Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Silver, Scotland is actually recognised as a Country, so that's why we can split. To suddenly pretend that this is a part of England breaking away is ridiculous.

Spain is only one nation, surely their personal gripe about Catalans won't have a massive effect on Scotland's application to join the EU/adopt the Euro. Surely there clout is minimal when compared to say Germany or France?

There are 28 Countries in the EU, 27 if we go on the idea that Spain is guaranteed to block Scotland's entry. What other countries have expressed resistance to Scotland joining? I know a fair few have said that Scotland would need to reapply when Salmond insisted that we wouldn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU.

Unlikely event? Sources please.

Sources? All the European governments that have already stated their intentions to block an independent Scotland's membership.

Do you have a source for those statements?

 Medium of Death wrote:
Silver, Scotland is actually recognised as a Country, so that's why we can split. To suddenly pretend that this is a part of England breaking away is ridiculous.

Nobody is saying that.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Spain is only one nation, surely their personal gripe about Catalans won't have a massive effect on Scotland's application to join the EU/adopt the Euro. Surely there clout is minimal when compared to say Germany or France?

It only needs one to veto. Any nation can veto the move. Spain has gone on record to say it probably would

 Medium of Death wrote:

There are 28 Countries in the EU, 27 if we go on the idea that Spain is guaranteed to block Scotland's entry. What other countries have expressed resistance to Scotland joining? I know a fair few have said that Scotland would need to reapply when Salmond insisted that we wouldn't.

France and Italy. Italy for the same reasons as Spain, France because they don't want another sick economy in the Eurozone. Neither have stated their desire to veto,. just their discomfort.
France insisted that Scotland would have to apply as a new applicant, which was a shock to Salmond as he hoped the French would be old allies not understanding the French view of Scotland, historically and now.
Italy has problems with seperatist movements also but are largely quiet because it only takes one to veto and they would rather Spain did so.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
[And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Unlikely event? Sources please.

Sources? All the European governments that have already stated their intentions to block an independent Scotland's membership.

Not all by a long shot but enough have.

After some reflection, I've come to the conclusion that there isn't a wrong answer here. People get very wrapped up in the economic pros and cons, but realistically the UK can't afford Scotland to go belly-up right on its doorstep, and the Scottish economy will almost certainly end up being heavily dependent on the UK (probably very similar to the Irish economy). So either way, I can't see a great deal will be allowed to change. Scotland might get a bit of short term rejuvenation out of independence (assuming their new economy doesn't scare off foreign investors).

I think the issue is more of a cultural one. I would personally like to see the British Isles (including Ireland, and perhaps Normandy) being as united as possible. But it should be a unity based on mutual benefit, not English domination.

Culturally I think Scotland really need their independence. It would do the world of good for their national pride and identity. And if Scotland is going to have a good relationship with England in the future, then they need to be able to do it on their own terms as a proud independent nation.

Scotland is a sick economy?

Can we get sources for that too.

Seems to be what Silver is saying, Orlanth.



I'm not sure why Scotland separating from the UK has anything to do with regions separating from a Country. The UK is a Union of Countries. Scotland is not a region of England. It's a separate nation exercising its right to leave a union of nations.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I'm not sure why Scotland separating from the UK has anything to do with regions separating from a Country. The UK is a Union of Countries. Scotland is not a region of England. It's a separate nation exercising its right to leave a union of nations.

Respectfully, I think it is a bit more grey than you're making out. The UK is for all intents and purposes 'a country', which (like most countries) is composed of smaller countries (or really former countries). Scotland has retained some of its national identity, but it has also been heavily integrated into Britain, and I think if we're honest it has probably been straddling the boundaries between nation and region for some time. Which in fairness also applies to England.

Scotland is a country just like the states that make up the USA are countries.

Personally I am not fussed either way. I would love to see Scotland go its own way and either succeed or fail (in which case I am sure we can dust off the same union documents as last time ) or we could just invade and take the place over properly this time and put all this "I'm a real country" stuff to bed for good

I am more interested in what a "government that truly represents the people of Scotland" would do for areas of Scotland that very strongly do not agree with the referendum results should the answer be for independence.

Plus obviously I am interested in getting answers to some of the questions that have been raised time and again about money, joining the EU, etc etc that have equally endlessly been dodged or ignored by the SNP (and I do not feel there is significant difference between the yes camp and the SNP party).

Europe is a continent that contains a large number of nations including some that have only been formed fairly recently (e.g. Slovenia).

Despite this, the modern arrangements with the Schengen Area, the Euro and EU business regulations, are making it much easier to move from one country to another whether temporarily or permanently.

In some ways the exit of Scotland from the Union, and entry to the EU, would result in a situation similar to what exists at the moment.

