Scotland's Place in the World
We have two debates this morning before a ministerial statement. The Presiding Officers have looked at the list of people who have already requested to speak—even before we have asked for request-to-speak buttons to be pressed—and both debates are oversubscribed. I warn members that it is unlikely that we will be able to call everyone. Timekeeping will therefore be strict. I ask everyone, including those on the front benches, to keep to their allotted time.
We begin with the Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-2030, in the name of John Swinney, on Scotland's place in the world, and two amendments to that motion.
This is the first opportunity that I have had to address Parliament since the death of Cardinal Winning. I wish to place on record in Parliament the sorrow of the Scottish National Party at the death of Cardinal Winning and to extend to everyone in the Catholic community and the wider community in Scotland our sympathies at the loss to Scotland of a great church statesman.
In the past fortnight, Parliament has experienced two major international events within its precincts: the address by President Mbeki of South Africa and the address yesterday by the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. We have also had the political declaration by a number of so-called constitutional regions in Europe, which was signed by the First Minister on 28 May. This is therefore an appropriate moment to consider Scotland's place in the international community.
When he addressed Parliament, President Mbeki said this:
"While the Scottish Parliament is the custodian and promoter of democracy, human rights and human development, it has also to play a role in promoting the agenda for development for us as well and the rest of the world. The Scottish Parliament has a responsibility to say what is happening to the peoples of the world as a result of globalisation."
What I think President Mbeki was telling us in that passage was the importance of this Parliament having broad and open horizons and a willingness to confront issues that may lie beyond the tightly defined powers of our Scottish Parliament: a willingness to have ambitions for Scotland and a willingness to have broad horizons for Scotland. In my view, that highlighted the role of the Scottish Parliament in addressing wider issues that are of concern to the people of Scotland but that may not necessarily be directly within the allotted powers of this Parliament—for example, the battle to support international development; the quest to oppose nuclear weapons and to create a safe Scotland; and the desire to work with others in securing international peace. All those are noble intentions and ideas. We as a Parliament should support them and be involved in them.
We in the Scottish National Party want Scotland to be a normal country with a normal Parliament, able to play a positive part in the international community, co-operating with other countries, participating in European and international institutions, and representing our own interests directly and in accordance with the wishes of our people.
Given the results that were achieved by the SNP two weeks ago, when the party's share of the vote fell to barely 20 per cent of the electorate, could Mr Swinney tell me and the chamber how ringing an endorsement that was of the SNP's policy for independence?
When I consider the way in which the SNP is mercilessly attacked by Labour politicians, and when I consider the way in which ministers regularly follow the fortunes of the SNP, I know that the SNP remains a formidable and consistent threat in its unity of purpose to ensure that Scottish independence is won. I will have a good deal more to say about that in the course of my speech. Of course, Mr Butler will be aware that the Labour party's vote also fell in Scotland. That should be a source of concern to him. We intend to erode it even further in the months and years to come.
The issue at the heart of this debate is the role that we envisage for Scotland. We should consider other small countries. Representatives of the Norwegian Government were actively involved in peace-brokering in the middle east in the 1990s and are now involved in the peace process in Sri Lanka. The Finnish Government has worked to support the ending of the Kosovo crisis. I therefore say that we as a country have a role to play in the international arena and we must play it positively to encourage and support the process of international co-operation and peace.
The SNP wants Scotland to be a normal independent country. However, we will welcome any moves that strengthen Scotland's position and give us a stronger say in European and international matters. I would like to comment on, and give our support to, two Executive initiatives that are part of that process.
The first is what I call the McLeish embassy plan. In the aftermath of the tartan day celebrations in the United States of America, it became clear that the Scottish Executive intended to locate a civil servant in the British embassy in Washington to be answerable to the Scottish Executive and to be tasked with promoting Scotland's trade and tourism within the USA. That, of course, was a fabulous example of an SNP policy of 1999, which was derided by the Labour party but then introduced as part of its policy platform in 2001. At the time, The Scotsman reported that the proposal had come somewhat out of the blue and had not even involved discussion with the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, who is leading for the Government in this debate. However, the First Minister was committed to the idea and we warmly support that.
On 8 April, it was reported in the press that the Executive planned to consider extending the idea to other British embassies. The Executive's spokesman said that that was an idea that the Executive would consider to ensure wider representation. He said that it demonstrated a desire for the Executive to have a more focused approach in America. The question then is surely this: if the Executive has a desire for a more focused approach in America, does it not have a desire for a more focused approach in many other countries of the world, where it can get the benefit of direct representation and consequent benefit to Scotland? We would be right behind that process.
Would Mr Swinney care to list for us the countries in which he would establish full embassies and what the cost of that would be? Is he asking the Scottish electorate to endorse a blank cheque for independence?
Mr Henry will be aware that Scotland already makes a contribution to the costs of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the United Kingdom. I want to ensure that that money works for the people of Scotland and that we have a strong ability to represent ourselves overseas.
Although I am right behind the First Minister on his initiative in establishing strong links for Scotland overseas, the initiative is not without its critics. Tam Dalyell said:
"Having a distinctive Scottish representative in a foreign capital is one of the hallmarks of an independent country, and it raises deep questions for the British state."
That may partly explain why the Scottish National Party thinks that it would be good idea.
The second major foreign policy initiative that has taken place is the political declaration of 28 May. On 22 February, the Flemish authorities organised a colloquium in Brussels entitled "Strengthening the role of the constitutional regions in the European Union". It produced a declaration on 28 May, which was signed by the First Minister and which goes some way to strengthening the role of Scotland overseas. The Scottish Executive issued a press release on 26 April saying that the colloquium and the discussions that were going on with the constitutional regions were of vital importance in bringing these issues to the attention of the Belgian presidency
"as part of the build up to the Intergovernmental Conference in 2004."
The First Minister signed that political declaration in Brussels on 28 May. From the contents of the press release that I have just read from, he must surely have been aware of its implications and the fact that it would represent a strong stance for the Scottish Executive.
Among other provisions in the declaration, the First Minister signed up to a statement that said that
"the political role of these regions has to be strengthened within the European Union."
He signed up to a statement that said that a
"review of the division of political responsibilities between the European Union, on the one hand, and the Member States and their regions, on the other"
must be looked at afresh. He signed up to the fact that the constitutional regions are not satisfied with the current institutional framework in the European Union.
The declaration ends with a call for the Committee of the Regions to be given the status of a fully fledged EU institution, for national and regional Parliaments to have greater involvement in EU policy making and for the constitutional regions to have the same status as member states in terms of direct access to the European Court of Justice.
It is clear from the Scottish Executive news release that I commented on a moment ago that the Executive expected firm conclusions to come from the process, and that it was identifying Scotland with those conclusions. That should not be a surprise—it chimes with the approach of the Scottish Executive in seeking a stronger role for Scotland in Europe, which was a key part of Jack McConnell's speech in the Executive debate on 9 May to celebrate Europe day. However, it reveals an important development in the Executive's thinking. The Executive acknowledges that the current constitutional arrangements are not enough. What the Executive is doing is not sufficient. It is not doing all that it has to do to represent Scotland overseas. The Executive's proposals are not enough for us—they do not meet our ambitions—but they are steps in the right direction, and we encourage them to develop.
Given that our motion refers specifically to the political declaration, when I lodged it yesterday I was more than a little surprised to see that the Government's stance was going to be outlined today by the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs. The political statement that was agreed to was signed by the First Minister. It is always a pleasure to be in the company of Jack McConnell. It is always a pleasure to debate with him. I spent a very pleasant evening with him at Carfin last night, on a truly memorable occasion for Scotland. However, this is an occasion on which the First Minister should be here to explain to Parliament the basis of the agreement that he has entered into.
The First Minister appears to have had the time to write the amendment to my motion, but he does not have the time to come before Parliament and explain the intricacies of the political declaration that he has signed up to, and which is part and parcel of the debate that we are having today. Neither does he have time to check the protocols of the Scottish Parliament. In this amazing Parliament, he has managed to offend Hugh Henry and the European Committee because he did not properly consult the committee about the contents of the agreement. The First Minister has time to fly to Flanders, but not to walk across from George IV Bridge to address Parliament.
I have three key points to make about the political statement that was agreed by the Scottish Executive in the First Minister's name. The first is about giving Scotland direct access to the European Court of Justice. That was proposed by the Belgian Government at the Nice summit, and blocked by UK ministers. It would have given Scotland the right to challenge bad EU laws. The political declaration that Henry McLeish signed calls for
"the right for the constitutional regions, as exists for the Member States, to refer directly to the European Court of Justice when their prerogatives are harmed."
On Tuesday of this week, the contents of that declaration were undermined by Mr McLeish's spokesman, who said that the Executive sees no need for that to be introduced, while respecting the right of other regions to put forward their policies.
So the First Minister goes to Flanders and he does not properly consult Parliament before he signs an agreement, parts of which he does not agree with. What a ridiculous situation. Surely this Parliament should have the First Minister before it to explain exactly what he has signed up to on behalf of the people of Scotland.
