The Referendum Thread

[zurich_allan]

Okay, it's time to discuss this properly rather than a lot of the meaningless generalisation that is going on here with regard to EU Membership for a potential post-independence Scotland.

First of all, in spite of the rhetoric of some saying that they could live with not being in the EU - that's great - but sadly Scotland couldn't. Or at least it could, but would by a MUCH poorer country with substantially higher costs in a vast number of areas which could ONLY be absorbed by either raising taxes or passing the costs on to the consumer. As neither of those are desirable, then our only option is to remain within the EU whether as a newly entering state or by common accord.

So to what will actually happen then. And here is the reality:

Yes, Scotland could be admitted by common accord, but ONLY with the agreement of ALL 28 existing Member States. I'm not saying that that definitely would or wouldn't happen, but what I am unequivocally saying is that if any existing Member State wanted a concession in some area, we would have to give them it otherwise they have us over a barrel. The UK is NOT viewed well within the EU, or by the representatives of other Member States wihin the EU institutions. David Cameron has been a snake within the EU, and this is common knowledge - he has been rebuked by the president of the Commission in public on multiple occasions for both downright lying, and for saying one thing to the EU, and the opposite to the public in the UK. The latest free movement 'changes' being discussed in the news this past week are an example of that - the UK public are being told that the issue is the EU laws in this area being too relaxed, when the reality is that they are not - it is our own domestic mirroring of the directives in question (particularly directive 2004/38) that is MUCH more relaxed than the directive actually requires us to be. It is our domestic policy on the area that is at fault, NOT the specific EU law. In any case, should just one Member State decide that they don't want Scotland to become a State from within (and there ARE reasons that they might not want this), then we have literally NO choice but to seek entry as a new State.

The wording used within the various discussions is very 'interesting' - it speaks of it being 'legally possible' to negotiate from within, and this is true - it IS legally possible, but that doesn't even come close to being a guarantee that we would be successful.

This nonsense about 'but we're already de facto Members / Citizens' is just that - completely irrelevant nonsense. If we are forced to apply from the outside, which IS a certainty if any of the other States decide not to allow us entry from within (again, I can expand on the reasons why this might happen if anyone wants me to), then we HAVE to be able to meet the strict entry criteria (the Copenhagen Criteria) for Membership, comprising of tangible evidence that we can meet the requirements of all 35 Acquis Chapters. The generalisations that the EU would want to keep us because of our Oil, or for fishing in the North sea etc. are completely meaningless - citing that shows a COMPLETE lack of knowledge of how EU entry criteria work.

Currently as things stand, an independent Scotland would be MUCH more advanced than any of the existing candidate countries (btw, being a candidate country is HUGELY different to just being an applicant or something, those would be classed as 'potential candidate countries' - a candidate country means that the EU is actively working with the country in question, screening them at set intervals and developing the abilities of that country to be prepared to take on EU Membership in the future), but in my opinion, there are certain chapters that as things stand, we might struggle to meet the requirements of, those being:

Chapter 17 on economic and monetary policy

Chapter 31 on Foreign, Security and Defence policy

Chapter 32 on Financial Control

There are others that could be problematic, but certainly those three are the ones that spring to mind based on the proposals in these areas within the white paper.

Even if Scotland were forced to apply externally, that's not to say that we might not be granted Membership, but it WOULDN'T be immediate, there would be a lengthy transition period.

To sum all of this up:

NOTHING is certain regarding EU Membership. The YES side claiming that we would definitely get membership by negotiating from within are wrong. The NO side claiming that we would definitelty have to apply as a potential new Member State are also wrong. It's somewhere in between as there is legal merit in both arguments. However even being allowed to NEGOTIATE from wihin does not then automatically lead on to entry - it IS a gamble, and not as sure a gamble as some would believe. Anyone viewing this issue as black or white is incorrect.

Remember before you argue with me that I am currently in my 7th year of teaching EU law, so feel free to ask me questions and I'll answer them if / when I get the time, but rest assured I am quite certain that I am correct with all of the above and have no political agenda one way or the other.

Edited November 29, 2013 by zurich_allan

[RickMcD]

Okay, it's time to discuss this properly rather than a lot of the meaningless generalisation that is going on here with regard to EU Membership for a potential post-independence Scotland.

