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]

  • 111. david - glasgow

    Saturday, April 19, 2008 14:18

    how can it possibly be democratic to deny a referendum to the people??? regardless of your political preference i would have assumed everyone would support every citizen how their country is governed. surely this just shows how scared the london parties are of Scots independence.

  • 112. harry - cheshire ,england

    Saturday, April 19, 2008 19:02

    An independant scotland is almost guaranteed,when england is run by the english again,i think it will take note of these good debates and fulfil both countries wishes and maybe if wales wants full independance she may go her own way and we`ll all be happier.

  • 113. itude - Paisley

    Sunday, April 20, 2008 02:23

    Having only moved to Scotland from Canada a year ago, I am still learning about British politics. What I have noticed is a lot of the "grass is greener" type promises from SNP politicians. Independence will apparently solve all our economic and social problems. Please don't buy into this idea of an independent utopia. The reality is that if Scotland wants a voice in the world it needs to be a part of a larger UK. A nation of 5 million is just not large enough for the world to care about. The market is too small. National head offices will leave if the threat of independence becomes a possibility (as it did in Quebec). Don't buy into the rhetoric. Scotland is a great place, it has a great culture which has survived centuries without independence. Scotland is known throughout the world. The problems within Scotland have nothing to do with being a part of the UK. It's time to look to ourselves to solve our problems instead of pointing the finger of blame at someone else. Forget the politicians. The real power for change is with the people of Scotland. If we want a better Scotland we can make it happen.

  • 114. Gordon - Livingston

    Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:23

    101. Robert - Edinburgh

    Hard facts is it?
    You choose then to ignore the conclusions of the 1975 McCrone report, kept hidden for 30 years, which said Scots would've become amongst the most prosperous in Europe if they'd been permitted to govern their own resources?
    You may recall that Britain then was on the brink of insolvency and borrowing desparately from the US and IMF at the time to keep the UK economy afloat.

    It's not up to the taxpayer, you insist, to help fund sustainable clean fuel technologies, unless of course they produce the raw materials for WMDs, nuclear warheads to be used with American Trident missiles?

    I agree that oil is not going to last forever, 30 to 50 years on current estimates of presently economic reserves under Scottish jurisdiction.

    Gordon Brown valued the income from oil to his Treasury for the four years after his final budget at around £65billion, with Brent crude then at $56boe. You will be aware that the price of oil is now double that figure and still rising.

    What might Scotland achieve with an additional cash injection of £10bn-£20bn every year for the next decade, never mind 30 to 50 years?
    In context, every city in Scotland could have a London 2012 Olympics project, and quite a few towns could too.
    What could that do for the likes of Pilton and Shettleston?

    As for thinly veiled racism, do you ever read the letters page in the London press?
    What is it to insist that your country is too wee, too poor, or too thick to run her own afairs?

    As for the comment @102 regarding successor states, you will I take it also be insisting that England, as co-signatory state, negotiates entry to the EU after the Treaty of Union 1707 is disolved?
    Btw do you think the Irish eg might have the power of veto?

    Scottish influence? Influence as defined by the ability and apparent willingness to incinerate populations with missiles if they don't do as we insist, you can keep.
    I'll gladly settle for what Portugal, Austria, Greece, Slovakia, Croatia, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, with richer neighbours just to draw some examples at random, have.

  • 115. Mary Teresa Burrows - Greenock

    Monday, April 21, 2008 12:45

    I hope we have an Independent Scotland within my lifetime. Alex Salmond and the Scottish SNP are working very hard to push forward our brilliant country. Keep up the good work!

  • 116. Robert - Edinburgh

    Monday, April 21, 2008 16:16

    113. itude - Paisley

    Listen to this person! They are telling the truth as seen through non-native eyes that I have been discussing before. "Problems within Scotland have nothing to do with being a part of the UK" - exactly!

    114. Gordon - Livingston

    No I did not ignore the McCrone report. I didn't even mention it. I'm looking into the future and a Scotland that is independent in 2017 will have approx 10 to 20 years worth of oil revenues yielding to the treasury in the region of £200 to £400 billion (2008 pounds) in total. To put that figure in context, this year the Scottish government will spend in excess of £50 billion. The UK government gets through around £5 billion every day. Doesn't sound so much now does it.

