Sunday, 09 September 2012 21:29
33 Comments
By a Newsnet reporter
The President of the European Commission, José Manuel Durão Barroso, has made a rare statement on EU citizenship for Scots or any other nation or region within the EU which gains independence from the state which currently governs it.
Italian federalist politician Mara Bizzotto asked Mr Barroso if "regional citizens" would immediately lose their status as EU citizens, and the resultant rights and obligations, if the "region" secedes from the member state.
In a carefully worded reply, Mr Barroso said:
"In the hypothetical event of a secession of a part of an EU Member State, the solution would have to be found and negotiated within the international legal order."
Mr Barroso's remarks were immediately leapt upon by Unionist politicians, who claimed that the comments exposed the Scottish Government's claim that Scotland would automatically be accepted into the EU as "total nonsense".
Labour MEP Catherine Stihler said: "Scotland will not automatically assume the many rights of the UK. There will have to be long, detailed negotiations with a great many bodies and institutions. The outcome of which can never be taken for granted."
For its part, the Scottish Government maintains that there is nothing in Mr Barroso's response that suggests that Scotland will not retain its place in the EU, and denounced the response by the anti-independence parties as "desperation".
The EU Commission President's remarks are similar to a response given by another EU official earlier this year when asked a similar question on EU membership of both a newly independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK. The reply strongly suggested both would be treated as equal partners in any negotiations.
The official statement said that: "the nature of the possible future relationships between the parties concerned and between those parties and European Union partners" were not yet known, and confirmed that: "the terms of any European Union Treaty are decided by the Member States of the European Union".
Should Mr Barroso's comments mean that the new entities would have to renegotiate terms of membership, then the rUK would also find itself in the same position as newly independent Scotland, but without many of the negotiating advantages such as oil, gas, renewable energy and of course fishing.
The view that re-negotiations would also include England along with Wales and Northern Ireland would was expressed in a private conversation between a former Labour Lord Chancellor and former Tory cabinet minister Norman Tebbit.
According to Mr Tebbit, writing in his Telegraph blog in February 2012, the former Lord Chancellor claimed that Scotland would have to renegotiate its membership terms with the rest of the EU, but added:
"But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."
According to a report in the Scotsman the same month, this 'equal treatment' scenario is also the opinion of the EU's lawyers. The EU would treat Scotland and the rump-UK equally as successor states. Both would continue as EU members, but both would have to renegotiate their terms of membership.
A spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said: "An independent Scotland will remain an integral part of the EU, and nothing in [Mr Barroso's] answer suggests otherwise, despite the desperation of the anti-independence parties to say so.
"As many experts have confirmed, Scotland is part of the territory of the European Union and the people of Scotland are citizens of the EU. There is no provision for either of these circumstances to change upon independence."
Comments
#
2012-09-10 01:26
The question which, however,remains is what happens if the Scottish government's red line about the Common Fisheries Polcy (not to accept it) is not met by the negotiators, particularly Spain, which will have a veto on the matter.
#
2012-09-10 02:18
I was an avid EU fan, but I'm gradually swinging round to thinking that accession to EFTA would give us all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages. Has anybody here done any research into this?
#
2012-09-10 06:47
I have been thinking along the same lines. The EU (and I am a believer in it), while being a great idea, has become an inefficient and unaccountable monolith, and the fact that their accounts have not been signed off at all in recent years is a cause of huge concern. Membership of EFTA and secession from the EU (perhaps until such time as it is reformed, slimmed down, and made democratically accountable) would be a far more sensible move for Scotland.
#
2012-09-10 06:48
Quoting Bobelix:
Bobelix, you have not been looking at the SDA website. Membership of the EU is detrimental to Scotland, while membership of EFTA gives us all the benefits and none of the drawbacks.
As for EU membership. Under international law, treaties entered into previously prior to independence no longer apply and must be re-negotiated, therefore upon independence we are automatically out of the EU. Once out, no sensible country should ever again consider joining.
. Has anybody here done any research into this?
Bobelix, you have not been looking at the SDA website. Membership of the EU is detrimental to Scotland, while membership of EFTA gives us all the benefits and none of the drawbacks.
