At the risk of putting my own head above the parapet and being whacked the same way Stuart Winton has been, I’ve a few comments about the idea of independence in Europe that I thought I might air. Â But please be nice.
One of the bedrocks of the SNP’s independence message is that Scotland would have a stronger voice within Europe – and indeed, the wider world. Â You only have to read some of the comments on Stuart’s post to see those arguments voiced. Â As it stands, if Scotland wants a policy pursued at EU level, it must agree it with the UK government at Westminster, and that particular policy will only be pursued if the UK government itself sees it as consistent with the wider UK interest. Â Certainly a system whereby Scotland would have its own voice at this level – and the opportunity to use it – would appear to be a more attractive notion. Â However, is it as simple as declaring independence (making the assumption that there is a yes vote in a referendum) one day and speaking up in Europe the next?
It seems, the answer to this question very much depends upon who you ask.
The SNP’s team of constitutional lawyers indicate that there would be no difficulty with the above situation. Â In their view, it is perfectly legitimate to consider that, while Scotland will be seceding from one Union (the UK) it has given no indication that it wishes to leave another (the EU) and thus would continue its membership as previously, with various amendments since it would now sit as an independent nation-state. Â This would presumably entail increased membership of the European Parliament, voting and veto rights and various other aspects of membership.
Others indicate differently. Â They consider that the UK is the member state of the EU (which no one would dispute) and as such, any component part of that union which separates itself would also avail itself of the various treaty obligations which the UK holds – including membership of the EU. Â Thus, Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of all the international bodies to which it would like to align. Â Needless to say, independence which brings no commercial ties to Europe would be a less attractive option than independence with full EU membership as a guarantee. Â Indeed, many of the European Parliament staff members – of several nations – indicated that this was what they thought the case would be, especially since the Spanish (who face a similar situation with Basques and Catalans) would likely block the first option.
Then there is a third camp, which argues that, while Scotland would have to re-negotiate membership of the EU, so too would the rest of the UK. Â The point in this case is that the member state which negotiated membership of the EU originally no longer exists in the same form as it did when it negotiated membership, thus all memberships become null and void. Â While this third scenario would confirm Scotland on a similar legal standing to the rest of the UK, this would come as little economic consolation if both had to re-negotiate membership – with the added problem that this time it is likely that no opt-outs would be granted (meaning adopting both Schengen and the Euro as mandatory conditions of membership).
So – several opinions but no hard facts. Â Part of the reason for this is that there is no legal precedent for what might occur should part of a member state decide to secede. Â Of course there are cases of secession we can look to (Czech Republic and Slovakia, Kosovo, Montenegro – even Greenland) but none where membership of the EU has been at stake. Â There is a flip side – East Germany was incorporated in Germany’s membership – but that was a distinct situation (which could perhaps be repeated should Northern Ireland ever merge with the Republic of Ireland, but that’s a different issue entirely).
From discussion with MEPs of all Scottish parties and others, as well as non-partisan voices in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, it is clear that nothing is clear in this areas. Â Labour’s Catherine Stihler has asked the question of the European Commission on several occasions, with the only response being that they do not comment on hypothetical situations.
Well, this is no longer a hypothetical situation – we will have a vote on independence and a very real chance that Scotland will vote for it. Â There are perfectly legitimate and rational arguments on either side of this debate, and it is one which does need much further exploration – and a clear answer will surely be required before we move to the referendum. Â Indeed, the answer in the latter may well depend on the answer to the former.
#1 by Lost Highlander on June 29, 2011 - 8:01 pm
There is also Belgium to consider which as a country is possibly further along the separation trail than we are.
One further thing to note is that if we are not automatically made part of the EU then it will cost the EU not necessarily Scotland. Scotland and England are hardly going to create an iron border and that includes trade so Scottish goods will have full access to the EU.
But a Scotland not in the EU will not be subject to the treaties of the EU. That makes our territorial waters closed to EU fishing boats and that along with energy supplies is a very big stick to hold.
#2 by Malc on June 29, 2011 - 10:19 pm
Good point on Belgium… but then, since Brussels is one of the EU’s “capital cities” (inasmuch as some institutions are based there) that’ll make the situation even more important to the EU.
