The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-16143, in the name of Clare Adamson, on Brexit harm to Scotland, five years since the United Kingdom left the European Union.
The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite any members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that January 2025 marks five years since the UK left the EU; recognises that people in Scotland voted to remain within the EU and that there was a majority vote for remain in every one of Scotland’s local authority areas, and considers that, despite this, Scotland was removed from the EU against the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland; believes that Brexit has caused, and continues to cause, substantial harm to the Scottish and UK economies; acknowledges reports that there is an estimated loss of £2.3 billion every year in public revenues for Scotland as a result of Brexit; notes with concern that the Office for Budget Responsibility has reportedly estimated that Brexit will reduce the overall trade intensity of the UK economy by 15% in the long term; understands that a recent study from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics found that goods exports from the UK dropped by £27 billion in 2022 alone as a result of Brexit; further understands that the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply revealed problems with supply chains and trade routes, exacerbated by Brexit, which could see imports cost between 5% and 20% more, fuelling a new cost of living crisis; considers that Brexit continues to pose significant barriers to people coming to live and work in Scotland, including in vital public services; believes that Brexit is impacting young people’s right to live, work and study in 27 European nations, and denying future generations a wealth of economic, social and cultural opportunities, and notes the belief that Scotland should rejoin the EU to rebuild strong ties with fellow Europeans and to ensure that businesses, students and workers in Scotland, including in the Motherwell and Wishaw constituency, can benefit from access to the world’s largest single market and the rich cultural, social and economic benefits that membership of the EU brings.
17:29
This January marks five years since the United Kingdom left the European Union—five fraught and turbulent years for Scotland’s manufacturers, exporters, service providers, artists and musicians.
Deputy Presiding Officer,
“We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU.”
Those are not my words, but the words of Kemi Badenoch. For once—for what is probably the only time—I agree with her. However, I would argue that there was a lack of not only a plan for growth, but a plan, full stop. Nonetheless, it was nice to hear a rare bit of honesty from a Tory leader on Brexit.
Let us hear from three more Brexiteers. Michael Gove opined:
“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want”.
However, we now have fewer jobs; food prices at an all-time high; and less trade.
Dominic Cummings had to concede that the figure of £350 million for the national health service that was plastered on a bus was a lie. Nigel Farage vowed to tear up the EU red tape holding Britain back. Well, our exporters now bemoan the new arrangements. The National Farmers Union Scotland told us that the trading relationship under
“the TCA ... might be ... tariff free and quota free, but it is certainly not friction free.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 7 March 2024; c 2.]
Many small and medium-sized enterprises are simply giving up their EU market share because trying to navigate the new exporting regime is not worth the cost, time and project wastage.
I do not have a fourth Brexiteer quote, as the young trainee could not access Erasmus+ and so was unable to take part this evening.
The people in Scotland sensibly voted to remain in the EU. There was a majority vote for remain in every one of Scotland’s local authorities, but Scotland was removed from the EU against the democratic wishes of the Scottish people. Brexit has caused, and continues to cause, substantial harm to the Scottish and UK economies.
Recently, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research think tank said that UK exports from the service sectors could be cut by up to 60 per cent. For Scotland, that would be equivalent to a £2.3 billion hit because of Brexit. The Office for Budget Responsibility has reported an estimate that Brexit will reduce the overall trade intensity of the UK economy by 15 per cent in the longer term. I understand that a study from the centre for economic performance at the London School of Economics found that, in 2022 alone, goods exports from the UK dropped by £27 billion as a result of Brexit. The Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply revealed that problems with supply chains and trade routes, exacerbated by Brexit, will see imports cost between 5 and 20 per cent more, fuelling a new cost of living crisis.
Brexit continues to pose significant barriers to people coming to live and work in Scotland, including in our vital public services. Over 10 years ago, Scotland was told that the only way for us to stay in the EU was to remain part of the UK and vote no. Brexit has been a disaster for Scotland. It has made us poorer; it has diminished our international standing; and it has cut us off from the world’s largest economic market. It is a disaster that has denied people in Scotland a wealth of opportunity, rich cultural exchanges, academic collaboration and the right to work, study and live in 27 other nations. A generation of people in my Motherwell and Wishaw constituency have had rights that I enjoyed for most of my adult life ripped away from them against their expressed will.
Brexit is manifestly harming our present and future. I am not speaking this evening as convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, but during the committee’s work on the impact of Brexit and its review of the trade and co-operation agreement, we have heard witness after witness tell of the detrimental impacts of Brexit.
