Constitutional Law

Debate between Pamela Nash and Pete Wishart

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this momentous debate for the young people of Scotland. I am often referred to as a young person in debates such as this because I am the youngest MP in Parliament. I feel increasingly fraudulent about that claim, however, as I must be—now in my 30s—the oldest youngest MP for quite some time! I continue to appreciate being referred to as a young person. [Interruption.] I thank hon. Members for saying that I do not look my age—and I am glad that that will now be on the record for eternity.

Today’s order will devolve the control of the franchise of the Scottish Parliament to its rightful place—the Scottish Parliament. It seems ludicrous now that that was not done at its establishment. There appears to be a consensus among the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Even the Tory leader Ruth Davidson, who had previously said that she was opposed to this move has reportedly, like many others, changed her view. She said that her referendum experience of young voters had changed her mind. I look forward to her Westminster colleagues following suit. Many others previously unsure about the move to lower the voting age now concede that there is no going back after the referendum in Scotland, where we saw our young people thoughtfully and passionately engage in the debate on the future of their country.

As I say, there has been consensus, but I was disappointed by the tone adopted by the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and, in an intervention, for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). They seemed to be trying to seek divisions in the debate when there is cross-party support for the devolution of the power and for votes at 16 in elections for the Scottish Parliament. At the time, some did not agree that young people of 16 or 17 in Scotland should have the vote in the referendum. There will be some examples of that, of course, but my overwhelming recollections of the debate and the conversations people were having at the time was that there was support for votes at 16. There was, however, strong scepticism—even from myself, a long-term supporter of votes at 16—about the SNP’s view that the power should be devolved for the purpose of the referendum when they had not called for the franchise to be devolved previously.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady is, of course, right about the consensus: we all agree on all this. Surely, however, she could bring herself to acknowledge the fact that it was the Scottish Government who introduced this measure. No Labour Members have mentioned the role of the Scottish Government, and they seem reluctant to say that it was the SNP Scottish Government who introduced votes for 16 and 17-year-olds first.

[Pamela Nash]

I welcomed it at the time, and I congratulated the Scottish Government on it. I am happy to do so again tonight, but it was not done on their own—there was cross-party support for it at the time. I welcome the fact that they did it, but there is this overwhelming scepticism about why it had not happened in the past and that over the years of the SNP Government they had not once asked for the devolution of the franchise and the ability to lower the vote to 16. I was disappointed that it took them so long. However, I am happy that the franchise is to be devolved, and that it is the policy of my party to allow votes for 16-year-olds throughout the United Kingdom and not just in Scotland.

Let me say a little about my career before I entered the House. As some may know, I was a Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament. At that time, “Votes at 16” was a big campaign. I was very much a part of that campaign, along with the rest of the Youth Parliament, and I am still a keen campaigner today. I remember visiting for the first time, as a Member of the Youth Parliament, a class of 16 and 17-year-olds—who were not much younger than I was—at Calderhead school in Shotts, which is still my constituency. I clearly recall that, when I asked those young people whether they wanted the vote, most of them said that they did not. I have had the same experience several times since, as a Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament and also as a Member of this Parliament.

Those young people told me that they did not think they knew enough about politics and current affairs to make the decision, and also felt that many of their peers would not take it seriously. I pointed out to them that I knew people of every age who that might apply to, and that no one was suggesting that 40 and 50-year-olds should not be able to vote on political issues, or should be subjected to a competence test before being able to do so—and neither should we suggest that. People of all ages should be able to use their knowledge and experience of life to choose who they want to represent them, and in my view 16 and 17-year-olds are no less capable of doing that than those aged 18 and over.

Some people—and I have heard it in this place—use such anecdotes and polls that show that young people do not want the vote at 16 and 17 to say that they should not be given the vote. I would argue that the level of self-awareness among these young people, and their readiness to research, learn and take their votes seriously, suggests that they are more than ready to take on the responsibility of choosing their representatives—and it is a responsibility. We must remember that, and highlight it. We often discuss the right to vote, but it is not just a right; it is a responsibility as well. It is a shame that a third of people of all ages did not vote in the last general election, and I hope that that will change in the next election.

