The article by Sir John Major published in the Financial Times on 26 March 2021.
After the breakaway from the EU, focus is turning to the UK’s possible break-up. In Wales, support for independence has risen. In Northern Ireland, the risk of a reunification poll has grown. But the chief risk is in Scotland.
In 2014, a key argument used to persuade Scotland to remain in the Union was that, by doing so, she would remain in the EU. But, two years later, a UK-wide vote yanked Scotland out of the EU against her wishes and those grounds for supporting the Union disappeared. There is now a genuine danger that the separatist ambitions of Scottish nationalism and tepid Unionism in England may break up a Union that has served the UK well for over 300 years.
To achieve that outcome, the Scottish National party will highlight genuine and imagined grievances. The Westminster government can expect its every action to be portrayed as hostile to the rights of the devolved administration, or derided as an enticement to discourage separation. This will increase political conflict, create resentment in England and pull the two nations apart.
Scotland cannot be kept forever in an arrangement if her people wish to end it. To save the Union, Scots must be persuaded by hard facts that it is in their interest to do so. Prime Minister Boris Johnson probably has a legal right to refuse to sanction a second independence referendum. But he should be wary how he uses that power.
It is unwise to dismiss Scottish ambitions, or to delay any vote, without action to expose the reality of separation — and remedy shortcomings in the UK’s devolution settlement. A blunt refusal would be a still greater error if accompanied by the provocative assertion that Scots should wait another generation before voting again on the issue. Such a hardline approach is more likely to provoke a break-up than prevent it.
Scotland is a definable and proud nation. She is perfectly capable of self-government and, whether or not it would be a wise decision, has a right to seek independence. Yet it is unknown what that would mean in practice. The Scottish government has not set it out in detail, and the British government shows no appetite for doing so.
With a population of 5m, Scotland — if allowed to join the EU — would be a minnow in a bloc of 450m people. It would have a minnow’s voice in EU policy. The economic cost of separation would be harsh on Scotland. There is no longer an oil bonanza to boost the economy. The fiscal deficit is above 7 per cent of economic output. Over 60 per cent of Scottish trade goes to the rest of the UK, three times her trade with the EU.
Does Scotland really want a trade border with England? The “Barnett Formula” boosts Scottish public spending by nearly £2,000 per person per year from Westminster. If lost, can Scottish taxpayers make up that sum? This is not Project Fear. It is reality. In the 27-nation EU, the Scottish voice would count for far less than it does to any UK government. This, too, is reality.
Unionists have strong arguments to deploy against separation. Their weakness is that they touch the wallet, not the soul. Scotland needs to know she is cherished as a vital part of the UK. Unfortunately, after Brexit, the Westminster government is poorly placed to argue the value of the Union. It has taken the UK out of a union with Europe with the cry of “Sovereignty” and “Take Back Control”. Now it must argue against the SNP, which seeks to take Scotland out of the UK for precisely the same reasons.
If the Union is to be kept together, it must be as a true partnership. The government must engage, encourage, examine and explore arrangements to emphasise the value of a UK working in harmony. I doubt we will be able to change the minds of hardened separatists — to them, independence is worth any price. But, with facts and reason, it should be possible to persuade a majority of Scots that it is better to remain in the Union than to leave it.
The debate must be about the lives and livelihoods of the Scottish people. It must not be decided by Scottish distaste for Conservative rule, or by a trivial popularity contest between the prime minister and Scotland’s first minister. Fanciful promises did not persuade the Scots to back Brexit. Only facts will persuade them to rally to the Union.
The government must engage Scottish opinion so that every family and business is informed about what the Union does, and what would be lost by leaving it. As Gordon Brown has pointed out, the wider British public deserves an independent assessment of the pros and cons of separation. If the two governments will not commission such studies, then their parliaments should — and academia, too.
