The furore in the political hen coop today at the EC President’s pronouncement -that a new state seceding from an existing EU member state would have to reapply for membership as the newly independent state it had chosen to become – really is a non event.
This is no more than playing with words and procedures in order to look as if the EU works to such rules.
This is the EU that admitted countries like Greece and others – knowing, on evidence, that those countries did not not and could not meet the membership criteria supposed to govern their admission.
Since the start, the EU has developed to progress a clear political agenda – the creation of a united states of Europe.
In the interests of gaining support for this overarching ambition, the EU has knowingly admitted several unable member states, making them and paying to maintain them as helpless dependency cultures to ensure their support for political union when the time came.
That time is anytime now- and the fiscal union that is the absolute necessity to sustain the euro and the eurozone is effectively that very political union.
Some larger member states – like Spain – joining after the foundation six, have also allowed themselves to become major dependency cultures. In an earlier article we showed just how prevalent is that condition within the member states of the EU.
In that piece – The EU and dependency cultures – we demonstrated that only five of the states admitted to membership after the founding six in 1957, were and have remained net contributors. The five are UK , Denmark , Finland , Sweden  and Austria . The rest are settled net receivers.
The SNP position in advance of and in response to the EU President’s ruling is incorrect.
It claims that the two year period between a hypothetical vote for independence and actual independence would be the negotiation period – from the inside - for immediate Scottish entry to the EU.
But it could not properly be so, as such negotiation would be on behalf of a state whose final shape, circumstances and fiscal identity was not then known and which, not yet in existence, would have no authority to commit to any agreement.
However, President Barroso did not say today that newly seceded independent states would be regarded as new applicants at the end of the queue.
The pragmatism of a failing EU badly in need of members could be guaranteed to ensure that new states emerging from existing larger ones would be fast tracked to membership, should they desire it.
The Barroso pronouncement does no serious damage to the Scottish Government or to the First Minister – beyond giving a schoolyard national media a few eggs to throw.
The damage – and it is real damage – has been done already by the First Minister in his quite unnecessary evasions [and worse] over his equally unnecessary assertion that his government already had legal advice to back up its claim of automatic EU membership for any newly independent Scotland.
This, added to the revelation that the wording of the Ministerial Code was retrospectively changed to support Mr Salmond’s assertion that he could not even reveal that he had not had such advice or that he had not indeed even asked for it [as was the case], rammed home the nails in the coffin of his credibility.
He went on quickly to bury this himself in two further erratic steps.
At First Minister’s Questions, Mr Salmond repeatedly insisted on the veracity of quite incorrect information on college funding he was giving to the Scottish Parliament in defence of his Education Secretary – and had to return to the chamber in short order to issue a formal apology for misleading it.
Following this, it was revealed that his office had privately asked for the alternation of the official record of an answer he had given to parliament on another occasion, where he had quoted 18,000 as the number of those employed in the renewables energy industry – a modest 72.7% inflation of the correct figure, which was 11,000.
It has been these demonstrations of either serial incompetence or serial deliberate misleading which has damaged the First Minister to the point where we cann0t believe what he says without verifiable independent confirmation.
He has been repeatedly shown to say and do what is convenient rather than what is right.
The question of how quickly Scotland would be admitted to EU membership is an irrelevant side issue.
The real question is again on the political energy and freshness of a First Minister who campaigns for independence but who can conceive of nothing but dependence – simply preferring a master facing administration to one with a greater chance of avoiding that outcome; and unable to offer a prospectus for a truly independent Scotland.