Drew Scott: An independent Scotland won’t be forced to join eurozone

Published on Saturday 12 November 2011 00:00

THE Commons paper on Scotland, independence and the EU offers a number of interesting conjectures, not all of which are reliable.

On one reading it buttresses the argument that should Scotland become independent its EU membership would continue uninterrupted. Therefore independence is not “secession”, in the terms of the paper; it is a voluntary and agreed dissolution of the UK. As the paper makes clear, this will give rise to a presumption in favour of continuity of the EU treaty with regard to both components – Scotland and the former UK. To my mind this is a sensible reading of the likely outcome in the event of Scotland becoming independent.

Unfortunately, the paper then becomes muddled, nowhere more so than in an independent Scotland’s obligations vis-à-vis the euro. There is simply no precedent or mechanism under EU law whereby an EU member state can be dragooned, unwillingly, into membership of the eurozone. Before being eligible to join, the currency of the country must have been inside the EU exchange rate mechanism (ERM) for at least two years. ERM membership cannot be required of any country, and even countries whose currencies are inside the ERM voluntarily (such as Sweden’s since 1995) have never been requested – far less compelled – to join the eurozone. It will fall entirely to the government of an independent Scotland to decide its own currency arrangements. Your readers should rest assured that an independent Scotland inside the EU (but not the eurozone) will not be confronted with a multi-billion pound bill to support eurozone countries currently in difficulty with sovereign debt. Finally, on the matter of opt-outs, the UK government seems intent on seeking repatriation of powers from Brussels. What opinion has it had from its lawyers on the legality, not to mention likely success, of this? If successful, this may open up an entirely new landscape of possibilities confronting Scotland in the EU. I wonder if opting out of the Common Fisheries Policy is on Mr Cameron’s list.

• Drew Scott is Professor of European Union Studies, University of Edinburgh.

Comments

There are 15 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

15

Marga

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 09:03 PM

"Citizenship of the EU is like national citizenship. It cannot be revoked arbitrarily. " Well possible. But there are quite a lot of circumstances, for example, when European citizenshave no right to vote (there are thousands of people resident in but not citizens of another European state with no right to vote in state elections, whereas citizens of some South American countries, with a voluntary mutual agreement, can). There are other situations with pension rights and other social security benefits where citizens lose out. The EU was not created for citizens but for higher powers. So I wouldn't bank on being able to claim rights in any unknown situation - you might find they don't exist.

• Report Unsuitable

14

the wallace

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 05:12 PM

08 That idea has merit my freind,which can be debated properly post independence,then a referendum being held in due course.Independence is all about giving the scots people back all their power so we all can discuss and debate and solve any situation that arises, as one people one voice one nation.

• Report Unsuitable

13

Huntly Loon

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 12:56 PM

I see I have comments pending moderatiion. I guess they were a bit too long as they were not offensive. Basically I refered to Spain and France vetoing Scotland as an EU member. What I was contending that unlike the positions of Corsica or Catalonia etc, Scotland would not be a secession but a dissolution of a state created of two sovereign states that united by treaty. Unlike Spain or France continuing to exist if they lost one of their parts, the UK would actually cease to exist and become the kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, the latter incorporating Wales and part of Ireland. Scotland would not therefore become a new member but like the r-UK one of two successor states of an existing member.

• Report Unsuitable

12

The West Awake

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Surely there must be a debate post-independence firstly as to whether Scotland wants to be in the EU, there are other voices such as 8 who have a right to be heard. Secondly, if we did decide to join (or re-join. re-affirm, or whatever) I would expect that Scotlands membership conditions would be very different out of the UK and our "membership package" would have to be agreed by us and the EU. I cannot believe this would not be in Scotlands advantage (not least because at last we would have the right to say no), the most obvious example of this being in relation to a new fisheries deal. Just as I can't believe these negotiations would not start from a basis of benefit to Scotland, by the same logic I expect they will start on a negative basis for the RUK, which will have to negotiate from a weaker position (losing Scotland fisheries as a bargaining chip again being one example). I do not wish the RUK ill from this, but I am annoyed that this is never highlighted by unionists as one reason they wish to keep the union.

