One Word Post - Should Scotland Be An Independent Country? Yes Or No.

[jaggybunnet]

Independent Scotland would be treated as a special case, according to the EU. They need access to Scottish seas for their fish.

 

that was the unnamed person not a spokesman for anyone if i remember correctly and even then that was for rejoining not staying in.

 

the Scottish seas bit, are you for real, Scotland wants in so the EU will decide on conditions and i would put money they are not in Scotland interests.

[jaggybunnet]

Incidentally, the chances are that in the not too distant future whatever remains of the UK will vote to leave the EU. Are you worried by that?

 

yes where the people of the UK will get there chance to vote for in a referendum ...or are you against them now you have got yours.

[jaggybunnet]

Couple of points

 

You didn't really address the question of how it is taken away

 

 

 

 

not to sure how this is difficult to understand as both Norgethistle and myself have explained it in it most basic form.

 

No one is chucking us out, we would be leaving the eu by leaving the uk so would be our choice.

Edited August 10, 2014 by jaggybunnet

[Norgethistle]

Couple of points

 

You didn't really address the question of how it is taken away

 

Secondly regarding the point that wee have the EU citizenship under our UK passport. The part below is from this link http://news.stv.tv/s...d-independence/

 

Will we need a new passport if there's a Yes vote?

In an independent Scotland all British citizens born or habitually resident in Scotland on day one of independence will have the right to acquire a Scottish passport, although, as in most countries, there will be no requirement to hold one.

Under the SNP's plans, adult passports would last for ten years and children's passports for five, as is the present situation in the UK. Passport costs will be "comparable" to the £72.50 (adult) and £46 (child) fees currently levied by Her Majesty's Passport Office.

Scottish passports will look similar to UK passports, but will be identified on the cover as Scottish. Valid UK passports will be recognised until their date of expiration.

 

The bit in red seems to contradict your statement that we will be giving up our UK passports in the event of Independence.UK passports are valid for 10 years. So if your point about or EU citizenship being under our UK passports is correct and I have one taken out on the 15th March 2016 I am an EU citizen until 2026 (assuming the UK votes to stay in)?

 

This then follows that everyone in Scotland could continue as a EU citizen for 10 years after Independence no matter what happens?

 

For what its worth I agree that we will have to negotiate the terms of its entry and we can discuss separately the possible outcomes of this but on the substantive point of will I be an EU citizen after Independence I think the above shows the case to be yes we will. As always I may have missed something so open to other opinions?

 

If someones passport expires in 2017, 1 year after independence then the new passport will no be a EU one if Scotland is not in the EU, by stating in the white paper ". As a member of the EU, Scottish passports will follow the EU passport model and therefore will broadly follow the current look of UK passports in colour, size, and layout, but will be identified as a Scottish passport on the front cover. They will be designed to meet the standard requirements for all EU passports and will be valid for international travel in the same way UK passports are at present. The Scottish Government will continue to recognise any currently valid UK passports until their expiry date." slightly jumping the gun and again assuming that all parties will buy into Scotlands demands on EU membership, bit like currency, pension & defense.

[kni]

Surprise, surprise, Van Rumpuy made his comment in Madrid, to the delight of the Spanish establishment worried about the Catalans. Here's an alternative view, from Graham Avery, the European Commission's honorary director general for the European Policy Centre:

 

In his policy paper, Mr Avery argues that the decision on Scotland's membership would be taken by "the EU's leaders in the European Council, and they will decide on the basis of practical and political considerations".

He wrote that politically it would be "difficult to see how the Union could reject five million Scots, who are already EU citizens" but noted that some EU states, including Spain, were concerned about any encouragement to their own internal regional independence movements.

But he added: "From a practical point of view, no member state has a material interest in Scotland remaining outside the EU, even for a short time.

"This would deprive the EU of the benefits of Scotland's membership (budgetary contribution, fisheries resources, etc).

"Scotland outside the EU, and not applying EU rules, would be a legal nightmare for EU member states, whose citizens and enterprises would lose their rights in Scotland.

"No member state, particularly not the rest of the UK, would have an interest in creating such an anomaly."

 

 

Edited to increase font size.

 

You are clutching at straws. The European Policy Centre is a think-tank. Graham Avery has no power, he just a wonk trying to make a name for himself and get some publicity. Van Rumpuy, as EU President, has all the power. Where he made the above statement is irrelevant, it was an official EU Council statement that reflected the articles of the Lisbon Treaty, i.e. EU law on membership.

 

How can Avery be sure that no EU state will have no material interest in Scotland remaining outside the EU? He dismisses the Catalan issue which will not go away in the next few years. Catalonia leaving Spain would be like London and the South East leaving the UK. It's no surprise that the Spanish were quick to support Van Rumpuy and Barroso. A Spanish veto is possible, even likely.

