Would an independent Scotland be in or out of the EU?
When Scotland declares that we want independence, are we still in the EU or not?
I know the SNP view is that we would still be a part of the EU since the UK is a part of it, but Scotland as a separate entity has not been a party to any EU negotiations. It is therefore open to question whether we would be bound by any EU treaties whatsover.
On day one of independence are we not declaring that Scotland is now a sovereign nation and we will decide all our future international obligations ourselves?
Apart from knocking on the door of the UN and asking them to move the flags along a place, in terms of all other organisations surely all bets are off? In which case we would then decide to join or not join the EU on our own terms after independence but initially we would not be part of any international organisations at all (outwith the UN which is the most important for all nations) that we have not decided to negotiate ourselves.
What do others think? When we declare for independence from the UK are we not also declaring independence from all the UK's former international obligations also?
3 comments:
I'll post any replies I see plus my reply. Here's the first:
Happy Hooligan wrote (on www.freescot.com/forum) :
> Joe,
>
> As I understand it, the precedent in international law is
> that upon Independence, Scotland and the rest of the UK would
> in the eyes of the rest of the world inherit the existing
> treaty obligations of the UK. Therefore, as things stand, on
> day 1 an Independent Scotland would technically still be part
> of bodies such as the UN, EU and NATO.
>
> That said, clearly there would need to be some tidying up to
> establish exactly what these ongoing treaty obligations would
> be. As part of that process, a sovereign Scotland would then be
> free to negotiate withdrawal from any treaties to which the UK
> is a current signatory.
>
I don't think we would become automatically members of the UN, I think we would have to approach them and let them know that we were now independent, at which point we would officially join as a new state.
England etc would also be a new state and would also have to re-join I would imagine as they can hardly use the flag for a united kingdom (which includes our flag) which no longer exists!
I can't imagine the EU would be in a position to enforce any treaty obligations 'inherited' from the old UK state either as again the UK would no longer exist as a political entity.
It is therefore possible that both the new States formed ie England + any other countries still connected to it, and Scotland would be initially out of the EU and would therefore be in a position of either A) seperately negotiating a new set of entry conditions appropriate to each state or B) deciding not to bother depending on the prevailing political wind at the time.
I'm not sure which scenario is correct and I have the feeling that the EU have given both these diverging opinions at different times which is why I think there is some doubt. JOE
QuiteSickBoy (on freescot)
wrote:
"I wouldnae hud mah breath, Joe, if you are expecting the rump UK to change its flag after the glorious day of independence. I'm sure that they will want to cling on to the Union Flag."
They are of course welcome to it! However it does include a bit of our flag (though in a deliberately and accurately subordinate position) and morally they should be obliged to create a new one.
Of course I don't expect any moral actions from the British state so I don't doubt they would try and maintain a false British identity even though such posturing would have became wholly ridiculous post Scottish independence and would undoubtedly be seen as such by the international community.
The obvious other point is that if Scotland were to declare for independence it is more than likely that Wales would do the same thing shortly after (our politics have been spookily similar for years), leaving England and NI as the only adherents to the Union Jack.
Would NI have as much pride in the 'jack' if only England was left? Given that some unionists correctly claim Scottish ancestry I doubt it.
While I wouldn't say I have any real understanding of the unionist position in NI, being as a Scottish nationalist politically pretty much their direct opposite, the unionists don't tie themselves directly with England and the St George's Cross but with Britain.
What NI's unionists are clinging to is the idea of empire and the tradition and power of the former British state, if it's a straight choice between rump state England and Eire then maybe Eire will start to look a lot more relevant.
Obviously there will still be some who will cling to London like grim death but I would imagine that some won't be as enamoured. If this is the case then the potential of a winning Irish bloc alliance amongst the nationalist parties in NI becomes much more likely.
Cheers JOE
Jim Fairlie (on freescot) wrote:
"Joe. if your interpretation of the situation was correct, I can understand why you insist that independence from the UK means exactly what it says, independence. But that is not the case, as I have pointed out on this board before.
The Unionists, as one of their arguments to stop Scots voting for independence, argued that Scotland would be "isolated" from the rest of the world, we would neeed passports to visist our friends/relatives in England, we would not get BBC programmes etc. Their interpretation was that Scotland would be independent but isolated, while England, would continue with Wales and Northern Ireland, as the UK. This would mean that the UK would inherit all treaty obligations/advantages but Scotland would not.
The SNP invested a great deal of time and effort establishing that as far as the EU is concerned, Scotland would continue as a member automatically and, as there was no mechanism at that time for either expelling members or allowing them to withdraw, it was argued an independent Scotland would continue as a member of the EU. This was done to allay fears of possible international isolation.
That position was confirmed in international law, although it would be open to Scotland, separated from the rest of the UK, to withdraw from the EU, or any other organisation with which it had previously been associated as a part of the UK.
That is why Free Scotland takes such a hard line on Independence, arguing that we cannot be independent as long as we remain a part of the EU, and we will automatically remain a part of the EU, when we break from the UK. That is why membership of the EU is not a secondary or side issue.
Scotland free of the UK will be free to sever links with the EU, but those who argue that we would be independent as soon as we are free from the UK, have either missed the importance of the relationship with the EU, or they are in favour of the EU in any case. Being in favour of the EU is a perfectly valid standpoint to have, just don't call it independence.
What has brought this on anyway, I thought you were quite clear where you stood?"
I replied:
Jim Fairlie wrote:
> What has brought this on anyway, I thought you were quite
> clear where you stood?
Pub discussion with Lloyd! I certainly think the question of EU membership is up to an independent Scotland to decide and that the break from the UK has to take priority before that decision can be made. I don't think there's a lot of argument about that.
Lloyd's point was that by declaring independence we would automatically be no longer bound by the EU or any other international obligations apart from those we choose to enter into as an independent country.
I know the SNP position is that we would be automatically still members of the EU and this has always been my general assumption as well, however I'm pretty sure the EU have given conflicting advice on this before so I was trying to establish whether the position is actually clear under international law or not.
Post a Comment