[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

If Scotland is not in the EU then scottish nationals dont have an EU passport ...what passport do they have? Is this not the type of argument that AS gets attacked for? Is it really worth discussing?
A new member state has to apply and it will become a new state[iS] applying long before it is a new member state of the EU. There is time for it to apply whilst still a member and this is what they will do.

Amusing on the EU but I would guess there would be a vote and so no one can say with any certainty...just like iS but at least we know what they want.

Does your house meet the convergence criteria?

There are 28 member states in the EU, Scotland isn't one of them.

And you moan at wee eck for piss poor arguments 😀

If Scotland is not in the EU then scottish nationals dont have an EU passport ...what passport do they have?

Do they not have a UK passport then?
I haven't seen a Scottish passport but then I haven't travelled abroad with a Scot.

If Scotland is not in the EU then scottish nationals dont have an EU passport

Are you saying my house isn't in the EU ?

Of course Scotland is in the EU.

Scotland is not an EU member state. It isn't even an independent country.

I don't believe England has any plans to become an independent member of the EU, which makes that argument...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
wait for it...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[img] [/img]

Are you saying my house isn't in the EU ?

Its not a straw man 😥 If one part of the union is not in then neither are the others, I never said the others need to reapply i said that if that argument was true [ its not] then the others would not be in by the same criteria.

You knew that though its just that it has been so long 😉

Junkyard - lazarus

Neither is england ....is it also not in the EU?what about wales and northern irleand...they are not in either...shall I get a map of the eu from the eu and see what countries it has coloured in

Where's the bang your head against the wall smiley when you need one?

I really don't know how someone can fail to grasp such a simple concept which has been explained so clearly.

I've got a load of official maps I could post up if you like, though all of them show the United Kingdom as a member state, all in one colour!
Do you really need the extra help?

Keep it simple- will the EU want Scotland to be a member? Don't think anyone seriously disputes that it will.

So, faced with frankly inadequate rules which don't well address the situation of a consensual separation of states, will they a) interpret those rules in such a way that they get what they want, b) fix the rules so they get what they want or c) interpret the rules in such a way that nobody gets what they want?

That's the thing about making your own rules, if you don't like them you can make some new ones, and when it comes to interpretation you can say "Well, what we meant was..." Especially when the existing rules are so flaky.

The outcome of a Yes vote will be Scotland in the EU without significant difficulty. I bet you one iScottish drogna against your english pound. Who's up for it?

Is scotland in the UK?

What passports do they have then ?

Really ?

its not controversial to say it is in currently and iS needs to reapply.
EDIT: What NW said - lets be honest if they can make the euro work, stop having countries vote on the treaty when they started saying no, impose a greek govt of their choice then they can get scotland in easy peasy 😉

The outcome of a Yes vote will be Scotland in the EU without significant difficulty.

I'm not saying it definitely won't be as you describe, just that your opinion is contrary to the evidence.

[quote=Junkyard ]if they can make the euro work, stop having countries vote on the treaty when they started saying no, impose a greek govt of their choice

Well 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

If Scotland is not in the EU then scottish nationals...

The criteria for entry to the EU apply to those states which which to enter the EU. The UK doesn't wish to enter the EU so those criteria aren't relevant to it. Scotland (presumably) would, so they are. Scotland has never been an EU member state so it would be applying for membership, not reapplying.

This is so simple I can't tell whether you are being uncharacteristically stupid or just trolling, Junkyard.

I have the excuse of posting on here at 4.30am as I am away up the hills,some of the rest of you need to go to bed!

I knew there was something I had forgotten! 🙄

Silly sbob. 😀

Sbob you raised the point that Scotland in your opinion doesn't comply with conditions to be a member of the EU. At this moment Scotland is part of the UK , an EU member state. If any part of the UK didn't comply with the conditions to be a member the EU would have to take action against the member state ie the UK. Or change the rules 😉 Scotland clearly meets the requirements for EU membership as part of the Uk. One condition that it doesn't meet for membership in its own right is being an independent state which will hopefully be put right soon.
I have also linked to lots of evidence to support my view .
Westminster still hasn't approached the EU commission for its official advice.

