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]

• 41. John Gordon - Portessie

  Friday, August 24, 2007 12:21

  Well done David Robertson, Inverness:
  
  Here is another quotation, this time from Tom Johnston, Labour politician and Secretary of State (1941-1945)
  
  'I have become, and increasingly become, uneasy lest we get political power without our first having, or at least simultaneously having, an adequate economy to administer. What purpose would there be in our getting a Scots Parliament in Edinburgh if it has to administer an emigration system, a glorified Poor Law, and a graveyard'
  
  Tom Johnston built and ran the prototype NHS in war tme Scotland, he fought endlessly for Scottish industry and was the architect and driving force behind hydro power in the highlands. A man who Churchill called 'the King of Scotland'
  
  Where are these visionaries of the Labour Party when we need them now ?

• 42. Scott Morrison - Peterhead SCOTLAND

  Friday, August 24, 2007 13:11

  Thanks to the person who posted the link to the independent report by the Adam Smith Institute which found that Scotland would be very prosperous if it were independent (http://www.adamsmith.org/index.php/main/individual/independent_scotland_a_road_to_riches/)
  We need to have this kind of information and data released widescale so that the people of Scotland can see FACTS and not be scared off by the lies and threats of the UK Government and the Scottish Unionist parties about how disastrous it would be for Scotland. They have too much to lose by Scotland being independent, and that is why they dont even want us to have a referendum! We have a right to make our own choice, and I cant believe that in this day and age, the opposition parties would even have the cheek to try and stop the people of Scotland making their own choice!
  Well done Alex Salmond and the SNP - It truly is a breath of fresh air to have a party who is trying its best AND listening to the people! As for the opposing parties - hang your heads in shame!!

• 43. Garry Evans - Dunfermline, Fife

  Friday, August 24, 2007 13:29

  Please Please get the referendum out to the people of Scotland, let us choose our way rather than being told what to do by London. People are getting more & more agitated. I want to choose my kids future rather than someone who doesn't know, or have any real intrest in them.

• 44. C McLean - Aberdeenshire

  Friday, August 24, 2007 20:26

  We need greater control of our economy. UK fiscal policy is driven mainly by the needs of the south-east England economy. We need to be able to decide our own taxation types and rates, interest rates, business policies etc. We need greater control of many other areas such as broadcasting, immigration, foreign policy, energy policy so that the mistakes made by successive UK governments against the wishes of the majority of Scottish residents (nuclear power, nuclear arms, Iraq etc) can be put to right. We need to move on from a backward looking, sometimes xenophobic stance and hold heads high and take responsibility for this wonderful country. Let's get on with it and stop worrying- look at the Republic of Ireland, Norway, Switzerland if you want to see what can be achieved by small European nations.

• 45. Bill - kirkcaldy

  Saturday, August 25, 2007 09:03

  Decisions of the UK government will always tend to favour the priorities of the overwhelming majority of voters who live in the South of England, and the same political reality applies to reserved functions in any devolved settlement. Soon, Montenegro with a population of 685,000 will have more power to protect it's interests in the world than Scotland.
  The best way out of this sad, shadowy status of Scotland, trailing along as an invisible and irrelevant relic of empire, is to revitalise Scotland the BRAVE and restore our own independent government to take responsibility for our own decisions, free to engage and develop the talents and energy of the Scottihs people, without the demoralising effect of shaping policies to fit an external agenda.

• 46. livilion - livingston

  Saturday, August 25, 2007 11:31

  #28. Andrew Brown - Bellshill
  Wednesday, August 22, 2007 21:21
  
  >>>Bruce Crawford states the status quo is no longer an option.
  when was this decided.<<<
  
  Change the record man!
  
  Every one of the main parties has accepted that the status quo is no longer acceptable.
  
  The latest convert being the thoroughly modern Ms.Alexander telling Labour in Scotland that they are now in favour of 'more fiscal autonomy' for Scotland.
  
  Now that every party has agreed to adopt policies of more powers to Holyrood I'm afraid your goal posts have moved and this particular thread has left you behind.
  
  There will be more powers for the Scottish Government, I like the sound of that.
  
  >>>most of the country voted for parties who were Unionist so therefore they were for the staus quo.<<<
  
  Only Labour in Scotland opposed more powers for Holyrood, so therefore Scotland voted against the status quo.
  
  >>>I do not understand seeceding from Westmister only to be governed by Brussels<<<
  We would be 'governed by Brussels' to exactly the same degree as Belgium, Austria, Greece, Denmark, Eire, Portugal are.
  To my knowledge none have any difficulties with being governed by Brussels, as you put it.
  
  These countries are in roughly the same economic band in comparison with Scotland for population and GDP.
  
  Insist on them being ruled by England however, and I suspect you might have the makings of a WW3 on your hands.
  
  >>>, and anyway would the European Union want us as it my understanding that it is the United Kingdom that is a member not Scotland individualy, so would we not have to make application to join ?<<<
  
  Your understanding is incorrect.
  
  Scotland and England(incorporating Wales & N.Ireland) are bound by treaty as the UK, recognised by the UN,in just the same way all EU states are.
  
