Scottish Independence

First Up

Good article by John Kay of FT in today's Irish Times.

sfakiaman

Also in today's Irish Times http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/scotland-s-eu-question-1.1704269

First Up

sfakiaman wrote: »

Also in today's Irish Times http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/scotland-s-eu-question-1.1704269

Saw that and it is complete nonsense.

Scotland is seeking to become an independent country, not a regional self government within the UK. If it becomes independent, it ceases to be part of the UK in any shape, form or structure. The UK would be under no obligation to present Scotland as anything; Scotland would be paddling its own canoe.

Scofflaw

First Up wrote: »

Saw that and it is complete nonsense.

Scotland is seeking to become an independent country, not a regional self government within the UK. If it becomes independent, it ceases to be part of the UK in any shape, form or structure. The UK would be under no obligation to present Scotland as anything; Scotland would be paddling its own canoe.

Yes, I think that letter is based on a complete misunderstanding of Scotland's intentions. Even if, as I assume for the moment, Queen Elizabeth remains the Scottish queen and head of state, that does not make Scotland any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, any more than the Isle of Man (or Canada, or Australia) is.

It would not be a devolved part of a unitary state, but a separate state altogether. Currently it's a partially devolved part of a unitary state, and obviously no question of Scotland's membership of the EU arose as a result of that arrangement - the current arrangement is actually the "internal constitutional arrangement" the letter incorrectly ascribes to a possible independent Scotland.

On another note, the UK will need another formal name change, presumably to the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

First Up

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, I think that letter is based on a complete misunderstanding of Scotland's intentions. Even if, as I assume for the moment, Queen Elizabeth remains the Scottish queen and head of state, that does not make Scotland any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, any more than the Isle of Man (or Canada, or Australia) is.

It would not be a devolved part of a unitary state, but a separate state altogether. Currently it's a partially devolved part of a unitary state, and obviously no question of Scotland's membership of the EU arose as a result of that arrangement - the current arrangement is actually the "internal constitutional arrangement" the letter incorrectly ascribes to a possible independent Scotland.

On another note, the UK will need another formal name change, presumably to the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And don't forget poor little loyal Wales.

A Dub in Glasgo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, I think that letter is based on a complete misunderstanding of Scotland's intentions. Even if, as I assume for the moment, Queen Elizabeth remains the Scottish queen and head of state, that does not make Scotland any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, any more than the Isle of Man (or Canada, or Australia) is.

It would not be a devolved part of a unitary state, but a separate state altogether. Currently it's a partially devolved part of a unitary state, and obviously no question of Scotland's membership of the EU arose as a result of that arrangement - the current arrangement is actually the "internal constitutional arrangement" the letter incorrectly ascribes to a possible independent Scotland.

On another note, the UK will need another formal name change, presumably to the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Unless you are suggesting that Scotland is cut off, it will still remain part of GB. The name change is interesting as NI is not a Kingdom therefore the United bit is just nuts. Maybe they should grasp the reality and just say 'United Kingdom of England' although that is not very united at the moment.

Maybe Scotland can call itself the 'United Kingdom of Scotland'!

First Up

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Unless you are suggesting that Scotland is cut off, it will still remain part of GB. The name change is interesting as NI is not a Kingdom therefore the United bit is just nuts. Maybe they should grasp the reality and just say 'United Kingdom of England' although that is not very united at the moment.

Maybe Scotland can call itself the 'United Kingdom of Scotland'!

You seem to be confusing united with contiguous.

dlouth15

What I would ask Scofflaw and First Up is this: Are you sure that the only legal position is that Scotland after independence is automatically out of the EU. I fully accept that it is one position but the problem I have is that this is mainly coming from politicians and whatever their agenda, I'm generally inclined to question whether they are telling the whole truth. I'm particularly inclined to do so ahead of a referendum.

I asked this of Godge earlier but got no reply.

A Dub in Glasgo

First Up wrote: »

You seem to be confusing united with contiguous.

Nope

MRnotlob606

I'm pretty sure most people will vote to retain the union

Scofflaw

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Unless you are suggesting that Scotland is cut off, it will still remain part of GB.

Only geographically. The "Great Britain" in the name of the UK is actually the united kingdom formed by the union of the Scottish and English crowns in 1707. Scottish independence consists of 'dividing' the crowns again, making England and Scotland separate kingdoms as they were before the Act of Union.

That division means there is no united kingdom of Great Britain any more. That entity ceases to exist, and that is the entity that forms part of the UK's name.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The name change is interesting as NI is not a Kingdom therefore the United bit is just nuts. Maybe they should grasp the reality and just say 'United Kingdom of England' although that is not very united at the moment.