As for EU membership. Under international law, treaties entered into previously prior to independence no longer apply and must be re-negotiated, therefore upon independence we are automatically out of the EU. Once out, no sensible country should ever again consider joining.
#
2012-09-10 07:22
Quoting cardrossian:
Scotland will be a successor state, not a new or breakaway state. Please provide citation to your source for this assertion that we will be automatically out of the EU.
"Under international law, treaties entered into previously prior to independence no longer apply and must be re-negotiated, therefore upon independence we are automatically out of the EU."
Scotland will be a successor state, not a new or breakaway state. Please provide citation to your source for this assertion that we will be automatically out of the EU.
#
2012-09-10 07:00
The Scottish Democratic Alliance (SDA) has indeed researched this question in fine detail, and has come to the clear conclusion that Scotland should opt for membership of the EFTA side of the European Economic Area, rather than applying to join the EU side. To take only one example, the EU fisheries policy (presently costing Scotland around £2,000m annually in lost wealth creation) does not apply on the EFTA side, and the expensive burden of enforced EU legislation would be slashed by around three quarters.
Financially, Scotland's contribution to the solidarity fund (development aid) for weaker EEA member states would amount to around £200m annually, by contrast with our present contribution to the central EU funds of £845m (2010 figure). What all could we do with the remaining £645m and more we would save every year?
Another point is that all the vaunted EU "citizenship rights" (health, social security, freedom of travel, etc.) are all available through the EFTA/EEA, and not just the EU side.
Is the SNP asserting that Scotland will "remain" a member of every one of the international organisations of which the UK is presently a member? Remember that there are hundreds of them, and the EU is only one, and by no means one of the most important. Why the weird emphasis on this particular organisation, a Central European association of certain states that represents only half of Europe?
The SDA has researched this issue very thoroughly, and the results can be read in the International and Constitution sections of its website, which I recommend reading: www.scottishdemocraticalliance.org
Financially, Scotland's contribution to the solidarity fund (development aid) for weaker EEA member states would amount to around £200m annually, by contrast with our present contribution to the central EU funds of £845m (2010 figure). What all could we do with the remaining £645m and more we would save every year?
Another point is that all the vaunted EU "citizenship rights" (health, social security, freedom of travel, etc.) are all available through the EFTA/EEA, and not just the EU side.
Is the SNP asserting that Scotland will "remain" a member of every one of the international organisations of which the UK is presently a member? Remember that there are hundreds of them, and the EU is only one, and by no means one of the most important. Why the weird emphasis on this particular organisation, a Central European association of certain states that represents only half of Europe?
The SDA has researched this issue very thoroughly, and the results can be read in the International and Constitution sections of its website, which I recommend reading: www.scottishdemocraticalliance.org
#
2012-09-10 03:20
We really need to eschew this colonial mindset and challenge this Unionist propaganda.
Scotland is a PARTNER in a UNION, akin to a spouse in a marriage. Scotland will not secede FROM the Union. Scotland will dissolve the Union. This is a divorce.
In order to achieve independence the original treaty and acts of Union must be dissolved and necessarily with that, all INTRA-state treaties and unions derived therefrom.
Two countries (the successor states) will RE-emerge from this decoupling process: the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (incorporating Wales).
Each of these nations will be heir to the INTER-state treaties and agreements COLLECTIVELY entered into by the former United Kingdom, including membership of the EU (just as former spouses are jointly responsible for "external" contracts and other obligations entered into jointly during a marriage).
That is to say the rights and obligations of EU membership will be assumed by the successor states. How could it be otherwise?
Scotland is a PARTNER in a UNION, akin to a spouse in a marriage. Scotland will not secede FROM the Union. Scotland will dissolve the Union. This is a divorce.
In order to achieve independence the original treaty and acts of Union must be dissolved and necessarily with that, all INTRA-state treaties and unions derived therefrom.
Two countries (the successor states) will RE-emerge from this decoupling process: the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (incorporating Wales).
Each of these nations will be heir to the INTER-state treaties and agreements COLLECTIVELY entered into by the former United Kingdom, including membership of the EU (just as former spouses are jointly responsible for "external" contracts and other obligations entered into jointly during a marriage).
That is to say the rights and obligations of EU membership will be assumed by the successor states. How could it be otherwise?
