Official Report 256KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01448, in the name of Stephen Gethins, on Scotland’s prosperity and future in Europe. Members wishing to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
15:30
It is over 10 years since the European Union referendum, and we marked that anniversary just a few weeks ago. It was quite telling that nobody was celebrating. I marked that anniversary as a member of this Parliament, having been a member of the Westminster Parliament at the time of the EU referendum.
I am aware that this place has its detractors, but can I just reflect from a distance on what an oasis of common sense the Scottish Parliament was during those chaotic years? It was a Parliament that, on a cross-party basis, had recognised the damage that leaving the EU would do, recognised the impact that it would have on EU citizens living here, and, despite every single area in Scotland voting to remain, sought compromise with a United Kingdom Parliament and Government that had stopped listening.
I remember in the days and weeks following the referendum that it was this Parliament that—to paraphrase—kept its head while all about lost theirs. I pay tribute to former First Minister Sturgeon for her leadership during that period, but I will also say that the calibre and quality of debate was so much higher in this Parliament than it was at Westminster. I pay tribute to others such as Kezia Dugdale, as well as Willie Rennie, to be fair, along with Patrick Harvie and, of course, the current First Minister.
While I am pursuing the theme of credit where it is due, let me again, a decade on, acknowledge that the UK Prime Minister has now, at long last, recognised the damage that leaving the EU has done—damage that is costing the UK £250 million a day in lost tax revenues; has made the UK more isolated and less safe at a time when Europe is pulling together in the face of Russian aggression; has upped red tape for businesses, especially small businesses; has created a small boats crisis in the Channel due to the UK’s unnecessary withdrawal from the Dublin system, and, critically, has removed rights from citizens—not least, our young people, who now have fewer rights than my generation and those before me had.
Therefore, I am grateful to the Prime Minister, who has rejected the omerta of Brexit and has set out the options that we should consider. The options that the Prime Minister has given us are: the costly status quo; join a customs union; join the single market; or simply—and this would be my preference—rejoin and be a member like most of our neighbours. That being said, I am keen to hear members’ views on the options that have been set out—not by me, but by the Prime Minister.
Will the member give way?
In terms of this Parliament, I am mindful that, in the near term, there is the question of the UK-EU summit, which will have a profound impact on devolved competences, just as the whole Brexit saga has done. Indeed, the great irony of Westminster seeking to “take back control” was that it was mainly at the expense of Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh. Brexit has been a disaster. Those with most to hide are those who seek to avoid this debate and it is telling that those who own the Brexit process have so little to say in its defence.
I am also keen to hear members’ views on that summit. Even if it were not for the renewed debate, the summit would still be of significant consequence to this Parliament. The areas currently under discussion, including agrifood trade, youth mobility, emissions trading and energy co-operation, are all areas where closer co-operation can deliver real benefits for Scotland and impact heavily on devolved areas of competence.
Will the member give way?
I will give way to Mr Fraser on that point.
I am grateful to Mr Gethins for giving way. I was trying to intervene on his previous point about what membership of the EU would mean.
Can he clarify the Scottish Government’s current position on seeking membership of the EU? Is that full-fat EU membership, with membership of the Schengen agreement and the single currency? Or is that some sort of à la carte bespoke membership, which has yet to be identified?
Mr Fraser, like his colleagues at Westminster, has not been reading his European treaties, which does not surprise me terribly.
I am not sure whether I am allowed to do this, but I encourage him to read my book—[Interruption.]—for which I interviewed a variety of decision makers in relation to that question. As a result, I was able to include the fact that there are a variety of ways in which you can join the European Union. Ireland is not a member of Schengen. With regard to the Nordic members, Finland is a member of the EU and the euro; Sweden is a member of—
Will the member give way?
No, thank you—I think that I would listen on this point about treaties, Mr Fraser. Our position is that we should have a membership of the European Union that suits Scotland and that is aligned with European treaties.
On devolved competence, the Scottish Government has consistently argued for a more constructive relationship between the UK and the EU. The Scottish Government has published detailed proposals—I encourage the member to read those, too—engaged extensively with stakeholders and worked positively with the UK Government where interests align. We published our updated position on the summit negotiations today, and I encourage members to maybe do a bit of reading.
It is right that we acknowledge where progress is being made. For example, there is the return to membership of the horizon programme and Erasmus+. We are also moving forward with an ambitious sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which could help to reduce unnecessary burdens on exporters; a well-designed youth experience scheme that, although not the same as the scheme for members, is a bit of progress; the linking of UK and EU emissions trading systems, which could reduce costs and barriers with the EU; and greater energy co-operation, which offers opportunities to improve energy security and support investment in the transition to net zero. Those are all worthwhile objectives.
However, we should also be honest about the extraordinary limits of what is currently on offer. The UK’s red lines on participation in the single market, a customs union and freedom of movement are an impediment to real progress. Some of those constraints and limits also make Scotland and the rest of the UK more vulnerable to the development of legislation that is aimed at putting EU interests first through the made in Europe agenda. We will continue to work in good faith with the UK Government on its renegotiation in the short term, but it is right that we highlight the shortcomings and our preferences, as the UK Prime Minister has invited us to do.
That brings us to a vision of our future. The debate has always been about differing visions of our future. Scotland is a European nation, and Scotland prospers when we work closely with European partners. That is true economically, socially and culturally, and it is true in the face of shared challenges in relation to energy security at a time of geopolitical uncertainty, climate change, which is having a generational impact, and economic competitiveness.
Scotland has paid a particularly high price for leaving the EU. Modelling suggests that Scotland was the hardest hit of the devolved nations, with economic output up to 9 per cent lower in 2023 than it would have been had we remained in the European Union. That came at a time when barriers were erected across some of our most important export sectors, from food and drink to energy, chemicals and professional services. Our agrifood sector has been particularly badly hit, leading to a sustained loss in the sector, with analysis showing that Scotland may have lost up to £2.8 billion-worth of output.
However, the issue is about more than that. It is about the kind of society we want to build and how we see our place in the world. The Prime Minister talked about solidarity, and I agree, but why is solidarity restricted to an island, when the rest of Europe moves closer together? Solidarity is not restricted for this single island but rather across democratic Europe. Solidarity means that we pull together on issues such as energy security and food and drink—areas where Europe needs Scotland and we are part of the solution. Solidarity does not mean turning our backs on European partners during the worst crisis since the second world war. Solidarity does not mean taking a country out of the EU against its will and failing to even engage with compromises. Solidarity does not mean refusing a nation its right to self-determination and imposing laws and governance against its will. Solidarity is built into the European treaties that respect the independence and sovereignty of its members—nations that can leave the EU when they want, that sit as equals and that have a court and agreements that ensure that the biggest members cannot simply overrule the other constituent parts.
