On this page:

The people are sovereign. The Scottish Parliament is their Parliament.

National Conversation with Scotland's Institutions

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

First Minister Alex Salmond

As First Minister of Scotland, it is my responsibility to lead discussion and debate on how we can build a more successful Scotland.

This Government believes that independence for Scotland - where we are equal partners with the other nations of these islands - offers the best prospects for growing prosperity in our nation.

I have already said as First Minister that I am happy to test support for enhanced devolution in a referendum, along with Independence.

And I say to those who oppose the restoration of Scottish independence that just as I respect absolutely their right to hold that view, so in return I feel able to require of them a clear alternative which can be put on a ballot paper and held up to public scrutiny.

I say that not as a nationalist, but as a democrat.

The people are sovereign. The Scottish Parliament is their Parliament. The right to choose the future for this country, is their right.

This second phase of the National Conversation is focused on extensive engagement with Scotland's civic institutions who have developed and preserved our society for over 300 years. We have the chance to shape the future of the nation - and it is important that civic Scotland plays a central role.

On a simple level, the institutions - charities, churches, universities, business and the unions - are the main voice of Scottish society. Their members help to shape the opinions that impact across the wider public.

Institutions act as an important interlocutor between the government and the citizen. In a fundamental sense they are Scottish society - and have been so for many centuries.

This is a debate where Scotland's civic institutions can and must play a vital role - in defining the choices and the challenge that we face as a society.

We must take full responsibility for shaping our own future - the future of Scotland. So consider the aspects of Scottish life which could be made better. Be confident in asserting your vision.

To our churches and our faith groups I say, if you care passionately about a humanitarian global role for Scotland, if you care strongly about increasing foreign aid, if you object deeply to the presence of nuclear weapons - then tell us, and tell the people of Scotland.

To our voluntary organisations I say, if you are paying the cost of lottery funding being diverted to London - then speak out. Tell us the progress you wish to see.

And our universities and colleges, seeking more funding but constrained by Scotland's funding structure. The same fiscal straitjacket which constrains Scotland's government - and which constrains our choices as a society.

And our business organisations who want to enhance the competitive advantage of the Scottish economy and recognise that is the root to prosperity, then we should consider the new wealth - the new resources - that Scotland could generate with greater control of our own economy.

To our trade unions, we have to consider what social partnerships are required to create not just a rich country but a rich society.

As we have seen throughout our history, often the biggest steps forward, the most significant progress requires the greatest courage and indeed, often, some plain speaking.

The Scottish Government wants to hear from you about your priorities and ambitions.

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] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

  • 91. Robert - Edinburgh

    Wednesday, April 16, 2008 13:38

    After a long time away, I return to the 'National Conversation' fora to find that it hasn't moved on. Rather like the whole independence argument.

    Lots of outrageous claims of ill-understood financial benefits/drawbacks, many emotional comments on 'freedom' without comprehending reality, thinly veiled racism and a lack of objective thought.

    The union between Scotland and England is just like a marriage (I'll leave you to decide who wears the trousers). When you are married, you don't sit down at the end of each year with a calculator and try to figure out how much the financial benefit or cost has been to you individually.

    You're married to your partner because of the broad issues: you like each other, are compatible companions and you want to share in each other's lives. Because you work well together, and have similar values, priorities, ambitions and responsibilities. Because you are stronger and more stable together.

    All of these things still hold true for the union with England, and I believe any Scot would struggle to come up with an example of how they, PERSONALLY, have been in any way disadvantaged or suffered any kind of loss or inability as a result of the continued union. I certainly can't.

    Talk of stolen oil tax revenue and other financial disadvantages is based on two illusions: firstly, that increases in tax revenue magically leads to an increase in living standards and prosperity, and secondly, that economic activity obeys the whims of politicians. It also ignores the Barnett Formula which compensates Scotland's government for the oil tax revenue sent to HM Treasury by paying £1,500 per person, per year.

    Prosperity and living standards are a result of economic forces of which taxation is but a small factor. I will happily compile a short list of statistics and definitions and post it here to demonstrate this illusion.

    How has the union prevented you from realising your ambitions, or working hard to improve your and your family's life? Where is the Westminster 'oppression' whipped up by Salmond & co? I've never felt oppressed, or restricted, because I am Scottish and live in Scotland. And I've never suffered abuse for being Scottish when I worked in London, unlike the anti-English racism I've seen on these discussion boards and in public. Have you?

