Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

rpc

jamesd wrote: »

Yes, it would automatically case to be party to the NATO treaties, just like every other treaty the UK is party to. I assume it would seek admission.

They have said that they will seek membership and that this will be approved because of the strategic location of Scotland.

You could imagine (as every NATO member gets a veto over new members) that certain strings get attached. Such as bases for nuclear weapons, for example. NATO is, after all, a nuclear alliance.

Marazan

rpc wrote: »

They have said that they will seek membership and that this will be approved because of the strategic location of Scotland.

You could imagine (as every NATO member gets a veto over new members) that certain strings get attached. Such as bases for nuclear weapons, for example. NATO is, after all, a nuclear alliance.

There are plenty of NATO members without nuclear weapons of their own or Nuclear weapons of another power based in their territory.

rpc

Marazan wrote: »

There are plenty of NATO members without nuclear weapons of their own or Nuclear weapons of another power based in their territory.

There are.

And there is at least one NATO member, probably two, that has a veto over Scotland joining and that benefits from locating nuclear weapons in Scotland.

Most of the things the SNP plan to deliver post-Yes depend on agreement of a number of other countries. Each has their own agenda and will exploit the opportunity to progress their own ideas. The question that they ask on any of these topics won't be "is it right and proper that iScotland does X" and will be "what can we get out of this" - that's how international politics works...

With no proven history in intelligence/security, NATO membership might even be denied until the members are happy to grant security clearances to iScotland officials. COSMIC TOP SECRET and other clearances are not given lightly.

TCA

jamesd wrote: »

That fast-track breaches international law. Rajoy is correct. There is no need for a provision in EU Treaty laws because the expulsion is automatic under international law.

What governs is the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties. As a separating part of a state it automatically ceases to be a party to all of the treaties that its former parent was part of.

Scotland would automatically cease to be a member of the EU, with no action required by any EU member state to cause that to happen. To admit Scotland would then take a unanimous vote of the existing treaty participants, with any participant able to exercise a veto.

The fast-track might serve to fool some voters into thinking that it could happen, though.

If an independent Scotland wanted to stay within the EU without a gap it would need to arrange to meet the new EU member requirements in the time between a yes vote and separation. One of those is adopting the Euro as the currency.

Scotland would not cease to be a member or expelled from the EU the day after a Yes vote. The SNP have given a date for "Independence Day" some 18 months later and that won't be fixed either. So Scotland would remain part of the UK and therefore a member of the EU for some considerable time afterwards.

As for the Vienna Convention, it's completely ambiguous in its own right:

"This treaty has proven to be controversial largely because it distinguishes between "newly independent states" (a euphemism for former colonies) and "cases of separation of parts of a state" (a euphemism for all other new states). Article 16 states that newly independent states receive a "clean slate", whereas article 34(1) states that all other new states remain bound by the treaty obligations of the state from which they separated. Moreover, article 17 states that newly independent states may join multilateral treaties to which their former colonizers were a party without the consent of the other parties in most circumstances, whereas article 9 states that all other new states may only join multilateral treaties to which their predecessor states were a part with the consent of the other parties."

That aside, you seem to be of the opinion that people will do everything in their power to block Scotland's admission to the EU. I tend to believe the exact opposite and that there will be a political will amongst member states to facilitate continued membership.

Do you really believe that the EU would take away EU citizenship and rights for 5 million Scots while it reapplied? I just can't see it and as said above, they wouldn't need to anyway.

zagubov

TCA wrote: »

All that does is give an opinion as to how Scotland would apply for membership. Nowhere in there does it say Spain would veto any application. Try this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/barroso-scotland-ludicrous-remarks

"In seeking to frighten Scottish voters with dire predictions that the Spanish government might veto any Scottish EU membership application, he (Barroso) was, of course, merely mimicking identical declarations by David Cameron and the main Scottish unionist leaders. They have all stressed that Madrid would probably block Scotland for fear that otherwise the growing movement for Catalan independence would become irresistible.

But the language being used by the Spanish government does not support these dire predictions. In a recent interview the Spanish foreign minister, Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, stated that a Scottish EU application should be considered in the event of a Yes victory in the referendum. He went on to insist: "If Britain's constitutional order allows – and it seems that it does – Scotland to choose independence, we have nothing to say about this."

