An Independent Scotland, automaticaly an EU member state?

MarkK

As part of the debate on Scotland becoming an independent sovereign state,
one of the things in dispute is whether or not Scotland would automatically be considered to be a member state of the EU on independence or if a treaty change would be required.

My opinion is that if the UK splits into Scotland and "rest of the UK" aka rUK then they still would count as just one member of the EU, with just one seat in the European Council until there is some sort of treaty change.

The opposite argument is that both rUK and Scotland would be successor states to the UK and both would inherit the international commitments of the previous state.
Therefore both are EU Treaty signatories and would be member states of the EU.

Is there any proof either way or will we need the ECJ to decide?

paul71

Interesting post, it would certainly require a three way resolution between Scotland, the UK and the EU before independence would be granted. It is also conceivable that it may not be unique as there are several other regions in Europe which have aspirations of independance to varing degrees including Catalan, Basque, Flemism vs Waloons, and less likely candidates like Wales, Russian parts of Lativia, and Britany.

It is not the only international issue an independant Scotland would need to decide upon in the event of independance. Continued membership of NATO would need to be agreed as well.

OS119

paul71 wrote: »

Interesting post, it would certainly require a three way resolution between Scotland, the UK and the EU before independence would be granted. It is also conceivable that it may not be unique as there are several other regions in Europe which have aspirations of independance to varing degrees including Catalan, Basque, Flemism vs Waloons, and less likely candidates like Wales, Russian parts of Lativia, and Britany.

It is not the only international issue an independant Scotland would need to decide upon in the event of independance. Continued membership of NATO would need to be agreed as well.

i think its going to be hard work for the Nats - emotionally there's no question that they can get people to say yes, combining that with the cretinous nature of the no campaign they're on easy street.

however, theres going to be the problem of 'what now?'. Alex Salmond aluded to it on the Radio over the weekend when questioned about the currency, NATO and EU membership, and the relationship with the rump UK - all the things that really matter - and he said 'i don't know, we've got our ideas that we're publishing, but we're just one party...'

i think that this is going to be a problem for the yes campaign (and i lived in Glasgow for 10 years, still have friends and family there, and talk to them about political issues - so i have some insight), i think people are going to say as they walk into the polling station 'its all very nice in theory, but until you can tell me that we'll be in the EU, that we won't be made to be in the Euro, that we'll be better off, and more politically secure than we currently are, then its a non-runner'.

personally think it should be a three-stage process: firstly a referendum on whether the Scottish people want independence, then a negotiation with the 'rump' UK on what the future relationship between the two states would look like, what UK assets would become Scottish, and what part of UK debt and responsibilities would become Scottish, then a second referendum on whether 'the plan' meets the approval of the people of Scotland.

but thats sensible, and lets people know what they are getting before they have to take a bite, so it'll never happen...

Scofflaw

There has been some fairly heavyweight legal debate on this issue, and as far as I know it's far from settled. I quite like the summary here: http://nationalcollective.com/2012/05/18/scottish-independence-vetoed-by-spain-or-forced-in-the-euro/

That seems to rubbish some of the claims that Scotland will be 'kicked out' and possibly the UK with it, as reported by, for example, the Telegraph:

Scottish independence could see the UK kicked out of the European Union and forced to surrender its £3 billion annual rebate if it wanted to rejoin, a senior constitutional lawyer has told MPs.

Patrick Layden QC, a former Scottish Executive legal expert, warned that other EU countries could exploit separation to argue that the United Kingdom has ceased to exist as a member state.

Ministers in Edinburgh and London would then both have to reapply for membership, but he said they could be stripped of “ridiculous” privileges that governments on the Continent resent.

He highlighted the £3.3 billion annual rebate, negotiated by Margaret Thatcher, and the UK’s opt-out from the Schengen Agreement allowing free travel across 25 EU states.

Joining the European free travel area would mean removing border controls at airports, ports and the Eurotunnel, making illegal immigration harder to police.

Mr Layden told the Commons Scottish Affairs select committee’s inquiry into Scottish separation this is not a certainty but the final decision would rest with other EU countries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9270749/Britain-forced-to-leave-EU-if-Scotland-separates.html

If one looks more closely at the Telegraph article, you'll see that the claim treated in it looks authoritative - it's a "senior constitutional lawyer" and a "former Scottish Executive legal expert", which is impressive at first sight.

However, he's actually making a political claim here, not a legal one - and in fact he's stating that the decision would be up the other member states, which in turn is an admission that there is no legal bar to Scotland simply continuing in the EU, as Greenland did (until leaving by its own preference). For the Telegraph's audience, of course, it's a given that dastardly foreigners will immediately seize the opportunity to act on their jealousy of Britain.

So, as far as I can see, the short answer is that the decision will be political, and the political history of the EU suggests it wouldn't even consider forcing Scotland out, let alone the rump of the UK. It's highly unlikely that the EU would even put the UK in a position where the UK government felt it had to hold a referendum on retention of membership. Scotland might well choose to do so, but the result in Scotland is hardly the foregone conclusion such a vote would be in England.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Heh. A phrase at the end of that rather good article caught my eye:

Their only option is to make things up – as they do on Europe – therefore destroying their own case and credibility.

Sounds familiar, thought I. Sounds familiar.

OS119

Scofflaw wrote: »

...So, as far as I can see, the short answer is that the decision will be political, and the political history of the EU suggests it wouldn't even consider forcing Scotland out, let alone the rump of the UK....

while i wouldn't disagree, the fundamental point is that its a political decision, and political decisions are not entirely predictable at the best of times, and they certainly are not predictable when, in the 3 years or so before this is decided (assuming there's a yes vote), we are likely to to see the wholesale reshaping of the EU and the EZ.

anyone who says 'this is a political decision, so its a foregone conclusion' is a numpty who knows FA about politics.

The Corinthian

Interesting scenario, as there has not been any direct case we could compare it to.

Italy's Northern League did at one stage demand separate EU membership for Padania, but this was naturally rejected as Padania is not a recognised state. East Germany became part of the EU automatically when it reunified with West Germany, but this was not the admission of a new member, but the enlargement of an existing one.

Question, of course, is would Scotland qualify for membership, under the same criteria presently imposed on states such as Croatia? If so, it probably would become an automatic member. Otherwise, there could be at least some period of 'limbo' before it did.