Also, good point on trade stuff. Maybe EEA/ EFTA membership would work better for both?
#3 by Dean MacKinnon-Thomson on June 29, 2011 - 8:20 pm
If the plebiscite would result in independence, and Scotland had to apply for membership we’d have to join the euro. How would this play with voters? Would it undermine the case for independence?
Being a staunch, and patriotic Europeanist myself (in all things), the idea that independence might usher in the euro actually increases my view to voting for independence….
#4 by James on June 29, 2011 - 8:37 pm
As a patriotic European, nothing would make me more likely to vote no to independence than if it meant Euro entry. The currency project will break the continent and we will lose a generation of fragile gains.
#5 by Dean MacKinnon-Thomson on June 29, 2011 - 9:06 pm
The problems in the single currency is due to the lack of integration not the presence of it.
If we had went further, quicker and seen eurobonds and a single, integrated fiscal union, there would be no crisis.
I put it to you that any good European should not only support the continued expansion of euro-holding countries, but seek to further integrate more power into the hands of the ECB.
#6 by Stuart Winton on June 29, 2011 - 9:49 pm
Dean, how long as the sterling zone had to integrate, and why are Bank of England interest rates still considered inappropriate for parts of the UK other than the SE of England?
In view of the even more disparate economies of the eurozone it seems unlikely that they would all be sufficiently integrated to support the single currency.
#7 by Malc on June 29, 2011 - 10:23 pm
A patriotic European?! I thought that only happened to people when the Ryder Cup was on…
#8 by Malc on June 29, 2011 - 10:22 pm
I imagine you are in a minority with that view Dean – and James points out, compulsory Euro currency membership would make him less likely to vote for indy than for it. Suspect there are more like him than you on this – but that’s just a personal view, I might be entirely wrong!
#9 by Phil Hunt on July 2, 2011 - 6:54 pm
“we’d have to join the Euro”
Of the 12 countries that have joined the EU since 2004, only 5 are in the Euro. So new members don’t have to join it. (They merely have to make a vague commitment to do so at some unspecified future date, something that can easily be fudged.)
#10 by Nikostratos on June 29, 2011 - 8:43 pm
Yeah well what i would like to know is
If the Scottish people(as far fetched as that idea seems) did vote for Independence(cant possibly see that happening) and then having regained there ‘sovereignty ‘ would the Scottish Government (of whatever party or parties).
Be able to re-enter the E.U without giving the Scottish people a referendum on any membership treaty.
After all the Nationalist have whinged for ever over the sanctity of the Sovereignty of the Scottish people so having regained it from the UK to then give it away to the E.U. without consulting the Scottish people would be a tad inconsistent wouldn’t it ….
#11 by Stuart Winton on June 29, 2011 - 10:02 pm
Indeed, Niko, and as Malc’s post underlines it might not even be up to a ‘sovereign’ Scotland.
But of course according to some all these issues are cut and dried, and it’s just a question of when to hold the referendum ;0)
#12 by Malc on June 29, 2011 - 10:28 pm
Well, true to a point Stuart. It would be up to Scotland to decide whether it wanted to be a member, and to apply – it would be up to the EU membership whether to accept them.
#13 by Malc on June 29, 2011 - 10:27 pm
Can we *not* get into the sovereignty debate again, please?!
I take your point: if EU membership is granted then yes, some sovereignty goes to Europe. And yes, that would reduce Scotland’s sovereignty in some issues. But sovereignty also means having the opportunity to take the decision to take Scotland into the EU in the first place.
But… let me take you up on your latter point: a referendum on EU membership. I think that is the SNP’s position (perhaps someone can confirm?). I suppose it depends whether you think sovereignty lies with the Scottish people in the event of independence. This is something that the SNP have championed before, and thus I imagine would continue with this line post-independence.
#14 by Angus McLellan on June 29, 2011 - 11:39 pm
An interesting question is interesting whether it is asked in good faith or not. Should a post-independence government take it upon itself to enter into EU accession negotiations with nothing more than the mandate conveyed by a majority in parliament? Or should there be a referendum? Questions to which the answer is “err…” indeed.