The second point is about the secrecy that surrounds the declaration. There was no official announcement that Mr McLeish was going to sign the declaration. News of it was issued only after inquiries from journalists. At the time, the First Minister's spokesman said that the Executive had nothing to hide, and blamed journalists for failing to ask the right questions. Until yesterday, the declaration that the First Minister signed was not even on the Scottish Executive website. Ironically, it appears beautifully translated into English on the Flanders website. What on earth is the Government up to? It complains about our arguments for transparency and for the need for this Parliament to be open, while it will not publish that information and the First Minister will not bother to come to Parliament to explain the intricacies of what he has signed up to.
The final point is about the consistency of what the Labour party is doing on these issues. A report from the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee set out the European Parliament's views on the development of the EU after the Nice treaty. Various amendments to that report were lodged to strengthen the role of the constitutional regions in that process, and the report was debated by the European Parliament. In true, consistent form, two of the three Labour members of the European Parliament for Scotland who were present on that date did not vote to support the declaration and direction of thinking; instead, they voted to oppose it. Bill Miller and David Martin both voted against amendments to the report that would have strengthened the role of the regions in the approach to the Nice treaty.
For the sake of consistency, I tell the two members of the Liberal Democrats who are present today—
Four Liberal Democrats are present.
My apologies. They are so invisible that I cannot see them. I hope that Mr Raffan is not attempting to—
No interventions. Mr Swinney is in his last minute.
Elspeth Attwooll, the Liberal Democrat MEP for Scotland, voted in favour of extending the rights of the constitutional regions. Let us see whether the Labour Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and the Liberal Democrat Deputy Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs can achieve consistency, because the Labour party argued against the stance that was taken by the First Minister when he was in Flanders at the end of May.
We welcome the Executive's stance on representation overseas, but it is not enough for us. We welcome the political declaration, but it is not enough for us. However, they are steps in the right direction.
I read the newspapers this morning, because it is always helpful to have Jack McConnell's arguments flagged up in the newspapers before coming to Parliament. He said that the context of the declaration explained why the regions do not demand independence. In another article on Europe day on 9 May, Mr McConnell wrote that Scotland was well placed to play its part as a dynamic country. Mr McConnell cannot decide whether Scotland is a region or a country. We in the SNP recognise that Scotland is a country. The issues of our representation overseas and our role in the world are centre stage in Scottish politics. The question of independence is centre stage in Scottish politics, and we intend to keep it so.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the political declaration by the governments of Bavaria, Catalonia, North Rhine-Westphalia, Salzburg, Scotland, Wallonia and Flanders on the future of the European Union, signed by the First Minister on 28 May 2001; calls upon the Scottish Executive to ensure that any future European or other international agreements signed by the First Minister are carried out with greater transparency and involvement of the Parliament, and recognises that such initiatives are important steps towards Scotland becoming an independent country in the European Union, engaging fully in the community of nations.
I am delighted to debate today how we take Scotland forward as the modern and confident nation in the United Kingdom that we want it to be. I am also happy to associate myself with John Swinney's remarks about the late Cardinal Tom Winning. He too believed in a modern and confident Scotland, and his contribution, particularly to Catholic education in Scotland, was considerable during his time as a priest, a bishop, an archbishop and a cardinal. Those who attend Scotland's Catholic schools in particular will mourn his passing with considerable grief this week.
I welcome today's debate, but I am disappointed by the content of the debate so far. We are not here to debate who is speaking in this debate; we are here to debate the content of the motion and the two amendments. We are here two weeks after the general election on 7 June to give the SNP an opportunity to debate the subject of a separate Scotland. Of course, the SNP had the opportunity to debate that during the election campaign, but it chose to use its Opposition day for other topics. It did not want to discuss separatism and independence during the election campaign. The truth is that today's debate is not about the topic of the motion; it is more about shoring up John Swinney against the problems he has in leading his party following that election result.
John Swinney may want to debate the role of Scotland, but so do we, because our vision of the role of Scotland is the better vision for Scotland. The truth is that the SNP does not stand for Scotland; it stands for separatism. The SNP does not want to build bridges across Europe; it wants to put up barriers. The SNP does not have taking poverty out of Scotland as a top priority; it wants the top priority to be taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom. Separatism for Scotland would damage Scotland's interests and damage Scotland in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Tell that to Finland.
Tell that to Bavaria or Catalonia or Flanders or the other signatories to the declaration that John Swinney has welcomed this morning. Scotland would have less influence in Europe. We would have less influence and profile in the world if we divorced ourselves from the one country that has membership of the G8, the EU, the Commonwealth and NATO, and permanent membership of the United Nations Security council—the United Kingdom.
Mr McConnell Just listen for a second, Ms MacDonald. I will give way later.
Separating from the United Kingdom would damage Scotland's exports and commerce, particularly with those with whom we deal most in the rest of the United Kingdom. Our family, personal and cultural ties to the rest of the United Kingdom would also be damaged. It would break up our social security, tax and pensions systems and put them under threat.
I was interested to hear what John Swinney said about—[Interruption.] Presiding Officer?
Mr Swinney was listened to in reasonable silence. I ask for a little bit of quiet for Mr McConnell.
It is unfortunate, Presiding Officer, that the SNP does not like to hear the arguments. SNP members like to interrupt and shout instead.
SNP members would like a separate Scottish navy, a separate Scottish army, separate immigration services and embassies throughout the world. They would try to achieve that with less than the Barnett share of UK expenditure. Just three weeks ago, the SNP said in its manifesto that the new foreign affairs department of the so-called independent Scotland would operate on a budget that was no greater than the Scottish Executive's current spending and our population share of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's spending. Imagine what would have been said during the general election campaign if either of the two coalition parties here had said that about education, health or other matters.
Separatism would be bad for Scotland. The Scottish National Party wants Scotland to sign international agreements, but when we do, it distorts the purpose and content of those agreements. SNP members say that they want links across Europe, but when we have open debate on those emerging links, they are abused as an anti-London, anti-English battering ram.
The Flanders declaration is not a charter for separatism. The declaration recognises the role of the member states. I went through the declaration again last night in some detail. In the course of five pages, I almost lost count of the number of times that the member states and the regions were mentioned separately. The declaration says that any consideration of reform of the European Union should take the following principle as a starting point:
"the obligation to respect the national identity of the Member States".
John Swinney, Roseanna Cunningham and Kenny MacAskill, who has left—I presume in his dismay at what was being said about the declaration—may have sold out and started to recognise that devolution will work for Scotland, but I find it hard to believe that Alex Neil or Margo MacDonald is comfortable with that. It is even harder to believe that Lloyd Quinan is comfortable with that. I presume that that is why he is not even present.
Instead of reciting the normal litany of the poverty and pestilence that would befall an independent Scotland, torn from the clutches of Mother England, will the minister give us three examples of people in Scotland benefiting from being part of the larger union? [Members: "Jobs."] I hear "Jobs, jobs, jobs," but we will not go there, because that is too embarrassing. I would like to hear three examples of how people in Scotland benefit from that clout—perhaps in the Security Council of the United Nations.
We benefit from greater power and influence in the world and from better and more co-ordinated immigration and other services throughout the island in which we live. We also benefit from not breaking up the pensions, taxation, social security and other economic systems that exist in the UK. I do not believe that Margo MacDonald will vote for a motion to say she
"welcomes the political declaration by…Bavaria, Catalonia"—
proud nations within member states—
"North Rhine-Westphalia, Salzburg, Scotland, Wallonia and Flanders".
I do not believe that she believes in preserving the identity of the UK, as the declaration says.
John Swinney has made a mistake in endorsing that political declaration, but I welcome his support. The Parliament should welcome the Scottish nationalists' conversion to a charter for devolved government in Europe and a strong voice for Scotland at the centre of Europe.
When we become involved in international declarations, it is unacceptable to distort them, as has been done with the comment on the European Court of Justice. The declaration says that
"the constitutional regions would wish that, amongst others, the following topics"—
not even proposals—
"would be considered".
It mentions the Committee of the Regions, our proposal for national and regional parliaments to be more involved in the European policy process and to improve their interaction with the European Parliament, and the Belgians' proposal for regions to have access to the European Court of Justice when their prerogatives are harmed. Those are topics for discussion. They are not firm proposals. There has been no drawing back from that.
Mr Swinney should listen, because he might learn something.
There was a good reason for the UK Government, with our support, opposing that. The Government did not block the plan. All the member states blocked Belgium's plan, because the Nice summit back in December concerned streamlining and making more efficient European institutions for enlargement. It was not intended to clog up the European Court of Justice with more proposals and submissions. We believe in a political solution to the problems of transparency and subsidiarity throughout Europe, not a legalistic solution, and we think that our view is right.
If the First Minister did not agree with a part of the declaration to which he signed up, would not it have been reasonable for him to issue a statement saying, "We agree with the whole declaration, except for that bit," or is this just another example of the chaos that surrounds everything that the First Minister touches?
The Parliament and the Executive are not opposed to considering issues or having debates, so we endorse the declaration. The Belgians have an absolute right to make that proposal, for debate in the next four years. I have no problem with participating in that debate.
Our young Parliament has met for two years. The nationalists always opposed it. They opposed it before it was created. They tried to jump on board during the referendum campaign, and they have tried ever since it was created to ensure that it could not work.
