Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Michael Russell: Give Scots the right to decide their future

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 October 2009
THERE will, sooner or later, be a referendum on Scotland's constitutional future, giving the people of this country the chance to choose independence and equality with other nations in the modern world.
That much has become clear as the debate on our country's place in the global community has moved forward since the SNP entered office in 2007.

It is no longer tenable for any democratic party in Scotland to stand in the way of that right to choos
e, and as time goes by, the confused signals from other parties indicate that they, too, realise there cannot be an indefinite delay in allowing the people to have their say.

The latest example of that is the internal debate within the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who have now convened a special session at their autumn conference next week to debate the party's stance on a referendum.

That has come about, seemingly, because of deep disquiet in Lib Dem ranks, especially at the grass-roots level, about the position taken by the party leadership in standing against a vote of the people. It is, indeed, passing strange that a party whose very name proclaims its democratic credentials and which ordinarily favours referenda on a range of issues should have thus far proved so resolutely opposed to a referendum on Scotland's future.

In the week when we mourn the passing of that great Liberal voice Sir Ludovic Kennedy, the members of the party he once graced should be prepared to follow the example he set. While I would not expect all Lib Dem members to share Sir Ludovic's long-standing advocacy of Scottish independence, they would do well to adopt the free-thinking attitude he brought to his political contributions.

It is not for me, or any member of the Scottish Government, to tell Tavish Scott what his policy position should be. But with two-thirds of Scots and a majority of Lib Dem voters wanting a referendum, he might do well to listen to his party's grass-roots and support the government's Referendum Bill when it is introduced to parliament next year. The next stage in the journey towards a referendum is the white paper we will publish on St Andrews Day, in which we will lay out in detail our plans for a referendum.

We have always said it is our preference to ask a straightforward question on independence, but – recognising the range of views that exist – we have also said we are open to another option, on the possibility of further substantial devolution of responsibilities from Westminster to Holyrood. However, any such option would need to be very clearly defined, and thus far others appear reluctant to specify what such an option could entail.

The white paper comes as the Scottish Government continues publishing a series of papers taking forward the National Conversation, outlining how independence would benefit Scotland across the range of policy areas.

Those papers demonstrate the pressing need for independence. In the past few years, the European Union has expanded massively, with former Soviet bloc countries and others joining the club. But Scotland's voice remains silent in the corridors of power in Brussels. That is despite many of the independent countries in the EU being smaller than Scotland, some of them substantially so. Of the ten new members that joined in 2004, six have smaller populations than Scotland, but all of them now have a seat at the top table, fighting for their own interests, while Scotland remains on the outside looking in.

Take just two of those new members, Hungary and Slovakia. They have no coastline and no fishing fleet, but this December, when the annual fishing talks are held in Brussels, they will have a place at that top table when the quotas that affect the livelihoods of many of Scotland's coastal communities are being thrashed out, while Scotland – a leading fishing nation with two-thirds of the UK's interests – has no right to any direct input into these talks.

That is utterly unacceptable and it should not be allowed to continue. But the only way we can make sure Scotland's voice is heard loud and clear on this, as with so many other issues, is for us to choose independence.

That is why we will give the people of Scotland that choice in the referendum we offer, and which the Scottish Parliament will be able to debate when the Referendum Bill is introduced.

It was only last year Wendy Alexander, as Labour's Holyrood leader, cried "Bring it on", followed up with the pledge by the Labour group convener Duncan McNeil that the party would "not vote down any referendum bill that comes into the parliament". It would appear those pledges have turned to dust, but there can be no reasonable argument against letting the people have their say. It is the proper, sensible and democratic way to decide issues of such magnitude, and successive opinion polls show that a majority of Scots want to have their say.

Some of the SNP's opponents say now is not the right time for a referendum. But the current economic climate demonstrates our case more clearly than ever.

The Scottish Government operates within a financial straitjacket, while all around us other countries facing the same challenges have the ability to adapt to the prevailing economic conditions because, as independent nations, they have the full range of fiscal powers needed to do so. It is only with the full financial powers that come with independence that Scotland can hope to compete on a level playing field with our friends in neighbouring countries.

