Scottish Independence

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

Last time I looked, the Spanish had said that they had no official position. However, the logic for the Spanish is very straightforward - if Scotland becomes independent, then the question of its EU entry is open. If Scotland is simply voted straight into the EU, then the same would be expected to be true for Catalonia. And Scottish independence and EU application would, based on recent events, precede any such move by Catalonia.

True however only in actual the event of Catalonia or Basque independence. It might encourage the Catalonians but that is all it does. It doesn't make gaining that independence any easier. Both the separatists and Madrid know this. For the same reason it is of limited value a precedence.

So in general I can agree that other things being equal, the Spanish government would rather a no vote so that the issue doesn't occur in the first place even if it is not that major an issue.

I cannot see that Spain can possibly choose to encourage Catalonian (and Basque) separatism - which means that Spain either directly blocks Scottish entry, or encourages others to do so. And there are other Member States with separatist movements.

Having said that, there's no doubt that Scotland would qualify for EU membership, so it's equally hard to see the political brass neck being mustered to refuse them in a clear display of national self-interest.

Which, to me, argues that the actual outcome would be the other EU countries making Scotland jump through absolutely all the accession hoops with every last i dotted and every last t crossed, and with no maintenance of current UK opt-outs such as the euro. Schengen I'm not sure about, and that would be an interesting one - practically speaking, I suspect that one would go by the board, and Scotland would join the UK-Ireland Free Movement Area.

I think the important thing here which you've acknowledged is that wanting not to encourage the Catalans or the Basques will not be the only consideration in relation to the EU entry of another country. Other considerations such as relations with other EU countries could well supersede them.

fundi

dlouth15 wrote: »

The last thing they want is border controls and legal problems for people and companies if Scotland were to have a spell outside the EU.

Disgruntled scots outside of Scotland can always seek asylum or sanctuary in other countries. Scotland could become the new Ireland of Europe, a banana republic where despite record EC aid per head of population over many decades - more handouts than any other country ever received - we have become the most indebted country in the world, per head of population. Complaints to the nearest Scottish embassy ( yip, they will have to be for as well in hard currency, Scotland ).
Scotland if it slipped downwards towards independence, could always take a leaf out of our book and become a tax haven for American multinationals, where their profits can be laundered. If Scotland plays its cards right there is nothing to stop them attracting google, facebook, microsoft, intel, ebay etc.

Godge

sfakiaman wrote: »

Just a thought, but as part of the UK's entry deal to the EEC (as I think it was called then) fishing rights in Scottish waters were included. If Scotland becomes independent and outwith the EU those rights will disappear. This will also mean that the agreement between the UK and Europe cannot be delivered by the rUK. This surely means that the rUK can no longer meet its treaty obligations and will have to renegotiate entry to the EU.

The UK would have given up certain fishing rights within its territorial waters. All that has changed is the UK territorial waters, which are now smaller. So the UK will not be in breach of its treaty obligations.

What is of interest is that when Spain and Portugal joined, the northern European countries tried to protect some of their coasts from predatory fishing and successfully got concessions from Spain and Portugal as they were the applicant countries. These concessions included restricted access to Irish and UK fishing territory. I am not sure if these concessions have been maintained today but the UK and Ireland only secured them because they were already member states. The shoe will be on the other foot for Scotland. Spain and Portugal will be the established member states looking for concessions from the accession applicant. Scotland will be the applicant having to give up right.

Someone else might have the up-to-date story on fishing rights but it is an interesting dynamic that has changed.

Certainly, the one thing that Scotland can expect in any accession negotiations is that rather than keeping more sovereignty, it will probably lose more to the EU than the UK has already lost.

dlouth15

Godge wrote: »

And nobody has said that Scotland remains a member of the EU the day after the independence vote.

Just to pick you up on this. Nobody? Are you sure?

View

Godge wrote: »

I have told you many times on this thread that what is said in public differs to what happens behind closed doors in Europe.

