Scottish Independence

dlouth15 · 20-02-2014 12:08am

First Up wrote: »

They don't have to argue it, nor does their argument have to "cut it". Each member has the power of veto if it believes admitting a candidate country would damage it's interests. Spain or Belgium could well feel that admitting Scotland would cause them problems and they would be entitled to use their veto in that case.

But remember that Scotland as part of the UK has been a long standing member of the EU. If they gain independence they will have already have implemented all the EU laws. There will little to negotiate in terms of the normal criteria for entry into the EU and most states will be happy to have Scotland as a member. The EU as a whole will look bad if they try to exclude Scotland after a yes vote.

That is why I believe Barroso can say what he likes now in an attempt to influence the referendum, but that afterwards things will change.

There is also the legal obligation of states to negotiate in good faith and I can't see the position you're assuming Spain would adopt post referendum to be such.

Godge · 20-02-2014 1:02am

dlouth15 wrote: »

I would expect some of these countries to pipe up prior to the referendum in September in an attempt to influence the vote, but I think it's important to remember that post referendum, should the Scots vote yes, these countries will be required under EU law to negotiate Scotland's entry in good faith[/I]. Arguing that an already independent Scotland can't join because of the Basques or the Walloons or what have you won't cut it. It is, after all, not Scotland's fault that some of these countries have problems with separatist movements.

Can you explain and reference which parts of the EU Treaty require these negotiations in "good faith". I am not familiar with them even though I do know some European law.

dlouth15 wrote: »

But remember that Scotland as part of the UK has been a long standing member of the EU. If they gain independence they will have already have implemented all the EU laws. There will little to negotiate in terms of the normal criteria for entry into the EU and most states will be happy to have Scotland as a member. The EU as a whole will look bad if they try to exclude Scotland after a yes vote.

That is why I believe Barroso can say what he likes now in an attempt to influence the referendum, but that afterwards things will change.

There is also the legal obligation of states to negotiate in good faith and I can't see the position you're assuming Spain would adopt post referendum to be such.

On what basis are you saying that most state will be happy to have Scotland as a member?

Even if that is true, why do you think that is enough when one state alone can veto?

First Up · 20-02-2014 10:21am

dlouth15 wrote: »

But remember that Scotland as part of the UK has been a long standing member of the EU. If they gain independence they will have already have implemented all the EU laws. There will little to negotiate in terms of the normal criteria for entry into the EU and most states will be happy to have Scotland as a member. The EU as a whole will look bad if they try to exclude Scotland after a yes vote.

That is why I believe Barroso can say what he likes now in an attempt to influence the referendum, but that afterwards things will change.

There is also the legal obligation of states to negotiate in good faith and I can't see the position you're assuming Spain would adopt post referendum to be such.

Not necessarily. Scotland's current adherence to the requirements for EU membership - the now 35 chapters of Community Law (Acqui Communitaire) - takes places under the laws of the United Kingdom and in many areas under UK-wide administration and management. All of these functions will have to be not only replicated in Scotland, but will have to take place within a new wholly Scottish legal framework that must itself pass scrutiny under the AC.

It should be easier for Scotland to get up to speed on this than say, Albania but it still has to be done and it is by no means certain that an independent Scotland (presumably led by the SNP) wouldn't have its own views or policies that may not all sit comfortably with EU law.

I don't know what you mean by "negotiate in good faith". EU accession involves two phases - technical (conformance with the Acqui) and political (acceptance by member states). No member state is obliged to treat Scotland any more preferably than any other applicant. As well as the internal secession issues already mentioned, it is likely that some members will be concerned about how this plays with countries on their own borders. For example Croatia and Greece both border some Balkan applicants/candidates and will be looking for even handed treatment for them.

By declaring independence, Scotland will have withdrawn itself from the EU. It cannot expect the door to be held open while it decides if and how it wants to come back in.

dlouth15 · 20-02-2014 12:07pm

First Up wrote: »

Not necessarily. Scotland's current adherence to the requirements for EU membership - the now 35 chapters of Community Law (Acqui Communitaire) - takes places under the laws of the United Kingdom and in many areas under UK-wide administration and management. All of these functions will have to be not only replicated in Scotland, but will have to take place within a new wholly Scottish legal framework that must itself pass scrutiny under the AC.

It should be easier for Scotland to get up to speed on this than say, Albania but it still has to be done and it is by no means certain that an independent Scotland (presumably led by the SNP) wouldn't have its own views or policies that may not all sit comfortably with EU law.

I think you're clutching at straws here. The newly independent Scotland will assume all existing laws of the United Kingdom until they start legislating for their own. This includes all existing EU legislation. You need to explain in what way, specifically, that the new system would fail to pass muster.