And while the London parties may claim the time is not right for a referendum, they are undermined by their own pledges – Labour's to hold a vote on electoral reform and the Tories' on the Lisbon Treaty.

The London parties would do well to heed the words of Irish home rule campaigner Charles Stewart Parnell, whose observation that no-one "has the right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation" prefaced the Scottish Government's first white paper on the constitution in August 2007.

It is clear the people of Scotland want to have a choice on their future, and we intend to give them the chance to seize the benefits that only independence can bring.

• Michael Russell, MSP, is minister for culture, external affairs and the constitution.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 October 2009 7:53 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: SOS News columnists
 
1

Thomas79,

Ayrshire 24/10/2009 21:34:20
Quite right. Its time the other parties accept the democratic right of the people to determine their own future.

Hopefully the unionist parties will also participate in a full and frank debate about independance without resorting to scare tactics and talking Scotland down.

Its time Scotland takes full responsibility of its own affairs.
2

The Answer,

Glasgow 25/10/2009 01:22:32
scotch education is devolved, and look what a mistake that's turned out to be, the scotch 8.4% of the UK population, yet produce only 6.7% of new university undergraduates!!!!

Since the snp came to "power" the scotch rate has fallen from 8.2%


422,126 (100%) UK Domiciles new fulltime undergraduates 2009

359,290 (85.11%) England domiciled
20,230 (4.79%) Wales domiciled
13,627 (3.23%) N Ireland domiciled

a tiny

28,979 (6.7%) scotland domiciled

UCAS 21-10-2009
tinyurl.com/ygo8wy6
3

Group Captain Lionel Mandrake,

25/10/2009 01:49:26
Yawn.

We'll have a referendum if, and only if, it asks a non-rigged question, Mr. Weasel.
4

Group Captain Lionel Mandrake,

25/10/2009 01:52:07

BTW, Codename "Weasel", thanks for identifying and quantifying some of the costs of "independence".

£329m a year for the EU alone - nice one.

http://nat-mythbusting.blogspot.com/2009/09/nat-paper-on-foreign-affairs-weasel.html
5

UK cant pay its way ,

25/10/2009 01:57:42
mandrake give us ur non rigged question
and what is russell's rigged question

educate me please
6

Stuart Winton,

Dundee 25/10/2009 04:25:03
Yes, roll on independence. Instead of having the likes of Hungary and Slovakia - which "have no coastline and no fishing fleet" - deciding fisheries policy, we'll have the likes of Hungary and Slovakia deciding our fisheries policy.

I can't see being a smaller fish in the same very large pond helping us much, even assuming the smaller fish can represent its own interest on..er..fisheries(!)
7

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 25/10/2009 05:43:33
It took 3 years to deliver, due to the full order books of Europe's shipbuilders, but 71.6M is a big fish!

She's Whalsay's tangerine dream in steel and fishing very successfully in the arc of prosperity.

Scots ship design teams are hiring! The pity is we can't get capital to commission desired ships that scottish boatyards are well able to build. Our bankers are forever drinking and dinnering touring and hooring but obviously can't tell North fae South? Did they ever go to any school?

Girners go away, please.
8

Linda,

Edinburgh 25/10/2009 07:22:38
Soon Iceland, Ireland and Norway will have surpluses or healthier deficits than the UK.
Every single one of these countries will have a balance of trade surplus while the UK will continue with $50 billion-plus (£30.6 billion) deficits.
So much for the attacks on these countries by the London parties. Of course they were affected by the recession and the banking crisis (which was largely caused by the lax financial regulations by the US and UK governments) but these small independent nations have shown the flexibility to turn things around. That is why small is beautiful.
And so can Scotland – if its government has the right tools so that we can be part of the Arc of Recovery, rather than part of the long term Bankrupt Britain.
The “scaremongering” of the Unionist parties was exposed by the latest statistics for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
While the UK will have a £34 billion deficit next year, equivalent to 2.4 per cent of GDP, Ireland will have a surplus of £1.3 billion, Finland £600 million, and Norway £51.5 billion.
Even “much-maligned” Iceland will have a deficit of 1.1 per cent of GDP, less than half the UK figure.
9

Mikey,

25/10/2009 07:28:09
#5, how can he educate you when he's an ignorant savage himself?