Last week and this week, President Mbeki and the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern addressed our Parliament. Those addresses are good examples of the international contacts and respect that we have. We do not need to break up Britain or the United Kingdom to have those international contacts. Scotland can have its profile and respect throughout the world as a devolved part of the UK. We can build on our strengths as part of the UK, economically, socially and culturally.
I am sorry. I am in my last few seconds.
At the same time, we can express clearly our cultural and national identity and our thoughts on the future.
As I have said before in the chamber, we get the best of both worlds from devolution. That is why, on 7 June, the Scottish National Party had its worst election result for some time. It is in serious trouble. A divide runs through the middle of its parliamentary group. I do not believe that all the members who will vote for the motion support it. John Swinney and others may. If they are coming on the devolution train with us, they are very welcome.
I move amendment S1M-2030.2, to leave out from "calls upon" to end and insert:
"recognises that such initiatives play a part in Scotland enjoying profile and influence in Europe and the rest of the world as a dynamic country within the United Kingdom, and firmly rejects the view that Scotland can only achieve international prominence by separating itself from the United Kingdom."
As unionists, it is with some regret that we debate an SNP motion that has some reason in its origin, although not in its latter part. The clear aim of the debate must be to examine why the First Minister went to Brussels last month to sign up to a document that contradicts United Kingdom foreign policy. Why did our First Minister not consult Parliament or the European Committee before pledging support on our behalf? More important, we should question the First Minister's ability to defend Scotland from pitfalls that will only allow it to fall into the hands of the separatist SNP.
The Scottish Conservatives will first discuss what in the declaration is at odds with the United Kingdom's position. I thought—as I am sure many Labour members did—that there was little appetite for more powers for the Scottish Parliament, but the declaration expresses a view that goes beyond the Executive's competence. It expresses a view that more direct power be given to devolved regions and seeks the ability for Scotland to go to the European Court of Justice to overrule the UK if it so wishes. The First Minister has not understood the implications of such statements.
The clues were there all along. In Nice last Christmas, the Belgian Government proposed such ideas. The United Kingdom blocked them. In February, the Minister-President of Flanders gave a speech, on behalf of Scotland and other countries, to demand more powers. Mr McLeish has no way of wriggling out of that constitutional mess. He is best advised to stop meddling and to leave external affairs to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or his Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, who is present to answer for his boss's incompetence. If press reports are to be believed, the new Foreign Secretary is none too pleased.
The Scottish Parliament has a European Committee. We have in place concordats with Westminster to ensure that Scotland is involved in the process of EU policy making. We are more involved with the EU than are many other regions of Europe. I am sure that John Home Robertson and Ross Finnie can testify to that. As is so often the case, things could be done better, but that is not an excuse for signing up to the Flanders agenda.
While Mr McLeish's show of inadequacy in the foreign area is an embarrassment to Scotland, his disregard of Parliament is an insult. Perhaps the First Minister will tell us why he thought it unnecessary to consult even the European Committee before he signed away the union on our behalf? Has the First Minister learned nothing from the Frank Roy debacle?
The Scottish Conservatives are keen to promote EU links. We want teamwork in the union, based on fairness for all. We do not want friction between Westminster, Brussels and Holyrood: a friction that the nationalists will always encourage. It is extraordinary that the Labour party's amendment fails to recognise the content of the declaration.
Does Ben Wallace share the hope that when Henry McLeish signed up, he did so believing that everyone in the chamber would endorse the move towards the democratisation of European decision making and the attempt that was made by the Flemish people to oppose the centralising, anti-democratic tendencies in Europe today?
I am sorry to have to say to the member that the reason that Mr McLeish signed up to the declaration is that he was out of his depth.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am sorry, but I have to get on.
I want to enlighten the unionist members who sit on the Labour party side of the chamber. As John Swinney rightly pointed out, the document was not released to us, although the Government in Flanders was happy to do that. At the bottom of page 4 of the document, the declaration calls for
"a review of the division of political responsibilities"
between member states and their regions. I thought that we were all happy with the current arrangements, but that is obviously not the case.
The document also states that the review is to include the common agricultural policy and the functioning of the internal market. On page 6 of the document, there is a call for the Committee of the Regions to become a "fully-fledged EU institution" with political powers that go beyond the purely consultative roles.
More worryingly, the document calls for regions of countries to be able to refer directly to the European Court of Justice when their prerogatives are harmed. As a unionist, I say that that is not in line with the present constitutional arrangements, as agreed by the Scottish people in the referendum, nor is it what was envisaged by the Prime Minister.
The title of today's debate is "Scotland's Place in the World". Scotland's place is not in an EU with seven votes on the Council of Ministers as compared to England's 27. It is not in an EU where Spain, Portugal and Greece could outvote us on fishing. Scotland's place is not on the outside of the United Kingdom, or outside of English trade markets and the transport links that we share. It is not being out of NATO, being without a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and nor is it queuing up behind Bulgaria to rejoin the EU.
Mr Swinney said at the beginning of the debate how proud he is of countries such as Norway and Finland that take part in peacekeeping tours across the world. What Mr Swinney forgets is that those UN peacekeeping tours are achieved by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council getting their way for the good of the UN. Mr Swinney would have us off the council—if so, we would be going nowhere very fast.
Today's debate was always going to be predictable and the disappointment is that the First Minister was foolish enough to give the SNP reason for it. The recent election results have shown that Scotland is tiring of nationalism. The Scottish people are tired of narrow arguments and the confused position of a party that is against Westminster and yet keen on Brussels. Now is not the time for a First Minister lacking in judgment to allow unnecessary frictions between our Parliaments to reignite the SNP's embers.
If the First Minister is not able to stand up for the United Kingdom, perhaps he should give way to a party that is: a party that sees the pitfalls before he does and will not be outwitted by an SNP that is set to break up Britain.
I move amendment S1M-2030.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"expresses its concern at the signing by the First Minister of the political declaration by the constitutional regions of Bavaria, Catalonia, North Rhine-Westphalia, Salzburg, Scotland, Wallonia and Flanders without prior consultation with or intimation to the Parliament; notes that the content of the declaration contradicts Her Majesty's Government's policy and undermines the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and further affirms that Scotland's position is best represented within the union that is the United Kingdom, which brings economic, social and cultural benefits to the people."
At the beginning of the debate, John Swinney mentioned that there were four Liberal Democrats in the chamber. The word "fourth" has a certain ring to it at the moment, as that is where the SNP came in Argyll and Bute. Later in my speech, I will reflect a little on the events of 7 June.
As a Liberal Democrat, I endorse the principles that were signed up to on 28 May. Indeed, the agreement that the First Minister signed in Flanders—a statement by a number of well-established and developing devolved Governments—is intended to strengthen the role of the regions in the European Union. When the minister spoke about the declaration earlier, he pointed out that it endorses devolved government within strong member states as part of the European Union and that it is not a charter for independence.
As a Liberal Democrat, I support proposals that move us closer to the decentralisation of power in the European Union. That is why the Scottish Parliament is not a final solution, but part of the process that will see decisions being taken at the most applicable level that is consistent with their efficiency and with the delivery of good local services.
Strengthening the regions of Europe is consistent with the European principle of subsidiarity. None of the European regions that signed the treaty, with the possible exception of Catalonia, seeks SNP-style independence. That said, Mr Pujol's party in Catalonia is agnostic on the principle of outright independence. Such a course of action is not a matter for the Scottish Parliament, but one that all the nations of Europe will have to resolve through an amendment to the Treaty of Rome. Those of us who have been through the fishing debates that took place around 7 May and who have sat through Eurosceptic meetings on that subject do not underestimate the difficulties involved in that process.
So that we can avoid any doubt on the matter, will Mr Scott tell the chamber whether his part of the Executive believes in the proposal contained in the document that Scotland should have direct access to the European Court of Justice? Is that what the Scottish Executive is committed to?
The minister can take care of that question when he winds up. I want to deal with subsidiarity and the devolution of power. Independence is not the subject for debate in the chamber today. If it were on the agenda, it would be taken care of at Westminster.
Where are the famous five? Have they been standing up for Scotland on this issue? It would seem not, as in the past couple of weeks the famous five have been substituted and Captain Salmond is back in the dressing room after only two weeks on the pitch. Even by SNP standards of failure, that is quite a record. Before 7 May, we had it rammed down our throats how well the SNP was going to do in the election. It is only fair that the chamber reflects now on how badly the SNP did on 7 May. [Members: "June."] I thank members; it was 7 June. Although, what does it matter if it is June or May? The SNP is a failure every month.
I understand that, on 8 June at the SNP's celebratory press conference, champagne was served to the press. That is a significant development, even for that party. Having lost a seat, lost votes, scraped in as the third party in terms of the number of MPs, the SNP served champagne to the press. There we have it. At least the SNP gained one thing: a second leader. The SNP has a leader at Westminster and a leader in Scotland. Mr Salmond, having suggested that Westminster was an irrelevance, is now happy to prop up the green benches down by the Thames. I always suspected that there was more to Mr Salmond's resignation than 10 years in the job. We have now seen that Mr Salmond resigned because he knew that his party had already failed.
I apologise for my voice, but not for the fact that in Banff and Buchan, even with one of the most distinguished candidates in Canon Kenyon Wright, the Liberal vote in the by-election dropped from 15 per cent to 6 per cent. Canon Kenyon Wright came in fourth place. In Banff and Buchan, we know what we think of the Liberals.
