I think T.H. White was right when he used Merlin as his mouthpiece (transparently in connection with the Irish Question) in The Once and Future King:
Do you think you’ll be able to translate this interjection into something that is remotely relevant? Difficulty: demonstrate some knowledge of the topic at hand: something non-mythical, perhaps something from within living memory?
EU membership is an interesting question.
I don’t think there is any precedent for what happens in the case of a secession of part of a state that is a member of the EU.
If Scotland becomes and independent state, it will have to first of all become internationally recognised as such and then it will be in a position to negotiate its own international treaties with other states from scratch.
Presumably the EU is at the top of the list. But the accession of a state into the EU is an established process which takes years of formal deliberation. Certainly a lot longer than the 18 months between the vote and the envisioned Independence Day.
Scotland would first need to establish a central bank and have control over its financial affairs.
All the other states have to agree to accept the new member…and that might run into problems with members like Spain who may well find pressure to extend independence to Catalonia. Spain does not have the same accommodating policy as the UK. It fears that it will be followed by other regions with a strong identity. This same concern over separatism is shared by other states in the EU.
So…Scotland has to convince the EU for special treatment. This makes it highly dependent on having financial independence in place. So it has to convince the rest of the UK that financial union is in both countries best interests. Or, create their own currency and their own central bank. If Scotland finds itself outside of the EU, that will have a significant affect on its economy. It will face taxes on exports and find it more difficult to raise loans. There will be no free movement of labour and there will be border controls between Scotland and England.
The period between the vote and the planned date for independence seems very short time to deal with all these issues. Moreover, the UK will be having a General Election in May 2015, so it will need to renegotiate with another UK government and it will face its own Scottish General Election after Independence.
A challenging timetable and a lot of international diplomacy will be required to get the agreement of other countries and there are no guarantees that it will be successful.
The attitude of the next UK government will be crucial. It could take a strong line and say that Independent Scotland should create its own currency and have its own central bank. It would be very difficult to argue against that. That issue could be very divisive for the Nationalists.
I am sure these issues could be resolved in the longer term, but timetable is very ambitious and the risk is: a Scottish economy that gets into serious difficulty from the start.
filmstar-en:
I think instead that both successor states will be recognized as part of the EU and that the primary negotiations will be financial (how much of current contributions will now come from Scotland…)
It’s just an illustration of the point. A parable.
How can that be so. The UK has signed the Treaty of Rome, it already exists. An Independent Scotland does not exist yet and would have to first be incorporated with have a constitution declaring its territory and sovereignty, then it can proceed with negotiating treaties with other states…and they in turn have to agree.
The qualifications for acceding to the EU by new member states are quite exacting.
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/chapters-of-the-acquis/index_en.htm
In any case…the Conservatives might elected on an anti-EU ticket. They are almost committed to a referendum in the UK on EU membership. More reason for Scotland to have its own currency and central bank. But the SNP talks of ‘monetary union’ with the UK and the use of Sterling as its currency, albeit with no central bank of its own. I don’t see that as tenable.
Why wouldn’t it be tenable?
Whither Scotland? Thither. 
filmstar-en:
See this article, for example:
"Which brings us to the Vienna Convention. Or more specifically, two Vienna Conventions. One is “on Succession of States in respect of Treaties 1978”. The other is “on Succession of States in respect of State Property, Archives and Debts 1983”. (Don’t go! The UN legal stuff will be over soon…) The former of these two makes for alarming reading for Better Together. It identifies two kinds of successor state - “newly independent states” and “cases of separation of parts of a state”. The first refers to states subject to colonial rule – they managed to escape the clutches of some empire or other (that’s not us). They get a clean slate, no remaining treaty obligation. The other refers to countries which simply choose to break up. So here’s the surprise: article 34(1) states that all other new states remain bound by the treaty obligations of the state from which they separated. So, eh, we’d still be in the EU? Go and look for yourself here . The other one basically says ‘you split up the assets in proportion to the liabilities’. It’s a bit vague and I’ve already heard it interpreted by different people in very different ways. Have a look at it here . "
That would work, if the UK was a party to the Vienna Convention on succession of States in Respect of Treaties. It’s not. Or, if the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of State Property, Archives and Debts was in force, or, if the UK was a party to it. It’s not and it’s not.