The fact is, if Alex Salmond came out and said, "when Scotland votes 'yes' to independence, we'll have a referendum on EU membership," independence would "be along in a tick!"

Over to you, Alex!
10

Colin Wilson,

Aberdeen 25/10/2009 07:33:12
The only decision that can rightly be put to Scotland's people alone, is the decision over full constitutional renormalisaion, or "independence" as the SNP insists on calling it.

Any proposed solution involving the other UK nations, such as e.g. a federal UK, must be decided by the peoples of ALL those nations and not only Scotland.
11

Stuart Winton,

Dundee 25/10/2009 08:04:22
Linda @ 8

I think you've been reading Stewart Hosie's selective statistic crib sheet.

The main concern just now after economic growth (or lack of it) is public borrowing, which you seem to ignore in favour of the balance of trade.

But compare Ireland's (negative) growth figures and their public borrowing and it's not a pretty picture at all - wait until December's budget and you may rue the day the SNP complained about Westminster's £500 million of cuts.

As for 'lax financial regulation' by the UK and US Governments, please remember that Alex Salmond was criticising the UK as being too heavy handed and calling for 'light touch regulation'.

An independent Scotland would have faired no better than any other country, and indeed could have ended up a whole lot worse.
12

MartinR,

Oban 25/10/2009 08:26:05
Part of Mr Russell's article got left out, the full text is below:
"Some of the SNP's opponents say now is not the right time for a referendum. But the current economic climate demonstrates our case more clearly than ever: there's no way an independent Scotland would have been able to afford the bailout of RBS and HBOS, but Alex and I are hoping you'll have forgotten about that by the time our referendum comes , or the next election."
13

DialMforMurdoX,

25/10/2009 10:06:22
12 Martin R: It continued; "The fact that HBOS and RBS are Scottish banks in name and have their headquarters in Scotland, does not alter the fact that by far the vast majority of their employees and business are based in the city of London, where the bankers cavalier attitude to banking rules and regulations were soundly ignored, to such an extent that the bankers were only to keen to wine and dine Labour government ministers and accept ennoblements at the drop of a hat. Naturally, had Scotland been independent and had been forced to bail out RBS and HBOS, we might have asked the people of Yorkshire to bail out the Halifax part of HBOS where a considerable number of their employees live and work, alternatively we might have let the H in HBOS sink into penury, we might have done the same as the Labour Government and borrowed from the IMF, we might also have considered that being majority shareholders in these banks would have afforded us the ability to reduce or limit the PFI PPP payments our local authorities continue to make in the face of budget cutbacks. After all why should the public purse pay the banking system twice?

In an Independent Scotland, we might consider the possibility of government owning banks so that they are encouraged to support local enterprise and manufacturers as has been done to great acclaim in the German Landsbank system."
14

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 25/10/2009 10:15:06
With the UK deficit growing by 16 Billion Pounds each month, the Scottish people need a referendum as soon as possible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/18/public-sector-borrowing-record

It is time to leave the UK, we should not allow our petroleum resources to be squandered once again by a Westminster Government totally incapable of managing its financial affairs.

Either that or we stick around to have the Tories balance the budget on the backs of the weakest in our society while spending our Oil revenue to fund Circuses like the Olympics for South East England.

Best that we leave and finally force the rump UK to confront its own mediocrity. It will be much better off when it realizes the fact that it is no longer a world power but just a small deeply indebted country on the edge of Europe.
15

mr broon,

Edinburgh 25/10/2009 10:22:50
It is inconceivable that the Scots would suddenly vote en masse for Independence, and the Nationalists are more than well aware of this fact.

The Nationalist movement was only founded 75 years ago.

