Scotland and the European Union
The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on Scotland and the European Union. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement. There should, therefore, be no interventions or interruptions.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a statement on an independent Scotland’s continuing membership of the European Union and to respond to recent statements by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso.
First, let me be clear that the Scottish Government believes that Scotland should continue to be a member of the EU—a view that does not appear to be shared by a United Kingdom Government that is displaying ever-increasing signs of Euroscepticism. Indeed, in my view, it is the overtly hostile stance of the UK Government—or at least significant parts of it—that presents the real risk to Scotland’s continuing membership of the EU.
This Government believes that Scotland benefits from EU membership and that the EU benefits enormously from having Scotland as a member. It is also our view that Scotland’s interests would be better represented in the EU by an independent Scottish Government with a seat at the top table that was able to speak up for our national interest without having to seek the prior permission of UK ministers, and a Government that was able to work closely and constructively with partners across these islands and across the EU to advance our shared interests. That is our ambition for Scotland’s future in Europe. It is positive and constructive, with Scotland’s and Europe’s best interests at its heart, and it stands in sharp contrast to the stance of the UK Government.
I turn to the recent statements of the President of the European Commission. As head of the Commission, Mr Barroso’s opinion on this matter should be—and will be by this Government—treated seriously and with respect. That is why I have written to him seeking an early opportunity to discuss the particular process by which Scotland would become independent and the implications of that for our continued EU membership.
However, in doing so, it is important that I set out the following points. First, the European Commission, however important, is not the final arbiter of these matters. Mr Barroso’s statements do not constitute a ruling, as some have suggested. Nor does the Commission even claim to be specifically addressing the particular situation of Scotland. Indeed, the President of the Commission himself made clear, in his letter to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, that
“the European Commission has expressed its views in general”.
Secondly, there is absolutely no provision in the EU treaties for the disapplication of those treaties or the removal of EU citizenship from a country and its people when they exercise their democratic right to self-determination. It would be extraordinary if anyone in this chamber—or, indeed, anyone else who is committed to the principle of democracy—were to suggest that there should be. Mr Barroso said, in response to a question on 10 November:
“There are no provisions in the Treaties that refer to the secession from a Member State.”
Therefore, what I would want to outline to the President and hear his views on is the specific process by which Scotland would become independent and the way in which we would seek to ensure that our intention to remain within the EU was achieved.
First, let me deal with the process of independence. As a result of the Edinburgh agreement, that process is democratic, agreed and consensual, and the result will be respected and implemented by both the Scottish and UK Governments. Following a yes vote in 2014, a process of negotiation will take place with the UK Government on the transfer of powers to an independent Scottish Parliament. As I said last week, it would be the intention of the Scottish Government to invite representatives of the other parties and of civic Scotland to contribute to that process. It is a process that we would intend to have completed in time for the next Scottish election, in 2016. However, in the period between autumn 2014 and May 2016, Scotland would still be in the UK and, therefore, by definition, still within the EU. In parallel to negotiations with the UK Government, it would be our intention to negotiate the terms of an independent Scotland’s continuing membership of the EU.
Here, I should point out that the need for negotiations with the EU was made clear by the Government in “Choosing Scotland’s Future” in 2007, in “Your Scotland, Your Voice” in 2009 and in “Your Scotland, Your Referendum” in 2012. It is worth remembering that these are matters that are likely to be about political negotiation more than they will be about legal process.
Let me pause here to reflect on the position of the UK in such negotiations. It would be interesting to hear those who argue that an independent Scotland would have to reapply for EU membership explain in some detail why that same argument would not also be true of the rest of the UK, given that the democratic process that we are engaged in would lead to the dissolution of the UK in its current political form. However, since I do not believe that we would be in a formal reapplication situation, I will not dwell on that point.
However, what will undoubtedly be the case is that negotiation on terms of continuing membership will be highly relevant to the rest of the UK, which will require to determine, for example, its own number of seats in the European Parliament and its revised financial contribution. I believe that Scotland and the rest of the UK would have a shared interest in concluding such negotiations smoothly and quickly.