 

Then there is the issue of Flemmish separatism, a huge issue in Brussels, a Flemmish city. Do you think that the Eurocrats are going to allow a precedent to be created?

 

Scotland could, as an alternative join EFTA and the single market. The enterprises would not lose any rights. Those results are entrenched in Scottish law anyway. The report is a load of tosh.

[laukat]

my point is if you are saying that then the same apply s to the snp in the Scottish election and i think it was actually 35.6 % of Scotland that voted for them.

 

My point is you should get the government that the nation gives the most votes to. Scotland as a nation gave the SNP the most vote by a clear distance at the 2011 election therefore we get an SNP government. You agree this is democratic and the choice of the Scottish people? (My 23% comes from their only being a 63% turnout at the UK General election, I'm assuming your 35.6% is not taking into account that over a third didn't vote for any party?)

 

em no it is up to those that want independence to show now how they would cover those losses, your question as i said above is for another referendum

 

The answer for Yes is already there. We will be in the EU. The answer for No is uncertain as there will be an in/out referendum in 2017. So if there is uncertainty and uncertainty is bad why not explain exactly how it will be dealt with?

 

 

No, you answer seem to show you don't understand concept of Nuclear deterrent and the fact that putting them in different country's means they cant just take out USA and then take the rest on as they see fit.

 

Fully aware of how nuclear deterrent works. Are you seriously suggesting that if we get rid that Russia will go after the US?

 

it worked with Stalin and his replacements

 

Stalin was sane enough to look across and see the US and think if I fire we all die. My point is you can't be mad enough to fire and sane enough not to fire the two cancel arguments don't make a whole

 

i have on the whole have no issue on what we have at the moment and have made it clear in the past that i think the Scottish parliament is a waste of time effort and cash and to be honest hasn't done that much to improve Scotland, i certainly don't want it to have anymore powers as that scares the life out of me.

 

Appreciate your answer and respect you have a different point of view. Your answer of having no issue with what we have at the moment is not something that many will agree with.

[jaggybunnet]

my point is if you are saying that then the same apply s to the snp in the Scottish election and i think it was actually 35.6 % of Scotland that voted for them.

 

My point is you should get the government that the nation gives the most votes to. Scotland as a nation gave the SNP the most vote by a clear distance at the 2011 election therefore we get an SNP government. You agree this is democratic and the choice of the Scottish people? (My 23% comes from their only being a 63% turnout at the UK General election, I'm assuming your 35.6% is not taking into account that over a third didn't vote for any party?)

 

em no it is up to those that want independence to show now how they would cover those losses, your question as i said above is for another referendum

 

The answer for Yes is already there. We will be in the EU. The answer for No is uncertain as there will be an in/out referendum in 2017. So if there is uncertainty and uncertainty is bad why not explain exactly how it will be dealt with?

 

​where is it please, the eu bit has been explained ad nauseum, we will have to rejoin so what is the plan in the mean time

 

 

No, you answer seem to show you don't understand concept of Nuclear deterrent and the fact that putting them in different country's means they cant just take out USA and then take the rest on as they see fit.

 

Fully aware of how nuclear deterrent works. Are you seriously suggesting that if we get rid that Russia will go after the US?

 

your answer says differently.

 

it worked with Stalin and his replacements

 

Stalin was sane enough to look across and see the US and think if I fire we all die. My point is you can't be mad enough to fire and sane enough not to fire the two cancel arguments don't make a whole

 

you mentioned madmen, i said power hungry which is what all leaders are or why do they do it.

 

i have on the whole have no issue on what we have at the moment and have made it clear in the past that i think the Scottish parliament is a waste of time effort and cash and to be honest hasn't done that much to improve Scotland, i certainly don't want it to have anymore powers as that scares the life out of me.

 

Appreciate your answer and respect you have a different point of view. Your answer of having no issue with what we have at the moment is not something that many will agree with.

 

you never anawered the question on armed forces, apologizes if you are still getting info.

[laukat]

If someones passport expires in 2017, 1 year after independence then the new passport will no be a EU one if Scotland is not in the EU, by stating in the white paper ". As a member of the EU, Scottish passports will follow the EU passport model and therefore will broadly follow the current look of UK passports in colour, size, and layout, but will be identified as a Scottish passport on the front cover. They will be designed to meet the standard requirements for all EU passports and will be valid for international travel in the same way UK passports are at present. The Scottish Government will continue to recognise any currently valid UK passports until their expiry date." slightly jumping the gun and again assuming that all parties will buy into Scotlands demands on EU membership, bit like currency, pension & defense.

