The Scottish Government

National Conversation with Scotland's Institutions

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

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.

• Watch a video of the FM's statement
• Read the full text of the FM's statement

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]

• 221. John Steele - Sunny ayr!

  Monday, June 16, 2008 12:15

  David
  
  The defence shield cannot be regarded as an offensive capability because the number of interceptors at each launch station is pretty small - maybe about 10 or 12 interceptors. These are soley designed to take out s small number of missiles launched from rogue states. They are not designed to take out Russian or Chinese nukes simply because the number of missiles required to intercept them all would be huge. Simply put, the Russians have about 4000 live warheads and launching them all would overwhelm any missile shield. That was what stopped Reagans 'star wars' programme dead in its tracks.
  
  Russia's anti-shield stance has nothing to do with perceived wstern aggression and everything to do with posturing in her backyard of Eastern Europe.
  
  In terms of nuclear defence, deterrence (i.e. Trdient) is fine when dealing with rational nation states (i am aware of the irony) and it obviously has worked well. The shield is for rogue states who - as Thomas points out - are quite happy to destroy themselves for their beliefs. Deterrence and the shield then are two means of defence for two differnt kinds of threats.
  
  Lets hope that one day all nation states will see sense and bin these horrific weapons of mass destruction together.
  
  Anyway, I think we're starting to get way off topic here gentlemen.

• 222. Tam - Ayrshire

  Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:56

  On the subject of defence. An independant Scotland should not skimp on defence. We must have modern jets and modern ships, including Eurofighers and we should invest in 1 aircaft carrier, something like HMS Invincible. The UK is due to get 2 new supercarriers, we could buy Invincible and upgrade her for the new Scottish Navy. If Alex Salmond is serious about Scotland having a real voice on the world stage he must have the tools at hand as proof. He wants Scotland to be a major peacekeeper like Norway, and an aircraft carrier provides the flexibility to project power or peace in many parts of the world.

• 223. Ted Harvey - Glasgow

  Tuesday, June 17, 2008 15:14

  John Steel I wonder if we are getting way off topic; the real-politics of the subjection of the UK, and Scotland within it, to the greater global interests of the super powers says everything about almost everything in our supposedly sovereign nation. However, you may be right, so my parting words on this deviation to John Murphy are as follows
  
  Firstly, because the USA and then the USSR went nuclear, in no way provided any military, political or moral basis, logic or justification for the relatively puny little UK to do so. In fact the reality that the UK was effectively bankrupt at the time and in international politics could do little without the approval of the USA (as Suez later showed) argued strongly against any purported logic for the UK going nuclear. The eventually utter dependence of the laughably so-called UK ‘independent’ deterrence on USA procurement, technology and consent reduced it all to black farce.
  
  Secondly, it is highly contestable to assert that the Soviet bloc was the greatest threat to ‘our way of life’ (and that phrase alone gives me the willies) and even survival. That for many of us is pure old Western Cold War hokum. The over-ridding power was and remained the USA – hence the courageous and principled decisions of several scientists to hand over USA nuclear secrets to the USSR when they detected the way things were going on the international stage. The USA, after its original ‘success’ with nuclear bombing of Japan by the late 1950s was steadily girding itself for a much larger onslaught on the ‘Red Menace’.
  
  Thirdly, it was not MAD that drew Kennedy and Kruschev back from the abyss that your supposed deterrence created in the first place; it was the plain-vanilla-political realisation by both men that they had got themselves into a hole that they never intended to get into. Once that was realised, the issue was singularly about how to get out of it (to this day most USA citizens are unaware of the significant concessions made on the Kennedy side to end the crisis). I actually find this plain politics explanation quite encouraging – we really do not have to go mad to survive.
  
  Fourthly, what I was aiming at when I referred to cringe-inducing was not any reality to do with geopolitical forces – quite the reverse. What I found cringe-inducing was your apparent belief in big Governments’ supposed good intentions. Acceptance that the situation is a given is further cringe-inducing; have you just given up any pretence then of affecting or influencing anything?
  
  You also misread me in-that I did not say anything like ‘we empowered’ the military industrial complex (and most certainly not in response to any perceived threat) – this complex got its way by a mix of duplicity, influence-peddling, McCarthyism, vilification, bribery, undermining USA liberal political discourse… and even sheer violence when needs must.
  
  Incidentally John I hope that you are aware that MAD was not as MAD for the USA or USSR as it was for the UK. Many hold that in the exteme event of hostilities breaking out, the USSR had one final additional default card to play - it would decide whether or not to drop nuclear bombs on the off-shore European aircraft carrier known as the UK as a final warniong to the USA that 'we are serious'. Even if the USA and USSR were to survive - the UK assuredly would not.

