Axiomatic assumptions on Scotland's stance towards membership of the European Union are as ill-founded as assumptions that its government will accept the Westminster Labour regime's policies, which Scotland's voters rejected at their elections, in return for tax-funded wealth transfers.
The prime minister, First Minister Salmond's outstanding team of economic advisers could readily make a case that Scotland is a net exporter of wealth to the rest of the United Kingdom. And this case extends to taking a careful look at applying to join the European Union in the event of secession from the UK, or continuing to accept that the benefits of European Union membership as part of the UK are real.
Scotland's wealth lies in its as yet unexploited oil fields, its fisheries, its agriculture, tourism, and a nascent and highly effective financial services sector. There is, too, a relatively well-educated population and a Scottish diaspora in the developed world with the greatest good will towards Scotland, and an interest in aiding the development of a small, rich, and very beautiful homeland.
The Scots will not be considering just a referendum on independence and its form from the rest of the United Kingdom, but a referendum too on whether their interest lies, like Norway's, outside the European Union.
How ironic that we are to be dragged into a newly constituted federal European State by a Scot who represents no English voter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I long suspected that the EU's plan was to divide and conquer, but maybe they didn't anticipate the Norwegian/Icelandic option. Which way do you think the Salmond will leap?
Not sure about this, HG.
But at least the Huntsman has answered my question as to what happens about the UK's seat at the Security Council
what a lot you learn in the blogosphere
In the opposite direction from Westminster Labour, S. But that aside, if they secede from the United Kingdom federation either by consistently developing the devolution settlement or by determined vote, Scotland then has to apply to join the EU as the remains of the UK will retain the EU membership status. That could take up to two years and in that period minds could change, particularly if membership qualifications were found to be onerous or harmful. All new members must qualify for, and then enter the eurozone, for one. The opt out would remain with the remains of the UK.
Mr Salmond has said already that all this needs careful national debate; pity the rest of the UK isn't included.
ND, The sooner the UN is defunct the better as it prevents the development of democratically answerable and competent global governance institutions. But while it's there, England's Security Council seat is better than no Security Council seat, I agree.
Siting the UK nuclear deterrent in Scotland is causing formal, legal challenges and putting great strains on the legal institutions resting between Scotland and the rest of the UK now. Does a Security Council seat require nuclear capability?
The argument that an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU is one that has been 'done to death' since it was first suggested in the 1990's. Here are some extracts from the book 'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: A Practical Guide' by Jo Eric Murkens with Peter Jones and Michael Keating -
'French Advocate Maitre Xavier de Roux summarises the argument in the following terms:
Scotland is part of the Common Market territory by virtue of the United Kingdom's accession to the Treaty of Rome and by application of the Treaty of Union 1707. If the Treaty of Union was revoked and if Scotland recovered its international sovereignty, it would be accepted within the Common Market without any formality.'
Professor Emile Noel, former Secretary General of the European Commission and Lord Mackenzie-Stuart argued that Scottish independence would result in the creation of two Member States of equal status. The rUK would not be more powerful than Scotland. And without evidence to the contrary , Noel is certain that 'the will of the people would be interpreted as a desire to retain the European status quo'.
Former Director General of the European Commission and former EC ambassador to the United Nations Eamonn Gallagher sees 'no sustainable legal or political objection to separate Scottish membership of the European Community'.
The subtleties of Professor Noel's interpretations of any aspect of European Union rules (or, indeed, the rules of life itself) are the stuff of legend. A decade since his death, and almost another since he left the Secretary Generalship, however, have clarified, simplified and altered accession statuses, procedures of which he might well have disapproved.
Accession for Scotland is not a clear run, though the 2 year qualifying period can be waived and/or reduced. In any case, the interesting point is would Scotland wish to join or, if it were to be accepted that it is already a member, which is put strongly in doubt by Mr Prodi's recent answers on this kind of secession within current member-states, wish to stay?
I am not convinced that tax revenues from 'Scotland's' oil exceed its welfare subidy from Englang (and I work in the oil & gas business). In any event the UK's North Sea production is in rapid decline.
Having lived twice in Scotland my view is that if its citizens really wish to go their own way then so be it - as long as any subsequent 'bail out' is EC funded - not English.
