Plenary, 25 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, September 25, 2003

Official Report 693KB pdf

---

European Constitution

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-381, in the name of Phil Gallie, on the European constitution. There are two amendments to the motion.

Although I am tempted to argue the case against the United Kingdom joining the common European currency based on the overall disadvantage to Scotland and the UK, I will refrain on this occasion.

The UK Government is already committed to a referendum on joining the euro, but it has postponed it until "the time is right". The Swedish people have demonstrated that euro entry is not inevitable. That outcome and Gordon Brown's failure to take us even one step along the way to meeting his financial criteria for substituting the euro for the pound kick the euro into touch for the foreseeable future.

I am pleased that that leads us to debate the imminent and greater threat that we will face if the UK Government commits us to the draft European constitution, as submitted to the European Council in Thessolonika on 20 June. The draft constitution for Europe would undermine totally the long-held aspirations of people in the chamber who fought for the creation of a Scottish Parliament. It represents a major step away from the devolutionary ideals on which the Scottish Parliament is founded.

We welcome the accession of the 10 new European Union member states in June next year and we accept the need for a convention to establish an adjustment of procedures to take account of the effects of increased membership. However, we did not and do not support an outcome that removes our national sovereignty.

When Peter Hain was the UK Minister for Europe, he claimed that the draft constitution was nothing more than a tidying-up exercise. What trust can we have in the words of Peter Hain or his Government, bearing in mind the expositions that have been given at the Hutton inquiry?

I am pleased that the member recognises how the country was misled over weapons of mass destruction. Does he agree that he and his party were wrong to be the cheerleaders of that intervention?

I concede fully that I was misled by the Prime Minister. I believed that no Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would attempt to put in front of us the information that he did. I concede that I was wrong, and I make no apologies. I was naive; I believed that a Prime Minister of the UK would rise above such a situation.

Let us not kid ourselves: the proposed constitution would bring about a major change that would expand the existing extensive powers of the European Union, in particular the powers of the unelected Commission. A considerable loss of sovereignty in a range of areas would follow, in which I am sure the Scottish Executive will take an interest when it finds in future that its wings are clipped.

Recently, even Peter Hain has been forced to change his view. The Prime Minister, perhaps recognising that he could not hide away the contents of the draft constitution, has told him that signing up to the constitution is fundamental to Britain's and Scotland's future in Europe. Having drawn that conclusion, the Government has hastily abandoned all but a few of the amendments that it sought and is currently blotting out the red lines that it claimed it would not cross.

Mr Gallie does not make it clear whether the Conservative and Unionist Party is against the proposed draft constitution for Europe or against any written constitution for Europe. If the answer is the latter, does he not recognise that a constitution would limit the powers of Europe?

We are not against or for the draft constitution; we are for putting the draft constitution to the people of the United Kingdom and Scotland so that they can make a judgment. The debate is not about the merits of the draft constitution; it is about the fact that it will affect us all.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

I must continue for a moment or two, but I will give way to Irene Oldfather shortly.

Last month in our committee rooms, the Italian ambassador presented his country's objectives for its presidency, which is already in mid-term. At the top of his country's list of objectives is acceptance of the draft constitution and what Italy sees as a new treaty of Rome by the end of 2003. In answer to a question that I put to him, the ambassador said that, in his view, the draft constitution represented the "birth of a state". I put it to the chamber that his time scale for the creation of a new state, which allows less than six months for the consideration of a fundamental change to national Governments, is impractical and wrong, particularly if such a fundamental change has not been put to the people.

Will Mr Gallie explain why so many Tories voted against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, which extended EU citizenship, why they were not in favour of a referendum on the 1986 Single European Act, which was the first treaty to mention economic and monetary union, and why they were not in favour of a referendum on the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997? Can he explain why the Tories are in favour of a referendum now?

Quite easily. It was not intended that the Single European Act should extend to our domestic policies. [Interruption.] It was not. It is on record that ministers did not accept that that should happen, although they recognised the value of the provisions on trade. We could say that the people were conned about the Single European Act. On Maastricht, there was a pull-back element.

Apologise.

What I will apologise for is the fact that when Ted Heath took us into the Common Market, he did not explain that he was seeking not just a common market but a unified state of Europe. He eventually admitted it, and that is something that Conservatives have around our necks. However, I do not apologise for our actions in relation to either the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty, which was a pull-back.

When we are considering the requirement for a referendum on such a fundamental change, we must examine what other Governments are doing. Denmark, Ireland, Spain and Luxembourg will hold referendums on the constitution. Portugal, Italy, France and Holland have indicated an intention to do so. Austria's position is sub judice. The United Kingdom Government is alone in saying that it will not hold a referendum, although I suspect that the Swedish Government might join it in that position shortly.

The motion calls for the Scottish Executive to register the Parliament's concerns with the UK Government if it presses ahead without consulting the Scottish people. The wording calls for action from the Scottish Executive, which is precisely in line with the wording of the Liberal Democrat amendment on Dungavel—another reserved matter—which the Executive supported. The terms of the motion are in line with the policies that are advocated by the Scottish National Party as well as by Charles Kennedy and Menzies Campbell, who—I am sure—will take a dim view of being stabbed in the back by Liberal MSPs if their policy is rejected in this chamber. However, the signs are not good. Tavish Scott's amendment might reflect Liberal opinion on Europe, but it avoids the principal purpose of this debate—the referendum issue. Do the Liberals want a referendum or do they not? If they do not, why do they have a different view from that of their party's leaders elsewhere?

The motion is neither pro-Europe nor anti-Europe. The discussion on the merits of the arguments for and against the introduction of a constitution that will take precedence over Scottish law and constitutional practice that has evolved over centuries will occur in the lead-up to a referendum.

Tony Blair has stated that the Government can win the consent of the British people in accepting the amended draft constitution. I ask no more than that the Scottish Executive advance the view of the Scottish Parliament that he should seek that consent.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that any proposed major constitutional change affecting the governance of our country should be subject to a national referendum; believes that the proposed constitutional treaty for the European Union represents such a major change and accordingly should be the subject of such a referendum, and calls on the Scottish Executive to convey the Parliament's concerns on this issue to Her Majesty's Government.

It is a dozen sitting days since we last debated Europe in Parliament, and in this Tory-initiated debate, we have heard that the Tories are now the self-appointed naive party. They said that the people were conned. Of course, the Tories were the Government when the people were conned.