#
2012-09-10 07:32
Christian, have you read the updated version of State Succession in the Constitution/Independence section of the SDA website? It gives a succinct description of the relevant international law, and how that will affect Scotland post-independence: www.scottishdemocraticalliance.org/.../
#
2012-09-10 07:49
Quoting James:
That is predicated on the completely false notion that Scotland will be a new breakaway state which patently it is not. Scotland will be one of two successor states of a dissolved Union.
Both states will inherit EU membership. The ONLY way Scotland can become independent is with the dissolution of the original union and any INTRA-state treaties and unions derived therefrom. That is to say,
Scottish independence REQUIRES the dissolution of the Union (as indeed does England's independence).
Each successor state will inherit the rights and obligations under INTER-state treaties and agreements entered into by the (by then)dissolved UK.
It gives a succinct description of the relevant international law, and how that will affect Scotland post-independence: www.scottishdemocraticalliance.org/.../Hi James,
That is predicated on the completely false notion that Scotland will be a new breakaway state which patently it is not. Scotland will be one of two successor states of a dissolved Union.
Both states will inherit EU membership. The ONLY way Scotland can become independent is with the dissolution of the original union and any INTRA-state treaties and unions derived therefrom. That is to say,
Scottish independence REQUIRES the dissolution of the Union (as indeed does England's independence).
Each successor state will inherit the rights and obligations under INTER-state treaties and agreements entered into by the (by then)dissolved UK.
#
2012-09-10 10:39
Quoting Christian_Wrigh t:
It's not a marriage, it is an infusion. There's no agreement, Scotland and England are one country according to the act of the union. As such if we vote to leave the UK we will be a successor state.
In the short term it would be far preferable to stay in the EU. In the long term i don't give a hoot. There's a good chance the UK or the remains of the UK will leave anyway, i predict a UKIP/Tory coalition next election, and if we leave the chance of that happening will be greater. If UKIP get in there will have to be a referendum and if there is i feel it's 50:50 whether they leave or not.
Scotland is a PARTNER in a UNION, akin to a spouse in a marriage. Scotland will not secede FROM the Union. Scotland will dissolve the Union. This is a divorce.
It's not a marriage, it is an infusion. There's no agreement, Scotland and England are one country according to the act of the union. As such if we vote to leave the UK we will be a successor state.
In the short term it would be far preferable to stay in the EU. In the long term i don't give a hoot. There's a good chance the UK or the remains of the UK will leave anyway, i predict a UKIP/Tory coalition next election, and if we leave the chance of that happening will be greater. If UKIP get in there will have to be a referendum and if there is i feel it's 50:50 whether they leave or not.
#
2012-09-10 03:55
The Scottish Democratic Alliance advocates that Sovereign Scotland should remain out of the European Union. The EU is a profoundly undemocratic power-grabbing, extremely expensive, empire building, over-bureaucratic, demonstrably corrupt and frequently incompetent organisation. Its incompetence is demonstrated by its virtual destruction of the Scottish fisheries industry. The EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) alone is costing Scotland considerably more than £1,500 million in lost wealth creation every year. The EU has destroyed tens of thousands of jobs through the CFP. And the incompetence of the EU’s management of the CFP continues to this day.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, the EU controls all “marine biological resources” (i.e. from whales and basking sharks down to the last frond of seaweed) in Scotland's Exclusive Economic Zone seas. Under existing EU legislation, all national waters right up to the beaches will come under exclusive EU fisheries competence from the end of 2012 -- that's THIS year, folks -- and will be regulated under EU law and not Scots law. Since the Lisbon Treaty also transfers powers over energy to Brussels, fishing is obviously only the thin end of a wedge that will eventually see all marine resources coming under Brussels control.
So much for Scotland's oil if independent Scotland remains in the EU.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, the EU controls all “marine biological resources” (i.e. from whales and basking sharks down to the last frond of seaweed) in Scotland's Exclusive Economic Zone seas. Under existing EU legislation, all national waters right up to the beaches will come under exclusive EU fisheries competence from the end of 2012 -- that's THIS year, folks -- and will be regulated under EU law and not Scots law. Since the Lisbon Treaty also transfers powers over energy to Brussels, fishing is obviously only the thin end of a wedge that will eventually see all marine resources coming under Brussels control.
So much for Scotland's oil if independent Scotland remains in the EU.
