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]

• 61. Fittipaldi - Spain

  Thursday, September 6, 2007 15:28

  Hello, I am from Bilbao, in the Basque Country, I can say that here in Spain, the government in the 1970s made what I consider a huge mistake by giving in to the nationalist forces. At first, what the PNV (basque nationalist party) asked for was quite reasonable. But as years came by and the PNV had to keep on winning elections, the sectarianism and rhetoric started to take hold more and more of their political programmes. The mistake, as I see it, in GB has already been made: by giving a political community (in this case Scotland) a regional government. They will turn all their financial resources and social influences to divide Scotland from England. By the way, the Basque Country was in 1975 the spanish region with more wealth per capita. Now (of the 17 regions) it is the 8th, and falling. Much of this has to do of course with the terrorist group ETA, but personally I feel like I'm in a broken country when I think the education, the judicial system,...is all part of the regional governments instruments to extend their sectarianist and exclusive concept of what the Basque Country is.

• 62. jack colquhoun - Cowdenbeath

  Friday, September 7, 2007 11:56

  Have to air my views here regarding the nasty slight by Lord Foulkes.
  Why do we put up with these ridiculous liablous slur against the Scottish People,yes Foulksie it's not the SNP you add injury to but all us multi-cultural Scots who only wish to have a profound say in our future.
  Saddam's Tyrany was one thing in Iraq but Labour's obvious Political Tyrany is another.Not quite listening enough to the bigger picture I fear?
  Lastly perhaps Labour are somewhat jealous that The SNP have managed to re-engage the voting public in all matters Scottish,or shall we call it The Tartan Questions??????

• 63. Stuart - Glasgow

  Friday, September 7, 2007 12:56

  #44
  
  Louise, I don't mean to be rude, but the irony is at your expense. I am well aware of what the gentleman was trying to say in his post, but it's not what he actually said. His post, like yours, is full of incoherent statements interspersed with spelling errors.
  
  That was the point.
  
  Just because people can speak and post on these websites it doesn't mean that they deserve to be listened to.
  
  We ought to have a conversation and ultimately a referendum, the problem is that there is a debate that needs to be had before then, to determine what the question should be, what the options should be and finally where the bar should be set for approval in terms of both turnout and what constitutes a sufficient majority for passage.
  
  A 51% Yes result on a 34% turnout, for example, ought not to be sufficient to alter our current constitutional arrangement.
  

• 64. Mark Chiltern - Edinburgh

  Friday, September 7, 2007 16:44

   

• 65. Colin John Macrae - West Lothian

  Friday, September 7, 2007 17:53

  the upcomming Westminster elections are a wonderfull oppertunity to send a clear message to the all London bassed party's that Scotland has had enought of London policies and we demand a referendum, we are not asking for one,by sending back more SNP. MP's to Westminster this message can't be ignored
  
  What do we want INDEPENDENCE
  When do we want it NOW

• 66. David Robertson - Inverness

  Friday, September 7, 2007 22:13

  Post #63
  
  By all means let us have a debate Stuart.
  
  Your point was that 51% of 34% ought not to be sufficient to change our constitution. Why not?
  
  If it is the low turnout, that is the responsibility of those who stayed home. If it is the marginal result, that is what happens in elections. Sometimes a single vote can change the face of a nation.
  
  For my own part, I would prefer a simple 50% +1 majority to decide the issue. After all that is just the beginning, if independence is the choice. That is when the real business begins; trying to negotiate a peaceful, reasonably amicable, settlement. Given the level of fear and frustration I have seen on the Unionist side, this is not a foregone conclusion. There is a cogent argument for the Union position I am sure. However, I have not yet heard it.
  
  I trust by the time we reach 2010 we shall have aired all the most relevant concerns from both sides and those of us who are paying attention should have reached a conclusion based upon the best presuppositions and most complete, up-to-date, available facts.
  
  I have no inclination to exclude anyone from the debate and will try to hear what everyone is saying, even through a fog of misspelling. In my experience some of the clearest thinking comes from the least educated. One just has to learn to listen.

• 67. David Robertson - Inverness

  Friday, September 7, 2007 22:32

  In the very near future, it is my considered opinion that we are all going to be in the middle of a global financial crisis. At risk will be the entire world's fiat currency system that has been carefully constructed over the past 60 years. Central Banks in every country are faced today with an insoluble dilemma. They want to inject liquidity into the banking system but the banks will not, cannot cooperate, because they do not know their counterparty risk. The only other option for the Central Banks is to buy the bad debt instruments that are dragging down the balance sheets of the banks everywhere. If they do this they will destroy some of the world's major currencies. Those are the only two weapons they have in their arsenal to protect the entire fiat currency system. How long this will take to feed through into the real economy is anyone's guess; days, weeks maybe, or months, at the most. My point is that this conversation may very soon be the last thing on our minds.

• 68. louise - Inverclyde

  Friday, September 7, 2007 23:22

  63. stuart
  
  the turnout should not be relevant if people cant be bothered to turn out and vote I think you can take it they dont actually care about the result. As for 51 percent yes that should decide it if 51 percent vote no then yeah that should be enough. Wether its a 34 percent turn out or a 60 percent turn out shouldnt matter.

• 69. Gordon Murray - Livingston

  Saturday, September 8, 2007 09:04

  #63. Stuart - Glasgow
  Friday, September 7, 2007 12:56
  
  Sorry Stuart, in my opinion you are wrong and you are being rude.
  
  We both 'know' that we are both the smartest cookies in the place, so that makes our opinions important.
  
  Trouble is not everyone agrees with us on this. Out of the mouths of babes and fools and all that...
  The rest of the world just might be thinking that it is you and me who are the fools.
  
  So why don't we just let every one have their say equally and the majority make up their own minds based on what is said rather than the quality of syntax, punctuation, spelling or grammar?
  
  As for the % thing?
  The UK government was returned with a 34% share of a 60% turnout, give or take a point or two.
  i.e. Tony Blair was given his mandate by ~25% of the UK electorate and even less of the general population.
  
  This gives the UK PM carte blanche to deploy WMDs on our behalf, declare war on his own behalf, or commission new nuclear power stations with a commitment to store the resulting toxic nuclear waste on the behalf of humanity for thousands of years to come.
  
  In 1979 we had dead men, criminals behind bars, emigrants, businessmen, and holidaymakers all over the world 'voting against' the devolution bill.
  In the end it only required 4% of Scotland's electorate to actually record a 'NO' vote and the bill was defeated.
  The 52% who went out to vote in favour of a devolved regional assembly were disenfranchised.
  
  The result being that when the next devolution bill was brought forward it was considerably larger and more powerful than that put to the vote the first time.
  
  Here endeth the lesson

• 70. Tricia - Ayrshire

  Saturday, September 8, 2007 10:44

  Amid all the subtle, and some not so subtle, insults; despite the amount of percentages flying back and forth; and flying-in-the-face of the expanse of quotes being bandied about; may I just add my quiet little voice to the nation-wide (and beyond) squabble going on here? Not that it hasn't been entertaining...
  
  I would like to be trusted enough by my 'government' to be offered the means to record my vote/opinion/wishes on the issue of an Independant Scotland!
  
  Yes, Mr Salmond, and the rest of you politcians if you are paying any attention to us down here, I want a Referendum! Bring it on...!
  
  (Being free of my Student Debt would be a nice touch too...! Hmmm? Worth a try?)
  
  Okay kids... carry on bickering!

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