The Scottish Government

Finance and Sustainable Growth Secretary John Swinney

Friday, November 30, 2007

For too long Scotland's economy has underperformed. Not only does our historically low growth rate compare poorly with the UK, but we are left standing by successful small independent countries like Ireland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Finland.

For too long politicians have sat complacently while young bright and mobile Scots have left this country to seek better opportunities elsewhere. The world is full of successful Scots. We want to create the opportunities to enable our talented people to build a successful Scotland.

Ours is a government of ambition. That is why we are determined to match or exceed the UK's growth rate by 2011. We will create the conditions for successful business and through them make Scotland wealthier. And we want to see more Scots sharing in that wealth.

We want Scots to benefit from the learning process on a lifelong basis - we want people to go to university or college to improve their chances of a good job, or to improve their performance in the job they are in and so to contribute ever more to the economic growth of our nation.

We can make a good start with the powers currently available to the parliament. With greater powers we could do so much more - more to attract and retain business activity, for example, and ensure that the additional wealth they create helps to fund the front-line services we need to make our country more productive, more competitive, and just.

With over 1,500 responses in two weeks I am delighted at the overwhelming response to the national conversation. I welcome the debate it has generated across all sectors of Scottish society on ways to make our country more successful, wealthier and fairer.

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]

• 101. Bill Gibson - New Zealand

  Wednesday, October 3, 2007 00:46

  I left Scotland as a teenager when my family emigrated to Australia, I have now lived in New Zealand since 1961. I can't understand why people are afraid of independance as New Zealand is almost a mirror image of Scotland. Having a population of just around 4.5 million, are doing very well indeed economically in spite of being so far from the main trading countries, unlike Scotland with huge potential markets on her doorstep! Kiwi's enjoy a very good standard of living achieved by their own inovation, inventiveness and positive forward looking attitude which I believe has brought such success. Are those opposed to indepenence so doubtfull of their intelligence & ability, and that of their fellow country folk, to make the decisions that will achieve what is right for every Scot in their own country? Along with many small countries, New Zealand is making her way in a quite outstanding manner, bearing in mind that a huge number of Scots helped to forge the nation that she is now, can't the Scots at home do the same for Scotland.

• 102. livilion - livingston

  Thursday, October 4, 2007 01:54

  #100. So I was right? - Fife
  Saturday, September 29, 2007 14:52
  
  Congratulations on the 'hunnerup'.
  
  Are you right? Why are we discussing events of half a millenia ago?
  
  Shetland independence is so 1974 Old Bean.
  Been there, got the tee shirt, tried the pies.
  
  Divide and conquer, eh?
  OK, but this topic was done to death decades ago.
  In fact at the 1987 UK general election the SNP stood aside to give the local Shetland (Independence) Movement a clear field.
  It came fourth with 15% of the vote.
  
  If Orkney or Shetland wanted independence no nationalist in Scotland has been standing in their way.
  
  btw:The vote in May was about Holyrood and nothing to do with independence, even though the Scottish National Party recorded the best election performance in its history.
  Put it another way, more people in Scotland than ever before gave the SNP their vote in May, to the extent that for the first time in 50 years the once dominant Labour party has no majority in Scotland, and at local council level the SNP won an even more impressive result on May 4th.
  
  However the upcoming UK general election could be the chance to vote for independence, you can settle the doubt then, if you're feeling lucky.

• 103. So I'm right again? - Fife

  Thursday, October 4, 2007 21:44

  #102
  
  If 1 in 6 in favour of a proposal is too small a proportion why is 1 in 3 a majority??
  
  If the SNP reason for being an entity is independence for Scotland then why is any election for any parliament NOT a referendum.
  
  Your spending too much time on roads paid for by bridge tolls and researching history that proves me right.
  
  PS is it true that there were more SCOTS fighting AGAINST Bonnie Prince Charlie at Culloden than were fighting with him?
  
  Should keep you busy for another wee while.
  
  

• 104. livilion - livingston

  Sunday, October 7, 2007 13:47

  #103. So I'm right again? - Fife
  Thursday, October 4, 2007 21:44
  
  Sorry for not coming back sooner, I have just now read your missive.
  
  Deary me, first it was history you had problems with, now is it your sums and English?
  
  At the SM's 1987 high water mark the SNP gave the islanders of Shetland the field to claim their independence if they wanted it by stepping aside and not fielding a candidate, thus not splitting the independence vote.
  The Shetland Movement candidate came in fourth with 15% of the vote, slightly better than the Tories or Liberals did in May it has to be admitted, but it did not redraw the political map. Perhaps you could bring us up to speed on the SM's current status?
  