Sky News reported findings that
“by 2035, the UK is anticipated to have three million fewer jobs, 32% lower investment, 5% lower exports and 16% lower imports, than it would have had if the UK had not left the EU.”
Brexit is also a tale of two countries: it is certainly the best of times for Ireland and the worst of times for us. In 2024, the Republic of Ireland, as a small nation in Europe with a similar population, economy and cultural links to those of Scotland, enjoyed a significant budget surplus, at around 8 per cent of its gross national income. It is a small country in surplus, while we are dragged down by a £2.77 trillion debt.
According to the centre for economic performance, Brexit has cost each household
“£250 when only considering the impacts on food since December 2019 ... This aggregates up to £6.95bn overall for UK households.”
Last week, the Musicians Union, having already acknowledged the impact of cabotage and visas on touring artists and musicians, had to issue guidance to artists on the general product safety regulations. It has been
“noted that the introduction of these regulations, which required certifiable safety checks and labels on goods such as CDs, vinyl, T shirts, mugs and other merchandise exported to the EU and Northern Ireland, had not been foreseen by most people in the music business.”
Ewan Robertson gave evidence to our committee on those areas and spoke of how much more difficult it is now for artists to tour and work in Europe.
There is a litany of quotes that I could have brought to the chamber—for example, from Aldomak, the company that has saved the Scottish ice-cream nougat wafer. It previously traded frequently with Europe, but it gave evidence to our committee that it is no longer even trying to export to Europe. We also heard from our fishing industry about stock that was ruined. We know that Brexit just keeps giving us more bad news.
We move to the open debate.
17:36
I quickly remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a farmer.
I thank the member for the debate—I do not enjoy a debate on Brexit, because I do not think that it is necessary, but she brought it to the chamber, so I say well done for that. However, there is a pretty one-dimensional focus on Brexit, with all the negatives and none of the potential positives, so perhaps I can touch on a couple of those positives in a minute.
I am one month away from my one-year anniversary as a member of the Scottish Parliament. In that time, I have been extremely fortunate to have participated in only a single Scottish National Party debate on Brexit, as that is quite the grievance that it likes to bring to the chamber, and I was told at one point that such debates were very common. I say that not because I do not want to talk about Brexit or the benefits of it—I do not want to shy away from facing up to the problems of significant constitutional change—but because it has been nearly a decade since voters across these isles voted by a clear majority to leave the EU.
It has, as Clare Adamson’s motion states, been five years since we left the EU. However, the motion does not, at any point, mention fishing or farming—two sectors in which I have a great interest. These issues are very important to the thousands of farmers and fishermen whom I represent in my region and across the whole of Scotland. Our farmers knew of the challenges in the common agricultural policy, and our fishermen loathed the common fisheries policy. Both those policies were in place and designed to benefit everyone other than British farmers and fishermen.
The SNP, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens want us to go back into those policies, but that view is not what I hear when I speak to farmers and fishermen in my region. Since we left the EU, the Scottish Government has benefited from the opportunity to design—
Does the member accept, when he talks about the fishing industry, that there are many sectors in that industry, and that the fish processing sector is suffering considerably as a result of Brexit, in respect of not just red tape but labour?
I can give you the time back, Mr Eagle.
I met with Jimmy Buchan from the fish processing sector quite recently, and Karen Adam is right that it has some recruitment challenges, but I say to the SNP that the answer is not to take us back into the common fisheries policy, which would destroy the Scottish fishing sector in total.
Since we left the EU, the Scottish Government has benefited from the opportunity to design a uniquely Scottish system of agricultural support and policy. Without the bureaucratic chains of Brussels, we can create an approach for our diverse group of agricultural industries that helps to deliver on our climate goals and to deliver food security for our country. Rather than returning to the one-size-fits-all approach of the common agricultural policy, we can ensure that we have a system that rewards farmers for their hard work and daily sacrifices, and supports the local environment.
The transition has not been easy; I readily acknowledge that. Scottish farming and crofting spent more than 40 years effectively being governed by the common agricultural policy, and leaving that was always going to lead to a few difficulties. That has not been helped, however, by the fact that the SNP has been incredibly vague in articulating its vision for the future of Scottish agriculture, and in passing a bill—
Will the member take an intervention?
Absolutely.
Would the member agree that the SNP is all about the politics of grievance? That is portrayed in no better way than by our colleague Emma Harper bizarrely calling for powers over agricultural funding to return to the UK Government, when it is firmly in the Scottish Government’s hands to deliver a fair settlement.
I can give you the time back, Mr Eagle.
We were all totally shocked by that news release yesterday. So, the SNP wants to give powers back to London; that is very interesting. However, I will move on to consider our fishermen.
