Scottish Independence

First Up wrote: »

Not necessarily. Scotland's current adherence to the requirements for EU membership - the now 35 chapters of Community Law (Acqui Communitaire) - takes places under the laws of the United Kingdom and in many areas under UK-wide administration and management. All of these functions will have to be not only replicated in Scotland, but will have to take place within a new wholly Scottish legal framework that must itself pass scrutiny under the AC.

It should be easier for Scotland to get up to speed on this than say, Albania but it still has to be done and it is by no means certain that an independent Scotland (presumably led by the SNP) wouldn't have its own views or policies that may not all sit comfortably with EU law.

I think you're clutching at straws here. The newly independent Scotland will assume all existing laws of the United Kingdom until they start legislating for their own. This includes all existing EU legislation. You need to explain in what way, specifically, that the new system would fail to pass muster.

I don't know what you mean by "negotiate in good faith". EU accession involves two phases - technical (conformance with the Acqui) and political (acceptance by member states). No member state is obliged to treat Scotland any more preferably than any other applicant. As well as the internal secession issues already mentioned, it is likely that some members will be concerned about how this plays with countries on their own borders. For example Croatia and Greece both border some Balkan applicants/candidates and will be looking for even handed treatment for them.

I haven't seen anything specific to suggest that Scotland would fail on the technical side but I'm happy to look at realistic possibilities. Remember we need to find things that can't be fixed here.

On the political side, by good faith I mean that negotiators are required to negotiate within the spirit of the EU not merely their own narrow national interests. Remember that Scotland will still be part of the UK while much of the preliminary negotiations are taking place.

By declaring independence, Scotland will have withdrawn itself from the EU. It cannot expect the door to be held open while it decides if and how it wants to come back in.

Whilst I think that it probable, it is not definite. There have been no cases to date of member states splitting in the way that would happen in the event of a yes. The problem is that there's an application process and then a two year waiting period for countries wishing to leave the EU. The idea that a territory can leave overnight simply by splitting from a parent country makes a mockery of this. What about the EU citizenship rights of the country leaving that the rules are meant to protect? These are issues that will arise in the aftermath of a yes vote should one occur.

Manach wrote: »

Post-independence Scotland might then have to deal with further separatist with parts of the Highlands or Orkneys (which historically have been different entities from the Lowlands) seeking greater autonomy from Edinburgh.

I know many scots and that issues is mainly made up by English trying to stop the indepence movement it'll be like saying that England or Wales would split up
There is some difference but they're only regional and not enough to destroy Scotland as a while IMHO

dlouth15 wrote: »

I think you're clutching at straws here. The newly independent Scotland will assume all existing laws of the United Kingdom until they start legislating for their own. This includes all existing EU legislation. You need to explain in what way, specifically, that the new system would fail to pass muster.

I haven't seen anything specific to suggest that Scotland would fail on the technical side but I'm happy to look at realistic possibilities. Remember we need to find things that can't be fixed here.

On the political side, by good faith I mean that negotiators are required to negotiate within the spirit of the EU not merely their own narrow national interests. Remember that Scotland will still be part of the UK while much of the preliminary negotiations are taking place.

Whilst I think that it probable, it is not definite. There have been no cases to date of member states splitting in the way that would happen in the event of a yes. The problem is that there's an application process and then a two year waiting period for countries wishing to leave the EU. The idea that a territory can leave overnight simply by splitting from a parent country makes a mockery of this. What about the EU citizenship rights of the country leaving that the rules are meant to protect? These are issues that will arise in the aftermath of a yes vote should one occur.

"According to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which constitutes the legal basis for any accession, the EU is open to all European countries. However, in order to join the EU, the applicant country must adhere to the principles of Article 6(1) TEU which all the Member States subscribe to and on which the EU is based: freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.

Under Article 49 of the TEU, any European country wishing to join the EU shall apply to the Council which, before taking a decision, must consult the Commission and ask the European Parliament for a favourable opinion adopted by an absolute majority of its members. The Council then makes its decision unanimously.

The Member States and the applicant country come to an agreement on the conditions for accession and adaptation of the treaties and institutions which are entailed by accession. This agreement, or Accession Treaty, is subject to ratification by all the signatory States."