 

You said that our EU citizenship is dependent on our UK passport. I've pointed out that our UK passports are valid until they expire which could be as late as 2026. The Scottish government do not issue UK passports so it is not the Scottish Government

 

How do you remove my EU citizenship between 2016 and 2026 if I hold a UK passport?

 

I'll answer you question on what happens if you take out a passport in 2017 and Scotland is not in the EU as soon as I get an answer to the above

[laukat]

you never anawered the question on armed forces, apologizes if you are still getting info.

 

Apologies but I can't see the question, I may have missed it given the length and number of replies. If you can post me a copy I'll try to answer? Thanks

[jaggybunnet]

Apologies but I can't see the question, I may have missed it given the length and number of replies. If you can post me a copy I'll try to answer? Thanks

 

I don't see an Independent Scotland having bases outwith Scotland as it will be a defence force with particapation in UN missions. Speaking as an ex-service man I've never got the line that says no-one wants to be in a Scottish Army as the opportunity to take part in action was limited. I always thought if I'm going to get paid the same for both jobs and one of them has less chance of me dying then why would I sign up the one that had more chance of death?

 

I am ex regular and now FTRs (Full Time reservist) and the majority of regular soldier i know and speak to don't want to be part of a army that never goes anywhere and don't deploy on ops. and as for more chance of death, you must remember being a young soldier where you never think it will happen to you, we will as a nation be involved in a conflict of some sort a quick flick through the papers or watching the news tells you that. we are slipping back into the dangerous ground we were in before the 1st and 2nd world wars where we were just not ready.

[Norgethistle]

You said that our EU citizenship is dependent on our UK passport. I've pointed out that our UK passports are valid until they expire which could be as late as 2026. The Scottish government do not issue UK passports so it is not the Scottish Government

 

How do you remove my EU citizenship between 2016 and 2026 if I hold a UK passport?

 

I'll answer you question on what happens if you take out a passport in 2017 and Scotland is not in the EU as soon as I get an answer to the above

 

Your passport is current till it expires i am not questioning that and as stated will be honored in a transitional phase, mine expires in 2017, so if independent I will under a new passport very likely not be a EU citizen, my residence visa in Norway (along with around 10,000 other Scots in Rogaland alone) is due to me being a EU citizen, otherwise I have to re-apply as a non EU member which is not easy under Norway's new tighter immigration laws, and heaven help me if Norway has a job shortage at that time, for to be granted it I need to prove that either no Norwegian has my skill set, or the company cannot train an out of work Norwegian to do my job in a "reasonable" time. If Scotland is granted FULL EU (Romanians still have to apply as non EU or non EEA countries) or EEA status then it would not be a problem, but currently that is a big IF

[laukat]

not to sure how this is difficult to understand as both Norgethistle and myself have explained it in it most basic form. No one is chucking us out, we would be leaving the eu by leaving the uk so would be our choice.

 

You are describing a process by where we resign form the EU (i.e. Iceland). If we don't resign who comes and takes it away? What process will be applied?

 

Who from the EU tells the Spanish they loose the rights to fish in Scottish water? Who tells the EU nationals in Scotland that they must leave?

 

If Norgethistle is right and my UK passport gives me EU citizenship then people from Scotland can work anywhere in the EU up until 2026 but no one from the EU can come here post 2016?

[Norgethistle]

You are describing a process by where we resign form the EU (i.e. Iceland). If we don't resign who comes and takes it away? What process will be applied?

 

Who from the EU tells the Spanish they loose the rights to fish in Scottish water? Who tells the EU nationals in Scotland that they must leave?

 

If Norgethistle is right and my UK passport gives me EU citizenship then people from Scotland can work anywhere in the EU up until 2026 but no one from the EU can come here post 2016?

 

We are not resigning from the EU, as an independent Scotland we are not a member of the EU, and as such will have to apply, we would be resigning from the UK which has the EU membership

 

That is correct, the freedom to work in an independent Scotland if not part of the EU will be set by the Scottish government, and if the immigration policy is different to the rUK then borders will go up between the countries.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Norgethistle

[The Jukebox Rebel]

I don't understand how anyone - in either camp - could describe Graham Avery's report as "a load of tosh". It's the essence of pragmatism, neither emphasising the ease or exaggerating the difficulty of an independent Scotland's entry into the EEC. Avery negotiated the UK's entry in the 1970s and is described as "a veteran" of the processes having been involved in the enlargement negotiations of other EEC states. In short, this is a guy who is an expert in the field. I reproduce it here so that it can be referred to without misquote.