Oh go on then, here's another poll

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-shows-gap-narrowing-1-3377758

THE gap between the Yes and No camps has narrowed, according to a poll that shows support for independence at 29 per cent compared with 41 per cent who want to remain part of the UK.

The survey of 988 Scottish adults by TNS showed a slight tightening between the two positions when compared with a similar poll it conducted last month, which found a 28 per cent Yes vote and 42 per cent for No.

The results of today’s poll revealed that the Better Together lead has been reduced from the 19 per cent recorded in September last year to 12 per cent. The latest poll saw the proportion who say they are certain to vote reach a high of 74 per cent, up from 65 per cent in September. The survey found 84 per cent of Yes voters and 83 per cent of No voters will turn out on the day.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/positive-no-message-wanted.23979055

Sure I read the other day that the No campaign hasn't officially started yet. For the love of God I hope it's not as relentlessly miserable as it's been so far.

Anyway, back to snakker norsk. Just in case*
.
.
.
.
.
.
*only part of this is true.

Way OT, anyone know of alternatives to Babbel?

Only better alternatives mind you.

This week's scare story is defence - we have Lord Robertson, the First Sea Lord, and the Defence Secretary (not yet a Lord) all weighing in. Amazing how a washed-up Scottish Labour politician, an English Tory politician, and a supposedly non-political military man all managed to co-ordinate their messages.

I know quoting yourself is the height of narcissism, but I just realised another one - that execrable BBC "helmets" cartoon.

So that's four - a Tory defence minister, a Labour lord, a non-political military man, and an independent national broadcaster - all deciding to focus on defence at the same time.

Anyone else find that at all suspicious?

If any part of the UK didn't comply with the conditions to be a member the EU would have to take action against the member state ie the UK.

Just one example - the UK has food and children's clothes zero VAT rated, new member states are not allowed to have food and children's clothes zero VAT rated, but the UK as an existing member state is allowed.

It's surprising considering how important EU membership is to the Yes camp how little they appear to understand about it. You would have thought that they might have done a little research on the matter.

And that appears to be the Yes camp and its supporters greatest weakness - very little thought into the consequences of their proposal, no credible plan, and a head buried firmly in the sand.

Conversely the No camp is dogged by idiots who suggest ridiculous scenarios that claim nonsense such as that an independent Scotland would find it almost impossible to join the EU.

An independent Scotland would be just like Scotland is today, nothing would feel or be noticeably different and claims by the Yes camp and some within the No camp that it would be are quite untrue. Both arguments are offering false dreams, one which involves a blissful situation of happiness and fulfillment, and the other a nightmare full of fear. Reality won't be like that.

sbob - Member

I'm not saying it definitely won't be as you describe, just that your opinion is contrary to the evidence.

What evidence is that then? It's clear that the rules that currently exist don't adequately cover the situation. It's clear that there is no precedent. And it's clear that the will of the EU will be to welcome Scotland- the disruption of doing otherwise would be huge, at a time when the EU is trying to expand, and facing enough internal challenges already. It's also clear that a new state emerging from an EU member is not the same as a new member from outwith the EU.

So where's the evidence against? All quoting treaties does is reinforce my first and last points, as far as I can see.

And [u]it's clear that the will of the EU[/u] will be to welcome Scotland

Its not [u]that[/u] clear is it?

Barroso keeps getting brought up and each time it's explained why his views have been shown to be wrong. And yet he's brought up over and over again. This whole thread keeps going in circles.

The longer and more intensive the argument goes on for. The more I feel that the scots don't like the English. Which makes me feel less inclined to go there.
Maybe Welsh trail centres will see an increase in usage.

The longer and more intensive the argument goes on for. The more I feel that the scots don't like the English. Which makes me feel less inclined to go there.

Why? There's no anti-englishness in this thread that I can remember? Some anti Tory stuff, but you get that everywhere, and some anti Westminster stuff, but that's nothing to do with being anti English people?

Not in this thread but in the news and stuff

it's explained why his views have been shown to be wrong.

