Westminster can’t pay and won’t pay

As the independence debate moves on to matters concerning the financial costs of separation, both the pro- and anti-lobbies bombard us with facts and figures, only to be immediately contradicted by their counterparts and leaving the electorate no further forward in their understanding of what independence will really mean.

One point, however, is surely irrefutable and was aptly raised by Michael Kelly (Perspective, 19 April) concerning the SNP’s apparent split personality with regard to its view of the Westminster government and any post- independence relationship.

The constant stream of invective and criticism directed at Westminster by Alex Salmond over the years, along with his sniping over everything from the economy to the ownership of the Lewis Chessmen, has ensured that he, and by association, Scotland, have few, if any, friends within the major parties, yet the SNP somehow fondly imagines that assistance from the London government would be lavished on a newly independent Scotland.

Michael Kelly mentions the £30 billion bill that awaits us down the line for the decommissioning of North Sea rigs once the oil runs out, and I imagine that he is speaking with tongue in cheek when he expresses surprise that although the SNP was aware of this, for some reason Mr Salmond has never thought it necessary to mention it.

Energy minister Fergus Ewing tells us that Westminster will pick up this tab because it has a “moral obligation” to do so.

A moral obligation? Good, well that’s that taken care of, then.

I can imagine a Scottish First Minister in 30-odd years’ time writing to Westminster to remind them of its “moral obligation” to give us £30bn. I would anticipate a somewhat succinct reply.

Walter J Allan

Colinton Mains Drive

Edinburgh

I wish to correct the misleading aspects of the article by David Maddox which you published under the heading “Scotland ‘faces bill of £30 billion’ after North Sea oil runs out” (18 April).

The total gross cost of decommissioning for the whole of the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) over the next 30 years could well be £30bn, but this is incurred by the oil company licensees.

The costs are tax deductible and the reduced tax revenues I estimate at £16.5bn over the 30 years.

Also, I did not say that uncertainty over the result of the referendum was making it difficult for oil companies to secure future investments.

There is no evidence for this. I said that there was an additional political risk on top of the high tax instability in the UKCS over the last decade.

Finally, I said nothing about reducing public expenditure in response to the establishment of an oil fund.

(Prof) Alex Kemp

University of Aberdeen Business School

Edward Wright Building

Aberdeen

For 40 years, successive Westminster governments have plundered the North Sea, using the oil to provide a cash cow for their profligate spending policies.

None of these governments had the common sense to create an oil fund for future generations or for contingency issues.

So it is of little surprise that Westminster expects an independent Scotland to shoulder the possible £30 billion of decommissioning costs rather than paying its fair share. If implemented, this must be one of the worst examples of economic colonialism in living memory.

Thankfully, however, it is just another example of Unionist scaremongering and any decommissioning costs would be part of the settlement discussions on revenue and costs between Scotland the remainder of the UK.

Michael N Crosby

Muiravonside

By Linlithgow