However, during this time, especially in the post-War period, the UK has come and gone as a significant great power with the loss of Empire, and economic, military and political decline.

Otherwise, there would be no viable Nationalist parties in Scotland or Wales.

In all probability, the only way to prevent the advance of Celtic Nationalism is to repeal the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act, which can only have one inevitable outcome!
16

DialMforMurdoX,

25/10/2009 11:21:54
15 Mr Broon

"The Nationalist movement was only founded 75 years ago."

You conveniently forget the Scottish Home Rule Association which was founded in 1886 and the fact that between 1889 and 1914 Scottish home rule was debated 15 times in Parliament, including the introduction of four bills. In 1913 a Home Rule Bill passed its second reading, unfortunately WW1 intervened.
17

Thomas79,

Ayrshire 25/10/2009 12:22:41
It is really depressing that too many Scots have the attitude of 'we can't do it'

We have been told for so long that we are 'dependent' on the UK (England) that many people start to believe it and lose faith in Scotland's abilities.

It is this idea of dependency that is holding Scotland back. We depend on England, we hand our responsibilities and problems over to London.

Its time to stand on our own two feet, take responsibility and grow up.

18

billalba,

fife 25/10/2009 13:04:18
Mr broon what a poor wee man you are...I would say the only possible thing to help Celtic nationalism is to repeal the treaty of union.
19

JC1,

Glasgow 25/10/2009 20:10:03
Ironic that the nat loon mentions slovakia, as a spearate Scotland would have about as much influence on the world stage as slovakia has.
benefits of 'independence' Is that after Scotland has had to join the euro and get it's economic policy dictated to by Brussels?
Most people sis not vote for the only separatist party in the last Hoyrood elections, even with the 'alex salmond for first minister' in the top corner. DId you get the message then ?
Separation of the UK is a total waste of time and would send Scotland done to hell on a handcart, especially if the nats are in charge as they can barely carry out their duties at present
20

Anna nexr door,

26/10/2009 05:02:55
3, you mean rigged like it was in 79?
21

Anna nexr door,

26/10/2009 05:06:23
19, total mince, but I guess sitting in Glasgow on your life time sickness benefits you must be scared to death that one day you'll will have to do some work for a change. Labour is on their way out, and freeloaders like you will have to get off your @rse.
22

Anna nexr door,

26/10/2009 05:08:52
Here is one for the Unionists.

If Scotland is the economic basket case that New Labour claim it is then why has New Labour allowed it to remain so?
Why are Countries which are very similar to Scotland and facing the same world economic problems as Scotland i.e. Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, and Eire, not economic basket cases as well?
What is so different between the economy of Scotland and the successful economies of Norway, New Zealand, Denmark and Eire?
What economic advantages have Norway, New Zealand, Denmark and Eire got over Scotland?
Why has New Labour failed to redress their economic failure in Scotland?
Why is it that Scotland has the highest business rates in the UK?
What changes would New Labour make if elected, during the life of the next Scottish Parliament, to reverse the overall economic decline of Scotland's private sector industries?
What changes would New Labour make if elected, during the life of the next Scottish Parliament, to reverse the overall economic decline of Scotland?
Why are New Labour alienating English Voters by telling them that Scotland is an economic basket case dependent on England's largesse?
(Or are Media Interviewers too cowed and frightened to ask these questions?)

23

Anna nexr door,

26/10/2009 05:11:47
REASONS *NOT* TO VOTE LABOUR,
But some of the reasons I vote SNP.