Fishermen were restricted by the common fisheries policy and were often squeezed out of domestic fishing grounds by vessels from within the EU, which had near-unfettered access to our waters—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I seek your guidance. When a member stands up in the chamber and misquotes what another member has said, for instance in committee, what measures could a member take?
That is not a point of order. The member is well aware of the measures that members can take if they feel that the record needs to be corrected.
I call Tim Eagle to continue—I can give you a little bit more time, Mr Eagle.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Our fishermen, by voting to leave the EU, as they did overwhelmingly, opened the door to a sea of opportunity for Scottish fishermen—[Interruption.]
As I stated with regard to farming, the transition has not been easy, and I know that there are specific issues in different sectors. However, the fishing industry is beginning to feel the benefits of Brexit. Just last month, the Scottish Government’s own data showed that the fishing fleet is up year on year since 2021, with the value of fish landed also rising year on year. That is despite the many challenges that the sector faces, which include the challenge of attracting new entrants, and spatial squeeze in our seas.
The sector has had to navigate the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, which comes to an end next June. When that deal ends, the Labour Government will be faced with a stark choice: does it back our fishermen by increasing their access to our own domestic fishing waters, or does it cede more access to EU states and their vessels? The SNP also faces a stark choice. When those vital negotiations begin, does it side with Scottish fishermen, or with Keir Starmer if he throws our fishermen under the bus?
I hold out little hope, given the SNP’s record in Government, but I will continue to fight for my constituents so that we can truly realise the untold benefits that Brexit could bring us in the long term.
I encourage members who have something to say to try to make an intervention, rather than shouting it across the chamber.
17:42
I take the opportunity to thank my friend and colleague Clare Adamson for bringing this important debate to the chamber, because the issue is as important as it was five years ago, no matter what we have heard from Tim Eagle. We could probably put into ChatGPT, or any artificial intelligence system around the world, “Say negative things about the Scottish Government and do a traditional Tim Eagle-type speech,” and what he said is exactly what we would have got. It was complete and utter nonsense from someone who does not believe in supporting people in constituencies such as mine who are suffering because of Brexit.
It has been five years—five long years—since Scotland was dragged out of the EU against our will. That is five years of damage, lost opportunities and economic harm—harm that was entirely avoidable, had it not been for some Tories with an anti-Europe ethos.
I make it crystal clear that the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, and every single local authority area in Scotland backed remain, yet here we are, paying the price for a Brexit that we never wanted and suffering the consequences of decisions that were made by Westminster Governments that we did not elect. That is not democracy—that is not respecting the will of the Scottish people.
Things have got even worse since the recent American election. We now have return of the Trump, who is in effect saying that he is going to put all kinds of embargoes on everyone. That is important for this debate, because I would much rather be negotiating from a strong position with our EU friends than just sitting here as a small island in northern Europe, shouting from the sidelines.
Even if we take away the “Little Britain” ideals, what was the cost of this Brexit folly? The economic impact is staggering, with the loss of £2.3 billion every year in public revenues—money that could have been used to fund our national health service, our schools and our other vital public services. Instead, that has vanished into thin air.
Trade has been absolutely devastated. The UK’s overall trade intensity is down by 15 per cent in the long term, and Scottish exporters, businesses and job creators are struggling to navigate the red tape and barriers that have been imposed by Brexit.
Let us not forget the impact on our communities. Brexit has put up barriers to people coming to live and work here in Scotland, an example of which was brought up by my friend and colleague Karen Adam. With our NHS, which is a key sector, as well as the care sectors among the hardest hit, Westminster’s hostile immigration policies have left businesses in Paisley, in Glasgow, in Motherwell and Wishaw and right across Scotland unable to recruit the skilled workers they need.
Our young people—our future—have had their rights ripped away. They are no longer able to live, study or work freely across 27 European nations. We see the damage and we feel the impact, yet the UK Government buries its head in the sand and refuses to admit the harm that it has caused. That cannot go on, and we need to move Scotland forward.
There is hope. Scotland has a choice. We do not have to accept this decline. We do not have to stand by and watch our economy shrink and our opportunities diminish as our country is held back. Scotland’s future lies in Europe, with co-operation, partnership and a shared vision for prosperity. That is why I whole-heartedly support my friend Clare Adamson’s motion.
Scotland belongs in the EU. Rejoining will restore our place in the world’s largest single market; it will rebuild the economic, cultural and social ties that Brexit has so recklessly severed; and it will open doors for our businesses, students and workers.
