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]

• 651. Colin McDonald - Walton-on-Thames

  Wednesday, August 15, 2007 18:37

  626. Gordon McCaskill - East Renfrewshire
  
  Thankyou for your response – I hope that the format of this site evolves to facilitate a conversation rather than a mass of comments. I am sure it will.
  
  If I could just pick up on your point that Scotland has been described as “the sick man of Europe”. I do not deny it, I would however ask you to reflect on the social reasons for this. As with many areas of the UK and of other countries, ill health and life expectancy are frequently linked to poverty, to a lack of education and through this to a lack of opportunity for bettering oneself. Opportuntiy which comes with a thriving economy.
  I therefore ask you to consider whether, in adopting this epithet in support of your arguments for the union, you are in fact highlighting the very failings of it? For if we are suffering in Scotland through a poor economy, a lack of opportunity and thereby an increase in poverty and ill health, is this not because of the very policies which have been implemented by the Westminster government? I do not disagree that as a result of this chronic problem, health bills in Scotland may well be higher than the UK – I merely suggest that rather than perpetuating the problem we should look for it’s source and bring about the change that is necessary to ensure future generations are no longer labelled “the sick men and women of Europe”. I believe those changes to be an independent Scottish government gearing economic policy for the sole benefit of Scotland and thus improving the opportunities and quality of life for all her citizens.
  
  As for whether or not Scotland would follow a Norwegian or Irish model, I can not say for sure. That is something the citizens of an independent Scotland would have to chose through electing those parties which they see fit. I have no doubt that in an independent Scotland (as with most modern democracies) there would be parties representing both the left and the right of the political spectrum and some balance would arise which mirrored the values of the Scottish people.
  
  And lastly, your ageing population comment is a moot point, in the context of this constitutional discussion, as it is an issue facing not only the rest of the UK but also many Western nations. It is an issue, therefore, that the Scottish tax payers will have to contend with regardless of the constiutional set-up of these isles.
  

• 652. David Sharp - Coatbridge - North Lanarkshire

  Wednesday, August 15, 2007 18:41

  I believe at this point in Scotland's history we have the chance to discuss a very important issue that will determine what the future lies for our country. We have been attached to UK for too long now and strongly believe that we should have the chance to vote on whether or not Scotland should become an independent country within Europe. I am strongly in favour of the referendum and would answer "Yes" to independence if we get a chance to vote.
  
  Another thing that also crosses my mind is that if Scotland gains independence and say at the next election they vote in a different political party to run Scotland independantly if we decide to go it alone then the new party voted into power would in my mind quite happily take over the reins of power and run Scotland independently. I am an SNP supported however if the country decides in a future Scottish election to have say Labour in charge again what is wrong with say Labour running Scotland independently. I see that they would not have any problem with this and would lead accordingly.
  
  Something that really annoys me about the Westminster Government in particular when they talk about finances that when Scotland spent so much money on the Scottish Parliament it was a tradegy in terms of the spiralling costs of the Parliament. Don't get me wrong there was major issues highlighted with the building of the Dome and also the new Wembley however now that they are built things have moved on and that appears to be ok for London but when it comes to Scotland it's not ok.
  
  The Scottish Parliament is the first steps towards independence. We must remember that the Labour Party in London agreed to the devolution referendum which resulted in the setup of the Scottish Parliament which they had to agree to as there was a strong opinion coming from Scotland during the Blair years for us to have more control over our affairs which is a positive for our country now that we are talking about moving to the final chapter to Independence.
  
  Our country has lots of resources, talented people, well established organisations and many many more things that are too long to list. London has brainwashed Scotland for too long to say that we would never be able to survive on our own however London and the rest of the world should never forget that Scotland pioneered many of the establishments, inventions etc over the last 500 years so to say that we couldn't manage on our own is complete nonsense.
  
  We should have the referendum to ask the people if they want Independence or not. I think that London is afraid of the outcome of the referendum in case a majority of Scots vote for Independence in Scotland which is why I believe they oppose it so much.
  
