Can anyone tell me the answer to a simple question?

If, or should I say when, Scotland gains its independence; does it automatically become a member of the EU?

This argument was brought up on TLJs old web site "Free talk Scotland" and I remember that it caused quite a stir, everyone had an opinion but no one seemed to know the answer. So has anything changed since then?

During that debate, or I should say round about that time, even the “Scotsman” came out with the headlines, I can’t remember the actual wording but something on the lines of:-
“Independent Scotland’s EU membership cannot be taken for granted”.
Yet on other sites I have read that an independent Scotland would automatically become an EU member.

.Many people have said that they will only vote for an independent country if they are completely divorced from the EU. Whilst basing their ideology on the Norwegian principals of free trade yet completely independent.

Yet there are many who believe in an independent Scotland and still having EU membership.

So what’s it to be?
Does Scotland intend to hold a referendum on EU membership once gaining independence?

Hi Jamrie, I would imagine that the nations emerging from the UK would have successor rights and obligations under the treaties signed by the UK. We would probably have to re-negotiate things like MEP representation, but otherwise I believe we would be "in" unless we chose to exit.

This is just surmise, but looking at how Russia succeeded to the USSR, and maintained their obligations under various international agreements I would expect it would be the same for Scotland vis a vis the EU.

scunnert wrote:
Hi Jamrie, I would imagine that the nations emerging from the UK would have successor rights and obligations under the treaties signed by the UK. We would probably have to re-negotiate things like MEP representation, but otherwise I believe we would be "in" unless we chose to exit.


The unionists like to tell a different story but what you describe is probably correct.

Hi Jamrie

The UK Junta of Unionist's, has been telling us for years, that in the event of independence, "Scotland will be kicked out of Europe". Just another of their tiresome litany of scaremongering postulations.

The fact is that Scotland has already been identified as a part of the European Community and is defined as a "peripheral martime region". When the people of Scotland decide to re-establish their independance, it is more likely the European Community, in conversations with the new Scottish parliament, would seek to redefine Scotland's position within the EU.

On the other hand. in the march to independence we should have confidence in our own objectives and not be swayed by others, who have their own self seeking agenda.

Interesting



rhein.blogactiv.eu/2008/05/12/secessions...ss-of-eu-membership/


hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answ...otland-eu-membership

www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/scotnews07/070918_euapply.html

www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/files/preleases/Scot.pdf

LYDIA REID wrote:
Interesting



rhein.blogactiv.eu/2008/05/12/secessions...ss-of-eu-membership/


hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answ...otland-eu-membership

www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/scotnews07/070918_euapply.html

www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/files/preleases/Scot.pdf

Good links Lydia. Personally I still think Scotland would be "in" although I'd rather Scotland was "out". Here's an interesting question tho': would the UK still exist or would the rump revert to being "England"? And would this England have to reapply for membership?

scunnert wrote;
.... would the UK still exist or would the rump revert to being "England"? And would this England have to reapply for membership?
I suspect the remainder of Westminster's jurisdiction would go by the title of "The Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" which would probably be shortened to "The Kingdom" for official use and just plain "England" for the vast majority of the time .... much to the chagrin of the Welsh and Irish but I doubt there would be much they could do about it.

As to their membership of the EU .... they would be in the same boat as Scotland. As they would be coming from a position of membership, their continued membership would be assumed and they would be bound by any treaties the UK signed up to.

scunnert wrote:
LYDIA REID wrote:
Interesting



rhein.blogactiv.eu/2008/05/12/secessions...ss-of-eu-membership/


hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answ...otland-eu-membership

www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/scotnews07/070918_euapply.html

www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/files/preleases/Scot.pdf

Good links Lydia. Personally I still think Scotland would be "in" although I'd rather Scotland was "out". Here's an interesting question tho': would the UK still exist or would the rump revert to being "England"? And would this England have to reapply for membership?

I had to answer this one Scunnert because we agree, isn't that nice, smile.

I can't answer the question, I suspect what would happen is that the rest of the UK would retain the original name as it is nothing really to do with the original membership of the EU that the UK has lost a bit they should not have had in the first place, then the membership of the EU would stand for them.

I think Scotland would be forced to apply as a separate nation. My hope would be they would not but that is for years to come.

LYDIA REID wrote:

I can't answer the question, I suspect what would happen is that the rest of the UK would retain the original name as it is nothing really to do with the original membership of the EU that the UK has lost a bit they should not have had in the first place, then the membership of the EU would stand for them.

I think Scotland would be forced to apply as a separate nation. My hope would be they would not but that is for years to come.

That's what the Unionists would have us believe. However, they're probably wrong as we would be a successor state, just as the rump-UK would also be a successor state.

However, both would need to negotiate re budget contributions, seats in the Parliament etc, eyc.

LYDIA REID wrote:
I can't answer the question, I suspect what would happen is that the rest of the UK would retain the original name as it is nothing really to do with the original membership of the EU that the UK has lost a bit they should not have had in the first place, then the membership of the EU would stand for them.
The United Kingdom actually is the Union of the Scottish and English Kingdoms. If the Union is dissolved, there will be two separate Kingdoms, therefore, no more United Kingdom . It is my view that two new successor states would arise and both would be starting from the position of assumed membership with just the technicalities to be worked out.

TLJ wrote:
LYDIA REID wrote:

I can't answer the question, I suspect what would happen is that the rest of the UK would retain the original name as it is nothing really to do with the original membership of the EU that the UK has lost a bit they should not have had in the first place, then the membership of the EU would stand for them.

I think Scotland would be forced to apply as a separate nation. My hope would be they would not but that is for years to come.

That's what the Unionists would have us believe. However, they're probably wrong as we would be a successor state, just as the rump-UK would also be a successor state.

However, both would need to negotiate re budget contributions, seats in the Parliament etc, eyc.

What brings you to that conclusion TLJ I agree both would probably need to negotiate contributions and seats but what makes you think we would be a successor state.

LYDIA REID wrote:

What brings you to that conclusion TLJ I agree both would probably need to negotiate contributions and seats but what makes you think we would be a successor state.

A successor state is a state that takes over some or all of the territory and assets from a previously well-established state (in this case, the UK).

TLJ wrote:
LYDIA REID wrote:

What brings you to that conclusion TLJ I agree both would probably need to negotiate contributions and seats but what makes you think we would be a successor state.

A successor state is a state that takes over some or all of the territory and assets from a previously well-established state (in this case, the UK).

Thanks TLJ

Are you considering that another country has set this precedent or have you found perhaps a rule that covers this subject.