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]

  • 81. ruth - west lothian

    Thursday, April 10, 2008 21:45

    i agree with you Alexander, i really do believe the SNP is sticking up for the rights and interests of the people of Scotland and fighting Scotland's corner. What a refreshing change!Think what they could achieve with a majority! Think what WE could achieve as an independent nation on the global stage!

  • 82. Paul - Glasgow

    Friday, April 11, 2008 10:07

    78. Thomas - Aberdeen

    You make some very good comments however I do disagree with a few issues.

    In the context of global warming, the consideration of nuclear power should not be ruled out completely. This is because nuclear energy does not produce any carbon dioxide. Indeed, nuclear power emits the least amount of carbon dioxide compared to other alternatives such as fossil fuels and even some 'renewable' sources such as biomass and PV solar panels.

    You are completely right that Scotland is, and will continue, to make great contributions to Green energy and should take this to the rest of Europe. Again, I must point out that in terms negotiating an EU energy policy, the UK stands a better chance of succeeding on this than an independent Scotland. The point that we all miss is that this is an opportunity - not a curse. If Scotland can lead the rest of Britain in renewables, we can influence and lead UK policy and use it to influence everyone else. Of course, whether this is successful or not can be debated but it shows how a strong devolved Scotland can use the Union to its own advantage - rather than always seeing it as a constraint.

    You are also correct in your assertion that Scotland has a truely world class infantry. However, their capabilites would be rapidly eroded in an indepent Scotland. I'm afraid to say that training would change - it would have to. The 3 schools for British Infantry training (Infantry Training Centre, Infantry Battle School & Support Weapons School) are all located in England and access to these centres would not be guaranteed. Why should England grant access to a foreign power, especially when they do not even hold membership of NATO?

    Secondly, a successful infantry depends on an extensive command and control infrastructure for intelligence and logistics. This ranges from strategic lift capabilities to defence intelligence. Given that a Scottish Government would be unlikely to shell out money for fleets of Chinook helicopters or satellite comms, our ability to deploy - let alone operate - would be eroded. You could of course argue that we would gain some of these assets when capabilities are divided post-independence. I would point out however that assets would eventually need replacing and updating so the earlier point still stands.

    Perhaps your right - maybe my earlier post was too negative. I just feel that we already enjoy many benefits of being an independent country, but we're lucky enough to still be part of a wider political and social entity which allows us more scope to make our voices heard globally. I feel that instead of seeing this as a bad thing, we should view it as a positive.

  • 83. Neil Anderson - Glasgow

    Friday, April 11, 2008 16:47

    In response to Paul's Post No.76 I fully agree that independence will not bring prosperity and wealth to Scotland. Yes Im proud to be Scottish but I don't think independence is the best solution for Scotland.

    In response to No. 78 I do see the bigger picture but like most people living in Scotland's largest city Glasgow I do not support independence.

    In my opinion independence would be good for Edinburgh (being the capital city) and other parts of Scotland but not for the city of Glasgow. Instead of arguing for independence we should focus on more serious issues such as crime, poverty and poor health which still persists in Glasgow where the city has the lowest life expectancy in the whole of western europe !!! Independence isn't exactly going to solve this problem but will make Scotland more unequal in terms of distribution of wealth and power.

  • 84. Andy - Scotland

    Friday, April 11, 2008 22:13

    Could someone please tell me, is there one fully independent country in the world today which is actively seeking to surrender its independence?

    No, I thought not!

    Would any of you as individuals give up your personal freedoms to be dictated to by your neighbour?
    Would you give him all your salary, so that he could give you back some pocket money, only to tell you, as he does so that he is subsidising YOU?
    Would you let him conduct your job interviews?
    Would you let him represent you in every aspect of your life?

    No, I thought not!

    So why are you allowing it be done to your country?




  • 85. Bernard Elliott - Glasgow Scotland

    Saturday, April 12, 2008 15:38

    Please keep up the giud wark.
    The numbers of people who are now looking at "Independence for Scotland"
    is continually growing.

    Scots Wha Hae
    12.4.2008.