  One in three?
  Not even one in four of the UK electorate gave Tony Blair his landslide victory in 2001 (40% of a 59% turnout~24%), in 2005 New Labour polled 35% of votes cast, or 22% of the electorate.
  IE this best result still left between 60% and 76% against them, depending how you count abstentions.
  This was mandate enough to order new generation WMD delivery systems, ok new nuclear power stations, Iraq, etc.
  
  So just to make it clear, in this country the party with **the most seats** forms the government and sets the agenda for the ensuing parliamentary session, even under PR.
  
  As for roads being built from revenues raised by bridge tolls, I know of none in Scotland.
  Of necessity roads are built before the bridge opens for business, think about it.
  Give you something to do:
  Go find out who actually paid for the M9 spur to join the Forth Road Bridge to the national motorway network, 43years after the bridge itself opened.
  
  The difference between 'an election' and a 'referendum' seems to be an issue with you doesn't it?
  Referendum: Inflected Form(s): plural ref·er·en·da/-d&/ or -dums
  Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, neuter of referendus, gerundive of referre to refer
  1 a : the principle or practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed on or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative
  b : a vote on a measure so submitted
  
  The Scottish parliament in this case is our legislative body.
  Political parties stand for election to the legislative body.
  Chalk and cheese.
  
  >>>PS is it true that there were more SCOTS fighting AGAINST Bonnie Prince Charlie at Culloden than were fighting with him?<<<
  
  Yes it was civil war, why is this relevant?
  
  If you are really interested, here is a link to give you a bit more insight into the political and religious roots of the last phase of the British Civil Wars of 1638-1746
  http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/sitemap.htm
  
  As for the 'raison d'etre' of the Scottish National Party?
  I admit I am no expert, never having been a member or representative of any political organisation, but my understanding is that for the SNP independence is the means to supply the end, otherwise it would be the single issue pressure group you imply.
  
  
  
  
  

• 105. livilion - livingston

  Sunday, October 7, 2007 13:57

  103. So I'm right again? - Fife
  Thursday, October 4, 2007 21:44
  
  I didn't think I needed to say that constitutional issues are reserved to Westminster.
  
  Logically therefore no election to Holyrood can be 'a referendum' on independence, even if however improbable, every party agreed to shelve all other matters.
  
  

• 106. Here We Go Again - Fife

  Wednesday, October 10, 2007 13:48

  #104 Livilion
  
  Sorry but I am right again. I said I would check and I have. The Scottish Executive had to modify the conditions under which the Forth Road Bridge tolls were used in the last parliament, to allow the money to be used for building the access roads to the motorway from the bridge.
  
  For the record under proportional representation, the system which is in force in Scotland's parliament, parties which command the highest numbers of seats required to give an assured majority in parliament could form the government of the country. The SNP are the governing party because the others stepped aside to give them a free run.
  
  If the SNP reason for standing is NOT to achieve separation from the UK why would it not set this pre-requisite aside and form a, more stable, coalition with the Lib - Dems and work with them to present a manageable budget. For that matter why did they produce a white paper as a priority on that subject?
  
  And why is this blog slanted to promote Independence NOT other opinions?
  
  The people of Scotland are politically aware and will note the developing 'nature' of the SNP and will eventually vote on their natural political preferences. Socialist, Liberal or Conservative. The SNP has to show its hand at some point!
  
  

• 107. livilion - livingston

  Monday, October 15, 2007 14:00

  #106. Here We Go Again - Fife
  Wednesday, October 10, 2007 13:48
  
  Aye Dad, of course you're right.
  
  Money from the tolls for years was used to maintain the A8000 and the bridge, but not very well.
  
  If you check a little deeper you will also find £24million of the £36m to properly link the southern end of the bridge to the country's transport infrasructure came directly from Holyrood.
  
  The Other parties did not 'step aside' to give the SNP a free run as you put it.
  They gave themselves no other option.
  
  They could not come up with an agreement between themselves to continue their coalition, or with the single largest party to join in the administration, so the SNP won the right to appoint Cabinet Secretaries and the privileges lost by the outgoing administration.
  
  I know detail is an issue for you, but even you should be aware that constitutional issues are reserved to Westminster.
  
  The SNP in effect cannot stand as an independence party at Holyrood elections.
  The Scotland Act was designed by the majority Westminster Labour Party of the day to prevent Scotland ever becoming independent by way of an SNP victory in a Westminster style first past the post election.
  
  Although morally if every Scot voted SNP at a Holyrood election we would soon be independent, Westminster and the Crown would still have veto over the issue.
  
