The Scottish Government

Jim Mather, Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism

Friday, November 30, 2007

This Government's purpose and ambition of increased sustainable growth is the 'North Star' to which we should all be steering a constant course.

Our objective of matching the UK growth rate by 2011 is important but it is only a step on the way to building a stronger economy able to match and exceed our competitors.

We need to face the fact that Scotland's growth record over the last three decades has been mediocre. But the current situation is a great opportunity to catch up and converge with the arc of prosperity that surrounds our country - Ireland to the west, Iceland to the north, Norway to the east.

These countries are amongst the wealthiest in the world and they illustrate Scotland's potential for sustained economic growth.

As a nationalist, I don't think we can fully release Scotland's boundless potential without independence. However that doesn't mean we cannot begin to move in the right direction with the effective exploitation of microeconomic levers currently at our disposal and an agenda to de-clutter and increase confidence in Scotland.

I believe strongly that the best way to make progress - and the only way to achieve our fullest potential - is independence.

We operate in a global economy where competition is fierce and getting fiercer, where the pace of change is accelerating all the time. But that situation is tailor-made for a small flexible asset-rich nation of able talented people - with an international reputation for integrity and reliability - and the full power to compete.

I have absolutely no doubt that we have the capacity within us as a Government and as a nation to achieve a real, positive and beneficial change in our economic prospects in the years ahead.

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]

• 11. Steven - Scotland

  Saturday, September 15, 2007 23:54

  It is my view that the Scottish Government should hold a referendum in 2010, regardless of Parliamentary arithmetic. Surely, they have the right to hold a public consultation on anything they so choose. This would include a referendum on Independence.

• 12. David Davison - Argyll

  Sunday, September 16, 2007 21:28

  My personal view is that providing good services to people matters far more than the sheer waste of public money on all this constitutional drivel. By 15th September only 15 SNP supporters had bothered to post to this blog - sums it up really!

• 13. Peter Barrett - Perth

  Monday, September 17, 2007 10:20

  If this is a real conversation why 4 days after posts 1 and 3 is there still no answer?

• 14. David Robertson - Inverness

  Monday, September 17, 2007 10:39

  According to the CIA Factbook, the top ten nations in the GDP per Capita (Purchasing Power Parity)league table are: 1.Luxembourg 2.Bermuda 3.Jersey 4.Equatorial Guinea 5.United Arab Emirates. 6.Norway 7.Guernsey 8.Ireland 9.United States 10.Cayman Islands.
  
  The one thing they all have in common, with the sole exception of the USA, is that they all have small populations. The largest of these small nations is Norway, with about 4.6 million people. I believe Scotland would fit in there very nicely.
  
  It may be nice to be a shark, with most of the other aquatic creatures being afraid of you, but being a pilot fish also has its attractions. Scotland has played this mythical and vital role in the past, through her Celtic evangelical missionaries to Europe, whose message was so instrumental in keeping the flame of true Christianity burning, and of course through her philosophers of the 18th.Century who gave the world the intellectual foundations of modern civilisation.
  
  A people who forget their history and their identity are destined to wander aimlessly, guided by any wandering star, until they remember who they are. It is time for Scotland to awake.

• 15. George Steel - Fife

  Monday, September 17, 2007 15:33

  If we are already at or near the current UK growth then why have you not modified your target? Indeed why is your target to meet the UK growth level by 2001 when with your new found powers of being the EXECUTIVE or GOVERNMENT of Scotland you should be able to achieve MORE than the UK achievement in FOUR years. Can we expect, in four years, to have another promise of even greater prosperity if we give you another chance of government? Ptromises are easy to make when they have no consequences that can be measured. Meantime why don't you start a conversation with your parliamentary colleagues about setting a budget on your expected income and come up with a plan that will show that you are serious, and capable, about running a balanced, budgeted economy which benefits the people of Scotland? So far all we have had is a series of handouts and wild proposals designed to purchase votes for your party at the next election.
  