Ask someone in Dublin, Warsaw, Helsinki or Ljubljana—the capitals of states for which independence was hard won—whether they lost their independence when they joined the EU and you will get a stern rebuke that EU membership strengthens their independence. It is a 21stcentury model of union that stands in stark contrast to the outdated 18th century model of union that is way past its sell-by date and that would not be tolerated by any of our neighbours.
Over the past decade, we have paid a heavy price for British exceptionalism. I am simply asking members to return to a European norm.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that the best future for Scotland lies within the European Union (EU) and that EU membership should be sought as swiftly as possible.
15:40
I welcome this debate, and I will tell members why: it is because Andy Burnham’s speech in Liverpool last week started a vital national conversation on our long-term future with Europe. The current European Union is different from the one that we left, and I hope that it will not destabilise further if Le Pen wins in France or Alternative für Deutschland gains more ground in Germany.
Europe is too important an issue for any party to grandstand on. Although I could agree with a fair amount of the minister’s speech, I regret to say that we have already heard some grandstanding from him. However, that is hardly surprising, because we know that the Scottish National Party loves a headline over a headache and does its best to rewrite history. This is the same SNP that actively opposed the UK joining the EU in 1973, that famously spent more on a camper van than on campaigning against Brexit, and whose MPs, including the minister himself, failed to vote for membership of the customs union during the 2019 indicative votes in the House of Commons.
Those were indicative votes, and I respected the will of the Scottish Parliament. When it came to meaningful and legislative votes, I voted for the customs union—the Labour Party voted against.
That is not the SNP’s only piece of chequered history on Europe. The SNP’s former Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture described the Lisbon treaty, one of the foundational legal pillars of the European Union, as “a travesty” and “unacceptable”.
We could all spend this afternoon attacking each other’s positions on Europe. However, let us instead try to reach some common ground and achieve some unity. Let us look forward and work together in the interests of Scottish businesses, workers, young people and all our citizens.
However, doing so will take far more serious thought and hard work than lodging an ambiguous two-line motion does. The motion states that the SNP wants Scotland to join the EU “as swiftly as possible”, but it fails to specify how and on what terms. The motion does not seek membership on a defined basis, it provides zero detail on any red lines and it sets out absolutely no plan to protect Scotland’s interests.
Neither the motion nor the minister’s opening speech acknowledged some basic truths, let alone answered the most fundamental questions. The reality is that Scotland’s current structural budget deficit makes us ineligible for EU membership. Today, we have been given no detail about which public services would be cut to meet the strict entry criteria set out by Brussels, nor has the Scottish Government even bothered to address the massive question of currency compatibility.
If we are here in the Parliament to argue what is genuinely in the best interests of Scotland, let us look at the hard facts. It makes little economic sense to break up one union only to join another. It makes even less sense when we consider the undeniable fact that the rest of the UK is Scotland’s largest trading partner, which, according to the Scottish Government’s own statistics, accounts for 60 per cent of all our exports, which is three times the size of our trade with the entire European Union. In fact, we export more to non-EU international markets than we do to the EU itself. The SNP’s position is simply not in Scotland’s interests. Brexit was a disaster, but Scexit would not repair it; it would square it.
In Neil Bibby’s amendment, which he has just mentioned, he says that
“the interests of Scotland are best served by … being negotiated”
by the UK. However, there was an absolute farce when the UK was in charge of the Brexit negotiations. It reversed its previous position, which was to safeguard Scotland’s place in the EU, and it then forced Scotland out of Europe even though in every local authority area we voted to stay in. Why would we be best served by the UK negotiating for us?
It is for the very reasons that I have just outlined. The Scottish Government’s statistics show that 60 per cent of our exports go to the rest of the UK—three times the amount exported to the European Union.
I agree with Andy Burnham that Brexit has done more harm than good, that we need to examine every option for closer integration and that we must build a consensus on the best way forward. I fear that the SNP is not interested in the latter two points, but the minister and I can agree on the first. Brexit was wrong. It was a mistake made by David Cameron, who called a referendum that he was not prepared for.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I need to make some progress.
David Cameron did that in the narrow interests of his party rather than in the interests of the country. It stands as a salutary lesson that referendums should be called not to recklessly gamble with a nation’s fate but to reaffirm a clear national will.
Brexit has been profoundly damaging. The Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England estimate that the UK’s economy is 4 to 8 per cent smaller than it would have been had we remained in the EU. We have seen the loss of between £100 billion and £200 billion of potential economic activity, alongside hits to business investment and non-tariff barriers.
Despite that uphill battle, it is welcome that, since 2024, the UK economy has been growing at a higher rate than the economies of other European G7 nations, but that does not erase the massive loss of economic potential that we have suffered. That is exactly why I have welcomed the UK Labour Government, since it took office, working to reset our relationship with the European Union and actively seeking co-operation where it matters most—on trade, security and defence. We should all welcome the UK-EU security and defence partnership that was signed in May 2025.
I welcome the fact that the UK will officially rejoin the Erasmus+ programme. That will come at a cost of £570 million, but it will directly support Scottish universities and reopen doors for our young people, with an expanded programme that covers youth work and technical apprenticeships.
I also welcome—even if John Swinney refused to do so at the time—the vital work that is being done to progress a comprehensive veterinary agreement to boost agrifood trade. Supermarkets have said that that will reduce the cost of people’s weekly shop—and I am sure that I am not the only one who recalls that the Scottish Government said that it was going to do that. Aston University has estimated that that could increase agrifood exports from the UK to the EU by 22.5 per cent. It is no wonder that Salmon Scotland, the Food and Drink Federation and many others have welcomed that progress.
It is right that the UK settles its long-term relationship with Europe, and the UK Labour Government will effectively and responsibly lay out the options and the necessary trade-offs. I urge the Scottish Government, if it is genuinely serious about closer European integration, to engage meaningfully and constructively with the UK Government and with parties in this Parliament. Let us listen to the voices of Scottish industry and civil society and respected organisations such as the Scottish advisory forum on Europe.
We must have a team Scotland approach as part of a team UK approach. If the minister and the Scottish Government are genuinely serious about repairing our relationship with the European Union, they will choose to work with our Prime Minister and not against him. As the minister mentioned, the UK-EU summit later this year will provide an opportunity to strike deals that will boost our economy, slash red tape, help our businesses to grow, and give young people opportunities that they have been denied since Brexit, including here in Scotland. The Prime Minister believes that those steps should be the floor and not the ceiling of our ambition, and I believe that, too.
