Is an SNP led "Indy 2" referendum over for a generation ?

Could this new information hammer the SNP's chances for good ?

Very recently Alex Bell (ex SNP policy advisor to Alex Salmond) published a report on "Rattle" that "The SNP’s model of independence is broken beyond repair. The party should either build a new one or stop offering it as an alternative to Tory cuts" (Read the whole important article here )

However some of the important text that makes an Indy2 difficult is below .......

=======================================================================

"2014 was an economic sweetspot for two reasons. It was a good year for oil, and it came after thirty good years. Thus the Scottish economy looked healthy and was able to boast that it had chipped in more to the UK treasury than it had got back over recent times.

That is not the same as being able to say the Scottish economy could afford British levels of spending, which was a significant plank of the Yes promise. That debatable point could be obscured by lots of noise, and the SNP is accomplished at shouting.
But Nicola Sturgeon knows the SNP is good at misdirection. The party’s success has been built on hard work and spin. Behind the scenes she isn’t gullible. It may work in public to rubbish claims by the Institute of Fiscal Studies that there is a gap between what Scots pay into government and what they get out in services, but only fools believe their own propaganda. The fact is a gap exists – Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending."
========================================================================

The current spending gap between what Scotland spends and what it actually earns in Tax Revenues is approximately £9 Billion pounds, this means that to be "Independent" or to take on "FFR" (Full Fiscal Responsibility) it would have to be able to fund that gap (at least), either by raising Taxes , cutting Spending (including deep Welfare cuts) or combinations of both plus potentially taking on levels of debt (which needs to be serviced ...which has added additional costs) in the money markets. (for more on debt issues and costs read the "Rattle " article direct )

This "Onshore" Spending gap has in the past been offset by good "Offshore" North Sea Oil Revenues on profits which in good years balances the shortfall ,sometimes even excelling it but in bad years of poor revenues the shorfall in Scottish Spending needs is met by the RUK taxpayer as part of the "pooling and sharing" of resources arrangements with the RUK government.

It goes without saying then that with the halving of Oil prices and the hugely rising costs of operating in the North Sea the final revenues on taxable profts are now very small in fact the last reported Oil tax revenues wasn't a profit at all it was actually a cost to the UK taxpayer of around £300 million.

This means that currently the natural Scottish "onshore" spending gap is now fully exposed at around £9 billion pounds required to fill that gap. Therefore if the SNP wanted to hold another Indy2 referendum it would have to convince Scots to accept a lower standard of living than in RUK after Independence due to having to cut spending or have higher rates on personal Income tax in Scotland (or both) this could also cause a movement of Jobs and workers which wouldn't be good for the Scottish economy either. I doubt if the Scots electorate would ever successfully vote to have a lower standard of living as their RUK counterparts..after all do Turkeys vote for Christmas ?

It has to be assumed then that the SNP would choose to wait until better economic conditions arrived and it coudl attempt to try convince Scots once again of a rosy and successful future, however this might be hard to achieve considering the electorate have seen how they were deceived last time.

So the ten million dollar question is ..how short or long a period could it be until Oil prices rose to allow the SNP to have a second attempt at Independence ?

It's not just as simple as waiting to get back to where the Oil price was last year because the cost of operating in the North Sea have also risen hugely with steel and engineering infrastructure being so old it is now needing replaced at modern day costs, this means profits and therefore taxes on profits are going to be so much smaller than they used to be in the last ten years. It's been said in fact that for Oil revenues to get back to the levels of 10 years ago Oil prices per barrel would have to get back nearer to $200 per barrel compared with the price last year of $113 per barrel.

Recent data that has been made available from BP though now suggests that Global Oil reserves are actually going to double by 2050 and will far outstrip demand , therefore it could be expected that Oil prices per barrel could now remain low or even go lower than now for a very very long time to come, this in turn (if its fact) is going to make it very difficult for the SNP to make another case for Independence for potentially a very long time as well... on the back of Oil revenues at least.

The SNP could of course try also to convince the electorate to vote on accepting a lower standard of living than in the rest of the UK...but could Turkey's really be convinced to vote for Christmas..I personally don't think it would ever be successful and a second failed Referndum would sink the SNP as a political party for a very long time.

