I realised how opaque the EU was the day I stepped out of a lift at the Parliament in Strasbourg, saw I was on the wrong floor and returned to the lift to find there was no call button – it was a lift that let you out but didn’t let you back in. Maybe that will be Scotland’s destiny in the Alice in Wonderland underworld of European affairs.
I was thinking this after reading the latest replies from our national representatives at the EP regarding our status as members of the European Union only to be informed that “we are not members”. That’s right, despite 40 years when you thought Scotland was part of the EEC, the EC and now the EU, after all those hundreds of millions of pounds in contributions, troughs of MEP expenses and non-contributory pensions, of bypasses and quaysides adorned with the blue flag, of farming subsidies, official visits from Commissioners, meetings of the Committee of the Regions, a permanent Scottish office in Brussels and direct elections in five months time, it turns out we never were members at all and therefore can’t be thrown out. No, wait. I’ve got that wrong. We can still be thrown out although we’re not actually members. Such is the glorious insanity of our elected members turning themselves inside out to avoid the truth – that Scotland’s place in Europe is safe for as long as we want it.
In response to the questions I was posing a few posts ago, David Martin, the estimable and senior Labour MEP who has spent a professional lifetime in the Parliament and gained the distinction of being a vice president, replied to my correspondent Ian McTurk and here he guides us Through the Looking Glass of Unionism with the following observations.
I should remind you first that the Barroso position – that part of a state which secedes from a Member State and becomes independent becomes a third country and the treaties do not apply to it – is adopted by all the Unionist parties as their policy. They have applied it to Scotland to argue that this means a vote for independence takes us outside the remit of the EU and therefore outside membership. We then become a new applicant required to meet all the obligations and at the end of the queue, subject to Article 49 (designed to apply to new applicant states). I’ve been following that logic up to a point while disagreeing with it. However, I now quote from David Lewis Carroll Martin MEP: “There is, of course no section in the Treaties which can be applied specifically to Scotland as Scotland is not a Member State of the European Union EU.”
You may think that begs the question: So how do we get thrown out if we’re not a member? He means, of course that we are not a Member State but part of a Member State so there is nothing in the treaties to deal with Scotland. We may not be the named Member State but we are an equal partner in the state that is the member and isn’t it the role of a Scottish MEP to speak up for his country and argue for our status as important contributors inside the EU? In other words, don’t you expect your MEP to stand up for you and your country and state that Scotland has equal status with the rest of the UK and can’t be treated as less than the rUK?
As I wrote recently David is keen to head off the independence movements in Europe and wanted to produce a report warning Scots and Catalans that they would lose membership by voting for independence. Such was the doubt cast on the strength of this theory that he was blocked by his own socialist group from doing so in case it caused trouble for other institutional conservatives.
The European Parliament has vetoed a report on “the consequences of secession of the territory of a member state for its membership of the European Union”. The Scottish Labour MEP, David Martin, hoped to prepare a report about the impact of secession for Scotland and Catalonia, but authorisation to do so was delayed and blocked by his own socialist group, as shown by the minutes of the meetings of the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament. http://www.catalannewsagency.com/politics/item/report-on-the-consequences-of-independence-blocked-in-the-european-parliament.
It does look as if he is running around Brussels corridors desperate seeking ways of blocking his own country’s democratic rights by getting approval for the line that we will be thrown out and rejected if we exercise our entitlement to vote for independence. He follows this up with confirmation of the now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t defence. Asked how Scotland would be thrown out, as in Who decides and How legally are our rights withdrawn and freedom of movement restricted etc, he repeats: “Scotland cannot ‘…cease to be a member?’ as Scotland has never been a Member State” and goes on: “I would assume that if Scotland becomes a new state and the people are in favour of membership of the EU the new Scottish Government would apply to join. The rules for membership are well established and set out for a new application and acceptance which would require unanimity from the current Member States.”
So we can’t cease to be a member because were not a member but if we vote Yes we will still be thrown out of membership until they want us to have membership. Got it?
At no point is there even a smidgeon of hope that David will object to any move against Scotland, won’t – even in terms of his reading of the rules – attempt to interpret them in our favour, no hint that our 40 years in the EU counts for anything worth mentioning, produces no belief in the establishing principles of the Community and finds no hope that through the combined efforts of Great Britain, Scotland can be assured of the best support available or even that he is working on our behalf with MEPs from other countries to aid our succession if we vote Yes.
