Scottish independence, a lost cause?

[Jimbo30]

Of course this would be the best outcome for everyone. But the fact that Scotland's entry is conditional means there's room for bargaining - and since Mr Salmond is such a devoted European, perhaps he should be sharing some of that lovely oil wealth to help his less developed European partners? That's what a Bulgarian or Greek nationalist ought to ask for.

Scotland would have been a net contributor to the EU.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

On the flipside, Germany didn't have to reapply to the EU when absorbing East Germany. Algeria didn't lose it's (pre-pre-EU) membership when war broke out with France.

On top of that, no nation has ever been forcibly removed from the EU. No article exists for that purpose, actually.

The deciding factor would have been common sense. Scotland owns (or would have owned) 60% of the EU's oil reserves and 25% of the EU's fishing reserves. There are hundreds of thousands of EU citizens living and working in Scotland (not including Scots), and thousands of EU students taking advantage of our education system. The minute Scotland stopped being part of the EU, what happens to them?

The EU was never going to risk all of that by refusing the democratic will of the Scots people, which is basically the main principle that the EU is founded upon.

Germany didn't have to reapply because it was an existing member continuing. But the Algerian reference is very relevant and I should have thought of that. From the point of view of French/EU law, the Algerian departments are an integral part of the then EEC/Euratom/ECSC until '62. After independence, Algeria was no longer a member. Has Algeria ever say in the Council of Ministers or contributed to the budget? No. The External Action Service is quite clear on this point ( http://eeas.europa.eu/algeria/index_en.htm). Given that there is not, as you rightly say, a mechanism for Algeria or other states to leave the EU, we can conclude that membership ceases automatically on secession from a member state.

And when you say 'the EU will never risk all that', you forget that Bulgaria or Cyprus might decide their interests are different from the Union as a whole, and enlargement is exactly when such factors are legitimate.

 

[Jimbo30]

Germany didn't have to reapply because it was an existing member continuing.

No, the "existing member" was the FRG, not the new entity known as "Germany".

But the Algerian reference is very relevant and I should have thought of that. From the point of view of French/EU law, the Algerian departments are an integral part of the then EEC/Euratom/ECSC until '62. After independence, Algeria was no longer a member. Has Algeria ever say in the Council of Ministers or contributed to the budget? No. The External Action Service is quite clear on this point ( http://eeas.europa.eu/algeria/index_en.htm). Given that there is not, as you rightly say, a mechanism for Algeria or other states to leave the EU, we can conclude that membership ceases automatically on secession from a member state.

The war with France lasted years and Algeria *left* the EC, it was not removed. Voluntarily leaving is still the only way to get out of the EU.

And when you say 'the EU will never risk all that', you forget that Bulgaria or Cyprus might decide their interests are different from the Union as a whole, and enlargement is exactly when such factors are legitimate.

I don't forget anything. The simple fact of the matter is that the EU needs Scotland a lot more than we need the EU. There would never have been a vote because the EU could not risk the scenario of having Scotland refusing EU countries fishing, travel and citizenship rights. The instant Scotland was removed from the EU, nigh-on 500,000 EU nationals became refugees because we no longer had to house them by law.

It was never going to be allowed to happen and was never going to see a vote. It was just simple bluster and scaremongering.

 

[Jimbo30]

Germany didn't have to reapply because it was an existing member continuing.

No, the "existing member" was the FRG, not the new entity known as "Germany".

But the Algerian reference is very relevant and I should have thought of that. From the point of view of French/EU law, the Algerian departments are an integral part of the then EEC/Euratom/ECSC until '62. After independence, Algeria was no longer a member. Has Algeria ever say in the Council of Ministers or contributed to the budget? No. The External Action Service is quite clear on this point ( http://eeas.europa.eu/algeria/index_en.htm). Given that there is not, as you rightly say, a mechanism for Algeria or other states to leave the EU, we can conclude that membership ceases automatically on secession from a member state.

The war with France lasted years and Algeria *left* the EC, it was not removed. Voluntarily leaving is still the only way to get out of the EU.

And when you say 'the EU will never risk all that', you forget that Bulgaria or Cyprus might decide their interests are different from the Union as a whole, and enlargement is exactly when such factors are legitimate.