The BP article is below :.

========================================================================

"The world is no longer at risk of running out of oil or gas, with existing technology capable of unlocking so much that global reserves would almost double by 2050 despite booming consumption, BP has said.

When taking into account all accessible forms of energy, including nuclear, wind and solar, there are enough resources to meet 20 times what the world will need over that period, David Eyton, BP Group head of technology said.

"Energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared," Mr Eyton said at the launch of BP's inaugural Oil and gas companies have invested heavily in squeezing the maximum from existing reservoirs by using chemicals, super computers and robotics. The halving of Oil prices since last June has further dampened their appetite to explore for new resources, with more than $200bn-worth of projects scrapped in recent months.

By applying these technologies, the global proved fossil fuel resources could increase from 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) to 4.8 trillion boe by 2050, nearly double the projected 2.5 trillion boe required to meet global demand until 2050, BP said.
With new exploration and technology, the resources could leap to a staggering 7.5 trillion boe, Mr Eyton said.
"We are probably nearing the point where potential from additional recovery from discovered reservoir exceeds the potential for exploration."
The world is, however, expected to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in favour of cleaner sources of energy as governments introduce policies limiting carbon emissions in order to combat global warming.
"A price on carbon would advantage certain resources," Mr Eyton said.
Governments are expected to agree on a framework to limit global warming by limiting carbon emissions at the United Nation's climate summit in Paris starting this month. European oil companies have urged policy makers to introduce a global price on carbon that will favour the use of less dirty natural gas at the expense of coal.
"Ultimately, national and international policies will determine how much of and which resources will be produced."
"We envisage increasing competition between energy resources," he said. "This will likely result in increased competition in the energy market and disruption for the incumbent."
In North America, a price of $40 per tonne of carbon would make gas turbine power plants more cost-effective than coal, BP said.
However, an $80 per tonne price on carbon would make onshore wind technology competitive with gas-fired power and would also make carbon capture and sequestration with gas-fired power economic.
And while oil is expected to be the main source fuelling the transport sector by at least 2035, electric vehicles could approach cost-parity with the internal combustion engine, due to advances in battery technology, BP said.
BP, the largest operator of solar and wind power among its peers, will see its investment portfolio evolve over time in line with government policies, Mr Eyton said.
However, an $80 per tonne price on carbon would make onshore wind technology competitive with gas-fired power and would also make carbon capture and sequestration with gas-fired power economic. "
The original online report can be found via this link by clicking here
========================================================================
The oil price is unlikely to recover next year, according to the boss of the French energy giant, Total.Total's Patrick Pouyanne "doesn't anticipate a recovery in 2016". In fact, he thinks supply will grow faster than demand next year.
He is not alone. Last Friday, Goldman Sachs put out a note suggesting prices could fall a lot further.

"While [we are] forecasting oil prices over the next few months to be near $40 a barrel, or roughly where they are trading today, there could be another 50% to fall," the investment bank said.
Read the whole Total Oil article by clicking here
=========================================================================
For explanations on the Scottish economy , the "onshore" and "offshore" revenues and also on how "pooling and sharing" works to the Scottish advantage see Kevin Hagues presentations by clicking here

Kevins main Blog and menu can be found here
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SNP Energy Spokesman admits No huge Income from Oil for Scotland ...Ever.

SNP Energy Spokesman admits No huge Income from Oil for Scotland ...Ever.