Let us return to the debate on the motion.
Indeed, Sir David, I am addressing the motion, as the debate that the SNP wanted was about independence.
Mr Scott might want to reflect on why Banff and Buchan, as I understand it, was the only constituency in Scotland where the SNP vote went up at the general election. The SNP vote went down in all other 71 constituencies.
I appeal for a return to a debate on the motion. We are not discussing the SNP's election prospects.
I take the direction that Sir David is giving. However, as it was the SNP that called the debate, it is meant to be about independence.
The SNP's flagship policy was rejected, as Mr McConnell precisely described, by 71 of the country's 72 constituencies. I was told time and again that the independence movement would flower in Argyll and Bute and in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. The SNP came fourth in Argyll and Bute and a dismal third in the far north.
I leave the SNP to its own devices on those matters. As a Liberal Democrat, I especially welcome the political, economic and social development of the European Union. With its Parliament, Scotland plays a stronger role at the forefront of European thinking. As Mr Swinney, Mr McConnell and others have mentioned, we have had visits in the past couple of weeks from the President of South Africa and the Taoiseach. Mr Henry's European Committee regularly engages with its European counterparts. Members make representations to and work with Scottish MPs on a wide variety of issues. Such developments are not enough for the nationalists. I respect their view, but it is not the majority view in the chamber or in Scotland as a whole.
In the aftermath of Gothenburg and the Irish vote on the Nice treaty, surely it would be right to reflect on the peoples of Europe and how they react to Europe. Following last year's anniversary, as we enter the EU's next 50 years, the deepening and enlargement of the European Union is a prize to which committed Europeans should aspire. Liberal Democrats strive to build a more peaceful and prosperous union, which serves and is committed to its people. My party wants the principles of subsidiarity and devolved decision making to be enshrined in a constitution for Europe. That constitution would be a guarantee of citizens' and states' rights, not a blueprint for centralisation. It would clarify and define the relationship between the regions, member states and the European Union, simplify European law, enhance transparency and guard against the unnecessary accumulation of powers by the centre.
The political declaration that was signed by the First Minister on 28 May is consistent with that approach and a step along the road to the kind of Europe that I envisage.
Mr Scott's contribution was one of the worst that he has made in the chamber—believe me, that is saying something. Apparently, the Scottish National Party is in terminal decline. The last time I looked, however, it had an unblemished record in outdoing football clubs in elections. Mr Scott might consider the fact that the Liberal party has fallen to a new depth. When the Liberals in the Scottish Parliament were asked about one of the declaration's key provisions—the direct point of access for Scotland to the European Court of Justice—it turned out that they could not be even as brave as the Liberals in the European Parliament, who voted on 31 May for such a proposal. The lackeys in this Parliament are not even allowed to answer for their own party—that tells us a lot.
The fact that the First Minister has not deemed it necessary to turn up today to tell us exactly why he signed up to a declaration in which he does not believe is an extreme disappointment. It is not common for me to experience extreme disappointment when Mr McLeish does not speak—the English language probably benefits substantially—but it is discourteous and cowardly. Apparently, the First Minister engaged in discussions over many months about an important international declaration, but according to his Executive spokesman, once he had signed it, he decided that there was no need for the measures to be introduced. If that were not so serious, it would be utterly laughable.
There are only really two possibilities. The first is that Mr McLeish thought that what he was signing up to was correct. If he thought that last month, one wonders what has changed. The second possibility, even more worrying, is that he did not believe in what he was signing up to, but did so anyway. That may be the most retrograde step in international diplomacy in recent times. What does it say about an international leader of Mr McLeish's repute when he wanders around the globe, signing agreements that he either does not understand or does not believe in? This man should not be let out on his own. Who knows what will happen when he next goes abroad? Is it not true that the First Minister is now a national and international embarrassment? What does it say to the people who signed up to that declaration along with the First Minister that, only three weeks later, he decides to say, "Oops. It was a mistake. I did not mean to sign it"? International negotiations cannot proceed on that basis. I am sure that when Mr McConnell takes over he will improve the situation.
Mr Swinney referred to the fact that the First Minister's clout in Europe was so massive that he could not bring any coherence even to his group of Labour MEPs. On 28 May, the First Minister signed up to a declaration that Mr McConnell seeks to downgrade. The opening paragraph says that the regions that signed the declaration
"want to contribute to the debate about the future of the European Union and its key tasks. They also want this initiative to highlight a number of issues that are of vital importance to them."
Those issues are not mere frippery, but "of vital importance".
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
The issues that are referred to as being of—
Will the member give way?
For sheer humour, let us have it.
Would Mr Hamilton like to comment on the fact that, when he read out that sentence, he missed out a key phrase, which is:
"the constitutional regions of Bavaria, Catalonia, North Rhine-Westphalia, Salzburg, Scotland, Wallonia and Flanders".
Obviously, he does not like that part of it. Will he tell us his view of the fundamental principle in the document, which is that the obligation should be to respect the national identity of the United Kingdom and the other member states?
It is hardly a worthwhile intervention to point out who signed the document, as that is a matter of public record. I am fully aware who signed the document, but if Mr McConnell wants to go through the detail of it, we should let him do so. The document talks about three specific measures that are of vital importance. One of those is access to the European Court of Justice. Perhaps Mr McConnell would like to clarify what Mr Scott refused to. Does the Executive believe in direct access to the ECJ, or is its current position that it does not believe in that?
It appears that the minister does not wish to answer my question. I dare say that he will answer once he has checked with his boss.
The members of the European Parliament refused to sign up to the document that Mr McLeish signed on 28 May. That is a matter of some regret, but perhaps the greatest matter of regret is that, for once in his ailing political career, the First Minister had stumbled upon what looked like a good idea. A further great regret is Mr McLeish's intervention in the debate and then his retraction. Mr McLeish, having stumbled on that great idea, did not have the guts or the gumption to hold steady on a matter that was important to Scotland. Is it not true that Mr McLeish, just as he has been a national embarrassment in Scotland, is now an international laughing stock?
In future, if treaties are to be signed on behalf of the Parliament, they should be discussed in the Parliament and the First Minister should answer to the Parliament. In future, when Mr McLeish goes to Europe, he should think about what is in the document. If he is feeling especially generous he could even read it. If he signs up to it, he should mean it.
I speak, for the first time in the Parliament, in support of the Executive amendment. That is perhaps appropriate, because my constituency contains the birthplace of Thomas Muir, supporter of the French revolution and the declaration of the rights of man and a member of the Society of United Irishmen, which was referred to by Bertie Ahern only yesterday.
Also in my constituency, Kirkintilloch is home to the great internationalist, Tom Johnston. His radicalism, which led him into the Independent Labour Party, his conviction that fascism and Nazism were threats to the security of all the people of Europe, which grounded his fierce opposition to appeasement and his insistence on a Scottish council of state in the wartime coalition, surely take an honourable place in the history of the establishment of this legislative body.
I am the successor to Sam Galbraith, who won Strathkelvin and Bearsden for Labour as recently as 1987. In doing so, he helped to rid Scotland of the Tories, as we prepared to rid government of them throughout the rest of Britain. Sam Galbraith always worked closely with our late First Minister Donald Dewar, at no small cost to his health and family. I am sure that many, in the chamber and beyond, will join me in thanking him for his singular contribution to the cause of social justice. Ad multos annos, Sam. That is the benefit of a Catholic education, Jack McConnell.
Sam Galbraith's contribution was singular in many senses. He would probably have had robust views on the nationalist motion today and may have uttered that word beginning in b and ending in s—no, not that one—that nearly got him into bother when slapping down an Opposition spokesperson.
It is extraordinarily and entirely predictable that, at every turn, on every issue and in every debate—be it drugs policy, housing reform, sectarianism, the international criminal court or even the future of the European Union, all of which are important—the nationalists return to their favourite obsession.
For the nationalists, those issues can be seen only through the distorting prism of their obsession with the constitution of the United Kingdom. Always disregarding today, that party claims, illogically, that it wants to make the European Union work, while in the meantime always working against the even more successful union that is modern Britain. Even in handling its own motion, the SNP shows by its behaviour today that it is much more interested in a row than in an argument.
In the run-up to the intergovernmental conference in 2004, the SNP handles an important document by suggesting that it is somehow something else: a declaration on the future of Europe, rather than a contribution to that debate. In doing so, that party wilfully and deliberately distorts the essential debate on how subsidiarity across the European Union is to work most effectively for the people of the European Union.
Members of the SNP do that because it does not suit their determination to have a row rather than an argument that Labour at Westminster welcomed and supported Scotland's signing the declaration. Ben Wallace probably did not notice that. I have a piece of advice for him: he should not read everything that is put in the papers by the SNP. Nor does it suit the SNP that our Prime Minister also argued the case for the four main themes of Nice, which were welcomed in the text of that very declaration.
It does not suit SNP members that the decisions taken at Nice wholly undermine the credibility of their claims for independence in Europe. Perhaps even they know that those claims have had their day. Maybe they should ask Bertie Ahern—[Interruption.] I am asked why. As is the case generally, the inevitable logic of enlargement is that Scotland is best served by being at the heart of Britain in a Britain that is at the heart of Europe. Although the SNP might wish otherwise, the declaration is not the precursor to a separate Scotland, but a serious and welcome contribution to the debate on what shape an enlarged Europe must take to work together.
