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]

  • 181. Neil Anderson - Glasgow

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 15:51

    I am so glad that there will be a Scottish referendum on indepedence so I can vote 'No'.

    I am extremely pleased that the SNP are doing the rights things in standing up for Scotland but unfortunately I do not support indepdence. Those nationalists who believe Scotland will become more wealthier as a result of indepedence must living in fairy land.

    The realities is that Scotland will become more divided not less if it became indepedent. More power and wealth will be centred around Edinburgh in which I believe is completely wrong. It is scientifc knowledge that in fifty years time oil will run out in the North Sea in which we are already using reserves.

    And more importantly indepedence is simply not going to solve the severe and critical issues of poverty, crime and health that really affect society. For example an indepedent Scotland is not going to make a place like Glasgow a better place to live in. Both Holyrood and Westiminster have both failed to tackle these important issues effectively.

    Nationalists may criticise me for being a unionist but I simply do not care because I am proud to be Scottish as well as British.

    I respect those who want indepedence but Im afraid we have strong ideological differences and despite the arguments made for indepdence it will take a lot of persauding to change my mind. However in the future I might support indepdence - who knows ???

  • 182. Dave Llewellyn - skye

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 16:26

    Rights and responsibilities are two prerequisites for the road ahead. Both need to be accepted as part of the contract. All Scots regardless of their political hue must be catered for and the winners must not forget the losers or we will continue as a nation divided. We need to bring out the heart of Scotland not continue to have our hearts ripped out.

  • 183. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 18:38

    181. Neil Anderson - Glasgow

    If the Union has failed Glasgow, with all the power of the Union and wealth we apparently had then least we agree that the Union is not the answer.

    Glasgow is the largest city in Scotland. The Scottish Government would do more to take care of our largest City if we had the power and money to do so.

    But can I ask where the Union was when Ship building was sent in decline and the other Industries that disappeared over the years?

    From what I know Glasgow has had little investment it actually needs over the years. But if Scotland managed to raise our own funds can you imagine what could happen?

    Instead of searching for arguments against Scottish Independence you should ask yourself.

    'How can an Independent Scotland help me and my city?'

    The Union has not helped. An Independent Scotland might actually be better.

  • 184. John Murphy - Paisley

    Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:52

    Hi Thomas

    The union had nothing to do with the collapse of shipbuilding in Glasgow and everything to do with increasing competition from foreign yards and the reduced need for mercantile and Navy vessels following the end of empire.

    In fact, if it wasn't for the Union, shipbuilding would not have been so major in Glasgow in the first place. Do you honestly think the Admiralty in London would place warship orders with a foreign yard? I dont think so. HMS Hood would have been built in Barrow and not at John Browns.

    Incidently, there are two yards left on the upper clyde - both warship yards. Again, without the Union, these yards would close for the same reasons as before - do you think a London government would place orders at a foreign yard when it can build its ships at Devonport?

    And before you say that a Scottish Navy would keep them open, bare a few facts in mind...

    I dont know of ANY nation with 5 million people that needs 2 70,000 ton aircraft carriers or run around the high seas the latest destroyers...we lose the union, we'll eventually lose the Type 45 programme and the Queen Elizabeth class carrier programme too. The Type 45 is the most advanced destroyer in the world, but its for air defence of aircraft carriers...an independent Scotland won't have carriers so we wont have the programmes that build them.



  • 185. John Murphy - Paisley

    Wednesday, May 14, 2008 13:34

    I've just realised one thing that pretty much all these posts have in common - absolutism.

    For the unionists, an independent Scotland would rival the Soviet Union as a socialist, barren economic wasteland.

    For the nationalists, an independent Scotland would be a olympus-like utopia where petro dollars flood the economy eliminating poverty and dependence with one swish of the governments hand.

    In reality, independence - just like any other decison we face in our daily lives - will have both positive and negative consequences. Very few things in life bring 100% positives or, conversley, 100% negatives. It will be a bit of both. The decison, is all about how YOU feel about those costs and benefits.

    As an example...

    An independent Scotland will have a free and proud voice in the world. It will be 100% our voice and not diluted in any way by ministers or diplomats who are persuing other UK interests. We'll have one voice in Europe too.