 

 

Written evidence from Graham Avery

 

Scotland’s accession to the European Union

 

Among the subjects that the Committee is examining in its enquiry is the procedure for EU membership for an independent Scotland. My views on this matter were set out in a memorandum submitted to a committee of the British House of Commons in September 2012. Since that memorandum remains my basic position, and prefigured in some ways the Scottish Government’s proposals of November 2013, I present it as an annex to this note.

 

In the following paragraphs I reply to some of the questions posed in the Committee’s Call for Evidence. Concerning myself:

o I worked for 40 years as a civil servant in London and Brussels, and was involved in successive EU enlargement negotiations (see biographical note at end)

o I try to approach the question of independence for Scotland as objectively as possible (I was born in Wales and am resident in England)

o This note expresses my personal views, not those of any institution or organisation

 

 

1. Are the general provisions in Article 48 of the EU Treaty a ‘suitable legal route’?

 

Yes. As explained in the annexed memorandum, negotiations on the terms of Scottish membership should take place in the period following the referendum and before the date of independence. For that purpose, Article 48 would be the legal basis: this approach is sometimes described as ‘internal enlargement’. The alternative would be the traditional procedure for EU enlargement, under which non-member countries are admitted; this approach, which means that Scotland would have to leave the EU and then apply for membership under Article 49, would be undesirable for practical and political reasons.

 

Neither of these legal bases would provide ‘automatic’ or ‘guaranteed’ EU membership for Scotland. The question is, which would be the appropriate route?

 

We are considering here a scenario for which there is no historical precedent within the EU, and for which the EU Treaties make no provision. The decision on how to proceed would be taken by the EU’s political leaders (elected representatives meeting in the European Council, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament) in the light of the practical options available and the national and European interests involved. It would be a political decision, and would not be taken by lawyers, although of course they would be consulted.

 

It is the policy of the EU to respect the constitutional arrangements of its member states. Consequently it has not expressed a position on the question of Scottish independence.

 

However, there is a widespread impression that the Presidents of the European Council (Herman van Rompuy) and the European Commission (Jose Manuel Barroso) have said that Article 49 would have to be used for Scotland. That is not exactly the case. They have stated that “if part of the territory of a member state would cease to be part of that state because it was to become a new independent state, the Treaties would no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent state would become a third country with respect to the EU” and thus Article 49 would be applicable. This statement is true, but it is not the whole truth. If the Treaties were adjusted in an appropriate manner in advance of independence, then they could apply to the new state. For that purpose, Article 48 could be used.

 

It has been argued that since Article 48 requires unanimity (and the same is true of Article 49) its use would be blocked by Spain in order to discourage Spanish regions from seeking independence. For similar reasons Spain, Slovakia, Romania, Greece and Cyprus have not recognised Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008. But Scotland’s referendum is not unilateral: it is a constitutional process approved by the British Parliament. In Spain, however, such referendums are not permitted by the national constitution. It is interesting to note that Montenegro’s independence in 2006, which followed a referendum accepted by Serbia as constitutional, was recognised by all EU members.

 

In considering which route to follow, the EU’s leaders would need to take account of the practical implications of requiring Scotland to leave and then apply for membership under Article 49. This would not be in the interest of the EU or its member states, particularly not the rest of the United Kingdom. The scenario of an independent Scotland outside the EU and not applying EU rules would be a legal nightmare, create social and economic difficulties for EU citizens, and deprive the EU of benefits of Scotland’s membership (its budgetary contribution, fisheries resources, etc.). To avoid this unwelcome outcome, one may expect the British government to espouse vigorously the use of Article 48 in due course.

It has been suggested that such problems could be avoided by an interim agreement under which Scotland would continue to apply EU rules during the period between independence and accession. But it is doubtful that the Parliament of an independent Scotland would accept the obligation to apply EU rules without the right to a full voice and vote in decision-making in the EU’s institutions that comes with membership.

 

 

2. Should Scotland approach EU membership negotiations on the principle of ‘continuity of effect’?

 

Yes. As explained in the annexed memorandum, in respect of EU policies and legislation Scotland’s citizens have a legitimate expectation of the maintenance of the status quo in terms of economic and social conditions on the accession of Scotland to the EU.

 

3. Are eighteen months sufficient for the terms of Scotland’s membership of the EU to be agreed and all the necessary processes completed?

 

Although the target of 18 months would require intense activity, it is realistic. In the annexed memorandum, I estimated that not more than one or two years would be needed. By way of comparison, the Slovaks and Czechs took only 6 months to become independent, while the most rapid accession to the EU was that of Finland, which took 31 months.

