If Mr Borg is in charge of fisheries he should be desperate to keep Scotland in the EU.
Check Scotland's national fishing zones again and clear it of infestation by Spanish trawlers.

This old, old chestnut again.

Every tenet of intenational law, such as the Vienna Conventions on State Secession, and the legal precedents all say exactly the opposite.

The Vienna treatey points to continuation of treaty obligations. The only precedent was Greenland, which WANTED to leave the EU, but on gaining dominion status had to negotiate its way out of the EU, from a position of continued membership. Unionists of course point all ways on this - they state that Scotland would have to remain in NATO until it could negotiate its way out, post independence, but then reverse their logic when it comes to the EU. Of course, the same logic would apply to the legacy part of the UK state as well.

Just in terms of realpolitik, why would it benefit the EU to fracture its borders (at a time of enlargemnt) and have the vast majority of its oil and gas (and fishing grounds) outside the Union. It would not.

The transition of Scotland to indepdence can be accomplished easily, and it is just a readjustment of Scotlands legal position with regard to the legacy of the UK and the EU. Not complex. Only those who lack ambition or vision, or feel themselves woefully untalented would present it as a difficlut thing to achieve. In a world where the Berlin wall fell and East Germany was rapidly included in the EU, where Czechoslovakia achieved a "velvet" transition to independent states, does anyone think that Scotland, not part of a command communist state, and with a history of democracy, couldn't also manage the readjustment?

"On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate but..."

Exactly, this is the view of one fisheries chap in the EU, not the definitive legal position.

Likelihood of Scotland having to do this in my researched and considered opinion is that Scotland would not have to rejoin.

If, however, I were proven wrong, my I also pose the question that would it not also ring true that the remainder of the UK would have to reapply? It's not a simply as Scotland leaving the UK, the UK would not exist without Scotland as it's political foundations would be fundamentally altered...ie. Scotland, along with England and Northern Ireland (not Wales - it's legally part of England) ARE the UK...without Scotland, the UK as is cannot exist...thus, all parts would have to reapply for membership, or as I beleive, none would...

Anyhow, as will supposed fiscal deficits, this will never be known beyond all reasonable doubt until it's tested...clearly the feart unionists will pin their failing arguments to this mast, but ifs and maybes are no solid foundation from which to argue Scotland should aspire to do better and control her own destiny...

Here's to testing this fact-less assumption by our fishy EU friend...

Your anti-SNP stories are becoming boring. How about learning to play another tune?

As Fisheries Commissioner it's in Mr Borg's interest is it no tae discourage thochts o independence sae that Scottish fisheries resources is kept accessible tae the EC fishermen?

Should have read: but ifs and maybes are no solid foundation from which to argue Scotland should not aspire to do better and control her own destiny...

More from the Hootsman.
Headline.
"Independent Scotland would have to apply to join EU"
Reality
"The European Commission has studiously stayed out of this argument, refusing to comment - a position it continued to keep yesterday."
Break up of the UK=No UK.
England will NOT be a successor state.
The EU will ignore the largest EU (yes,we will still be in it)producer of oil.
AM2 please comment before I go to work.Please.
This is going to be a fun post:)

"Scotland would remain outside the EU until it had completed the formal application process - in the same way as Eastern European states have done in recent years. "

But of course Eastern european states were never part of the EU prioi to aplication, so this is a completely irrelvant non-comparable situation.

Perhaps the Scotsmans forensic, investigative journalists, or failing that AM2 with his google engines revving, will point to the relevant part of any EU treaty which would facilitate the expulsion of part of a member state post-independence? The mechanism does not exist, is contrary to international law, and reverses the EU's only precedent. Clearly just a political agenda.

Strangely, I think it was Professor Emile Noel, at the time head of the commissions legal service, who confirmed that Scotland would remain in membership post independence, there being no mechansim for any other situation.

Mr Borg also expressed severe doubts about Scotland's ability to withdraw from the common fisheries policy - an approach that used to be advocated by the SNP. He said it was "not legally possible".

It just gets better. He says we would be outside the EU, but yet at the same time still bound by the EU fishing policy. PRICELESS. And the Scotsman prints this self-contradicting, admitted non-expert. Could they not get Arthur Midwinter or Lord Zebedee to venture an "expert" opinion.

By the way,can we get the name of the "Senior official?"
Or that would be bending the truth to much,even for this once esteemed paper?

AM2
Where are you?
My database against your's.

Conan, in spite of all that spell checking you still spelled "shute" wrong.
Tsk tsk.
and NO you can't get the name of any "Senior Official". He's emptying the bins on the second floor and won't be back until 3am unless the coffee machine needs a refill.

#13 - **Newsflash** Senior Fishy Official from Red Herring Department ventures "expert" opinion on Scotlands constitutional position.

**Newsflash** Professor Bleak Midwinter and Lord Zebedee contacted for weighty legal expertise

**Newsflash** Wendy Alexander has Chinese take-away

Prior to taking up the post of Member of the European Commission with responsibility for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, Joe Borg, 54, served as Foreign Minister of Malta, leading negotiations for Malta's accession to the European Union. Since 1979, Joe Borg has held various academic posts at the University of Malta specialising in Company Law, Industrial Law and European Law. He also held various posts as legal adviser to companies and corporate bodies in Malta and abroad and, in 1995, he was the main author and drafter of the Malta Companies Act.

Unfortunately Joe Borg has little or no knowledge about the United Kingdom as he assumes that the entity known as the 'united kingdom' would remain after the disolving of the act of union. He is unaware that the united kingdom IS the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. He is unaware that if Scotland have to re-apply, then the same would also have to apply to England and the remains of the UK.
Joe Borg is also blissfully unaware that over 75% of the UK fishing grounds and fleet are Scottish
Joe Borg correctly stated that he isnt actually competant to comment!
The question then is why did the Scotsman interview this Maltese politician, who doesnt really have much standing? or is just another case of the Scotsman making much of absolute nothing!

#13 sorry half my post missing.
His names Borg.I'll get my coat :o(

Joe Borg is the Maltese Falcon!!

Joe Borg seems so incompetant in commentating on Scotland that on the one hand he states that an Independent Scotland would be outside the EU, BUT an Independent Scotland would have to adhere to EU common fisheries policy!
Sorry but thats a contradiction, either an Independent Scotland would remain in the EU and adhere to the EU common fisheries policy or an Independent Scotland outside the EU would NOT be legally bound by the EU common fisheries policy
You cant have it both ways!

It was really funny.Honest.
Damn you previe

I had King Prawns (Chinese, ala Wendy) for dinner last night. Do I qualify an an expert on international law as well now? Or does the Scotsman reserve that position for political appointees only. I wonder why the Scotsman hasn't asked the new Labour appointed UK commissioner's opinion?

"The United Kingdom as the member state will pay out £69.5 billion over the next five years to the EU and get £31 billion back in a rebate."

Presumably Scotland contributes 8.9% of that £70bn (£6.3bn) and recieves a similar percentage share of the £31bn that comes back (£2-3bn). If that is the case, how can the Scotsman argue that the EU subsidizes Scotland?? Even if Scotland recives a larger % of the UK rebate due to her geography etc i still doubt she is subsidized unless Scotland gets something like 30% of the UK rebate.

The Scotsman would never claim that the UK is subsidized, so how can it claim Scotland is? Then use this make believe excuse as a reason not to leave the UK

It has always been the case that an independent scotland would have to apply to become a EU member but Salmond has simply denied that was the case. he even stated that it would not be subject to a referendum in France, and it is extremely clear that would be the case.

Why Salmond would want to stay in the EU anyway is rather strange. He would be forced to abide by the common fisheries policy which he wants to withdraw from. He says he wants scotland to become a independent country but he would immediately hand our sovereignty over to Brussels and I am sure he would hand over many more powers at the first opportunity, so in time presumably we would become one country again anyway (The United States of Europe).

The SNP's "Independence in Europe" strategy was devised at a time when their Electoral support was less than half of what it is today.

It was aimed Primarily at timid voters who although considering themselves to be Scottish, had swallowed the unionist - too: small/poor/weak/stupid to stand on your own two feet nonsense.

Combined with active support for Devolution, it chased away some long-time supporters of the SNP but in the fullness of time Salmonds "Baby-Steps to Independence" wheeze appears to have paid some dividends.

My point is the Scottish People have considerably more self-confidence than they had 12yrs ago and confidence in the SNP has risen immeasurably, the EU is no longer required as a crutch.

In fact the EU has changed so much in the last 12 years, it is no certainty that either the SNP membership or the Electorate generally would choose to join it, if put to a vote.

But more Importantly Scotland's Government, negotiating entry(or non entry) with a blank sheet of paper before them, as opposed to the rubber stamping of all agreements made by previous UK administrations, would make a lot more sense to me.

#3 Why do you bother to read AND comment on the articles if it's that bad?

Alex Salmond aka Mr Man Boobs probably won't give a hoot about this EU muppet says.

#24 - Daryl - would you care to quote one iota of international law, EU treaty or precedent in support of your assertion?

Correcting some myths printed by the Scotsman:
1. If Scotland became independent, it would no longer be a part of the UK, which is an EU member. Opinion is divided as to whether Scotland would automatically become a new member state, or whether it would have to re-apply.
INCORRECT! – There would not be an entity called the UK as the UK is Scotland and England (Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom, therefore you cannot have a ‘United’ Kingdom of a single Kingdom) Scotland, by virtue of being a partner state in the UK is already a member of the EU. If Scotland had to re-apply, then so would England and Northern Ireland

2. (Joe Borg) He is considered one of the most highly influential and important European commissioners.
INCORRECT! – Joe Borg is newly appointed as a result of Malta just joining the EU, so has not actually had much time in the EU

Oh and wouldn't the successor state rule apply and Scotland inherit membership as well? After all the UK of England, Scotland, Wales and NI would no longer exist and instead you would technically have two NEW state's

being the

A) The UK of England, Wales and NI
B) Scotland

#24 Darryl Matheson, Elgin, Morayshire
Can you actually state WHY and Independent England would not have to re-apply for EU membership, but an Independent Scotland would??

Heaven forbid we end up like Norway, Iceland or Switzerland!

Exactly Benthehoose, considering that one Union will do everything in its powers to retain control over us (due to our strategic location, resources etc) ... i find it very hard to believe that another Union would simply let us go

#30 JayMac, Pluto
Just to correct, there would not be a 'UK of England, Wales and NI'
as England is the only Kingdom, so cant be United with itself. Wales is a Princepality, which is absorbed into the Kingodom of England and Northern Ireland is a province.

Therefore the most probably title would be 'The Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland'
that of course dependent on Northern Ireland wanting to be part of England! They may favour being associated to Scotland

#23. JayMac, Pluto

They use that same logic with the UK treasury taking all our taxes etc....and what we get back they call a subsidy... are they traitors, fools or what???

31 Edward - you miss the sophistication of unionist argument (#24)

By the simple mechanism of prefacing any ludicrous, unsupported assertion with the phrase "it has always been the case" the need for logic, rationale or substantiation is done awy with. Thus -- it has always been the case Scotalnd is too poor, Scotland is too stupid, Scotland will be invaded by giant militaristic badgers if it becomes independent.

33 - The irony of the EU Commission expelling its own headquarters from the EU if Belgian does split, following the logic of this article, must surely not be lost....

Scotsman inventing there own stories, when its revealed in the Herald that a report published yesterday has revealed that the campaign to promote Scotland (Best Wee Country in the World) backfired spectacularly.The research, commissioned by Holyrood and carried out by Ipsos/Mori, also showed that, despite the previous administration's attempts to boost Scotland's image in those three countries, people's knowledge of it was "generally low".
The report revealed that the executive's desire to promote Scotland as a modern nation also failed, with most Americans, Germans and Chinese still largely associating the country with the traditional image of bagpipes, kilts and whisky.
Jack McConnell alloed £244,000 to be spent promoting the slogan at all the Scottish Airports

So this is yet another story buried by the Scotsman as it doesnt show Labour in a good light

Please some hush..AM2 is quietly and diligently trawling through his awesome unionist database to get just the right response...Waiting....

#31

Sorry, did I say an independent England would not have to apply.

Another thread-£244,000 crap slogan-£100,000 Scottish Government.Which is the best wee waste of money?

40 - Conan - more likely trawling the bottom of some slime pit to look for a diversionary, SNP supporters ate my hamster, obfuscatory piece of sophistry.

Yeah Edward but wouldn't it still be called the UK of England, Wales and NI since at present the UK's official name is the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and NI? I thought the use of the word 'Kingdom' has nothing to do with the individual parts being Kingdoms themselves and is to do with the fact that the Unified Parts were a 'United Land' under one King (or Queen) and were hence a 'Kingdom'. Yeah Wales is a principality, as far as i know the only states that had Kingdom Status prior to the UK were Scotland and England.

Oh and Col Blimp, i prefer to call them thieving B******'S

Straying off topic but : But when we make the break from Westminster, is it not the case that the United Kingdom (place with the same King/Queen).

Will remain United. it just wont have any political clout. It would be the Queen and the privy- councillors, Lord Lieutenants and Knights of the Round Table meeting every now and again to discus Garden Party guest lists and Colour Trooping.

So what the hell are all you Unionists greetin about?

45 Col B - Scottish Unionists are in a state of terror lest invitations to Royal jamborees and opportunities for enoblement become scarce in an independent Scotland. How would the likes of noble Lord Foulkes (police and old woman basher) and noble Lord Watson (arsonist) pad out their earnings if the parliament of the Uk is disbanded. They might have to do a stroke of work. Or comment full-time as experts for the Scotsman.

Therefor all EU citizens in the newly independant Scotland would have to leave immediately.
England, Wales and Northern Ireland would no longer be members of the EU and would have to renegotiate terms without oil and fishing. Interesting.

Scotland would probably get in easily but it wouldn't be as straight-forward as the SNP thinks. The rest of the UK would remain because Scotland would be breaking away from it and not vice versa. Usual windbag blustering from the SNP supporters I see when their simplified view of the world is shown to be at odds with reality.

#46. AyrshireScot

Curious that "The Scotsman" never seems to seek their advice on the fields in which that dynamic duo actually are experts.

#31. Edward. If England held a referendum and unilaterally broke away from the rest of the UK it would have to reapply for the EU. This is not the case. Like most SNP supporters, you can't see the difference between the UK and England. You also expect any future English government to be benign and friendly towards Scotland - just like the current UK government. This is wishful thinking at best and delusional at worst.

48 Royster - come, come. After the Berlin wall fell, East Germnay, a communist command economy, was integrated rapidly into the EU. As have Eastern european communist bloc countries been. Are you seriously arguing that Scotland, already a full member and fully compliant with EU law, could not transition its legal status within the EU?

Naw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We don't want to join. Things are bad enough now without having to reapply. Let's just trade with the EU and :-) at them. Scrap ECHR as well.

#47. Why?

and i though all the Borg wanted to do was assimilate?

cool - nae mair EU rights or laws, jist think, ra Sellic could sign hunners o Brazillians noo like yon Shakiras pure did last night, the cheatin aul hoors (theyll nevvir win a EC wae 11 players aw born doon wan o their local mines but, will thae..), then ah can go an collect ma waiting nummer frae the local deportation centre.

Be pure thoosands oh us superpatriot expat exscots back on yir doorstep shortly, the very second they rescind oor previously-held EU rights as foreign residents in other EU countries, be like Seville in reverse, so it will. Maybe help the (soon-to-be) strugglin property market anaw, yir local boozer will be a nightmare but, yis wirnae aw secretly glad wae left fir nae reason.

Ahd also like tae thank the Hootsmon fir giein mi this chance to get ma affairs in order an a considered withdrawal plan in place but, an, Salmon ya bam, the rescue Helicopters better be collectin us aw an pullin us oot oh this Hole we called Europe (and home) at the appointed time, optherwise ahll be recallin ma postal vote - tae the rest oh yis - See Yis Aw Again Soon! Winkie Winkie!!! - Bet yis cannae wait!!!