The chickens are finally coming home to roost for Alex Salmond and the SNP's grossly over optimistic "False Prospectus" white paper called "Scotland's Future" .   A nation might have expected it's senior Politicians to have produced an honest document for a nation to base its decision about its future direction on with perhaps a little bit of "gloss" attached but what it was actually produced was no more than a fantasy using over optimistic Oil "spot" prices, over optimistic Oil revenue growth figures and over optimistic industrial growth predictions while there really was no good economic evidence for doing so. They were produced for one reckless reason and one reckless reason only ...to try and impose the SNP's singular idealogical reason for existing... Independence. It can now clearly be seen too, if what was for all purposes merely a reckelss gamble, meant risking ruining Scotlands economy for decades and the entire whole economic wellbeing of it's people for their life terms then that for the SNP seniors clearly can be now seen to have be of little primary concern. First and foremost the SNP aim was to win Independence and therefore economic competence and responsibility was the first sacrifice thrown to the wind. Any economic fallout from failure of course wasn't going to hurt highly paid MP's, MSP's and other highly paid members of the SNP political new Scottish establishment near as much as ordinary hard working people, hard working people who with a failed SNP economic plan would have to work harder for longer and pay higher levels of income tax to help bail out the Scottish economy while supporting the SNP failed plans engineers and so called "visionaries" wages and comfortable pension plans. If the vote had been a YES and Scotland's economy and its people's livelihoods were headed like Lemmings over the cliff of financial ruin why might have Alex Salmond then said ? Well for this we may be able to look to past History because Alex Salmond did actually play more than a bit part in the ruin of the massive and powerful Royal Bank of Scotland by actively encouraging Fred Goodwins reckless behaviour during the takeover of ABN bank just prior to the financial crisis that happened in 2008 (an event strangely that SNP supporters like to blame on Labour) his words were " With Hindsight he would have done things differently" does the man have no shame ? See more here Would he perhaps have used the same phrase and simply walked away into the shadows with a shrug of his shoulders when Scotlands economy had went into meltdown after the massive fall in Oil revenues had left Scotland with a huge spending deficit to fill... its currently about £8-9 billion which if we had voted for Independence would have meant an additional 16% income tax on top of what we already pay or a 14% cut in Welfare support and other spending (including hopefully Gaelic roadsigns but with SNP priorities one never knows) or combinations of both including taking on crushing debts in the money markets for our Children and Grandchildren to have to pay for in future Generations (Think of Greece's experiences recently) This would have been the reality of a YES vote.
Thankfully because the nation voted NO..we really did "dodge a bullet" and our now precarious financial state will effectively be baled out by the larger UK government using the "pooling and sharing " arrangement that we benefit by from being part of the overall Union of the United Kingdom, this essentially means that the Westminster Government will continue to fund our over extended Scottish budget spending deficit thus saving us from hugely painful income tax rises and spending cuts that would have made anything the Tories had inflicted up till now feel like Christmas every day.
If you want to learn about the Scottish economy and how "pooling and sharing" works... watch Kevin Hagues excellent video's here http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/chokkablog-videos.html

Newspaper Article extract on this subject is below

"The SNP’s energy spokesman Callum McCaig has admitted that the Scottish Government will never see the “huge income” from oil revenues that were predicted as the cornerstone of an independent Scotland’s economy.

Aberdeen South MP, Callum McCaig, insisted the industry was still “fundamental” to the country’s fortunes, but that it was now in a “different stage”.

His comments – which will cast major doubts on the economic case for independence – came as the Chief Executive of Oil and Gas UK admitted estimates that 65,000 jobs would be lost in the sector now seemed “conservative”.

Last night, Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone said Scottish people would be “breathing a sigh of relief” that they did not vote Yes “based on the false promise of a second oil boom”."

Mr McCaig told a fringe meeting at the SNP’s conference in Aberdeen yesterday: “We are probably at a different stage in terms of taxation.

Despite admitting that tax revenues would never be what they were predicted to be, Mr McCaig said he was confident the industry would bounce back from its current downturn.

He said: “We are in a different stage in the industry now.

“The exact make-up of that is to be resolved over the coming months as the exact oil price is worked through.

In June, the Scottish Government dramatically downgraded its estimates of oil revenues, with the lowest estimate being slashed by 80% compared to pre-referendum predictions.

North East MSP Mr Johnstone said: “Everyone remembers Alex Salmond saying there was ‘little doubt’ Scotland was on the cusp of another oil boom, but the truth is, it was one of the SNP’s biggest cons during the referendum campaign.

“For months they’ve avoided publishing their own projections, because they knew they were vastly wrong and now we have one of their own MPs admit that fact.

“A huge amount has happened in the oil industry over the last year, not least the massive drop in oil price. Scotland will be breathing a sigh of relief that we didn’t vote Yes based on the false promise of a second oil boom.”

Deirdre Michie chief executive of Oil and Gas UK said: “In our report, we estimate a reduction of jobs in the sector of around 15%. Since the publication of the report we have seen more job losses and we now know that figure is likely to be a conservative one.

