On this page:

We trust the people of Scotland to make the right decisions and ask other parties to do the same.

Bruce Crawford, Minister for Parliamentary Business

Friday, November 30, 2007

The online conversation is undoubtedly off to a flying start.

Bruce Crawford Minister for Parliamentary BusinessThe 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]

  • 121. Dav e Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

    Monday, November 5, 2007 02:20

    Just a little point "What is clear is that the status quo is no longer an option...". I don't think it's correct to rule this out as an option in a national conversation, nor as a possible future policy or direction.

    Views on parliamentary business:

    Since the future Scotland wants is up for internal debate at least, any possible future course of action should be debated by the Scottish Parliament, not from the point of view of "is this (particular course of action) what we want", more from the point of view of "if it's decided we do this, how do we achieve it, and what do we need to do in preparation.". All members should debate this and even provisionally approve the course of action. At least then more of the obstacles for each path can be determined, and plans for their overcoming be prepared in advance.

    It may well be that members totally opposed to independence would have the most input into obstacles and their overcoming; members most in favour have the best ideas how to proceed with the status quo, or a lessening/greatening of devolved powers. Shame to lose the expertise of these members if they're afraid to reveal their knowledge lest it compromise their beliefs and position on the great debate.

  • 122. !00 days plus? - Fife

    Monday, November 12, 2007 21:40

    Dear Bruce,

    Is it not time you 'lost' the last paragraph of your address, before the electorate are reminded of the promises you have failed to deliver on? Pity the real world has caught up with your pipe dream.

  • 123. Margaret - Edinburgh

    Saturday, November 17, 2007 17:49

    Well said Jim on comment 7

  • 124. Gordon Murray - Livingston

    Saturday, November 24, 2007 17:41

    121. Dav e Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire
    Monday, November 5, 2007 02:20

    ""...best ideas how to proceed with the status quo...""

    Surely it doesn't take much thinking about to do nothing, does it?

  • 125. ruth - west lothian

    Tuesday, December 4, 2007 19:20

    Re: comments 7 and 123 an "abuse of power"is what Ms Alexander of the Labour party is currently doing - not The SNP Government. Labour didn't ask for our opinions or actively encourage discussion and debate on the future of our country. The SNP Government is the ONLY government which puts the needs of Scotland and her people - all of us who live here,as paramount.Snide, petty remarks directed towards Mr Salmond, The First Minister of Scotland, only serve to make you look sour.No other political party in Scotland puts Scotland's needs first - the rest are all answerable to Westminster. How you can be ok with that honestly bewilders me.

  • 126. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

    Wednesday, December 5, 2007 20:53

    124. Gordon Murray - Livingston
    in answer to: ""...best ideas how to proceed with the status quo...""

    Surely it doesn't take much thinking about to do nothing, does it?
    -------------------------------

    Sorry to be so long, it does take time to think about "doing nothing".

    Seems to me many people have bearable lives, not great, but tolerable. Perhaps 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, credit cards up to the limit, roof leaking but not too badly, schools OK but could be better - or worse if you're a loser in the postcode lottery, health service that will replace that hip in 3 years time, free, rather than needing money to be spent that is just not in the home budget.

    To these people, perhaps the barely tolerable "status quo" is better than the chance of things getting worse - and therefore intolerable. Change is frightening, it's uncertain.

    And then there are people who are comfortable - could be better of course, but could be a lot worse. Why risk that standard of living, quality of life? Holiday every year - or twice even? For an ideal? Freedom? What does that mean to me? Why should I care whether I'm ruled from Westminster, Brussels or Holyrood? Will it make any difference to my life?

    Going for Independence, which is a big change of the status quo, every single individual who would vote on a referendum for independence would need to be reasonably sure that at least their lives weren't going to get worse.

    Seems to me that a major topic of this conversation could well be the status quo, the reason why people might find the status quo tolerable, and how people can be reassured that a change from the status quo may lead to better things, wihtout leading to worse.

    For various reasons I was forced to go into business and be an outright "risk-taker", and perhaps I am by nature anyway, I certainly enjoy it and wish I'd done it many years ago. For me Independence will be a great adventure. Many people aren't so bothered.

  • 127. Gordon Murray - Livingston

    Sunday, December 23, 2007 18:44

    126. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire
    Wednesday, December 5, 2007 20:53

    So I take it 'It's the Economy stupid!',
    you'd be interested in independence if there was a quid or two in it for you?

    Some of us would see the present set up as analogous to you handing over all your income to your next door neighbour and letting him take care of you and your home on it.

    No risk taking by you, life could be tollerable, nothing could ever be your fault, could it?

    A bit awkward come birthdays and holidays if you wanted to do something special for the family, particularly if next door insists that there's nothing in the 'kitty'.

    How much respect would the rest of the street have for you and your benefactor?

    How much respect does the international community have for Scotland and for England?

