Minister for Parliamentary Business Bruce Crawford
Choosing Scotland's Future - A National Conversation
Church Without Walls conference
May 3, 2008
________________________________
Thank you for inviting me to attend this conference today.
I want to start by saying what a brilliant idea the church without walls gathering is.
As I walked through the tented area and saw people from churches all over Scotland celebrating their past and talking positively about the future, I was struck by the similarities with where we are as a nation today - able to look back with real pride but also recognising the need to look forward so that we can meet the challenges of the future with confidence.
Let me explain why I am here today to talk about the national conversation.
One of the first things we did when we came to office was to publish Choosing Scotland's future to begin a national conversation about our future.
It will not come as a surprise to hear me say as a member of the SNP Government that we believe that independence is the best way of ensuing that Scotland is well placed to meet the challenges of the future.
In our view, independence is the natural state for nations like Scotland and in this 21st century world, independence and a new relationship with our friends and neighbours in the rest of the British Isles is essential if we are to build Scottish success.
Around Scotland's shores, in Ireland to the west, Iceland to the north and Norway to the east we have three of the most successful nations in the world - countries that sit at the very top of world wealth and quality of life league tables.
These nations, using their own wit and talents, have become rich countries and rich societies. They make a hugely positive contribution to the world. Independence has been central to their success and I have no doubt that an independent Scotland would more than match them.
I like the fact Norway is free to choose to invest more than the UN recommended amount in international aid,
I respect the role the Irish play in UN and EU peace keeping efforts across the globe.
And I am frankly envious of their ability to choose whether or not to participate in Iraq or Afghanistan, or whether to have nuclear weapons on their shores.
These are just of a few of the reasons why I and we, in the Scottish Government, believe we should move Scotland forward and embrace the positive, internationalist independence that Norway, Ireland and others enjoy.
But we respect the fact that there are other views. Some people favour a limited increase in the powers and responsibilities of the Parliament. Others favour more significant change including giving the Parliament responsibility for raising all the money its spends on public services in Scotland.
We believed that it was important that whatever their view people had an opportunity to take part in discussing Scotland's future.
So we launched the national conversation which covered all the options for change as a genuinely inclusive process to give the people of Scotland the right to shape the future direction of our country. I know that some of you have been holding your own versions of the conversation in local congregations and church groups and I am looking forward to hearing more about your conclusions.
Since August last year the conversation has been mainly conducted on line through the national conversation website - over 350,000 hits so far - and events in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dublin, New York and Brussels. Proving that there is a real appetite for debating Scotland's future at home and overseas.
Perhaps the conversation's most significant achievement so far is the part it has played in shifting public and political opinion over the last year
All of the main political parties now agree that some form of change is needed 10 years after the creation of the Scottish Parliament. That shift is also supported by public opinion with majority support for change of some kind. The debate is no longer about whether change is needed - but about what form that change should take.
I would like to say a word here about the constitutional commission. I am sure Malcolm will talk about the detail, but the Government is relaxed about the commission - of course we think that it is short sighted to rule out consideration of the favoured option of the Scottish Government and largest party in Parliament and an option which has significant public support.
But that aside, if the commission comes up with a proposal for extended devolution then we will happily debate that in a referendum - because it is not the government or a commission that should decide our future - but the people of Scotland.
For that reason the Government is committed to a referendum during the lifetime of this Parliament. The Parliament will have to decide on the form the referendum takes. But what is certain is that it is the people of Scotland who must decide how they want to be governed in the future.
So what is all that got to do with the church?
You may ask what all of that has to do with Scotland's faith community.
We recognise that decisions about Scotland's future are too important to be left to the political parties alone.
As Minister for Parliament I am acutely aware that MSPs are simply representatives of the people and have a responsibility for acting in line with the will of the people - to do that effectively we must hear, understand and then respond to what people think.
For that reason during the second phase of the conversation we will be talking to the main civic institutions of Scotland which include the churches, the universities, the law, the trade unions and the voluntary sector - all part of an important bridge between government and the citizen.
The Kirk is one of the main voices of Scottish society, along with Scotland's other churches.
You will not need reminding of the important role played by the churches in developing and protecting Scottish society over many centuries. As far back as 1561 the Kirk was instrumental in the introduction of universal education - a first for the modern world - but not introduced without its problems.
I was amused to see the parallel with 21st century Scotland when being told that the Kirk had received a lower than expected financial settlement from the Privy Council in 1561 but decided to get on with providing universal education as best they could. John Swinney the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, might be forgiven for thinking that not much has changed given the recent spending review settlement!
But the churches' role is not just historical. The Church of Scotland plays an important role today by supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our society who suffer from mental illness, alcohol and drug addiction and among homeless people.
A glance at the Church of Scotland website proves that the Kirk is not afraid to make its voice heard. And the same could be said of Scotland's other major faiths.
