Scottish independence

PommieBast wrote: »

I get the feeling they'll find a way to fudge these points.

These points, like the Single Market aspects of the EU, are explicitly laid out as part of the five objectives of the EU. They are not optional extras.

If a country isn’t prepared to commit to actively work to meet all of those aims, it isn’t committed to EU membership. It has no more business being an EU member than a country would have that announces it wants an “exemption” so that it can apply protectionist policies toward its imports from other EU countries.

Channel 4 posted the debate on their YouTube channel:



I thought Sturgeon dealt with the criticism from the others well. I find Ross to be woeful.

View wrote: »

The EU didn’t come up with any answer for Sweden.

Sweden is a special case and exists due to a combination of stupidity on the part of Swedish politicians (who insisted on a subsequent referendum on the Euro after having won a previous one on joining the EU) and sloppy wording in the Swedish accession treaty. The EU made it clear to all subsequent countries that joined that would not apply to them.

If and when any application by Scotland to join the EU is made, the other EU member states are highly unlikely to admit Scotland if it turns up in Brussels demanding a shopping list of exemptions to the EU Treaties. They are not going to all the opt-outs, rebates etc that the U.K. had since, as we all saw, those actually did nothing to placate the hostility in the U.K. to the EU and probably played right into the “prima donna” mentality of many British people.

I think the EU would be much more open to accommodations to facilitate Scottish accession than it would for accommodations to facilitate UK re-accession, to be honest.

At a minimum, they'd allow Scotland to remain out of Schengen, in order to preserve the British-Irish common travel area. That would be a no-brainer.

And, if Scotland had a currency linked to sterling, I think they'd be very open to allowing that link to be maintained for quite a while.

In the long term, it's unlikely that Scotland would want a permanent link with sterling. Just as our dependence on UK trade declined after we joined the EU to a point where we decided to cut the sterling link, so expect the same development in post-indy Scotland.

rock22 wrote: »

I really think this is a lot of wishful thinking.

Time will tell, I suppose!

rock22 wrote: »

There is a lot of "British exceptionalism" about the Scottish approach to EU. It is in exactly the same position as any other applicant state, or it would be when it finally achieves independence. This letter is another example. Tellingly , it doesn't seem to be published in a Irish newspaper.

Now that is wishful thinking. There is zero chance, zero, that the EU will intervene in this way in what is for the time being a purely domestic debate within the UK, a non-member state.

rock22 wrote: »

Additionally, Scotland, at the moment, will face a veto from Spain regarding any application. That might change depending on events in Catalonia and the actual process and agreement on Scottish independence.

That seems a rather sweeping statement. Scotland won’t face a veto on any application “at the moment” because, at the moment, there can be no Scottish application; the question of a veto can’t arise.

There can’t be a Scottish application until there’s an independent, sovereign Scotland. And I seriously doubt that Spain would veto an application from an independent sovereign state on the grounds that it acquired its sovereignty by seceding — constitutionally — from a larger state, and this might encourage others do to the same. The great majority of EU member states acquired their sovereignty by seceding from a larger state; Spain taking the view that this is somehow illegitimate, even when done constitutionally, would enrage and appal them. I think Spain would pay a huge political price for such a veto, squander much political capital, and secure no advantage.

The claim that Spain would do this is mostly advanced in Brexity British newspapers, so I suppose it too is an example of wishful thinking, but on the other side. Has any Spanish government figure said that Spain would do this? If not, why do you state baldly that it would?

rock22 wrote: »

Fianlly, there are waiting applicant nations in the Balkans which, to many members at least, will take priority.

There’s no queue. Each applicant can become a member state when it meets the criteria for membership, or secures agreement to their modification or waiver. How soon Montenegro or Albania can accede is in no way affected by how soon Scotland accedes, and they are not advantaged in any way if Scottish accession is delayed. And of course in general they will be cheered by seeing accession criteria modified to meet the particular circumstances of Scotland, since that strengthens their case for seeking analagous modifications to meet their own particular circumstances.

rock22 wrote: »

I really think this is a lot of wishful thinking.

There is a lot of "British exceptionalism" about the Scottish approach to EU. It is in exactly the same position as any other applicant state, or it would be when it finally achieves independence. This letter is another example. Tellingly , it doesn't seem to be published in a Irish newspaper.

Additionally, Scotland, at the moment, will face a veto from Spain regarding any application. That might change depending on events in Catalonia and the actual process and agreement on Scottish independence.

Fianlly, there are waiting applicant nations in the Balkans which, to many members at least, will take priority.

Spain has repeatedly said they would not on principle veto a Scottish application. It would be very short sighted to them to do so since, whenever Scotland eventually joined, they would want it to be open - not hostile - to backing “the Spanish position” in voting in the CoM.

Your point about the SNP’s approach being one of “British exceptionalism” is correct.

View wrote: »

The ideas you suggest are fundamentally incompatible with the stated aims of the EU.

