|
|
The paper that ministers [presented is] a thorough examination of the key challenges thrown up by the Brexit vote and suggest ways in which some of those issues can be resolved.
As such, it [is] the first serious governmental proposal of its kind in the wake of June’s UK-wide vote to leave the EU, given the continued absence of any clear direction from the Westminster government in the run-up to the triggering of Article 50. However, while our proposals are clearly and specifically aimed at protecting Scotland’s place in Europe, they will be of deep interest — and real relevance — to all parts of the UK and to the EU as a whole, as they also deal with the complexities thrown up by the referendum.
Our hope is that the UK will remain within the single market. The advantages of doing so are clear and obvious. Unfortunately, the rhetoric emanating from a UK government that appears ever more in thrall to hardline Brexiters does not inspire great optimism that this option will be chosen.
If the UK government opts not to remain in the single market, our position is that Scotland should still be supported to do so — not instead of, but in addition to free trade across the UK — and the paper we [published] will outline how that could be achieved. This would involve the devolution of new powers to Edinburgh. [...]
However, I would make two points in relation to those challenges. First, Brexit is an entirely unprecedented situation for everyone, so in such circumstances who is to say what is possible and what is not? And second, the EU is already used to asymmetrical arrangements when it comes to the status of different territories across the continent and their relationship to the EU itself, to the single market and to the customs union.
That web of interrelated connections reflects the fact that the EU has always shown itself to be adaptable, and willing and able to implement practical, flexible solutions that follow the political realities. Indeed, Scotland will not be alone in this context, as there is widespread recognition that special arrangements will be needed for Northern Ireland and Gibraltar.
The political reality is that Scotland, by a decisive 24-point margin, chose to remain in the EU, with voters in every single one of the country’s 32 local authority areas opting to remain.
It remains my view, and that of the government I lead, that the best option for Scotland remains full membership of the EU as an independent member state. Indeed, had we already achieved such status we would not find ourselves in our current situation, facing being taken out of Europe against the strongly expressed view of our electorate.
As such, independence must remain an option for safeguarding our European status, if it becomes clear that our interests cannot be protected in any other way.
Therefore, the proposals we [published] involve a substantial degree of compromise on our part. It is hoped they will find a similarly open mind from the UK government, who have already pledged to consider them. Theresa May, prime minister, has given that explicit undertaking, so a failure to properly engage would represent a breach of faith.
To be clear, it is not the Scottish government’s position that we expect to negotiate directly with the EU institutions or other member states. Rather, our intention is for the proposals to be agreed with the UK government, which will then take them forward as part of their overall negotiating position around Article 50.
However, while we will not be formally negotiating with EU partners, we will continue to engage with them. So it will also be for governments and others across the EU to consider our proposals and how they might be implemented. In doing so, they should know that they come from a nation deeply rooted in the best traditions of European solidarity and co-operation, and from a country which is determined to protect its place in Europe.
Full piece on Financial Times (subscription required)