In 1919 the Church and Nation committee as it was known then was formed - quickly establishing itself as a major part of the conscience of the nation - especially during the difficult years of the 1980s when there was no Scottish Parliament and Westminster seemed very far away.
The Church of Scotland was a keen supporter of devolution and along with other faiths, were an influential voice in the constitutional convention.
More recently the churches have not been afraid to tackle the big issues of the day.
Steadfast in your opposition to Trident. Speaking out against the unfair treatment of asylum seekers at Dunvegal.
Standing up for persecuted people in Darfur, Burma and more recently Tibet and Zimbabwe.
And memorably putting pressure on the G8 to make poverty history.
Trident Working Group
I would like to say something more about your opposition to nuclear weapons - a subject which is very close to my heart.
Your opposition to Trident and all forms of nuclear weapons has been consistently held over a quarter of a century. You are among the most well informed contributors to this debate. The Kirk and other faith groups therefore have a critical role to play in the Working Group on Nuclear Weapons that l have set up and which met for the first time on April 9.
Among the issues the Working Group will consider over the next few months are: the potential economic impact of the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland; the potential for Scotland to contribute to international work on disarmament, peace and reconciliation; and the adequacy of the existing legislative framework that regulates the arrangements for nuclear weapons currently based in Scotland.
While responsibility for defence is reserved to the UK Government, the Working Group will focus on issues which sit squarely within the competency of the Scottish Government. Indeed, in my opinion, it is the duty of any responsible Government - and not just one opposed to nuclear weapons - to explore these issues further.
I am looking forward to hearing the views of the Working Group over the months to come and I would urge you to pass on your views to the Kirk's representative, the Reverend Ian Galloway.
If you want to know more about the Working Group further information will be available on the Scottish Government's website.
International Development
I am proud to be a member of a Government that shares your commitment to international development.
Within the constraints of the current Westminster funding arrangements we have confirmed a budget of £6 million per year rising to £9 million within the current spending period. This is over and above the contribution already being made by Scottish taxpayers to the efforts of the UK Department for International Development. I am pleased that 3 million pounds has been identified to continue our support for development work in Malawi. We will announce further details of our international development work soon.
The UK Government's provisional figures for 2007 show the UK's contribution to Overseas Development Assistance at £4.9 billion is 0.36 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI). This is significantly behind Norway at 0.94% or Ireland at 0.54 per cent.
With full fiscal autonomy and control of Scotland's budget there would be scope for Scotland to consider matching Norway or Ireland's performance or indeed to work towards the Millennium Development Goal and commit 1% of GNI to Overseas Development Assistance. A good example of the flexibility that comes from having responsibility for making our own decisions.
Why change is needed
When we came to office almost exactly a year ago we promised to act in the interests of the people using all the current powers available to the Scottish Parliament.
I believe that we have kept faith with that promise.
But as a government we see on a daily basis where the current devolution settlement inhibits our ability to address some of the really acute problems we face.
Let me give you a few examples.
The Scottish Parliament can't introduce firearms legislation to address the dangers posed by airguns. Alcohol and tobacco taxation are reserved to Westminster making it difficult for us to address some of the public health issues we face in Scotland. Responsibility for housing benefit lies at Westminster making it much more difficult to develop policies tailored to meet the specific needs of individuals and communities in Scotland.
Although the Scottish Parliament already has responsibility for housing and a range of measures to combat poverty, there can be real frustration when the interaction between these devolved policies and reserved responsibilities such as tax credits and other benefits don't complement each other as they should.
We want through the National Conversation to explore what changes to the settlement are needed to improve the delivery of support to vulnerable people and to achieve a greater impact on poverty - your contribution to that debate is essential.
The National Conversation will also stimulate debate on the impact of independence on areas such as fiscal, economic and monetary policy, energy policy including renewables and nuclear power and the supply of electricity - all of which are currently the responsibility of the UK Government.
We have already made progress on some of these issues with the establishment of the Broadcasting Commission to look at the future of the broadcasting industry in Scotland; and by achieving the support of the Scottish Parliament for the transfer of responsibility for running future Scottish Parliamentary elections - something I am personally responsible for and determined to ensure that future elections are run in a way that is a source of pride rather than embarrassment.
But our future is not just about new responsibilities it is about defining what kind of country we want to be.
So I also want to hear about your hopes and ambitions for the future - and about your vision for a country that is confident in its self, which has good relationships with our neighbours in the UK and in Europe. A country which looks not only to our own interests but also to the interest of others by fulfilling its responsibilities across the world.
Conclusion
So in conclusion our churches and faith communities have played an important role in the past and must help shape our future.
I am grateful for your participation in the conversation so far. But want to encourage you to make your voice heard as individuals, as congregations and as a national church - so that we can have an informed and constructive debate about the future of our country.
Thank you.