The next item of business is a statement by Stephen Gethins on the 10th anniversary of the United Kingdom referendum on EU membership. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should be no interventions or interruptions. There will be one minute to enable a changeover of ministers.
I ask members who are leaving the chamber, and those leaving the public gallery, to do so quietly.
14:32
Next week, astonishingly, marks the 10th anniversary of the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, which, I am sure we would all agree, was one of the most consequential moments in the history of this Parliament, the peoples of our shared islands and, of course, the rest of Europe.
Ten years on, this Parliament must reflect with honesty, clarity and, above all, a sense of responsibility to those whose lives have been shaped by that decision. The vote and its aftermath have meant economic vandalism, social damage, cultural loss and a weakening of our international relationships at a time when co-operation across Europe has never been more important. No department or issue has been unaffected, from our national health service, with, for example, the exit from the European Medicines Agency; to agriculture, with the removal of access to the single market; to education and the tragic loss of opportunities for our young people.
Members of the Scottish Parliament got that 10 years ago, and Parliament responded—across the chamber, to be fair—in a cohesive and responsible manner to an event that was neither of its making nor of its choosing. I know from first-hand experience that that was lacking at Westminster.
Scotland did not vote to leave the EU, having overwhelmingly backed EU membership in a referendum—for the second time. Despite that, the Scottish Government consistently offered compromise to the UK. In 2016, a motion by my predecessor, Michael Russell, that called for Scotland to remain in the single market was overwhelmingly backed with support from Scottish National Party, Scottish Labour and the Greens. To be fair, the Liberal Democrats did not back it but called for a second referendum. Instead, we got the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, with Westminster taking back control not just from Brussels but from Cardiff, Belfast and, of course, Edinburgh.
EU membership had empowered devolved Administrations, but leaving the EU has left the UK more centralised than ever. We were told that leaving the European Union would bring new opportunities, greater prosperity, more control and a stronger voice. I will be generous and say that those comments were, at best, incorrect. Every sector was damaged. For businesses, leaving the EU introduced friction where there was once fluidity, barriers where there was access and uncertainty where there was stability.
In November 2023, nearly 40 per cent of businesses in Scotland cited leaving the EU as the main cause of difficulties in trading overseas. UK-EU trade is estimated to be around a quarter lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU, with non-tariff barriers with the EU being the main driver behind that shortfall. The agrifood sector, in particular, has struggled to export to the EU, which has led to a substantial and sustained loss in one of our most important sectors for exporting and, of course, employment.
Public revenues in Scotland and the public services that depend on them were estimated to have lost around £3.3 billion in 2025 alone, based on research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. In other words, more than £9 million was lost every day to public revenues in Scotland in 2025. The question must be this: can we really afford that any longer?
The consequences for households have been profoundly damaging. Cost of living pressures have been exacerbated at a time when families can least afford it; there has been a £250 increase in food and drink bills due to leaving the EU, and UK households have collectively paid an extra £7 billion due to covering the extra cost of doing business outside the single market.
There is a particular tragedy for our young people. Every political generation should leave more opportunity than they enjoyed—that should be a basic for us all in this chamber—but with the removal of the freedoms to live, learn and work across the European Union, we cannot say that. A British passport is now the most restrictive in western Europe.
Although the personal and financial losses have been great, we must not lose sight of security considerations. We meet at a time of profound geopolitical instability. Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, shifting global alliances and threats to energy and food security all underline the importance of strong co-operation in Europe—the rest of Europe gets that. The EU is not simply an economic bloc; it is a community grounded in shared values such as democracy, human rights, the rule of law, equality and freedom.
Leaving the EU was a bad idea 10 years ago, and it is a dangerous idea today. It has left the UK and, by extension, Scotland more isolated when the challenges that we face demand deeper partnership, not detachment. Although there has been a change in ideology from the most recent UK Government, I am afraid to say that it is still tinkering. Current efforts by the UK Government to rebuild relationships are welcome but are not enough.
The UK Government’s own figures suggest that the deal that is being negotiated—it is far from certain to be delivered—will add only £9 billion to the economy by 2040, which is the equivalent of around 0.2 per cent of gross domestic product. By contrast, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that leaving the EU will have reduced GDP by at least 4 per cent, so the loss is 20 times greater. I ask the UK Government: where is the ambition, and where is the responsibility to individuals and businesses to reverse that damaging decision?
