Independence (European Union Membership)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the comments of the President of the European Commission that it would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible” for an independent Scotland to join the European Union. (S4T-00600)
The decision on Scottish independence is for the Scottish people and the decision about continuing membership of the European Union will be for the member states. These are not decisions for the European Commission. Of course, no member state has said that it would seek to veto Scotland’s continuing membership.
It would be against the interests of not just Scotland but the entire European Union for Scotland to be outside of that union. It would also be contrary to the founding principles of the European Union for Scotland to be excluded just because Scots had exercised their democratic right to self-determination.
The problems that the nationalists’ campaign faces this week are because of their failure to understand that it is not up to them simply to assert the national interests of others.
At the weekend, I listened carefully when Mr Swinney called Mr Barroso “preposterous”. I also listened to what the Deputy First Minister has said today, just as we listened when she said that Scotland would be automatically admitted into the EU and when Alex Salmond said that the Government had legal advice to back up that claim.
It is now clear to everyone that Scotland can only join the EU as an independent member state by negotiation and with the agreement of the other member states. We know—
A question, Mr Smith.
We know that the process of negotiation may be difficult and that even the Scottish Government does not always get its own way when it negotiates. Up for negotiation—
Can we have a question, Mr Smith?
—will be the British rebate, border arrangements including tuition fees, and, crucially, euro membership.
I ask the Deputy First Minister one very direct and simple question: what will be Alex Salmond’s red line? On the issue of the euro—I listened carefully to what John Swinney said at the weekend—is the Scottish Government ruling out signing any accession treaty that contains any clause committing Scotland to euro membership at any time?
The big problem for the no campaign is that, having failed abysmally to inspire anyone to vote no, it has to resort to scaring, bullying and intimidating people into doing so.
The process of negotiation and agreement that Drew Smith mentioned is laid out very clearly in the “Scotland’s Future” white paper, as is our intention to argue for the transition of European membership with continuity of effect—in other words, with no detriment to the interests of any other member state.
I say this to Drew Smith. He and I disagree on the issue of independence, but I have always—perhaps until today—thought of him as someone who reaches his positions from the point of principle. I ask him to take a step back and consider what is being suggested here.
Scotland has been in the European Union for 40 years; we have complied with EU law for 40 years; and we have contributed to the EU for 40 years. The suggestion is that, simply as a result of exercising our democratic right to self-determination, we would find ourselves outside the EU.
Not only is there no basis for that in the European treaties, common sense, the interests of the wider EU or anything any member state has said; it would in fact be an absolute affront to democracy and against the founding principles of the European Union. I would have thought that any democrat—whether on the yes or no side—would find that position to be completely and utterly acceptable.
Given that a European Commission spokesperson is backtracking on Mr Barroso’s comments, does the Deputy First Minister agree with Professor Michael Keating, who has said that the comparison drawn by President Barroso between an independent Scotland and Kosovo is
“utterly misplaced”
and
“is dangerous and a disservice to democracy itself”?
The comparison between Scotland and Kosovo is completely and utterly ridiculous. I noted that, yesterday, President Barroso’s spokesperson said that that was not a “perfect analogy”. That probably qualifies as the understatement of the century.
An independent Scotland is a model European state and we meet all the membership criteria of the European Union. Graham Avery, honorary director general of the European Commission, said:
“It is obvious that the commonsense solution would be for Scotland’s membership of the EU to be effective on the same day as its independence, and it is obvious that 5 million Scottish citizens, who have been European citizens for 40 years, should not be treated in the same way as people of non-member countries, or third countries as they are called in the Euro-jargon.”—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 30 January 2014; c 1731.]
This is an argument that cries out for common sense. This side of the chamber applies that common sense; the sooner those on the no side ditch the scaremongering and apply some basic common sense, the better.
I do not know what polls the Deputy First Minister reads, but I read different ones, and the account is not as she describes it.
The Deputy First Minister accepts that other member states in the EU must agree the admission of an independent Scotland in order for it to become a member. Common sense—to which she is clearly attached—says that member states can say yes but they can also say no.
Given that the other member states will also decide the conditions attaching to membership for an independent Scotland, will the Deputy First Minister say whether there are red line issues for Alex Salmond and what they are? Her silence on that aspect will be taken as a no.
I did not mention polls in any of my previous answers, although if my memory is wrong on that I stand to be corrected. However, I am happy to mention the opinion polls, because of course it is the narrowing of the polls and the swing towards yes that has occasioned the intensifying of scaremongering from the no campaign in recent days.