  

• 653. Ian - Elgin

  Wednesday, August 15, 2007 18:43

  As you can see I come from Elgin, how do you get to the town? Well that is a question we have been asking all the political candidates who have stood for pariament in the Moray constituency for years. We have a very poor road structure linking us with the south of Scotland,and very few direct rail links to the south. When ever the question is asked " when are the roads going to be improved?" or " when will we get faster rail links?" the answer is always the same, after most of the money is spent on English projects. Scotland always seems to stop at Glasgow or Edinburgh, at least according to the railway companys or the BBC, who in their wisdom always treat Scotland as a region not a country. Of course Moray is a great place to live, as many of the ex sevicemen from the Air Force bases tell us often, in their varied english accents. I have nothing against the English, Welsh, Irish or anybody for that matter, they are very welcome in an indipendant Scotland.
  So my point is if Scotland went on it's own, which I obviously think it would be able to, then it might be easier to get to Elgin, with a vastly improved rail network, and better road links to the south. We live in hope.

• 654. Bruce - Southeast England

  Wednesday, August 15, 2007 18:50

  I am a Scot working away from home. The reason I am away from home, is that opertunities for advancement are few and far between in Scotland. The vast bulk of UK Gov spending is channeled to the areas around london.
  
  Scotland produces people who fill high positions all over the world, but struggle to find quality employment at home.
  
  It is time that was changed, Go for it Scotland. Independence YES

• 655. Robert Fulton - Kilmarnock

  Wednesday, August 15, 2007 18:59

  I dont want independence- Im proud to be Scottish and proud to be British.
  
  But I logged on to this site to ask a question in the national debate.
  
  What will the SNP do to promote British Culture in an independent Scotland.
  
  Will be including in the "new" country or left out in the cold.

• 656. J. Finlay - Edinburgh

  Wednesday, August 15, 2007 19:03

  There is so much evidence now that independence would be good for Scotland. Let's go for it.

• 657. A ROBERTSON -

  Wednesday, August 15, 2007 19:11

  AT LAST A GLIMMER OF HOPE AT THE END OF A VERY LONG TUNNEL,AND HOPEFULLY AN AWAKENING OF THE SCOTS AS TO WHAT THEY CAN ACHIEVE IF THEY REALY WANT

• 658. Robert Buckle - South Croydon

  Wednesday, August 15, 2007 19:19

  Anyone who knows their history will know that the Union of 1707 was a marriage of convenience instigated by England who sought security and a ready supply of recruits at a time when they were locked in battle with France over dominance of Europe. True, Scotland benefited from the Union, most notably through England's concession granting Scotland free trade with its colonies that up until then had stubbornly been denied them.
  
  And, whilst it is undoubtedly true that some Scots of the day genuinely believed it in Scotland’s best interest to join the Union, for the most part Scots politicians were bought and sold for English gold'' as the saying goes, and so the Union was enacted, even in the face of overwhelming public opposition in Scotland.
  
  That was then, this is now. The reasons leading to the Union of 1707 have no validity in the present day and age. There presently is an overwhelming majority of Scots who want, at the least, to see further power devolved to Holyrood. These are facts and are beyond contention. As such, it beggars belief that the Unionist party’s seek to prevent a referendum on change at all costs, even though the ballot paper be laid out in such a way as to allow consensus to be built on just how much change the people of Scotland desire.
  
  Let me be quite clear. I have no issue with Unionists; they have as much right to their opinion as I do to mine. However, whilst Unionist party’s have the right, indeed the obligation to represent the views of their Unionist majority constituency, neither they nor any member of their constituency has the right to prevent other constituents from having their own say.
  
  Have a referendum. It is generally recognised as the fairest way to decide which path Scotland wishes to follow...for BOTH Unionists and pro-Independents.
  

• 659. Dougie B - Glasgow

  Wednesday, August 15, 2007 19:23

  Just wanted to add my name to those supporting Alex and the push for our Independence.
  Having already proved himself a very capable politician, Alex will be a spledid Statesman in years to come representing our free and prosperous Nation.
  

• 660. Angela - Galloway

  Wednesday, August 15, 2007 19:30

  It should be abhorrent to the people of Scotland that our UK government and the majority of our politicians in Edinburgh are opposed to our even having a say on this crucially important matter. Don't they remember how foolish the Tories sounded before and during the campaign for the Devolution Referendum? People are given the vote at the age of 18 because they are considered adult enough to make very important decisions about the future of their country, why should we not be allowed to make this decision?

[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]