Did you expect some deep and well reasoned argument from Faster then
Even when wrong on simple facts of trams and the SNP the response was to just rant about nats.
From the article - the key points
Prof Douglas-Scott acknowledged that there was no precedent within EU law for a territory of an existing member state becoming independent and wishing to retain EU membership, and the treaties do not provide for such an event.
But she said EU law characteristically takes a "pragmatic and purposive approach" to pressing issues that are not dealt with by specific treaty provisions.
She added: "There was no explicit provision in the treaties capable of dealing with the situation of German unification in the 1990s.
"But the (then) EEC Institutions responded to this event in a pragmatic and expedient manner, enabling a united Germany to become a member of the EU without long drawn out negotiations, accession proceedings or legal wranglings."
'Values and norms'
Prof Douglas-Scott said she took issue with Mr Barroso's assessment that it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join the EU for four main reasons.
She explained: "First, it is inconsistent with previous Commission pronouncements on the issue of Scottish independence. Second, it threatens to cast out Scotland from the EU, thus fracturing the Single Market, ignoring acquired rights and obligations of good faith.
"Third, it ignores the existence and growth of EU citizenship as elucidated in case law of the European Court. Lastly, it is difficult to reconcile with the EU's values and norms as enshrined in the general principles and spirit of the Treaties."
She added: "Rebuffing or alienating a country such as Scotland, that wants to maintain EU membership, and is keen to stress its European credentials, will hardly do much for the EU's image.
"The EU ought to be showing what it can do for its citizens, not rebuffing them."
Responding to Prof Douglas-Scott's paper, a spokesman for the UK government said: "There is no doubt the route into Europe for a separate Scotland would be uncertain and the weight of expert evidence is against the unprecedented use of Article 48.
SO THM did you watch Dispatches - would you like a link?
Both sides guilty and not just YS - surprising eh.
Would you like to call me a troll or do you prefer to ignore my posts as it highlights your glaring, and inaccurate, one sided view? I very much doubt you will choose to retract, in the face of facts that counter your view, even though the programme is freely available for all to see.
Can I call you the DO for that comment then as it is economical with the actualité
EDIT : Crossed posts innit
THM watching tv earlier tonight