It is ironic that while Little Englanders search for the exit gates from the European Union in ever-increasing numbers that it is infact Scotland that is being politely asked to leave, in the event that it decides to create its own country. If only there was a ‘one out, one in’ policy that we could take advantage of. (There isn’t, or else the drachma would be back on the marketplace by now).
Intuitively, the position set out by Jose Manuel Barrosso makes sense, that new countries emerging from existing EU members would need to reapply for membership. Who is to know after all whether a smaller part of an existing member can pass the numerous hurdles to EU membership? Particularly in the current financial context?
What should be more concerning for the Yes Scotland campaign however is not so much what was said by the President of the European Commission but why it is being said.
Let’s make one thing quite clear, the European Union is a club that sets its own rules. It’s a bit like golf’s Royal & Ancient that way. We may not always get to see how the rules are made, or even understand them, but if they want to change anything about how they operate, and who they let in the door, they have the power to do so. So if enough of the 27 nations wanted Scotland to be a member immediately after independence then they could make it so, and they could speak up for that option now if they so chose.
Similarly, they could hold their tongues and keep the door closed for as long as they wanted which is, sadly, seemingly the preferred option, this side of the referendum at least. ‘Get behind Romania and Bulgaria’ is not the friendliest of calls from our supposed friends and partners at the European table, but c’est la vie.
I am sympathetic to the SNP arguments of why wouldn’t the EU want oil-, scenery-, whisky- and fish-rich Scotland as a member, but that makes it all the more concerning that the EU isn’t vocalising such an opinion.
There is gamesmanship here of course. Spain tried it rather nakedly, and not to mention cack-handedly, when they reportedly said they would veto Scotland joining the EU, quite clearly trying to dampen down support for Scottish independence with a view to dampening down the problematic Catalan nationalism within Spain’s own borders. Or possibly even just rabble-rousing from within the UK if NewsnetScotland is to be believed. Either way, one has to assume there is a similar approach from Barroso at play here, that a vested interest exists to explain why he’d rather just keep the UK as it is. After all, there is nothing to stop the head of the EU Commission embracing the idea of Scotland becoming a member of the EU post-independence, as would surely be the case whether it was sooner or later. This would be the more diplomatic, unbiased line to take, irrespective of what the rules say, and arguably more befitting a man in his position.
But no, his words suggest that he doesn’t want independence to happen in the first place despite the UK as it stands being amongst the most truculent of the EU’s members. Indeed, David Cameron’s posturing and chest beating over budgets and vetos would have suggested to me that the considerable pro-EU bloc, or at least France or Germany, might have been tempted to talk up Scottish membership of the EU in a bid to further diminish already-dwindling UK power within the club or extract a concession at the discussion table in Strasbourg.
But that is not the case. It is the SNP who are suffering from the subtle political positioning of the EU’s power brokers, and boy how they suffer.
John Swinney’s otherwise reasonable arguments regarding a negotation between the EU and Scotland over what its continued membership would look like carries more than a whiff of desperation given the timing and context, and it sits horridly awkwardly against SNP commentators like George Kerevan in the Scotsman today seeking to argue that maybe we don’t need the EU after all. A hollow argument if ever there was one given the EU has been the single most successful political alliance on this continent since, well, possibly ever.
There is something pleasing about throwing all the constitutional and international relations options up in the air and indulging ourselves in speculating as to which one we prefer. Two years out from a referendum is probably the right time to be doing that, but that process requires to be followed by a controlled landing of ideas, settling into a cohesive plan and a public consensus that our politicians can then take forward. We don’t for a moment seem to be doing anything as structured as that and, if anything, that consensus does appear to be retreating into our UK shells.
This is unfortunate, but the SNP may have already blown its chance to lead that consensus into a braver world.
Scots could be persuaded that waiting to join the EU (if Barroso isn’t bluffing) is worthwhile, what’s a couple of years in a lifetime of Scottish independence anyway, but we don’t like being treated as fools. The non-existence of legal advice on joining the European Union, so coldly and calculatingly floated by the First Minister as something we should all rely upon, has been all the more damaging given the apparent reality of being frozen out of Europe, a reality that is diametrically opposed to what this legal advice supposedly said.