This debate on a Conservative motion is not about the principle of referendums. It is not about whether the convention on the future of Europe proposals are good or bad for Scotland. The debate is not even about Scotland's constitutional position. It is about the Tories' abhorrence of all things European, which Mr Gallie demonstrated in abundance. The Eurosceptics—the extreme right wing of British and Scottish politics—have taken over the Conservatives, and I accept Mr Gallie's leading role as an extreme right-wing Eurosceptic.

Will Tavish Scott give way?

No, I will give way to Mr Gallie's Euroscepticism in a few moments.

It might be possible to have some regard for the Tory position were it not for the lessons of recent political history. I know that Mr Gallie was a disciple of Mrs Thatcher. She did not provide the people of Britain with a referendum on the Single European Act—which was not, as Mr Gallie tried to suggest, a matter that had no implications for domestic British law; it had profound implications for the economy of this country. That was well understood at the time, and the act was fully debated in the House of Commons. I advise Mr Gallie to revisit Hansard to check the speeches that were made at the time. To suggest—as he has done this morning—that the act had no implications is bizarre. It had profound implications and the Tory Government of the day did not put the matter to the people of this country. Nor did it give people a vote on the Maastricht treaty or the Treaty of Amsterdam.

Today's motion has nothing to do with the principle of giving the people of this country a vote. Today's Tory motion is a mechanism to display the naked anti-Europeanism that is modern Conservatism.

Did Tavish Scott listen to what I said? He obviously prepared his speech before I spoke. At no time did I say whether I was for or against the draft constitution. I argued for a referendum. Why does he not support the Liberal Democrats' policy on holding a referendum?

I did listen to Mr Gallie's speech, and that is what I have just reflected on. His naked anti-Europeanism came through in bile, fury and all the old words such as sovereignty and federalism—all the feelings that the Tories trot out.

Has Tavish Scott read the "Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe"?

I have read it. Let me deal with the substantive issues on which the Executive is taking action. I have no difficulty with holding a referendum on the treaty. However, this is not the place in which to debate such matters, as they will be decided at Westminster. Mr Gallie was once an MP there. If he was so concerned about the matter, he could have joined the rest of his Eurosceptic friends at Westminster to argue for a referendum—which the Tories previously opposed.

Implementation of some 70 per cent of the directives from the European Union is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. Therefore, I would have thought that the governance of Europe would be a matter of considerable interest to us. Can Tavish Scott tell us why the views of the Scottish Parliament on asylum are to be conveyed by the Scottish Executive to Her Majesty's Government but not our views on Europe?

I would have much more regard for the position of Mr McLetchie and the Conservatives if their motion addressed those issues—which are serious issues facing the Executive and Scotland. However, today's motion addresses the issue of a referendum that the Tories do not seem to have any views on. They do not have any views on the intergovernmental conference, as Mr Gallie just said—I presume that that is the Conservative position. They have no thoughts on how to make progress on the issue. The Conservatives' position has nothing to do with the issues that we need to discuss in this chamber, such as the IGC and its importance for Scotland, but has everything to do with getting across their naked anti-Europeanism in all matters.

Yes, the EU needs reform. The "Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe", which has been produced by the convention on the future of Europe, should be welcomed by all members. The text is positive. That is not just my opinion, but the opinion expressed by Neil MacCormack when he spoke at a recent meeting of the European members information liaison exchange network, which was chaired by Andy Kerr, the Minister for Finance and Public Services. The draft treaty forms the basis for a discussion at the forthcoming IGC, which will take the final decisions. The test of the IGC's progress will be whether the EU institutions become more transparent, more accountable, more effective and more efficient.

In the few moments that I have left, I will address the amendment in the name of Mr Stevenson, which Mrs Ewing will move. A different approach is advocated by those who argue that the convention's proposals on fisheries give the EU exclusive competence over fisheries. The Executive's legal advice is that the text does not change the position. Nevertheless, I understand and share the broader concern. That is why I repeat what I said in Parliament on 11 June:

"If a proposal emerged for any extension to EU competence, the Executive and the UK would oppose it vigorously."—[Official Report, 12 June 2003; c 653.]

I also reiterate the assurances that were given by the First Minister on 28 May. He said that both the Scottish Executive and the UK Government remain firmly opposed to any further extension of European competence in the area of fisheries. I accept the principle of Mr Stevenson's amendment—that if any proposed change to the constitution of the EU were to reserve power over fishing to the sole competence of the EU, that would be incompatible with Scotland's interests.

Hugo Young died of cancer on Monday. He was a distinguished journalist of immense abilities. He was also, in the beginning, a Euro-agnostic. He wrote a seminal tome entitled "This Blessed Plot: Britain and Europe from Churchill to Blair". I conclude with one of Hugo Young's observations on Europe, which he delivered on 2 January 1999:

"What is so strange about Britain – so particular, so fearful, so other-worldly – that she should decide to withhold her unique wisdom from the [European] enterprise?"

He concluded:

"In the 21st century, it will be exciting to escape from history into geography: from the prison of the past into a future that permits us at last the luxury of having it both ways: British and European."

I commend that sentiment to Parliament and ask members to reject the Tory motion and to support the Executive's positive approach to European engagement.

I move amendment S2M-381.3, to leave out from first "believes" to end and insert:

"recognises the many benefits that the European Union has delivered for Europe and Scotland; welcomes the draft constitutional treaty presented to the European Council by the Convention on the Future of Europe as an important step towards making the EU more effective, efficient, easier to understand, democratic, transparent and accountable; welcomes the reference in the draft treaty to subsidiarity and to the role of devolved parliaments in nations and regions, and welcomes the role that the Scottish Executive, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Government, has had in securing these references."

It is rather difficult for me to pretend to be Stewart Stevenson, but I rise to move his amendment, which I support. Unfortunately for members, I do not have my colleague's wide variety of life experience, so I will address the specific issues of the debate.

Phil Gallie opened the debate. In a couple of minutes of boredom last night I virtually wrote his speech for him—I have heard it so many times. It is the single, transferable speech that the Conservatives make in this context, usually through Phil Gallie.

I very much welcome what Tavish Scott just said in connection with article 12.1 of the draft constitution, relating to marine biology and fisheries. I hope that that serious matter will be taken up by the Parliament, as we have a responsibility towards our fishing industry.