No, its argued, its contended, its challenged - however its not been [u]shown[/u] to be wrong,

His opinion remains a valid viewpoint, the alternative opinions remain a valid viewpoint, none of us know for sure as the majority on both sides accept that there's some room for manoeuvre - However, its fair to say that means that its anything [b]but[/b] clear that the will of the EU will be to welcome Scotland.

Personally I'm inclined to think that his opinion is more tenable, and I'm basing that on his position within the institutions of the EU, as opposed to the opinion of the SNP, which until fairly recently contended Scotland was guaranteed entry, before accepting that wasn't the case.

ninfan - Member

No, its argued, its contended, its challenged - however its not been shown to be wrong,

Shall we agree it's not been shown to be true either? Which, given the nature of the statement and the supposed authority of the person making it, is a bit odd.

But more to the point, shall we also agree that what Pres. Barroso says in interviews is not "the will of the EU", on account of it's not a dictatorship?

Scotland has never been an EU member state so it would be applying for membership, not reapplying.

This is so simple I can't tell whether you are being uncharacteristically stupid or just trolling, Junkyard.

Neither I think I am being accurate and it is a bit strange to claim that it is not currently in the EU for reasons that are so obvious I am surprised they need stating tbh.
The UK is a member of the EU, Scotland is a member of the UK so Scotland [ by virtue of the UK Union ] is in the EU hence why anyone born there is an EU citizen, all EU citizens can reside there, they harmonise, they follow EU rules etc. If you visit Scotland are you in the EU or not? You seem to want to argue if you go there you are in the EU but it is not in the EU. Its preposterous tbh. Its like arguing Bavaria is not in the EU because only Germany is. FWIW as noted if it were true then England is also not in the Eu which is an equally daft claim.
We all know the UK signed it and iS has to apply but to say it is not in the EU , trading there, complying with the rules etc currently is just not true.

However, its fair to say that means that its anything but clear that the will of the EU will be to welcome Scotland

But more to the point, shall we also agree that what Pres. Barroso says in interviews is not "the will of the EU", on account of it's not a dictatorship?

I nearly choked on my pint on that one

[img] [/img]

I don't believe there is any real anti English stuff on this thread, the same can't be said for other places on the internet though.
I don't hate Scotland or the Scots - truth be told they are about as relevant to my daily life as the inhabitants of Iceland.
I do however get tired of hearing that every ill to befall Scotland since the deaths of the first born is all the fault of 'The English' as gets trotted out tirelessly by some of the more exuberant Nationalists around. That sentiment is shared by many i know, & for that reason many of those think as i do - that we would be better off without Scotland.
This will keep on & on so best to do it now and be done with it.
The UK won't really take much of a hit in the longer term & at least we can be rid of all the incessant carping.

ninfan, here's the view of an expert on Barroso's comments: [url= http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/scottish-independence-and-eu ]"Barroso (or his successor) would be obliged to make a favourable recommendation to the European Council and not to invent new political criteria."[/url]. There's lots of points there, but I believe that is one of the salient ones.

I don't believe there is any real anti English stuff on this thread

Apart from the ludicrous comments I think from epicyclo about the clearances etc, and the numerous generalisations about how England = Tory/UKIP.

An independent Scotland would be just like Scotland is today, nothing would feel or be noticeably different and claims by the Yes camp and some within the No camp that it would be are quite untrue. Both arguments are offering false dreams, one which involves a blissful situation of happiness and fulfillment, and the other a nightmare full of fear. Reality won't be like that.

+1

Your showing your own bias there Grum you should be proud of being UKIP and Tory 😉
I think the general tone of this has not been anti english or anti scottish despite the odd example of both from a few fools.
AS attacks aside it has been largely a pleasant debate with the odd example on both sides being a bit anti.

I think the general tone of this has not been anti english or anti scottish despite the odd example of both from a few fools.

I'd agree with that.

We all know the UK signed it and iS has to apply but to say it is not in the EU , trading there, complying with the rules etc currently is just not true.

grum - Member

and the numerous generalisations about how England = Tory/UKIP.