Once bitten, twice shy they say, and fervour for the EU wasn’t exactly at fever pitch before this self-primed grenade blew up in Alex Salmond’s face anyway. Far from making Brussels dance to a Scottish jig, the First Minister has helped us Morris dance to a No landslide.
To understand the mortal danger that this single issue poses for independence prospects, we need only consider the following logic that is being drum-drum-drummed into us from Brussels, through the press and via the Better Together campaign:
‘An independent Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU. Joining this way involves adopting the Euro and look at the problems that that brings (Ireland, Greece). Now just imagine the problems that an independent Scotland not joining the EU would cause (border controls, trade disruption). Ergo, let’s just not cause any bother and stay as the UK, ok?’.
Game, set and match to Team No. Back to the trenches for Yes Scotland.
As only the staunchest of Europhiles would argue in favour of the Euro these days, so too would only the most devout of Nationalists attempt to deny that Yes Scotland hasn’t taken a pounding over the EU question in recent weeks.
As for the all-ímportant independence polls, well, plus ca change….
#1 by Don Francisco on December 8, 2012 - 7:13 am
Good analysis Jeff. This was always the Achilles heel of the Yes campaign – will be part of the EU? Will we have the Euro? It’s economic bread and butter issues, and news from Europe has not been helpful for the Yes campaign, putting it mildly. With that level of uncertainty, expect voters to stay away in droves.
Maybe 10 years ago this wouldn’t have been an issue, a much more confident and expanding EU, a stable currency.
I don’t happen to think the the No campaign have any less problems with their economic/political roadmap (or truth be told, it’s total absence). I also think that the way in which the EU legal advice has come out has been very damaging to the Yes Campaign/SNP. Whereas the advantage for the No campaign is that there isn’t anything to spin or hide – we all understand the present UK political/economic situation as we live in it, however dispiriting and uninspiring it may be. Better the devil you know.
#2 by Grahamski on December 8, 2012 - 10:14 am
Jeff
I agree with pretty much all your points.
The arguments of both sides on EU membership is very instructive: the Yes campaign have suffered with their original wildly optimistic claims which they have been unable to stand up and the Better campaign have been unable to say anything positive. The problem for the Yes folk is that the Better campaign doesn’t have to say anything positive.
The key thing here is that these decisions won’t be taken in Edinburgh or even London for that matter: the decisions will be taken in Brussels by and for the interests of the existing 27 member states.
We do seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time discussing things of which we have no control – like the relationship of the EU to a separate Scotland. The EU will tell a separate Scotland the conditions of its membership, the idea that there will be negotiations (in any real sense of the word) is risible.
Likewise the issue of currency is going to further undermine the Yes campaign. The notion that the UK Treasury will remain silent in the face of continuing SNP claims about the Bank of England and its relationship with a separate Scotland is wildly optimistic.
How are the SNP going to react when Gideon Osborne – who as UK Chancellor is in charge of the Bank of England – starts dictating terms for a separate Scotland being allowed to retain the BoE as lender of last resort?
Likewise the view that a separate Scotland will be in a position to dictate terms of its NATO membership to Washington is not just absurd, it is dangerously absurd.
In short, if the SNP continue as they have been they are going to look like romantic dreamers, naive fools and dangerously deluded idealists who should not be trusted with our future.
It’s a toughie for the Yes folk…
#3 by BM on December 8, 2012 - 11:06 am
Might be time for Yes Scotland/SNP to do a Churchill/Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”.
It would be interesting to see what effect this has on Scottish euroskeptics, since euroskepticism in the UK typically follows a “Britain is best” model. What’s better for them? Independent Scotland outside the EU, or Scotland within the UK within the EU like so many matryoshka dolls?
#4 by Allan on December 8, 2012 - 11:07 am
I’ve said this before & i’ll say this again, the SNP’s big mistake over this is to assume that we would be happy just to remain within the EU without being consulted and to formulate arguments around that assumption. It has lead to a horrible mess of the SNP’s making that may already have scuppered any chance of a “Yes” vote in 2014.
Had the SNP followed the common sense line and parked the EU issue post Independence (by saying that entry to the EU would be desirable but ultimately up to the Scottish people), we would have moved on to other issues. Issues where the SNP have much stronger arguments in their favour, and issues that would have asked questions of the Better Together camp.
