Scotland would have to apply for EU membership: a disaster for Salmond

The biggest blow yet for the Scottish First Minister in a bad year for his party.

2012 has not been a year to remember for Alex Salmond. The Scottish First Minister has seen support for independence continue to erode (one in four supporters have deserted the nationalist cause this year), further scrutiny of his ties to Rupert Murdoch, and his parliamentary majority reduced to one after two MSPs resigned over the SNP's U-turn on Nato membership.

The latest - and biggest - blow is the news that, contrary to Salmond's previous assertions, an independent Scotland would have to apply for EU membership. A leaked draft letter from the EU Commission to the House of Lords economic affairs commitee (published by the Scotsman) stated that "if a territory of a member state ceases to be part of that member state because it has become an independent state then the treaties would cease to apply to that territory." This contradicts the SNP's long-standing insistence that Scotland would automatically inherit the UK's EU membership and its opt-outs from the euro (Salmond having long rescinded his support for the single currency) and the Schengen Area.

In a separate letter to Scottish Labour MEP David Martin, EU Commission president José Manuel Barroso confirmed that a newly independent Scotland would have to apply for membership, with unanimous agreement required by existing member states. The latter point is a crucial one. Spain, which is currently battling its own separatist movement in Catalonia, has previously indicated that it could veto a Scottish bid for membership. Added to this is the fact that any successful application, complete with opt-outs on the euro and border controls, could take years, rather than months.

Salmond has retorted that no one "seriously believes anybody would want to exclude Scotland from the European Union". But while it is more likely than not that the EU would accept Scotland as a member, the net result of all of this will be to create even more doubt over the wisdom of independence. The Better Together campaign can now plausibly claim that an independent Scotland may not be able to join the EU or, alternatively, that it could be forced to join the euro. At a time when economic uncertainty is already so great, it is hard to see Scottish voters disregarding these warnings and voting in favour of independence in 2014.

Update: Several commenters have pointed out on Twitter that the Scotsman corrected its piece - the paper apologised for reporting that the EU Commission had already sent its letter to the House of Lords economic affairs commitee. But since I referred to the letter as a "leaked draft" the blog remains accurate.

Scottish First Minister and SNP leader Alex Salmond. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.