You seem to assume that the status quo will prevail until Scotland decides otherwise. As the above extract from EU legislation shows, that is not and cannot be the case. Scotland as an entity has no status in the EU, other than as part of the United Kingdom. Once Scotland leaves the United Kingdom and becomes a separate sovereign state, it ceases to be a member of the EU, until such time as it is re-admitted in its own right. That is not clutching at anything. It is just pointing out the facts.

If (in the unlikely event that) Scotland votes yes, there will of course be a transition period (I think the SNP has proposed three years) during which this will be sorted. Scotland will continue to be an EU member during that time (unless it is dragged out by a UK referendum in the meantime.)

Presumably Scotland's exit negotiations with England, Wales and N.I will be conducted in parallel with Scotland's entry negotiations with the EU. It is possible that this will happen while the UK is negotiating its own exit from the EU. Meanwhile EU accession talks will continue with other candidate countries, each with its own issues, complications and regional implications. To think Scotland will be treated as a special case is naive in the extreme.

There is no precedent and I don't know any more than you do, how it will turn out. All Barroso has done is point out that in an EU context, this is a lot more complex than some people want to think.

First Up wrote: »

You seem to assume that the status quo will prevail until Scotland decides otherwise.

No. And nor have I tried to argue that here. There is a small possibility that Scotland along with the rest of the UK could retain EU membership by means of a change of existing treaties. The UK will need treaty change anyway as it will become a smaller entity will less voting rights.

But even though this is unlikely, much of the argument against Scotland is overblown. Sure they will most likely have to negotiate their way in the same way as an accession state would, but the fact that they are currently part of a larger state already in the EU will make this process easier and not harder.

As the above extract from EU legislation shows, that is not and cannot be the case. Scotland as an entity has no status in the EU, other than as part of the United Kingdom. Once Scotland leaves the United Kingdom and becomes a separate sovereign state, it ceases to be a member of the EU, until such time as it is re-admitted in its own right. That is not clutching at anything. It is just pointing out the facts.

The clutching of straws was your claim that technical issues concerning EU legislation under a Scottish parliament would be a major issue. This is where I would disagree most strongly. Of all the states wishing to gain entry, an independent Scotland with UK and EU legislation already as part of Scottish legislation would likely have the least legislative issues to contend with.

If (in the unlikely event that)

though looking slightly less unlikely recently

Scotland votes yes, there will of course be a transition period (I think the SNP has proposed three years) during which this will be sorted. Scotland will continue to be an EU member during that time (unless it is dragged out by a UK referendum in the meantime.)

Presumably Scotland's exit negotiations with England, Wales and N.I will be conducted in parallel with Scotland's entry negotiations with the EU. It is possible that this will happen while the UK is negotiating its own exit from the EU. Meanwhile EU accession talks will continue with other candidate countries, each with its own issues, complications and regional implications. To think Scotland will be treated as a special case is naive in the extreme.

Sure they may well have to adhere to the formality as ordinary potential accession states but I think the naive thing is to believe that the situation is identical to that in practical terms. There are a whole variety of complications that arise should Scotland be excluded for any length of time that don't arise in the case of a region that has never been part of the EU. The member states will be keen to avoid these complications. I'm not saying it will be easy but rather that this needs to be balanced against very particular local considerations like Catalonia.

There is no precedent and I don't know any more than you do, how it will turn out. All Barroso has done is point out that in an EU context, this is a lot more complex than some people want to think.

What he said was that it would be next to impossible for Scotland to gain entry to the EU. I would regard this as not merely a simplification but downright wrong. Certainly he is not arguing the nuances of the situation here.

Are you deliberately misquoting me, or just mis-understanding what I'm saying?

Where did I say being part of an existing member would make it harder? I clearly said that they would be able to get up to speed faster than new accession countries like Albania for example. I am just saying that Scotland will still have to go through the same line by line process as new members, not be waved in automatically or on a fast track.

Nor did I say technical issues would be a major problem. I said that it is by no means certain that a nationalist SNP agenda would not have areas of difference from what was accepted by the UK. We won't know that until we see a draft constitution but presumably there is no point in demanding independence unless you want to be different in some way. Let's see.