OK, but to be fair... It's just a fact that England is now the only part of the UK that elects Tory governments. For a scottish or welsh or northern irish person unhappy with the current shower, it's not so unreasonable to point the finger at England.

(Course, Scotland and Wales elect a bunch of Lib Dems but usual disclaimer applies, nobody voting Lib Dem realised they were actually voting Tory, so bit hard to blame them for it. 😉 )

I've never had a government I've voted for,can I leave?

Well, if you look at the last election results - out of the 65% of the electorate who voted, only 36% voted Tory. They could only form a government by joining a coalition - and this was after one of the worst global economic crises of our time.

'Progressive' (haha) parties got 52% of the vote between them.

(and yes I know these figures include Scotland - can't find England only stats - Scotland is a relatively small part of the UK electorate though. 🙂 )

Also, The Tories didn't do much worse than the SNP in Scotland - 491,386 vs 412,855 votes. If the electoral system was fairer the ratio of 6 to 1 seats won would have been much closer. 😉

So imagine how annoying it is for northerners especially to constantly be told that 'you lot always vote Tory'

[img] [/img]

I've never had a government I've voted for,can I leave?

For the majority of people who live in safe seats like me - our votes have never counted for anything.

out of the 65% of the electorate who voted, only 36% voted Tory. They could only form a government by joining a coalition - and this was after one of the worst global economic crises of our time.

Shows how stacked the electoral system is in favour of Labour then, doesn't it - who won the 2007 Election with 35.2% of the vote and ended up with a 66 seat majority!

Yawn...make sensible points will you rather than the cheap shit you are doing now.

Shows how stacked the electoral system is in favour of Labour then...

No party has been in government for the last 200 years more than the Tories, and certainly they have been in power most of the post-war period. If the electoral system was indeed stacked in the Labour Party's favour then the Tories have had more than ample time to do something about it.

gordimhor - Member

Sbob you raised the point that Scotland in your opinion doesn't comply with conditions to be a member of the EU.

Did I? 😆

At this moment Scotland is part of the UK , an EU member state. If any part of the UK didn't comply with the conditions to be a member the EU would have to take action against the member state ie the UK.

Where do you get this from? To borrow from someone else's point, what if Ernie's house doesn't comply with the conditions to be a member the EU? Or maybe my bedroom is anti-EU superstate, so what?

Scotland clearly meets the requirements for EU membership as part of the Uk.

Massive logical fallacy.

One condition that it doesn't meet for membership in its own right is being an independent state which will hopefully be put right soon.

I hope the people get what they ask for.

grum - Member

So imagine how annoying it is for northerners especially to constantly be told that 'you lot always vote Tory'

Yep, that's very stupid- I'd have thought most people realise it's not the case. But taking England as a whole, after all your post you still can't dispute that's where the Tory MPs and Tory governments come from. We're doing our best but we've only got one left to vote out 😉

I hope the people get what they ask for.

No party has been in government for the last 200 years more than the Tories, and certainly they have been in power most of the post-war period. If the electoral system was indeed stacked in the Labour Party's favour then the Tories have had more than ample time to do something about it.

But the Labour party is only a hundred years old!

Scotland clearly meets the requirements for EU membership as part of the Uk.
Massive logical fallacy.

Can you just state what your view is rather than us try and work it out by a process of elimination.

Scotland does not have EU membership, the UK does.
Scotland is not the UK.
The UK meets the requirements for EU membership.
This does not mean that every constituent part of the UK meets the requirements for EU membership (ernie's house).

Why are you finding this so difficult to understand?

But the Labour party is only a hundred years old!

And ? What's the relevance of that comment ?

I repeat, no other party have been in power more than the Tories for the last 200 years, and in the 70 years since the end of WW2 they have been in government most of the time. If the electoral system is really stacked against their favour then they have had more than enough time to do something about it.

Scotland does not have EU membership, the UK does.
Scotland is not the UK.
The UK meets the requirements for EU membership.
This does not mean that every constituent part of the UK meets the requirements for EU membership (ernie's house).