If we follow Westminster’s route, all that’s needed is a majority of one in the parliament. But why would we do that? Is Westminster really the best model to adopt? That’ll be a QTWTAIN.
Referendums can be misused – and you don’t need to go back very far and risk Godwinning the discussion as modern California is a fine example of that. In particular they shouldn’t be a shield for governments avoiding tough and potentially unpopular decisions – see California again – but big questions of long term significance are another matter.
Put me down for a referendum, and ideally after negotiation. Unlike independence, the details of EU membership matter a great deal to me since my support is conditional. I’d vote yes unless the terms on offer were ridiculous, key indicators of which would include signing up to Schengen and the Euro.
#15 by Malc on June 30, 2011 - 8:53 am
The UK House of Lords’ Select Committee on the Constitution reported in 2010 that for referendums are “most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues” for which they gave examples as changing the electoral system for the House of Commons and “for any of the nations of the UK to secede from the Union”.
Presumably, joining the EU (today) would come under the same heading.
But yes – questions of democracy and who should have a voice in such decisions. “Erm…” sounds about right.
#16 by Indy on June 30, 2011 - 4:05 pm
For possibly the millionth time.
Independence will result in the transfer of all powers exercised over Scotland by Westminster to the Scottish Parliament.It will not change the areas where the EU has competence.
So, for example, independence would mean that control over broadcasting or defence or pensions in Scotland would, through independence, be transferred from Westminster to Holyrood. It would not result in control over broadcasting or defence or pensions in Scotland being transferred to the EU.
Basically if the EU does not control it now, it will not control if after independence.
#17 by Allan on June 29, 2011 - 9:15 pm
I though that conventional wisdom dictated that the third scenario was the one most likely to unfold. However, as Lost Highlander points out, we will soon see which scenario is the case with the unravelling of Belgium.
I think that whatever happens, the people should have a say (Idealy the Irish clause – referendums for future European treaties – should be inserted into any future Scottish constitution). Not that the Euro is a particularily enticing prospect…
#18 by Malc on June 29, 2011 - 10:29 pm
See, and there was me thinking I’d just tossed the third scenario in to make it less controversial, but you are saying that is conventional wisdom? That the rest of the UK would ALSO have to re-apply? I have to say, that’s not what I was hearing from most people (of several nations) when I was in Strasbourg – who have you heard that from, if you don’t mind gossiping a bit?
#19 by Angus McLellan on June 30, 2011 - 1:32 am
Apart from the near-certainty that rUK is the successor and thus an automatic member since politics requires that it should be, nobody at Strasbourg will be able to tell you anything useful. Well, not unless there’s a summit going on. Where a hypothetical independent Scotland is concerned, the question is a political one. One (wo)man, one vote, and Bundeskanzler is the one with the vote.
So perhaps that’s slightly oversimplified, but the political landscape today is utterly changed from that of 2000-2001 when Jo Murkens was writing ‘Scotland’s Place in Europe’ and the EU seemed like it was going from strength to strength. But even then, and even with Murkens’ very cautious conclusions, the idea that Scotland had a “real alternative” in joining EFTA was trailed. That’d be something for the great and good of the EU to keep firmly in mind.
#20 by Allan on June 30, 2011 - 7:32 pm
That’s certainly what several friends think (not as informed as your contacts though Malc)… however i seem to have a memory of someone from UKIP maybe intimating that this would happen (last Euro elections possibly?), which is strange given that they stood on an anti-Holyrood campaign last month.
#21 by douglas clark on June 29, 2011 - 10:29 pm
malc,
Thanks for the link to Catherine Stihler’s question. Has she had an answer? It seems not…
#22 by Malc on June 29, 2011 - 10:30 pm
Nope – no answer as yet. The Commission are still treating it as a “hypothetical question” which they won’t answer.
#23 by alex buchan on June 29, 2011 - 11:39 pm
Your last comment leaves me wondering if you realise the significance of their refusal. Don’t you think that this illustrates just how political it all is? That they are treading a tightrope.