My main reason for campaigning for votes at 16 has already been mentioned by other Members in this debate. Lowering the voting age will ensure that many more young people will still be in full-time education as they prepare to cast their first votes. I hope that young people who are still at school or college will learn about the responsibility that they must take, and about the importance and impact of their votes. I hope that they will be more likely to vote because members of their peer groups will initiate conversations about the upcoming election and encourage them to participate. I agree with others that, in casting the first vote for which they are eligible, they will establish a habit for life.

We often hear about voter apathy, although the Scottish referendum was a recent exception to the rule. In fact, the turnout for the 2010 general election, especially among young people, was higher than the 2005 turnout: it rose from 38.2% to 51.8%. That represents a change in a trend that had lasted for decades. We must nurture the momentum, and encourage young people to participate fully in our electoral system.

I am delighted that we are taking this important step towards giving a vote in next year’s Scottish parliamentary elections to 16 and 17-year-olds in my constituency and throughout Scotland, and I look forward to the day when that is replicated throughout the United Kingdom.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Debate between Pamela Nash and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

What an extraordinary and remarkable event the referendum was. It was absolutely fantastic. None of us, whether on the no side or the yes side, will ever forget what we have been through over the past few months. It became almost a festival of politics towards the end. There were impromptu flash mobs, gatherings and get-togethers. It energised and engaged the Scottish people in a way that we never foresaw or imagined. It was absolutely incredible. I just wish that we could do it again.

We probably now have the most engaged and educated population on political issues anywhere in Europe. People want to remain engaged. They are joining political parties. We have bucked the trend on that. There are now more than 80,000 people in the Scottish National party. We have trebled our membership since the referendum, as have the Greens. All the other parties that took part have seen massive increases. I cannot speak for the no parties—they will be able to say what has happened to their memberships—but what has happened in the yes movement is incredible.

Many people in Scotland, because they are interested and want to be engaged, will be watching this debate. A lot of them will be watching in horror and will be appalled. The Scottish people thought that in the week that we came back after the independence referendum, we would have the Floor of the House to discuss these issues. We thought that the referendum would have the exclusive attention of the House. Surely the solemn vow, the promise, the guarantee of extensive new powers for Scotland deserves a full day’s debate, without the consideration of any other issue.

I sympathise totally with English Members. Of course they should have English votes for English laws. We do not vote on England-only issues. There are several reasons for that. First, we respect English Members. They have every right to demand exclusive rights to vote on England-only legislation. Secondly, it would be a waste of my time. What would be the point of me, as the Member for Perth and North Perthshire, voting on policing arrangements in Peckham or Plymouth, when that issue is handled by another Parliament? Of course English Members should have that.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

No, I will not give way.

[Hon. Members]

Give way!

[Pamela Nash]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. People in Scotland will know that the SNP and the yes campaign spoke about the fact that any vote on NHS policy in England in this place has an impact on the block grant to Scotland. Will he therefore say why SNP Members did not vote on those policies in the past? Can he name any Bill that has passed through this Parliament in the past year that has not impacted on his constituents and mine?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. When we talk about England-only legislation, we are talking about legislation that does not impact on Scotland. Our group of MPs discusses that issue every week. I could explain to her our whip on legislation that significantly impacts on Scotland. For example, we voted on tuition fees—[Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Lady’s question. We voted on tuition fees because that vote had a massive impact on Scottish higher education. It was right that we did that. However, there are other issues that should not concern us one ounce.

This House made one of the most important and solemn vows that has ever been made by a Member of Parliament in modern political history. It was signed by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

Bedroom Tax (Scotland)

Debate between Pamela Nash and Pete Wishart

Thursday 8th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

It is good for Scottish Members of Parliament to have an opportunity to debate the bedroom tax and its impact on Scottish constituents and constituencies. As well as examining the specific problems and effects in Scotland, the report considers what should be done to mitigate those problems. We were inspired to produce our report by the policy’s impact on our constituents and the constituents of colleagues across Scotland—across parties, Members were concerned. I was delighted to welcome the Committee to my hometown of Airdrie to see the impact of the bedroom tax and what is being done in Airdrie and throughout north Lanarkshire.

Before the inquiry started, I campaigned on the bedroom tax in my constituency. At the beginning of my campaign I started a joint campaign with the local Scottish National party. That had not been done before, but we came together as two local political parties because we were united in our anger at the UK Government—the Tories and the Lib Dems—for introducing the policy, which was doing so much harm in our local area. Unfortunately, it quickly became clear to us in Scotland that the Scottish Government were not doing everything they could have done, and with regret the happy partnership ended rather quickly.