First of all, in spite of the rhetoric of some saying that they could live with not being in the EU - that's great - but sadly Scotland couldn't. Or at least it could, but would by a MUCH poorer country with substantially higher costs in a vast number of areas which could ONLY be absorbed by either raising taxes or passing the costs on to the consumer. As neither of those are desirable, then our only option is to remain within the EU whether as a newly entering state or by common accord.

So to what will actually happen then. And here is the reality:

Yes, Scotland could be admitted by common accord, but ONLY with the agreement of ALL 28 existing Member States. I'm not saying that that definitely would or wouldn't happen, but what I am unequivocally saying is that if any existing Member State wanted a concession in some area, we would have to give them it otherwise they have us over a barrel. The UK is NOT viewed well within the EU, or by the representatives of other Member States wihin the EU institutions. David Cameron has been a snake within the EU, and this is common knowledge - he has been rebuked by the president of the Commission in public on multiple occasions for both downright lying, and for saying one thing to the EU, and the opposite to the public in the UK. The latest free movement 'changes' being discussed in the news this past week are an example of that - the UK public are being told that the issue is the EU laws in this area being too relaxed, when the reality is that they are not - it is our own domestic mirroring of the directives in question (particularly directive 2004/38) that is MUCH more relaxed than the directive actually requires us to be. It is our domestic policy on the area that is at fault, NOT the specific EU law. In any case, should just one Member State decide that they don't want Scotland to become a State from within (and there ARE reasons that they might not want this), then we have literally NO choice but to seek entry as a new State.

The wording used within the various discussions is very 'interesting' - it speaks of it being 'legally possible' to negotiate from within, and this is true - it IS legally possible, but that doesn't even come close to being a guarantee that we would be successful.

This nonsense about 'but we're already de facto Members / Citizens' is just that - completely irrelevant nonsense. If we are forced to apply from the outside, which IS a certainty if any of the other States decide not to allow us entry from within (again, I can expand on the reasons why this might happen if anyone wants me to), then we HAVE to be able to meet the strict entry criteria (the Copenhagen Criteria) for Membership, comprising of tangible evidence that we can meet the requirements of all 35 Acquis Chapters. The generalisations that the EU would want to keep us because of our Oil, or for fishing in the North sea etc. are completely meaningless - citing that shows a COMPLETE lack of knowledge of how EU entry criteria work.

Currently as things stand, an independent Scotland would be MUCH more advanced than any of the existing candidate countries (btw, being a candidate country is HUGELY different to just being an applicant or something, those would be classed as 'potential candidate countries' - a candidate country means that the EU is actively working with the country in question, screening them at set intervals and developing the abilities of that country to be prepared to take on EU Membership in the future), but in my opinion, there are certain chapters that as things stand, we might struggle to meet the requirements of, those being:

Chapter 17 on economic and monetary policy

Chapter 31 on Foreign, Security and Defence policy

Chapter 32 on Financial Control

There are others that could be problematic, but certainly those three are the ones that spring to mind based on the proposals in these areas within the white paper.

Even if Scotland were forced to apply externally, that's not to say that we might not be granted Membership, but it WOULDN'T be immediate, there would be a lengthy transition period.

To sum all of this up:

NOTHING is certain regarding EU Membership. The YES side claiming that we would definitely get membership by negotiating from within are wrong. The NO side claiming that we would definitelty have to apply as a potential new Member State are also wrong. It's somewhere in between as there is legal merit in both arguments. However even being allowed to NEGOTIATE from wihin does not then automatically lead on to entry - it IS a gamble, and not as sure a gamble as some would believe. Anyone viewing this issue as black or white is incorrect.

Remember before you argue with me that I am currently in my 7th year of teaching EU law, so feel free to ask me questions and I'll answer them if / when I get the time, but rest assured I am quite certain that I am correct with all of the above and have no political agenda one way or the other.

I hope you realise that folk who actually know what they're talking about don't normally post on this forum. I speak from personal experience.

[bluto]

I love clarity.

[RickMcD]

I love clarity.

I remember her from school too.

We all love clarity when it suits our own ends.

[bluto]

I remember her from school too.

We all love clarity when it suits our own ends.

Aye.

Fortunately, as Clarity herself always said, my end was big and true and the best thing for everyone...

Edited November 29, 2013 by bluto

[Seaside Nipper]

Interesting watch on question time last night ............surprised and appalled in almost equal measure.