I move amendment S7M-01448.3, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:
“welcomes the Prime Minister’s recent commitment to comprehensively review the UK’s relationship with the European Union (EU), including examining options for closer integration; believes that Brexit has caused profound economic harm and that a close relationship with Europe is fundamental to Scotland and the rest of the UK’s prosperity and security; recognises that the interests of Scotland are best served by any return to European frameworks being negotiated on a UK wide basis to protect Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to work constructively with the UK Government regarding its approach to the upcoming EU-UK summit and to find a consensus on a long term relationship with the EU that people in Scotland and the rest of the UK can unite around.”
15:49
I, too, welcome the Government bringing this debate to the chamber. Even though I may not—yet—have my own book to plug, I am happy that we are finally discussing Europe.
I was 13 years old when we decided to leave the European Union and 17 when we actually left it. I horrified people by revealing those facts on the BBC’s “Politics Live” last week, but I found that they struck more of a chord when we talked about the relationship with the EU. Many constituents have reached out to me and discussed how much has changed since then.
By almost any metric, 2016 was a long time ago and things were different then. We have since had 10 years, six prime ministers and countless missed opportunities. We would be foolish not to at least admit how much has changed. The cost of living was admittedly high then, but it was not quite where it is now. The international rules-based order was starting to show cracks more openly, but was yet to fully give way. Although the first-order effects of the Conservative-Liberal austerity measures had been felt by working people, we had yet to fully reckon with the economic vandalism that had been unleashed. The context within which the UK made its choice was based on a world that has not existed for quite some time.
If I am entirely honest, if I remember correctly, at the time, I was too preoccupied with repeatedly listening to Beyoncé’s album “Lemonade” on my way to school, and with the upcoming release of Pokémon Go, to consider the geopolitics of it all. Like many people my age, I felt a profound sadness and, having always considered myself to be European, I was slightly confused as to what would spur on the decision to leave. In retrospect and as now seems painfully clear, perhaps allowing the architects of austerity to sell us its solution, even if it was painted on the side of a big red bus, was a foolish mistake. Like millions more people, I am not surprised that the £350 million more a week for the national health service never materialised, and perhaps that is a lesson that the words of Nigel Farage are not to be trusted.
That is not to say that the European project is perfect. In my view, there are many legitimate criticisms to be made, including of the ongoing democratic deficit that left many, including many remainers, feeling so far away from the continent that they call home. That is without even considering the tight fiscal constraints, which many fear will get worse in the new era of destabilisation.
I cannot imagine how we can argue about fixing those problems if we are committed to simply ignoring the problem that we have left behind. We have to be honest: for many people my age, the European Union provided more than just a bureaucratic political settlement. It meant opportunities to study in another country, travel, experience new cultures, work and build a life elsewhere if you wished to, or to stay here knowing that you had a continent behind you. There is something particularly unfair about the fact that my generation and those who are younger than me will continue to have to live with the consequences of leaving our neighbours behind, despite having had no say in the decision. A recent study showed that 83 per cent of those aged 16 to 24 would vote to return to the EU. Colleagues, I am sure that our experiences across many different portfolios have shown that getting 83 per cent of any group of people to agree on something is quite hard.
We cannot leave that in the air. However, we cannot just talk about prosperity, either. We must remember that it was never just about individual opportunity, but also about the collective good. Looking past the symbolic casualties of leaving the European Union, can we say that any of it has been a success, that we are proud of our untimely exit or that the economic reawakening we were promised has happened? The businesses that were promised that they would benefit from Brexit have found themselves drowning in red tape and in a regulatory framework that they no longer have a say in. Seventy-three per cent of chief operating officers say that their business confidence has fallen since Brexit and a further third of businesses want the customs procedures to be slashed. The idea of a land of milk and honey, where we left the EU and immediately slashed regulations, which then somehow benefited everyone, was never going to exist. Despite any ideological obstructions, the average consumer never wanted products that were worse and the average business never wanted to make them. Together, we committed an act of economic harm and, although we were not to know, it happened at the point at which the 21st century hit its tipping point. As we look to the horizon, we need to ask ourselves whether this is the world that we want and what kind of future we want the next generation of Scots to inherit.
In closing, I will make a salient point that must underpin our considerations in the chamber. As members know, debates have recently exploded about leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, which would be a further act of leaving Europe behind and would strip us of the international protections that we put in place to prevent the horrors of the second world war from recurring. The same individuals who tore us from our continent now choose to tear us from our rights of family, freedom and privacy and from many more. It is a purposeful trend of isolationism to make our citizens vulnerable, to take advantage of legitimate grievances, and to take more and more from us. The age of war, economic strife and state change has returned. We are surrounded by allies, enemies and those in between. To sacrifice our safety on our continent for a project of deregulation is yet another act of warfare upon the working-class people in this land.
Although we cannot undo the past 10 years, we have the power to decide what we do in the next 10 years and to ensure that the next generation of Scots inherits a country that is open, hopeful and connected to Europe. We can have a future that is defined not by the choices or the mistakes of the past but by the possibilities and opportunities that are ahead of us. It can be a future where not only our businesses are protected but our rights, too. Scotland can be a place where every Scot, no matter their background, feels that their potential is not held back, where their voice can be heard in a modern Europe, and where the chaos of the world can be held back by the strength and solidarity of our European neighbours.
I was only 13 when our previous choice was made. My generation did not have a say in what happened then, but we are hoping to have a say in what happens now.
I move amendment S7M-01448.2, to insert at end:
“; recognises that Brexit has been a disaster for the economy and for individuals, and looks forward to the restoration of the benefits of EU membership.”
I call Murdo Fraser to speak to and move amendment S7M-01448.4, for up to six minutes.
15:55
I am pleased to contribute to the debate to discuss Scotland’s future in Europe. I want to start by making the obvious point that Europe is more than just the EU. There are countries in Europe that are not in the EU, and we should not forget that,
Also, for the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely reject the premise of the SNP motion that
“EU membership should be sought as swiftly as possible.”
Indeed, listening to the minister, I got the sense that he was not really that enthusiastic about his own motion, because he was given an allocation of 12 minutes to speak and he sat down after nine—he ran out of things to say in support of his own motion. Perhaps that should not surprise us, because, having listened carefully to his speech, I am still none the wiser as to what exactly the SNP wants from EU membership. Is it signing up to the Schengen agreement? Is it signing up to the single currency? Is it some other arrangement with the EU? It would be good to get some clarity on those matters before we go much further. I intervened on the minister to ask those questions, but he was unable to give me an answer. I will happily give way to him now if he wants to tell me what the SNP’s position is on the single currency and Schengen.