An applicant country cannot commit to the EU’s aim of having:
1) an EU wide common currency (the Euro), and,
2) an EU wide area in which EU citizens can travel without borders (Schengen),
while simultaneously being committed on a medium/long term basis to:
1) using Sterling or a currency directly linked to it, and,
2) having a common travel area with a (hostile) non-EU country.

Scotland has to be prepared to fully commit to all the EU’s aims and have a clear plan as to how to bring them about. The member states are not going to approve a “British exceptionalism” plan which starts as “temporary” - like all the U.K. opt-outs - and then becomes permanent and then leads to another Brexit scenario where the very idea that the EU countries don’t roll over and agree to demands made to them ends up being regarded as “vindictiveness” by the EU.

Applicant countries aren’t required to adopt the euro on joining; just to commit do doing so at a future point. There is no set timetable. (There cannot be — a country can’t join the euro until it meets specified economic criteria.) There are I think six member states which have joined since 2004 and which have yet to adopt the euro.

And if a country can join without adopting the euro, I don’t know of any EU rule which prevents them from linking their currency in some way to the currency of another country.

This isn’t a simply binary - either you join the euro or you don’t. For instance, In Scotland’s case a dynamic trade-weighted link to both the euro and sterling, pending Scotland meeting the criteria to adopt the euro, is the kind of thing that could be negotiated. As Scotland’s trade with the EU expanded, and its trade with the UK contracted, its currency would move closer and closer to the euro, even before formally adopting the currency.

As for joining Schengen, new EU members are not obliged to become parties to the Schengen Agreement, but the Schengen rules form part of the community law acquis which they are expected to adopt on joining. However all new member states negotiate exceptions to the adoption of the acqus, and in Scotland’s case an exception to adopting the Schengen rules could certainly be considered. Basically Scotland would be seeking to adopt instead the rules that already apply to an existing member state - Ireland - and it would have good reasons for doing so. Those rules are also part of the acquis, albeit a part which new member states do not adopt, so there is no fundamental violence to the principle of adopting the acquis there. And if course it would not create precedents for other applicant countries; as none of them currently participate in the common travel area (unless Wales secedes from the UK and seeks to accede to the EU!)

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

Should there be an IndyRef2 any time soon which I doubt and should Scotland vote to leave the UK which I also doubt it would be many decades if at all before Scotland reaches the minimum economic requirements on things like government deficit and debt before it would even be considered for EU membership.
Without the Bank of England as guarantor Scotland would have to fund independence by borrowing on international markets at exorbitant rates.
And with North Sea oil rapidly running out and the price of Brent crude about half of what it was when the SNP costed its plans before the last referendum you can see why Nicola Sturgeon has admitted she hadn't even begun to think of the economic arguement.

This all seems a bit bleak. Can you show your workings? Other European economies similar in size to Scotland have managed to meet the criteria for admission to the EU, and don't have to borrow "at exorbitant rate". Can you explain why Scotland should be so uniquely cursed?

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

Hard border between Scotland and England ? Scotland currently exports four times more to the UK than it does to the EU.
And how would Scotland replace the £12billion a year it currently receives under the Barnett formula ?
Scottish independence is like a united Ireland - a useful rallying call for politicians but with little immediate or medium-term prospect of success.

Similar arguments failed to stop Brexit, though, didn't they? And, unlike the nonsense arguments advanced in favour of Brexit, Scotland actually does have good reason to seek independence, because (unlike the UK in the EU) it really is deprived of sovereignty in the UK, and it really is subject to the whims and prejudices of a governing class that don't give a damn about Scottish wishes or interests. People might reasonably reckon that it's worth paying some economic price to escape that.

landofthetree wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1387728472374759426

They're owned by NatWest anyway which is based in London.

They said this too in 2004. I find it a bit disingenuous to say that they are neutral in Scottish Independence but release a statement days before the election which is emotive for people to think they will be losing their "national" bank.

I guess an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be associated with a Royal Bank in name anymore.

dogbert27 wrote: »

They're owned by NatWest anyway which is based in London.

They said this too in 2004. I find it a bit disingenuous to say that they are neutral in Scottish Independence but release a statement days before the election which is emotive for people to think they will be losing their "national" bank.

I guess an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be associated with a Royal Bank in name anymore.

Actually they took over Natwest but now Natwest is to the fore again.

When the CEO lives and works the majority of time in London then as far as I can see London is their defacto HQ now.

It is not too much different from Lloyds where their headquarters are in London but registered office is on the mound in Edinburgh. This registered office is now actually a museum to Scottish banking.

It's interesting to see the tory led media tops repeat "project fear" without an ounce of self awareness.

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

It provides 6,500 jobs directly and another 11,000 indirectly.
You won't find many people in that area voting for independence.

That figure has been debunked many times

Ministry of Defence reveals just 520 Faslane jobs depend on Trident