P.S. - As an independent oil-rich nation waeoot the backup o the EU, wid the increased chances o bein invaded by GWB & Co. no make a quick defence pact alliance wae yon Chineese/Russkie/Fidel Castro fella a good idea?

P.P.S. - Whit the **** is wrang wae the Euro anyway? Like, Seriously?!! - Cyberpint to the first sensible & plausible argument against it..

#8. The UK will still exist as a legal entity even though the name doesn't match the situation on the ground. Again, SNP supporters are being simplistic.

49 - Col B - I must start reading the violent crime and lifestyle pages to see if this is the case lol. .....
- - - -
Lord George commented on an assault by drunken youths on an old woman in Princes Street, stating "their technique was weak, they should have wrestled her to the ground firstm, abnd they should have imemdiately tried to punch the copper in the napper when he intervened"

Lord Watson, in our camping section in the Living supplement, says on the joys of a campfire "och, you'll never start a decent fire with those firelighters. I recommend curtains in place of tinder"

I CANNOT believe the front cover and lead article in this newspaper, shame on the staff that work for this rag.

Its laughable.

Tune into www.theherald.co.uk for a more intelligent opinion.

#51. I think there would be no problem but the devil is in the detail. I believe there would be no automatic right as the SNP suggests.

55 - the greetin unionists would miss the pictures of the baked bean on the coins?

Why do you not split away from England, and join NAFTA? Forget the the EU?

Despite what #39 says, Americans and Canadians like Scotland, and would welcome you.

59 - Royster - every tenet of international law (Vienna conventions, UN), EU law, precedent and legal opinion (not fishmonger opinion) support the SNP case. Please state one tenet of international law, EU treaty or precedent which does not?

Oh dear, a bit of a spoke in the wheel for Mr. Fish and his party and what a load of speculative baloney being posted here by the desperado's who haven't got a clue and just quote the usual SNP nonsense without any idea of it's real contents.

The FACT is it's uncertain that an independant Scotland will have automatic right of entry into the EU. Mr. Fish knows that as do all other members of the political community. Nobody in fact knows......

Similar situation with the oil. Nobody knows.....

The whole problem with the SNP band waggon is that it so depends on it's two main cash cow pillars - EU membership and gaining oil revenues, neither of which are certain.

If either went wrong, the cost to Scotland and it's citizens would be too great a burden to bear and could be further exacerbated by the desertion of many major Scottish companies who's main customer base is in England and the rest of the EU.

They may be forced into re-locating South to escape the ensueing higher tax regime so as to remain competitive.

These gentlemen are the facts and don't rely on some memo written by a dead politician who himself at the time just DIDN'T KNOW......

Is his mother the Borg Queen? It's so though these days trying to tell fact from fiction.

63 - Heavy metal poisoning from eating too much fish out there?

Unionists must learn that merely by prefacing weak and ludicrous staements with capitalised 'FACT' does not make them any more valuable as arguments. (and you can put FACT before that)

No unionist has yet to state one fraction of an iota of substantiation to contradict the position of international law re. Scotland and the EU. (FACT)

And is your logic on oil that fishing is included as a reasonable certainty in Scotland's GDP, but the oil that come up through the fish is uncertain. Has international law changed such that oil and gas in a countries waters, or maritime economic zone, no longer fall under control of that country? Bizarre, who will get control of Scotland's oil - perhaps Malta. Maybe that will be the Scotsmans lead tomorrow after another chat with the Matlese Fish-Monger?

#39 Edward
Thank goodness for kilts, tartans, whisky (especially whisky) because they are fantastic marketing tools.
My company regularly attends trade shows in various countries and continents and we usually wear kilts (or other national dress for non-Scots).
I can tell you that nobody forgets about us - even years later people will still talk to us about seeing us in our kilts at such and such a show.
It has been a major factor for us and it continues to annoy me when confronted with the "cringe factor brigade".
There are many other countries who would love to have such a highly visible identity as the kilt gives to Scots.

#64
You got there :o(
Royster,I see where you are coming from now.
The wife (England)gets the hoose.Scotland(husband)has to give alimony.We will fight over the kids(Wales,Norn Iron).But both of us don't really want them till they grow up.

The FACT is that this would have to be made very clear BEFORE any referendum was held on breaking away from the U.K. Not to do so would have people voting on incomplete information and the only people that suits are the politicians.

#63 Chinabear
It is also uncertain if the sun will rise tomorrow but we still get on with our lives.
Even with all the uncertainty that hung over Hong Kong before the hand back to China we now see a vibrant and successful Hong Kong using its new relationship with China to fuel its development.
It is resolving such matters and using the benefits of new situations that makes countries and their people stronger.
Nothing in this world is certain. Life is full of uncertainties. But one certainty is that the Scottish people will never improve their situation by maintaining the status quo.
Only by taking their destiny into their own hands can they improve things and, at the same time, derive some satisfaction from the results.

#53 Royster

Are you really that simple?

If we are no longer EU members, they no longer have automatic right of entry.

As an example, Norway is one of the richest per capita nations in the world without Europe.

Sorry, no more dialogue - with Royster - on the subject. Intelectual mismatch. I'm seven next birthday and it's past bedtime.

It would be a ridiculous situation if Belgium splits for the parliament and HQ of the EU to be actually outside the EU. I'm sure in that situation that the two former Belgium states would have automatic entry, or their respective entries would be fast-tracked at the very least.

Given Scotland's natural resources, why would the EU want to keep out the only oil producing nation in the EU? That just seems as ludicrous as keeping the EU parliament out of the EU in the case of Belgium splitting.

Shame on the Scotsman for writing such an unbalanced article. Quite disgraceful really. It is getting as bad as the Daily Record these days for the biased reporting.

I would prefer a vote in Scotland anyway on whether we'd stay in the EU after independence. I don't quite agree on an EU superstate which seems to be the direction it's taking.

Where do I sign?

#72
How many Conans change a lightbulb?

Answer.F#ck zer lightbulb!
I vant your clothes,
your booits,
und your motorcsaikcle.

A reply to the posts.

I would never refer to myself as a unionist. This terminology is just a slur to put people down. It's like calling someone racist to gain immediate support.

I want what's best for Scotland and try to understand the facts and issues without following blindly. If Scotland becomes independant and it's the best thing for Scotland, then I'll support it.

Saltire, you've made a few good points and I agree in principal about the uncertainties of life and need to look positively to the future. However, with the Hong Kong situation, once again you've been taken along by the media and others who have their own political agendas.

I lived through the handover and there was never any doubt in Hong Kong about the return. That had all evaporated by 1995. In fact the place was booming in 1997 and people were returning, not leaving (except the civil servants of course).

I went back to Scotland the day before the ceremony and was seriously shocked by the anti press about Hong Kong and it's future. None of it reflected the views of Hong Kong citizens and was a great piece of negative speculation designed to sell newsprint and feed on the sour grapes feeling about handing back a piece of territory to nasty comminusts.

You must have experienced negative, unecessary and untrue comment about China in your travels.

Lastly, don't forget, Hong Kong was effectively losing it's independance and returning to the motherland, so maybe not such a good example.

The article also contradicts the comments made by Eamonn Gallagher, former Director-General of the European Commission, who previously stated that "it's inconceivable the EU wouldn't welcome an independent Scotland with open arms".

Typical for the Scotsman for not providing balanced reporting. Why didn't they publish that interview on the subject alongside the comments from Mr Borg? Mr Borg, from my knowledge, has not held the position of Director General.

#44, Jaymac: Look at your passport - it says the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - that's the official name of the country, not "United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and NI".

I think the truth here is that no one really knows what would happen to membership in the EU. I think a very good argument can be made that "Great Britain" refers to the political union of Scotland with England, and if that political union ends, then there is no more "United Kingdom" of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because Great Britain would no longer exist as a political entity.

Then, the lawyers will have a field day deciding whether memberships in international organizations are inherited by both new states, or neither, or only one of them.

Anyone know what happened to the USSR when it broke up? Did all the new states get automatic membership of the UN, or did only Russia get it, and the others had to go through some kind of a process?

The late Professor Emile Noel, who was secretary general of the European Commission for over 20 years, said that "an independent Scotland would have equal status with other states".

He also confirmed that Scotland was entitled, after legally acceding to independence, to take her place in the EU and that no negotiation was needed on this principle; and that the "Scottish claim for independence is a matter to be resolved by the Scots and English. The EU has no role other than to accept the outcome".

I thought Norway was not in the EU, and if so aren't they doing well. In or out of the EU, Scotland can still do well, as long as we're not tied to Westminster.

Perhaps Belgium will work out the mechanics for
us, if not I'm sure Scotland can determine how
best to accede to full European membership.

"Majority of Flemish think Belgium will split: poll"
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_i...

Chinabear" seriously shocked by the anti press about Hong Kong and it's future. None of it reflected the views of Hong Kong citizens and was a great piece of negative speculation designed to sell newsprint and feed on the sour grapes feeling about handing back a piece of territory "
Change" Hong Kong "to "Scotland."
Obviously ye have been awa'.

Am2'
You have failed.Go and assimilate yourself.;)

Well said, Rob of honest toun, 6, and Ayrshire Scot, 2, 9, 11, 27, 37, 62, 65.

Borg the EC Fisheries commissioner admits he is ignorant in the diplomatic / constitutional field, then proceeds to spout a load of garbage on it which Scotsman gives big headlines to !!! - pathetic !

Just a thought, - but if in the most unlikely event of the EU opposing Scottish membership (they have far too much to lose), - all Scots should shout "Hooray" !!!

#85 Sean K -- "if in the most unlikely event of the EU opposing Scottish membership (they have far too much to lose), - all Scots should shout "Hooray" !!!

You are absolutely correct. Scotland, like Norway and Switzerland, would be in the European Economic Area and would have free trade with the EU but would not be burdened with its dictatorial "directives".

of course the eu would let scotland in they need the money to support the 20 million non europeans they are going to permit entry from the afroican continent forever changing the face of eiurope for the worse in my opinion. so that memberdshipo also comes at a cost ............ mair dosh doon the stank

This is more typical unionist garbage from the Hootsmon. It is yet another attempt at trying to put the frighteners on the Scottish people, to try and put them off thinking about independence.

If they don't dig up paid for numpty trolls like Midwinter and Foulkesake, they try for something else, in this case the Borg. Well I've got news for the Hootsmon, the views of the Borg will not assimilate us, and the people of Scotland will not fall for the lies and propaganda enouraged and printed by the Hootsmon.

If they, the Hootsmon, were a decent newspaper, that actually knew anything about real journalism, they would print both sides of the argument. However, they continue to ignore the truth, and print the New Labour (Scottish Branch), and the New Labour (Headquarters) lies and propaganda.

This is just Red Top tabloid journalism, and with as much credibility as rags like the Daily Record.

#2 Ayrshire Scot. I agree with everything you've said, in all your posts on this matter.

As for AM Squared, his "database" is actually his employers "database", i.e. the Hootsmon.

88 so goona gies the ither side Guga??

there would be no reginal money like the irish got, we willna get wur fishin bsack, we will be further over run by incumamabooters

aall you higher than mighty gits on this blog need top spend a week in the real Scotland walk round the schemes at night trail round the pubs both in rich and opoor areas, look into classrooms where inbred toothless junkie scum do little or nothing to improve themselves, look in to the employment exchange or job centre, plenty tickets up but no takers ............. Scotland if it went independent woul dbecome even more of a third world country that it is already.

Mr Borg take the day off and go fishing, but not in Scottish waters.

91~ Thanks for your uplifting message. Are you part of Wendy Alexander's new think tank? With such vision, ambition and positivity for Scotalnd I am sure you could be.

Why don't you continue to wallow in your xenophobic pit of doom, whilst those of us who believe our country can be better than it is today get on with doing something about it.

83 what the hell are you going to do about it, you have been sooking up the money is some nice wee jobbie, YOU wull have some of yur pennies locked away in an offshore a/c if you dont yer daft!!!

when you come back here will you be setting up home is a cooncil estate or a nice wee hoose in the burbs??

Will you be looking to be a community leader and mentor some of the youth scum that dinnae hae ony faithers .......... will you be looking to help some skank teen who has a bairn and will be celebrating her sixteenth birthday when it is 18 monts old?

will you be helping at he chemist early in the morning when the junkies are doled out their methadone then they go outside, puke it up for resale?

will you be using properly insured tradesmen for your we jobbies round the house or will you break the law and use homers? will you spend time with a family whose "father" is locked up AGAIN for violence? will you be picking up litter from the pavement? will you tell someone who dropped it to pick it up??

will you be coming back tto the olld country with rose tinted glasses YES YOU WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am European. Beethoven to the great Jean Sibelius runs though my blood. I love Flora MacNeil and Ishbel MacAskil. I am half Norwegain. I am an Arab. Got a problem with that?

French generals or financiers, who remembers them? But I certainly know Maurice Ravel.

Essentially Scots, I don't like things imposed on me. I may be British as I see it. But never any jobbing UK politician's dictat on it.

yok you are nothing more than the government lets you be .............. the only thing you can say for certain is that one day you will die .........

Chinabear:

"Lastly, don't forget, Hong Kong was effectively losing it's independance and returning to the motherland, so maybe not such a good example."

Moving out of British Collonialism is considered losing independence in your view?

With a name like Borg, you'd think he'd be quite desperate to assimilate us.

Mind you, if we had to re-apply ... so would our southern neighbours. The EU couldn't keep England in and not Scotland or Wales! That would smack of favouritism, wouldn't it?

Mind you, that's assuming we'd want to stay in the EU.

Some obscure EU politician gives a view that could be completly wrong...and it's headlines.

I wonder if it would have been headline news if the comments would have been pro-independence ?

Let me see............naw !!

answer is easy - leave EU - apply to become 51st state of USA and see how fast Europe wants us in the EU :-)

Why on earth would the EU turn Scotland ? Are we a pariah nation ?

FF 91 - you've been having a nightmare, man, better laying off the cheese !

94 - correction; better laying off the bevvy.

The chinese rolled into Hong Kong smartly dressed in smart buses. This impressed the youth of the world whose word is "cool". Tanks are so russian and 20th century.

The Party (chinese government) knew that with Hong Kong they also got the world's foremost gangster clan (Triads, only Jews are near them) that would seek to infiltrate and destroy their country. They sussed they could hack this. But nothing of this world is built in stone except the Great Wall and the City of Aberdeen.

All power to the Party.

#70. I'm sure everybody would be 'grandfathered' in or there would be some stop-gap measure. Like I said, I don't envisage any major problem with Scotland's eventual EU membership, I just don't think it will be as smooth as the SNP suggests. This is hardly a controversial or unreasonable stance. It's quite shocking to see how the usual SNP culties cannot accept this; but theirs is a sad 'Dungeons and Dragons' fantasy world.

The UK is supposed to be a union of equals so the legal position must be the same for all, whatever that is.

Its hard to know what to write about this crap that the Scotsman have produced here.

I can only hope that they feel suitably ashamed and begin to look at their circulation figures once again.

Wendy, Nicol, Annabel and ULSTER.

GREENLAND.

It is the UK that is a member of the EU so England will have to reapply too!

They'd be lucky to have us.

This is another non-story. As Mr Borg says, "that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate..." Just more blether from the 'Skotsman'.

Is it only a coincidence that I had this very same argument with the Troll calling itsel AM2 a couple of days ago and he used all the points mentioned in the above headline with the glaringly obvious one concerning France and Algeria?

Lets look at some of the points in the story fae hamish.

The European Commission has always refused to get involved in the debate

Joe Borg, the fisheries commissioner, has broken ranks to say unequivocally that in his view, an independent Scotland would remain outside the EU until it had completed the formal application process - in the same way as Eastern European states have done in recent years.

Mr Borg said: "On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluat

A spokesman for Mr Salmond stressed last night that the First Minister did not share Mr Borg's view.

He said: "Commissioner Borg makes it clear that the issue is not within his competence to assess as an individual. In response to several European parliamentary questions on the matter, the European Commission has quite deliberately and properly not given that answer, which is its official position

"Mr Borg also expressed severe doubts about Scotland's ability to withdraw from the common fisheries policy - an approach that used to be advocated by the SNP. He said it was "not legally possible"."

