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]

  • 191. Thomas Porter - holidays11

    Monday, May 19, 2008 00:20

    187. John Murphy - Paisley

    I would also back what 189. Dave Eastabrook has said.

    An Independent Scotland with more Representatives would be better for Scotland and Scotland alone and could negociate matters that matter to Scotland greater then our current method.

    And it would be louder because if Scotland is unhappy then one country will be backing out of whatever the EU wants to pass through.

    But right now if Scotland is unhappy can we really defend our interests when Britain is willing to go with the flow?

    And to go further I have never witnessed Britain putting her foot down and protecting Scottish Interests.

    If you can think of a time where Britain did defend Scotland then please share it but I honestly have no clue when Britain has put Scotland first.

  • 192. John Murphy - Paisley

    Monday, May 19, 2008 12:25

    Yes - British MEP's generally back Scottish moves surrounding fishing and rural affairs. A regulation put forward by Scottish MEP Elspth Attwooll last year to apply common penalities to illegal fishing was backed by all UK MEPs, just as one example.

    I think it's also worth pointing out the whole 'swings and roundabouts' issue. By that I mean, what we gain with one hand, is taken away with the other. Sure, we get an EU veto (just like all 27 member states) but we'll lose the permanent UN Security Council veto too (a much more exclusive club with only 7 permanent members).

  • 193. Ess -

    Monday, May 19, 2008 12:57

    No. 176 - irony

    Blair gave up a big rebate a year or so ago because the EU needs more money to finance investment in the clutch of poorer countries who have joined recently.

    It therefore stands to reason that a Scotland separate from Britain, in the EU AND a country rich in oil to boot, will mean us paying MORE to help the EU finance those POOR countries.

    Think about it.

  • 194. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

    Monday, May 19, 2008 19:47

    193. Ess
    Yes, ironic. Kind of like earning £1 million a year and complaining about an 80% overall tax rate. I'd love to be doing that sort of complaining - and similarly think it'd be brilliant if Independent Scotland had to make a net contribution to the EU of around £100 billion!!

    Ah well, back to earning slightly less ...

  • 195. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

    Tuesday, May 20, 2008 19:19

    193. Ess -

    Have you any idea how much Britain pays into the EU now?

    An Independent Scotland could decide for ourselves what we pay and what we do not pay.

    If it is a bad deal we can easily walk away. We are the country who has the oil and oil that the EU needs.

    What are they going to do? Kick us out of the EU then wonder where they will get the extra oil from?

    Heck, we can sell our oil to China or USA instead and the EU knows this.

  • 196. John Steele - Ayr

    Wednesday, May 21, 2008 12:19

    I would love Scotland to hold all the power in negotiating with the EU over financial support but I fear that our reliance on North Sea Oil as the powerhouse of our economy may be the very definition of short-termism.

    According to the US Department of Energy, 70% of the oil has been recovered by 2006. Moreover, oil production peaked in 1999 and fell by 10% in 2004 and a further 12% in 2005. The problem is that the discovery of new fields has not kept pace with the maturation of exisiting fields. The USDE stated that the North Sea production fields are now in ..."long term decline."

    In terms of the Europe, the EU is currently a net importer of oil and this includes the North Sea production figures. By 2012, the EU is forecast to import from outside its borders a further 29% of its petrochemical requirements. So I'm not too sure that using our North Sea assets as bargaining chips will carry much weight. This is even more true considering that Norway has longer and more viable reserves than 'our' sector.

    Forgive me for my wandering conversation, but thats my three cents...

  • 197. John Melrose - Largs

    Wednesday, May 21, 2008 19:06

    Alex I believe you and your team are far too clever for the opposition every time you and your cabinate propose anything Westminster jerks the opposition strings and they lose more voters. More power power to your elbow pal we are 100% behind you

  • 198. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

    Thursday, May 22, 2008 14:15

    196. John Steele - Ayr

    Exactly.

    Our oil reserves are plummeting yet what have we seen from Britain?

    This is the reason I am a Nationalist.

    Scotland and Scotland alone has the will and determination to ensure our future is secure.

    Gordon Brown talks about long term strategy...

    Heard it before?

    The SNP has secured that Scotland is gathering over 50% of our electricity needs by 2020 through re-newables.

    Westminister? Attacked Iraq for oil reasons. And I have no idea why but focused on nuclear power?

    Where is the long term future in that?

  • 199. James Brown - New Cumnock, Ayrshire

    Thursday, May 22, 2008 23:25

    I can see a way of making our young people feel a great deal more pride in their nationality and, at the same time, redressing a terrible imbalance. For many years our schools have taught more about the history of pre World War 2 Germany than they've taught about their own country and its' people. If we taught our children about Burns, Ramsay, Fleming, MacAdam, Logie-Baird etc.etc., they would see more clearly how great a nation we are and how much we've contributed to the world and they would find a new pride in being Scottish. This must be a priority since we need pride in ourselves to assume the mantle of self determination.

  • 200. Gordon Murray - Livingston

    Saturday, May 24, 2008 16:31

    196. John Steele - Ayr

    I wouldn't beat myself up over the future of North Sea Oil.

    Best guess is for another 30 to 50 years production with diminishing flow rates more than compensated for by soaring values of the oil being extracted.

    In 2005 I'm sure they were saying that the reserves were half finished and that the value of what was still underground was worth about £250bn to the UK Treasury give or take a few £bn.
    Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick I'm thinking.

    Now I stand to be corrected, but this value was produced when oil was historically $27-35boe and going through what was supposed to be a temporary price blip of $50-60 a barrel.

    With the price of Brent crude hitting $135 heading to who knows where? $150-200boe, I even heard $1,000boe mentioned the other day on SKY News(!) as a possibility!
    One thing I am confident we can take as read is that it will be quite some time before crude oil is traded again at less than $50 a barrel, or $100boe even.

    On top of this I understand that the commercially exploitable reserves were also estimated when oil prices were about $50 a barrel, I would imagine that some previously marginal fields will now be more commercially attractive to further development.

    Scotland would be fine and dandy without North Sea oil make no mistake, why wouldn't it be? but our long term future could receive a huge boost from this potential windfall to our economy, enabling added investment in technology and technical resources to put Scotland into the driving seat against our trading partners present and future.

    We would also be able to ease pressure on our national budget to enable funding for specific social welfare projects and infrastructure improvements.

    Or we could sit on our hands, do nothing, and see a golden, once in a millenia, chance just frittered away.

[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