We need clarity and debate about the challenges - and opportunities - of an independent Scotland's entry to the EU

As a democrat, I have much sympathy with the majority of the Scottish people - and the Scottish Government’s interpretation of this - that Scotland’s voice was not considered equitably in the Brexit referendum.

That is especially the case given the historic consequences of that unique plebiscite, which continues to have far greater ramifications than any individual national election in living memory.

But while as a non-Scot I am not in a position to opine on such a totemic question as Scottish independence, as a Belgo-British ‘citizen of the world’ I do worry that creating an ever more fragmented system of small, unitary nation states might just be a 20th century solution unsuitable to solve 21st century challenges such as climate change, migration, digitalisation and international trade.

Having lived and studied in Edinburgh and having spent 20 years working in Brussels on EU policy, including for and with Scottish and British elected and unelected representatives, I do feel qualified to offer a few words of warning about what I see as an overly simplistic conflation between independence and EU accession.

While there are many ways of looking at the interplay between independence and EU adherence, there are three key areas which, from my experience, are being underweighted by the Scottish Government in its recent blueprint for a ‘fairer, stronger, greener Scotland’.

Firstly, the accession process itself. The procedural aspects of joining the EU are - understandably - no mere formality. Alignment with the EU’s ‘acquis’ or rulebook might not be a problem for an independent Scotland in the immediate, short-term. More problematic is the politics of the unanimity requirement - all 27 current member states would have to agree to Scotland’s accession - giving each and every country a de facto veto.

While many would undoubtedly welcome Scotland with open arms, in part as proof the English-driven decision to walk away goes against the grain, several member states have serious domestic constitutional challenges which should not be underestimated. Spain and Belgium spring to mind immediately, with federal governments reluctant (to say the least) to give their separatist forces in Catalonia and Flanders any precedent to point to.

The Scottish Government should articulate more clearly to its citizens its approach to securing political support for EU accession of an independent Scotland, being honest and open with the electorate about the genuine challenges as well as outlining the opportunities.

The Europa building in Brussels. The Scottish Government must be open about the challenges it faces taking an independent Scotland into the EU, argues Mark Foster. PIC: CC.

Secondly is the question of currency. While politics may eat economics for breakfast, as a Brussels-based consultant colleague of

mine often likes to say, hard currency questions loom large in any and all international institutional/constitutional negotiations. The Scottish Government’s paper is, to my mind, disingenuous to assert that there are ‘several options’ open to an independent Scotland.

The EU treaties say the currency of the European Union is the euro. No country to have acceded this century has sought to retain its own currency - adoption of the euro is an integral part of the accession process, even if the EU understands this cannot happen overnight. Denmark indeed has a permanent opt out from the single currency (as did the UK), but that was negotiated in advance of the euro’s introduction.

It’s also true that Sweden - like Denmark an existing EU member prior to the euro’s introduction - retains its own currency, though is, at least politically, committed to join the euro at some point.

Mark Foster is a Brussels-based policy expert with 20 years of experience working in EU institutions and advising on EU relations. PIC: Contributed.

But the idea of the EU accepting a new member state at the same time as it creates a new nation and a new currency seems to me to be a big political leap of faith that Scotland would be asking of its EU partners.

Even if some EU politicians could be persuaded, I suspect EU regulators and monetary authorities would be much more reserved and quietly hold sway over the European Commission, not least citing potential financial stability risks. Again, giving Scotland ‘special treatment’ might be politically conceivable, but it would legally breach the EU Treaties, anathema to a rules-based system.

Finally, divorces are rarely painless – and this is perhaps the biggest, tangible hurdle. Let’s imagine the Scottish people did decide they wanted to go it alone. While one would hope acrimonious recriminations could be avoided, there are clearly known and unknown risks in antagonising your biggest single trading partner – the remainder of the UK - while simultaneously seeking to retain the benefits of that

relationship when it comes to free movement of goods, capital, people and services. And look at the political headaches still being caused there between the UK and EU.

While none of these points in and of themselves might be entirely insurmountable, the collective impact of such constitutional upheaval of Scottish independence merits detailed debate and scrutiny.

The Scottish people - like all peoples and nations - deserve the opportunity to look at alternative options of governance and government. Some would argue that this already happened with indyref1, even if, admittedly, Brexit represents a significant constitutional game-changer since then.

Even so, the Scottish Government would be well advised to embrace constructive criticism of its programme given Scotland’s citizens deserve to have all the information to hand in order to make an informed decision in any potential future indyref2. Advertently or inadvertently avoiding genuine public scrutiny will only further undermine citizen’s faith in our political leaders.

Wilfully or unwilfully portraying the facts around an independent Scotland’s EU accession in an unbalanced manner might be politically astute and could help at the margins in convincing people to vote one way of the other, but this will ultimately do a disservice to Scotland’s politicians and its people.

Mark Foster runs Strategic Advisory Management and is a Brussels-based policy expert with 20 years of experience working in EU institutions and advising on EU relations.