On the issue of time, I say to Mr Fraser that less is more. That might be a lesson that he wants to take on board from time to time.
Our position is very straightforward, and we have set it out in the past. We want to be a member of the European Union. One need not join Schengen. One need not join a single currency. Fundamentally, those are not matters for me. If we are independent, for once in our history those will be matters for the people of Scotland.
Despite that, Presiding Officer, he still could not give me an answer. We do not know what the SNP’s position is. Does it want to join Schengen? Does it want to join the single currency? We have no idea.
I took the minister’s advice to have a quick look at his book. It is still available on Amazon, at the current bestseller rank of 1,264,928. [Laughter.] I am sure that more popular volumes are available.
Will the member take an intervention?
If the minister wants to intervene again, I am happy to give way.
I thank Mr Fraser for the plug. As always, I am sure that that mention will tick things up by—well, we shall see. The book is a few years out of date as well.
On his point, it is a matter for the people of Scotland, just as it is a matter for the people of Ireland. I have set out where we are on Schengen and the single currency. Fundamentally, Scotland will get a Government that votes for the European treaties, meaning that we can negotiate for what we want, as well.
What the minister just said to us is that the Scottish National Party—the party of the Scottish Government—has no policy on the Schengen agreement or on joining the single currency. I have tried my best; now I will move on.
I want to talk about my amendment.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes—why not?
Is it Murdo Fraser’s understanding, as it is mine, that any new member of the European Union is obliged to join the single currency, the euro? Admittedly, that is without a specific timeline, but it is to happen when the economic realities allow and, unlike in the case of Denmark’s current opt-out, there will be no option to opt out for any new acceding states—is that his understanding?
I think that Mr Currie has correctly stated the current legal position. If that is not the case, I am sure that Mr Gethins can deal with that in his wind-up speech.
I want to talk about my amendment, because it notes the very important fact that we had a referendum in 2016 on whether the UK should remain part of the EU, and in that referendum people voted that they wanted to leave. I should stress that that was not my position. I did not support Brexit.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have taken three interventions already. I want to make some progress. I might come back to the member in a moment.
I did not support Brexit, nor did most of my Scottish Conservative colleagues. [Interruption.]
Heather Anderson, could you sit down, please? The member has indicated his position.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
However, it is my firm view that, when a referendum is held, we should respect the result of that referendum. That means that the decision that was taken to leave the EU should be respected. Although I disagreed with it at the time, we should respect that view, just as we should respect the decision that was taken overwhelmingly by the Scottish people in 2014 to remain part of the United Kingdom.
I know that the current Prime Minister is talking about potentially revisiting our relationship with the EU and is perhaps even considering rejoining, and I would counsel against that. However, if he is to go down that route, we would have to have another referendum to confirm that and, frankly, I do not want to see another divisive referendum in my lifetime. Referendums consume huge amounts of political energy, they cause division in society, and they are a distraction from the real issues that matter to people.
I opposed us leaving the EU for some reasons that are similar to those that cause me to oppose Scotland leaving the UK. I understood the arguments about sovereignty, taking back control and taking decisions closer to home. The difficulty is that, in both cases, those choices would come at considerable economic cost.
Prior to the 2016 referendum, there were lots of predictions as to the negative impact that Brexit would have on the UK economy. If we look at the detail of those predictions, we see that many of them were premised on the assumption that Brexit would mean a reduction in inward migration to the UK. We now know, however, that that was not the case. In reality, the opposite happened. Far from immigration to the UK reducing as a result of Brexit, it more than doubled—albeit that the nature of it changed, with fewer new migrants from EU countries and more migrants from other parts of the world. The whole premise on which those calculations were made thus turned out to be false.
Even now, when we hear estimates of the cost of Brexit to the economy—such as what we heard from the minister earlier—we have to take them with a pinch of salt. Trade with the EU has undoubtedly become more cumbersome with Brexit. However, in assessing its overall long-term impact, we have to consider the counterfactual, and whether it would be in our interests to be tied to an increasingly sclerotic EU economy as part of the UK.
Will the member give way?
In a second.
Brexit has given us the opportunity to make different choices. It has given us the right to make our own trade deals with, for example, India, which is an enormous opportunity for Scottish exports and which would not have been possible had we remained part of the EU.
I understand the counterfactual that Murdo Fraser is talking about. If only we had an example of a nation in the UK that had remained in the single market, we could track the difference that it makes. If we were to track the difference in GDP growth of—oh, I do not know—Northern Ireland from 2015 to 2023, we would see that it had 16.5 per cent growth compared to UK growth of 11 per cent. Likewise, there has been a 25 per cent drop in financial services output across the other three countries of the UK, and an increase of 50 per cent in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that Mr Kerr understands that Northern Ireland is a very special case in the United Kingdom, given its particular history. We have to be very careful about drawing parallels between the situation in Scotland and the situation in Northern Ireland.
One thing that we know is that the SNP wants to take us out of the UK so that we can then join the EU. That would give us an entirely different trading regime in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK, with a hard border at Berwick and Carlisle, and potentially a different currency entirely. That is not in Scotland’s interests, because the statistics tell us that we trade three times as much in goods and services with the rest of the UK as we do with the EU single market. Leaving the UK domestic market to join the EU internal single market would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. It would be devastating for the Scottish economy and deeply damaging for business.
That is why we should absolutely resist the SNP’s proposition that Scotland should become an EU member. Given the choice between the UK and the EU, it is overwhelmingly in our interests to stick with the UK. That is the point that I make in my amendment.
I am pleased to move amendment S7M-01448.4, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:
“notes that in a referendum in 2016 the people of the UK voted to leave the EU; believes that the result of referendums should be respected; notes that trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK is three times the level of trade between Scotland and the EU; believes that in exiting the UK and joining the EU, Scotland would create a hard border and potentially currency divergence with our largest trading partner, which would be deeply damaging to Scotland’s economic interests, and accordingly commits to a future within an unrestricted UK domestic market for goods and services.”
16:05
I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I also welcome the shared determination of many members—albeit not all—who wish to rebuild our relationship with Europe and undo the damage that Brexit has caused.
Although there are many issues on which the minister and I will disagree, our shared commitment on Europe is not one of those. I hope that we as a Parliament can find such unity this afternoon, because people deserve a Parliament that can put party interests aside and come together on the serious issues, not treat them as a political football.