But there are other shocks in here for those of us who have previously held belief in the probity of our national politicians. When the EU made clear to London that it would provide legal clarification on Scotland’s position if the UK, as Member State, but not Scotland, were to ask for it, it seemed there was no way out for the Union. They would have to ask and that’s where the EU lawyers would correct the Barroso politicking. That was until the Foreign Office set the British Civil Service on the case. Sir Humphry: Of course, we can’t shirk our responsibility to ask the relevant question to enlighten the voters in Scotland, Minister.
Minister: But, Humphry. That will give the game away and they’ll find out we’re lyi…I mean, that we’re incorrect.
Sir Humphry: We will ask Brussels for clarification – after the Scots have voted. When it’s – how can I put it – too late.
And that’s what they’ve done. They now say there is no scenario to put to Brussels for clarification until after the vote and after the independence talks, up to two years later. And now a socialist MEP falls into line with the British state conniving to deny the Scots the information they need to make an informed decision. Asked if he agreed with the Foreign Office, David Martin replied with one word: Yes.
Ever feel cheated by the system? Ever ask yourself what you do when democracy fails you? I do. Because this is a royal stich-up in which Labour conspires with Tory and winks at the mandarins beavering away to deceive to the Scots.
I leave with you another mystifying quote. Q:Will you vote for Scotland’s membership of the EU irrespective of how it eventually comes about?
A: That would not be possible because unless Scotland became independent and applied for membership there will be no vote.
Even when given the opportunity to say that if the Scots Yes and there is a vote on our membership, he is unable to commit to support us. It reads like a willful misreading of the question which states the line…irrespective of how it comes about, meaning either staying in and renegotiating or outside re-applying from outside. Is it really so difficult to get an elected member from our country to stand up for straightforward democratic values and promise to do his duty on our behalf? Or do we conclude that it’s possible he might even vote against his own country? Even the possibility of independence has the capacity to frighten our Unionist friends witless, it seems.
So we have the admission that nothing in the treaties covers Scotland’s case which means the EU will have to make it up, as it has done on previous occasions including one of the biggest enlargements when 20 million East Germans joined by the simple device of merging into the combined Member State of Germany.
From that position we are asked to believe we will be rejected, the Court of Justice will stay silent as will all 28 other members, the UK will not back us, and we will go to the end of the queue and after years of waiting, will be forced to join the euro although no one else is.
There is a lengthening list of enlightened Europeans questioning this authoritarian bunkum I said the EU was opaque but what we really face is a Berlin Wall of Resistance to the truth about the EU yet our Unionist parliamentarians appear stuck on the wrong side. Can we expect them to rush through when it is inevitably pulled down?
Derek Bateman Broadcaster1 
NLab have reached their destination. In all corridors they seek to talk down their own Country. Or is it simply that we now have no Scottish NLab, but only UK Nlabour. Free meals voted against, dear oh dear!
The project fear mantra on the EU doesn’t add up. There is no provision in the EU treaties about what happens in the event of a yes vote so to suggest Scotland will be expelled is a nonsense.
EU expansion has been smoothly carried out for those current members from the all post communist members so it beggars belief that obstacles would be put in Scotlands way. If East Germany was allowed to become a member when it entered into a union with West Germany how will I Scotland cease to be member when it ends its union with England?
Quite apart from the obvious practical difficulties in denying Scotland EU membership ( think of Scottish ex pats living in the EU and those EU citizens living in Scotland, not to mention all those Spanish fisherman enjoying the common fisheries policy) it would also set a risky precedent.
Belgium is on the brink of dissolution and has been for years. The Felmmish claim the Brussels region as their own. If an iFlanders state was to be declared are we really to believe that Brussels would leave the EU for an indeterminate period while re-entry was negotiated during which time all EU employees had to face border checks or would those EU offices in Brussels be relocated? Sounds daft doesn’t it?
Anyone who buys the ‘you’ll get chucked out’ line should be asked the question: “what is the difference between company being dissolved and its assets distributed between its shareholders and a shareholder selling his shares and the company continuing to trade?”
I am moderately in favour of EU membership, and would vote in favour of continued membership if there were to be a referendum on this, inside or outside of the UK. However, even if it were certain that independence would result in Scotland being ejected from the EU, I would still vote ‘Yes’, and would then be opposed to any subsequent Scottish application for EU membership, as I would regard expulsion from the EU as a consequence of Scotland exerting her right to self-determination as an unforgiveable insult to the Scottish people.
With you there, Scaraben. It’s of secondary importance.