#
2012-09-10 06:55
Does anyone in the unionist camp really believe that the nation of Scotland with huge hydrocarbon and renewable energy resources would not be welcome in Europe.
The negative spin continues.
I'm still waiting for the positive case for the union. We have still to get past The Royal family / The BBC and The Union Jack. The other arguement pushed is our great history of invading other countries and buiding an Empire with London as it's centre.
Look forward not back and vote YES!.
The negative spin continues.
I'm still waiting for the positive case for the union. We have still to get past The Royal family / The BBC and The Union Jack. The other arguement pushed is our great history of invading other countries and buiding an Empire with London as it's centre.
Look forward not back and vote YES!.
#
2012-09-10 08:29
Couldn't agree more with you clootie.
The referendum will be the start of a two year run up to the first Independent Scotland election in 2016.
All parties contesting that election, and bodies such as the UN,EU,NATO and any other International Organisations will have of necessity stated their exact position. Therefor, Scotland will decide it own future on the actual facts, not Unionist interpretations in either the UK or the EU.
The simple first step is to win the YES vote for Independence, everything else follows.
The referendum will be the start of a two year run up to the first Independent Scotland election in 2016.
All parties contesting that election, and bodies such as the UN,EU,NATO and any other International Organisations will have of necessity stated their exact position. Therefor, Scotland will decide it own future on the actual facts, not Unionist interpretations in either the UK or the EU.
The simple first step is to win the YES vote for Independence, everything else follows.
#
2012-09-10 07:45
Scotland holds all the cards. Divorce from England will not be easily won. Simply our natural resources and our net contribution to the UK state Budget will be torn out of UK hands against massive resistance, it has started already.
If rUK would hurt badly with Scotland gone the EU eye us with salivating lust.
Simply to assume we will be automatically a member of that club is not a foregone conclusion, there is no precedent for that line of thinking.
Scotland should stand back when independent and seriously ask itself where its best interests lie.
A tiny country of 5.25 million drowned under a lake of EU regulation and money pouring out of our coffers to fund the undemocratic and largely unaccountable EU who can continue to rape our fishing industry and lustfully eye our oil and gas is only a scanario that dyed in the wool nationalists crave. Others such as the SDA take an entirely different view and they also believe in independence, true clinical independence, not he Devo something offered by the SNP.
Stark choices await.
If rUK would hurt badly with Scotland gone the EU eye us with salivating lust.
Simply to assume we will be automatically a member of that club is not a foregone conclusion, there is no precedent for that line of thinking.
Scotland should stand back when independent and seriously ask itself where its best interests lie.
A tiny country of 5.25 million drowned under a lake of EU regulation and money pouring out of our coffers to fund the undemocratic and largely unaccountable EU who can continue to rape our fishing industry and lustfully eye our oil and gas is only a scanario that dyed in the wool nationalists crave. Others such as the SDA take an entirely different view and they also believe in independence, true clinical independence, not he Devo something offered by the SNP.
Stark choices await.
#
2012-09-10 10:21
Upspake - in fact an earlier answer to an EU question implied that European citizenship was contingent on (or secondary to) being the citizen of a state within the EU and a new state might not be, at least for a time, so its citizens would not be EU citizens.
Press report at the time: "But after an exhaustive examination EC bodies decided it was “clearly outside the ambit of competence of the Commission”, as written by Ms. Catherine Day, Secretary General, in her answering letter, dated May, 30th. According to article 20 of TFEU “only those who have the nationality of a Member State (MS) can also be EU citizens”. So “EU citizenship is complementary to, not substitutive of, national citizenship” she explained.
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE. EUROPEAN UNION article 20 says: "Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship"
Barroso is deliberately ambiguous, but has assured people that "in the case of a possible secession the citizens would continue being protected by international legislation”.
Not sure I understand all this, maybe others could give their thoughts.
Press report at the time: "But after an exhaustive examination EC bodies decided it was “clearly outside the ambit of competence of the Commission”, as written by Ms. Catherine Day, Secretary General, in her answering letter, dated May, 30th. According to article 20 of TFEU “only those who have the nationality of a Member State (MS) can also be EU citizens”. So “EU citizenship is complementary to, not substitutive of, national citizenship” she explained.
