The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17539, in the name of Angus Robertson, on Scotland in today’s Europe. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.
14:59
This year, we mark 75 years since the signing of the Schuman declaration on 9 May 1950. Last Friday, I and others in the chamber celebrated Europe day and the shared values that underpin the European project. Poignantly, last week, we also marked 80 years since victory in Europe day on 8 May 1945 and the liberation of Europe by the allied forces that ended the second world war in Europe. I had the privilege to mark the day, on behalf of the Scottish Government, at a memorial service at Westminster Abbey in London.
Out of the ashes of the second world war grew renewed ideas about international unity and co-operation between nations, about building trust and about basing the world order on the rule of law. One of those ideas was the European Coal and Steel Community, which paved the way for the European Union. The six original signatories of the Schuman declaration agreed to put the production of key defence materials under common control, thereby building trust through transparency and, ultimately, through economic interdependence. Erstwhile bitter rivals became partners and lasting peace and prosperity became a shared reality for members of the EU.
The Liberal Democrats will support today’s Government motion. The cabinet secretary is right to refer to the European Coal and Steel Community, the establishment of which meant that the nations of Europe could never again build a war machine without others being aware of that. Does he recognise that, in the straitened times in which we find ourselves, with global strife, the threat of war and an existing war in continental Europe, our relationship with Europe has never been more important?
I thank the Liberal Democrats for their support for the Government’s motion. It has been drafted in a way that has received a welcome from other parties, which is a good thing.
Mr Cole-Hamilton’s raising of defence and security issues is also relevant for us all. We have tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees in Scotland, and the Scottish Government supports the United Kingdom Government’s interventions in helping to secure a just peace for Ukraine. As I will come on to later in my speech, we are approaching a United Kingdom-European Union summit next week, at which defence and security will be important parts of the discussion. We support the UK Government’s position on those issues, but there are others where things are a little more challenging. I will come to those later and, if Mr Cole-Hamilton wishes to intervene at that point, I will be happy to take an intervention from him.
The ideals that led to the founding of the European Economic Community and then of the European Union will be at the forefront of our minds—and, I hope, at the forefront of the minds of those in the UK Government—when, on Monday, the Prime Minister will meet the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council for what UK ministers are calling a “reset” summit on UK-EU relations. Tragically, that summit takes place as war has returned to our continent, our international institutions are under threat, the far right is rising across the globe and many people sense that we live in an increasingly divided and polarised world.
On Sunday, I chaired a Festival of Europe Scotland event held by the Scottish Council on Global Affairs entitled, “Beyond the UK, beyond the EU–what in the world lies ahead?” It was a fascinating and sobering discussion about the challenges that we are living through, but it was also about how to use these times to offer hope and optimism for the future. We have long known that the major challenges of today, such as humanitarian emergencies, climate change and resource insecurity, can be addressed only by working together as a global community.
The Scottish Government of course supports closer partnership between the UK and the EU on defence and security challenges, including on our shared and unwavering support for Ukraine and on condemnation of Russia and the threat that it poses, which we cannot underestimate. Global instability, particularly the on-going threat of a trade war, is having economic impacts everywhere, including here in Scotland and in the rest of the UK.
I agree with the sentiment that the cabinet secretary expresses, but does he agree that that sentiment would be given fuller expression if the UK and the EU were to agree that Russian fossil fuel trading must be included in the sanctions regime? A company that is based in Glasgow is still making a profit from trading in Russian liquefied natural gas, which is within the rules of the current sanctions regime. Surely such a lethal business should be added to the sanctions.
I can give you the time back, cabinet secretary.
I certainly agree that sanctions should be respected and that any evidence of companies trying to get round those should be brought to light. [Interruption.] I hear Mr Harvie speaking from a sedentary position. If he is asking me whether I would support the strengthening of sanctions, the answer is simple: I would.
I move on by borrowing from Germany’s former Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, who said that we are living through a Zeitenwende—a turning point or crossroads. We have been here before. Relatively recently in our lifetimes, in 1989, change was under way after the fall of the Berlin wall. However, we have to be honest. That was a time of great hope and opportunities, but it was also a time of deep uncertainty about the future in Europe and internationally after the cold war. The experiences of the previous decades created fear about what the reaction to the communist dominoes falling in eastern Europe would be and what it would mean for the world.
Once the dust had settled, great challenges lay ahead in Europe, which were: supporting the development of democracy in a great number of different countries; rebuilding and transforming economies; and making European neighbours who had been cut off from the European integration process partners and, ultimately, ready to become EU members.
The European project, too, evolved greatly during that time. In 1992, the EU as we know it today was founded through the Maastricht treaty. In 2004, enlargement marked a watershed moment for post-1989 Europe with 10 new members joining the EU, and they have been followed by several more since then.
I turn to the contributions that have been made to our country by people from those European accession states and, indeed, all those from overseas who have chosen to settle here and make Scotland their home.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
If the member does not mind, I will not take the intervention now as I want to make a bit more progress.
It is important that we understand and respect that the people who have come to Scotland from the European Union and the rest of the world are just that—people. That is their defining characteristic. They are not just migration statistics, but people with the same dreams and aspirations as everyone else, and they deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as everyone else.
Back in 2005, the then First Minister and Scottish Labour leader said:
“The way to preserve schools and hospitals and services in this country and the way to have a strong economy in the years to come is to have more fresh talent in this country.”
Commendably, Jack McConnell also noted that immigration goes beyond the economic benefits, vital though those are for Scotland. He said that it is about our values and our place in the world, and he was right.
How far Labour has fallen since then. On Monday, instead of echoing that hopeful, optimistic, welcoming and inclusive message, the Prime Minister engaged in ugly, damaging and disgraceful rhetoric. Instead of standing up to the far right, he chose to lie down in front of Nigel Farage. For Keir Starmer to use words such as “squalid” and “strangers” and to describe those who have come to the UK as being part of “a lab experiment” was truly a new low for Labour.
Let me reassure all those from Europe and beyond who have made Scotland their home and who may well be feeling bruised and uncertain today. I say to them: the Scottish Government values what you do. Your contribution to our health service, our care homes, our businesses and our communities is immense. You are part of us. You will always be welcome, and we thank you for making Scotland your home.
Freedom of movement has been one of the European Union’s greatest achievements. The opportunity for people in Scotland to live, love and work in 27 other countries should have been celebrated, not denigrated. Like all great partnerships, the EU will of course have its moments of discussion and disagreement. However, like all good relationships, it has established mechanisms to come to agreements and make them work.
When the EU’s founding values such as equality, democracy and the rule of law can seem under threat even from some within the union, now is the time to proclaim those values even more loudly.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I will.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary. I wanted to intervene earlier, when he talked about the forthcoming UK-EU summit in London. He will have seen, as I saw, the front page of this morning’s Financial Times, which discloses an internal EU document that sets out some terms and conditions. Particularly given the things that he has said in his speech about the situation on the continent of Europe, does he think that it is right that the EU should conditionalise co-operation on security on the basis of unlimited, far-reaching access to UK fishing waters?
Cabinet secretary, I can give you the time back for the intervention.
I will come to that specifically in a moment, and, indeed, in my summing up; I will answer that in full in the course of the debate, for reasons that will become obvious.
Last week, we marked Europe day, on which we remember the circumstances in which great institutions were founded and recall the ideas about international unity and co-operation between nations that we might learn the lessons of the past, base the world order on the rule of law and build trust over division. We need those institutions so that we can find common ground, tackle challenges by working together and, above all, rebuild trust. That common good is eroding globally today.
Nearly nine years ago, the Scottish people overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU while the UK made the regrettable choice to leave. Scotland stands steadfast behind the European idea and project, which are the founding principles of the European Union today. We uphold our shared values. Scotland is a proud European nation with a strong internationalist tradition and outlook.
That vote, and the Government’s commitment since then, leaves no doubt that Scotland’s place is in the EU and that we are committed to rejoin the EU as an independent member state. We welcome and support the UK Government’s intent to seek improved relations with the EU. We have tirelessly called for better relations. If the UK Government is serious about economic growth, it will drop its red lines and get back into the single market and the customs union. There are many areas in which a closer partnership with the EU could at least lessen the damage of Brexit.
During your discussions with the UK Government, has there been any detail about an agreement that was sought involving the potential fisheries arrangements—a policy that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament?
Always speak through the chair.
I confirm to Clare Adamson and to the Parliament that the United Kingdom Government has had no detailed discussion with the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Government or the Welsh Government on that issue, which is, of course, devolved. More than that, the interministerial group that would discuss environment, fish and rural affairs issues has been cancelled the last three times that it was due to meet. The last time, only two hours’ notice was given.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will give way to Mr Bibby. He might be able to explain that.
Well, I will explain to the cabinet secretary that if we rejoined the EU—as is his position—we would be rejoining the common fisheries policy.
On economic growth, does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that, during the first three months of this year, the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7?
I always welcome economic growth, but I will not welcome holding discussions on behalf of the Parliament, the Scottish Government and the country but not involving its institutions. The European Union is sharing the text of the potential outcomes of next week’s discussions with its member states. The UK Government is not doing so with devolved Administrations. There are a few days for that to be changed. Perhaps Mr Bibby will pick up the phone to speak to his colleagues in London and ask why it has not done that.
In advance of the leaders’ summit, which will take place in London on Monday, we have outlined our position in recent publications on a youth mobility agreement, Erasmus+, creative Europe, closer energy and climate co-operation, and core needs for a veterinary, food and drink agreement with the EU. We also strongly support closer working with EU partners on defence and security.
At all times during the build-up to the summit, we have offered to be constructive partners with the UK Government, and although a number of meetings have taken place, it is unacceptable that today—only a few days from the summit—no draft text has been shared with us or other devolved Governments. That is in stark contrast to the way the EU treats its member states.
The cabinet secretary kindly invited me to intervene at this stage in his remarks, and I am gratified to hear that a number of the clauses that were in the Liberal Democrat amendment—which was not selected for debate—on a youth mobility scheme, a comprehensive defence pact and the removal of red lines that prevent us from getting back into the customs union are all part of his Government’s priorities.
