Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On the question of joining the EU, and the timescale for joining the EU, I disagree. There is a transition period of 18 months during which Sir David Edward, former Chief Justice of the European court argues that there is a legal obligation upon both the EU and UK Governments to resolve what called the, "absurd", scenario which you describe. He notes that EU law is unique in terms of international law, in that it not only confers rights on Member States, it also has created the acquired rights of European Citizens. Regardless of what happens during the 18 month transition period, Scots remain European Citizens. After Scottish independence, it is almost certain that people living in Scotland will retain UK citizenship, because to distinguish for any practical purpose between "Scottish" and/or "English" people is administratively impossible. The Home Office has conceded that people living in Scotland would remain British Citizens, both because they may have a British Passport already, but secondarily because regardless of any other outcome, they remain the direct descendant of a British citizen; and thus remain entitled to British citizenship regardless.
If Scotland does not accede to the EU more or less immediately after independence day, this in fact creates a situation even more absurd than the one you've just contemplated. i.e. Scots as British, and thus European Citizens; would have the legal right to live, work, and claim welfare benefits in any EU member state; while Scotland would have no obligation to reciprocate that treatment to the citizens of any other member state, nor pay towards any of the institutions of the European Union. i.e. ~5 million EU Citizens living outwith the European Union.
Sir David noted that to avoid this absurd outcome, the EU and UK Governments have a legal obligation to resolve this problem and commence negotiations for Scotland's entry almost immediately upon the event of a Yes vote.
The question therefore, is whether 18 months is sufficient time in which to join the European Union. Graham Avery, Honorary Director-General of the European Commission, and who personally drafted the rules on joining the EU; notes that from beginning of negotiations to signing their accession treaty; took Finland 13 months. He says that in his view, 18 months is a, "tough but realistic." timescale for Scotland to join.
When you say that it takes 'several years' for a country to join the EU, you've been mis-led by the Unionist press. There are 35 Articles, which all EU Members must be satisfied that an accession state meets, covering everything from criminal justice, to the standards of prisons, to the central collation of statistics, to Labour law, to media freedom. When you said that it takes some countries years to join the EU, what you are referring to is the time to satisfy other member states that the accession country meets the standards required by the EU. The difference with Finland, and the reason that Finland took such a short time to join, was that Finland was already a member of EFTA; and thus Finland already applied all of the body of EU law pertaining to the common market; which drastically reduced the time taken to satisfy the EU that Finland met EU standards. In the case of Scotland, which has been a member of the EU for over 40 years and has been applying the full body of EU law for over 40 years; that cuts the vetting process still further.
There will be areas of contention with Scotland. I suspect Scotland's currency arrangements could be an issue, and I suspect Scotland will try to retain the UK's opt-outs and perhaps the UK rebate. However, the vast majority of the criteria the EU will be looking at simply will not apply to Scotland. The EU don't need to be satisfied that Scots Law meets EU criteria, because they already know that it does. They don't need to be satisfied that Scotland has a free media, because they already know that it does. etc etc.
It's worth noting that Sir David Edward disagreed with an 18 months timescale being sufficient, he believes that it would be difficult for Scotland to accede within 18 months, and as such there would need to be transitional arrangements made for the period between independence and the date of accession; but he foresees no problems in creating such transitional arrangements as necessary.
Remember what I said a number of posts ago about optimists and pessimists. Perhaps I'm misled, however I have many accessions to the EU backing timescales longer than 18 months, you have only one that was less than 18 months.
It's posts like this that make me think that Scotland doesn't want to be independent. Independence does not mean relying on the goodwill of others to meet your needs, and all of the above relies on other states meeting Scottish needs. You're relying on the EU to give special consideration, you're relying on the UK to act in a manner and accordance with Scottish wishes. Neither of these is an indication of independence, but an indication of dependency. Not to draw too fine a point on it, but the arguments are the political equivalent of a teenager leaving home, and expecting his mother to continue to do his laundry. The more you write, and the more I hear Salmonds arguments the more I beginning to think this is a perfect analogy.
If you're representative of the typical Scotland's Independence supporter, then I have to say, I do not think you're ready for it.