So according to Borg it is not possible to withdraw from the Common fisheries policy but an Independent Scotland will not remain with the EU.

?????????????? If we are no longer in the EU then surely all treaties negociated within the EU as part of the UK including membership are null and void.
So is Borg right? or is he motivated by having his nose put out of joint by AS looking to withdraw from the common fisheries policy?
And look at the examples given Incredible!!

Denmark and Greenland and Greenland had to negociate TO LEAVE THE

Does the Northbritishperson ever wonder if Littel Engurland would be accepted by the EU.

#107. Prior to devolution, the UK was a union of equals - now the Scots are more equal. If Scotland is no longer in the UK, then what you say is irrelevant.

Well done for highlighting this! An opportunity for an independent Scotland to either negotiate into or stay out of the EU. How many of us have complained about the rules and legislation of Europe, we could reclaim our country and justice system - no more prisoners using EU law to get compensation.

Alex Salmond - you need to give the people an opportunity to say if they want to go into Europe, hold a referendum on the issue!

#113. Wasn't that because Greenland is still part of Denmark.

Scotland leaving the UK=Scotland leaving the EU??
What kind of bullsh#t is that?

Borg is playing his own game with AS over the common fisheries policy trying to put a wee bitty pressure on Alex to change his mind.
Borg husnie really got a clue whether we should be in or no.

#113 AM2 has on a number of occasion associated himself with the Tory party. He doesn't criticise Labour very often because he is a Unionist - from what other people say about him, it appears a NI Unionist, which probably means he's an Orangeman.

His comments align him with the views and propaganda of this newspaper, simply because he, like this newspaper, is anti-SNP.

Bizarre! Truely amazing piece of journalistic tosh this time. Who the hell is running the Scotsman to allow the thinky disguised gutter press piece through?

Please, there are enough savvy folks out thier that know international law. Jesus H Christ, I'm appalled. Do us a favour Editor, pull this piece immediately lest you be accused of lies and false accusation.

120 posts and around 98% all agree this is total guff.

correct me if i am wrong

1/ the unitedkingdon is the legal member of the eu
2/ england have queen elizabeth
3/ an independent scotland will retain queen elizabeth
4/ both england and scotland will be independent but part of the 8united kindom weith elizabeth as the queen
5/ as both scotland and england will rwmain part of the united kingdom both will remain members of the eu

forgive the typing

As would England!

117 Royster

Apparently it is a self governing Danish province now isnt that interesting in the light that an Independent Scotland would still in fact be subjects of the British crown.
Is our treaty with the EU a treaty between the British crown state and the rest? maybe that is something that needs clarity it would certainly give us a legal precendent for remaining in the EU dont you think?

In the past, other senior officials (eg, Emile Noêl, a former Secretary General of the European Commission and Eamonn Gallagher, a former Director General of the Commission) have said the opposite.

Given the current perilous state of the united Belgium, aak Joe Borg what the status of the potentially independant Flanders and Wallonia would be. I reckon you'd get a different answer then.

Well, the article is mince but the comment are chust fine :-)
Ted Brocklebank should keep his mouth shut, I bet Anniebell is fair riled with him.

This is an irrelevant argument because it is not going to happen. Debating it is a complete waste of time.

120

Its possible but his posts reflect the changes in direction of Labour party spin almost exactly and as like today he argues points and views previous to them becomming stories in this paper.
He definately has a link to the Scotsman but is it a political link or is he employed by the Scotsman maybe even both. But he is definately pushing party a political agenda for new Labour.

#123 The UK was formed at the Union of the Crowns 1603, Great Britain was formed at the union of the parliaments in 1707. So you have to ask if it is GB or the UK that is a member of the EU.

So if Belgium splits do both sections including Brussels have to apply to join the EU?. Hardly!!

29. Benthehoose.

Agree. Looks like Belgium will settle this argument pretty soon.

Pretty much a non story wrapped in 1 biased opinion of an EU Fisheries minister within a UK union biased newspaper.

So it looks like Scotland will have to negotiate EU membership before leaving the UK.HE HE.

128 Troll (Scottish Office/Scotsman)?

Yeah Yeah Yeah regurgitated cack again but ye still didnt show us what they cited as the legal precedent for their personal politcally motivated VIEWS AND OPINIONS because you have got nothing to offer as an argument and if you cant find one in your professional capacity then there isnt one unless its an argument in favour of Scotland remain within the EU.
Now put up or shut up.

Why would joining the EU worry the SNP?

The SNP are anti unions and would not opt to join the EU anyway.

I say that Scotland must have a referendum so that we can hear what the people of Scotland want. Following that vote counts we move forward accordingly. Until then, its all a lot of bollocks.

"the SNP's case for 'independence in Europe'".

Is this a misnomer or an oxymoron?

Why can't Scotland be independent in the United Kingdom? Devolution and the barnett formula allow us to be.

I think their daddies told them to hate the English and it's little more than this. The SNP's basic premise is a lot of old bollocks.

#133. It doesn't matter how it was formed and the name is irrelevant. It is Scotland that would be breaking away.

#141. Good point.

This story like a lot of similar stories that the Hootsmon publishes these days ...

It is designed to cause panic and alarm ...

It is there to attempt to put a spanner in the works

It is there to confuse; upset and un-nerve ...

WELL DONE Hootsmon ...

A thigh slapper ...!!

75. ChinaBear, Hong Kong
98. Dragonhead, Dalian,China
69. Saltire, China

Independent Scotland would have to apply to join EU
---------------------------------------------------------

Dragonhead wrote:
"Certain posters never stop their ill informed and out of date diatribes on China. It certainly has problems, but at least they are actively addressing them, which is more than can be said for 'the folks at home'"

You Dudes,
Living in Communist China constantly ignore the fact that your fellow communists the 1.3 billion chinese are denied most basic political rights, and civil liberties in your country CHINA..

The right to vote.
The right to freedom of expression.
The right to protest in public.
The right to promote religion.
The right to have more than one child

The CCP in China has automatic censoring software , that deletes words or messages on your internet, that are questionable. such as phrases like "democracy" or Tiananmen Sq".

Taboo web pages are automatically blocked, as are questionable blogs, and a user's location, browsing patterns and email messages can be examined by a CCP agency.

No political opposition groups exist in China, and the Falungong and the CDP are considered subversive groups.

Your country China, is first in the world in the number of lawyers, journalists and Netizens held in prison

It’s also the world leader for people dying in industrial accidents, and about 400,000 Chinese each year die from drinking the water, which is unpotable.

In 2005 the CCP published their official number of executions that year. They executed 1,760 Chinesein 2005, . By firing a hollow point bullet into back of victims head.

Of the world's 20 most polluted cities 16 are in China. The Sun Never Rises over those cities, by that I mean, at midday you look up and see this grey -brown haze blocking out the sun.

In

i heard comments in the article from people who have in the past who have been critical of theE.U.
now because it suits there arguement it as if we can'nt do without it.
i suppose england would have to re-apply. could you see that in a french referendum.

If we have independence from 'the UK' should we not also have independence from Europe, and re-instate the 200 mile limits around our coastline. Should give our fishing industry a good boost!

140 Media 1

Thats a fair point maybe we should have a national referendum on Europe and decide to go forward on that basis.

141 143

Behave.

#126. There is obviously a good argument for an independent Scotland remaining within the EU and, if I had to gamble, I would think that would be the most likely scenario. All I'm saying is it wouldn't be automatic, as the SNP supporters here appear to believe. They keep coming up with this ridiculous argument that if we have to leave the EU and reapply then so does England (even though England is not part of the EU - it gets its membership by being part of the UK which is a member). The Channel islands are not part of the EU though subject to the Crown of England (Duchy of Normandy).

#149 Honest Jock

I am sick of it now, its becomming farcical and the longer it goes on the more damage it will do to our profile.

I want a referendum as soon as possible so that the people of Scotland can decide what is best for Scotland.

Salmond cannot decide, neither can any other politician, it has to be the Scottish people and us only.

The politicians need to move aside for a day so that the people can decide. Thereafter we move forward in whatever capacity we have decided for ourselves.

Scotland is part of the UK and part of the EU so if Scotland leaves the EU it will remain part of the UK.

"On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate

Where is the story then?

It's not my competence to assess or to evaluate either, nor anybody else on this board.

150 Royster

It may or may not be automatic there is no legal precedent because our situation is unique but we have a much stronger legal case for automatic inclusion than those who try to deny us.
I believe a legal case has to be made for us to be kicked out rather than a legal case having to be made for us to remain as we are already within the EU now and with no legal precedent then its going to be difficult for anybody trying to kick us out.
possession is 99% of the law and we already possess membership.

RE the point, if Scotland has to re-negotiate entry to EU, so has every other ex UK country.

I don't see Scotland, England N. Ireland & Wales having to re-negotiate entry.

Membership is ongoing, everything is set up. This would be a new situation for EU, so, after discussion re laws, I imagine process would be quite smooth.

After all, don't see EU wanting to get into situation of losing members alredy there.

155 Troll (Scottish office/Scotsman)

What are we supposed to do with that?

And what would be the problem of not being included in the EU?

No. 33 Castaway. The political 'crisis' in Belgium presents an interesting scenario:

1. Flanders and Wallonia agree an amicable divorce.

2. Flanders and Wallonia both told that they are no longer members of the EU and have to re-apply, a process that will take several years.

3. Flanders and Wallonia agree to evict the EU from Brussels.

4. Homeless Joe Borg granted asylum seekers' accommodation in the Red Road high rises.

I dont know which is sadder, the fact that we should tell teh officials at the EU to go shove it, lets hold a referendum and decide once and for all which percentage of our contry wants to pay these chancers our hard earned cash each day.

Or the fact that this Borg is being paidgood money for coming up with total rubbish like this.

I for one would be voting to leave the EU and take back our fishing grounds and our Oil and Gas then let us see if they dance a different Tune.

IF Norway, Iceland, Finland can go it alone why cant we.

152 Media 1

That would be the democratic way to do it.

AM2

Of course it's a grey area. Glad you admitted it too. But I can bet my bottom doller the EU will include Scotland happily and with open arms given our natural resources.

Royster, I think you maybe miss the point which is that if Scotland regains her independence, the UK no longer exists - possibly a new UK may need to be formed, but the former UK would cease to exist.

When Czechoslovakia became 2 nations, what would have been their situation had they been in the EU? Who would have decided which part remained a member and which had to re-apply?

I think this is just the Scotsman trying to generate propaganda again. Oh, and incidentally, we would do well outside the UK - we have resources to trade whether we're in or out. We're not some east European backwater.

Scaremongering again. Who needs the EU? - we are better off without it, as Denmark is. Out of the fryingpan into a corporate, US dependent, protectionist federal European fire - that does not even have a constitution.
Come on Salmon - make our own rules to suit us, then see who if necessary we should join. Cart before the horse here, and that horse will bolt .

160 Troll (Scottish Office/Scotsman)?

Lets just agree its unique. But the odds are heavily in our favour. We have to be legally kicked out we dont have to negociate a way in.

Oh, and another thing - after the TA's visit to Paris last week, I think the French would vote 100% Yes to Scotland being a member. People overseas actually like us Scots....

Black and White our natural resources.

So does this mean that England; Wales and N. ireland would also have to re-negotiate their membership as this logically follows on.

The UK would no longer exist so as such the three rump countries of the UK would also void their own membership too ...

Scaremongering propaganda as per usual

WELL DONE HOOTSMON ...!!!

Do we need to a member of the EU. If Scotland does become independent we will need to look at was is good for Scotland as a whole and NOT sign our rights away to Brussels.

I have lived in Norway and they have no problem not being a part of the EU. Scotland can learn a lot from Norway.

I keep reading that the circulation figures for the Scotsman are dropping.
Can anyone tell me what they are?Give me a comparison with this time last year.

Just because The SNP wish something to be so, will not make it so, and of course the same applies to their opponents.

173

How profound! do you read a lot?
Maybe thats why we live by the rule of law and not by whats printed in Grimms fairy tales

More comment by someone (who this time admits) he doesn't know, he merely suspects.

The SNP should to-day apply to the UN for observer status, while also finding out officially about EC status post Independence.

This would do our cause no harm, while at the same time demonstrating to bussiness that the future is planned for.

This is no bad thing.
If independance does come along we may wish to renegotiate our position anyway.

Bizarre headline...........and your point is Sir?
Howzat any different from England, Wales et al??

176

As Media 1 suggested a referendum would be the way to go I wonder if its possible to get a consencus in the Scottish Parliament for an EU referendum in Scotland only now that would be interesting.
Ming Campbell is all for a UK referendum I wonder if he would tell his party up North to go for it.
Actually I wonder what the SNPs position on it would be.

It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland that holds the membership of the EU and the permanent seat on the UN Security Council and not any individual part. If Scotland becomes independent then the above country no longer exists and each part of the old UK would have to reapply either as a block or individually.

Untrue headline and misleading story. Definately the death-throws of a once regarded newspaper.

Hohum, off to work.

#171
I think it is the bureacracy and daft rules that upsets and offends people with regard to membership of the E.U.

Also there exists in britain a quaint hostility to "Jonny Foreigner" ... especially other Europeans ...

It is a stupid insular condescending throw-back to the Second World War

However

... I am sure that most people enjoy the principle benefits of our membership of the E.U.

This being freedom of movement of people; goods and services.

Also the fact that brits can go live / work in Germany; France; Spain etc etc

... and have the same rights of access to local government services such as free health care and access to schools for our weans.

Don't think many folks given this stark choice will wish to go back to the past.

But as I said above ...

WELL DONE HOOTSMON

... GREAT PIECE OF SCAREMONGERING ...!!!

So, a win-win situation for an indepentent Scotland!

Scenario 1:

Straight acceptance - business as usual.

Scenario 2:

Have to apply for membership, so in the intervening period, we remove Common Fisheries Policy, sign up the EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement - as are the Scandanavian countries), then re-negotiate our entry!!

Scenario 3:

Do a Greenland.

Applying a little commonsense to the problem.

As long as Scotland and the rest of the UK maintain a relationship that enables them to be treated as a single entity by the EU then effectively there is no change.

If Scotland were to opt for either complete independence or any other form of self-government which meant that the above paragraph no longer applied, then clearly there would need to be some adjustment. Unless there was mutual agreement by the "countries"(?) which formed the UK that the UK no longer existed (or, of course, the rest of the EU membership decided that was the case ) then the UK minus Scotland (and minus any other part which might have decided to secede) would still be a member and Scotland would need to "apply" to join if it wanted to.

If Scotland was prepared to accept that all the conditions and agreements which had applied when Scotland was part of the UK still applied then presumably this would be quite a simple matter.

The fact that we are already in the EU means that we have to be legally kicked out so that makes a nonsence of the party political argument that Scotland would have to negociate its way back in but the rest will get automatic entry.
They are going to find it incredibly difficult to find a legal way to kick one party out and keep another party in when both parties are in exactly the same legal position.
In fact a legal battle could take years with appeals and cost a fortune.
I just dont see any foundation other than scaremongering and we all know from past experiance that scaremongering is the Unionist trade mark.

180 "Is our education system that bad are we really too stupid to run our own country????"

Based upon that sentence, I would have to say yes !

How about a serious debate about whether it makes sense for an independent Scotland to be in the EU or not?

The SNP likes the EU because;

1. They are signed up to the soc dem federalist agenda, with all the state control and big public sector that goes with it.

2. They think the EU "comfort wrapper" will help win an independence referendum.

However.

1. If you do the numbers then Scotland pays a lot more into the political EU than it gets out - i.e. we could afford our own properly focused farming subsidies if we wanted from stopping our EU net payments, as well as saving the fishing industry.