I believe that such a sensible process of negotiation will result in Scotland’s continuing membership of the EU on terms that are reasonable. By that I mean that, for example, just like Sweden, we would not join the euro until and unless it was in Scotland’s interests to do so and we had satisfied the conditions for doing so. Just like Ireland, we would not enter Schengen but would instead look to co-operate with Ireland and the rest of the UK in the common travel area. Both those positions are practical and justifiable and would, I am sure, be supported by all parties here in Scotland. Given the approach that has been taken in other circumstances, the evidence suggests that those would be understood by our European partners.
I will cite two reasons for my view and, in so doing, I am very deliberately relying not simply on arguments of law or process but on arguments of common sense, reality and mutual self-interest. First, the EU is an organisation that welcomes new members. It wants others to join—it most certainly would not want to see existing parts of its territory leave. Let me quote, again, the words of Mr Barroso:
“I see no country leaving and I see many countries wanting to join.”
The EU is also an inherently flexible organisation that adapts, as indeed it should, to the changing circumstances of its member states. To demonstrate that, we just have to look at how quickly and smoothly the former East Germany was integrated into the EU following reunification. Indeed, it is instructive to read the press release that was issued by the Commission about East Germany in 1990. [Interruption.]
Order.
The Commission said:
“The community institutions have all done their utmost to bring about the integration of what was the German Democratic Republic as smoothly as possible and within the timescale allowed by the unification process.”
There was no direct precedent for what happened with East Germany—just as there is no precedent for what might happen in Scotland—but the EU found a solution that is consistent with the principle of sincere co-operation that lies at the heart of the treaties. The EU adapted and it did so on the basis of common sense and accommodation of internal decisions taken by one of its member states.
My second reason for believing that Scotland would continue in membership of the EU is that it is overwhelmingly in the EU’s interests for us to do so. By that, I do not just mean that to go through the complicated process of putting Scotland outside the EU just for us to be readmitted later would be, as Graham Avery, an honorary director general of the Commission, said, “not feasible”. I mean that Scotland’s vast assets—our fishing, oil and gas and renewables; our value as an export market to other member states; our education system, which is enjoyed by thousands of EU students every year; and our status as home to tens of thousands of EU citizens—mean that the economic, social and political interests of the EU would be best served by Scotland remaining in continuous membership.
Let us just look at some of that in more detail. We have around 90 per cent of the EU’s oil and gas reserves. We accounted for around two thirds of EU crude oil and a fifth of EU natural gas production in 2009. An independent Scotland would be the largest producer of oil and the second largest producer of gas in the entire European Union. In 2010-11, there were more than 16,000 EU students enrolled at our higher education institutions and 150,000 EU citizens living here by virtue of the freedom of movement that comes with our being part of the EU.
In other words, we are an integral member of the EU and it is simply not credible to argue that the other nations of the European Union would not want to retain access to the vast array of resources and opportunities that Scotland brings to the EU table. Indeed, if the Opposition parties have Scotland’s best interests at heart—notwithstanding their opposition to independence—they will accept that, in the event of a yes vote, the process that I have outlined would be in the best interests of Scotland, the UK and the EU.
As I said earlier, I have sought the opportunity to discuss the matter with Mr Barroso in the near future. I will be very happy to update Parliament following that discussion.
The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement.
In December 2007, at the European and External Relations Committee, in answer to a question from my colleague Irene Oldfather, the Deputy First Minister stated that
“it is the clear view of the Scottish National Party and the Government that Scotland would automatically be a member of the European Union upon independence.”
Ms Oldfather went on to ask:
“Do not all member states require to negotiate?”—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 11 December 2007; c 231, 232.]
Ms Surgeon’s response to that was no. [Interruption.]
Order.
On 13 September 2012, during First Minister’s questions, the First Minister said:
“There must be negotiations”.—[Official Report, 13 September 2012; c 11407.]
By 10 December 2012, the yes campaign was issuing press releases stating that it was “common sense” that an independent Scotland would remain in the EU. However, during the Deputy First Minister’s statement, she simply talks about a vague
“intention to remain within the EU”.
First, it was automatic, then we needed negotiation, then it was “common sense” and now it is an “intention”. Of course, all that—
You must ask a question, Ms Ferguson.
Much of Ms Sturgeon’s statement is mere assertion.
I need a question, Ms Ferguson.