The example I keep giving is the recent banking crisis in Ireland. For years you had European leaders acknowledging the special position of Ireland, recognising the great sacrifices of the Irish people, something should be done for Ireland, it was different to all the rest. Yet in all that happened, and we got some help in lengthening loans etc., not one European taxpayer put their hand into their pocket and helped us out.

It has already been pointed out to you that your understanding is wrong.

Were taxpayers in other EU member states able to provide us with cost-free, and risk-free assistance there would have been no complaints about their politicians doing so.

It is precisely because that assistance was neither cost-free nor risk-free to the tax-payers in the other member states that there was such hostility to it amongst the general public of the other member states.

bobcoffee

Yep Godge someone has been lying to you, forget about anyone else, just germany alone before the crisis has been giving out free handouts during my lifetime, mainly thinking of the 90's I'm not old enough to remember the 80's to be able to comment.
Its one of the issues, nobody is responsible for the money given and it just got wasted.

jmayo

sfakiaman wrote: »

Just a thought, but as part of the UK's entry deal to the EEC (as I think it was called then) fishing rights in Scottish waters were included. If Scotland becomes independent and outwith the EU those rights will disappear. This will also mean that the agreement between the UK and Europe cannot be delivered by the rUK. This surely means that the rUK can no longer meet its treaty obligations and will have to renegotiate entry to the EU.

In practical terms they would need to establish a naval presence in order to protect those waters.
We all know how easy it was for the Spanish to raid our waters what with our naval capabilities.

partyguinness wrote: »

I am thinking back over the countries that have achieved independence or acquired it over the past 50 years or so. I cannot recall the debate leading up to it dominated by economics in the way this debate is (just my own Lady Book history). There is something fundamentally wrong here.

A lot of those countries or areas seeking independence had been colonies or conquered areas where the vast majority of the native people had often kept their demand for freedom and independence through the years.

On the other hand the Scots have never been totally united in their determination to axe it's links with Westminister or the English crown.
Hell poor ould Willy Wallace had to deal with the backstabbing nobles who took the English shilling, Bonnie Prince Charlie or the other Jacobite risings really did not have the support of the lowlanders and just remember how the massacre of the Clan MacDonald at Glencoe was planned and carried out by Scots loyal to the English crown.
Jeeze the more I think about it the more I hope they vote yes.
I think they should show Braveheart the night before the vote.

partyguinness wrote: »

That's why I cannot feel that the Yes campaign is doomed and the whole campaign is decidedly grubby.

Surely the true nature of independence is about a race of people wishing to ascert their independence and take control over their destiny regardless of the implications. I dont think that is as naive as it sounds.

If the Scots truly want independence (which I doubt) then arguments about oil, EU, sterling etc are moot.

Ahh, but this is Scotland.

BTW what happens to Balmoral if they get independence ?

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

True however only in actual the event of Catalonia or Basque independence. It might encourage the Catalonians but that is all it does. It doesn't make gaining that independence any easier. Both the separatists and Madrid know this. For the same reason it is of limited value a precedence.

So in general I can agree that other things being equal, the Spanish government would rather a no vote so that the issue doesn't occur in the first place even if it is not that major an issue.

In a democratic country, which Spain is, the amount of support for Catalonian independence makes a difference, and an easy passage for Scotland into the EU would encourage support.

A Scottish No vote would not actually discourage Catalonian separatism, but a difficult passage for Scotland into the EU, or a refusal, would.

dlouth15 wrote: »

I think the important thing here which you've acknowledged is that wanting not to encourage the Catalans or the Basques will not be the only consideration in relation to the EU entry of another country. Other considerations such as relations with other EU countries could well supersede them.

I'd go with Godge's view that entry could be made difficult by requiring large concessions. In effect, that would send a statement to the Catalans that independence is costly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

In a democratic country, which Spain is, the amount of support for Catalonian independence makes a difference, and an easy passage for Scotland into the EU would encourage support.

