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

[laukat]

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

 

Open to other points of view as always but if I have UK citizenship (which the UK Government has confirmed we can keep) and a UK citizen is entitled to EU citizenship how do perceive that the EU would remove UK citizens rights?

 

As I've said before the wider point is that the impracticalities of scenario's such as this are what will lead to a deal on Scottish EU memebership

[kni]

The Graham Avery document is worse than tosh.

 

Article 48 deals with amendments to the Lisbon Treaty (aka The Treaty of the European Union) and Article 49 deals with enlargement. There is no such thing as "internal enlargement" and it certainly cannot be facilitated by Article 48.

 

Amendments to the Treaty (according to Article 48) can be made by a majority of the European Council. Article 49 requires all applications for Membership to be approved unanimously.

[P-R]

Westminster could ask the EU right now in the event of a YES vote what the position would be regarding Scotland's membership of the EU instead of all the claim and counter claim. Personally, I think as someone said earlier, Westminster is being awkward.

[kni]

Westminster could ask the EU right now in the event of a YES vote what the position would be regarding Scotland's membership of the EU instead of all the claim and counter claim. Personally, I think as someone said earlier, Westminster is being awkward.

 

Westminster has asked the EU but the SNP is refusing to accept its answer. Van Rumpuy and Barroso stated the EU's position clearly last year. An independent Scotland will leave the EU when it leaves the UK. As an independent country, it must apply for Membership under article 49 of the [Lisbon] Treaty of the European Union. For a country to be admitted, the EU Council, i.e. all Member States, must approve its application unanimously.

[Norgethistle]

Open to other points of view as always but if I have UK citizenship (which the UK Government has confirmed we can keep) and a UK citizen is entitled to EU citizenship how do perceive that the EU would remove UK citizens rights?

 

As I've said before the wider point is that the impracticalities of scenario's such as this are what will lead to a deal on Scottish EU memebership

 

So people in Scotland would be better to take a rUK passport? Surely that would then need an agreement on immigration between rUK & iScotland as the passport holders would be rUK and not Scottish.

 

The information I had heard regarding passports is a Scot would need to apply for a rUK with no guarantee to getting it

[P-R]

Westminster has asked the EU but the SNP is refusing to accept its answer. Van Rumpuy and Barroso stated the EU's position clearly last year. An independent Scotland will leave the EU when it leaves the UK. As an independent country, it must apply for Membership under article 49 of the [Lisbon] Treaty of the European Union. For a country to be admitted, the EU Council, i.e. all Member States, must approve its application unanimously.

 

Well maybe I've missed a news report or two along the way, do you have a link? I've heard plenty from Barroso in particular and how we wouldn't be in the EU but my impression of that was a personal opinion. I don't believe Westminster have officially asked the question.

[kni]

Well maybe I've missed a news report or two along the way, do you have a link? I've heard plenty from Barroso in particular and how we wouldn't be in the EU but my impression of that was a personal opinion. I don't believe Westminster have officially asked the question.

 

Here is the Herald link again with the key parts below.

 

The SNP, of course, disputes that very clear statement from Van Rumpuy, the President of the EU Council that approves Membership applications. They claim that he is wrong and that university and and think tank wonks with no power or responsibility know better.

 

"Van Rompuy torpedoes SNP claims on EU membership

 

THE SNP's plans to fast-track an independent Scotland's EU membership have become untenable, it has been claimed, after the President of the European Council said new states would have to apply in the usual way.

 

Herman Van Rompuy said a newly independent state, breaking away from an existing EU member, would be classed as a "third country" and would have to apply using "the known accession procedures".

 

Mr van Rompuy said: "If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.

 

"In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory."

 

He said any European state could apply to join the EU "according to the known accession procedures" set out in Article 49."

Edited August 10, 2014 by kni

[P-R]

Here is the Herald link again with the key parts below.

 

The SNP, of course, disputes that very clear statement from Van Rumpuy,  the President of the EU Council that approves Membership applications. They claim that he is wrong and that university and and think tank wonks with no power or responsibility know better.

 

    "Van Rompuy torpedoes SNP claims on EU membership

 

THE SNP's plans to fast-track an independent Scotland's EU membership have become untenable, it has been claimed, after the President of the European Council said new states would have to apply in the usual way.

 

Herman Van Rompuy said a newly independent state, breaking away from an existing EU member, would be classed as a "third country" and would have to apply using "the known accession procedures".

 

Mr van Rompuy said: "If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.

 

"In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory."

 

He said any European state could apply to join the EU "according to the known accession procedures" set out in Article 49."

 

Yes, but why has Westminster not requested an official legal ruling on this rather than what's said in a press conference?

