The Scottish Government

Bruce Crawford, Minister for Parliamentary Business

Friday, November 30, 2007

The online conversation is undoubtedly off to a flying start.

The 1,000th comment in the National Conversation Blog was posted at 7.26am on Saturday morning. And the conversation continues to grow and expand in new places with the First Minister speaking to a packed out audience at Edinburgh's International Book Festival, radio phone ins and newspaper letters pages fill up with the views of the nation.

It seems that articulating debate on our constitutional future is hugely popular with a poll in a Sunday newspaper this weekend showing that 74 per cent of Scots are in favour of a referendum with the majority believing that Scotland becoming Independent in inevitable.

The Scottish Government envisages a national conversation which will consider the entire range of possible improvements to the current constitutional settlement for Scotland. What is clear is that the status quo is no longer an option and the question now is how much more Independence and responsibility the people of Scotland want to help improve and progress our country? For instance, I want Scotland to have the Independence to decide whether the Trident Nuclear Weapons System should continue to be based on the Clyde.

At the election a few months back all the main political parties made proposals concerning the devolution settlement.

In addition to proposing a white paper on independence which we have now published, the Scottish National Party made specific proposals to extend the devolution settlement in areas such as the civil service, broadcasting and for firearms.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats proposed a new constitutional convention to examine the best way to devolve new responsibilities, including taxation, to Holyrood. They also proposed that competence over the electoral system, energy, transport and marine policy should be devolved.

The Scottish Labour party emphasised the continued use of the mechanisms in the Scotland Act to make any necessary changes. The Scottish Conservatives declared themselves open to a debate about the powers of the Scottish Parliament to secure accountability for raising revenues, as well as for spending.

Since we launched the national conversation many politicians have joined the debate, with some rethinking their position and saying they welcome a fresh look at Scotland's partnership with other parts of the UK. Certainly times change and minds change, and what is important is that Scotland's government encourages the debate and enables political parties, groups and individuals who have a view of the future direction our nation to play a full part in the conversation.

At the end of the day whether the people of Scotland choose full self government as the way forward or seek to obtain new devolved powers for the Scottish Parliament no significant change should be allowed to happen without the consent of the people, that is why we so strongly back the idea of a referendum. We trust the people of Scotland to make the right decisions and ask other parties to do the same.

Before the election we said to Scotland that it was now time to move forward. As we approach our first 100 days of an SNP Government we have done just that by getting on with the job of delivering the SNP programme and fulfilling our commitment to ensure that a full and proper debate setting out how we can choose a new and better relationship with the other nations of these islands takes place. I look forward to the conversation flowing!

This blog is now closed to further comments.

Comments

[Latest First] | [Earliest First] Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

• 101. David Robertson - Inverness

  Wednesday, September 5, 2007 17:28

  #88 John, Edinburgh.
  
  A very interesting read John, thank you. This strengthens my own view that we should seek independence outside the EU, although I suspect that this is an unlikely outcome.
  
  I agree that the UK remnant would most likely block Scotland's application to join the EU, especially if there is a judicial finding that the North Sea oil and gas within Scotland's territorial waters belongs to her. The latter is not a foregone conclusion since the UK government has already annexed 6000 square miles of these waters to itself. In the end we shall probably allow the UK remnant to retain ownership of these annexed waters to benefit their fishing industry and their economy. This may well be used as a bargaining tool to gain entrance into the EU and shorten negotiations for independence. I hope not but it remains the most likely end game.
  
  I believe we must gird up our loins for a fight, metaphorically speaking of course, though no less wearing. There is no easy way to gain our freedom. However, we must always remember to love our enemies. We have gone through a lot together as nations, more than most of us know.

• 102. Andrew Rossetter - glasgow

  Wednesday, September 5, 2007 19:27

  Why does the SNP support the British monarchy?

• 103. Colin John Macrae - West Lothian

  Friday, September 7, 2007 20:57

  I don't think anyone is going to block Scotland from the EU. an Idependent nuetral country sitting at the front door of Europe with 80% of europes Oil 60%of europes fishing grounds and no political affilations I dont think so. If our old friends desert us we are more than capable of making new ones, Chinese, Russian, Asian the list is endless. As I said I dont think so.

• 104. Gordon Murray - Livingston

  Saturday, September 8, 2007 00:40

  #102. Andrew Rossetter - glasgow
  Wednesday, September 5, 2007 19:27
  
  The SNP does not support the British monarchy, it supports the Scottish monarchy which is a different sort of animal altogether:
  Quote
  >>> his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King.
  To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand.
  
  Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King<<<
  End Quote
  Declaration of Arbroath 1320.
  
  If the current monarch is judged unfit for purpose we will elect another, but we are not about to devote the GDP of a third world nation to maintain them.
  