I don't forget anything. The simple fact of the matter is that the EU needs Scotland a lot more than we need the EU. There would never have been a vote because the EU could not risk the scenario of having Scotland refusing EU countries fishing, travel and citizenship rights. Or worse still, having us encouraging ties with Russia because of it (which I would not have put past us doing, just out of spite). The instant Scotland was removed from the EU, nigh-on 500,000 EU nationals became refugees because we no longer had to house them by law.

It was never going to be allowed to happen and was never going to see a vote. It was just simple bluster and scaremongering.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

"refusing the democratic will of the Scots people, which is basically the main principle that the EU is founded upon."

Come again?

The founding principle of the European Union is ever greater European integration, and when democratic will gets in the way; ignore it and force it through as a treaty instead (See Treaties Rome through Lisbon, but especially Lisbon)

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

No, the "existing member" was the FRG, not the new entity known as "Germany"./

There was no new entity. The Basic Law stated until 1990 that it was a temporary measure pending German reunification and laid out requirements for that process. It also had an article for the admission of new states, really aimed at Saarland and Berlin. In 1990 the reunification procedure was deliberately not used - East Germany divided itself into states which were admitted through the new states and the Basic Law was amended to state that is a temporary measure pending full European unity.

The war with France lasted years and Algeria *left* the EC, it was not removed. Voluntarily leaving is still the only way to get out of the EU.

Then where is the procedure by which it has done so? The acquis was much less developed then, but it existed, so Algerian must have been subject to it until legislation. Try declaring that Scots law no longer applies to you and then see how far you get.

I don't forget anything. The simple fact of the matter is that the EU needs Scotland a lot more than we need the EU. There would never have been a vote because the EU could not risk the scenario of having Scotland refusing EU countries fishing, travel and citizenship rights. The instant Scotland was removed from the EU, nigh-on 500,000 EU nationals became refugees because we no longer had to house them by law.

It was never going to be allowed to happen and was never going to see a vote. It was just simple bluster and scaremongering.

It's rather outside my expertise, but I believe the only other EU member to fish significantly in British/Scottish waters is Spain, which on point has, ahem, other fish to fry. The 500,000 EU nationals would indeed be upset, but the Scottish government would be in position to remove them because it's whole strategy is built around EU membership.

If you are negotiating to buy my car, you would be very foolish to threaten to harm my kids in order to get a better price - especially if I know you'll be fired if you don't have a car to get to work tomorrow morning.

Have you heard of the Luxembourg Compromise and the events which lead to it? I hope no one would ever be so stupid again, but there's precedent.

 

[Jimbo30]

There was no new entity. The Basic Law stated until 1990 that it was a temporary measure pending German reunification and laid out requirements for that process. It also had an article for the admission of new states, really aimed at Saarland and Berlin. In 1990 the reunification procedure was deliberately not used - East Germany divided itself into states which were admitted through the new states and the Basic Law was amended to state that is a temporary measure pending full European unity.

From the whitepaper -

Whilst the EU has never faced this precise scenario before, they have made pragmatic choices in the past. Notably with the reunification of Germany. East Germany and its approximately 14 million citizens, entered the EU overnight and without much in the way of negotiation - "Expansion without Accession".

In some ways, Scotland will see the opposite of this process. The number of EU member states will increase to 29 but the number of EU citizens will remain unchanged - "Accession without Expansion".

It's difficult to see any states having serious issue with this and indeed, even Spain has endorsed our membership so long as rUK endorses our independence.

Then where is the procedure by which it has done so? The acquis was much less developed then, but it existed, so Algerian must have been subject to it until legislation. Try declaring that Scots law no longer applies to you and then see how far you get.

There is no exact precedence for what Scotland was attempting to achieve. All we have is similar kinds of things with them going in either direction.

It's rather outside my expertise, but I believe the only other EU member to fish significantly in British/Scottish waters is Spain, which on point has, ahem, other fish to fry.

This is mostly true, and it's also why Spain had so much to say against it. However they stopped short of actually saying they would veto Scotland's membership. Why do that? Because it was all bluster. Spain's economy is a basket case already, they can't risk losing their fishing rights in Scotland's waters.

