When last December the European and External Relations Committee started out on its inquiry into the Scottish Government’s proposals for EU membership, I, like the rest of the committee, was very keen that we provide voters with a source of valuable information on the subject of EU membership itself. I recognised that some would be more persuaded by certain arguments than others, but my key objective was for the report to help voters understand more about the EU and what EU membership would mean for an independent Scotland. I did not expect the committee to agree on a number of the issues under consideration, but I hoped that a report would allow voters to find out more about EU membership and to make up their own minds.
All of the committee members have seen vast amounts of evidence and have listened to many excellent speakers, including academics, European Commission representatives, former senior civil servants and representatives of EU institutions across Europe. That evidence has been distilled into the committee’s second report, which was published on 23 May and with which I am sure colleagues are very familiar.
The committee’s inquiry lasted from last December until April and involved taking evidence from a wide range of experts on the EU, including former officials, academics and lawyers. We heard from those who supported the Scottish Government’s proposals and those who did not, and we took evidence on a considerable range of issues related to the inquiry’s three themes: an independent Scotland in the EU; the road to EU membership; and the impact of small states in the EU. Indeed, our approach was so comprehensive that—as I was very flattered to note—the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, which sat for one day on this topic, drew significantly on our evidence for its own report on Scotland’s membership of the EU.
As I think we have all learned over the past month, our membership of the EU is not by any measure a lightweight subject, and the historic challenges and accusations about too much bureaucracy, the waste of money, the ineffective policies and the overpaid civil servants continue to blight more intelligent debate on Europe. I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, many of whom travelled from other EU member states to appear before us, and I also thank the organisations and individuals who made the great many written submissions that our inquiry received. They helped to ensure that the committee could draw on a rich seam of evidence. Finally, I thank the committee’s adviser, Dr Daniel Kenealy, for his expert advice and briefings.
Finally, I thank our clerks Clare O’Neill and Jenny Goldsmith, who were ably led by Dr Katy Orr. They put an amazing amount of work into this inquiry, using up some of their weekends to do so, and organised everything that we needed to inform what is a very comprehensive report.
The debate is topical, as it is being held shortly after the European elections, which saw the election of a large number of Eurosceptic members of the European Parliament in a number of countries across Europe, most notably in the United Kingdom, France and Denmark, but also in Austria and the Netherlands. In light of the European Parliament election results, I turn to the first theme of the inquiry, which was one of the three key themes that the committee explored: the value of EU membership to Scotland.
The evidence that the committee heard overwhelmingly supported an independent Scotland being a member of the EU, regardless of the witnesses’ views on independence. We had many witnesses from both sides of the argument, but they generally agreed that being in the EU is a good thing.
The reality is that the EU is the main destination for Scotland’s international exports. In 2011, it accounted for around 46 per cent of Scotland’s international exports, with an estimated value of around £11 billion. Those exports support a total of 110,000 full-time equivalent jobs. I draw members’ attention to the importance of free movement and free trade, which helps to protect jobs in Scotland, and to the massive economic benefits that free trade in a market of more than 500 million people brings to us.
Many witnesses brought up all those topics, and many stressed the importance of EU membership in a very interconnected and globalised world. For example, Jim Currie, who is a former European Commission director general, stated:
“We live in a very interconnected world, in which one’s interests, whether they relate to trade, environmental standards or anything else, really depend on being part of something bigger, particularly if one is a small country on the edge of Europe.”—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 20 February 2014; c 1806-7.]
That is notwithstanding the fact that many small countries on the edge of Europe are independent.
Other witnesses stressed the value of the European single market, which provides for the free movement of goods, people, services and capital within the EU, and gives individuals the right to live, work, study or retire in another EU member state. The impact of the EU single market in Scotland can be seen in a number of areas. Some 160,000 EU citizens from other member states now live in Scotland. They have helped to reverse Scotland’s population decline and make Scotland a more vibrant and multicultural society. Students from all over the EU are attracted to study in Scotland’s 19 world-class universities.
For Scottish businesses, the EU represents the main destination for Scottish exports, which have an estimated value of £11 billion. As I said, they support 110,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Furthermore, Scotland benefits from the bilateral free trade agreements that the EU has negotiated with more than 50 partner countries all over the world. That is notwithstanding some of the challenges that have been raised with the transatlantic trade agreement, which we will perhaps consider at a later date.
We should not forget the EU’s contributions through its social agenda. The principle of equal treatment guarantees EU citizens minimum standards in legislation in relation to employment, with parental leave and sustainable working hours underpinned by EU legislation. The more common term that is used is “the social chapter”. There is also the commitment to non-discrimination, which is enshrined in article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. That states that the EU will
“combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.”