Not if they are perpetually in a minority in Spain, as a whole and not if there's no mechanism to allow Catalan independence.

A Scottish No vote would not actually discourage Catalonian separatism, but a difficult passage for Scotland into the EU, or a refusal, would.

I'd go with Godge's view that entry could be made difficult by requiring large concessions. In effect, that would send a statement to the Catalans that independence is costly.

Which is fine, so long as you acknowledge, as indeed you have done, that sending messages to the Catalans or the Basques is not the only consideration for Madrid.

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote:

BTW what happens to Balmoral if they get independence ?

It would presumably continue to be the residence and private estate of Elizabeth I of Scotland, as it is now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

First Up

Good article by John Kay of FT in today's Irish Times.

sfakiaman

Also in today's Irish Times http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/scotland-s-eu-question-1.1704269

First Up

sfakiaman wrote: »

Also in today's Irish Times http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/scotland-s-eu-question-1.1704269

Saw that and it is complete nonsense.

Scotland is seeking to become an independent country, not a regional self government within the UK. If it becomes independent, it ceases to be part of the UK in any shape, form or structure. The UK would be under no obligation to present Scotland as anything; Scotland would be paddling its own canoe.

Scofflaw

First Up wrote: »

Saw that and it is complete nonsense.

Scotland is seeking to become an independent country, not a regional self government within the UK. If it becomes independent, it ceases to be part of the UK in any shape, form or structure. The UK would be under no obligation to present Scotland as anything; Scotland would be paddling its own canoe.

Yes, I think that letter is based on a complete misunderstanding of Scotland's intentions. Even if, as I assume for the moment, Queen Elizabeth remains the Scottish queen and head of state, that does not make Scotland any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, any more than the Isle of Man (or Canada, or Australia) is.

It would not be a devolved part of a unitary state, but a separate state altogether. Currently it's a partially devolved part of a unitary state, and obviously no question of Scotland's membership of the EU arose as a result of that arrangement - the current arrangement is actually the "internal constitutional arrangement" the letter incorrectly ascribes to a possible independent Scotland.

On another note, the UK will need another formal name change, presumably to the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

First Up

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, I think that letter is based on a complete misunderstanding of Scotland's intentions. Even if, as I assume for the moment, Queen Elizabeth remains the Scottish queen and head of state, that does not make Scotland any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, any more than the Isle of Man (or Canada, or Australia) is.

It would not be a devolved part of a unitary state, but a separate state altogether. Currently it's a partially devolved part of a unitary state, and obviously no question of Scotland's membership of the EU arose as a result of that arrangement - the current arrangement is actually the "internal constitutional arrangement" the letter incorrectly ascribes to a possible independent Scotland.

On another note, the UK will need another formal name change, presumably to the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And don't forget poor little loyal Wales.

A Dub in Glasgo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, I think that letter is based on a complete misunderstanding of Scotland's intentions. Even if, as I assume for the moment, Queen Elizabeth remains the Scottish queen and head of state, that does not make Scotland any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, any more than the Isle of Man (or Canada, or Australia) is.

It would not be a devolved part of a unitary state, but a separate state altogether. Currently it's a partially devolved part of a unitary state, and obviously no question of Scotland's membership of the EU arose as a result of that arrangement - the current arrangement is actually the "internal constitutional arrangement" the letter incorrectly ascribes to a possible independent Scotland.

On another note, the UK will need another formal name change, presumably to the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Unless you are suggesting that Scotland is cut off, it will still remain part of GB. The name change is interesting as NI is not a Kingdom therefore the United bit is just nuts. Maybe they should grasp the reality and just say 'United Kingdom of England' although that is not very united at the moment.

Maybe Scotland can call itself the 'United Kingdom of Scotland'!