• Report Unsuitable

11

Bradged

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 08:31 AM

6 well informed - you're proving yourself not to be as your title suggests. The union of the crowns did not create a single country in 1603. That only came from the union of the parliaments. If the union that came into effect in 1707 is dissolved, then so is our part in the union that we joined in1973, unless alternative political agreements have been reached by then. Of course agreement can be reached, and no doubt will be reached if the time comes, but that does not mean anything is automatic, and it certainly does not mean that Brussels will want the process to be easy, or that every member state would want it to be easy either. Several will want the opposite, if anything.

• Report Unsuitable

10

Huntly Loon

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 08:00 AM

Pending Moderation

• Report Unsuitable

9

Huntly Loon

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 07:58 AM

Pending Moderation

• Report Unsuitable

8

Beachdair

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 05:42 AM

Independent Scotland should not become, or continue to be, a member of the European Union. Any economic advantages of the European Union can be realised through Scottish membership of the 30-member European Economic Area (EEA), which includes all of the EU member countries. The economic benefits of the EEA would be further enhanced by membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), whose 20 trading agreements with other parts of the world are not open to EU members. **************************** As an EFTAEEA member Scotland would be liable for a contribution of about £200 million to the EEA solidarity fund for weaker EEA member states. It is NOT a contribution to the general EU funds. The EFTAEEA contribution is less than a quarter of the EU amount. How many Scottish jobs could be created with the difference? ***** Another reason there can be no question of Scottish membership of the EU is because it requires new members to commit to adopting the ‘euro’ currency. As is now well known, the ‘euro’ has been and continues to be a major disaster Membership would also involve a commitment to participate in EU military operations outside Europe, along with other considerations. Do Scots really want that?

• Report Unsuitable

7

Kon

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 03:26 AM

6 well informed, its not up to Scotland or the SNP to decide that Scotland that is not a member of the EU will just become one, it is for each and every current member of the EU to decide if that is the case.

• Report Unsuitable

6

well informed

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 01:25 AM

5 An Independent Scottish Parliament from Westminster will still remain within the UK under the union of crowns. The only treaty which will be recinded is the union of Parliaments. Therefore I dont see any legal grounding for Scotland not to remain within the EU if it chooses not to leave. The same case applies to England. Neither NI nor Wales are signitories to the Act of Union between the Parliaments of Scotland and England which makes a nonsense yet again of unionist claims that there will be a UK without Scotland. The unionist cause simply cannot function without hiding itself beneath a cesspit of lies and misinformation.

• Report Unsuitable

5

Kon

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 01:12 AM

4 Huntly Loon, it does not seem that way at all, opinion is divided and the SNP have had legal advice on the issue but refuse to publish it, ultimately the EU members decide and not the "experts" or the SNP.

• Report Unsuitable

4

Huntly Loon

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 12:44 AM

It seems clear that an independent Scotland would remain in the EU uninterupted subject ot some minor house keeping arrangements dealing with MEP numbers and commissioners. It's not that Scotland as a territory is already in the EU but that its citizens already are. Scots have acquired rights to live and work and conduct businesses in member states. These rights cannot now be revoked by an act of the European Union. Citizenship of the EU is like national citizenship. It cannot be revoked arbitrarily. If it were possible to do so those affected would be entitled to compensation and not just Scots in Europe but also Europeans who have property, jobs and businesses in Scotland. It would be far too expensive and messy to compensate individuals for the extinction of their present rights. The Unionist scremongering is really getting very desperate now. They are making themselves look very silly, and as a consequence they confirm in voters' minds that the SNP government is sensible, efficient and competent.

• Report Unsuitable

3

Brond

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 12:32 AM

I believe the paper was couched in terms such as "it may be" and so on. We all know those articles - "Asteroid may hit earth!" The opposite is "but probably won't". But the Scotsman, over-keen to be the Unionist first man over the top, has launched into several attacks on the SNP this week that are of this "maybe aye maybe naw" variety. The Scotsman should be careful that it doesn't line up all its ducks for shooting in the first half of the debate. Otherwise, it will have little left to go on at a later date. (I see neo-Kon got in before me).

• Report Unsuitable

2

Kon

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 12:27 AM

not all of which are reliable. ======= but you're opinion is?

• Report Unsuitable

1

Kon

Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 12:26 AM

Pending Moderation

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.