As members know very well, all those issues are very close to my heart.
Finally, we should not forget the benefits that EU funding has brought to Scotland over the years. I am sure that everyone in the chamber is familiar with projects—whether they are employability, infrastructure or research projects—that have been funded by European moneys. In the previous funding period, between 2007 and 2013, Scotland received €4.5 billion in common agricultural policy funding and around €800 million in European structural funding.
During the inquiry, we were reminded of how the European Union has brought stability to Europe. As Professor Sir David Edward told the committee, the European project was initially related to the prevention of European wars and bringing stability to the continent. Many witnesses raised the interesting proposition that, as individuals in the EU, we have rights conferred on us as EU citizens. That is a separate seam that should be investigated a bit further.
The committee sought to explore public attitudes to EU membership in Scotland with a view to establishing whether Scots support EU membership. I will draw on the 2013 Scottish social attitudes survey to consider that question. That survey asked respondents whether, in the event of independence, Scotland should be a member of the EU. Some 34 per cent said that Scotland should definitely be a member of the EU; 34 per cent said that it should probably be a member; 12 per cent suggested that it should probably not be a member; and only 12 per cent considered that it should definitely not be a member. That seems to provide clear evidence of support in Scotland for EU membership.
In considering the value of EU membership to Scotland, we did not neglect to take evidence on the alternatives. We heard very interesting evidence from officials from the European Free Trade Association on membership of the European economic area. We took most of that evidence by videoconference, but some of the officials came over to Scotland to give evidence.
It was great to explore what EFTA means, how we can understand it and how it works. In addition to the views of other witnesses, that evidence pointed to the lack of formal opportunities for Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein to influence EU decision making, despite the fact that they need to implement large proportions of EU legislation to access the single market and contribute to the EU budget. Thus, being a member of EFTA and the European economic area does not represent a desirable alternative for an independent Scotland. I am sure that there are others who will disagree with that, but the weight of evidence suggests that that is not desirable.
The second theme that the committee considered as part of its inquiry was the road to EU membership—it was probably the hottest topic in the inquiry—and how Scotland would become a member state in its own right. This theme was the subject of the majority of evidence that was received and the one on which there were the most divergent views. As one of the witnesses joked, if you get four lawyers in a room you will get eight different opinions on what might happen.
Much of the discussion focused on whether article 48 or article 49 of the Treaty on European Union provided the legal basis for an independent Scotland’s membership of the EU, but there was also a considerable amount of evidence that suggested that the legal route would be tailored to the situation at hand. Many witnesses suggested that the UK and EU would find a way to sort any problems, as the EU is very pragmatic in that regard. For instance, Professor Laura Cram argued that
“the lawyers will come up with a compromise. We may have an article 49 process that, in practice, looks more like an article 48 process.”—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 16 January 2014; c 1660.]
I suspect that the legal route for membership will be a key focus of the debate today, and I will leave other members to debate that. However, I think that it is important to be aware of the many examples of pragmatism in the history of the European Union. I draw members’ attention to evidence that Mr Graham Avery gave in that regard to our committee and to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. An RSE report stated:
“Mr Avery called it ‘absurd and unlikely’ that an independent Scotland would have to go through the same EU accession process as a non-member state, and proposed to outline ‘a common sense approach’ to Scotland’s accession to the EU.”
The third theme that the committee took evidence on as part of the inquiry was that of the role of small states in the European Union. We had an evidence session with members of—I might not get this pronunciation right—the Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, who provided examples of the success that Ireland has had over the years in influencing EU policy making, particularly when it held the presidency of the European Council. I am sure that there are very few people across Europe who would not describe that presidency as very successful, because many issues that had taken a while to come to fruition were finally resolved.
We also heard of examples of the ways in which small member states have successfully focused their efforts in order to influence EU policy. We heard that small states work together to solve problems that individual states could not solve on their own. There is a lot of collaborative working among them, but each state maintains its independence and policy pragmatism. For example, we heard how Denmark had pursued the development of labour market policies and how Luxembourg’s priorities were linked to the financial sector.
It was suggested that Scotland, as a member state, could contribute in the fields of research, agricultural policy and energy policy, particularly in relation to renewables, which held a lot of interest for the witnesses whom we had at committee. They were very keen to point out the clear benefits of renewables, the areas where Scotland is leading the way in them, and how we can continue to do that.
I hope that I have given members a taste of some of the evidence that emerged from the inquiry. I would strongly recommend the committee’s report to anyone who is interested in learning more about an independent Scotland’s membership of the EU. The report is comprehensive but very straightforward.
Again, I thank everyone who was involved in the report: committee colleagues, committee clerks, everyone who gave evidence and our adviser. I commend the report to members.
14:54