I don't know what you mean by "negotiate in good faith". EU accession involves two phases - technical (conformance with the Acqui) and political (acceptance by member states). No member state is obliged to treat Scotland any more preferably than any other applicant. As well as the internal secession issues already mentioned, it is likely that some members will be concerned about how this plays with countries on their own borders. For example Croatia and Greece both border some Balkan applicants/candidates and will be looking for even handed treatment for them.

I haven't seen anything specific to suggest that Scotland would fail on the technical side but I'm happy to look at realistic possibilities. Remember we need to find things that can't be fixed here.

On the political side, by good faith I mean that negotiators are required to negotiate within the spirit of the EU not merely their own narrow national interests. Remember that Scotland will still be part of the UK while much of the preliminary negotiations are taking place.

By declaring independence, Scotland will have withdrawn itself from the EU. It cannot expect the door to be held open while it decides if and how it wants to come back in.

Whilst I think that it probable, it is not definite. There have been no cases to date of member states splitting in the way that would happen in the event of a yes. The problem is that there's an application process and then a two year waiting period for countries wishing to leave the EU. The idea that a territory can leave overnight simply by splitting from a parent country makes a mockery of this. What about the EU citizenship rights of the country leaving that the rules are meant to protect? These are issues that will arise in the aftermath of a yes vote should one occur.

A Dub in Glasgo · 20-02-2014 12:14pm

Which takes us back to what was said 4 days ago but some posters continue to post the opinion of Barroso as legal fact backed up with their legal fact

el pasco · 20-02-2014 12:18pm

Manach wrote: »

Post-independence Scotland might then have to deal with further separatist with parts of the Highlands or Orkneys (which historically have been different entities from the Lowlands) seeking greater autonomy from Edinburgh.

I know many scots and that issues is mainly made up by English trying to stop the indepence movement it'll be like saying that England or Wales would split up
There is some difference but they're only regional and not enough to destroy Scotland as a while IMHO

el pasco · 20-02-2014 12:40pm

Would Scottish indepence not affect England more than Scotland as the whole British thing will be gone and the mindset of Britain as a world power will be gone
It will affect the blue Home Counties the most I think

First Up · 20-02-2014 1:21pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

I think you're clutching at straws here. The newly independent Scotland will assume all existing laws of the United Kingdom until they start legislating for their own. This includes all existing EU legislation. You need to explain in what way, specifically, that the new system would fail to pass muster.

I haven't seen anything specific to suggest that Scotland would fail on the technical side but I'm happy to look at realistic possibilities. Remember we need to find things that can't be fixed here.

On the political side, by good faith I mean that negotiators are required to negotiate within the spirit of the EU not merely their own narrow national interests. Remember that Scotland will still be part of the UK while much of the preliminary negotiations are taking place.

Whilst I think that it probable, it is not definite. There have been no cases to date of member states splitting in the way that would happen in the event of a yes. The problem is that there's an application process and then a two year waiting period for countries wishing to leave the EU. The idea that a territory can leave overnight simply by splitting from a parent country makes a mockery of this. What about the EU citizenship rights of the country leaving that the rules are meant to protect? These are issues that will arise in the aftermath of a yes vote should one occur.

"According to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which constitutes the legal basis for any accession, the EU is open to all European countries. However, in order to join the EU, the applicant country must adhere to the principles of Article 6(1) TEU which all the Member States subscribe to and on which the EU is based: freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.

Under Article 49 of the TEU, any European country wishing to join the EU shall apply to the Council which, before taking a decision, must consult the Commission and ask the European Parliament for a favourable opinion adopted by an absolute majority of its members. The Council then makes its decision unanimously.

The Member States and the applicant country come to an agreement on the conditions for accession and adaptation of the treaties and institutions which are entailed by accession. This agreement, or Accession Treaty, is subject to ratification by all the signatory States."

You seem to assume that the status quo will prevail until Scotland decides otherwise. As the above extract from EU legislation shows, that is not and cannot be the case. Scotland as an entity has no status in the EU, other than as part of the United Kingdom. Once Scotland leaves the United Kingdom and becomes a separate sovereign state, it ceases to be a member of the EU, until such time as it is re-admitted in its own right. That is not clutching at anything. It is just pointing out the facts.

If (in the unlikely event that) Scotland votes yes, there will of course be a transition period (I think the SNP has proposed three years) during which this will be sorted. Scotland will continue to be an EU member during that time (unless it is dragged out by a UK referendum in the meantime.)

Presumably Scotland's exit negotiations with England, Wales and N.I will be conducted in parallel with Scotland's entry negotiations with the EU. It is possible that this will happen while the UK is negotiating its own exit from the EU. Meanwhile EU accession talks will continue with other candidate countries, each with its own issues, complications and regional implications. To think Scotland will be treated as a special case is naive in the extreme.