Say independence comes. How long does Scotland Tolerate Alex Salmond?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Say independence comes. How long does Scotland Tolerate Alex Salmond?

Next general election? The SNP should splinter post-independence as that's the key issue for the party and afterwards all their future goals would be covered by different parties (At least in theory)

I wonder if this should be called Zimbabweisation?

In light of current events I'd vote East Argentinaland (remember to roll that RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Scotland is a country just like the states that make up the USA are countries.

Personally I am not fussed either way. I would love to see Scotland go its own way and either succeed or fail (in which case I am sure we can dust off the same union documents as last time ) or we could just invade and take the place over properly this time and put all this "I'm a real country" stuff to bed for good

I am more interested in what a "government that truly represents the people of Scotland" would do for areas of Scotland that very strongly do not agree with the referendum results should the answer be for independence.

Plus obviously I am interested in getting answers to some of the questions that have been raised time and again about money, joining the EU, etc etc that have equally endlessly been dodged or ignored by the SNP (and I do not feel there is significant difference between the yes camp and the SNP party).

Frankly I think you guys are missing out on a golden opportunity. You need to get ten thousand SCA guys out there in armor and weapons and have it out. Winner picks.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Scotland is a sick economy?

Can we get sources for that too.

Scotland can have a viable economy. Scotland under Salmond very likely cannot. A lot of people can see that.

Salmond has offered Scots the moon, and failed to say how he will get them there.
Salmond has stated Scotland will get fast track EU status - he has provmosed to close international waters to EU shipping if he doesnt get his way.
Salmond has stated Scotland will keep the Pound - he has promised a debt default if he doesnt get his way.
Salmond has promised Scots re-industrialisation, and extra spending on pretty much everything apart from nuclear weapons - yet not stated how he will pay for this.

The end result is that it is generally felt that if Scots vote Yes, Salmond will be the first national leader of a nation state which is more centralised than any other in Europe, and would have full opportunity to advance disasterous economic and European policies. And when (thats not if)the economy of iScotland goes belly up, Europe will have to pay the bill.

If Salmond was not in charge a lot of iScotlands problems might disappear.

 Medium of Death wrote:

I'm not sure why Scotland separating from the UK has anything to do with regions separating from a Country. The UK is a Union of Countries. Scotland is not a region of England. It's a separate nation exercising its right to leave a union of nations.

Possibly exercising its right, you talk as if its done and dusted already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Say independence comes. How long does Scotland Tolerate Alex Salmond?

Next general election? The SNP should splinter post-independence as that's the key issue for the party and afterwards all their future goals would be covered by different parties (At least in theory)

If Scotland voters YES, Salmond will be in power for at least two terms.

Leaders that secure independence normally have a popularity boost that gives them a cult following. Salmond could be replaced, but I don't see him stepping down as SNP leader, not when he is just about to get what he wants.
President Salmond will get two terms because he will have a 'fresh' economy and thus can borrow to put in place his schemes, it will take that long for reality to catch up.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Sorry Rick, Much Text that I didn't want to repeat just to quote..

The bit I didn't like about the white paper was more about the main economical points such as currency, debt (the belief Scotland wouldn't have any from the banking crisis) and the idea that scotlands wealth would be better distributed and the idea that renationalisation of things like the NHS and royal mail would be sustainable in a taxable economy of some 4 million people, without increasing taxation quite a bit or lowering public spending dramatically, he white paper seemed to suggest we could both increase spending but lower taxes....this stumped me straight off.

The main issue with it all is it is all so massively vague, the white paper was more of a very detailed manifesto of pledges, or things the SNP would like to do, it is not a detailed explanation of planning how an economy could work or an idea of how we would create the infrastructure for much that we take for granted that is currently housed in England, things like HMRC, DVLA, the MOD etc, these are very important and very little has been made mention of how these will be operated in Scotland.

Also the line that the SNP wont be the govt after the vote as there will be an election, while true, doesn't make the point that the negotiations over independace will be started and carried out largly by the incumbent SNP government, i.e salmond, sturgeon and sweeny, 3 people who I have yet to see talk any clear and basic facts about what they plan to do if their main ideas about the economy prove to be incorrect, which many analysts and third parties have proven to be the very likely case.

I know Scptland could work as an independent country, but this whole affair has been carried out to the tune of the belief that Scotland has been given the shaft by England for 300 years, when infact it has been a very succesfull partnership and the Tories hadn't been in power for over 14 years prior to the last government so Salmond and co decrying the Tories and 'the bankers' at every minute as the reason for Scotland ills is a bit daft given that the global recession was mostly due to collapsing hedge funds and mortgage arrears in the USA and 10 years of labour excessive public spending.