Liberal Democrats have never wavered in our belief, even when it was not popular, that we are stronger when we work closely with our European friends and neighbours. That is part of our DNA. That is why I genuinely welcome the Prime Minister responding to that pressure and opening the door to EU membership. I hope that that will not be little more than a soundbite, and I look forward to working with Labour colleagues on it.
Today’s debate is about not simply naming our ultimate destination but setting out a credible plan to get there. That is the purpose of my amendment. I will return to that amendment in a moment. However, first, it is important that we put the debate in context.
The verdict from the Office for Budget Responsibility is that Brexit will leave the UK economy 4 per cent less productive, with imports and exports around 15 per cent lower than if we had remained in the European Union. That is because too many businesses—including in the Highlands, part of which I represent—now face higher costs and more bureaucracy when reaching their European customers.
Seafood is an example. In the year to March, Scotland’s fish and shellfish exports to the EU fell by 22 per cent. That was the single biggest contributor to the overall fall in our exports to Europe.
Does David Green recognise that the Scottish fishing trade, much of which he has just cited, has been decimated by European trawlers in our waters?
I do not think that the member can talk about the fishing industry, which his party has entirely abandoned.
Brexit has also made it harder for people from Europe—those who fill vital jobs, support our public services and strengthen our communities—to make their lives in the Highlands.
For my constituents, Europe is not an abstract argument. It means getting Highland produce to market, filling vital jobs and keeping our communities thriving.
My friend Charles Kennedy understood that deeply. I had the privilege of working with Charles, whose internationalism went hand in hand with his love for home. He said:
“I find no contradiction between being a Highlander, a Scot, a citizen of the UK and a citizen of the European Union at one and the same time.”
Having known Charles, I know how deeply he felt that. He was immensely proud of where he came from. He was deeply rooted in the communities that he represented. However, that never meant looking inwards; it was quite the opposite. Charles understood that the confidence in where we come from should give us the confidence to engage with the wider world.
That matters now more than ever. If we are serious about that, we must remove the barriers with Europe. That means returning to the single market and establishing a new customs union. For businesses, that means better access to the European market and fewer obstacles between them and their customers. For our universities and researchers, it means deeper European co-operation. For our young people, it means a greater opportunity to live, work and study across Europe.
We should deepen co-operation with our European allies, too, because the same principle applies to our security as it does to our economy, which is that we are stronger when we work together. That is why my amendment talks about making the UK “richer, safer and stronger”—richer by removing barriers to trade; safer through deeper co-operation with our European allies; and stronger because we achieve more with our European partners than we can do alone.
Surely, though, all of us who believe in that European project can agree on something fundamental—that Europe is stronger when more countries and more people can share in the opportunities that come from working together and being part of a wider community with shared markets, shared opportunities and shared interests. That has always been at the heart of the European project—bringing countries together, deepening opportunity and building a Europe in which more people can participate and prosper. I want that for Scotland, and I believe that this Parliament should also want it for people throughout the United Kingdom.
I finish by returning to the words of Charles Kennedy:
“Britain is a European power. We cannot change our geography. Our involvement in the politics of European co-operation is one of necessity. Our wealth and our security depend upon it.”
Charles was right, which is why I urge Parliament to support my amendment.
I move amendment S7M-01448.1, to insert at end:
“, and therefore believes that the first essential steps must be for the UK to join the single market as a member of the European Free Trade Area and European Economic Area, form a new UK-EU customs union and reach a new defence pact, in order to fully remove trade barriers to Europe, reverse years of economic damage that has been caused by the Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservative UK administration, and make the UK richer, safer and stronger.”
16:10
I find it hard to justify this debate, given the priorities that Scotland faces. Every Reform member would rather be discussing the real problems that the people we represent face. We asked for the debate to be changed in order to discuss the 1,133 lives lost to drugs last year and how we can stop families going through the pain of losing a loved one. The indy establishment blocked us, so here we are.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
International relations, including relations with the European Union, are reserved to Westminster under schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998.
Will the member give way?
The minister is well aware that he must allow the member to continue.
NHS funding, mental health support, social care and rehabilitation services are all devolved.
The SNP, the Greens and, I believe, even the Lib Dems, whose politics seem to be built on sitting on the fence, all want to join the European Union.
Will the member take an intervention?
EU rules expect member states to keep deficits under 3 per cent, and new members must commit to joining the euro. Scotland’s net fiscal balance is currently minus 10.9 per cent of gross domestic product. [Interruption.]
I can hardly hear myself. Can members be quiet?
The SNP talks often about the damage of austerity, but I wonder—I can hardly hear myself—how extreme the austerity measures would need to be to achieve EU membership conditions.
It also shocks me that John Swinney is so eager to sit at the European table alongside Georgia Meloni and—if the polls in France and Germany are right—Marine Le Pen and Alice Weidel, as many European countries are waking up to the left-wing suicidal empathy that has destroyed so many economies and borders. Our growth rate is not great, but it is better than those of the three largest EU economies.
Was Brexit worth it? Absolutely. It returned control of our money, our borders and our trade policy to the UK. We still have trade deals, with the same terms, with more than 70 countries, but we have opened ourselves up to more markets and countries. Through the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnerships, the UK has its first free trade relationship with Malaysia, where tariffs of around 80 per cent on Scotch whisky are being phased out. The Government estimates that CPTPP will add £2 billion a year to UK GDP in the long run.
Outside the EU, our fishermen get more. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimates that the UK has around 84,000 tonnes more quota this year—worth around £131 million—than it would have had as an EU member. Last year, 72 per cent of that extra quota went to Scotland. In 2025, salmon exports reached £828 million, up from £445 million in 2016. Sixty per cent of Scottish exports stay in the UK, and 18 per cent go to the EU. The EU bought £384 billion of UK exports in 2025—41 per cent of the total.
Since Brexit, we have new trade deals with Australia, New Zealand, Japan and India, and we have the economic prosperity deal with America. The UK is now making its own deals, and we demanded a higher standard with New Zealand and America, all done without Brussels. I will not pretend that everything is wonderful, but that shows we can achieve deals without paying the £9 billion to £11 billion a year to be part of the EU. [Interruption.]
I will lend Mr Hepburn that book to read later. It is selling well.
Europe wants to deal with us and we want to deal with Europe. A return, if even possible, would need unanimous European Council approval, European Parliament consent and an accession treaty ratified by every member state. Our old opt-outs would not be guaranteed, and we would have to commit to adopting the euro. I cannot see that going down well with the people of Scotland.