There is no precedent and I don't know any more than you do, how it will turn out. All Barroso has done is point out that in an EU context, this is a lot more complex than some people want to think.

el pasco · 20-02-2014 2:00pm

First Up wrote: »

"According to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which constitutes the legal basis for any accession, the EU is open to all European countries. However, in order to join the EU, the applicant country must adhere to the principles of Article 6(1) TEU which all the Member States subscribe to and on which the EU is based: freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.

Under Article 49 of the TEU, any European country wishing to join the EU shall apply to the Council which, before taking a decision, must consult the Commission and ask the European Parliament for a favourable opinion adopted by an absolute majority of its members. The Council then makes its decision unanimously.

The Member States and the applicant country come to an agreement on the conditions for accession and adaptation of the treaties and institutions which are entailed by accession. This agreement, or Accession Treaty, is subject to ratification by all the signatory States."

You seem to assume that the status quo will prevail until Scotland decides otherwise. As the above extract from EU legislation shows, that is not and cannot be the case. Scotland as an entity has no status in the EU, other than as part of the United Kingdom. Once Scotland leaves the United Kingdom and becomes a separate sovereign state, it ceases to be a member of the EU, until such time as it is re-admitted in its own right. That is not clutching at anything. It is just pointing out the facts.

If (in the unlikely event that) Scotland votes yes, there will of course be a transition period (I think the SNP has proposed three years) during which this will be sorted. Scotland will continue to be an EU member during that time (unless it is dragged out by a UK referendum in the meantime.)

Presumably Scotland's exit negotiations with England, Wales and N.I will be conducted in parallel with Scotland's entry negotiations with the EU. It is possible that this will happen while the UK is negotiating its own exit from the EU. Meanwhile EU accession talks will continue with other candidate countries, each with its own issues, complications and regional implications. To think Scotland will be treated as a special case is naive in the extreme.

There is no precedent and I don't know any more than you do, how it will turn out. All Barroso has done is point out that in an EU context, this is a lot more complex than some people want to think.

The notion that Scotland will not be allowed in the EU is a joke
If Scotland isn't allowed in the English anti EU voice will get very loud as they will want to leave too
Also will the Anti EU voice in Finland Denmark Sweden etc
The EU will fall apart over night then IMHO

dlouth15 · 20-02-2014 3:10pm

First Up wrote: »

You seem to assume that the status quo will prevail until Scotland decides otherwise.

No. And nor have I tried to argue that here. There is a small possibility that Scotland along with the rest of the UK could retain EU membership by means of a change of existing treaties. The UK will need treaty change anyway as it will become a smaller entity will less voting rights.

But even though this is unlikely, much of the argument against Scotland is overblown. Sure they will most likely have to negotiate their way in the same way as an accession state would, but the fact that they are currently part of a larger state already in the EU will make this process easier and not harder.

As the above extract from EU legislation shows, that is not and cannot be the case. Scotland as an entity has no status in the EU, other than as part of the United Kingdom. Once Scotland leaves the United Kingdom and becomes a separate sovereign state, it ceases to be a member of the EU, until such time as it is re-admitted in its own right. That is not clutching at anything. It is just pointing out the facts.

The clutching of straws was your claim that technical issues concerning EU legislation under a Scottish parliament would be a major issue. This is where I would disagree most strongly. Of all the states wishing to gain entry, an independent Scotland with UK and EU legislation already as part of Scottish legislation would likely have the least legislative issues to contend with.

If (in the unlikely event that)

though looking slightly less unlikely recently

Scotland votes yes, there will of course be a transition period (I think the SNP has proposed three years) during which this will be sorted. Scotland will continue to be an EU member during that time (unless it is dragged out by a UK referendum in the meantime.)

Presumably Scotland's exit negotiations with England, Wales and N.I will be conducted in parallel with Scotland's entry negotiations with the EU. It is possible that this will happen while the UK is negotiating its own exit from the EU. Meanwhile EU accession talks will continue with other candidate countries, each with its own issues, complications and regional implications. To think Scotland will be treated as a special case is naive in the extreme.

Sure they may well have to adhere to the formality as ordinary potential accession states but I think the naive thing is to believe that the situation is identical to that in practical terms. There are a whole variety of complications that arise should Scotland be excluded for any length of time that don't arise in the case of a region that has never been part of the EU. The member states will be keen to avoid these complications. I'm not saying it will be easy but rather that this needs to be balanced against very particular local considerations like Catalonia.

There is no precedent and I don't know any more than you do, how it will turn out. All Barroso has done is point out that in an EU context, this is a lot more complex than some people want to think.

