The Scottish Government

First Minister Alex Salmond

Friday, November 30, 2007

We in the Scottish Government believe that sovereignty in Scotland lies with its people.

That is why our manifesto for the Scottish Parliamentary elections this year promised to provide an opportunity for the people to consider the concept of Scottish independence in a referendum during this Parliament.

As First Minister, it is my responsibility to explore and lead discussion on the options for constitutional change. I lead the first Scottish National Party Government to be elected in a devolved Scotland, so I will put the case for independence, its benefits and opportunities.

However, I also recognise there is a range of other views in our country and represented in the Parliament. The national conversation on our future is to allow the people of Scotland to debate, reflect and then decide on the type of Government which best equips Scotland for the future.

It is 10 years since the referendum to establish the Scottish Parliament. We have seen the potential of a Scottish Parliament to respond to the wishes and needs of the people of this country. But we have also seen the limitations of its current responsibilities.

I believe it is now time for us, the people of Scotland, to consider and choose our own future in the modern world.

Alex Salmond, First Minister

This blog is now closed to comments.

Comments

[Latest First] | [Earliest First] Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182]

• 201. John - Hamilton

  Tuesday, August 14, 2007 18:01

  I support the idea of having a conversation, a referendumand eventually (I hope) independence.
  
  Not (according to ridiculous Labour scaremongering) divorce, separation or a country that will charge me £5000 a year in more tax, or where I will lose touch with my cousins in England, or where (according to John Reid) we would not be able to fend off terrorists !!!
  
  Let's be mature about this and have an objective examination of all the questions which need looked at.

• 202. Calum - Edinburgh

  Tuesday, August 14, 2007 18:04

  This comes across as an expensive waste of tax payers money.
  
  I think I'm correct in stating that any Scot that wants independence can make his/her voice heard at any general or executive election, one of which happened recently.
  
  The Scottish people elected a minority SNP administration - greatly outnumbered by the pro-union parties.
  
  Why as an administration will you not respect the views of the majority if Scots?

• 203. O I Thenu - Leith

  Tuesday, August 14, 2007 18:05

  The SNPs ideas are completely ideologically driven. There is no evidence base which suggests Scotland would be better off. Salmond's appears to be trying to start from an ideological viewpoint and then look selectively for evidence to support it. Instead he should start with the evidence and develop policy from there.

• 204. Big Al - Aberdeen

  Tuesday, August 14, 2007 18:07

  I believe in independence for Scotland and for all the UK nations. We differ in many ways, are similar in many others, but should exist as distinct nations, which would benefit all of us both politically and culturally.
  
  The arguments in favour of independence by far outweight the arguments against.
  
  What are we waiting for?

• 205. david smith - scotland

  Tuesday, August 14, 2007 18:09

  The whole tone of this document worries me. It's meant to be talking about the long term, yet it goes for short-term populist hits. Against the war in Iraq? - go for independence. Unhappy with the way the last elections were being run? - go for independence. The fact that we don't like recent decisions is no reason to break up what has been by anyone's yardstick a very successful union. People should be working closer together, not setting up new structures.
  
  It also lines up independence as a panacea. Yes, we could do more in some areas. But government is always complex - if we choose to spend more on health (and we already spend a hell of a lot), we will have to take it from taxes or from other budgets. This document just dodges hard choices, in favour of being all things to all men. I'd like to see more detail on how exactly the SNP see us matching the growth rates of the former Soviet states, who are starting from a much lower base.
  
  And with comments like the opening one ("No man has the right to set a limit on the march of a nation"), I'd rather we don't give Mr Salmond an army thanks.
  
  Still even now, I can see the website being crammed with SNP activists, so that they can do a headcount (10-1 in favour? let's have independence), or running out to bulk buy copies in a bid to skew the stats.
  
  Independence is a seductive idea, but it doesn't put bread on the table.
  

• 206. MacKenzie - Glasgow

  Tuesday, August 14, 2007 18:09

  Why shouldn't the Scottish people decide for themselves what direction they want to go. Who gave Goldie, Stephens and McConnell the right to say what is best for us? The SNP are at least giving the people the choice. That is our democratic right. What is democratic about denying us to voice our opinion on the future of our beautiful country.
  
  I believe we would be a better nation with independence, it is now up to the SNP to show all of Scotland that this is the case. If the Unionist parties were being so honest and sincere then why are they afraid to give us a referendum, why are they screaming down the SNP pre-emptively. They are afraid the Scottish people will find out the truth and in doing so will choose a different path than that chosen for us by Labour, Lib Dems and Tories.
  
  It really is time for us to become a free nation, so we are heard on the world stage. So we can all choose our own destiny and so our country can become better.
  
  

• 207. Paul Mulholland - Glasgow

  Tuesday, August 14, 2007 18:11

  If all other partys are happy in what they stand for and are confident in their people,why should we not go to the poll it would settle many arguments
  

• 208. James Ramsky III - Tucson, Arizona

  Tuesday, August 14, 2007 18:13

  If you Scotchmen and ladies want independence from the United England, you should just take it like we did in the USA.
  
  Then you can appoint your own president, like our wonderful President George W Bush.

• 209. Lesley McDade - Edinburgh

  Tuesday, August 14, 2007 18:19

  The Scots have an almost "independent" judicial system in that the House of Lords is the highest court in the UK, not in Scotland. They have recently included the concept of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) "within" the judiciary and legal profession which, I argue, fetters the independence of the judiciary as they have to go outwith their scope to do non-law which is contrary to their obligation that the rule of law "MUST" be applied. Kenny MacAskill will not meet me concerning my research, yet he(SNP) are advocating "Independence" for Scots. Why are they willing to adopt an English reform which is also being adopted by Europe (Denmark have abstained) via the Directive on Mediation. It seems to me that Independence for the Scots is a load of nonsense - especially if they don't appreciate what they have already! I haven't read the Conversation but it would be interesting to see what the stance is on ADR and also the "Highest judicial court" not being UK based!!! Independence - puff of smoke.

• 210. Ken Stevens - Oxfordshire

  Tuesday, August 14, 2007 18:25

  I am happy with Union. I am relaxed about your independence and I fully agree that a referendum should be held.
  
  Where I differ is in the nature of the questions to be put.
  
  For a Scottish referendum alone, the choices should be:
  # Return to full Union, i.e. one parliament;
  # Current devolution situation;
  # Independence.
  
  Current devolution has resulted in inequity and the referendum that led to it did not involve the electorate of England. So be it, as water under the bridge. However, any option for additional devolution should only be an option if the referendum included England.
  

[Latest First] | [Earliest First] Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182]