During the five years—it is nearly six years—for which the Deputy First Minister’s Government has been in power, with which of the 27 EU member states has she discussed Scotland remaining in the European Union, given that all would have a say on that matter? What discussions to date has her Government conducted with any official of the European Union about the matters that she now feels are so urgent that they must be brought to the attention of President Barroso?
I make it absolutely clear to Patricia Ferguson—in case she did not quite get the gist of this from my statement—that there is no doubt about this Government’s commitment to remaining part of the European Union. If only the same could be said of some of the other parties that are represented in the chamber.
I refer the member again—I mentioned this in my statement—to “Choosing Scotland’s Future”, a Government publication in 2007, which made clear the point that I have made clear again today about the requirement for negotiation. [Interruption.]
Order.
The difference of opinion is that I do not accept that Scotland would be in the position of having to reapply and that those negotiations would be about reapplication. However, I agree that we would be negotiating the terms of our continuing membership. The key point that Patricia Ferguson and others must grasp is that, regardless of that, negotiations would take place within the European Union. I hope that Patricia Ferguson would accept that in Scotland’s interests, if for no other reason.
In relation to Patricia Ferguson’s point about engagement, as the First Minister made clear at First Minister’s questions today, this Government wants to engage with a range of organisations and interests about our plans for the transition to independence and what we would do with the powers of independence. We will engage with the European Commission; I have already said that I have sought early discussions with President Barroso. We will engage with other member states.
The question that Patricia Ferguson and others must answer—or, at least, the point that they must make clear—is this: is she really saying that Scotland would be kicked out of the European Union? [Interruption.]
Order.
If she is saying that, she should say so explicitly, because that is an incredible proposition and would undoubtedly and rightly attract the derision that it deserves.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for prior sight of her statement. It is a triumph of optimism and evasiveness over hard-headed fact and reality because it poses far more questions than it answers.
The Deputy First Minister says that the process of negotiating Scotland’s place in Europe will take just 18 months. How is that possible when the fastest-ever process—that for Finland—took nearly three years? Does she even know—[Interruption.]
Order.
Does she even know whether she will be granted a meeting with President Barroso? Does she even know when that meeting is likely to be? What questions will she ask him, or will she just tell him how it will be? I am afraid that that is the clear implication of this risible statement, because she actually says that she will outline the process to President Barroso. Poor man. [Laughter.]
Order.
If she knows exactly what the process is, why does she not share that with the rest of us?
Most laughable of all, we are expected to believe that an independent Scotland will be in the same position as a bankrupt failed state such as East Germany. That really will take—[Interruption.] It is in the statement. [Interruption.]
Order.
That really will take some explaining to the people of Scotland.
Optimism is not something that I usually associate with the Scottish Conservatives.
It is incredibly amusing to hear such deference to the President of the European Commission emanating from the Tory benches. As the First Minister said earlier, it was only yesterday that David Cameron stood up in the House of Commons and stated clearly and unequivocally that he did not agree with President Barroso.
The statement that I made is based on common sense and realism. Most people, other than those who are gripped by the fevered imagination that grips the better together Tory-Labour-Liberal alliance, would recognise the realism at the heart of what I said. [Interruption.]
Order.
Annabel Goldie rather demeans herself and her party with the comments that she just made about East Germany. I was not comparing Scotland to East Germany; I was using the example—[Interruption.]
Order.
I was using the example of a process that demonstrates the adaptability, flexibility and realism of the European Union. Annabel Goldie might want to reflect on the fact that reunification of Germany was agreed, I think, in September 1990 and, in October of the same year, East Germany became part of the European Union. Perhaps, when she makes comments about timescales, she might want to reflect on actual situations and precedents.
I return to my central point: is Annabel Goldie or anybody else in the chamber seriously saying that Scotland—oil-rich, renewable energy-rich and fishing-rich Scotland—would find itself ejected from the European Union? If they are arguing that, they should stand up and argue it explicitly and they will be laughed out of the chamber and laughed at across the country, as they would deserve to be.
We move to questions from back-bench members. Many members want to ask questions. I ask those who are going to ask questions to make them brief. I would also appreciate brief answers.