• 224. Robert - Edinburgh

  Wednesday, June 18, 2008 09:45

  Thomas Porter - when are you going to learn some facts? You're the most consistent poster on this forum, and consistently the most ignorant. I'm guessing you're a school student, so fair enough. But don't spout opinions on matters you know nothing about unless you wish to look like a fool.
  
  A further point to you and others who talk about "Scotland's oil" and compare us with Norway - the oil actually belongs to the oil companies who originally bid for the rights in the 60s and 70s. The same is true in Norway. However - and this is a major point a lot of you seem not to have understood - the Norwegian government holds majority stakes in these companies (it owned 62% of StatoilHydro in 2007) and wholly owns the largest, Petoro. The UK/Scottish governments have no comparable holdings at all. This is why the Norwegian goverment has built up a huge oil fund - it owns the oil companies and shares their profits, it does not tax them like we would have to. Therefore it is meaningless to talk of "our oil" - private companies own it.

• 225. John Murphy - Paisley

  Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:43

  Ted, I tip my hat to you Sir because you put your points across much more succinctly than I did. But I would like to address a few points if I may.
  
  The ‘puny’ little UK analogy must be understood in the context of the time. After the Second World War, Britain still regarded herself as part of ‘the big three’ and pursued big power projects accordingly – whether that was nuclear weapons, the V bombers that delivered them, all the way through to a space programme and ultimately the Concorde project. You are right of course, that Suez, a bankrupted economy and de-colonisation swiftly put the UK in its place but by that time nuclear technology had already been developed and the UK was not about to give up a technology that still allowed it to be a power player, even on a limited or superficial basis. Even today, I think that calling the UK ‘puny’ might be a little harsh. We certainly are not a superpower but perhaps it’s fair to say that we lead the way in terms of global influence from a medium-sized power.
  
  You make the point about the UK’s deterrent being dependent on the US and you are correct up to a point. Our nuclear forces were completely independent until the Royal Navy took over launch responsibilities. Lacking the technology or expertise to design and build ballistic submarines, we were helped greatly by the US through the US/UK agreement. This continues to this day in our ‘shared pool’ of missiles which are based in Ohio. However, launch decisions are UK sovereign. The technology sharing arrangement also allows the RAF’s future fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to change software codes for operational usage independently of the US – something unique to the UK and illustrates that technological co-operation need not mean surrendering sovereignty.
  
  In terms if the mad principle not being applicable in the same vain as the US and the USSR, I think you may have overlooked the fact that the UK could have responded accordingly. Perhaps the Soviets could have used the option of attacking our islands to show the USA that “we mean business”. However such an action would have provoked a British nuclear response that would surely have rendered Soviet actions impotent.
  
  Cringe inducing acceptance of the governments good intentions? I apologise, I did not express myself at all well. I support Trident and I support our government’s stance on this. On the broader issue of changing the international system, I’m afraid I am simply cynical of what can be achieved without a major global upheaval acting as a precursor. We had the chance to change after 1945 with Bretton Woods, the UN and other global ‘management’ systems and they failed to bring peace or prosperity. Without another global event, I fear that any actions undertaken by groups, individuals or even nation states to champion change may be insufficient. I apologise for being negative but that’s just how I feel.
  

• 226. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

  Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:08

  224. Robert - Edinburgh
  
  I do know that the Oil Companies already own the oil that they have successfully bidded for.
  
  However, Scotland can tax the oil, and can also tax the oil that leaves our territory from export duties etc etc
  
  Since Scotland would be exporting approx 90% of the Oil that it does not use then we create alot of money.
  
  Anything else you want to add and look foolish with?

• 227. Kev - Edinburgh

  Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:36

  223.
  
  Ted,
  An excellent and well thought out post.
  
  Perhaps the John Murphy's of the world would care to reply?
  
  Its a crime that the UK has to spend billions of pounds on a nuclear deterrent that serves no purpose, but then with a statement like -
  
  "The Americans were the first to develop 'the bomb', followed swiftly by the Soviets so we had no choice but to follow."
  sort of sums up the mindset of you John.
  
  If one of your friends was to jump off a bridge would you follow suit John?

• 228. Ted Harvey - Glasgow

  Wednesday, June 18, 2008 22:18

  If John Steel will bear with us just a wee bit longer… I would like to respond once more to John Murphy. Incidentally John, no need to apologise for your point of view that you put with evident goodwill (a virtue often lacking in the blog world).
  