 

4. Are there are potential obstacles to Scotland’s membership that might arise during the negotiations?

 

The main questions likely to arise in the negotiations have been well identified. As explained in the annexed memorandum, a decision on the representation of Scotland in the EU’s institutions should not be problematic. Concerning the euro and the Schengen area, ‘continuity of effect’ for Scotland could be ensured without the negotiation of ‘opt-outs’. On Scotland’s payments into the EU budget, the question of the budgetary rebate would require difficult negotiations with London and Brussels. The Scottish government’s view that the division of the UK rebate would be a matter for negotiation between the Scottish and British Governments is not correct, while the British government’s suggestion that the rebate would be adjusted automatically is misleading. Other member states would take a very close interest in these budgetary matters.

 

5. Who would conduct the negotiations for EU membership on behalf of Scotland and how would the negotiations be managed?

 

In the period before independence, the British government would represent Scotland in intergovernmental negotiations with other EU members. Appropriate ways would be found by the EU’s institutions to consult the Scottish government and ensure that its views were taken into account. As explained in the annexed memorandum, the Commission would be asked to conduct exploratory talks with Edinburgh, London and other capitals before submitting proposals. The resulting changes in the Treaties would be ratified by member states according to their constitutional procedures; in the case of the United Kingdom, the approval of the Scottish Parliament would presumably be part of the constitutional process.

It has been suggested that negotiations under Article 48 would need to include procedures associated with Article 49, such as an Opinion of the Commission and detailed ‘screening’ and intergovernmental examination of Scotland’s capacity to implement each of the 35 chapters of the EU’s acquis. This would hardly be necessary in the case of Scotland, which has applied the EU’s policies and legislation for 40 years, and it would have little interest for other member states, who would be content to consider the matter on the basis of a report and proposals from the Commission. On the question whether Scotland would be able to fulfil the ‘Copenhagen criteria’ for EU membership, the Commission could be asked to give an Opinion, and such an exercise would be relatively simple since Scotland is already in the EU.

 

 

Annex

Scotland’s accession to the European Union

Evidence to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on the foreign policy implications of Scottish independence

Graham Avery

1. The object of this note is to clarify the procedure by which, following a referendum in which the Scottish people vote in favour of independence, Scotland could become a member of the European Union. Although the note touches on wider issues such as the terms of Scotland’s membership and the attitude of the EU member states and institutions, it focuses on the question of the procedure for Scotland’s accession.

2. In the debate on Scottish independence it is natural that opponents tend to exaggerate the difficulties of EU membership, while proponents tend to minimise them. This note tries to address the subject as objectively as possible. In summary it argues that:

• Arrangements for Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with independence
  
• Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU for 40 years; have acquired rights as European citizens
  
• For practical and political reasons they could not be asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission
  
• Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence
  
• The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure followed for the accession of non-member countries
  

3. The author is a Senior Member of St. Antony’s College, Oxford, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, and Honorary Director-General of the European Commission. He worked for 40 years as a senior official in Whitehall and Brussels, and took part in successive negotiations for EU enlargement (see biographical note at end).

 

4. The EU has no historical precedent for dealing with Scottish independence. The following cases are relevant, but hardly constitute precedents:

• Greenland joined the EU in 1973 as part of Denmark. Later it obtained home rule and voted to leave the EU. This led to a decision of the EU in 1989 removing Greenland from the EU’s customs territory and legal framework.
  
• In March 1990 the German Democratic Republic elected a new government committed to reunification; in October 1990, when it joined the German Federal Republic, its 16 million people became members of the EU.
  
• As a result of Czechoslovakia’s ‘velvet divorce’ the Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent states in 1993. Slovakia applied for EU membership in 1995, the Czech Republic in 1996, and they both became members in 2004.
  

 

5. German reunification represents in some ways the opposite of Scottish independence: it was enlargement without accession, whereas Scottish independence would be accession without enlargement. Nevertheless it is pertinent for the Scottish case from the point of view of procedure. Under pressure of the date for reunification, the EU adopted a simplified procedure for negotiation under which the Commission explored with Bonn and Berlin the changes needed in EU legislation, and its proposals were approved rapidly by the Council of Ministers and European Parliament. No EU intergovernmental conference was necessary because there was no modification of the EU Treaties.

 

6. However, for Scotland a modification of the EU Treaties would be necessary, if only to provide for Scottish representation in the EU institutions (number of members of European Parliament, number of votes in Council of Ministers, etc.).

 

7. At this point we need to consider the timing and procedure for such Treaty changes. Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with Scottish independence. For practical and political reasons the idea of Scotland leaving the EU, and subsequently applying to join it, is not feasible. From the practical point of view, it would require complicated temporary arrangements for a new relationship between the EU (including the rest of the UK) and Scotland (outside the EU) including the possibility of controls at the frontier with England. Neither the EU (including the rest of the UK) nor Scotland would have an interest in creating such an anomaly.