First Up

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Unless you are suggesting that Scotland is cut off, it will still remain part of GB. The name change is interesting as NI is not a Kingdom therefore the United bit is just nuts. Maybe they should grasp the reality and just say 'United Kingdom of England' although that is not very united at the moment.

Maybe Scotland can call itself the 'United Kingdom of Scotland'!

You seem to be confusing united with contiguous.

dlouth15

What I would ask Scofflaw and First Up is this: Are you sure that the only legal position is that Scotland after independence is automatically out of the EU. I fully accept that it is one position but the problem I have is that this is mainly coming from politicians and whatever their agenda, I'm generally inclined to question whether they are telling the whole truth. I'm particularly inclined to do so ahead of a referendum.

I asked this of Godge earlier but got no reply.

A Dub in Glasgo

First Up wrote: »

You seem to be confusing united with contiguous.

Nope

MRnotlob606

I'm pretty sure most people will vote to retain the union

Scofflaw

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Unless you are suggesting that Scotland is cut off, it will still remain part of GB.

Only geographically. The "Great Britain" in the name of the UK is actually the united kingdom formed by the union of the Scottish and English crowns in 1707. Scottish independence consists of 'dividing' the crowns again, making England and Scotland separate kingdoms as they were before the Act of Union.

That division means there is no united kingdom of Great Britain any more. That entity ceases to exist, and that is the entity that forms part of the UK's name.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The name change is interesting as NI is not a Kingdom therefore the United bit is just nuts. Maybe they should grasp the reality and just say 'United Kingdom of England' although that is not very united at the moment.

Maybe Scotland can call itself the 'United Kingdom of Scotland'!

Northern Ireland is the remaining part of the Kingdom of Ireland. The current UK is formed of the united crowns of Scotland and England as Great Britain (1707), united in turn with the crown of Ireland (1801) as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The fact that the 26 counties had left the UK was recognised by the addition of "Northern" in 1927.

Wales doesn't get a mention because it's (a) a principality not a kingdom, and (b) was annexed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Doncor

I think people who are there already feel like free. I just cannot understand why most of people think that Scotland is a part of England? It is a part of the uk, but not england. About the goverment, not just english people have the access for ruling country, scotts have it either. And at last but not least, all unions becomes strong, but not all the countries. Why should they destroy their one strong country to make instead two weak.
Examples: USA (states union), Germany (lands union), Russia (lands union)

A Dub in Glasgo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Only geographically. The "Great Britain" in the name of the UK is actually the united kingdom formed by the union of the Scottish and English crowns in 1707. Scottish independence consists of 'dividing' the crowns again, making England and Scotland separate kingdoms as they were before the Act of Union.

That division means there is no united kingdom of Great Britain any more. That entity ceases to exist, and that is the entity that forms part of the UK's name.



Northern Ireland is the remaining part of the Kingdom of Ireland. The current UK is formed of the united crowns of Scotland and England as Great Britain (1707), united in turn with the crown of Ireland (1801) as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The fact that the 26 counties had left the UK was recognised by the addition of "Northern" in 1927.

Wales doesn't get a mention because it's (a) a principality not a kingdom, and (b) was annexed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89031349&postcount=350

Views?

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89031349&postcount=350

Views?

The eu is not going to force the r UK to reapply, in case it doesn't. They don't want what will still be the third largest economy to leave.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

What I would ask Scofflaw and First Up is this: Are you sure that the only legal position is that Scotland after independence is automatically out of the EU. I fully accept that it is one position but the problem I have is that this is mainly coming from politicians and whatever their agenda, I'm generally inclined to question whether they are telling the whole truth. I'm particularly inclined to do so ahead of a referendum.

I asked this of Godge earlier but got no reply.

I don't think there's ever really such a thing as an "only" legal position. Clearly it's possible to argue the case from another angle, and we haven't any specifically EU precedents to go on.