Curran, thought she was very predictable and was merely a polished Joanne Lamont...........no great suprise, very average performance at best

Eddi Reader, well who invited her ? She was quite mad, some might suggest overly passionate. Made a bit of a clown of herself in all honesty

Carmichael, thought he was turgid, one diensional and simply laboured the peddling negative message of better together , offered no compelling insight whatsoever. He was particularly poor I thought. Some of the audience members actually gave him a bit of a blootering tbh.

Goldie, the easy chair in the room, no stress , no hassle , the odd comfort, assured and always in the room.

Sturgeon, clearly intelligent , played a decent game last night. Bit her tongue on a few occasions, I could sense her anger, but did quite well in resisting from jumping into the slanging. A solid and assured performance I thought

Harvie, well , the best I think by a fair stretch.. He was clearly articulate , pragmatic and almost overly practical compared to most of the other panelists last night.

Pass marks for Harvie and Sturgeon , the rest were a major setback for the NO imo last night

So last night was certainly an incremental notch or two closer to a YES vote.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Seaside Nipper

[bud77]

The headline in the national press (El Pais) - Rajoy uses Scotland to launch a warning to catalonia.

The Spanish PM is saying nothing new here. In fact he's been saying the same thing regularly for a year or two to threaten catalonia as opposed to Scotland. Doesnt seem to be working...

Our BritNat media (you could never accuse them of being independent ) love to rehash the scare stories but haven't managed to give the same coverage to the EC Secretariat General acknowledging that it is legally possible to negotiate from within the EU before becoming independent.

So nothing new from the spanish PM, certainly not enough to justify the amount of coverage given to it. Still, it keeps deflects from sturgeon destroying "bruiser" carmichael in last nights debate. Cynical?

As things stand it would only take one country out of 28 to block full EU membership for an independent Scotland. It would be more likely that an independent Scotland would have to negotiate and give away fishing rights to the Spanish, possibly give up some agricultural and deprived area funding to other members to secure those votes.

A letter that wasn't sent to the Scottish government or the UK government or any other government but to some individual who posted it on a pro independence web site where, according to Salmond's aides. it was downloaded from and subsequently used by the first minister to prove his point.It may well be a very genuine document but it could equally be a total forgery.

[oaksoft]

No - cause they backed down, accepted the strict terms imposed and scrapped their referendum. Independence in Europe in action....

So it's more Dickson bullshit then.

[oaksoft]

Okay, it's time to discuss this properly rather than a lot of the meaningless generalisation that is going on here with regard to EU Membership for a potential post-independence Scotland.

First of all, in spite of the rhetoric of some saying that they could live with not being in the EU - that's great - but sadly Scotland couldn't. Or at least it could, but would by a MUCH poorer country with substantially higher costs in a vast number of areas which could ONLY be absorbed by either raising taxes or passing the costs on to the consumer. As neither of those are desirable, then our only option is to remain within the EU whether as a newly entering state or by common accord.

So to what will actually happen then. And here is the reality:

Yes, Scotland could be admitted by common accord, but ONLY with the agreement of ALL 28 existing Member States. I'm not saying that that definitely would or wouldn't happen, but what I am unequivocally saying is that if any existing Member State wanted a concession in some area, we would have to give them it otherwise they have us over a barrel. The UK is NOT viewed well within the EU, or by the representatives of other Member States wihin the EU institutions. David Cameron has been a snake within the EU, and this is common knowledge - he has been rebuked by the president of the Commission in public on multiple occasions for both downright lying, and for saying one thing to the EU, and the opposite to the public in the UK. The latest free movement 'changes' being discussed in the news this past week are an example of that - the UK public are being told that the issue is the EU laws in this area being too relaxed, when the reality is that they are not - it is our own domestic mirroring of the directives in question (particularly directive 2004/38) that is MUCH more relaxed than the directive actually requires us to be. It is our domestic policy on the area that is at fault, NOT the specific EU law. In any case, should just one Member State decide that they don't want Scotland to become a State from within (and there ARE reasons that they might not want this), then we have literally NO choice but to seek entry as a new State.

The wording used within the various discussions is very 'interesting' - it speaks of it being 'legally possible' to negotiate from within, and this is true - it IS legally possible, but that doesn't even come close to being a guarantee that we would be successful.