    Take our closest international ally:
    The Americans love the Queen of England and the close part 'England' has played with the US in conflicts from WWI to the Cold War, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    They love having their own version of the pipes and drums at great occasions such as at Arlington or the 911 memorial services.

    As for the Scots, Americans know the Irish are great for a party and they can't get enough of our bagpipes, Sir Sean, Scotch and tartan.

    I reckon anyone who expects someone else, no matter how well meaning or intentioned, to run our affairs for us as well as we would for ourselves musht be dreaming.


  • 128. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

    Monday, December 24, 2007 12:20

    127. Gordon Murray

    I think you have strongly, but sadly in a negative way, proven the need for a posting such as mine you replied to, but clearly did not read or understand in the slightest. Please read it again.

    If WE, note the word "WE", are to make the case for independence - which is a big change from the status quo - the barest minimum we must do is understand and accept those who do not agree with US about the merits of and need for independence.

    Being insulting, lacking comprehension, putting words in the mouths of those we are talking - and LISTENING to - will not do the job. Quite rightly, those who are undecided about the merits of independence may fear the unreasonableness of its advocates, and decide to stay with the safe haven of the status quo.

    It's hearts and minds, not battering people with a big stick, and to be completely blunt, if independence meant being ruled by people such as you, I'd change my mind about wanting to be indpendent, in spite of having held that view strongly since the 1970's.

  • 129. Gordon Murray - Livingston

    Friday, January 4, 2008 05:35

    128. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire
    Monday, December 24, 2007 12:20

    Pardon me Dave if what you are saying is not what I understood you to be saying.

    Where our basic difference seems to be, as I understand it, is that you want a watertight case made before accepting responsibilty for running our own affairs.

    Would you have us be content with our place in the grand order of things, just in case we might get it wrong and make things worse?
    As if Westminster were somehow infallible.

    A risk, frightening, uncertain even, when most folk feel that their lot is not all that it could be.
    That's certainly one way to look at things.

    I would ask you:
    Has any people ever taken that view when offered the opportunity to govern their own nation?
    ie This is too scary for us, how much will it cost?

    I take the other side of the argument, if things ain't right, why keep on keeping on, just because we've always done things that way?

    I cannot accept that Scotland and the people living in Scotland's interests can be best served by the current political set up.

    Hence the next door neighbour analogy.

    A simple example, London is now connected to the continent by not just a refurbished railway station but an £800m super station boasted to be the best in the world at the end of the World’s Leading Rail Service.

    In Scotland we are still waiting to hear a decade after Euro tunnel opened when we are going to be granted a high speed facility linking Eurocentral at Coatbridge to the rest of the rail network, or even if Scotland is going to be linked to England by motorway, or come to think of it, even if a Scottish city will someday be linked to any other by motorway, half a century and more since the project was begun in the UK.

    I mean we're still waiting for the landslide that took away half of the width of the A82 up Loch Lomondside near Ardlui over thirty years ago to be repaired, and that's our main trunk road supplying Fort William, the Western Highlands & Islands.

    Why does London merit a £10bn Crossrail scheme on top of the money already spent there?
    Because London is worth it?
    What does that make us?

  • 130. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

    Monday, January 7, 2008 18:03

    129. Gordon Murray - Livingston
    First of all I congratulate you on not rising to my posting. I must admit when I re-read my own posting I found it quite offensive.

    I also agree with all your points. However, you are misunderstanding my postings on this risk business. Personally I am a risk-taker, and have no problem taking the risk (if any) of Scotland becoming independent. What I'm saying is that there are many I've met, and many who have posted on these lists, who are apprehensive about the risks that seem to come with independence. My point, and a strong point, is that we should not ridicule them, we should understand their point of view and try to address it, or the Scottish Government and SNP should, in a reasoned, clear and inoffensive way.

    I could add many points to your list, one of my bugbears is that Sky and terrestrial channels put on childrens' programmes during the English school holidays, if ours are different the kids get normal programmes, not the special films and programmes for kids on holiday. That's one reason both my kids are strongly in favour of indpendence as well - we hope we would get media that represents Scotland, not England.

    Another issue is our roads, where we have a west coast trunk road but an inadequate practically non-existent east coast trunk road down to England - and a totally inadequate route linking two of our major cities. We have not had a proper level of investment under the British system, I hope we would under Scottish rule.

    An issue I've not seen addressed is the many, somewhere between 100,000 and 500,000 English who have settled in Scotland. Most of the English I've talked to are strongly in favour of independence. In many cases they've taken risks to set up a new life in Scotland, risked their homes and way of life to set up and invest in businesses. They have kids that are almost a different nationality to them! What I have seen is an assumption they will be against independence - not so, I think.

    By the way - are you also livillion, or do you share a style of posting and a love of Mark Twain?

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

Page updated: Tuesday, May 13, 2008