The media is having another kick-around of the old idea that Scotland, if independent, would be required under EU rules to join the Euro. As the Commission’s website confirms, the only EU members with an opt-out are Denmark and the United Kingdom. Even Sweden must join, in theory, when the time is right, and they’re probably not yearning to do so at the moment.
Any other existing EU members not in the Euro have to join ERM II and fulfil convergence criteria, which presumably right now means “is your economy nosediving and are your bonds not selling very well?” Sweden appears to have avoided this risk by deciding not even to join ERM II yet. This neat trick means they are not officially beginning to converge with the Eurozone, so can stay out. In practice it appears that new members could probably pull off the same trick, akin to Gordon Brown’s famous five tests, but despite reading the whole of the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties over the weekend, I’m really no clearer about that.
But that may not matter. So we’ll start again.
The argument is this: an independent Scotland would be either be outside the EU, shivering in the cold, or we’d be a new member, obligated to join the Euro just as putative future EU member states like Croatia would have to. But assume the referendum results in independence – why would Scotland have a formally different status to “England, Wales and Northern Ireland”? Let’s do a few implausible thought exercises.
Perhaps it’s because it would be Scotland’s decision to “leave”. Is it down to who takes the decisive step? Imagine the Clarksonite argument that the Scots are a drain on the exchequer triumphed at Westminster, and Dave decided to cut us off, metaphorically. Would we be forced into the Euro in those circumstances? Or if EW&NI were the ones who were seen to have initiated the breakup, not us, would therefore they be required to join the Euro instead? Both are absurd prospects.
Perhaps it’s a question of scale? Just because the bulk of the UK’s population would remain in EW&NI, does that make them the only successor state? There is some precedence for scale, notably when the USSR broke up and the Russian Federation got to keep the embassies, but the consequences of that decision for the other former Soviet republics weren’t as radical as a requirement to join a currency union. But still, that can’t be right. Imagine an EU member state, let’s call it Belgium, divided relatively amicably into two equal parts. Would only one of Flanders and Wallonia be left the successor state to Belgium, according to which was marginally bigger in population terms? No way, which is what makes this legal advice ridiculous.
Another option is that both halves could decide not to take on the rights and responsibilities. When Czechoslovakia went through its Velvet Divorce, neither country sought recognition as the sole successor state, and both were treated as new UN entrants, yet both remained parties to all treaties signed by their predecessor state. But that’s not going to happen, especially in this case.
Fortunately, we don’t need to play these games. In practice, the question of successor states is determined by the 1978 Vienna Convention. Colonies achieving independence are not bound by the treaties of their former colonial masters, whereas in “cases of separation of parts of a state”, all new states remain so bound (or in this case, free). Only the wilder fringes of cybernat-dom regard independence as the last act of decolonising the British Empire, so a newly independent Scotland would be covered by existing treaties, just as EW&NI would be. Thankfully.
And so the First Minister’s desire for independence and his desire for us to join the Euro can at least be dealt with separately by those of us who agree only with the first objective.
#1 by Chris Cooke on October 31, 2011 - 4:57 pm
Even if Scotland was required to join the euro, that would only put it in the position that Sweden is in: it’s obliged to join, but only after it’s met the entrance criteria; so they make sure that it fails to meet the entrance criteria. (By failing to be a member of ERM II, according to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_euro
)
#2 by James on October 31, 2011 - 5:08 pm
Hi Chris, yes, that’s the point I’m making in the second par.
#3 by Angus McLellan on October 31, 2011 - 6:44 pm
To expand on your point, the Czech Prime Minister thinks the Swedish approach will do them fine too.And the last polling on Czech entry into the Eurozone I heard of was 9:1 against.
#4 by tormod on October 31, 2011 - 6:08 pm
Thank you James I have been manfully trying to explain to various bods that to join the euro you must join erm2 for 2 years erm2 membership is voluntary.
Sweden are in this current position as you explained.
I could not find a time bar on not joining erm2. De facto opt out for Sweden and Scotland.