All of the issues that Better Together persist on using as “Scare Tactics” are of secondary importance. Independence first then deal with the rest,
None of their prophecies have any merit and are best ignored.
As voters perhaps we should ask each potential MEP at the forthcoming European elections if they would support Scotland being given continued membership of the EU. If they are not willing to defend Scotland’s interests they do not deserve to be elected! Time to remind them MEPs that they are OUR SERVANTS and nit the other way round!
Will we re-elect politicians whose history is one of being anti Scottish and what happens to these MEPs if the constituency which elected them is no longer part of a country within the EU?
I would assume that the instant Scottish constituencies are ejected from the EU,these politicians would suffer the same fate…persona non grata along with their constituents and oil,gas,renewable energy,fishing etc.
Of course,a No vote could well end up with them being ejected anyway if Cameron’s decisive EU referendum ever sees the light of day…ha ha.
That goes for me too. If they were ever to exercise such an undemocratic and dissembling response given the bend over backwards approaches they’ve adopted to assist other eastern European members, then I would say good riddance and lets establish new and stronger alliances with our Northern neighbours – but I’m sure you could put money on Europe being much more sensible – this is just “scratch my back,and I’ll scratch yours” politics to keep Westminster on side given the English surge towards a referendum and possible exit from Europe and internal troubles within Spain and between Spain and UK over Gib.
That should have been a reply to Scaraben but while I’m here I’m with you too – these people should have their names entered in the black book of offenders.
Yes. Spain and UK over Gib…….now there’s the reason for the Spanish anti-
Scottish chat.
Well I say screw ’em. Join EFTA, ban EU fishing fleets, erect border posts, send back EU students and nationals, tell RzuK to remove their subs within two weeks. NATO can have all their nuclear bombs and missiles back too. Just watch them change their tune then.
I concur!
Actually Andrew, under the EEA agreement between EFTA and the EU there is free movement of goods, services, persons and capital between EFTA and EU states.
If we were in EFTA then EU nationals would have the right to stay here and like the border between EFTA Norway and EU Sweden there would be no border posts.
However we’d lose the missiles and keep the fish.
Thumbing our noses s beginning to look an even better option.
Excellent article as usual Derek but we’ve come to expect no less!
Correct me if I’m wrong but I seem to remember that when Greenland won autonomy from Denmark the Innuit moved immediately to withdraw from the then Common Market. (This was in the 1970’s). The problem was that there was no provision for any country (or territory of a country) to leave the CM. AS far as I know Greenland was held pro rata to the terms which Denmark had negotiated.
Now, I am prepared to be proved wrong about this because my memory is not so good and I have put out all my papers from that period but yet that story still feels fresh. Perhaps someone can check it.
I think Greenland negotiated her way out of the EU with the aid of Denmark. However Greenland did not separate completely from Denmark. From being part of Denmark, they became a sort of dependency or associate of Denmark, like the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
Denmark still assists Greenland on social, economic and external relations matters. In fact Denmark is the negotiating chair behind Greenland concerning territorial waters, fishing rights and sub sea exploration rights. This includes North Pole oil reserves and Atlantic ones which could touch Scotland’s Atlantic reserves. In fact Denmark is trying to claim Rockall, for Greenland as are the Irish, for themselves obviously. That is why Westminster sent some R Marines to set up the Flag on the island and then gave it an Inverness Postcode. So, it belongs to Scotland actually, and I believe this has been confirmed by geological surveys which shows it to an outcrop of the Western Isles.
I’ll get my coat!
Whoooooshh
For me this is an issue that needs to be continually highlighted as it is an example of how BT are being dishonest.
What are the chances there is a democracy loving nation in the EU, embarrassed by this who will ask the question?
I also got a reply which I put on the previous thread.
I am going to respnd because there were inaccuracies in his reply – ‘As you may be aware, in the unlikely scenario that Scotland were to vote for independence, it would have to negotiate for membership from outside of the EU’- but more to the point, what other country in the world would have it’s own elected representatives actively working against it.
The more I hear about the Lab politicians, the more I despise them.
Well Derek, I hate to say I told you so, but…. I told you so.
Anyone with any say in how iScotland’s potential future EU accession and membership will be handled has said the same thing, they will not change their minds and no amount of complaining about the unfairness of it all will make the slightest difference. The EU is a bureaucracy put together for bureaucrats by bureaucrats, once you understand that then you might understand why they will not change their position.