Can I also dissagree with your description of the “Little Englanders”. Yes there are certain right wingers who have an issue with the EU, but there are Left wing commentators as well who have raised valid questions regarding the EU. After all, i’m sure you can’t really describe Owen Jones as your typical “Little Englander”
#5 by Chris on December 8, 2012 - 11:14 am
Like the currency question it would have been much better for the SNP to say this is our preferred position and we know it will need to be negotiated.
But instead we have all seen a lot of ducking and diving from the First Minister on legal advice which took his Deputy to sort out and come clean. We now get the rather shrill imploring that of course the EU would want us, as if there was doubt about that. The real point is the terms on which we would enter especially with regard to currency and Schengen. Would ‘oil rich’ Scotland be entitled to a share of the British rebate?
As I have said a few times here I am really surprised at the lack of thought, intellectual analysis and policy development in the nationalist camp. They have had 60 years to work out coherent policies on these issues that should have stood the test of time. Instead it looks like making it up on the hoof.
Are fervent idealistic nationalists getting angry with their leaders for seemingly blowing the campaign? Ok it is not lost yet but the launch momentum never appeared and they have been derailed by an opposition that only needs to send out a press release or commission and opinion poll to wrong-foot them.
#6 by Aidan on December 8, 2012 - 11:46 am
TBF this isn’t really Alex Salmonds fault, or Swinneys or the SNP or Yes campaigns fault – it’s a bad hand to try and play and getting the really awful stuff out the way now at least means that in the short campaign, when people are paying most attention, they can claim this is all old hat that’s been dealt with and people should ignore in favour of an “OMG Labour love the Tories” campaign.
Grimly depressing a thought as that is…
#7 by Braco on December 8, 2012 - 11:50 am
Jeff, this is just a re tread of your Barrosso quote from 2004 discussed from a previous thread. The story is just being run to hide the embarrassments of the non letter, unsent and yet to be received by that Lords committee ‘story’ plastered all over the BBC and certain News Papers for the last couple of days. Unlike what is being discussed within the 2004 EU general statement, we are not a territory of a successor state (such as Catalonia will be of Spain for example). We are an equal partner by treaty in the formation of the UK and so can only be a joint successor state on it’s dissolution (or both Scotland and rUK must be considered new states). If we are to be considered a new state created through succession of a territory, then under international law Scotland would have no obligations to take a share of the ‘national debt’, something I think you will agree RUK will be very keen to avoid. On Europe’s attitude, simply show me the mechanism to strip me of my European citizenship. There is none. I would much prefer the future world the ‘Better No’ camp are painting for us. Scotland independent with no debt and able to renegotiate our relationship with Europe including fisheries etc, unfortunately our problems are going to be about dealing with the enormous debt hangover bequeathed by the UK and trying to find a way out of Europe should our population decide at some future date that it no longer fits our democratic needs (a la Norway). All else is unsubstantiated froth, two years out from the vote, designed to allow the sad defeatist conclusion that your piece has sadly provided.