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE. EUROPEAN UNION article 20 says: "Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship"
Barroso is deliberately ambiguous, but has assured people that "in the case of a possible secession the citizens would continue being protected by international legislation”.
Not sure I understand all this, maybe others could give their thoughts.
#
2012-09-10 20:35
Marga, I write from personal experience acquired from 40+ years of working in European integration at top government level. The two main parts of my pension are paid in euros and sterling respectively. I carry a health card that entitles me to free treatment throughout the entire European Economic Area (EEA), and not just the smaller European Union. All my social security rights and my freedom of movement are guaranteed under the EEA, and not just the EU.
More than enough pseudo-constitutional wishful thinking appears on this and other websites, contributed by bloggers who have not the slightest idea of what they are talking about. If you want to read information written by people who do happen to know what they are talking about on this issue, then I advise you to read the revised and extended State Succession article in the Constitution/Independence section of the SDA website: www.scottishdemocraticalliance.org/.../
More than enough pseudo-constitutional wishful thinking appears on this and other websites, contributed by bloggers who have not the slightest idea of what they are talking about. If you want to read information written by people who do happen to know what they are talking about on this issue, then I advise you to read the revised and extended State Succession article in the Constitution/Independence section of the SDA website: www.scottishdemocraticalliance.org/.../
#
2012-09-10 08:31
As I have said before, the problem with most posters is that they make the assumptions that what the SNP states today will happen after independence. Total nonsense as the SNP and all other political parties known now, or may evolve, will be up for election for the First Scottish Independent Parliament. It will be the elected new Scottish Government that will decide all of those issues.
#
2012-09-10 10:17
Agreed! The SNP need to answer more of their questions by saying that it will be up for the first Scottish government post indy to make many of the decisions that people (unionists mostly) want answered.
They seem to be getting away with not answering all these questions that the Scottish Government has to. The debate must move on to the important stuff instead of the BBC version of a debate.
The Scottish people will decide which party they think best to make these decisions in the best interests of the country but here`s what we the SNP think would be best. The more it is said, the more people realise that their destiny is truley in their own hands for the first time and not our larger neighbours to the south. True democracy.
They seem to be getting away with not answering all these questions that the Scottish Government has to. The debate must move on to the important stuff instead of the BBC version of a debate.
The Scottish people will decide which party they think best to make these decisions in the best interests of the country but here`s what we the SNP think would be best. The more it is said, the more people realise that their destiny is truley in their own hands for the first time and not our larger neighbours to the south. True democracy.
#
2012-09-10 08:33
SG need to have another look at membership of the EU, just why would we want to swop UK for Euroland?
Lost our sovereignty either way, possibly having our resources plundered by Europe.
It is a contentious issue which the voting public are not aware enough of.
I firmly support Independence and how the SG governs our lands but do think they are wrong in regards to the EU.
So, it would be EFTA for me, absolutely NOT full membership of the EU.
Some distant, non elected officials who have no clue about Scotland, having power over our return to Sovereignty, aye right! How stupid would we be?
The SG needs to listen and take heed or they could lead us into a serious mistake, that is all we would need when trying to build OUR Scotland.
Lost our sovereignty either way, possibly having our resources plundered by Europe.
It is a contentious issue which the voting public are not aware enough of.
I firmly support Independence and how the SG governs our lands but do think they are wrong in regards to the EU.
So, it would be EFTA for me, absolutely NOT full membership of the EU.
Some distant, non elected officials who have no clue about Scotland, having power over our return to Sovereignty, aye right! How stupid would we be?
The SG needs to listen and take heed or they could lead us into a serious mistake, that is all we would need when trying to build OUR Scotland.
#
2012-09-10 09:01
Usual "grasping" at straws. So, the Eu won't allow Scotland in, but have been happy to allow numerous, eastern European countries in, despite some of them being economic blackspots. Mmm... I think the unionist need to get a life, and wise up.
#
2012-09-10 09:36
It seems to me that if EFTA is the best option, every country would be wanting it. So there would be a tendency for all of them wanting to be on the outside looking in. I do not think that the core countries of the EU would tolerate that situation for very long and at some time they would close off the entrance requirements and make it more difficult for the would be EFTA countries to be part of a trade agreement. Of course the EU would have to get their own house in order first and that is not looking very promising at the moment.