In parallel, the UK must address any constitutional amendments thought to be necessary by changed circumstances, frictions in the devolution settlements or the impact of Brexit. A global Britain will thrive best with a constitutional arrangement acceptable to every part of the UK. For a reformed UK may look much more appealing to disillusioned minds in and beyond Scotland.
The UK and Scottish governments have a duty to present their people with a clear understanding of what separation would mean. If either fails in placing the best of options before our two nations, it will stand condemned by its refusal to give unity a chance.
The speech made by Sir John Major at Middle Temple on 9 November 2020.
THE STATE WE’RE IN
It is a privilege to be invited to deliver this lecture and my only regret is that it is remote – with no live audience ….. nor the delights of a Middle Temple dinner.
Given the date, my subject is appropriate. On this day in 1923, Hitler failed to seize power in Germany; in 1938, it marked Kristallnacht and the Nazi assault on Jews; and, in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell.
Each of these events impacted on the wider world – and that wider world will now impact on “The State We’re In”.
The future of that State requires plain speaking if we are to be honest with our nation.
And, of course, with ourselves. The great powers of our age are the United States, China, and the European Union.
The world they straddle is fractious. The values of liberal society are stalled, if not in retreat. America and China are in a Trade War and an embryonic Cold War. Europe and America are far apart on many issues, but both deplore China’s authoritarian direction under President Xi.
Lesser powers like Russia – the Great Disrupter – and Turkey continue to subvert and to meddle.
Free trade and globalisation are now widely questioned.
Migration and radical Islam are an ever present problem.
Populism continues to promote prejudice and racial intolerance.
And, in many nation states, autocracy has grown – and democracy has fallen back.
Our world seems ill at ease, at a moment when harmony and collective decision making seem more and more essential for our security and well-being.
The post-War settlement is out of date.
The United Nations is hamstrung by the rules of its own Security Council.
The World Trade Organisation is paralysed, with no functioning resolution dispute procedure.
The World Health Organisation is under-funded, under-powered and under attack.
Despite all this, no nation seems prepared to lead the case for reform.
The financial crash of 2007 weakened many countries and the lives of billions of people; and, in the year of Covid, trillions of dollars have been diverted from growth as the virus has increased hardship on every Continent.
This is the wider context in which the United Kingdom must prepare for our future, whilst facing the added challenges of Covid-19 – and Brexit.
Our country has many virtues but, if we are to be successful in this challenging environment, we need to be cruelly honest with ourselves about what needs to be done to ensure our political and economic wellbeing.
If we’re complacent, we betray our own interests. If we see ourselves through rose-tinted spectacles, then we will deceive ourselves.
Complacency and nostalgia are the route to national decline. So I favour reality and optimism – but with the warning that false optimism is deceit by another name.
We are no longer a great power. We will never be so again. In a world of nearly 8 billion people, well under 1% are British.
We are a top second-rank power but, over the next half century – however well we perform – our small size and population makes it likely we will be passed by the growth of other, far larger, countries.
In recent decades, we have consoled ourselves that we “punch above our weight” in international affairs. I think that was true: but that was then, and this is now.
Our hefty international influence rested on our history and reputation, buttressed by our membership of the European Union and our close alliance with the United States.
Suddenly, we are no longer an irreplaceable bridge between Europe and America. We are now less relevant to them both.
COVID
At home, we must face Covid.
Covid has already left many families bereaved and bereft. It has changed lives and work patterns, cost billions, increased national debt and annual deficits.
It has destroyed public tolerance of austerity, and made tax rises inevitable – although not, if we are sensible, until the economy is more healthy.
The virus also presents a formidable obstacle to one of the Government’s better instincts. Their intention is to level up the regions and help individuals “left behind”. The pernicious effect of Covid will be to level down.
The problem is not so much the gap between rich and poor, but that the poor may become so indebted and destitute they are unable to maintain themselves – or their families.
The classic response to tide people over – until the private sector returns to full capacity – is for social subsidy out of taxation.
But billions upon billions have already been spent, and friction between the extent of need and the capacity to help is inevitable.