#8 by Aidan on December 8, 2012 - 2:06 pm
You hold EU citizenship through your citizenship of a member state, if you ceased to be a citizen of a member state either through giving up citizenship of that state or through that state no longer being a member would no longer be an EU citizen. It’s not a separate legal entity. See http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/
#9 by Braco on December 8, 2012 - 5:17 pm
Hi Aidan, thanks for the link. My point is, and has always been, that as an equal nation in the signing of the treaty that formed the UK, Scotland and her citizens are already a member of the EU in exactly the same way as the rUK is currently a member of the EU and is acknowledged will remain a member after the dissolution of the current UK. There is no secession. Should Wales or Cornwall or East Anglia vote to leave the UK then this is secession. I am in no way inferring Wales or Cornwall are in any emotional sense less entitled to Nation status (see Catalonia and the Basque regions also) but simply stating that legally they were incorporated into England by conquest pre Union and so played no legal part in the formation of the UK (and later of UKofGB&Ireland) importantly all by recognised international treaty. The statements being made by the EU from 2004 and Barrosso again recently, concern general EU rules for territories seceding from member states. This would include Catalonia, The Basque nation, Wales, Cornwall, Corsica, Sardinia etc. etc. Most currently disputed European national boundaries have in the most part been historically settled by conquest. Scotland/England is unusual in having a detailed international treaty designating our legal and political obligations to each other for the creation, by agreement, of a third state called The UK (within which the borders between the signatories were legally set) . Which is now a member of the EU. It’s our Constitutional Foundation. That is why the alleged letter from the EU in response to the Lords Committee which asked explicitly about Scotland’s position, would be very, very interesting reading should the Scotsman or the BBC ever put their reputations where their mouths are and publish what they claim to have seen. I won’t hold my breath because to ask about Scotland is in effect to ask about England ( a word rarely uttered by ‘British’ politicians for good reason). So I ask again Aidan, show me the mechanism or ruling from the EU that strips my EU citizenship but leaves the EU citizenship of the country formerly known as The UK of GB & NI intact. There is none and that is why the Unionists are running around unreasonably asking the SNP to prove a negative. Something they would be unable to do without a complicit agenda setting National Broadcaster and MSM. This is why it saddens me to see a respected Indy supporter such as Jeff giving this ‘story’ additional defeatist wind.
#10 by Aidan on December 8, 2012 - 6:19 pm
It’s very clear from that link, and even clearer from the treaty it links too, that EU citizenship is a transitive property that people hold on the basis of being a national of a member nation and that EU citizenship is not a something separable from that.
If an independent Scotland wasn’t an EU member state, and you weren’t a national of another member state, you would no longer hold EU citizenship because the solve criteria for EU citizenship is to be a national of a member state. Which you wouldn’t fulfil.
#11 by Braco on December 8, 2012 - 7:00 pm
And neither would the citizens of the country formerly known as the UK of GB and NI. You can’t have it both ways Aidan. Yes I did read your link and my response deals with why it does not cover Scotland if it excludes rUK.
#12 by Don McC on December 9, 2012 - 11:25 am
Isn’t there a precedent, though, where a formal territory of France seceded and the peoples living there remained EU citizens purely because there is no mechanism to remove EU citizenship?
#13 by alister7 on December 8, 2012 - 1:00 pm
You ask the question of why the 27 member states do not now argue in favour of Scottish independence. I would have thought the answer is obvious – states do not as a rule like to interfere in the internal matters of another state. As regards the EU itself and the Commission, we must remember that they are effectively the civil servants of the EU and the EU is a body which represents the current member states. So there is simply no way in which Barrosso or any other commissioner could speak out in favour of Scottish independence or Catalan independence for that matter. The simple position is that given a Yes vote there will be up to two years of negotiations with the rUK and with all kinds of other international bodies, including the EU. After independence. let’s say sometime in 2016, we can all argue over EU membership and whether we should have a referendum, but we need to reach independence first.
#14 by Gavin Hamilton on December 8, 2012 - 1:10 pm
While international law matters, international relations are much more about politics than law. So your analysis I think is pretty sound Jeff. There is no right or wrong answer here. Any relationship of a future indy Scotland would be more about politics rather than any set rules.
I however think it is inconceivable Scotland wouldn’t be part of the EU. The process we had to follow and the terms on which we might join is wholly uncertain however.
Other uncertain things are – is Europe so battered that we might not want to join? If we remain British, would the UK still be in the EU? Could you have a situation where Scotland was in the EU and the UK was outside it – and what would that mean for us?
Lots of uncertainty.
The whole foreign relations thing is a very interesting question as the world is changing and very uncertain at the moment, not to mention the ongoing global financial crisis. What this means for Scotland and the UK deserves further discussion – and what it might mean for an independent Scotland should we ever go that way.
Because let’s face it America is finished, Europe’s a basket case and the Empire is dead… http://ghmltn.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/were-doomed-america-is-finished-europes.html
I blogged some thoughts on this this morning if anyone wants to have a wee read.
#15 by Galen10 on December 8, 2012 - 1:13 pm
I think Jeff and Grahamski are being too pessimistic. 24 months is still a long time to campaign and educate, and it’s likely that the unrelenting negativity of the unionists will tell in the end.