There is no provision in current EU law for internal secession in a member state. We are in uncharted water. The EU will be looking at this not just in relation to Scotland but in relation to the many other scenarios that could arise in the future. That will not be quick - or easy.

And you might also quote (and interpret) Barroso accurately. He did not say it would be impossible for Scotland to gain entry. He said he thought it would be extremely difficult or even impossible to get approval of all other member states. Your spin makes it sound like he was blocking entry. All he was doing was pointing to the political realities in some member states.

First Up wrote: »

And you might also quote (and interpret) Barroso accurately. He did not say it would be impossible for Scotland to gain entry. He said he thought it would be extremely difficult or even impossible to get approval of all other member states. Your spin makes it sound like he was blocking entry. All he was doing was pointing to the political realities in some member states.

But the only conclusion to be drawn from what he said is that it would indeed be next to impossible for Scotland to be in the EU after independence. No I didn't say that he personally would block entry but rather that he said that entry would be blocked.

This is very much something he's not in a position to know at this stage and is a gross simplification of matters.

el pasco wrote: »

Would Scottish indepence not affect England more than Scotland as the whole British thing will be gone and the mindset of Britain as a world power will be gone
It will affect the blue Home Counties the most I think

I'm sure there's people in England very keen to see the back of them also. The Home counties would probably give them everything north of the Watford Gap as well if they'd take it.

First Up wrote: »

The conclusion to be drawn from what he said is that he believes it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to get all member states to agree. Would you agree that he is (a) entitled to an opinion on this and (b) that he might be in a better position to form an opinion seeing as he is constantly in contact with political leaders in the member states?

If this is what he believes, would you rather he answered the question with a lie?

Or (c) He's scared sh!tless of the repercussions of a "Yes" vote, and what it would mean for the Basque Country and Catalonia.

First Up wrote: »

Scared ***less is your term. Some might say he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't think about the consequences of such matters a bit more deeply than some I can think of.

Doing his job? We're talking about a bunch of self-interested arrogant Eurocrats. We saw how they treated this country with absolute disdain during the financial crisis. It's ironic that the IMF showed more empathy towards us than our supposed EU friends.

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Doing his job? We're talking about a bunch of self-interested arrogant Eurocrats. We saw how they treated this country with absolute disdain during the financial crisis. It's ironic that the IMF showed more empathy towards us than our supposed EU friends.

I love a rational, informed debate.

Godge wrote: »

Well, for anyone who has more than a tiny snippet of information about Belgium would realise that for the Belgian national government, admitting Scotland is a nightmare. Here is a TIME article on the issue to set you on your way.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2000517,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/01/589-days-with-no-elected-government-what-happened-in-belgium/

Again, what has Scotland got to do with Belgium's lack of ability to conduct its affairs? Everyone knows Belgium is a basket case. Scotland's entry won't change that one way or the other.

First Up wrote: »

If you haven't got the point after the number of times it has been explained already, I don't think there is anything to be gained by explaining it again.

I'm afraid your points don't stand up to a huge amount of scrutiny so forgive me if I don't take them into consideration. Am I to take it so that you believe that Belgium's inability to manage itself and its divisions is a legitimate reason to exclude Scotland from the EU?

First Up wrote: »

If you are the Belgian government, quite possibly yes.
And if that is still too hard, the only word you need to understand is veto.

But is it realistic that Belgians will sit across a table with other European countries most of which can manage their affairs, and tell the Scots that they will never be in the EU because it is not conducive, in their view, to the domestic affairs of Belgium and that have nothing to do with any other country other than Belgium itself?

They would in effect be refusing to negotiate in the first place.

I don't think that is a realistic scenario and outside the likes of Barroso (talking about Spain) who is clearly trying to influence the referendum, few have put this kind of thing forward as a serious possibility.

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

The point is, I think, the division there and in Spain would make both countries less likely to vote to allow an independent Scotland join the EU as it would cause further issues internally for said countries. It only takes one country to say no to veto Scotlands prospective membership of EU

In reality they would need some reason other than purely domestic problems which they themselves should be dealing with. They would look ridiculous and come under pressure to cop themselves on if they tried that.

It might make them tougher in negotiating. For example, they might be more keen than others in a swift entry into the Euro than other countries, but a blanked refusal to negotatiate is not likely and indeed could be in violation of the spirit of Eu law.