To comment would be to intervene in the domestic political affairs of a member state. Why do you think there will be an answer before the referendum, surely the closer we get to the referendum the greater impact on the domestic political affairs of a member state it would be.
As the UK Government represents the UK as the member state, and as other governments have a stake in discouraging independence for their own stateless nations, and as the Council is comprised of member states then we don’t need to guess what the Council’s attitude would be. The Commission, however, may have its own thoughts about loosing territory and as others have said, losing energy supplies and control of fishing.
So I’m not sure what kind of statement your expecting to get out of the commission or council before the referendum.
#24 by Malc on June 30, 2011 - 8:57 am
I do indeed realise it – as did Catherine Stihler. The Commission told her that it wouldn’t comment, pretty much as you put it, on “the internal and domestic constitutional affairs of a member state”. Which is fair comment I agree.
However, it very much leaves us in limbo. Specifically, if we don’t know what the outcome will be, how do we know whether we want “independence in Europe” or not?
#25 by Stuart Winton on June 29, 2011 - 11:56 pm
Very helpful of them; after all, it’s only a political and constitutional question of huge import.
Do you know at what stage in the process they would deem it to be non-hypothetical and thus worthy of an answer, Malc?
#26 by Angus McLellan on June 30, 2011 - 2:05 am
Probably never, but even if the EU Commission did answer it would be of about the same value as an opinion gleaned from a random passerby outside the Berlaymont building. It is a political question. It will always be a political question. And political questions are decided by the EU member state governments, not by some has beens and never weres in Brussels.
Accession negotiations may be easy and incredibly fast as they would be in the highly unlikely event that Switzerland or Norway were to join (don’t give them a chance to change their minds), or relatively simple and slow as for Iceland, or complex and very unhurried as for Bulgaria or Serbia, or impossible and interminable as for Turkey (let’s hope they lose interest so we don’t have to say no). Nobody can tell you where Scotland might be placed in that continuum of possibilities. People may offer their opinions, but political conditions change all the time. A plausible chain of reasoning which leads to one or other conclusion could be completely invalidated by a change in leadership or government, or in economic conditions, in one or more EU states.
But by hook or by crook, a hypothetical SNP government of a hypothetically independent Scotland would be able to fulfill their pledge of “Scotland in Europe” whatever the EU hypothetically did. Join EFTA and the EEA (always assuming that’s even required since Scotland might be a signatory courtesy of the Vienna Convention) and who’d notice much difference? You’d still queue in the same line for passport control if you travelled to and from Europe, and isn’t that the important thing?
#27 by Malc on June 30, 2011 - 9:00 am
EFTA and EEA have their merits – but they also have a lot of regulation without the voice in the Europe that the SNP craves for Scotland. Which suggests to me that the EU would be the preferred option and anything short of that wouldn’t be acceptable.
But I agree on the Commission answering the question. Its unlikely.
#28 by Brian on June 30, 2011 - 7:37 am
Let us not forget that independence means the dissolution of the union, not the seperation from it. If the other parties of the former UK want to continue their economic and political partnership, they are welcome to do so, but to claim that the new entity is an extension of a UK formed by treaty is hard to defend in international law.
When a treaty is dissolved, no successor rights exist to either party unless negotiatied between the parties. Scotland is hardly going to let England dictate the terms of the dissolution.
Once Scotland is gone, will the English voters want to continue the charade of the UK or will they wish to revert to their historical name of England? I would be hard pressed to find a strong argument for the former but could argue many historical and emotional arguments for the latter.
#29 by Malc on June 30, 2011 - 9:03 am
Brian, England’s political union with Wales long precedes their union with Scotland. I suspect they would make the case that it was Scotland who joined that union in 1707, and thus they would be the successor state. I’m not sure whether that works in international law (indeed, much of that is still being written) but they would, presumably, make the case that it was Scotland that was leaving and they were remaining in situ as a union, thereby maintaining their position as successor state.
But yes, its a very delicate position.
