Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Avatar
|
Doubts over automatic EU entry for an independent Scotland | Quote: | THE SNP's case for independence was dealt a damaging blow last night when the European Commission and senior academics challenged the Nationalists' core assumption - that an independent Scotland would automatically become a member of the European Union.
The EC stressed that Scotland's entry as a member state would have to be "negotiated" and would not be the "seamless" transition the SNP has claimed.
The Commission's representative in Scotland, Neil Mitchison, confirmed that Scotland would not be granted automatic entry into the EU, as the Nationalists insist.
"The situation is unprecedented and therefore negotiations would be needed. Things would have to be discussed and negotiated," he said.
An expert in constitutional law from Edinburgh University backed this up by stressing that Scotland would have to negotiate its accession to the EU and warning that Europe might insist upon the adoption of the euro as a precondition of entry.
The basis for this more cautious approach to Scotland's future in Europe is a major piece of academic research, written in 1999, but not publicised since.
It warned that the SNP's flagship policy of "independence in Europe" was badly flawed and based on a series of simplistic assumptions.
Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, has long argued that Scotland would easily be able to swap its Union with England for a union with Europe.
Writing in The Scotsman last month, Mr Salmond stated: "Scotland is already a member of the EU and that would continue. It is not easy to leave the EU as we saw with the attempts by Greenland when they won autonomy from Denmark."
Jim Mather, the party's economics spokesman, repeated this when he said the transition would be "seamless".
Mr Mather said: "Of course it will be seamless. It's not in the EU's interests to do otherwise. We are an incumbent member state, what about England having to reapply?"
However, Matthew Happold, a reader in international law at Hull University, examined the issue thoroughly in 1999 when he was a research officer for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
Mr Happold dissected each one of the SNP's arguments and concluded that an independent Scotland would not only fail to get automatic membership of the EU, but would probably be much worse off than it is now, with less influence and less money.
Mr Happold said the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would remain the nation state, a member of the EU, a member of the United Nations, NATO and other international organisations and Scotland would be seen as seceding from it. Scotland would then have to apply for membership of each international organisation it wanted to join.
Mr Happold warned that Scotland would almost certainly lose its share of the shrinking UK budget rebate, that it would lose anything that remains of the EU's structural fund money, that it would lose power and influence and would have to compete with other emerging European states from Eastern Europe for attention and resources.
He stated: "Scotland's subsequent route to EU membership could well be a tortuous one. The SNP's use of the phrase 'Independence in Europe' seeks to persuade the Scottish electorate that it can have its cake and eat it, that Scotland can have both the benefits of independence and the security of membership of the European Union.
"However, the real situation is that an independent Scotland might end up with all the insecurities of independence and none of the benefits of EU membership."
Lorand Bartels, a lecturer in international economic law at Edinburgh University, said he shared Mr Happold's view.
He said: "Both as a matter of international law and as a matter of EU law, Scotland would have to negotiate its accession to the EU as a new member state.
"This process may be relatively unproblematic, given that Scotland already applies EU law, but it is unlikely to be entirely 'seamless'. At the very least there would be likely to be an obligation to adopt the euro."
France also recently passed a law which would prevent the expansion of the EU until such a change had been agreed by the French in a referendum, a process which would inevitably take time.
Go-it-alone nation is perfectly feasible, says Queen's historian
THE Queen's official historian in Scotland fuelled the debate over independence yesterday, when he claimed the country could flourish if it left the Union.
Professor Christopher Smout, the Historiographer Royal, said it was "perfectly feasible" for Scotland to go it alone as eastern European countries had done since the end of the Soviet regime.
Prof Smout, the emeritus professor of history at St Andrews University, believes the current constitutional settlement is "unstable". He also hit out at claims by John Reid, the Home Secretary, that Scotland's national security would be compromised by independence.
Prof Smout said: "There are no border patrols between Belgium and Holland and security there is no worse or better than it is here. There is no reason to think security would be slacker in an independent Scotland. Dr Reid's observations are a complete non-starter.