[jaggybunnet]

Yes, but why has Westminster not requested an official legal ruling on this rather than what's said in a press conference?

 

why, it is plain by what has been said that it isn't happening, at least they didn't do what eck did and lie

[P-R]

why, it is plain by what has been said that it isn't happening, at least they didn't do what eck did and lie

 

Would it hurt to ask?

[Norgethistle]

Would it hurt to ask?

 

It doesn't affect westminster, it affects holyrood so why haven't they asked

[P-R]

It doesn't affect westminster, it affects holyrood so why haven't they asked

 

As I understand it, Holyrood can't ask the question, the EU will only speak to Westminster about any legal advice.

[laukat]

So people in Scotland would be better to take a rUK passport? - Its would be up to each individual to decide. The option is there for them

 

Surely that would then need an agreement on immigration between rUK & iScotland as the passport holders would be rUK and not Scottish. - Agree and thats why you get to the need for a common travel area and it makes it difficult to see what use borders between Scotland and England would be in a practical sense as most of the people moving between Scotland and England would be fully entitled to do so. The border if England were to create one would be to prevent non-uk citizens who don't meet the UK entry requirements. Given the geography the only realistic points of entry to Scotland are via air or via boat. We don't have much in the way of international airports so most of the traffic into Scotland would already be vetted by another EU member or via the rUK. So it does make a nonsense of the idea of borders and the more sensible outcome would be an agreement on how we vet immigrants not the numbers we take in which is exactly what we have with Eire just now

 

The information I had heard regarding passports is a Scot would need to apply for a rUK with no guarantee to getting it - Link I posted earlier to the Herald article was reporting that the UK government would allow British Nationality to pass to their children. This is, as far as I gather and I'm no expert, standard practice under International law

[Norgethistle]

So people in Scotland would be better to take a rUK passport? - Its would be up to each individual to decide. The option is there for them

 

Surely that would then need an agreement on immigration between rUK & iScotland as the passport holders would be rUK and not Scottish. - Agree and thats why you get to the need for a common travel area and it makes it difficult to see what use borders between Scotland and England would be in a practical sense as most of the people moving between Scotland and England would be fully entitled to do so. The border if England were to create one would be to prevent non-uk citizens who don't meet the UK entry requirements. Given the geography the only realistic points of entry to Scotland are via air or via boat. We don't have much in the way of international airports so most of the traffic into Scotland would already be vetted by another EU member or via the rUK. So it does make a nonsense of the idea of borders and the more sensible outcome would be an agreement on how we vet immigrants not the numbers we take in which is exactly what we have with Eire just no

The UK's primary focus will be to control its borders, if Scotland's imigration policy is different to the UK's or the EU's then yes there will be border controls, there are currently 5 international airports in Scotland (Prestwick, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness & Edinburgh), I agree it may not make sense but if Scotland is seen as an easy entry to UK or EU then these will come in.

 

The information I had heard regarding passports is a Scot would need to apply for a rUK with no guarantee to getting it - Link I posted earlier to the Herald article was reporting that the UK government would allow British Nationality to pass to their children. This is, as far as I gather and I'm no expert, standard practice under International law

There hasn't really been a precedence for this in the last 50 years, this will probably need to be negotiated, this then leads on to the minefield of dual nationality as some may want both, and we now have countries refusing you to carry 2

[kni]

It doesn't affect westminster, it affects holyrood so why haven't they asked

 

It seems obvious to me. Holyrood (i.e. the governing SNP) knows what the answer will be and don't want it confirmed before the referendum.

[greg]

A big fat "YES" from me and John Lambie as well -

 

• 
   
  John Lambie adds to Team Yes managerial experience
   
   
  The footballing declarations for Yes Scotland continued as the campaign pulled-off the sensational signing of a Partick Thistle legend. John Lambie, who had three spells as the Maryhill club's manager said that Scots should not 'fear the future' and that Scotland is ready to 'take care of itself'.
  
• 
   
  Football couple make their pitch for a Yes vote
   
   
  Soccer couple Eddie Black and his wife Emma, who are leading figures in Scotland’s top women’s football club, have revealed their dearest goal – for their native country to win a Yes vote in the independence referendum in September. Glasgow City FC manager Eddie and defender Emma are a footballing husband and wife who share a...
  

[greg]

Here is the Herald link again with the key parts below.

 

The SNP, of course, disputes that very clear statement from Van Rumpuy, the President of the EU Council that approves Membership applications. They claim that he is wrong and that university and and think tank wonks with no power or responsibility know better.

 

"Van Rompuy torpedoes SNP claims on EU membership

 

THE SNP's plans to fast-track an independent Scotland's EU membership have become untenable, it has been claimed, after the President of the European Council said new states would have to apply in the usual way.