 

8. From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership.

 

9. It follows that negotiations on the terms of Scottish membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence. We do not know at this stage how long that period would be; complicated negotiations between Edinburgh and London would have to take place; but we may guess that not more than one or two years would be needed.

 

10. The main parties in negotiations for Scottish accession to the EU would be the member states (28 members after Croatia’s accession in 2013) and the Scottish government (as constituted under pre-independence arrangements). It may be noted that in this situation the government of Scotland - not yet an independent state - could not in fact submit an application for EU membership under Article 49 of the Treaty. But it could indicate its wish for Scotland to remain in the EU, and this would lead to negotiations in an appropriate framework to prepare the necessary modification of the Treaties. Proposals would be submitted for approval to the EU institutions and the Parliaments of 28 member states and of Scotland, and would come into force on the date of Scottish independence.

 

11. As in the case of German reunification, the EU would adopt a simplified procedure under which the Commission would be asked to conduct exploratory talks with Edinburgh, London and other capitals, and submit proposals. Although an intergovernmental conference would be needed, it would not be of the kind that handles accession negotiations with non-member countries. A protracted accession procedure of that type, with detailed scrutiny of 35 chapters of the EU’s acquis, would not be necessary in the case of Scotland, which has applied the EU’s policies and legislation for 40 years.

 

12. Let us return to the question of the changes in EU legislation necessary for Scottish membership. We need to distinguish here between changes in the EU Treaties (primary legislation) and changes in EU regulations, directives, decisions etc. (secondary legislation). The changes in the basic Treaties for institutional reasons should not be problematic: for Scotland they could easily be calculated by reference to member states of comparable size (Denmark, Finland & Slovakia have populations of 5-6 million). The number of votes in the Council for the remainder of the United Kingdom would not need to be adjusted (with 60 million it would still be comparable to France & Italy) although its members of Parliament might need to be reduced in number in order to respect the Parliament’s limit of members.

 

13. In accession negotiations with non-member countries the EU has always strongly resisted other changes or opt-outs from the basic Treaties; at this stage it remains to be seen what might be requested by Scottish representatives concerning the euro or the Schengen area of free movement of persons. Without embarking here on a discussion of the implications for Scotland of these policies, we may note that although new member states are required to accept them in principle, they do not become members of the eurozone or Schengen immediately on accession, and are not permitted to do so. Joining the euro or Schengen depends on a series of criteria that are examined in the years following accession.

 

14. Let us turn now to the secondary legislation. Although a large number of technical adaptations would be needed in order for Scotland to implement EU law, the vast majority of these would be uncontroversial since they would be based on the existing situation. In respect of EU policies and legislation, Scotland’s citizens have a legitimate expectation of the maintenance of the status quo in terms of economic and social conditions. There should be no need, for example, to re-negotiate Scotland’s application of European policies in fields such as environment; transport, agriculture, etc.: it would suffice to transpose mutatis mutandis the situation that already exists for Scotland within the U.K. Since the rest of the U.K. could be affected, that process would require discussion and clarification with London, but it would have little interest for other member states who would be content to consider the question of secondary legislation on the basis of a report and proposals from the Commission.

 

15. Here again, it remains to be seen whether Scottish representatives would request changes in the application of EU rules and policies, for example the fisheries policy or payments into the EU budget. In general one would expect these matters to be solved on a temporary basis by means of a roll-over mutatis mutandis of existing arrangements for the U.K. until the relevant EU rules come up for revision, for example the renegotiation of fishing quotas, or the multi-annual budgetary framework. Such solutions would, in fact, be in Scotland’s interest since it could expect to obtain a better deal as a member state with a full voice and vote in the EU than in the pre-independence period. However, the adaptation of the British budgetary rebate could require difficult negotiations between Edinburgh and London as well as with Brussels.

 

Biographical note

Graham Avery is Senior Member of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, and Honorary Director-General of the European Commission. He has given evidence on a number of occasions to Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords In the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in London (1965-72) he headed the unit responsible for negotiations for accession to the EC, and later (1976) served as Private Secretary to two Ministers. In the European Commission in Brussels (1973-2006) he worked in agricultural policy, foreign affairs, and the cabinets of the President and other Commissioners, and took part in successive negotiations that enlarged the EU to 27 members. His last post was as Director for Strategy, Coordination and Analysis in the Directorate General for External Relations.

He has been Fellow at the Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Fellow at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies of the European University Institute, Florence, Visiting Professor at the College of Europe, and Secretary General of the Trans European Policy Studies Association.

In the Queen’s New Year Honours 2012 he was appointed Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George (CMG) for services to European affairs.