#
2012-09-10 11:48
They have had to suck it up with Switzerland and Norway and neither country appears to have the problems manifest in the Euro zone and the economic crippling of their economies, related to the neo-liberal induced fiscal collapse, now wide spread within the EU.
The myth is that 'big' is better, the question you never hear the answer for - better for who?
The myth is that 'big' is better, the question you never hear the answer for - better for who?
#
2012-09-10 09:45
It is clear that there are two views on Scotland's status in the UK, the mechanisms for independence and the results. In the first (Unionist) case Scotland is seen as a region of the UK and would on leaving form a new STATE. There would be no residual international obligations, memberships of NATO, EU, UN, etc. The political elite in London would not have their cosy international relationships disturbed, nor would they loose their seat on the UN security council etc. They may even redefine the new STATE of Scotland's borders to exclude some isles and an enclave at Faslane. But they should be careful as Scotland would not inherit any assets nor debts. The second (SNP) view is that the UK will be destroyed and the two successor states of Scotland, with the same borders as she entered the Union, and rUK would inherit the assets and obligations of the UK. This could seriously upset the London Elite's cosy relationships, as they could lose their seat on the UN Security Council, etc. It is plain why the London Elite would want the first scenario but not why Unionist Scots would go along with it.
#
2012-09-10 14:45
Absolutely correct Willie, those are indeed the differences in positions.
It seems to me unassailable that the latter of the two is the only one that holds up under scrutiny while the former is risible in the extreme.
Yet my sense of it is that too many nationalists give ground to this Unionist canard by their acceptance and even use of the language of "secession", of rUK-ism, of "independence-from" the UK, rather than dissolution OF the UK.
We are giving away the store here. The way to reverse that prevailing meme is through consistent and insistent use of precise language when referring to the ending of our JOINT Union with England.
They will become as independent as we. Independence for Scotland is independence for England. The only way independence can be effected is by dissolution of the original treaty and acts that bind us and the contingent INTRA-state treaties and unions derived therefrom.
Each of the two successor states, Scotland and England, would assume the responsibilitie s and privileges of all INTRA-state obligations entered into COLLECTIVELY by the former United Kingdom. That would include membership of the EU.
It is a nonsense to claim England would inherit these rights and obligations but not Scotland.
It seems to me unassailable that the latter of the two is the only one that holds up under scrutiny while the former is risible in the extreme.
Yet my sense of it is that too many nationalists give ground to this Unionist canard by their acceptance and even use of the language of "secession", of rUK-ism, of "independence-from" the UK, rather than dissolution OF the UK.
We are giving away the store here. The way to reverse that prevailing meme is through consistent and insistent use of precise language when referring to the ending of our JOINT Union with England.
They will become as independent as we. Independence for Scotland is independence for England. The only way independence can be effected is by dissolution of the original treaty and acts that bind us and the contingent INTRA-state treaties and unions derived therefrom.
Each of the two successor states, Scotland and England, would assume the responsibilitie s and privileges of all INTRA-state obligations entered into COLLECTIVELY by the former United Kingdom. That would include membership of the EU.
It is a nonsense to claim England would inherit these rights and obligations but not Scotland.
#
2012-09-10 11:59
Have to agree with those proposing the EFTA route especially given that the EU now seems intent on taking over N Sea oil and gas regulation as well.
#
2012-09-10 16:37
Briggs -
Yes the North Sea oil & gas does need regulating, and it is done very effectively by Norway and the UK.
If you believe the EU could do a better job, look at the EU's misregulation of the Common Fisheries Policy.That policy alone is costing Scotland considerably more than £1,500 million in lost wealth creation every year. The EU has destroyed tens of thousands of Scottish jobs through the CFP. And the incompetence of the EU’s management of the CFP continues to this day.
Yes the North Sea oil & gas does need regulating, and it is done very effectively by Norway and the UK.
If you believe the EU could do a better job, look at the EU's misregulation of the Common Fisheries Policy.That policy alone is costing Scotland considerably more than £1,500 million in lost wealth creation every year. The EU has destroyed tens of thousands of Scottish jobs through the CFP. And the incompetence of the EU’s management of the CFP continues to this day.