Indeed, they are, and there is largely consensus on that. At least, perhaps there is consensus—I am not entirely sure what the position of the Scottish Conservative Party is on measures that would boost our economy, support our care sector and national health service, give young people the opportunity to live and work throughout Europe, and, indeed, support continental European young people coming to this country. There is a shared agenda, and I think that there is a majority in the Parliament for it.
I hope that the UK Government is listening, and I hope, with some days to go, that it chooses to conduct its business with the devolved Administrations in the UK with the same dignity and respect that the European Union does with its member states.
Let me finish by reiterating a core point: the best relationship that Scotland and the UK can have with the EU will always be as full member states of the European Union. That is what we hope that Scotland can look forward to in the future.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the best relationship that Scotland and the UK can have with the EU is to be a member of the EU; calls on the UK Government to drop its red lines on the single market, customs union and freedom of movement; further calls on the UK Government, at its forthcoming summit with the EU, as a first step, to negotiate an ambitious veterinary, food and drink agreement, closer energy and climate co-operation, greater freedom of movement, including opportunities for young people, and further measures to lessen the ongoing economic, social and cultural damage of Brexit, and believes that it is unacceptable that the UK Government has not shared any draft summit texts with the Scottish or other devolved governments.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. I call Stephen Kerr to speak to and move amendment S6M-17539.4. You have a generous eight minutes, Mr Kerr.
15:14
I do not think that the cabinet secretary actually answered the question that I asked in my intervention. I am happy for him to intervene on me to answer the question: does he think that it is right that the European Union is making security co-operation contingent on long-term access to UK fishing waters? He did not answer that question, and maybe he would like to take a moment to do so.
I am happy to make an intervention. No, I would not be pleased to see defence and security co-operation being conditional on any other consideration. I believe that defence and security serve us all, and they should be key priorities. However, I hope that the member recognises that it is a hugely deficient situation that, with only Friday, Saturday and Sunday—three days—to go until the summit meeting in London, and when he is able to read about the issues on the front pages of UK newspapers, Government ministers in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Northern Ireland have not been informed by the UK Government about any of the detailed discussions.
I can give you the time back, Mr Kerr.
The relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK Government is a long-running story. On taking office, the Labour Party thought that it could reset the relationship with the Scottish Government, and the Scottish Government was full of similar sentiments. I think that the cabinet secretary perhaps has the answer to the question that he is asking at his own fingertips.
Let me be absolutely clear that I actually agree with the cabinet secretary: it is wrong—plain wrong—for the European Union to make security co-operation conditional on anything. Such is the nature of the threat that we face on our shared continent that there should be no conditionality with regard to our working together to thwart the efforts of Vladimir Putin or anyone else who would seek to undermine the European nation states, which should be working together in what Keir Starmer, I think, has rightly called a coalition of the willing.
Where are we on this wonderful Thursday afternoon? Here we are again—in a packed chamber, as we can see—being asked again to indulge the SNP’s constitutional obsession, which we have already had a good introduction to from the cabinet secretary, as if the solution to Scotland’s economic challenges is always the same: break up the UK, rejoin the EU and pretend that sovereignty is a burden rather than a prize.
Angus Robertson’s motion—I hope that he will forgive me for saying so; he might even take this as a compliment—looks as though it could have been written in Brussels. It calls on the UK to abandon the basic pillars of our post-Brexit independence, to drop the so-called red lines of leaving the single market and the customs union, and to re-adopt freedom of movement. However, those are not just red lines; they are the democratic instructions of the British people. We did not vote to leave the EU in name only; we voted to take back control of our laws, our borders, our trade policy and our money, and that is what we have done.
In the past few days, we have seen the evidence of the fruits of an independent trade policy. That is something that Angus Robertson and the SNP would freely and willingly give up, but it is an advantage and a benefit that has come about because we left the European Union.
Since Brexit, the United Kingdom has signed more than 70 trade deals and we have joined the CPT—I always get this wrong. We have joined the CPTPP—the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We are also negotiating the detail of free trade agreements with India and the United States.
In particular, the trade deal with India has been widely welcomed, especially by the Scotch whisky industry, because, behind that deal, there will be prosperity for the sector and jobs in some of the most remote parts of Scotland. That is one sector that can take advantage of trade between the United Kingdom and, for example, India and the United States, but there are other sectors, too. This is Brexit delivering and yet, now, amid the debate on this motion and in the light of today’s front page-story in the Financial Times, we must face a new risk: not just the SNP’s fantasy of rejoining the EU but Labour’s quiet attempt to reverse Brexit by stealth.
The FT reports on a so-called “reset”—although we all know that the European Union does not like the use of that word, as was made clear to our colleagues who took part in a committee visit to Brussels. The report says that the Labour Government wants a reset of UK-EU relations, which is being driven by EU demands for British concessions on fishing rights and youth mobility because Brussels wants long-term access to UK fishing waters. The Scottish Conservatives will stand with Scotland’s fishermen in refuting the European Union’s demands for such concessions. That is not the way in which such matters have been done in the past, and it should it not be how they are done in the future.
Brussels also wants our students—through our Government, here in Edinburgh—to subsidise European students. It wants its students to have cheap access to United Kingdom universities. Crucially, it also wants a role for the European Court of Justice in overseeing the UK’s compliance with any future agreement that is discussed, starting on Monday.
Let us be in no doubt about what that means. It is not about having a partnership of equals; instead, it illustrates a creeping return to EU control. However, Labour seems only too ready to sign us up to that, behind closed doors. There is talk of a “dynamic alignment”, which is code for accepting new EU laws without having a say in making them. There is talk of a “youth mobility scheme”, but with permanent obligations and no clear limits. There are whispers of effecting “regulatory harmonisation” in return for marginal gains in trade.
That is not co-operation; it is capitulation. The British people did not vote for Brexit only to have it reinterpreted in secret summits and quiet deals. The Labour leader might claim that he is not interested in the “battles of the past”, but if he trades away our fishing grounds, our borders and our legal autonomy, he will not just be fighting yesterday’s battles—he will surrender them. Meanwhile, of course, the SNP cheers him on, because anything that weakens the United Kingdom suits its separatist agenda. Surely we have heard enough grievance in the cabinet secretary’s opening statement alone to convince the neutral observer that that is the intention of the SNP Government here at Holyrood.
Let us be clear that this is not about strengthening—
Will the member take an intervention?
Of course I will.
Does Stephen Kerr agree that the motion does not illustrate the SNP’s obsession with Europe; rather, it simply highlights its obsession with independence? The SNP will use any topic to further the cause of independence, whether it be Brexit, the pandemic, the war in Ukraine or even the policies of Nigel Farage. It will use anything to try to get its way, but it never will.
Douglas Lumsden is correct. Everything that happens—anything that the SNP sees on the 6 o’clock news—becomes a reason for breaking up the United Kingdom and an excuse for holding another referendum. Let us be clear that the SNP’s approach is not so much about strengthening ties with Europe as it is about weakening the bonds of Britain.
All of that comes wrapped up in staggering hypocrisy. The motion speaks of “closer ... climate co-operation”, while the SNP Government has no energy strategy, blocks nuclear power, sabotages oil and gas, and presides over wind farm developments that are collapsing under its own broken planning regime. It also talks of food and drink agreements, but it is the United Kingdom Government—not the EU—that is out there, fighting for Scottish exports. It is UK trade deals that are promoting around the world the Scotch whisky and Scottish salmon produced in our fantastic food and drink sector.
The motion laments that devolved Governments have not seen the draft EU summit texts, but it seems that the Financial Times has. Its report reveals that the EU is back to its usual ways of doing business. Let us not pretend that the SNP would use that information in good faith—even if it had access to it, which it apparently does not. It does not want a good deal for Britain—it wants a bad one, because it exists on a diet of political division and grievance. That is entirely why, this Thursday afternoon, we are here, taking up the Parliament’s time. The debate simply offers another opportunity for the SNP to fester that grievance.
I know that Brexit is not a finished job. However, the answer is not to go backwards but to defend and deepen our sovereignty, to use our freedoms to grow enterprise, to cut red tape and to secure the best deals for the UK on our terms. We cannot afford to drift back under the orbit of Brussels by stealth, nor can we allow an unelected European court to stand above our Parliament, our judges and our voters.
Scotland’s future lies not in surrendering our sovereignty to the EU or in surrendering our prosperity to nationalist ideology; it lies in standing proud as part of a strong, globally trading, forward-looking United Kingdom. This Parliament should reject the motion, it should reject the SNP’s dream of dependency, and it should reject Labour’s quiet sell-out of Brexit. Let us instead build a confident Scotland at the heart of a sovereign United Kingdom, looking not to Brussels but to the rest of the world.
I move amendment S6M-17539.4, to leave out from “agrees” to end and insert:
“recognises that foreign affairs, including the country’s relationship with the EU, trade and immigration are reserved matters, and calls on the Scottish Government to dedicate more parliamentary time towards tackling the issues that matter to most people in Scotland, such as improving NHS waiting times, raising Scotland’s falling attainment standards, addressing school violence and bringing down bills for taxpayers.”
I advise the chamber that, at this stage, there is a little time in hand, so members will get the time back for any interventions that they take.
15:25
Last week, when Anas Sarwar responded to the SNP’s latest programme for government, he asked, “Is that it?” It was an important question, because, after nearly two decades of SNP rule in Scotland, the legislative programme was a weak and meagre one. It was symbolic of the SNP’s term in office: all spin and no substance. It was a failure to meet the needs of the people of Scotland and to concentrate on what the Scottish Government is responsible for.
Here we are, just a week later, with a Scottish Government debate on Scotland’s place in today’s Europe when we should instead be debating what is happening in today’s Scotland. I am content to debate important international issues from time to time, as we did relatively recently, and it is, of course, right that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee considers in detail issues relating to the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union. However, today’s debate is about deflection and grandstanding ahead of the important UK-EU summit on Monday.