#30 by douglas clark on June 30, 2011 - 7:47 am
Presumably it remains hypothetical until we vote ‘yes’ in a referendum. Because it would be hypothetical until then? As others have said, I very much doubt the EU would throw us out given our potential energy contributions especially through renewables, however we should assume that unionists will not act in our interests before or after we split from the rUK.
I could imagine Cameron and Co playing a deGaulle like ‘non’ card to Scottish accession. Whether that would be sufficient to keep us out or not, I don’t know.
If it were to be the case that we were excluded, so be it. We’d still have a bright future.
#31 by Malc on June 30, 2011 - 9:05 am
“If it were to be the case that we were excluded, so be it. We’d still have a bright future.”
You’d be happy going to the electorate in an independence referendum saying “we’re not really sure what’s going to happen with the EU, they might chuck us out and not let us back in again, but don’t worry, we’ll figure it out”?
#32 by Angus McLellan on June 30, 2011 - 10:22 pm
Unless you think David Cameron is a secret euroskeptic – the usual claim is that he’s too europhile – he’s unlikely to play at being General De Gaulle. Whether that would be true of his successor if he were to fall or be pushed under a bus, who can say?
But on the EU question, what would you suggest? Reassuring lies might work, but the future is always uncertain whether with independence or with the union. We need only look at the unexpected return of “boom and bust” to see that. What I’d expect to hear is “We’ve considered that and even though we don’t think it likely we have a plan B ready. What we’d do is …”. Hope for the best and plan for the worst.
Even if we weren’t in the EU we’d be in the EEA. The design of passports would change anyway, so that the disappearance of “European Union” from them would probably pass unnoticed. The only way that an exit from the EU might impact most folks’ lives is if VAT were no longer to be imposed. But since sales and consumption taxes are loved by governments everywhere, just how likely is that? Yes, our leaders wouldn’t get to sit at the big table in Brussels. Yes, some MEPs would be out of a job. But fishermen would be happier and we’d have more money since we’d surely be net contributors to the EU. In what way would we be worse off? You can’t honestly, cross your heart and hope to die, promise anyone that the UK won’t end up leaving the EU anyway.
#33 by Malc on July 1, 2011 - 8:46 am
Thanks Angus. Nice to find a rational argument somewhere! I agree with the latter part of that – for sure there’s no certainty.
I think on “what do I suggest” with regards the EU question – its not really for me to answer. I was raising the issue, trying to point out to independence campaigners, that whether we have an answer from the EU or not, it might be an issue. I’m not saying there’s an easy solution. All I’m saying is that the “you should intrinsically support independence, regardless of where it leads us – in or out of the EU” is an argument which is likely to turn off voters.
Of course nothing is ever certain, but evidence of consideration given to the issue would be good.
#34 by douglas clark on June 30, 2011 - 9:19 am
Malc,
You are just after saying @ 19 that the EU won’t give us a straight answer. How is anyone able to factor that into their opinion – and that includes you and Stuart too.
If it is the case – that they won’t tell us – then, yes. Not because I’d want to but because we’d have to. It is far more importnat to get out of the economic disaster that it a SE England dominated UK that it is to worry about the EU.
If the EU won’t spell it out where does the blame for this fog of war lie? It lies with Brussels not Edinburgh. Or, on second thoughts, with Westminster pulling Brussels’ strings.
Unionists can be very nasty and narrow minded people Malc.
Frankly I am in favour of the EU. But it has to at the very least recognise it’s obligation to it’s Scottish electors independent of what the Westminster behemoth might whisper in it’s ear.
#35 by Malc on June 30, 2011 - 10:30 am
I know the EU Commission won’t give a straight answer. I’ve said that in the post. I’m not saying you have a choice given the EU’s reluctance here.
My question was really one of comfort though. You think an independence referendum would be won with such question marks hanging over Scotland’s European future? I’m sceptical at times of the good being part of the EU has done Scotland as a region in Europe, and even I would suggest that being independent in Europe would be preferable from an economic and trade point of view than being independent and out of Europe.
But you guys are going to come around the doors and say “don’t be alarmed, we’re not sure what happens with this, we’re hopeful we’ll get in – but its not our fault if we don’t. Those nasty Brussels/ Westminster based folk won’t let us play with them”.
