EU ZMEMBERS did not need to as Croatia has been an EU member since 2013.
I don’t need to look up “provisional” because Croatia has been a full member of the EEA since 1St August according to the cite above
The specific cites you provided say otherwise.
But anyway, even if what you say is true, do you agree that Scotland, not being an EU member, will need to be approved by all EEA members before being allowed to join? If not, why will they be treated better than a country that is an EU member?
No because EFTA membership leads directly to EEA membership, unlike EU membership.
Now back to the point of Croatia. This page gives the full agreement signed in July that led to Croatia becoming a full member of the EEA in August as per Wiki.
http://www.efta.int/legal-texts/eea-enlargement
Click on the PDF
Main text of the Agreement, including signatures
Summary
AGREEMENT on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the European Economic
WHEREAS the Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Treaty of Accession’) was signed in Brussels on 9 December 2011;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 128 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, signed at Oporto on 2 May 1992, any European State becoming a member of the Community shall apply to become a Party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (hereinafter referred to as the ‘EEA Agreement’);
WHEREAS the Republic of Croatia has applied to become a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement;
WHEREAS the terms and conditions for such participation are to be the subject of an Agreement between the Present Contracting Parties and the applicant State,
HAVE DECIDED to conclude the following Agreement:
Article 1
- The Republic of Croatia hereby becomes a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement and shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘New Contracting Party’.
- From the entry into force of this Agreement, the provisions of the EEA Agreement, as amended by the Decisions of the EEA Joint Committee adopted before 30 June 2011, shall be binding on the New Contracting Party under the same conditions as on the Present Contracting Parties and under the terms and conditions laid down in this Agreement.
- The Annexes to this Agreement form an integral part of this Agreement.
A UK Government site that shows Croatia as an EEA member.
Do you normally reject gov.UK sites as cites?
http://ukcisa.org.uk/International-Students/Preparing--planning/EEA-and-Swiss-students/
Am I an EEA national?
You are a European Economic Area (EEA) national if you are a citizen or national of one of the following countries. If you have permanent residence in, but not citizenship of, any of these countries, you are not an EEA national.
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are EEA member states, but they are not members of the European Union (EU).
http://www.bris.ac.uk/secretary/dataprotection/eea.html
The EEA currently consists of the following countries:
Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Cyprus Denmark
Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy
Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway
Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden
What is the European Economic Area (EEA)?
The EEA is an area of free trade and free movement of peoples comprising the member states of the European Union, in addition to: Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
The member states of the European Union are:
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania
http://www.expatinsurance.eu/EEA.html
The European Economic Area (EEA)
The European Economic Area (EEA) includes the 28 EU-Member States:
1.map of european economic areaAustria
2.Belgium
3.Bulgaria
4.Croatia
5.Cyprus (Greek part)
6.Czech Republic
7.Denmark
8.Estonia
9.Finland
10.France
11.Germany
12.Greece
13.Hungary
14.Ireland
15.Italy
16.Latvia
17.Lithuania
18.Luxembourg
19.Malta
20.Netherlands
21.Poland
22.Portugal
23.Romania
24.Slovakia
25.Slovenia
26. Spain
27.Sweden
28.United Kingdom
as well as the 3 EFTA Member States:
1.Iceland
2.Liechtenstein
3.Norway.
EEA European Economic Area
The following countries are in the European Economic Area:
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Republic of Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
The Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
While Switzerland and Suriname are not in the EEA, the tuition fees for Swiss and Surinamese nationals are the same as for EEA nationals.
And the official EU position
U enlargements had a direct impact on the EEA Agreement, and the enlarged EEA now includes 31 countries (EFTA countries in italic):
Belgium (BE) Spain (ES) Hungary (HU) Slovakia (SK)
Bulgaria (BG) France (FR) Malta (MT) Finland (FI)
Czech Republic (CZ) Croatia (HR) Netherlands (NL) Sweden (SE)
Denmark (DK) Italy (IT) Austria (AT) United Kingdom (UK)
Germany (DE) Cyprus (CY) Poland (PL) Iceland (IS)
Estonia (EE) Latvia (LV) Portugal (PT) Liechtenstein (LI)
Ireland (IE) Lithuania (LT) Romania (RO) Norway (NO)
Greece (EL) Luxembourg (LU) Slovenia (SI)
A lot of very official and trustworthy sites seem to say that Croatia is part of the EEA but maybe we should believe a poster here who believes they are not even though he has no cites.