There is a growing disconnect between the Scottish people and Scottish politics. That is because this Government and this place are not doing their job. We could be debating the First Minister’s inadequate plans for new general practitioner appointments; the challenges that our education sector faces, although that would rely on the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills turning up; or a plan to solve our housing emergency. However, those issues are being sidelined in favour of SNP grandstanding on Europe.
The SNP opposed European Union membership in 1973—a fact that seemed to be missing from the cabinet secretary’s history lesson earlier. It spent more on the 2019 Scottish Parliament by-election than it spent on the 2016 referendum campaign. It failed to vote in the House of Commons for membership of the customs union in the 2019 indicative votes. Further, when the SNP cabinet secretary who opened today’s debate was in the House of Commons, he described the Lisbon treaty—one of the foundational documents of the European Union—as “unacceptable” and “a travesty”. The SNP can try to claim consistent support for European Union membership today, but the record suggests otherwise. This debate is not just opportunistic, it is performative.
I may be mistaken, but I do not recall Mr Bibby voting against the business motion when Parliament agreed that we should have this debate.
If Mr Bibby wants to use the debate to criticise others for inconsistency with a position from decades ago, can he explain why Labour’s position now is inconsistent with the position that it was arguing less than one decade ago, which was that Brexit would be a catastrophic decision for the United Kingdom to make?
My point is that we should be focusing on the issues that matter to the people of Scotland and for which we are responsible. Our position is in line with the mandate that we received at the general election, and we will be progressing that in the months and years ahead.
We accept that Brexit has been costly and damaging, and we know—because Kemi Badenoch has told us—that the Conservatives left the European Union without a plan for growth. That and the Liz Truss budget have significantly damaged our relationship with the European Union, economic growth and living standards. People now expect us to fix that mess, and that is exactly what they gave the new United Kingdom Labour Government a mandate to do.
Does Mr Bibby agree that fishing is devolved? If he does, can he explain why the United Kingdom Government has had no detailed discussions with devolved Administrations about potentially making a deal around fishing as soon as next week? Does he find that acceptable?
What is acceptable is that the UK Labour Government is getting on with the job of fixing the mess that the Tories left in relation to Brexit. I have said to Mr Robertson—I will say it for a second time—that his policy is not for fishing to be devolved. He wants to rejoin the European Union and the common fisheries policy. I think that the context of his comments about the Lisbon treaty, when he called it “unacceptable” and “a travesty”, was in relation to fisheries.
The UK Labour Government is getting on with the job of resetting our relationship with the European Union. To support Scottish businesses and jobs, it is negotiating trade deals with the United States and India. To protect our citizens, the UK Labour Government is increasing defence spending.
Will the member give way?
I want to make some progress.
The UK Labour Government is also growing the economy, with figures announced today showing that, for the first three months of this year, the UK had the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Meanwhile, what have the SNP Government and the cabinet secretary done to deal with the mess that we have been left in? I would say that they have done nothing but complain from the sidelines. The SNP has done one thing, at least, in rebuilding relations with our EU neighbours, but, yes, it has overlooked Scottish jobs and Scottish industry by sending ferry contracts to Poland, which is hardly the action of a nationalist Government. What is the SNP’s solution? We have heard it already. It is full fiscal autonomy and independence, which would cost Scotland £12.8 billion. That is only going to damage economic growth and living standards. Sixty-one per cent of Scotland’s exports—around £50 billion of goods—go to the rest of the UK. Independence would make Brexit look like a cakewalk.
I respect Neil Bibby, but I am interested to know whether he thinks that it is right that the EU would make security conditional on access to our fishing rights. According to the front page of the Financial Times and internal EU documents, the UK Government has already offered extensive long-term access to UK fishing waters to the EU. Does Mr Bibby know whether that is true?
I am afraid that I do not know, Mr Kerr. What I do know, though, is that the UK Labour Government will be working to progress our national interests. We are also seeking co-operation with the EU where we can and where that is appropriate, in line with our manifesto. That is the position that we have set out.
I welcome the fact that the new UK Labour Government is seeking to enter a strategic partnership between the UK and the EU on trade, security and defence. The situation with the EU requires work, and we are focused on that. Next week, the UK Government and the EU will hold a summit that is part of a wider plan to reset relations. The EU provides a fantastic opportunity to support and strengthen Scottish businesses and industries, and the UK Government is hoping to agree a veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, as we put forward in our manifesto last year. That would allow agricultural products—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have already taken three. Oh—okay, if the member is very brief.
I listened to what Mr Bibby said about the UK Government having Scotland’s best interests at heart. When we have a falling population and we are constantly crying out for people to come and work in our care sector and other sectors, how on earth does the rhetoric coming from the UK Government and Keir Starmer act in any way in Scotland’s best interests?
If we want more people to work in the care sector, we need to start paying care workers more money. The trade unions in the care sector have been demanding £15 an hour from the SNP Government, and the Government has come nowhere near meeting that demand. If we are serious about investing in and retaining staff in the care sector, we need to pay our workers more.
To protect Scotland’s interests, we want to ensure that we have a veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that will boost support for agricultural products and allow food and drink to be traded more cheaply between the UK and the EU. Removing those barriers would also improve exports. A study by Aston University estimates that an agreement could increase agri-food exports from the UK to the EU by at least 22.5 per cent. Other issues will be discussed, including youth mobility, energy co-operation, defence and security and, in particular, our support for Ukraine. The UK and the EU will have different priorities, as we have heard, but I welcome the UK Labour Government’s statement that it will work in the national interest as well as seek co-operation with our European friends and neighbours on key issues, in line with the manifesto on which Labour was elected.
This is a serious approach from a UK Government that is serious about rebuilding our economy and our relations with the EU. As I said at the start, the SNP Government should focus on its responsibility for improving living standards and economic growth, using its powers and the record funding settlement that it has had from the UK Government. However, the SNP Government’s ultimate policy position—for as long as that lasts—will run counter to that objective.
I move amendment S6M-17539.1, to leave out from “agrees” to end and insert:
“welcomes the UK Government resetting the UK’s relationship with the EU following the chaotic and damaging approach of the previous UK Conservative administration; further welcomes the summit to be held on 19 May 2025; welcomes the commitment by the UK Government to create a strategic partnership between the UK and the EU to agree a path forward on trade, security and defence; believes that economic growth, raising living standards and defence and security must be the highest of priorities for the Scottish and UK governments; welcomes the UK Government’s specific commitment to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement so that agricultural products, food and drink can be traded more cheaply between the EU and the UK, which could boost agri-food exports to the EU by up to 22.5%; further welcomes the commitment by the Prime Minister to improve security co-operation with the EU and to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027, which will benefit jobs and industries in Scotland; welcomes the UK Government’s newly negotiated trade deals with the United States and India, noting the importance of the latter for Scotland’s whisky industry; calls on the Scottish Government to support the UK Government’s efforts to rebuild the relationship with European friends and neighbours, and further calls on the Scottish Government to set out what actions it will take to improve economic growth and living standards in Scotland, including whether its public procurement processes will emulate those in other European countries in driving place-based industrial development, using the powers that it has and the record funding settlement that it has received from the UK Government of £47.7 billion this financial year.”
15:34
It is inevitable that a debate such as this will, to some extent, rehearse arguments from the run-up to 2016 and everything that has happened since. Some of us argued against Brexit back then and have not changed our position. We are very clear that the damage that we predicted has happened. We can point to it, see it and feel it in our economy, in our communities and in the rights and freedoms of our citizens having been reduced.
Then there are those who argued for Brexit and are currently having to go through extraordinary mental gymnastics in order to deny the reality of that harm. With the best will in the world, Mr Kerr might as well have stood up and sung “Rule, Britannia!” for 10 minutes—it would have made as much sense as the speech that he just gave.
However, there is an additional dimension now, nine years on from that referendum. We do not just have Brexiteers and pro-Europeans. We now also have a cohort of politicians who argued just as vociferously as the rest of us that Brexit would be harmful, and, indeed, catastrophic for the UK and for Scotland, but who are now, let us be generous, merely resigned to it. They are simply not willing to be consistent with the position that they set out just nine years ago. I remind Mr Bibby that he was criticising others for inconsistency with a position from 50 years ago, but that is inconsistency with a position from just nine years ago.
I am very happy to restate the case for membership of a modern democratic family of nations in the European Union in relation to the economic heft that comes from the size of the EU. We would probably not have predicted then the unilateral trade war that has been sparked off by the US, but it is very clear that a trading bloc on the scale of the European Union has a degree of heft that the UK no longer has on its own. I am also happy to restate that case in relation to the voice of the EU on the world stage. In 2016, we were part of what had been for a long time one of the most progressive voices in the global climate debate, but we are no longer part of that. Whether one believes in a deregulated free market or a well-regulated, balanced market, having shared regulation across a larger market brings many advantages.
I think that the strongest argument is the value of freedom of movement, because, as I have said before, for not just generations but centuries, the young people of the countries of Europe grew up knowing that their best chance of seeing another part of Europe was if their own Governments rounded them up, marched them into fields and ditches and made them slaughter one another in the service of a ruling class—very often the same ruling class across different countries on different sides of the various wars. After the horrors of the second world war, the countries of Europe began to build the institutions that turned into the EU and created a different future for young people, one in which they could decide on their own terms and at their own time whether they wanted to travel to learn, to work, to play and to build a life and be part of a community together.
Freedom of movement was one of the most astonishing political achievements in the post-war era, and it is a betrayal of the rights and interests of the next generation that they have had those freedoms taken away. In fact, they have had those freedoms—those liberties—taken away by people who, in many cases, have the nerve to call themselves libertarians. Those freedoms have been removed from young people.
The case for rejoining the EU is very clear and, in my view, urgent. That case for rejoining applies whether we focus on Scotland’s future, the future of the rest of the UK or the future of the UK as a whole. In addition to that case for rejoining, we are faced with a new and very dangerous dynamic. For a long time, the UK has sought to face both directions—towards Europe and across the Atlantic. It has sought to be part of Europe and to treat the US as one of its most trustworthy partners.
