Britoil would raise $1 billion, but this short-term gain would be a very high loss in the long-term. Studies have suggested the UK missed out on at least $400bn of revenues if they had followed the Norwegian model of state ownership and higher taxation. Sukhdev Johal, professor of accounting at Queen Mary University of London, thinks the UK could have had a sovereign wealth fund of £850bn had the UK followed the Norwegian model. John Hawksworth who wrote the paper “Dude where’s my oil money?” suggested a more conservative £400bn, but that was in 2014. £850bn is around £13,000 per person or 33% of the UK’s national debt.
The National Resource Governance Institute argues that since 1970, the UK government received around $11 a barrel. By contrast, the Norwegian government was receiving $30 a barrel. The $19 extra per barrel explains why Norway received $1.2 trillion and UK tax revenues only $400 billion.
There are four reasons for lower tax receipts in the UK. Firstly the UK sold more when oil prices were low. Norway sold more when prices were high. Secondly, state ownership led to a steady stream of dividends for Norway. Thirdly, Norway had a higher tax on oil. The overall tax rate on oil in Norway is 78%. Until the recent windfall tax, the oil tax rate in UK has been around 40%. (Link) Fourthly, extracting oil from Norway’s bigger oil fields had a lower unit cost and therefore is more profitable.
Privatisation receipts in the UK during the 80s and 90s was around £67 billion. How were these spent? The main motivation of the government was tax cuts, in particular tax cuts for high earners.”
“Keep believing your own prejudices.”
Wow, that’s rich coming from you pal. 😀
Odious apologist.
I like the Norwegians. They’re serious people.
They wouldn’t vote the likes of the SNP back into power, election after election. The Noggies aren’t tribal.
And they know what they’re dealing with with the Orcs. Unlike Confused and a good many of his Indy supporting fellow travelers.
It’s sobering to consider that if the Indy supporters of 2014 had simply concentrated on the essentials – the post-Indy Scottish economy – and had ditched all their Student Grant baggage – anti-NATO, anti-monarchy, anti-England, pro-Orc, pro-Cuba, pro-EU – we’d have been independent for a decade now.
The fact we’re not is squarely on many of the regular posters on here. Until they’re prepared to fess up to their 2014 fuck up, Indy will continue to go nowhere.
“Confused” shoots ’em down in flames. Yet again lolz
“None of you anglo bumboys has even the good sense to “stay away from the money talk”.
….you can lead a horse to water …
BUT YOU CAN’T MAKE AN ANGLO THINK…”
Could have been written just for you, ‘SP’.
Oh hang on, it was!
So true, Wally the Winking Walrus.
All over Scotland, facts fall into line to suit the first deployer of “bum boy”, “shirt lifter”, “poofter” or “fucking moron who enjoys taking it up the shitter”.
And that’s why Scotland will soon be independent, you’ll be up to your neck in fish, and loons and quines will aspire to know nothing, amount to nothing, achieve nothing, and be happy.
Just like you.
lol
From JRF
“Poverty in the UK remains high, with over 1 in 5 people (around 14.2 million) living in poverty in 2023/24, and nearly half of those in poverty experiencing very deep poverty. Child poverty is particularly severe, with 4.5 million children (1 in 3) living in poverty in 2023/24, and 1 million children facing destitution. Scotland is projected to see a reduction in child poverty to 21.8% by 2029, while England, Wales, and Northern Ireland are expected to see increases to 31.5%, 34.4%, and 26.2% respectively.”
Hark at sam with his pro-Restore propaganda.
Given that an unassailable definition of poverty is owning little more than the clothes on your back, and the hundreds of thousands of New Brits in that category, we can bloody obviously make serious dents in the poverty figures by sending them back.
As for child poverty, indigenous Brits can’t be suffering that much, because we’re not breeding.
Thanks for clarifying all that, sam!
It would appear Scotland is doing very well in relative poverty as part of the UK.
Does doing well mean our medium income is so low that fewer class as poor?
Poverty dropped during the 2008 crash for the same reason. You might have had less money, fewer opportunities, less support – but you weren’t poor.
If England is propping up Scotland, then indy makes the english richer, obviously – that is just logic and arithmetic
– so why are you not in favour of it?