The Scottish Government has published a series of policy papers that clearly set out our objectives for Scotland’s relationship with the EU in key areas that affect all our lives—trade, education and energy. The UK Government could change that, but it chooses not to, and we all pay the price for that inaction.
There is, of course, a human dimension to all this. Leaving the EU has affected the families who have made their lives across borders and those European citizens who pay us the privilege of making Scotland home. I say to my fellow European citizens that I will continue to make the case for them every single day that I am in this job.
Every country that joined the EU got wealthier; its sovereignty was strengthened; and its citizens’ rights were enhanced. The reverse happened for the one state that left. Leaving the EU is a backward step as Europe moves closer together. It is almost inevitable that we will rejoin—it is simply a question of how much damage we sustain until that moment.
So, where do we go from here? First, we will continue to press for the closest possible relationship between the UK and the EU. I am glad to have already discussed that with my counterpart in the UK Government, Nick Thomas-Symonds, and I am grateful to him for his collaboration and conversation. I have made it clear to him that both the EU and UK have much to gain from having a better relationship with the EU. Energy is one example: Scotland is a massive exporter of energy, and it is very much part of the solution when it comes to pan-European energy security, a key concern in other European capitals. The UK Government must make the most of the forthcoming UK-EU summit and ensure that the negotiations deliver the fullest possible outcomes. We have made it clear to the UK Government that we seek further improvements, although I have to say that I am still unsure as to why it is sticking to its damaging red lines on the single market and customs union. It is an absolute mystery to me.
Secondly, we must ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard. Too often, Scotland’s distinct interest and democratic choices are being sidelined. That cannot continue any more—we know how damaging it has been.
Thirdly, and most important, we must recognise that there is a limit to what can be achieved under the current constitutional framework. The UK’s 18th century model of union brought us to this place, and it is no longer fit for purpose—Brexit exposed its flaws. An alternative partnership model is being pursued by our neighbours—a 21st century model of union that is based on true respect and partnership between nations. The EU and the rest of Europe get and understand that.
Ten years on from the Brexit referendum, we owe it to the people of Scotland, particularly younger generations, to speak honestly about what has happened. The conclusion is unavoidable: leaving the EU did not deliver what was promised; it left Scotland and the rest of the UK poorer, more isolated and less secure. The question for us all is what we are prepared to do about it. I believe that Scotland’s future lies in restoring our place at the heart of Europe. That is the challenge of the next decade that the Parliament must meet with hope, clarity, and determination.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. Members who wish to ask a question should press their request-to-speak button.
I start by commemorating the hard work of many, and in particular Nigel Farage, on pushing for the necessary referendum on the UK’s leaving the European Union 10 years ago. I take this opportunity to make known my long-held frustration with the idea that Scotland did not vote for Brexit when, in fact, far more Scots voted for it than voted for the Scottish National Party in the recent election: 1,018,322 people in Scotland voted for Brexit and 877,000 Scots voted for this rotten Scottish Government. The voices of more than 1 million Scots are not counted when the Parliament flies the EU flag at its door.
We constantly hear the Scottish Government blaming Brexit for the country’s failings. Can the minister name one major economic challenge that people in South Scotland currently face that would not still exist had Scotland remained in the European Union? Does he accept that it is only another political excuse for continued SNP failure?
I thank the member for reminding us that Reform has a poor track record of dragging us out of the EU at a cost of billions to the Exchequer, which cost is now having to be made up. It has a track record of pushing up our energy prices and our food and drink prices during a cost of living crisis. As the member rails against flags, I remind her that a Council of Europe flag also sits outside the chamber; it flies proudly and should remain there. It underlines the rights that we have as European citizens, which her party wants to take away.
I am afraid to say that I do not have all day to go through the member’s party’s failures; I have been through some of them. I remind her to go back to South Scotland and talk to her constituents about the dip in agrifood exports that her region relies on so much; the increase in energy prices that is costing households in her area; and the removal of rights that previous generations took for granted.
I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. It contained much that Scottish Labour agrees with, although we might disagree on some of the constitutional conclusions. Indeed, I might go further than the minister and say that I estimate the damage to GDP from Brexit to be between 6 per cent and 8 per cent, based on many measures.
I agree with the minister that our future has to be about a closer alignment and relationship with the European Union. I note his reservations about the forthcoming treaty, but does he acknowledge that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will make a substantial difference to farmers and to the food business, not least by eliminating the bill of £200 per consignment for certificates and easing trade across the Irish Sea—to touch on one of the deep ironies of the hard Brexit deal? Would he also acknowledge the benefit with regard to carbon trading? Moreover, would he welcome this summit becoming an annual event, so that we have further such treaties in the future?
