The hype over Romanian and Bulgarian migrants marked one of the most depressing aspects of Westminster politics, not because it was incited by Ukip but because the Westminster parties chose to pander to that party's divisive rhetoric and shift to the right.
Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna, himself an immigrant's son, said founders of the EU had "free movement of workers in mind, not free movement of jobseekers". Yet research published by University College London shows that EU migrants are 33% less likely to claim benefits than UK nationals.
Indeed, EU migrants are net contributors to our economy. Between 2001 and 2011, they contributed 34% more to the fiscal system than they received, with a net contribution of £22.1 billion. Over the years they have opened businesses, created jobs and become part of the fabric of our culture and society. Scotland is rightly proud of its diverse migrant communities.
Tories accusing EU migrants of "benefit tourism" might well have become the norm. But for Labour to claim migration from Eastern Europe was, as Jack Straw put it, a spectacular mistake, shows the Westminster parties are dancing to Ukip's tune. Even Liberal Democrats, once pro-Europe and pro-immigration, back tougher welfare rules for EU nationals.
So, who really pulls the strings at Westminster? Do we allow our welfare, immigration and Europe policies to be directed by Nigel Farage? Last year, Ireland then Lithuania set the agenda for 500 million Europeans by providing presidents of the European Council: two countries smaller than Scotland but with more MEPs, their own commissioner and the power to steer EU policy for six months.
Why shouldn't Scotland do the same? Instead we're represented by the sceptics of Europe and their isolationism is costing us dear. We have a Prime Minister threatening to withdraw from the social chapter, which protects workers' rights. Would our First Minister agree? What about a UK Chancellor taking Brussels to court for introducing caps on bankers' bonuses? Would John Swinney do that? A Home Secretary considering withdrawal from the European Arrest warrant. Would Kenny MacAskill do the same?
A Rural Affairs Secretary calling for a reduction to the agriculture budget, when Scotland already gets the worst farming deal in Europe. Would Richard Lochhead agree? An Employment Minister refusing to implement Europe's Youth Guarantee to put young people into work.Would Angela Constance back that? A Work and Pensions Secretary rejecting EU funding for food banks to help the most vulnerable. Which Scottish Government, of any stripe, would countenance that?
For the past four decades, the UK has been on the edges, not shaping the European debate but merely reacting through a Europhobic lens. Scotland needs the power to respond to European initiatives based on its distinct priorities and needs.
As two independent member states, Scotland and the UK would, combined, have a stronger voice with more votes to pursue common goals, and where we disagreed, the power to take a different path. A year ago, the UK, Denmark and Ireland celebrated 40 years of EU membership. Dublin marked it with a successful EU presidency, a US-EU trade deal and reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy. The UK marked it with a Prime Minister announcing a referendum to quit.
Today, on Europe Day, let's reflect on the kind of relationship we want with our partners. Do we accept that the overwhelming population of the UK could, in an in-out referendum, vote to drag us out of Europe against our will?
Or do we take control, determine our future in Europe ourselves, embark on a constructive relationship with our neighbours and have a direct voice at the negotiating table? It's time to make a contribution to the direction taken by Europe. Let's leave the europhobia behind and take our rightful place in the family of nations.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article