And there are many in need of help – businesses forced to shut down, the unemployed, the self-employed, the care sector, health, the arts, sport: the demands on the Exchequer are beyond anything we have known in peacetime.
The Government deserves credit for what has been spent so far, to set against criticism for unmet needs.
But I do find it surprising that – in the midst of the Covid crisis – the Government appears to be fostering disputes with the
Judiciary, where all Governments should tread carefully; the Civil Service, upon whose help the Government depends; and the BBC, still the most respected broadcaster on the planet.
These are unmerited distractions from the issues the country needs them to focus on.
BREXIT
The core change in the New Britain being forged is – Brexit. It has been hidden behind Covid for a few months. It has not gone away. You have to be wilfully in denial not to see the damage already done, and not to be concerned at what it might mean.
Brexit divided England and Wales from Scotland and Northern Ireland. It divided political parties and families; the young and their elders; business and trade unions; and friend from friend. As its full impact becomes apparent in the New Year, old wounds may re-open.
There is no consensus on Brexit, and never has been. It was a bitterly divisive policy, and uncorked a populism that may be difficult to quell.
The Referendum debate was unlike any I have known before. Emotion overcame reality. And, in the search for hearts and minds and votes, fiction defeated fact and fostered a belief in a past that never was – whilst boosting enthusiasm for a future that may never be.
If that mode of politics takes root, it will kill all respect in our system of government.
In the Referendum, Britons voted to leave the European Union. I have never hidden my view, nor have I changed it. To my mind – and I am no starry-eyed European – Brexit is the worst foreign policy decision in my lifetime.
I have seen the EU from the inside and know its frustrations. But have no doubt we were better off in than we will be out.
The decision to leave will damage our future in many ways, and the reassurances we are given are unconvincing.
Brexit was sold to our electors on false premises.
Promises made will not – indeed, cannot – be kept. To leave the EU – to separate ourselves from our neighbours – was sold as “regaining sovereignty”, but it is, and will prove to be, a long and painful ball and chain on our national wellbeing.
After the Referendum, Brexiteers did not even bother to argue the merits of their case – why should they? – it was “the will of the people”.
And once “the will of the people” was asserted as a repeated mantra – and the Brexit leaders claimed to speak for all “the people” – any opposition to Brexit became illegitimate, and any contrary view was howled down.
Free speech for those who supported remaining in the EU came at a price. They were pilloried as “Remoaners”: sticking to long-held principles and policies, and warning of clear dangers ahead was depicted as “sour grapes by sore losers”.
Even Judges were denounced as “Enemies of the People” for ruling on a Point of Law. Opponents of Brexit were cowed, and free speech was curtailed. It was shameful. No democracy should find itself in such a position.
Overseas, the outcome of the Referendum delighted our enemies and dismayed our friends. As our nation voted against its history and its self-interest, a bemused world looked on, wondering why we had chosen to become poorer and less influential.
Brexit was sold to the nation as a win-win situation. It is not. We were promised we would stay in the Single Market. We have not. We were told trade with the EU would be frictionless. It will not be.
We were promised we would save billions in payments to the European Union: a bus was driven around the country telling us so.
Not so: Brexit is costing billions – not saving them.
We were told that our “liberated country” could cut back on bureaucracy and regulations. We now know they will increase – and dramatically.
We were promised we would strike lucrative trade deals with America, India, China and others in quick time. Japan apart – we have not.
More recently – and for the first time in our long history – Ministers have proposed legislation giving them powers to break the law. This is a slippery slope down which no democratic Government should ever travel.
And, it was claimed, Brexit wouldn’t increase support for Scottish independence or a united Ireland. It has.
It defies logic that intelligent men and women making such extravagant promises did not know they were undeliverable – and yet they continued to make them.
It was politics. It was campaigning. It was for a cause.
It was also unforgiveable.
