EU, Jimmy; The EU welcomed 10 new members yesterday, among them small

It is said that on May 1, 1707, the day on which Scotland lost her political independence as the Act of Union came into force, the church bells of Edinburgh rang out the tune, Why Should I Be Sad On My Wedding Day?

Yesterday - May 1, 2004, 297 years later - there was no sign of an equivalent tristesse among the 10 states that had just become full members of the European Union. Quite the reverse in fact, even though, according to the Eurosceptics, they will either rue the day they gave up their freedom, or be deserted by most of their citizens, rushing like lemmings to a better life elsewhere.

Those views are likely to be proved untrue, but there is another gloomy one to be had in some parts of the Scottish National Party - a view that contends that Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Cyprus, Slovakia and the rest are now in a position of unfair advantage over Scotland as new members of a club that is increasingly unhelpful to this country's aspirations for independence and to its chances of a more prosperous future.

Certainly full independent membership of the EU for Scotland - a settled SNP position since the late 1980s - still seems tantalisingly distant. The view expressed by Romani Prodi two weeks ago in answer to a planted question from a Welsh Labour MEP that a newly independent Scotland would have to seek membership at the back of a long queue of other states, such as Turkey, has been made much of by the press and by anti-nationalist politicians even though it is principally founded on Prodi's fear of Italian break-up and grounded in little international law or practice. The SNP's reluctance to sign up promptly to a positive approach to the European constitution, no matter that the stance may prove to be remarkably productive in terms of concessions from Blair, has also been cited as indicative of a waning commitment to Europe by the party.

In fact, the SNP should be much encouraged by the events of the last few days. It is sometimes hard to remember, but only a generation ago the Baltic states were held fast in an icy winter of Russian oppression. I first visited Latvia a month after its independence and even at that time Europe was reluctant to do much more than welcome the new state without making any commitments to its future status. Sheer energy and determination have propelled some of the smallest and most fragile economies on the continent into accelerated growth and the entrenchment of democratic rights in order that they might participate as equals in the largest free grouping of nations in the world. Where they lead, Scotland could follow and take heart from their example.

In addition, given their backgrounds, such countries are likely to be more than sympathetic to the plight of a small country that is not fulfilling its potential and which is unable to speak directly at the top table. All that they will require of that country is that it demonstrates an unequivocal commitment to the European ideal. As the larger countries lose their stranglehold on the union, Scotland's desire to be heard will be more likely to succeed in an enlarged Europe than in a smaller, more tightly controlled one.

The big challenge for the SNP is to stay true to that ideal while ensuring that Scotland's longer term national interests are not eroded. The choice of fishing as the so-called "red line" for positive participation in the referendum does not appear to have been taken lightly and the fact that the party has in recent months demonstrated something of an obsession with the subject clouds some of the intriguing facts of the matter. For example, the presence of Pat Gallagher, a key Fianna Fail fixer, on the platform of the SNP conference last weekend at a time when the Irish government has the presidency of Europe is unlikely to have been accidental. There was a message there, albeit a subtler one than George Foulkes's statements encouraging the SNP to pursue a deal on the matter with Labour in London.

If the SNP can find a stance that allows them to campaign for the constitution, they will be sending a clear signal to the new states they want the same treatment, and are prepared to negotiate to get it. This would also show that the negative British attitude to the EU does not hold true throughout the country and that there is hope of change - a message Blair wants to send too.

Of course it's possible that the tribal nature of Scottish politics might block this. Jack McConnell's obsession with "doing down the Nats" has already produced a horrified reaction to any idea of a compromise. But if wiser heads prevail everybody will get something: Blair will get a vital referendum ally; the fishermen of Scotland will get state management of fishing resources; the "yes" campaign will get the example of an issue on which the constitution boosts national power, rather than diminishes it; the SNP will be able to enlist the smaller members of the community in the cause of a Scottish voice in Europe, even if they have to operate subtly; and Europe will get praise for a change of heart, rather than the usual criticism for its bureaucratic negativity.

Yet even without the opportunity that a referendum affords, Scotland still has much to gain from an enlarged Europe. Certainly we will meet new competition from the accession states, but that might force the pace of the Scottish economy and put pressure on the enterprise minister and the whole Executive, whose attitude to governance and economic progress is so supine as to be horizontal. Scotland might benefit from such pressure, despite its difficulties in the short term, and it will certainly benefit if it can attract imaginative, hardworking and ambitious new European citizens to help it overcome its present lack of ambition. The Baltic states and Poland are the places in particular to look to for such immigration and more needs to be made of the historic links between those countries and ourselves.

Scotland could choose to move away from Europe and to take up an outsider's position, similar to that of the Faroe Islands or Norway. Such an attitude would not lead to disaster, but it would limit our prospects of success. Our inevitable partnership, devolved or independent, with our neighbours south of the Border and the way in which other small states have already benefited from membership in many different sectors indicate that positive engagement would be better. To take that route we will require friends to help us get aboard and there are several new potential friends now inside the tent. This is the time to cultivate them and learn from their example.

Michael Russell is a former SNP MSP and former SNP chief executive

Copyright 2004 SMG Sunday Newspapers Ltd.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.