This nonsense about 'but we're already de facto Members / Citizens' is just that - completely irrelevant nonsense. If we are forced to apply from the outside, which IS a certainty if any of the other States decide not to allow us entry from within (again, I can expand on the reasons why this might happen if anyone wants me to), then we HAVE to be able to meet the strict entry criteria (the Copenhagen Criteria) for Membership, comprising of tangible evidence that we can meet the requirements of all 35 Acquis Chapters. The generalisations that the EU would want to keep us because of our Oil, or for fishing in the North sea etc. are completely meaningless - citing that shows a COMPLETE lack of knowledge of how EU entry criteria work.

Currently as things stand, an independent Scotland would be MUCH more advanced than any of the existing candidate countries (btw, being a candidate country is HUGELY different to just being an applicant or something, those would be classed as 'potential candidate countries' - a candidate country means that the EU is actively working with the country in question, screening them at set intervals and developing the abilities of that country to be prepared to take on EU Membership in the future), but in my opinion, there are certain chapters that as things stand, we might struggle to meet the requirements of, those being:

Chapter 17 on economic and monetary policy

Chapter 31 on Foreign, Security and Defence policy

Chapter 32 on Financial Control

There are others that could be problematic, but certainly those three are the ones that spring to mind based on the proposals in these areas within the white paper.

Even if Scotland were forced to apply externally, that's not to say that we might not be granted Membership, but it WOULDN'T be immediate, there would be a lengthy transition period.

To sum all of this up:

NOTHING is certain regarding EU Membership. The YES side claiming that we would definitely get membership by negotiating from within are wrong. The NO side claiming that we would definitelty have to apply as a potential new Member State are also wrong. It's somewhere in between as there is legal merit in both arguments. However even being allowed to NEGOTIATE from wihin does not then automatically lead on to entry - it IS a gamble, and not as sure a gamble as some would believe. Anyone viewing this issue as black or white is incorrect.

Remember before you argue with me that I am currently in my 7th year of teaching EU law, so feel free to ask me questions and I'll answer them if / when I get the time, but rest assured I am quite certain that I am correct with all of the above and have no political agenda one way or the other.

I'd take issue with one point. Nobody would be voting Scotland IN to the EU. They'd be voting to REMOVE us because we are already in Europe and as you say there is no precedent for this.

I'm pretty sure that if we were REMOVED from the EU by Spain or anyone else, this will end in the courts because there is no law covering this situation.

There are no guarantees on this of course just like there are no guarantees that a plague of locusts won't hit us in the next 30 years but the reality is this will probably be solved by political means.

The exact nature of the barrel is anyone's guess but if the big players want to keep Scotland in the EU then the others will most likely agree. Spain may well be talking the talk right now but it is inconceivable that they'd risk losing the fishing rights they currently enjoy.

This is all being blown out of proportion.

[salmonbuddie]

I'd echo oaky's comments, z_a, and I know it's your area of expertise, but surely we have rights as individuals and taking those rights away from us would surely be open to challenge?

[bluto]

I'd echo oaky's comments, z_a, and I know it's your area of expertise, but surely we have rights as individuals and taking those rights away from us would surely be open to challenge?

No one but Scots would be voting initially to have a removal from the Eu.

On the one hand Scots would have exercised their rights as individuals to remove themselves from their existing Uk membership of the EU, whilst on the other hand, Scots would not want those rights taken away.

Hmmm. The words "eat and still have cake" spring to mind.

[salmonbuddie]

Voting to rescind the union equates to voting to leave the EU? Seriously? Where does it say that in the white paper, must have missed it.

Another for z_a - since the UK wouldn't exist anymore, wouldn't rUK be treated the same ad Scotland?

[Stuart Dickson]

Oh dear. The Natsis don't like Zurich Allen factual post one bit. I give it one more page before they revert to type accuse him of being a cowardly scaremonger.

The funny thing is that an independent Scotland out of Europe and with its own currency would be more attractive to me than the shite in the white paper. I quite fancy the idea of Scotland as a tax haven myself with no public services and as little state as humanly possible.

[oaksoft]

Oh dear. The Natsis don't like Zurich Allen factual post one bit. I give it one more page before they revert to type accuse him of being a cowardly scaremonger.

The funny thing is that an independent Scotland out of Europe and with its own currency would be more attractive to me than the shite in the white paper. I quite fancy the idea of Scotland as a tax haven myself with no public services and as little state as humanly possible.