If that is how we are going to conduct our public affairs, then not only will our politics truly fall into a bad place, but our word as a nation will no longer be trusted.
POST-BREXIT TRADE
Trade has always been the life-blood of our prosperity.
We were promised a comprehensive trade deal with the EU. We were told this would be “the easiest deal in history” because “we hold all the cards”. Apparently not.
As the politics changed, the promises were ditched.
We can now look forward to a flimsy, barebones deal – or no deal at all. This is a wretched betrayal of what our electors were led to believe.
It now seems that on 1 January next year, Brexit may be even more brutal than anyone expected.
Brexit is no friend of free trade with Europe. It may set up new tariff barriers. And it certainly will:
set up non-tariff barriers;
damage supply chains;
add to regulations;
demand new customs and security declarations;
require Rules of Origin to prove where spare parts came from; – require tens of thousands of customs agents to process new bureaucracy; – create huge stockpiling dilemmas; and
require new massive storehouses to hold supplies.
These costs and complexities are the certain legacy of Brexit. This is as a result of our negotiating failure – and it is a failure.
Because of our bombast, our blustering, our threats and our inflexibility – our trade will be less profitable, our Treasury poorer, our jobs fewer, and our future less prosperous.
This is not hindsight wisdom: this outcome was not only foreseeable, it was foreseen. Unfortunately, in a brilliant mis-direction, all warnings were scorned as “Project Fear” and ignored. And, to add tragedy to farce, it was the people who were misled who will now lose out.
The Government has not been frank about our negotiations with Europe.
They say we are merely asking for a Canada deal, but that’s not so. We are asking for a deal without tariffs or quotas and for more on haulage, on energy, on aviation – and we are a bigger trading rival than Canada and nearer to the EU.
The Canada comparison is – to put it kindly – disingenuous. And to refer to an Australian deal is absurd.
There is no Australia deal. It is a fantasy: a euphemism for no deal at all – and the Government should say so.
Its reputation will suffer if it is not honest with the British people about this.
It is time to stop putting Ministers on the media who speak to a pre-prepared script and parrot misleading or pointless slogans.
There are hopes of trade deals with America, China and India. They would be welcome but, once again, the promises are overdone.
One day, I am sure, we will get the much-heralded trade deal with America, originally promised for last Spring, then Summer – now, who knows?
When it does come, it will benefit America far more than us. It may be symbolically important, but it won’t be an economic game-changer.
The promised trade deal with China is highly unlikely in any near timescale. Our ice-cold diplomatic relations with Russia rule out a trade deal with her, too.
And, if we wish to have a trade deal with India, the Government must realise that we cannot seek it on a Monday, and restrict immigration from India on Tuesday – it is a poor optic and a worse negotiating strategy.
The macro arguments against Brexit: the economic and social damage, our weaker position in the world, and the loss of trade advantages, may seem remote. They won’t prove to be.
WIDER IMPACT OF BREXIT
And lesser issues will impact directly:
the loss of freedom of movement in Europe;
higher food prices;
more expensive holidays;
the withdrawal of EU driving licences;
the cost of health insurance without the free cover of the European Health Card;
the loss of the Pet Passport Scheme and the expensive – and time consuming – effort to get approval for pets to travel;
higher roaming charges for mobile phones;
slower entry and more delays at European airports; and
the loss of the automatic right to work, live or study in the EU.
Small irritations, some may say, but – collectively – a significant loss of freedom that will be an unwelcome surprise to many as Europe itself begins to “take back control”.
When the present phase of Brexit is over, it is important we negotiate a more comprehensive relationship with the EU than is likely to emerge from the present negotiations.
We should seek bilateral agreements in areas of trade and policy which have not been agreed in these rushed negotiations.
We should work with the EU to address global problems.
And we should recognise that the nations of the EU are bound with ourselves in ties of common interest, history and future destiny.
To ignore this would be a dereliction of our national interests.
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE
One deeply troubling effect of Brexit is the risk of breaking up the UK by increased support for Scotland to leave the Union, and Northern Ireland to unite with the South.