2. Trade and financial arguments are absolute tosh. All of this comes with EEA membership. Iceland, Norway, or indeed the Isle of Man are all EEA members, so have exactly the same trade and financial services arrangements with the rest of the EU as the UK does at present as a full member. Those who actually understand this put up the very weak argument that Scotland won't get a vote in EU regulations. So what - Scotland would only have 2% of votes at most and our interests are hardly different from England anyway in trade and financial services anyway? And an independent Scotland with the removal of Scottish Labour placemen/federalist Fib Dems/SNPers from Westminster is likely to see a gradual drift by England to EEA staus only anyway, probably taking Ireland with it.

The real differnce between the EU and the EEA is that the EU is a political organisation. If you are a Fib Dem or a centralist Soc Dem then you believe in the EU political agenda - i.e the sort of rubbish spouted by Andrew Duff, Charlie Kenendy, Richard Corbett or Dennis McShane.

However all opinion polls in Scotland show their agenda to be a minority view.

Seems to me the SNP can't devlop a rational approach to the EU until it works out where it is on real political issues beyond its simple seperatist agenda. The fact that the above 170 emails ju

#181

Mucha suerte Alex

Ah the usual nonsense from the SNP here I see.

Of course the remainder of the UK would still be the UK and would therefore not have to renegotiate its membership.

Of course the position of a newly independent state would not be clear cut.

At the very least, in order to join the EU Scotland would need to ratify all of the existing treaties, a process which would take time and since a number of them work against Scotland's interests (the common fisheries policy, for example). But these treaties would not be up for negotiation - this has been made clear with the accession states - you either accept the terms or you don't get in.

The SNP has been avoiding these awkward questions for years. They'd be better off taking a platform of being ambivalent to EU membership, saying they would examine the costs and benefits at the time.

It's votes that count, the Scotsman knows this and it has the power albeit to only 5% of eligible Scottish voters. That is why the relentless propaganda persists.

What the publishers Johnston Press think of this I can't imagine given falling circulation. Do they even read the paper? I did read an article by a 'johnston' on I think orchids or some other fauna once. Perhaps he is the black sheep princeling driving this.
Is he the Scotsman troll. I still think that Troll a Dandy reader is sitting in a Northern Irish armpitty bedroom revelling in his notoriety.

Unless the UK (i.e. English dominated) parliament grants (makes you shudder doesn't it) independence to Scotland, it's only by a good majority vote in either a referendum or General Election that that would force that UK parliament to permit (ugh!!) Scotland's Independence.

It's votes that count. It's even the Daily Record readers that counts. The 'inbred toothless junkie scum ' that the Fly Fifer (shame on you) mentioned who will vote for change.

It's votes that count, always.

#183 Scenario 2 is not possible. You cannot renegotiate the existing treaties. You either ratify or don't get in. This is well established.

I've seen this story before in here and I didnt believe it then to be quite honest.

Why would it be in the EU's interest to kick out a (stable) partial member state if it gained independence ?

Pure gibberish. One snout in the troughs opinion,
immediatley rebuffed by an EU spokesman as a
"Purely hypothetical matter". The question of membership of the EU should be put on the back-burner until nearer the time.

Membership is not all it's cracked up to be with the
big boys cherry-picking what rules they will obey and those they won't. We would have to have firm assurances that we control all our own natural resources and territorial waters, not just lump them into an EU pot.

Defence is another area where we must set our own agenda. As for defence of Scotland, that can be traded for air bases. NO panic, we must take the question of EU membership on it's merits, not just sleep-walk into it. Maybe even a North Atlantic partnership with Norway may be the way forward.

For the Scotsman to try and portray this as some kind of a blow for the SNP borders on the ignorant.

How many votes will an independent Scotland have?

How many votes will rest of UK have?

Which countries are going to come to Scotlands aid and give up there votes?

Scotland cant just sit at the table and have the same votes as say Ireland, but rest of UK will still be larger than Italy and will keep all exsisting UK voting power!!

Seems that Alex Salmond should start negotiating with the EU already.

What an embaressing piece of journalism. The first quote from Joe Borg, upon whom this rubbish has been based, is:

"On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate "

And yet the Scotsman put out an article as if the EU had officially passed a law specifically against Scotland maintaining EU membership if it broke from the EU. Im neither nationalist or a Europhile but i dislike this laughable standard of journalism.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. I have been pointing out for years that customary international law gives no automatic right of succession to plurilateral treaties like those of the EU. Joe Borg is right, and is only saying what all the other EU commissioners know to be true.

This is a blessing in disguise, because it throws up the whole question of whether an independent Scotland should join the European Union at all. Those in favour have to come into the open with chapter and verse of their reasons why they consider it desirable. There is certainly no economic necessity for EU membership, since the European Economic Area provides full access to the Single European Market without the political entanglements and expense of the EU.

European integration as such is undoubtedly a good thing, and a blessing in many ways for the landlocked states in the middle of the continent. The negative side is the form in which this desirable principle has been realised in an undesirable manner in the shape of the EU. Its advantages, if any, are by no means evident for a peripheral offshore country like Scotland. In any case, I don't think the EU is going to exist in its present form for very much longer, so that the whole question can be shelved for the meantime.

#165

Scotland itself cannot unilaterally decide that the UK no longer exists. It would be a matter for the countries which constitute the UK to agree or alternatively for other countries to agree jointly not to recognise a UK which did not include Scotland.

Unless the balance of world politics changes considerably, I would expect the USA to continue to push for UK recognition simply to ensure an "ally" as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Right or wrong doesn't come in to it, it's simply a matter of political expediency.

Amazing that the Hootsmon

... is in such a panic ...!!

... that it now makes up sensationist headlines

... and stories written in a pub on Leith Road

... by journalists competing with Foulkes to be bevvie-merchant of the year.

Naw ...!!!!
... Hootsmon sack these pished poobahs
... who only serve to disgrace you
... with their drunk fabrications
... and barefaced lies and scaremongering.

Stories not researched ...

... the so-called investigative reporter
... writes in a pub

... rather than getting aff their lazy ar** and go find out.

But ohh hey

... that would be a wee bit too radical for the Hootsmon huh

Hypothetical Question:

If we had a referendum and the majority of Scotland voted against independence.

What would Salmond do? Could he operate within the system he is fighting so desperately to get out of?

It's all interesting stuff and I do not know the answer. However, what it does seem to indicate quite clearly is just how important the separation process will be should it come to independence. What seems absolutely clear is that Scotland will not be able just to walk away from the Union - it will have to be negotiated.

There needs to be a lot more focus on this process - how it will work, what will have to be negotiated, what Scotland's UK legacy responsibilities will be, what the relationship will be with the rest of Britain etc etc.

The Scots are not being told the whole truth at the moment. The idea that there will be a delegation of Scottish representatives just going down to "Westminster" to sort independence out is ludicrous.

This issue is too important for dmall time political point scoring. Surely no referendum can be held until the full consequences of holding one are known.

People should interperate carefully what would actually happen and think about it logically and the practicalities.

In an EU sense, Day 1 of independence Scotland the UK would essesntially and functionally still be a single entity and single EU active member. An EU meeting of UK ministers would still have representation for the former UK. There is no formal seperate Scottish representation at that time. Trade etc would continue as usual.

Scotland would have to seperatly negociate its new position in the EU. It would not be an active or have representation as a member but would in a practical, day to day sense remain a passive functioning member until all the legal issues and negociations were complete.

How could it be otherwise?

Scotlan would be busy negociating the seperation with rump UK and position in EU.
Rump UK would be negotiating with Scotland but continue as it had done in the UE initially but would likely have to renegociate its position within the EU with reduced weight.

191 Troll(Scottish Office/Scotsman)?

"Of course the remainder of the UK would still be the UK and would therefore not have to renegotiate its membership"

The treaty with the EU was between the United Kingdom(S) of GREATER Britain and Northern Ireland without Scotland the new entity calling itself the UK would no longer be THE United Kingdom(S) of GREATER Britain as the term Kingdoms (S) and GREATER Britain includes the land mass of Scotland ergo they have no more or less legal right to the present UK treaty as Scotland does as that treaty will apply to them legally as it does to Scotland.

So therefore if Scotland gets kicked out on a new legal precendent then the other parties involved will also be kicked out under the same legal precedent.
But my money is on us all staying inside as it would be less messy and wont cost the EU money on legal challanges.
But then I am looking at it from a common sense point of view and you are looking at it as a party political point of view therefore your argument is biasedly flawed.

#128 AM2
Shame on you!
Quoting a questionable website as if it were gospel!
Funny how it is also
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/about.aspx

191 D.I.E,

The UK would not continue to be a title for England Wales N Ireland.

As The United Kindom(s) of Scotland and England would no longer be united.

England would have no more authority to the title than Scotland would.

202

Yes of course it just means we carry on as we are now and try and persuade the population that Independence is there best option.

#194 - If the Commissioner is correct, it could well be in the successor UK state's interests to block Scottish entry for a variety of reasons. If Scotland wants to compete with Ireland on tax, then it coukd be in Ireland's interests to block Scottish membership.
The simple fact is that Scotland will need the EU a lot more than the EU will need Scotland. And, of course, Scotland can be made to obey EU law while not in the EU. In order to have free trade access to Europe Norway has to do exactly that.

Maybe Scotland should aim for a position similar to the Channel Islands ( I'll wait for angry Guernsey folk to accuse me of assuming the Channel Islands = Jersey) or the Isle of Man. Not actually in the EU = low income tax plus loads of millionaires - simple really.

#193 - while not a full member, the waters around our shores would be ours to legislate on as WE see fit - current EU rules for those areas would no longer apply, as we would be - albeit temporarily fully independent of Brussels.

If the UE wishes to keep the CFP in place, then instant full membership would be required.

207 Troll (Scotland Office/Scotsmand)?

And who wouldnt?

Re: #200 - Sure England etc could go on referring to themselves as the "United Kingdom" if they wanted but that wouldnt change the fact that the United Kingdom would no longer exist in any meaningful sense as the UK was/is a creation resulting from the union of Scotland and England. Wales and Ireland are irrelevant - they came into the British state as a part of England and an English colony respectively.

NObody does seem to know the answer and I guess that since there has not been a precedent here it would be decided at the time.

May I suggest The scotsman gets its arse over to Brussels and asks the Commission directly if it wants to do anything other than print sensationalist headlines ?

As an aside , what would happen to our EU cousins currently working in Scotland if Scotland WASNT accepted into the EU (yeh right) , and all the scots who work freely within the EU ?

210

You are of course entitled to yer point of view but its obviously not based on any facts or even logic.

complete and utter twaddle Scotland will not have to renegotiate to enter
the E.U for the simple reason Scotland is and will always remain within the 'United Kingdom'.

The overwhelming majority of the Scottish people can rest assured their future is safe and secure in the Hands of the 'Westminster' parliament.

And as long as the free democratic will of the British peoples is allowed the 'Spectre' of a Scottish 'Nationalist' state will be never be enforced on the free peoples of the 'United Kingdom'.

Jings, crivens etcetera nearly 200 posts and it's not even 9.30am yet.

You'd have thought that as Mr Borg (assimilate this, I know probably been done already)belongs to the Nationalist Party in Malta he might have been a bit more sympathetic to the notion of independence.

Particularly as his party was founded as a means of opposing taxation decreed by the British colonial authorities and measures to Anglicise the educational and the judicial systems.

Ach well five years since accession into the EU and already Malta rules the roost, just think what we could do.

#128
Funny how you quote a known unionist and labour supporter Matthew Happold (the same Matthew Happold that signed up one of Labours dodgy ad spreads in the run up to the election)
The same Matthew Happold that for someone who is supposed to be an expert in international law, know's sod all about the United Kingdom
If he actually believes that with the dissolution of the Act of Union which created the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain’
that the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain would still exist, is living in cloud cuckoo land!. As per the act of union the United Kingdom of Great Britain is made up of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England that’s all! It was later that the Kingdom of Ireland joined, then when Ireland was split into two provinces (North and South), then the Southern Province left the UK, it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. It really doesn’t take a genius to work it out.
So Matthew Happold is talking absolute drivel when he states that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would remain the nation state

'Independent Scotland would have to apply to join EU'

================

Good.

One definite positive of independence.

Would we get a debate and referendum on whether we should rejoin or not? That is a question I would like answered before any vote on independence.

#205 What on earth is the "United Kingdom(S) of GREATER Britain and Northern Ireland"? You can't just make things up to suit your argument you know!

The UK will quite evidently remain as the "rump state" should Scotland decide to go independent. Whether or not the rump state changes its name is unimportant (I would think it highly unlikely that it would, and it certainly wouldn't be required to). It would continue in existence, and its EU membership would continue.

What amuses me about this is that it simply isn't an argument. Alex Salmond has never disputed the fact that the remainder UK would continue as the UK. The SNP as a whole has never disputed this obvious fact either. It is only the knuckle-dragging Braveheart Nats, who have been whipped into a frenzy by talk of "freedom" but whose grasp of politics is limited to hating everyone who doesn't agree with them, who think that such an outcome is a possibility. It isn't.

Whether it's seamless or slightly delayed, Scotland's natural right to becoming a proper member of the EU, is something to look forward to!!!

It's the usual scaremongering by the Chief political editor of the Scotsman and his bumchum, AM2!!!!

-- What would Salmond do?

A minority wanted Norwegian indepence. A minority wanted American independence. We're ready or we're not.

I was towing a big trawl down the South Minch as the Island of Coll became a mile distant. How do I turn this boat round? For swinging the helm one way or the other makes little effect at all with the big net behind you. Then the skipper appeared on the bridge before I was going to call him out of his bunk and got out on the aft deck with a hand winch and chain. We did this 180 degree turn. I was impressed.

Alex Salmond similarly impresses as skipper of the Scottish Government. Competence is everything to us blue-mogganers.

I'm going to play devil's advocate for once.

My understanding is - and the Nats will correct me if I am wrong - if there is a yes vote in a referendum then this would not immediately result in an independent Scotland. What it would mean is that there would be negotiation of the terms of seperation of Scotland from the rest of the UK.

If that is the case then surely there would also be negotiation happening at the same time to secure entry to the EU at the same time?

Now that may take time as some have pointed out but so would a negotiated settlement between Scotland and the UK - it could be perfectly possible for Scotland to be officially independent on the day it accedes to the EU - in fact it would make no sense not to approach the issue in this way. I am no supporter of independence as many of you know but if it were to happen I'd rather it were done in a manner that was realistic and feasible.

What I won't do - as some here seem to be doing is relying on technicalities and economics to defend their opposition to independence. My objections are much more fundamental and are realted to the social and political aspects of independence.

That being said, what I would at least like and, where I do believe there is room for criticism, is for the SNP to put some flesh on the bones regards how negotiation for EU entry would happen in practice. That may be something for the Scottish Parliament's External & European Affairs committee to look at.

200 Sannenach Observer,

Scotlands destiny is in its own hands, W/minster has no control over wheather or not Scotland goes for Independence.

As for the rump uk on the security council, If they stay in that position then Scotland would also be on it.

I add here that I do not think the UN will let Scotland have a seat on the security council, but I do not think the uk rump will have one either

The Scotsman is a disgrace. To print an article with the title "Independent Scotland would have to apply to join EU", then you read down a little bit and Mr Borg himself admits "that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate" and then you find out that "The European Commission retained its neutral position yesterday".

So the title of the article should be "One person in the European Commission who doesnt really have any say thinks an Independent Scotland would probably have to reapply to join EU and unionist newspaper twists this to its own ends"

Sad.

#216

By the same logic the names "Scotland" and "England" shouldn't be used as they rightly belong to peoples who no longer form any significant or recognisable part of the respective current populations.

If I was a Unionist I would be embarrassed at having this drivel served up in support of the case for the Union.

#222 For your information, since you clearly lack facts, "Great Britain" is a geographical location. It is the name of the largest island in the British Isles, which contains the majority of the land mass of England, Wales and Scotland. The second largest island in the British Isles is Ireland, which contains the majority of the land mass of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The name "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is therefore already strictly inaccurate, because it ignores all of the other islands which are part of the UK. We've managed to live with it for the last few hundred years though.

#196, was this a dream you had?

#175-pehman - I agree the Scottish Government should to-day apply to the UN for observer status and would add Scotland should apply to join the Olympic movement.