The fact the UK is now the fastest growing post recession economy makes me want to stay part of it, instead of stepping of the ledge into economic uncertainty with a small GDP and sizeable debt that the rUK would hand to us as the bill for buying out the Scottish debt earlier this year in the event of a Yes vote, the markets needed the confidence of that debt being covered, we will still have to pay that back, and if that is in the Euro or a new currency, it will be a lot more costly to a start up nation.

However I hold no ill will to you or anything Yodhrin, in case you thought I was having a personal attack

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Silver, Scotland is actually recognised as a Country, so that's why we can split. To suddenly pretend that this is a part of England breaking away is ridiculous.

Spain is only one nation, surely their personal gripe about Catalans won't have a massive effect on Scotland's application to join the EU/adopt the Euro. Surely there clout is minimal when compared to say Germany or France?

There are 28 Countries in the EU, 27 if we go on the idea that Spain is guaranteed to block Scotland's entry. What other countries have expressed resistance to Scotland joining? I know a fair few have said that Scotland would need to reapply when Salmond insisted that we wouldn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU.

Unlikely event? Sources please.

Sources? All the European governments that have already stated their intentions to block an independent Scotland's membership.

Do you have a source for those statements?

It's common knowledge. Google it you lazy ...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Silver, Scotland is actually recognised as a Country, so that's why we can split. To suddenly pretend that this is a part of England breaking away is ridiculous.

Nobody is saying that.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Spain is only one nation, surely their personal gripe about Catalans won't have a massive effect on Scotland's application to join the EU/adopt the Euro. Surely there clout is minimal when compared to say Germany or France?

It only needs one to veto. Any nation can veto the move. Spain has gone on record to say it probably would

 Medium of Death wrote:

There are 28 Countries in the EU, 27 if we go on the idea that Spain is guaranteed to block Scotland's entry. What other countries have expressed resistance to Scotland joining? I know a fair few have said that Scotland would need to reapply when Salmond insisted that we wouldn't.

France and Italy. Italy for the same reasons as Spain, France because they don't want another sick economy in the Eurozone. Neither have stated their desire to veto,. just their discomfort.
France insisted that Scotland would have to apply as a new applicant, which was a shock to Salmond as he hoped the French would be old allies not understanding the French view of Scotland, historically and now.
Italy has problems with seperatist movements also but are largely quiet because it only takes one to veto and they would rather Spain did so.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
[And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Unlikely event? Sources please.

Sources? All the European governments that have already stated their intentions to block an independent Scotland's membership.

Not all by a long shot but enough have.

I didn't say that all European governments have said this, I said that all the government's that have spoken out are sources.

That's not really how citing a source works, mate.

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm aware, NO country in the EU has threatened to veto Scotland's inclusion into the Union. I'd love to see some sources to the contrary.

There are differing legal opinions on whether Scotland would "automatically" be a member or, for formal reasons, has to apply for membership. As Scotland IS part of the EU right now, virtually all the membership chapters could be closed right after opening them, IF this step is going to be deemed to be required, so this is not exactly a big deal.

Finally, there is no legal reason or obligation for Scotland to join the Eurozone. Who claims gak like that?

I did, and I can't find any evidence.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Which%20European%20governments%20have%20already%20stated%20their%20intentions%20to%20block%20an%20independent%20Scotland's%20membership%20of%20the%20EU%3F

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/977a39ea-8c26-11e3-9b1d-00144feab7de.html#axzz39oFB9O7f

I posted these links before on other thrads on the subject.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu
- Spain says Scotland will have to apply and heavily imply they want the opportunity to block Scotlands application.

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/spain-could-veto-independent-scotland-says-minister/
- More sauce

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100026698/if-eu-law-is-followed-scotland-will-join-the-eu-just-before-serbia/
- Applications occur on Europes timetable, with instances of how this may take a while, and how all existing member states have a veto.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/28/alex-salmond-fisheries-eu-scotland
- Salmond threatens the EU, while in Brussels wirth shipping restrictions in Scottish waters.
While cybernats would like to tell us this is 'Project Fear' the scare story came straight from the mouth of Alex Salmond and those hearing it were EU representatives in Brussels.

Why the feth should the EU trust a single thing Salmond says if he makes threats like this, the threats were illegal by the way, sort of thing a rogue state would try to pull off.