Scotland did not vote for Brexit, and Scotland must not be forced to live with the damaging consequences of Brexit for ever. The case for independence and a return to the EU has never been stronger. We have a future to fight for, and I know that the people of Scotland will not rest until our voice is once again heard, and our choices respected, in Europe. [Interruption.]
I remind members again that, if they have something to say, they may want to make an intervention, rather than chunter from a sedentary position.
17:47
I begin by congratulating Clare Adamson on securing the debate. Five years have passed since we left the EU. In a more uncertain world, our closest geographical neighbours must remain friends and collaborators. The motion and the members who have spoken so far have highlighted the on-going effects of Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal.
In November, I joined members including Clare Adamson in discussing the UK trade and co-operation agreement. During that debate, members largely agreed that the deal was not delivering. Issues faced by businesses in trading with Europe were raised, including inadequate support from the previous UK Government in the transition to new rules and the additional time and cost burden of export health certificates. Some businesses reported ceasing trade with Europe entirely. That is clearly not a welcome situation, and Governments should be taking steps to address it.
While those challenges are known, what is not known is the process for rejoining the European Union. The Brexit years were defined by their uncertainty. We should be looking forward and improving the deals that we have now, not reopening the Brexit debate and causing further turmoil. The Labour Government in Westminster was elected on a manifesto to renegotiate the Brexit deal and to make improvements for our businesses.
For example, the UK Government is committed to seeking a veterinary agreement with Europe, which, if adopted, could improve agricultural exports by 20 per cent, according to Aston University. An improvement in conditions for touring artists, who have suffered as a result of Brexit, could also be achieved. Scotland and Edinburgh in particular benefit from cultural exchanges, yet the Conservative Brexit deal made touring more complicated for artists. I am pleased that Lisa Nandy has recently reaffirmed her commitment to making touring easier; work is on-going with Europe on that front.
Devolved Governments also have a role to play. The Scottish Government has completed two test and learn exercises that involved international student exchanges, while the Welsh Government has introduced its Taith scheme, which has sent thousands of students abroad and deepened cultural ties. I return to my point that action can be taken today where Brexit has put up barriers.
The five years since Brexit have been globally challenging and uncertain. Our relationship with Europe remains one of our most important relationships. I am pleased that the UK Labour Government is looking to build a positive relationship with Europe and to renegotiate the Brexit deal so that it delivers for businesses and people. That will demonstrate that, rather than looking back and rehashing old debates, we can move forward.
17:51
I congratulate my colleague Clare Adamson on securing the debate.
From Shetland to the Scottish Borders, not one part of Scotland voted leave—not one single council area. However, that is the union for you, and that is democracy for you: it is part of the “union bonus.”
Even in England, 53 per cent of voters voted leave and 47 per cent voted remain, so even south of the border the vote was nip and tuck. There was no 60 per cent requirement, as is sometimes called for when there is a vote that affects the unwritten British constitution. Remember that, when it comes to a referendum on Scottish independence.
We now know that the British public was sold a pup. In fact, they were sold several pups, including the side of a bus showing the “Boris bonus” of £350 million a week for the NHS; cutting of immigration, although the majority of migrants were and are legal migrants; cutting of red tape for businesses and farmers; no border down the Irish Sea; reclaiming our seas; and the world waiting eagerly for our trade. It was all “oven ready”.
How did that go? The £350 million was not so much “oven ready” as it was a Boris porky pie. Immigration, both legal and illegal, has increased since Brexit. Indeed, leaving the EU has made co-operation with EU countries more difficult. As for increases in red tape, just ask businesses, farmers and the horticultural sector. There are special rules for trade between Éire, which is still in the EU, and Northern Ireland, which remains in the EU in all but name. As for trade bonuses, there are none.
The NFU Scotland overwhelmingly backed a remain vote because it knew what was coming if we left. The Confederation of British Industry was one of the most vocal opponents of Brexit, and stated that it would
“dent the economy and knock living standards.”
Then again, what do they know? Billions of pounds have been lost to the UK economy to date.
The loss of free movement in the workforce had immediate impacts on the NHS, the care sector, horticulture and hospitality—just for starters—all of which have affected my constituency.
What got the Brexit vote through by the skin of its teeth were allegations about damaging immigration. As for Boris Johnson’s yellow brick road, we know what Dorothy found at the end of that: a wee man masquerading as a great wizard. Boris Johnson, Donald Trump or Nigel Farage? Take your pick.
Some who were once forceful and vocal defenders of the EU now say that that ship has sailed. To continue the metaphor, I point out that a ship can change course, especially if the sea is stormy and you can see that rocks lie ahead.
