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]

• 31. Stuart - Glasgow

  Monday, September 3, 2007 18:37

  "All comments are moderated in advance of being made public."
  
  I wonder whether someone gave Alex Salmond a copy of Orwell’s 1984 recently?
  
  (That was a joke, for those of an oversensitive persuasion.)
  
  I am disappointed by the nature of the discussion on this blog, (and naturally the spelling), if we are to have this debate I believe that we must do so rationally, calmly and sensibly. Some people who are posting on this blog really ought to not get as belligerent as they are getting towards people who disagree with them.
  
  We ought not to let our partisan passions dictate the discussion. I am disappointed that this blog has become a party political point scoring exercise, maybe it's time we all acted like we deserved the right to be listened to, instead of insulting each other?
  
  To run through some of the posts:
  
  #1, must you accuse those you disagree with of lying? Does that add anything to the discussion?
  
  #6 must you say that the press is biased if they do not appear to support your own views all the time?
  
  # 8 you must be delighted with the £100,000 it cost to implement your wish.
  
  #10, #13, #14, #16 not that I agree with everything you’ve said but thank you for an honest expression of your opinion, devoid of ad hominem or part political point scoring.
  
  #17 I suggest that you read and correct your post- it’s contradictory. You suggest that the opposition parties ought to participate in the SNP ‘Conversation’ because it “their democratic duty to represent the views of ALL of Scotland's people,” which would also include those who voted SNP, as the SNP would have a similar “democratic duty to represent the views of ALL of Scotland's people” they would, in your bizarre view, have to represent those who do not agree with independence. The result of this would be that there would be no need to have the opposition parties involved because if the SNP lived up to their “democratic duty to represent the views of ALL of Scotland's people” they would make sure that they spoke up for those who disagreed with their position.
  
  #21 spelling aside, your post is not really helpful; why not ask #19 for a reference instead of attacking him for not doing it in the first place? But to end your post by quoting a bumper sticker, surely since we’re no longer ‘The Best Small Country…,’ you’d agree we’re too big for bumper sticker slogans to run our national debate?
  
  #22 Thank you for the history of William of Orange- very helpful to our current debate.
  
  #23 Thank you, your post is very helpful and I learnt something from it. I don’t agree with everything but I benefited from reading your post.
  
  #24 “letalso join the eruo and get lower loans for our people.” Could you explain your reasoning for me? I’m honestly quite interested in this idea.
  
  #25 Issues like child poverty transcend party politics and anyone who thinks that any one party can solve the problem on their own is delusional. I’m not arguing that more couldn’t have been done, but to whittle such a large issue that has many different causes into an attack on a single political party is I’m afraid, rather meaningless.
  
  Just some thoughts…
  

• 32. Mark D - Glasgow

  Monday, September 3, 2007 18:42

  
  I'm afraid to say that I'm thinking of leaving Scotland. I'm sick of the injustice - penalizing the masses and rewarding the Drug Addicts, Alcoholics and Single Teenage mothers.
  
  My Mother is 62; she has worked all her life and paid her National Insurance. She is living in rented accommodation as she is on the waiting list for a council house and has been for the last 12 years. She has been told she isn't Priority. Alcoholics, Drug Addicts and Single Mother's who have never paid a day's tax or National Insurance in there lives take Priority!! Please someone tell me how that can be right?
  
  I'm ashamed to call my self Scottish.
  
  

• 33. Antonio Sorrentino - Wales

  Monday, September 3, 2007 19:33

  I'm a pro-european Welsh nationalist. Recently there has been speculation that the UK government may hold a referendum on the new EU constitutional treaty. Under these circumstances, would the SNP seek a seperate Scottish referendum? It is possible that the result of a UK-wide referendum might not accurately represent Scottish public opinion on this matter.
  
  

• 34. Tom Masters - Glasgow

  Monday, September 3, 2007 19:43

  I think that independance is a terrible idea! I won't be surprised if you do not post this as you wouldn't want any negative comments. I hope those who support independance aren't doing it for the sake of 'hating' the english.

• 35. Ian Innes - Elgin

  Monday, September 3, 2007 22:47

  IN OUR NAME.
  The following letter was printed in the Guardian, dated 3rd August. Entitled: ' MPs MUST DEBATE US MISSILE DEFENCE', it goes on to say 'We are greatly concerned by the government's announcement that the communications base at Menwith Hill is to be used for Missile defence, alongside the Fylingdales radar,both in Yorkshire.
  The continued and increasing involvement in US missile defence potentially puts the UK on the frontline in future wars. It has already contributed towards increased tensions with Russia. US missile defence is provocative, allowing the US to lauch first-strike attacks without fear of retaliation, and increases the likelihood of a new nuclear arms race. We therefore believe that any UK support for the progrsmme should be fully debated and agreed by parliament (Westminster), RATHER THAN BY MINESTERIAL ANNOUNCMENT'.
  Signed by, among others, the following MP's: Angus Robertson, Clare Short, Micheal Meacher, Peter kilfoyle,out of a total of 23.
  