Neither will do so immediately, but the combination of Brexit – and the unpopularity of our present Westminster Government in Scotland – has increased the likelihood of a breach.
I remain a convinced Unionist. Every part of the UK is richer – and of more weight in the world – if they stay together.
The most likely to leave is Scotland. If she does, it will not only weaken Scotland, but also undermine the rump of the UK.
It will be a step into the unknown for us both.
The problem is politics.
The raison d’être of the SNP is an independent Scotland while – for many Conservatives – Unionism is at the heart of their philosophy. It is a challenge to see whether that chasm can be bridged.
To keep the Union together will require consensus, consideration and consultation. The Government must engage, coax, encourage, and examine every possible route to find an arrangement that will obtain a majority for union.
It will be difficult – and is made even more so by the posturing of English and Scottish nationalists.
In law, the Scots require the approval of the Westminster Government before they can legally hold a new independence referendum.
But refusing one might help the separatist case, by adding to the list of grievances the Scottish National Party exploit with such skill.
The choice for the UK Government is either to agree the referendum can take place – or to refuse to permit it. Both options come with great risk. But the lessons of Brexit may offer a way ahead.
The Westminster Government could agree for an Independence Referendum to take place, on the basis of two referenda. The first to vote upon the principle of negotiations, and the second upon the outcome of them.
The purpose of the second referendum would be that Scottish electors would know what they were voting for, and be able to compare it to what they now have. This did not happen with Brexit: had it done so, there may have been no Brexit.
Many Scottish voices – and especially business – may support the logic of this: it may focus minds away from a short-term reflex opposition to a perceived English Government, and back to the mutual and long-term virtues of the Union.
NORTHERN IRELAND
Brexiteers affected not to notice that Northern Ireland’s support for the European Union pulled the Six Counties more into the orbit of the Republic of Ireland.
This was exacerbated when the Prime Minister’s renegotiation of Theresa May’s Withdrawal Deal left Northern Ireland more integrated with the Republic than the rest of the United Kingdom.
It was sold as a triumph, but it was a surrender.
These developments accompanied a third reality: the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland is growing faster than the Unionists, and is close to a majority.
The conjunction of these events is to increase the future possibility of a border poll – already sought by Sinn Fein – to vote upon a united Ireland.
I doubt that such a poll would be won at present. Not all Nationalists will vote for unity. The Republic would find it hard to absorb the weak economic structure of the North.
The time for a poll is not yet come. But it will. And if – when it does – the Northern Irish vote for unification, then those who ignored the warnings that Brexit posed will have to answer for the dismantling of a further part of the United Kingdom.
And, here in Middle Temple, one issue cannot be ignored. The Rule of Law.
Earlier I referred – in passing – to the provisions in the Internal Markets Bill that empower a Minister to disregard aspects of the Treaty the Prime Minister agreed earlier this year.
This action is unprecedented in all our history – and for good reason. It has damaged our reputation around the world.
Lawyers everywhere are incredulous that the UK – often seen as the very cradle of the Rule of Law – could give themselves the power to break the law.
Moreover, at a moment when we need to maximise our commercial activities, this Bill has had a corrosive impact on the reputation of English and Welsh jurisdiction.
This may have a practical cost.
International dispute resolution can be conducted anywhere overseas and the Bill could erode the present pre-eminent position of the UK and, perhaps, especially London.
Was this considered when the Bill was drafted? Was there consultation with the legal profession? If not, why not? And if there was consultation – why was it ignored?
Similar concerns apply to the clause that seeks to exclude Judicial Review in delegated legislation.
I cannot believe it is compatible with the Rule of Law to protect executive Acts from judicial scrutiny: put simply, Ministers must be subject to legal restraints. They cannot be above the law.
And all individuals must have access to the law. Our delivery of justice must be seen to be fair and impartial – access to the law must not depend upon the size of your bank account.
