Hansard

No, thank you.

It is too easy to link the SNP’s calls for a retreat from the UK to UKIP’s and the Tories’ calls for a retreat from Europe. There is a remarkable similarity in the rhetoric about so-called rule from London and rule from Europe—that the best people to make decisions about what happens in Scotland are the people in Scotland, and the best people to make decisions about what will happen in the UK are the people in the UK. I know that the minister will refute that charge and I accept his genuinely felt commitment to a pro-Europe agenda, but it highlights the scale of the SNP’s task. The SNP is having to work all the harder to convince voters that its principal objective is to keep the UK in the EU, and that it does not secretly hope for Brexit, so that independence plans can thereafter be dusted down.

As I said during the referendum debate, UK exit from the EU is not in the interests even of an independent Scotland. Just ask Scotland’s farmers. Farmers are not the only ones who benefit from our EU membership, nor are they the only ones to point out—with some justification—that the EU is far from perfect, but the economic benefits of membership are plain for all to see. It is the largest single market and incorporates two of our most significant trading partners outside the UK, in the shape of France and Germany. Scotland is a high-skill economy with an export focus, and the EU gives opportunities across a range of sectors, from food and drink to energy. We have seen Scotland profit from freedom of movement: many Scots make up the 1.5 million UK citizens who live and work elsewhere in the EU. My now wife and I are evidence of that from our time spent in Brussels. Again, that benefits key sectors, from our higher education sector—which is attractive to others from throughout the EU who want to come and study here—to our tourism offering.

The Labour amendment fairly points to the benefits that are to be derived from initiatives such as horizon 2020, and the importance of that to industry and academia has been well underscored already, but the £2.5 billion that has been secured for small and medium-sized enterprise engagement picks up a point that was reiterated during the horizon 2020 event that was hosted by the European and External Relations Committee here in Parliament not so long ago.

Freedom of movement also illustrates the social dimension to our EU membership, which is further underscored by the benefits that are derived from structural funds, which represent recognition that the EU itself will be undermined if it is seen to benefit only some and not all. The Highlands and Islands have benefited from objective 1 status, but I remind Jamie McGrigor that it is testimony to the success of that programme that we are no longer eligible for it, because we have seen relative economic growth as a result.

The single market is not just about the survival of the fittest. It has always been recognised that there is a social dimension to the single market, and we have seen that through workplace reforms over many years, as Claire Baker said. Everything from environmental reform to cross-border collaboration in tackling crime demonstrates our ability to act collaboratively at EU level in order to meet objectives that cannot be met by individual nations alone.

Christina McKelvie was absolutely right to draw attention to the EU’s role in being a force for peace. As people who have the lived experience of the world wars are now dying off, we risk losing sight of that fundamental purpose. We have travelled a remarkable distance since 1945, and even since the 1958 objective of using economic integration to bind in Germany’s industrial base in coal and steel so as to make war if not impossible, then certainly a good deal more difficult. That is something that we should never underestimate.

The risks remain. We see that in the Balkan conflict and the Russian influence in Ukraine. We are not out of the woods. That is not to say that we are not uncritical of the EU. I bear the scars of fisheries council meetings, as Christian Allard does. The EU is guilty of mission creep and it has a tendency to want to micromanage, and national interests can often be dressed up as EU-wide interests. We must engage with the EU institutions and partners on the need to improve. The Smith proposals give us a way of doing that, by improving the mechanisms at official and ministerial levels within the UK. John Swinney and Mike Moore are to be commended on the commitment and dedication that they have shown to that particular aspect of the Smith recommendations. We need to be vigilant and to ensure that that is now delivered in practice.

I welcome the positive tone of the debate in acknowledging the benefits that are derived from the EU and the commitment across the piece to be critical friends where that need be, and to improve the way in which the UK engages with the EU in the future.