Under its new fascist Administration, the US can no longer be treated as a reliable, trustworthy partner. It is unleashing unilateral economic attacks on previous allies and direct security threats, and it is not treating a country such as Russia as the security threat that it is. It is actively promoting far-right politics in European countries, and it is a threat to democratic countries that it previously treated as allies.
In short, the UK can no longer afford that dual approach to the world—the idea that it does not need to choose between a democratic, peaceful family of nations in the European Union and an anti-democratic, anti-environment and anti-social justice threat from the US. The UK Government must make that choice. I deeply regret that, at the moment, we have a UK Government that is refusing to make that choice, is kowtowing to the US Administration and appears unwilling to commit to what it calls a reset. I would love a reset of our relationship with the European Union, if that reset means restoring the rights, freedoms and opportunities of young people to move on their terms, when they choose and for their purposes, or, indeed, the right for economic integration with our European family of nations. That level of reset does not seem to be on offer from the UK. If we want it, the only way to get it will be to do it for Scotland, as an independent member of the European Union.
15:41
As an ardent European, it gives me great pleasure to speak in any such debate, and I am grateful to the Government for making time for it.
As we have heard, last Friday marked Europe day, when European nations across the continent marked and, indeed, celebrated the legacy of a Europe that was rebuilt from the ashes of the second world war—not through rivalry or conquest, but through co-operation, solidarity and, of course, peace.
The cabinet secretary was absolutely right to reference the Schuman declaration—a bold, hopeful vision for a future in which countries work together to solve common challenges. That was particularly profound in a part of the world that had been ravaged by war for centuries, and a continent that, until then, had, all too often, been defined by those conflicts.
It was right that the first treaty of the European Union established the European Coal and Steel Community, which gave a collective assurance that no member country of—or signatory country to—that treaty could ever again build a war machine, and the signs of rearmament that led to the second world war could never again be manifest.
That legacy is now all the more important in the context of the tragic situation that has been unfolding in Ukraine since the full-scale invasion in 2022—indeed, since the initial invasion in 2014. War has returned to continental Europe. It is a reality that has been brought home to me in visceral clarity, not just in the testimony of the Ukrainian refugee who shared our home for nine months, but in the convoy that it was my privilege to take part in with Paul Sweeney over the Easter break, when we drove five ambulances to Lviv. In downtown Lviv, there is a city park that is not dissimilar to Princes Street gardens—or at least it was until the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022. It is now known as the field of Mars and is a cemetery for the glorious defenders of Ukraine. City officials hold funerals there every day, and there were three on the morning of our arrival alone. That speaks to the reality that war is never far away. The Treaty on European Union has kept this continent safe, but we need to safeguard it in other ways, too. That war—the Ukrainian defence of Ukraine—is just three tanks of diesel away.
I respect the fact that Alex Cole-Hamilton is a strong supporter of the European Union, but, as he might have predicted, I will ask him the same question that I have asked other colleagues. It is not right that the European Union hinges security co-operation on issues such as long-term access to UK territorial fishing waters. Surely, when we are facing what we are facing—and he has, rightly, been eloquent and articulate on the subject—we should come together without terms and conditions.
The member speaks the minds of many members in the chamber. In many ways, we face an existential threat to the freedoms that we enjoy. In the teeth of such a threat, we should not be playing politics with other aspects of state interests or multistate interests. I have some sympathy with his remarks on that. We have yet to see the exact detail of such proposals, but I would take a dim view—as, I am sure, would other ardent Europeans—if security co-operation were to be linked to other side-show issues, as important as those may be.
The Liberal Democrats are internationalists and unapologetically pro-European to our fingertips. The advent of Brexit and the Brexit referendum nine years ago causes us pain to this day. We believe in a Scotland that is at the heart of Britain and a Britain that is at the heart of Europe. We consider the four freedoms that were first espoused in the treaty of Rome—the free movement of goods, people, capital and services—as underpinning the most important charter for freedom that the world has ever seen. Brexit was a body blow to that vision—there is no question about that.
Let us be honest about the consequences that we all still face as a result of Brexit. The trade and co-operation agreement has now been in force for four years. It removed tariffs and quotas but left enormous friction in the form of red tape and bureaucracy, which is holding back our exporters, artists and service industries and is stifling growth in our economy. Our young people have lost the opportunities to live, learn and work across Europe, experiences that were so formative to those of us who benefited from them in our youth.
I welcome the UK Government’s commitment to reset our relationship with Europe. However, words alone are not enough. We need a tangible youth mobility scheme; our young people are still missing out on the EU Erasmus scheme. That scheme could not only provide experiences that are sometimes life-changing and formative for our young people, giving them the opportunity to live, study and work in Europe; it could also benefit our economy and enrich our academic institutions, particularly in areas such as the hospitality sector.
There is low-hanging fruit and little steps that would mutually benefit us and our European neighbours, such as mutual recognition of professional qualifications to open up labour markets or participation in EU research programmes.
While we are talking about the potential areas of agreement in next week’s summit, does Mr Cole-Hamilton agree that the creative Europe programme, in addition to Erasmus+, is something on which the UK Government should seek agreement with the European Union? Rejoining creative Europe would be transformational for our cultural sector and for our screen sector in particular. Will he take the opportunity of highlighting not only the advantages of rejoining the Erasmus+ programme but of rejoining the creative Europe programme as well?
The cabinet secretary speaks my mind. One of the untold tragedies of Brexit is the massive impact that it has had on our creative sector. I absolutely support his remarks and I associate myself with them.
Liberal Democrats also want those first baby steps to be steps towards tangibly rejoining the single market and the customs union, as part of a longer road map back to our future with Europe. We are not naive; we know that it cannot happen tomorrow or overnight. However, by taking those steps now, closer integration can be achieved.
We are stronger when we work together in this Parliament, across this island of nations and with our closest European neighbours. Patrick Harvie was right: we can depend less on the United States today than we perhaps could as little as three months ago. In that reality and realignment of national alliances, we must look to our nearest European neighbours.
The UK’s place is in Europe; it is part of Europe. That is the Liberal Democrat vision, and it is one that we will continue to fight and work for in chambers such as this.
We move to the open debate.
15:49
It is disgraceful that the UK Government is yet again completely ignoring the devolved nations on something as fundamental as engaging with the EU. I am not surprised that Stephen Kerr is getting tired of listening to the Scottish Government object to this country and its elected representatives being overlooked, overridden and obstructed by the UK Government, because we are all tired of that happening. It happens all the time, and it happened just as much when his party was in charge. It is no surprise that the Tory amendment boils down to “Wheesht and know your place, Scotland.”
However, it is very sad that Labour’s amendment launches into a full welcoming of the UK speaking to the EU without bothering to acknowledge that the same UK Government is not speaking to Scotland. I found the tone incredible, so I counted, and the amendment contains the word “welcomes” six times. Labour MSPs are still MSPs, and it is frankly embarrassing how content they are with their own party treating this place with no respect or consideration. It must be a great comfort to Keir Starmer that, in the midst of so many different groups being utterly furious and gutted by his performance so far as Prime Minister, no matter how blatantly or publicly he disrespects Scotland, his MSPs will be there to warmly welcome it.
Does Emma Roddick agree that it is odd, to say the least, that, although the Welsh Labour Government is prepared to raise the same concerns with the UK Government about how it is conducting its business and how it is not informing the devolved Administrations, the Scottish Labour Party has lodged an amendment that welcomes everything and is unprepared to criticise the UK Government on those points? Frankly, it is pretty embarrassing. If it is possible for Welsh Labour colleagues to do that, why will Scottish Labour members not do it?
Absolutely. I am embarrassed for them, and I hope that they will address that point later in the debate.
Our amendment welcomes the UK resetting relations with the EU, welcomes the summit that is to be held, welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to create a strategic partnership between the UK and the EU, welcomes the UK Government’s specific commitment to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement and welcomes the Prime Minister’s commitment to improve security co-operation with the EU. Does Emma Roddick welcome those things, too?
There are six “welcomes” but not one mention of the fact that Scotland has not even been invited to the table. Labour MSPs have not been invited to the table. It is incredibly embarrassing.
When I look at the news, I often see coverage of movement at Westminster, in Whitehall and in the European Parliament and the European Union, but I do not feel connected to what is being done on our behalf in London right now. I do not identify with the anti-migration, anti-equality and anti-welfare rhetoric that is coming out of the mouths of Keir Starmer and those in his Cabinet, and I do not believe that Scotland on the whole does, either.
I often identify with progress that is being made at a European level, such as the protections that the European Parliament has introduced to ensure that people’s data and safety are not compromised by poor use or misuse of artificial intelligence, as well as efforts to work together to tackle climate change and restore peace in Europe and across the world. Our values align with those of the European Union and, more and more every day, they do not align with those of the United Kingdom.
We still do not know, and might never appreciate, the full impact that Brexit will have economically, socially or culturally. Back in 2016, I campaigned for remain. I believed that it was the right thing to do and was saddened by the result, but I admit that I did not consider EU membership to be core to my political beliefs or necessary for the furtherance of them. I do not think that way now, as I see war and climate catastrophe inch closer and watch as the UK fails to act on shared crises such as climate change, artificial intelligence threats and human rights violations. Scotland needs to be back in with our neighbours and to work with other nations on shared challenges, and it needs to do so as an independent country. There would be times when we would disagree with other countries, but we would be doing so on an even footing, in stark contrast to how we are being treated in the local union, where our English counterparts do not even see fit to share information with Scotland ahead of engagement with the European Union on our behalf.
Closer energy and climate co-operation with the EU is no longer an optional extra; it is a global imperative. We should be working hand in hand with our European partners to tackle the climate emergency; we should not be creating obstacles. That is what Brexit has done. It erected barriers to trade, damaged our vital industries and made it harder for people to come to contribute to this society. Young people have missed out on countless opportunities, our national health service and medical research efforts have been isolated, and people have been made poorer.
Brexit has been a profound failure, but Keir Starmer seems dead set on exacerbating it in any way that he can. Not content with Brexit’s existing damage to the Scottish economy, which is estimated to be about £4 billion, he is reacting to people turning away from his party over its many broken promises by appealing to migration panic and making it even harder for people to come over here to fill our health and social care vacancies. He has made it clear that he would rather suck up to Trump than fix the damage that has been caused by leaving the single market and the customs union.
