@ yes supporters: How will you react if the result is no

[AUFC90]

What does this actually MEAN?

The legal point is that membership is not automatic for Scotland but would require a fresh application to become a new member-state or an amendment of the Treaties to bypass that.

Both of these options require the drafting, consent to, and ratification of, a Treaty (be it an amendment Treaty or an accession Treaty) by all 28 member-states of the European Union within 18 months. In the case of a Treaty amendment that means, among other things, certain countries holding referendums in accordance with their constitutions, which isn't necessarily a quick or easy thing to legislate for.

The point being made isn't that EU membership will be resolved by political means. It is a question of what the law requires, both in theory and in practice, and the procedural terms on which a political solution may be found. It then follows that there are political consequences to the legal routes pursued, particularly with reference to veto powers and how that affects political negotiations.

The question again, is not about whether member-states will veto Scotland, but what their demands will be in order that they both don't exercise their veto and acquiesce to a smooth and quick timetable.

Perhaps you can be the first person on this forum to provide an alternative explanation as to the substance and structure of a "political solution" that by-passes the legal analysis and the consequential requirements for Scotland to become a member-state of the EU on independence day?

Perhaps you can explain why a population and GDP decrease for the UK wont result in them having to renegotiate as well ?

[git-intae-thum]

Surely the UK government would want to ask simply so that it could say 'well we tried'.

Exactly.

MSP's requested advice and were told no. The request has to come from the member state.

A gaggle (I'm guessing the plural term) of Unionist MEP's aided by their Spanish friends then tried to put through a motion requesting advice that would be unfavourable towards an independent Scotland's position. They were also told to bolt.

The fact remains that Westminster as the representative of the member state is the only body likely to be given formal advice.

Even if the request is turned down, they should ask for the sake of clarity.

The fact they have not asked provides all the clarity we need.

They are scared of the reply.

[Ad Lib]

Perhaps you can explain why a population and GDP decrease for the UK wont result in them having to renegotiate as well ?

They won't have to negotiate for the status of member-state because they are already a member state and would be the continuing state under international law. They would be a member-state as of right because they are a party to the Treaties. Scotland isn't a party to the Treaties. The UK, which just happens to contain Scotland right now, is. The loss of circa 10% of its population and GDP won't affect that, just as it hasn't for a single successor state in history with respect to any treaty-based organisation.

Exactly.

MSP's requested advice and were told no. The request has to come from the member state.

A gaggle (I'm guessing the plural term) of Unionist MEP's aided by their Spanish friends then tried to put through a motion requesting advice that would be unfavourable towards an independent Scotland's position. They were also told to bolt.

The fact remains that Westminster as the representative of the member state is the only body likely to be given formal advice.

Even if the request is turned down, they should ask for the sake of clarity.

The fact they have not asked provides all the clarity we need.

They are scared of the reply.

This "Unionist gaggle" you speak of were "told to bolt" not because a request for legal advice "had to come from a member-state but because the Commission did not want to be seen to interfere in the referendum. Perhaps you can explain why a request from the UK Government won't be met with the same response?

[git-intae-thum]

They won't have to negotiate for the status of member-state because they are already a member state and would be the continuing state under international law. They would be a member-state as of right because they are a party to the Treaties. Scotland isn't a party to the Treaties. The UK, which just happens to contain Scotland right now, is. The loss of circa 10% of its population and GDP won't affect that, just as it hasn't for a single successor state in history with respect to any treaty-based organisation.

This "Unionist gaggle" you speak of were "told to bolt" not because a request for legal advice "had to come from a member-state but because the Commission did not want to be seen to interfere in the referendum. Perhaps you can explain why a request from the UK Government won't be met with the same response?

Perhaps you can explain why they won't ask.

[Ad Lib]

Perhaps you can explain why they won't ask.

1. Because there is no need to. The SNP have already conceded the question of automatic successor statehood in the White Paper and have now presented two legal avenues both of which have significant political obstacles that the UK Government spoke about all along.

2. Because the EU has already made clear it doesn't want to interfere in the referendum.

[AUFC90]

They won't have to negotiate for the status of member-state because they are already a member state and would be the continuing state under international law. They would be a member-state as of right because they are a party to the Treaties. Scotland isn't a party to the Treaties. The UK, which just happens to contain Scotland right now, is. The loss of circa 10% of its population and GDP won't affect that, just as it hasn't for a single successor state in history with respect to any treaty-based organisation.

This "Unionist gaggle" you speak of were "told to bolt" not because a request for legal advice "had to come from a member-state but because the Commission did not want to be seen to interfere in the referendum. Perhaps you can explain why a request from the UK Government won't be met with the same response?

Eh because they are the member state and not just a rag tag of MEPs. Perhaps you can explain the UKs failure to at least ask the question ?

[bendan]

2. Because the EU has already made clear it doesn't want to interfere in the referendum.

They've only just made that clear. The UK could have asked at any time over the months prior to the Commission's comically late decision not to interfere in the referendum.

As to your previous point, I fully accept Scotland will have to reapply, and that it will have to be ratified by all member states, but I don't believe we will have to join the Schengen area, despite the fact the treaties say new members will have to do so. The process will be driven by politics and pragmatism.