Maybe Scotland can call itself the 'United Kingdom of Scotland'!

Northern Ireland is the remaining part of the Kingdom of Ireland. The current UK is formed of the united crowns of Scotland and England as Great Britain (1707), united in turn with the crown of Ireland (1801) as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The fact that the 26 counties had left the UK was recognised by the addition of "Northern" in 1927.

Wales doesn't get a mention because it's (a) a principality not a kingdom, and (b) was annexed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Doncor

I think people who are there already feel like free. I just cannot understand why most of people think that Scotland is a part of England? It is a part of the uk, but not england. About the goverment, not just english people have the access for ruling country, scotts have it either. And at last but not least, all unions becomes strong, but not all the countries. Why should they destroy their one strong country to make instead two weak.
Examples: USA (states union), Germany (lands union), Russia (lands union)

A Dub in Glasgo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Only geographically. The "Great Britain" in the name of the UK is actually the united kingdom formed by the union of the Scottish and English crowns in 1707. Scottish independence consists of 'dividing' the crowns again, making England and Scotland separate kingdoms as they were before the Act of Union.

That division means there is no united kingdom of Great Britain any more. That entity ceases to exist, and that is the entity that forms part of the UK's name.



Northern Ireland is the remaining part of the Kingdom of Ireland. The current UK is formed of the united crowns of Scotland and England as Great Britain (1707), united in turn with the crown of Ireland (1801) as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The fact that the 26 counties had left the UK was recognised by the addition of "Northern" in 1927.

Wales doesn't get a mention because it's (a) a principality not a kingdom, and (b) was annexed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89031349&postcount=350

Views?

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89031349&postcount=350

Views?

The eu is not going to force the r UK to reapply, in case it doesn't. They don't want what will still be the third largest economy to leave.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

What I would ask Scofflaw and First Up is this: Are you sure that the only legal position is that Scotland after independence is automatically out of the EU. I fully accept that it is one position but the problem I have is that this is mainly coming from politicians and whatever their agenda, I'm generally inclined to question whether they are telling the whole truth. I'm particularly inclined to do so ahead of a referendum.

I asked this of Godge earlier but got no reply.

I don't think there's ever really such a thing as an "only" legal position. Clearly it's possible to argue the case from another angle, and we haven't any specifically EU precedents to go on.

It is generally possible for successor states to agree to continue to be bound by treaties, but that's where treaties imply obligations rather than privileges. In the case of things like UN membership, successor states don't keep their predecessor's seat unless their recognised as the continuator state - that is, the continuing version of the predecessor state. For example, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were both successor states of Czechoslovakia, and had to reapply for UN membership, whereas Russia was recognised as the continuator state of the USSR, and kept that UN (and Security Council) seat.

In the case of Scotland, I presume there will be one new state and one 'continuator' state, so the EU membership would seem to stay with the (R)UK.

As far as I know that's basically accepted by the SNP - the argument is over which treaty mechanism Scotland would reapply - the short Article 48 or the full Article 49.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bobcoffee

Well wouldn't say reapply of course not but some negotiations on certain things that the EU main body would see as objectives.

Scofflaw

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Scotland gaining independence nullifies the Act of Union of 1707, does that mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland will cease to exist as well therefore a new application to join the EU will be needed by both Scotland and Rest of UK? I would like to see this tested legally.

Views?

I don't think that one will fly, because the UK has changed its territorial bounds and name before without any change in the recognition of it as the UK. Most recently, as said, it changed its name in 1927, but obviously it also changed it at both acts of union.

At the end of the day, the question of whether a state is recognised as a continuator state is determined not by law or precedent, but by whether other countries recognise it as such. I don't think there's any question of whether the other EU members will recognise the (R)UK as the continuator state. Even in very simple objective terms, the (R)UK will have 92% of the population of the former UK, and that's a very persuasive and one-sided number.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

In the case of Scotland, I presume there will be one new state and one 'continuator' state, so the EU membership would seem to stay with the (R)UK.

A lot seems to depend on this presumption and whether it will apply to EU membership.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

A lot seems to depend on this presumption and whether it will apply to EU membership.

Nearly everything depends on this presumption, but nobody at all, or rather no country at all, has even slightly suggested not recognising the (R)UK as the continuator state of the UK.

And that's basically that. Sure, one can argue as a hypothetical the idea that most countries might not recognise the (R)UK, but it's really not even a slightly realistic hypothetical.