If Scots think that the EU will roll over and let Salmond have his way in Europe then they should think again (or think at all). Salmond has made it perfectly clear that he is the sort of loose cannon who is consequently a very poor credit risk. Even with seperatism out of the equation, and from Spain's point of view it cannot be; there is good reason for European governments and Brussels to be concerned with allowing a Salmond led Scotland in to the EU club.
The Yes campaign/SNP White paper is full of hairbrained schemes, and vague economic promises, Holyrood is exceptionally centralised (I did not know until this thread Holyrood had also centralised the police), this gives a Scottish government very few checks and balances and therefore can try and implement said hairbrained schemes and the first the Scottish people will be able to do anything about it is when they wake up and smell the insolvency.

Sorry, the French and Germans are not stupid enough to want to guarantee bankroll all that. The rUk has already confirmed it is not.

 Orlanth wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu
- Spain says Scotland will have to apply and heavily imply they want the opportunity to block Scotlands application.

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/spain-could-veto-independent-scotland-says-minister/
- More sauce

So, no source for anything concrete whatsoever. Thought so.

 Orlanth wrote:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100026698/if-eu-law-is-followed-scotland-will-join-the-eu-just-before-serbia/
- Applications occur on Europes timetable, with instances of how this may take a while, and how all existing member states have a veto.

Equating Scotland's unique situation with Turkey's makes this particular article look rather satirical in nature. Even Iceland doesn't make for a good comparison, because frankly, there is none. Literally the ONLY thing that could stop Scotland's swift membership IF it is not ruled that it simply remains being a member, is the veto of another member state. That such a thing happens is entirely possible, but since we have no evidence either way, painting bleak pictures of everyone and their dog vetoing Scotland is just propaganda and/or baseless guesswork.

 Orlanth wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/28/alex-salmond-fisheries-eu-scotland
- Salmond threatens the EU, while in Brussels wirth shipping restrictions in Scottish waters.

While not terribly diplomatic, this highlights rather well why, among other reasons, I do not think that vetos will be thrown around left and right.

I really don't have a horse in this race, because I am in no position to judge what would be better for Scotland. But I know a thing or two about the legal ramifications of this possible independence process on a European level, and I still get a fair amount of inside views on European (Parliament) politics, so when I look at this single issue where I feel qualified to form an opinion, I begin to understand how "Better Together" has gotten its "Project Fear" moniker.

 Allod wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu
- Spain says Scotland will have to apply and heavily imply they want the opportunity to block Scotlands application.

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/spain-could-veto-independent-scotland-says-minister/
- More sauce

So, no source for anything concrete whatsoever. Thought so.

So you are incapable of political analysis?

The reasons Spain want to veto are evident, their intentions are evidenced, it is not in their interest to make comments now because it will harm diplomatic relations.
If you insist on 'concrete evidence' to be consisting on confessions and not motive and plausibility then there would be few convictions in courts and little global analysis.

 Orlanth wrote:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100026698/if-eu-law-is-followed-scotland-will-join-the-eu-just-before-serbia/
- Applications occur on Europes timetable, with instances of how this may take a while, and how all existing member states have a veto.

Equating Scotland's unique situation with Turkey's makes this particular article look rather satirical in nature. Even Iceland doesn't make for a good comparison, because frankly, there is none. Literally the ONLY thing that could stop Scotland's swift membership IF it is not ruled that it simply remains being a member, is the veto of another member state. That such a thing happens is entirely possible, but since we have no evidence either way, painting bleak pictures of everyone and their dog vetoing Scotland is just propaganda and/or baseless guesswork.

 Orlanth wrote:

The reasons Spain want to veto are evident, their intentions are evidenced, it is not in their interest to make comments now because it will harm diplomatic relations.
If you insist on 'concrete evidence' to be consisting on confessions and not motive and plausibility then there would be few convictions in courts and little global analysis.

European politics are highly volatile at best or, as our American friends bemoan correctly, "completely unpredictable", to put it more bluntly. The interests of European nations vs each other and the Union as a whole are so incredibly multi-faceted that the whole system is best described as byzantine, and outside their colleagues in the European Council and the inner circles of their respective native parties no one, absolutely no one, knows what our prime ministers think or plan to do on questions of European dimension.

Spain has interests that touch the question of devolution and independence, but it also has interests in fishery, there are diplomatic "who's friends with whom" questions, opinions of NATO partners, considerations of future power balance in the Council regarding various Spanish fields of interest and so forth. A political "analysis" based on the issue of Catalonia alone is, to borrow your phrasing, "laughably ignorant".

 Orlanth wrote:

To joun the EU you have to go through the joining procedures, notably Article 48.
If you dont believe this accept that by officials at the highest level have confirmed such.
Juncker is favourable to wards Scottish admission, but Article 48 still has to be observed

Spoken like a true dilettante.

