Alex Salmond has repeatedly claimed that an independent Scotland would be given automatic EU membership as ‘a successor state’.
The universal impression he and bis colleagues gave was that they had legal advice on this matter but could not possibly comment on that because of their fidelity to the ministerial code. The assumption therefore was that legal advice informed these repeated declarations on EU membership.
And Mr Salmond never said : This is just one I made earlier.’
Now we know that they had not even sought legal advice – so the declarations on ‘successor state’ status for Scotland were informed by nothing more substantial than wishing on a star.
Interviewed – rigorously – by Bermard Ponsonby on Wednesday night [24th October] on Scotland Tonight, the First Munchster said that, yes, legal advice was now being sought on this matter. Asked if he would make that advice public, he swerved and said that ‘it will inform the White Paper for the Independence Referendum Bill’.
Ponsonby persisted in asking neverthless if Salmond would publish the legal opinion so that people could see for themselves the relationship between it and the way it had ‘informed’ the White Paper?
Mr Salmond said, again, that the opinion ‘would inform the White Paper’.
Given that we now know that the First Minister’s previous declarations on Scotland’s standing as ‘a successor state’ were informed by nothing at all, how will we tell the difference when it comes to the White Paper?
Because he says so?
He will have to publish the opinion or get used to having the length of his nose measured at regular intervals.
I take it you are in sceptical mode Newsroom? Never mind, get used to having Alec around for, at least, the next two years….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Newsroom, you claim
. . . the First Minister’s previous declarations on Scotland’s standing as ‘a successor state’ were informed by nothing at all
No, most certainly not by ‘nothing at all’.
Nicola Sturgeon said in Parliament on Tuesday:
“The Scottish government has previously cited opinions from a number of eminent legal authorities, past and present, in support of its view that an independent Scotland will continue in membership of the European Union – but has not sought specific legal advice.”
So, not informed by ‘nothing at all’ – informed by qualified legal opinion.
One example from nearly a year ago is the opinion of Aidan O’Neill QC , expressed succinctly in his article entitled
A Quarrel in a Faraway Country?: Scotland, Independence and the EU
In addition to law degrees from Edinburgh and Sydney universities, O’Neill holds a degree in European and International and Comparative law from the European University Institute, Florence. He has written three legal text books, including EU Law for UK Lawyers and Decisions of the European Court of Justice and their constitutional implications.
Essentially the argument goes that if Scotland were to cease to be part of the EU and had to apply for membership, that would involve stripping EU citizenship from people who are current EU nationals.
European court judgments make it clear how hard it is to remove that citizenship, so if a member state breaks up it is unclear whether that takes away EU citizenship. This has led to a legal argument that if an independent Scotland were outside the EU, this would unlawfully deprive Scottish EU citizens of their rights.
Now, this argument may fall in the end – Mr. Barroso certainly seems to think it will – but to say that current SNP opinion on the matter was formed by ‘nothing at all‘ is patently wrong and frankly absurd.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I hardly think the late great Professor Neil MacCormick was “nothing at all”.
He was the unpaid constitutional advisor to the Scottish Government and is author of the draft Scottish Constitution.
As a former MEP his expertise on European Union law was sought by many throughout the EU and beyond
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No smoke without fire…wee eck and his minions will take the fall soon enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh come on Karl – plenty smoke without fire in politics, happens al the time. It’s mindless opposition for its own sake rubbing two rumours together on a slow news day until they start to smoulder a bit.
Salmond has been referred – or more accurately referred himself – for alleged breaches of the ministerial code five times before and been exonorated every time. He really does seem to bring out the worst in his opponents though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I thought ‘For Argyll’ aspired to be treated as a serious contributor to Scottish political life – going on this piece of doggerel it has a long way to go.
You state that the Scottish government’s position on the EU is ‘informed by nothing at all’. Not true. Scotland’s future as a successor state to the old UK is based upon the legal opinion of many eminent legal experts such as:
* Emile Noel, the first and longest serving Secretary-General of the European Commission who said: “Scottish Independence would create two new member states out of one. They would have equal status with each other and the other states. The remainder of the United Kingdom would not be in a more powerful position than Scotland.”
* Lord Mackenzie-Stuart – President of the European Court of Justice 1984-88 – “Independence would leave Scotland and something called ‘the rest’ in the same legal boat. If Scotland had to reapply, so would the rest”.
* Eamonn Gallagher, former Director General of the European Commission and EC Ambassador to the UN in New York, “Scotland and the rest of the UK would be equally entitled to continue their existing full membership of the EU.”