  If the Treaty of Union 1707 is revoked (IE no more UK but two nations of equal status:Scotland and England)
  then both the individual nations are bound by all obligations previously entered into under their pooled sovereignty, such as the Geneva Convention, the UN Convention on Human Rights, or The Treaty of Maastricht.
  
  eg When Denmark joined the EU, Greenland had to negotiate in order to be permitted to leave.
  
  This is all old news, haven't you been paying attention?

• 47. livilion - livingston

  Saturday, August 25, 2007 11:54

  Hopefully, now that we have the technology, the truth is now beginning to percolate out.
  
  Until now, for generations we have been bombarded morning, noon, and night by anti-nationalist propaganda from the London based media telling us in effect that we are too wee, too poor and too stupid to look after ourselves.
  
  Now that we have access to the internet ever more of us are discovering the truth, such as the many reports giving the position of Scotland in relation not only to England but to also to our European neighbours.
  
  Couple this to that fact that the Scottish Civil Service is now reporting to an SNP administration and we should see the wind in the sails of Scottish non-dependency moving the whole debate at an ever quickening pace.
  
  When the rest of our country eventually realises how much we have been collectively duped for so long there will be no stopping Scotland taking her rightfull place in the world again.
  
  

• 48. livilion - livingston

  Saturday, August 25, 2007 12:10

  Is there any chance that we can introduce new strings to this conversation to run in parallel, such as on AOL or the Scotsman's blogg spots?
  
  Otherwise I suspect we will end up chasing our tails and this whole thing could become stale?
  
  Wouldn't it be agreeable to be able discuss the wording of the question(s), constitutional possibilities post referendum, fiscal options short of independence on separate strings for example?
  
  This would facilitate a more detailed discussion on individual areas which concern us and mean that we could keep up with topics rather than trawling a thousand posts and perhaps missing some good contributions.
  
  

• 49. Dave Coull - Balnabreich

  Saturday, August 25, 2007 13:31

  Allan of Inverness (11) asks "why can we not have a vote on the Scottish Executive website to establish if the people of Scotland want a referendum?"
  
  Because any such vote would be totally meaningless.
  
  It is still the case that a large percentage of the population of Scotland doesn't have computer access. Your suggestion would deprive them of a vote on this. What's more, it is a fact that on the internet it is possible for the same person to pretend to be different people. Therefore not only would some people be deprived of a vote, but some others could have multiple votes.
  
  We already have the results of numerous opinion polls which have shown that a very large majority of the people want a referendum (REGARDLESS of how they would vote in that referendum). These opinion polls are the best we have to go on at present. No internet vote can possibly tell us the will of the Scottish people, for the reasons given above. And it would be completely ridiculous to have a referendum on whether or not we should have a referendum!
  
  The only way to really establish the will of the people of Scotland is to have a properly organised referendum, in which everybody on the electoral roll in Scotland can vote, on a simple, straightforward "independence - yes or no?" type question. There is no need for any "intermediate" poll of any kind. The sooner we can have this referendum the better.

• 50. Dave Coull - Balnabreich

  Saturday, August 25, 2007 14:02

  David Robertson of Inverness (21) says "the right to vote in the referendum is restricted to registered voters in Scotland. This includes anyone who may be resident here temporarily"
  
  But not THAT "temporarily". It does takes a bit of time to get on the electoral roll.
  
  "with no vested interest in the country and no intention of staying here after it is over".
  
  Are you a mind reader? If not, how do you know they have no commitment to this country?
  
  My wife is an American citizen. She is also a resident of Scotland who has lived here for 8 years, who has every intention of staying here, and who has actively campaigned for independence for Scotland. But she will have no vote in a referendum because as a foreign national she is not on the electoral roll. She has thought about applying for British citizenship, which would entitle her to vote. The trouble is, unlike millions of us native born Scots, a new citizen has to swear allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen and to the United Kingdom.
  
  I have a good friend who is French and who has lived in Dundee for sixteen years and who is committed to continuing to live in Scotland. As a European Community citizen resident in an EU country, she has a vote here, without having to swear allegiance. At the time of the referendum on setting up a Scottish Parliament, although she strongly supported this, she did not vote, because she felt that it was up to the Scottish people to decide. Now, ten years later, it is possible she might feel that she has qualified as one of the Scottish people, and therefore entitled to her say.
  
  However fair or unfair it might seem in individual cases, the ONLY way we can decide this is through a referendum of those on the electoral roll in Scotland.
  
  David Robertson says "I suggest we open it up to anyone in the world who can prove a connection with Scotland" - well, that could include my wife. Her granny emigrated from Scotland to the USA. Now she has reversed that migration. But there could be a hundred million people in the world who could show some sort of connection with Scotland. This suggestion would be unfair to those of us who actually live here. It would also, of course, be illegal, and would, in practice, greatly DELAY holding any referendum, and it would greatly delay any progress towards independence.
  
  "Keeping in touch with the Scottish diaspora is important for the future welfare of Scotland" - agreed, but NOT by giving them a vote in something which is entirely up to those of us who actually live here!
  
  

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