  This blogg is slanted towards independence, and not other options, as no-one seems capable or willing to construct a proper case for 'other options'.
  
  You seem to have a high opinion of your own ability to speak for the 'People of Scotland'.
  I am not convinced you do.
  
  Why not just be content to give your opinion and let the 'People of Scotland' just speak for themselves?
  
  Oh yes,I think checking your facts first before you do would be a help.

• 108. Goodbye and Farewell - Fife

  Monday, October 15, 2007 20:46

  #107
  
  Read your first line, I assume beyond that you reverted to type.
  
  Glad to know I had the last word.

• 109. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

  Saturday, November 3, 2007 01:23

  "Finance and Sustainable Growth". What does this mean? Is it to do with tax and investment? Does it complement duties of, for instance, the enterprise minister?
  
  Seems to me that one of the best things that could be done in this is to try and reverse damage done to small business by Westmonster's recent attack on small business vis a vis the corporation tax on small business.
  
  We need to reinvest our profits in our businesses to make them grow (while somehow putting food on the table and paying the mortgage), and we need full relief from taxes to achieve this. If we make a profit of say £10,000 and decide not to take this money as a dividend, is it not right that we have the full £10,000 to invest in our own business and our future, rather than just £8,100 of it?
  
  This full 100% tax relief for our investments could either be achieved through (when independent) a better tax system, or perhaps with compensatory offsets in the form of "grants" meanwhile.
  
  Is this in your remit?
  
  Many of my customers take risks and invest in their own small businesses, and year on year I see the benefits they achieve with this risk and investment. Under Westminster and through the despised Scottish Enterprise (in fairness the HIE appears to be better), the risk and investment is not supported. Is it the Scottish Government's intention to completely change this indifference, and help us to grow Scotland?
  
  Is there any idea of matching our risk and investment with an equal sum, either on a non-repayable grant basis, or a longer-term repayment basis? Can this be done within a devolved Scotland, or do we have to wait for full independence? Does anyone care about small business?

• 110. Craig - Kilmarnock

  Tuesday, November 6, 2007 17:03

  Despite the notable fiasco over the Scottish parliament building, I sense an appetite for Scotland to have an increased level of autonomy. I believe that this has been prompted by a number of factors, as follows:
  
  1) Devolotion has served to highlight conflict between Scottish national interest and UK wide interest, particuarly in respect of tuition fees, energy generation and nuclear weapons. Scottish concerns regarding these issues were previosuly somewhat subverted by the absence of a forum in which the Scottish "position" could be adequately gauged or expressed.
  
  2) Devolition has highlighted a willingness and energy in Scotland to take the lead in these issues, most notably the smoking ban.
  
  3) The failure to adequately address the West Lothian question has undoubtedly generated concern in the rest of the UK about Scottish participation in UK policy making. I can forsee that if the Tories were to be successful at the next election, we may have a situation once again where the national government is poorly represented in Scotland and wishes lesser Scottish say in matters affecting England, debated at Westminister. It is ironic that one of the drivers for Scottish Independence may be English concerns.
  
  Regardless of whether one is a supporter of independece or not, I think we already started down that path in 1997 whether we realised it or not. Further devolution is likely only to postpone Scottish independence. The initial conflict on lesser policy issues would be removed, but would later arise on more serious subjects such as defence and fiscal autonomy, which are unlikely to be resolved without independece.
  
  I believe that Scottish Labour made a serious misjudgement at the last elections (and continue to do so). They appear unable to truly represent the best interests of Scotland in the Scottish Parliament where those policy issues are at odds with the UK policy. The scaremongering tactics of both Labour and Tories has prior to the election put them on the back foot. Regardless of political persuasion, the Scottish people need a party that will be positive about Scotland and its development, even if at the expense of other Uk countries.
  
  Clearly, divorce from the rest of of teh Uk will be a logisitcal nightmare on a practical level and there will most likely be some disspaointemnts to be had in negotiaitions with the rest of the UK or at international arbitration if it comes to that.
  
  I am also of the view that too much emphasis is currently being placed on economic statistics to prove or disprove the economic argument for independence. Any data used is inevitably based on current information gathered when Scotland remains part of the UK. Conjecture of what the data might be in an independent Scotland is subject to much conjecture. The point is, regardless of the pros and cons, we need to accept that independece will inevitably cause some short term pain (as in any divorce!). The real question is whether there will be long-term gain.
  
  I am all for democracy and a referrendum if thats what it takes. Bring on the debate - but lets make it positive and honest - no haggis or william wallace, no anti-english sentiment please.

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