#5 by Barbarian on October 31, 2011 - 7:16 pm
If there is one subject I do not trust a single party on, it is Europe.
I trust the SNP on the economy, health and justice. But I cannot at present trust them on Europe.
What is needed is a blunt statement from Salmond telling Scotland exactly what the policy of the SNP is with regards to an independent Scotland. The long he lets this hang, the more time the doubt has to set in. Get away from rules and regulations and just give people a clear and unambiguous statement.
#6 by Tris on October 31, 2011 - 7:19 pm
Thanks for that explanation. Of course it doesn’t matter how many times you or Nicola, or Alex, or John, or anyone ease who has bothered to look into it, explains the situation…even going as far as to dismiss by reason the possible alternatives, there will be those who will continue to spread the same poisonous scare stories about.
I wonder which one of them has taken the time to read the introduction to one of the treaties, never mind the whole boring thing.
#7 by Edinburgh observer on October 31, 2011 - 7:26 pm
All makes sense. However, not that this undermines the argument in itself, but your link to the Vienna Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Succession_of_States_in_respect_of_Treaties), reveals that neither the EU as a whole or the UK as a state has either ratified or signed that particular Convention. So, while your argument is logical, it must rely purely on logic, and is not supported in law (which, of course, is rarely logical!).
#8 by William Brown on October 31, 2011 - 7:35 pm
I realise that the media et al are trying to pin the SNP down on this issue, but since we are talking about 2014+ who knows where “Europe” and the euro will be at that date? There may be a completely different set of circumstances for ALL the EU countries to grapple with.
Best for the SNP to point this out and talk up a referendum for in/out “in due course”.
#9 by Chris on October 31, 2011 - 8:00 pm
Ach well with support for independence up to a still underwhelming 32% I really don’t think the vote will swing on this issue. Even if the referendum ever does take place.
#10 by Jeff on October 31, 2011 - 8:14 pm
I don’t actually agree you with here James. I think it’s perfectly logical that an independent Scotland would have to rejoin the EU as a separate state and, as a direct result, have to join the Euro.
In such circumstances I can also envisage your 5 tests and ERM tricks as not working because the EU could quite easily say ‘No Euro, no EU membership’.
Meanwhile, rUK could well stay as the original member state. Let’s remember just how much the UK currently contributes to the union and how much financial stability it brings. They won’t want to see Farage get his way and take UK out of the EU over something so arbitrary as a Scottish referendum.
I’m no EU expert, so who knows what would happen, but the will of Sarkozy/Merkel would surely be to keep Cameron onside and would also be to make little Scotland meet the entry criteria that all other similar sized nations had to go through.
Also, wouldn’t linking the Euro to Scottish oil revenues help the currency enormously?
I also don’t see how Czechoslovakia and Russia are precedents when they don’t involve an EU that makes its own rules.
#11 by Angus McLellan on October 31, 2011 - 9:24 pm
We wouldn’t have to join the EU at all Jeff since there at least three alternatives to that course. According to Michael Keating, when interviewed by Bateman on Saturday morning we have nothing to worry about and no need to join the EU. His view was that we are already in the EEA (free trade, free travel, &c) and can’t be kicked out. That’s all that matters.
As to the idea of having to join the Euro, you’re not one of these overpromoted Labour councillor types who can’t tell the difference between an independent state and a council. So how exactly might this compulsion be exercised? The EU already said “no Euro, no EU” to the Swedes and Czechs and they agreed …
You also seem to have a very odd idea of where Cameron’s interest would lie were Scotland to vote yes. Not great to be the PM who “lost” Scotland, but that can be spun by future biographers. So, not the last PM of the UK but the first PM of a reborn, free England. But that won’t matter much until he’s dead and gone. Or at least retired. But being seen to support the Euro in any way would have much swifter consequences. Joining up with France and Germany to make the Euro even more compulsory or by insisting on unreasonable terms and having the Scots decide on EFTA instead would raise a tidal wave of anger on the Tory backbenches and in the London papers. Not a good idea.