Although I welcome the debate—David McLetchie rightly noted how important the European dimension is to the Scottish Parliament—I must say that the Conservatives' allocating slightly over an hour to a debate on huge issues such as the euro and the constitution of Europe is, in fact, an insult to the rest of us in the Parliament who take such issues seriously. The SNP has dedicated at least four days of its Opposition debating time to European issues. That may not have been universally popular in the chamber, but we have addressed the issues, which deserve much more time.

The Conservatives are consistent in their attitude towards Europe. When they were in power, they sold us out. In 1972, the Scottish fishermen were described by Prime Minister Heath as dispensable. Then came the Single European Act, which was—as Irene Oldfather pointed out—one of the most significant pieces of legislation to emerge from Europe, and which was accepted by the Conservative Government.

Will Margaret Ewing give way?

I have only four minutes.

The Conservatives sell out our interests as they did during the signing of the Fontainebleau agreement, when the handbag was used. That has caused many problems, as those of us who are interested in regional aid know.

This is all populism. When the Conservative party goes into Opposition, it is a totally different matter: then the Tories become the great defenders of national sovereignty. I do not remember Phil Gallie fighting for a Scottish Parliament or Conservative members making positive comments about the concept of a Scottish Parliament. They opposed it and they are here only because of proportional representation, which they also opposed. The Conservatives are not so much Eurosceptics as Euroatheists. Some of their most effective politicians—not just in the Scottish Parliament, but in Westminster and Europe—are derided when they take a strong pro-European stance.

I will give one example of the hypocrisy of the Conservative attitude. On Tuesday 23 September, Mr Brocklebank said in The Herald that we must consider

"the failed policies of the administrations at Westminster and Holyrood, especially in relation to the Common Fisheries Policy."

Who introduced the common fisheries policy but the Conservative party? Suddenly, on 23 September 2003, the Conservatives realise exactly what they have done. Struan Stevenson, for whom I have a high personal regard, did not exactly cover himself in glory when he took on a report of the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries.

The institutions of Europe must be examined seriously. Seven of the 10 accession states have a population that is the same size as Scotland's or smaller. They will have permanent representation on the Council of Ministers, but Scotland will not. We need to have strong, independent voices fighting for the interests of Scotland in Europe—not walking around the corridors and lurking on couches outside the meeting rooms. This Parliament must exercise its muscles, instead of being seen as a supine group of couch potatoes.

There is great potential in Europe. I do not regard it as perfect and we must be critical, but we should have a positive attitude. Europe is the place where business, employment and everything else lie for us.

I move amendment S2M-381.1, to leave out from "affecting" to end and insert:

"of the constitution of the EU which seeks to reserve power over fishing to the sole competence of the EU is incompatible with Scotland's interests."

Most of us agree that there is a basic hypocrisy in the Conservative position. There is no point in burying our heads in the sand. If we accept the principle of enlargement—and this morning the Conservatives have told us that they do—we must accept the principle of reform. The Conservatives want a referendum, but they have never held one on a European treaty.

I begin by saying a few words about the process that led up to the draft constitution. Given the motion that the Conservatives have lodged, it is important to put that on record. The Scottish Parliament and its European Committee have been discussing the future of Europe for approximately three years. Almost a year ago today, the committee held an open session in the chamber with the public and United Kingdom convention representatives. The basic question that the conference tried to address was, "What is Europe for, and how can it be reformed to ensure that, post enlargement, we have more democracy, transparency and accountability and that we encourage citizen engagement?"

In the four or five minutes that have been allocated to me, I do not have time to cover the entire deliberations of the committee. Suffice it to say that, based on months of evidence taking, debates in the Parliament and consultation with the public, the European Committee made a direct submission to the convention. It also held a private meeting with the UK Government representative on the convention, Peter Hain—at which the Conservatives were represented—and circulated its views to UK convention representatives. Ninety per cent of the committee's views, which were endorsed by the Parliament, found their way into the UK submission to the convention; therefore, many were included in the draft constitution. I assume that through the IGC process, the Government will continue to articulate and negotiate those views. Perhaps the minister can assure us of that in his summing up.

When he visited the Scottish Parliament, the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, said of the European Committee's work in this area:

"I would like to pay particular tribute to the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament for its active engagement on the work of the Convention. You have been at the forefront in terms of bringing forward ideas and proposals."

The point is that there has never been more consultation on a treaty revision since the treaty of Rome. The Scottish Parliament, the European Committee and the Executive have played a full role in that consultation. It is disingenuous of the Conservatives, who did not consult on the Single European Act, the Treaty of Amsterdam or the Maastricht treaty, to ask for a referendum on the draft constitution.

Does the member agree that the consultation that has taken place has been at a political level, rather than at the level of the people? Given the increasing disengagement of the population at large from the political process, is it not the case that very few ordinary people have been engaged in the consultation?

If Mr Sheridan had listened carefully to what I said, he would have heard that there was public engagement with civic Scotland in the chamber. Young people from schools came along and presented ideas; 129 people came to the chamber. If that is not public engagement, I do not know what is. The event was designed to address the point that Mr Sheridan has made.

Europe is on our doorstep. It is not a wish, an aspiration, an idea, a dream or—if one is Phil Gallie—even a nightmare, and it will not go away. Europe is a reality. We must move forward from that reality to create opportunities for our citizens—an issue to which the first part of Tavish Scott's amendment refers.

Looking to the future, beyond constitutional change, I believe that Europe offers potential. In the past, during 18 years of Conservative Government, Europe has been a tremendous force for social change. If in the future it presents opportunities, we should be there to grasp them. We can do so if we are committed to the vision of a prosperous, peaceful Europe. That is what people told us they wanted from the European Union when we asked them in the chamber what Europe was for. We want jobs for our people, communities free from the scourge of unemployment and a European society founded on social justice, in which each can achieve to the best of their ability, regardless of race, colour or creed.

Will the member give way?

I am in the last minute of my speech.

Our choice is between integration, as proposed by the partnership parties, or isolation, as proposed by the Conservatives—between moving forward and remaining anchored in the past. Working in partnership with our UK and European neighbours, Scotland can have the best of both worlds. Fulfilling our potential as a key player in the new Europe of the 21st century, we can leave a legacy of peace and prosperity to our children and our children's children. I hope that today we will focus on those positive issues, extend the warm hand of friendship to the accession countries, many of which have set up offices in Scotland, and say to them, "Welcome to the European Union. We in Scotland are pleased to see you. Your long ice age is over. We want to work in partnership with you." I hope that we will send out that message from the chamber today.