More strikingly he went out of his way to distance himself from suggestions that the Scottish and Catalan cases were inseparable for Madrid. "The two issues are 'fundamentally different'," he declared.

I can't imagine the EU kicking out Scotland, it would be like losing its five smallest member countries in one go (population-wise). In area it would be like losing the Czech republic or Benelux plus Cyprus.

Losing a giant chunk of its northern sea area would be far more important. Spain needs fish and germany needs oil that Putin can't cut off

And NATO needs a northern flank.

TCA

moneyfoolish wrote: »

From what I've read in the newspapers and heard on radio and TV, I'm pretty sure that Scotland will not be able to use the pound in the event of seperation and neither will it have any chance of joining the EU for some considerable time.

I'd buy another newspaper then. Scotland could use whatever currency it wants. They are being told by the Westminster parties that a currency union will never happen, but that doesn't stop them using the pound if they want.

The EU would welcome Scotland with open arms. Don't believe all this rubbish that's spouted. Do you seriously think they'd admit countries like Romania and Bulgaria, rife with economic and human rights issues, yet refuse a relatively wealthy country like Scotland?

Scotland fulfils all the Copenhagen criteria for membership of the EU by definition, because Scotland is already in the EU. Scotland has been part of the European Union since its creation in 1993 and has been subject to European law for over forty years. There is no precedent for a country being expelled from the EU, and the mere suggestion is contrary to the founding principle on which Europe is based: the right of all nations to self-determination.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26278237

innovate

TCA wrote:

The question to be asked of the EU is, in the event of a Yes vote on 18th September, what would be the process for admitting an independent Scotland to EU membership?

Very fair question to ask though afaik this question has been asked and answered countless times already in the EU parliament. Scotland would have to apply for membership.

TCA wrote:

That question could be asked by the UK government at any time.

It's been asked on this thread before: when has Alex Salmond asked the UK Government to ask the question, and why is he not making an issue out of the UK government not asking the question?

grey_gym_sock

jamesd wrote: »

If an independent Scotland wanted to stay within the EU without a gap it would need to arrange to meet the new EU member requirements in the time between a yes vote and separation. One of those is adopting the Euro as the currency.

no, the requirement is not adopting the euro immediately. it's agreeing to adopt it at an unspecified future date. but that doesn't actually force them to adopt it at any date. sweden are in the same position, and have even been judged to meet the convergence criteria, but have chosen not to adopt the euro regardless.

as for ppl suggesting that NATO might not want scotland as a member: are you kidding?

there are some real uncertainties about what independence would entail, but let's not exaggerate. i can see how this might !!!! off some scots. there's no need to stoop to the same tactics as the westminster politicians.

innovate

rpc wrote: »

Most of the things the SNP plan to deliver post-Yes depend on agreement of a number of other countries. Each has their own agenda and will exploit the opportunity to progress their own ideas. The question that they ask on any of these topics won't be "is it right and proper that iScotland does X" and will be "what can we get out of this" - that's how international politics works...

The Nats don't even seem to realise that their current problems (i.e. not getting everything they want in the UK) would get magnified by a huge factor if they were to go it alone in the EU, NATO, UN or any other international body.

They strike me a bit like a 10-year old who has been on the occasional travel with his long-distance lorry driver dad demanding to be given a licence to drive a lorry, after his mates at school vote for him to get the licence. The licence to be granted to him without him even needing to take a driving test, on the grounds that he has been up and down the A1 for most of the years of his life.

I am sure this will earn me a barrage of abuse from the Nats - just to prove my point.

Buzby

You're entitled to your opinion, even if you are wrong. I'm not a 'Nat' but I recognise the hardball that is being played by all sides and still note we have a Scottish Govt that has acted in my best interests ever since it was elected, and for a second term.

We've done away with toll bridges (what a farce!) no prescription charges (like Wales) free national bus travel and and a pride in not suffering from the nonsensical Westminster braying and politicking that hacks most folk off.

By steering such a steady course, they continue to amass the respect they deserve. Your analogies are as facile as the point you are not making - the problems you note are a side issue - I'd support independence for all England's regions - if they want it.

Scotland has no representation at Westminster, and never will - that's why we want change. 10yo boys wanting a driving licence it is not.