As for the usual suspects, when are you going to work out that any future problems that iScotland may have is sorting out its EU membership are not and will not be the fault of the pantomime villains in Westminster? If you vote yes in the full knowledge that the EU/EC has strict rules regarding membership and accession that could result in iScotland suffering serious problems in joining the EU then it is your fault. Do not even think about blaming anyone else. It is a free vote, no one is forcing you to vote either way, if you don’t like what will happen if you vote yes then vote no. It is that simple.
There is also no point criticising an MEP for telling the truth, MEP’s ultimately have no say in the accession of new member states. It is the European Council comprising the heads of states of all the EU member states that decide and if they have any reservations at all or have anything that they want to negotiate they can use their veto for whatever reason they want. The EU situation is the reality of international politics, nationalistic rhetoric and unfounded assertions will get you nowhere. Salmond thinks he is a big fish in the small pond of Holyrood, in the EU he doesn’t even register as a tadpole.
Did you actually read the article by Mr Bateman? Mr McMad, or MacIntyre whichever you prefer? Looks like you have taken the “tadpole” bait hook, line and sinker!
says someone who hasn’t read the article or understand the subject,.
Regularly feel cheated by the system because it is currently run by a bunch of cheats who are only interested in shirking responsibility and apportioning blame – Funny you know, I though Government was supposed to shoulder responsibility!
After the Treaty of Union there were two Acts passed separately in the Scottish and the English parliaments. Thus two sovereign states came together, it seems to me that this is a fact that has conveniently escaped the knowledge of our unionist members and the European council. After Scotland votes yes the situation will be that there are two sovereign states again. The logic is that both sovereign states are still in or both have to negotiate to get back in.
The SNP and the “yes” campaign or the tadpoles as the aptly named McMad calls them have no illusions about Scotlans’s place in the world but know that it’s true place is not as the invisible stateless place that Mr Martin is trying to make out.
Of course rUK,or whatever they wish to call themselves,will,along with Scotland,have to negotiate/renegotiate their terms of membership if for no other reason than that rUK will no longer have Scotland’s fishing rights to barter with.
I agree there is no precedent, and as a political club I think a way will be found.
East Germany is a red herring as a) it ceased to exist and its citizens became citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany b) the European Union (and EU citizenship) didn’t exist back then, so they were joining a different sort of club than now exists, and didn’t increase the number of Commissioners (the big issue back then). The European Parliament did eventually slightly expand its numbers to reflect the increased numbers, though its size is now capped. New states mean a rearrangement of MEPs.
I think a Scottish state would need the trappings of a state to become a member of the EU (rather than a region as it is classified at present. These would include a central bank and a stats office. All other European states have these, the only exceptions being the pseudo-states of Andorra, Monaco and the Vatican.
Sort of connected I received a reply today to a number of questions I put to Mr Van Rompuy.
“We acknowledge receipt of your message of 13/12/2013 to Mr Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, and thank you on his behalf. Unfortunately, Mr. Van Rompuy is not able to reply personally to all the letters that he receives but we would like to assure you that your letter has been brought to his attention.
It is not for the President of the European Council to express a position on questions of an internal debate of this nature within a Member State. The President of the European Council has on occasions recalled some of the principles that would apply in a scenario of a new state being created. “
Today must have been EU reply to Scotland day, because I got an identical response to the following questions that I put to Mr Van Rompuy.
If Scotland votes to become independent from the UK in 2014, what do you expect to be the status of the two nations on conclusion of the negotiations that will follow the referendum? Both inside the EU, both outside the EU or Scotland outside and the UK inside?
We have the solution to the particular problem above in our own hands, In the coming EU elections we must vote in EU MPs who are in favour of Scottish Independence. Let’s DO it.
Frankly, I have yet to be convinced about the justification of this determination by the Yes campaign to insist we would not need to reapply to the EU if the Scots vote for indepedence.
Scottish independence is my ideal scenario.
Scottish independence as a member state of the EU I can take or leave.
Whether we, as an independent country again, are in the EU or not, it doesn’t impact our future prosperity: not being in the EU isn’t going to take away our natural resources and industries.
I feel the Yes campaign have made a rod for their own back with this, right or wrong.
As for the EU, well, when Spanish fishing boats are chased out of Scottish waters, don’t come greetin’ to us.
John Mcmad, “there is no point in you criticising an MEP for telling the truth” . mm is that not the problem, no one knows the ‘truth’ because as far as I know, there is no book sitting somewhere in Brussels with the tried and tested legal position of Scotland in or out of the UK for MEPs, Presidents of European Councils or even the ordinary voter who has a democratic right to know what the position would be, to refer to.