I support Tavish Scott's amendment.

As members know, we are very tight for time. Speeches will have to be restricted to four minutes, plus a little time for interventions. One speaking slot is still available. Once Mr Sheridan and Mr Ballard have discussed how they wish to divide that up, they should let the clerks know.

Today I want to draw attention to the practical problems that EU integration is bringing to our food production industry. I declare an interest as chairman of the Scottish Association of Farmers Markets and as a farmer.

In particular, I want to deal with the problems faced by small butchers and, further up the food chain, food producers. I start by addressing one of the problems facing the meat trade: the confusion of butchers as the 1 October deadline for the implementation of EU legislation approaches. In the past, local butchers disposed of waste products in landfill, but from 1 October new EU directives and regulations will require all carcase waste to be rendered, incinerated or composted. The Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Association estimates that the new regime will cost small butchers' shops about £7,500 annually. That will affect butchers not only in my constituency but throughout Scotland. Consumers will not be any better off, but many local butchers that are already on the knife edge of viability will be unable to stand the additional cost and might go out of business. That is all driven by needless EU regulation.

At the beginning of the food chain, farmers are facing a similar problem with the disposal of fallen stock, as Tavish Scott will know. An implementation date of 1 October looms, with no scheme in place in Scotland. The blame for the lack of an appropriate scheme to pick up fallen stock must be laid firmly at the feet of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A piece of EU legislation that is greatly exciting sheep farmers at the moment is the proposed implementation of an EU-wide sheep-tagging scheme, which George Lyon will know about. The proposals as they stand are unworkable. The record-keeping involved for individual sheep tagging and movement recording will be so complicated that farmers and their staff will be unable to carry out the recording as well as farm.

Those are examples of current or proposed pieces of EU legislation that are likely to destroy or damage parts of the food production industry. They will not benefit consumers in any way whatever, but will export jobs and services to other parts of the world, where, ironically, such constraints will not apply.

Those examples affect the industry that I come from, but they are indicative of the burden of red tape and bureaucracy that industries throughout Scotland and the UK have to deal with constantly. They are classic examples of how additional cost burdens caused by European legislation reduce the viability of business and are indicative of the malaise that is keeping the powerhouses of the European economy, namely France and Germany, in the doldrums. They are manifestations of creeping and centralising government and diktats that sap the will to succeed of small businessmen throughout the country. They are examples of the hundreds and thousands of needless pieces of EU legislation.

Will the member give way?

I am just finishing.

They are reasons why we must not rush headlong into further European integration and why there is a need for a referendum on the EU constitution. They are the reasons why I urge members to support Phil Gallie's motion.

This debate was trailed in the past week as being about the euro and the governance of Europe, but we have not heard a single word from the Tories about the euro.

In the past week, Murdo Fraser has lodged a motion about the Swedish experience. I am just back from Sweden, having gone to observe the euro referendum. I pay tribute to Anna Lindh, whom I met the week before she was murdered so dreadfully. She will be a grave loss to every pro-European throughout the world. I am sure that she was destined to be a leader of the Swedish people and it is very sad that she is no longer with us.

The member said that Anna Lindh will be a loss to every pro-European. Surely in the world of politics, anybody who takes a conscientious stand should be missed by every politician.

I accept that totally. I do not demur from that point.

Less than a year ago, the opinion polls in Sweden showed that 70 per cent of the Swedish people were in favour of the euro. Murdo Fraser has made much play of the part that the media played in the referendum. Contrary to what the Tories are saying, the media did not concentrate on issues around the euro. In fact, they concentrated on the splits in the Social Democratic Party, the Government team and the trade unions. The people did not really have a chance to hear what the issues were and did not understand—

Will the member give way?

No. I do not have time just now.

There is an interesting parallel in this morning's debate with the situation in Fife Council, where the Tories make common cause with the communists on these issues. As always with the underlying issue of the virtues or otherwise of euro membership, opinion is divided.

While there is much sound and fury over any future referendum on the euro and much coverage in the media, the British are still the least well-informed, by their own reckoning, of any of the citizens of EU member countries. There is little systematic, structured or objective information available to policy makers and the citizenry, and there is no real forum for people's views to be aired. There is little open debate that is not led by either the protagonists or the antagonists—there are no objective and trusted middlemen leading the debate. Apart from the one that Irene Oldfather mentioned, we have declined to set up any forum for consultation and deliberation or for the public to expose the issues surrounding the decision whether to enter the single European currency. Instead we rely on the testimony of expert witnesses including economists, pundits, trade union leaders, journalists and pollsters. We would do well to reflect on the difference between a referendum and an opinion poll. Polls are on-going—here today, gone tomorrow—and they are not binding. When an interviewer asks about our opinions, attitudes, values, behaviour or knowledge, what we say is not binding.

If we are so ill-informed about European issues, as the member claims, does she agree that the best way in which to bring those issues out so that they can be properly debated is to have a referendum?

Her Majesty's Government is committed to having a referendum on the euro. There is no question about that and it is not at issue. I will move on quickly.

The answer to the question whether we should join the euro depends on which way we look. If we look back in time, it is obvious that the US dollar has been of unique importance to the United Kingdom economy. With the demise of sterling under the burden of financing the second world war, the dollar became the world's principal trading and reserve currency. Commodities became priced and traded in dollars and the Bretton Woods arrangements confirmed the global supremacy of the dollar. Given the UK economy's dependence on foreign trade, managing the relationship between sterling and the dollar has been critical to successive British Governments over the years.

We need to look forward not just 10 or 20 years but 50 or 100 years and to consider two scenarios. The first is one in which the UK remains outside the euro. In those circumstances, the significance of the euro to the UK economy is likely to grow from its lowish base at present. In time, the euro's significance may come to rival that of the dollar. There is likely to be a delicate balancing act between the two. If sterling does not become part of the euro, the answer to the issues raised in the motion is simple. The dollar will undoubtedly remain the most significant currency outside the euroland economy, as it is already. I and my colleagues in the Government hope that we will become part of the euro. We must subscribe to the economic tests of Gordon Brown, my colleague at Westminster.

I begin by expressing gratitude to the Executive, on behalf of the SNP, for supporting what our amendment says about fishing. The future of the fishing industry matters to the whole of Scotland, not just to the fishing communities that are directly affected. Any further threat to the industry must be resisted at all costs, irrespective of the source of the threat.