I agree that SNP handling of this issue hasn’t been great, (not that I’m a member) but it is a hard hand to play given the circumstances. I think it would be wise for them to continue to flesh out the line about there being no precedent, and no certainty that the unionist view is necessarily the “right” one.
Negotiations between 2014 and 2016 are the key; it may even be worth considering the offer of a Scottish referendum on EU membership post yes vote in 2014. It would wrong foot the unionists, and concentrate minds in the EU, because I agree with the line that they are vanishingly unlikely to want to lose Scotland.
Similarly with NATO, it’s up to the Scottish people to decide whether they want to be in or not. It isn’t in the interests of the USA or the rest of NATO for us to be outside, but from a geo-strategic sense there is nothing to stop us going it alone. We face little or no direct threat of invasion, and really only need to protect our fisheries, oil production and possibly airspace; all of which could be done much more cheaply than the amount we currently contribute to UK defence spending.
#16 by Galen10 on December 8, 2012 - 3:40 pm
Following on from the debate about EU citizenship above.. it throws up an interesting point of interest to Scots in the diaspora like me! In the scenario where Scotland becomes independent in 2016 (say) but either decides not to join the EU because no suitable terms can be negotiated, or is simply told it has to re-apply…. what happens to the thousands of Scots in EU countries who decide to have Scottish passports, and also to the thousands of EU citizens in Scotland?
#17 by Aidan on December 8, 2012 - 6:22 pm
It seems likely that EU membership negotiations would be concluded by 2016 for practical reasons for Scotland (co-incidentally further undermining our negotiating position) so probably a moot issue in practice.
Further, I would imagine most Scots would choose to hold both Scottish and rUK passports, particularly those living in EU countries.
As for the EU citizens living in Scotland I would hope a permissive view would be taken, god knows we need to encourage more inward migration.
#18 by Braco on December 8, 2012 - 9:25 pm
Aidan you seem strangely pessimistic about all future EU dealings involving rumpUKScotland but pleasingly optimistic about all future EU dealings involving rumpUKengland&NI’s. Is it NI making the difference? Maybe Holyrood should think about wooing Stormont between 2014 and 2016. What do you think? This is doubly important to me as I am currently living in Europe as well as with a European.
#19 by Chris on December 8, 2012 - 6:59 pm
Type your comment here
I try not to switch off when someone talks of the Act of Union. It seems absurd to assume that Scottish Independence would come up by repealing the act of Union rather than by new UK legislation. Why do so many people seem to cling to this idea? Do you really think that we will repeal this act and return to the legislature of early 18th Century Scotland? This seems to be your basis for assuming that there will be two successor states. Well if there are two succcessor states we need to arrange a referendum to see if England Wales and NI want to leave the UK too – maybe not take any debt with them if they feel like it either!
#20 by Braco on December 10, 2012 - 4:47 pm
Chris, I think you did not try hard enough because you seem to me to have switched off, if that is your considered response to my post. Do you really feel that both rump UK’s would turn their backs on centuries of agreed jurisprudence, common law and precedent in order to invent a treaty of disunity as opposed to simply repealing the existing Treaty. Is repeal such an unusual and unused word in UK lawmaking? Of course not. So tell me again why it seems ‘absurd’. How would you propose passing this fairly complex New Act of Disunity, ‘line by line’, through both Houses of Parliament. This is the reason ‘repeal’ is so often invoked by parliament in complex acts. It’s a simple delete button, ‘yes or no’ once the debates have been had. (Now why does that feel strangely familiar…..?) Sorry but this sounds more like hope that Independence is just a bit more devolution. Oh and after the repeal of the Corn Laws (not by the way created as the New Anti ‘Corn Laws Act’ Act) were farmers forbidden to use all the considerable new trading and commerce laws passed since the Corn laws had been enacted. No. All UK law making has been passed through the stipulations within the Act of Union (don’t switch off now please) and equally enforced in both UK jurisdictions of Scots and English law and as such neither Scotland nor England will be forced to return to burning witches and hangings for heresy. I hope this re assures you and we can now count on you as a confirmed ‘Yes’ in the coming referendum. winkywinkwink.