What there is though is a mechanism to establish the position for voters to be fully informed before using that ‘free vote’ as you put it, so perhaps rather than an MEP giving his point of view, (which is different from a truth),the relevant MEPs should be using the mechanism available to them, in other words, get the UK Govt to ask for the position to be clarified to establish the legal position, then when anyone quotes the established legal position,they would be telling the truth.
it’s a funny thing the ‘truth’ Mr Tony Blair used to start most of his interviews with ” the truth of the matter is” if you remember and then what would follow was not strictly a definition of the word truth …
So the facts as they stand is not the truth? Thats certainly an interesting concept.
Given the “Fact” that this is a unique situation, which “Facts” exactly are you presenting as “the truth”?
Secede from or dissolve a treaty. Its all in the wording. 🙂
Derek asks: “So how do we get thrown out if we’re not a member?”
Answer: We don’t get ‘thrown out’, in the unlikely event of a YES vote we will have voted to leave the UK and its treaties, agreements and obligations, including membership of the EU. Simples.
Something not quite so simple is the explanation from the SNP on why Nicola Sturgeon claimed there would be no need to negotiate EU membership or opt-outs at all. She claimed they would be automatic. Which of course is a downright lie. I suspect we may have a long wait to hear anything approaching an apology from the SNP for so grossly misleading the people of Scotland.
And while we are waiting for the apology I’d love to know when the SNP received confirmation from the EU that they would be willing to negotiate with the Scottish Government whilst Scotland is still part of the UK . At the moment the EU won’t even answer Scottish Government questions because it only recognises member states . Who in the EU has confirmed this change in policy will happen and negotiations with the Scottish Government while Scotland remains within the UK is possible?
“In this study, the French expert in EU affairs analyses the succession of states and their effect on international treaties. He assumes that Spain and the United Kingdom would be the “continuing states”, while Catalonia and Scotland would respectively be the “successor states”. However, neither Spain nor the United Kingdom nor Belgium have signed the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties. ”
“In this vein, Gounin cites the report drafted by David Edward, who used to be the British Judge within the Court of Justice of the European Union between 1992 and 2004. Edward was rejecting Scotland’s automatic expulsion from the EU and was advising for negotiating independence and EU membership at the same time. Those negotiations would be held between the referendum day and the day independence would be effective, having more than a year to amend EU Treaties accordingly. The former Chief of Staff of the French Minister for European Affairs is supporting such a way out for both Catalonia and Scotland.”
““A good will negotiation would be in everybody’s interest”
“The French expert firmly rejects the idea of placing Catalonia and Scotland in the accession queue.”
“In addition, Gouning highlights the legal argument resulting from article 50 of the EU Treaty, which deals with the withdrawal of a Member State from the Union. The Treaties clearly say that the withdrawal is not automatic and has to be negotiated, specifically regarding the relationship of the State with the EU. Therefore, automatically excluding Catalonia or Scotland, without a negotiation, would be quite problematic regarding Article 50.”
“A third argument presented by the former Chief of Staff of France’s European Affairs Department refers to “the founding principles of the Union: freedom, democracy, equality and rule of law”. Gounin emphasises that it would be “a paradox for the EU to deny the people of Scotland, Catalonia or Flanders the right to self-determination or, to be more precise, by linking this right to the automatic expulsion from the Union, [which] decreases its effectiveness to zero”. On top of this, he points out that by doing so, the EU would in fact be interfering with the Member States’ interior policy, something it wants to avoid. By “vetoing” Scotland or Catalonia’s continuity within the EU, Brussels would completely interfere with the self-determination debate.”
THE BEST IS YET TO COME:
“Finally, “the strongest argument” to support the continuity of Catalonia and Scotland within the EU is that referring to the link between the Union and its citizens. The Court of Justice of the European Union stated that the EU is “a new” international law entity where “subjects are not only the States but also their people”. This makes the EU a completely different international organisation, since there is a European citizenry. Gounin points out that this dimension has been strengthened over time by numerous treaties and charters. “Even though the European citizenship is added to the national” one and “it does not replace it”, the French expert argues that Catalan and Scottish citizens could not have their EU rights taken away without seriously “harming” the case-law issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union and therefore damaging the EU’s legal and democratic principles.”
http://bit.ly/19iEwGd
You see when the poisonous influence of Ukanian Unionists and their Anglo Saxon supremacists are removed from the debate, it is pefectly clear that Scotlands transition to full EU membership will take place in an atmosphere of pragmatic good will. The period between the yes vote and independece day will see Scotland fully intergrated in to all the intenational bodies we are presently members of. The croaks of dersion from the Ukanians will see them laughed at and humiliated internationally as their ill will and bitterness flows through the international MSM. England is at real risk of becoming the North Korea of Europe as they swing more to the UKIP view of the world, and withdraw in to the M25 circle. Never mind Hadrian they will soon be employing Wimpey to build them a wall along side the M25.