What's absurd is the level of dependence you're promoting is staggering. Scots after a successful independence vote are no longer British, that's the entire purpose of the vote, they're Scottish. Scots have no right to get European benefits from any European member, they have no right to EU citizenship, they have no right to free travel, or residency. Any or all of these are only going to be provided by the UK and Europe at their option as a benefit. What would be perfectly legal is, for all persons with a UK passport born in Scotland being forcibly repatriated to Scotland from anywhere in the EU and having their UK passport withdrawn, this also solves the problem, and it's entirely legal under international law. Anything more than that is a grace that someone else is, at their option, providing while you get yourselves together. However make no mistake, if it goes on too long you may find that the patience runs short, and there is no intrinsic benefit for the UK to have speedy and efficient negotiation on this with Scotland, after all being independent means you have just as much responsibility in achieving the required goal as the UK will (moreso in fact), complaining that Jimmy isn't playing fairly would not be the best way to start your new relationship with Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eoin (pronounced Owen)
The final question is that of another member state veto of the sort alluded to on a regular basis by the likes of the Daily Telegraph. Personally, I think it's revealing that no member state has said that it would veto an independent Scotland. The UK Government agreed to this process with the Edinburgh Agreement, it has agreed to honour the outcome. If another EU member state were to veto Scotland, that would not merely reflect badly on that member state, it would be an act of international vandalism insofar as trade between Scotland and the UK is concerned. Given how profound a veto would be, it strikes me as unrealistic that any state which had any such intention of exercising a veto; would not mention this before the referendum takes place. "Congratulations on your new statehood, by the way we're going to veto you." That doesn't strike me as realistic.
Eoin
Indeed Westminster has agreed to honor the outcome, if Scotland gains independence it will be independent (like it or not). Validity of realism is an argument that is often leveled at events or circumstances we would prefer not to consider, which often are the very events that should be considered. What benefit is there for everyone to not veto Scotland joining the EU? That's the question that should be answered, not why would anyone veto, because once you're independent, what benefit can be derived by those countries by your entry is the deciding factor on whether or not they will veto, if it turns out you're a bigger drain, than a source then I'm pretty sure that any country would veto, it's in their best interests to do so, and that's the deciding factor, not "your" interests "their" interests.
Remember what I said a number of posts ago about optimists and pessimists. Perhaps I'm misled, however I have many accessions to the EU backing timescales longer than 18 months, you have only one that was less than 18 months.
I only mentioned Finland because it was the record holder at 13 months. Sweden and Austria took 14 months, not because the negotiations took any longer but because they didn't sign the accession treaties until a month later.
I've already explained for you why these states managed to join the EU so rapidly, it was because they already implemented most aspects of EU on account of their membership of EFTA. It therefore wasn't necessary to examine every aspect of their governance. I mean I've quoted you Graham Avery, the guy who wrote the European Commission's opinion on the accession of 18 member states, and he says 18 months is, "tough but realistic." I have quoted you Sir David Edward, who confirms that in the event of negotiations not being complete for the date of independence, it doesn't represent a problem to implement transitional arrangements to prevent the absurd outcomes you described. I don't know what being an 'optimist' or a 'pessimist' has to do with anything here, the scenario's I've described encompass the eventualities foreseen by experts in the field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
It's posts like this that make me think that Scotland doesn't want to be independent. Independence does not mean relying on the goodwill of others to meet your needs, and all of the above relies on other states meeting Scottish needs. You're relying on the EU to give special consideration, you're relying on the UK to act in a manner and accordance with Scottish wishes. Neither of these is an indication of independence, but an indication of dependency. Not to draw too fine a point on it, but the arguments are the political equivalent of a teenager leaving home, and expecting his mother to continue to do his laundry. The more you write, and the more I hear Salmonds arguments the more I beginning to think this is a perfect analogy.
For what possible reason is it in the interests of any other EU member for Scotland to have to leave the EU, force every EU state to then negotiate arrangements over everything from the legal status of EU citizens living/working/having their university fee's paid in Scotland, to a separate trade agreement between the EU and Scotland; only then to nullify the purpose in having created these new arrangements by re-admitting Scotland to the EU a short time later? That's an outlandish scenario which is not in the interest of any of the parties concerned - not least for the remainder of the United Kingdom. It is not 'dependency' to identify the likely course of events which stem from mutual self-interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
What's absurd is the level of dependence you're promoting is staggering. Scots after a successful independence vote are no longer British, that's the entire purpose of the vote, they're Scottish. Scots have no right to get European benefits from any European member, they have no right to EU citizenship, they have no right to free travel, or residency. Any or all of these are only going to be provided by the UK and Europe at their option as a benefit. What would be perfectly legal is, for all persons with a UK passport born in Scotland being forcibly repatriated to Scotland from anywhere in the EU and having their UK passport withdrawn, this also solves the problem, and it's entirely legal under international law. Anything more than that is a grace that someone else is, at their option, providing while you get yourselves together. However make no mistake, if it goes on too long you may find that the patience runs short, and there is no intrinsic benefit for the UK to have speedy and efficient negotiation on this with Scotland, after all being independent means you have just as much responsibility in achieving the required goal as the UK will (moreso in fact), complaining that Jimmy isn't playing fairly would not be the best way to start your new relationship with Europe.