Even an occasional Eurosceptic like me would be a bit concerned with that kind of response.
#36 by douglas clark on June 30, 2011 - 10:56 am
Malc,
As far as I see it, we can no more insist on being members of a club that won’t tell us whether we meet the entry / re-subscription terms or not! I’d have thought that was obvious.
It is another reason why Salmond is right to defer a referendum to the latter part of this parliamentary session.
There should be pressure put on Brussels to provide an answer.
If none is forthcoming I would see that as bad faith by Brussels to it’s own electors, i.e. us Scots, and a failure of democratic accountability. The fact that they are already interfering in internal state politics by not giving a definitive answer is quite clear by the tenor of this thread.
If they can’t even tell us that then I’d assume they don’t want us and we should proceed to independence on that basis.
Frankly you and Stuart are intellectualizing this all a tad too much. The question is simple. Do you want independence or not? Yes or No?
You are doing your best to obfuscate that simple question. It is as obvious as the nose on my face that whichever way you jump there will be consequences. Did that stop anyone else from embracing independence from Westminster? No it did not.
#37 by Malc on June 30, 2011 - 11:44 am
For **** sake. I’m not obfuscating anything.
Its nothing to with whether Scotland can force its way into a club or anything. Its about how you campaign for independence. Believe it or not – and its pretty clear that you don’t – both James and I are instinctively pro-independence. All we’re doing is pointing out issues which WILL be problematic for any Yes campaign which materialises.
Whether you like it or not, the EU membership issue WILL be something that people will consider. Its clear from what you’ve said that you are happy to stand on doorsteps and tell people not to worry, the question of Scotland’s future in the EU doesn’t matter, that independence is the only thing that matters. I’m saying that’s likely to lose you votes.
Where’s the obfuscation there?
#38 by alex buchan on June 30, 2011 - 1:06 pm
I agree with you, but I think EU membership will just get mixed up in a whole lot of arguments over the economic case. I think the fact the we are having this discussion indicates that we don’t feel that there is any real consensus in Scotland either for independence or for the union with any great sense of enthusiasm.
The majority mood in Scotland seems to be one of skepticism towards the feasibility of independence but open to the arguments. So I agree that at the present time the issue of EU membership will play into that. I also think that we all know what would be likely to happen. Scotland will have to go through a apply with the complicating factor that the Council will want to try to limit the knock on effects of Scottish accession while the Commission will be more keen not to loose Scotland.
Some might have realised by know that my view is that the SNP should either come out for full home rule inside the UK, as a stepping stone, acknowledging that this is where the bulk of public opinion lies, or allow a third question on fiscal autonomy on the ballot.
#39 by Indy on June 30, 2011 - 4:12 pm
It has always been something which people have considered. Nothing has changed in that respect.
The EU as an institution is not going to make any kind of statement on whether or not an independent Scotland would be a member state of the EU before there is even a refererendum bill on the table.
However I think we will probably be able to get some form of words sorted out when the referendum bill IS tabled and starts to be debated. But it is not going to happen before that because it is, as they say, hypothetical.
#40 by Shave on June 30, 2011 - 12:15 pm
“The question is simple”
If you’re a Nat.
Otherwise the question is ‘do you want to change the constitutional arrangements to something ill-defined and uncertain – Yes or No?
Not a vote winner.
#41 by Angus McLellan on June 30, 2011 - 10:47 pm
As opposed to remainimg in the UK, where everything is equally ill-defined and uncertain? The Westminster government claims the power to change almost any aspect of law or government on the basis of votes in parliament. Either way, the future is unknowable. That may well not be a vote winner, but neither is lying.
#42 by Shave on July 1, 2011 - 10:18 am
“lying”
Who is lying?
#43 by douglas clark on June 30, 2011 - 12:08 pm
Malc,
Don’t like obfuscating? Oh well.
Which bit of my reply at 31 didn’t you understand?
1. Try to get a straightforward reply out of the EU
2. If it’s favourable, stay in the EU
3. If it’s unfavourable we’re not in the EU
4. Live with it.
By the time the referendum arrives hopefully this will all be a bit clearer.
