SNP claims over EU membership not so clear

[RagnarRocks]

It appears the SNPs claims about easy entry to the EU may not be so clear,here's a piece from the independent.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-9026325.html

[orkneycadian]

If we were not going to be in the EU post independence, then the Yes vote would look a little more attractive.

[Mrs Bradey]

If we were not going to be in the EU post independence, then the Yes vote would look a little more attractive.

I agree. why would a country, upon gaining independence from a union immediately join another? it appears the fishy friends are too frightened the walk the shady path alone and still need big sister to hold their hands!! why would anyone be surprised that they, again, misrepresent the truth!!

[Oddquine]

If we were not going to be in the EU post independence, then the Yes vote would look a little more attractive.

I'm not going to disagree with that opinion, you all know my view of the EU......however...at what stage are the Unionists going to accept that the reason we don't know what the EU situation is likely to be is because Westminster won't ask....and they are the only Government who can presently. Both sides can produce, as they have done, innumerable talking heads giving different scenarios......but they are all best guesstimates, depending on whether the spec frames are saltire or union jack coloured.

I, personally, would be more inclined to believe the opinions of those with no axe to grind......so I tend to discount those "experts" from UK Universities, and the likes of Spanish ministers and those from other countries with Independence movements. Seems to me, given that the exact same treaties, rules and regulations can be interpreted by both sides to suit their own agendas...then the only definitive ruling is the one from the EU.......and the only thing stopping that definite ruling is the refusal by the Westminster Government to ask for it!

Is it only me who thinks they won't ask because they think/know they won't like the answer? It seems to me, if Westminster knew their experts were correct.....they'd have been asking the EU for clarification of an Independent Scotland's position a long time ago...and the fact that they have not yet shot Salmond's claims down in flames with the definitive facts only they can find out.......is because they are feart to ask the EU what the facts actually are.(or have asked and aren't telling, because the reply doesn't fit their agenda!)

[wavy davy]

Is it only me who thinks they won't ask because they think/know they won't like the answer? It seems to me, if Westminster knew their experts were correct.....they'd have been asking the EU for clarification of an Independent Scotland's position a long time ago...and the fact that they have not yet shot Salmond's claims down in flames with the definitive facts only they can find out.......is because they are feart to ask the EU what the facts actually are.(or have asked and aren't telling, because the reply doesn't fit their agenda!)

Why would the Westminster Government clarify an independent Scotland's position - that's a matter of negotiation that only Wee Eck can do.

[RagnarRocks]

Why would the Westminster Government clarify an independent Scotland's position - that's a matter of negotiation that only Wee Eck can do.

I thought Mr Van Rumpoy made it quite clear the other week when he said any new country that comes from an existing country has to re submit but maybe clear English isn't good enough.

[Mrs Bradey]

I'm not going to disagree with that opinion, you all know my view of the EU......however...at what stage are the Unionists going to accept that the reason we don't know what the EU situation is likely to be is because Westminster won't ask....and they are the only Government who can presently. Both sides can produce, as they have done, innumerable talking heads giving different scenarios......but they are all best guesstimates, depending on whether the spec frames are saltire or union :

I'm sure that the present Scottish government could ask the question if they really wanted I think it is they that won't like the answer! why would Westminster care what the answer is as in their mind there will be NO independence. its all a waste of time. but is fun to debate, I think.

[orkneycadian]

Why would the Westminster Government clarify an independent Scotland's position - that's a matter of negotiation that only Wee Eck can do.

Exactly what I was thinking when reading Oddquines post before I got to this one. If Scotland want to go it alone, its going to have to get used to doing things itself. Not expecting someone else to do it for them. This process is already costing Westminster vast amounts of time and money, on a matter that they have had foisted upon them. Its not clear who is paying for all of this (I suspect its us taxpayers, and its not coming out of SNP party coffers) and how much time that should be getting spent on governing is being diverted onto the independence debate.

In my view, there should be a series of referenda.

The first one should have been to gauge public opinion on independence. Just a simple - "Do you think we should spend some time and money investigating what would be involved in becoming independent?" If the majortiy of the population agrred to that, then the next step would be find out all the pro's and con's and present them to the public in an unbiased manner - Not just painting a picture that there will be nothing but advantages. Even the most naive can see that in anything like this there will be good and bad.

The second referendum cuold be a "progress report" when all the easy information had been provided, but the nitty gritty of things like EU membership were unclear. It might even ask "If we did become independent, should we apply for membership to the EU?"

The third referendum could be the decider, by which time all the information was on the table, and the voters knew what they were voting for. By that stage, with 2 Yes results for the earlier referenda, we would know that the majority of the population were supportive of the time and money being spent on trying to get the information. If at stage 1, the majority voted No, then it would be a lot faster and cheaper way to come to a decision.

Some may say that in electing an SNP government, the electorate have already indicated their preference towards independence. I would dispute that, as voting in an MP is a lot more about what he or she will do for you over their term of election, rather than what their parties banner says.

[Alrock]

....as voting in an MP is a lot more about what he or she will do for you over their term of election, rather than what their parties banner says.

If only that were true, most MP's are either too scared to go against party lines or just don't care, as long as they get their pay & expenses that will do them.

[Oddquine]

I'm sure that the present Scottish government could ask the question if they really wanted I think it is they that won't like the answer! why would Westminster care what the answer is as in their mind there will be NO independence. its all a waste of time. but is fun to debate, I think.

