I believe I do understand. We are citizens of the EU because we are citizens of the UK, which is an EU member state. Mr Reid suggests that “it is not (easy) to take away such dual citizenship”. On that point I am unsure.
What I am sure of is that Mr Reid goes on to commit the same logical error perpetrated by the Yes campaign. He suggests it would not be a “reasonable outcome” for Scots to be EU citizens but Scotland not to be a member state. What is the reasoning?
“Scots are EU citizens because we are citizens of the UK which is a member state. If Scotland breaks away from the UK then Scotland must become a member state because Scots are EU citizens”! It’s a fallacy.
Scotland is not a member state of the EU and therefore cannot “continue” to be one.
Professor Keating’s pronouncements also confirm the import of my letter. Scotland could become a member state of the EU by means of what he calls a “mechanism”. Whether the mechanism be article 48 or 49 does not belie the obvious fact that what the use of a mechanism implies is the creation of a new situation and not the continuation of an existing one.
As to the terms – which I agree are “the real issue” – Prof Keating suggests some “likely” outcomes. Fair enough. But what he considers likely and what member states of the EU would consider acceptable – particularly on issues such as the rebate – are not necessarily the same thing.
The only certain thing is uncertainty.
Braid Hills Avenue
It is interesting to be reminded of the Tory position on the European Union. The Tories want “change, and then choice in a referendum” (your extended online report, 7 May).
Better Together currently talks in vague and non-binding terms about “more powers” in the event of a No vote on independence.
The Tories should use their influence in the coalition to instead deliver such change before the choice.