Can we do more? Absolutely. Prime Minister after Prime Minister dragged their heels on a democratic vote that they and the First Minister have struggled to accept.
Scottish universities made nearly 6,000 offers to EU applicants last year. The only difference is that the Scottish taxpayer does not have to foot the bill.
That brings me to Scottish Government waste. The Scottish Government has five international offices in Europe: in Paris, Berlin, Dublin, Brussels and Copenhagen. Last year, their budget was almost £4 million. I am not opposed to Scotland having strong international relationships, and Scottish businesses would work well with European partners, but taxpayers are entitled to ask what they are getting for their money. This is where it gets interesting.
Oh?
Listen closely. We asked for the performance targets for the international office network, and this was the Scottish Government’s response:
“While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have current performance indicators or targets set for the network.”
I have the FOI response if members would like to see it.
That was a bit less interesting than you thought it would be.
A bit like your personality.
Members: Oh!
That should concern every member of this Parliament, whatever their views on independence or Brexit.
Senga Beresford, please sit down.
I remind all members that they must extend courtesy to each other at all times. I also remind members that if a member indicates that she does not want to take an intervention, the member—
Thank you.
I remind Ms Beresford that she should not interrupt the chair while the chair is speaking. I also remind Ms Beresford, as she may not be aware of this, that she has to sit down while the chair is speaking.
If a member indicates that they do not want to take an intervention, the member should sit down. Also, if any member is speaking and the chair speaks, they should sit down. I appreciate that there are many new members and they might not be aware of the conventions.
Thank you. I am about to finish up anyway.
When Reform UK’s Nigel Farage and the National Rally president, Jordan Bardella, signed a memorandum of understanding on illegal immigration, that was exactly what working together looks like. I will finish there.
We move to the open debate.
16:18
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Follow that.
It will be extremely difficult to follow that speech.
I am grateful to Stephen Gethins for bringing the debate to the Parliament. His depth of belief in the European project and Scotland’s place at the heart of that project is one that I share. I was one of six SNP candidates in Scotland’s last European Parliament election, in 2019, and I campaigned the length and breadth of our nation, putting forward the case for Scotland remaining part of that European family of nations. Whether it was in the east end of Glasgow, where I was brought up, in Linlithgow, where I did hustings, or in Dundee, the message came through loud and clear: communities in Scotland knew that Westminster’s Brexit obsession did not work for us. They had already made their feelings clear in the 2016 Brexit referendum, when every single council area in Scotland voted to remain.
In the 2019 EU elections, the SNP returned its best ever result, winning three out of the six seats available across the country. Interestingly, three of those candidates are now MSPs—me, Heather Anderson and Alyn Smith, who has completed his tour of all the Parliaments, landing here, in Scotland’s national Parliament, and following in the footsteps of Madame Écosse.
In spite of those democratic mandates, Scotland was dragged completely out of the European Union and has suffered the economic and cultural damage that came with it. In spite of multiple attempts by the Scottish Government to design a bespoke way to keep Scotland in the European single market, those attempts were ignored. Such disregard for Scottish democracy is incredibly common, but it did not need to happen.
As I mentioned earlier, we have an example of when Westminster bent and buckled: Northern Ireland remains a part of the EU single market for goods and a part of the UK. What has been the outcome? The north of Ireland is far and away the fastest-growing part of the UK. Between 2015 and 2023, it had growth of 16.5 per cent, whereas growth in the UK was 11 per cent. For those who claim that that was nothing to do with Brexit, I point out that, over the same period, financial services output—a crucial part of the Scottish economy—dropped by 24 per cent across the UK, whereas there was a massive increase of 50 per cent in Northern Ireland, due to its proximity to Dublin, part of an independent nation in Europe of about 5.5 million people.
Retail is also thriving in Northern Ireland. Reuters notes that analysts say that, as a result of the pound sterling having depreciated permanently, many consumers from the Republic of Ireland make frequent shopping trips to the north for a bargain.
I mentioned another nation of 5.5 million people, like Scotland: the independent Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland provides an incredibly timely comparison in relation to what independence in Europe could mean for Scotland. Like Scotland, it is undergoing its budget process, but, unlike Scotland, it is not part of broken Brexit Britain. It does not have to wait for Westminster to determine how much it can spend, nor does it have to contend with a massive deficit as a result of successive failures of Westminster governance. Instead, it is running a €6 billion surplus this year and a €9 billion surplus in 2027.
Thanks to the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom, Scotland will be protected from an equivalent increase in the state pension that those living in Ireland will receive as a result of their €10 increase as part of the budget, bringing their pension to €13,654 a year—£1,107 more than the current United Kingdom pension. Instead, Scottish pensioners will find that they receive less as the UK Government scraps the triple lock on pensions to pay for social care in England—maybe, eventually, a couple of years down the line. Thank goodness for the broad shoulders of the UK.
Thankfully, the era of Westminster dominance is drawing to a close, which presents Scotland with an opportunity to become an independent nation and to build a fairer and wealthier future at the heart of Europe. Independence offers Scotland the clearest path back into the European Union, with the benefits that membership brings. If Scotland is to rejoin the EU and regain access to the opportunities, freedoms and economic advantages that it provides, independence is the only sure-fire route available.
Does Alex Kerr recognise that, if he got his dream and we rejoined the EU, unlike the liberty that we have, under the Westminster system, to administer our budget—admittedly, that is being done quite badly at the moment—we would be subject to a 3 per cent deficit ceiling and a 60 per cent debt ratio every year?
There are quite a few points to address in that intervention. Not all EU members meet that deficit ratio. Fundamentally, we are not looking for the liberty to be handed pocket money from Westminster, which has totally mishandled the Scottish economy and the wider UK economy; we are looking for the liberty that the Republic of Ireland has. It is another country of 5.5 million people that, thanks to being independent and being able to decide its own future, is now running a budget surplus of €6 billion. Imagine that. MSPs would not have to take the tough decisions that we are going to have to take. Instead, we could increase our pensions and our budgets.
I thank Alex Kerr for taking an additional intervention. He championed the figures that Ireland is exhibiting, but does he recognise that that is because Ireland is subject to a 3 per cent deficit ceiling and a 60 per cent debt ratio? Does he understand what would have to happen to our public services and infrastructure in Scotland for us to meet those stringent conditions that are imposed by the EU?
The member can look this up. As I just pointed out, the Irish are increasing social benefits and pensions because they are running a £6 billion surplus. I will leave it at that.