I thank Mr Johnson not just for his questions but for the spirit in which they were asked. In the spirit of agreement, I note that, when I spoke about a 4 per cent reduction in GDP, I was using quite conservative figures. However, he and I agree that those figures are deeply worrying. The finance secretary is sitting on the front bench with me, and we can just imagine what she could have done for our public services with the money that is being thrown away right now.
On Mr Johnson’s other point, I would welcome any progress—I said that to Nick Thomas-Symonds the other day. It still means that the Conservatives have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on border checks that are no longer needed, so hundreds of millions of pounds have been thrown away by the Conservatives—backed by Reform, incidentally.
However, Mr Johnson’s question raises another point. He is now asking about annual talks on the issue. This process does not end, because Brexit will not end until we rejoin. Therefore, why on earth is the UK Government still backing staying out of the single market and the customs union—membership of which, incidentally, was backed by Labour 10 years ago? I have no idea what successes Mr Johnson sees that the Conservative Party has achieved in that period that have made him change his mind, but I certainly have not changed mine. I urge his party and the UK Government to review those lines as a matter of urgency.
A large number of members still wish to ask questions. If we are to get through them all, we will need more concise questions and answers.
I thank the minister for that statement on what is one of the saddest anniversaries for our country.
Ten years on from the Brexit vote, Scotland’s artists, musicians and creative professionals continue to face significant barriers to working and touring in Europe. Those challenges have contributed to fewer touring opportunities and reduced international career development, particularly for young and emerging artists. Although many of the key levers remain reserved to the UK Government, can the minister outline what further action the Scottish Government is taking to support Scotland’s artists and creative sectors, including through advocating for the UK’s participation in programmes such as Creative Europe and its successor, AgoraEU?
I thank the member for raising that important point. The Scottish Government would welcome a return to Erasmus+. We are pressing for continued participation, which is good for students, apprentices and teachers. We are calling for the UK to associate itself with AgoraEU in order to restore the vital cultural collaboration that Pauline Stafford rightly brings up. We have also repeatedly pressed the UK Government for easements and targeted support for touring artists to help them to overcome the barriers created by Brexit, and have advocated for an EU mobility agreement to reduce obstacles.
Pauline Stafford is right. Those challenges stem directly from the UK’s having left the EU against Scotland’s will. The consequences are that 82 per cent of musicians report reduced EU earnings, 65 per cent report fewer invitations and 57 per cent report being unable to take up work due to the increased costs. It is just not worth it.
We all know how damaging Brexit has been to our economy and our democracy. I am pleased to hear the minister highlight the human costs, because I think those are tangible things that everybody can realise we have lost.
At a time when global relations are so unstable, we need to work more closely with our European allies. That involves having a strong programme of international engagement. Can the minister confirm that he will prioritise maintaining the network of international offices, and particularly those in Europe, to assist with that alignment?
I thank Gillian Mackay for her question and for the coherence of her party, unlike others, on this particular issue. What she says makes a lot of sense, and she is also right about the human costs. Facts and figures are important and help us to understand the issue, but the finance secretary will forgive me for a moment for highlighting the human costs, because I know that she already gets the impact on people.
Gillian Mackay is right. Our offices across Europe and elsewhere have done a fantastic job. It was great to see the First Minister in Boston—that is good not just for the support of our football team but for jobs and investment at home. Jobs rely on such international engagement. I give my thanks to our office in Brussels for the fantastic job that it has done over the past decade, not only in ensuring that Scotland’s interests are heard but in sticking up for jobs and investment back home, which is vital. I assure Ms Mackay that I continue to be committed to that work.
Was this statement not an entire waste of valuable parliamentary time? Is it not symptomatic of this Government’s obsession with matters beyond the control of this Parliament?
I will indulge the minister by asking him this simple question. By what economic logic would we want to leave a union in which we are a net beneficiary, to become, at the flick of a switch, a member of a union in which we would be expected to be a net financial contributor?
It says something about where the Conservatives have gone with their disregard for the economy and for jobs when Mr Hoy does not think that the statement was important. Every single day, every minister in this Government has to deal with the consequences of a decision foisted on them by Boris Johnson and his Government. Mr Hoy’s point also speaks to the sense of British exceptionalism for which the Conservative Party is renowned. Every country in Europe gets that a 21st century model of union is one of equality and partnership. That is why every country that has joined the EU has got wealthier and every country that has left the EU has got poorer. That is on his party.