• 105. Gordon Murray - Livingston

  Saturday, September 8, 2007 08:29

  #101. David Robertson - Inverness
  Wednesday, September 5, 2007 17:28
  
  The UK economy is not strong enough to exist outwith the EU, remember Black Wednesday?
  It would take many years of independence for Scotland to build up an economy as strong as say Norway's to be robust enough to survive on our own.
  
  As the UK was formed by the international Treaty of Union 1707 between the sovereign nations of Scotland and England(incorporating Wales and Ireland)
  
  When the Treaty is cancelled The UK will revert back to these two signatory kingdoms of Scotland and England, both equal under UN international law.
  
  As such, both of these states will be bound under international law to individually honour the terms of any Treaties or agreement entered into during the period of their pooled sovereignty, eg Maastricht, Geneva Convention, UN Charter on Human Rights.
  
  Should either state wish to leave the EU then they will have to follow the same diplomatic process that Greenland had to follow to get out when Denmark joined.
  
  As for Honest Tony's chicanery with the maritime boundaries, that was an entirely Whitehall move which they got away with because it was done under UK provisions and had no material effect on non-UK states.
  
  Under UN law of the sea, England is in no position to lay claim to waters off the Scottish Coast.
  The old Victorian dodge of sending in the Royal Navy doesn't wash any more.
  
  This was all done to death during the 70's when Whitehall explored every legal loophole in the book to lay claim to the oil under the North Sea for England.
  
  Eventually they fell back on the expedient of keeping its true extent secret from the Scottish public, arguing that it was only worth £100m a year, would be gone by 1990, and pouring official scorn and derision on anyone who said otherwise.
  
  See the McCrone Report 1975 by RLG McCrone.(page 5)
  http://www.snpyouth.org/documents/mccronereport.pdf
  
  As for allowing England access to our waters to benefit her fishing industry, we currently allow all EU member states access to UK waters.
  
  Whitehall sees no national interest served by fishing in general, only the smallest proportion of which is now English.
  Why would anyone imagine this would provide any leverage at all in any future negotiations with England?
  
  There is a really easy way to gain your 'freedom', no sweat, no effort required at all, you do not even have to leave the comfort of your easy chair.
  
  Just put an 'X' on a ballot paper and have it posted at the next general election.

• 106. Brian - Aberdeen

  Saturday, September 8, 2007 18:04

  This is all about choice and those politiicians who continue to deny Scots the right to choose by blocking a referendum should be ashamed of themselves. Choice is the very essence of democracy. Well done Alex Salmond.

• 107. David Robertson - Inverness

  Sunday, September 9, 2007 23:13

  Post #105 Gordon Murray - Livingston
  
  "The UK economy is not strong enough to exist outwith the EU, remember Black Wednesday? It would take many years of independence for Scotland to build up an economy as strong as say Norway's to be robust enough to survive on our own."
  
  I'm sorry Gordon, I don't follow your argument here. The decision to enter the ERM in 1990 was due to monetary illiteracy on the part of John Major and Douglas Hurd. The differentials in the economies of the participants were bound to have the denouement that eventually took place. Savvy American speculators, notably George Soros, were aware of these discrepancies and made a bundle playing the market. It is interesting to note at this point that the son of ERM, the Euro, is subject to the same stresses and in time will fail since it is trying to stuff a recalcitrant geni into a fragile lamp of monetary rules that simply cannot hold, given the hetrogeneous nature of the economies involved. The smartest thing the UK has done is stay well clear of it and Scotland should do the same.
  
  I have posted some thoughts on how Scotland can go it alone on John Swinney's blog #28. I have no doubt that we can survive as a nation without being a member of the EU. In fact I believe we shall be far better off outside, perhaps as a member of the EEA. I can honestly think of no good REASON to be a member of the EU, not one. I believe we can trade with anyone in the world without the need for international agreements, provided we have goods and services others want and we have a need of goods and services others offer. With the correct monetary and fiscal policies at home we can compete and cooperate successfully with any nation on the planet. I would go as far as to say that we could become an example of how to do it without complicated, tightly worded, so called free trade agreements that are simply an invitation to the unscrupulous to profit and to bureaucrats to build paper empires.
  
  

• 108. David Robertson - Inverness

  Monday, September 10, 2007 22:39

  Post #105 Gordon Murray, Livingston
  
  To follow up on my post #107, there was an article in the Telegraph Business section online today, September 10, that reinforces what I was saying about the Euro. Here it is:
  
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2007/04/30/ccview30.xml
  
  I hope you read it and see how it confirms my apprehension. The collapse may come sooner than I thought.