You made the assertion that it would take "years" for an independent Scotland to join the EU. While I cannot possibly know your motivation for doing so, the main proponents of that argument have been the 'Better Together' campaign, who use it as a means to scare Scots into voting No. Their intent is to say, "Ooh, but this creates an administrative nightmare that won't be resolved for years leaving Scotland in limbo." When I respond that Scot's will almost certainly retain British citizenship in the event of independence, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Better Together campaign. If they want to argue that it would create an administrative nightmare for Scotland not to be a member of the EU, then they need to be aware that such a move creates an even greater administrative nightmare for the rest of UK and EU. That's not inferring 'dependency' of Scotland, it's just another reason why the EU will want to expedite this process, to avoid the ludicrous scenario which you brought up. (I merely added the full picture.)
This point has clearly struck a nerve with you, so let me be clear. In the event of Scottish independence, I'll video myself burning my British passport, and I commit to sending you the video. I have no desire whatsoever to retain citizenship of the UK under those circumstances. However, Scots who need to, will remain entitled to travel anywhere they like in the EU on a British passport. They remain European Citizens; irrespective of whether this irritates you or not! This isn't a matter of principle or morality, it is simply a statement of fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Indeed Westminster has agreed to honor the outcome, if Scotland gains independence it will be independent (like it or not). Validity of realism is an argument that is often leveled at events or circumstances we would prefer not to consider, which often are the very events that should be considered. What benefit is there for everyone to not veto Scotland joining the EU? That's the question that should be answered, not why would anyone veto, because once you're independent, what benefit can be derived by those countries by your entry is the deciding factor on whether or not they will veto, if it turns out you're a bigger drain, than a source then I'm pretty sure that any country would veto, it's in their best interests to do so, and that's the deciding factor, not "your" interests "their" interests.
EU contributions are based on GNP per capita, Scotland has one of the highest levels of GNP per capita in the EU, therefore Scotland will be a net contributor to the EU budget. While it doesn't benefit the EU for Scottish membership to cost £1 more than it has to (e.g. the UK rebate will be contentious), it is very clearly in the financial interest of the EU to accept Scotland as a member.
Secondly, please calm down. I've never asked nor implied that any other EU state would act against its own interests. All I have stated are facts. The EU is an organisation built on expansion for mutual benefit. You're talking about the organisation which just admitted Bulgaria for goodness sake! Yet you want me to seriously doubt that Scotland will be a welcome member of the EU? I accept that there are such things as optimism and pessimism, but there's a stage below pessimism which is ordinarily preached by old men wearing billboard signs saying, "The End is Nigh". You can guess which category I put the idea of an EU veto in.
I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance on these matters. Everything I have said in this post is substantiated on the position of academics and professionals in this field. Mr Graham Avery's position was extremely clear on the issue of Scottish membership of the EU, the length of time taken to join etc. His evidence can be seen here:
On process of EU accession:
On Scots inheriting UK citizenship:
The UK has historically been tolerant of plural nationalities, and therefore it is likely that it
would be possible for an individual to hold both British and Scottish citizenship. However,
under current rules British citizens living outside the UK cannot pass their British nationality on
more than one generation. So the children of British citizens living in an independent Scottish
state would be British citizens, but their children and subsequent generations would not be.
I only mentioned Finland because it was the record holder at 13 months. Sweden and Austria took 14 months, not because the negotiations took any longer but because they didn't sign the accession treaties until a month later.
I've already explained for you why these states managed to join the EU so rapidly, it was because they already implemented most aspects of EU on account of their membership of EFTA. It therefore wasn't necessary to examine every aspect of their governance. I mean I've quoted you Graham Avery, the guy who wrote the European Commission's opinion on the accession of 18 member states, and he says 18 months is, "tough but realistic." I have quoted you Sir David Edward, who confirms that in the event of negotiations not being complete for the date of independence, it doesn't represent a problem to implement transitional arrangements to prevent the absurd outcomes you described. I don't know what being an 'optimist' or a 'pessimist' has to do with anything here, the scenario's I've described encompass the eventualities foreseen by experts in the field.
For what possible reason is it in the interests of any other EU member for Scotland to have to leave the EU, force every EU state to then negotiate arrangements over everything from the legal status of EU citizens living/working/having their university fee's paid in Scotland, to a separate trade agreement between the EU and Scotland; only then to nullify the purpose in having created these new arrangements by re-admitting Scotland to the EU a short time later? That's an outlandish scenario which is not in the interest of any of the parties concerned - not least for the remainder of the United Kingdom. It is not 'dependency' to identify the likely course of events which stem from mutual self-interest.