Why are you finding this so difficult to understand?

EU membership is open to any recognized European democracy that meets the Copenhagen criteria and adopts the acquis communautaire. Scotland has been within the EU/ EC for over forty years and does meet these criteria.

I'm not sure why one Scottish chap's opinion on matters regarding the EU holds more weight than one of the most senior EU officials, the most senior EU official, and current EU legislation.

It's like trying to drive a car with no bonnet.
A policeman tells you it's illegal.
A judge tells you it's illegal.
The law tells you it is illegal.

But it's ok 'cause Dave the mechanic says so.

whatnobeer your link deals primarily with the comments made by Jose Manuel Barroso which included that it would be, quote : "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join the EU. That opinion has been widely discredited and is not shared by Better Together. So I don't know why you've brought up comments regarding the opinion of this one individual. How about focusing on what Better Together are saying ?

ernie_lynch - Because Barroso keeps on getting mentioned in this thread, despite, as you acknowledge, being widely discredited. The comments are aimed at sbob tbh.

The author of the article is hardly just the man on the street, he's a professor providing an unbiased opinion based in fact.

Scotland does not have EU membership, the UK does.
Scotland is not the UK.

Two simple questions for you
what makes up the UK [ as they must be in the EU]?

When you go to Scotland are you in the EU or not in the EU
Your being silly now , its in the EU, as part of the UK, and iS needs to apply
to say anything else is not a logical fallacy it is to just be wrong

BTW I am still waiting for your proof of logical fallacy - you have had enough to time to read a list from google which one are you claiming?

Read the statements I made.
Do you actually disagree with any of them?
If so, please state which ones and why.
Maybe we can then go somewhere with it.

Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

I dont think the forum needs us doing a quote off despite your kind invitation 😉

I note you are not answering the simple questions posed and again note there is no mention of the logical fallacy

Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

Your being silly now , its in the EU, as part of the UK, and iS needs to apply

I get it now, you are just being pointlessly argumentative.

Gordimhor's innaccuracy was a fallacy of division.
As you asked, I'll assume you already knew this and are just looking for more ways to pointlessly argue, because you enjoy it.

What is controversial about saying Scotland is in the EU

What is the point if not to mislead?

I'll refer you yet again to Ernie's house.

Northwind - Member

What evidence is that then? It's clear that the rules that currently exist don't adequately cover the situation. It's clear that there is no precedent. And it's clear that the will of the EU will be to welcome Scotland- the disruption of doing otherwise would be huge, at a time when the EU is trying to expand, and facing enough internal challenges already. It's also clear that a new state emerging from an EU member is not the same as a new member from outwith the EU.

So where's the evidence against? All quoting treaties does is reinforce my first and last points, as far as I can see.

Then it boils down to a difference of opinion.
I've read the treaties and in my opinion they most certainly do cover the situation, quite adequately.

I'll refer you yet again to Ernie's house.

Ernie's house is neither a recognized European democracy nor does it meet the Copenhagen criteria. Unlike Scotland, which if it were independent, it would.

I get it now, you are just being pointlessly argumentative.

That sounds like you tbh.

It's a lovely little house

[img] [/img]

Ernie's house is neither a recognized European democracy nor does it meet the Copenhagen criteria. Unlike Scotland, which if it were independent, it would.

So an independent Scotland would be guaranteed membership under EU law?
No other caveats hidden away?

That sounds like you tbh.

But what is controversial about saying ernie's house is in the EU?

I do a mean Ernie impression BTW. 8)

(The Sesame St. character, not the poster)

So an independent Scotland would be guaranteed membership under EU law?
No other caveats hidden away?

Oh I give up. If you've read JY posts, my posts, the opinion from the Professor on the link I posted a few pages back and still [b]want[/b] to argue about it then you can do it with out me. I think the situation is pretty clear.

There's no precedent. Scotland would have to apply but do so from within the EU. The EU would likely look favourably on the application.

whatnobeer - Member

Oh I give up. If you've read JY posts, my posts, the opinion from the Professor on the link I posted a few pages back and still want to argue about it then you can do it with out me. I think the situation is pretty clear.