#196-Barnett Formula Admin-In the EU an independent Scotland would have 12-14 seats at present Scotland has 7 seats which will be reduced to 6 seats for the next European Parliamentary elections, scheduled for June 2009. England 59:Northern Ireland 3:Wales 4:Scotland 6:

In addition to the 12-14 members of the European Parliament an independent Scotland would be:-
A Member of the Council of the European Union.
Attend the European Council (referred to as a European Summit).
Member of the Council of Europe.
The President of the Council of the European Union on a rotating basis.

Plus a member of the UN etc.

#231 Exactly. Scotland is more French than Scots, and England is more French than Angle. And Northern Ireland is more Scots than Irish! All the names are wrong. Oh my god, how have we managed to live with this disaster for so long??

#229 If the rest of the UK were still a nuclear power, assuming the SNP would negotiate for the removal of nuclear weapons, I suspect they would still be a permanent member of the UN security council.

There are clearly two sides to the argument but the very fact that the argument exists at all demonstrates that an independent Scotland's entry to the EU is unlikely to be straightforward.

The significance of this story is that an influential EU Commissioner has broken ranks and given his view. The legal waters have been muddied sufficiently to present a risk that has to be confronted by nationalists. He may be wrong, but like it or not ultimately is it Borg and his colleagues who will have to be convinced of our right to "seamless entry". And let's not assume that will be achieved by legal argument. (It certainly won't be achieved by unreasoned attacks on this newspaper, the Commissioner or Unionists!)

Legal certainty being a myth in the world of real politik, the nationalists will have to confront the reality of unopposed and seamless entry. Granting foreign access to fishing grounds and oil and gas fields - the financial basis of independence- for starters perhaps?

Commissioner Borg has, I feel, just fired a very calculated opening salvo in the inevitable horse trading of national assets that will be required to grease the wheels of entry.

220#howyoudoinboy.
Not very well I think.
Do the words Kanute, or Custer mean anything to you. With your ability to delude yourself,and resist the glaring truth, you should be applying for political editors job. Keep it real boy.

160. AM2, Glasgow / 8:23am 19 Sep 2007

"Let's see how many of you pro-independence people are capable of objectivity. Who is prepared to at least admit that this is a grey area?"

It's a grey area.

The assertion that Scotland would, if required to re-apply for membership, have to join the Eurozone is a bit misleading. Indeed, it is the case that the ascension agreement would require Scotland to adopt the euro, it just wouldn't say when. Part of Sweden's deal in becoming an EU state was to join the single currency, but the last referendum on the euro there resulted in a "no" vote.

Scotland could remove itself from the common fisheries policy by filing a derogation against the enforcement of the law on Scottish fishing vessels. Strictly speaking, this is not Scotland removing herself from the policy, just no longer enforcing it.

Finally, to all of you who see the EU as a sprawling monster just waiting to guzzle up our sovereignty, do remember that the EU has no sovereignty. It is a club of sovereign nations, who lead legislative competence to a council of *our own* ministers to make laws, which must also be passed in *our own* parliaments.

EU laws aren't passed by stealth. They're passed by the same representatives we return in a general election.

#233, Duncan, i'm afraid you are completely wrong here. "Great Britian" is a political name created to house the united Kingdoms of Scotland and England. You can possibly argue that 'Britain' or the 'British Isles' is a geographical location but Great Britain is definately a political one. Incidentaly the Irish dont recognise the term the British Isles as including them, and have managed to convince a lot of International mapmakers and textbooks to change this term.

Scotland in or out of the EU is not what matters. Look at Norway, and Iceland - two of the most successful economies on the planet, and both are independent and outside the EU. Scotland as an independent state is what really matters. Natural resources in abundance, a guid heid on the shoulders, and independence are 3 of the main ingredients for a successful nation.

227

Exactly! So whether or not Scotland is within the EU as Scotland or a member of the UK doesnt matter does it?

233

Yet all our present treaties and agreements are based on the fact that we identify ourselves as the United Kingdom (S) of Greater Britain and Northern Ireland including the EU NATO and every trade agreements and politcal agreements we have globally.
And if that changes for an Independent Scotland then its sure as s**** its going to change for the rest as well.

244

And your guilty of being a party political troll.

#242 I'm afraid that you are the one who needs to brush up on his geography. "Great Britain" is the name of the largest of the British Isles. Look it up in an encyclopaedia of your choice.

The point is that we have interchangeably used names like Britain and the UK to describe a country whose constituents have regularly changed over the years. It is highly likely that we would continue to use these same names to describe this country, should its constituent parts change again.

#244, AM-2 hundred posts per article, you've conveniently missed the point again havent you. The Scotsman headlined this as though the EU had made a decision rather than one person without any authority in the matter making a personal statement. Wouldnt be like you to conviently gloss over something would it?

The first thing we should do is buy gun boats to protect our fishing grounds and oilwells.
Perhaps join the EU if they beg hard enough.

#244 AM2
Your guilty of quoting Joe Borg, a newly appoint Maltese polician to the EU commission, who by his very own words, state that he is not competant to comment on Scotland and the EU
Your quilty of quoting a well known unionist and labour supporter Matthew Happold, who clearly is clueless about the act of union, despite claoming to be an expert in international law

#242 - Great Britain is a term of great antquity meaning the island which happens to contain England, Scotland and Wales to distinguish it from Little Britain = Bretagne (Brittany).

#250 Read it again. He says he isn't competent to comment on whether or not Scotland should be independent. He does not question his own competence to comment on accession to the EU which, as an EU Commissioner, he is in a far better position to judge than, say, you.

So...out of NATO, out of europe, out of the UK....

So be it. Out of the UK first, then negotiate.

I think it is highly likely that Scotland would remain a memeber oif the EU but some discussion would have to take place. I imagine some discussion would probably have to take place with England/Rump UK as well, but seeing how Scotland has been a member of the EU for 30 years and so many of its insitutions are already aligned you would think that common sense would prevail here.

In the worse case scenario of Scotland having to reapply (which i think it unlikely but nevermind, we should entertain the possibility) then I still don't agree with the Scotsman's line about the 'disaster to Scottish companies' if they are frozen out of the EU for several months, or even years while discussions take place'.

If it became apparant that there would be soem delay then we would delay our exit from the UK until the EU negociations had been finalised. THEN we would re-enter the EU. This is common sense.

The most important point here is that even in this Scotsman article, it admits that Scotland would have little trouble gaining entry to the EU and indeed the process would be 'much easier than for many eastern european countries who recently joined'. That's the most important point to remember.

If the discussions take several months then so what? Our exit from the UK would then be structured to meet this deadline.

I can already hear a few dissenting voices suggesting that England might eject us from the 'UK' right away. Not very likely I'm afraid, the discussions to end the UK would take a couple of years in any case and England/Rump UK would not want to damage Scottish companies, or companies in Scotland who already have interests in England due to our globalised economy.

This story is really not very sensational.

#243 It does matter if you opolicy is indepnedence in Europe though.

#238 I find agreement in a lot of what you are saying - the sensible thing for nationalists is not to snipe back as some are doing here but is to deal with the realities and present solutions to technical problems.

#242 In Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia Regum Britanniae" (c 1136), Britannia Major was the name given to the island containing Scotland, England and Wales. This was to distinguish it from Britannia Minor, the continental region which would now be modern-day Brittany. Britannia Major means "Greater Britain" whilst Brittania Minor means "Lesser Britain".

250 Edward

The correct "english" would be "you're" as a contraction of "you are" rather than "your". Understandable mistake as you seem to have been up all night on this one.

#128 AM2
By the way why do you quote what is a probable Labour think tank (openeurope) quoting an article by Hamish Macdonell form the Scotsman (a labour supporting paper) from the 8th January 2007?
The article quotes Matthew Happold (a known labour supporter)
Kind of doesnt actually cvome accrosss as all that independent

228 NAUOAN,

I agree with you all the way.

As you know I am a long term Nat, yet to be honest I have yet to hear anything from either side which can be stated to be FACT.

Re your last paragraph, I think I put that same point (worded differently) in a post around 190.

The SNP should to-day apply for UN observer status and at the same time make formal application to the EC

228. Not A Unionist or Nationalist.

Thats pretty much how I think it would go. An Independence vote wont be a Big Bang (the shock to the unionists psyche yes) but a green light for negocians to hand over power and determine who does what etc. Same for EU.

However the fact that the unholy trinity at the moment dont even want to discuss any independence aspects keeps the whole thing a scary black box for much of the population.
It is clearly in the unionists interest to keep the population ignorant. An Ignorant population are easier to manipulate and scare. Their tactics are blatantly obvious.

If Scotland were to gain independence, the United Kingdom would no longer exist, as neither Wales nor Northern Ireland were kingdoms. As all socalled Home Countries are already included within the European Union, they would all continue to be part of it. The only change required would be an amendment to the signatories, one being required for Scotland and another to cover the single unit as yet unnamed making up England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

247

You mean from the United Kingdoms of Greater Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdoms of Greater Britain and Northern Ireland?

And do you think that if we had joined the EU as the latter and not the former it would have been legal and binding and therefore prevented Ireland from joining?

This doesn't undermine the case for independence in Europe or anything that the SNP has said.

The SNP has never said that the transition from being a member of the EU as part of the UK and being a member of the EU as an independent country would be completely seamless.

Of course it wouldn't - apart from anything else, if the SNP is in government it will not accept the current arrangements that apply to Scotland under the CFP. If there is a CFP at the time of independence then the conditions under which Scotland is a member will have to be completely re-negotiated and prefereably abolished entirely.

The fact that Mr Borg is the Fisheries Commissioner is not unrelated to this! Without a common fisheries policy he has no job.

With reference to the status of Norway and Iceland - I would not say this is the best model for Scotland because they still have to accept EU regulations as part of the single market but have no input into them.

However the key point is that there is one core reason why Norway and Iceland are not full EU members - and that is fishing. If there was no CFP the major barrier to EU membership for these countries would be gone.

Again, that is something I feel sure Mr Borg is aware of!

Incidentally, posters may be interested to know which country Joe Borg comes from - Malta. Population 401,000. Too small to be independent?

Haven't we had this thread before?
As I see it Scotland goes independent and therefore EU treaties no longer apply and by default England is no longer a signed up member of the EU either. This is a win win situation, the British union is broken and both England & Scotland will be truly independent from the EU empire. Where do I sign??!

I grew up on the S. Devon coast during the 60's & early 70's and remember all the fishing boats. They all seemed to disappear after 1973 when the UK Govt. surrended our waters.

Anyone who travels around Scotland must have noticed, as I've done the number of occassions they have seen piles of unsold Scotsman newspapers next to the empty tray where that days Herald once was.

In years gone by I would have reached automatically for the Scotsman, but like me it would appear that many people around Scotland have made the change following more anti Scottish articles like this. Because these articles are not only seen as being anti SNP they are without doubt also anti Scottish.

NEWSFLASH 2011!
The newly independent Scotland was refused membership of the EU today. A spokesman said that with Scotland's massive reserves of oil, gas and coal and renewable energy potential, its marine resources, its highly educated workforce, its strong record of participative democracy, its international outlook and geopolitical importance the EU could see no reason why it might want Scotland to be a memeber, especially since the EU comprises just about every other European country. The EU would concentrate on absorbing former communist eastern European states and Turkey instead. The EU said it was acting on advice from.
The Scottish Government responded by saying: "Okay, we'll just have to struggle on with all those resources the EU doesn't want".
The Scotsman editorial reported: "This is great news, anything that undermines our ability to be independent like all the other small nations in Europe will promote the inferiority complex and dependency culture that has been so beneficial to Scottish society."

Commisioner Borg ?

Was he not in Star Trek?

#264

Utter nonsense - it's because you get the Metro free on the bus.

#262 If the SNP won't accept the current CFP, then they won't get into the EU. It really is as simple as that. For Scotland to join the EU it will have to ratify all of the existing treaties.

You have correctly identified a large hole in the "Independence in Europe" argument of the SNP. Plenty of other people have identified it before, of course, but too few on the SNP side have accepted its reality.

#247, Duncan, you'd argue black was white. Kingdom of 'Great Britain' was a term that only came into use after the act of union as a preference to using the term "Kingdom of Scotland and England". i.e. its a political term

#262 I think there is dishonesty from both sides here. From some Nats who say that an independent Scotland would just simply inherit EU status as a successor state - and from Unionists who exaggerate the difficulty that an independent Scotland would have in getting EU membership.

The only facts I see in this story is that the commissioner is basically saying that terms of entry would probably have to be negotiated. To jump on it as some have done and use as a defence of their position is ludicrous. Equally ludicrous are those that get upset because he is not telling them exactly what they want to hear.

By his logic so should England. It would not bee Scotland breaking away from the UK - it would be the UK, born of the 1707 union ceasing to exist. England ids not and never has been the UK, so should not automatically be allowed to assume the UK's position in Europe. Anyway is this a fisheries matter? If not why consult a fishwife?

It doesn't take much for the SNPite's true feelings to come out!

Print a pretty fair article that suggests that an independent Scotland may have to re-apply for EU membership and what do we see - this is an "anti-Scottish article" - the Scotsman is displaying it's "anti-Scottish" side

This is close to the idea that anyone who questions the SNP is a traitor to Scotland - a feeling that the head SNPites are trying to downplay but the rank and file just can't help themselves.....

252

And therefore in a position to be more politically motivated and subjective in his views.
But yet here again we have no indication as to why he has these views no legal reasons precendents or even logic to support his opinions.
Therefore these views and opinions might as well be say yours.

AM2

It is not within Mr Borg's competence to assess as an individual.

No spokesperson for the EU Commission has ever officially commented on this issue though they have been asked to umpteen times by Labour MEPs.

Read the story - the European Commission itself re-stated that position when contacted for a comment.

So you have one individual commissioner giving his individual opinion. What the First Minister’s spokesperson said was quite correct – he is not competent to comment on behalf of the European Commission.

He is competent to comment on fisheries of course and I think you will find that is the underlying issue.

The Scotsman is truly unique.

It must be the only newspaper in the World that has a headline story when the quote the entire story is prefaced by starts off with a denial by the person that they have any competence to make any judgement.

It would be laughable if it was not so sad.

It does however raise the prospect of desperate Unionists clutching at the latest available last straw!

GLUG,GLUG,GLUG Unionism!

Hamish McCrap must be having a good laugh at the res[onse this rubbish has generated. The best way of dealing with this sort of s~~t is to make no comment, then perhaps they would be forced to return to proper journalism.

#254 "If it became apparant that there would be soem delay then we would delay our exit from the UK until the EU negociations had been finalised. THEN we would re-enter the EU. This is common sense."

Exactly the point I made in #228.

The 'meat' of the 'story' is here: "On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate..."

IE this person is not competent to make a judgement so this is yet another attempt by the scotsman to cast doubt on the SNP's position without foundation.

The European Commission retained its neutral position yesterday. A spokeswoman said: "It is not customary for the commission to state its views on matters which, as things stand, are purely hypothetical."

Scotland joined the EU as part of Britain. If Scotland becomes independent then the British state as enshrined in the Act of Union no longer exists.
There will be a rump state of England and allies (possibly terming itself the UK but without any foundation to that because the Kingdom would not in fact be united anymore).

It is unlikely that it will last for long as logically Wales would follow Scotland to independence and NI might see less prestige in being part of England rather than Britain.

However when Britain breaks up there will be at least two seperate new states created, they will either both have to apply for EU membership or both will be automatically accepted, I suggest the latter is more likely to be prudent given our resources and our history as an EU member.

If in fact we do have to re-apply for membership then many people would argue that Scortland would be better off outside anyway so this won't necessarilly affect Scots prospects of voting for independence as much as the Scotsman hopes.

The most important body we need to join is the UN, the others are negotiable.

www.scottishindependence.com

272

It is a response I think to the glee with which some people react to any barriers they think they see to Scotland making progress.

It's the kind of can't-do mentality which has held this country back for decades. People become understandably frustrated.

#270, I dont think Nationalists are getting upset at someone saying something that they dont want to hear, Mr Borg is entitled to his own opinion - its more the fact that this newspaper are twisting his comments to create another unionist scare story out of nothing.