I will try to widen out this debate on the future of Europe because I believe that there is a major problem inside the European Union. I say that as someone who firmly believes that Scotland's future lies inside the European Union, ideally as an independent member state. There is undoubtedly a huge gulf between those who run the European Union and the people of the European Union. That was exemplified in the Swedish referendum last week. Despite what Helen Eadie said, the yes campaign was very well funded. It was supported by all the leading business organisations and all the—

Let me finish. I will give way to Helen Eadie in a moment.

The yes campaign was supported by all the trade unions and all the main political parties. Despite the universal support of the political and economic establishment, the people of Sweden refused to accept the euro. That was not just a judgment on the euro. There is a general feeling throughout the European Union that those who are driving towards centralisation and driving through policies that appear alien, if not downright daft, are creating conditions in which people become increasingly sceptical or sometimes even hostile to the whole concept of the European Union.

Alex Neil is distorting the facts. The fact is that there was equal funding for all political parties in the euro debate in Sweden. Money went to all the political parties from the lottery, trade unions, party memberships and the state. In fact, the media did not play a part in educating the people on the issues, and instead focused on the splits within all the political parties, particularly those in the Social Democratic Party.

The fact is that although the whole Swedish establishment was in favour of the euro and campaigned vigorously in favour of it, the people told it to get lost. As one Eurocrat observed last week, every time there has been a referendum in any country in the European Union, the result has been a very narrow yes vote or, as has been the case on most occasions, a no vote. The problem is not confined to Sweden or Scotland; it is a universal problem in the European Union.

Will the member give way?

Unfortunately, I do not have time.

Politicians—particularly in the European Commission and elsewhere in Europe—had better listen to the people because, if we do not, they will turn against the whole concept of the European Union and its positive aspects.

Will the member give way?

I do not have time.

That is why a referendum is absolutely essential. Every time we take a major step forward in respect of the European Union—or every time we take a major step, whether one regards it as a step forward or not—we must take the people with us. If we do not, the people will lose interest.

I have some points to make on the euro, although unfortunately, because of the time, I will not be able to develop them in the way I would like. Irrespective of one's position on the euro, the one thing that I would like the Executive to have the courage to do is to undertake an assessment of the impact of UK membership of the euro on the Scottish economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has published 28 papers on the euro, but the issues that are raised in the paper on the housing market, for example, relate to the market in the south-east of England and are entirely different from the issues facing the housing market in Scotland. We should have an informed debate when we come to the euro referendum, whenever it takes place. Whether one is on the yes side or on the no side, we should at least have an informed debate about the impact on the Scottish economy.

It is a great pity that this debate is curtailed to one hour. I hope that we will have a much more wide-ranging debate on the future of Europe in the not-too-distant future. However, the main message has to be "Take the people with us", because if we do not we will sow the seeds of the destruction of the European Union in years to come.

I am grateful to the Greens and the SSP for helping with the management of this debate. The next speaker is Mr Ballard.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, although I am disappointed that it appears to be impossible for the third and fourth-largest political parties to make a full contribution to the debate. [Interruption.] I mean the third and fourth-largest Opposition parties. [Interruption.] Could members let me speak, please?

The UK Government's line has been that there should not be a referendum on the convention, because it is a tidying-up exercise. I emphasise the point that has already been made: it is not a tidying-up exercise.

I refer to three articles of the draft constitution in particular. Article 10, on European Union law, states:

"The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."

That is new. It was not in previous treaties. Article 6, on the legal personality, states:

"The Union shall have legal personality."

Article 8, on citizenship of the European Union, states:

"Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it."

The key point is that a new citizenship is being introduced.

Does Mark Ballard accept that under articles 1 and 9 of the treaty, the member states confer competences on the European Union, therefore conferral goes from the member states to the European Union, not vice versa?

The fundamental question is whether we are we moving towards a European superstate—a federal Europe—or whether we are staying at the level of a Europe of nations. The problem with the constitution is that that is not clear. Irene Oldfather is correct that articles appear to argue in terms of conferral, and there is fairly strong emphasis on subsidiarity, but there is a great deal in the constitution that hands additional powers to the Council of Ministers. The fundamental problem with the constitution is that it is a muddle and is not clear.

Some powers will be exclusive competences of the European Union and some will be shared between the European Union and the member states. That is a poor way to define a constitution. Can members imagine a situation where powers were shared between this Parliament and the Westminster Parliament? Can members imagine a situation where the Scotland Act 1998 stated that responsibility for asylum, for example, was to be shared between this Parliament and the Westminster Parliament? Can members imagine the mess and muddle that that would cause? That is the central problem with the constitution—it lacks a clear vision. It does not actually help the important debate about whether we go for a single, federal European super-state.

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

No. The member is in his last minute. Everyone knows that speeches are limited to four minutes, and three minutes and 40 seconds is into the last minute.

I would have taken those interventions. I am sorry.

For the reasons I have outlined, I believe that the constitution is bad and unclear. There is an important debate to be had about the future direction that we want for the European Union. As it stands, the constitution does not help us. That is why we need to hold a proper debate, through a referendum and the discussions that will be engendered by it, on where we stand and on the wider issues, which are not clarified by the constitution.

In Sweden, it was the Swedish Green Party and the Left Party, the sister party of the SSP, that led the campaign against the constitution.

You are beyond four minutes—you are at four minutes and 20-odd seconds. Wind up, please.

Across Europe, from all sides of the political spectrum, there is wide opposition to the constitution and to the European Union, which lacks transparency and the ability to act in the interests of the people, and which continues to act in a closed, centralised and opaque fashion. That is why I support Phil Gallie's motion.

The Conservative motion is nothing if not topical. The European Parliament yesterday endorsed the outcome of the European convention and the convening of an intergovernmental conference. The debate, however, is slightly inconsistent with the message given by David McLetchie—who, unfortunately, has left the chamber—on Monday, when he said that the electorate was put off by the Parliament constantly debating the constitution of Scotland. So instead, we debate, under a Conservative motion, the constitution of Europe. It gives us another opportunity to fill more pages of the Official Report with speeches on the convention, and to debate a motion that the Westminster Parliament debated last week.

I can only repeat the position that I and Liberal Democrat colleagues have expressed on a number of occasions in the past, in both the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments.