  Foreign Policy is a statement of a nation's values,what it stands for and its aspirations. Within it an implied invitation to other countries, big or small, to join in advancing shared values. The question is 'With Westminster free to shape foreign policy for us Scots without reference to Holyrood is our status within the UK much different to that of the Isle of Man?'

• 36. LB - Edinburgh

  Tuesday, September 4, 2007 08:47

  I support further devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament, especially on tax raising. It is a nonsense that 129 MSP sit deciding how to spend taxes but have no responsibility for raising the money. This means there is no direct accountability; nor is there the ability of our elected members to increase or decrease the overall and/or specific taxes to reflect the situation in Scotland. Taxes are set based on the UK economic situation which is heavily distorted by south east England and an entirely different economic reality may be the case in Scotland.
  
  Where I am less sure is on full independence and I appreciate this consultation opportunity to explore the options. I have just listened to David Cairns, UK junior minister for Scotland, on the radio demonstrating a lack of understanding of the devolved situation (claiming credit for devolved areas) while at the same time talking down Scotland's ability to manage the regulatory framework for North Sea oil. It's time the English branch of the Labour Party got with the reality on the Scottish ground. It took a change of leadership in the Scottish Labour Party finally to accept they had actually lost the election. Scottish UK Ministers would do well to adopt some of that same humility if they don't want to drive those unsure of the way forward into the arms of the Nats!

• 37. Graeme Smith - Aberdeen

  Tuesday, September 4, 2007 13:19

  It is time for Scotland to have it's Independence back after 300 years of a one sided Union. Scotland is one of the oldest countries in the world and we should be controlling our own affairs.

• 38. tommy scouller - isle of scalpay

  Tuesday, September 4, 2007 14:35

  so westminister has told the snp,hands off brittish oil,and claiming that the investment is all from down south,the investment comes from the multi natinal companies who operate in the north sea.there are vast ammounts of oil and gas off the west coast of lewis are the westminister mob going to claim that as well? scotland must vote for independence now and use our recources for the good of scotland while we still can.by the way could some one explain this barnet formula and how it works I have read so many different things in the newspapers and I am still confused,especially the bit that says scotland gets more than any one else anybody can see that it is london that gets it all.....

• 39. Robert - Cumbernauld

  Tuesday, September 4, 2007 15:30

  I tire of the scared and the ignorant who believe the scare-mongering tactics of the "unionist" establishment.
  
  Independence would not halt trade with Wales and England. People make these threats, of course but businesses in each of these countries aren't nearly as stupid to cut of any potential income revenues. How naive to think otherwise. Independence would offer Scotland a stronger voice with which to broker international business ties, without worrying about what London thinks.
  
  Should we be nervous about independence? Yes! Nervous with anticipation of a more positive and productive future, free of the accusations of being 'whingers and scroungers' as any mistakes made in Scotland will be ours, not Westminster's... and any successes ours as well...or is that people are afraid of, that we might start to do things better?

• 40. David Robertson - Paisley (normally)

  Tuesday, September 4, 2007 16:47

  No.21 - How can you judge the report quoted by No19 as "opinion" when you admit you don't know what report it is?
  
  And while the reports that you quote may be based on sound financial figures, that does not make the conclusions contained therein anything more than an educated opinion.
  
  The fact is that the economic condition of a future Scotland independent or not depends on a variety of factors and any conclusions as to the condition in 10 or 20 yeas time are mere speculation.
  
  At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who runs the economy, it is the policies and practices that matter. A United Kingdom can provide as good an economic result for Scotland as could a independent Scotland.
  
  For this to happen though, the Westminster Government would have to lose its London/SE England economic bias, which is detrimental to not only Scotland, but to Wales and NI and North England.
  
  
  Similarly, Scottish independence will not spell certain economic disaster for Scotland - so long as both countries remain in the EU, their economies will remain part of a single market.
  
  The question is whether we really want our country to become, as the SNP seem to want, corporate whores. Why should we be offering minimum tax, minimum regulation conditions to international corporations? While this may be beneficial to our economy in the short-term, it is detrimental to conditions of employment, and corporate contribution to the state across the globe. And in the long-term, it is only a matter of time before another country undercuts us. Why should we get involved in a race to the bottom?

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