 

Herman Van Rompuy said a newly independent state, breaking away from an existing EU member, would be classed as a "third country" and would have to apply using "the known accession procedures".

 

Mr van Rompuy said: "If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.

 

"In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory."

 

He said any European state could apply to join the EU "according to the known accession procedures" set out in Article 49."

I have to disagree on this, if we separate (not break away) both parts because the whole populace are citizens of the EU would fall under article 48 and the treaties would be re-signed with both member states already fulfilling the criteria for membership

[kni]

I have to disagree on this, if we separate (not break away) both parts because the whole populace are citizens of the EU would fall under article 48 and the treaties would be re-signed with both member states already fulfilling the criteria for membership

 

Article 48 does not apply to enlargement. My earlier posts deal with that point in detail. Article 48 deals with amendments to the Treaty. Article 49 alone deals with enlargement .

 

Why do you think that you know better than the President of the EU Council (with specific responsibility for enlargement) who has set out out the legal position on that issue? Which part(s) of those Articles don't you understand?

[Jaggernaut]

The Graham Avery document is worse than tosh.

 

Article 48 deals with amendments to the Lisbon Treaty (aka The Treaty of the European Union) and Article 49 deals with enlargement. There is no such thing as "internal enlargement" and it certainly cannot be facilitated by Article 48.

 

Amendments to the Treaty (according to Article 48) can be made by a majority of the European Council. Article 49 requires all applications for Membership to be approved unanimously.

 

Right you are, kni.

 

Avery is, let me remind you, Honorary Director General of the European Commission, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels.

 

I think I'll respect his views on the affair rather than your academic, insightful criticism of it as "worse than tosh."

Edited August 11, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[kni]

Right you are, kni.

 

Avery is, let me remind you, Honorary Director General of the European Commission, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels.

 

I think I'll respect his views on the affair rather than your academic, insightful criticism of it as "worse than tosh."

 

Your head in still in the proverbial sand. Why do you think that anyone should believe Avery more than Van Rumpuy and Barroso?

 

Where are the legal opinions that say that Article 48 can be used for internal enlargement via qualified majority voting?

[Jaggernaut]

Your head in still in the proverbial sand. Why do you think that anyone should believe Avery more than Van Rumpuy and Barroso?

 

Where are the legal opinions that say that Article 48 can be used for internal enlargement via qualified majority voting?

 

No, you are simply adopting the unionist "nightmare" scaremongering tactic, when in fact the most likely outcome is that the EU would find the mechanism to facilitate a smooth continuation of membership for an independent Scotland.

 

See the debate here:

 

http://www.bbc.com/n...litics-25856657

 

You can believe the experts who you want. And you should not give too much credence to anything that Van Rumpuy and Barroso might have said; they clearly have other things on their mind. Politicians have told us that our airports could be bombed if we're independent, that our children will be denied medical care, and so on.

 

In any case, you appear to hate the EU, so why would it worry you so much if Scotland got kicked out? In fact, put your money where your mouth is, vote YES, and you might just get your dream scenario of independence outwith control by Brussels!

Edited August 11, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[kni]

http://www.bbc.com/n...litics-25856657

 

 

 

"Sir David Edward believed membership would require "relatively small" amendments to existing treaties."

 

So what amendments is he proposing? If they are small, why does not he spell them out?

 

All amendments would require the unanimous support of all Member States in the European Council. Spain and Belgium are two countries with significant incentives to oppose them.

 

If the amendments are required for key articles, e.g.49, some Member States (e.g. Ireland and France) may be legally obliged to hold a referendum.

 

 

"Professor Kenneth Armstrong, director of Cambridge University's Centre for European Legal Studies, told the committee that the proposed treaty amendment would be "legally implausible and incredibly politically risky".

 

Prof Armstrong said: "Article 49 (on accession) is the specific legal basis for dealing with an entity acquiring the status of being a member state of the EU.

 

"Article 48 (on treaty amendment) is to me legally implausible as it is a way of renegotiating the treaties between existing member states, and not with some other non-member state."

 

That is very clear and totally contradicts Graham Avery.

 

 

"Patrick Layden QC of the Scottish Law Commission said that the UN accepted Russia as the successor state when the Soviet Union broke up and the EU could regard the break up of the UK in a similar fashion."

 

Not according to the Treaty so the UN precedent (with its own rules) is totally irrelevant on a key EU legal point. What other parts of the the EU Treaty does the QC think can be ignored for political convenience or expediency?