Annabel Goldie says that all member states will require to agree. That is a statement of fact that is set out in the white paper. I challenge her to name me a single member state—including Spain, which is often cited as the one that would want to give us trouble—that has said that it would veto or try to block Scotland’s continuing membership. Until she can do that, she is indulging in nothing more than empty and baseless scaremongering.
The irony of a Tory talking about red lines in a discussion about the European Union is breathtaking. We argue for transition of membership, from being a member as part of the United Kingdom to being an independent member, on the basis of continuity of effect. If Annabel Goldie wants to know the detail on that, I can tell her, first, that we would not be in the euro—no country can be forced into the euro against its will, as Sweden ably demonstrates. Secondly, on Schengen, the European Union exists to take down borders between countries, not to do things that would erect borders between countries—[Interruption.]
Order. [Interruption.] Order!
Thirdly, on the rebate, we have made it absolutely clear that the rebate would be a matter for negotiation between the Scottish and UK Governments until the next budget period of the European Union.
Those are the facts, and the fact that the parties in the better together Tory-Labour alliance are so determined to try to scare the people of Scotland is proof positive that things are not going their way and that the polls are moving in the direction of yes.
The idea that the First Minister is pulling the strings in 28 capital cities around Europe is Napoleonic in its bravado. The truth is closer to what the Croatian ambassador said in a visit to the Parliament. He said that, with the EU,
“you take pretty much what is offered”.
For the third time, will Nicola Sturgeon say what she is prepared to give up to get in?
My apologies to Willie Rennie: I forgot to mention the Liberal Democrats in the Labour-Tory-Liberal Democrat better together alliance.
I have made it clear, as the white paper makes it clear, that we are not arguing for any change in the terms of the relationship between Scotland and the European Union from the terms that pertain to our relationship as a member of the UK. On the euro, on Schengen and on the rebate, we are arguing for continuity of effect. That is a reasonable position. The no parties in the Parliament do not exercise much reasonableness in the debate, but I think that the position of other member states would be entirely different.
Let us not forget that we are talking about Scotland—Europe’s largest oil producer, the country with the biggest share of EU waters, the country whose renewable energy potential is key to the EU meeting its renewable energy targets, a major exporter of premium products such as whisky, and home to thousands upon thousands of European nationals. It is not in only Scotland’s interests that Scotland remains a constructive, productive member of the European Union; it is in the interests of the entire European Union to keep Scotland as a member.
The Deputy First Minister fails to notice any parallel between Scotland’s position and Kosovo’s. She is perhaps aware that Kosovo is one of those countries that use someone else’s currency without being a member of a currency union.
Will the Deputy First Minister try again to answer the question? Is signing a treaty that commits Scotland to being a member of the European currency union a red line that the Scottish National Party would not cross in the event of an independent Scotland? If even one of the 28 member states of the European Union suggested that that was a requirement for admission, would she simply say, “We’re not going in”?
I think that people in Scotland will find Lewis Macdonald’s attempt to draw a comparison between Scotland and Kosovo—a comparison that even President Barroso is moving away from—quite offensive.
On the issue of euro membership, I suggest to Lewis Macdonald that before he asks such questions he does some basic research. Sweden is a perfect example—[Interruption.]
Order.
—of a country that has made it quite clear that it is not going to enter the euro and cannot be forced to do so against its will, because some of the criteria for euro membership, such as membership for two years of the European exchange rate mechanism, are entirely voluntary.
There is no question whatsoever of an independent Scotland being forced to use the euro against its will, and it is about time that Lewis Macdonald and his colleagues in the Tory and Labour better together alliance stopped spreading baseless scare stories.
Does the cabinet secretary agree with me—
Members: Yes!
Order.
—that, whether article 48 or 49, is pursued the Commission’s role is one of consultation? Does she also agree that, given Mr Barroso’s role as President of that Commission, it is imprudent of him to seem to be speaking on behalf of member states?
As Rod Campbell is well aware, we have set out in the white paper a process by which Scotland can make the transition from membership of the EU as part of the UK to independent membership. We have suggested that article 48 of the European treaties is a reasonable process but, of course, the precise process that will be used will be agreed between the member states. We have always been clear on that point.
Rod Campbell is absolutely right: as I said in my original answer, the decision about independence is for the Scottish people and the decision about our continuing membership of the EU is for the member states. It is not a decision for the European Commission or, indeed, for a President of the European Commission who will not even be in office when these matters are being discussed.
I think that what is scaring the Scottish people is the lack of real clarity from the yes campaign on a number of issues, not least that of entry to the EU.
I am sure that the Deputy First Minister is well aware that, in order to be a member of the EU, a state has to sign up to a number of treaties and that those treaty provisions will apply whether the Deputy First Minister likes it or not. For the avoidance of doubt, then, I ask her—for, I think, the fourth time this afternoon—to tell us what issues would be a red line for this Government. Would it be the currency? Would it be the euro? Would she be prepared to do a deal on the rate of VAT that might apply in an independent Scotland?