#
2012-09-10 12:26
Good post, Willie Hogg. Not only the political elite in London (aka the mainly Tory establishment types) but also the self-seeking Labour MPs elected from Scotland, will vigorously oppose Scotland's independence aspirations. Their motivation would be the much more selfish one of preserving their places at the Westminster salary and expenses trough, rather than any concern about UK seats on UN or EU councils.
#
2012-09-10 14:20
I wrote to Mr Barroso earlier this year and the reply stated that he had no opionion on the matter as there was to be a vote on the matter of independance. He firther stated that such decision were a matter for all member states.
I also wrote to Labours MEP Ms.Stihler after a similar story appeared in the Unionist Scotsman where she stated that this new information showed Scotland would not automatically get a place in Europe. Typical of all Labour politicians she has not replied.
Its simply Labour scaremongering again.
I also wrote to Labours MEP Ms.Stihler after a similar story appeared in the Unionist Scotsman where she stated that this new information showed Scotland would not automatically get a place in Europe. Typical of all Labour politicians she has not replied.
Its simply Labour scaremongering again.
#
2012-09-10 19:04
Absolute rubbish - Barroso's comments are fair and diplomatic I would be surprised if he said anything else....
Day before independence, I have a passport which says European Citizen on the cover and British citizen on the inside.
Day after independence, I will have a passport which says European Citizen on the cover and British citizen on the inside.
Who will deprive me of my European Citizenship?
Day before independence, I have a passport which says European Citizen on the cover and British citizen on the inside.
Day after independence, I will have a passport which says European Citizen on the cover and British citizen on the inside.
Who will deprive me of my European Citizenship?
#
2012-09-10 20:54
You don't have European citizenship, because the EU does not represent Europe. It is half the size of the major all-European institutions like the 56-member OSCE and UNECE, or the 47-member Council of Europe (CoE).
I have just looked at my own UK passport, renewed this year, and there is no mention of European citizenship on the cover or inside. It would be stretching things a bit to derive citizenship from the name of the European Union at the top of the cover. As I know from my own experience, all the benefits of what Barroso describes as "EU citizenship" are obtainable within the broader European Economic Area, i.e. on the EFTA side as well as the EU side.
There seems to be some kind of a mental hangup in Scotland on this one organisation. There are hundreds of international organisations, most of them a good deal more important to Scotland than the half-European EU - and a good deal less damaging. Or has Scotland just been cut off from the world for so long that the EU is all it knows about international affairs?
I have just looked at my own UK passport, renewed this year, and there is no mention of European citizenship on the cover or inside. It would be stretching things a bit to derive citizenship from the name of the European Union at the top of the cover. As I know from my own experience, all the benefits of what Barroso describes as "EU citizenship" are obtainable within the broader European Economic Area, i.e. on the EFTA side as well as the EU side.
There seems to be some kind of a mental hangup in Scotland on this one organisation. There are hundreds of international organisations, most of them a good deal more important to Scotland than the half-European EU - and a good deal less damaging. Or has Scotland just been cut off from the world for so long that the EU is all it knows about international affairs?
#
2012-09-10 21:41
James; Apologies you are correct, it states European Union and this gives me European Citizenship including the rights of free movement and the right to vote in European elections.
Who is going to deprive me of that. How will it be taken away from me?
Who is going to deprive me of that. How will it be taken away from me?
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- Scotland's enormous resources ...
If we do not get a Yes vote in September... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
I'm opposed to keeping the £. I want ful... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
Agreed, Breeks - it's liking asking your... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
We still have two children and four gran... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
This sets out the strengths of Scotland ... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
What's the problem if it advances the de... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Indeed Glenbuchat, just as Mrs Fungus wa... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
[Admin - Newsnet Scotland exlusively rev... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
Jamie the whole point of Independence is... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
[Admin - Can you please refrain from ask... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
The report is a damp squib. Rather than ... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
bbc.co.uk/.../... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Radio 5 live was at it all day today wi... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
This is to be on Newsnight tonight I sup... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
Darling, head of the Better Together cab... - What Kind of European and Brit...
Gerry, it is simple, the Empire is final... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Hi Chicmac, Your children like many othe... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
For those who have not seen the document... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Surely it is academic whether Mr Healey ... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Will that not take the no campaign over ...