"The English would probably not be awfully upset if the Scots decided to go it alone. I think the Queen would be sorry, but I can't see many other people south of the Border being too regretful."
His comments were condemned by Allan Wilson, Scotland's deputy enterprise minister, and Tom Harris, Labour's MP for Glasgow South, who said he should remain neutral.
But Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, welcomed Prof Smout's comments and described the attacks from Labour as "small-minded nonsense".
Mr Salmond said: "In the world of New Labour, people do not have the right to speak their mind unless they happen to agree with them. Prof Smout is as entitled as any other Scot to participate in the great debate about Scotland's constitutional future.
"His academic freedom to speak out is not compromised by his position as Historiographer Royal. No self-respecting academic would ever have accepted such a restriction."
Prof Smout has advised the Queen on Scottish history since 1993.
So what have we got to lose outside Europe?
WORK
TENS of thousands of European workers, mostly from former Communist countries, have come to Scotland to work, taking advantage of the freedom to live and work provisions of the EU.
There is no reason why Scotland could not continue to welcome them outside the EU, but there would be considerable problems for Scots working across the continent.
At the moment, Scots can travel and work with complete freedom anywhere within the EU. That would disappear if Scotland was outside the Union, along with the healthcare agreements and other protections.
TRADE
SCOTLAND'S prosperity is closely tied to membership of the European Union.
In 2004, 53 per cent of goods exported from Scotland went to the EU, bringing in £8.8 billion into the Scottish economy.
That trade would not collapse overnight if Scotland was not a member of the EU but there could be serious problems.
The EU was conceived as a free market and this remains at its core.
If Scotland was left outside the EU it would be outside the biggest and most economically advantageous free market in the world.
AID
SCOTLAND has received billions of pounds from Europe over the last 30 years, for deprived areas in the former industrial west and to the rural north.
Between 1994 and 1999 the Highlands and Islands received about £100 million from the European Regional Development Fund alone.
However, the size of European grants has declined as the EU has expanded and Scotland's share is due to drop by anything up to 60 per cent over the next seven years.
But there is still money coming in - if Scotland was outside the EU, all these extra aid payments would cease.
HUMAN RIGHTS
AS PART of a member state, Scotland is signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. Scots can also appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if they feel unfairly treated by their domestic legal system. Member- state governments can also be held to account by the European Court of Justice, the supreme court in the EU which deliberates on alleged breaches of EU law.
If Scotland was outside the EU, individuals would lose the ability to take their cases to Europe's highest court and would lose the human-rights protections given by EU membership. |
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=35012007
I think the first comment sums this up pretty well
"'The basis for this more cautious approach to Scotland's future in Europe is a major piece of academic research, written in 1999, but not publicised since.'
So why is it being publicised *now*?
Need I ask?"
|
azzuri
|
If you are a EU-sceptic as I am, then you'll be wondering - who cares?....
|
IF Convenor
|
Does anyone seriously believe the EU does not want our fish or our oil or our business? If it comes to it, the EU will bend over backwards to admit Scotland. It's up to us whether we want to be members or not.
|
Avatar
|
In theory im for the EU, I have to look into it a bit more before I decide whether or not it is practical. Tbh I would rather achieve independence within europe and have to "negotiate out" rather than independence outside europe and then "negotiate in".
|
Aventinian
|
| IF Convenor wrote: | | Does anyone seriously believe the EU does not want our fish or our oil or our business? If it comes to it, the EU will bend over backwards to admit Scotland. It's up to us whether we want to be members or not. |
I certainly don't think it'll bend over backwards to accomodate us. We need it just as much as it needs us.
Just remember, accession may be tied to certain conditions (whether they're under the table or not) - so all the posturing of the SNP about defying the common fisheries policy and the like would probably come to nothing.
| Avatar wrote: | | In theory im for the EU, I have to look into it a bit more before I decide whether or not it is practical. Tbh I would rather achieve independence within europe and have to "negotiate out" rather than independence outside europe and then "negotiate in". |
I really don't think it is practical to suggest a Scotland or Britain outside of the European Union at this point.