I bet this sounded hilarious in your head.

[RickMcD]

Voting to rescind the union equates to voting to leave the EU? Seriously? Where does it say that in the white paper, must have missed it.

Another for z_a - since the UK wouldn't exist anymore, wouldn't rUK be treated the same ad Scotland?

Scotland is a member of the EU only by dint of the fact that it is a member of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Leaving the UK surely means that Scotland will have to reapply? Your faith in the White Paper is touching as is your faith in Alex Salmond. I'm afraid every time I see or hear him I recall his crawling attitude to that clown Fred Goodwin. I wouldn't trust him with the petty cash, never mind the economy.

[Ayrshire Saints]

It's not ridiculous at all, in fact it's particularly relevant - especially if you look at the case of Montenegro.

Montenegro was initially on of the eight constituent parts of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In 1944 Yugoslavia became a socialist republic and it remained that way until 1992 when - in a referendum - the population voted to form the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which incorporated a political union between Serbia and Montenegro. In 1996 Montenegro's government severed ties with the Serbian regime under Slobodan Milsevic. In 2002 both countries came to a new agreement again and in 2003 the Yugoslav Federation was replaced by a decentralised state union named Serbia and Montenegro. Then in 2006 Montenegro voted to become independent of Serbia.

Here's where the history lessons are to be learned though. For example in 2006 Serbia were declared as the legal successor to the former state of Serbia and Montenegro. Montenegro had to reapply for membership to the UN, NATO and to the EU. Their application still hasn't gone through and they remain a candidate state to this date which should ring alarm bells amongst those who take yesterdays white paper as gospel.

Secondly in 1996 Montenegro adopted the Deutsche Mark as it's de facto currency and when Germany moved to the Euro in 2002 so did Montenegro. However this brought it into constant conflict with the European Commission and the European Central Bank as the country failed to meet the strict rules of the ERM and as a result the EU has released many statements making it clear that there has to be strict adherence to the convergence criteria which would include spending at least 2 years in the ERMII system and that a unilateral introduction of the Euro is not compatible with the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. In practice the ECB hasn't stopped Montenegro from using the Euro but it did threaten at one point to force Montenegro to stop circulating the Euro and to creating their own currency whilst waiting on the EU to consider their application for membership.

Now to put that into context - it means that if Scotland were to use Sterling, assuming the remaining constituent parts of the UK allowed it to do so, as it's de facto currency during an interim period and then subsequently decided to apply for full membership of the EU Scotland would still have to complete two years using it's own currency to follow the strict ERMII rules.

Now none of this is made up at all. It's readily available information following the progression of a country who recently declared independence from the political union it was in and it's historically and factually accurate. I've no idea why people would be so willing to accept Salmonds assertions given the recent history within the EU regarding Montenegro. Salmonds assertions seem to all be based on the EU waving through Scotland because of North Sea Oil but Montenegro is an emerging oil and gas country with a great deal of exploration and production tendering currently going on around their coast line.

You wasted a wee bit of time cutting and pasting there as the EU did not stop Montenegro using the Euro so the precedent exists should a yes vote happen for Scotland to continue using the pound after separation whether within the EU or not. Scotland will still be part of the union even after a yes vote it's then that a sensible solution will be reached prior to eventual independence.

[Ayrshire Saints]

The thing that stood out once again to me was how embarrassingly light Scotland is on capable politicians and yet there was Sturgeon again blurting on about her fairytale book which would just as well be titled Wee Daft Nikkis La La Land.

For me Reader being the worst guest was a given. Whoever booked her should be fired. Then it was that lefty twat from the Greens. Sturgeon and Carmichael tied IMO. Curran was OK and yet again the most capable round the table was Annabel Goldie . She communicated well, gave clear answers backed with reason and although she's light on talent compared to Westminster politicians she wiped the floor with the rubbish round the table. Oh and the audience - thick as f**k!

You must be proud knowing that you are relying on zoomers like the racist on last nights show to preserve the union. The better together campaign needs every idiot like him and they still have to motivate them enough to get out and vote ( and even then hope he can put the cross in the right box). Old ma Goldie can look as twee as she wants as she knows her opinion will matter not a jot come 18 Sept.