Before you snort your ivory-tower derision, perhaps you could explain the ECB's OMT programme, which is clearly (as you yourself would probably love to tell us) ultra vires.

[Ad Lib]

They've only just made that clear. The UK could have asked at any time over the months prior to the Commission's comically late decision not to interfere in the referendum.

Correct, and at the time I said they should have done so. Just as the Scottish Government should have published its legal advice and not pretended it had legal advice when it didn't, and spent thousands of pounds covering it up from the Information Commissioner.

As to your previous point, I fully accept Scotland will have to reapply, and that it will have to be ratified by all member states, but I don't believe we will have to join the Schengen area, despite the fact the treaties say new members will have to do so. The process will be driven by politics and pragmatism.

Great. You agree with basically all sensible Unionists and disagree with the claim previously made by the SNP then. The question of Schengen and other membership criteria will be subject to negotiation. Fine. No one disputes this.

Before you snort your ivory-tower derision, perhaps you could explain the ECB's OMT programme, which is clearly (as you yourself would probably love to tell us) ultra vires.

I don't know much about the inner-workings of decision-making by the European Central Bank. Can't help you I'm afraid.

[AUFC90]

Correct, and at the time I said they should have done so. Just as the Scottish Government should have published its legal advice and not pretended it had legal advice when it didn't, and spent thousands of pounds covering it up from the Information Commissioner.

Great. You agree with basically all sensible Unionists and disagree with the claim previously made by the SNP then. The question of Schengen and other membership criteria will be subject to negotiation. Fine. No one disputes this.

I don't know much about the inner-workings of decision-making by the European Central Bank. Can't help you I'm afraid.

Are we really back to this big bad SNP their position crap again ?

[Ad Lib]

Are we really back to this big bad SNP their position crap again ?

You're the ones still applying double-standards about disclosure of pertinent legal information to the Scottish public in informing their decision about the referendum.

[H_B]

Are we really back to this big bad SNP their position crap again ?

Why did the SNP MEP, instead of criticising Shulz' decision, make it a point-scoring exercise against the Labour Party?

[Ad Lib]

Why did the SNP MEP, instead of criticising Shulz' decision, make it a point-scoring exercise against the Labour Party?

It rather seems as though the SNP care more about doing down the Labour Party than helping the Scottish people make an informed decision.

[H_B]

It rather seems as though the SNP care more about doing down the Labour Party than helping the Scottish people make an informed decision.

Well, we've seen all along that the SNP have been utterly opaque on this issue, including lying about having received advice, then on spending thousands of pounds of taxpayers money protecting a blank bit of paper.

As as noted the clapping seal NCC applaud this and refuse to condemn the SNP, whereas if the Westminster government had said "just trust us little people, we know best" there would have been an outcry.

It's just the SNP at their bullying authoritarian unaccountable best.

[AUFC90]

You're the ones still applying double-standards about disclosure of pertinent legal information to the Scottish public in informing their decision about the referendum.

Eh ? The SNP thought they were right then realised they were wrong... Big deal. There's been a million people give different opinions and not one of them knows. Even your legal beagles concede that they do not know what will happen.

[Ad Lib]

Eh ? The SNP thought they were right then realised they were wrong... Big deal.

Correction: the SNP thought they could make it up as they went along then got caught with their trousers down, changed tack and the Clown Collective nodded unquestioningly while continuing to berate the UK Government when it had at least published its own legal advice.

There's been a million people give different opinions and not one of them knows. Even your legal beagles concede that they do not know what will happen.

Incorrect. They say that the final settlement will not be known until it is negotiated. We do know for certain that the framework through which those negotiations will take place is that set out in the Treaties however. And on this question, the UK Government has been proved 100% correct.

[strichener]

You're the ones still applying double-standards about disclosure of pertinent legal information to the Scottish public in informing their decision about the referendum.

Really, the rUK are being transparent are they???

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/15/david-cameron-immigration_n_4600741.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25962733

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104183/The-Coalition-refusing-publish-report-risks-NHS-Reform-What-got-hide.html

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/09/nhs-reforms-appeal-risk-register

http://www.psychminded.co.uk/news/news2005/sept05/Government%20refuses%20to%20independently%20publish%20data%20on%20psychiatric%20drugs.htm

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lynton-crosby-lobbying-row-david-1891899

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/54515/theresa-may-censored-borders-report

[git-intae-thum]

1. Because there is no need to. The SNP have already conceded the question of automatic successor statehood in the White Paper and have now presented two legal avenues both of which have significant political obstacles that the UK Government spoke about all along.

2. Because the EU has already made clear it doesn't want to interfere in the referendum.

You must really try harder. This does not address why Westminster has failed to request an official EU opinion.

To address each of your points:

1) Can you point to the page and passage number in the white paper where successor state is definitively handed to the Ruk? I've had look. I can't see it.The legal argument over continuity status is still very much to be decided.

2) The EU would find it difficult, if not impossible, to refuse giving opinion, if officially requested by a member state. Even if the EU did refuse, surely unionists having nothing to fear, would not fear asking.