Then again, I suppose you guy contradict me when talking about the British Union, so I can doubtless expect disagreement on that point.
|
Avatar
|
| Quote: | I really don't think it is practical to suggest a Scotland or Britain outside of the European Union at this point.
Then again, I suppose you guy contradict me when talking about the British Union, so I can doubtless expect disagreement on that point. |
Do you not think it could be beneficial to have a similar set up to that of Norway? be outside of the EU but have certain agreements etc.
|
Economist
|
I think it is pretty unlikely the EU would put obstacles in the way of Scotland joining it, in its own right. The article is just the usual lazy sensational journalism from The Scotsman. Any legal opinion I've seen on this subject (and I've seen some) suggests it won't be too much of a problem, certainly not months or years of negotiation and entry. I'm not sure the SNP suggest Scotland can just walk into the EU, take our place and ignore the rules. Do they? We will have to fight our corner, if we want to be in.
|
wisnaeme
|
Re: Doubts over automatic EU entry for an independent ScotlaLorand Bartels, a lecturer in international economic law at Edinburgh University said:
"Both as a matter of international law and as a matter of EU law, Scotland would have to negotiate its accession to the EU as a new member state.
In the unlikely event of this becoming a reality would it not be a case of renegotiation and not negotiation from a position of square one?
Who negotiated EU membership on Scotland's behalf without imput from Edinburgh or the Scottish Nation?
Who's interests were put first and foremost in those negotiations? Here's a clue, EU fisheries policy.
Maybe renegotiation would not be so difficult as protrayed. Is there not more goodwill in France,Eire, Italy, belgium and Germany for Scotland and Scots than for another EU country I could mention? Would renegotiation on the terms Scotland would benefit from be rather more mutually beneficial to her than the terms another place, with perhaps other interests to consider who negotiated terms for us, on our behalf in the past?
.
|
Aventinian
|
Re: Doubts over automatic EU entry for an independent Scotla[quote="wisnaeme"] | Quote: | | In the unlikely event of this becoming a reality would it not be a case of renegotiation and not negotiation from a position of square one? |
Er, no. Scotland has never been a member-state of the EU.
| Quote: | | Who negotiated EU membership on Scotland's behalf without imput from Edinburgh or the Scottish Nation? |
No one. As I recall, membership was negotiated with the odd referendum and by the UK Government which was put in place by a Parliament with elected representaitves from both Scotland and Edinburgh.
| Quote: | | Who's interests were put first and foremost in those negotiations? Here's a clue, EU fisheries policy. |
Oh dear. All the Europhobes put this one forward - everything contrary to one area's interests is automatically a defeat and proof of some sort of Franco-German alliance against us. It's conspiracy theorism at its worst.
|
Aventinian
|
| Economist wrote: | | I think it is pretty unlikely the EU would put obstacles in the way of Scotland joining it, in its own right. |
I think they'll put some. Scotland will certainly not be in any sort of bargaining position to demand anything in the immediate aftermath I imagine.
| Quote: | | Any legal opinion I've seen on this subject (and I've seen some) suggests it won't be too much of a problem, certainly not months or years of negotiation and entry. |
It's not a legal question, the legal situation is clear despite the fact that it has been denied countless times when put before this forum, it's a matter of EU politics. It is the smokey (oh no, they've probably banned that) backrooms of Brussels and Strasbourg who will decide how easy or difficult a process this is.
|
Aventinian
|
| Avatar wrote: | | Do you not think it could be beneficial to have a similar set up to that of Norway? be outside of the EU but have certain agreements etc. |
Perhaps beneficial to Scotland, I imagine at least some argument could be made for that; but not beneficial to Europe, definitely not.
As for any benefits to Scotland - well, I'd argue that Scotland would at least prefer some sort of decision making voice in Europe considering how much the EU's institutions would affect our interests.