What he said was that it would be next to impossible for Scotland to gain entry to the EU. I would regard this as not merely a simplification but downright wrong. Certainly he is not arguing the nuances of the situation here.

Harry Angstrom · 20-02-2014 3:39pm

el pasco wrote: »

Would Scottish indepence not affect England more than Scotland as the whole British thing will be gone and the mindset of Britain as a world power will be gone
It will affect the blue Home Counties the most I think

Britain has long ceased to be a world power. Hanging on to the coat-tails of the Americans does not a world power make.

First Up · 20-02-2014 3:44pm

Are you deliberately misquoting me, or just mis-understanding what I'm saying?

Where did I say being part of an existing member would make it harder? I clearly said that they would be able to get up to speed faster than new accession countries like Albania for example. I am just saying that Scotland will still have to go through the same line by line process as new members, not be waved in automatically or on a fast track.

Nor did I say technical issues would be a major problem. I said that it is by no means certain that a nationalist SNP agenda would not have areas of difference from what was accepted by the UK. We won't know that until we see a draft constitution but presumably there is no point in demanding independence unless you want to be different in some way. Let's see.

There is no provision in current EU law for internal secession in a member state. We are in uncharted water. The EU will be looking at this not just in relation to Scotland but in relation to the many other scenarios that could arise in the future. That will not be quick - or easy.

And you might also quote (and interpret) Barroso accurately. He did not say it would be impossible for Scotland to gain entry. He said he thought it would be extremely difficult or even impossible to get approval of all other member states. Your spin makes it sound like he was blocking entry. All he was doing was pointing to the political realities in some member states.

Harry Angstrom · 20-02-2014 3:48pm

First Up wrote: »

There is no provision in current EU law for internal secession in a member state. We are in uncharted water. The EU will be looking at this not just in relation to Scotland but in relation to the many other scenarios that could arise in the future. That will not be quick - or easy.

So how come Barroso seems so sure of himself, when no precedent exists?

Unless he has his own agenda.....

dlouth15 · 20-02-2014 4:05pm

First Up wrote: »

And you might also quote (and interpret) Barroso accurately. He did not say it would be impossible for Scotland to gain entry. He said he thought it would be extremely difficult or even impossible to get approval of all other member states. Your spin makes it sound like he was blocking entry. All he was doing was pointing to the political realities in some member states.

But the only conclusion to be drawn from what he said is that it would indeed be next to impossible for Scotland to be in the EU after independence. No I didn't say that he personally would block entry but rather that he said that entry would be blocked.

This is very much something he's not in a position to know at this stage and is a gross simplification of matters.

First Up · 20-02-2014 4:10pm

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

So how come Barroso seems so sure of himself, when no precedent exists?

Unless he has his own agenda.....

Did you see the interview?

DEFTLEFTHAND · 20-02-2014 4:13pm

el pasco wrote: »

Would Scottish indepence not affect England more than Scotland as the whole British thing will be gone and the mindset of Britain as a world power will be gone
It will affect the blue Home Counties the most I think

I'm sure there's people in England very keen to see the back of them also. The Home counties would probably give them everything north of the Watford Gap as well if they'd take it.

First Up · 20-02-2014 4:15pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

But the only conclusion to be drawn from what he said is that it would indeed be next to impossible for Scotland to be in the EU after independence. No I didn't say that he personally would block entry but rather that he said that entry would be blocked.

This is very much something he's not in a position to know at this stage and is a gross simplification of matters.

The conclusion to be drawn from what he said is that he believes it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to get all member states to agree. Would you agree that he is (a) entitled to an opinion on this and (b) that he might be in a better position to form an opinion seeing as he is constantly in contact with political leaders in the member states?

If this is what he believes, would you rather he answered the question with a lie?

Harry Angstrom · 20-02-2014 4:17pm

First Up wrote: »

The conclusion to be drawn from what he said is that he believes it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to get all member states to agree. Would you agree that he is (a) entitled to an opinion on this and (b) that he might be in a better position to form an opinion seeing as he is constantly in contact with political leaders in the member states?

If this is what he believes, would you rather he answered the question with a lie?

Or (c) He's scared sh!tless of the repercussions of a "Yes" vote, and what it would mean for the Basque Country and Catalonia.

First Up · 20-02-2014 4:32pm

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Or (c) He's scared ****less of the repercussions of a "Yes" vote, and what it would mean for the Basque Country and Catalonia.

Scared ***less is your term. Some might say he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't think about the consequences of such matters a bit more deeply than some I can think of.

Harry Angstrom · 20-02-2014 4:40pm

First Up wrote: »

Scared ***less is your term. Some might say he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't think about the consequences of such matters a bit more deeply than some I can think of.