Just look at the track record of our MPs in Englands UK Parliament. Especially during Thatchers reign of terror. “The feeble fifty” were not so named for nothing. The only time they showed any bottle was when Dewar and co walked out of the joint having first assaulted the mace, when the disbandment of Labours massive gravy train, Strathclyde region was announced. Self interest, you better believe it. Look at what passes for Scottish representaion from Davidson Carmichael and the rest of the unionist pack. They pander to Londons stereo typical Jock profile. They behave like court jesters, in fact that is what they are. Toom Tabbards.
As to Labour delivering devolution, they were forced to do so by the EU who recognise the democratic deficit in the UK against Scotland. Why else are they sitting on the briefing papers that surround the devolution era? What other reason can there be for keeping these papers locked down like they did with McRone. Because the unionist establishment know the revelations in these papers are explosive and would blow a massive hole in the good ship Brittania. It would once and for all expose what the SNP have been saying for generations. The union of 1707 is and was an undemocratic farce, and London have behaved in the only way they know, as imperialist and fascist dictators.
“..the poisonous influence of Ukanian Unionists and their Anglo Saxon supremacists..”
“..Labour delivering devolution, they were forced to do so by the EU..”
“..the Ukanians will ..(be).. laughed at and humiliated internationally..”
“..London have behaved in the only way they know, as imperialist and fascist dictators.”
The myth of rational civic nationalism lies dazed and bleeding, mugged by the swivel-eyed bampottery of folk like Henry Brown.
Marvellous…
The UK is currently the “member state” in the EU. This means that its constituent parts i.e. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are a part of the EU as the situation stands.
When Scotland votes to dissolve the union of parliaments then the member state will cease to exist in its current form.
This surely means that both Scotland and the rUK will neither be existing signatories to the European Union. Why then would it only be Scotland who would need to re-negotiate their status as a member?
You’ll find this helpful, especially item seven on the list.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m05.htm
Mr MacCart
Perhaps slightly more interesting is the UK government’s published legal opinion:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/factual-analysis-promised-as-legal-implications-of-scottish-independence-made-clear
Whilst Mr. Avery does seem to have attempted to clarify the position of an independent Scotland after we exercise our democratic right to dissolve the union of parliaments and why mutatis mutandis would apply in the interim period whilst Holyrood and Westminster negotiated the terms of this dissolution in the case of the distribution of our assets and liabilites. This has been done on the assumption that rUK would remain within the EU albeit he does suggest that some adjustment would potentially be necessary as a result in the reduction of representation in the European Parliament.
What he does not clarify is why only Scotland would be in the position of having to negotiate membership.
“The UK is currently the “member state” in the EU. This means that its constituent parts i.e. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are a part of the EU as the situation stands.”
Err, no it doesn’t. It means they are a part of the UK which in turn is part of the EU. If they leave the UK they leave the EU member state.
The errant schoolboy on being sent to the headmaster is usually just told to “wait in the corridor” , still has full privileges ,while a decision is made, he is not expelled at that moment and still is a pupil at the school.
As two pupils have been fighting they are both sent into corridor until judgement is made
Can’t see how the bigger one should be allowed to stay in office and discuss future of smaller one
Just an analogy folks
@Gray
I would suspect because he was specifically tasked with looking at the problem from the Scottish perspective. It’d be interesting to see a report based on the rUK angle.
Oh dear Grahamski, a document from Westminster enititled a “factual analysis”.
It’s not fact, it’s opinion.