237. Not A Unionist or Nationalist.

IMO due to the non proliferation agreements Scotland would effictevely be bound as a new state to not have Nuclear weapons.

In this area I think the SNP policy of no Nuclear weapons is a no brainer as an idependent Scotland simply could not have any. If we tried the international community would have a lot to say, not to mention Iran, North Korea etc.

Therefore a non nuclear power independent Scotland would in a small way actually make the world that little bit safer, including our own back yard.

268

We are already in the EU and all EU agreements and treaties are constantly reviewed and changed the fishery policy is just one example of and existing treaty being questioned and possibly renegociated.
Like I said before though I believe we need a referendum in Scotland as to whether we should stay or withdraw from Europe after Independence.
Maybe we could include it in the Independence referendum.

So everyone in the EU wants to pay additional duties on whisky!

That would be harder to get through than the new EU constitution!

#225 AJ of Fife. You may not agree with AM2, but insulting him like that is really petty and fairly offensive.

The other factor in this discussion is what would be the status of Scotland and the RUK in the UN. The idea that the larger state could carry on regardless and the smaller state or states (Wales will soon be independent too) would be "left out in the cold" is precisely NOT what happened in Yugoslavia.

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was disolved, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was formed on 28 April 1992 by the former Yugoslav Republics of Serbia and Montenegro. By General Assembly resolution A/RES/47/1 on 22 September 1992, the UN:

Quote:
"considers that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot continue automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations, and therefore decides that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should apply for membership in the United Nations and that it shall not participate in the work of the General Assembly."

Was this just a formality? Well ... NO. What actually happened was that the smaller newly independent states (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia) were admitted within a month (22 May 1992) ... and Macedonia was admitted a year later (8 April 1993).

But what of the state that tried to carry on regardless? Well it didn't get to be a member of the UN until 1 November 2000 ... a wait of eight years! Crucially it replaced, rather than succeeded, the old state.

So the precedents are against the good ship HMS Blighty sailing on regardless. When Scotland alone, or Scotland and Wales at the same time, gain independence, the RUK will almost certainly have to apply for membership of the UN in the same way as well as Scotland and Wales.

Now ... can anyone imagine that the EU would do the complete opposite?

Scotland will not "secede"from England.
Scotland will re-negotiate the terms of the Treaty of Union.
And the entire faculty of Hull University.
Can get educated.
Is this the best you can do AM2?

Because the Scottish people are already citizens of the EU I cannot see that the EU would cancel our EU citizenship on the day Scotland became independent. I think the EU would accept the situation and recognise Scotland (and the UK or whatever) as independent countries within the EU.

#256 Sassenach Observer, Edinburgh
Funnily enough Ive not been up all night
I have to admit to poor grammer and spelling
Thanks for the lesson anyway

AM2, Glasgow / 1:12pm 17 Sep 2007
‘1. Cultural nationalism. I can’t agree with you. Kenny MacAskill Said: “Bannockburn’s position in the psyche of the party and the people must change. We must advance --- both as a party and as a nation --- and stop defining ourselves in terms of a victory over the English.” To my mind, MacAskill is far more enlightened than Salmond on this issue.’

AM2, Kenny MacAskill’s comments came just after the 2003 Scottish elections, and can be seen as the political equivalent of asking what the meaning of life is. Are we to be defined by these actions alone…etc…? He is asking for a re-evaluation of what it is to be Scottish, a broader spectrum, if you like, to choose from. He questions the usefulness of the Bannockburn rallies, for there relevance, though at the same time he acknowledges the importance of the Bannockburn in the history of the Scottish nation. He is not equating them with cultural nationalism, all he is doing is pointing out the lack of breadth in the definition of how we see ourselves.

AM2, Glasgow / 1:12pm 17 Sep 2007
‘2. When George Foulkes objected to the use of “London Labour”, I thought he had chosen a particularly weak example of dodgy SNP rhetoric. You may recall that I came up with some far more direct examples, and cross-referenced them with thematically similar extremist comments gleaned from these forums. But when I searched the SNP’s website for the “London Labour” phrase, I found that it was almost always juxtaposed with a reference to Scotland either as hard done by or together with a positive word like “democracy” or “justice”, thus creating a profound negative impression of the association with London, and by extension, England.

Examples:

“London Labour show contempt for Scottish democracy”
“London Labour have their own high-cost plans for the Scottish taxpayer”
“Scaremongering from a London Labour Minister on a day-trip to Scotland”
“In contrast to London Labour, the SNP are fighting a positive campaign”
“London Labour’s increasingly hysterical anti-Scottish attacks”
“London Labour has attempted to punish elderly Scots”

….and so on. If you can detach yourself from your political persuasion and just look at the language being employed, you must surely see how deeply negative about London these and similar constructions really are.

AM2, I have taken great pains to investigate the use of language in this matter, and checked the definitions of both racial and racist for clarification. My conclusions are that if the words used by the SNP are to be classed as having racial connotations, or be racist, then political etiquette from around the whole world would have to change, as at present whenever a politician from a country criticises decisions of another politician from another country, and at the same time identifies that country, it is not classed as being racist, unless things are said or done in line with the present definitions. A closer inspection of this subject should ha

275

OK so what Lord MacKenzie Stewart said was:

What Lord Mackenzie-Stuart actually said:

“Independence would leave Scotland and something called the ‘rest’ in the same legal boat. If Scotland had to reapply, so would the rest. I am puzzled at the suggestion that there would be would be a difference in the status of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of Community law if the Act of Union is dissolved.”

You may take issue with what Lord MacKenzie Stewart says if you like but the rest of your comment makes no sense because what he is saying is that if Scotland had to re-apply so would the rest of the UK - and there is no provision for that in the treaties.

#269 - Just admit that you are wrong. Can you honestly imagine the French using "Grand Bretagne" if they didn't have to ! As already explained Brittany is Little Britain and we are Great (= Large) Britain -

The use of Great Britain as a political term was merely making use of a long standing geographical name which conveniently included most of the "countries" involved and neatly sidestepped the issue of whether Scotland or England should come first.

265 hambo !

Good one !!!

:>)

#269 No, it isn't. I invited you to consult an encyclopaedia of your choice. You appear instead to have consulted "Alec's Big Book of Nonsense". Fortunately other posters have been able to access a wider library and have confirmed that Great Britain is the name of the largest island in the British Isles.

My point is simply that "the UK" has never truly geographically described what it politically describes, so the argument that it would cease to exist should Scotland leave it is moot. Do you understand that position, and do you agree with it?

I am not spinning - you are.

Read the story!

'The European Commission retained its neutral position yesterday. A spokeswoman said: "It is not customary for the commission to state its views on matters which, as things stand, are purely hypothetical."

That is the position of the European Commission.

The position of Mr Borg is Mr Borg's position - he is not qualified to make any kind of ruling except on matters which come within his competence i.e. fishing.

If the Treaty of Union is rescinded then the political entity of the UK no longer exists. I think it is very doubtful legally that England,Wales & NI would constitute the UK that joined the EU. I cannot see the EU making either Scotland or the other parts of the now defunct UK apply for membership. The situation of Greenland sets a precedent. The EU must have thought about this situation even though for political reasons they say they haven't. Shouldn't they come out and give us their competent legal opinion?

SCOTSMAN SALES

June 2002.................75,000 (give or take)
June 2003.................69,841
July - August 2007.....58,981

300 whoo hoo

#128 AM2
Reason why you should not quote Mattew Happold :
Matthew Happold’s assumption, according to his paper 'Scotland Europa: independence in Europe?
That Independence for Scotland would not require the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Instead Scotland would secede from the United Kingdom, just as the Republic of Ireland seceded earlier this century. He goes on to say that this would not affect the United Kingdom’s legal status in international law.
The example of the Republic of Ireland is badly flawed!
The reason it is flawed is that the Republic of Ireland, first of all did NOT secede from the United Kingdom. All of Ireland was joined to the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain’ in 1801, so title changed to ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland’. It was later in 1920 with the Government of Ireland act that the Kingdom of Ireland was split into two provinces, The Northern Province and the Southern Province. Following the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921. The Southern province seceded from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to become the Irish Free State; at the same time the UK became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The main and glaring difference between Scotland and what is now the Irish Republic is the fact that Scotland is half of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Take away that half and you simply don’t have a United Kingdom of Great Britain. Ireland was different in that Ireland was joined to the United Kingdom and was not part of the 1707 treaty! So when the Southern Province left the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom was still intact by virtue that it is Scotland and England!

baws

England declare they are leaving the United Kingdom and going independent Question would they have to reapply for membership of EU???????? Answer please from AM

288 Troll

Yep we can read and have actually been debating these points as you can see so yer adding nothing new. How you!

So would England have to apply as well? This sounds like the dream, England could be free of the sour faced Hibernians with a grievance and an open begging bowl, and also free from the Brussels Empire, at a stroke!! Good on yer Alex!

#268

"For Scotland to join the EU it will have to ratify all of the existing treaties."

But that doesn't mean that after ratification, Scotland can't apply a derogation to cease the enforcement of some of those treaties. That is (or would be) Scotland's right as a sovereign state to do so.

Don't lose any sleep over this nonsense. The Unionists (and The Scotsman) will once again be proven to be nothing but scaremongers.

Web traffic figures are also reported.

The desperation of the NATS to either remain in the EU or plead to join under a so called independent Scotland is a reflection of their acceptance that they are just another political party who realise they are forced to work within the global economy of which the EU is an important part. Nought wrong with that in general capitalist terms -but it is not the policies of a radical party and it is not independence in the real sense because we are slaves to the market. In fact there can be no such thing as independence for any country within the EU. The EU is a bosses club which serves a massive parasitical workforce of officials and overpaid MP's. A referendum would surely scupper our continued membership of this club.

Hold on just a minute. This guy is truly speaking out his botbot... enough so that after having read the Scotsman online for 6 months or so (and been amused and then horrified at it's transparent and unhidden anti-SNP bias) I've finally had to sign up to post.

The fisheries poobah says

1. An independant Scotland wouldn't automatically remain a member of the EU
2. Scotland would be unable to leave the common fisheries policy.

Well hold on just a minute.

It's one or the other. You can't NOT be a member of the EU and be bound by EU law.

Is this yet more of the kind of tripe the unionists have done to Scotland for decades? You can't be independant or you'll be screwed... ah yeah but we want your resources.

Whether it is that or just incompetence it truly is ridiculous.

Miss H.

You argue that Scotland needs to be an EU member (as opposed to simply being an EEA member) so it can have a vote on trade regulations. This really doesn't hold water.

Consider;

1. Scotland would have 2% of votes at most.
2. Its not needed for oil and gas - by far our largest export to the EU.
3. Most of the rest of our exports to the EU, including financial services, are by international conglomerates, which will still be represented at the EU level
4. Take out the oil and gas and the majority of Scotland's exports are to countries outside the EU, so not being part of it would mean not being dragged into EU trade wars - e.g. the cashmere war with the US.

I think you know this perfectly well, and a "voice at the EU regulations table" is pure spin for the uninformed.

Admit it, you really like the EU because of its political agenda - more human rights directives, light bulb directives etc. etc. You (and the Fib Dems)can't win these arguments in Scottish elections so you want them imposed - right?

Fair enough, but please don't hide behind bogus trade arguments.

298 AM2

Independence would create 2 new states out of 1 existing state (the UK) which is an EU member. There is no provision in the treaties for the expulsion of a member state.

What Lord whatisname said confirmed that “Independence would leave Scotland and something called ‘the rest’ in the same legal boat. If Scotland had to reapply, so would the rest.'

So unless you are arguing that the remainder of the UK and Scotland would both be expelled from the EU - for which there is no provision in the treaties - then they would both be in the same position.

That is not only the opinion of Lord Mackanzie Stewart - who is just a lawyer giving an opinion after all - but also of Emile Noel who was the Secretary General of the European Commission for 30 years.

AM2thingymajig#285,

AM2 enjoys the banter!! It makes him/them more human, when they/him, have to dodge insults and petty slurs!!!

I don't think it's an outrageous assertion that AM2 might be a bed fellow of the Scotsman's top brass!!! Lets face it, they sing the same song in their anti-SNP stance!!

310 Troll

Well as it doesnt say who actually expressed this opinion we will have to assume you did and give it the credence it deserves.

A Maltese politician states "his opinion" and The Scotsman prints it as an irrefutable headline.
Where is the balance that this newspaper used to be able to be proud of?
This is the kind of reporting that unfairly influences public confidence and causes runs on banks.
The British press is at an all time low, and could cause serious damage to the whole country.

307 AJ ....

Baws ? Who,s baws ?

Kiddin . Bugger to guess right, try for 400 !!!!

Pardon the cynicism, but, for a nothing story, this one has got an awful lot of people logging onto scotsman.com, then posting comments - well done Hamish McDonnell, you got people talking.

Fact - pre-1603 we had the Kingdom of Scotland, the Kingdom of England (incorporating the Principality of Wales) and the various Irish Kingdoms.

Post-1603 KoS and KoE/PoW becme one, while the various Irish Kings carried on fighting.

Along came Oliver Cromwell and "Ireland" joined the UK, which remained the UK until the Republic of Ireland ceded last century.

From 1603-1707 the UK had two parliaments on mainland Britain, while nobody on the main island cared how the Irish governed themelves prior to there absorption into the full UK parliament in 1801.

For the best part of the next 200 years UK&I was governed by one London-based parliament, then post World War I and the bulk of the Irish leaving, we went to roughly one and a half parliaments, London and Stormont.

Today we have one and three half parliaments - Westminster, Cardiff, Holyrood and Stormont - plus the European parliament and commission.

But we are still the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a full member of the EU, NATO, the United Nations, the IoC and so on.

Assuming at some point in the future Scotland gains independence from UKGB&NI, things will change and evolve as they have for the past 400 years.

Alex Salmond says - At independence we'll keep the Queen and her successors, therefore there will still be a United Kingdom of GB&NI, but Holyrood will have much greater powers.

AS also says an independent SNP government would keep the pound sterling.

Everything else would be up for negotiation - share of the UK's national debt, armed forces, etc.

As poster 228 pointed out, tough negotiations would have to take place. We could therefore well see the separate political entities within the post-Independent

318

I smell a euro-sceptic - so, no, you will not drag me into this one!

If there was no CFP Norway would be a full member, I am quite sure of that.

This is a silly patronising newspaper - which continues to include "free" maps of scotland , "free" lists of scottish inventors and "free" whisky maps etc etc etc.

It's funny if it wasnt so patronising.

Good comments pages though.

Two things. I don't care if we're not members of the EU, Nato or the UN as long as we remain in FIFA and EUFA, I'll be a happier bunny.

Secondly, why have the EU gone for a Borg, when Franz Fischler was a much more onomatopoeic description of the EU Fisheries head?

Kudos to Hambo at #265.

#306 AM2
Why dont you just look it up yourself
I did - on the internet - its all there
or do you just like rubbishing the facts

So let me get this straight:

In order to support its case for the Union, the Scotsman goes off to beg the opinion of the 'Fisheries Commissioner'.

This is a man who owes his position entirely to the fact that Malta, a country of 400,000 people, is an independent country within the EU.

And from his vantage point in this pinhead at the far end of Europe, he is empowered to dictate the policy of what will remain of Scotland's fishing industry, already decimated by the EU.

Additionally, he's a key influencer on whether an independent Scotland would be allowed to remain in the EU or not. Plus, we're all supposed to acknowledge him as an authority on the subject.

And in some way all this is supposed to strengthen the case for the Union?

I couldn't make it up. But then I don't work for The Scotsman.

AM2., #296.
'#291 #292 Andrew Allan
Those were Monday's articles. I won't be dragged off-topic.'

Normally when you can't answer you simply ignore them, though I guess I understand. ;-)

Well done on the Scotsman for investigating this and not taking Eck at his word. Its amazing seeing him trying to outargue the Commission member, as if he knows how the EU works better.