The people of Scotland deserve the full facts. They are being denied this by Westminster.

The clear reason for this is that Westminster may not get the answer it wants regarding Scotlands place in the EU and the respective states claims of continuity.

The current fudge allows fork tongue types to slip and slide through the argument, producing Westminster commisioned reports from academics who admit they are guessing as evidence.

[Ad Lib]

Legal opinion is NOT uniform on this matter.

It totally depends who you talk to.

The problem is that there is no provision for removing a member state following an independence vote.

Therefore, political expediency will drive legal changes.

You believe that legal status will drive political choices but this can't be the case if there is NO clear law on this issue.

The idea that the EU will kick out a founding member over a few legal words doesn't stand up to common sense apart from anything else.

Make no mistake though. Europe will extract a pound of flesh from rUK for this.

Scotland is not a member-state. Not recognising it as a member-state on Independence Day does not constitute "the removal of a member-state". The member-state remains. It's called the United Kingdom.

The SNP have admitted that a treaty amendment or fresh application is necessary. They have admitted that automatic successor statehood is not a thing as far as Scotland is concerned.

There is clear law on the issue. I do not say that law will drive political considerations. It will frame them, however. The permissible legal avenues towards member-statehood have political ramifications the SNP must admit to if they are to be credible.

Scotland was not a founding member of the EU. Even the UK wasn't a founding member of the EEC.

Quite what pound of flesh you think "Europe" will extract from rUK escapes me.

You must really try harder. This does not address why Westminster has failed to request an official EU opinion.

To address each of your points:

1) Can you point to the page and passage number in the white paper where successor state is definitively handed to the Ruk? I've had look. I can't see it.The legal argument over continuity status is still very much to be decided.

2) The EU would find it difficult, if not impossible, to refuse giving opinion, if officially requested by a member state. Even if the EU did refuse, surely unionists having nothing to fear, would not fear asking.

The people of Scotland deserve the full facts. They are being denied this by Westminster.

The clear reason for this is that Westminster may not get the answer it wants regarding Scotlands place in the EU and the respective states claims of continuity.

The current fudge allows fork tongue types to slip and slide through the argument, producing Westminster commisioned reports from academics who admit they are guessing as evidence.

1. The White Paper does not address the status of rUK post independence. International law does, however. In line with similar (recent) precedents the UK retains international legal personality as did Sudan, Ethiopia, Russia from the USSR, Serbia from Serbia and Montenegro... the list goes on. A state constituting circa 90% of the population and 90% of the economy of the predecessor state has never been refused to be recognised as the successor state. Unless you are seriously suggesting that the UK will be kicked out of the UN Security Council, that game of yours is a bogey.

On the other hand, the White Paper explicitly acknowledges that a treaty amendment OR a fresh application to join the EU will be necessary for Scotland to become a member-state of the EU. To quote from the White Paper itself:

2. They could reject it very easily. There is nothing about a member-state request that is special. The UK Government should not waste money asking for legal advice on something they know they will not get given legal advice on.

I agree with you that the people of Scotland are being denied the full facts. They're being denied sight of the Scottish Government's legal opinion, and they're being denied by the European Commission its opinion. That is unacceptable.

The alternative to an Article 49 procedure, and a legal basis that the Scottish Government considers is appropriate to the prospective circumstances, is that Scotland's transition to full membership is secured under the general provisions of Article 48. Article 48 provides for a Treaty amendment to be agreed by common accord on the part of the representatives of the governments of the member states.

Article 48 is therefore a suitable legal route to facilitate the transition process, by allowing the EU Treaties to be amended through ordinary revision procedure before Scotland becomes independent, to enable it to become a member state at the point of independence...

We recognise that specific provisions will need to be included in the EU Treaties as part of the amendment process to ensure the principle of continuity of effect with respect to the terms and conditions of Scotland's independent EU membership, including detailed considerations around current opt-outs, in particular the rebate, Eurozone, Justice and Home Affairs and the Schengen travel area.

Really, the rUK are being transparent are they???

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/15/david-cameron-immigration_n_4600741.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25962733

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104183/The-Coalition-refusing-publish-report-risks-NHS-Reform-What-got-hide.html

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/09/nhs-reforms-appeal-risk-register

http://www.psychminded.co.uk/news/news2005/sept05/Government%20refuses%20to%20independently%20publish%20data%20on%20psychiatric%20drugs.htm

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lynton-crosby-lobbying-row-david-1891899

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/54515/theresa-may-censored-borders-report

I didn't say they were being transparent. I've previously criticised them for not asking the Commission for advice. Now that the Commission has indicated it wouldn't give advice for fear of interfering in the referendum, the game is a bogey, however.

[Taza]

My original reply to this OP was to say that I would move to mainland Europe. I still think I may do so, it will certainly be more likely with a No vote as I'm certain I'd want to participate fully in the future development of Scotland should Yes win. As moving would take some months to organise, I've settled on adapting a tattoo I have, just as a sort of statement. The text above the tattoo says ''Proud Scot''. Anyway, if there is a no vote, I am going to have added - ''Shamed by my brethren 18/09/2014''

[Tryfield]