“It is always important to remember that these people (losing their jobs) are real people with mortgages and families to support.”

See the full article by clicking here

=====================================================================

Alex Salmond was also caught out lying another time during the Independence Referendum notably on the issue of having obtained "legal advice " on Scotland being able to re-join the EU...see text from article below:-

"On almost every critical point raised during the debate about Scotland’s future, Salmond was deliberately misleading. I’m not just thinking of his claim that he’d received legal advice reassuring him that an independent Scotland wouldn’t need to reapply for membership of the European Union. When the Information Commissioner ordered the Scottish government to respond to an FOI request to disclose the advice it had received, Salmond’s ministers spent £19,452.92 of public money appealing the decision, only to admit later that the ‘advice’ was a figment of Salmond’s imagination. So the First Minister misled the Scottish people on this point and spent taxpayers’ money to try to conceal the fact.Then there were the SNP’s fictitious claims about the economic impact of independence — and I’m indebted here to the blogger Kevin Hague, who has devoted years to unpicking the SNP’s rhetoric. For instance, there was the assertion that Scotland sends more money to Westminster than it gets back, thanks to North Sea oil.
If you factor in its share of oil revenue, Scotland has been a net contributor to Britain’s coffers in three of the last 15 years. For the other 12, oil hasn’t been sufficient to offset the fact that the Scottish government spends £1,450 more and raises £250 less per person than the rest of the UK. This makes Salmond’s claim, repeated ad infinitum, that ‘oil is just a bonus’ and Scotland could get along perfectly well without it, even more absurd. If you add the £1,450 and £250 together, you get a per capita gap of £1,700, which means that, without North Sea oil, its deficit would be £9.1 billion higher than it is as part of the UK. It turns out that oil revenue is critical to offsetting the deficit gap, which is presumably why Salmond wildly over-estimated it in the SNP’s white paper on Scotland’s future. In it, he claimed that revenue from North Sea oil in 2016/17 — the first year of Scotland’s independence — would be between £6.8 billion and £7.9 billion. In fact, it’s likely to be around £600 million.
If you deduct the £600 million from the £9.1 billion, that means Scotland would be facing an annual deficit gap of £8.5 billion in its first year of independence and there’s no reason to think that would change over the next ten to 15 years. In order for Scotland to be better off out of the UK, oil revenue would have to increase by several thousand per cent, or the Scottish economy would have to grow by a faster amount than the rest of the UK — around 15 per cent faster. For Scotland to wash its own face would mean massive public spending cuts. Far from imposing austerity on Scotland, the British government is saving Nicola Sturgeon from having to find Greek levels of savings. Who would have thunk it?
The SNP is, by some margin, the most dishonest party in Britain."
For whole article click here
======================================================================

During the recent SNP conference Andrew Neil of the Daily Politics TV programme interviewed Stewart Hosie and asked him what the SNP would have done to fill the now existent £8-9 billion deficit gap if they had won a returned YES vote at the Independence Referendum....watch here how Stewart Hosie tries first to bodyswerve from providing any answer on this issue and when cornered produces a lie by trying to blame Westminster (yet again) for having higher Oil price prdeictions than the SNP did, this is a lie that can easily be seen by checking the SNP manifesto yourself. Watch him squirm and lie here

The well respected economist David Smith from the Economist also produced an article on "Scotland dodged a bullet" the whole article can be read by clicking here

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four of the best webpages around for honest data, Nat meme busting and opinions on the Scottish economy.

