EU stabs Scotland in the back

[JFKvsNixon]

Thing that puzzles me is this. If Scotland have to apply to join the EU because their legal status has changed, doesn't the same principle apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

 

Surely our legal status has also altered as a result of this change?

 

We joined as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with our entry credentials being assessed as a single entity.

That would no longer be the case if Scotland votes yes, so how come the remaining substantially altered entity can remain in the EU and Scotland can't?

 

I'm guessing that we'd be still classed as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[dosxuk]

Thing that puzzles me is this. If Scotland have to apply to join the EU because their legal status has changed, doesn't the same principle apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

 

Surely our legal status has also altered as a result of this change?

 

We joined as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with our entry credentials being assessed as a single entity.

That would no longer be the case if Scotland votes yes, so how come the remaining substantially altered entity can remain in the EU and Scotland can't?

 

The United Kingdom, with all it's rights and responsibilities will still exist, just with a slightly altered border. It would be no different to Russia taking on the international status of the USSR when that broke up.

[mjw47]

I'm guessing that we'd be still classed as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

In which case what's the problem with Scotland remaining in the EU?

 

On the other hand, would we still be classed that way?

 

Great Britain is purely a geographical term meaning the land mass of England, Scotland and Wales.

Withdraw Scotland from the equation and surely it's no longer factually correct to refer to Great Britain?

 

Whilst it may only be a technicality, that's how lawyers get rich.

[shilling]

I'm guessing that we'd be still classed as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

Indeed it would. Salmond is on a hiding to nothing with this one. If Scotland joined the EU students from anywhere in the UK could apply to Scottish universities and get free tuition whilst those from Jockland would have to pay £9K to come here.

 

---------- Post added 17-02-2014 at 16:03 ----------

 

In which case what's the problem with Scotland remaining in the EU?

 

On the other hand, would we still be classed that way?

 

Great Britain is purely a geographical term meaning the land mass of England, Scotland and Wales.

Withdraw Scotland from the equation and surely it's no longer factually correct to refer to Great Britain?

 

Whilst it may only be a technicality, that's how lawyers get rich.

 

I don't think anyone in the EU is suggesting the the UK would cease to be a member, but they are suggesting Scotland would need to reapply, so I'm not seeing much scope for lawyers on this one.

[dosxuk]

On the other hand, would we still be classed that way?

 

Great Britain is purely a geographical term meaning the land mass of England, Scotland and Wales.

Withdraw Scotland from the equation and surely it's no longer factually correct to refer to Great Britain?

 

The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is a purely political term - even if we renamed ourselves "Bongo Bongo Land" we would still be the same political entity.

 

In which case what's the problem with Scotland remaining in the EU?

 

Scotland isn't a member the EU - it's not a recognised independent entity, so can't be a member of any political organisations.

 

-----

 

I don't understand why some people are having so much trouble with the idea that if you don't want to be a part of an existing group, all the benefits of being part of that group will stop being given to you and you'll have to renegotiate your position from scratch.

[I1L2T3]

I'm afraid your opinion counts for nothing. Can you provide any reason why you feel a Scottish currency would be so stable?

 

Spain may say its not their concern but that's not the same as being directly asked if they would oppose a Scottish application to become a member of the EU.

 

Mariano Rajoy the Spanish PM has warned against regions of Europe embarking on "solo adventures in an uncertain future".

 

Scottish independence: Spain blocks Alex Salmond's hopes for EU transition

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu

 

Salmond will have already considered whether Scotland will have it's own currency and also the prospect of not being in the EU for a time. Options will still be there in the background. He may give the Scots people choices over which way to go.

 

If they are pushed then they will walk away leaving us with their share of the debt. They'll also have a leaner less risky financial sector, their own fisheries and abundant natural resources as collateral for any borrowing. Inward investment would be unrestrained by EU law and they could join EFTA and brew up their own trade deals. They would probably be a bit like Iceland was after its default for a couple of years - stumbling to find their feet a little then hitting an upward curve.

 

All the scare stories look totally empty. There isn't any real substance to them and there is nothing that can't be overcome.

 

Spain promises non-interference:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/977a39ea-8c26-11e3-9b1d-00144feab7de.html

[L00b]

Thing that puzzles me is this. If Scotland have to apply to join the EU because their legal status has changed, doesn't the same principle apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

 

Surely our legal status has also altered as a result of this change?

 

We joined as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with our entry credentials being assessed as a single entity.

That would no longer be the case if Scotland votes yes, so how come the remaining substantially altered entity can remain in the EU and Scotland can't?

In which case what's the problem with Scotland remaining in the EU?

