Extract from the Debate: …………….
11.40 am
Mr. Jimmy Hood
(Lanark and Hamilton, East) (Lab): I shall try to keep a straight face
after listening to that.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) for
winning this important debate. Fifty-nine years ago—in a fortnight’s time—I was
born in the Lanarkshire mining village
of Lesmahagow.
I was born and bred a Scot and have had the joy of spending 40 of those 59
years living in Scotland.
For 19 years, I lived and worked in a Nottinghamshire coalfield as a miner—a coal
face engineer.
In 1968, when Scottish miners were chasing jobs owing
to the world dependency on cheap oil, I was one of those industrial gypsies
forced to seek a better standard of living in England. With my family—my wife and
baby son—I had to up and move to the Nottinghamshire coalfields. In 1987, I
returned as Member of Parliament for Clydesdale. In my maiden speech, I likened
that experience to that of the salmon returning from the sea to the fresh
water. However, those 19 years spent living in England, where my daughter was
born, and where I now have two grandchildren, provided an invaluable life
experience.
I begin with that small tour of my personal history to
make a point that is central to my fundamental beliefs: I am proud of my place
of birth and of the mining stock from whence I came, and to have been born and bred in a country that taught me community,
brotherhood and humanity. It did not instil in me negativity and insecurity, or
the belief that I am a better person for having been born on a certain side of
the street, river or border.
We live in a Europe
that has seen the scourge of war fired by sectarian nationalism. Surely, if we
have learned anything from that dark history it is this: that we achieve more
together than we do apart, and that imposing divisions based on the road, the
river or the map promotes not brotherhood or humanity, but a sectarian divide
that says, “We on this side are better than you on that side.”
I reject the politics of envy and grievance that
encompass the worst extremes of nationalism. I make no apology for my
description and analysis of the politics of such elitist nationalism in Scotland
today—the smarmy arrogance that all too often accompanies nationalism and its
politics of grievance and untruths. It is truly unpalatable. I go further than
that and have a message for those in the media who flirt with nationalism:
“You, in the comfort zone of your cosy, chattering-class environment, purvey
half-truths and myths to serve a nationalism that has little history of defending
freedom.”
I now turn to the European Union. We are told that Scotland will become a member of the EU when it
is divorced from the United
Kingdom. I have almost 20 year’s experience
of working on EU treaties and the European Scrutiny Committee, so I know that
it is simply not true that Scotland
would be welcomed by the EU as a member state. The SNP knows that. Before there
can be further EU enlargement, there must be a treaty change and a unanimous
vote by the 27 members of the European Council, which includes many states,
such as Spain, Germany, Belgium and France, that would veto any such proposal.
The SNP says, “It is not enlargement,” but that is not true. Scotland would
need to change the relevant treaty to get a commissioner, a seat on the European
Council, and representation on the European Court of Justice and the European
Court of Auditors. EU membership is just another incredible SNP policy
resulting from its huge gamut of presumptions and distortions.
David Cairns: My hon. Friend has far more knowledge of the
EU than virtually any other Member, with the possible exception of our hon.
Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk
(Michael Connarty). As I understand it, a new treaty
of enlargement would require a referendum in certain countries—France, in
particular. Is the logical conclusion of the SNP’s policy, therefore, that
Scotland’s future membership of the EU, and the jobs, prosperity and trade that
go with it, would be placed in the hands of the French electorate, which could
then decide whether Scotland re-enters the EU? Is that in Scotland’s best
interests?
Mr. Hood:
Not only the French electorate; half of the member states would need
referendums. For example, let us take Spain, which has its own problems
with separatism. Is Spain
going to allow a member state to break into its constituent parts with each
part keeping equal status as a member of the EU? Of course
not.
John
Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): I was not planning to
intervene because I was hoping to make a speech if I could catch your eye, Mr.
Cummings. However, what does my hon. Friend think is the likelihood of those
European nations voting Scotland
into the EU? They might think, “Well, what happens if its policy is to change
its mind if things do not go exactly as it wants?” Would we vote such a country
into the EU?
Mr. Hood:
That is the whole point of my contribution. It would be impossible. One of my biggest criticisms of the SNP is
that it has not even started to discuss the problem. It always runs away from
it. Has it explained how Scotland
would become a member of the EU? Currency is a good example. The hon. Member
for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), when put in a
corner and asked who would fix interest rates, says that the matter would stay
with the Bank of England and then move into the single currency arrangements.
No way, José! And the SNP knows that. The fact that it knows
it and still allows people to assume otherwise poses a question in itself.
Mr. Goodwill:
Speaking as a former deputy leader of the Conservatives in the European
Parliament, I can say that as a prerequisite to successfully negotiating
accession to the EU, Scotland
would have to join the euro. Devolution would mean joining the euro and
therefore devolution not from London to Edinburgh, but from Edinburgh
to Frankfurt, where important economic decisions affecting Scotland would
be made.
Mr. Hood:
The prerequisite would be a unanimous vote in the European Council, which would
be impossible.
A divorced Scotland
would be the highest-taxed country in Europe.
The Bank of England would set its interest rates and the value of its currency.
Flows of investment would go one way—out, not in. Scotland’s
thriving financial services industry, which can rival that of anywhere in the
world, would take its money to London, Zurich or anywhere else.
Certainly Scotland would not
remain in its current excellent condition if it were separated from the United Kingdom.
Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend makes a very serious point
about the financial services market. Even worse, if Scotland
were separate, the Bank of England would base its analysis and decisions on the
market in the rest of the United Kingdom
and ignore any significant economic factors affecting Scotland, such
as the inflation rate or its rate of joblessness. The Scottish economy would
accordingly face much greater risks, which would again have a serious effect on
Scotland’s
ability to attract the financial sector.
Mr. Hood:
The point is that an independent Scotland would be leaving its
monetary policy to be set by a foreign country. That is the reality.
I am mindful of the time and the fact that other hon.
Members wish to speak, so I will conclude. On Thursday it will be deal or no
deal for the people of Scotland,
as those of us who watch the Channel 4 programme in the afternoon might say.
Will they fooled by the banker-bookie, the hon.
Member for Banff
and Buchan, or will they be true to their Scottish instinct for canniness and
keep what they have, putting the education of our children before the separation
of our country? Who will win on Thursday? Will the bankers and bookies of the
SNP win on a deal for a separation or will Scotland say, “No deal.”?