In an enlarged Europe, some of Winnie Ewing's favourite countries, such as Denmark, will have seven votes instead of only three, while Britain will have 30 instead of 10. In an enlarged Europe, Britain will certainly have a commissioner, but the smaller states will serve by rotation only. It is small wonder that Bertie Ahern yesterday reinforced the critical importance to Ireland of the London-Dublin axis.
In supporting the Executive's amendment, I endorse the work of both the Executive and the Government in ensuring that my constituents' jobs and their economic and social stability are best protected and promoted by the Scottish Executive and the Government working together rather than against each other. We are stronger together and weaker apart. I commend the Executive amendment.
I am grateful to the Scottish National Party for lodging today's motion, which enables us to highlight the deficiencies in its core policy. As we know, the SNP has long advocated independence in Europe—not so much a political slogan, more a contradiction in terms—but it has never been noted for the coherence of its policies.
We have been assured by a succession of nationalists, beginning with the lost leader himself, Jim Sillars, that independence in Scotland would be the answer to all of Scotland's problems. They said that, instead of being part of the United Kingdom, we would have a seat at the top table and be treated with the same respect as other small, independent countries such as the Republic of Ireland. In fairness to Mr Sillars, he has in part seen the error of his ways; would that more of his colleagues had done so.
We have all seen the contempt with which the Republic of Ireland has been treated since its people had the temerity to reject the Nice treaty in the referendum held on 7 June. The European Union has decided to ignore that vote and to press on regardless, ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Irish people apparently do not think that the Nice treaty is in their national interest. They have woken up to the fact that membership of the failing euro is incompatible with the management of their economy, not just in relation to interest rates, but in the crucial areas of taxes and spending, which go to the very heart of national sovereignty.
The truth of the matter is that that is the reality that Scotland would face in the European Union as constituted at present. Scotland would be told, just as the Irish have been, to vote and vote again until the big guns of the European Union get the result that they want. The truth is that so-called independence in Europe would force us to conform to whatever the larger countries of the European Union decided to impose on us. Like the Republic of Ireland and Denmark, we would have three votes out of 87 in the Council of Ministers, whereas, as part of the United Kingdom, we have 10. Following enlargement in 2005, an independent Scotland would be in an even weaker position, with seven votes out of a total of 345, whereas the United Kingdom will have 29. We might well be sitting at the top table in an independent Scotland, but we would be feeding off the scraps.
Has it occurred to Mr McLetchie that, as two independent members of Europe, England and Scotland would have 13 votes, rather than 10, as they have at present, and that, where our interests converge, we would have a stronger voice as two independent states than we have as one lumpen union?
I fail to see how that could happen if the two countries were pursuing wholly discordant policies, even assuming that Andrew Wilson's arithmetic is correct.
Even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, is cooling towards the euro and is now proposing a two-year period of assessment, which he has not yet even started to undertake, the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats would have no such inhibitions and would sign us up to a single currency just as soon as they could engineer the devaluation of our own.
Leaving that aside, the worrying thing about today's motion and about what has happened in the past month or so is where exactly the Labour party stands on these issues. The signals are extremely confused. Our First Minister does not seem to be able to make up his mind whether he is a unionist or a nationalist. Coming on the back of his attempt to turn the Scottish Executive into a Scottish Government without consulting his Westminster colleagues, it appears that the First Minister has decided to pursue a unilateral foreign policy. It seems that Scotland may have lost a Foreign Secretary in Robin Cook, only to acquire one in Jack McConnell.
By signing up to the political declaration of the constitutional regions, which calls for a greater say for those regions in the running of the European Union, the First Minister is playing with fire. He is pandering to a nationalist agenda that seeks to break up the United Kingdom and a Commission agenda that seeks to diminish the influence of the nation state by expanding the role of the constitutional regions. Instead of that ill-considered populism, which seems to be motivated largely by personal vanity, the First Minister should have the good sense to acknowledge that Scotland's interests are best served, and we are more influential in the world, as part of the United Kingdom than we would be as a separate nation. He should not seek to undermine the union by his own actions.
The only party that is unequivocal in its approach to the matter is the Scottish Conservative party. We see Scotland's place as a partner within the United Kingdom. That allows us to play our part in the development of the European Union, so that it becomes a genuine Europe of nations, working in a flexible partnership in pursuit of common interests. That is the way ahead for Scotland, for the United Kingdom and for an enlarged European Union. I support Ben Wallace's amendment.
I begin by observing a parliamentary convention and congratulating Mr Fitzpatrick on his maiden speech. Although he broke the convention that maiden speeches should attempt to endear the new member to all parts of the chamber, I shall not break the convention of congratulating him.
Elections are funny things. They put you up, they put you down; you win some, you lose some. There are swings and roundabouts. After elections, one can feel elated or slightly deflated, but this debate is a good antidote. Suppose somebody who was feeling slightly deflated came along to listen to Jack McConnell. I have known Jack McConnell for a long time and I am very fond of him, but one always knows when he does not really believe what he is saying, because he goes slightly red in the face and starts to gabble. That is what we saw this morning.
Jack McConnell was surrounded by his chorus of performing seals. Then we heard Tavish Scott with his troupe of performing political midgets and Mr McLetchie had a troupe of performing political fleas. I come to the chamber and say to myself, "There is a strong argument for independence." That argument comes from the SNP benches.
When I listen to the debate, I know that we are in the right because we have ambition for Scotland. The other parties are in the wrong because they have no ambition for Scotland. All the other unionist parties wish is craven, supine and fearful acceptance of crumbs from somebody else's table. That is not good enough for Scotland.
Nevertheless, much more unites the chamber than divides it. There are three principles in the Parliament's operation of external affairs. First, we need an external affairs policy. I welcome the conversion of the Scottish Executive to that principle. In the 1999 election, the SNP was derided for its view that there should be an external affairs department in Parliament, but there is one now. I am glad that Mr McConnell has converted to the idea.
Secondly, we should build external relations constructively. The document may not be ambitious, but it is a constructive attempt to work with other small nations of Europe to influence the debate in Europe. We all welcome that step forward, although Mr McConnell's assertion that the document signed by Mr McLeish in some way affirms the right of Belgium to have a view in the European Union is very strange. The Belgian Government must be in grave trouble if it needs Mr McLeish to tell it that.
Thirdly, we should talk about Scotland's external affairs openly and honestly. The SNP lodged the motion and has said to the Excecutive that the declaration is only a small step, but that the SNP supports it. Instead of having a debate, Mr McConnell has gone back to the garbled repetition of old press releases from 1997 and 1999. Those also formed the burden of Mr Fitzpatrick's speech. He even used the same words—he must have written some of them. If we are to have a debate on Scotland's position in the world, the First Minister should come to the chamber and lead the debate. Honesty is needed from the Executive parties and the Conservative party about what we could achieve. If there is disagreement, we need it to be honest disagreement.
The SNP has put forward strong ideas, but if another party does something and we agree with it, we will support it. The inability of the Executive—and the more thinking members of the Executive—to engage in a debate depresses me. The fascinating thing about election results is that they change from election to election. The fear in the eyes of the Conservatives, who know that is true, comforts me, as does the laughter of the Liberal Democrats, which reminds me of the biblical phrase, "Like the crackling of thorns under a pot". Those parties are afraid of Scotland's progress in the international world, but that progress is inevitable.
I, too, congratulate Brian Fitzpatrick on being elected and on his maiden speech. I look forward to his future contributions to debates in Parliament.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss Scotland's role in the world and the general thrust of the political declaration that is referred to in the motion. It is important that the Scottish Executive and other devolved Governments participate directly in the preparatory work for the next intergovernmental conference, which will play a crucial role in deciding the future of the European Union. However, I am concerned about the declaration's reference to Scotland as a constitutional region. Scotland is not a region—it is a country. The people of Scotland are a nation. I hope that the Scottish Executive will ensure that that is recognised in future.
I am also concerned about the lack of consultation between the Executive and the Parliament before the signing of the declaration. Many of us learned about the agreement from the papers, despite a protocol that states that the Executive should keep the committees of the Parliament informed of any announcements or news releases that are relevant to their remit. The European Committee was not informed of the signing and when I raised the matter as a point of order, the Presiding Officer upheld my complaint. It is important that the Executive behaves in a transparent and accountable way and that the Parliament does likewise, particularly in matters involving international relations.
In reply to a recent parliamentary question, I was informed of 17 overseas delegations from this Parliament. In principle, I am not opposed to such visits—they can add a lot to international understanding—but I do not recall the Parliament approving the visits or the membership of the delegations. Such decisions are taken by members of the Parliamentary Bureau behind closed doors and no subsequent motions are debated or voted on by the Parliament as a whole.
Yesterday, Bertie Ahern referred to the Scottish Parliament's participation in the British-Irish international parliamentary body. That is an excellent project, but the Scottish Parliament's delegation was not approved by the Scottish Parliament as a whole and I am not aware of any report to the Parliament by the delegation. Not so long ago, a former Lord Provost of Glasgow, Pat Lally, was drummed out of the Labour party for allegedly fixing overseas trips for his cronies. The Scottish Parliamentary Bureau may be laying itself open to similar accusations unless it behaves in a more transparent and accountable manner.