Simplest way to answer this, is to consider the issue of sovereignty and that -all devolved that it may already be- Scotland is not completely independent from the UK as a jurisdiction currently.

 

Most of the 'special laws and sub-laws' which Scotland has kept and/or currenly enjoys relative to the rest of the UK, are originally or eventually cross-referenced to Acts of Parliament as the top level of national legislation.

 

That's one of the reasons why, factually, the person who signs on the EU's dotted lines on behalf of the current UK (including Scotland) was, and still is, the British (UK's) PM.

 

Scotland, by voting for independence from the UK, would become an independent and sovereign country having its own jurisdiction.

 

It would become a "new country", to the same extent as e.g. the US became a "new country" in 1776 (it was a collection of colonies until then), and Ireland in 1922. It would need, and get, its own laws - probably copied verbatim from current UK Acts of Parliaments, to ease institutional and practical continuity of affairs.

 

As such, it could not continue to be bound in (international-) law by the former signature of the head of state of another sovereign jurisdiction, lest there still remains some form of legal dependence which gives that (UK-) head of state the relevant powers to still sign for and on behalf of Scotland.

 

So, a newfangled Scottish head of state (President or PM) would need to sign on the EU's dotted lines. Afresh.

 

As it's the British PM who has signed all the EU dotted lines so far, under the auspices and purview of the Parliament for and on behalf of the UK, even if the UK was eventually down to England alone, it would still be England who'd be the EU member, with the others bearing the burden of applying. Hey-ho, can't have your cake and eating it, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah

 

It's actually very significantly more complicated than the above, but that's the abridged (and heavy with shortcuts and analogies) Forum-friendly explanation.

 

The alternative would be for the EU to amend its Base Treaty (and any further legal instruments down from that), before Scotland becomes independent, to include a "grandfathering" clause under which breakaway regions/states (à la Scotland) could "inherit" EU membership when they accede to their independence. And we all have a fair idea about how likely such an amendment would be to get voted in

Withdraw Scotland from the equation and surely it's no longer factually correct to refer to Great Britain?

Medium Britain, then?

[Blaschka]

All the people of the Channel Islands who are UK citizens are also EU citizens but that doesn't mean an independent Alderney would qualify for EU membership, particularly if it couldn't demonstrate a stable currency.

 

This is totally untrue.

 

The Channel Islands are not in the EU and neither is the Isle of Man. They never have been.

 

Neither are they part of the United Kingdom. They are self-governing British Crown Dependencies.

[mjw47]

 

 

 

Scotland isn't a member the EU - it's not a recognised independent entity, so can't be a member of any political organisations.

 

-----

 

I don't understand why some people are having so much trouble with the idea that if you don't want to be a part of an existing group, all the benefits of being part of that group will stop being given to you and you'll have to renegotiate your position from scratch.

 

Personally speaking I'm not having any problem .

 

Simply pointing out that if Scotland leaves the UK it alters the dynamics of that which remains, doesn't it?

 

We were accepted into the EU as a whole entity which included Scotland, a not inconsiderable land mass and asset owner.

 

If you joined a gym/sports club and paid your membership only to find out a few weeks later that they had sold off the swimming pool, and you no longer had use of it, you would be entitled to renegotiate your contract on the basis that you had had the terms altered without your permission.

 

Effectively that is where the EU find themselves. They agreed to us joining as the UK, if part of it goes missing does the original agreement still apply?

[dosxuk]

Personally speaking I'm not having any problem .

 

Not referring specifically to you - a certain Mr Salmond seems to be having the biggest issues.

 

Simply pointing out that if Scotland leaves the UK it alters the dynamics of that which remains, doesn't it?

 

Politically - no. Culturally, yes, but as a political entity, the UK will still exist with the same head of state, laws, and everything else which goes to define a country.

 

We were accepted into the EU as a whole entity which included Scotland, a not inconsiderable land mass and asset owner.

 

If an earthquake was to cause Scotland to sink into the ocean, would that redefine the UK?

 

If you joined a gym/sports club and paid your membership only to find out a few weeks later that they had sold off the swimming pool, and you no longer had use of it, you would be entitled to renegotiate your contract on the basis that you had had the terms altered without your permission.

 

Effectively that is where the EU find themselves. They agreed to us joining as the UK, if part of it goes missing does the original agreement still apply?

 

A better example would be if you joined a gym which is part of a group and allow you to use all the facilities of the gyms in the group. A few weeks later the owner of your gym leaves the group - should the members of your gym expect to still be able to access the now non-affiliated gyms.

 

Yes, some members may want out of their membership, probably to go and join the remaining members of the group - something which would be very bad for Scotland.