Magna Carta promised:
“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice”.
And yet, an individual – if denied legal aid – may not have the resources to right an injustice. That can deny justice: it cannot be right.
Nor can it be right to denigrate our Judiciary. They are not the “Enemies of the People”: they are the guarantors of our liberties under the law.
It is the responsibility of Parliament to uphold these liberties if they are threatened by any source: not to do so would be to curtail an essential freedom.
I have set out some concerns about the present state of our country. But I wouldn’t wish to be misunderstood.
SUMMATION
Throughout my life I have travelled widely and – in the last 20 years – almost incessantly.
In all my travels I have found nowhere I would wish to live, other than here in the UK.
That said, I believe we have a duty to make life better for this – and future generations – to whom we will be passing a difficult legacy.
In hard times, there is often an inflection point that changes minds, and compels policy that otherwise could not be easily implemented.
The combination of hazards before us may be such a moment.
To make it so, policy should be set to pave the way to a fairer, better, safer, and – in time – more prosperous future.
We will all have to bear burdens for such aspirations to become a reality, but that is both our privilege and our responsibility.
The very core of well-being is an expanding economy, efficient health provision and quality education.
The Government’s “levelling up” strategy is essential. So is – sooner rather than later – a credible system of social care for the elderly.
For future employment, we will have to focus increasingly on vocational education, and give such skills the respect they deserve.
It is essential we remain a United Kingdom – and reinforce the values that have built our reputation. If we cannot again be a great power, we can be a great example.
If we cannot compel, we can influence.
We can build up our soft power to sustain our profile.
We can use our diplomacy to raise issues that need multi-nation action.
We can be “Global Britain” in more ways than trade. But, to be so, we must reject the narrow nationalism that some have imported into our politics.
We must put aside the notion of “British exceptionalism”: it is a fantasy baked into the minds of those who do not know how the world has changed.
But – we can be exceptional.
All this – and more – can be achieved.
We like to think of ourselves as the land of hope and glory. “Hope” is essential – most especially during the darkest of times.
But I am ambivalent about the “glory”.
I will settle for a land that is united and prosperous; which rises above challenges – as it has done so often in the past; whose word is trusted both near and far; and whose people are seen to be decent, fair and compassionate to all.
In every corner of our United Kingdom that remains the instinctive heartbeat. And it is one which I hope will always prevail.
The text of Sir John Major’s speech made at the Institute of Directors Annual Dinner on Thursday 28th November 2013.
SIR JOHN MAJOR:
Many years ago, your Director General, Simon Walker, was a much valued member of my Policy Unit so – when he invited me to join you this evening – I was delighted to accept.
I wish to talk of three events that will shape our future:
• The Referendum on Scottish Independence
• The likely Referendum on our Membership of the European Union
• The General Election
Let me start with Scotland.
Next September, Scotland will vote on whether to break the Union and become an independent State. Such a vote would cut Scotland loose, and her loss would be felt across the UK. In their campaign, the SNP assert that the Pound Sterling is as much Scotland’s currency as it is England’s; that is true now but not if Scotland left the UK.
Independence means Scotland walking away from the UK and its institutions. This must include the Bank of England, and Sterling.
The whole point of independence is to enable Scotland to take her own decisions – yet she cannot do so if, upon a central economic matter, she has no control over monetary policy and no lender of last resort. That cannot be the Bank of England: the Bank is answerable to the UK Government and Parliament – not any future Scottish Government.
A currency union – which the SNP assume is negotiable – would require the UK to underwrite Scottish debts: that cannot – will not – happen if Scotland leaves the Union. There can be no halfway house: no quasi-independence underpinned by UK institutions.
Scotland could perhaps – in time – adopt the Euro. But first she must apply to join the EU, where many States would have concerns about the accession of a separatist Member. Spain: how would Spain feel – with breakaway movements in Catalonia and the Basque Country? Spain uses uncertainty over EU membership to deter Catalonia from even holding a referendum on independence. It is hardly likely she would happily wave in Scotland. Spain will not be alone in being wary of separatist tendencies.
