It’s a great pleasure to speak here
today – to this audience in Brugge, and to those of you watching from
the College’s campus in Natolin in Poland.
The College of Europe
was the first university to offer postgraduate studies and training in
European affairs. It continues to be one of the best places anywhere in
the world to study the subject – which is why the Scottish Government
funds three scholarships every year for outstanding students from
Scotland.
Brugge is a city which
has had close links with Scotland for centuries. As one of the great
commercial centres of Europe in the Middle Ages, Brugge was at times the
staple or entry port for wool being exported from Scotland to the rest
of Europe. A community of Scottish merchants settled here more than 700
years ago.
It’s just one indication
of the way in which Scotland’s prosperity over centuries has been bound
up with the ability to trade, travel and work in Europe. And just as
Scots have always worked and lived in Europe, so there are now 160,000
people from other EU states who have chosen to live and work in
Scotland. They make a massive contribution to Scotland’s economy and
culture.
These European
connections are an essential part of who we are. Scotland has always
been a nation that looks outwards – to Wales, England, Ireland and
Northern Ireland; to the other nations of Europe; and right across the
globe.
And we’re comfortable
with the idea of overlapping identities – we know that you can be
Scottish and British, Scottish and European, Scottish and Polish or
Scottish and Pakistani.
Tartan is the
distinctive national cloth of Scotland. It’s made up of patterned
threads of different colours. I like to think that Scottish identity is
like the tartan. There are many colours, many threads, many strands to
the Scottish tartan of identity.
I’m emphasising this
point for two reasons. It’s fundamental to the main message of my speech
today – that an independent Scotland would be an enthusiastic, engaged
and committed contributor to European progress.
But it’s also
fundamental to understanding the nature of the campaign for Scottish
independence. Ours is a peaceful, inclusive, civic – and above all a
democratic and constitutional independence movement. It has been cited
as such internationally, and is in sharp contrast to the profoundly
anti-democratic processes we too often see elsewhere.
And our vision for our
nation includes and welcomes all those who want to call Scotland their
home. Of course, this inclusiveness extends to our elections. Scotland
is one of the few places in the EU to allow other EU nationals to vote
in our national Parliament’s elections. They will also have a vote in
the referendum on Scottish independence on 18 September. All 160,000 of
them.
That tradition is long-standing in our
politics. Before the European Union was founded, citizens of the Irish
republic were allowed to vote, as indeed they and citizens of other
Commonwealth countries still are.
Our civic nationalism
promotes internationalism; our independence movement embraces
interdependence. We seek sovereignty, knowing that we will then choose
to share that sovereignty.
In many ways, in fact,
Scottish independence is a cause which has been profoundly influenced
and strengthened by the European Union – an institution which enables
countries of all sizes to contribute as equal partners, and which is an
enduring rebuke to any notion that independence might mean isolation.
And our referendum
process is founded on consensus. It was agreed with the UK Government
and confirmed by the Edinburgh Agreement I signed with David Cameron 18
months ago. One of the many reasons why the outgoing President of the
European Commission prompted surprise, even ridicule, from so many
people across Europe when he recently compared Scotland to Kosovo, is
that he erroneously confused our consented constitutional process with
what was a contested unilateral declaration of independence. The
background circumstances are also of course totally different.
The case for
independence rests on a simple but overwhelming truth – that the best
people to take decisions about the future of Scotland are the people who
live and work in Scotland. That applies to domestic policy – how we
create a fairer and more prosperous country. And it applies to
international policy, how useful Scotland can be to the world– including
decisions about when we pool sovereignty with others.
But at present, our
ability to take those decisions is constrained by our constitutional
position, as part of a state where Scottish members make up less than
10% of the total in the Westminster Parliament. The leading party in the
UK Government has but one seat out of the 59 Scottish constituencies at
Westminster. In fact, for more than half of my life, Scotland has been
governed by parties from Westminster which could not command a majority
in Scotland.
That’s a profound
democratic deficit. It affects all areas of Scottish life. And because
of the rising influence of a virulent strain – not just of
Euroscepticism, but of Europhobia – at Westminster, it now poses a real
threat to Scotland’s place in Europe.
The College of Europe
invited Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in October 1988, to speak
about the United Kingdom’s place in Europe. Her speech is known in
Britain as the Bruges speech. At that time, it was seen as a deliberate
rebuke to proposals being put forward by the European Commission on
social policy.
It is a mark of how much
the debate has moved that Margaret Thatcher’s Brugge speech seems
almost commonplace now and not the radical departure it seemed at the
time. But there is no doubt that it helped to inspire and empower a
strain of Euroscepticism which has had an enduring and damaging
influence over UK government policy ever since.