The first of them (and the "most technical" if you choose to dig deeply) is Kevin Hagues excellent "Chokkablog" presentations of the figures on the Scottish Indy Manifesto Financials without offering any judgement or personal suggestions of how a vote should have been cast at that time. (Bear in mind this presentation was prepared some months ago so the figures given will have become worse due to the ongoing falling Oil price issues.)
His presentation starts with a quick overview video and then follows up with a more detailled
and enlightening set of presentations on the figures regarding Scotland long running fiscal deficit and how that figure would affect "FFA" (Full Fiscal Autonomy) , its affect on Independence as well as how any financial shotfall might possibly have to be dealt with and the possible potential time periods involved to balance Scotlands large financial deficit.
Clich here for the Video's Click here to start Kevin Hagues excellent video presentations

Kevin's Chokkablog Homepage can be found here http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/

The "Gers" figures which are trustworthy Scottish national statistics compiled by the Scottish Government itself are explained again here
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/how-scotlands-economy-contributes-to-uk.html

What FFA is http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/full-fiscal-autonomy-for-dummies.html

These texts are all the work of Kevin Hague who has a very wide following from people on both sides of the Independence arguement. (see the "endorsements" tab on his Blog)

(Kevin can be followed via his Blog or via Twitter. Help to inform as many other people by highlighting Kevins videos to them too.)
========================================================================
The second is Fraser Whyte's Blog https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/ which contains some great disection of SNP political doublespeak and those often repeated false Nat memes (good articles here particularly on "The Vow" and "WingsOverScotland" false information Nat memes )
========================================================================

Third up is the "Live Red, White and Blue Book" written by a previous SNP voter who remarks "I was startled by the cynicism of such an obviously manipulative and deceptive ploy by the SNP, a party that I voted for at Holyrood, and I feared for the consequences of our country when false hope turned to anger and despair.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16iR4zmlaf3PyU6RiNRtt4bFQt1bQ-q-P23n2xvVQnOg/mobilebasic?pli=1#heading=h.4uqvm913hroa

Open the link and scroll down the page for the texts
Lots of good recurring subjects often used by Nats to falsely argue the case for Independence are commented on and are explained in full very well.
=================================================================================
Fourth but not least is https://ahdinnaeken.wordpress.com/ I have no idea who writes this but all the articles are well informed, well written, wry and guaranteed I reckon to appeal to all Unionists.
=================================================================================
Please share these as much as you can , the more brainwashed Nats they reach the better as there is only so much "evidence" they can continue to deny when its put before them.

"Updated 20/3/2016" The Michelle Thomson MP scandal is now rocking the SNP's too long fragile facade.

"Latest Update. Michelle Thomson puts two properties up for sale , including her own Edinburgh Home ...."
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1680513.ece

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That facade being the one that the SNP is a knowledgeable and powerful force to be reckoned with on "Business" matters and therefore is a competent place in which the nation can put it's  trust.
Well last week that lie previously fostered by SNP policy mandarins has been completely blown to pieces.
Michelle Thomson was put on a  pedestal by the SNP hierarchy, who previously was Managing Director  of the hugely ambitiously named "Business for Scotland"  (a group that liked to portray itself as the Scottish version of the CBI , although in reality it was a mere tiddler of an organisation with  membership of around 30 individuals none of which are major players in Scottish Industry or Business. More information on "Business for Scotland"  later. )
Michelle only became active in the SNP after the Independence Referendum and then shortly after being elected was given a top role representing Scottish Businesses, it has to be asked now though considering the texts present on her own business website showing  her "Thatcherite" views , how good the SNP's often quoted "Rigorous Vetting" of prospective MP's actually was ? I suspect this will not be the only issue like this that will arise in the future, considering the vow of SNP MP's not having second jobs has already been exposed with at least 15 of them breaking the SNP "higher moral vow " on this made by Pete Wishart MP.
This extracts of the text below give the gist of the story so far.
=======================================================================

INVESTIGATION Greed, vanity and crooked deals that helped build £1.7million property empire for SNP’s ‘business expert’

 

EARLY last month, Michelle Thomson gave an interview in which she dredged up a painful memory from primary school. The Nationalist MP appeared to be describing the difficult birth of her social conscience.

