Well, that's not a hard connection to make, when you know about the role of the First Minister of Scotland in the prosecution of her predecessor, Alex Salmond. If you were also to know the identity of one of the accusers, which cannot be reported, but is well known in Scotland, you would find the connection even easier.
You don't need to be a lawyer to understand what this is all about and it certainly isn't hindsight, as you have suggested.
The reason why the IRS are challenging FB is that Apple's Irish tax arrangements became public and were very embarrassing to the US authorities, which were revealed not to be applying US law.
Now, to the matter of hindsight.
The essential point is that the transactions have to be a sham to work.
There is precisely no point in selling IP from a US subsidiary to one in Ireland at a fair price.
That would just trigger an immediate taxable event in the US for no benefit whatsoever.
The transaction is by design intended to sell IP at a large undervalue and the game was to satisfy the US and Irish authorities, both of which were happy to play along.
Maybe I am wrong on this, but I doubt that you have studied economics or have any idea what economists think.
The people that you are talking about are effectively lobbyists - policy entrepreneurs is the phrase, who appear in the media advocating for policies that benefit their clients.
I read this story and found it interesting to notice how the author seemed not to have any perspective other than his own.
He seemed to regard himself as central to the company, when in reality he was just one of many employees, who had been hired to do a job.
Those hiring him seemed to be interested in the sale of the company and securing their own positions, which they appear to have managed well, by running a sham department, that they could present as being a success.
This is the best description of what it was all about from the persepctive of Craig Murray.