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]

• 81. kev - edinburgh

  Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:52

  
  
  # 63
  Stuart dont mean to be rude but your point is mince!
  
  "A 51% Yes result on a 34% turnout, for example, ought not to be sufficient to alter our current constitutional arrangement."
  
  So if people cant be bothered to vote in the most important vote for centurie, then it will counted as a no vote!.
  
  Now your being a wee bit silly Stuart.

• 82. Kev - Edinburgh

  Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:45

  A the fear of the unknown, Stuart (76) sums up the mindset of the campaign for status quo, like a wee school boy moving from primary to secondary he is not "certain" that he wants to move.
  
  "I contend that those who want Independence will want it to be fairly low, perhaps a 50% +1 that someone suggested, while those who want us to remain as we are, will want it far higher. The key I think is to mediate between the two."
  
  
  Why should in a democratic society the major not have the final say, your rather perverse idea is strange to say the least, what if the question was should Scotland remain in the UK?
  Would you then change your tune and go for a 51% share of the vote!
  And what figure would you welcome to remain in the UK, 40%, 30%?

• 83. -

  Thursday, September 13, 2007 21:54

  #63. Stuart - Glasgow
  Friday, September 7, 2007 12:56
  
  Another interesting(for me anyway) precedent happened in N.Ireland during 1973 with what was called 'The Border Poll' which, by and large, was boycotted by the Irish nationalists.
  
  Interesting, in that non-voters were effectively taken out of the equation, it posed two polar opposite questions:
  
  Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?
  yes = 591,820
  % valid votes = 98.9%
  % electorate = 57.5%
  
  Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom?
  yes = 6,463
  % valid votes = 1.1%
  % electorate = 0.6%
  
  Spoiled votes
  5,973
  % valid votes = 1.0%
  % electorate = 0.6%
  
  Non-voters
  425,828 = 41.3%
  
  This was taken as a mandate for N.Ireland remaining within the Union.
  
  A promised ten yearly referendum was subsequently put into deep freeze, never to re-emerge, until what in Britain is called the 'Anglo-Irish Agreement' but what Dublin called on the ballot paper, the British-Irish Agreement.
  
  

• 84. David Robertson - Inverness

  Friday, September 14, 2007 12:31

  #76 Stuart- Glasgow
  
  You wrote, quoting my previous post:
  
  #66 "In my experience some of the clearest thinking comes from the least educated." I'm sure given the news story today about Sir Alex Ferguson, he'd agree." [Joke]
  
  For all we know Stuart the gentleman in question may have been a down-on-his-luck Ph.D. from Glasgow University. [Just kidding :)]
  
  Your point on the US Constitution is noted. My question in this case would be, are they directly comparable?
  
  If we examine the way in which the US Constitution was negotiated there was far more debate on the spiritual, intellectual and philosophical foundations of the document and far greater care to achieve democratic consensus than in the case of the Treaty of Union (not a Constitution in any event). The terms of the aforesaid Treaty were dictated to the Scottish representatives who then haggled over the paltry, immaterial scraps of decisions left to them, much like today. What actually took place was the incorporation of Scotland into England with the new unitary State being given the name Great Britain. There was no provision made for amending the Treaty or dissolving the Union and the word "forever" was used frequently. However, amendments and deletions of sections and terms in the Treaty have been effected by Acts of Parliament on a number of occasions by a simple vote in the Houses of Parliament. These vote, as usual, were based on a simple majority of the Members, who had been elected by a minority of the electorate, and, in the case of the Lords, not elected at all.
  
  In summary, there is no ground of comparison between the negotiations of the Treaty of Union and the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, which, while full of acrimony and compromise, was nevertheless a convention of equals. One would also have to stretch the meaning of the word Constitution past breaking point to encompass the document resulting from the English takeover of Scotland as such. The spirit and purpose of the Treaty of Union of 1707 was entirely different than that of the Constitution of the United States.
  
  Let us be quite clear on this point, England swallowed Scotland up, with the consent of the ruling class but not the population of Scotland at large. This Treaty was not a Constitution but an Agreement of Incorporation in which the terms were dictated by the stronger party. My belief is that this Treaty can be changed or abolished, based upon precedent, by a simple Act of the Parliament in Westminster. Since such an Act would be effective if receiving the support of a simple majority of Members, who would have been elected by a minority of those voting, 37% in the case of the present New Labour Government, it seems reasonable to me that a referendum vote, in which 50%+1, of those voting, support independence, should more than qualify as a democratic majority.
  