Make no mistake: this debate is not just academic. Had Scotland’s economic growth matched the EU average since 2014, gross domestic product per head could have been around £5,100 higher. We could spend hours discussing the broken promises of successive UK Governments, but I am drawing to a close. Perhaps the biggest broken promise of all was the claim that voting to remain in the UK was the only way to protect Scotland’s place in Europe. Instead, we have endured Brexit, years of austerity, a cost of living crisis, rising inflation and fewer opportunities for young people to live, work and study abroad.
We were returned as the largest party in this Parliament with a clear commitment to Scotland rejoining the European Union, and that ambition is not simply about reversing the damage of Brexit but is about the kind of country that we want Scotland to be: prosperous, outward looking and able to take its place alongside other successful independent nations of our size. Scotland’s future lies in the European family of nations as an independent country in control of our own destiny. Ultimately, decisions made about Scotland should be made in Scotland by the people who live here and have a greatest stake in our success.
16:26
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a serving member of Dundee City Council. I am also a former Member of the European Parliament and, on 30 January 2020, I addressed that Parliament in my maiden speech, using the following words:
“My plea today is for you to remember Scotland … Just imagine how difficult it is for a country, like Scotland, which has pledged its allegiance to the European Union … to be taken out against our will and without our consent. We do not live in a United Kingdom; we live in a disunited Kingdom and Brexit is not the settled will of the Scottish people.”
Those words are even more true today than they were six years ago. Of those who voted in Scotland, 62 per cent voted to remain in the European Union. After Alyn Smith was elected to Westminster, despite everything that the UK Government did to stop me getting to the European Parliament, I was there to ensure that Scotland’s democratic right to vote against the withdrawal agreement was honoured, as it was, with all three SNP MEPs voting against the withdrawal agreement.
As Burns would say, it is important to
“see oursels as ithers see us”.
In Europe, Scots were recognised as innovators, collaborators, leaders and reliable allies. We shared Europe’s core values of democracy, human dignity, equality and the rule of law, and our forced departure was emotional and moving. David Sassoli, the late former president of the European Parliament, broke with tradition to allow “Auld Lang Syne” to be sung in the chamber. It was quite something to hear members from 28 states singing Burns and we were bagpiped out of the building. On that day, Europe recognised Scotland’s unique position, just as it does today.
In my party, when you believe in something you believe in it. We have never changed our commitment to independence or to Europe and we have been proven right. YouGov polling from June this year tells us that 75 per cent of people in Scotland now think that the decision to leave the EU was wrong, and that 70 per cent would vote to rejoin, if given the opportunity. It also tells us that, 10 years on from the Brexit referendum, 77 per cent of people in Scotland think that Brexit has been a failure.
What a total failure it has been. The wheels have certainly come off the lying Brexit bus. Our defence and national security have been weakened. We are all now much poorer economically, academically, culturally and societally. Scotland’s public revenues are £3.3 billion lower than they would have been if we had remained in Europe, and that is costing us £9 million every day.
I must express some frustration with the Labour Party saying that it knows that we made a bad decision but that we are just going to have to wait for it to get around to rectifying that. The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that long-term productivity is down, that exports and imports are 15 per cent lower and that net migration has, of course, increased. Scotland has always believed in trade—Adam Smith is one of our own—so we simply could not comprehend why we were being dragged out of the world’s largest free trade bloc. The UK has the rare distinction of being the first country to impose economic sanctions on itself.
The UK Independence Party rebranded as the Brexit Party and, of course, has now rebranded as Reform UK. Back then, the party claimed that housing shortages and NHS waiting lists were caused by “faceless European bureaucrats”, who were responsible for regulating everything from the volume of a pint to the straightness of a banana. Do you remember all that nonsense, Presiding Officer?
Now, Reform blames housing shortages and NHS waiting lists on immigrants, asylum seekers and women in burqas. It is all dangerous scapegoating and there is no sunny upland in sight.
The second UK-EU summit is scheduled for November, and although we welcome the change of heart at Downing Street or Number 10 North England, we are still frustrated that we cannot represent Scotland’s interests directly because we are not at the table. As Mark Carney so rightly said,
“if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.”
Scotland’s scientific prowess, fisheries and energy are always on the menu. Unfortunately, we must again hope that the UK delegation listens to and fight for Scotland’s interests, although it does not have a very strong track record in doing so.
I am very relieved that Andy Burnham, the Prime Minister, and Lisa Nandy both agree with Stephen Kerr, who in this chamber last week agreed that 10 years was, indeed, a generation. Lisa Nandy very eloquently said:
“the question of Europe was never settled … We decided to leave, we left, and now it’s 10 years on.”
Guess what? The question of Scottish independence is certainly not settled and we are 12 years on. Our referendum is technically overdue. Iris Duane might have been too young to vote in the Brexit referendum. We now know that a million people were not old enough to vote in the independence referendum and they must have their say now.
Back in January 2020, in the European Parliament, I closed my speech by saying:
“We have shared a long history with you in Europe, both before our current union with England and hopefully in the future … We know our best future is with you, and when the people of Scotland have to choose between two unions, they are deciding to choose the European Union.”
As Andy Burnham says, Brexit has done more harm than good. However, we can no longer wait for Burnham to persuade his party to come back to its senses. I am flattered that Labour are mimicking many of our policies, but we really do not have much more time to waste. Alyn Smith, my fellow former MEP, famously asked Europe
“to leave a light on”
for Scotland to enable us to
“find our way home.”
Let us become that independent Scotland and go home to the heart of Europe where we truly belong.
16:33
Just a few weeks ago, I stood in this chamber and congratulated Gillian Mackay on what I thought was the most pointless, excruciating waste of time in this session of Parliament. Little did I know that the Scottish Government would take that as a challenge, yet here we are.
Not all is lost for Ms Mackay and her extremist pals; she has not been undone. Her party still wins in relation to holding the most smoke-and-mirrors debate to hide the sinister side of antisemitism, but I am afraid that the SNP has won when it comes to pointless debates, because that is exactly what this ridiculous waste of time is.
Less than two weeks ago in this chamber, members heard a pathetic, half-hearted ministerial statement on Scotland’s drug deaths shame that lasted only 30 minutes. Today, we are spending two hours on the EU.
Will the member give way?
I absolutely will.
Oh, hurray!
Oh, shut up.
Presumably, the member will welcome the fact that there will be a business motion tomorrow that will schedule a debate on drugs and alcohol deaths the first week back after recess.