#21 by Siôn Eurfyl Jones on December 8, 2012 - 9:57 pm
Disappointing to see you base a whole piece on what , it has emerged, is a lie, printed as fact by the Scotsman, and repeated in other countries.
No letter has been authorised or sent, and the scenario allegedly discussed by Barrosso do not apply to Scotland (- it would not be a new state any more than the rUK would be). Bit of a waste of typing for you, I am afraid,.
#22 by Braco on December 10, 2012 - 5:32 pm
Sion, I wish you had posted before me as I am shamed by your succinct appraisal of the whole sad situation. Many thanks.
#23 by Craig Gallagher on December 9, 2012 - 9:20 pm
I agree that this is a depressingly defeatist post, Jeff. If everything you say is true, then I think the SNP, supporters of an Independent Scotland, every Scot post-independence who lives in Europe and every EU national who lives in Scotland would have the right to be absolutely furious with the EU.
The miserable sketch that you outline tries to hide behind a “this-must-happen-it’s-the-rules” bureaucratic stoicism and ignores the fact it would be a diplomatic and political outrage were the EU to systematically ruin the Scottish economy for the sake of a few regulations. We are a nation would be well within our rights to sue the EU for billions in damages should they deny us entry on some technical muddle, and the European Court of Human Rights would absolutely find in our favour. They hold the principle of self-determination to be absolute, after all.
Unless there is a clause inserted into the referendum that suggests that Scottish Independence would lead to our withdrawal from the EU, any attempt to keep us out after a Yes vote would stand alongside their shabby treatment of Greece’s democratic process in the EU’s increasingly tyrannical attitude to small countries.
#24 by Braco on December 10, 2012 - 6:27 pm
Craig, they seem to think a club depends on only one party to the agreement needing to be satisfied. Is it something to do with the word ‘Union’? It seems so strange, as my understanding of the EU throughout my adult life has been one of openness and development for each citizen of each member country. However, my experience in Portugal and now of the EU’s interaction with the current independence debate in Scotland, strike me as all too familiar and disappointing. It seems to me that all the practical idealisms that typified the EU at it’s peak are being dissipated through the monetary expediency of the ‘core’ economies. What’s worse is that it now appears it was always thus and only now has the mask slipped. I see parallels between the ‘Better No’ campaign’s reaching out to the Union’s long dead idealisms of the post war ‘British’ settlement, with the EU supporting mainstream parties here in Portugal’s constant rhetoric of a liberal, profitable and democratic force for the good, circa 80’s and 90’s. As opposed to the everyday realities of their struggling population. Sorry for the ramble. I am very pro Europe but only because I remember what I thought it represented. I think many in Scotland are at that stage with the Union. The EU has not many false moves left to lose my knee jerk support and my gut tells me, the same is true for many of those Scots still attached to the Idealistic concept of a post war ‘UK’.
#25 by Longshanker on December 9, 2012 - 11:59 pm
A dilemma indeed. I also find it inconceivable that an independent Scotland wouldn’t be welcomed into the EU.
But.
A further development which will come out of this is the single currency question.
If the single currency becomes part of the “renegotiation” mix then independence is dead in the water.
I was hoping the referendum would be closer so that Scotland could get some worthwhile compromises to help shield us from Tory abrasiveness and imagination free austerity.
They’ll probably just sit back and watch the nationalists squirm.
As Grahamski stated, the Better Together lot don’t need to do much on this issue other than keep it in the public’s mind.
Regards
#26 by Braco on December 10, 2012 - 5:19 pm
Longshanker, hello again. This ‘hope’ that you had, would it not be more like any general understanding of ‘hope’ for you to embark on actions, be them thought or deed, that would make the likely hood of your hope coming to fruition more possible rather than, as it seems, taking pleasure in the ease by which your ‘hopes’ are being destroyed. Of course maybe you didn’t really ‘hope’ that after all. Maybe you might ‘punch the air’ should the EU declare the single currency becomes part of the “renegotiation” mix and independence is (perceived by yourself and fellow travelers as) dead in the water. ‘Punching the Air’ in matters political, deemed detrimental to general Scots interests, no matter by which side of the Union debate, is likely to repulse the Scots electorate more than attract. I have been wrong before though. wink.