  What happened to the £2,000 hand-out to first time buyers, the replacing of the Community charge with a local income tax....? Is it true that there will still be 300 nursery assistants made redundant in Edinburgh? This could only be approved if the SNP councillors backed the Lib-Dem proposal. Quick climb down from the stance to keep the schools etc open and providing sufficient teachers to reduce class sizes!! Easier in opposition to throw brickbats than be in power to recieve them, eh?
  
  Roll on 2011.
  
  
  

• 16. Ed Gray - Aberdeen

  Monday, September 17, 2007 16:46

  #10: Mandy - Glasgow.
  
  How about trying to make sense of your tedious and disjointed indignation??
  
  The SNP won the election because people are looking for positive change – even if they have understandable reservations about independence.
  
  Many are amazed at the positive differences the SNP government has already made, even at this early stage, as underlined by their record popularity in the polls. Meanwhile, the doors are open to all to participate in shaping the nation’s future – which, in flushing out the ‘demons’ associated with independence, can only be beneficial in putting those demons (many of which are unfounded) to rest.
  
  The ‘bottom line’ is that the people now have a unique opportunity to debate the constitution as thoroughly as practically possible over three years, before being asked the pivotal, empowering question on Scotland’s future – an opportunity that the London-led parties would terminate without further discussion – and remain poised to scupper it in the Parliamentary vote, in defiance of public opinion.
  
  If, in the face of this, the SNP are the source of your objection, how about contributing something to back up your own argument?
  
  Or is it freedom of choice and positive change you are fundamentally against?
  

• 17. Elissa Butcher - Saltcoats

  Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:21

  There does not seem to be much 'conversation' with the Scottish government on this page.
  
  I am not against self-rule but would like several issues taken into account. In the 1600s the debacles caused by the Scottish Parliament and their in-fighting and vested interests caused a union of the parliaments that England REALLY didn't want but benefitted Scotland immensely. While the economics of that time are long gone, it does not seem that the vested interests are, which causes concerns that we might end up in the same situation again.
  
  Secondly the public did NOT 'clearly' make their views known in the election - the SNP won majorities with far less votes than the amount of papers spoiled. This was for two reasons - the stupidity of assuming electronic means better by the electoral commission and confusion over the ballot papers that SNP representatives approved - plus adding a name to the SNP box instead of a slogan. No one knows the countries opinion. The only equitable way to find out would have been to redo the election.
  
  My third concern is that in more than 100 days of power, the SNP administration has changed a name and started this conversation. Everything else that has happened was in place from the last administration and starting to roll out. So what have they done that vindicates them being able to run a country independently. I wouldn't mind an independent Scotland but only if we have a party with more than one idea.

• 18. McNumpty - Invergordon

  Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:38

  I am all for an independent Scotland, with thst great Scotsman Mel Gibson in charge.
  
  Sean Connery could be his number 2 - I think he visited Scotland once.
  
  Sore Elbo \o/ \o/

• 19. kevin - Edinburgh

  Wednesday, September 19, 2007 14:34

  17 - Elissa I take it history was not your chosen subject at school? a wee read or try the internet, should be enough to bring you up to speed, your shy by nearly 100 years and history does not show any "immensely" benefit to Scotland.
  
  And what is your rant about spoiled papers? the key is the word spoiled!How can you possibly say that the silly memember's of the public were non SNP voters!!.
  
  
  
  
  
  

• 20. kevin - Edinburgh

  Wednesday, September 19, 2007 14:34

  17 - Elissa I take it history was not your chosen subject at school? a wee read or try the internet, should be enough to bring you up to speed, your shy by nearly 100 years and history does not show any "immensely" benefit to Scotland.
  
  And what is your rant about spoiled papers? the key is the word spoiled!How can you possibly say that the silly memember's of the public were non SNP voters!!.
  
  
  
  
  
  

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