  • 86. Frank W - Glasgow

    Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:53

    I have read all the posts and it is remarkable that as yet, I have yet to see one reasonable argument for keeping the status quo. Most anti- posts here either personalise their arguments, attacking Alex Salmond or some other SNP member, or trot out the usual fear-filled propaganda I have listened to my whole life about Scotland not being big enough, strong enough, smart enough, wealthy enough...the list could go on. Great things happen because someone has the audacity to chase a dream or a vision. Sitting wringing your hands worrying about the future does little to serve anyone, unless of course you have a penchant for pessimism, depressed thinking, or sheer misery. Sure, Scotland has poverty, high rates of violence, alcoholism, low wage economy, these are all facts. You have to ask yourself why we have them and who is going to tackle them. Don't wait on the UK government to help because the simply won't. We CAN change it. Scotland needs to do it for ourselves. Incidentally, one of the attacks in a post suggested that all SNP supporters are somehow uneducated morons. How sad and desperate is that?
    Roll on independence and perhaps then, we may be able to eradicate old-style pathetic cat-calling dressed up as political debate. Scots are bigger than that and deserve better, educated or not. As it says in the Desiderata, even the dull and ignorant have their story.

  • 87. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

    Monday, April 14, 2008 17:17

    82. Paul - Glasgow

    And you are happy being in Britain when there are no real plans to solve global warming?

    First Minister Salmond clearly has pointed out his aims of achieving ways to use Scotlands tidal and coastal powers.

    Can you tell me what Britain has done?

    £120 billion of oil revenue is sitting in the British Treasury. It has been spent on the Iraq war and Trident submarines but where is the REAL investment?

    Is it not wise to use oil money to provide alternatives?

    Now you bring in the Europe matter.

    Scotland would get more representatives within the EU then we currently do.

    This would give us an advantage on negociating many things not just Energy matters.

    Is that not good for us? And has the UK made that much effort to find alternatives? No they have not. All they want is nuclear and nuclear is not safe and expesnive and wont last forever.

    And I have tried to find information about NATO but as far as I know we would remain apart of it. I cant find the evidence to prove it.

    But with what you just said I could say because Trident is based in Scotland then the missles are ours.

    Or I could say because all 99% of explosives are based in Scotland then they are ours.

    Co-operation is the key. Just because we are not together does not mean that we are not friends.

    And are you actually suggesting Scotland is incapable of building Infantry Training schools?

    Plus if you think infantry is trained at those schools then why is their a training barracks down the road where I have attended and been told you would do your training at a base in Scotland?

    Now you are suggesting Scotland is cheap and incapable of providing the army with the resources?

    Can I ask why the soldiers in Iraq are dying because of broken equipment or from not having equipment when they are there?

    Do you think Scotland would spread her interest into another country like Iraq?

    Doubt it and I do belive that again Scotland can afford to keep her military.

    Because of the small population the army would be much cheaper to maintain and control.

    But then again you have said your views and not gave much evidence to back your claims.

    But to me you sound more worried about the numbers not adding up rather then if Scotland would be a success or not.

    You have to ask yourself why the Scottish Government would do these things for Scotland if it would destroy them in their next term.

    Would the Union Parties not already say hey you can not do that because you dont have the cash.

    It would be all over the papers etc but you dont see anything because it IS managable.





  • 88. Ian Innes - Elgin

    Tuesday, April 15, 2008 20:53

    The abolition of the 10p tax band is but yet another reason for Scotland to take full responsibility for its own spending and revenue raising.

    With average earnings in Scotland much lower than in England, the abolition of the 10p tax band will mean a disproportionately higher number of people in Scotland will find themselves worse off.

    The one size fits all fiscal policy formulated in Westminster, to the clear benefit of England but at the expense of Wales and Scotland, has had a disastrous impact on Scotland's economic development.

    We, on this side of the border, have had to live with:

    Lower longterm economic growth.

    De-population. See #109, Scotland in the world.

    Under investment in the country's infrastructure.-It has been declared that the transport network in Scotland is not fit for purpose.

    It all adds up to the need to call 'Time' on this unequal Union.

    for further reading start at #151, Scotland in the world.

