More tan being a member, the EU requires any member to be a member of the Council of Europe “in good standing.”
Persistent refusal to recognise the court and withdrawal from the protocils would be sufficient to put the UK membership of the EU in a legal minefield.
“In good standing” is a very vague phrase that in practicality I can imagine the EU interpreting it in a way that does not eject the UK.
Todays Herald has an article which outlines how niggles such as this will be the norm for Scottish politics for the next decade.
The Scottish Secretary (UK minister with virtually no responsibility) is urging the SNP to not argue for “Independence by the back door” in the Smith commission.
Meanwhile the polls show that the Scottish population want Devo Max (which was not offered by Westminster in the referendum) by a majority of 80-70/20-30 on most items- welfare, transport, finance and the economy, pensions, oil and gas revenues, EU membership. Even when total home rule was offered (everything except foreign affairs and defence) two thirds of people supported that.
Two quotes from the article:
"Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney said: "These are extraordinarily positive findings, showing strong support for extensive new powers - including control of all taxation and the welfare system in Scotland - right across Scottish society and across the political spectrum. There is also overwhelming support for the Scottish Government to be consulted about the UK’s stance in European negotiations.
“In the referendum, 45% voted for independence, and Westminster promised ‘extensive new powers’ to the 55% who voted No. It is clear that people want the fullest possible transfer of powers from Westminster to Scotland, so that we are able to use our abundant resources to build a fairer, more prosperous society.”"
"Matt Qvortrup, a world authority on referendums, said unionist parties must offer “a credible deal on new tax-raising powers” to head off another independence referendum.
This deal is “unlikely” to emerge from the mixed messages coming from leaders facing a backlash in England, he said.
Writing in the Sunday Mail, he said: “Based on my memories from the referendum in Canada, there is reason to fear the pre-referendum promises will not be delivered. This will cause justified resentment. The result may well be another referendum.”
Malta held a second independence referendum in 1964, eight years after promises made in an earlier vote failed to emerge, he said.
Quebec held two referendums within 15 years after promises made in the first were broken, while Iceland severed ties with Denmark following two referendums 26 years apart.
Mr Qvortrup said: "How can a second referendum be avoided?
“David Cameron and Ed Miliband must offer Scotland a credible deal on new tax-raising powers. But the mixed messages in the past week do not suggest that they are likely to reach an agreement.”
He added: "If Cameron, Miliband and Clegg do not heed the call from Scotland, the SNP will be able to claim that their promises amounted to very little.
“The anger that this will generate could pave the way for a new referendum. And this time it is - like in Malta - certainly possible the result would be Yes.”"
As I said during the campaign, the result will not be the answer, it will merely open up other questions. With more than a two to one majority for such transfer of powers, avoidance will become almost impossible.
Interesting times!
Scotland already has tax-raising powers it has never used. There’s no need to offer further ones until the current ones prove insufficient.
As for Human Rights law, it will be binding on Scotland, just as the supreme court is. As for EU membership, a devolved or independent Scotland would not be able to be a member of it in its own right. Its either a member as part of the EU, or not a member.
By the Agreement of Edinburgh, both the UK and Scottish governments agreed that the referendum should:
I think it could be argued that the conduct of the Scottish Government - the SNP - since the result has barely delivered on their undertaking (4) above.
I also I think the “Vow” was a mistake which muddied the waters, but the SNP are clearly going to use it as a weapon to try to declare that anything other than what they want will be a betrayal of that “Vow”.
Independence for Scotland is dead for a generation, irrespective of what happens with further devolution in Scotland or the rest of the UK. I just wish Pjen and the rest of his friends would accept that, in the true spirit of the process. Even Saint 'Eck said it was “a once in a lifetime” opportunity…
Social Media is full of fanatical Scottish undemocratic nut jobs who are refusing to accept the settled will of the Scottish people has been obtained. I would like to think SDBM will remain free of them.
An independent Scotland would of course have the right to apply for EU membership.
Should the UK decide to leave the union, it would be very interesting to see if Scotland voted for independence during the withdrawal phase, hether the EU would allow such a detached entity to retain membership. It will all be politics.