1. On economics, despite a veneer of business respectability (tax bribes) the Labour Party is even more of a tax-and-spend party than SNP, as clearly shown by its colossal £4.54 billion/year manifesto pledges.
2. The very fact Labour wont entertain a referendum on the future of Scotland, either more power for Hollyrood or Independence shows just how divorced the Labour Party is from the people it purports to represent.
3. You can’t trust the Labour Party. Their oil fund calculations are wrong. They’re wrong on oil production, price, even Scotland’s share. They’ve been flip-flopping for votes. Then there is Iraq, cash for honours etc etc. Need I say more!
4. The Labour Parties council tax penalise working people, the aged and families. Even the “idle rich” pay less. If council tax is the question, income tax is the answer, much fairer all round.
5. Socialism doesn’t work.
6. The Labour Parties crime proposals are a joke. They talk tough (it’s popular) but in reality have a hand-wringing attitude.
7. The Labour Party has a disgraceful policy that Iraqi civilians and other coalition troops to needless additional risk just by being there!
8. Perhaps most worryingly, is the Labour Party authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies. It attempts to store the DNA of every crime suspect. It seeks to smear its opponents at every opportunity using words like “liar”, “discredited” and “cowardly”. The separatist parties are thought of as “anti-British”, “enemies of England” and “traitors”.
9. Ruined private pension schemes by introducing 40% tax on the dividends earned by Pension Funds
10. Came into power promising a Whiter Than White approach to sleaze. You judge whether they have managed to maintain that high standard !
11. Trident replacement to be located in Scotland at an estimated cost of 100 billion.
12. National ID cards scheme being railroaded through parliament at a massive cost of more
24

Anna nexr door,

26/10/2009 05:12:17
2:

13. Flawed anti-terrorism policy makes UK more of a target than ever.
14. Billions spent on the NHS but disappears into a bottomless pit of admin and bureaucracy with no tangible improvement in patient services to speak of. Programme of closing local hospitals continues unabated.
15. Law and order policies in total disarray with record numbers in prison while young neds terrorise towns and villages up and down the country. Local policing now a thing of the past.
16. Stealth Tax policies result in overall tax burden rising for most tax payers.
17. Educational fiascos with three separate inquiries into the problems at SQA.
18. Holyrood building fiasco. What was the final cost? 500, 600 million?
So many scandals So little time.
25

Anna nexr door,

26/10/2009 05:14:56
4, who says Scotland will be in the EU?

On another note:

"BP expects to find new oil troves in the North Sea"
see - tinyurl.com/4tng3p

Interesting the vast majority of the reports are
from English media sources and almost nothing from
the 'Scottish' Papers.

So basically we have potentially the same amount
of oil or even twice what has been stolen from
Scotland over the last 30 years. The opportunity
has not gone and we should stop this theft
at earliest possible opportunity.


26

Anna nexr door,

26/10/2009 05:16:54
Things can only get better:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7435016.stm
27

Anna nexr door,

26/10/2009 05:23:18
19,"especially if the nats are in charge as they can barely carry out their duties at present"

How can they when the Unionist paries undermine everything the SNP do.

For an example see below:

Joan McAlpine: Labour ignores tax reform at its peril

Labour’s continued criticism of the SNP’s alternative taxation plans smacks of nothing more than spite.

The widespread unhappiness at the burden of the council tax was driven home to me last year by a couple who planned to leave the country because of it. One worked in a factory, the other in catering, so neither were high-earners. Yet they calculated they would be better off selling up here, buying a property in Spain and commuting back and forward with budget airlines to avoid council tax.

The credit crunch, falling property prices and the gloomy prognosis for cheap flights may curb their enthusiasm, but their disillusionment serves to illustrate the depth of feeling against the burden of local taxation by a wide variety of people, not just pensioners. This is hardly surprising since Band D council tax rose by 60% from 1997 to 2007.

Most people didn’t opt to leave the country as a result of council tax — many instead registered their protest by voting in a new government last year. The nationalists’ tiny majority of one means that Labour continues to question their legitimacy — Lord Foulkes was at it again last week, accusing the SNP of imposing policies on Scotland without a strong mandate. But the Liberal Democrats and the Greens also want this tax replaced. This means a majority of Scots voted for parties favouring reform (65 seats out of 129 in Holyrood). Those who block change are therefore ignoring the people’s democratic will, not the other way around.