When the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), spoke earlier, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was chuntering as usual, and I want to get it on the record. What he said—please correct me if I am wrong—is that it was ridiculous that the Chair of the Select Committee dared to mention that the Scottish Government had played politics on this issue by announcing that the bedroom tax has now been fully mitigated.

The Scottish Government let people suffer for more than a year. Some 82,000 households across Scotland have suffered, losing, on average, £50 a week. By definition, those are the poorest households: they are claiming housing benefit because they are low-income families and low-income households, and 80% of those households have a disabled member. Perhaps the Scottish National party should have spent more time considering what it could do, rather than pointing the finger at us and at the Labour party as a whole.

I was not going to spend time on this, but I feel that I have to defend myself and the Labour party. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned the Opposition day vote on the bedroom tax. I asked to intervene, but she was in full flow. I agree that that number of Labour MPs should not have been paired, and I am already on the record as having said that—I have said it publicly and I have said it locally. But it is misleading to say, I assume accidentally, that those pairings changed the outcome of the vote. Every single Labour MP was paired with a Government MP, as was confirmed by the parties at the time. It is not true that there would have been a difference in the outcome of the vote. We have to put that on the record, and it is nothing short of hypocritical for the SNP to say that when every single SNP Member of Parliament has missed a vote on bedroom tax legislation.

[Pete Wishart]

That isn’t true.

[Pamela Nash]

I have had it checked by the House of Commons Library. I voted against the bedroom tax seven times, which is all the votes on legislation, and I supported a private Member’s Bill, yet the SNP choose continually to mention the Opposition day debate on which some Labour MPs were paired and therefore did not attend. I am sorry to labour that point, but it is important to get on the record the facts of who represented Scotland by voting against the bedroom tax and who did not.

I unequivocally agree with all Members who have said today that, as the report clearly states, the bedroom tax should never have come into fruition and should never have been introduced by this UK Government. I think the bedroom tax should be abolished immediately, but that does not let the Scottish Government off the hook. In my hometown, people still remember the impact that Strathclyde regional council made during the miners’ strikes. That was part of the inspiration for devolution and for the Scottish Parliament: when a local authority could protect its local people, imagine what we could do for all of Scotland. That has been used as an argument for independence, too, but it is an argument for devolution. Devolution was designed to get the best out of the UK and to protect it when something goes wrong and there is a policy with which we do not agree. The SNP has remained anti-devolution and uses the Scottish Parliament only when it suits the SNP.

I hope the Minister will announce the abolition of the bedroom tax today. I will not hold my breath, but I hope she will at least tell us whether the Government are doing an analysis. If that analysis shows that the Government’s aims for the policy are not coming to fruition, will they consider abolishing the bedroom tax not just for Scotland but for all the UK? I am relieved that my constituents will not have to suffer from the bedroom tax in future, although they have already incurred debts. I look forward to a Labour Government abolishing the bedroom tax for the entire UK in 2015.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Pamela Nash and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I wish I could say it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but I cannot. The only thing I will say is that when it comes to a world view and political values, he and I are probably on the opposite sides of the spectrum. His intemperate remarks about Scottish independence do him no credit whatsoever. He wants to pull up the drawbridge and leave the European Union and other institutions, whereas we want to join the world and we welcome the fact that the world will welcome Scotland as an independent nation.

The Government’s stated aim with this Bill is to make the UK a more “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants. I give the Minister 10 out of 10 and say to him, “Well done and pat yourself on the back,” because the Government have most certainly achieved that with this Bill. They have just made the UK an even more intolerant place for the rest of us to live in.

This Government have also achieved something I never thought I would see in the 12 years I have been a Member of Parliament: an Immigration Bill that is even nastier and more pernicious than all those that have gone before. All these right-wing immigration Bills have to achieve is two simple things: kick as many people as possible out of the country and prevent as many people as possible from getting in in the first place. That is what every single immigration Bill we have had from right-wing Governments, whether they be Blairite or Conservative, has done: kick out as many people as possible and prevent as many people as possible from coming in.

Sometimes Governments have to be inventive. This Bill relies on some of the traditional routes, such as making appeals harder, enforcement more difficult and life more miserable for people living in this country who should not be here. However, it is also inventive, because it covers social services and health and tells landlords to become immigration officers. This Bill will turn race relations into a nightmare, bringing suspicion based on ethnicity into our social services and the housing market.