It is generally possible for successor states to agree to continue to be bound by treaties, but that's where treaties imply obligations rather than privileges. In the case of things like UN membership, successor states don't keep their predecessor's seat unless their recognised as the continuator state - that is, the continuing version of the predecessor state. For example, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were both successor states of Czechoslovakia, and had to reapply for UN membership, whereas Russia was recognised as the continuator state of the USSR, and kept that UN (and Security Council) seat.

In the case of Scotland, I presume there will be one new state and one 'continuator' state, so the EU membership would seem to stay with the (R)UK.

As far as I know that's basically accepted by the SNP - the argument is over which treaty mechanism Scotland would reapply - the short Article 48 or the full Article 49.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bobcoffee

Well wouldn't say reapply of course not but some negotiations on certain things that the EU main body would see as objectives.

Scofflaw

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Scotland gaining independence nullifies the Act of Union of 1707, does that mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland will cease to exist as well therefore a new application to join the EU will be needed by both Scotland and Rest of UK? I would like to see this tested legally.

Views?

I don't think that one will fly, because the UK has changed its territorial bounds and name before without any change in the recognition of it as the UK. Most recently, as said, it changed its name in 1927, but obviously it also changed it at both acts of union.

At the end of the day, the question of whether a state is recognised as a continuator state is determined not by law or precedent, but by whether other countries recognise it as such. I don't think there's any question of whether the other EU members will recognise the (R)UK as the continuator state. Even in very simple objective terms, the (R)UK will have 92% of the population of the former UK, and that's a very persuasive and one-sided number.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

In the case of Scotland, I presume there will be one new state and one 'continuator' state, so the EU membership would seem to stay with the (R)UK.

A lot seems to depend on this presumption and whether it will apply to EU membership.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

A lot seems to depend on this presumption and whether it will apply to EU membership.

Nearly everything depends on this presumption, but nobody at all, or rather no country at all, has even slightly suggested not recognising the (R)UK as the continuator state of the UK.

And that's basically that. Sure, one can argue as a hypothetical the idea that most countries might not recognise the (R)UK, but it's really not even a slightly realistic hypothetical.

So, yes, while it's a presumption, it's more or less an open and shut one. Countries will have the choice between recognising the (R)UK as the UK and thereby keeping all current agreements and treaties in place, or of not doing so, and maybe having them all reopened. Reopening might be OK when you're facing off with Scotland, but facing off with a state containing 92% of the population of the current UK, and 91% of its GDP, is a different proposition. If you got what you considered a decent deal, you'll be recognising that large state as the continuator, no bother.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

At the end of the day, the question of whether a state is recognised as a continuator state is determined not by law or precedent, but by whether other countries recognise it as such. I don't think there's any question of whether the other EU members will recognise the (R)UK as the continuator state. Even in very simple objective terms, the (R)UK will have 92% of the population of the former UK, and that's a very persuasive and one-sided number.

That is very interesting. So whether rUK remains as part of the EU comes down to whether or not other countries choose to recognise the UK as a continuator state? It doesn't come down to law. The rUK won't therefore have a legal right to continued EU membership if Scotland votes yes.

oscarBravo

dlouth15 wrote: »

That is very interesting. So whether rUK remains as part of the EU comes down to whether or not other countries choose to recognise the UK as a continuator state? It doesn't come down to law. The rUK won't therefore have a legal right to continued EU membership if Scotland votes yes.

No offence, but your contributions to this thread are starting to look like nothing more than argumentum ad wishful thinking.

First Up

oscarBravo wrote: »

No offence, but your contributions to this thread are starting to look like nothing more than argumentum ad wishful thinking.

I think it's called desperation.

A Dub in Glasgo

You guys are gas, dlouth15 has been one of the most polite posters on this thread and now he is accused of desperation and wishful thinking!

dlouth15

oscarBravo wrote: »

No offence, but your contributions to this thread are starting to look like nothing more than argumentum ad wishful thinking.

May look like that to you but nevertheless it is interesting that this is the first time someone on the thread has suggested that rUK has no strictly legal right to continued EU membership. It comes down to whether or not it is regarded as a successor state by individual members of the EU.

