You're mixing a few things up here. The set of countries that are affected by the resource curse, and those dealing in financial secrecy (what else would you call it?), are disjoint.

The phenomena are linked through money laundering: wealth generated from state capture in one country does not want to stay in the politically and economically unstable environment it has helped create. It therefore needs to be channeled into the western financial system, the UK or Europe. That's done using shell companies in the BVI, CY, SY, LUX, MT, CH, KN etc. This way financial secrecy creates impunity, where the wealth taken from developing countries evades domestic accountability.

Examples: the Aliyevs, Dos Santos, Karimova, Yanukovych, Roldugin, the cabinet of Goodluck Jonathan, and even the Guptas.

It's also a bit weird to describe this as in issue of BVI sovereignty. The BVI government is run by a governor appointed by the British queen on advice from the British government. It basically duck types as a colony. The same is even more true for IOM, GG, JE. If only there were some explanation for why it benefits the UK to have half a dozen financial secrecy jurisdictions in its sphere of influence. The system is clearly all about sovereignty.

Finally, I did not say that discussing spending was beneath discourse -- merely arguing that governments doing taxation was pretty much what makes them governments. Otherwise it's a golf club.

I'll remain eternally grateful for any further explanations of the mechanisms of finance and their benevolence you may have to offer.