Keir Starmer’s red lines on Brexit should have been top of the list when he was considering which election promises to break. At least that would have improved things for the UK as a whole, instead of hurting pensioners, disabled people, Grangemouth workers and women against state pension inequality—the WASPI women.
Dropping red lines on freedom of movement is not just about addressing the damage that has been done to freedom of movement; it is about our values. Scotland is an open, welcoming nation, and we have a history of not just accepting but valuing fully the social and cultural ties that come with migration.
We are being badly served by the UK Government, regardless of who is in power. The reaction to a rise in divisive rhetoric should not be to pander to it. It should be to remain steadfast in our positive vision for an independent Scotland in Europe that works constantly towards upholding fundamental human rights. I am glad that the Scottish Government, at least, seems to remain committed to doing exactly that.
15:56
I speak today not just as a member of the Scottish Parliament and an unapologetic European but as someone who knows deeply and personally the cost of disconnection—disconnection from community and kin, from opportunity, from progress and from partnership. That is the true cost that Scotland is paying as a result of Brexit—a Brexit that we did not collectively vote for, that was imposed on us and that continues to inflict damage on our communities and economy.
At one point, not that long ago, the Parliament agreed—let me be clear: it was a deeply held belief for most members across the chamber—that the best relationship that Scotland and, indeed, the entire UK could have with the European Union was to be a full member. To my deep shame, and it should be to all our deep shame, we now find ourselves in an island of strangers and a Farage-esque, inward-looking, little Britain nightmare.
I find it deeply frustrating and very distasteful that, as economic migrants to Canada, when I was six, my family were known as expats, as if we were something exceptional, which I think had a lot to do with the colour of our skin.
I do not for one moment believe that the people of Scotland truly want us to accept that there is no way back for us to become part of the EU—not just to rebuild what we had but to rediscover who we are. They do not recognise the politics of Westminster any more. The EU was never just about trade or tariffs. It was about solidarity and shared values. It was about standing shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours to face the challenges of our age: climate change, social inequality, global health crises and conflict. At a time when we see war once again raging in Europe, we should be doing everything in our power to reignite that solidarity. We will not do that by tinkering about the edges, and I do not believe that it should be contingent on access to our fishing waters.
Brexit has not delivered the sunlit uplands that we were promised—far from it. It has delivered uncertainty for our businesses, anxiety for our young people and barriers for our farmers, our fishers and the food and drink sector, which is one of Scotland’s greatest economic assets.
Our creative industries, health system and universities have all been harmed by the red lines of past and present UK Governments—red lines that have become shackles. The refusal to even entertain access to the single market, the rejection of the customs union and the ideological opposition to freedom of movement were not inevitable choices; they were political choices that were made without the meaningful involvement of Scotland’s people or our Parliament. That continues to happen, and my colleague Emma Roddick highlighted how our Labour colleagues are just not able to challenge that.
When UK ministers speak of social care workers as being “unskilled”, it makes my hackles rise. Being a patient, caring, kind, compassionate and dedicated care worker takes great skill, and we should all do well to remember that.
It is time—indeed, it is past time—for the UK Government to drop its red lines. If it will not revisit its decision for the sake of principle, I ask it to do so for the sake of people: for the small business in Ayrshire that used to export cheese to France with ease but now faces paperwork delays and lost markets; for the nurse from Spain who used to work in our national health service but no longer feels welcome; and for the young person in Cumnock or Catrine who dreamed of studying or working in Europe but now faces borders, both literal and bureaucratic.
At the upcoming UK-EU summit, the UK Government has a rare opportunity—a chance to turn the page and to begin to rebuild trust and co-operation. I welcome all of that. However, that process must start with ambition.
Today, we must call on the UK Government to pursue a bold veterinary and food and drink agreement that can remove burdens from our farmers and producers, restore some measures of frictionless trade and bring immediate benefits to both sides of the channel. We must collectively call for closer energy and climate co-operation. We are in a climate and biodiversity emergency. Scotland is rich in renewable energy potential, and the climate crisis knows no borders. By aligning with EU standards and collaborating on innovation, research and resilience, we can deliver a greener and fairer future for us all.
We must call for greater freedom of movement, because people are not commodities. Our ability to live, work, study and love across Europe enriched our society and expanded our horizons. For our young people in particular, the loss of the Erasmus programme and the barriers to cultural and educational exchange are a wound that must be healed. We owe them better—we owe them the world.
I will be absolutely clear: it is not only the content of the UK Government’s approach that is unacceptable but the manner of that approach. The fact that the UK Government has not shared any draft summit text with the Scottish Government or any of the other devolved Administrations is an insult to the principles of devolution and democracy. It treats the Parliament and, by extension, the people whom we represent as afterthoughts.
We have unique issues surrounding depopulation and skills in Scotland. We should have the same powers over migration visas that a Canadian province has. I hear constantly that this is the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, but the Quebec province that I used to live in has more powers than this place does.
We in Scotland are not afterthoughts. Scotland has a voice, and today we must use ours here to amplify it.
16:02
I share the sentiment that has been expressed across the chamber that our European neighbours are essential for Scotland’s trade, security and defence. That is why I was pleased that, as soon as Labour came into government last July, genuine and sincere effort was made to begin the hard task of resetting our relationship with our closest neighbours.
It has always been fairly axiomatic to me that the biggest determinant of trade is geographic proximity. That is quite an obvious deduction. It is easier to do trade with someone who is across the street than it is with someone who is on a different continent, and the same logic applies at a national level. Reducing the frictions and impediments to undertaking that trade is mutually beneficial for our common prosperity. If we distil it down, that is the essence of what the European project has been about since the end of the second world war.
Paul Sweeney is making a good point about trading goods, but the UK economy is largely now a service economy. Because of the age that we live in, the delivery of services is not now contingent on proximity, because we have the means to span the world through a Zoom call or other technological means. It is not entirely true to say that trade is restricted, particularly in this economy, by geography.
The member makes a fair point in some respects. Nonetheless, significant and important parts of our economy are contingent on the export of and trade in goods. Similarly, a lot of services rely on physical interaction—for example, healthcare provision requires physical interaction. There are instances in which that is still very important and, if we impede any of that, the net effect is that it causes problems for our common prosperity. That is why it remains logical that we continue to remove barriers to trade, where possible, at every level, whether that is by building better infrastructure locally or improving our trading relationships internationally.
I found the whole period when the previous Conservative UK Government was in power utterly obnoxious—it frequently used hostile rhetoric about the European Union and blamed Europe in an abstract sense for the challenges of trade disruption, inflation and labour shortages that followed Brexit, which was, when we boil it down, based on an utter lie and an impossible trinity of issues.
Three promises were made as a result of the Brexit proposition: that we would leave the single market and the customs union; that we would have no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and that we would have no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It was impossible to achieve all those things. In effect, a border, in all but name, was put down the Irish Sea. That is how the previous UK Government cobbled together a Brexit deal. It covered its obnoxious, wrong-headed and illogical approach with hostile rhetoric about the European Union.
There is no doubt that the EU was a useful scapegoat for the previous UK Government’s woeful handling of issues at home, not least the appalling and destructive austerity programme that it introduced in 2010. The Conservative Government’s approach was hugely damaging—as well as being damaging for our economy and the businesses that rely on exporting to our number 1 trading partner, it led to falling living standards, a deep frustration that improvements were not possible and, in working-class communities in particular, a deep alienation that persists to this day. All parties have not been honest enough about the trade-offs that are required to overcome the challenges that this country faces.
The handling of the so-called Brexit trilemma and the cobbled-together, threadbare deal that Boris Johnson’s Administration arrived at undoubtedly harmed the Scottish economy, and repairing that damage will take some time. Even today, the leader of the Conservatives at Westminster continues on the same tracks, by indulging in hostile rhetoric about the European Union to fire up the party’s Eurosceptic base and vowing to rip up the forthcoming deal with the EU, even though she has not seen the detail of that, as it is at a Government-to-Government stage. I hope that further collaboration will emerge. I am just glad that those vandals are no longer in charge of what is going on.
Just as we have seen from the Conservatives, we have also seen what I feel are rather unfair attempts to manipulate for political convenience the relationship that the Labour Government is trying to build with Europe. It is trying to forge deeper and stronger ties on a bilateral basis. I recall the difficulty that we had back in 2019, when I was a member of the House of Commons, in trying to navigate the Brexit situation. I received a very robust apprenticeship in parliamentary politics when Parliament was trying to navigate the Brexit dilemma after the country had voted to leave the EU in a very simplistic, binary way. We had to work out how to distil that down into a workable set of proposals. There were a number of indicative votes.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I am happy to give way to Mr Doris.
I commend Paul Sweeney for his work as the convener of the cross-party group on migration, of which I am the deputy convener. He makes a good point about hostile environments. In that light—I realise that he is in a difficult position—will he reflect on Keir Starmer’s comments about a nation of strangers and how that creates a hostile environment for many new Scots whom we rely on in Scotland’s core public services?
It is certainly not language that I would have used. With the complexity and sophistication of the integration effort in the city, Glasgow is a very good demonstration of how we avoid people becoming strangers. In 2001, when I was 12 years old, a Kurdish refugee was murdered in Sighthill. I remember the community discord that existed at that time. There was a danger that Glasgow could become a city riven by racial strife, but the effort that the community put in to rebuild trust and to establish connection stands as a powerful example.
I hope that, across Scotland and the wider United Kingdom, we can learn a positive lesson from that experience in Glasgow. In places where settled and established relationships have been built over time, the sense of hostility to migration abates. It is important that we learn the right lessons from our experience in Glasgow. We can teach our neighbours across the UK a lot in that regard.