Scotland and England (plus Wales/N.Ireland) would be successor states. Why? Because the UK was created by international treaty between 2 sovereign nations, Scotland & England, in 1707, the revocation of which would lead to both nations returning to the status quo ante. As such, both successor states would inherit the treaty rights and obligations of the UK.
As for the complaint that the Scottish government has refused to publish the legal opinion it has received anent Scotland in the EU – opinion that will shape the forthcoming White Paper – informed journalists know fine well that this is based upon legal & constitutional precedent, the same convention that pertains to Westminster. Indeed, Attorney General Grieve, upon being asked if he had received advice on the status of Scotland & England in the EU post Scottish independence could only reply that he could neither confirm nor deny such advice.
So why the hypocrisy from the unionist ‘No’ side – and ‘For Argyll’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would have thought that independence would either, as RW states, create two successor states, or two states, NEITHER of which had EU membership. I favour the latter position. If UKGB&NI no longer exists, surely its membership of the EU also ceases. Thus if an independent Scotland had to go through the whole process of applying for membership, so would the newly independent England. Or am I missing something?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Loki, as successor States both Scotland & England would inherit all the obligations & advantages of the EU. Article 34 of the Vienna Convention “Any treaty in force at the date of succession of states in respect of the entire territory of the predecessor state continues in force in respect of each successor state so formed.”
As a wee aside the BBC have now reported that, and I quote, ‘Law officers read and approved official documents claiming an independent Scotland would remain in the EU, the Scottish government has confirmed’. A tad embarrassing for those saying the First Minister was misleading over the advice he received on Scotland’s EU position. Read it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20098498
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.scotsman.com/news/alf-young-pillars-of-independence-are-shaking-1-2602041
Sums up Salmonds partisan and dictorial leadership…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Karl, a reply to your last post 8: The Scotsman news paper is publishing articles which I find are very interesting. The debate on the Yes No debate is becoming very polarised, recently as soon as I put a point of view over I am stereotyped as a supporter of one side, sometimes in a very vindicated way. What has alarmed me, this is being done by people I know. Years ago I read an article which put forward an argument that the last Jacobite rebellion was a battle between two dynasties. Is this Yes No vote in the same vein. This is not about true Independence, there is no real choice, its just about a transfer of power from one ruler to an other.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/joyce-mcmillan-devil-you-know-not-always-better-1-2600172
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Totally agree…far from building a nation Salmond is splitting a nation…
We ultimately will end up with swapping one bunch of self serving individuals for another…my political allegiance has gone…gone in the wind…there is so little difference in political parties now…none of them are worth the effort…and very few are worth trusting, lets face it, they are supposed to be “public servants”…they are not, they are business men and women who we pay for…another group of parisitic individuals squeezing our freedom and draining our coffers.
In regards to the referendum; the one good thing that will come out of it what ever the decision…YES or NO, is it will be the demise of the SNP as a nationalist party…no doubt they will all creep off undere some other political parties stone. Some to the tories, some to the socialists, some to the lib’s and the rest to the greens and other minorities…or retire to the Hollyrood bar you and me paid for.
Really and sensibly, at grass routes level it will make no difference to my daily life…my wife and kids will still be Gaelic speaking Tirisdeach Scots…I will still be an English brummy of Welsh parents…
What a load of old codswallop, I am always so suprised folks can’t see past the tv set, passed the BS, passed the posturing and suits, and look at the real agenda…POWER and CONTROL. Or in Salmonds case divide and conquer…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I stopped reading the Scotsman and the Scotland on Sunday years ago because of their anti-independence stance. More should do the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Loki,I accept your view, would you read the article by Joyce McMillan: Devil you know not always better. How I understood it,this article was drilling deeper into the Yes No debate, yes its my view, but if other people could put their view on the article I could then review my view. Quite a few views there, but I genually beleive we will all gain a greater understanding of where the country wants to go by listening to each other. Where can you go for the middle ground when its either yes or no.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
JS: Excellent points.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Derrrrr ! some folk want a Union…what do you read now Salmonds Mirror or Sun…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nicola Sturgeon told the Scottish Parliament that Law officers had not read documents regarding claiming an Independent Scotland would remain in the EU because they had not yet asked for this information.
So who is telling the truth. If Nicola Sturgeon has been misleading the Scottish Parliament then she has to go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Personally, I find it all rather worrying. I met someone in Pitlochry, not so long ago, who told me that he had received threats against his business simply because he was from England and had mentioned to someone that he would probably vote against independence. I said that he was not alone in receiving threats.
I believe that those who are against independence will just keep quiet until the referendum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20121173
Like or Dislike:
0 
0