The 500,000 EU nationals would indeed be upset, but the Scottish government would be in position to remove them because it's whole strategy is built around EU membership.

It's not about being upset, it's about what Scotland has a legal right to do. If the EU kicks us out of the EU, what's stopping us kicking EU nationals out of Scotland? Where do they go?

If you are negotiating to buy my car, you would be very foolish to threaten to harm my kids in order to get a better price - especially if I know you'll be fired if you don't have a car to get to work tomorrow morning.

This is where most people get it all mixed up. We weren't negotiating. Are you now going to tell us how tiny and insignificant Scotland is and how it's laughable that we believe we can hold that power over the EU? If so I'm going to point out Denmark, and Sweden doing pretty much the same thing with far less actual power than Scotland has.

When both parties put all their cards on the table, they'd look at each other and say "wtf are we doing here?". It would never happen, there is zero to be gained by either party. Some recent Balkan EU entry was NOT going to be allowed to veto this, or Spain or anyone else. It's just simple logic.

 

[BvBPL]

Interestingly, some in Scotland alleged Scotland would stay a permanent veto member of the UN's Security Council had it declared independence.

 

[Arakhor]

Salmond was alternately promising the moon and the stars or threatening all and sundry with dire consequences if he didn't get what he wanted, whilst simultaneously shrugging off all opposition as Project Fear. The SNP could not possibly have been correct on many things they said, without everybody else either being mistaken or outright lying.

 

[Yeekim]

I'd like to complement Traitorfish's answer. Why did Estonia leave the Soviet union/Russian Empire then? It's even smaller than Scotland.

What's size got to do with it?
I might have made a wrong impression though, so I'll clarify a bit: I was in no way trying to ridicule the idea of independent Scotland per se. I was merely objecting to the notion that simply because Scotland could have gained independence by voting, Scots should have voted "aye!" - because "others have fought and died for such privilege!". That line of thought ignores that those who fought and died generally chose to because they were being violently oppressed.

 

[Traitorfish]

Salmond was alternately promising the moon and the stars or threatening all and sundry with dire consequences if he didn't get what he wanted, whilst simultaneously shrugging off all opposition as Project Fear. The SNP could not possibly have been correct on many things they said, without everybody else either being mistaken or outright lying.

This is a thing about the English, I've noticed, over this referendum: they think the Scots are stupid.

The promises of the Yes campaign were fanciful, self-evidently ridiculous; anyone can see that! So clearly, anyone who voted "yes" is, not to put too fine a point on it, a bit dense. So that's 45% down as dunces right off the bat. But, it follows, anyone who considered voting "yes", but ultimately voted "no" is equally stupid, merely cautious. So you're looking at 60% of Scots, minimum, consigned to the dunce's corner. And I'd wager that another 20% or so took the arguments of the Yes campaign seriously, even if they felt no temptation to vote in that direction, so they are at best credulous children. And given the age biases involved, we're only becoming more stupid over time, as the older "no"-leaning generation are replace by younger "yes"-leaners. What a nation of fools, we are, four out of every five men duller than sheep, and getting duller every day! How could we hope to govern ourselves, populated as we are by such halfwits and nincompoops! What a self-defeating proposition, this independence, the dream of fools.

So tell us more, dear Saxons, about the abiding fraternal love you feel towards your Northern brothers. But use simple words, if you can, for as you well know, we are but a simple folk.

 

[Arakhor]

I don't think the Scots are any more stupid than the English (or any other nation for that matter). I just don't believe what politicians claim most of the time and I certainly don't believe a single country (whether that's Scotland, the UK or any almost any other) can compel two other dozen countries to do exactly what they want without significant sacrifice (if at all).

 

[Jimbo30]

So how come countries like Denmark (same size as Scotland), Sweden (about twice the size of Scotland, still hardly a giant) and the UK got to opt-out of the single currency and defence?

What *I* noticed about the referendum is how so many people were willing to downplay Scotland at every opportunity, saying things like "Sweden and the UK get it but it's doubtful Scotland would". Really? Sweden is so much more powerful and important than Scotland that they can get an opt-out we can't? What exactly has Sweden got that we don't (apart from much better looking women, better weather, living conditions etc etc)?