The consequences of
these developments are becoming clear. Every single one of the four
prime ministers since Margaret Thatcher has pledged to put Britain “at the heart of Europe”.
Yet the reality has been quite different. Today Britain sits at the
margins of European influence, and if Scotland remains governed from
London, we face the prospect of an in-out referendum on whether to be
part of the European Union at all.
Interestingly, it is
unlikely that Margaret Thatcher, as Prime Minister, would ever have
endorsed such a course of action. She questioned how Europe worked – not
whether to be in Europe. But David Cameron’s proposal is to hold just
such a referendum in 2017. It is a position which no politician in
Scotland would ever have considered to be reasonable. There is virtually
no support for this step in the Scottish Parliament.
In these circumstances,
people in Scotland would almost certainly vote to stay in the EU – but
the result for the UK as a whole is much more doubtful. A YouGov poll
last week found that in Scotland, voters support staying in the EU by 2
to 1; elsewhere in the UK, there is almost a 50-50 split.
And so because Scotland
makes up just over 8% of the UK population, it is conceivable that
unless we choose to change our circumstances this September, we could be
dragged out of the European Union against our will.
Therefore the real risk
to Scotland’s place in the EU is not the independence referendum in
September. It’s the in-out referendum of 2017.
That decision on Europe
isn’t the primary reason for seeking independence – the main reason for
seeking independence is a desire to gain the powers any normal nation
has; the powers we need to build a fairer and more prosperous country.
But the contrast we now
see – between playing a full and equal role in Europe as an independent
state, or potentially leaving it against our will – is an important
additional factor in the Scottish constitutional debate. It highlights a
fundamental truth: that the best way to make a positive contribution,
is as an independent and equal partner to other nations.
The Scottish Government
recognises that continued membership of the EU will require negotiations
on the specific terms. That is only right and proper. But these
negotiations will be completed within the 18 month period between a
Yes vote in September and achieving independence in March 2016.
You don’t have to depend
on the Scottish Government for that opinion. I can cite Professor James
Crawford, the UK Government’s own chosen legal expert on such matters.
The Professor told the BBC’s Today programme that an 18 month timetable
is “realistic” – that was on the same day that his report for the UK Government was published.
Sir David Edward, of
course, is the former judge of the European Court of Justice; one of the
true architects of the European Union. It is Sir David who has said
that during the 18 months between the Scottish Yes vote and independence
“there will be an obligation to negotiate a solution that does not lead to the absurd result that is being suggested” of Scotland being required to leave the EU only to immediately re-apply for membership.
And there’s another
reason why James Crawford is right in saying that the 18 month timetable
is realistic. Scotland will ask for continued membership on the basis
of “continuity of effect”, and at no detriment to other members.
So there need be no
reopening of the EU budget agreed last year to 2020. Scotland would take
responsibility for its share of UK contributions and receipts – which
means that we would still be a net contributor to the EU. We would
remain within the Common Travel Area of the British Isles, as we are at
present. And as a senior UK Government minister acknowledged to the
Guardian newspaper last month, “of course” we will continue to share a currency with the rest of the UK.
We propose a practical,
common sense approach to membership, which means that there is no
detriment – none whatsoever – to any other member of the European Union
as a result of Scotland’s continuing membership.
And the alternative –
the fishing fleets of 12 countries being denied any access to Scottish
waters and as a consequence, their access to Norwegian waters, which is
also dependent on Scottish access; 160,000 EU workers and students, and
of course voters, in Scotland suddenly uncertain about their status;
five and a quarter million people ceasing to be EU citizens against
their will – this alternative, as Sir David Edward points out, is
clearly absurd.
But it is more than
absurd. There is simply no legal basis in the EU treaties for any such
proposition. And it is against the founding principles of the European
Union.
The outgoing President of the Commission has defined “European values” as being “freedom, democracy, rule of law and…solidarity”
There is no concept of
solidarity which could cause Scotland to be refused inclusion in the EU,
for following a free, democratic and lawful process of
self-determination.
It is why the European Movement, the oldest pro-European campaigning group in the UK, last week described it as “inconceivable
that the EU collectively would wish unilaterally to withdraw
citizenship from 5.3 million of its citizens who have participated in
the European project for 40 years.”
So let’s take it as read
that every one of us in this hall in Brugge is a committed European.
Nobody will gainsay the agreed outcome of a peaceful and consensual
referendum on independence.
Let’s focus on the real
issues; what Scotland can contribute how useful we would be to the rest
of the European Union. An independent Scotland would take its seat at
the top table in the EU alongside 28 other Member States – 12 of which
are the same size as Scotland or smaller.
In 1946 Winston
Churchill made a famous speech in Zurich, which helped to inspire early
enthusiasm for European co-operation following the Second World War. He
said that a stronger European partnership would “make the material
strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as
much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the
common cause.”