Doing his job? We're talking about a bunch of self-interested arrogant Eurocrats. We saw how they treated this country with absolute disdain during the financial crisis. It's ironic that the IMF showed more empathy towards us than our supposed EU friends.

Godge · 20-02-2014 5:01pm

el pasco wrote: »

The notion that Scotland will not be allowed in the EU is a joke
If Scotland isn't allowed in the English anti EU voice will get very loud as they will want to leave too
Also will the Anti EU voice in Finland Denmark Sweden etc
The EU will fall apart over night then IMHO

What anti-EU voice in Finland or Sweden?

First Up · 20-02-2014 5:09pm

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Doing his job? We're talking about a bunch of self-interested arrogant Eurocrats. We saw how they treated this country with absolute disdain during the financial crisis. It's ironic that the IMF showed more empathy towards us than our supposed EU friends.

I love a rational, informed debate.

Godge · 20-02-2014 5:10pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

But the only conclusion to be drawn from what he said is that it would indeed be next to impossible for Scotland to be in the EU after independence. No I didn't say that he personally would block entry but rather that he said that entry would be blocked.

This is very much something he's not in a position to know at this stage and is a gross simplification of matters.

Well, for anyone who has more than a tiny snippet of information about Belgium would realise that for the Belgian national government, admitting Scotland is a nightmare. Here is a TIME article on the issue to set you on your way.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2000517,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/01/589-days-with-no-elected-government-what-happened-in-belgium/

As for Spain, have a read of this:

http://www.dw.de/catalonia-wants-choice-on-independence-from-spain-despite-rajoy-warning/a-17290361

dlouth15 · 20-02-2014 8:11pm

Godge wrote: »

Well, for anyone who has more than a tiny snippet of information about Belgium would realise that for the Belgian national government, admitting Scotland is a nightmare. Here is a TIME article on the issue to set you on your way.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2000517,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/01/589-days-with-no-elected-government-what-happened-in-belgium/

Again, what has Scotland got to do with Belgium's lack of ability to conduct its affairs? Everyone knows Belgium is a basket case. Scotland's entry won't change that one way or the other.

First Up · 20-02-2014 8:38pm

If you haven't got the point after the number of times it has been explained already, I don't think there is anything to be gained by explaining it again.

dlouth15 · 20-02-2014 9:25pm

First Up wrote: »

If you haven't got the point after the number of times it has been explained already, I don't think there is anything to be gained by explaining it again.

I'm afraid your points don't stand up to a huge amount of scrutiny so forgive me if I don't take them into consideration. Am I to take it so that you believe that Belgium's inability to manage itself and its divisions is a legitimate reason to exclude Scotland from the EU?

First Up · 20-02-2014 9:31pm

If you are the Belgian government, quite possibly yes.
And if that is still too hard, the only word you need to understand is veto.

Dozen Wicked Words · 20-02-2014 9:34pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

I'm afraid your points don't stand up to a huge amount of scrutiny so forgive me if I don't take them into consideration. Am I to take it so that you believe that Belgium's inability to manage itself and its divisions is a legitimate reason to exclude Scotland from the EU?

The point is, I think, the division there and in Spain would make both countries less likely to vote to allow an independent Scotland join the EU as it would cause further issues internally for said countries. It only takes one country to say no to veto Scotlands prospective membership of EU

Godge · 20-02-2014 10:05pm

First Up wrote: »

If you are the Belgian government, quite possibly yes.
And if that is still too hard, the only word you need to understand is veto.

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

The point is, I think, the division there and in Spain would make both countries less likely to vote to allow an independent Scotland join the EU as it would cause further issues internally for said countries. It only takes one country to say no to veto Scotlands prospective membership of EU

Agreed.

Sometimes I wonder how easily people disregard other countries' interests.

We got it for years with the everyone in Europe loves the Irish stuff but when the **** hit the fan, they looked after their own interests as a rational person would expect. The same applies to the Scottish issue.

dlouth15 · 20-02-2014 10:12pm

First Up wrote: »

If you are the Belgian government, quite possibly yes.
And if that is still too hard, the only word you need to understand is veto.

But is it realistic that Belgians will sit across a table with other European countries most of which can manage their affairs, and tell the Scots that they will never be in the EU because it is not conducive, in their view, to the domestic affairs of Belgium and that have nothing to do with any other country other than Belgium itself?

They would in effect be refusing to negotiate in the first place.

I don't think that is a realistic scenario and outside the likes of Barroso (talking about Spain) who is clearly trying to influence the referendum, few have put this kind of thing forward as a serious possibility.

