SO Sir Ian Wood has urged Nicola Sturgeon not to call a second referendum and favours the status quo (“Oil tycoon urges Sturgeon to rule out second referendum”, The Herald, July 25). This is hardly newsworthy. Since the Thatcher era the oil and gas industry has existed exclusively for the benefit of private capitalist enterprise. It is no surprise that he doesn’t want change, since the first thing an Independent Scottish Government will do is reclaim the oil and gas and stop the profits being frittered away to private enterprise.

Here in Malaysia everything over six feet underground belongs to Malaysia and Oil and Gas and is the responsibility of Petronas, which falls under the Ministry of Finance. Petronas is the Malaysian National Oil Company and the corporation is vested with the entire oil and gas resources in Malaysia and entrusted with the responsibility of developing and adding value to these resources. Petronas is the 12th most profitable company in the world and the most profitable in Asia. The company is headquartered at the iconic Petronas Tower,s which was, of course, paid for by state-controlled oil. Typically 60 per cent of Government spending is paid for by oil.

In common with other parts of the world, oil exploration blocks are sold off by the government (Petronas in this case) to the International Oil Companies (IOCs) which gives them the right to explore. However these are sold under Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs) where Petronas Carigali (the operating wing of Petronas and an oil and gas company in its own right) is the partner and normally commands at least a 25 per cent share. Of the revenue from these blocks, five per cent goes to the state government and five per cent goes to federal government. Out of the remaining 90 per cent of the revenue, 30 per cent goes towards the cost of production (salaries, infrastructure and). Of the revenue that is left, 60 per cent of goes to Petronas and 40 per cent goes to the PSC which, of course is at least 25 per cent owned by Petronas. Petronas controls everything and monitors everything with all non-productive time (NPT) having to be justified to Petronas.

The oil industry in the UK is middle-aged, and it is not inconceivable that there is more to be produced than has been produced; we may not yet have reached peak oil. If we are to exploit the oil for the good of Scotland we absolutely have to have independence. A Scottish version of the Petronas twin towers should be our vision; not the self-serving negative messages put forward by the likes of Sir Ian Wood. who has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Andrew J Beck,

5.02 Condominium, 7 Uthant, Jalan U-Thant, 55000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

SIR Ian Wood’s lifetime of experience in the oil industry mean that his comments on that industry always merit serious consideration and respect. But his personal views on whether Scotland should seek to remain in the European Union, either as a continuing or a new member, are of no more significance or importance than those of any contributor to the Herald Letters Pages. So I am not sure why his comments are considered worthy of a special news report with a large headline.

Being at the top of his industry, would Sir Ian not have been aware of the deceit and manipulation of successive UK governments from the 1970s onwards, as listed by Jim Lynch (Letters, July 25)? Surely he would have known of the McCrone Report and its suppression for 30 years, the secret redrawing of sea boundaries to include six major oil wells in “English waters”, and the lack of openness about the vast source of revenue pouring into the UK Treasury? And if he was aware, did he use his elevated position to raise any complaint with the UK Government that Scotland was not receiving a fair share of this bonanza? It seems not.

There is no doubt that the governments of successive Prime Ministers Callaghan, Thatcher, Major and Blair deliberately concealed and manipulated the true figures of oil taxation revenue, to make sure that it all went into the London Treasury without any attempt to allocate any specific share to the annual funding of Scotland. And if members of the Cabinet did know all of this, why did successive Scottish Secretaries not speak out in the interests of the people they were supposed to represent?

It is all water (oil?) under the bridge now, but it is no wonder that many Scots feel they have been cheated, and that Scotland could have been transformed into a wealthy and flourishing small nation.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.