Recent years have done
much to bear out this claim. The EU has become an organisation where
negotiation trumps ultimatum; where the strength of your ideas can
matter more than the size of your population.
Ireland’s presidency of
the Council of the EU last year was a major success – concluding
negotiations on the EU’s finances until 2020. Two years ago, Denmark
used its presidency of the Council to lead major reforms to the Common
Fisheries Policy.
Scotland worked closely
with Denmark on that – on issues such as discard-free fisheries, the
recovery of cod stocks and more regional-level decision making. But we
had no capacity to lead the development of reforms in the same way that
Denmark could. Nor to broker the final deal as Ireland did.
Scotland has one of the
largest national shares of Europe’s total fishing grounds. 12 national
fleets fish in our waters. Yet we have less formal say in fisheries
policy than landlocked countries such as Austria and Slovakia!
Independence will change
that. It allows Scotland to develop and pursue clear priorities – such
as energy and climate change, the environment, agriculture, fisheries,
research, digital technology and the creative industries. When we share
the same objectives as the rest of the UK, we will work with them, but
where we don’t, we will no longer be bound to a position which harms our
interests. We will set our own priorities, build our own alliances, and
put forward our own positive vision of Europe.
We’re already
contributing. For example the Cabinet Secretary for Health and
Wellbeing, Alex Neil, is in Brussels on Wednesday. The reason he’s there
is because of the role of our health and care services on the European
Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. We are leading the
specific work on ICT-enabled integrated care.
That work addresses a
fundamental question: how do we use technology to help to provide care
for older people at home and in the community – protecting their
independence and quality of life, reducing public healthcare costs, and
providing the best possible treatment when and where it is needed? As
the proportion of older people in the population grows, it’s a vital
challenge across Europe and around the world.
Or to take a second
example, let’s look at youth employment. Scotland was blighted by mass
unemployment in the 1980s. So we have taken urgent action over the last
six years to prevent that same criminal waste of human potential. We
have the only youth employment minister in Europe – we have recently
made her position a Cabinet post, but, in common with other European
countries, there is much more to be done.
Our Opportunities For
All guarantee means that all people between the age of 16 and 19 have a
chance of employment, training or education. We would welcome adding our
voice, our weight, to the other countries which have endorsed the
European Youth Guarantee. But we can’t – because the UK Government
disapproves of the idea of fully endorsing such an ambitious vision for
our young citizens.
Or let’s look at the
greatest challenge of all facing the planet – global warming. We have a
key role to play in providing energy security for Europe, and in
developing the low carbon technologies the world will need for the
future.
Glasgow is Europe’s
leading centre for offshore wind energy research, and the world’s
leading centre for marine energy research is based in Orkney – at the
European Marine Energy Centre. We have more than 60% of the EU’s oil
reserves, a quarter of its offshore wind and tidal power potential, and
10% of its wave power potential. Not bad for a country with 1% of the EU
population.
In a Europe of energy
insecurity, Scottish resources are both extraordinary and vital. Last
year, as a result of Scotland’s lobbying alongside other European
partners, ocean energy was recognised as a priority area within the
European Union’s Strategic Energy Technology Plan.
At the moment, the
European Union is discussing renewable energy generation targets for
2030. I am meeting Commissioner Potocnik to discuss them later today. In
Scotland, renewables will produce 100% of our net electricity demand by
2020. We know that it’s not practical for all countries to achieve that
– or, in some cases, to even come close – but we believe that it is
important for the EU to be ambitious.
However the UK has only
recently come round to supporting any targets for renewable energy and
its aims are still less ambitious than those of the European Parliament.
As an independent country, Scotland could be doing much more to build
coalitions and set the terms of the debate – as a devolved nation, we’re
still trying to persuade even the UK Government.
With the new Commission
taking office in November, there has to be the impetus for greater
action on renewable energy. We need to support low carbon technologies
so that they can produce energy cost-effectively at scale. And we need
to establish grid networks that span Europe – to transport solar energy
from the south and hydro, marine and offshore wind renewables from the
north, to meet the continent’s need for secure and sustainable energy.
This is no time for
timidity in tackling climate change. Scotland will be an ambitious and
constructive voice for progress; and a sustainable and secure powerhouse
of clean energy.
In summary, Scotland’s
vast natural resources and human talent make it one of the lynchpins of
the European Union. We have a key role to play in providing energy
security for Europe. As one of the wealthiest countries, Scotland is a
net financial contributor to the EU and will remain so as an independent
member. We have more top universities, per head, than any other member
of the EU and our academics collaborate with partners across Europe. We
have one of the largest national shares of Europe’s total fishing
grounds. The EU’s fisheries policy would unravel without Scotland.
