Hansard

That is an interesting and no doubt deeply held view, but it is difficult to understand how Scotland's votes in Europe could get any lower than they are at present, which of course is nil. On the far more numerous occasions on which Scotland's interests would coincide with those of the rest of the UK, the combination would be considerably higher than what is currently proposed for the UK.

At Nice, the EU came to terms with its anticipated enlargement. As I said, the SNP supports that enlargement. An enlarged EU will give greater weight and prominence to small and medium-sized nations. It is clear after Nice, if it were ever in question, that Scotland would have significantly greater influence in the European Union as an independent nation than it has as part of the United Kingdom. It is ironic that while we are being asked today to welcome and support the accession of other, independent European nations to the top table of the EU, the Labour party here and at Westminster is determined to stop Scotland's independent voice being heard in Brussels.

As a result of the Treaty of Nice, as many as 13 central and eastern European countries could gain permanent representation on the Council of Ministers. Scotland in the UK will continue to have no representation there. I think that the Treaty of Nice will safeguard the power of smaller nations in the EU. On the basis of the Treaty of Nice, independence would give Scotland the right to nominate a commissioner, which is a right that we do not have in the UK. It would guarantee Scotland a seat on the Council of Ministers, speaking rights and seven votes—just as Denmark, Finland and Ireland have. Within the UK, Scotland has no guaranteed right to attend, lead or vote in the Council of Ministers.

While we are on the subject of attendance, the Executive should ask itself whether its deeds match its words. The truth is that the Executive has been content to allow Scotland's voice to go unheard more often than not. Its attendance record speaks for itself. Scottish Executive ministers have attended only around 10 per cent of the meetings of the Council of Ministers that have been held since the Scottish Parliament came into being. On the rare occasions when the Executive has been represented, it has never led the UK delegation, even on fishing, where the impact of decisions on the Scottish economy is so great and so much more important than the impact on the rest of the UK.

It could be argued that the real work is done behind the scenes, and that we should not get carried away with getting faces into a photo call at the Council of Ministers. Perhaps there would be some validity in that argument if the record of Scottish involvement behind the scenes were any better; it is not. Scottish Executive officials have attended just 75 out of 4,500 EU working group meetings, at which many important decisions are taken. Where is Scotland's voice at those meetings?

With independence, Scotland would have 13 members of the European Parliament—the same as for Finland and Denmark, which are independent countries with a population of 5 million, just like Scotland's. As long as we keep our bandwagon hitched to the rest of the UK, Scotland will lose seats in the European Parliament—the number will go down from eight to either six or seven.

What is the Executive's response to that big picture? It has produced a joint paper with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that is startling in its lack of imagination and shallowness of ambition. It is, basically, a list of 11 principles that do nothing more than plead for the right to be consulted. Principle 5, which gives the game away, comes slap bang in the middle of the list. Let me share it with members:

"The EU institutions must respect the Member State's role in deciding the internal allocation of competences between it and sub-national authorities."

Allow me to translate the jargon—members should remember that, in the terms of the document, we are a sub-national authority. Basically, principle 5 boils down to: "Nanny knows best"—that is what that sell-out principle tells us. The Executive wants the EU to ask it what it thinks but, at the end of the day, to listen only to Westminster. That is pathetic.

The Executive has tied itself up in knots with internal contradictions. I invite members to consider principle 5 alongside principle 3 and to try to work out where the Executive is coming from. Does Jack McConnell want the EU to listen to Scotland or to Westminster? Is he calling on the EU to tell Westminster to butt out of Scotland's business? I suspect that that is what he really wants, and would that he were asking the EU to do that. Alternatively, is he telling the EU that, whatever Scotland says, it is Westminster's opinion that counts?

To be frank, the document shows that the Executive is out of touch with mainstream thinking in the EU. Representatives from devolved Administrations in Belgium, Spain and Germany must be astounded at the timidity of our Executive's approach. Given the record of the UK and the Scottish Executive in Europe, they are not role models for other small countries. If all that the Executive is interested in achieving with its paper is serving its London masters, it is being extremely unhelpful to Scotland.

In contrast, the SNP stands for Scotland. We are just as interested in developing the impact that Scotland can have in and on the EU as we are in examining the impact that the EU has had on our country—that is the one-sided approach adopted by the Executive.

The SNP is in accord with the mainstream of European thinking on the development of the EU. We support the present confederal union in Europe and reject moves towards a European superstate. We support enhanced co-operation in a range of areas and, at the same time, we seek a stronger commitment to subsidiarity, with responsibilities returned to more localised levels where appropriate.

The work has started, given devolution, subsidiarity and debates on governance. We can get the job done with independence in Europe. However, our representatives must lift their eyes and look at that bigger picture. If our representatives will not think big on Scotland's behalf, Scotland will continue to be left behind on the fringes of a rapidly developing Europe.

I would like Jack McConnell to visit Ireland, Sweden or Finland to tell those countries how stupid they are to think that they should have independent representation in Europe. I look forward to him telling those countries how much better off they would be if only they would allow another bigger country to conduct negotiations for them.

The SNP's stance on Europe is part and parcel of our ambition for Scotland, which is unbounded. The minister may do his Jumping Jack Flash impersonation at events such as yesterday's European connection, welcoming assorted consuls general from the accession nations, but it is a pity that he does not do a reality check—Scotland will not be represented in such a way anywhere else in Europe.

I shall give members a final look at some of those accession nations which, in a few short years, will have more say over Scotland's fishing, farming, environment and industry than we have at present. Estonia has a population of 1.4 million and became independent in 1991. Latvia has a population of 2.4 million and became independent in 1991. Lithuania has a population of 3.7 million and became independent in 1991. Slovakia has a population of 5.4 million and became independent in 1993. Slovenia has a population of 2 million and became independent in 1991. Let us add Scotland to that list.

I move amendment S1M-1912.1, to leave out from "and welcomes" to end and insert:

"but regrets the lack of imagination and ambition shown by the Scottish Executive and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in their joint paper on the subject; deplores the Executive's attendance record at EU Council meetings and poor representation at working groups, and recognises that, after the Treaty of Nice, Scotland would have significantly greater influence in the EU as an independent nation than as part of the UK."