I am not quite sure whether members, particularly those on the Labour benches, are hard of hearing or hard of understanding. I have made the currency position absolutely clear: an independent Scotland led by this Scottish Government would not be in the euro.
Is that a red line?
Not being in the euro is absolutely a red line because we would not join the euro. I have already cited the example of Sweden, which makes it absolutely clear that no country can be forced to join the euro against its will. It is a real, live, living example of the fact that Labour is downright wrong.
Edinburgh Agreement
To ask the Scottish Government what contact it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the Edinburgh agreement, in light of recent comments by the UK Government regarding currency and a “senior coalition source” regarding respect for the outcome of the referendum. (S4T-00601)
On Saturday, the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister, reminding him of the Edinburgh agreement and the commitment given in it by both of them to respect the outcome of the referendum. The First Minister also urged the Prime Minister to distance himself personally from reports that a coalition source said that a yes vote would not guarantee independence. As of this morning, there has been no response from the Westminster Government.
The Edinburgh agreement also committed both Governments to work together constructively in the interests of the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK after the referendum, whatever the result.
Will the Deputy First Minister confirm that paragraph 30 of the Edinburgh agreement commits the Scottish and UK Governments to
“good communication and mutual respect”,
and does she agree that it is sad that the UK Government is prepared to stand by agreements only when it suits it to do so? Does she also agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s repeated references to people in Scotland as “foreigners” in last week’s speech is clear evidence of a lack of respect? Like me, does she consider that the people of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will never think of one another as foreigners, regardless of September’s outcome?
Bruce Crawford is absolutely right to say that the UK Government seems to want to abide by the terms of the Edinburgh agreement only when it suits it.
However, a big problem for the no campaign—as I said in response to Drew Smith—is that it has failed completely to find any positive reasons for people to vote no in the referendum, so its only recourse is to try to scare, to bully and to intimidate the people of Scotland into voting no. I confidently predict that that tactic will not work, as we can already see in the growing backlash against George Osborne’s sermon on the pound, which took place last Thursday.
If the picture of the union that the no campaign is trying to paint is one where Scotland has no stake whatsoever in the assets of the UK—assets that we have contributed to building up—and only, according to the no campaign, a share of the debt, that begs the question why on earth anybody would want to vote to stay in such a union.
As for the issue of foreigners, any suggestion that we would be foreigners to our friends and family in the rest of the UK says more about the no campaign than it does about reality, as the perfect example of Ireland, cited by Bruce Crawford, so ably demonstrates.
On the issue of democracy, does the Deputy First Minister also agree with me that it is an affront to the people of Scotland for UK Government sources—followed up by people such as Baroness Jay—to suggest in any way that the outcome of the referendum next September will be pushed aside by the UK Government if the outcome is yes? Is that not a travesty of the Scottish people’s opportunity for democracy?
It is a travesty of democracy, it is an affront to democracy, and it is a sign of the growing panic at the heart of the no campaign. The no campaign sees the polls narrowing and the swing towards yes, so we get treated to scaremongering of the kind that we have seen over the past few days. Just in case that does not work—and I confidently predict that it will not work—we have people such as Baroness Jay saying, “Don’t worry. Yes won’t mean yes after all.” In the interests of democracy, let me be quite clear to the people of Scotland: yes will mean yes—and I am confident that people in Scotland will vote yes.
Everyone of any significance respects the Edinburgh agreement and will accept the results of the referendum, but why does the cabinet secretary refuse to believe what UK politicians are saying about the currency? Given that the rest of the UK trades four times as much with the eurozone as it does with Scotland but has no interest in joining the euro, why does she think that transaction costs will override every other issue for the UK Government? Is her refusal to face reality and come up with a plan B based on the knowledge that a plan B will be even more resoundingly rejected by the Scottish people than what she is proposing, which is a currency union with no fiscal independence?
As we all know, Malcolm Chisholm is one of the more reasonable politicians on the Opposition benches in this Parliament, but when I listen to him on the subject of the referendum, I cannot be the only one who gets the feeling that he is trying more to convince himself than anybody else.
I believe that George Osborne is bluffing and engaging in bluff and bluster, because it would be in the interests of the rest of the UK as much as it would be in the interests of Scotland for us to continue to use the pound within a sterling zone.
We know that exports from England into Scotland are worth £60 billion a year; Scotland is England’s second biggest export market. England exports more into Scotland than into China, India, Brazil and South Africa put together.