Earlier this year the
Viviane Reding, vice-president of the European Commission, described two
great Scottish judges, Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, and Sir David Edward, as
true architects of this Europe.
Perhaps more than any of
this, Scotland shares and promotes the values of solidarity, freedom
and democracy that are the heart of the European ideal. As such, an
independent Scotland, as an equal member state, will bring a positive,
cooperative voice to the EU, in contrast to the often sullen, disengaged
voices that have spoken on our behalf since Margaret Thatcher’s speech
in this city more than a quarter of a century ago.
Not being at the top
table in Europe has harmed Scotland’s interests for four decades. Within
the UK, we are occasionally consulted. With independence, we would
contribute as equals. And in contributing as equals, we would make
proposals to address the democratic challenges that Europe faces today.
The financial and
economic crisis in which the EU has been trapped over the past 6 years
has allowed radical Euroscepticism to secure a significant political
foothold in many EU Member States. We see this reflected in opinion
polls in some parts of Europe, and may see it in the forthcoming
elections for the European Parliament.
If we are to restore
public trust in the European Union’s governance, and its ability to
materially improve people’s lives, I believe we have to succeed on two
fronts.
First we must prioritise
economic policies that stimulate sustainable growth, while having in
place social policies that ensure that everyone can benefit from that
growth. In the UK we have seen how widening disparities in wealth have
corroded the fabric of our society – causing deeply damaging
inequalities in life expectancy, educational outcomes and employment
prospects.
In some areas of policy,
the EU makes addressing these disparities more difficult than it needs
to be. For example, the Scottish Government is committed to tackling low
pay. We currently have no control over the UK’s minimum wage, but we
have pledged that in an independent Scotland it would increase at least
in line with inflation every year– the UK minimum wage, currently £6.31
an hour, has declined in value in real terms over the last six years.
The Scottish Government
has introduced a living wage – £7.65 an hour – in the public sector
across our country. A living wage gives individuals and families enough
income to meaningfully participate in society, rather than merely afford
the basic necessities. But EU law prevents both us and Scottish local
authorities from making that living wage a requirement in public sector
contracts.
What made Margaret
Thatcher’s speech of 25 years ago look so out of kilter is that back
then Europe commanded strong popular support in its moves towards a
social Europe, in contrast to the free market ideologies of the 1980s.
In Scotland, for example, Europe’s approach was far more in tune with
the prevailing social democratic ethos, than the policies imposed by
Margaret Thatcher’s government of the day.
And so people across the
continent, who want to see Europe rebalancing the economy and
addressing inequality, will ask themselves why we are in a position
where EU law prevents us from increasing the living standards of EU
workers. I will be asking the Commission that question later today.
Perhaps they will have an explanation – certainly they should have a
rethink.
Secondly, we have to
restore public confidence in the democratic credentials of the
legislative and policy-making process in Brussels. I take the view that
this can be achieved by improving the quality and sensitivity of EU
governance rather than through yet another round of Treaty reform. The
levers of subsidiarity and proportionality were included in the Treaties
to protect EU citizens against over-burdensome and unnecessary rules
and regulations. We have to make these levers work more successfully.
Thirdly we need a
practical but compelling and visionary European project such as the
marine renewables supergrid, which will give Europe a justification with
transcends the commonplace and the transient.
These issues are of
lasting significance. Scotland will play a constructive role in helping
to address them. But there’s a key difference between our approach to
reform and that of the UK Government. Scotland will make proposals about
the type of Europe we want to be part of; the UK Government is
considering whether it wants to be part of Europe at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, a 19th century UK Foreign Secretary, George Canning, said once that “I called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old”. He was talking about how events in South and Central America were helping to change the balance of power in Europe.
Now, there is a new
world developing in Europe. It is a world where people want to be
independent and interdependent: to address global and social challenges;
to build a fairer and more prosperous society; to assess people and
nations by their contribution – the positive difference they make –
rather than by their status or their power.
But unfortunately, too
much of the debate on this new Europe at Westminster, is being distorted
by the dreams of an old empire. Those dreams have little allure now for
Scotland. Europe enriches our culture, our economy and our society. We
cherish the freedom it gives us to share, to travel and to exchange.
But we also seek the
freedom to contribute. To contribute our voice as an equal partner on
the world stage. To contribute to the future success of the European
project from which we gain so much. To contribute our talents and
innovation to the challenges that Europe, and the world, face in the
future.
So when our small nation
asks for the freedom to contribute, we will meet a welcome from around
Europe. And we will gladly make those contributions – and more – when an
independent Scotland, takes its full place in the European family of
nations.
Ningún comentario:
Publicar un comentario