You are in fact correct and of course it is contestable opinion. However as an insight into Mr Crawford’s processes:
Speaking during media interviews, Prof Crawford also said the renegotiation of international treaties was “not going to be a major issue” as he accepted that the EU negotiations would take place from within the European Union. Asked by BBC Scotland: “So that negotiation would be going on from within the European Union?”, Prof Crawford replied “Yes, that is certainly true”
He’s not a bad lad, you ask him a direct question, he’ll give you his best opinion. 😉
Just titled .. not entitled 🙂
Not strictly speaking from Berlin, but from the southwest of Germany, I’d like to comment here with my pro-Scottish pro-European voice: :As a supporter of the Scottish Green Party I also support their YES vote. Well, Prof. Christopher Harvie (former MSP for the SNP) was the one who taught me Scottish history and politics and if you know your Disraeli you’ll see through both Yes, Prime Minister and through David Cameron’s Yes-men.
With Scotland’s EU-membership question we have two first’s: Can the UK split in two seperate-but-equal EU-members as long as the previous representatives of the UK in the council agree?
And can Scotland stay in the EU if the English decide in their own referendum that they want to leave?
By the books as we have them there is no “yes” answer to any of these two questions. But the Sir Humphreys of Europe will find a way to workaround until the treaties can be amended to acoomodate Scotland in a way that will not encourage independence seekers in any other EU-member states (read: Catalonia et al). No one wants a EU of 40 instead of 28 members within the current EU borders – and it’s not the European Parliament (for which I’m running as a German Greens candidate from Baden-Wuerttemberg next may) which is the problem, it is the EU Council and from there the EU Commission. Luckily in the Commission it will not be Barroso to talk to, so basically it’s cross the bridge once you reach it – and until then make it clear and make it public that you would not want to allow the English UKIP (and BNP) to drag Scotland out of the EU – not with your referendum and not with theirs.
Very good to have your input here. Unfortunately recent pronouncements on the subject, or claimed to be on the subject, are having the effect of turning Scots off the whole EU idea, as each pronouncement reinforces the impression of a very undemocratic institution which many Yes supporters now question whether we wish to continue to be part of. It would be a great pity if the EU, after an rUK referendum, found itself with neither Scotland nor rUK as members because of its lack of respect and consideration for voters in Scotland at this time when people are seeking, if not definitive answers, then at least some positive reassurance.
Hi Wolfgang,
It’s fascinating to read your take on our indyref campaign, and interesting to hear your 2 questions.
Your first: “Can the UK split in two seperate-but-equal EU-members as long as the previous representatives of the UK in the council agree?” is particularly interesting because as I’m sure you know the UK government, who is the UK’s representative, absolutely does NOT agree with this and has published legal advice and its opinion that the rUK will be the continuing state.
I don’t understand your second question, “..can Scotland stay in the EU if the English decide in their own referendum that they want to leave?”. for the simple reason that there are no plans for England to have a referendum on its own.
Grahamski
Grahamski,
There is a far greater likelihood of the UK (or rUK) voting to leave the EU than there is of Scotland being ejected and banned sine die. No matter how obtusely you choose to interpret the other comments in this post, you can’t get away from this fact. There will be no hiding after the Euro elections; it will be blatantly obvious that Scotland’s only chance of staying in Europe is to go it alone.
Of the following 2 scenarios which is the more likely?
1. Scotland votes yes. Scotland and it’s citizens are thrown out of Europe and not allowed reentry.
2. Scotland votes no. UK holds in/out referendum and the current majority in England and Wales who want to leave EU prevail.
John Mcmad , that was my point . There is no definitive fact (regarding Scotland in/out) there is criteria in place for established states, there is conjecture, then there are opinions. Please tell me which one is the truth?
Sorry this post appeared in the wrong place so here it is again:
“In this study, the French expert in EU affairs analyses the succession of states and their effect on international treaties. He assumes that Spain and the United Kingdom would be the “continuing states”, while Catalonia and Scotland would respectively be the “successor states”. However, neither Spain nor the United Kingdom nor Belgium have signed the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties. ”
“In this vein, Gounin cites the report drafted by David Edward, who used to be the British Judge within the Court of Justice of the European Union between 1992 and 2004. Edward was rejecting Scotland’s automatic expulsion from the EU and was advising for negotiating independence and EU membership at the same time. Those negotiations would be held between the referendum day and the day independence would be effective, having more than a year to amend EU Treaties accordingly. The former Chief of Staff of the French Minister for European Affairs is supporting such a way out for both Catalonia and Scotland.”
““A good will negotiation would be in everybody’s interest”
“The French expert firmly rejects the idea of placing Catalonia and Scotland in the accession queue.”