#12 by Doug Daniel on November 1, 2011 - 12:53 am
The EU is not in the habit of kicking people out though, Jeff. It would be completely going against their ethos to require a country that is already part of the EU to reapply for membership. Besides, if they do that, then how can they be sure Scotland would even bother? We might say “nah, we’ll just do what Norway and Switzerland do”, which only serves to weaken the EU.
An independent Scotland would be one of the richest (in terms of GPA per capita) countries in the EU. They’re not going to shoot themselves in the foot by effectively kicking us out. It just doesn’t make sense.
#13 by GMcM on November 1, 2011 - 9:19 am
The SNP have been saying for a while that there is no way the EU would let oil-rich Scotland stay out the EU for long. If the EU want Scotland in the EU so bad because of the oil wealth then surely they would want a strong economy to enter the Euro?
The SNP are living in a land of make-believe if they think that it’s as simple as getting people to say YES in a referendum and then it all moves along smoothly. They are treating Scots with contempt. They have the legal advice, surely, so why not release it? Is it the same as LIT?
#14 by Alexander Belic on October 31, 2011 - 9:06 pm
“Perhaps it’s a question of scale? Just because the bulk of the UK’s population would remain in EW&NI, does that make them the only successor state? There is some precedence for scale, notably when the USSR broke up and the Russian Federation got to keep the embassies, but the consequences of that decision for the other former Soviet republics weren’t as radical as a requirement to join a currency union.”
The Soviet Union is perhaps a poor example as Russia had less of the population than the 14 other republics, the majority of whom wrote to the UN forfeiting their claims on the USSR’s seat on the security council and applying for membership as new states (Ukraine and Belarus were already members – which makes me wonder why Scotland, Catalunya etc couldn’t have seats of their own, but that’s perhaps for another day)
A better example might be the breakup of Yugoslavia, the government in Belgrade was recognised as the sole successor when Slovenia, Croatia, and Macedonia left the federation in 1991, but when Bosnia left, the state had 40% of the original Yugoslav population and recognition was removed.
#15 by Adrian B on November 1, 2011 - 12:46 am
If Scotland became independent from the UK there would be two states in international law, the UK (not ‘EW &NI’) and Scotland. The Treaty on European Union applies to the territory of the UK (article 52 TEU). The Vienna Convention on State Succession does not apply to bind EU member states viz the EU treaties. The Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are extremely complex and weigh state interests in the Council and elsewhere very carefully, see e.g. Protocol 11 on qualified majority voting. There are numerous further issues that would be even harder to resolve. The EU is a whole, particular, system of law, deriving its validity from specific treaties. You can’t just pop a state into it. It’s not like signing up to the ECHR, etc It is hard to see how an independent Scotland could simply be a member of the EU on the day of independence w/o some kind of amending treaty being agreed and applied to the EU treaties in advance (may be this is the answer). Customary international law would appear to offer little by way of an answer to the sheer complexity involved in introducing another member state w/o treaty revision.
#16 by Doug Daniel on November 1, 2011 - 1:36 am
“It is hard to see how an independent Scotland could simply be a member of the EU on the day of independence w/o some kind of amending treaty being agreed and applied to the EU treaties in advance (may be this is the answer)”
When I see things like this, it makes me wonder what exactly people think is going to happen the day after the referendum if Scotland votes to become independent. We’ll be voting to start the process of independence, we won’t be voting for Scotland to suddenly become a brand spanking new state the second the result is announced. There’ll be numerous things to sort out, mainly because there’s no way the Tories will play ball until their hand has been forced by the Scottish public. There will be a “handover” period, if you will, during which things like this will be sorted out and finalised.
Obviously, going into the referendum, the principle will have been established by the SNP, so people know what they’re voting for. But even if the EU DID say we’d have to reapply, it wouldn’t become effective straight away.
What a strange argument to put forward…
#17 by James on November 1, 2011 - 8:22 am
Adrian, thanks for that. Do you have links for the first few assertions there?