So do I.

There's no precedent.

There doesn't need to be, the situation is covered in the treaties.

Scotland would have to apply but do so from within the EU. The EU would likely look favourably on the application.

The EU probably would, but certain member states might not. Your Scottish prof might be able to predict the future political behaviour of foreign countries, but I wouldn't bet on it.

There doesn't need to be, the situation is covered in the treaties.

I must of missed that then, because I couldn't find it.

our Scottish prof might be able to predict the future political behaviour of foreign countries, but I wouldn't bet on it.

sbob - Member
There doesn't need to be, the situation is covered in the treaties.

I cast more that enough ambiguity on that about 30 pages ago. No one was able to answer any of my questions, the treaties don't cover it.

Btw, this has officially turned into the dullest debate on scottish independence on the interweb.

I must of missed that then, because I couldn't find it.

Have another look, they are all available online. I don't have time to link, I'm off to work, sorry.

And you'll forgive me for holding the opinion of EU officials and what is stated in the treaties over the opinions of you and Junkyard.

Not that I'm even sure that Junkyard actually disagrees with me by this point. 😆

I would bet on his opinion over yours any day

How about the opinion of the European Commission of Justice Fundamental Right and Citizenship, who as guardian of the treaties are responsible for overseeing their implementation, including the implementation of provisions related to the accession of any European State to the Union ?

According to them :

[b][i]The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.

In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.[/b][/i]

So this comment is false :

Scotland would have to apply but do so from within the EU.

Unless of course the European Commission itself doesn't know what it's talking about. You decide.

Although I should point out the irony of the Yes camp having so little faith in the opinion of an institution which they are clearly so desperate to join.

You've missed the point. The day after a yes vote Scotland does not automatically become independent. There is a period of negotiation. As Scotland is already a part of the EU (As part of the UK) then this negation will happen from within the EU. Though, as is rightly pointed out Scotland itself is not an individual member so there would be no doubt be discussions on how that would be done.

Also remember that this is the EU we're talking about, they can quite easily change the rules any time they want if they thought it would a good idea to do so.

FWIW, my opinion is based mostly on this research which summerieses very nicely the differing opionions on the matter and makes it quite clear than exsisting treaties[b] do not cover[/b] this situation.

[url= http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/papers/Accession_of_an_Independent_Scotland_to_EU.pdf ]ESRC Scottish Centre on Constitutional Change
Briefing Paper
2 December
2013
Accession of an Independent Scotland to the European Union
View of the Legal Issues[/url]

There is a period of negotiation.

And negotiation always goes exactly the way you want it, of course, nobody has to make concessions...

they can quite easily change the rules any time they want if they thought it would a good idea to do so.

That argument applies both ways, surely?

What you can't get away from is that like it or not there remains throughout the process the distinct possibility that one of the existing member nations will blackball Scottish membership for their own domestic reasons.

As, I believe, an important point of reference, there are currently five accession states

Turkey - applied 1987, declared eligible 1997, accession negotiations began 2005
Iceland, applied 2009, negotiations began 2010
Macedonia applied 2004, favourable opinion given to membership by EU in 05, negotiations began 2009
Montenegro applied 2008, favourable opinion 2010, negotiations began 2012
Serbia, applied 2009, negotiations began this year.

Scotlands 18 month timescale looks somewhat less realistic when you look at those numbers!

That argument applies both ways, surely?

What you can't get away from is that like it or not there remains throughout the process the distinct possibility that one of the existing member nations will blackball Scottish membership for their own domestic reasons.

Of course the possibility is there but it's not being given any serious credibility by any of the 'experts' except on here.

The day after a yes vote Scotland does not automatically become independent. There is a period of negotiation.

18 months isn't it ? Also according to the EU :

[b][i]For the 13 successful accessions since 1995 the time span from the submission of the individual membership applications until the accession dates was less than 8 years in the shortest case (Slovenia) and nearly 14 years in the longest cases (Malta and Cyprus)[/i][/b]

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=P-2014-001676&language=EN

.

they can quite easily change the rules

Yes of course, they will change the rules. Why didn't I think of that ?