Does the member acknowledge that Mr McLetchie's concern arises from his involvement in the legal scene? Does he accept that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that is contained within the constitution will have a major undermining effect on Scottish law? Is that not justification for any member to raise the issue?

The legal argument was put forward by the member's learned colleague Mr Ancram in the debate at Westminster. I refer him to Hansard for that.

I believe that it is in the long-term interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom to be active players at the heart of Europe. Given the enlargement of the EU and the breadth of the organisation, it will be more important than ever that Scotland and the UK play their part in building coalitions, defining the strategy and direction of the EU and ensuring that we exploit its benefits. It is in that regard that I support the Executive's amendment.

My constituency benefits from the investment of European structural funds. That is a live issue, given the enlargement of the EU and the possibility that such funds will cease in the future. I was more than a little disappointed when the SNP and the Conservatives chose to attack me in the media for securing a members' business debate on that subject; that was shameful.

We are living in an increasingly interdependent world—pollution, crime and war do not respect borders. In the global economy, European countries are stronger with an integrated market and a single currency. The message that countries in the EU can better defend the interests of their citizens by sharing power—a point on which I disagree strongly with Alex Neil—is supported by the people of Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Estonia, each of which has held a referendum on entering the EU. In the case of Slovakia, the yes vote was 92.4 per cent.

I hear what the member says about the fact that the accession states voted positively. As someone who visited the Baltic states under the auspices of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office during the Soviet occupation, I can say that those people looked towards the European Union as an economic and social polar star.

As a Liberal Democrat, I fully endorse the concept of those nations pooling sovereignty and sharing the burden and the opportunities. I separate myself from the SNP on the concept of moving away and detracting policy.

I would be more sympathetic towards the Conservatives' motion if they took a consistent view on referenda and on membership of the EU. The Conservatives do not wish to have a separate referendum in Scotland, nor do they wish foreign affairs to be a devolved matter. It is hypocritical that they wish to debate the proposed constitutional treaty. As the matter is reserved, it is no surprise that the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament take the same view as our Westminster colleagues. Our view is that, as a matter of principle, a referendum is necessary when a Government produces proposals on Europe that would involve a major shift in control, any transfer of significant powers from member states to European institutions or any alteration to the existing balance between member states and those institutions.

I believe that the convention proposals raise issues of constitutional significance in relation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the passerelle clause and the right to withdraw. However, we live in a United Kingdom, in which that issue is reserved to Westminster. If it were to respect that concept, the Parliament would be doing a service to the people.

I call Mike Rumbles for a two-minute speech.

When I first read the motion, it seemed somewhat attractive, but Phil Gallie's speech bore little relation to the motion. I would not touch with a bargepole a motion on Europe that Phil Gallie had lodged. Tavish Scott spoke about the Conservatives' "naked anti-Europeanism", which was clear for all to see. Mr Iain Duncan Smith has ended the civil war on Europe in the Tory party; it is clear that the lunatics in the Tory party are in charge of the asylum. [Interruption.] I have obviously touched a raw nerve with the Conservatives.

We need a positive engagement with Europe. In the debate so far, we have failed to focus on the European constitution. I take issue with the rather extreme view of the Greens, as expressed by Mark Ballard, who seem to be in association with the right-wing Tories in the Parliament.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am afraid that I have only about 50 seconds left.

Thank God.

Well done, Phil.

The proposed EU constitution will limit the powers of Europe by defining the constitution in writing.

Will the member give way?

I cannot, although I would do so normally.

There will be a clear limitation on the constitution of the new Europe. Alex Neil made some good points, but my colleague Jeremy Purvis showed that the people of Europe have a very positive view and that is what we must focus on.

I will also allow John Swinburne two minutes to make a brief point.

In the event of the UK's adoption of a single European currency, stringent legislation would have to be introduced to avoid the pitfalls of the last currency change in the UK. The introduction of decimalisation just over 30 years ago coincided with an overall hike in the cost of living. Everything was increased in price through the creative accountancy process of transposing prices to the decimal system. There is no doubt that the same will happen when Scotland, or rather the UK, embraces the euro. Senior citizens, who work with very restricted budgets, will suffer a particular disadvantage.

The adoption of a European constitution could only be beneficial for those of my generation. Members should look at the difference between the state of French and German senior citizens and the state of those in the UK, 20 per cent of whom still live below the Government's own poverty level. That is shameful. Whatever term is used to describe that poverty—absolute poverty, relative poverty or any other kind of poverty that the socialists want to call it—it still amounts to being very poor.

My generation would welcome any improvement in standards forced on us by Europe. Gordon Brown might baulk at the living standards of some of the elderly in Europe—the 75p award that he made a couple of years ago bore witness to that—but, along with everyone else, he would just have to follow the European line.

I am encouraged by the constitution, which seeks to give fundamental rights, such as rights to property, which do not apply in this civilised country. It is shameful that senior citizens in possession of their homes still have to sell their houses to pay for their residential care.

With members of the SNP ripping out each other's entrails in Inverness, I welcome the opportunity to participate in a debate with the real Opposition, as David McLetchie describes his party. That said, I see that John Swinney has taken the precaution of keeping his Rottweiler in chief chained up here in Edinburgh while all the other members of the SNP are in Inverness.

Me!

Sorry, Margaret.

One would think that the Tories would take the opportunity to set out their core beliefs on the key social and economic questions over which this Parliament has jurisdiction and to give the electorate an opportunity to assess the Tories' alternative vision for Scotland within the UK. Instead, as Jeremy Purvis pointed out, the Conservatives have chosen to debate constitutional issues that are properly reserved to Westminster and on which their party has been divided for nearly two decades.

We should probably not draw too many parallels between Dr Bill Wilson and Kenneth Clarke, although both are detested by the leadership of their respective parties, not because they disagree with the official party line, but because they expose the gaping holes that John Swinney and Iain Duncan Smith seek to paper over.

In the Tories' case, as Tavish Scott pointed out, the motivating factor seems to be an animus that is directed at Europe. It is not possible to have a rational debate about Europe with the Tories. They cannot express clearly what might well be legitimate concerns about the direction that Europe is taking by having a debate about how the common agricultural policy should be modified, about the deficiencies of the fishing policy or about the lack of a co-ordinated foreign policy as a counterbalance to the international dominance of the USA.