But that's the problem...they can't..only the member country can.....the UK. To receive formal legal advice from Brussels individual Member States must apply to the EU Commission. Scotland cannot ask as it is not an individual member state.

I have to say I agree with your remark that the Westminster Government is not even considering there could be a YES vote...which, imo is a shade shortsighted. I'd be prepared to bet they haven't even thought about much more than what they are going to manage to take away from Scotland in the event of a NO vote.

You'd have thought they'd at least want to know the position in which the rUK would find itself if there was a Yes vote, considering that the terms of the UK accession in the 1970s would have changed with the loss of Scottish fishing waters at least, wouldn't you?

[ducati]

But that's the problem...they can't..only the member country can.....the UK. To receive formal legal advice from Brussels individual Member States must apply to the EU Commission. Scotland cannot ask as it is not an individual member state.

I have to say I agree with your remark that the Westminster Government is not even considering there could be a YES vote...which, imo is a shade shortsighted. I'd be prepared to bet they haven't even thought about much more than what they are going to manage to take away from Scotland in the event of a NO vote.

You'd have thought they'd at least want to know the position in which the rUK would find itself if there was a Yes vote, considering that the terms of the UK accession in the 1970s would have changed with the loss of Scottish fishing waters at least, wouldn't you?

I think the UK Gov have looked at the polls and decided they have better things to spend their time on. You know, stealing baby milk and such like.

[amm26]

An independent Scotland would almost certainly be accepted with open arms into the EU, however, this would be as a new member state. In order for them to become a continuing EU state would require the approval of all current member states, just one veto and it can't happen.Spain have already said no, as the want to clip the wings of the catalonians and Croatia have said no, as they went through years of negotiations only to be shafted by the EU and told this is our terms, accept it, so why would they allow the rules to change for someone else?The evidence is clear, that's why the UK gov aren't wasting their time or money on gathering information on the subject and unlike the SNP, they aren't just making up evidence and using taxpayers money to hide it!

[orkneycadian]

But that's the problem...they can't..only the member country can.....

So how do all the other new member states get in? Surely they must have stood up on their own 2 feet and said "Please mister, can we join your club?" or did they also have a bigger, nearby country as their mentor?

[RagnarRocks]

orkneycadian the EU is now the do as you're told club and you can join but don't worry if the worst should happen I'm sure they'll look favourably on the isles being independent :0))

[Oddquine]

So how do all the other new member states get in? Surely they must have stood up on their own 2 feet and said "Please mister, can we join your club?" or did they also have a bigger, nearby country as their mentor?

The new member states were not already in the EU...which Scotland is, as a country in the UK......so the new ones got their independence then joined. The situation re Scotland is uncharted waters for the EU. There is no precedent for the breakup of any existing EU member state and the continued membership of all or some of the new individual states....which would include the rUK......and which is why I thought that Westminster might have wanted to clarify its own position...but seemingly not if it would also clarify the position of Scotland.

[orkneycadian]

Ah, so if we vote for independence, we'll be the guinea pigs then.

[golach]

and which is why I thought that Westminster might have wanted to clarify its own position...but seemingly not if it would also clarify the position of Scotland.

Why should Westminster do the work for you seperatists, you tell us, but our First Haggis cannot or will not.

[almo]

Why should Westminster do the work for you seperatists, you tell us, but our First Haggis cannot or will not.

As they are the representatives of Scotland in the EU they should raise the question! They should be acting in a neutral manner and not setting hurdles!

[RagnarRocks]

No ones making hurdles for Scotland's joining the EU should it become independent. As it currently stands the United Kingdom is a member of the EU ,should Scotland vote for independence it then becomes a new independent country no longer governed by rUK's parliament and is then in a position to join or leave any organisations it wishes,so long as it meets the requirements of membership this would include joining the EU as a new member state.
Its really quite simple no one is making life difficult for Scotland simply stating the realities of being an independent country.
It is not the job of the United Kingdoms current parliament to negotiate for a potentially new country.
Mr Barosso and Mr Van Rumpoy have both stated the position of the EU with regard to new countries that they have to meet the criteria set out for membership including using the Euro as its currency, and be accepted by the other members. This isn't just an issue that may affect Scotland but Catalonia if it goes independent as well.
NATO on the other hand is slightly different as the SNP claims to be strictly anti nuclear and NATO has a first strike mandate, as The SNP is anti nuclear and unlikely to condone a first strike stance its membership to NATO is very unlikely.

[almo]

The hurdle I refer to is the question on Scotland's situation can only be addressed official if the question is put by a current member state, until then all opinions are nothing more than individual's opinion. That's where the UK government should have acted to get that reply, so a fact could be put to the Electorate. It is not a simple case of a New application we all know how that works but is an new situation where an existing member splits into more than one country.
Not just Scotland is recognised as there are EU directives aimed at regions in Scotland as elsewhere. If England was looking to do the same thing you can bet your last Euro that David and Nick would have the question raised!
I know those against Independence are saying Scotland will be excluded from everything but why? It's just over the top with no foundation.
NATO may be an issue but Scotland does still have a central Geographic position so it's not all clear cut. If we are giving up nukes why not go the whole hog and become a Neutral country?
And before we go further I will be voting NO.