Like most right-wing parties, the Tories’ pre-conceived idea about immigration is that it is a bad thing that has to be dealt with and managed. To them it is a burden. Right-wing Conservatives such as those in this Government want to get the numbers down. That has been the case throughout history. Conservatives would probably have tried to stop the Normans and the Vikings coming here on their boats in the 9th and 10th centuries. Theirs is a world view of barriers and of preventing people from coming here.

We live in a globalised, interconnected world in which the transfer and movement of people have never been greater. We are standing in London, for goodness’ sake! This is one of the greatest cities, if not the greatest city, in the world. One third of the people who live and work in London come from outwith the United Kingdom. It is they who built this magnificent city.

We should listen to what the Mayor of London has to say about these issues. He wrote a fantastic article in The Daily Telegraph the other day—I wish the Conservatives would read it—under the headline, “It’s mad to blame our housing crisis on ‘blooming foreigners’”. I would not put it that way, but the Mayor of London is spot on. He recognises the value of and contribution made by high-end and low-end migrants to London. I recommend that my many Conservative friends in the House take a look at what the London Mayor has to say about this issue, because they will get some sense from him, unlike the hon. Member for Peterborough.

Yes, this country has changed. My country, Scotland, is changing, too. We do not vote Conservative. We approach these issues differently. Debates such as this show that we are pulling apart politically. We would not have such a debate in Scotland; we would not discuss such themes. We are drifting apart as a political culture.

This place is living in the early days of UKIP UK. That is where we are in this country. It started a little while ago, but it really came through with UKIP’s success in the local elections. That changed everything. We now live in UKIP UK. The party does not have one member in this House, but it is pulling all the Conservative party’s strings and dominating political debate. Everything is predicated on UKIP and Nigel Farage.

UKIP’s victory was closely followed by the hate vans and the ridiculous texts trying to get people to go home. I secured a debate on the hate vans last week. Perhaps I should get a bit of credit for getting rid of the appalling things. It took ages for the Minister to respond to me about them, but a week after the debate, we have got rid of the hate vans. That is a result.

Even this Conservative Government realise how ridiculous it was to drag a billboard around the streets of London, ranting at people to go home, with a telephone number and a text number. That is what they were reduced to. It could not get more ridiculous. What would have been next? The Minister was one of the few people in the Home Office who was prepared to defend the hate vans. He was in the studios all last week saying that, with a bit of refinement around the edges, they might be okay. He was prepared to put son-of-hate-vans on the streets. Thank goodness that has been ruled out by the Home Secretary. Let us be sure that it does not happen.

Are the Opposition opposing the Bill? I do not know. They do not like aspects of it, but they are compromised. If they are to win the next election, they have to win votes in the south. That brings us back to UKIP UK. They are aware that immigration is a hot issue in seats that they have to win, so they are having to be very careful about what they say. The Conservatives are right to point the finger at them because they are not doing a thing, but they should not let the Conservatives bully them. The Conservatives are saying that the seven to nine years of high immigration when Labour was in government were a waste. One of the best things that Labour did was to get people into this country. It built cities such as London and rejuvenated cities such as Manchester and Leeds. Labour Members should not let the Conservatives bully them into thinking that they did the wrong thing on immigration.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

I would appreciate some clarity on the SNP’s position. I presume that the UK Government will need help from the Scottish Government on the landlord checks and on the NHS proposals, as those areas are largely devolved. What is the SNP line on that?

[Pete Wishart]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me to talk about Scotland. There are proposals that relate to devolved services that we are in control of. We do not like them—we do not like them at all. We are in charge of the health service in Scotland. We would need to be convinced that these measures were in the best interests of Scotland before we would go through with them. Scotland is a different country. The hon. Lady knows that, and I think she would agree that we would not do these things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pamela Nash]

I appreciate the Minister’s intervention, but the fact is that there is no clarity in the Bill—it leaves that fear for communities seeking primary care. If they believe they will be kicked out of the country for going to the doctor, they might not go and therefore might not be tested.

Public health experts agree that increasing the offer of HIV testing to a wide range of facilities is key to tackling the UK epidemic in all communities. In addition, the purpose of primary care is to assess the broadest range of health needs and identify how best to meet them. Anything that delays or prevents anyone with an infectious disease from seeking medical advice denies them the opportunity to be diagnosed and increases the chance of them passing on the infection to someone else. Someone on HIV treatment is 96% less likely to transmit it to others. Therefore, the Bill clearly risks unlimited and unintended consequences to UK public health.