BigH
Is the EU really bound by law? Doesn't it feel able to change the rules to get the result it wants? Isn't the legislature, in effect, run by the executive?
The Romantic Revolution is an adolescent dream - self-centred, destructive, whimsical, illogical. Procedures, institutions, history, traditions and customs matter, and the revolutionary has to destroy them to clear the way for... (he'll get to that bit later).
The Communist Party is above absolutely everything: man, God, law, morality, science, logic and the Party's own membership. Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's corrective biography of Mao is chilling.
It's not just the CP: my postwar edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica had an article that explained that, technically, everything Hitler did was legal: he seized power under the terms of the constitution of his country, and after that he was the law. We needed Nuremberg to try the Nazis by another standard.
And now the New Labour government has created a department of constitutional affairs (as though this were nothing to do with Parliament). The fox has taken charge of the hen-house.
Constitutional matters may to some seem dry as dust, but as Thomas More says to William Roper in Robert Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons":
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
Certainly the readily accessible oil and gas from the currently developed fields has been exploited largely; there are other, undeveloped resources which are just as valuable and it is in their development and in their exploitation that oil wealth lies. To whom it 'belongs' is the unsettled question. But apart from oil and gas,small, advanced, culturally homogeneous and sophisticated countries with the capacities that Scotland has in terms of natural resources, population, clear borders, excellent world wide links and standing - the things mentioned in the post - may count for more even than the oil and gas. Scotland is not a desert and is well and demonstrably able to stand alone. There is no expectation of the need for a bail out, though there will be rapid and for many preferable economic change and economic and social chances. London Labour and its dependency culture for Scotland is being taken apart as we watch.
The SNP first set out their “Independence in Europe” policy in a February 1997 document entitled “The Legal Basis of Independence in Europe”, which is no longer either available or even mentioned on their website.
An SNP press release from 2002 (now deleted from their website) claimed of independence:
"Scotland and the remaining parts of the UK would be automatic members of the EU. This is a view that has been supported by former President of the European Court Lord Mackenzie-Stuart."
Then in 2006, Alex Salmond wrote in the Scotsman:
"Scotland is already a member of the EU and that would continue. It is not easy to leave the EU, as we saw with the attempts by Greenland when they won autonomy from Denmark."
In December 2007, Nicola Sturgeon said:
"It is the very clear view of the SNP and of the Government that Scotland would automatically be a member of the European Union upon independence. There is very clear legal opinion that backs up that position. I don't think the legal position, therefore, is in any doubt."
So, as with other technical details to do with referendums, independence negotiations and the like, the SNP makes it all seem as easy as pie, clear-cut, a complete non-issue.
But a few days ago, Prof Robert Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, wrote in the Guardian:
"Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the EU. Renewed membership is not guaranteed. The reaction to Kosovo's claim to independence suggests that EU member states like Spain might block Scotland's application, for fear of encouraging similar claims from the Basque country and Catalonia."
The issue of who is legally correct is less significant, as this stage, than this key question: “is the SNP being honest with us?” Is Prof Hazell in a minority of one on this issue? Is the overwhelming weight of legal opinion in the SNP’s favour? If so, fine. But if not, they’ve been glossing over the truth. And if that’s the case, why should we trust them on anything else?
So let’s see. First the SNP case. They generally cite one of six people in support of their position, the first being the aforementioned Lord Mackenzie-Stuart.
But in fact, he only said this:
"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."
Not quite the same thing, is it? Secondly, the late Émile Noêl, former President of the European Commission. But his remark was actually as follows:
"There is no precedent or provision for the expulsion of a member state, therefore Scottish Independence would create two new member states out of one. The remainder of the United Kingdom would not be in a more powerful position than Scotland. Unless Scotland expressed a wish to come out of Europe while gaining Independence, the will of the people would be interpreted as a desire to retain the European status quo."
Note: “no precedent”. And anyway, who said anything about the “expulsion of a member state? The United Kingdom is the member, not Scotland. So again, it’s hard to understand why the SNP would imagine this statement to support their “automatic membership” contention.
Thirdly, the late Robin Cook. But all he actually said was: “It's in the nature of the European Union, it welcomes all-comers and Scotland would be a member”. I would have little doubt that’s true. But of course it says nothing about the application process or entry conditions.