Instead, Tory criticism of Europe is dominated by two factors. First, the Tories were heavily involved in the formulation and development of some of those policies. They were involved in debates about the CAP and the common fisheries policy. Secondly, the Conservatives are so fundamentally, gut-wrenchingly opposed to Europe that they are simply incapable of having a rational debate.

It is interesting that the Tories' opposition to Europe is so irrational that they have taken themselves away from their normal constituency. Look at what businesses say about Europe compared with what the Conservatives say. Some 52 per cent of our trade is with Europe. Businesses are strongly supportive of EU membership. That is not only because they want to protect access to European markets, as we could have much of that access whether or not we were inside Europe. The crucial thing is that we have the membership rights within Europe to determine how businesses and our economy operate. If we lose those membership rights—whether they are taken away or, as the Tories suggest, given away—in effect we will become powerless and potentially bankrupt.

Instead, we need to consider how we strengthen our role within Europe. As Helen Eadie said, we need to have a debate on the euro to consider whether and on what terms we should join the euro.

We need to have that debate in a rational way, not in the way that that lot want to have it.

Let me say one thing about referendums. The Tories have never had a referendum on Europe. The Maastricht treaty made fundamental changes in the terms of trade in Europe and in the arrangements within Europe, but did the Tories have a referendum on it? Did they hell.

They were right not to have one, though.

That may be so.

I recall that the most successful referendum that we had in Scotland was the water referendum, but what did the Tories do with that? Some 70 per cent of people said no to their proposals, but the Tories ignored that result. We are still paying for the consequences of the fact that the Tories ignored democratic procedures.

I do not care too much for having a debate unless people are prepared to debate rationally and to operate within democratic frameworks. Let us have some honesty from the Conservatives on the issue. They have had an opportunity to debate the issues, but I do not think that they have delivered.

I always enjoy listening to Phil Gallie because he has such marvellous selective amnesia. He showed that again this morning, when he said that handing powers over to Europe was a kick in the teeth for those who had fought for the Scottish Parliament. I certainly cannot remember any of those who sit on the Tory benches fighting for the Scottish Parliament.

Will the member take an intervention?

Gosh, okay.

As I mentioned, it must be recognised that, in Sweden, opposition to the euro was led by people from the Left Party and the Swedish Green Party. In Ireland, opposition was led by people from the Socialist Party and the Green Party. Opposition to the convention and to the euro is not confined to people on the right.

Thanks very much.

Phil Gallie also spoke about his worry over the loss of sovereignty. The SNP's concern is that Scotland does not have any sovereignty. Phil Gallie talked about UK sovereignty. I want some Scottish sovereignty. That is what we are all about.

Like Linda Fabiani, Alex Neil made it clear that the SNP believes in independence within Europe. Our problem with that is that the proposed constitution will result in there being no independence for any country within Europe.

I do not agree with Alex Johnstone's view on that. The constitution is still being considered. We broadly welcome the constitution, but some elements of it give us serious concerns, which were also outlined by Mark Ballard.

One thing that bothers me is that, whenever I go over to Europe to speak or to take part in fora, Scotland is termed a region. People say to me, "You are from the regional Parliament in Scotland." Scotland is not, and never has been, a region. Scotland is a country and a nation. The constitution needs to recognise the principle of self-determination, but that is absent at the moment. Whether or not members agree with Scottish independence, they must agree that every nation has the right to progress with the will of the people of that nation. We should not shut one of the doors that would allow that to happen. I hope that everyone in the chamber will agree that Scotland is a nation and that we should have the right to achieve full self-determination as a nation within any constitution for Europe.

Does the member recognise that Scotland already has self-determination and that, at every turn, independence has been rejected by the people of Scotland?

I recognise that every nation has the right to move forward. The people of Scotland have the right to reject independence, if they so choose, but they also have a right to vote for it—no matter how many years down the line—if that is what they want. We should not shut off that opportunity by not providing for the right to self-determination in the European constitution.

We must also recognise, as Alex Neil said, that people do not feel that they are part of the European Union. Quite often, that is the fault of the way that the Government relates to Europe. On mainland Europe, people feel much more European than we do in the UK. Even Ireland has a much more European feel about it than the UK. I feel strongly that that is because of the way in which UK Governments relate to Europe and because of some of the language that they use about the European Union.

I will finish by picking up on what Irene Oldfather said, which I very much agree with, about the aim of Europe being to have a peaceful Europe. I completely and utterly agree with that and, in that regard, I am a Europhile. However, I want Europe to be a force for world peace. The UK does not promote world peace when it looks across the Atlantic instead of looking to Europe. That is another reason why I want Scotland to be an independent nation in Europe. Scotland would benefit from Europe, but Europe would also benefit from Scotland.

I really know that the Tories are wrong on this issue when I recall the times that, like most members, I have spoken to and debated with modern studies classes around our constituencies and regions of Scotland. Time and again, issues are raised about how Europe and the world have changed. As politicians of our day, we are asked about enlargement, about the great wars that this nation has fought and about the carnage of the two world wars that so disfigured Europe. That was the overwhelming motive of those behind the fledgling European Coal and Steel Community—

Will the minister give way?

No. Let me finish.

Enlargement is of enormous political significance as it comes only 14 years after the collapse of the Berlin wall and the subsequent collapse of the Warsaw pact.

All those immense issues have confronted us in our short political time. Even in the lifetime of this Parliament, some important issues have emerged and, time and again, we are asked about Scotland's relationship with those issues. As Linda Fabiani said, the European role in all that is important and significant. The Conservatives are wrong because they simply do not understand how strongly many of the coming generations feel about those things and how they realise that Europe is an important part of that process.

There is a huge difference between having an informed debate on the future of Europe and having a referendum. That is why I have no truck with the Conservative position. Let us be completely honest—

Will the minister give way?

Let me finish this point.

In a referendum, the debate would be polarised and the issues would be narrowed and squeezed so that they could be projected in black and white. What we need in Europe—

Will the minister give way?

No. I will finish this point, then I will give way.

The point was made in different ways by Alex Neil, Jeremy Purvis, Helen Eadie and Des McNulty and I agree with the theme of what they said. What we need in Europe is real engagement with the people's agenda—I see Mr Sheridan nodding his head—and with the citizens of Europe. We need real engagement on Europe across a period of time so that those of us who believe in it strongly—and, in fairness, those who do not—can demonstrate and articulate that. We need to be able to do that properly over a period of time. In a short, concentrated three-week period, we will never achieve a real debate about the matters that will confront us not just over the next year but over the next 10, 50 or 100 years. That is the process that we need.