I do not think that any English businesses relish the prospect of paying an additional tax in the form of transaction costs. That is before we get to the impact on the balance of payments. Removal of oil and gas exports alone from the sterling zone’s balance of payments would blow a hole in it, would send the UK trade deficit through the roof and would impact on the value of sterling.
I think that we all know that George Osborne, backed by his new-found allies in the Labour Party and his existing allies in the Liberal Democrat Party, is engaging in campaign rhetoric. However, when the campaign is over and when Scotland has voted yes, common sense will prevail.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that although unelected peers such as Baroness Jay and Tories such as George Osborne seem to have trouble understanding basic democracy, the days of such people dictating to us should be well over? Scotland understands democracy and Scotland wishes to build a fairer and more prosperous country.
Linda Fabiani is absolutely right. On top of all the other benefits of independence, I offer two more. First, we will not have an unelected House of Lords in an independent Scotland. Secondly, if Scotland votes for independence, we need never again have a Tory Government that we do not vote for.
In any other context, I might feel that I had had a threat of getting my jotters but, on this occasion, it does not worry me any more than it has worried me in the past.
When he was confronted with the reality of a separate currency in an independent Scotland, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth claimed that that would cost English businesses £500 million a year in transaction costs, but despite being asked five times on television last night, he was unable to furnish us with the transaction costs for an independent Scotland of a separate currency.
From her basic research, will the Deputy First Minister confirm what the cost of a Salmond tax would be for an independent Scotland that used a separate currency?
The problem that Annabel Goldie has is that that is not our proposal. One of the reasons why we propose a sterling zone is so that neither English businesses nor Scottish businesses would have to incur additional transaction costs. The fact that the transaction costs are entirely a George Osborne tax is something that the Tories will have to face up to.
The Deputy First Minister talks about the positive case for the United Kingdom. She is increasingly becoming the strongest advocate for the UK. She argues for the currency union and the Bank of England as a lender of last resort, and against transaction costs. I am pleased that she now realises what we have been arguing for for a very long time. Given that she is a nationalist who is banging the drum for keeping the UK as part of her argument for leaving the UK, has not nationalist politics now become a snake eating its own tail?
The problem for Willie Rennie is that, since he went into coalition with the Tories, no one knows what the Liberal Democrats stand for or believe in—or, indeed, whether they stand for or believe in anything.
Let me help Willie Rennie by giving him a display of something that he will not see often in his party: a conviction politician who actually believes in something. I believe in Scotland being an independent and equal country. I believe in a country that pools sovereignty with our neighbours and partners across the UK and the European Union when that suits our interests, but which has the ability to take decisions here in Scotland in our own interests—decisions that will make our country more prosperous, fairer and better for everyone and for future generations to live in. That is what independence is all about.
If Scotland votes yes, we will not have the pound. We have learned today from the Deputy First Minister that we will not join the euro. John Swinney has told us that the new currency—whatever it will be called—will cost English businesses £500 million in transaction costs. I ask the Deputy First Minister to answer the question that John Swinney has refused to answer: how much will the new currency cost Scottish businesses in transaction costs?
I will be charitable to Jenny Marra. First, I welcome the fact that she accepted that Scotland is going to vote yes. That is great progress in the debate. Secondly, I reiterate the point that I have made repeatedly, just in case she did not quite catch it in previous answers: Scotland, as an independent country, will use the pound. We are making progress on two points.
If Jenny Marra—who, like Drew Smith, I am sure is someone who came into politics for the right reasons—ever again manages to reassert an identity that is separate from that of her friends in the Tory party, she will be quick to realise that what we are arguing for is in the best interests of Scotland and of the rest of the UK.
George Osborne said that if Scotland walks away from the union, it walks away from the pound. What would women think if George Osborne said to his wife, “If you walk away from the marriage, you walk away from our assets”?
The Tories must realise, as should Labour and the Liberal Democrats, that Scotland would be entitled to not just a share of liabilities, but a share of assets as well.
I do not agree with George Osborne that if we walk away from the union, we walk away from the pound, but I agree that if we decide to vote for independence, we walk away from Tory Governments that we do not vote for.
Did the Deputy First Minister, who apparently is now also the finance secretary, spend her entire political life as a “Braveheart” nationalist only to hand over power over financial regulation, the budget and the currency to the Bank of England, which would be in a foreign country should Scotland be unwise enough to become independent?
I have spent my entire political life believing in and arguing for independence for Scotland and that is what I will continue to do for the next seven months until we achieve it in the referendum. I think that the real tragedy is for somebody such as Neil Findlay, who I think spent his entire political life as a deep-red socialist, now to find himself in a coalition with the Conservative Party.
Previous
Time for Reflection