I think a lot of EU policies actually work well in the long term, for both individual members and the wider Union. Norway actually complies with virtually every EU directive and regulation anyway - Prodi, as Commission President, commented once about Norway being the EU's best member for that very reason.
I think the position Norway finds itself in is trying to be as close as possible to the EU to satisfy the prejudices of its public while not actually in it and without the influence of a normal member.
|
IF Convenor
|
So let me see if I'm understanding you correctly... it would definitely not be beneficial to Europe (would that be the continent or the EU?) to have Scotland outside the union in the same manner as Norway but the EU is likely to put some obstacles in the way of Scotland joining as a member state in its own right. How does that work then?
|
Economist
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | I think they'll put some. Scotland will certainly not be in any sort of bargaining position to demand anything in the immediate aftermath I imagine. |
They won't put any. Scotland will fully accede to membership on Independence Day. The only obstacles that will be put in place will be about voting rights, Scotland's EU contribution and such like, which are quite small beer, compared to gaining actual membership. Scotland will be part of the EU throughout this process, and won't be outside its structures, at any time I'd imagine.
| Aventinian wrote: | | It's not a legal question, the legal situation is clear despite the fact that it has been denied countless times when put before this forum, it's a matter of EU politics. It is the smokey (oh no, they've probably banned that) backrooms of Brussels and Strasbourg who will decide how easy or difficult a process this is. |
No, it very much is a legal question, as well as a constitutional one (and that is the angle which the article was examining).
|
Economist
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | I think they'll put some. Scotland will certainly not be in any sort of bargaining position to demand anything in the immediate aftermath I imagine. |
They won't put any. Scotland will most likely, fully accede to membership on Independence Day. The only obstacles that will be put in place will be about voting rights, Scotland's EU contribution and such like, which are quite small beer, compared to going through the motions of gaining actual membership, for the first time. The reality is, Scotland will be part of the EU throughout this process, and won't be outside its structures, at any time I'd imagine.
| Aventinian wrote: | | It's not a legal question, the legal situation is clear despite the fact that it has been denied countless times when put before this forum, it's a matter of EU politics. It is the smokey (oh no, they've probably banned that) backrooms of Brussels and Strasbourg who will decide how easy or difficult a process this is. |
No, it very much is a legal question, as well as a constitutional one (and that is the angle which the article was examining).
|
Aventinian
|
| IF Convenor wrote: | | So let me see if I'm understanding you correctly... it would definitely not be beneficial to Europe (would that be the continent or the EU?) to have Scotland outside the union in the same manner as Norway but the EU is likely to put some obstacles in the way of Scotland joining as a member state in its own right. How does that work then? |
Because they know we're not going to go it alone and they have the bargaining power. While it be detrimental to the EU interest not to have us there, we are after all a small nation of five million in a union of five hundred million. Drop in the ocean etc.
|
Aventinian
|
| Economist wrote: | | They won't put any. Scotland will fully accede to membership on Independence Day. The only obstacles that will be put in place will be about voting rights, Scotland's EU contribution and such like, which are quite small beer, compared to gaining actual membership. Scotland will be part of the EU throughout this process, and won't be outside its structures, at any time I'd imagine. |
You honestly think the bodies of the EU are going to have a membership signed and sealed in under a day?
All I can do is give a knowing chuckle to that.
| Quote: | | Aventinian wrote: | | It's not a legal question, the legal situation is clear despite the fact that it has been denied countless times when put before this forum, it's a matter of EU politics. It is the smokey (oh no, they've probably banned that) backrooms of Brussels and Strasbourg who will decide how easy or difficult a process this is. |
No, it very much is a legal question, as well as a constitutional one (and that is the angle which the article was examining). |
No it isn't. The legal question has long been answered and despite the denials (I wonder if you're one of the ones who criticised me for highlighting this view - I'm not so petty as to trawl through the records and find out ) on this board, it is well settled. There's no debate to be had on it. What is up for debate is how the EU institutions - who are the ones who hold the bargaining chips and the position of power - will react. Which is simply a political question, not a legal one.
|
Economist
|
| Aventinian wrote: | You honestly think the bodies of the EU are going to have a membership signed and sealed in under a day?