I don't need to believe anything, because unlike you I know what I'm talking about here. WE ARE NOT EVEN SURE THAT Art. 49 TEU (which is the one you mean, Art. 48 is the one the SNP plans to use for its "fast track") IS GOING TO BE APPLICABLE. There is dissent among experts about this question, which will have to be settled in court or by diplomatic means.

I can go into the details if you wish, but to keep it really short, questions of legal succession of states, the legal possibility of an amendment to Art. 49 TEU by treaty using Art. 48 TEU, the effect of the citizenship provisions of the Treaties on the de facto and de iure status of Scottish nationals as EU citizens, whether Algeria has to be treated as precedent, and what the intentions of the original drafters of the Treaties, especially Art. 48, 49, 52 TEU, were by means of historical interpretation all come into play here.

That said, virtually all of the Chapters of the Acquis that are the most crucial part of the accession procedure, which is made out to be such a looong and arduous task for Scotland, would be fulfilled by Scotland by default, since the UK, from which Scotland would inherit all its relevant laws, needs to adhere to those right now, and the obligation to negotiate in good faith would prevent almost all shenanigans by other member states at this stage of the procedure. Which leaves those member states with the "veto" as the only means of preventing a swift Scottish accession, which is what I said before.

Regarding your officials: Everybody with legal training is entitled to a qualified opinion on these matters, but that doesn't mean they're RIGHT until the case, should it arise, has been settled, no matter how much of an expert they are, because chances are, the other side has just as many legal experts with just as many accolades and just as convincing arguments.

We just don't know what exactly will be deemed the correct process or if it even comes to that. Everybody who claims he does know is either lying through his teeth or deluded.

 Orlanth wrote:

They don't need to be, only one veto is required to set back Scottish membership. The UK itself experienced this because De Gaulle vetoed UK membership of the EEC, De Gaulles motives were thinly disguised anglophobia.

Last I read here Spain, Italy, Germany and France were all eager to kick those evil, unruly Scots out.

A few points about Scottish independence: I will provide sources if asked, but I'm short on time right now. It's pub time


Spain and the UK couldn't block Scotland's entry into the EU, even if they wanted to - it's a majority vote between the 28 members. Nobody gets a veto, otherwise, the UK would have stopped Bulgaria and Romania getting in.

The Spanish foreign minister is quoted as saying that Spain respects the outcome of the referendum because it's legal under UK law. Comparisons to Catalonia are stupid, because the Spanish government refuses to allow Catalonia a referendum and would consider any breakaway illegal a la Kosovo.

The EU have compromised in the past with regards to exceptional circumstances. German re-unification springs to mind. The EU gave that the green light.

Scotland is a similar case - it is fully compliant with all EU laws/directives, and no mechanism exists for denying EU citizens their membership, simply because they voted for independence away from an existing member state.

The President of the EU commission is quoted off-record as being sympathetic to Scotland's unique situation, and also, is very annoyed at David Cameron's attempts to stop him from getting the Presidential post. I'm sure dakka members know how the world of politics works

The EU was built on freedom and democratic principals. To ban people from gaining membership, because they voted for independence in a democratic referendum, would be like the NRA saying to Frazz that he couldn't be a member because he likes guns

Scotland can use the pound if it wants upon gaining independence and nobody can stop them. It's an international currency. The North Koreans could use it if they wanted to.

A currency union is another matter. But given that Scotland has the nuclear weapons, and the rest of the UK does not have a decent base for them. then it stands to reason that after a yes vote, reality would kick in, and the UK would get down to serious diplomacy. A compromise is more than likely. For example, Scotland gets the currency union, and the UK gets a lease for 30 years on the trident base. This is just one example of a likely scenario.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Spain and the UK couldn't block Scotland's entry into the EU, even if they wanted to - it's a majority vote between the 28 members. Nobody gets a veto, otherwise, the UK would have stopped Bulgaria and Romania getting in.

As much as I agree with the rest of your post, this bit, unfortunately, is untrue. Where did you get this idea?

 Allod wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

The reasons Spain want to veto are evident, their intentions are evidenced, it is not in their interest to make comments now because it will harm diplomatic relations.
If you insist on 'concrete evidence' to be consisting on confessions and not motive and plausibility then there would be few convictions in courts and little global analysis.

European politics are highly volatile at best or, as our American friends bemoan correctly, "completely unpredictable", to put it more bluntly. The interests of European nations vs each other and the Union as a whole are so incredibly multi-faceted that the whole system is best described as byzantine, and outside their colleagues in the European Council and the inner circles of their respective native parties no one, absolutely no one, knows what our prime ministers think or plan to do on questions of European dimension.