Frankly I can’t see the EU chucking us out but I do expect Westminster to do all it can to make independence a rocky road to travel. My position is pretty clear. I’d prefer to be able to argue on a doorstep on a Scotland in Europe platform but if push comes to shove I’ll also be happy to stand on that self same doorstep with a Scotland out of the EU platform and here’s who did it……
That is the clarity that is required. That is also why we need some time to resolve these issues as best we can.
I have not said you or James don’t support an independent Scotland in Europe. What I am saying is that you are giving too much credence to the Unionist case.
#44 by Indy on June 30, 2011 - 3:59 pm
I am sure we will see a lot of these constitutional debates but the EU didn’t get to where it is today by getting hung up on legalities. If Scotland become independent it will adapt to that as it has to all of the other changes that have happened.
The argument used to be that the EU would oppose Scottish independence because Spain would veto it due to the Cataln situation. I don’t think many people argue that now. And look at the situation in Belgium itself, home of most of the EU’s institutions.
#45 by Lost Highlander on June 30, 2011 - 4:07 pm
It really comes down to what benefit would Scotland have being part of Europe that it would not have being on its own.
Trade would not be disrupted we would through EFTA have full access to Europe and vice versa. Trade regulations and Law issues are already resolved and we where never members of Schengen.
So the question has to be asked what has the EU to offer us to join it.
#46 by John on July 1, 2011 - 10:12 am
The legal process towards EU membership has never, and will never, be the real issue.
Member States will deal with it prmatically as and when it comes along, and Spain and France and anyone else worried about movements in their own countries will extract concessions in negotition to make the case appear a one-off and bind Scotland into the acquis.
The real question, and one I do question the SNP’s ability to answer, is what do you do with that vouce once in?
If the CFP has not been the answer over all these years, how would Scotland have voted? And who would their allies have been in voting against?
The other Atlantic countries – clearly not.
North Sea – no.
Mediterranean – no.
Which leaves only those landlocked central and Eastern countries that everyone from Lochhead downwards have been happy to deride when they (as consumers) get a vote in fisheries matters as well as the UK (the producers)?
There’s no real rigour to the practical arguments for membership after independence, and that should be a worry.
Stihler is not the only one who keeps asking the question:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=P-2007-1625&language=EN
Truth, there is a whole array of quotes from former worthies (usually Irish) who express a personal opinion one way or the other on EU membership. They count for nothing.
#47 by Phil Hunt on July 2, 2011 - 7:05 pm
The question boils down to: Does an independent Scotland automatically become a party to agreements made when it was part of the UK?
One such agreement is the European Union. Another is the UK’s national debt. If Yes, then we’re automatically members of the EU. If No, then we wouldn’t have to pay any of the debt.
#48 by Malc on July 3, 2011 - 10:52 am
Sorry Phil, I’m not convinced by the consistency of those two arguments. I do see where you are coming from though.
Membership of the EU depends on the agreement of member states. The UK’s national debt depends on the UK. They aren’t linked at all.
You see any way the UK allows Scottish independence if we don’t take on a share of the debt?
#49 by Phil Hunt on July 3, 2011 - 7:39 pm
“””The UK’s national debt depends on the UK.”””
EU membership is an agreement between the UK and some other parties (in this case countries).
The national debt is also an agreement. It’s an agreement between the UK and creditors where they give the UK some money now in return for the UK agreeing to give them more money in the future.
So they are both agreements, both the same sort of thing. The only difference is that some (probably most) of the UK national debt isn’t owed to other countries, and therefore does qualify as an agreement between sovereign states. I don’t see how this makes any difference; either agreements made by the UK bind those people who’ve agreed to the UK’s successor states, or they don’t.
“””You see any way the UK allows Scottish independence if we don’t take on a share of the debt?”””
In practise it’s very unlikely that an Scotland wouldn’t pay it’s share of the national debt, and also very unlikely that the EU would refuse it as a member.
#50 by Malc on July 3, 2011 - 9:30 pm
I’m with you on the former, not on the latter.