The referendum certainly decided that people in Scotland did not want Independence. What has not been settled is what people in Scotland want instead!
As noted in the above article, four out of five Scots want some sort of DevoMax and two out of three want Home Rule. It will be difficult to avoid meeting this expressed need. Cameron kept DevoMax off the ballot paper, only allowing the vow when it looked like his gamble on independence was failing.
I suspect your claim that the question is dead for a generation is an incredible mis-statement. Are you in a position to read or view Scottish media? DevoMax is still a major issue here now.
I cannot see the EU refusing membership to Scotland. It may have made noises in this direction in order to scare potential Yes voters, but once independence happens (if it happens) it will deal with the reality.
But, as we’ve discussed at length, it wouldn’t qualify for membership.
It would be interesting, and would perhaps be the only way an independent Scotland could get into the EU immediately on independence - perhaps if there was an agreement that, technically, Scotland remained as the successor state to the UK and the remainder became independent from it. I think that’s an unlikely situation, but would conceivably give the UK a way to leave the EU without breaching any treaties.
It would qualify. It would be a European democracy.
The UK is completely free to leave the EU without “breaking” any treaties. Any treaty may be exited by ant sovereign state. Breaking a treaty would involve (as with the European Convention) continuing to consider itself as a signatory whilst breaking the terms of the treaty. It has specifically been stated that contrary to anti-EU rhetoric the UK may simply withdraw from the Treaties binding it to the EU.
As other have observed, what you claim to be mis-statements etc are simply views which you disagree with. You view everything with Independence-tinted glasses on.
Read the Scottish Media? I live in Scotland as a simple click on my profile would reveal and, frankly, my previous posts on Scottish threads should have revealed to you.
DevoMax is NOT a major issue here - that again is just your interpretation. The “Vow” said nothing about DevoMax - that is again just SNP spin to suggest some sort of betrayal. A disgraceful tactic they have pursued since the morning of the result. What are you views of these SNP tactics? Would you not agree they are hardly in the spirit of the Edinburgh Agreements to accept the result and work together for the common good of Scotland AND the UK.
It was not offered and I would suggest is not wanted by the majority. I have no idea which poll you have selected your stats from but they are not the result of the Referendum and are chip paper the next day. It is no more the truth than dozens of conflicting opinion polls. You select information to suit your agenda.
I have no idea what you are talking about with anybody leaving the UK, leaving any rump. Drop it, for Christ’s sake. That issue is over and not EU Referendum is going to change that either nor any UK wide devolution or Federal solution to the constitutional challenges we face.
I am happy to say I am against the simplistic English votes for English issues cry, especially in the time frame available and even more against EU Referendums. In fact, against Referendum generally which are ill suited to a Parliamentary system, especially one retaining first past the post.
The cite for eighty per cent devomax and two thirds home rule is from Sunday’s Herald; the link is above. Coverage of the vow on BBC news in Scotland is a regular feature.
Do you deny the results of the Herald poll?
Two-thirds of people in Scotland support control over all areas of government policy except foreign affairs and defence, a recent poll found.
Three-quarters support devolution of all Scottish taxes while almost as many (71%) back full control of welfare and benefits, new data from a Panelbase poll commissioned by the SNP between September 29 and October 1 suggests.
Around two-thirds support control over the state pension and oil and gas revenue while over half (54%) support control over broadcasting, the poll of 1,049 people over 16 found.
Some 72% said there should be a guaranteed cross-border consultation when deciding the UK’s stance in European negotiations.
Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney said: "These are extraordinarily positive findings, showing strong support for extensive new powers - including control of all taxation and the welfare system in Scotland - right across Scottish society and across the political spectrum. There is also overwhelming support for the Scottish Government to be consulted about the UK’s stance in European negotiations.
Cobblers.
Last month we in Scotland chose to remain part of the U.K., wherever that may lead. If the U.K. decides to leave the EU then Scotland, as part of the U.K., will also leave the EU.
Not Necessarily if the Scottish people feel that the vow has not been kept. A further referendum is always possible. See above for where the majority feeling of Scottish residents actually is- not the status quo but devomax or home rule.