Spain has interests that touch the question of devolution and independence, but it also has interests in fishery, there are diplomatic "who's friends with whom" questions, opinions of NATO partners, considerations of future power balance in the Council regarding various Spanish fields of interest and so forth. A political "analysis" based on the issue of Catalonia alone is, to borrow your phrasing, "laughably ignorant".

Well Allod, I gave quotes from senior Spanish government officials reported by the press. I didn't make them up.

I wonder who has more insight as to how Spanish govermnent foreign and European policy operates, Allod or the Spain's Prime Minster Mariano Rajoy?

Rajoy said: "It's very clear to me, as it is for everybody else in the world, that a country that would obtain independence from the EU would remain out of the EU, and that is good for Scottish citizens to know and for all EU citizens to know."

However we all are supposed to know that Allod has policy making rights in Spain, he was super-elected there you know.

What are you on?

 Allod wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

To joun the EU you have to go through the joining procedures, notably Article 48.
If you dont believe this accept that by officials at the highest level have confirmed such.
Juncker is favourable to wards Scottish admission, but Article 48 still has to be observed

Spoken like a true dilettante.

I don't need to believe anything, because unlike you I know what I'm talking about here.

Well I can give you points for confidence, you know more about Spanish policy than the Spanish government apparently.

 Allod wrote:

WE ARE NOT EVEN SURE THAT Art. 49 TEU (which is the one you mean, Art. 48 is the one the SNP plans to use for its "fast track") IS GOING TO BE APPLICABLE. There is dissent among experts about this question, which will have to be settled in court or by diplomatic means.

Article 48, is the SNP preferred option, and more likely because of Juncker than Article 49 which is the full process. If Article 49 is used Scotland requires years of waiting.

However under Article 48 still goes through the European Parlaimanet requiring a majority decision and the european Council requirinf a unanimous vote (i.e any no is a veto)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union/Title_VI:_Final_Provisions

So even under optimum conditions, using article 48 Scotland still runs the risk of someone on the European Council saying no. you can dress that up however you like, those are the facts.

For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.

Scottish application (under optimum conditions) involves a modification of the UK's entry treaty, and thus requires unanimity in the European Council vote. This assumes that the application process goes the SNP's way at all, which is n0t a given. it is possible a full applicatiuon under article 49 is required.

 Allod wrote:

That said, virtually all of the Chapters of the Acquis that are the most crucial part of the accession procedure, which is made out to be such a looong and arduous task for Scotland, would be fulfilled by Scotland by default, since the UK, from which Scotland would inherit all its relevant laws, needs to adhere to those right now, and the obligation to negotiate in good faith would prevent almost all shenanigans by other member states at this stage of the procedure. Which leaves those member states with the "veto" as the only means of preventing a swift Scottish accession, which is what I said before.

The UK doesnt have to do anything of the sort. The UK can remain neutral in the proceedings which is the most ethical option as to do otherwise is Westminster interference which would by the ballot be unwanted.
However the majority European Parlaiment vote followed by the unanimous vote in the European Council must occur if Article 49 entry is to be achieved. Spanish representatives can block it there. This assumes that the actual vote in the European parliament goes Scotland's way.

While some nations have expressed displeasure about Scottish entry into the EU, I am yet to hear of any nation state actually wanting to propose it. It may come to pass that the Spanish veto isn't even necessary.

However you cut it, Wee Eck's insistence that Scotland will get fasttracked into Europe have a large number of 'if's' attached. In case you haven't realised the EU doesn't have to follow Salmonds orders, or Salmonds timetable.

 Allod wrote:

We just don't know what exactly will be deemed the correct process or if it even comes to that. Everybody who claims he does know is either lying through his teeth or deluded.

Which is why I went with the Article 48 analogy, even the best case scenario is not promising.
i cannot give guarantees, but I can take Spanish sovereign government statements at face value as they come from very high officials, Spain has motive and an EU vote/veto.
However your comment is interesting as Salmond has stated Scotland will get EU admission, and within a certain timeframe, March 2016 I hear. Which is he: lying through his teeth, or deluded?

 Allod wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

They don't need to be, only one veto is required to set back Scottish membership. The UK itself experienced this because De Gaulle vetoed UK membership of the EEC, De Gaulles motives were thinly disguised anglophobia.

Last I read here Spain, Italy, Germany and France were all eager to kick those evil, unruly Scots out.

In the case of Spain, not let the Scots in is more accurate, for clear reasons of their own.

France has confirmed at high level that Scotland will need to apply. Germany is quiet but doesnt want another failing EU economy as Germans have to pay for them. Whether Scotland is a failing economy depends very much on how much SNP government it gets post independence and whether they have intention to follow their White Paper economic policies.