Edited August 11, 2014 by kni

[Guy Incognito]

 

 

If this is genuinely from the YES campaign then it's lies as we have 2 in Stavanger alone run by the Salvation Army

 

It has almost certainly not been produced by the official Yes campaign and I suspect it is supposed to be illustrative more than anything.

 

British society is notoriously unequal and the gap between rich and poor continues to grow. It is a shame that some of us don't aspire to live in a society that is better than that. Apart from those of us who emigrate to Scandinavia, that is.

 

Don't believe everything that you read in the papers or on the internet. The story is based on an un-named "EU source" who must be a YES sympathiser.

 

Admitting Scotland is not Juncker's decision to make. A Membership application has to be approved unanimously by the EU Council (i.e. all Member States) which has its own President, Herman Van Rumpuy.

 

There is no provision for "special cases" in the Lisbon Treaty. Scotland would be treated like any other applicant and have to negotiate the terms of entry.

 

Any Member State can veto Scotland's application in the EU Council. The Spanish to do not want to create a precedent for Catalonia.

 

It appears that Juncker (or one of his officials) is trying to wind up Cameron, who opposed his appointment, with a load of nonsense.

 

I most certainly don't believe everything I read in the papers or on the internet, but when a largely pro-union paper like Scotland on Sunday prints an article like that then I think it is worth noting (although it could, I accept, be a red herring).

 

But if we take it at face value the article makes mention of a 'Brussels hierarchy' being unlikely to exclude Scotland from the EU. I can understand the political reasons behind a possible Spanish veto but would they really risk hindering their economy just to put Catalonia's gas at a peep?

 

Van Rompuy made a statement in December in respect of Catalonia and its independence referendum which is not recognised by the Spanish government (as opposed to our official, agreed by both parties, legal binding one) and he is quoted as saying this:

 

"If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.

 

"In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory."

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/van-rompuy-torpedoes-snp-claims-on-eu-membership.22950437

 

The bit in bold is quite interesting. The Scottish government has set out an 18 month period in which it hopes to negotiate Scotland's EU membership (amongst other things). Now, they are perhaps being optimistic with regards to timescales there, but it is possible that something could be sorted out within that space of time meaning that those loose ends could be tied up by the day of independence. Van Rumpuy's statement is anything but a clear indication that Scotland would have to apply afresh, particularly since he was referring to another situation altogether and one which isn't legally recognised by both parties at that.

 

Of course, Westminster could have put this to bed a long time ago and spiked Salmond's guns in the process. If what you are asserting is accurate then it makes me wonder why they haven't taken this golden opportunity to really 'torpedo' someone they must by now regard as a major foe. Perhaps they have and are just keeping it in cold storage until the time is right or perhaps they think that there is at least an outside chance that the answer they receive might not be the one they want to hear.

[Jaggernaut]

"Sir David Edward believed membership would require "relatively small" amendments to existing treaties."

 

So what amendments is he proposing? If they are small, why does not he spell them out?

 

All amendments would require the unanimous support of all Member States in the European Council. Spain and Belgium are two countries with significant incentives to oppose them.

 

If the amendments are required for key articles, e.g.49, some Member States (e.g. Ireland and France) may be legally obliged to hold a referendum.

 

 

"Professor Kenneth Armstrong, director of Cambridge University's Centre for European Legal Studies, told the committee that the proposed treaty amendment would be "legally implausible and incredibly politically risky".

 

Prof Armstrong said: "Article 49 (on accession) is the specific legal basis for dealing with an entity acquiring the status of being a member state of the EU.

 

"Article 48 (on treaty amendment) is to me legally implausible as it is a way of renegotiating the treaties between existing member states, and not with some other non-member state."

 

That is very clear and totally contradicts Graham Avery.

 

 

"Patrick Layden QC of the Scottish Law Commission said that the UN accepted Russia as the successor state when the Soviet Union broke up and the EU could regard the break up of the UK in a similar fashion."

 

Not according to the Treaty so the UN precedent (with its own rules) is totally irrelevant on a key EU legal point. What other parts of the the EU Treaty does the QC think can be ignored for political convenience or expediency?

 

You didn't answer my question about your dream scenario: your dream is to have an independent Scotland that is not "under control" of the EU, but now you are advocating that an independent Scotland might find itself excluded from EU, and that is a reason to vote "no."

 

You'll forgive me if I see more than a tad of incoherence in your posts.

[Norgethistle]

It has almost certainly not been produced by the official Yes campaign and I suspect it is supposed to be illustrative more than anything.

 

British society is notoriously unequal and the gap between rich and poor continues to grow. It is a shame that some of us don't aspire to live in a society that is better than that. Apart from those of us who emigrate to Scandinavia, that is.

 

 

The gap is growing here even after having a socialist government up to last year