    The cultural, social and political reasons for the union are far stronger and much more relevant than any financial argument.

    The fact is we live in a democratic society which is fully functioning, and the will of the people should be followed. But it is very important that people understand the true benefits and costs involved, and remember to view any changes through how they would affect you PERSONALLY, and ignore vague claims of billions here and billions there.

  • 92. Frank S Mickel - EDINBURGH

    Wednesday, April 16, 2008 14:28


    Council Tax



    Further to a report quoting Professor David Bell, in the Scotsman I would like to ask about his theory on Council Tax and its relation to the tax system and the value of properties.

    Being a member of the brigade that felt that the last attempt at this revenue collection system of ‘Poll Tax’ seemed to be a step in the right direction, I would like to say that it has always been my view that it is ‘people’ who use most council services and not houses, whether this is water and drainage to homes and businesses or transport, roads, public buildings and education services it is still people whether resident or visitor who use these services.

    The option being proposed misses the probable outcome that I feel will ensue, where it will be mainly supported by PAYE contributors, and less robustly be supported by the corporate and self employed, the latter two having the advantage of tax offsets to reduce any tax liability, once again it will be flawed. I really can’t help but think that there will not be sufficient revenue created going down this route, that must be said is purely a ‘gut’ feeling.

    My thoughts favour a direct tax, call it what you like, but in essence a ‘purchase tax’, to all who spend money on anything and everything, with no exceptions. This ‘tax’ could be added on to VAT but be exempt from any claw back allowances that VAT payees are allowed against payments. I have never been able to get my head round the argument that the poorest would be contributing more or too much. No, the poorest would not pay an unfair portion of this tax, after all, we all also know that it is the poorest who in most, but maybe not every case, in order to survive, with the benefits they receive or their low wage, also have at least one other part time job, which if the person is on benefits, could well be ‘cash in hand’ aca ‘black money’, if they are not on benefits the same applies. If someone only has £150.00 to spend in any given week and the purchase tax is at 2.5% their contribution will be £3.75, and if the individual has £450.00 to spend in a week they will contribute £11.25 an amount which is proportionately more, but at least every £ that is spent should then come into the net, where at present the ‘black economy’ is not touched. It would also produce a revenue from the long and short term visitors and tourists.

    Low earners are by no means the only beneficiaries of the ‘black economy’ there are many high earners also making hay while in order to remove the bump under their mattress they spend cash. VAT statistics show the turnover of money to be greater than the projected earnings which shows the extent of the ‘black economy’.

    Over the past few years I have flown this idea past many people and the most common statement after the “poor paying too much’ is ‘we will all end up going over the border to Berwick or Carlyle to shop, to save £2 to £15, I don’t think so, so, please give me some good reasons why this is never proposed.



  • 93. Robert - Edinburgh

    Wednesday, April 16, 2008 14:30

    Some other thoughts...

    Scotland has always been a great nation, and is continuing to be so. This is down to the work and imagination of the Scottish people, and a change in government is not going to change this.

    It's very easy to point a finger at an 'other' and say it's their fault that we're in this mess, they're the ones to blame. In this respect the English are that 'other'. It's much harder to point that finger at yourself, and say we should be responsible for sorting out the obvious deficiencies in our society and economy, the violence, drug abuse, low productivity and lack of growth. We already have the tools in our hands to fix this, if we want to. It is the babble of pro-independence finger-pointing that will come back to haunt Scotland's government if independence is decided, and, as seems likely, their efforts result in the same situation as we have today. It is only by individuals PERSONALLY getting involved in and feeling responsible for their own communities that this will change.

    From some of the posts on here regrading freeeeeeeedom, one could reasonably conclude that Scotland is currently a prison camp staffed by English secret police. The truth is that we live in one of the most open societies with a smaller government and lower tax burden than other similar sized European countries, and a fine tradition of political freedom, expression and dissent.

    England has nothing to lose from abandoning the union, in fact, they would probably like to end it so that Brown would no longer be PM. In fact, from what I've gathered from English friends, Scottish independence is viewed by the English (if they care at all) as an amusing aside, without any real relevance. They would like to see the people of Scotland happy, and they are not intent on ransacking Scotland for all her wealth and resources. As independence will not disadvantage them, they really don't care. Doesn't that just spell it out? There is no oppression by the English, it only exists in our minds.