I absolutely will, but how long has it taken the Government to get to that stage? Two weeks ago, we heard about record levels of drug deaths. You are taking recess off to go and enjoy your holiday, and then you are coming back to talk about it, but you have scheduled an EU debate. Shame on you.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not. Sit down. This Parliament is supposed to be a serious legislature, yet, since my election, my colleagues and I have seen no evidence that that is the case. Where is the debate on drug deaths? It is coming soon, apparently, but I will wait to see that happen.
What about child poverty or housing? Where is the scrutiny of the thousands wasted on VIP world cup tickets or British Airways flight upgrades? Where is the accountability in relation to ministers spending millions on foreign aid to Palestine or free bus passes for strangers who have invaded our nation? Where is the sacking of a failing drugs minister whose policies are killing working-class Scots, or of a former justice minister who lied to this chamber about grooming gangs? Is it any wonder that 2 million Scots did not vote in May and have given up on this place? The Holyrood establishment is making a mockery of devolution and, as a result, Scotland is scunnered with its national Parliament. We on the Reform benches say that enough is enough.
Unlike the SNP—
Will the member give way?
Yes, I will.
I am really surprised that Thomas Kerr wants to talk about oil and gas consenting, which is quasi-judicial and reserved; immigration, which is quasi-judicial and reserved; and what women wear, which we certainly should not be debating in here; but does not want to debate the issue on which Nigel Farage built his career. Can he tell us why that is?
If the minister is seriously arguing that we should not discuss oil and gas when the North Sea is a massive issue, or that immigration and local connection are not serious, that says a lot about him.
I am not saying that. Will the member give way?
No, minister, I am speaking. Sit down.
My motion this week is about banning face coverings, which SNP members were in favour of but are now apparently against, so they had better make up their minds about where they sit on it.
Unlike the SNP, we want to make life work for real Scots, those ordinary people up and down the country who expect this Parliament to be focused on poverty, social mobility, taxation, housing, health and education. They want a Parliament that is focused on them and policies that are created to better their lives, not the lives of strangers who come here illegally.
Does Mr Kerr accept that his movement for Brexit and making us leave the European Union has made us all poorer? Today, we have repeated the statistics that show how much the economy has lost and how much poorer everybody in Scotland is as a result of the policies that he supports.
Thomas Kerr, please come to a conclusion.
First, the member is ignoring the almost 1 million Scots who voted to leave—apparently they do not matter. As for how much Brexit matters in terms of economics, it is nothing compared to what independence would do to this country, so the member should sit down and listen.
I will say one thing about Europe before I finish. I hope that the SNP’s love for our European neighbours continues well into 2027 and beyond, because it will not be long until we have President Le Pen, Prime Minister Bardella and Chancellor Weidel. The one thing that Scotland can learn from our European friends is how to reject the woke, overbloated and out-of-touch establishment in favour of national sovereignty and renewal. So, let me reiterate: entering a country is not a right, it is an honour. In this country, it is an honour that you get from the UK Home Office.
If this lot take anything away from today, it should be this: reject open borders, deport all illegals and put our own citizens first. That is the collective message from Europe, and it is certainly the current message from the people of Scotland. You should listen up and wake up.
16:37
I declare an interest as an elected member of Glasgow City Council. I am grateful to Stephen Gethins for lodging this much-needed motion.
In 2014, the people of Scotland were asked to make a choice about our future. One of the biggest arguments that was made against independence was that voting no was the safe option. It would protect our economy, it would protect our pensions and it would protect Scotland’s place in the European Union—that was the promise. Less than two years later, 62 per cent of Scots voted to remain in the European Union, yet we left anyway. We should all be honest about that. Whatever side people took in 2014, Scots were told that remaining in the UK was the best way to protect our place in Europe. Instead, it was our membership of the UK that took us out.
Brexit has not just been some constitutional argument that only politicians care about; it has had real consequences. It has made it harder for Scottish businesses to trade with our nearest neighbours. It has taken away freedom of movement from a generation of young Scots, and it has taken us out of the world’s largest single market. The long-term economic impact is significant. The OBR estimates that the post-Brexit trading relationship will leave UK productivity around 4 per cent lower in the long run than if we had remained in the EU. The Scottish Government has estimated that, for Scotland, that means that around £3 billion a year is lost in public revenues. That figure is not insignificant. That money could be going into our NHS, into our schools, into our local services and into people’s lives.
Brexit has answered a bigger question for us. It has shown us what happens when decisions about Scotland’s future are made somewhere else, even when the people of Scotland vote the other way. Therefore, this is not just some argument about Europe; it is an argument about power—about who gets to make the decisions that shape our economy, our opportunities, and our place in the world. I believe that those decisions should be made here in Scotland, by the people of Scotland. I and many others know that independence in the EU would not be simple. It would mean negotiation; it would mean hard choices about our economy and our trading relationships, including with the rest of the UK; and it would mean being honest with people about that. However, Scotland would not be starting from scratch. We were a member of the EU for nearly 50 years. Our laws, our institutions and our businesses were shaped by that membership. We know how it works and we know what Scotland has to offer. I have every confidence that a modern, outward-looking Scotland can make its way in Europe once again.
That brings us to the bigger question. We speak a lot about looking towards the continent, but we also have to ask what the continent sees when it looks back towards us. It sees a union which is divided and unprepared to rejoin the EU, led by a revolving door of Prime Ministers who are out of touch with reality, and a UK Government plagued by instability and scandal.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
When I look at Scotland, I see a country that has remained European in its outlook, even after being taken out of the EU. That matters, because this is not just about institutions in Brussels. It is about businesses being able to trade; it is about our universities working with partners across Europe; it is about young people having opportunities that previous generations took for granted; and it is about having a say in the decisions that affect us.
The Scottish people had their say earlier this year, in May, by returning the pro-EU SNP as the largest party in this Parliament, so I do not think that our job now is just to spend the next five years talking about everything that Brexit has got wrong. We also need to talk about what comes next. I want Scotland to be an independent country in the EU, not because the EU is perfect—it is not—and not because EU membership will suddenly solve every problem that we have. It certainly will not. It is because I would rather that Scotland was involved in shaping the decisions that affect our future than watching those decisions being made somewhere else.
Brexit was not Scotland’s choice, but we have had to live with the consequences of it. Scotland can be a global player on the world stage because we as a country, we as a people, have so much to contribute. In an ever-changing world, where countries are looking to Europe for support and hope, it is vital that Scotland has the chance to play its part. The next choice about Scotland’s future should be ours and, when that choice comes, I know where I want Scotland to be—back in Europe, with a seat at the table and making decisions for ourselves.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.
Previous
Syngenta Grangemouth