The Scottish government says four out of five Scots will be better off under its local income-tax proposals — that means most couples with a joint income of up to £64,000. The new tax would be cheaper to collect because it would be adminis
28

Anna nexr door,

26/10/2009 05:25:13
The new tax would be cheaper to collect because it would be administered through the Inland Revenue as opposed to 32 separate local authorities with their own finance departments. Collection rates for the council tax in Glasgow are currently a poor 86%. A local income tax would be more difficult to evade.

The Liberal Democrats object because the proposed tax is set and collected by central government. They want local councils to control their own income-based tax.

Labour’s objections are more obtuse, some would say cynical. Oppositions must hold governments to account, so you would expect Labour to scrutinise the SNP’s plans. But Labour refuse to offer a progressive alternative to an existing system that causes widespread hardship. Worse, they gleefully support Westminster’s refusal to hand over Scotland’s £433m share of council-tax benefit, meaning a shortfall in revenue under the new system.

So Scottish taxpayers would continue to fund council-tax benefit in England and Wales without receiving any themselves. Perhaps one of the Scottish Labour leadership candidates would like to explain why this is a vote winner? More than any other issue, Labour’s stance on the council tax reveals a moral vacuity, a black hole that is sucking away its core vote.

Labour is quick to quote hostile responses to finance minister John Swinney’s consultation on local income tax, which closed last month. These include the criticisms of organisations with priorities very different from, say, the voters of Glasgow East. PricewaterhouseCoope
rs (PWC), the consultancy that has earned bumper fees from the unpopular private finance initiative, was one. The PWC objection was political — Scotland would have an income tax level at odds with the rest of the UK and this would be economically damaging. This is debatable since not having any council tax is something of a plus point and would put money in people’s pockets.

The Institute of Directors and the Scottish Chambers of C
29

Anna nexr door,

26/10/2009 05:26:00
The Institute of Directors and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce also oppose the plans. Employers’ organisations are understandably concerned about bureaucratic burdens on business. Sometimes, however, this is required for the greater good; employers get used to it. If business vetoed every change to the tax system, chancellors might as well cancel Budget Day.

Labour’s main objection, and the biggest difficulty facing the SNP, is the shortfall some experts say lies at the heart of the proposal. This is somewhat disingenuous on Labour’s part since that shortfall, £433m, is caused by the the party’s Westminster politicians withholding benefit. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) calculates that the SNP will need another £308m, in addition to the missing benefit, to maintain a flat rate of 3%. This is worthy of examination, but surely only in the spirit of finding a solution for those “hard-working families” Labour says it supports. It prefers to defend a regressive council tax that hits the poor hardest just to spite the SNP.

The CIPFA might oppose the SNP plans because of the alleged shortfall and the fact that they undermine local control of revenue — this organisation represents senior council officers. Despite this vested interest, it proposes its own “improved” version of a local income tax, since that is what people voted for last year. This positive contribution, needless to say, was ignored by opposition politicians.

Labour also overlooked the submission from the all-party Scottish Action Against Council Tax Campaign. Although the group supports the proposed reform, it makes suggestions on how to make the SNP proposals more equitable — for example, by taxing the unearned income of the super-rich and raising personal allowances for the rest. Labour, though, prefers to sink any reform. Its new leader will no doubt crow about broken promises while votes continue to fly elsewhere.
30

peter1958,

Glasgow 26/10/2009 13:38:16
Well done Anna next door for espousing the nat cause!
However, not all Glaswegians spend their entire careers claiming DLA (the new name) and some us have never claimed it ever.

So Anna, please spell out for us the constitutional future of Scotland under independence. As far as I can tell that will be the low tax economy designed to attract foreign investment a la the Ireland and Dell type of arrangement but I would be fascinated to learn your own views.
31

peter1958,

Glasgow 26/10/2009 13:40:01
By the way Anna, do most people emigrate because of the high burden of Cooncil Tax?
32

Soloman,

Stirling 01/11/2009 12:45:11

2 The Answer

Since the snp came to "power" the scotch rate has fallen from 8.2%


Has no one told you, that The Scottish Government are trying to reduce alcohol mis-use.

X Vote SNP X

Independence from Westminster

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.