You made the assertion that it would take "years" for an independent Scotland to join the EU. While I cannot possibly know your motivation for doing so, the main proponents of that argument have been the 'Better Together' campaign, who use it as a means to scare Scots into voting No. Their intent is to say, "Ooh, but this creates an administrative nightmare that won't be resolved for years leaving Scotland in limbo." When I respond that Scot's will almost certainly retain British citizenship in the event of independence, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Better Together campaign. If they want to argue that it would create an administrative nightmare for Scotland not to be a member of the EU, then they need to be aware that such a move creates an even greater administrative nightmare for the rest of UK and EU. That's not inferring 'dependency' of Scotland, it's just another reason why the EU will want to expedite this process, to avoid the ludicrous scenario which you brought up. (I merely added the full picture.)
This point has clearly struck a nerve with you, so let me be clear. In the event of Scottish independence, I'll video myself burning my British passport, and I commit to sending you the video. I have no desire whatsoever to retain citizenship of the UK under those circumstances. However, Scots who need to, will remain entitled to travel anywhere they like in the EU on a British passport. They remain European Citizens; irrespective of whether this irritates you or not! This isn't a matter of principle or morality, it is simply a statement of fact.
EU contributions are based on GNP per capita, Scotland has one of the highest levels of GNP per capita in the EU, therefore Scotland will be a net contributor to the EU budget. While it doesn't benefit the EU for Scottish membership to cost £1 more than it has to (e.g. the UK rebate will be contentious), it is very clearly in the financial interest of the EU to accept Scotland as a member.
Secondly, please calm down. I've never asked nor implied that any other EU state would act against its own interests. All I have stated are facts. The EU is an organisation built on expansion for mutual benefit. You're talking about the organisation which just admitted Bulgaria for goodness sake! Yet you want me to seriously doubt that Scotland will be a welcome member of the EU? I accept that there are such things as optimism and pessimism, but there's a stage below pessimism which is ordinarily preached by old men wearing billboard signs saying, "The End is Nigh". You can guess which category I put the idea of an EU veto in.
I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance on these matters. Everything I have said in this post is substantiated on the position of academics and professionals in this field. Mr Graham Avery's position was extremely clear on the issue of Scottish membership of the EU, the length of time taken to join etc. His evidence can be seen here:
On process of EU accession:
On Scots inheriting UK citizenship:
The UK has historically been tolerant of plural nationalities, and therefore it is likely that it would be possible for an individual to hold both British and Scottish citizenship. However, under current rules British citizens living outside the UK cannot pass their British nationality on more than one generation. So the children of British citizens living in an independent Scottish state would be British citizens, but their children and subsequent generations would not be.
Thanks for the information on citizenship Eoin. This is the same thing that happened with Ireland. Scots then would still be entitled to British citizenship so plenty of time for them to organise to become part of the EU.
Thanks for the information on citizenship Eoin. This is the same thing that happened with Ireland. Scots then would still be entitled to British citizenship so plenty of time for them to organise to become part of the EU.
From everything I've read, it's quite possible that Scotland will become an EU member on the same date as independence. The sticking point will be Scotland - rUK negotiations rather than the Scotland - EU negotiations, but the Scotland - EU negotiations won't be able to be ratified before some of the aspects of the Scotland - rUK negotiations are complete. (If that makes any sense.)
For instance, currency will need to be settled in the EU - Scotland negotiations, but obviously that depends on the rUK - Scotland negotiations. A lot will come down to how high a price the rUK seeks for a currency union, and how belligerent both sides are prepared to be. Both sides stand to lose a lot and gain very little, so logic would suppose a reasonably amicable solution which satisfies neither side; but one can never tell with these things.
If Scotland goes independent I think Northern Ireland should join Scotland.
United Kingdom of Scotland and Ulster. Lol
Even though a lot of Northern Irish Protestants are originally from Scotland I don't think that is likely. I think you are stuck with Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future.
This is going down to the wire, my opinion is that if the majority of
Scots really knew what is at stake they will take advantage of this
situation which is unlikely to present itself again, and vote for
independence ! Get out of the massive, freedom-debilitating U.K.
while you can ! But it appears that the vote is already being rigged,
for example if you just put "scotland independence" into a search engine
such as Bing, you'll see it automatically pop up a large prediction on screen
that the Scottish will vote to stay DEPENDENT as a vassal of the U.K.
This is much like the hair-trigger close Quebec independence election
in 1995 which failed by a half of a percentile.
Do not think for a second that TPTB won't fix this election. But if I were
a Scot living there I would vote for independence !!!
Even though a lot of Northern Irish Protestants are originally from Scotland I don't think that is likely. I think you are stuck with Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future.
Rats!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