Anyway, the point was made. De Gaulle blocked UK entry into the EEC, he did so for as long as he held onto power and did so via veto. The UK could only join after he died in the 70's but could have joined much earlier.
If France could block UK entry for no better reason than anglophobia, could Spain block Scottish entry because of Catalonia. Spain at least has an excuse and it has nothing to do with 'evil, unruly Scots'.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Spain and the UK couldn't block Scotland's entry into the EU, even if they wanted to - it's a majority vote between the 28 members. Nobody gets a veto, otherwise, the UK would have stopped Bulgaria and Romania getting in.

EU law says otherwise.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The Spanish foreign minister is quoted as saying that Spain respects the outcome of the referendum because it's legal under UK law.

Spain has said it will respect the referendum and not interfere with it because its happens in the UK.
This is very different from accepting Scotland's EU application.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Comparisons to Catalonia are stupid, because the Spanish government refuses to allow Catalonia a referendum and would consider any breakaway illegal a la Kosovo.

Comparisons to Catalonia are valid because the Spanish Foregin minsitry has aleady made the comparisons.
It is relevant because iof Scotland secedes other provinces in Euriope with sepratist leasnings will also want referenda., and it will be harder to stop the clamour for them.
The last thing Spain wants is for Catalans to say, Scotland got independence and EU membership, sho why dont we?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The EU have compromised in the past with regards to exceptional circumstances. German re-unification springs to mind. The EU gave that the green light.

German reunifaction required the four powers agreement. The UK and US were quick to agree, Russia took a little longer, the real sticking point was acrtually France. It took a while for France to agree. Yes this was also a veto situation.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Scotland is a similar case - it is fully compliant with all EU laws/directives, and no mechanism exists for denying EU citizens their membership, simply because they voted for independence away from an existing member state.

This has not been confiormed, if so Article 48 applies, if it doesn't Article 49 applies. An EU ruling will be required, this will occur on the timing of the EU, not Scotland or the UK.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The President of the EU commission is quoted off-record as being sympathetic to Scotland's unique situation, and also, is very annoyed at David Cameron's attempts to stop him from getting the Presidential post. I'm sure dakka members know how the world of politics works

I do think there is a connection. At least you can think and read between the lines. You should apply the reading between the lines to what France and Spain have commented on the Scottish application to the EU.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The EU was built on freedom and democratic principals. To ban people from gaining membership, because they voted for independence in a democratic referendum, would be like the NRA saying to Frazz that he couldn't be a member because he likes guns

The EU is built on gravy training and anything but democratic principles. Many of the real decisions take place behind closed doors with no accountability. This is why Cameron opposed Juncker.
In any event the method of Scottish entry will need to be properly debated and agreed upon by lawyers. If they agree too soon they don't get bonuses for the hours they put in. I am sure you know how politics works.
Most EU applications could be handled in months, but take many years. AS we dont even know under which track Scotland will have to apply, that alone could take a while to iron out.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Scotland can use the pound if it wants upon gaining independence and nobody can stop them. It's an international currency. The North Koreans could use it if they wanted to.

Yes they can, its known as the Panama option. But it means that Scotland has no guarantor, no right to fix interest rates, print money or wset its exchange rates and the rUK will be right to insist the Bank of England adjusts its policies and figures solely for the benefit of the UK, not Scotland.

Sturgeon wants a Scottish currency, Scotland should go with that option.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A currency union is another matter. But given that Scotland has the nuclear weapons, and the rest of the UK does not have a decent base for them. then it stands to reason that after a yes vote, reality would kick in, and the UK would get down to serious diplomacy. A compromise is more than likely. For example, Scotland gets the currency union, and the UK gets a lease for 30 years on the trident base. This is just one example of a likely scenario.

Scotland doesn't have nuclear weapons, the UK has nuclear weapons in Scotland, big difference. Even if Scotland didn't have an anti-nuclear agenda one would be forced upon them via non-proliferation. Scotland could get away with dodging that but its a moot point anyway. Also Trident can be moved, and AFAIK from MoD contacts there are contingencies already in place.

Scotland will NOT get currency union though. If it does Salmond will be able to borrow massively to fund his projects and leave the rUK to foot the bill when Scotland defaults on the debt. All three main Westminster parties and HM Treasury are eye to eye on that one.

Orlanth, I apologise for replying like this, and not using the quotes (like you did) because even after years of being a member of dakka, I'm still struggling to get the hang of certain features!