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

The point is, I think, the division there and in Spain would make both countries less likely to vote to allow an independent Scotland join the EU as it would cause further issues internally for said countries. It only takes one country to say no to veto Scotlands prospective membership of EU

In reality they would need some reason other than purely domestic problems which they themselves should be dealing with. They would look ridiculous and come under pressure to cop themselves on if they tried that.

It might make them tougher in negotiating. For example, they might be more keen than others in a swift entry into the Euro than other countries, but a blanked refusal to negotatiate is not likely and indeed could be in violation of the spirit of Eu law.

dlouth15 · 20-02-2014 10:18pm

Godge wrote: »

Agreed.

Sometimes I wonder how easily people disregard other countries' interests.

We got it for years with the everyone in Europe loves the Irish stuff but when the **** hit the fan, they looked after their own interests as a rational person would expect. The same applies to the Scottish issue.

I have to ask you whether you actually believe in all seriousness in the event of a yes vote that Belgium is going to refuse to negotiate with Scotland or the UK on behalf of Scotland on the basis of their crumbling domestic affairs which is entirely of their own making.

First Up · 20-02-2014 10:24pm

In all seriousness, yes they very well might. And they very well might not be the only ones.

dlouth15 · 20-02-2014 10:52pm

First Up wrote: »

In all seriousness, yes they very well might. And they very well might not be the only ones.

Well at least you're honest.

It might be worth having a look at the video on this page from a Scottish parliamentary committee meeting with Jim Currie, former director general of the European Commission and former negotiator with the council of ministers. This is someone, I think you will agree, is someone who would be expected to know what he's talking about. The video is worth watching as an antidote to the somewhat buffoonish Barroso.

Anyway in the discussion Curry is in no doubt that negotations would occur. The vast bulk of the discussion is about what sort of deal would be reached vis a vis the Euro, rebates and so on.

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

First Up · 20-02-2014 11:34pm

Inasmuch as he was stating the legal situation - i.e that agreement on an accession must be unanimous, Barroso was 100% accurate.
Whether or not such unanimity will be forthcoming for Scottish accession is a matter of opinion and Barroso has given his.
Of course there will be negotiation; how that might go is a matter of opinion too. Some opinions may be more soundly based than others, some might be politically motivated (on all sides.) The ones I'd be concerned about are those based on wishful thinking.

Godge · 21-02-2014 12:08am

dlouth15 wrote: »

I have to ask you whether you actually believe in all seriousness in the event of a yes vote that Belgium is going to refuse to negotiate with Scotland or the UK on behalf of Scotland on the basis of their crumbling domestic affairs which is entirely of their own making.

Yes, why is that so hard for you to understand?

They owe Scotland nothing, they want to protect the integrity of their own country. As do the Spanish, the French and the eastern Europeans.

Think of our financial crisis and the Germans. We have been going around effectively asking for the German taxpayer to pick up the bill and the Germans have found 2,000 ways to tell us to get lost. We were left with the bill because as soon as the crisis happened, it was you're on your own lads with this one.

At the end of the day, each country acts in its own interest. And do you know what is more? Do you think the UK negotiators behind closed doors will be telling their European friends to accept Scotland's application? Like hell they will, no matter what they say in public.

As for the Jim Curry video, I didn't even bother watching as with that surname he certainly wasn't from a continental European country.

dlouth15 · 21-02-2014 12:15am

First Up wrote: »

Inasmuch as he was stating the legal situation - i.e that agreement on an accession must be unanimous, Barroso was 100% accurate.
Whether or not such unanimity will be forthcoming for Scottish accession is a matter of opinion and Barroso has given his.

Which was that such an agreement would be next to impossible. He used the example of Kosovo to back up his view which subsequently even the Spanish foreign minister has made clear is not comparable to the Scottish situation. Barroso failed to give a balanced opinion on the issue and tried to pre-empt the results of future negotiation. He clearly is not a neutral observer.

Of course there will be negotiation; how that might go is a matter of opinion too. Some opinions may be more soundly based than others, some might be politically motivated (on all sides.) The ones I'd be concerned about are those based on wishful thinking.

It seems clear that among the less soundly based opinions here are those from Barroso.

First Up · 21-02-2014 8:02am

dlouth15 wrote: »

Which was that such an agreement would be next to impossible. He used the example of Kosovo to back up his view which subsequently even the Spanish foreign minister has made clear is not comparable to the Scottish situation. Barroso failed to give a balanced opinion on the issue and tried to pre-empt the results of future negotiation. He clearly is not a neutral observer.
It seems clear that among the less soundly based opinions here are those from Barroso.