When it comes to what we can do around Europe, I think that our efforts must be centred on defence and security. Mr Cole-Hamilton mentioned our recent trip to Ukraine. In the context of American isolationism, the European Union is becoming critical to our common defence and security. Previously, that was an area of policy that was largely confined to NATO. It is important that Scotland, with its defence and technological capabilities and its economic capacity, steps up and plays its role in supporting our European colleagues. I think that we can do a lot with Ukraine on a bilateral basis to build that capability. I make that constructive suggestion for the cabinet secretary’s consideration.
16:09
I will begin with Brexit, but I am not lingering there, because Stephen Kerr is too easy a target and, indeed, delights in being a target. Not only did 62 per cent of Scots reject Brexit at the EU referendum almost 10 years ago, but the percentage who reject it has risen throughout the rest of the UK, so that 55 per cent now think that Brexit was a mistake and only 30 per cent think that it was a good idea. Members do not need a PhD to know why that is the case. We face higher costs and more red tape, and we do not have £375 million extra a week to redirect to the NHS, as was blazoned on the side of a bus—and that is just for starters.
We lost freedom of workforce movement across Europe, which has had an impact across the Scottish economy and particularly in the hospitality, care and horticultural sectors, and is now exacerbated by the UK hike in the cost of employer national insurance, which is a tax on jobs if ever there was one, and by ill-considered comments and policies on legal migration from Sir Keir Starmer. We need migrants here because we know that we have an ageing population and a decreasing available workforce, so we cannot separate Scotland’s domestic needs from what the UK and Europe do or from the world’s wider conflicts.
Will Ms Grahame accept an intervention?
The target arises.
I am sure that Christine Grahame would not disagree that we have high levels of worklessness in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom and that we should not use mass immigration as an excuse for not investing in our own population and equipping them to do the jobs that we currently seem to expect migrant labour to perform.
First, the member must accept that we have an ageing population and that we do not have enough national births to provide a sufficient workforce. I certainly want people who come from elsewhere to work here to be decently paid and I do not want them to be underpaid, but we simply do not have the right population balance.
I also mourn the loss of European influence not only because we quit the EU but more broadly. It is sadly ironic that, just as the UK commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE day, which was celebrated on 8 May 1945 and marked the end of the second world war in Europe, we see a European nation—Ukraine—still being bombarded by Russia in an illegal occupation that is now in its third year. That is referred to as a war in this new world order, but it is an occupation. It is also being suggested that Ukraine must surrender part of its sovereign territory to Russia and that, in order to secure military aid from the Trump regime, it must surrender some of its minerals to the United States. That is termed “contractual politics” and I want nothing to do with it. That is the new world order for you.
I see President Trump as symbolic of that order, but he is not the cause of it, although he is giving it his blessing with a scratch of his Sharpie. His bizarre, fractious and fluctuating politics has at last woken up Europe and NATO to the chaos and fragility around them.
I move from Putin to Netanyahu, because the issue extends beyond Europe’s boundaries to Gaza. Too many have apparently accepted Netanyahu’s genocide, even if tacitly. I can do no better than refer members to the extraordinary and heartfelt submission that was made just days ago to the United Nations Security Council by the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, who said that Israel is
“deliberately and unashamedly imposing inhumane conditions on civilians”
in Gaza and the West Bank. For more than 10 weeks, nothing has entered Gaza: no food, medicine, water or tents. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been forcibly displaced and confined to ever-shrinking spaces, because 70 per cent of Gaza’s territory is either within Israel’s militarised zones or under displacement orders. Every single one of the 2.1 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip faces the risk of famine and one in five risk starvation. The few hospitals that have somehow survived bombardment are overwhelmed, and the medics who have somehow survived drone and sniper attacks cannot keep up with the trauma and the spread of disease. Appalling violence is also increasing on the West Bank, where the situation is the worst it has been in decades.
Will the member accept an intervention?
Yes, certainly, if I may have my time back.
I am strongly pro-Europe, as I have made clear, but does Christine Grahame agree that this is an area in which the European Union has failed? It took a strong position on sanctions against Russia following the occupation of Ukraine, but the same strong position should have been taken against the occupation of Palestine and has not been.
The member has pre-empted where I am going with this narrative. Entire communities have been destroyed in the West Bank and refugee camps have been depopulated. The world’s press is banned—that is no wonder.
What is Europe saying? On Ukraine, we have the “coalition of the willing”. That is better than nothing but, in the meantime, Russia’s occupation creeps further into, and embeds itself deeper in, Ukraine’s sovereign territory. On Gaza, the European Council has called for
“an immediate return to the full implementation of the ceasefire-hostage release agreement”;
it cites
“the importance of unimpeded access and sustained distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale into and throughout Gaza”
and calls for a “two-state solution”. Is that enough? I do not think so. It is better than nothing, but it is certainly not enough.
Brexit was not just bad for the UK and Scottish economies; it reduced the UK’s and Europe’s status and influence in world affairs. We need a strong European Union, with an independent Scotland as a partner and member state, not simply for economic reasons but as an international political force in order to counterbalance and challenge the new world order. We cannot leave it to contractual politics—to Putin, Netanyahu and Trump, to name but three international villains. It is not just about economics.
George Adam is the final speaker in the open debate.
16:16
It is never good to start with an apology, but I apologise for having not been here for the start of the cabinet secretary’s speech. It is becoming difficult for Stacey and I to get from one end of the campus to the other since my speech the other day, now that we are the middle-aged Posh and Becks of the Scottish Parliament.
I will start with something that has already been talked about. This week started with a Labour Prime Minister talking about us being “an island of strangers”. In Scotland, we are a nation that has, over the years, welcomed people in to make our nation, our home and our communities better. We are a nation that has constantly looked to others to come here and be new Scots.
We are living in a world in which, as Christine Grahame said, we have Donald Trump, with his marker pen and his big billboards, making sure that penguins are getting tariffs, too. We are constantly dealing with what seems almost to be an alternate version of the world. If someone had written it into a dystopian science fiction book, we would think that it was too unrealistic.
Unfortunately, that is what we are living in at the moment. We are living in a place where Nigel Farage is seen as some kind of saviour by some and as not being on the far right. Well, he is on the extreme far right. The situation is not helped by those in the Labour and Conservative parties who are trying to become pound-shop Farages. That does not help us in the least.
This afternoon, we have heard versions of that. We have heard Stephen Kerr doing his best impression of Al Murray’s Brexit-loving, offensive pub landlord, although he stopped short of saying “Back off, Brussels”, which is Al Murray’s tagline. One of the things about that character is that it is a caricature—it is hysterical, and Stephen Kerr is predictable.
We have heard talk of “the bonds of Britain” and of how they keep us together, but Westminster forgets my community. All my life, Westminster has forgotten the people of Paisley and my community. All my life, those I love and hold close to me have been forgotten by Westminster. We are but pawns to them as we sit in the Westminster waiting room, waiting for a meeting to try to sort something out.
This debate is about Scotland, which seems to be the forgotten part of the United Kingdom. That is what my constituents feel, and maybe we are in a situation where people are getting disillusioned with politics because some politicians—although not all of us—do not speak the language that they speak and do not speak about their world in a way that they can understand.
Here is a perfect truth: the people of Paisley, and people across Scotland, feel every single day that Brexit was never Scotland’s choice. I know that the Opposition hates hearing this, but it was never Scotland’s choice. We voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. Every local authority and every area in Scotland said no to Brexit, yet it was forced on us by a Westminster Government that we did not elect, and now we are living with the consequences. The hard Brexit harmed our economy, weakened our rights and cut us off from the opportunities that the EU offers. What is worse, it is still causing damage and neither of the main Westminster parties seems to want to talk about that.
I listened to a London-based news radio show not so long ago. There was a phone-in, and I noted the number of people from down south who are now getting buyer’s remorse, following Brexit, because what we said would happen is actually happening and it is affecting their lives and their pockets.
This is the real world. The chamber is not some debating society where we sit, speak for our six minutes and go; this is Scotland’s Parliament, and we should be talking about the issues that really matter to the people of Scotland. This debate is an example of that.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, let us hear from our very own Alf Garnett.
Oh, my goodness! Well, there we go—what a disgusting comment. Goodness me. I thought that that would be completely out of bounds, given the standards of respect that we are supposed to have in the Parliament.
The member is making the point of my amendment, which is that purpose of the Parliament is to address things such as NHS waiting times, falling levels of attainment, the rise of violence in schools, the state of our public finances and the incompetence of the SNP executive. That is what the Parliament should be doing. That is why the people of Scotland sent us here.
Mr Kerr never fails to entertain.
At the end of the day, the important thing to the people of Scotland is that the Government deals with all the issues that it continually has to deal with. However, we are being held back by Westminster, and that is the problem. For us, it is not about some ideal. When we mention independence, it is about how Scotland can be a better place and how we can build a better nation. That is what I want for the Parliament. I want to listen to Stephen Kerr talking about a better, independent Scotland taking on powers and responsibilities and ensuring that we are at the table with the European Union during negotiations. That is the important thing. That is what people want. They want us to do our jobs, and we need to go out there and say that independence is the way forward. We cannot sit here any longer and listen to the foppish arguments on one side and the absolute nonsense on the other.
Labour has been in government for less than a year and it has lost control. It has no idea what it is doing. Every day, one thing or another comes out. The Tories are upset because they are no longer in government, so they have decided that they will try to out-Farage Farage. That is not what the public want. The public need a Government like the Scottish Government, which looks to the future to ensure that we can build a better tomorrow.
Does the member accept that every level of government has a part to play in promoting cohesion, particularly in the context of several cities in Scotland having a housing emergency and continued inward migration, which may create community tensions? It is the duty of the Government to recognise the opportunity of that, to build our way out of it and to bring people together instead of creating further discord.
I believe that we have a duty to work together to deliver for the people of Scotland. I do not agree, in any shape or form, with using a vulnerable community that has come to Scotland looking for a new beginning as a scapegoat. That is part of the problem with the debate that we are currently having with those on the far right.