The Bill may increase the risk that we will fail to tackle HIV in our communities, and it may also be costly. According to the Department of Health’s review of overseas visitors charging policy, referred to in the explanatory notes, a comparison of the administration costs of the current system with the amount actually recovered showed that it barely broke even. The Home Secretary failed to address that point, and I hope that the Minister will do so in his closing remarks. The new system may not be cheaper and we may fail to reclaim any money.

According to the review, in order to recoup the money and achieve the Government’s aims, the NHS structure would need to be radically changed. It said:

“Only a fundamentally different system and supporting processes would enable significant new revenue to be realised.”

I would be grateful if the Minister provided more clarity about the administration of the proposals and the collection of the money from those who have entered the country.

I am also concerned about the effect that the proposals will have on reciprocal arrangements with other countries, which has not really been mentioned today. The Bill refers to our EEA partners, but we have arrangements with 27 countries that are not in the EEA, including Australia and New Zealand. Many of our students go backpacking in those countries or to work on short-term visas, and they access health care free of charge, like the people who come here from those countries. Can the Minister clarify how the Bill will affect reciprocal arrangements? Has he had discussions with representatives of those countries? Will we have new reciprocal agreements, or will they not be affected?

The final area of concern is the devolved aspects of the Bill, which I mentioned in an intervention earlier. I am surprised by how vague this issue is in the Bill. There is no detail on how charges for devolved public services will be made, or on how landlord checks will work in the devolved nations.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady is probably aware—and if not, she is now—that there was no consultation whatever with the Scottish Government in the lead-up to the publication of this Bill.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information.

Scottish Referendum (Trident)

Debate between Pamela Nash and Pete Wishart

Thursday 7th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I hope you enjoy your little session in what is always the friendly, convivial atmosphere of Scottish debates.

I welcome this debate, because everybody knows that Trident will be a huge, iconic issue in the 2014 independence referendum. It will probably shape a number of people’s impressions about independence, and it could have a major influence on how people choose to vote. We can be absolutely and abundantly clear—every Member in the Chamber understands this—that if there is a yes vote in the independence referendum, Scotland will be clear of the scourge of the immoral weapon of mass destruction that is the Trident system. The Scottish people and the Scottish nation will no longer host the UK’s arsenal of these appalling weapons; our nation, our society and our community will no longer host Trident weapons.

Trident will be removed as quickly and safely as possible—that is what we have said. If colleagues here want to agonise over what “quickly and safely” means, we will leave that up to them. We will co-operate, sit down, discuss, negotiate and be as helpful as possible, but our intention is to get rid of Trident weapons as quickly and safely as possible.

We would sit down with the Government today to start discussing how that will be achieved, but they have famously refused pre-negotiation. We have no intention of having pre-negotiations with the Government; we understand why they, quite rightly, would not want to pre-negotiate any aspect of independence, which would seem like they were conceding the result, but they should, for goodness’ sake, sit round a table and at least discuss the issue. Surely, we should try to work together in the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement and to find the best outcome, whether there is a yes vote or a no. It is surely in the Government’s interests to sit down with the Scottish Government to work out what would happen to their weapons system if the Scottish people decided to vote yes and wanted rid of the whole thing.

[Pamela Nash]

The UK Government asserted only quite recently that they would not conduct those negotiations. Did the Scottish Government request talks before that?

[Pete Wishart]

We have consistently told the Government—not just on Trident, but on a number of other issues—that we need to discuss round the table what will happen in the event of a yes vote for Scottish independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

We want to do what was set out in the Edinburgh agreement, with both Governments planning for the outcome so that we achieve the best possible result for a yes or no vote. We will enter the negotiations with the best possible intent, and we will hope for the best possible outcome. All we are trying to do now is encourage the UK Government to approach the discussions on the same basis. So far, they have refused to do so.

It is nice to have the hon. Lady here, but where, for goodness’ sake, is the shadow Defence Secretary? He gave a rambling interview the other morning. When he was challenged about Labour policy on nuclear weapons, he said:

“We’re not a unilateralist party. I mean, that happened in the ’80s, that was a flirtation with surrealism. We’re not a unilateralist party and we’re not going to become a unilateralist party.”