I will say one more thing. The Opposition parties asked for this statement. It is important that we question the Deputy First Minister in the way in which she needs to be questioned and that she answers those questions. Therefore, I would appreciate it very much if I did not have to call order every 10 or 15 seconds. Let us get through the questions and let us conduct ourselves in the way that we should as a Parliament.
Does the Deputy First Minister take the view—as I certainly do—that the claim that citizens of an independent Scotland would somehow be stripped of their rights as EU citizens simply for exercising their democratic right of self-determination is nothing more than scaremongering—
Yes, but do you have a question, Ms Ewing?
Does the Deputy First Minister agree, moreover, that that claim is totally in contravention of common sense?
Yes, I do. It is worth focusing on the implications of what the other parties argue. If they are correct and Scotland would be kicked out of the European Union, not only would Scottish citizens be stripped of our EU citizenship, but the citizens of other European countries would be stripped of their rights vis-à-vis Scotland. Therefore, the fishermen of other countries—Spain or France, for example—would no longer have the rights that they enjoy. Businesses of other European countries would no longer have those rights, and their citizens who currently live in Scotland would no longer enjoy them.
Or students.
Or students. That underlines how preposterous the position is that the Opposition is putting forward and why, as a result, it does not deserve to be taken seriously.
I am pleased that the Deputy First Minister has finally admitted that the terms of Scotland’s EU membership are a matter of negotiation. In her statement, she went on to say that adopting the euro and entering the Schengen agreement would not be up for negotiation. Specifically, would Britain’s European rebate, which is currently worth £90 to every Scot, be a matter of negotiation?
Ken Macintosh is always keen to pull up Scottish National Party members for alleged—usually inaccurately alleged—inaccuracies. I suggest that he should go and check some documents; he might then realise that his comment about me finally conceding negotiations is completely inaccurate. He should check documents from 2007, 2009 and 2012.
On the euro, I suggest that Ken Macintosh look closely and in detail at the situation in Sweden. As we heard earlier, the article in The Scotsman this morning makes it clear that no country can be forced to adopt the euro.
On the rebate, I am confident of an independent Scottish Government negotiating a good deal for Scotland. UK Governments have consistently failed to do that. [Interruption.]
Order.
In all seriousness, Scotland and the UK would have a shared interest in the issue. As I said in my statement, independence for Scotland means renegotiation of many of these matters for the UK as well. We would work together to get the best deal, and I am confident that an independent Scottish Government, in arguing for Scotland’s interests in a way that UK Governments have failed to do, would get a much better deal than we have been used to in the past.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement.
The statement at least answers the question that I asked the First Minister earlier today about whether he expects all 27 member states of the European Union simply to sign up to whatever the Scottish Government demands. The answer seems to be, “Yes, the Scottish Government does—to every single thing.” It seems that the Deputy First Minister has some starry-eyed belief that an independent Scotland would never lose out in any negotiation, for the rest of time. Back in reality, can she answer Patricia Ferguson’s question? When does she plan to meet the 27 members of the European Union to establish whether they agree with her claims?
I look forward to engaging with other member states, the European Commission and the UK Government—if it will engage with us—on the arguments for Scotland being an independent country, because I think that those arguments are not just compelling, but unanswerable.
Willie Rennie has to answer a question about what he believes about other member states. Let us remember the context in which we would operate—it would be just after the people of Scotland had democratically voted for Scotland to become an independent country in a democratic referendum. I do not know, but perhaps in his world, people would not respect that democratic decision by the Scottish people. I believe that other countries across the European Union would respect it. I do not believe that just for that reason; I believe that because it is in the overwhelming interest of the rest of Europe to keep Scotland within the European Union.
Sooner or later, the Opposition parties, notwithstanding their opposition to independence, will have to stop arguing as if they are against the interests of Scotland, because that is how they are coming across in the debate.
When the Deputy First Minister meets Mr Barroso, will she raise concerns with the European Commission regarding the UK’s withdrawal from the EU? Does she agree that the biggest threat to Scotland’s EU membership comes from the Westminster Government and not from Scottish independence?
Yes, I do. That is a serious point; if it was not so serious, it would be utterly laughable to have to listen to Tories, and those Liberals who prop them up, wringing their hands about the continuing EU membership of an independent Scotland when, all the time at Westminster, large sections of those parties are conspiring to get the UK and, by extension, Scotland out of the European Union. I suggest to the Tories in particular that they put their house in order before they start giving lessons to anybody else.