 Were Michelle T Thomson’s property deals on the rig right side of the law? ‘When I was ten, I asked the teacher why the Queen had so many houses when other people had none at all,’ she revealed. ‘The teacher, for my troubles, took me out and belted me. I remember thinking, “I don’t want to be told how to think”.’
In the light of the £1.7million property empire Mrs Thomson now controls, and the dubious means by which it was built, it was an extraordinary story to offer an interviewer who had simply asked what she had wanted to be when she was a child.
Anyone taking the trouble to check the Parliamentary register of members’ interests would find Mrs Thomson now has rather more in common with the Queen than those with no houses at all. She lists nine Scottish properties which she either owns or part-owns.
More detailed records held at the Land Registry show the MP and her husband Peter’s portfolio actually extends to 17 – many let out for between £600 and £800 a month, providing a very tidy extra income for the working couple, even after monthly mortgage repayments are subtracted.
What self- destructive impulse would drive the SNP’s business spokesman to raise the issue of multiple home ownership, t he very area where she was most vulnerable to attack?
And what would possess her to do so in the full knowledge that her solicitor Christopher Hales had been struck off for professional misconduct for his role in building her empire?
These are questions both Mrs Thomson and the SNP may reflect upon at length as they look back on her first – and possibly only – year in politics.
Both may wonder also what this wannabe property mogul, preying on the most desperate house-sellers to feather her own nest, thought she was doing representing the anti-austerity SNP at Westminster at all. For, notwithstanding her support for independence, it is abundantly clear that she and the party were not on the same page.
On the website for her firm Your Property Shop former council houses were described as ‘our favourites’ and there were boasts that English investors found them particularly attractive.
This, of course, was the local authority housing stock which was sold to council tenants under the right to buy legislation of Margaret Thatcher – a policy, and a Prime Minister, despised by the SNP.
Yet Mrs Thomson’s website celebrated the money-making opportunity the policy brought, declaring: ‘With the advent of right to buy during the Thatcher era, many Scots took advantage of the policy and bought their council home for a knock-down price.
‘Many of these same homeowners find themselves now with huge equity in their homes and are able to sell at hugely discounted rates and still pocket a handsome profit. So a “win-win” for both the vendor and the investor. Yippee!!’
But then, that decision was made very recently indeed – only a few months, in fact, before s he f ound herself in Westminster.
There she was immediately handed a frontbench brief and was trumpeted hubristically as one of the new breed of serious professionals, rich in hinterland, swelling the modern SNP’s elected ranks.
She j oined Standard Life, working in IT for 14 years before moving to the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), just before chief executive Fred Goodwin’s disastrous purchase of the Dutch Bank ABN Amro, which almost sank RBS and was one of the triggers for the financial crisis. She left her role as programme manager there just months before t he bank announced the largest annual loss in UK corporate history.
No matter, for Mrs Thomson now planned to work for herself – reaping the benefits of the very disaster her f ormer employer had helped bring about.
‘ I took advantage of the property dip to build my own portfolio of buy-to-let and holiday rental properties,’ she wrote on one social media profile.
But how was it possible to build such an extensive portfolio so quickly? Where was the money coming from?