#18 by Richard on November 1, 2011 - 1:12 pm
You seem to suggest that the UK would carry on after Independence. The “United Kingdom” was formed by the union of Scotland and England (including Wales), therefore if the union is dissolved, there is no union, so there can be no continuing UK.
#19 by Aidan on November 1, 2011 - 1:25 am
Multiple successor states in terms of membership is a nonsense – both Czech republic and Slovakia had to reapply to the UN for instance.
As for determining which is the successor state, 90% of the population is pretty inarguable surely?
#20 by Indy on November 1, 2011 - 7:29 am
Jo Merkens did a paper on it in 2001 which looks at a lot of the issues about membership though it was pre the issues about the euro.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/68.pdf
As with anything else, it is possible to make a number of different legal arguments. But it’s a political decision. A political decision which is taken within a legal context of course, but nonetheless a political decision. The fact is that Scotland is a fully integrated member of the EU. It would actually be rather difficult to de-integrate. And why would the EU want to chuck out a country with Scotland’s huge reservoir of natural resources?
The argument that Scotland would not automatically retain EU membership and would have to re-apply was always based on the view that member states who had their own internal independence movements would block it but I doubt if that would be argued now. It’s likely that Belgium may be the first member state to split into two after all, not the UK.
#21 by Ken on November 1, 2011 - 9:48 am
“The fact is that Scotland is a fully integrated member of the EU”
No it’s not. It’s part of a member. It’s not a member in itself.
“The argument that Scotland would not automatically retain EU membership and would have to re-apply was always based on the view that member states who had their own internal independence movements would block it but I doubt if that would be argued now.”
5 EU member states do not recognise Kosovo. If you can convince those 5 – then you get into the EU.
#22 by Adrian B on November 1, 2011 - 9:47 am
The Jo Merkens paper that Indy cites makes many points far more eloquently that I can. On the international plane, rather than under Scots or English public law, the UK would continue to exist, albeit with loss of territory and population. Critically, the UK would retain sovereignty over some territory and population. The Merkens paper (p. 10) accepts with this in the references to ‘rump UK’. There is a good short chapter on state succession and how it works in Brownlie ‘Principles of International Law’ on State Succession (649-668) (7th ed). In the context of federal states (which the UK is not) the practice of other states appears to have been to decide whether to recognise a rump state as sole successor but I am not sure this is decisive for international law.
I agree that this (Scotland’s EU membership) is a political decision in a legal context. I am not saying that any of the issues would arising would inhibit independence or render EU membership problematic. I am interested in the nuts and bolts of state succession in the context of whether there is ‘automatic’ succession to obligations establishing an international organisation by treaty or whether an amending treaty would be required. As regards the EU some sort of amending treaty and political agreement seems necessary.
I have no doubt that the balance of opinion in EU states would be to facilitate Scotland’s independent membership of the EU. The question for the SNP Government is what terms it would like to see for Scotland’s membership, or what would be best for Scotland and what is Scotland’s bottom line in negotiations.
#23 by Angus McLellan on November 1, 2011 - 12:50 pm
While it’s an interesting academic exercise to consider whether Scotland would or wouldn’t be considered an existing EU member, it’s not much more than that.
Scots might well be concerned whether they could travel without a visa in Europe, as they do today, whether they’d still queue in the EU-flagged passport queue (the other one always involves a long wait), and whether they could live abroad, as they can today, without too much bureaucratic nonsense. Businesses would rightly be concerned about these and other aspects of the internal market – free movement of people, goods, capital and services. But do these concerns have anything to do with membership of the EU?
If we look at the facts on the ground we find that Monaco is a member of the Schengen Area, and of the Eurozone, and of the internal market, but that it is not an EU member state. Norway and Iceland belong to Schengen and the internal market, but don’t use the Euro and aren’t members of the EU. The things that matter to people and businesses are not a product of EU membership. The EU may be an important matter for some on political grounds, but so far as our daily lives are concerned it is a trivial detail. With this in mind, it seems obvious that there would be no need to make a hasty decision on EU membership.