I am looking for an independent Scotland that is European. Brexit is not only a past mistake; it is a current crisis. It is a slow-motion car crash that is hurting every part of Scotland. It is harming our economy, making our people poorer, isolating our public services and robbing the next generation of their rightful place in Europe. Scotland deserves better, wants better and needs better, and—with independence—Scotland can choose better. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
Let us return to Europe. Let us rejoin the community of nations that we were dragged out of. Let us take our place not as a region in Westminster’s waiting room, but as a nation and a country in our own right.
We move to winding up speeches.
16:24
First, I apologise to Christine Grahame. If I had realised that she was moving on to make the point that I was trying to make, I would not have interrupted her, but I have to say that she made the point extremely well.
The challenge that we have to address, as pro-Europeans, is to acknowledge that being pro-European is not to be uncritical of the EU institutions. In fact, if I have one major criticism of the campaign to remain in the EU nine years ago, it is that it was not willing enough to say that Europe could change and do better, whether on international issues, climate, equalities or anything else. It should have been willing to talk about how Europe could and should change to address people’s priorities.
That also relates to some of the points that George Adam made about the impact on communities that feel that they are being poorly served. There is a reason why “Take back control” was a powerful slogan. It was a profoundly dishonest slogan. If the 2014 independence campaign had rested on something as simplistic as a three-word slogan such as, “Take back control”, I would not have taken part because it would have been so simplistic and dishonest. However, the idea of taking back control was politically powerful because so many people do not feel that they have control.
That is a domestic matter—it is about the structure of the UK state and the funding of public services, in Scotland as well as in the rest of the UK; it is not the European Union that is responsible for that feeling of a lack of control. It is also to do with the power—the unaccountable power—of private interests and the privatisation of what should be democratically accountable power in our society.
I will come to some of the points that the Scottish Government has been making about the negotiating position that it wants the UK Government to strike in the upcoming summit. I agree that there would be opportunities to at least ameliorate some of the damage of Brexit with an agreement on veterinary and food and drink arrangements and high regulatory standards as well as on climate and energy. In recent weeks, we have debated net zero—from a more sceptical position in the case of the Conservatives—and we have debated hydrogen, for example. There is a clear sense that, although many of us are pointing out the shortcomings of using hydrogen in certain parts of our economy, there is a general consensus that green hydrogen can play a significant part in our wider decarbonisation and in export, and that there are other European countries that could see Scotland as a source of green hydrogen, which would also benefit our economy.
However, we need to work together with those European countries to achieve that as well as on issues such as high-voltage direct-current interconnection with Europe for electricity and the skills that are needed for net zero, including building decarbonisation. Many European countries are decades ahead of Scotland on building decarbonisation, so there is a great deal to learn from them, and we should certainly be doing more to work with Europe on that agenda.
However, I also want to question the idea of a reset. I genuinely hope that the UK Government has a reset with Europe in mind. It has used the same language in relation to a reset with the devolved Governments in the various parts of the UK. I do not see that yet; I do not yet see the flesh on the bones of either a reset with Europe or a reset with devolution. I hope that that emerges, but, really, months and months into the new UK Administration, we should be seeing a little more detail by now.
Youth mobility should absolutely be one of the UK Government’s key priorities, and it should be seen as a step towards wider free movement. I echo Elena Whitham’s point that, in this week’s furore around the UK Government’s announcements on migration, the portrayal of care work as low skilled and therefore of low value in the broadest sense is deeply offensive and harmful to those whose dedication was being applauded on doorsteps right across the country just a few years ago, as health and social care workers kept going during the pandemic.
Quite apart from the rhetoric on “strangers”, which I found uncomfortable—given Paul Sweeney’s response, I think that he did, too, even if he might use more diplomatic language to criticise it than I would—is the idea that a UK Prime Minister is openly promoting the far-right conspiracy theory that there has been an open borders experiment in the UK. I know that in the chamber we are expected not to accuse anyone of lying, so I will try not to do that. However, it stretches the power of euphemism to describe accurately the nature of that claim. If there had been such an experiment in the UK, there would have been no dawn raids and no detention centres, the people of Kenmure Street would not have had to fill it to defend their neighbours from immigration enforcement action, and the bodies of children would never have washed up on the shores of the Channel. It is a falsehood to say that there has been such an experiment, and I think that Sir Keir Starmer knows it.
My final point is on the notion that we should not be debating reserved issues. The Conservatives play that card when they like, but not on other occasions, such as during yesterday’s debate, in which Mr Kerr spoke on a Tory motion that was mostly about such issues. I was happy to debate that motion and explain why it was wrong, but it was largely about reserved issues such as oil and gas licensing, and a great deal more besides.
No! No!
Let us hear Mr Harvie.
In truth, the split between devolved and reserved issues has never been a precise one, and it is less so now than it was when the Scottish Parliament was created. In much of our relationship with Europe, we see aspects that affect both types. Therefore, acting in the spirit of collaboration and openness and developing shared positions across the Governments of the UK, which the cabinet secretary was calling for, are all the more important.
However, the UK Government is not doing that. I hope to goodness that it will change its attitude and take a more collaborative, open and democratic approach to negotiating with our European Union partners and to achieving a restoration in our relationship with them. If it will not, I come back to where I ended my earlier remarks. If the UK Government will not behave in that way, Scotland will have to take to itself the powers to restore its relationship with Europe and make those decisions in a democratically accountable way.
Thank you, Mr Harvie. Members, do let us avoid speaking over one another.
16:32
In a changed world, it is more important than ever that we keep relationships with our partners around the world strong, and that we work in areas of mutual interest to meet goals that benefit our security and our economies. Following years of our international standings declining under the Conservatives at Westminster, it is positive that we now have a UK Government that is working to rebuild those relationships and is open about the value of international co-operation.
Last week saw Scotland and Europe mark the 80th anniversary of VE day. Such memories of war act as a stark reminder of what can happen when we fail to work with our international colleagues. That is why I welcome the holding of the first UK-EU summit next week, when we can cement our new relationship. As the Prime Minister has said, we should “look forward, not back” and work to build a new strategic partnership with the EU to benefit Scotland’s economy, defence and public safety.
On our economy, I am pleased to see consensus reached with the UK Government on the importance of an SPS agreement. Of all the parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland exports the most food and drink, and that sector is worth £16 billion to our economy. However, since the Tories’ Brexit deal, we have seen our agri-food trade with the EU fall by 29 per cent for meat exports and 26 per cent for dairy. In the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s review of the trade and co-operation agreement we saw the impact that the situation is having on businesses, in that imports are taking far longer and costs are going up.
It has been estimated that achieving a veterinary agreement will increase exports by at least 22.5 per cent. That delivers what businesses want as soon as possible—not in several years’ time.
On defence, with threats to Scotland and the United Kingdom greater than they have been in previous years, co-operation is also key. The European Union has been taking a greater role in defence in recent years, following Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Formal collaboration will be key to supporting security across the continent but will also be important to Scotland’s defence sector, which will be bolstered by the UK Labour Government’s increase in defence spending. That investment will boost Scotland’s industry and defence sector, which employs thousands of people.
The industry has told the Westminster Defence Committee that collaboration is vital to sustain capacity at home and our competitiveness in global markets. It also says that we have an opportunity to engage in a strategic conversation on defence with the EU, due to the renewed relationship that the UK Government is pursuing. That is what a positive future with the EU looks like.
Scotland also benefits from positive and collaborative relationships with non-EU countries. The trade deal with India that was announced last week will add to the £600 million of exports that we currently achieve and give Scotland unique access to one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. The deal will benefit Scottish businesses by lowering tariffs in areas in which we are leaders, such as whisky. The Scotch Whisky Association said that it was “transformational”, increasing exports by £1 billion over the next five years and creating jobs.
Those actions—rebuilding our relationship with Europe, improving our security and defence and securing trade deals that boost the Scottish economy—demonstrate the power of international co-operation and the fact that we are taking a pragmatic approach to tackling the challenges that we face. They show that, if we want to be successful in delivering for Scotland’s people, we must look to the future and work together when it is in the best interests of our country to do so. Further, they prove the value of stepping up to deliver, not sniping from the sidelines or picking sides.
16:37
I am delighted to be able to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, and I will be supporting the amendment in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr.
Once again, today’s debate could have been an opportunity to discuss how best Scotland can exist in today’s Europe. It was a chance to highlight opportunities for improved collaboration within the European Union and with our European neighbours as the trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union continues to develop.
However, one look at the Government’s motion makes it quite clear that the Scottish Government wanted to have a debate on other topics. Indeed, the Scottish Government is rerunning debates on single market membership, customs union membership and freedom of movement. The Government knows that that shopping list is a complete fantasy. However, that did not stop it taking the opportunity this afternoon to stand up and say its piece, so it is important that we do the same.
Instead of setting out a pragmatic and bold vision for how Scotland can exist alongside the European Union, the Scottish Government wants to reopen old wounds and repeat arguments as if it were 2019 again. As usual, the Scottish Government is spending yet more chamber time debating entirely reserved matters.
We should be talking today about what is happening in our education system. We could be talking about what is happening with delayed infrastructure projects, such as those on roads. We could be discussing other devolved matters. However, that is not what the Scottish Government wants—once again, it wants to focus on constitutional grievance.
I wonder whether the member could explain in what way the argument that he is making now is consistent with the fact that, just yesterday, the Conservatives secured a debate that reopened an issue that was settled in 2019—Scotland’s 2045 net zero target. The Conservatives brought to the chamber an unrealistic wish list, or shopping list, of a nightmare fantasy of dumping net zero.
Yesterday, we were talking about the economy of Scotland and how jobs are being lost in a sector that is vital to this country and our future economic stability.
The Scottish Government says that it is concerned about economic damage, while ignoring the fact that, if we had Scottish independence, we would have economic chaos. The centre for economic performance at the London School of Economics has said that
“disrupting trade with the rest of the UK could lower Scottish income per capita by at least 6 per cent.”
Given that Scotland exports three times more to the rest of the UK than to the European Union, that is not surprising; nor is it surprising that, according to the Fraser of Allander Institute, more than 500,000 jobs are linked to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Scottish Government wants to gloss over the problems of rejoining the European Union. It says that it would be quite an easy thing to achieve, but is glossing over many of the issues that it would face.