Fourthly, the SNP claims heavyweight support from Eamonn Gallagher, former Director General of the European Commission. He said:
"In my view, there could be no sustainable legal or political objection to separate Scottish membership of the European Community. A democratic Scotland, fully capable of accepting and exercising its responsibilities in the European Union, answers completely to the constitutional and statutory requirements of membership, and the Community – with its customary practical ingenuity – could readily resolve the institutional questions that arise in, for example, those of Scotland’s voting weight in the Council, membership of Parliament, membership of the Commission and so on."
It’s a similar argument to Robin Cook’s. But again, it’s by no means the same as the SNP’s claim of “automatic” membership.
Fifthly, French advocate Maître Xavier de Roux, who in 1989 said:
"Scotland is a part of the Common Market territory by virtue of the United Kingdom’s accession to the Treaty of Rome and by application of the Treaty of Union of 1707. If the Treaty of Union was revoked and if Scotland recovered its international sovereignty, it would be accepted within the Common Market without further formality."
Ah, finally! That’s much closer to actual support for the SNP’s position. According to his argument, the EU Treaty includes Scotland within its remit as the UK was acting on Scotland’s behalf when it joined the European Communities in 1973. So, on independence, Scotland could not be regarded as a new applicant state.
Finally, Prof Neil MacCormick. But he’s a former vice-president of the SNP. Enough said!
So, it’s nowhere near 6-1 for the SNP. It's barely 2-1. But now the case against.
1. Dr Joe Borg, EU Fisheries Commissioner:
"Legally speaking, the continuation of the membership would remain with the rest of the UK - less Scotland. And, therefore, Scotland, as a newly independent state, would have to apply for membership."
2. Dr Lorand Bartels, lecturer in international economic law at Edinburgh University:
"Both as a matter of international law and as a matter of EU law, Scotland would have to negotiate its accession to the EU as a new member state."
3. Dr Matthew Happold, then Research Officer at the British Institute of International
and Comparative Law, in a 1999 paper:
"Were Scotland to gain independence, it would be the rump UK, not Scotland, that would inherit membership of the EU. Scotland’s subsequent route to EU membership could well be a tortuous one. The SNP’s use of the phrase Independence in Europe seeks to persuade the Scottish electorate that it can have its cake and eat it, that Scotland can have both the benefits of independence and the security of membership of the European Union. However, the real situation is that an independent Scotland might end up with all the insecurities of independence and none of the benefits of EU membership."
4. Dr Jo Murkens, in a 2001 paper for the Constitution Unit entitled “Scotland's Place in Europe”:
"If Scotland were to apply to become a member timing would matter because the EU is in a process of enlargement and the terms that an independent Scotland could negotiate would differ if the EU had 28 rather than the current 15 Member States ... The process of negotiation is unlikely to be easy even for Scotland. Evidence from other candidate countries suggests that the EU uses its pre-accession bargaining strength to extract the maximum concessions from acceding parties. Member States are obviously aware that once candidates have joined, existing Member States will never have such an advantage again."
5. Neil Mitchison. In a 2007 Sunday Herald article, Torcuil Crichton wrote:
"Neil Mitchison, Europe's man in Edinburgh, is the latest to challenge the assumption that EU membership would be automatic, as the SNP insist. There would have to be negotiations for such an unprecedented situation, says Mitchison, the European Commission's representative in Scotland."
And Hamish Macdonell, writing in the Scotsman, said:
"The Commission's representative in Scotland, Neil Mitchison, confirmed that Scotland would not be granted automatic entry into the EU, as the Nationalists insist.
"The situation is unprecedented and therefore negotiations would be needed. Things would have to be discussed and negotiated," he said.
So anyway, this has turned into a marathon post and I’ve lost count of the exact numbers of experts for and against the SNP’s position, but I would suggest that on balance, the view advanced in this Scotsman piece by Jim Murphy, Minister of State for Europe, is plausible:
"Despite what the SNP claims, the weight of legal opinion suggests that, far from automatic membership, an independent Scotland would find itself outside the EU and needing to apply to regain membership. It means Scotland joining the queue of countries for entry which could cause not just delays, but massive uncertainty."
Of course, we can’t be certain that Murphy is correct, but that’s not the point. The key fact is that this is very clearly a murky legal area. And that in itself means that for over ten years the SNP hasn’t been being straight with us.
Post a Comment