Here you go again. You don’t strike me as much of democrat if you feel it would be reasonable to hold another referendum within a generation. In the run up even the SNP spoke of it being a once in a lifetime or once in a generation decision. Now is the time to live with that undertaking.
I don’t “deny” the poll but papers commission polls and they tend to support the position of the paper that commissioned them. The Herald and Sunday Herald are Nationalist rags - I skim them whenever I visit my father-in-law but only so I know “what the enemy are thinking”.
Polls are just polls - tomorrows chip paper - and I really would not get too excited if I were you. You will never cite a poll that conflicts with your prejudices, only those that support your bias. They say nothing about the settled will of the people. That has been decided by a Referendum.
Which brings me back to the question I asked you. What are your views of the stance taken by the SNP since the results were announced? Do you think the SNP are compliant with their undertakings per the Edinburgh Agreement? Do you not think it is time our First Minister (current and in-waiting) started speaking for all the Scottish people rather than a defeated minority?
It would be very difficult to phrase questions t distort public opinion over such a fundamental question. If people just dismiss polls because of the politics of the paper publishing, then there is no debate.
My view is that the referendum was won by a solemn promise (the vow) that has been shown by polling to have affected many of the people who voted No.
If Westminster agrees with Holyrood a sufficiently large transfer of powers to Scotland, then the matter will be settled unless another major issue (such as EU withdrawal without Scottish consent) occurs.
Only then will it be possible for the SNP and other nationalists to accept that the referendum has delivered
“… a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.”
If the Vow is broken, all bets are off as the referendum will have been decided on a false prospectus.
I think you are completely off base here.
I think a NO vote would have been delivered anyway but I agree the stupid “Vow” has permitted the SNP to muddy the waters.
But you CANNOT now use polling to decide what may or may not have happened. In trying to do that you are rejecting the outcome of the referendum as the settled will of the people, which is the only outcome upon which there should be no disagreement if everyone delivered on what they actually promised (not what you wish to interpret they meant).
I think though you qualification as to the outcome, your denial of the only fact we have, disqualifies you - in my eyes at least - from any rationale debate. You put all your weight on this “Vow” which was deliberately vaguely worded and yet put none on the Edinburgh Agreement which was actually signed by both governments and is now being torn up by the SNP.
You are no democrat. I am done debating with you.
This solemn “vow” exists only in the minds of inveterate seperationists such as yourself. What happened is that Cameron and Brown (the latter of whom has virtually no power to promise anybody anything) and some other Westminster politicians got panicked by misleading polls and the greater vociferousness of the Yes campaign into a last minute floating of the idea of further concessions and privileges for Scotland, in order to secure the No vote that, for a brief moment, seemed at risk. Given the actual result, essentially a No landslide. It is almost certain that No would have easily won anyway, as any dispassionate observer can see. Indeed, it seems to me hugely unlikely that more than a tiny handful of Scots changed their vote on the basis of these last-minute concessions.
Calling these panicky, eleventh-hour promises a solemn vow, even The Vow™, as if some great formal agreement was reached, and, like the Magna Carta, or some major international treaty, was signed and pledged with great ceremony, is disingenuous to say the least. Yes, Cameron made some foolish promises, that he certainly now greatly regrets, and will probably, in order to save face, have to deliver something, a sop at least, in the way of greater autonomy for Scotland. If it is much more than a sop, if Scots are granted significant further privileges that the English do not enjoy, he risks an angry backlash from the rest of the country, particularly his own, conservative voters, that he really can’t afford.
Of course, even if no concessions are actually granted at all, The Vow™ :rolleyes: will hardly be the first, and will not be the last, election promise that has ever been broken by a British political party. Lot of the ones that got broken in the past were actually on paper, in manifestoes, and the product of much deliberation.
I think it will be very sad if all the radical political energy that has had been unleashed in Scotland continues to be shackled to the doomed, and ultimately reactionary cause of separtionism and inward-looking nationalism. What we need is a movement that will shake up the power structure of the United Kingdom as a whole, not just Scotland.