The role of the Parliament and the Scottish Executive in international relations is limited, but I predict that it will increase. We now have a minister who is responsible for external relations and it is logical that a parliamentary committee should have responsibility for monitoring the minister's work.
Scotland is a relatively small country, but historically Scots have been outward-looking and international. The Parliament's work should reflect that in its relations with Europe, the Commonwealth and the rest of the world.
I regret the way in which the debate has been conducted. The tone was set by Mr Swinney, the leader of the Opposition. He seemed to be far more concerned about the way in which the declaration was reached than about the declaration itself. A grown-up Opposition in a grown-up Parliament would debate the substance of relations with Europe and the wider world rather than the mechanics. It would not get distracted by petty matters. The Opposition once criticised the Prime Minister for his unfortunate reference to parish councils, so it must conduct the debate not in the manner of a parish council, but in the manner of a grown-up Parliament that is maturing day by day. I regret the Opposition's approach.
I thought that the Conservative party was undergoing a policy review, but perhaps that is only the English part of the party—the party that is changing its leader from a Europhobe to a Eurosceptic, or to somebody even more Europhobic, and not to somebody who has a positive approach to Europe. If the Conservative party is undertaking a review of policy, Mr McLetchie might have addressed the chamber in somewhat less dogmatic terms and been more humble, given the party's severe election defeat and its falling behind the Liberal Democrats in Scotland.
We are the most consistently pro-European party in British politics—that is one of the principal reasons why I joined the party. That does not mean that we do not recognise the flaws in the European Union and do not want to address them. The principal problem is the democratic deficit. We want to strengthen the role of regions within the European Union and the declaration is a step towards that.
We are following in the footsteps of Wales, my previous political home, which some years ago established close economic links with the motor regions of Europe—Catalonia, Baden-Württemberg, Rhône-Alpes and Lombardy. That was an important development for Wales and we too must build on our relations with other European regions.
One way of addressing the democratic deficit is through further decentralisation. We should strengthen the Committee of the Regions. At the conference of the British islands and Mediterranean region of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association that was held in another part of the Parliament this week, we discussed the relationship between our region—including some of the smaller nations that are applicant countries, such as Malta and Cyprus—and the European Union and how that relationship should develop.
The Committee of the Regions is key. One of the ways of addressing the democratic deficit is to develop the Committee of the Regions, to strengthen its role so that, once the smaller applicant countries have been successful—which I hope they will be—it becomes a committee of the regions and smaller nations and evolves into a second chamber of the European Union. I even hope that the Conservatives might move towards that position when they undertake their policy review. I hope that the SNP will make a similar move. It used to be an anti-European party before it changed its policy—I recognise the crucial role that Winnie Ewing played in the European Parliament—and all credit to it for changing.
The chancellor, in his speech at the Mansion House yesterday, outlined what he called his "considered and cautious approach" to the single currency. He described his approach as "pro-European realism", but it is not realistic enough for me. I hope that enthusiasm will become more evident. Surely the UK Labour Government, having won a second landslide victory, attained a sufficient degree of self-confidence that it can be bolder and strike out in a more courageous and pro-European way. Rather than following public opinion, it should lead it.
The paradox in the SNP's position on Scotland's relationship with the wider world is most clearly seen in its position on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It wants to withdraw from NATO when eastern European nations are queuing up to join it. Separatism, as a description of the SNP's stance, is out of date. The SNP is no longer a separatist party; it is now an isolationist party and is far to the right of the Republican Party in the States. The SNP wants to withdraw from NATO, which is a central part of the defence and foreign policy of every other party in the chamber.
I must say that I am extremely depressed by the unionist parties' tone in the debate. We initiated the debate to be constructive. A warning must be hung over Millbank tower, which says, "Beware all ye who enter here. Here is your catechism of clichés to recite every time you meet a member of the Scottish National Party."
It is depressing to hear the same views echoed by the Liberal Democrats. I say that especially to Tavish Scott, of whom I had a higher opinion. Who is his leader? Is it a Charlie or a Henry?
I had hoped that Jack McConnell, having adopted the role of Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs in the Scottish Parliament, would have abided by the sentiments he expressed in his profile in Holyrood magazine on 21 May. He stated:
"We want the Commission to consult more widely before draft legislation is proposed and we wish to encourage debate on a ‘subsidiarity watchdog'".
Jack McConnell did not mention that in his opening speech, which was extremely depressing. If we are going to take ourselves seriously as a Parliament, the Executive must have a more constructive attitude to such issues.
I say to all members—I feel this strongly and I have said it before—that debates such as this one show the value that we place on the Parliament and on how we are seen in the world. The Parliament is not a perfect model, but its structures have been held up this week as an example that other Parliaments could adopt. If we cannot discuss external affairs in a constructive manner, as reasonable human beings, we do a great disservice to all the people, from every political party, who worked to establish the Parliament.
Those of us who have a long history of involvement in international affairs welcome the developments in the Parliament. The debate has not dealt with some of the constructive developments that have taken place. Dennis Canavan referred to the British-Irish interparliamentary body. I know that he is a little sore that he is not involved in it, because he had a long tradition of serving effectively and well on that group when he was a Westminster MP.
I agree that we do not have a facility to report back on the activities of people such as myself who are involved. We may have articles in "What's Happening in the Scottish Parliament" and here, there and everywhere, but there is not a proper mechanism for examining and questioning actions taken by parliamentarians on our behalf.
I welcome the development of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, because I have been involved as a Commonwealth observer in countries that, in terms of turning out to vote, take their democracy much more seriously than we do. I welcome the continuation of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, its involvement in the Parliament and the facilities that it has offered.
I have two critical points for the minister, whose response, I hope, will be constructive. First, the facility to have proper reporting-back mechanisms must be addressed. Secondly, the Parliament must take initiatives. We should not wait for them to be handed down to us—that is subservience, not subsidiarity. The Parliament should take the initiative on what it projects into the international community.
I support the amendment moved by my colleague Jack McConnell, the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs. I do so not only because of my party affiliation, but because I view the Scottish National Party's motion as a disappointing mixture of the pious and the spurious.
With the exception of the Tories—a small and fractured sect—I take it that the whole Parliament welcomes the First Minister's signing of a joint declaration which, as I understand it, calls on the European Union to allow devolved nations and regions to have a bigger say in policy making. There is nothing very contentious about that. It seems that we are all for devolution now.
The nationalist party's motion goes on to call
"upon the Scottish Executive to ensure that any future European or other international agreements … are carried out with greater … involvement of the Parliament"
That is stirring stuff indeed. Who could possibly disagree? That is why I say that the beginning and middle of the motion is pious.
What I find most disappointing is the spurious nature of the concluding part of the motion. The nationalist party makes the claim that the signing of such agreements, which are in favour of devolution, should be viewed as a symbol of the imminence of independence. On the contrary, I would argue that such agreements, signed by devolved Governments, are indicators of the strength of support for a variety of forms of subsidiarity, within a variety of nations and regions. The motion claims that we are marching four-square towards independence, because a joint declaration in favour of devolution has been signed. That shows either a high degree of wishful thinking on the part of the nationalist party or dangerously misplaced bravado. Where is the evidence for the nationalists' assertion? Little, if any, comfort is to be found in recent electoral tests.
I do not know whether Bill Butler has read the declaration. I know that many of his colleagues, including the First Minister, obviously have not.
An important paragraph on page 6 of the declaration states that there is a
"right for the constitutional regions, as exists for the Member States, to refer directly to the European Court of Justice when their prerogatives are harmed."
Does Bill Butler favour Scotland being able to go directly to the European Court of Justice if its prerogative is harmed by the UK implementation of EU legislation? The UK Government did not.
I thank Ben Wallace for that succinct point. I am in favour of positive engagement with Europe, unlike the Conservative party. Mr Hague spent the election running here, there and everywhere, whipping up apathy, with a pound coin stuck between his forefinger and his thumb. Look where it got him.
Like the price of oil—upon which the SNP's case for independence is predicated—evidence from opinion polls is extraordinarily volatile, especially when it comes to whether the Scottish people are for independence or for devolution. When we consider the results of real people casting real votes at real elections, the trend is more stable and provides a more accurate picture of how people think. For example, in the election 14 days ago, the SNP gained barely 20 per cent of the popular vote. That must be worrying. The party was fourth in Argyll and Bute, where it claimed that it was the main challenger, and there was an 8 per cent swing from the SNP to Labour in Kilmarnock and Loudoun, where the nationalists were supposed to be the main contenders. That is hardly full speed ahead to independence.
I ask the chamber to dispatch the motion summarily and to support the Executive's amendment.
Contrary to the expectations of my dear colleague Duncan Macmillan—[Interruption.] That is not right. I am so overcome by the debate that I have forgotten his second name—[Members: "Hamilton."] So it is—Duncan Hamilton. I must put that right. [Interruption.] Or perhaps I meant Duncan McNeil.