All I can do is give a knowing chuckle to that. |
I didn't say that they'd have it signed and sealed in under a day, I said that by the time Scotland gains its independence ("Independence Day" - the date after which Scotland is no longer a member of the UK) it will be a member (if it wishes), of that I am in no doubt. It won't be case of Scotland voting Yes in a referendum and being independent tomorrow, there could be months between voting Yes and finally leaving the UK.
| Aventinian wrote: | | No it isn't. The legal question has long been answered and despite the denials (I wonder if you're one of the ones who criticised me for highlighting this view - I'm not so petty as to trawl through the records and find out ) on this board, it is well settled. There's no debate to be had on it. What is up for debate is how the EU institutions - who are the ones who hold the bargaining chips and the position of power - will react. Which is simply a political question, not a legal one. |
If it wasn't a legal question, then I'm not sure that it would require answer, as you so opine that it has. It is of course a legal and constitutional consideration. And yes, the legal and constitutional answer is on Scotland's side, but this is what the EU will be starting from when Scotland gains its independence. I'll grant you it will also contain a significant political element, but that is far less important than the actual wranglings necessary. Yes European bureaucracy is stultifying, but I wouldn't imagine so on an issue like this.
|
IF Convenor
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | IF Convenor wrote: | | So let me see if I'm understanding you correctly... it would definitely not be beneficial to Europe (would that be the continent or the EU?) to have Scotland outside the union in the same manner as Norway but the EU is likely to put some obstacles in the way of Scotland joining as a member state in its own right. How does that work then? |
Because they know we're not going to go it alone and they have the bargaining power. While it be detrimental to the EU interest not to have us there, we are after all a small nation of five million in a union of five hundred million. Drop in the ocean etc. |
Your position seems to be that it would be in the EU's interests to have Scotland as a member but they're going to be awkward about it just to flex their muscles and show us who's boss. You may be right, but it makes them seem pathetic macho types getting into a willy-waving contest. What'll they do if they play those games and Scotland says no? Will they come running back with their tails between their legs begging Scotland to reconsider? If they're that immature I don't think it would be in Scotland's interests to sign up.
Mind you, I tend towards the Groucho Marx school of thought; I wouldn't want to be a member of any club which would be prepared to accept the likes of me as a member.
|
Aventinian
|
| IF Convenor wrote: | Your position seems to be that it would be in the EU's interests to have Scotland as a member but they're going to be awkward about it just to flex their muscles and show us who's boss. You may be right, but it makes them seem pathetic macho types getting into a willy-waving contest. What'll they do if they play those games and Scotland says no? Will they come running back with their tails between their legs begging Scotland to reconsider? If they're that immature I don't think it would be in Scotland's interests to sign up.
Mind you, I tend towards the Groucho Marx school of thought; I wouldn't want to be a member of any club which would be prepared to accept the likes of me as a member. |
To be fair, we've (Britain, and Scotland particularly) started it by constantly complaining about virtually every policy that goes through the EU. Take the Fisheries Policy, if I was a Brussels bureaucrat, I'd consider it very insulting that an independent Scotland was demanding special treatment on the issue, and a good few others.
|
IF Convenor
|
The fact that Scotland would be the single member with probably the majority of all the EU's fisheries within its territorial boundaries wouldn't entitle it to special treatment? What would the EU do if Scotland said "no thanks we'll keep our fishery under our own control"?
Scotland would be in a very strong position as a member in its own right as opposed to its current impotence as a very minor part of the UK. The UK is prepared to bargain away the fishery in return for other considerations in a way that Scotland would never be; fishing is too important a part of our economy for us to do that whereas at the UK level it is very small fry indeed.
|
|
|
|