ETA shamelessly poached from P&B the attached sums up your fellow unionists perfectly !

http://www.youtube.com/embed/pmGjiokfQ2A?html5=1&fs=1

Edited November 29, 2013 by Ayrshire Saints

[bud77]

You must be proud knowing that you are relying on zoomers like the racist on last nights show to preserve the union. The better together campaign needs every idiot like him and they still have to motivate them enough to get out and vote ( and even then hope he can put the cross in the right box). Old ma Goldie can look as twee as she wants as she knows her opinion will matter not a jot come 18 Sept.

The yes camp have got their share of racists as well, I wouldn't even print some of the things I've been called for the crime of saying I will not be voting for independence. A despicable traitor and a coward is one of the few I can put in print.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Serbia and Montenegro had applied for EU membership and had been granted candidate status. When Montenegro opted to become independent Serbia were granted legal right of succession and Montenegro were told to apply again.

As for your second point Montenegro adopted the Duetche Mark in 1996 as it's de-facto currency. When Germany moved to the Euro in 2002 so did Montenegro. Since that day they've been in constant conflict with the ECB and the European Commission because they failed to meet strict ERM criteria. In 2010 this reached the stage where the ECB told Montenegro to stop using the Euro. Negotiations are still terse and ongoing three years on. Montenegro are still using the Euro as a de-facto currency and the ECB continues to threaten to stop distribution of Euros in Montenegro.

As I've shown already the EU isn't slow to threaten members with being kicked out of the Union. It happened with Greece most recently who were told if they held a referendum on the second European bail out they'd be out on their arse. So yes the EU can and will withdraw citizenship and it can and will stop countries from using its currency. There are no guarantees yet the white paper makes the assumption without proof backing the claim that they will get EU membership, NATO membership and use of Sterling all in Alex Salmond terms. This is frankly absurd and it diminishes the credibility of the whole document.

I can take Zurich point on EU law but that in itself shows the ridiculous nature of the SNP claims. Spain are not going to stand aside and wave Scotland in when they have their own agenda in Catalonia.

Scotland would be refusing to comply with strict ECB and EU Commission rules regarding entry criteria for membership of the EU. Sturgeon said last night that post Independence Scotland would start to negotiate with the EU regarding membership. I can't see Angela Merkel et al letting Salmond dictate the terms - can you?

Oh and yes - they could well take that away from you. Ofcourse they could. They were prepared to do it with Greece

Based on how "swift" you claim they were to deal with Montenegro (3 years of talk and no action), I'm not convinced the Greeks were exactly shitting themselves. In addition to this of course there's the FACT that there is nothing in the constitution for withdrawing EU citizenship from a nation.

As for Spain, the situation is rather different - the Spanish don't actually recognise in law that Catalonia or any other "region" has a right to a vote on self determination or independence.

Oh and once again, the document states negotiation, not doing anything on Alex Salmond's terms.

Stop making up scare stories, you've missed the Halloween window.

Edited November 29, 2013 by TPAFKATS

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The yes camp have got their share of racists as well, I wouldn't even print some of the things I've been called for the crime of saying I will not be voting for independence. A despicable traitor and a coward is one of the few I can put in print.

Whilst not condoning the name calling, I'm not sure that calling someone a coward or traitor is racist

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Scotland is a member of the EU only by dint of the fact that it is a member of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Leaving the UK surely means that Scotland will have to reapply? Your faith in the White Paper is touching as is your faith in Alex Salmond. I'm afraid every time I see or hear him I recall his crawling attitude to that clown Fred Goodwin. I wouldn't trust him with the petty cash, never mind the economy.

The same Fred Goodwin who advised Brown and Darling?

[zurich_allan]

I'd echo oaky's comments, z_a, and I know it's your area of expertise, but surely we have rights as individuals and taking those rights away from us would surely be open to challenge?

The problem in this area is that the EU rules on citizenship are quite simple - if you hold the 'nationality' of a Member State, then you automatically acquire citizenship of the EU. However under EU law, whomever holds that 'nationality' of the Member State is 100% under the authority of the Member State itself.

So it wouldn't actually be the EU who remove citizenship as such, it would be the UK (assuming that they still call themselves that), or indeed Scotland, who alter the nationality status of Scottish born or naturalised individuals from 'British' to 'Scottish' - in the white paper, although I haven't read the section in fine detail, I do know that there is a proposed new 'Scottish' Nationality to replace the 'British' one. This would have the automatic effect of Scots losing EU citizenship.

