Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2015
I have only six minutes, so I want to make progress.
The SNP asserts that Scotland has no appetite for a referendum on EU membership, despite the fact that polling has consistently shown that almost 60 per cent of Scots want a referendum, including more than 60 per cent of SNP voters. There is a trace of arrogance in the Scottish Government’s motion, which suggests that it thinks, “We know best, so we won’t trouble you with a direct say on EU membership.” However, it is clear that the majority of Scots want a say.
Our amendment justifiably highlights the need for a referendum that is UK wide, that takes place on a one-person-one-vote basis and in which the question is decided by a simple majority, as in the 1975 referendum. Let us remember that, in the 1975 referendum, the SNP campaigned against continued membership of the common market, whereas the majority of Conservatives—myself included—supported our position in Europe.
The Government’s motion turns that principle on its head, with its cumbersome double-majority proposal, which would split the UK into its constituent parts of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the referendum question. The Government suggests that Scotland should not be forced to leave the EU even if the rest of the UK chooses to do so. It is ironic that the SNP should make a proposal of that nature. I do not recall it arguing in the referendum to break up the United Kingdom that, if another constituent part of the UK did not want to leave, separation would not happen.
As a member of the Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee, I spent a considerable amount of time with colleagues conducting an inquiry into an independent Scotland’s position in the EU. I will not rehash the arguments on whether article 48 or article 49 of the Treaty on European Union should apply. However, I will say that it was shown that an independent Scotland would not automatically be admitted as a member of the EU and, equally, that Scotland could not remain as part of the EU if the UK chose to leave it. The SNP position is simply untenable, and it is conjecture.
Members are probably united on the part in the Government’s motion that speaks about the benefits to Scotland of EU membership through the single market. Access to consumers and businesses on the continent has obviously been of huge economic importance to Scotland. We are also probably united on the reference to the social, cultural and educational benefits of EU membership. To give one example, the benefit of objective 1 status to the Highlands and Islands was the construction of a number of causeways and bridges and other infrastructure projects, which have left a valuable legacy. I emphasise that those benefits were possible only as a result of UK membership of the EU. It is a pity that the Highlands and Islands no longer has objective 1 status.
The proposal for a 2017 referendum has come about for various reasons. Businesses in Scotland and in the rest of the UK find that the extent of European interference in their everyday life is sometimes excessive and that red tape can strangle creativity. People to whom I have spoken over many years continue to feel that the people who take decisions in Brussels are remote and removed from those who elected them, although that does not apply to every decision. There are concerns that the relaxed nature of European rules means that people arriving in the UK are allowed to claim benefits without having worked here. Although EU enlargement is welcome, it must not lead to unmanageable consequences for member states.