Reply to: Will Scottish independence mean that RUK will vote to leave the EU

[Flashman]

The best article on an independent Scotland and the EU that I've seen.

EU legal fog lets Scots bank on politics to keep them in | Reuters

.......Partial legal precedents cited for and against the Scottish case include Algeria, which kept some access to European markets for a time after it broke from France, Danish-ruled Greenland's exit from the EU and Kosovo's disputed statehood, as well as the EU's absorption of 16 million East Germans with minimal fuss.

Ultimately, however, it may be less lawyerly argument and more messy but flexible EU politics that win the day.

A compromise could prevent five million EU citizens being cast out against their will while easing fears in Spain and beyond that it opens a Pandora's Box of centrifugal spirits - Catalan, Basque, Flemish, Breton, Lombard and many besides.

"Whatever the lawyers say, this will come down to politics," said an official in Brussels who, like diplomats and bureaucrats across the bloc, would not be drawn into the campaign by talking publicly on what most of them hope remains a hypothetical issue.

"It's the EU way," the official said. "Whatever politicians eventually negotiate can be made to fit the texts.".......

[malvolio]

But they'll be using GBP in a currency union apparently

Yeah, right. Well nearly right, omit the word "union"...

[DiscoStu]

So that's around 10 year's elapsed once the current candidates - there's currently five of them, most of whom started in 2008 - have been accepted or not. Not really a good recipe for short term fiscal support then, is it...

But they'll be using GBP in a currency union apparently

[malvolio]

48, simple majority to get a proposal looked at, unanimous to pass it, if after 5 years one or more states do not, then a majority to pass it. Which is why 49 is a better bet, needs to comply and have a majority vote for the proposal.

So that's around 10 year's elapsed once the current candidates - there's currently five of them, most of whom started in 2008 - have been accepted or not. Not really a good recipe for short term fiscal support then, is it...

[tractor]

...

Are you sure Article 48 is majority - thought that had to be unanimous - as it involves a change to an already signed treaty.

Assuming Spain has a veto with Articles 48 and Articles 49, Spain is never going to allow iScotland in - or at least not until Scotland is so poor, that Catalan crap themselves. To do otherwise, would almost certainly set into action a sequence of events which would tear apart their own country.

International politics are about negotiation and give-and-take, but you can't negotiate if your offer means they have to commit political suicide, which is what will likely happen to the Spanish state if they let iScotland into the EU. Better to be pariahs in the EU for holding out, but at least the country is still in one piece.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas - no matter how good the terms are.

48, simple majority to get a proposal looked at, unanimous to pass it, if after 5 years one or more states do not, then a majority to pass it. Which is why 49 is a better bet, needs to comply and have a majority vote for the proposal.

[Brussels Slumdog]

Are you sure Article 48 is majority - thought that had to be unanimous - as it involves a change to an already signed treaty.

Assuming Spain has a veto with Articles 48 and Articles 49, Spain is never going to allow iScotland in - or at least not until Scotland is so poor, that Catalan crap themselves. To do otherwise, would almost certainly set into action a sequence of events which would tear apart their own country.

International politics are about negotiation and give-and-take, but you can't negotiate if your offer means they have to commit political suicide, which is what will likely happen to the Spanish state if they let iScotland into the EU. Better to be pariahs in the EU for holding out, but at least the country is still in one piece.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas - no matter how good the terms are.

If Scotland is not accepted in the EU then it can throw the EU savings directive in the waste paper basket. If Scotland chooses to become a new "Fiscal paradise" attracting Spanish and French milionaires then lets see if Spain or France use their veto. Do you really think that europe would like Scotland to become the new Switzerland?

[d000hg]

Are we guaranteed a referendum pre-election or is it only if the Tories get in again?

[Zero Liability]

One would hope so.

[centurian]

Articles 48 & 49 shoots that claim out of the water. 48 only needs a simple majority. It would be crass and spiteful of rUK to veto any application. Given the contributions potential of an independant Scotland vs the established economies of Greece, Italy and Spain or the lesser economies of the Balkland countries, the EU would welcome it with open arms if Scotland applied.

Are you sure Article 48 is majority - thought that had to be unanimous - as it involves a change to an already signed treaty.

Assuming Spain has a veto with Articles 48 and Articles 49, Spain is never going to allow iScotland in - or at least not until Scotland is so poor, that Catalan crap themselves. To do otherwise, would almost certainly set into action a sequence of events which would tear apart their own country.

International politics are about negotiation and give-and-take, but you can't negotiate if your offer means they have to commit political suicide, which is what will likely happen to the Spanish state if they let iScotland into the EU. Better to be pariahs in the EU for holding out, but at least the country is still in one piece.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas - no matter how good the terms are.

[Old Greg]

Scotland is rich according to GDP per head but it is only 5 million people, so it might be rich per head but has a small GDP and what counts is the total GDP. If you had a country of 10 people all earning 40 grand this would probably be the richest country in the EU (GDP per head) but would not get in the EU because no-one could be bothered with it.

What I like most about this whole debare is the line of reasoning that goes:

1. Scotland is in the Union.
2. Scotland is really rich.
3. Scotland gets nothing from the Union.
4. Scotland should leave the Union.

[alluvial]

Scotland is rich according to GDP per head but it is only 5 million people, so it might be rich per head but has a small GDP and what counts is the total GDP. If you had a country of 10 people all earning 40 grand this would probably be the richest country in the EU (GDP per head) but would not get in the EU because no-one could be bothered with it.

Exactly, this is how worldwide, the UK manages to have the most tornadoes per square mile.

[BlasterBates]

Scotland is rich according to GDP per head but it is only 5 million people, so it might be rich per head but has a small GDP and what counts is the total GDP. If you had a country of 10 people all earning 40 grand this would probably be the richest country in the EU (GDP per head) but would not get in the EU because no-one could be bothered with it.

[alluvial]

Bit more difficult to export unicorn electricity than oil though!

Nah, with a bit of Salmond Fairy Dust it can be magically transferred anywhere in the world instantaneously.

[DiscoStu]

Given the EU's green leanings, Scotland would win most favour by shutting down all oil production and establishing itself as a leading source of wind/wave/tidal/unicorns. I'm sure a couple of years ago that's what the SNP were pushing, but now it seems they're positioning themselves as the leading pusher of nasty black hydrocarbons and dooming the world to rapidly escalating temperatures and death*.




*So PJ Clarke says.

Bit more difficult to export unicorn electricity than oil though!

[VectraMan]

Do you really expect the EU to waive all their entry criteria on the basis of a small country claiming to have more oil than it has?

Given the EU's green leanings, Scotland would win most favour by shutting down all oil production and establishing itself as a leading source of wind/wave/tidal/unicorns. I'm sure a couple of years ago that's what the SNP were pushing, but now it seems they're positioning themselves as the leading pusher of nasty black hydrocarbons and dooming the world to rapidly escalating temperatures and death*.




*So PJ Clarke says.