According to GERS – we were propped up to the tune of 22B last year; and yet no one seems to care too much about this, even though the govt is always facing some “black hole” – I suspect everyone knows this is nonsense, with no credibility; and worse than that, if you care to even investigate, it goes the other way …
Maybe the arse falls out of your “economy” (money laundering, a variety of financial scams) without the backstop of the hard assets, the hydrocarbons and the cheap leccy.
If the english subsidised us they would have torn up the treaty – without any “referendum” – 100 years ago.
Empire is looting.
The thing about these EFTA countries doing so much better – ireland, norway, swissland total GDP in the range 600-800B USD a year; ours is 200B. Now either Scotland is looted out the arsehole right left and centre like some enslaved r3t4rd working for gypsies paving driveways and having his benefits stolen – or – nothing is being stolen, that is really our level and so what we have is, instead, catastrophically incompetent economic mismanagement from London. Either way is no argument for the union.
– but you know … the english are lying fucking bastards, and they always double down – they have been caught numerous times fiddling the numbers : the ex regio fantasy of where the oil comes from, classifing scotch whisky exports as english because diageo is HQ-ed there and who knows what else; they even took the trade figures offline a few years ago, burying them to prevent comparative analysis.
But maybe the worst line of argument is this – norway has oil (and smart policies), right – but irelands GDP is actually bigger and IT HAS NO OIL; iceland has no oil, but it has fish; swissland has no seas, but it has banking; but we have ALL of these things put together.
Do you want to be rich or do you want to live like a cunt all your life sucking english cock and watching them as they import more muslims and jihadists and browns into the country?
Scotland, with Scots in it, might not exist in 30 years; you will be like the plains indians “on the reservation”, while international capitalist man plays at golf and does “outlander bullshit” and the central belt turns into Lagos.
As always Confused, bang on the money , the only things holding us back is the progressive “Be Kind arseholes” who endow every cunt who arrives here as “New Scots”instead of PARASITES , and the engerlish who are flooding here away from the hordes
Cheap leccy!
Two words that tell us you haven’t a scooby what you’re wanging oan aboot.
If you really, really want Indy, Confused, you’d zip it.
“Cheap leccy!”
In my analysis I found that most of the world’s oil rich nations also have the lowest energy prices in the world.
Except Scotland, which has the highest energy prices in the world.
Which is one reason Scotland’s economy is not competitive and remains under-developed, i.e. lagging in GDP:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
Oh Alf! Wash your mouth out with soap.
It’s so fucking easy to go online and verify that Scotland doesn’t even have the highest leccy prices in the U.K. Check USWITCH for example.
Yet still you persist.
Do you really believe you can lie your way to Indy?
“Do you really believe you can lie your way to Indy?”
Another typical colonialist response, Hatey, the same doubtless said to all colonised peoples who were told they were too poor, or that they needed a ‘section 30’, or they needed ‘protection’, or whatever yadayada.
All you ever utter here confirms “The empire’s doublethink lives on” (Elkins), ditto colonial state watchdug mouthpieces exposed by the Rev here.
It is known as ‘the colonial hoax’ for good reason.
You’d try the patience of a saint, Alf.
Few believe the “too poor” jibe these days. It has been replaced by “too corrupt”.
“Too stupid” will live on, for as long as we Scots queue at the polling stations to vote the SNP back in, over and over again.
I note your deflection from my easily verified fact, that Scotland’s electricity isn’t even the most expensive in the U.K. Quoting Elkins isn’t going to magic your way out of that one.
The reality of course is that Scotland is a wealthy country, GDP per capita is higher in Edinburgh than Oslo for example. The difference is that in Norway or Switzerland, most of the population work in highly productive jobs, whereas much of Scotland’s wealth goes to supporting unproductive useless dossers like yourself who sit there in the middle of the working day producing demented incoherent rants like that one, whilst still making extensive use of taxpayer funded public services.
Also, nobody (including Ireland’s central bank) believes Ireland’s GDP figures. The average salary in Ireland and Scotland are very similar, but because Ireland allows (and for some incomprehensible reason) is allowed by the EU and the USA to facilitate base shifting profit erosion, economic activity taking place elsewhere in the world with no link to Ireland is accrued to Ireland’s GDP figures.
“GDP per capita is higher in Edinburgh than Oslo”
The ‘wages of colonialism’, aka the Holyrood budget, are only permitted to stretch so far; i.e. generally little further than the overpaid colonial bourgeoisie, elites, and the thousands of ‘colonial functionaries’ sent in to the colonial capital who maintain the racket.