I imagine that the motion will be backed unanimously by the members who sat in the chamber and basked in the warm glow of the words of President Mbeki, when he congratulated the people of Scotland on their contribution to his nation's struggle for democracy and freedom. That sits ill with the denigration of Scottishness and Scottish nationhood that we have heard from some members this morning. However, in the brief time I have available, I would prefer to ponder what Scotland's contribution to the world should be.
When we talk about Scotland's place in the world—or in the EU—we should focus not simply on what we can get, but on what we can give. We have a great deal to contribute as individuals and as a distinct nation. I want to focus on the opportunity and responsibility that that implies for our ability to influence the future political and social development of the EU. I must take issue with what Keith Raffan said—I am sorry that I cannot give way to him on this point—about our ability to exert influence through the Committee of the Regions. The EU is based on an international treaty; treaties are brokered between power-brokers. The issue will always centre on the exercise of power; although it might sometimes be about an agreement to share power, it always centres on power. A delegate body such as the Committee of the Regions will never exercise that power, which is why regionalism is not enough.
We should aspire to the sovereign status that allowed Irish voters to have a referendum on the treaty of Nice. Through such a mechanism, people in all EU member states have been encouraged to challenge the anti-democratic, centralised policy making and future planning of the EU by EU leaders such as Chancellor Schroeder, President Prodi and Wim Kok.
It might be a little late, but democrats across all EU countries are beginning to wake up to the dangers of using a eurodiktat to forbid finance ministers of the member states to do what Charlie McCreevy has just done in Dublin. The Irish finance minister defied the instructions from Frankfurt and Brussels and kept Ireland's taxes at the levels he judged would mean that other countries in the eurozone would not experience inflation. He has been proved right and the Irish are still good Europeans; their democracy is stronger than ours because he exercised that democratic right on their behalf. Good Europeans will welcome Ireland's spirit of independence and action. People who mouth euroslogans miss the point and jeopardise the spirit of Europeanism, as more and more European citizens judge the EU to be just another powerless playground for politicians.
I am disappointed that David McLetchie thought that it is better to be a big gun in Europe. Bigness is not necessarily a sign of strength, as I am sure he will recognise with the small number of folk he has behind him. No one should imagine that the antithesis of global corporations is a situation in which states can get together to do away with the individuality and awkwardness that allowed Ireland to do what she has done. She has lit a beacon of democracy for the rest of Europe and I will be ashamed if the chamber does not implicitly endorse what Ireland has done by endorsing the motion.
We now move to winding-up speeches. As we are running over, I will be strict about time. I call Bristow Muldoon, who has four minutes.
The debate seems like another "Groundhog Day", with the SNP once again trying to pick away at the constitutional settlement that the Scottish people have backed time and again, but once again failing to put forward any positive vision for enhancing Scotland's voice in the world.
As other members have pointed out, it is clear that the debate is not about Scotland's place in the world, but about John Swinney justifying his place in the SNP. He has just led the SNP to its worst election results since 1987, with the party losing one of its six Westminster seats and almost losing a second. His ultimate appeal this morning is to fundamentalists such as Margo MacDonald in an attempt to keep them on board.
Mike Russell said that some members should fear a future election. The members who should be afraid of any future election are Roseanna Cunningham and Alasdair Morgan, whose seats are under threat—
You have made your point, Mr Muldoon. Please stick to the motion.
On the subject of the motion, will the member give way?
Does Mr Swinney not want me to speak about his leadership? Is that the problem?
I want to move on to consider Scotland's post-devolution place in the world.
Will the member give way?
The member is not giving way.
The SNP secured the debate to talk about independence and to buttress Mr Swinney's position.
As I said, I want to consider Scotland's place in the world after devolution. First, in the past week, international leaders Thabo Mbeki and Bertie Ahern have addressed the Parliament. They recognise the strength of the Parliament and the devolution settlement. Furthermore, Scotland has engaged with Europe directly through ministers, parliamentary committees, Scotland House and the initiative on the Flanders declaration by the First Minister, which raises the debate as we approach the next intergovernmental conference.
I am interested in Bristow Muldoon's point about the constitutional settlement. Apparently, the SNP is the only party that wishes to change it. The political declaration that the First Minister has signed up to wants to change Scotland's relationship with Europe; that is the implicit statement behind the agreement. Does Mr Muldoon accept that point and recognise that the current constitutional settlement must move on?
The First Minister has signed up to a statement that the regions and the constitutional Parliaments of Europe must play a strong role within Europe. Henry McLeish is trying to influence the debate as we approach the next IGC, which is a position that I fully endorse.
As far as Scotland's voice in the world is concerned, Jack McConnell pointed out the other benefits that we receive from our continuing partnership in the UK. He highlighted the fact that the SNP wishes to withdraw from the only country in the world that is a member of the G8, the EU, NATO, the Commonwealth and the United Nations Security Council. How would Scotland's voice in the world be enhanced by withdrawing from such a strong partnership?
As I am limited to only four minutes, I will conclude on two points. Scotland's voice in the world is improved by our continued partnership with the UK and it is enhanced by the positive engagement that the First Minister has endorsed by signing the Flanders political declaration and by the Parliament's engagement with the EU. Furthermore, the key choice for the people of Scotland is between the internationalism that is endorsed by the Labour party and its coalition partners; the isolationism of the SNP; and the isolation from Europe that is supported by the Conservatives.
In winding up for the Conservatives, I hope that it is appropriate for me to comment on what has been said in the debate. The debate has had very little to do with Scotland's place in the world and—as other members have pointed out—much more to do with the SNP's wish to return to a spiritual homeland.
Although I, too, welcome Brian Fitzpatrick and his opening speech, I did not welcome his comments about the Conservatives. He made one fundamental mistake. He will learn in his time in the Parliament that the SNP never mentions independence when there is an election in sight. Today is a safe day on which to mention independence, as we are some two years from an election and two weeks from the recess. Neither did we hear mention of Finland today, which, as Mr Fitzpatrick will learn, is usually trotted out along with a range of other small countries that we are repeatedly told are doing better than Scotland. Of course, the SNP takes a pick-and-mix approach to which small countries it mentions and refers only to countries that are relevant to the subject.
The member was present at a presentation by the chief executive of Lloyds TSB that I attended about a month ago, at which it was pointed out that eight out of 10 of the richest countries in the world have a population equal to or smaller than Scotland's. That is hardly pick-and-mix.
The way in which SNP members refer to small countries in relation to individual issues is pick-and-mix, especially—as David McLetchie pointed out—when Ireland is mentioned. The SNP is not crowing about the fact that Ireland has taken a stand against the EU, which would suggest that the voice of Ireland is to be rejected.
We must look towards what we can do and the model that we can build to take Scotland forward. Yes, we can learn from what other countries are doing as we develop and build our place in the world, but we will be at the forefront of any area of development only if we can produce novelty and innovation.
I shall be pleased to take an intervention from Mr Morgan when I come to discuss the recent election result in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, which I am about to mention in the context of Tavish Scott's summary of election results. That was somewhat discriminatory, as it missed out the Conservatives' excellent performance in Orkney and Shetland, where our share of the vote increased significantly.
Speak to the motion please, Mr Mundell.
Keith Raffan mentioned Wales. The Conservatives accept the fact that he played a fundamental part in reducing the number of Conservative MPs in Wales.
I shall return to the substance of the debate.
That would be good.
Once again, Margaret Ewing presents the acceptable face of the Scottish National Party by calling for a clear and coherent debate. Nonetheless, she is complicit in the way in which the debate has been presented and the SNP's unwillingness to address real issues. There can and should be honest disagreement in the Parliament and it is important that we discuss the role of Scotland in the United Kingdom, Europe and the world. However, we must do that with reasoned thought and a clear idea of what we are seeking to achieve.
I do not often agree with what I read in The Scotsman, but today I do. In today's issue, Mr McConnell says:
"Scotland's interests in Europe are well served by the work done by our colleagues at Westminster and Whitehall."
That is true. Henry McLeish's signature to a political declaration such as the colloquium of the constitutional regions says more about the First Minister's delusions of grandeur than about Scotland's position in the world. I hope that, as the Parliament evolves and develops, we can have more fruitful discussion about Scotland's place in the world than we have managed today.
John Swinney began on the right note. He talked about the visits of President Mbeki and Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach. He talked about the new relationships that are being developed by Scotland in Europe and around the world, and, most important, about the signing of the Flanders declaration by Bavaria, Catalonia, North Rhein-Westphalia, Salzburg, Scotland, Wallonia and Flanders. He talked about the new thinking that is resulting from that declaration and the role of the Committee of the Regions, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. As a nation and a region of the European Union, we signed that document in support of all the issues that are being considered as part of the agreement.
We also support other initiatives, such as developing Scotland's influence in cities throughout the world and having a civil servant in Washington. Those are not new initiatives. We are already pursuing many projects around the world through organisations such as Scottish Trade International and Locate in Scotland. We already have individuals working for us in Florida, Texas, Virginia, California, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Taiwan, Korea, India and Japan. We are developing new initiatives on a firm base of influence that already exists throughout the world.
I ask the minister to address a point of confusion in the debate. He has just said that the Executive supports the proposals in the declaration. Why, therefore, did the Executive spokesman say that the Executive sees no need for those proposals to be introduced? Why would the Executive support them if it did not want them to be introduced?