Scotland will have to reapply to join the EU upon leaving the UK, as the UK as a political entity belongs to the EU and Scotland is no longer part of that political entity. England won't have to reapply because England is still in the UK, Mr Mather. Its quite simple.

It seems to be becoming customary, with Turkey and the 10 new member states for example, for successful applicants to have a 10-year wait between their application being successful and actually entering the EU. As the article makes clear, Scotland desperately depends on the EU for grants, funding and financial wellbeing. Leaving the EU will subject us to all the high external tariffs and lack of financial aid that are one reason for Africa's continued poverty.

It couldn't be at a worst time for Scotland, as we would be needing all the help we could get financially once it became clear the SNP's economic plans for a post-independent Scotland (continuing high public expenditure with relatively low taxes) are unviable.

Thats even if we are succesful in applying - we'd pass the democracy test no bother, but as for "financial health"...

Again, the SNP are trying to mislead the electorate into thinking an independent Scotland will be a much safer and "seamless" choice than it actually is. Although, tellingly, the White Paper for Independence doesn't go into the economic benefits (if any) of independence, saying it is a "matter for debate". This article does a great job of comparing the SNP "vision" with fact.

#316 AM2
Which bit didnt you understand
was it the paper that Matthew Happold wrote for the Centre for European Reform
Or was it about The Irish free state
or about what makes up the United Kingdom?

304

But that is exactly what the First Minister's spokesperson was saying - for which you accused him of spin!!!

The European Commission is neutral and will not comment on this issue.

That is why Mr Borg acknowledges himself that it is not within his competence to make a judgement.

It's also why this story is crap - but as ever you jump on anything you think will undermine the possibillity of Scotland successfully making the transition to independence.

#216 AM2
Or are you in fact the idiotic reader in Law at Hull University?

319 H

I keep saying a whole new legal precedent would have to be written as our case is unique and that legal precedent would be binding to all parties concerned. But the case would have to be made to expel us not to include us and would therefore have to be made to expel us all.
I believe the sheer simplicity of just keeping us in compared to having to find an excuse to expel us is going to be a strong motivator.
We can then renegociate the various treaties and agreements within the EU as an Independent member state.

#318

"1. Scotland would have 2% of votes at most."

Not true. Scotland would have perhaps 2% at the most *in the European Parliament*. The European Parliament is only one of the three legislative bodies an EU bill passes through, and it is the weakest. The European Parliament is *consultative only*. The Council of European Ministers (another legislative body) must pass laws *unanimously*, which means Scotland would have as big a say as Germany, France, Spain, or any other state. Finally, any law would need to be passed by the Scottish Parliament.

So Scotland would not have to agree to any law or regulation from Brussels which our representatives did not wish to agree to.

332 . The Scotsman hasnt investigated this , they merely have an off the cuff comment from someone who isn't really sure.

Does the Scotsman have a Journalistic presence in Brussels ? Can we call it a real newspaper if it doesnt ?

#324 Agree with much you say.

As has been pointed out previously the legal aspects here are not as clear cut as some would have us believe - Nats and unionists I hasten to add.

What is required is for the SNP to put more meat on the bones - to investigate the practicalities of independence - not just promote the political and economic aspects. If they don't do that they are leabving themselves wide open to attack from those on the unionist side who like to use scare tactics.

Considering that no one really knows what would happen about EU membership if Scotland became indepedent and the new accession coutries would be fighting hard for their slice of the cake then Alec Salmond's view that "everything will be OK" looks like a bit of a porkie!!!

Sorry! I didin't mean to put Alec Salmond and porkie in the same sentence but now that I have.....

332

I suggest you check out who Alex Salmond's special adviser on Europe is.

If you think you are better qualified to comment than a Regius Professor specialising in the Law of Nations, former MEP and the only Scottish representative on the Commission on the Future of Europe - the body which drew up the Constitution Treaty - then go ahead.

After you have told us what qualifies you to do so, of course.

What this hasn't addressed is the fact that the UK is the UK not just because the parliaments are joined together, it is because the royal family. So even after independence for the EU we can be Scotland UK, England UK...etc..., but if this isn't good enough for the EU, then it could be argued that the parting of the two countries means there is no longer a UK.

Personally I'm entirely unflustered by this whole argument.

The priority is independence. Whether it's in or out of the EU or EU membership comes later or Scotland adopts the same stance as Norway is of little real importance. There are good reasons for being in the EU but there are equally good reasons for not being in it.

It won't impact on our trading position.. People the world over will still drink Scotch Whisky, burn our oil and visit our beautiful country.

One thing is for sure though. If we were independent and in the EU now Alex Salmond would give the Scots the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the latest constitutional changes.

That Stalinist Brown won't because he doesn't trust the people to agree with him.

They are not problems when Scotland take his independance will be automaticaly member of EU like the ex A.R.D the ancient socialist eastern germany when was reunified to the western germany was automaticaly a members of EU.
My question is i'm ethnologyst and linguist,specialised in Celtic societies and a great friend of Scotland and Scottich poepls but i don't life in Scotland and I never visited Scotland and I'm now a French and Algerien citizen and i want the Scotish nationality what can do for this?I believ it's necessarly i wait when Scotland whas independant and than i believ in France we need 5 years of residence in France or to was maried white a Frenche citizen.For the moment i can't go and stay in Scotland but if I take a Scotich wife i can apply for Scottich nationality?

needjar@yahoo.fr

338

Bit of an idealistic view of how the EU works there - Britain, France and Germany have a say in how it is steered disproportionate to the number of seats they hold at the table, because they have the three biggest populations and economies, and contribute the most money to the EU. An independent Scotland won't have these abilities, and its influence in the EU will decrease accordingly.

An independent Scotland would be far better off outside of the EU just as Norway and Switzerland, two of the most successful countries in Europe are better off outside of the EU

#210 - why do you think Scotland needs the EU? It needs to trade with the EU seemlessly of course but this can be done as Norway and Switzerland do without full membership

Vote for the Union! You too can have the final destruction of what used to be one of your major industries imposed by some no-mark upstart from the @rse end of Europe!

Well, I guess I would go for that big-time if I was some welfare junkie from Chapelhall, or some middle-class metropolitan lefty snob with half a dozen quangos at my command...

Nice to see the same old tripe from the usual idiots and xenophobes....
I'm afraid Scotland is not a state in the EU and is therefore not a member state. It is a region and it is this fact that the Scottish govt. uses to deny free uni places to English students but has to provide them to any member state of the EU.
There are a lot of states that will object to Scotland's seamless entry; which in the short term will help to knacker its economy..
Remember most of Scotland's current wealth comes from England and the EU. The Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS may be two large Scottish companies but they do not make the majority of their money here. It would be a simple matter to switch the head offices down to England along with the very large corporation tax receipts...
Now I realise that most of the SNP loonies on this site want independence at any price and are quite happy for the economy to collapse and people to go hungry to achieve this aim. I just wish they would be more honest about it.
Their argument holds as much water as hunters trying to convince you it’s a good way to keep the fox population down when we all know they do it because they like it !

#247 and others

The Interpretation Act 1978 Sch. 1 defines the terms "British Islands" and "United Kingdom as follows:
"British Islands" means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man"

"United Kingdom" means Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Great Britain is not defined. However, it is defined in the Treaty of Union of 1701 where Article 1 states:
"That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, on the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great-Britain"

If Scotland should secede from the Union it is obvious that Great Britain, as defined, shall cease to exist. As the UK joined the EU as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" it is obvious that such an entity will cease to exist as Great Britain will cease to exist. It would appear to me, therefore, that membership of the EU will cease for the whole of what is now known as the United Kingdom and both Scotland and the rump of the UK will be in the same situation, i.e. both will have to re-apply for membership.

Dougie.. I think you need to check your facts mate.

#295, #299, i dont agree with you, i am going to leave it at that rather than spending my whole morning going back and forward like pantomime.
#299, On your 2nd point, i'm not sure what you are getting at with ""the UK" has never truly geographically described what it politically describes" but given that the UK was a name created to describe the Union of England (+Wales/Ireland that she had occupied) and Scotland I would think that common sense would dictate that if Scotland left the UK it would no longer exist, dont see what is moot about that.

This is such a stupid piece of journalism (for reasons that have been pointed out - the silly deception/lie of the headline which doesn't coincide with the irrelevent content of the article itself).

It's hilarious. I'm actually laughing at this with all my heart. It's amateur dramatics. God-awful hackery of a sort that atttempts to scare-monger on a level with Ed Wood. Classic stuff.

And it's the first time I've heard of the Borg saying "You will not be assimilated".

Anyway, personally speaking, I'd rather see an independent Scotland that is also independent of an increasingly corrupt and dogmatic EU that is totally governed and caters for the big fish (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and, to a lesser extent, the tetchy UK) in a very small pond.

Here's an analogy which I've always found fitting. The Champions League in football. Look at how (and actually running parallel to the development of the EU) the greatest annual sporting event in Europe has developed along the lines of satisfying the interests of the big guns (England, Italy, Spain, Germany, France) and at how the smaller nations (with equally great if not greater traditions) have been increasingly sidelined in terms of their involvement and their capacity to compete.

It sickens me to see countries like Holland, Romania, Ukraine, Belgium, Scotland, etc, forced into a position where none of their great clubs (often past winners of the Euro Cup) will never have the chance to experience the thrill of winning this competition again. How can they when one Romanian team must play not one Italian, Spanish or English team but three or four in order to reach a final? The bias is so disproportionately stacked in favour of the big commercial front runners, with their big and far less passionate TV audiences, that the whole ethos of the sport has gone well out the window.

The EU is the same. And the whole ethos of collaboration has gone out the window as the big guns seek

Miss H (319): "So unless you are arguing that the remainder of the UK and Scotland would both be expelled from the EU - for which there is no provision in the treaties - then they would both be in the same position."

That's not the argument I hear from international lawyers. Apparently the usual procedure is quite pragmatic following a division into two sections of grossly unequal size: one is recognized as the successor state, whilst the other is regarded as seceding. Since 90% of the GDP and wealth is located in the section containing England, it would probably be regarded as the successor; for many nations, England and Britain are sadly synonymous in any case. In other words, the legal identity of the UK would continue, even though the political union that created the UK would have ended. To give one obvious example, Russia is the successor state to the USSR, whilst Ukraine and the other former Soviet republics are secession states.

the fact is that if the eu got funny about Scotland remaining in the eu, there would be a large scale problem for the eu
simply because the eu consists of many states that would argue scotlands corner, in addition there would be problems for the eu, when they found themselves banned from scottish fishing waters
so basically this is another of your non stories

Actually, I would remove Spain from the list of EU big guns above, not because it isn't big but because Spain has suffered a great deal as a result of sacrificing itself to the demands of the EU.

343

The White Paper for Independence has as its question "I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with
the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an
independent state."

It makes it pretty clear you are leaving the UK. Maintaining the Queen as your head of state won't matter to the EU.

355

Winged Messenger, keep on that line of thought there - I want to see you explain how Scotland will fight its way out of the big tariffs on trade with the EU if you're not a member, and why Scotland shouldn't have the £115m going to agriculture that the article specifies. Nearly everybody agrees that belonging to the EU does great things for your economy - but not you.

Aaaaarghhhhhh!!!

Great Britain IS a political entity. Great Britain IS ALSO the name of the largest island in the British Isles. You're all correct so why the f*ck are you arguing?

352 Troll

From your link

"The views expressed in the paper are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of the British institute on international and comparative law"

Now this obviously means one of two things.
Either they dont agree or they have no view at all and there exists no legallity to base this opinion on.

So the obvious conclusion to make is its party politically motivated.

You have nothing to contribute to this debate at all as usual.

351

When the Irish Republic left Great Britain, GB did not cease to exist. Why should it with Scotland?

I already covered this in 332, but here it is again, just for you.

"Scotland will have to reapply to join the EU upon leaving the UK, as the UK as a political entity belongs to the EU and Scotland is no longer part of that political entity. England won't have to reapply because England is still in the UK, Mr Mather. Its quite simple."

Can any one known if they is a full of Scottich opinon about the independance.What is the pourcentage of the Scotish who are favourabl for the indepandance of Scotland?
needjar@yahoo.fr

Edward (357): "simply because the eu consists of many states that would argue scotlands corner"

At present, each EU member has a veto on new members. Assuming that the remainder of the UK continued as an EU member, which international lawyers assure me is the default position, I would sadly consider it highly likely that English resentment would ensure a veto. Further, since France and Spain contain regions with separatist aspirations, it would be in their interest to veto Scottish membership, to emphasize that independence brings discontinuity.

#360, what is a grey area? Automatic entry? Entry full stop? What exactly?
There is likely to be some re-entry negotiations but this will be the same for the remainder of the UK. Entry will be there for Scotland if Scotland wants it.

Independence in the current political/economic thought climate would be very painful to endure for the first couple of decades.
If the Comissionaire's suggestion is applied, rather than denigrating him we should consider alternatives that his comments presents Scotland including one such opportunity that should be thoroughly examined.
An independent Scotland outside the EU could become a tax and business haven. Our financial services and banking industries would explode with activity (as they would have an advantage over Jersey,Guernsey and the Isle of Man), rather than endure the first twenty years of independence pain through membership of the EU and continued statist policies with high tax and expenditure. There would no control of economic policy as the country would be forced to adopt the euro and have macro economic policy dictated by Frankfurt.
The service industries would boom and the wealth created would fund a higher standard of living than currently experienced. Low taxation would attract high calibre individuals and the scenario would be self perpertuating.
There would be a question mark over what currency would be adopted: retaining the pound would require adherence to the Bank of England monetary policy.
There is a lot to think about here but I am not hopeful any politician has the forsight or nous to contemplate such a radical, yet potentially rewarding proposal.

368 Edward.

What international lawyers have assured you of this?

Can you name them?

#356 You've hit the nail on the head. Political expediency. The only way that anything that happened in 1701 would become relevant would be if an English government wanted to argue that it was no longer bound by agreements made by the former United Kingdom.

#366, i think you'll find that the EU wasnt in existence when the Irish republic ceded, so thats not really relevant now is it?

353. guru, Edinburgh

Which "fact" should I check? Why not just tell me how I'm factually wrong instead of a cheap throw away comment?

Havent heard this one for a while. zzzz

So what if we have to re apply anyway.

Norway is out of the EU and seems to do allright.

#350 Guru

The Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS are indeed large Scottish companies and as you rightly say they do not make the majority of their money here but on the other hand they don't they invest much of it here either.

From a long term economic strategic standpoint it may actually be better if both RBS and HBOS did move their HQs out of Scotland because it would enable us to establish our own banks which are more attuned to the needs of the Scottish economy.

It's very easy to get emotional about RBS and HBOS but the reality is that their real benefit to Scotland is actually quite limited. They are now both large global businesses. Witness the RBS attempt to buy the Dutch bank ABN which involves an investment of about £45bn or so.

Great for RBS and RBS shareholders perhaps but I fail to see what benefit it will bring to Scotland.

Having the word "Scotland" in your company name doesn't neccessarily make you a Scottish economic patriot.

Of course both these banks could do a lot for Scotland. They could for example put up some real risk equity capital to help Scottish start-ups and spin-outs. That they won't should tell you a lot about what motivates them and what their priorities are.

Just a thought ... when the Iron Curtain collapsed ... did East Germany have to apply to join the EU ... or was it just let in quietly under the German Reunification process?? It was a quite separate country for 40 years after all!!

Bit of a bu&&er that question, eh??

368

We are not new members we are existing members.

#370 - The scenario you envisage might be achievable with an independent Edinburgh but is unlikely to apply to an independent Scotland.

So many good points so little time.

In answer to my Irish friends point, it may well be a grey area and if so I think it is a grey area for the rest of the UK as well. If Scotland is out of the EU post independence then so is the rest of the UK - it cannot legally be otherwise. The UK as a legal entity would cease to exist, thereby rendering the UK's signatory to the EU membership treaty void.

Perhaps someone knows of some examples for Czechoslovakia, where they were members of some treaty or other pre split and what their position was post split.