Why else did you think there are a dozen private (i.e. colonial) schools in Edinburgh, or who it is that can afford to use them, if not to segregate colonial elites from the native masses?
Otherwise GDP in an exploited and under-developed colony remains inevitably well below par for obvious reasons, except to the empire’s dubious doublethinkers like yersels.
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
There are over 500 independent (e.g. colonial lol) schools in London, so I assume that also makes London a colony?
Poor example, Aidan.
Do you think Sadiq Khan would be London mayor if London wasn’t a colony?
“if London wasn’t a colony?”
The collaborating elites/bourgeoisie of hundreds of ex colonies are forced to head for the metropolitan capital in the ‘mother country’, the repository of all dirty money and wealth extracted, and the centre of colonial ‘values’; colonialism eventually eats itself.
Which is what has been happening to imperial England, France and other former ‘great’ imperial powers.
“Colonialism eventually eats itself”
Care to put a date on that, Alf?
Currently, you’re claiming colonialism is eating us to the tune of £150+ billion per year with no end in sight.
main, unless you understand the market auction process and can explain what a CFD is, you need to STFU about “understanding” anything
leccy is expensive due to the stupid way they created the “energy market”; I would keep it all anyway, that way we attract foreign investment.
“too cheap to meter” (oh that was the nukes, another white elephant and created to hide the true costs of the BOMB)
More laughs – the anglos, always leeching off other countries get a lot of their leccy (along with their gas) from … you know it … NORWAY
– but the norwegs were getting a bit annoyed at rising domestic prices for electricity and were considering banning the export of it; naturally the rosbifs were fucking shitting themselves. Alas, they got away with it.
If you dont want to be too wee, too poor, too stupid and want the broad shoulders of the pooling and sharing of the better together …
– let’s have the UK take a vote to join the Chinese federation, as an equal partner in a union of 2 nations; it will be democratic, with one man, one vote, 70M brits their voices blending with 1.4B chinese.
WHO COULD SAY FAIRER THAN THAT? that’s democracy mate, one man one vote
nationalism is over, federations is where its at.
And one thing about being with the chinese, well 2 things for a start : they can still actually make things and complete major projects far more cheaply than we can (you will get something out of it) and more so – when push comes to shove down the line with islam, the chinese will simply annihilate them. Think about it – about the same number of people 1.5B, average chinese IQ, 105 (higher then for western europe, which is 100), while the muslim is around 85 (NB mental retardation, say downs syndrome, is around 83; they like to fuck their cousins, so they do). Shanghai or the Sudan, your choice, but the sun set on this empire a long time ago, and playing elgar won’t bring it back.
In a union – think of it like : “stuck in a lift for all eternity” – and with england I think being stuck with Danny Dyer with kleptomania and munchausen syndrome who, incredibly, thinks you’re “HIS BEZZY MATE”
– fuck that; even if leaving meant we would be poorer, I would still take my chances.
But look at just how -shit- they are about doing anything (unlike the chinks) : nobody pishes money up a wall like the anglos
link to archive.ph
– and when they finally get it, it doesn’t fucking work and you can’t use it – ran defends itself adequately on 1/100 the US defence budget
I see Starmer “found” 15B for defence; I thought we had a 12B blackhole, or wasn’t it 20B, or 40B – it always presents as an insurmountable burden … until the people who matter want something; the weapons angle is a joke – they have pished away a lot of money on their imperialist big platform masturbation fantasies – nuke subs, aircraft carriers, stealth fighters – only to find out it is all fucking useless. The americans copied an iranian drone last year, it still cost 10 times what the original cost and it was still less capable.
– now the rumour is, arse oot the windae, but sticking 15B to the defence companies as he leaves – Starmer might be up for a -job- with NATO on exit; this is how the corruption works so well in the UK – YOU GET THE PAYOFF AFTER YOU LEAVE OFFICE – and that keeps it all clean. Tony Blair, in particular, made out like a bandit and now lives like a lord, even has that Sanna Marin sucking his cock.
Let’s get fucking shot of these pricks. It’s like Johnny Depp – your lezzy wife – SHAT in your bed … its over.
England has been shitting on us for 300 years – at what point do you gather enough self respect to boot them?