Barroso doesn't have a vote but he knows the people who do. Instead of shooting the messenger the yes campaign would be more usefully engaged in asking his help in meeting them.

djpbarry · 21-02-2014 11:10am

dlouth15 wrote: »

It might be worth having a look at the video on this page from a Scottish parliamentary committee meeting with Jim Currie, former director general of the European Commission and former negotiator with the council of ministers. This is someone, I think you will agree, is someone who would be expected to know what he's talking about. The video is worth watching as an antidote to the somewhat buffoonish Barroso.

Why should the opinion of the current President of the EU Commission be dismissed in favour of that of a Scottish ex-Director General of the Commission?

dlouth15 · 21-02-2014 12:40pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Why should the opinion of the current President of the EU Commission be dismissed in favour of that of a Scottish ex-Director General of the Commission?

I don't know whether everything Barroso says needs to be dismissed but I think his remarks about the Spanish don't stand up to scrutiny. The Spanish foreign minister said since Barroso's interview that the Scottish independence issue is not comparable to anything in Spain. I'm not sure, therefore, in what sense we should take Barroso's remarks seriously.

dlouth15 · 21-02-2014 1:00pm

Godge wrote: »

And do you know what is more? Do you think the UK negotiators behind closed doors will be telling their European friends to accept Scotland's application? Like hell they will, no matter what they say in public.

Why do you think it would be in the UK's interest to do that?

djpbarry · 21-02-2014 1:06pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

I don't know whether everything Barroso says needs to be dismissed but I think his remarks about the Spanish don't stand up to scrutiny.

He said that Spain has not recognised Kosovo - in what sense does that not stand up to scrutiny?

dlouth15 · 21-02-2014 1:09pm

djpbarry wrote: »

He said that Spain has not recognised Kosovo - in what sense does that not stand up to scrutiny?

He was trying to draw a parallel with Scotland which the Spanish foreign minister later said did not apply.

djpbarry · 21-02-2014 1:12pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

He was trying to draw a parallel with Scotland which the Spanish foreign minister later said did not apply.

Doesn't it? Why hasn't Spain recognised Kosovo?

dlouth15 · 21-02-2014 1:22pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Doesn't it? Why hasn't Spain recognised Kosovo?

Here's what he said:

“If Scotland becomes independent in accordance with the legal and institutional procedures, it will ask for admission [to the EU]. If that process has indeed been legal, that request can be considered. If not, then not”

also

“We don’t interfere in other countries’ internal affairs. If Britain’s constitutional order allows – and it seems that it does allow – Scotland to choose independence, we have nothing to say about this.”

He doesn't explicitly mention Kosovo but he's clearly saying that full recognition will be given to an independent Scotland and that their request to join the EU will be considered.

djpbarry · 21-02-2014 1:44pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

He doesn't explicitly mention Kosovo...

He explicitly mentioned Spain's refusal to recognise Kosovo:

We have seen Spain has been opposing even the recognition of Kosovo, for instance. So it is to some extent a similar case because it's a new country and so I believe it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, a new member state coming out of our countries getting the agreement of the others.

dlouth15 · 21-02-2014 1:48pm

djpbarry wrote: »

He explicitly mentioned Spain's refusal to recognise Kosovo:

That was Barroso saying that. I was quoting the Spanish foreign minister where he said that full recognition would be given to Scotland in the event of independence and that their EU application would be considered. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Although the Spanish foreign minister doesn't explicitly mention Kosovo in his response, it is clear that Scotland is not going to be treated in the same way.

Godge · 21-02-2014 2:45pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

He was trying to draw a parallel with Scotland which the Spanish foreign minister later said did not apply.

But you still don't get it. Of course he would say that.

Spain's approach will be quite simple.

(1) In public, say that Scotland is different to Spain, in case Scotland actually gets in.
(2) In private, in the negotiations, make it as difficult as possible to block Scotland, you know vetos are rarely used because negotiations never get far enough for them to be needed.

Look at all the sympathy Ireland got in its financial crisis, Ireland is a special case, blah, blah, blah, the Irish people have been great, blah, blah, blah, but did one European taxpayer have to put his hand in his pocket to help the Irish out? No.

The reason Barrosso's words carry weight is that he has no axe to grind. He is not Scottish. He doesn't need to be re-elected in a popular vote. What he needs to do is protect the interests of the EU countries and say the things that they can't or don't want to say in public.

dlouth15 · 21-02-2014 4:06pm

Godge wrote: »

The reason Barrosso's words carry weight is that he has no axe to grind. He is not Scottish. He doesn't need to be re-elected in a popular vote. What he needs to do is protect the interests of the EU countries and say the things that they can't or don't want to say in public.