[laukat]

Your passport is current till it expires i am not questioning that and as stated will be honored in a transitional phase, mine expires in 2017, so if independent I will under a new passport very likely not be a EU citizen, my residence visa in Norway (along with around 10,000 other Scots in Rogaland alone) is due to me being a EU citizen, otherwise I have to re-apply as a non EU member which is not easy under Norway's new tighter immigration laws, and heaven help me if Norway has a job shortage at that time, for to be granted it I need to prove that either no Norwegian has my skill set, or the company cannot train an out of work Norwegian to do my job in a "reasonable" time. If Scotland is granted FULL EU (Romanians still have to apply as non EU or non EEA countries) or EEA status then it would not be a problem, but currently that is a big IF

 

Appreciate where you are coming from and you have a very individual set of circumstances. Not sure it matches you exact circumstances but the UK government has already stated that in the even of a yes vote the current and next generation of scots would retain their citizenship and therefore can renew their current UK pasport. Let me know if this http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/scots-to-stay-british-despite-vote.23257477 helps?

 

My wider point was more that for the vast majority of Scots we will be EU citizens post a Yes vote. What I believe this starts to lay out is that beyond the hyperbole of membership in reality post 2016 in terms of the EU not much changes for Joe Bloggs.

[laukat]

We are not resigning from the EU, as an independent Scotland we are not a member of the EU, and as such will have to apply, we would be resigning from the UK which has the EU membership That is correct, the freedom to work in an independent Scotland if not part of the EU will be set by the Scottish government, and if the immigration policy is different to the rUK then borders will go up between the countries.

 

So if we are both agreed with my Scenario that post 2016 and Scotland hasn't got back into the EU we know have a scenario where Scottish citizens could if they wish become 'benefit tourists' with no reciprocal arrangements in place?

 

Is it really too hard to see that practicalities would overtake and that a deal would be struck?

[Norgethistle]

So if we are both agreed with my Scenario that post 2016 and Scotland hasn't got back into the EU we know have a scenario where Scottish citizens could if they wish become 'benefit tourists' with no reciprocal arrangements in place?

 

Is it really too hard to see that practicalities would overtake and that a deal would be struck?

 

How would they become "benefit tourists" if after 2016 and your now on a Scottish (Non EU) passport then you would be treated as a non-EU citizen and take all the hastle that goes with it you would pay tax to the country you work (Not have the option to pay to your home country), as a temporary worker you would have less rights too in regards health care etc, again Scotland would be under no obligation to allow non Scottish passport holders to be able to work freely or have access to its NHS etc without a visa, but the white paper talks about opening the borders to a certain extent so getting a visa would probably be as easy as getting a library card

[laukat]

I don't see an Independent Scotland having bases outwith Scotland as it will be a defence force with particapation in UN missions. Speaking as an ex-service man I've never got the line that says no-one wants to be in a Scottish Army as the opportunity to take part in action was limited. I always thought if I'm going to get paid the same for both jobs and one of them has less chance of me dying then why would I sign up the one that had more chance of death? I am ex regular and now FTRs (Full Time reservist) and the majority of regular soldier i know and speak to don't want to be part of a army that never goes anywhere and don't deploy on ops. and as for more chance of death, you must remember being a young soldier where you never think it will happen to you, we will as a nation be involved in a conflict of some sort a quick flick through the papers or watching the news tells you that. we are slipping back into the dangerous ground we were in before the 1st and 2nd world wars where we were just not ready.

 

Have to say its not the feedback I get form the current and ex-servicemen I speak to. In fairness I have heard a minority makes comments similar to what you have outlined but they are not the majority. Most of the rank and file joined because it was the only wage on offer and a way to escape their circumstances not because they wanted adventure. As they get a bit older and have kids they get even less keen on being away from barracks non-stop as most want to see their kids.

 

They are also starting to feel a bit betrayed as it used to be the army could offer you a career but more and more they are being taken in for short term contracts and let go after a few years. I believe this is a deliberate ploy by the defence department as you create a situation where you have within the UK population far more people trained and available to call up should it be required but only have to pay for a small amount of regulars.

 

Your point about not being ready I believe depends on what you assess the threat to be. In the early 1900's the threat was large scale land, sea and air warfare and moved into the cold war with the threat of nuclear war rather than invasion. Now it would appear the threat has moved again towards combatting terrorism.