Earlier this month, the United Kingdom Government concluded a comprehensive trade deal with India. That is a real opportunity. The deal is the result of several years of negotiation. Although the current UK Government was able to finalise the deal, it was the previous Conservative Government that laid the foundations on which that agreement could be reached.
I know how hard the Scottish whisky industry fought to ensure that that vital sector is central to the trade deal. When I met the Indian trade minister two years ago, he told me that he had never seen a country fight so hard for one particular industry. We have all been fighting for that industry, because we know that it will bring us prosperity and opportunity and will give us jobs in our communities.
The deal will reduce tariffs on Scottish whisky from 150 per cent to 75 per cent, and will further reduce them to 40 per cent within 10 years. It could increase whisky exports by at least £1 billion in the next five years, bringing money into our economy. We should be celebrating that.
The deal will also create countless jobs and opportunities across the sector. The Scotch Whisky Association has called the deal “transformational” and “a landmark moment”. That is very much the case.
The crucial thing here, though, is that that deal would not have been possible if the UK were still a part of the EU. I want more of that—I want trade deals in other areas. It is quite telling that the SNP Government was unable to celebrate the deal, despite the significant possibilities and prospects for Scotland that it brings.
There are also many future opportunities for Scotland, as the United Kingdom engages with faster-growing markets across Asia, Africa and the Americas. I hope that the Scottish Government can at least try to welcome some of the opportunities that lie ahead in those continents, because they are immense and will give businesses and individuals opportunities to prosper.
I turn to some of the speeches that we have heard this afternoon. The cabinet secretary spoke about a reset summit that is to take place in the next week or so, and about the challenges, hopes, aspirations and opportunities that it presents. However, we must think about the defence and security challenges. The cabinet secretary also spoke about the Prime Minister’s recent comments being “a new low for Labour.”
My colleague Stephen Kerr gave a passionate speech, as we would expect. He talked about the SNP once again wanting to break up the United Kingdom. The SNP wants to rejoin the EU, abandon processes and drop red lines. However, the biggest issue that Mr Kerr discussed was access to fishing rights and how that issue has been manipulated in the past few days. If what we are hearing is being considered behind closed doors is true, that would be a backward step for everybody.
Taking back control has been touched on. So far, 70 trade deals have been signed—those are opportunities that this country would not have had if we had still been a member of the EU. As I said, the trade deal with India will create real prosperity for the nation.
It has been mentioned that secret summits are under way in which the possibility of giving away fishing grounds is being considered. As we all know, the SNP—the Scottish nationalists—wish to split and take away many of those fishing grounds.
Neil Bibby talked about the politics of the issue. He, too, touched on the UK-EU reset that is about to take place. He spoke about the Scottish nationalists grandstanding and about how the SNP’s record on Europe has not always been as clear as it was presented today.
I pay tribute to Alex Cole-Hamilton for discussing the Ukraine war and for his recent visit to Ukraine to deliver ambulances from Scotland. That was very bold, and I pay tribute to him for that. He spoke about the freedoms that we enjoy in the United Kingdom, security issues, the fact that Scotland has a place in Europe—there is no doubt about that—and the proposed plans for a reset. He also talked about where we can work together.
Instead of our having a meaningful debate about Scotland’s future relationship with Europe, we have had the usual grievance and received lectures from many members in the chamber. We want Scotland to be part of an outward-looking United Kingdom in which we can collaborate closely with the EU while embracing the opportunities from free trade with the rest of the world. That is what we need, and that is we want to create. That is what we need, and that is what we want to capitalise on. That is what we need, and that is what we will stand up for.
16:46
I appreciate the opportunity to sum up the debate. I have listened closely to all the contributions—the constructive contributions and those less than constructive—and I come back to the importance of the values that we share. Europe day celebrates the common values that we share across Europe: those of human dignity, freedom and democracy, based on unity and the idea that a co-operative, interdependent Europe would never again suffer the horrors of war.
Seventy-five years ago—it is 80 years since the end of the second world war in Europe—Schuman’s idea was the seed of a peace project that grew into what would become the European Union, but war and division have again returned to our continent. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the on-going conflict in Gaza remind us that we cannot take peace or international co-operation for granted. The European project and the ideas on which it is founded could not be more important today.
If the past years and the fast-moving first five months of this year have taught us anything, it is that each country and region does not operate in a vacuum and that long-standing certainties cannot be taken for granted. The reality is that we live in an ever more interconnected world, and recent international events have reminded us of the global dimension in which we are embedded.
Let us be absolutely clear: Brexit has been a disaster for both Scotland and the United Kingdom. The impact has undermined the economy, made it harder for businesses to trade with the world’s largest single market, ended free movement of people—
Will the member give way?
No, I have to finish the list. It is quite a long list, so it is important that I finish it.
The impact has ended free movement of people and made it harder for businesses that need people to grow to attract them. With a trend towards a declining, ageing population, we need new Scots from Europe and the rest of the world, whom we will continue to welcome to study, work and make their home here in Scotland. That is why we call on the UK Government and other political parties to reject the politics of populists who have sought to divide us, face reality and seize the opportunities to repair some of the damage that Brexit has done.
Will the member give way?
Mr Lumsden did not speak in the debate, and I have very little time. I will carry on with my comments.
Those opportunities include a entering into veterinary agreement so that we can more readily trade our world-class food and drink, embracing the European Union’s offer of a youth mobility treaty and rejoining Erasmus+, so that our young people can experience what other countries have to offer and young people from other countries can experience everything that Scotland has to offer.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
If I can make some progress and I have some time remaining, I will let Mr Kerr back in. I have still not referred to his speech—I am coming to that in a minute.
Let us be under no illusion about that or anything else: no scheme or agreement can replace the benefits of European Union membership, and I continue to hope that the United Kingdom Government will rethink its position. Indeed, the forthcoming negotiations at the upcoming leaders summit between the UK Government and the European Union on 19 May are a critical opportunity to undo some of the damage that was done by the previous UK Administration. It is my sincere hope that the UK Government takes heed of Parliament’s motion today.
I will reflect on the contributions from Stephen Kerr and other members. I will begin with the contributions of Stephen Kerr and Neil Bibby, because, in many respects they were the same. Both had little to say about the European Union-UK summit or the fact that the UK Government has not shared documentation ahead of the discussions and might be prepared to make agreements in devolved areas without consent from devolved Administrations. Neither member commented on the discussions, and I am happy to give way to either of them if they wish to put their thoughts about that on the record.
I made repeated reference to the UK-EU summit in London, which starts at the beginning of next week, so I do not understand why the cabinet secretary says that we made no mention of it. I certainly did—in connection with his Government’s grievance mongering and also in relation to the Labour Government’s willingness to sell out on Brexit.
However, if I may, I will now quickly make the point that I wanted to make earlier, when the cabinet secretary would not give way. He is full of doom and gloom about Brexit. He talks about the economy. Maybe he can explain to the Parliament why the rest of the European Union countries’ economies performed worse than the United Kingdom’s did in the years following Brexit. That is economic fact.
Any reading of the record will show, as I pointed out, that neither Stephen Kerr—just then or in his opening speech—or, indeed, Neil Bibby, made any reference to the fact that the UK Government has not shared documentation ahead of discussions and might be prepared to make agreements in devolved areas without consent from the devolved Administrations. That is a very important point, and it is a great shame that neither of the Tweedledum or Tweedledee parties, which, in the previous UK Government—[Interruption.]
Let us be courteous and let us stop shouting from our seats.
Patrick Harvie was absolutely right to talk about embracing the UK-EU summit’s opportunities, but rightly also said that the summit would only ameliorate some of the damage that Brexit caused. He was absolutely right to say that he is not yet seeing a reset. Yes, the tone has changed, but the actions of this Labour Government are exactly the same custom and practice that we became used to from the previous UK Government. That is evidenced by the lack of sharing documentation to devolved Administrations, which we are unfortunately now seeing from the Labour Party as well.
Alex Cole-Hamilton was absolutely right to talk about the prize—the opportunity of rejoining the Erasmus+ and creative Europe programmes.
Emma Roddick and Elena Whitham were right to stress why we need an ambitious reset in relations with the European Union, including on freedom of movement.
I appreciated Paul Sweeney’s speech. He was right to talk about Europe being essential, he condemned the damage of Euroscepticism and, in the context of Keir Starmer’s contemptible rhetoric, he said that he would not use such language. I am appreciative that a member on the Labour benches was prepared to say so.
Christine Grahame talked about the importance of the international context, and she was right to do so. George Adam was similarly correct to warn against the Farage-ism that is increasingly evident in both the Conservative and Labour Party rhetoric.
Foysol Choudhury talked about the advantages of European Union co-operation, and I agreed with him. He talked about progress in the trade agreement with India. I think that that was good. He did not mention the UK-US trade agreement, which maintains the levels of tariffs that are damaging to the Scotch whisky industry. That was an oversight.
Alexander Stewart had an interesting theme in his summing-up speech: it was a could-have-been theme. He and the Conservative Party could have taken the opportunity to stand up for the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations in devolved areas, such as fishing, but they did not.
There are three days until the summit. The UK Government has not shared the documentation and the Conservative Party could not even bring itself to call for it to do so.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I have little time remaining, so I will sum up now.
Any improved deal that the United Kingdom makes with the European Union cannot ignore that Scotland voted to remain, nor can it replace what we have lost—namely, the security and prosperity offered by membership of the European Union. That is why I continue to believe that Scotland should and must return to the European Union as an independent member state in its own right. Only by returning to its rightful place at the heart of Europe can Scotland enjoy the full benefits of and make the fullest contribution to the European Union. I believe that the light that the EU was asked to leave on for Scotland burns still, and I believe that it will continue to do so until the day of our return.
I call on the Parliament to support the Scottish Government’s motion and to commit to our fellow Europeans that Scotland and her peoples remain by their side. From Ukraine to the Atlantic and from the Nordics to the Mediterranean, Scotland will be steadfast in our efforts to work with Europe as friends until we return to take our place beside them all as a member of the European Union. Together, we will continue to face the challenges of our continent and our world.