  • 89. Rob. - Scottish Borders

    Tuesday, April 15, 2008 22:51

    I have read a number of articles by some of the countries top economists and discovered that one particular thought was a common denominator,which was, that no country can continue to survive on a block grant from another country, and that fiscal autonomy is essential for any country's economic survival and allows that nation to prioritise according to its needs.

    If it was within my power to decide the wording of an independence referendum it would be as follows;
    "DO YOU WISH YOUR NATION TO CONTINUE BEING GOVERNED BY A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
    YES or NO?

  • 90. Anthony - Renfrewshire

    Tuesday, April 15, 2008 23:29

    I am persuaded that one would have a more stimulating and informed conversation at a bridge club for geriatrics. The underlying conclusion that can be drawn from 87 contributions over a three week period is that there are a number of people in Scotland whose self-esteem would be gratified by full independence. I did contribute on the 30 March and I am one of those who do not feel in need of having their ego polished.

    There seems to be a prevalent view amongst those in need of having Scotland’s status raised to a fully independent and sovereign nation that it would recreate a burgeoning industrial power house respected and revered around the world. Where do they think the workforce and skills have gone? Scotland has record levels of employment. Since 2000 the numbers employed have risen by about 10%. But those employed in the public sector have stuck at a stubborn 23%.

    Is the idea that Scotland will redirect large numbers of those currently in employment? Or will they motivate those who are “long term” unemployed to become employed? Or will there be more immigration? Before anybody cares to fire from the hip in response, take time and consider just what you are suggesting?

    We hear today from John Swinney that council tax is “hated”. Is it hated any more than any other tax? Would local income tax be universally loved? Does he tell us that council tax is the only avenue the local electorate has to decide on what is spent on local services? It is actually referred to in the official guidance as an equalisation between grants and spending. LIT and freezing council tax until 2011 will take that right away from the electorate.

    Has John Swinney explained that some councils are suffering reductions in grants because of falling populations. At the same time we hear that the thinking is that Edinburgh is going to be given more help to recreate it as Scotland’s capital. Has anybody explained that this will create in Scotland a similar situation that exists between London and the rest of the UK? Local authorities like the one I live in will get poorer whilst Edinburgh gets richer. We are suffering cuts in education, because it is the biggest budget.

    Dear Alex is good at promoting wave energy – but he doesn’t explain how it is to be connected to the grid. Why should England pay for a high speed rail link between an Independent Scotland and Europe – another one of Alex’s ideas? Why should Scotland be given capital ships to build if they refuse to give a home to the nuclear weapons they will carry?

    The thought that Scotland would have great influence in Europe, and on the world stage, is just plain daft. We are a small nation with a big heart and much admired for that. But influence has a price – Iraq is the price that UK is paying. Like many of these things I am not certain it is worth paying. I doubt whether we gain much benefit in the final analysis when we are up against the influence of China, Russia and USA.

    There is a debate that the UK is not listened to when we try to lead by example on mitigating the effects of environmental change – referred to by many as global warming or climate change. It’s just not a true reflection of the facts to suggest that Scotland is somehow being held back by the UK in this field. Waste management is a devolved issue as is planning regulation. It is also true that waste recycling in Scotland lags the rest of the UK. Calling for an extension of rights over the seas to protect them from plastic waste may be a cynical attempt to extend territorial sovereignty over the seas. Why isn’t the irresponsible depositing of plastics regarded as an act of polluting and subject to severe penalties?

    I very much like both Alex Salmond and John Swinney. I have met them both. But I am unable to see what they have achieved in a year other than wind up those who have this need to be recognised. There is a great contradiction being created which frankly I find amusing. I hear people who say "I always support the team playing against England" now saying "if there is independence I will leave". And that’s the most immediate worry. Will Scotland lose the young innovators who are our future whilst this great debate trundles on? I very much fear we will, because whatever we think in Scotland I think there is anticipation that the next Westminster government will engineer a break up.

    I don’t blame Mr. Salmond and Mr. Swinney for that – it started with devolution. I just hope it doesn’t end in tears


[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