The Scottish Solicitor’s Discipline Tribunal which struck off Mrs Thomson’s lawyer Christopher Hales last year gives an idea how the empire could be built without substantial capital.
Simply, she found ways to receive loans amounting to 100 per cent, or sometimes more, of the actual sum changing hands for the properties. It involved a lawyer prepared to break the rules and deceive the mortgage lender, which is why Mr Hales is out of a job.
There were two schemes to induce mortgage companies to lend more than they usually would f or t he properties. The first was ‘cashback transactions’ which required the cooperation of the seller.
In the case of a property in High Street, Jedburgh, Mrs Thomson’s solicitor offered the house seller £90,000, with the proviso that £27,000 of this sum was to be repaid to the buyer, Mrs Thomson’s company M&F Property Solutions, after settlement. That made the net purchase price £63,000. But the £67,465 loan from the mortgage
company, Birmingham Midshire, was predicated on the £90,000 figure. She had just bought a house without a deposit.
The second scheme is ‘ back to back transactions’, a manoeuvre requiring two buyers in league with each other and a crooked lawyer. Crucially, the seller’s collusion is not required.
One example was the sale of 10 MacDonald Drive in Stirling. Here Mrs Thomson’s business partner Frank Gilbride made an offer of £64,000 to the house seller Sarah Capper. But on the date of settlement he sold the property on to Mrs Thomson for £95,000.
She had received a mortgage loan of £75,855 based on that £95,000 figure and had transferred the balance to her solicitor. He then paid off the £64,000 owed to Mrs Capper and returned the proceeds to Mrs Thomson. Once again, she had bought a house without investing any capital.
The tribunal findings detail a total of 13 transactions in which Mr Hales duped mortgage lenders. In some cases the vendors, often selling their properties in desperate circumstances, were duped too.
Mrs Capper was reported to have been ‘livid’, saying: ‘My daughterin-law had told me not to accept the offer, but I had to do it. I sold it to get back to England and see my family. I had cancer and I had no one to fall back on. I could have got a lot more money if I’d gone to an estate agent.’
A former tabloid journalist, Mr Gilbride became i ncreasingly involved in the property business after his press agency Newsflash folded. While keeping a foothold in journalism, he teamed up with Mrs Thomson first in M&F Property Solutions and later in Your Property Shop.
It was in 2011, the year before Mrs Thomson became a founder member of the pro-independence group Business for Scotland, that Mr Hales was suspended from his job with Edinburgh law firm Grigor Hales after routine checks by the Law Society.
Even as she took her first tentative steps in public life, the scandal was in the pipeline, the wheels were already in motion.
She became one of the go-to spokesmen for broadcasters seeking business figures in favour of a Yes vote in the referendum – although it was never clear just how substantial a roster of big businesses was on board.
An investigation by economics blogger Kevin Hague found very few of the figures i nvolved in Business for Scotland were major company directors. Most ran tiny firms and some did not appear to be in business at all.
According to Mrs Thomson, it was only at the tail- end of 2014, and in the light of the No vote, that she decided to run for Westminster, and only in January that she was selected. With almost indecent haste a career in politics was born and, on the tidal wave of support which won the Nationalists all but three of the 59 Scottish seats, she was elected to Westminster.
Perhaps, back in January, neither she nor her party had believed she had any reasonable chance of taking Edinburgh West from the Lib Dems. But as the May election day drew closer, both must have realised she stood an excellent chance of becoming an MP. And she, surely, must have known of the storm blowing steadily in her direction.
The revelation weeks ago that her email address had been published along with millions of customers of the adultery website Ashley Madison was merely the first rumble. That, she could claim quite believably, was part of a smear campaign. But the revelations of the deceptions used by her lawyer to build her property empire by preying on vulnerable homeowners – described in his disciplinary tribunal as ‘distressed sellers – could not be dismissed so lightly.
They shine a devastatingly harsh light on the business methods of the Nationalist MP who was chosen to hold the business brief.

=======================================================================

The investigation mentioned in the text done by "economics blogger Kevin Hague " can be found on his own Blog here :-

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/who-do-business-for-scotland-represent.html 

 

and also his scrutiny of a video "Scotland for Business" made for the Indy Referendum here  :-

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/response-to-independence-and-economy.html

 

Kevin also produced a presentation on the Indy "White paper" and the data they used  here :-

 http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/chokkablog-videos.html

He can also be followed on Twitter ....  see his blog.
=========================================================================
 This story might well yet escalate quickly as the Police enquiry deepens :-
"The Law Society of  Scotland is facing intense pressure over a year-long delay in alerting prosecutors to a case of suspected mortgage fraud linked to Scottish National party MP Michelle Thomson."
"As further questions emerged about the role of another Law Society official who knew Thomson and was also a nationalist campaigner, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon made clear that the MP faced
being drummed out of the party over the affair as she faced a barrage of questions at Holyrood."
See more on this link http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/01/law-society-of-scotland-under-pressure-over-mps-suspected-mortgage?CMP=share_btn_tw 

=========================================================================
Sunday 4th October 2015   The Sunday Herald reveals infighting within multiple members of Business for Scotland that led to Michelle Thomson no longer being paid for "consultancy services " but yet let her continue to be called the "Managing Director" for months till the Indy referendum to help avoid further problems and bad press for Business for Scotland itself.
Read the whole article by CLICKING HERE

Sunday 4th October 2015   The vetting  process that has come under scrutiny  in the Michelle Thomson situation has now also raised questions about the suitablity of Paul Monaghan too for selection as  SNP Candidate too. There are details of serious issues at his fathers previous Nursing home and also of when he worked at the Northern Constabulary.
Read the whole article by CLICKING  HERE 

To end this Blog and have a few seconds to think about the SNP's troubles CLICK ON HERE