    My point is that this talk of stolen oil revenues is a distraction; it gets the voter angry over a perceived wrong, the SNP steps in to say that they can fix it and will bring in vast amounts of cash, knowing full well that they can't.

    You talk of all the good that the extra cash could do. Nonsense. Do you think Salmond will be handing out fifty pound notes from every street corner? Or that a bloated welfare state will be allowed to continue to expand without care for costs to taxpayers (corporate or individual)? Maybe it will even allow for a few more vanity projects, maybe a new palace for a Scottish president... Or maybe oil companies will realise that they can get their oil with fewer taxes elsewhere? Find its way into the pockets of Scottish people it will not.

    The grubby details of how the McCrone report was concealed do indeed bear great attention, but that is a matter for history and I am more concerned for the future.

    As for the comment @ 102, Scotland would clearly be the successor state as the United Kingdom (of England, Wales and Northern Ireland) would be the remainder.

    Influence IS the power to incinerate populations with missiles. It's a nasty fact, but a fact all the same. That is the real world where power is respected and the little guy gets ignored, or worse, squashed. If you don't want to be involved in the real world, then there's always a quiet island somewhere you could retire to...

  • 117. Robert - Edinburgh

    Monday, April 21, 2008 16:20

    108. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

    OK, I won't ask ;-)

    But seriously, what 'oppression' has anyone here suffered?

    Can anyone give me some kind of idea?

    And how does that 'oppression' compare to apartheid South Africa, nazi Germany or modern China?

    Has anyone suffered any loss or inability or been disadvantaged because Scotland is in union with England?

    I don't think so...

  • 118. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

    Monday, April 21, 2008 22:44

    113. itude - Paisley

    You have been in Scotland for one year.

    Is that the same as my family who have been living in Scotland for centuries?

    My family clan has been around before even Bonnie Prince Charlie was in Scotland. My family goes back even further.

    Until you have been in Scotland as long as I then you should not share your opinion that Scotland is greater in the UK.

    Again you fail to even share facts that say Scotland benifits from the UK just your own opinion.

    Now I say my own opinion that Scotland will become Independant even if my family has to spend centuries more fighting for that freedom because their are economic choices and barriers that effects Scotland and Scotland alone and for that reason we have no real need for the UK.

    And since we are going deeper in the EU and NATO then why stay in the UK?

    Cut out the middle men and we can talk to Brussels ourselves.

    We would have more voting power in the EU for crying out loud.

    Now tell me something good about the UK and why Scotland is better off in the UK.

  • 119. Paul - Glasgow

    Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:46

    118. Thomas Porter

    That's an interesting statement. By 2009, Scotland's population is expected to drop below the 5 million mark. Despite tens of thousands of immigrants coming to our shores every year, we are in dire need of more skilled and porfessional workers just keep the population rate stable - not to mention boosting our economy. Some academics have stated that we need an extra 50,000 new residents per year.

    Given the importance of immigrants and migrants to our countrys future and the crucial role that immigrants from India, Pakistan, Italy and other nations have played in our past, don't you think these are precisely the groups that should be engaged in a national conversation? Or is a Scottish blood line stretching back hundreds of years a pre-requisite for understanding contemporary politics?

    Perhaps its not stretching the imagination too much to expect that people who have recently experienced what its like to live in a newly independent country (or a country where there is a vocal seperatist movement such as Canada)might have some interesting contributions to make to Scotlands national converstaion, whether thats for or against the union.

    Indeed, maybe we can ask newly arrived immigrants or asylum seekers whether they feel that their liberties are massively constrained by the union? I would imagine that our 'fight for freedom' is slightly different to the experience of those fleeing oppression in Zimbabwe or Tibet. Or perhaps not having a Scottish blood line that goes back to Bonnie Prince Charlie means that I don't understand what freedom is.

  • 120. georgekirk - argyll

    Tuesday, April 22, 2008 22:35

    " why not??" as we have lived under a british goverment for years & been treated as second class citizens of the uk

[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