I wonder whether the minister is able to answer the question that Tavish Scott was unable to answer. Do the Liberal Democrats support direct access to the European Court of Justice and is that the position of the Executive?
The quick answer to the first part of that question is yes. I have also made it clear that the Executive supports having all those issues on the agenda for debate. That agreement was struck between the nations and regions that signed the declaration.
I do not want to reduce this important debate to laughter, but Duncan Hamilton used the phrase "an international laughing stock". I hope that what has been said in what should have been an uplifting, constructive and forward-thinking debate on Scotland's place in the world is not read widely by people around the world as reflecting the level of debate among Scotland's parliamentarians on an issue of such international significance.
There were some good contributions to the debate. I congratulate Brian Fitzpatrick not only on his election, but on his first speech in Parliament. The quality of his contribution on this important issue was high.
Mike Russell took the high moral ground in his quasi-leadership speech and covered the territory of midgets, fleas and seals—that was another interesting speech from Mr Russell. I ask him and all the other members who resorted to name calling and the kind of party politics that does little for the Parliament's image whether supporting all the constructive, forward-looking initiatives throughout Europe that have been mentioned and working with others in Europe make us nationalists. Do giving more power to the regions, allowing greater subsidiarity and developing devolution make one a nationalist? Is that the definition of nationalism? Are Bavaria, Catalonia, North Rhein-Westphalia, Salzburg, Wallonia and Flanders claiming independence through those initiatives? No. They see an important and growing role for their countries and regions in the EU. The Scottish Executive wants to play a central role in that as well, as should every party in the Scottish Parliament. As Margaret Ewing said, the role of the Parliament must be for the Parliament to decide and develop. I am certain that there are many ways in which that will happen.
Will the minister give way?
I am in my last minute, so I will not.
The world is changing fast and Scotland is changing as well. All of us must help to drive that change. However, whatever its constitutional settlement, Scotland has never been slow to play its role in the world. Robert Burns, David Hume, Adam Smith, James Watt, John Logie Baird and Alexander Graham Bell did not depend on independence for their future and we continue to play a role through our politicians, universities, researchers, scientists, companies, industries, biotechnology and optoelectronics work and the dynamic international companies that want to locate in Scotland. We want to do more to encourage such important developments. The narrow and downward-looking political divide that has been displayed at times this morning will damage that.
Dennis Canavan made a measured speech that reflected his commitment to the role of the Parliament. As one would expect, Keith Raffan made a wholly constructive, pro-European speech.
Scotland has a developing role in the UK, Europe and the world. For the first time, we are establishing that role through the Parliament. Developing strategies, new mechanisms and new institutions is important but the most important aspect is people. The challenge that President Mbeki outlined in the chamber was, through our ideas, influence and action, to play our role in helping to create not only a better Scotland but, in every way in which we can, a better Britain, a better Europe and a better world.
Oh dear me—another day, another debate in the Parliament. In the past few weeks, there have been a number of debates and events in which the relationships between the Scottish Parliament and the world have been examined and in which, as today, the parochial and totally contradictory nature of the Scottish Executive's position has been exposed. That was evident in the debates on Europe day and the international criminal court. Rather more controversially, it was evident in the revelation that the First Minister had signed an international declaration on Scotland's behalf, but had forgotten to inform the Parliament or the people and is now trying to disown the principles to which he signed up.
We marked Europe day with a debate on the impact of the European Union on Scotland, a form of words that, as I said at the time, was an eloquent reminder of how the Executive perceives Scotland's role in the big picture. We are a spectator rather than a participant. The EU has had a profound impact on Scotland but why should that work only one way? In the debate on the international criminal court, we had a rare opportunity to debate an international issue on which Scotland is in a position to join other small nations such as Finland, New Zealand, Belgium and Sweden—to pick and mix a few—in blazing a trail for international justice by opting for universal jurisdiction and being in the vanguard of developments in international co-operation rather than adhering to minimal standards. However, once again, the Executive failed to meet that challenge.
In recent days, our Parliament has been addressed by the leaders of South Africa and Ireland. I hope that the SNP is not alone in recognising that, for all our talk of similarities between Scotland and Ireland, the most fundamental difference is the starkest: when decisions are taken on a global or European level, the Scottish Parliament is not represented while the Dáil Éireann is.
Today's debate, brought by the SNP, follows from the outward-looking approach that we insisted would be more appropriate for the Europe day debate. To paraphrase John F Kennedy, we should ask not what the world can do for us but what we can do for the world. It seems to me that that was what Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa, called on us to do when he addressed the Parliament last week. Through the debate, the SNP has sought to contrast the inadequacy of Scotland's current position, in which we are excluded from European and world affairs, with the role that we would be able to play as a modern, progressive, independent nation. In comparison, the Executive is in an absolute mess. Ministers clearly cannot make up their minds as to how Scotland should relate to the rest of the world. Logic tells them one thing but subservience to London Labour tells them to shut up, backtrack and do as nanny tells them.
The First Minister's rare forays into world politics always follow those lines. Consider the plan for a trade embassy in the USA and the farce surrounding the signing of the Flanders declaration. As Duncan Hamilton said, when the First Minister signed the political declaration in Brussels on 28 May, there can have been only one of two reasons. Either he had no clue what the declaration was about and signed because everyone else was signing and it seemed like a good idea on the day or he knew exactly what he was doing and, on that one day, he found enough courage to do what he knew was right.
It is worth reiterating what the First Minister signed up to. The declaration reads:
"in order to ensure due compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and therefore guarantee full respect for the constitutional regions' own area of competence, the political role of those regions has to be strengthened within the European Union."
It continues:
"The constitutional regions demand that … there should be a review of the division of political responsibilities between the European Union on one hand and the member states and the regions on the other".
It also states:
"The constitutional regions are not satisfied with the current institutional framework".
That is what the First Minister signed.
Will the member give way?
I have heard enough drivel from the Labour benches for one day.
As we have to assume that the First Minister is not stupid—although that is perhaps a dangerous assumption—we can assume only that, since 28 May, he has suffered a catastrophic failure of nerve, has had a kicking from his London bosses or has had a combination of the two. His absence from the debate points to a failure of nerve. It seems that, having signed up to the principles in the declaration, the First Minister is disinclined to vote for them or publicly support them. Goodness knows what the political leaders in other European countries think. This farce makes Scotland a laughing stock.
I wish that the First Minister would not be coy about his support for such initiatives. The truth is that, if he had brought the proposals to Parliament, he would have found support from the Executive benches, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Scottish Green Party, the Scottish National Party and Dennis Canavan—although, like Dennis Canavan, most of us would prefer the word "nation" to the jargon of "constitutional region".
The Executive has taken a whingeing and cringing approach in which having an international outlook is the equivalent of peeking over the back fence occasionally and running away when the big kids appear over the horizon or running back to the kailyard when the boss tells it to. The signing of the declaration gives official expression to the view that the current constitutional settlement must change. However, the Executive benches continue to display nothing but poverty of ambition while the SNP wants to rise to the challenge. It must be strange for Thabo Mbeki to ponder the fact that, in all the years during which he and others like him were told that they were not good enough to govern themselves and be players on the international scene, some of the people who were urging change for South Africa were—and remain—content with the same impotence for their country.
That brings me to Jack McConnell's speech. How did he rise to today's debate? He is obviously touchy about his boss's absence. He talks about vision but displays no evidence of it. He started with a series of anti-independence clichés but, although my pen was poised to note any serious points he might make, he made none. We got 10 minutes of waffle, about which he is probably embarrassed, because the truth is that he is prepared to settle for so little.
Ben Wallace gave us the typical Tory line. He talked about the Executive doing things that were beyond its competence. As my colleague Duncan Hamilton said, most things are beyond the Executive's competence. Otherwise, Ben Wallace's contribution was just a Tory version of the Scottish cringe.
As for the Liberal Democrats—I will lump them all together, including the deputy minister—I was interested to hear whether there would be real support for their colleague in the European Parliament. Instead, we got wibble, wibble, wibble. Otherwise, they were silent on their attitude to Henry McLeish's apparent backtracking.
We can take it that the Lib Dems in the Executive have been whipped into line yet again because they have absolutely nothing to say about the subject of the debate. In typical Liberal Democrat style, when embarrassed about the detail of an argument, they retreat into generalised waffle. Frankly, I wish they would collectively get a spine.
The SNP has pointed to the positive role models that exist. They are countries that are much like ours but which have the full powers of independence. Norway was able to act as a conduit for direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in the search for peace in the middle east during the early 1990s. Finland's president Martti Ahtisaari, along with Russia's ex-foreign minister, brokered the deal that ended the war in Kosovo.
Contrast that with the sort of post-imperial desperation that leaves the United Kingdom Government tied too often to the coat tails of the United States of America. I am more interested in my country playing a positive role in brokering peace for the future than swaggering on the world stage trying to recapture old glories.
John Swinney referred to Mbeki's challenge to us on globalisation. Blair will obviously bury his head in the sand on that issue and it looks as if the Executive will follow suit. Any legislature, wherever it is in the world, has to face that challenge. Any legislature should seek ways to do exactly that. That is what Mbeki wants us to do. Let us take up the challenge that Thabo Mbeki laid down and take our place in the world. Let us have some real ambition for Scotland, instead of succumbing to such fearful parochial cringe.