On a very related matter - when did the vast majority of people in Scotland (or the UK) become rabid pro Europeans? Personally, I don't give a rats ar*e if we leave the EU, Switzerland and Norway seem to do very nicely from their EU free trade agreements, without getting swamped by Eastern European economic migrants. I would have thought Brussels would be desparate to keep us all in - if the English get the chance to leave the EU, they may just take it.

Why oh why would an independent Scotland want to join the EU? To finally destroy what's left of its fishing fleet or to hand over control of its ability to determine fiscal policies by joining the Euro?

There may have been a case 10-15 years ago when Scotland would have been able to reap some of the benefits enjoyed by Ireland, but most of the development funds are now being channelled eastwards.

No. If Norway can successfully manage their affairs outside the EU, so can the Scots

Miss H (371): "What international lawyers have assured you of this?

Can you name them?"

No, I'm afraid; they prefer anonymity. At least two of the six specifically mentioned Happold's experience of bad press as reasons for not wishing to become involved further. However, I was surprised that (i) they were unanimous, and (ii) that they were fairly certain of the default legal position. I should add that only two of the six were British, although all are academics in British universities.

356

What International lawyers?

366

You are making statements as a matter of fact there.

Your statement contradicts those of, for example, Emile Noel - for 30 years the Secretary General of the EU Commission - Maitre Xavier de Roux,Secretary of the editorial board of the “Dictionnaire du Marche Commun”, and Director of Publication of “Notes d’Information Communitaires; Lord Mackenzie Stewart who has already been quoted by AM2 and Eammon Gallagher, who is another former Director General of the European Commission.

So can you set out for us the basis of of your disagreement with the position of these people?

#376 - I think you'll find that HBOS is a large Yorkshire company.

383

So they have not actually given you any legal opinion then?

honest jock (387): "We are not new members we are existing members."

The UK is an existing member. Neither Scotland nor England are themselves members of the EU.

383 Troll

Ah the professional cyber troll AM2 again.

Ridiculous that both sides are claiming international law on their side and that 'their' p.o.v. would automatically come to pass.
Whatever legal precedents exist, it would be decided on a political level. Eu govts would not want the main oil reserves and fisheries stocks being outside the EU, so a political decision to leave both nations in would be the only realistic one. The EU hasn't officially commented, I believe, because to do so would be to pre-empt these political discussions and also to be seen as supporting one side or another...

If Scotland became independent the Union Flag wad disappear. It widnae hae the Scottish Saltire in it. At maist juist the Crosses o St George an St Patrick wi a white backgrund. Wad England hae tae negotiate tae flee its new Dis-union flag in europe?

#347 Frank O

"An independent Scotland won't have these abilities, and its influence in the EU will decrease accordingly."

If Scotland proposed policy it is unlikely that we woudl be paid attention to, but we would still have the breaking vote in the Council of European Ministers, and our own parliament would still need to pass things into law. That alone gives Scotland the same influence over proposed legislation as any other country. Each EU member has the same rights to say "no" at the negotiating table, and there's no reason Scotland couldn't use it to her advantage.

388 Troll

A contradiction well under discussion already as you well know.

346

Do you think Alex Salmond makes up policy all by himself?

Seo an fir:-

Tha an t-ainm mo rioghachd D`al Riada.

Chan eil D`al Riada ball le buidheann eadar-naiseanta sam bith.

Tha mo rioghachd iomlan, os chionn 's gu bhi mi iomlan.

Bithidh an saor an d'eidh tri bliadhnaichean.
--
An Impire

394

They're not.

You are.

This is ridiculous.

The EU would not place any a barrier to Scotlands entry into the EU if if if if if.

The devil is in the details , which frankly i would hope people have better things to do right now than worry about.

What pathetic, unionist drivel. Am i surprised that the English are trying (again) to undermine Scottish confidence, NOPE.

The union is dead on it's feet, it's only a matter of time now before it falls on it's face and i for one cannot wait until it does.

390

Of course it will be done politically.

But you are wrong to say that both sides are claiming legal opinion.

Only the SNP has any legal opinion to back up its position.

Miss H (387): "So they have not actually given you any legal opinion then?"

That's correct. They have given an informal legal view, nothing more.

394 Troll.

I wasnt aware the SNP were expressing an opinion on this thread?

380

Which is why I believe we need a referendum regarding EU membership in Scotland.

#395

No, Mrs Salmond has to use the scissors because they are sharp but he is allowed to use the prit stick

403

So you give us legal views from Unamed sources as part of your argument? how very AM2 of you.

Think I am going to have to leave this discussion now and go and have a life but I will look in later because I am interested to see what new 'facts' are presented by AM2 et al. I am expecting something along the lines of, Scotland becomes independent and;

1. The EU and the UN deny Scotland membership and declare Scotland a rogue nation, no one from Scotland can travel anywhere outside of Scotland and huge electric fences are built around the country
2. Scotland explodes
3. Alex Salmond turns out to be the anti-christ or Hitler in disguise and opens up concentration camps for all non-Gaelic speakers
4. Scotland goes bankrupt because it doesn’t have any industry or exports like Oil, gas, whisky, tourism, renewables, technology

#394

Because politicians are in the game of putting forward their views. Politics is as much about views as facts. For example - Tony Blair thought the Iraq war was legal, lots of people (including eminent lawyers) did not. As someone earlier pointed out, Scotland must be a net contributor to the EU, unless we get a massively disproportionate share of the rebate - which we clearly don't get. Personally, I don't think we need the EU's permission to leave the UK - if they then decide they don't want us as members then fine - I look forward to the Scottish navy sinking as many Spanish trawlers as they can find in our territorial waters. If we are out of the EU, it will also spare us from the next wave of economic migrants when Turkey (Yes that "European"state) is let in. I fully expect Russia to apply next!

Why is AM2 still in an extreme minority?? Even most NON-SNP Supporters have a different view from him.

407 Troll.

Dont see it anywhere on this thread but if you can point to the original SNP sourse then I will agree they did. But I wont accept a misquote from another dubious source.

#368 Fairfax
Just how many countries are there in the EU?
You quoted 2 that you think would veto
but then your assumption is that Scotland would have to apply for membership, given that it is ALREADY a member by virtue of being one of the TWO countries that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain!
'which international lawyers assure me is the default position' - Which international lawyers would that be??

'emphasize that independence brings discontinuity'
Excuse me for ascking such an awkeward question, but exactly how many member countries of the EU are NOT INDEPENDENT???

#362

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm a great believer in self-sufficiency, of using the means you have at your disposal to make things work. Under the union, under any union, Scotland doesn't have that kind of self-sufficiency to make things work that way.

Also, don't ask me those questions. Ask a non-EU member like a Norwegian, Icelander or Swiss. Doesn't see, to fill them with apocalyptic dread that they're not part of the EU. In fact, joing the EU does. And we have much in common with our North Western Europe neighbours.

Furthermore, my preference is for a non-EU Scotland. However, if it was the overwhelming wish of the people of Scotland and the parties they vote for to join the EU, I wouldn't begrudge it. So, if you, in the end, are more right than me, I can accept that. I don't doubt there are benefits to being in the EU, but I think they are becoming less benefits and more millstones around our necks as time goes on. If a country like Scotland reaches a position of beocming dependent on something like the EU, I think that's sad and very damagin. That indeed would put us in a similar position as we allegedly are now in the UK, where we are apparently dependent on subsidies provided to us by the good people of England.

Needless to say, I don't believe that's true. I think you make good with what you've got, whatever that is. Where there's a will, there's a way. So all we really need to have is the will. Scotland, like Norway and Iceland, easily has the resources to back it up.

This is a grey area. I have posted before to that effect.

However, it could certainly be dealt with before Independence (a poster suggested Scotland would accede to the EU treaties on the same day it "split" from the rest of the UK). It is simply too uncertain to take the detailed course of those negotiations, or their result, for granted.

The Scottish Government says this itself. The Government's "conversation" document states:

"3.18 Negotiations would also be required concerning the terms of Scotland's (and the rest of the United Kingdom's) continuing membership of the European Union and other international bodies to which Scotland currently belongs as a component nation of the United Kingdom. Such negotiations would necessarily involve both the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments, together with international partners."

The need for "negotiations" accepts that the position is not pre-determined (otherwise no negotiations would be needed) but that does not pose insoluble problems.

As I have posted before, Scotland could face problems in such negotiations from states like Spain, which would not wish to create an easy precedent for Catalan separation in Europe. Problems might also arise in Scotland's dealings with England in separation negotiations as a number of EU states would take the opportunity to cut down the votes and influence of England in the EU in future, so that the future "Westminster" government would have markedly less influence, certainly than France and Germany, in future.

Scotland could certainly be a member of the EU after independence, it is simply that the route is not automatic and political problems would arise in the process. It is not the shoo-in that some seem to assume.

410

No Tony Blair didnt THINK the war in Iraq was legal he STATED the war in Iraq was legal he didnt express an opinion or a view he acted on what he said was a fact.
Stating a fact is not the same as expressing an opinion or point of view.

AM2

Let's say this is a grey area, which I seriously doubt. The easies tthing to do is put it to the people. A referendum on EU membership for Scotland. Whatever the people decide puts us in the black of pursuing a place in the EU or puts us in the white of pursuing a similar position of our NW European neighbours, with whom we have more in common than anywhere else in Europe.

But, well, if you're looking for people to "admit" to anything, forget it. The only thing that's grey is how it's being represented in the media and contested by people like us. I think the reality would be much simpler. The EU wouldn't want a silly mess on its hands.

We could always join the Nordic Council. That would serve us better than the EU probably.

#402 - My point was not that one legal pov seems stronger than another (I am not a lawyer) but that political and financial expediency will lead to an independent Scotland maintaining it's current EU status, unless subsequently negotiated away.

#356 Your analogy of our situation to that of the break-up of the old Soviet Union is probably nearer the mark than those who have used Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or a reunited Germany.

That being said, I don't see negotiating terms of entry to the EU as being a major reason against independence. If the there were to be negotiation for separation from the rest of the UK then negotiations with the EU would happen at the same time. If that meant that independence being delayed then so be it.

By relying on technicalities for their case some unionists are also in danger of building their argument on quicksand. One of course could say the same of some Nats who think things are going to be relatively easy - I personally doubt that Scotland would be able to renegotiate greatly on the Common Fisheries Policy (or many others for that matter). Entry would in my opinion would be a take it or leave it option from the EU.

Perhaps a vote on entry to the EU would be appropriate?

If we are to be truly democratic then surely we should let the people decide if they wanted an independent Scotland within the EU or outwith the EU.

Perhaps this could be simplified by expanding a referendum on independence to include a second question on EU membership?

This would be dependent (like the second vote for the creation of the Parliament) on the first vote being a yes to independence.

Awrite thair Magic, hooz it gaun pal?

The AM2 is a slippery customer, but did you know he's an Orange Man, and am no talking mobile phones either!!!

btw Did ye check the main rugger story?

#416

When the legality of the war in Iraq becomes a fact rather than TB's opinion I'll believe it. So was he simply being dishonest? How can you state something as a fact which manifestly was just an opinion - which this was. He was given legal advice stating that their opinion was it was legal - not that it was in fact legal. Legal opinion can only become fact when established by a duly appointed court - which this never was.

AJ

Awrite chief whats the crack?? Its gawn no too bad like. Yeah i knew hes an Orangeman and im glad its no the mobile phone type either hes no ruinin ma movie :-D

Havent checked the main rugger story yet mate whats the crack wi that??

#426 AM2

Smile bud yer erse will no crack ;-)

The level of debate on this above has been pretty poor showing a lot of ignorance and prejudice.

There is no doubt that in law the UK would still exist if Scotland succeeded. One new country is created - that is Scotland. The UK (less Scotland) would continue to be the legal party to all the existing international treaties and bodies - NATO, UN, EU etc. Scotland would need to apply to all these bodies if it wished to join. This is not a bad thing, and in many cases would probably be achieved in the period of transition, so by independence day membership terms would had been agreed.

But a bigger point here has been missing from this whole debate. The assumption in Scotland is that independence is a debate that is just for Scots to have, that the decision is just for Scots make, and the terms of separation are just for Scots to decide. The first two assumptions are doubtful, but the third is certainly incorrect. Should Scotland decide to leave the UK, then the terms will be decided through negotiation. All Westminster Scottish politicians (even Gordon Brown if he should be PM) would be excluded from the negotiation. The UK would be represented by English / Welsh / Northern Ireland politicians. I have no doubt that these UK representatives will be under huge pressure from their electorates to ensure that the interests of the 55m people who will remain in the UK are vigorously pursued. The Scottish negotiating hand will be weak as it would not be able to leave the UK (and join any international body) until the UK agrees. In practice no doubt a deal would be reached. But I suspect that it will be nothing like what the SNP currently envisages. The 55m people in the rest of the UK are under no obligation to accept the break up of their country on the terms of the secessionists.

Reports which question Scotland's automatic accession into the EU get the tartan taliban protesting even more than those that highlight how the SNP feed into and off of anti English sentiment.

KT Tunstall was right about the nationalists, 'they love being angry'. Its so true, they are always looking to be offended and quick to protest and protest...

#420

"Try telling businesses in Scotland that there is even the possibility that Scotland could be outside the main EU trading area for a matter of years while Scottish membership is negotiated!"

Hey, Business people! Wake up! Did you know that there's the possibility that Scotland could be outside the EU for a matter of years while Scottish membership is negociated? No? What do you mean, no? You mean all you business people who support independence and voted for the SNP and give them big donations didn't know about the big grey EU white elephant question?

Jeez, business people, get with it!

Done :-)

#422

"Perhaps a vote on entry to the EU would be appropriate?"

I agree absolutely. It's entirely appropriate. It's what some other countries have done and it's worked for them perfectly, whatever way their people voted.

honest jock (408): "So you give us legal views from Unamed sources as part of your argument? how very AM2 of you."

It's unpleasant to keep sources nameless, but I have reported this simply as private conversation. It was striking that all were in agreement and considered it to be a fairly clear point.

Why, however, do you believe I'm AM2 when I have consistently supported dissolution of the Union? My agreement with AM2 here is because I believe his argument to be correct: as the article above states, it is by no means clear that Scotland would inherit EU membership.

AM2#426,

I know, but I've got an extensive list of insults to throw at you, and that's poofery and bigotry taken care of!!!

Is it true you have a thing for your sister?

#429 Peter A

"But a bigger point here has been missing from this whole debate. The assumption in Scotland is that independence is a debate that is just for Scots to have, that the decision is just for Scots make, and the terms of separation are just for Scots to decide.

Of course what is true is since we are talking about it first and have signalled moves for this first this is why the quote above from your goodself is in fact TRUE.

Scotland will probably have to negotiate its way into Independence but the referendum vote should be for the Scots and the Scots only. If the English want Independence also they should have their own referendum but under no circumstances should the English get to decide whether the Scots stay or go

417 Troll

"Unlike the authors of the report the vast weight of legal opinion accepts that
both Scotland and the remaining parts of the UK would be automatic members of the EU.

?This a view that has been supported by former President of the European Court Lord Mackenzie-Stuart and by the former President of the European Commission Emile Noel. Indeed, even Labour admitted as much when, during his term as Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook accepted Scotland would be an automatic member of the EU."

It certainly looks like the SNPs view to me right enough as well as Robin Cooks it seems interesting that so what?

Of course what is true is since we are talking about it first and have

That should be.....Of course THAT is true and not WHAT

If Scotland could not be a EU member from day one of independence, then all nationals of EU countries (including England, Wales and Northern Ireland) who live in Scotland at that time would become illegal immigrants! Would that be in the EU interest?

Magic,

The rugger threads are always good for rootin' oot unionists - ye ken, the British Lions innat, fermers and public schoolboys (with issues)!!!

It's a guid place tae go fishin'!!:)

AM2

Do you have a sister??? Is she braw??

AJ

Ach yer right....a might dabble a wee bit later. This place always has the fun o watching the big fish squirm for their dignity......so much fun :D

AM2#439,

If you like your wumin wi' nae teeth and hygiene issues, then you're welcome!!