Anyway, a few points in reply to your posts:


1) Scotland can not default on its debt. It would be a brand new nation - it has no debt. The UK treasury confirmed this back in February, when it guaranteed the UK's debt. Scotland could agree to take on a share of 10% of the UK's debt, but has no legal obligation to do so. Like trident, the debt issue could be a useful bargaining chip for Scotland to get a CU

2) If Scotland were booted out of the EU, it would cause massive upheaval. Thousand of EU citizens from other countries would be in limbo, the bulk of the North Sea fishing areas would be up in smoke because of uncertainty, and a massive hole would be carved into NATO's northern zone. Politics is compromise, it is not unlikely that the EU and NATO would make exceptions for Scotland.

3) Where are the options for re-housing Trident in another part of the UK? I'm pretty sure that Portsmouth is unsuitable due to a lack of facilities, and also because the people down there don't want nuclear weapons near major population centres (although Westminster is happy to have them next to Scotland's largest city!)

4) If Scotland breaks away, would the UK exist any more? I'm pretty sure that the union is only between Scotland and England (Wales and NI don't count ) so wouldn't England, Wales, and NI, be in a very strange, pre 1707 situation?

 Orlanth wrote:

Rajoy said: "It's very clear to me, as it is for everybody else in the world, that a country that would obtain independence from the EU would remain out of the EU, and that is good for Scottish citizens to know and for all EU citizens to know."

In what reality does this translate to "I hereby vow to block any required unanimous decision to let Scotland accede to the EU"? Wait, scratch that, I'd rather not know.

 Orlanth wrote:
Article 48, is the SNP preferred option, and more likely because of Juncker than Article 49 which is the full process.

Because of Juncker? Huh?

How about because Art. 48 TEU would indeed allow to skip the whole accession procedure, if a certain legal viewpoint prevails, which has absolutely nothing to do with Juncker? But I gathered you don't even want to know what the debate is about, because you already heard the opinion you like, read Art. 48, 49 TEU on a Wiki and have now cemented your own personal truth.

 Orlanth wrote:

So even under optimum conditions, using article 48 Scotland still runs the risk of someone on the European Council saying no. you can dress that up however you like, those are the facts.

Apart from you having not the slightest idea what the optimum conditions are, if you read my posts, you would have noted that I repeatedly said that a veto is a possibility. But don't let that get into the way of a good rant.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Allod wrote:

That said, virtually all of the Chapters of the Acquis that are the most crucial part of the accession procedure, which is made out to be such a looong and arduous task for Scotland, would be fulfilled by Scotland by default, since the UK, from which Scotland would inherit all its relevant laws, needs to adhere to those right now, and the obligation to negotiate in good faith would prevent almost all shenanigans by other member states at this stage of the procedure. Which leaves those member states with the "veto" as the only means of preventing a swift Scottish accession, which is what I said before.

The UK doesnt have to do anything of the sort.

The UK doesn't have to do what? Negotiate in good faith after *not* vetoing the opening of the Chapters of the Acquis, which is the prerequisite of getting to this stage? I don't follow, but since your idea of political procedures seems to be lifted straight from the Victorian era, I won't bother.

 Orlanth wrote:
While some nations have expressed displeasure about Scottish entry into the EU, I am yet to hear of any nation state actually wanting to propose it.

I'll not even ask you to provide sources on this anymore.

 Orlanth wrote:

However your comment is interesting as Salmond has stated Scotland will get EU admission, and within a certain timeframe, March 2016 I hear. Which is he: lying through his teeth, or deluded?

No idea, you're the Brit, you tell me. I already stated I don't have a horse in the race, and Salmond is probably talking out of his ass most of the time, like most politicians.

Anyway, since you aren't interested in anything that might challenge your opinion, we're done here, aren't we?

The UK will only cease to exist if Scotland holds a referendum to depose the Queen as monarch.

As for the UK as a nation, obviously the nation of England Wales and Northern Ireland would continue to exist in international affairs, in the same way that it continued after the independence of the USA, Canada, Australia, Eire, India, Pakistan, Burma, Uganda, Malaya, South Africa, etc, etc. The status of the Queen as monarch of Scotland would not affect that.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Scotland is a similar case - it is fully compliant with all EU laws/directives, and no mechanism exists for denying EU citizens their membership, simply because they voted for independence away from an existing member state.

This has not been confiormed, if so Article 48 applies, if it doesn't Article 49 applies. An EU ruling will be required, this will occur on the timing of the EU, not Scotland or the UK.

No, whether Art. 48 applies does not depend on Scotland being compliant with the Chapters of the Acquis or EU citizenship rights, but thanks for playing.

I can't believe there would be any serious difficulty in Scotland joining the EU. It might take a few years and some behind the scenes diplomatic havering, but it would happen.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can't believe there would be any serious difficulty in Scotland joining the EU. It might take a few years and some behind the scenes diplomatic havering, but it would happen.

EDIT: Unnecessary stab at third user removed.