It is extraordinary that Mr Scott is arguing against his party's policy of having a referendum on the European constitution. Why does he argue against his party leader?

I just despair at times in this chamber. We need to consider how we take forward a debate across the range of those issues. Yes, we will have a referendum on particular matters, but it is more important in the longer term that we build a consensus—not even a consensus but a debate—about what must happen in Europe, how we must develop Europe and why Europe is so important.

Will the minister give way?

No. I will not give way to Mark Ballard, because I will come back to the points that he made.

I hope that I have reflected where the Executive stands on those wider issues.

Irene Oldfather asked about the European convention. I assure her that we will continue to press her points and the points that were made by the European and External Relations Committee.

I have two observations to make about the Conservatives. If anything defines the Conservatives' position on Europe, it is the fact that two of their MEPs, Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer, campaigned for a no vote in the Estonian referendum on membership of the EU. Roger Helmer MEP is, apparently, classic; he visited Malta, Slovakia and Estonia to campaign for a no vote and he has a 100 per cent failure rate. I presume that that is the Tory definition of a strategic success these days.

I understand that Murdo Fraser has to sum up for the Tories, but I have a final observation. I was able to find out that Mr Fraser is still a member of the Bruges group.

No I am not.

I must give Mr Fraser the website address, because I found his name on it. It will be interesting to reflect on Mr Fraser's membership of the Bruges group along with those well-known Europeans Norman Tebbit, John Redwood, and Christopher Gill. That sums up the Conservative party's approach to Europe.

I am afraid that Mr Scott will have to do his research a bit better in future.

Why are we having this debate? Eighty-two per cent of the British people want to have a referendum on the EU constitution. The Conservative party wants to have a referendum, as do the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Green party, the Scottish Socialist Party and Mr Swinburne. There is a clear majority of people in Scotland and in the Parliament who want a referendum on the EU constitution.

The most striking aspect of the debate has been the shameless behaviour of the Liberal Democrats and their cheerleader, Mr Scott.

Will the member take an intervention?

In a second.

Clearly, the Liberal Democrats have been reading the campaign handbook, which says that they must act shamelessly. That is exactly what we have heard from them today. Nationally they say that they want to have a referendum, but in the chamber they slither and squirm and try to get out of it. Why? Because they are so out of touch with public opinion.

Will the member give way?

In a second.

The Liberal Democrats are being told at their national conference that they must downplay their stance on Europe because it is unpopular with the voters.

In my intervention on Mr McLetchie, I made clear my position and the position of my party. Will the member confirm that, in the autumn of 2002, he signed the Bruges group paper, "Top down is the wrong way up!"? He is a signatory to that paper with Lord Tebbit, John Redwood and Christopher Gill, who are all well-known Eurosceptics. If he is proud of that, perhaps he will explain that honestly to the people of Scotland.

I signed that paper and I am proud of it.

Does Murdo Fraser agree that the most shameful and disgusting comments that we heard this morning came from Mike Rumbles? Given that my party and the Parliament agreed to reduce the stigma of mental health problems when we passed the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, I ask my colleague Murdo Fraser to ask Mike Rumbles to apologise to the chamber.

Mary Scanlon has made the point well. Perhaps we will hear from Mr Rumbles later.

Does the member agree that, contrary to what Tavish Scott said, after the two Irish referendums on the Nice treaty, the Irish population were incredibly well-informed about what the Nice treaty implied, far more so than the UK people have been after any debate?

Mr Ballard has made a good point, if I may say so. It is typical for those who see public opinion going against them to say that we must have a proper debate, but when we propose a mechanism for having such a debate—a referendum—they get cold feet.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I have taken three interventions in a row and I must deal with more points that were raised in the debate.

Irene Oldfather and others made the point that the Conservatives did not hold a referendum when they were in Government. They are absolutely right but, let us face it, times have changed. The Government has had referenda on a bewildering variety of issues. There was a referendum on whether Middlesbrough should have an elected mayor. There was a referendum on whether Hartlepool should have an elected mayor—and they ended up electing a monkey. The Government, which has had referenda on all those issues, cannot bring itself to hold a referendum on the fundamental issue of the new European constitution. According to Peter Hain, the constitution would have substantial constitutional significance.

The Government will not hold a referendum because it knows that it would lose. That demonstrates its utter contempt for the views of the Scottish people on the issue. The Parliament has a duty to make it clear to Tony Blair that we will not accept that situation.

Helen Eadie said that we are ill-informed about the issues and I quite agree. That is why we must have a referendum, so that we can have a proper discussion of the issues, let the arguments for and against be aired, and let the people decide.

The SNP made a comment about fishing, which is a vital issue. I heard Margaret Ewing mention my colleague Struan Stevenson, who is the president of the European committee on fisheries. It is incumbent upon him to represent the views of the UK Government in relation to the constitution and the fact that it might enshrine the CFP. That is not the position of the Conservative party.

Will the member give way?

I cannot give way to the member because I do not have time.

Yesterday in the European Parliament, Struan Stevenson made it clear that that is not his personal position and that he fully endorses Conservative party policy. That was underlined by Iain Duncan Smith in Perth on Saturday, when he said:

"A future Conservative government will ‘unilaterally withdraw' from the CFP if national control of fishing stocks cannot be renegotiated".

I trust that all members paid close attention to the recent Swedish referendum on the single currency. Sweden is a small country, as is Scotland, and despite all the relentless pressure from the Swedish establishment, to which Alex Neil referred, the Swedes whole-heartedly rejected the euro. That was a resounding victory for the ordinary citizens of Europe whose views are consistently ignored by the self-styled statesmen in Brussels.

The greatest weakness of the EU in its current guise is its woeful lack of democratic accountability. It is, therefore, a disgrace that the First Minister and his deputy are pressing ahead with their involvement in the so-called Scottish euro preparations committee, with a view to bouncing the Scottish people into the euro against their will.

If Europe is to move forward with the consent of its people, it is essential that the Parliament stands up for the interests of Scotland and insists that Her Majesty's Government holds a national referendum on the proposed European constitution. A referendum is supported by members from all round the chamber. It is the policy of the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Greens, the SSP and the SSCUP. The Labour party should support the Conservative motion; its members know they want to.