Scotland Free At Last.... Just A Dream ?

Salmond claims Scotland will remain part of the EU, the confusion arises because of the UK's position. Anyway, here's a related article which talks about some of these issues:

http://www.independe...nd-8964181.html

But again, from what my friends are telling me, Salmond and his party are trying to sell pipe dreams. This is, in their opinion, a very stupid move designed only for the SNP to garner more power over the country.

I personally don't know much about Scottish/UK politics to add to what my friends are saying.
 
ElNicoOriginal said:
Salmond claims Scotland will remain part of the EU, the confusion arises because of the UK's position.
Click to expand...

Isn't that up to the EU? Assuming that the UK doesn't object?

That's always been one of the questions related to Catalan independence - that Spain would perpetually block their entrance into the EU. Maybe our baexpats EU legal scholars can shed some light.
 
sleslie23 said:
Isn't that up to the EU? Assuming that the UK doesn't object?

That's always been one of the questions related to Catalan independence - that Spain would perpetually block their entrance into the EU. Maybe our baexpats EU legal scholars can shed some light.
Click to expand...

I don't actually know, to be quite honest. SNP claim the following:

What are the joining terms? Would the UK’s opt-outs continue? The document doesn’t say, other than that a “full and constructive role” as a member would follow after discussions with Westminster, EU states and the EU’s institutions. It points to EU treaty law as the basis that Scotland wouldn’t need to re-apply.
Click to expand...
(This is from the link posted above).

I have personally never tried to nor understood the EU treaty laws. But if what you say about the Catalan region is true then this would be another example of those "pipe dreams" Salmond's trying to sell.
 
I understand, I would need to go looking for confirmation, that the EU have said that all new states would need to apply and meet entry criteria for EU membership.

I believe the biggest issue would be the transfer of debt obligations. Effectively a part of existing UK debt would need to become Scottish.

Salmond is making a lot of unsubstantiated claims, for example, he says the Scottish parts of the BBC service would be transferred into a new national broadcaster. A sort of public to public expropriation for which the British govt has made no agreement. The details of the repatriation of the public sector are very light.

In effect, he knows he doesn't need to produce detailed plans because winning the referendum would be a very tricky outcome for the SNP. They would be immediately in charge of an economy of which they have no experience of doing, and in charge of some very difficult negotiations with their southern neighbours around public sector (BBC, NHS etc) and military installations. There are nuclear subs based up in Scotland also, not sure the UK would immediately accept them being sailed south of the border as Salmond claims. He would straight away find himself outside the EU as an independent state, not like Norway which often refers to which is actually a member of a variety of EU institutions, it is a member of the European Economic Area and benefits from trade arrangements. Scotland could well be outside of that club.

Their best outcome is a very narrow defeat, they can strengthen locally and move into a planning phase for independence which has more longer terms potential for success
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20664907

EU president confirming that new countries would need to re-apply. EU President:

"What I said, and it is our doctrine and it is clear since 2004 in legal terms, if one part of a country - I am not referring now to any specific one - wants to become an independent state, of course as an independent state it has to apply to the European membership according to the rules - that is obvious."
Asked whether an independent country would have to renegotiate its terms, Mr Barroso said: "Yes.".
When further asked whether that negotiation would be from "inside" the EU, the president responded: "We are a union of states, so if there is a new state, of course, that state has to apply for membership and negotiate the conditions with other member states.
"For European Union purposes, from a legal point of view, it is certainly a new state. If a country becomes independent it is a new state and has to negotiate with the EU."
 
What's England (or the rest of the UK, for that matter)'s position on this wish for independence?

I doubt they're all going, "Cool bro, we'll help you with whatever you need!"
 
Complicated indeed. Maybe they are better off laying back and waiting to see if the EU even survives itself.
 
Albeit in open chaos, the EU isn't going anywhere for at least a generation. It is too engrained in european politics and there are too many benefits for those with vested interests, i.e. the current paymasters. It would need to be simultaneously unpopular in Germany & France and that is just not the case.

As for the rest of the UK, I would say:

- Northern Ireland: Very relevant, Unionists would fear Scottish independence as the political split is now close to 50/50, Nationalists would welcome it. It is unclear whether an NI - Ireland unity would echo voting patterns until the Irish economy is back on it's feet. UK economy is faltering but basically pays for NI to exist. There is no real appetite in RoI just yet to swallow that burden. More of a mid term (20 to 30 years) project I would say.

Wales: Interested observers. The welsh parliament is the weakest of the 3 devolved assemblies with the least powers. Traditionally Wales is the least likely breakaway country from the UK union, reality is Wales is not strong economically, the do not have North Sea oil or a financial services industry / expertise as present in Scotland. Beautiful country, great rugby players, not ready to be a standalone entity financially.

England: I really don't know. A lot of English might well feel they are better off letting Scotland AND Northern Ireland disappear. I believe long term the burden of investment would see them significantly better off, they would need to accept a reduced role on the world stage as they would have a reduced military capacity and economy, but maybe that would be acceptable to a country tired of sending troops off to far off parts of the world? North Sea Oil and Gas does have a shelf life, it is a very mature field and not as vast as the other scandinavian fields.

No idea what the effect on our near Atlantic island neighbours in Port Stanley would be...mild nervousness. I imagine the Scottish ambassador would not want for social engagements in Buenos Aires....once they worked out how to open and pay for emabassies around the world !

Personally, from the heart I would like for Scottish and Irish independence to be viable, but the reality is that right now, neither are.
 
I'm pretty sure that even though Scotland may need to reapply, the current citizens of Scotland would still be EU citizens and enjoy all the benefits that EU citizens do.
 
ejcot en argentina said:
I'm pretty sure that even though Scotland may need to reapply, the current citizens of Scotland would still be EU citizens and enjoy all the benefits that EU citizens do.
Click to expand...

I don't know? That might depend on whether the UK allows them to retain Uk passports, otherwise, if they are passport holders of the new Scottish nationality I don't think they would be. Nationality in the UK is technically "British", at least that what's on my passport (I have 2, irish & british) , if it changes to become "Scottish" I would say it's a different ball game.

Would depend on whether the British allow Scottish citizens to claim british nationality still. Definitely up in the air legally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top