 

Making an assumption but I assume your concern is if Russia does to us what its done to Ukraine or someone else along those lines? If so the current UK army would not be in a position to defend us never mind if we go Independent. You only have to look at this sort of thing http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8718-russian-ship-in-moray-firth-uk-intelligence-was-alerted-by-social-media-admits-hammond to understand that we don't have coherent UK defence force as it stands

[laukat]

How would they become "benefit tourists" if after 2016 and your now on a Scottish (Non EU) passport then you would be treated as a non-EU citizen and take all the hastle that goes with it you would pay tax to the country you work (Not have the option to pay to your home country), as a temporary worker you would have less rights too in regards health care etc, again Scotland would be under no obligation to allow non Scottish passport holders to be able to work freely or have access to its NHS etc without a visa, but the white paper talks about opening the borders to a certain extent so getting a visa would probably be as easy as getting a library card

 

The bit in bold is the key part in your answer. In 2016 until 2026 you will have a UK passport and therefore EU citizenship no matter what. EU citizenship gives you access to welfare etc. So we could go to and claim benefits in the EU however anyone in the EU coming to Scotland cannot. So in effect Scotland being out of the EU comes at a cost to all other EU members.

 

Its practicalities such as this that make it extremely unlikely that a deal will not be struck between 18/9/14 and March 2016 not because Von Rumpuy says one or Junckers says another

 

As I've said before the terms of the membership are open to debate but it would require a massive case of cutting of your nose to spite your face for Scotland not to be in the EU

[Mr Scruff]

 

 

The bit in bold is the key part in your answer. In 2016 until 2026 you will have a UK passport and therefore EU citizenship no matter what. EU citizenship gives you access to welfare etc. So we could go to and claim benefits in the EU however anyone in the EU coming to Scotland cannot. So in effect Scotland being out of the EU comes at a cost to all other EU members.

 

I've maybe missed soemthing.

 

Are you saying that if we secede from the UK then those with a passport will still be EU/ UK citizens because of the expiry date of that document?

 

And similarly if the UK leaves the EU, UK citizens with a passport will still be in the EU?

[kni]

The bit in bold is the key part in your answer. In 2016 until 2026 you will have a UK passport and therefore EU citizenship no matter what. EU citizenship gives you access to welfare etc. So we could go to and claim benefits in the EU however anyone in the EU coming to Scotland cannot. So in effect Scotland being out of the EU comes at a cost to all other EU members.

 

Its practicalities such as this that make it extremely unlikely that a deal will not be struck between 18/9/14 and March 2016 not because Von Rumpuy says one or Junckers says another

 

As I've said before the terms of the membership are open to debate but it would require a massive case of cutting of your nose to spite your face for Scotland not to be in the EU

 

That is blatant nonsense. If Scotland leaves the EU, its citizens are no longer EU citizens and no longer entitled to the rights and benefits of EU citizens, e.g. freedom of movement. End of story

[kni]

I've maybe missed soemthing.

 

Are you saying that if we secede from the UK then those with a passport will still be EU/ UK citizens because of the expiry date of that document?

 

And similarly if the UK leaves the EU, UK citizens with a passport will still be in the EU?

 

No. There is a basic lack of understanding of British and EU law.

[laukat]

Answers in bold. One I can answer one is for a different referendum hope they help

 

I've maybe missed soemthing.

 

Are you saying that if we secede from the UK then those with a passport will still be EU/ UK citizens because of the expiry date of that document? - Norgethistle had earlier stated that we get EU citizenship through our UK passport. UK passports run for 10 years.The UK Government has already stated we and our children get to keep UK citizenship (our grandchildren would not) after Independence. If you are a UK Citizen and the UK is in the EU you as an individual are a EU citizen with all the rights that entails. You have in effect dual nationality should you choose as an individual to hold it. In the event of Scotland being out of the EU your Scottish passport entitles you to nothing in the EU, However you UK passport entitles you to the rights of any other EU citizen

 

And similarly if the UK leaves the EU, UK citizens with a passport will still be in the EU? - Can't answer this bit as that would depend on what is agreed between the UK and EU.

[kni]

You said that our EU citizenship is dependent on our UK passport. I've pointed out that our UK passports are valid until they expire which could be as late as 2026. The Scottish government do not issue UK passports so it is not the Scottish Government

 

How do you remove my EU citizenship between 2016 and 2026 if I hold a UK passport?

 

I'll answer you question on what happens if you take out a passport in 2017 and Scotland is not in the EU as soon as I get an answer to the above

 

 

Unbelievable nonsense! EU citzenship is dependent upon EU membership. Scots will cease to be EU citizens from the date that Scotland officially leaves the United Kingdom and, therefore, the EU. When Scotland leaves the UK, its citizens will need to be issued with Scottish, and non-EU, passports.

[Mr Scruff]

 

 

No. There is a basic lack of understanding of British and EU law.

I agree. Or at least an over-simplistic view of the relationship between a document issued, and the qualifying grounds of being issued it (rather than the other way around).