Will the Deputy First Minister say whether the Government has received specific legal advice on the matter of EU membership? Will she also explain how the Scottish people can trust a Government that spent five years claiming that its position on EU membership was backed by legal advice, wasted public money to prevent the publication of that advice and then destroyed its credibility by denying that the legal advice ever existed?
As the member knows, I said in my statement on 23 October that the Government had commissioned specific legal advice on the issue of Scotland’s membership of the European Union. That advice has not yet been received.
On the issue of trust, I do not think that a party that got the electoral hiding that Labour got in last year’s election is in any position to come to this chamber and talk about trust. The people of Scotland demonstrated in the election which party they trust. Since then, Johann Lamont has done a U-turn on all the universal benefits that she once used to promise. I think that, at the next electoral opportunity, the people of Scotland will take the same decision all over again.
What effect does the Deputy First Minister anticipate the loss of Scotland as an EU member state would have on the EU? [Interruption.]
Members of the Opposition parties can laugh all they like, but the fact is that they behave as if Scotland would be going to the European Union empty handed. Scotland brings vast resources and vast opportunities to the European table. I outlined the statistics on the wealth of our oil and gas resources, and our fishing resources are equally enormous. There are also the opportunities that students get to study here in our world-renowned education system. My constituency has thousands of people living in it from across the European Union. Is anybody seriously suggesting that the rights and responsibilities of all those people would be taken away overnight? That is not a credible proposition.
Let us have a robust debate about independence in the next couple of years, but let the Opposition stop insulting the intelligence of the Scottish people, because that is what they are doing. [Interruption.]
I call Margo MacDonald, to be followed by Stewart Maxwell.
Is it me?
Yes, Ms MacDonald—you.
There was so much noise, Presiding Officer.
Sorry about that.
Why does the Deputy First Minister insist on pursuing a line of argument that conflates the policy on Europe of the party in government with the principle? There is great confusion outside the walls of this place about the two. Why will she not meet the Governments of the European Free Trade Association, because that would be time better spent?
I know Margo MacDonald’s position on the issue, which is perfectly respectable. My view is that Scotland is better served within the European Union and that the European Union is better served with Scotland in it.
In response to the first part of Margo MacDonald’s question, I say with the greatest respect that I am making this statement as a Scottish Government minister, so it is reasonable for me to articulate Scottish Government policy. At every opportunity, when I discuss the matter of Scottish independence, I make clear the distinction between the policy of this Government and the restoration of powers to this Parliament that would allow parties standing on other platforms, if elected, to implement policies that might not be the same as those of this Government.
That is a clear distinction, which Margo MacDonald is right to point out and which I will continue to make. However, as long as I am speaking for the Scottish Government in this Parliament, it is reasonable for me to articulate the policies of this Government.
At First Minister’s question time, Willie Rennie said that the First Minister must set out what an independent Scotland would stand to lose from having a seat at the top table in the European Union. Will the Deputy First Minister set out the benefits of direct Scottish representation in the EU?
I am not just crawling and being über-loyal when I say that I do not think that I can better the First Minister’s answer to Willie Rennie earlier today—
There was no answer! [Laughter.]
Order.
Maybe I could better it. Maybe on another occasion I will try.
On the serious point that Stewart Maxwell raised, we stand to gain a great deal, not just from continuing to be in the European Union but from having an independent seat at the top tables of the European Union. I am sure that Richard Lochhead would articulate clearly the benefits of being a minister of an independent Government when it comes to crucial talks on fishing.
I think that many people throughout Scotland want rigorous, assertive representation in Europe but would prefer Scotland not to be tainted with the increasing Euroscepticism that we see in Conservatives south of the border. A future in which we speak with our own voice and assert our own interest, while working as constructive partners with our friends across the European Union, is the right future for Scotland, and I think that that future for Scotland will win the day in 2014.
There are still many members who want to ask a question. I intend to continue questions for a wee while, although I doubt that I will get to everyone. I intend to try to take time out of the debate later in today’s programme.