Of course, the UK will not change course, but Scotland can do so as an independent nation. Let us have no nonsense about it taking decades to rejoin, or—worse—that we would not be welcome. Our laws are aligned with the EU. We are a rich nation that produces energy, food and drink. Our history with Europe differs from that of England. My goodness—the first language of Mary, Queen of Scots was French. That fact is handy for pub quizzes. However, I digress.
In the dismal years of “Trumpland” ahead, we need an EU that is both politically and economically strong, and we need not to be consigned to watch in painful embarrassment as the UK Prime Minister genuflects to Trump out of desperation to avoid tariffs. Indeed, “embarrassment” is not a strong enough word—it is more of a public humiliation.
We can change course. Scotland would and will rejoin the EU with those 27 other nations. Believe you me—rejoining the EU cannot come soon enough.
17:55
I thank colleagues for their contributions to today’s debate. It is crystal clear that, in the five years since Brexit, the time that we have spent outside the European Union has damaged our economy, weakened civic society, degraded opportunities for our young people and worsened the cost of living crisis for us all. It has been five long years of pain.
Although the proposed reset that is being sought by the UK Government could offer progress in some areas—we will, of course, engage positively with that—in reality, any gains that the process can make will do little to redress the fundamental challenges that we face while we remain outside the single market and the customs union.
The single European market numbers 447 million consumers and 23 million companies, and is the largest free-trading area on earth. By population, it is seven times the size of the United Kingdom. It is small wonder, in that case, that despite our having not voted in favour of such folly, we have suffered the dire consequences that colleagues have eloquently attested to in today’s debate.
Let us consider the facts. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimates that, in 2023, there was a 2.5 per cent hit to UK gross domestic product because of Brexit, and that it will increase to 5.7 per cent by 2035. In Scotland, that equated to a cut in public revenues of about £2.3 billion in 2023. This month, the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank reported that UK goods exports to the European Union were 27 per cent lower between 2021 and 2023 than they would have been had we remained in the European Union. While other G7 countries saw an average 5 per cent increase in goods being exported in 2023 compared to 2019, the UK experienced a 10 per cent decline. We should add to that the Office for Budget Responsibility’s view that UK trade intensity with the European Union will be 15 per cent lower in the long run.
Later this week, the Scottish Government will publish fresh analysis of the trade impact of the Tory Brexit deal—which is, sadly, being continued by Labour—compared with European Union membership. The evidence is now legion and it is undeniable. The economic impact of Brexit is nothing short of an egregious act of self-harm by the United Kingdom, and a deeply damaging imposition on Scotland, without counting the cost of what we have lost in social and cultural terms.
The loss of access to the Erasmus+ programme is particularly damaging. A generation of Scots will be denied the life-enhancing opportunities of living or working in the European nations that are on our doorstep. The loss of access to creative Europe is similarly damaging to the culture sector. It does not have to be that way.
I turn to some points that have been raised during the debate. Clare Adamson highlighted the harm to the culture sector and to so many others. It does not need to be that way.
Tim Eagle mentioned the “untold benefits” of Brexit. He did not, however, tell us any benefits of Brexit, so he was right—they are untold. Perhaps in the next debate, he might choose to tell us what they are.
George Adam talked about Scotland’s proper place being back in the European Union as an independent member state. He is absolutely right that the 27 other European nations are not wrong.
Mystifyingly, Foysol Choudhury said that we should not reopen the Brexit debate. Why should we not talk about that self-harm? Why should we not end the self-harm? I have to say to him—as somebody who represents this part of the world, as I do—that this part of the country, where 74.4 per cent voted to remain in the European Union, is the most pro-European part of Scotland, but he thinks that we should not reopen the Brexit debate. I am sorry to say it, but on that count, he is very wrong.
Finally, I come to Christine Grahame. What a strong voice talking about Scotland’s strong position of being able to rejoin the European Union. The choice is ours. We live in a democracy and we should be able to have that say.
Until such time as we rejoin the European Union as an independent country, we must encourage the UK Government to be ambitious in its efforts to improve relations with the EU. Last week, Maroš Šefcovic, the EU trade commissioner, indicated that the UK might be able to join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, which allows for a measure of tariff-free trade of goods between a range of European and other countries. My message to the UK Government on that and, indeed, on other areas including youth mobility, is to take the time to consider their merits and potential economic and other benefits, not to rush to rule things out for political purposes and certainly not to pander to the likes of Nigel Farage.
Both those issues, and many more, are of interest to people right across Scotland. I will continue to make sure that the UK Government understands why a closer relationship with the EU remains such an important priority for Scotland until such time as we rejoin, as an independent member state of the European Union.
Meeting closed at 18:00.Air ais
Decision Time