And, even if Scotland were to enter, she would discover that within the EU the clout of the smaller population nations is …. small. Time and again, she might regret the loss of automatic British backing. Scottish voters need to know the chilly reality of what is being offered to them.
But what of Britain? It is simply not possible to have a large chunk of the UK break away – without weakening what is left. British influence would fall in Europe, NATO, the UN and all international gatherings.
There would even be some very unpalatable consequences for our nuclear deterrent. If an independent Scotland ejected it from the Faslane Base – as the SNP have threatened to do – it would be extremely difficult and costly for the Ministry of Defence to replicate it elsewhere.
If Trident were to be dismissed from Faslane, it is likely that the Ministry of Defence would remove from Scotland the whole of the submarine enterprise – including the Royal Navy’s attack submarines and the submarine centre of excellence. Would Faslane survive? One can only guess. But without contracts from the Royal Navy I doubt it.
It is also doubtful the SNP would be able to enter NATO – as they wish – since their opposition to nuclear weapons is inconsistent with membership. Scottish electors must know and understand what independence may cost them.
The SNP’s “ace in the hole” has always been the North Sea Oil and Gas reserves. But their estimate of reserves is twelve times greater than that of the Office of National Statistics. Who is right? I don’t know. But voters may wish to be wary of promises based on false optimism.
Be in no doubt: in politics, commerce and the Armed Forces, Scottish influence is important to Britain. Of course, anti-English sentiment from separatists irritates and enrages – as it is intended to do – but across the UK people know and value Scots as partners, work colleagues, friends and neighbours. It is hard to imagine Scots becoming – “foreigners”. But, if they do, nothing will ever be the same again.
For three hundred years, the Union between Scotland and England has served Britain well. Together, we have become safer, richer, more influential. Surely it is wiser to celebrate what we have achieved together, than to allow grievances – some imagined or exaggerated, others simply manufactured for political purposes – to tear us apart?
The SNP have chosen the ancient anniversary of Bannockburn for their Referendum. Yet a greater anniversary looms. Next year sees the Centenary of the beginning of the Great War, in which the English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish – the whole of the United Kingdom – fought together for freedom – as they would again 25 years later. Many thousands of Scots fought and died in these conflicts. Would it not be a tragedy if – as we honour their sacrifice – we do so as separate nations?
The European Union continues to divide public opinion in the UK. Even where it appeals to our head, it consistently fails to appeal to our heart. We need to sort this out. That is why the Prime Minister is absolutely right to re-negotiate where he can, before holding a referendum on Membership. Let our Sovereign electorate decide: that is the right way to secure Britain’s place in a reformed EU.
Yet, suppose we left:
(i) we would have to negotiate our exit which could cost billions;
(ii) we may have to pay for access to the Single Market: Norway, a non-member, pays 80% as much per capita as we pay as a full member;
(iii) we would lose inward investment – ask Japan or Korea, or even America;
(iv) we would still have to implement EU regulations, yet would have no part in framing them; and
(v) we would be unable to protect the City – or any part of our industry – from harmful legislation.
Of course, we would survive – but there would be a severe price to pay in economic well-being, in jobs, and in international prestige. In a world of 7 billion people, our island would be moving further apart from our closest and largest trading partners, at the very time when they, themselves, are drawing closer together. This makes no sense at all.
Nor would a UK exit make any sense for the EU, which would lose:
(i) one of its biggest economies;
(ii) the long and historic reach of British diplomacy;
(iii) the nation with the most significant military capacity.
The EU would be diminished. The UK would be isolated. I am no starry-eyed Europhile but it would be a lose/lose scenario: a truly dreadful outcome for everyone.