  I persist in my point about the puny UK, even in the context of the time (circa late 40s early 50s). The UK was in fact nearing military exhaustion before the end of WW2 in 1945, she was already financially bankrupt. Something that has long fascinated me and I think will one day be my in-retirement research project was what was called in 1944 the ‘strange malaise’ that overcame the British (and Canadian) forces in the weeks and months following D-Day.
  
  This is a controversial and sensitive subject to this day (the USA’s jibes at Monty’s mens’ inability to take Caen as expected etc.). However, it seems most likely that by as early as 1944 the UK was nearing exhaustion and war weariness. Just after WW2 the UK scuttled out of India at the cost of possibly millions of lives, and left a legacy of disgrace in the dying days of the Raj – because she just could not afford the men, material or money with which to manage a dignified and managed exit without the massive communal massacres and generations of hatred and war that followed that took place in the sub continent.
  
  The nuclear ‘dress’ was a gaudy pretence to hide the scabby poverty beneath in pursuit of the UK’s pretended continued world status. It had little to do with any military or global political logic. In this context I have to also press my point about the UK being the junior and subservient victim under MAD. You said John than I ‘may have overlooked the fact that the UK could have responded accordingly’ in event of a USSR nuclear attack. This is almost certainly untrue. True the UK for a short period (less than 2 years at the max?) the theoretical possibility of reaching a few USSR cities with the Vulcan bombers technology. But as Stalin said in WW2 with regard to superior Nazi weaponry “ quantity has a quality all of its own” Even during the UK's small window of opportunity it is almost certain that any attack against the USSR would have failed, possible 100%, in the face a the huge opposing scale of the USSR defence forces.
  
  Even if a proportion of the UK nuclear force got through to bomd, say, a couple of cities... maybe three, there is no way it would ‘have rendered Soviet actions impotent’. Moreover, the USSR was a system that was able and willing to squander untold millions of dead even in the conventional war against the Nazis – without this sacrifice the Allies would of course never have beaten the Nazis.
  
  On the matter of our benefiting from post WW2 nuclear technology, I suggest John, and with the greatest respect, that you read up on the history. At the end of WW2, the USA wholly reneged on its understanding with the UK with regard to sharing such technology after the UK shared its atom research secrets with the USA during WW2. This is a well-attested fact of history and indeed some USA politicians subsequently spoke of their shame on this.
  
  Finally I cannot agree at all with you that the UK ever had a truly independent deterrent; its use was always wholly subject to USA sanction. The later miscalculation of the UK over Suez was that because the Anglo–French invasion of Egypt in concert with Israel was ‘not nuclear’ the USA would quietly assent and let us get away with it. In fact Suez demonstrated that the UK could not at the time even undertake conventional force strikes on an international scale without USA consent (something that even Maggie Thatcher paid heed to in the 1980s run-up to the re-invasion of the Falklands/ Malvinos Islands).
  
  

• 229. Robert - Edinburgh

  Thursday, June 19, 2008 09:04

  226. Thomas Porter
  
  I'm guessing you're not an economics student?
  
  Three taxes are levied on oil & gas production in the UK:
  
  Petroleum Revenue Tax [PRT] - @ 50% of profits after allowances for expenditure from each field
  
  Ring Fence Corporation Tax [RFCT] - @ 30% of the remaining profits from oil extraction
  
  Supplementary Charge [SC] - @ a further 10% of the same profits as those taxed by RFCT. Effectively a 'windfall tax' on oil producers.
  
  The cumulative tax burden, therefore, is about 70%. All these details are available from HMRC.
  
  If you think you could somehow tax these activities any more without oil companies leaving the North Sea, you are very much mistaken, but no more so than the SNP leadership, who have been very deceitful in their presentation of expected returns from oil in an independent Scotland.

• 230. John Steele - not at all sunny! Ayr

  Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:31

  Some great posts here and far more illuminating than some previous comments - including those of my own.
  
  Despite the risk of offending someone, I would like to suggest that perhaps there is a common link between the discourses of Ted and John M regarding what Ted calls "subjection of the UK, and Scotland within it, to the greater global interests."
  
  I wonder then if independence is a purely pointless exercise in asserting a soveriegnty over policy decison making that does not really exist in the first place?
  
  Additionally, I can see what John M is saying that 'carpe diem' moments in international politics probably offer the best opportunities to change how the system 'works'. After all, Gorbachev famously offered to decommission all nuclear warheads after the collapse of the USSR if the Americans followed suit. The rest as they say is history...
  
  Nevertheless, we must never lose hope that we - as a global people - can change things for the better. And we must never stop trying.
  

[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]