Spreaders of Conspiracy Theories: Unmasking the Motivations Behind the Lies

[webfact]

Scottish parliament begins debate on new independence referendum

 

Party leader Nicola Sturgeon speaks at the Scottish National Party's conference in Aberdeen, Scotland, Britain March 18, 2017. REUTERS/Russell Cheyne

 

EDINBURGH (Reuters) - Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon sought backing from the Edinburgh parliament on Tuesday for her proposal to hold a new referendum on independence from the United Kingdom, the first formal step in a process resisted by London.

 

The parliament started a two-day debate on Sturgeon's proposal to hold a referendum in late 2018 or early 2019, with a vote expected on Wednesday. The current balance of power means Sturgeon is almost certain to win the chamber's backing to formally ask London for permission to press ahead.

 

"It will simply not be acceptable for the UK government to stand as a roadblock to the democratically expressed will of this parliament," said Sturgeon on the first day of debate.

 

Scotland voted against independence by 55 to 45 percent in 2014, but Sturgeon argues circumstances have changed since then because the UK as a whole voted in a referendum last year to leave the European Union while Scotland voted to stay.

 

British Prime Minister Theresa May said last week that "now is not the time" for a new choice on Scotland's future as complex divorce talks between the UK, the world's fifth-largest economy, and its 27 EU partners are about to get under way.

 

In a heated debate, Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, accused Sturgeon of acting like a "bulldozer", putting independence above all else despite not having public support for another vote.

 

Davidson's party, the main opposition to Sturgeon's Scottish National Party, has proposed an amendment opposing any independence referendum before April 2019.

 

Sturgeon said she had sought alternatives for Scotland since the Brexit vote in June last year but her overtures to the UK government in Westminster had been rejected.

 

"Nine months on there is no indication at all that this parliament's voice has carried any weight at (Britain's national parliament) Westminster," she said.

 

"Instead the UK government is taking decisions entirely unilaterally which I, and many others, believe will deeply damage our economy, our society and our standing in the world."

 

London's permission for a new referendum is needed because any legally binding vote on UK constitutional matters has to be authorised by the UK parliament.

 

If the UK parliament agrees, a so-called Section 30 order would temporarily hand over power to the Scottish assembly for this matter, mandating it to decide on how a new independence referendum could be organised.

 

(Reporting by Elisabeth O'Leary, editing by Estelle Shirbon)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-22

[NanLaew]

And in other news, "North Sea decline weakens case for Scottish independence"

 

"Currently government tax receipts are negative, as (oil) companies receive more in decommissioning rebates than they pay in tax."... "Oil companies will therefore seek reassurances that, should Scotland vote for independence, they will continue to have access to the decommissioning tax relief they currently receive."

Edited March 22, 2017 by NanLaew

[AlexRich]

A bit like Brexit and Trump, you might just see Scotland vote for independence irrespective of whether it makes financial sense or not ... then Northern Ireland, and perhaps later Wales. Then Cornwall will look to separate from England, then London ... a new City State.

 

In 50 years we'll all be living in villages, each one it's own country! 

 

Taking back control, you know it makes sense Rodney!!

[Baerboxer]

 

The Leader of the Scottish Nationalist Socialist Party speaks!

 

Why is she pulling a face like a Japanese blow up doll?

 

 

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, NanLaew said:

And in other news, "North Sea decline weakens case for Scottish independence"

 

"Currently government tax receipts are negative, as (oil) companies receive more in decommissioning rebates than they pay in tax."... "Oil companies will therefore seek reassurances that, should Scotland vote for independence, they will continue to have access to the decommissioning tax relief they currently receive."

 

Should that assurance not come from Westminster, it being Westminster that was in receipt of the proceeds of North Sea Oil and, as is almost universally agreed, wasted them?

[dunroaming]

I think if there was a second referendum then the Scots would still vote to remain within the UK but with a larger majority.  Sturgeon is flogging a dead horse with this.

[Basil B]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Scottish parliament begins debate on new independence referendum

Wasting their time....

[Joedoebarinio]

Is this about Scotland or Ms Sturgeon?

[dunroaming]

3 minutes ago, Joedoebarinio said:

Is this about Scotland or Ms Sturgeon?

Be careful with Sturgeon or she may grab you by your sporran.  A trick she learned from a certain Mr Trump I believe! 

[Andaman Al]

Sturgeon needs to go to Moscow and make a pact with the Devil  Putin, and within a week she will have all the fake news and hacking she wants to get her referendum and win it. 

[NanLaew]

21 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The Leader of the Scottish Nationalist Socialist Party speaks!

 

Why is she pulling a face like a Japanese blow up doll?

 

 

Maybe YOUR Japanese blow up doll looks like that but....

[NanLaew]

20 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Should that assurance not come from Westminster, it being Westminster that was in receipt of the proceeds of North Sea Oil and, as is almost universally agreed, wasted them?

No denying that Westminster was allowed to squander the oil and gas income. However, the E&P companies currently have Westminster's largess to compensate their expensive end-of-field decommissioning. This lame incentive is to make the declining North Sea somehow look attractive to smaller, more efficient operators that in turn may be able to eke out some profit from the smaller, less economical fields. I agree that the SNP doesn't have to grant these same ill-conceived incentives but what have they specifically offered the energy industry moving forward together into this brighter, stronger and totally independent future?

