An independent Scotland would be classed as a new country so would not automatically be a part of the EU, but so would the rest of the UK as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would cease to exist. That has been pointed out in the Scottish Independence thread.
The Torygraph loves to run with some of the more "scary" stories regarding Independence, but totally ignores the possible repercussions for England, Wales and N.I (as well as the Channel Islands, Isle of Man) should Scotland gain independence. Let's just say the bias is clear...
Oh, and you wouldn't "leave". Overnight, effectively, you would be kicked out. There would be no terms of leaving, no gentle easing out of the EU, no "goodbye party", just a quick, hard landing. Trading with the EU would be on their terms and that means, since there would also be no more membership of the EEA, that getting any benefits of trade, such as being a member of EFTA, would depend on What-is-left-of-the-UK adopting various EU laws, etc, such as social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics as well as the old favourite called "Human Rights". The only difference is that any London based Government would not have any veto, would not have any say whatsoever regarding the policies they must follow. A fax gets sent, and they must agree or the right to be part of EFTA would be withdrawn.
Hard to say if the repercussions of all of that is a good thing, is it........
If you actually bother to read the article by the BBC you will discover the "question" being posed/answered was actually in relation to Catalonia.
IN relation to Scotland, the following copied from elsewhere..
Quote:
The UK of GB & NI ceases to exist if the vote is in favour of Independence. The repeal of the 1707 Acts of Union would result in the reinstating of the former Independent Sovereign States of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, (incorporating Wales), together with Northern Ireland. Should the Westminster Parliament retain the United aspect of the title and refer to the "United Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland", rather than simply the "Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland", then that would be entirely up to them. (The word "United" should have been dropped, along with the flag being redesigned, in 1927, but neither was done on the grounds of cost; Great Britain being the only "Kingdom" left in the club post-1927 and therefore "United" with no other Kingdom). Scotland and England having together established the Kingdom of Great Britain, then should Scotland, (and by default England), resume her status as an Independent Sovereign State, then the "Great Britain" part of the UK of GB & NI ceases to exist.
Scotland would not therefore cede from the UK as Quebec might cede from Canada. Each newly created Independent Sovereign State, (KofS and (U)KofE&NI), would be a successor state in law to the UKofGB&NI and therefore be bound by previous treaties undertaken by the predecessor state; the closest equivalent example being the case of the Czech Republic and Republic of Slovakia in respect of the former Federal Republic of Czechoslovakia:
Czechoslovakia emerged in 1918 as a result of the union between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia. (The Czech Republic having emerged as a result of the union between Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia). After WWII Carpathian Ruthenia ceded from Czechoslovakia and by the 1970s the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic comprised the Czech Socialist Republic and Slovak Socialist Republic.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland emerged in 1801 as a result of the union between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. (The Kingdom of Great Britain having emerged as a result of the union between the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland). After WWI the Irish Free State ceded from the United Kingdom and by the 1930s the United Kingdom comprised Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In 1993 the then Czech and Slovak Federative Republic split into its founding states: The Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. Neither of these successor states were regarded as being a "predecessor State (which) continues to exist" as per Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties..
Placing to one side Northern Ireland (it not having formed part of the Kingdom of Great Britain but part of the Kingdom of Ireland) and Wales (it having formed part of the Kingdom of England), Great Britain would, if split, revert to its founding states: The Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England. Neither of these successor states would be regarded as being a "predecessor State (which) continues to exist" as per Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties.
If you actually bother to read the article by the BBC you will discover the "question" being posed/answered was actually in relation to Catalonia
.
So what is the difference between the Catalonia situation and the Scotland one? Don't get me wrong anything that gets us out of the EU is a good thing (in my opinion) so I may have to move up north in a few years
So what is the difference between the Catalonia situation and the Scotland one? Don't get me wrong anything that gets us out of the EU is a good thing (in my opinion) so I may have to move up north in a few years
The Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England jointly, through Parliamentary treaties, (which can be repealed), entered into a political union to create the Kingdom of Great Britain. (The Czech/Slovak example is a similar case). Catalonia however was absorbed by both the Kingdom of Spain and Kingdom of France. It did not join with another 'state' to create a single new 'state'.
Quote:
If Scotland chooses the route of loneliness and bankruptcy
Continued EU membership hardly amounts to 'loneliness' and as for bankruptcy, have you seen the UK's bank balance recently?
Without getting into the details of this argument, I am amused by the idea that past precedent has any bearing.
The experience of the past fews years is the intent and wording of any treaty is superfluous, the meaning is whatever the EU courts/commission decide it is/was, no more no less.....
Just why would they want to be a member of the EU....as it doesn't seem to be a booming success of late?
I can see them doing a rehab of Hadrian's and perhaps doing some bed sitters in a few upscale places that currently are Tax-Free havens for a select few.
If they would accept Landed Immigrants from former Scottish Colonies....I might be convinced to go back to the home of my ancestors.
I do enjoy the Pipes, Whisky, and a Peat Fire while gazing upon Rassay.
Doesn't come down to the EU, but the UN. Would be quite something if the EU decided it would ignore any UN decision and, for example, class the Kingdom of Scotland as a Successor State whilst the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland remained a Predecessor State, if the UN determined otherwise.
As (joint) successor states, the Kingdom of Scotland and United Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland would enjoy equally the benefits (or otherwise) of treaties entered into by their predecessor state, namely the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.
According to the same UN document, the Kingdom of Scotland and United Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland would continue as NATO members thanks to the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland having also been a member. Therefore a Kingdom of Scotland not wishing to continue NATO or indeed EU membership would have to negotiate an exit, rather than an entry.
The Act of Union is a pretty straightforward document by modern standards, therefore it doesn't take a constitutional expert to determine the outcome of its being repealed.
Location: Salt Lake City, UT or on a fire somewhere
Posts: 971
SASless..
Quote:
I do enjoy the Pipes, Whisky, and a Peat Fire while gazing upon Rassay.
I fear your humor is lost on this crowd...
I too can claim my right---my father was born and raised in the tenements of Aberdeen, and my paternal grandfather worked as an engineer on the Scottish railroad system all his his life.
Do not drink the 25 year old whiskey.... especially those that take their water from the Spey river.... In a former life, I owned and lived in a home on the border of Moray and the Highlands.... One would take my dog for a walk along the Spey river, and often times need to "relieve" myself.... But I left in 89... so as long as you stick with the 23 or younger you are good....