So, yes, while it's a presumption, it's more or less an open and shut one. Countries will have the choice between recognising the (R)UK as the UK and thereby keeping all current agreements and treaties in place, or of not doing so, and maybe having them all reopened. Reopening might be OK when you're facing off with Scotland, but facing off with a state containing 92% of the population of the current UK, and 91% of its GDP, is a different proposition. If you got what you considered a decent deal, you'll be recognising that large state as the continuator, no bother.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

At the end of the day, the question of whether a state is recognised as a continuator state is determined not by law or precedent, but by whether other countries recognise it as such. I don't think there's any question of whether the other EU members will recognise the (R)UK as the continuator state. Even in very simple objective terms, the (R)UK will have 92% of the population of the former UK, and that's a very persuasive and one-sided number.

That is very interesting. So whether rUK remains as part of the EU comes down to whether or not other countries choose to recognise the UK as a continuator state? It doesn't come down to law. The rUK won't therefore have a legal right to continued EU membership if Scotland votes yes.

oscarBravo

dlouth15 wrote: »

That is very interesting. So whether rUK remains as part of the EU comes down to whether or not other countries choose to recognise the UK as a continuator state? It doesn't come down to law. The rUK won't therefore have a legal right to continued EU membership if Scotland votes yes.

No offence, but your contributions to this thread are starting to look like nothing more than argumentum ad wishful thinking.

First Up

oscarBravo wrote: »

No offence, but your contributions to this thread are starting to look like nothing more than argumentum ad wishful thinking.

I think it's called desperation.

A Dub in Glasgo

You guys are gas, dlouth15 has been one of the most polite posters on this thread and now he is accused of desperation and wishful thinking!

dlouth15

oscarBravo wrote: »

No offence, but your contributions to this thread are starting to look like nothing more than argumentum ad wishful thinking.

May look like that to you but nevertheless it is interesting that this is the first time someone on the thread has suggested that rUK has no strictly legal right to continued EU membership. It comes down to whether or not it is regarded as a successor state by individual members of the EU.

It is not me saying that by the way. I'm not sure I fully agree with it but were it to be true it certainly raises some interesting questions.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You guys are gas, dlouth15 has been one of the most polite posters on this thread and now he is accused of desperation and wishful thinking!

You think politeness and wishful thinking are mutually exclusive?

dlouth15 wrote: »

May look like that to you but nevertheless it is interesting that this is the first time someone on the thread has suggested that rUK has no strictly legal right to continued EU membership. It comes down to whether or not it is regarded as a successor state by individual members of the EU.

It is not me saying that by the way. I'm not sure I fully agree with it but were it to be true it certainly raises some interesting questions.

Meh. I mean, they are interesting questions if what interests you is mental gymnastics, but it's pretty clear that in the event of Scottish independence, Scotland will no longer be an EU member (until such time as it is readmitted) and the rest of the UK will.

If it suits you to believe that that isn't the case, fair enough; what it suits people to believe and what's true are often orthogonal.

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

May look like that to you but nevertheless it is interesting that this is the first time someone on the thread has suggested that rUK has no strictly legal right to continued EU membership. It comes down to whether or not it is regarded as a successor state by individual members of the EU.

It is not me saying that by the way. I'm not sure I fully agree with it but were it to be true it certainly raises some interesting questions.

The only reason it is being suggested now is because all the arguments that preceded it have already been demolished.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote: »

You think politeness and wishful thinking are mutually exclusive?

I do not although I do find it absolutely strange that your 1st or 2nd post in the thread is to come out with that

dlouth15

oscarBravo wrote: »

Meh. I mean, they are interesting questions if what interests you is mental gymnastics, but it's pretty clear that in the event of Scottish independence, Scotland will no longer be an EU member (until such time as it is readmitted) and the rest of the UK will.

Well no. There's a fair amount of legal opinion that suggests the contrary. On what basis do you think it is "clear"?

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

Well no. There's a fair amount of legal opinion that suggests the contrary. On what basis do you think it is "clear"?

Well, on the basis that the continuator state has the rights of its predecessor, and that the (R)UK is 99.99999% certain to be recognised as that legal successor, while Scotland will not be. The (R)UK will be keeping the UK's UN Security Council seat, and its EU membership, Scotland will not be.

And without intending any offence, I think it really is wishful thinking to believe something else will happen. If the Scottish vote Yes, they have to do so while recognising that reality. If I were still in Scotland, I would recognise that reality - but I would vote Yes anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

Well no. There's a fair amount of legal opinion that suggests the contrary. On what basis do you think it is "clear"?

I would say it's on the basis that it is as clear as daylight to everyone including the SNP but if you want to share some of the fair amount of legal opinion to the contrary you are welcome to do so.