In the next few days the parties that support the Union will propose an alternative to Independence for Scotland that means more powers will be devolved to the existing Scottish Parliament. This is the Devo-Max proposal. Will it be enough to swing the vote?
Currently there are powers reserved by the UK government in Westminster and powers devolved to the Scottish government in Hollyrood.
Devolved powers
The following areas are decided in Scotland.
Health
Education
Housing
Sport and Arts
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing
Emergency Services
Planning
Social Work
Heritage
some Transport
Tourism
Reserved powers
Decisions (mostly about matters with a UK or international impact) are reserved and dealt with at Westminster.
Defence
UK Foreign Policy
Social Security
Financial & Economic Matters
Employment
Constitutional matters
Immigration & Nationality
Monetary System
Common Markets
Some transport
Data Protection
Energy
Gambling
Medical Ethics
Equal Opportunities
The critical powers are control over the economy and tax raising powers.
The big question being debated by the Vote No parties is what powers would it have to transfer to the Scottish Parliament to encourage the Scottish votes to vote against Independence?
This offer and the mobilisation of Labour campaigners to promote it to the Scottish electorate will make the next couple of weeks very intense.
It has the big attraction of being relatively easy to implement because all the machinery is already in place. It would also be quick and they may well commit to a timetable. Getting these different parties to agree a common policy will be especially difficult, but they know they have to come up with something.
Independence, on the other hand, will mean wrangling and uncertainty and a lot of instability in both the UK and Scotland for the next decade. No-one wants that.
Is it even legal?
This sudden rush to announce new things seems not in accord with the normal purdah convention.
It is not illegal, just an act of desperation. After a whole campaign of refusing to say what will happen after a vote, they suddenly want to talk about it when they see it slipping away from them.
I believe it’s legal because it’s the parties themselves, not the Government, that are making the announcements.
If true, it certainly would smack of desperation.
A Devo-Max proposal was always on the cards following a No vote. Each of the parties made statements that this is their policy.
The difference here is that they seem to be intent on making a joint statement and a commitment to a timetable.
The track record of devolving powers to the Scottish Parliament and it has been successful.
I think it would be a very attractive proposition to the voters.
It may be mocked as an act of desperation by the Nationalists, but who cares what they think. This is an offer to the Scottish voter: significantly greater autonomy through tax raising powers for the Scottish Parliament or the alternative proposed by the Nationalist that can only be realised if you believe that all their fanciful expectations will come true.
This is a trump card.
I think the Scots will bite. The Scottish Labour party will be mobilised to take that message to their members, maybe turn around those drifting towards the YES vote. It will be a very positive message.
I suspect the SNP will also be pleased, I don’t really think they are looking forward to the nightmare that would happen if the vote is YES. They would have to deliver on all of their promises and deal with the wrath of an electorate who will feel short changed when they fail to deliver on their extravagant claims. I think many of them wanted this all along. It keeps them in the game.
The package should have something that addresses the hated bedroom tax and any other issues that are sort points.
They don’t have long to put something together, but they all know that both the UK and Scotland will be headed for a world of pain and years of wrangling if there is a YES vote.
Well sort of. If you weigh Scottish preferences, increased devolution comes out ahead. When provided with 3 choices, Scottish independence doesn’t break 45%.
It seems clear to me that the Brits would have a stronger bargaining position than the Scots after a hypothetical Yes vote. I’m not sure what they would do with it however. After all the Scots could capitulate fully on all the major points without too much sacrifice (right?). Currency could be a sticking point, but there are lots of options and I would predict that the simpler set - involving a new currency for Scotland- would prevail.
Reaction by democratic states with separatist movements will be interesting. What I don’t have a sense of is the maturity of existing Scottish political culture. Political and economic necessity will promote responsible policies, but even that isn’t always sufficient. At the extreme, Scotland is far too rich for a civil war to be likely or even thinkable. The ratio of hot heads to those with things to lose isn’t favourable to war mongers.
Well, that was an impressive wall of irrelevant cites.