Another vote t'other side of the Border.

[L00b]

No other country has joined the EU in less time and considering the Scottish do not want to join the Euro, they would not fulfill all the criteria to join. Then you have to understand the EU already has a busy workload and another country trying to join would need to join the queue.

On the notional speed of Scotland's accession, I think you'll find that political necessity can very easily become the mother of political expediency

Then you have to convince Spain to agree Scottish ascension, which they will not do in the first place.

That particular (Leavers') myth was debunked by the Spaniards not so long ago. I linked it in this or the Brexit consequences thread at the time.

There is no chance Scotland could, hold a referendum, detach itself from the UK, formally request to join the EU, have their application approved and then join in less than 2 years.

Agreed. But then, look at the timescale for achieving actual Brexit posited by the EU resolution leaked today. 5 years (2 years of Art 50 + 3 years transitional deal...and that's somewhat generous/optimistic, IMHO).

 

You might spare an extra thought for what Davis recently said about NI (reiterated by May at PMQ today, after a fashion) as well. Basically, "go join the Republic, keeps you in the EU" (which it would, based on the German reunification precedent).

had the rest of the uk voted to remain in the EU or Mrs May taken note of someone other than boris and liam then i doubt we would be talking about a second referendum now

We wouldn't. Per the SNP 2016 manifesto I linked, IndyRef2 was contingent on the dual test of the UK voting Leave and taking Scotland out of the EU against its will (which is met, since Scotland voted majoritarily Remain - had Scotland voted to Leave instead, no IndyRef2 as the manifesto dual test would not be met).

 

As I posted above, this is 100% on Cameron, May and the Leavers.

 

None of it lies at the feet of the SNP, they're only doing what they've been elected to do. Which is the quintessential expression of democracy and sovereignty, last I heard from Leavers

Edited March 29, 2017 by L00b

[Berberis]

maybe not, but as i've pointed out, given they already are Members then the body of scottish law and it's institutions should meet all the requirements for scotland to join, no other country has been in that position.

 

as far as the euro goes, then all the scottish government needs to do is give an assurance that it will once the economic criteria are met. given that will take decades to happen it's not much of promise to make.

 

an alternative, to EU membership would be either EFTA or EEA membership which would give pretty much all the things which Scotland wants with less of a downside.

 

Are you sure states can now join the EEA or the EFTA?

 

In regards to the Euro, you have to take it, no assurance of a future acceptance, the rules state:

 

Any country that satisfies the conditions for membership can apply. These conditions are known as the ‘Copenhagen criteria’ and include a free-market economy, a stable democracy and the rule of law, and the acceptance of all EU legislation, including of the euro.

 

If Scotland unceremoniously severed itself from the UK, this would make Scotland an un-stable democracy at the very least.

[L00b]

Are you sure states can now join the EEA or the EFTA?

Sure thing. See Norway, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Iceland.

 

EU membership is not compulsory for either/or (basically, EEA = EU in all but name; EFTA is more hands-off).

In regards to the Euro, you have to take it, no assurance of a future acceptance, the rules state

I won't prejudge of Scottish opinion in the matter, but adopting the € would be an easy solution to the problem of their financial independence from the UK. Criteria-wise, though...but well, again the EU is not adverse to fudging for the sake of political expediency

If Scotland unceremoniously severed itself from the UK, this would make Scotland an un-stable democracy at the very least.

 

I think stability is by reference to the sort of very young "democracies" you find in Eastern Europe and the Balkans (see e.g. Hungary, and Orban's seriously autocratic ruling style there), not in northern Europe.

 

Scotland has stability and democracy lessons to give to many of them.

[samssong]

I love the Scots and Scotland but the sooner they along with Northern Island leave the UK the better for all concerned .

[Hairyloon]

The government have listened and in the latest case also rejected and have only defied convention and not any law...

The entirety of our constitution is built on convention.

 

As far as the constitutional requirements are concerned in the make up of the UK and dealing with Scotland they were spelt out by the judge in the appeal court case.

 

Apparently they did not spell it out clearly enough for you. Or perhaps you should try reading what they actually said...

[andyofborg]

Are you sure states can now join the EEA or the EFTA?

 

i don't see why not, i believe the current snp plan is to join the eea as soon as possible following independence and possibly the eu at a later date.

 

being in the eea, gives many of the benefits of being in the eu.

 

In regards to the Euro, you have to take it, no assurance of a future acceptance, the rules state:.....

 

but in order to actually start to use it then there are inflation, debt, gdp and other such requirements. i believe the consensus is that scotland doesn't achieve them now and wouldn't for a long time.

 

all the scottish government has to do is say, when we meet these criteria we'll join.

 

If Scotland unceremoniously severed itself from the UK, this would make Scotland an un-stable democracy at the very least.

 

i'm not sure the plan is for an unceremonious severing but a proper one with all the bells, whistles and such like.

 

i'm not sure what the english government would do if scotland made a unilateral declaration of independence,

[apelike]

The entirety of our constitution is built on convention.

 

Its built on convention and constitutional law as we have just found out with the supreme court judgement, and Scotland being only devolved are bound by that law and convention.

 

Apparently they did not spell it out clearly enough for you. Or perhaps you should try reading what they actually said...

 

How about this from the President Lord Neuberger;

 

"On the devolution issue the court unanimously rules that UK ministers are not legally compelled to consult the devolved legislatures before triggering A50. The devolution statutes were enacted on the assumption that the UK will be a member of the EU but they do not require it. Relations with the EU are a matter of the UK government. The Sewel convention plays and important part in the operation of the UK constitution but the policing of its scope and operation is not a matter for the courts.

 

So to sum up.. The devolved legislatures do not have a veto on the UK's decision to withdraw from the EU.

[Hairyloon]

The Sewel convention plays and important part in the operation of the UK constitution but the policing of its scope and operation is not a matter for the courts.

You appear to be struggling with the distinction between law and convention. Ignoring convention is not illegal, but it is likely to be unconstitutional.

[apelike]

You appear to be struggling with the distinction between law and convention. Ignoring convention is not illegal, but it is likely to be unconstitutional.

 

If its not built into Scotland's constitutional rights under its devolution powers then its unlikely to be unconstitutional otherwise Sturgeon could and would be challenging it. The constitutional requirements have been met as its the UK and only the UK that has the power to trigger A50 because it was the UK that joined the EEC/EU. The UK has complete control over all foreign policy and that is clearly set out.

[Hairyloon]

Again the distinction between convention and law.