[RuamRudy]

34 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

No denying that Westminster was allowed to squander the oil and gas income. However, the E&P companies currently have Westminster's largess to compensate their expensive end-of-field decommissioning. This lame incentive is to make the declining North Sea somehow look attractive to smaller, more efficient operators that in turn may be able to eke out some profit from the smaller, less economical fields. I agree that the SNP doesn't have to grant these same ill-conceived incentives but what have they specifically offered the energy industry moving forward together into this brighter, stronger and totally independent future?

In the mid 90s my company sent me on a very interesting course called 'Oil Field Accounting for Non Accountants'. I distinctly remember the lecturer telling us that oil companies, by law, had to syphon off a defined percentage of income from each field, to be banked for future decommissioning costs. This pot would accrue interest, as with any bank account, and the interest would be classed as income for the field. Whether this is still the law, I do not know, but a few years later, maybe 2000, I was an analyst for some non-operated fields and this was, at that time, a pertinent aspect of the balance sheet.

 

That said, any liability that is not the responsibility of the oil companies will lie with the benefactor. If Westminster has enjoyed 90% of the proceeds from a field, Westminster should pick up the equivalent percentage of the decommissioning costs.

 

I wouldn't agree that incentives are lame. There remain considerable resources to be exploited and it is prudent to ensure that the operating climate is as supportive as possible to ensuring that potential production is not lost. The expensive corporate structures that exist onshore tend to weigh down a lot of fields - management fees, corporate overheads etc all mount up, making a possibly attractive field look like a basket case. Of course, it is in the companys' interests for this to be the case - pile the costs onto the stronger performing fields to lower the tax bill etc, but the emergence of the low cost operators has shown that these fields can thrive without massive onshore HR, IT and Finance operations eating up the profits.

 

I think if the North Sea is to remain viable, we need to protect these smaller companies from the decommissioning liabilty - I understand that some asset sales have decreed that the liability remains with the original producer.

[NanLaew]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

In the mid 90s my company sent me on a very interesting course called 'Oil Field Accounting for Non Accountants'. I distinctly remember the lecturer telling us that oil companies, by law, had to syphon off a defined percentage of income from each field, to be banked for future decommissioning costs. This pot would accrue interest, as with any bank account, and the interest would be classed as income for the field. Whether this is still the law, I do not know, but a few years later, maybe 2000, I was an analyst for some non-operated fields and this was, at that time, a pertinent aspect of the balance sheet.

 

That said, any liability that is not the responsibility of the oil companies will lie with the benefactor. If Westminster has enjoyed 90% of the proceeds from a field, Westminster should pick up the equivalent percentage of the decommissioning costs.

 

I wouldn't agree that incentives are lame. There remain considerable resources to be exploited and it is prudent to ensure that the operating climate is as supportive as possible to ensuring that potential production is not lost. The expensive corporate structures that exist onshore tend to weigh down a lot of fields - management fees, corporate overheads etc all mount up, making a possibly attractive field look like a basket case. Of course, it is in the companys' interests for this to be the case - pile the costs onto the stronger performing fields to lower the tax bill etc, but the emergence of the low cost operators has shown that these fields can thrive without massive onshore HR, IT and Finance operations eating up the profits.

 

I think if the North Sea is to remain viable, we need to protect these smaller companies from the decommissioning liabilty - I understand that some asset sales have decreed that the liability remains with the original producer.

Thanks for that very enlightening post re the legal requirement for the shut-down costs to be built in to the whole investment. I imagine it is still on the statutes so why on earth would Westminster give companies a tax break on something that they are legally bound to already have in place? Possibly bad accountancy and the fact the decommissioning budgets drawn up in the heady days of less environmental restrictions didn't have any margin for an upside to address the costs of complying with as yet uninvented environmental laws? Or more likely just plain bad senior management who dictated the decommissioning percentage with the only aim to maximize shareholder yield through the life of field.

 

I worked for a US oil field contractor that had defined mobilization and separate demobilization costs as a client chargeable in all contracts. The clients would hold the contractors feet to the fire on delivering a complete mobilization but there was seldom any oversight of the demob deliverables. I was told that demob costs were built in to cover repatriation of equipment as well as repair, maintenance, refurbishment and storage of said equipment to make it ready for the next client. However, the Singapore office and warehouse was a mobilization nightmare since stuff was never properly checked on return, just piled into boxes, stacked on shelves or dumped rusting and leaking in the yard... until the next contract. Then it was a mad and ultimately expensive exercise in getting stuff ready at very short notice and at a cost that was never quite covered completely by the mobilization lump sum! I was doing a start up in Australia and they sent me some boxes that clearly hadn't been opened from the previous demob from Indonesia. I was quite surprised that Australian Customs hadn't caught the cans of Indonesian food and other rubbish that had been used as packing material for the batch of rusted, water damaged and otherwise unusable electronics that I had requested.

 

The manager did have an Aston Martin in Singapore and a yacht in Phuket btw.

Edited March 23, 2017 by NanLaew