So there you have it - none of the rules governing the EU membership matter, because they can be changed anytime.

So there you have it - none of the rules governing the EU membership matter, because they can be changed anytime.

When it's beneficial to do so, why wouldn't they. As the expert legal opinion points out having a period where Scotland wasn't a member wouldn't be good news for anyone involved.

18 months isn't it ? Also according to the EU :

For the 13 successful accessions since 1995 the time span from the submission of the individual membership applications until the accession dates was less than 8 years in the shortest case (Slovenia) and nearly 14 years in the longest cases (Malta and Cyprus)

All of whom were applying as individual states outwith the EU. None of them are the same as Scotland.

It's all been said before, over and over again. I guess no one on the internet likes to admit they're wrong.

It's all been said before, over and over again. I guess no one on the internet likes to admit they're wrong.

All of whom were applying as individual states outwith the EU.

Scotland will be outside the EU. Let me repeat the advise from the EU Commission :

[i]The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. [b]because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory[/b].

In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, [b]become a third country with respect to the Union[/b] and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.[/i]

Which presumably explains why you think it's important to point out that the rules can easily be changed, ie, the existing rules don't backup your argument.

Ernie nailed it two pages ago - neither the UK today nor iS would qualify for membership as new states. YS supporters can make unpleasant remarks and suppositions as per. But as always yS answer the question for you. The criteria for EuroZone membership are laid out (Article 140 of TFEU) on the SGov website with the "fact" that Scotland does not, indeed cannot, meet them.

Of course, then comes the bluster bit that it doesn't matter anyway. Which is crazy in two ways. The first is obvious, the second less so.

So we have one area that satisfies the criteria for a successful currency union (the UK) and one that doesn't (the EuroZone). To help the EZ move closer to meeting the criteria we had the Maastricht Criteria and then A140 for new members such as iS.. Of course the flagrant breach of the former is why the € will utlimately fail (google Fr debate over past 48 hours).

But the yS argument is that (1) it doesn't matter, there will be the usual fudge (maybe, maybe not) but (2) joining something that by design cannot work is a better than remaining in one that does.

It beggars belief. But if people want to vote for such clear nonsense that is there prerogative. But don't say that you were not warned.

I get it now, you are just being pointlessly argumentative.

I'll refer you yet again to Ernie's house.

The comment ernie is using clearly states that at independence the treaties will no longer apply to that state - not that they never applied that they no longer apply so can we put to bed the daft notion that currently it is not in the EU as it is in the UK?

So an independent Scotland would be guaranteed membership under EU law?

And you'll forgive me for holding the opinion of EU officials and what is stated in the treaties over the opinions of you and Junkyard.

Not that I'm even sure that Junkyard actually disagrees with me by this point.

Scotlands 18 month timescale looks somewhat less realistic when you look at those numbers!

joining something that by design cannot work is a better than remaining in one that does.

teamhurtmore - Member

Ernie nailed it two pages ago - neither the UK today nor iS would qualify for membership as new states. YS supporters can make unpleasant remarks and suppositions as per. But as always yS answer the question for you. The criteria for EuroZone membership are laid out (Article 140 of TFEU) on the SGov website with the "fact" that Scotland does not, indeed cannot, meet them.

What on earth are you talking about here? We don't want to join the euro, but that's fine, because we would not be required to. And you know all that. So why are you suddenly talking about euro membership criteria as if it's relevant to the conversation?

So why are you suddenly talking about euro membership criteria as if it's relevant to the conversation?

Because under EU rules new member states must comply with certain requirements, including, quote :

[i]Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic [b]and monetary union[/b].[/i]

And "monetary union" is defined by the EU as :

[i]Coordination of economic policy-making between Member States
Coordination of fiscal policies, notably through limits on government debt and deficit.
An independent monetary policy run by the European Central Bank (ECB)
[b]The single currency and the euro area[/b][/i]

[url= http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/emu/index_en.htm ]Economic and Monetary Union[/url]

If you don't want monetary union then don't apply to be a member of the EU.