#24 by James on November 1, 2011 - 12:54 pm
It’s a complex picture for sure. Specifically, it’s this complex picture.
#25 by Richard on November 1, 2011 - 1:22 pm
Is there room for a wee Saltire there between Norway and Iceland?
#26 by James on November 1, 2011 - 2:06 pm
Pick your preferred place on the Venn diagram.
#27 by Richard on November 1, 2011 - 1:19 pm
Here is a thought to ponder though – Northern Ireland, as part of Ireland, was absorbed into the UK. If the UK then dissolved due to Scotland’s withdrawal, where would that leave NI? Could they argue that they have de facto independence too?
#28 by GMcM on November 1, 2011 - 2:09 pm
I don’t know what the legal view of this would be, however I would think that Scotland would be removing itself from GB and the UK. GB could continue with England and Wales and the UK would continue as the new GB and NI.
This means the UK would remain and Scotland would not be a successor state since the UK still exists.
As I say that’s what I think would happen but to be perfectly honest I don’t know enough about the legal ramifications. It would be useful if our government would shed some light on this debate by releasing their legal advice now wouldn’t it?
The SNP keep saying that falsehoods, lies, scare stories etc etc are continually being put out by those opposed to independence. Do they not realise that they could end these stories by publishing the evidence they have which must show the opposite to be the case. If they don’t give out their legal advice they are also to blame for these stories continuing.
Call me a cynic but I think the information they have undermines their position and they would therefore prefer to keep up their usual line of : ‘anything our opponents say is a lie’ ‘it’s all scaremongering’ etc.
This is all part of the SNPs plan to make it look as though those against independence are talking Scotland down. Let’s have a proper debate on the issue and get everyone to put their cards on the table. The future of our country is too important for these antics from the SNP.
#29 by Angus McLellan on November 1, 2011 - 6:34 pm
If you want a serious debate on anything you need to start with an understanding of where we and the world are today. For “Scotland in Europe” the Venn diagram James posted is the starting point. But even in a Westminster context, where you’d imagine that foreign affairs might be better understood, discussion of Europe and the EU tends to be on a binary in/out basis, with an occasional mention of EFTA. The reality is that things are usually complicated, and trying to make them simple to produce a soundbite doesn’t help anyone.
The identity of at least one of the experts whose opinion the SNP are is no secret since that opinion was expressed publicly. Whether you think Professor Sir Neil McCormick’s opinion should be relied upon is another matter, but there’s no doubt at all that he expressed it. Proof? Try McCormick’s obit in the Scotsman here: “Sir Neil argued strongly that Scotland would automatically remain a member of the European Union if it became independent”.
#30 by Marcus Warner on November 1, 2011 - 1:35 pm
Loved this debate, as a jealous Welshy looking on!
Surely, Scotland post independence would look to see what relationship she wanted with Europe. Ten years ago it might have been Euro, today that wouldn’t be a serious option.
We are probably 5 years away from this even with a yes vote, so dealing in certainties around Europe will prove to be very difficult.
I will be coming up to Scotland to campaign for a yes vote, but Being a small part of the ‘rUK’ left is thoroughly depressing.
Debate is amazing though, keep it up.
Pingback: Eorpa |
#31 by Alasdair MacKenzie on November 13, 2011 - 3:15 pm
I’m amazed at the amount of muddle headed thoughts expressed above as regards the position of the “UK” post independence. Go back and read Richard’s post #18 where he sums it up concisely and accurately. I’ll put it slightly differently if that helps: If the UK of GB and NI = Scotland + England and Wales + Northern Ireland, what is the answer to “what is the UK of GB and NI minus Scotland”. Anyone who keeps the term “the UK” in their answer needs some counselling.
There would be two equal succession states to the UK and GB & NI: #1 England Wales and N.I, and #2 Scotland
To lighten the thread a wee bit: any suggestions for what England, Wales and N.Ireland might call themselves?