  

• 85. Caora Dubh - Dachaigh

  Friday, September 14, 2007 19:45

  Two of my uncles ran small businesses in Scotland. Together they employed about 30 Scots. They competed for, and needed English contracts. Goodwill and little red tape were essential to their business: they operated on tight margins due to their northern location. It is difficult to compete if one is based in a country with a small domestic market. The UK offers Scots a large domestic market that is comparatively free of red tape: basically one now needs a van and VAT registration to sell goods in England. Many permanent jobs in Scotland are provided by small companies such as those of my uncles, and international red tape and a lack of English goodwill would slice their throats. Oil is a temporary panacea, not a long term economic solution, and countries are now desperate to cut back on fossil fuel consumption. Other countries such as Eire have occupied the technology Highlands. Given Alba's relative lack of mineral and agricultural resources, in which sectors can an independent Scotland compete successfully? Which SPECIFIC products will offer organic long-term economic growth, as opposed to a boom-'n'-bust oil bubble? What SPECIFIC measures will the SNP implement to support small businesses? In any case, does the amount of revenue earned by oil measure up to that earned by the City of London?

• 86. Doug - bridge of allan

  Sunday, September 16, 2007 15:28

  it,s time we stood on our own and got rid of the Labour/Unionist dependency
  culture we have sleepwalked into for far too long.
  it,s arrogance of anyone to maintain that we cannot govern ourselves
  this is an excellent first step towards a more participative democracy

• 87. David Robertson - Inverness

  Monday, September 17, 2007 13:04

  It would appear that Stuart from Glasgow, the author of post #76 has now left the building. I quote his parting thoughts:
  
  "I also wish to thank you; I now know what you think on a whole range of matters, and of course how you think. I can also I’m sure, be grateful that the particularly dull lesson you were teaching is now over… If only I could remember the point of it?
  
  I think this is a pity since his challenges were, I thought, quite reasonable, and gave me the occasion to develop sound arguments based upon defensible propositions. I would have been particularly interested in his response to my post #84 on the question of what would constitute an actionable majority in a referendum.
  
  It is now clear to me that the way in which our independence from the UK can be initiated is through a simple Act of Parliament in Westminster to abolish the Treaty of Union. It is likely that there are many who know this already; for me it was something of an epiphany and I have Stuart from Glasgow to thank for it. So, if he is listening, thank you Stuart, you have helped a great deal. It seems that the point of your presence was, inter alia, to help clarify my thinking and increase my understanding.

• 88. George Steel - Fife

  Monday, September 17, 2007 16:05

  #75 Liam
  
  Rose coloured glasses or what? After Ireland's achievement of independence from the UK 5,000,000 Southern Irish were so proud of their indendet status that they packed their bags and left their home for America! That's why there is so much pressure from the Irish lobby in the States! The republic did not become a Celtic tiger until it became part of the European Community and was bailed out by their policy of helping the poorest countries in the group!! For that fund you have to thank, in a large measure, the UK taxpayer.
  
  As for the current 'conversation', it's supposed to be with the SCOTTISH people not any other misinformed foreigner who is ignorant of their own history. We have seen what narrow minded nationalism has done in other parts of the world, including Ireland, and we do not need it here, thank you.
  
  #84 and others who make the point that 51% is sufficient to carry a referendum. Be advised that only 36% of MSP's and around 34% of the electorate who voted opted for the one party that wishes to separate Scotland from the Union.
  
  Unionism has, therefore, a 2 to 1 majority to stay in the UK. If we had a referendum would the SNP accept that the question had been resloved, or would they push for another referendum with a slightly different question? The latter I suspect.
  
  Get of your backsides and start taking the responsibility of GOVERNING seriously, instead of trying to pick your way through the morass hoping not to hurt too many feelings.
  
  Use the powers you have as a parliament before demanding more.
  
  

• 89. david main - banff

  Tuesday, September 18, 2007 02:11

  john i have to admire your courage it could not be easy for you after alex came back and the rise of nicola you are what i would call a true patriot as many a lesser man would have buckled by now not easy juggling finances wouldnt have a clue myself so good luck and lets keep the band rolling many thanks

• 90. Graeme Stevens - Berlin, Germany

  Tuesday, September 18, 2007 14:48

  One other thing that needs to be considered (excuse me if I vere off conversation a bit) is getting votes from Ex Pat scots like myself. I tried to vote in both the scottish and generasl elections for the SNP and was told that they werent on the ballot (General Election) and that the scottish election was local and therefore I couldnt register to vote in it.
  
  Why on earth am I as a scot only allowed to vote for Unionist parties overseas? Surely I should be entitled to vote for who I like?
  
  On subject now
  
  Im all for independence. If you read the mccrone report (as I have) I challenge any scot NOT to weep at the betrayl, lies and conspiracy thats been placed to stop us getting independence because we would be better off, and more importantly, the rest would be far worse off.
  
  They actually made it policy to make scots feel like they couldnt do it and that they were somehow different to every other nation in that they needed england to run them for them.
  
  The truth is slowly emerging that unionists have been diliberately trying to put us down...and most of us still believe we l;iv e on subsidies. Its an absolute disgrace, have faith in your own ones and lets get a free and equal nation to call home.

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