He added:

“We’re in favour of the UK retaining a nuclear capability”.

The Labour party is totally committed to remaining a nuclear party; it will renew Trident, and it will probably replace it like for like—that is what we have with the Labour party.

I have no idea what the report is intended to achieve. The rather silly Scottish Affairs Committee set out to blow a hole in the yes campaign’s ambitions for Trident, but all it has done is to suggest how easy those ambitions are to achieve—thank you, Scottish Affairs Committee. To be clear, the Committee is one of those strange, dysfunctional Committees; it is a really bizarre concoction just now. It is composed exclusively of Unionists, and it produces reports for Unionist consumption.

[Pamela Nash]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I am a proud member of the Scottish Affairs Committee. There is an SNP member, but, unfortunately, she has not taken her seat for quite some time. Why is she still missing in action? If he is concerned that the Committee is made up only of members of Unionist parties, he might like to take her seat.

[Pete Wishart]

I think the hon. Lady knows exactly why we are not taking our place on the Committee. We will not take up that place as long as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) remains in the Chair. Given the way our female member of the Committee was treated, we will not take up that place. The place is available, and we will come back to it, but not as long as the hon. Gentleman is in the Chair.

UK Constituent Parts (EU)

Debate between Pamela Nash and Pete Wishart

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate. I associate myself with the comment by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) when he congratulated her on turning up on time this morning.

Scotland’s membership of the EU has been discussed in pubs up and down Scotland during the past few weeks. That is not, sadly, because it has been in the news, but because of the Scottish Government’s failed attempt to keep secret the fact that the First Minister lied to the Scottish people about seeking advice on the matter. In fact, he did not just lie about seeking legal advice. We know that he was told by his Lord Advocate and Solicitor General that a separate Scotland would not automatically be an EU state. Not only Scottish Government lawyers say that. In the past two weeks, a plethora of expert opinion has confirmed what everyone, including the SNP, already knows—that Scotland would not be guaranteed membership of the European Union.

It was incredibly kind of the hon. Gentleman to give me and the entire world advance notice of his speech today. He did not stray far from what was on his website two weeks ago, when he published even the well-rehearsed bad jokes that we were robbed of the chance of hearing. In publishing that, he single-handedly wiped out any lingering notion of the SNP’s ears being open to the facts. His only intent in this debate has been to propagate his party’s myths. His speech was without substance when he wrote it two weeks ago, and it had not matured well by today. I cannot understand why he still feels that a Scotland separate from the UK would automatically be a member of the EU, when everyone outside his party disagrees.

Most of the people in this room are here because they share my love and concern for Scotland, when we have a Scottish Government who have repeatedly been caught being dishonest about the facts that will inform voters’ choice in 2014. They simply cannot be trusted. Scotland benefits from being in the UK in the EU, and Scottish people deserve to have laid before them the actual facts, rather than the Scottish Government’s version of them. It is their responsibility to provide clarity and evidence about their proposals for the future, not to waste taxpayers’ money on unnecessary court cases. The First Minister misled the Scottish people, but now we are expected to trust him.

In contrast, the UK Government have made it clear that they have received legal advice. They have stated that, in the event of Scotland separating from the UK, the residual UK would be considered by the EU to be the continuing state; and Scotland would legally be a seceded, new state and therefore not a member state. I would appreciate it if the Minister confirmed that he agrees with the President and vice-president of the European Commission that a new state wanting to join the EU has to apply like any other.

[Pete Wishart]

Two new states.

[Pamela Nash]

No, not the residual UK.

Earlier this year, Salmond declared that

“the negotiation on Scotland’s representation would be conducted from within the European Union.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 19 January 2012; c. 5500.]

That is not impossible, but it is not automatic, and it would be a difficult negotiation. There is no need to take only my word for that; notable members of the European political community and academics have said the same over the past few months.

Accession would need to be approved by all 27—soon to be 28—member states. Although Spain has not confirmed that it would block an application from Scotland, it has said that we would need to join the queue. It is difficult to see how the Spanish Government could reconcile their position on Catalonia with a new Scottish state joining the European Union.

There is also the issue of the euro. Contrary to the proclamations of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), all new EU member states have been required to sign up to the eurozone. Sweden joined the EU in 1995, but it is still obliged, when conditions are met, to join the euro.