  • 94. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

    Wednesday, April 16, 2008 16:42

    91. Robert - Edinburgh

    Agian another Union lover I see.

    You love the Union but but have nothing great to say WHY you love it.

    Who hired you? Gordon Brown? Wendy?

    Stop spreading useless words when all we care about is the hard facts and what potentail Scotland has to achieve.

    Where is the money to provide use for the tidal and wave power that Scotland has?

    The oil is not going to last forever and what plans has Britain put forward? Apart from nuclear energy because that does not last forever either.

    Now I am proud to say that the S.N.P. Government has made plans to attempt and encourage newly developed ways of controlling these tidal and wave energy.

    I am proud to be Scottish. Biritish never.

    Are you going now going to say I am a racist? Tell that to my English friends and those who have English families and see how they feel.

    We are the majority.



  • 95. Steven - West Lothian

    Wednesday, April 16, 2008 16:56

    Robert - Edinburgh.

    How are you going to get through life when Scotland becomes Independent.

    "There is no oppression by the English, it only exists in our minds." - No I think you will find that it only 'does not' exist in your mind. I for one can think and speak for myself thank you.


    If it bothers you that much that the people of Scotland want the right to govern themselves, then I am sure there is nothing stopping you from joining your friends south of the border.

    And as for your Freeedom jibe. I would give my life to allow my children to live in an Independent country.

    Having said that you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't be so arrogant to assume we all think as you do.

  • 96. Andrew Gray - Falkirk

    Wednesday, April 16, 2008 16:57

    I cant claim to know the ins and outs of politics. However Alex Salmond has got me interested (I, from the generation who dont vote!). I have still to be fully convinced of Independence, but Mr Salmond does seem to have the better answers. How can Scotland vote fairly as part of the uk? The whole 5 milion of us could vote against a certain legislation/bill yet all it would take is for the population of London alone to disagree and the voting numbers would go against us. At present i think we, the people of Scotland would have a better and clearer say in our Nation if we went Independent.

  • 97. Frank Mickel - EDINBURGH

    Wednesday, April 16, 2008 19:55

    Anthony-Renfrew
    With your thoughts on 'Capital Ships' , 'Nuclear Weapon's' and an 'unknown Grid' I can only assume that you would have Scotland continue for another 400 plus years providing the English their 'cannon fodder'.

    Robert - Edinburgh

    Marriage, If you knew your history you would know that it was, like those marriages abhorred today, and arranged marriage for money, and your distaste of the word 'Freedom' beggars belief considering if we had our own fiscal and foreign control we would never again be able to blame the English on the other hand, you must feel so insecure about our own, the Scots, abilities that we must remain at home with our parent. Please think more positively.

  • 98. harry - cheshire ,england

    Wednesday, April 16, 2008 20:41

    ruth 71, very true ruth,now,it`s not a matter of building a wealthier more prosperous england, since your fellow scots took control, it`s more a case of re-claiming england after they systematically dismantled her.i say vote for an independant england,scotland and wales.

  • 99. john - Inverurie

    Wednesday, April 16, 2008 20:54

    alex samond has been my msp in gordon since last may. he said so much during the election and given the people of so little.

    if we were to go it alone we would be no better off. the funding that he gets from westminster is double what donald dewer received in 1999.

    so we are better off has part of the union.

    i would asl like to add mr salmond should spend more time helping the people of gordon and less time trying to
    breaking up the union.

    he also should spend time helping people in his westminster seat too.

  • 100. Robert - Edinburgh

    Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:33

    94. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

    No, I don't love the union, but I don't hate it either. I asked if any Scot has personally been "in any way disadvantaged or suffered any kind of loss or inability as a result of the continued union." I certainly haven't.

    Have you?

    The reasons for the union are the ones I gave in that post regarding marriage - common values, etc. But you could broadly sum up my opinion as asking why raise a barrier where none has existed before? We are part of one of the few global players in economic, political and social terms and there is no need to cut ourselves off from it, unless you can honestly answer my "Have you?" question above with a yes.

[Latest First] | [Earliest First] Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

Page updated: Friday, August 8, 2008