“In addition, Gouning highlights the legal argument resulting from article 50 of the EU Treaty, which deals with the withdrawal of a Member State from the Union. The Treaties clearly say that the withdrawal is not automatic and has to be negotiated, specifically regarding the relationship of the State with the EU. Therefore, automatically excluding Catalonia or Scotland, without a negotiation, would be quite problematic regarding Article 50.”
“A third argument presented by the former Chief of Staff of France’s European Affairs Department refers to “the founding principles of the Union: freedom, democracy, equality and rule of law”. Gounin emphasises that it would be “a paradox for the EU to deny the people of Scotland, Catalonia or Flanders the right to self-determination or, to be more precise, by linking this right to the automatic expulsion from the Union, [which] decreases its effectiveness to zero”. On top of this, he points out that by doing so, the EU would in fact be interfering with the Member States’ interior policy, something it wants to avoid. By “vetoing” Scotland or Catalonia’s continuity within the EU, Brussels would completely interfere with the self-determination debate.”
THE BEST IS YET TO COME:
“Finally, “the strongest argument” to support the continuity of Catalonia and Scotland within the EU is that referring to the link between the Union and its citizens. The Court of Justice of the European Union stated that the EU is “a new” international law entity where “subjects are not only the States but also their people”. This makes the EU a completely different international organisation, since there is a European citizenry. Gounin points out that this dimension has been strengthened over time by numerous treaties and charters. “Even though the European citizenship is added to the national” one and “it does not replace it”, the French expert argues that Catalan and Scottish citizens could not have their EU rights taken away without seriously “harming” the case-law issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union and therefore damaging the EU’s legal and democratic principles.”
http://bit.ly/19iEwGd
You see when the poisonous influence of Ukanian Unionists and their Anglo Saxon supremacists are removed from the debate, it is pefectly clear that Scotlands transition to full EU membership will take place in an atmosphere of pragmatic good will. The period between the yes vote and independece day will see Scotland fully intergrated in to all the intenational bodies we are presently members of. The croaks of dersion from the Ukanians will see them laughed at and humiliated internationally as their ill will and bitterness flows through the international MSM. England is at real risk of becoming the North Korea of Europe as they swing more to the UKIP view of the world, and withdraw in to the M25 circle. Never mind Hadrian they will soon be employing Wimpey to build them a wall along side the M25.
Just look at the track record of our MPs in Englands UK Parliament. Especially during Thatchers reign of terror. “The feeble fifty” were not so named for nothing. The only time they showed any bottle was when Dewar and co walked out of the joint having first assaulted the mace, when the disbandment of Labours massive gravy train, Strathclyde region was announced. Self interest, you better believe it. Look at what passes for Scottish representaion from Davidson Carmichael and the rest of the unionist pack. They pander to Londons stereo typical Jock profile. They behave like court jesters, in fact that is what they are. Toom Tabbards.
As to Labour delivering devolution, they were forced to do so by the EU who recognise the democratic deficit in the UK against Scotland. Why else are they sitting on the briefing papers that surround the devolution era? What other reason can there be for keeping these papers locked down like they did with McRone. Because the unionist establishment know the revelations in these papers are explosive and would blow a massive hole in the good ship Brittania. It would once and for all expose what the SNP have been saying for generations. The union of 1707 is and was an undemocratic farce, and London have behaved in the only way they know, as imperialist and fascist dictators.
When the USSR was dissolved,Russia returned to being known as Russia and not
rUSSR.So it will be with the UK whose component parts will revert to what they were known as prior to the UK being formed.Little Englanders will just have to live with it.
You must be prescient Derek, given the article today in Scotland on Sunday.
If and when Scotland becomes independent, The EU should have a say in which state is the successor state (if one has to be selected). Would it choose the one which is enthusiastically European, with rich resources to back up its currency, or would it choose the one that causes multiple problems and wishes to have an In/out referendum after 2015?
This is what our unionist friends are supporting both knowingly and probably for most unknowingly.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/in-russia-fear-projects-you/#comment-756679
‘lobby host gaovts agst Scottish independence’.
Your caring sharing Westminster govt. in action on the international stage.
Cameron would not be the first Tory Oxbridge Toff to “co-operate” in clandestine with Russia. It was once de rigeur amongst a certain establishment class.
Its yet to be verified as I understand it, but if true then UK govt actively using embassies to lobby aid against Scottish indy and undermine internal democratic process?
Whoa (to quote the great Keanu).
Off Topic: Derek – you were very good on the podcast.
It’s interesting that the UK Government is prepared to act to reassure markets about debt but not to reassure citizens about our position in Europe.