It is not me saying that by the way. I'm not sure I fully agree with it but were it to be true it certainly raises some interesting questions.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You guys are gas, dlouth15 has been one of the most polite posters on this thread and now he is accused of desperation and wishful thinking!

You think politeness and wishful thinking are mutually exclusive?

dlouth15 wrote: »

May look like that to you but nevertheless it is interesting that this is the first time someone on the thread has suggested that rUK has no strictly legal right to continued EU membership. It comes down to whether or not it is regarded as a successor state by individual members of the EU.

It is not me saying that by the way. I'm not sure I fully agree with it but were it to be true it certainly raises some interesting questions.

Meh. I mean, they are interesting questions if what interests you is mental gymnastics, but it's pretty clear that in the event of Scottish independence, Scotland will no longer be an EU member (until such time as it is readmitted) and the rest of the UK will.

If it suits you to believe that that isn't the case, fair enough; what it suits people to believe and what's true are often orthogonal.

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

May look like that to you but nevertheless it is interesting that this is the first time someone on the thread has suggested that rUK has no strictly legal right to continued EU membership. It comes down to whether or not it is regarded as a successor state by individual members of the EU.

It is not me saying that by the way. I'm not sure I fully agree with it but were it to be true it certainly raises some interesting questions.

The only reason it is being suggested now is because all the arguments that preceded it have already been demolished.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote: »

You think politeness and wishful thinking are mutually exclusive?

I do not although I do find it absolutely strange that your 1st or 2nd post in the thread is to come out with that

dlouth15

oscarBravo wrote: »

Meh. I mean, they are interesting questions if what interests you is mental gymnastics, but it's pretty clear that in the event of Scottish independence, Scotland will no longer be an EU member (until such time as it is readmitted) and the rest of the UK will.

Well no. There's a fair amount of legal opinion that suggests the contrary. On what basis do you think it is "clear"?

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

Well no. There's a fair amount of legal opinion that suggests the contrary. On what basis do you think it is "clear"?

Well, on the basis that the continuator state has the rights of its predecessor, and that the (R)UK is 99.99999% certain to be recognised as that legal successor, while Scotland will not be. The (R)UK will be keeping the UK's UN Security Council seat, and its EU membership, Scotland will not be.

And without intending any offence, I think it really is wishful thinking to believe something else will happen. If the Scottish vote Yes, they have to do so while recognising that reality. If I were still in Scotland, I would recognise that reality - but I would vote Yes anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

Well no. There's a fair amount of legal opinion that suggests the contrary. On what basis do you think it is "clear"?

I would say it's on the basis that it is as clear as daylight to everyone including the SNP but if you want to share some of the fair amount of legal opinion to the contrary you are welcome to do so.

Doncor

Why do we actually speak about it? This is not our business, SCOTTISH PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE CARE OF IT!

A Dub in Glasgo

Actually, it is the residents of Scotland who will take care of it and others will seek to influence it

Scofflaw

Doncor wrote: »

Why do we actually speak about it? This is not our business, SCOTTISH PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE CARE OF IT!

Because it's politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

First Up

Doncor wrote: »

Why do we actually speak about it? This is not our business, SCOTTISH PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE CARE OF IT!

Of course they should. It's just that we all like Scotland and the Scots and we would hate to see them do anything silly.

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, on the basis that the continuator state has the rights of its predecessor, and that the (R)UK is 99.99999% certain to be recognised as that legal successor, while Scotland will not be. The (R)UK will be keeping the UK's UN Security Council seat, and its EU membership, Scotland will not be.

Whatever the certainty of it, nevertheless and in a strict legal sense, the new rUK will not be an automatic member of the EU according to your view that the entity that was the UK will have been dissolved. It will be up to the member states of the EU to recognise it as the successor state of the former UK.