Yes it would indeed be open to challenge, but NOT to the EU. The Scottish nationals would have to challenge whomever made the decision to alter the domestic nationality, whether that be the UK Government or Scottish Government.

It's actually incorrect to say that EU citizenship cannot be taken away. I have factual and indisputable examples of court cases where domestic and as a result also EU citizenship has been removed from individuals based on nationality / citizenship / birth etc. disputes, it's just that it's not happened to a large collective group before, but it CAN be done.

[zurich_allan]

Voting to rescind the union equates to voting to leave the EU? Seriously? Where does it say that in the white paper, must have missed it.

Another for z_a - since the UK wouldn't exist anymore, wouldn't rUK be treated the same ad Scotland?

No, not quite. There would be a natural successor to the UK which would remain as the Member State of the EU in question, this would be the collective body of England, Wales and NI - whatever they decide to call themselves. That part is a certainty, the uncertainty is over what the status of Scotland would be - as I've tried to be independent (no pun intended) and maintain, that part isn't certain either way. Certainly there has to be negotiations, but the form, length, complexity etc. of those negotiations is what is reliant on other Member States at this stage. It could range from being as simple as gaining the common accord of the other States and an additional Membership being created instantly, or it could be as extreme as Scotland having to take up a position as a candidate country and demonstrate that they meet all of the requirements of the 35 Acquis chapters, agree to take on the Euro and make various undesirable concessions... it really could be anywhere from one end of the scale to the other. For the former, we require the unanimous agreement of all 28 existing Member States (including the UK - ouch that could create frosty relations if they voted against us!!), and this could theoretically be either very simple or incredibly difficult to gain - we cannot know with certainty how other Member States would vote and what tactics could come into play...

[zurich_allan]

I'd take issue with one point. Nobody would be voting Scotland IN to the EU. They'd be voting to REMOVE us because we are already in Europe and as you say there is no precedent for this.

I'm pretty sure that if we were REMOVED from the EU by Spain or anyone else, this will end in the courts because there is no law covering this situation.

There are no guarantees on this of course just like there are no guarantees that a plague of locusts won't hit us in the next 30 years but the reality is this will probably be solved by political means.

The exact nature of the barrel is anyone's guess but if the big players want to keep Scotland in the EU then the others will most likely agree. Spain may well be talking the talk right now but it is inconceivable that they'd risk losing the fishing rights they currently enjoy.

This is all being blown out of proportion.

No they wouldn't I'm afraid Oaksoft. Much as I would love that to be true, it's not. The Member State is the UK, not Scotland, and the remaining elements of the UK would retain the position of Member State.

What we DO have as both Scots and Brits as things stand is citizenship of the EU, and as I explained a couple of posts ago, there are indeed laws in this regard, but effectively the EU abdicate those provisions to the Member States themselves. Under the white paper, if it was proposed that we retain British citizenship, we would almost certainly retain EU citizenship also. If, however, we adopt a new 'Scottish' citizenship as is proposed, we are entirely at the mercy of the UK Government as to whether or not we are allowed to also retain EU citizenship.

If we wanted to challenge such a decision, the challenge would be to either the Scottish or UK (or whatever it is called) Government, and not to the EU I'm afraid - the EU itself would have no jurisdiction to hear such a challenge.

[buddiecat]

No they wouldn't I'm afraid Oaksoft. Much as I would love that to be true, it's not. The Member State is the UK, not Scotland, and the remaining elements of the UK would retain the position of Member State.

What we DO have as both Scots and Brits as things stand is citizenship of the EU, and as I explained a couple of posts ago, there are indeed laws in this regard, but effectively the EU abdicate those provisions to the Member States themselves. Under the white paper, if it was proposed that we retain British citizenship, we would almost certainly retain EU citizenship also. If, however, we adopt a new 'Scottish' citizenship as is proposed, we are entirely at the mercy of the UK Government as to whether or not we are allowed to also retain EU citizenship.

If we wanted to challenge such a decision, the challenge would be to either the Scottish or UK (or whatever it is called) Government, and not to the EU I'm afraid - the EU itself would have no jurisdiction to hear such a challenge.

so if we vote yes and go independent then to remain a euro member we need to declare ourselves as british and drop the idea of becoming outright scottish, but would the uk government have to allow us to be british or should we just not give up that right