Before the referendum will come negotiations. I believe the British position is far stronger than many believe – not least due to the significant personal alliances the Prime Minister has formed with his European counterparts – though the manner of our negotiation will be key. We need to negotiate with the grain of evolving views across the EU. We need to hoover up the allies that already exist on many issues. We need to be smart enough not to ask for the impossible.
The route to full federalism for the Eurozone members is banking union; fiscal union and – ultimately – political union. There is no silver bullet to achieve this swiftly, and the Eurozone will edge towards it slowly, uneasily and haphazardly. As they do, they will face many setbacks – not least since full federation across nations is profoundly undemocratic, and public opinion across the Eurozone may well thwart their best laid plans. As for the UK, we have no obligation to join this escalator – even if it begins to move.
After the financial crash – even a “watered down” banking union is proving difficult to agree across the Eurozone. Fiscal Union – once assumed to be inevitable – now looks a long way off as European electors examine its democratic shortcomings. And full political union (the Shangri-La for many) is barely even talked about – except negatively.
Even the Dutch, once core federalists, now shy away from it, and seek reforms. Their Prime Minister says “the EU must become leaner and meaner”. The Germans say “we don’t have to do everything in Brussels”. These are hardly siren calls for a dash towards political union. Nothing is forever but, for the foreseeable future, “ever-closer union” and “full political union” – expressions that call many Britons to man the barricades – seem very, very far-off indeed.
Unusually, we know the date of the next General Election. We know also the recession is behind us. A brave policy, an unpopular policy, has proved to be right. Our economy is recovering and – although there is no room for complacency – I believe it will swing to growth faster than expected.
As it does, I hope that the electors will remember that, however well-intentioned their motives – however seductive their message – every single Labour Government we have ever had has left behind a ruined economy – the most recent one in spectacular fashion. And David Cameron and George Osborne are the pilots who have weathered that storm. No-one should forget that.
As the economy recovers, policy initiatives will begin to bear fruit: like many millions of others, I have a stake in the next generation and the one beyond that: and I welcome the Government’s long-term reforms for the future.
Opponents may criticise proposals on social policy, education and housing but few can deny that reform is necessary.
And it is not only social problems that need action. Our infrastructure is tired and inadequate. We need more air and sea port capacity.
Upgraded roads. And, even though private capital has poured billions into our railways, more needs to be done.
And it is no use demanding better infrastructure and housing if we oppose schemes to deliver it. I know some members of the IOD oppose high speed rail. I believe they are wrong. We need more growth in the North if we are to bequeath an economy that enables future generations to thrive. And, unless we wish our children to endure a lower standard of living, we must build more homes.
I was in politics for many years. I can look back and acknowledge my mistakes and urge others not to repeat them. These days, I travel the world but always return home to a country that – taken as a whole – has few, if any, equals in the freedom, liberality and kindliness that are its essential characteristics. We must never lose those qualities: no nation can be great if it is inward-looking and small minded.
For all the frustrations we face, our country offers a way of life that most of the world looks at – and envies. I had hoped to build a country that was at ease with itself. I failed to deliver that. But it can be done … to ensure we live in a country that – whilst striving to be the strongest – has the compassion to care for the weakest.
Political messages can often be coded, imprecise and ambiguous. Not tonight. I am clear that both Scotland and England gain from being joined together in one United Kingdom; clear that the UK is better off in the EU, but not the Eurozone; and clear that we should not change our economic leadership. If you are finally being hauled out of a deep, dark hole, it’s not wise to let go of those pulling you out.
And – in this gathering – let me add one final thought. We cannot leave everything to Government.
Here, tonight, are representatives of many leading companies. You care about our country, too. You have a stake in its success. And you have the power – and, I would argue, a moral responsibility – to work towards the future wellbeing, not only of your workforce and shareholders, but of our nation as a whole.
In the North, South, East and West we need growth. To provide jobs. To yield taxes. To build prosperity. To offer hope and opportunity to those who do not, at present, have it.
This requires a unity of purpose. A national unity – in the national interest. And, in that, we all have a part to play.