I am grateful to you, Presiding Officer.
No member had better accuse me of ever wanting to withdraw from the EU. I have campaigned all my adult life for the EU—
Yes, but can we have a question, Ms Eadie?
I have repeatedly raised with the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister the question of the Scottish Parliament having an inquiry and the Scottish Government facilitating such an inquiry. If the First Minister and Deputy First Minister believe so much in democracy and trust, why do they continually block their back benchers in the Scottish Parliament from allowing the Parliament to have an inquiry into membership of the EU and the impact of all that on the people of Scotland?
Fundamental issues are raised, which are key, and the people of Scotland must have answers, and an inquiry—
I think that we get your point, Ms Eadie.
If I may just make—
No. I think that we have got your point, Ms Eadie. Also, it is not the Deputy First Minister’s responsibility to decide what committees of this Parliament do or do not do.
Can the Deputy First Minister say with confidence that if negotiations are successfully concluded, implementation of matters such as Scotland’s representation in the European Commission and Parliament would not trigger, in other EU countries, domestic ratification procedures that relate to treaty changes?
I am confident that the process of Scotland’s continuing membership of the European Union, with Scotland and other member states acting in good faith, based on our shared interests, could be implemented smoothly. I cited a precedent—not a direct precedent but an example of the process taking place. I will be happy to discuss the matter with Patrick Harvie if he would find that helpful.
Given the Opposition parties’ previous, rather obsessive concerns about the ability of the Scottish Parliament to hold a legally binding referendum, only for the Scottish and UK Governments to resolve the issues by a process of negotiation, does the Deputy First Minister agree that an independent Scotland’s continued membership of the EU will be assured by a process of negotiation, too?
Yes, I believe that strongly. Rod Campbell is right to point to those people, including some in this chamber, who, at the start of this year, were saying that the UK and Scottish Governments could never sit down and negotiate an agreement that would lead to the referendum that he talks about. We have demonstrated that that can be done.
That takes me to a crucial point. We will have passionate, heated and noisy debates over the next couple of years. It is perfectly legitimate for people to argue against independence and it is legitimate for those who believe in independence to argue for it, but we must all recognise that, once the people of Scotland decide and if they decide democratically to become an independent country, the Scottish Government and the UK Government will work together to implement that decision. That is encapsulated in the Edinburgh agreement, but even if it was not, it makes sense because many of the things that will be in the interests of Scotland at that point will also be in the interests of the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that that common-sense, mature attitude will prevail. We have the example of the Edinburgh agreement, which points to that.
The Deputy First Minister has failed to convince me why she is right and President Barroso is wrong. I therefore ask her a simpler question. What is her understanding of the word “automatic”, and how does it differ from the term “after negotiation”?
If I had set the test for my statement today as having to convince Drew Smith, I would have been setting myself up for a spectacular failure. If the member will forgive me, that was not the test that I had set for my statement.
I want to make a serious point. Mr Barroso is the President of the European Commission; that position brings with it a great deal of authority, and he deserves to be treated with respect. However, as I said in my statement, he is not the final arbiter of these matters. The difference of opinion between myself and President Barroso lies in whether the negotiations would be about a reapplication or about continuing membership. In any event, those negotiations would take place within the European Union, not least because over that period we would still be within the UK.
That takes me back to the common-sense point. Does anybody really believe that it is in the interests of the European Union to eject Scotland? That is where the arguments of all the Opposition parties founder. They can come up with all the technical process arguments they like, but those arguments founder on that common-sense point and will always founder on it because the Opposition parties have got it wrong.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the prize for Scotland as an independent member state is the opportunity to be at the centre of decision making in the institutions of the European Union and that if Scotland votes yes she can look forward to the day when we will occupy the presidency of the Council of the EU, as other small nations have consistently and successfully done since the EU’s inception? [Interruption.]
It is outrageous to hear the guffaws from the Opposition benches. Independent Ireland will assume the presidency in January. Why should not Scotland aspire to be in exactly the same position?
I look forward to the day when we are represented by ministers of an independent Scottish Government. I would rather be represented in Europe by an independent minister from another party than by a Tory UK minister who, more often than not, will misrepresent the interests of Scotland. Roll on the day when we are an independent member of the European Union.