For the past 10 years, the Liberal Democrats have been clear—we believe that we should never have left the EU. We remain the strongest defenders of the European Union and the union of the United Kingdom, because being a member of both has preserved Scotland’s peace and prosperity. Both are needed now more than ever, as our world is in a much more volatile place.
However, to be pragmatic, I ask the minister whether he will join calls for the UK Government to immediately begin talks with the EU on a new growth and defence partnership that would include a new UK-EU customs union; on rejoining the single market; and on a new defence pact with our EU allies.
First, I will be generous with Mr Dunlop. When I was at Westminster, I voted for membership of the customs union and the single market. I also ask why the UK would not join the SAFE—security action for Europe—defence procurement project, when even Canada has joined it. I take Mr Dunlop’s point on that.
However, what I do not understand about the Liberal Democrats—who profess to be strong advocates for the EU—is that we know that even joining the customs union and the single market is the second-best option. The Treasury tells us so. Why should we go for the second-best option when we can go for the best one?
It is right that we take good stock of the reality that Brexit supporters’ lies have not been delivered, but I am more interested in the future, when we could have a solution. We know that Brexit was missold—it has made everything worse and made everybody poorer—but, to our mind, the solution is independence in Europe. The minister will have taken good note of the fact that, just this Monday, the EU commenced cluster 1 accession talks with Moldova, whose resources are nothing like our own, and with Ukraine, which is under illegal occupation and daily bombardment. Does that not nail for ever the idea that Scotland could not very easily become an EU member?
Alyn Smith and I have many things in common, one of which is that we have served in a Parliament in which we did not see a future. I now serve in a Parliament in which I do see a future, and Alyn Smith is now in his second Parliament in which Scotland has a future. He is right that the rest of Europe sees a future in that as well. Not doing so speaks to exceptionalism and isolationism. I remember the Brexiteers telling us that there would be a big queue of countries that would leave in the aftermath of the UK’s profound success. Where are they? Instead, countries have been queueing up to join the European Union. The isolation and exceptionalism espoused by Reform and its Conservative allies have got us to this disastrous place, and the rest of Europe has learned a lesson from that.
I thank the minister for his statement and I welcome him to his place.
In my region, Moray voted by just 122 votes to remain in the EU so, as Senga Beresford said, it is a bit wide of the mark for the minister to claim overwhelming support for the EU project.
It is unfortunate that the minister made no mention of fishing in his statement. Scotland accounts for almost half of all UK fishing industry jobs and more than 60 per cent of the value of all UK landings. However, half of our commercially fished species are overfished or at very low population sizes, and catch limits are being set above scientific advice.
Under the Labour Lancaster house agreement, European access to overfished Scottish waters has been set in stone for the next 12 years. Scotland benefited from only £28 million out of the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund. Does the minister not agree that the best way to safeguard this vital industry would be to utilise Brexit benefits so that any recovery from our territorial waters gives priority to Scottish boats, particularly smaller vessels?
On Brexit benefits, I keep hearing that we have just not had the proper kind of Brexit. That is like the arguments that I heard about communism in the 1990s—that we had just not had the right kind of communism. It is very much the same argument. We have seen a drop in our agrifood exports. We have also seen the impact of leaving the single market not only on exports but on staffing.
That is the second time that a Reform member has stood up and struggled with basic maths. The people of Moray voted to remain in the European Union, not for the first time but for the second time. It is basic maths, and I would encourage those members to catch up.
I thank the minister for his statement and I agree that Scotland should most definitely be at the heart of Europe. Ending the free movement of labour has severely restricted the pool of workers in key sectors in Argyll and Bute. Tourism, hospitality and the care sector have all struggled with staff shortages and recruitment difficulties, and I have lost count of the number of organisations that have spoken to me directly about that.
Given that the UK Government has neglected to act to resolve the issue, does the minister agree that it should step aside and devolve the powers to the Scottish Parliament so that we can introduce a Scottish visa system that supports all those sectors and more?
Jenni Minto rightly highlights that Brexit has created a real and growing workforce challenge across Scotland in sectors such as tourism, hospitality, social care and other areas that have traditionally relied on access to EU labour. Jenni Minto knows the impact that that has had on areas such as Argyll and Bute.