And the Danes were able to hold the EU to ransom on money and defence, yet poor, tiny, stupid little Scotland who already has all of this in the UK would be forced to give it up and do everything the EU says instead?

That's what bugs me about it. THAT is why Salmond told the EU what would happen to its sea trade if they even thought about it.

 

[Arakhor]

An independent Scotland would be entitled to make silly threats like that. Cameron likes doing that sort of thing himself. It just won't work in the long run, especially as anyone trading with the EU will have to follow their guidelines for doing business, just as anyone does with China, the US and so on.

 

[Jimbo30]

It was, in fact, a political move. Most English people (including MP's) don't realise that Scots hate being told what to do, and doing that is likely to galvanise support against whoever is saying it.

You, as English, might not like to see Salmond telling the rest of you what to do, but we, as Scots, do like it when he stands up for us and tells the rest of you where to stick your threats. Note that this isn't just Salmond supporters and Yes voters who feel this way - all true Scots feel a sense of justice and absolutely hate being told what we can or cannot do.

 

[Flying Pig]

And no true Scotsman would say otherwise.

 

[Arakhor]

Whilst I am indeed almost as English as they come, I do have Scottish relatives, I've lived in Wales for a couple of years and I consider myself British.

To hear Quackers talk, all true Britons feel a sense of justice and absolutely hate being told what we can or cannot do, especially when it comes to the EU (but, strangely not to Westminster).

 

[Alba]

I am going to keep my post short and simple.

Will Scotland ever be free? Yes, Scotland could be free one day.

When? No-one knows. In my opinion, I think we could see a new referendum no later than 2020.

If Scotland gets Devolution Max, would that preserve and solidify the Union? In my opinion, no, it would still lead to independence.

Will Scotland actually get Devolution Max? No, they won't. Why would Westminster risk giving Scotland more powers which could have a negative impact on the rest of the UK? If we get "Devolution Anything", it will probably be the crappy Labour proposition of "Devolution Miniscule".

If Scotland did win the referendum, would they be denied from the EU? Probably not, I don't think the EU would be that stupid. Scotland is a small country, but it is a small and smart country with vast energy potential. Our exports are quite decent too. Then there is defence, it wouldn't be wise to give away vast swathes of the North Sea. You can't strip European citizenship off Scottish citizens, as we are already European citizens. Why would Brussels decrease their territory and market potential, making Scotland reapply for membership, costing billions of Euros, tons of useless paperwork and countless years of limbo, just to reaccept Scotland into the EU? That would be bonkers. If there was a technicality, then I am sure Scotland would be fast-tracked into the EU as soon as they could possibly can. There are contingency plans for these type of things, especially now.

Conclusion: Scotland would most likely be an independent country within 20 years.

Whilst I am indeed almost as English as they come, I do have Scottish relatives, I've lived in Wales for a couple of years and I consider myself British.

You're probably more Scottish than I am! I wasn't even born here. I was born in Somerset, England. I'm Scottish/Irish/English, and I am super proud of that. However, I don't consider myself British, and that is for political reasons. That doesn't make me a nationalist, as we all have identities. I will still wear my poppy with pride as Remembrance Day nears.

Edit: You know what; you can add my Welsh identity in there despite the fact that I have no Welsh connections, as I know of, whatsoever.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

"Will Scotland ever be free?"

It's like you're under a bootheel of some brutal dictator or something

 

[Alba]

Hey man, if we can get away from the Tories and live in a fairer country without the House of Lords, then that is freedom. For a start, I'd like to have the freedom of choice that actually allows me to settle in my own country with my non-EU spouse. Currently, I don't have that specific freedom.

An independent Scotland would have allowed my family to stay together in peace. The Union is dividing families with their ridiculous immigration laws. For some, we did see the referendum as an opportunity of freedom.

My Irish grandparents would understand too, after being burnt out of their homes by the British Army in 1939. Luckily my situation isn't as tough and extreme as that, but at the end of the day I am being denied to live where I consider home due to British politics. They moved to Glasgow, I moved to China. Oh, the joys of being a policy casualty!

Besides, the original poster asked the question.