Talk is cheap and I think you are failing to distinguish between what is going on now which is cheap attempts to influence the vote and what would happen after a potential yes vote when the political landscape would have changed. Barroso in making his remarks does not stand to lose if he is proved wrong. No doubt he is hoping that a no vote is returned but even in the event of a yes, he's phrased his remarks in a sufficiently weasely way that he can't really be hauled up on them. This is why I don't place a lot of weight on his comments. I can fully see why he made them and he might even believe them, but they don't amount to much. I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bull**** on Barroso here.

As to how Spain might actually act in the event of a yes vote. Well they've said in public that they fully recognise Scotland's right to independence should that be the outcome in the UK. They've said that they will engage in negotiations should Scotland join. They can't therefore veto membership at the outset as some have tried to claim on on this thread and I have disputed. I think we can put that one to bed.

I can agree that Scotland becoming independent is somewhat inconvenient for a country with its own separatist movements but I think we need to keep this in proportion. Yes they might try to give Barroso behind the scenes the impression that they would happily block Scotland's entry - and I think that might have been done in this case. But again, talk is cheap, especially behind the scenes talk. They have nothing to lose by doing this.

But should a yes vote occur, they will then need to weigh up the cost of having Scotland as a member with the cost of blocking Scotland.

As already mentioned, they can't block Scotland at the outset. They can try to find technical reasons why Scotland shouldn't join. I'm not sure what those might be and no one has come up with any on this thread. They can try and obfuscate the talks, but this will come at a political cost in terms of their relations with other countries who don't have the problems of Spain. They can't use the issue of Catalonia or the Basque country in the negotiations themselves because this is not something that Scotland can do anything about.

My own view is that if a yes vote is returned, Spain will engage relatively constructively with Scotland, since to do otherwise would harm their relations with other countries. They might have preferred that a no vote had instead passed but now they need to face up to the political reality of an independent Scotland engaging constructively with the EU.

dlouth15 · 21-02-2014 4:31pm

Godge wrote: »

Look at all the sympathy Ireland got in its financial crisis, Ireland is a special case, blah, blah, blah, the Irish people have been great, blah, blah, blah, but did one European taxpayer have to put his hand in his pocket to help the Irish out? No.

I agree. But asking other's to put their hands in their pocket is highly unpopular among the electorates in Europe for very understandable reasons. The entry into the EU of a country that is not a member in its own right but currently participates as a part of a larger entity is not particularly controversial. If anything there's less uncertainty involved than a country that is coming fresh from the outside. The machinery for accepting new countries into the EU is in place a long time. Slovenia and the Czech republic who were once one country were both accepted into the EU without issue. True, neither part was ever a member to start with, but the principle of a country splitting in a peaceful and democratic manner does not seem to be an issue for the EU.

First Up · 21-02-2014 4:48pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

Talk is cheap and I think you are failing to distinguish between what is going on now which is cheap attempts to influence the vote and what would happen after a potential yes vote when the political landscape would have changed. Barroso in making his remarks does not stand to lose if he is proved wrong. No doubt he is hoping that a no vote is returned but even in the event of a yes, he's phrased his remarks in a sufficiently weasely way that he can't really be hauled up on them. This is why I don't place a lot of weight on his comments. I can fully see why he made them and he might even believe them, but they don't amount to much. I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bull**** on Barroso here.

As to how Spain might actually act in the event of a yes vote. Well they've said in public that they fully recognise Scotland's right to independence should that be the outcome in the UK. They've said that they will engage in negotiations should Scotland join. They can't therefore veto membership at the outset as some have tried to claim on on this thread and I have disputed. I think we can put that one to bed.

I can agree that Scotland becoming independent is somewhat inconvenient for a country with its own separatist movements but I think we need to keep this in proportion. Yes they might try to give Barroso behind the scenes the impression that they would happily block Scotland's entry - and I think that might have been done in this case. But again, talk is cheap, especially behind the scenes talk. They have nothing to lose by doing this.

But should a yes vote occur, they will then need to weigh up the cost of having Scotland as a member with the cost of blocking Scotland.

As already mentioned, they can't block Scotland at the outset. They can try to find technical reasons why Scotland shouldn't join. I'm not sure what those might be and no one has come up with any on this thread. They can try and obfuscate the talks, but this will come at a political cost in terms of their relations with other countries who don't have the problems of Spain. They can't use the issue of Catalonia or the Basque country in the negotiations themselves because this is not something that Scotland can do anything about.

My own view is that if a yes vote is returned, Spain will engage relatively constructively with Scotland, since to do otherwise would harm their relations with other countries. They might have preferred that a no vote had instead passed but now they need to face up to the political reality of an independent Scotland engaging constructively with the EU.

Can you run me through again why you believe Spain could not veto Scottish accession?

Scottish Independence

Comments