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

Whatever the certainty of it, nevertheless and in a strict legal sense, the new rUK will not be an automatic member of the EU according to your view that the entity that was the UK will have been dissolved. It will be up to the member states of the EU to recognise it as the successor state of the former UK.

Where did you get the idea the UK would be dissolved?

This really is getting ridiculous.

dlouth15

First Up wrote: »

Where did you get the idea the UK would be dissolved?

This really is getting ridiculous.

I'm not personally saying that I 100% agree with it but Scofflaw said earlier:

Only geographically. The "Great Britain" in the name of the UK is actually the united kingdom formed by the union of the Scottish and English crowns in 1707. Scottish independence consists of 'dividing' the crowns again, making England and Scotland separate kingdoms as they were before the Act of Union.

That division means there is no united kingdom of Great Britain any more. That entity ceases to exist, and that is the entity that forms part of the UK's name.

In subsequent posts he's said that in practice this is likely not to be a problem as countries such as the EU member states are likely to regard the rUK as the continuator state.

I've no particular problem with any of that however I want to be clear that he agrees that in a strictly legal sense, the new rUK doesn't automatically join the EU. It depends on agreement of the other countries.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

Whatever the certainty of it, nevertheless and in a strict legal sense, the new rUK will not be an automatic member of the EU according to your view that the entity that was the UK will have been dissolved. It will be up to the member states of the EU to recognise it as the successor state of the former UK.

At the end of the day, the settlement of such matters is an extra-legal process. There is an international treaty on the succession of states, but it has only a few signatories. The process is political, not juridical.

If the other EU Member States recognise the (R)UK as the continuator of the UK, then the (R)UK remains a member of the EU. Not "becomes", because the UK is seen as continuing.

The dissolution of Great Britain does not imply the dissolution of the UK, but only of a constituent part of it - which, as we have seen, the other nations have chosen to regard as an internal UK constitutional matter.

The UK is an automatic member of the EU, or rather remains one, and the UK has not been dissolved, as long as that's what other nations accept.

So, yes to the fact that the process is political rather than legal, no to the idea that (R)UK would have any difficulty in being seen as the continuation of the current UK, and thus no to the idea that there are any even remotely probable difficulties in the UK remaining an EU member state.

Apologies if this is a little convoluted, but the current UK is the result of two different acts of union, ((E+S)+I), where (E+S) = GB. Unpicking the internal arrangements in the UK will be quite complicated for the (R)UK, and relatively simple for Scotland, whereas their external arrangements will be the reverse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, on the basis that the continuator state has the rights of its predecessor, and that the (R)UK is 99.99999% certain to be recognised as that legal successor, while Scotland will not be. The (R)UK will be keeping the UK's UN Security Council seat, and its EU membership, Scotland will not be.

And without intending any offence, I think it really is wishful thinking to believe something else will happen. If the Scottish vote Yes, they have to do so while recognising that reality. If I were still in Scotland, I would recognise that reality - but I would vote Yes anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scotland is voting to leave the UK, not voting to throw England, Wales and Northern Ireland out of the UK. The rest of the UK have agreed to let Scotland have a vote to leave the UK and to facilitate Scotland leaving the UK if the vote is yes.

On that basis, your estimate that the rUK is 99.99999% certain to be recognised as the legal successor looks like an underestimate:D

Scofflaw

Godge wrote: »

Scotland is voting to leave the UK, not voting to throw England, Wales and Northern Ireland out of the UK. The rest of the UK have agreed to let Scotland have a vote to leave the UK and to facilitate Scotland leaving the UK if the vote is yes.

On that basis, your estimate that the rUK is 99.99999% certain to be recognised as the legal successor looks like an underestimate:D

I was going to add more nines - in fact, I did - but it just seemed silly. At the end of the day, I would go with the (R)UK encountering a roadblock in maybe 1 in a million alternate universes. And really more of a speed bump than a roadblock, even there.

cordially,
Scofflaw