The Scottish Government has highlighted and discussed those challenges with the UK Government and has proposed practical solutions, such as a tailored Scottish visa and a rural visa pilot. When I was a member of the House of Commons, I tried to take through a private member’s bill on that very matter.
We continue to encourage the UK Government to address the issue and to work with the Scottish Government. I note that Scottish Labour previously talked about the issue but, as with everybody else, UK Labour does not seem to be listening to it.
The minister set out the damage that is taking place in this country as a result of leaving a political and economic union, and there is nothing in his statement that I can disagree with. In his conclusion, he asked what we are prepared to do about it. Can the Government set out a bit more detail on how we in the Parliament can pull together and work together, as we did in relation to the vote that he mentioned in his statement, to achieve that outcome?
Mr Griffin is right—10 years ago, there was an important vote in the Scottish Parliament that offered a compromise. I think that only one member of the Scottish Parliament out of 129 backed leaving the EU, which speaks to the greater collective wisdom in this place than in the Westminster Parliament.
As I have said to others, I have engaged with and will happily continue to engage with Nick Thomas-Symonds, but if we consider that the potential benefits are 20 times less than the loss that we are sustaining, we see the impact. I welcome Nick Thomas-Symonds’s engagement, but where are we on the energy sector or the freedoms that young people enjoyed? On the whole range of areas, we will continue to press the UK Government to go much further.
I am exceptionally disappointed in the Labour Party, which has veered off to what is, by any measure, a hard Brexit introduced by the Tories and endorsed by Reform. I encourage Mr Griffin’s Government—I say this in good faith—to be much more ambitious, and I urge the Scottish Labour members to join us in making that case.
I encourage shorter questions and shorter answers to allow every member who wants to do so to come in if possible.
Despite every council area in Scotland voting to remain in Europe, we were dragged out against our will. Companies such as DFDS—which operates a logistics hub in Larkhall in my constituency and provides one of the major routes to the continent for seafood that is caught on the west coast—and their clients are paying the cost of remaining shackled to Brexit Britain.
Previous figures have shown that £4 billion has been lost. Will the minister provide the most up-to-date figures for the cost to the Scottish economy of leaving the European Union and single market as well as for the economic growth that could be achieved by rejoining our European neighbours?
Scotland was one of the hardest-hit parts of the UK when it came to Brexit. The figures that I used earlier indicated a £3.3 billion reduction in revenues. The House of Commons research that was commissioned by the Liberal Democrats showed a loss of £90 billion, or £250 million every day. The Deputy First Minister knows exactly the cost that that is having. We need to reverse it.
I thank Alex Kerr for his sensible question. I will continue to work with him and others on how we can minimise the damage.
The proposed UK-EU partnership bill that was announced in the King’s speech will undoubtedly do a lot less good than rejoining the EU would but, if it has any potential to begin undoing some of the damage of Brexit, we should strive to work constructively with it. Has the UK Government been working collaboratively with the Scottish Government to agree the terms of that bill? Is the minister confident that there will be no breach of the devolution settlement or the Sewel convention?
Patrick Harvie will be well aware of the impact that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 had on the Parliament, the fact that it took away powers—it centralised the UK—and the breaches that happened subsequently.
I am relatively new in the job and will give the Labour Government the benefit of the doubt. I would like to see an awful lot more, but we will welcome anything that brings us closer to the rest of Europe and minimises the damage of Brexit. I will always look to work constructively with colleagues, but let us be clear that we are minimising the damage that has been done. Damage is still being done. It is not being forced upon us. It is a political choice.
Living, working or studying abroad is a hugely enriching experience in which we encounter new cultures and skills. What estimation does the minister make of the social and educational impact on Scots young people, who are being denied the opportunity to expand their horizons in a way that was previously facilitated through freedom of movement within the EU and programmes such as Erasmus+?
Jackie Dunbar will get this point, given the impact on educational institutions and on young people in her constituency in Aberdeen. I do not want to make this too personal, but I will reflect for a moment. I was an Erasmus student, and it was transformative for me. I could never have done it, financially or otherwise, if it had not been for those connections. I find it heartbreaking—there is no other word for it—that I am now in a political generation that is not bequeathing many of the opportunities that we enjoyed. We all need to reflect on that.
The movements on Erasmus+ are welcome. There is progress, but it is not back to where we were. Even more than other generations, young people will bear the consequences of the removal of the right to live, learn and work across the whole of Europe and the reduction in what it means to have a British passport.
Previous
First Minister’s Question Time