    But, on the other hand, although its our voice, it will never be as loud as a British voice. We wont sit on the Security Council and we wont be in the G8. Even in the EU, our diplomatic footprint will be reduced as the number of MEP's is influenced by population and geography. Whereas a British voice had 60 million voices behind it, a Scottish voice has just 5.

    Now whether these issues are important to you depends on where you're coming from. But to think that the union - or seperation - is the golden road to paradise is to be completely ignorant of basic common sense or logic.

    Weigh up the issues - all the issues -evenly, work out whats good and whats bad (because there's both) and decide what's important to you.

    Unequivocal nirvana doesnt exist people.

  • 186. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

    Wednesday, May 14, 2008 18:30

    185. John Murphy - Paisley

    In the EU the smaller countries are able to have more respresentatives.

    An Independent Scotland would have over 20 rather then the 7 we have now.

  • 187. John Murphy - Paisley

    Thursday, May 15, 2008 09:40

    Hi Thomas

    You are completely right. An independent Scotland would see its MEP numbers increase from 7 to around 20. To put that into perspective the United Kingdom currently has 78 MEP's, so in terms of influence, Scotland won't exactly be bringing the house down with the big boys.

    Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Its just a fact. Sure we'll have a Scottish voice but its not going to a loud one when countries like Germany, France, Italy and the rest-of-UK have between 3 and 4 times the numbers of representatives.

  • 188. Andrew Henderson - Tarves

    Thursday, May 15, 2008 20:44

    Can anyone tell me what will happen come the next Scottish Parliament elections?
    Against the recommendation of last years Gould Report which states in no uncertain terms that "Assigning responsibility to the Scottish Government is the logical choice."
    We have the Scotland Office-(what exactly IS the Scotland Office?)and Des Browne stating that they don't believe it would be appropriate.What on earth do they mean by appropriate?
    Perhaps last years Scottish Parliament elections orchestrated by Westminster, the Labour Party and Wendies brother is their idea of "appropriate"
    Time is running out,do we really want Westminster to control the next Scottish Parliament elections- ANYTHING could happen,although somehow I doubt it would be to the benefit of the Scottish Nation.

    INDEPENDENCE 2010.

  • 189. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

    Friday, May 16, 2008 01:39

    187. John Murphy
    But - at present the 7 Scottish MEPs can be outvoted or just totally ignored by the other 71 British MEPs. So even if the 7 Scottish MEPs were united in their view on an issue, they can be totally run roughshod over by the mass of British MEPs - who can therefore negotitate a yes vote on any issue in the EU, for whatever British concessions they want to go for. And there's nothing the 7 Scottish MEPs can do about it. Absolutely nothing but complain.

    In an independent Scotland, the 20 MEPs can vote on behalf of a member state - Scotland - and that is far more important than any number of individual MEPs, whether 7, 20, 78 or 278.

    It means that if the EU needs a 100% vote from member states - such as on a constitutional issue like a United States of Europe or whatever - it'd have to negotiate with any opposed member state, whether that member state had 100 million population - or just 1 million. It's kind of like a veto, and Scotland would have one whereas now it has absolutely nothing. No power at all.

    That is just one power that an independent Scotland would have in the EU. On its own it's a reason to vote for independence.

  • 190. John Murphy - Paisley

    Friday, May 16, 2008 14:42

    189

    I can't argue with anything you've said Dave, its all 100% true. But there are a few points;

    MEP's (just like MSP's and MP's) can vote as they wish, even if it is not encouraged. The 78 British MEP's can - and do - vote with Scotland which would make a Scottish agenda - supported by 78 British MEP's much more powerful in Europe than just using the 7 (or 20) Scotland MEP's. Like you said, they don't always do this...

    ...but then the 20 MEP's of an independent Scotland may not necessarilly vote as one either. An MEP from the Highlands and Islands may be against a 'Scottish' issue vote just as much as an MEP from the South East.

    In terms of the 100% vote you mentioned, you are of course right. Scotland would have its own vote or veto. But its about weighing up concessions versus opportunities. I think a UK dilomatic presence is much more effective when ALL the issues are weighed together, especially as 100% votes are not that common and generally, I would favour the policy of the more MEPs the better. But then others will think differently which is what this is all about.

[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