• 109. Gordon Murray - Livingston

  Wednesday, September 12, 2007 18:32

  #108. David Robertson - Inverness
  Monday, September 10, 2007 22:39
  
  Aye well David if it's in the Telegraph it must be right?
  
  The Germans are coming out of a 20 year project to bring the old Soviet Bloc East Germany up to speed with their Western brothers and sisters.
  
  This has been a task of epic proportions and a huge drain on German resources.
  It now appears that this phase has been successfull and their joint economy is back in the black.
  This can only make the Euro even stronger and more resilient.
  
  In my view the big bogeyman of the British post war economy has been inflation and devaluation of the pound.
  
  Remember the days of Harold Wilson, 25% inflation, devaluation of the pound, and him coming onto the tv to tell us that 'the pound in your pocket will not be affected'?
  
  Denis Healey had to go begging to the IMF when the US cut off the free money and told him, in diplomatic speak, if you're not going to help us in Vietnam then you can sort your own troubles.
  
  A lesson well learned by Margaret Thatcher and subsequent UK PMs
  
  What the British Chancellor discovered on Black Wednesday IMO was that if the international money markets targeted sterling, HMG was absolutely powerless to intervene such was the scale and depth of resources being directed at it.
  
  The Telegraph has been anti-Euro since the currency's launch and happy to announce the it's demise regularly ever since.
  
  The Euro, inspite of obtuary notices to the contrary, was not stillborn, seems to be enjoying rude health, getting stronger and fitter every day and the currency of choice for international transactions the world over.
  
  I'm no economist, but I wouldn't let red herrings about who's picture is on my money deflect me from wanting Scotland to stop being dependent on Westminster dole money, in whatever currency they pay it out.

• 110. David Robertson - Inverness

  Friday, September 14, 2007 17:29

  #109 Gordon Murray - Livingston
  
  You say:
  
  "I'm no economist, but I wouldn't let red herrings about who's picture is on my money deflect me from wanting Scotland to stop being dependent on Westminster dole money, in whatever currency they pay it out."
  
  My own background includes over 25 years in the financial markets in North America in trading, fund management and corporate finance. This does not make me an expert on international finance but it does give me a perspective that is a little different from those who have not been exposed to these markets.
  
  I did point you to a post I made on John Swinney's blog, #28, where I make a start at suggesting the monetary and fiscal arrangements I would prefer to see implemented in an independent Scotland. As you will see, I do not recommend remaining tied to the British Pound and the Bank of England, anymore than I would wish to be linked to the ECM and the Euro. In my view, it is impossible to maintain a monetary balance among so many competing and dissimilar economies. Somewhere something is bound to give. This is the reason Germany has struggled to absorb just one small region, the former DDR, and I am not convinced that they have succeeded as you aver they have.
  
  Indeed, the problems they have experienced, that were completely foreseeable, as were the ERM problems with the BP, support the very argument that I am making against Scotland entering the Eurozone. (Please do not blame the international speculators for Black Wednesday. That is a cop-out. The Chancellor made a bad decision, ignoring the assymetry of the currencies in the ERM. Black Wednesday, as I have said, supports my argument against entering the Eurozone.)
  
  Now that the Euro is also becoming a de facto reserve currency in competition with the US Dollar, the problems will be magnified exponentially. The international markets are bidding it up just as they sold off the British pound in 1992. This was the point being made by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph article. I referenced it because it highlighted the point I was making, not because it was in the Telegraph. Surely the fundamental facts and arguments are what matter, not whether a certain newspaper has always held a particular point of view. As the old saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Should I say that, because you are invariably in favour of independence for Scotland, you must be wrong, regardless of the arguments and facts you present? Would you then think that I was presenting a valid argument against independence?
  
  The point I am trying to make is that our purpose in extricating ourselves from the embrace of England, and the Bank of England, cannot be achieved successfully by throwing ourselves into the arms of Europa and the European Central Bank. We would be worse off because we would now be a very tiny fish in a very large pond instead of just a small fish in a big pond, in which there are some very predatory fish indeed. Who would look after the best interests of the Scottish economy then?
  
  Here is a quote from a banker:
  
  "They [bankers] viewed national interests from the windows of the bank parlour. From their point of view, industry, commerce, agriculture, wages, employment, were but counters in the skilled game of international finance. They must be regulated to fit in with the monetary scheme. The monetary scheme must not be regulated to fit in with the needs and necessities of the world." The Money Revolution by Sir Charles Morgan-Webb, 1935.
  
  Gordon, the ECB has a Monetary Scheme into which Scotland will have to fit, regardless of the consequences. Whoever controls the money controls the nation, so it matters a great deal whose picture is on the banknotes.
  

[Latest First] | [Earliest First] Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]