Which is why, if you read the next paragraph of the thing you cited, he says as much:
If an Independent Scotland uses Sterling as its currency, it will defer all decisions regarding the currency to another country, the UK and its central Bank of England. The UK will not be obliged to take the economy in Scotland into account when making any of its economic decisions only that of the UK voters. It would not be economically independent. That may be a big sticking point with EU membership.
If the UK decides to have a vote on EU membership after the 2015 election and Scotland wants to stay in, there would mean there would have to be a tax border between the UK and Scotland which would have a dramatic effect on trade.
An Independent Scotland should have its own currency and its own central bank. The path to this fiscal independence has not been worked out and there is no agreement about this. So that will probably be very high on the agenda in the negotiations with the UK. However politicians in the UK will represent the interests of UK own voters. The economy of Scotland will only be a concern if it has a bearing on the UK economy and Scotland is very much smaller than the UK.
There could be great disagreement within Scotland regarding its negotiating position (I am sure some would not be happy being dependent on the rest of the UK.) None of the UK parties have said what their position will be regarding Scotland in the next General election. Someone has to pay…
I used to believe this, im not so sure now. Countries such as Spain have their own breakaway movements. Spain does not wish to encourage a Basque country breakaway. They will make it as difficult as possible for Scotland to join. I can see us join eventually, but would not be surprised if Scotland had to wait for a prolonged period of time.
Even if Scotland is not granted full membership of the EU as a pragmatic acceptance of reality, it should not be overlooked that it will still be part of the European Economic Area
"The European Economic Area (EEA) provides for the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital through three of four member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway),[4] and 27 of 28 member states of the European Union (EU), with Croatia provisionally applying the agreement pending its ratification by all EEA countries.[2][5] It was established on 1 January 1994 following an agreement between the member states and the European Community, which later became the EU.[4]
It allows EFTA states which join to participate in the EU’s internal market without being members of the EU. They adopt almost all EU legislation related to the single market, except laws on agriculture and fisheries. However, they also contribute to and influence the formation of new EEA relevant policies and legislation at an early stage as part of a formal decision-shaping process.[6]
One EFTA member, Switzerland, has not joined the EEA but has a series of bilateral agreements, including a free trade agreement, with the EU."
Even if Scotland is not immediately admitted as a full member of the EU, every Scot will for their lifetime have access to the EU as persons because of their British Citizenship.
Bookmakers set odds not on their assessment of the likelihood of a result, but on the potential losses from existing wagers in the book, thus reflecting the thoughts of all the participants. In this case many of the gamblers will be from Non-Scottish punters, which separates the process from the electorate making the decision.
We don’t know if it’ll be part of the EEA or not at this point, and we don’t know whether or not independent Scots will continue to have British citizenship. Both of those might be true but we don’t know.
Membership of the EEA is automatic as Scotland is eligible for EFTA membership.
All Scots currently have and will continue to have British passports by birth or naturalisation.
This is just scare mongering.
What does “Scotland is elibile to join EFTA mean?” Scotland would have to be considered and accepted for EFTA like anybody else. And how am I “scaremongering”? All I’m saying is that we don’t know yet what Scotland’s international status will be if it gets independence. None of that is settled yet, and anyone who tries to tell you anything with cerainty is quite wrong.
I live in Scotland. I have been British for over six decades; why would I cease to be just because The country I live in becomes independent. If I were living in the US or any other non UK country, I would still be British. Why should I be denied citizenship merely for living in Scotland, rather than living in France, the USA or Australia?
Entry to EFTA requires little more than agreeing to their rules and being a European country as with Iceland; it is unlikely that Scotland would be the only applicant ever refused admission.
So passports and EEA membership is as certain as it can be. Just scare stories.
We’ve been discussing this over in Elections since January: Scotland's referendum on Independence 18 Sept 2014 - Politics & Elections - Straight Dope Message Board