Well, one of the most obvious points in favour of continued membership
There won't be any "continued" membership. Senior EU officials have made it clear that an independant Scotland would have to appy for EU membership. This is nothing new, the EU have made this clear for quite a while.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c1812da-81cb-11e3-a600-00144feab7de.htmlJosé Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, has refrained from discussing Scotland’s case but has strongly suggested that an independent Scotland would have to apply from scratch to join the EU, a process that could take several years after independence.
“If part of the territory of a member state would cease to be part of that state because it were to become a new independent state, the treaties would no longer apply to that territory,” Mr Barroso wrote in a letter to the UK’s House of Lords in December 2012.
“In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory.”
Mr Carmichael said there was little an independent Scotland could do to get around this.
“There is no way round the law. A new state must apply; it would be no different for an independent Scotland,” he said.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independent-scotland-would-have-to-reapply-to-eu-1-3232221Scottish independence: An independent Scotland would find itself outside the EU and forced to reapply to join, the head of the European Council has indicated.
Herman Van Rompuy made it clear that the creation of a “new independent state” would mean that EU treaties no longer apply to it.
The SNP Government has insisted that it would remain inside the EU after a Yes vote and renegotiate it’s membership from within.
Mr Van Rompuoy is President of the European Council which is made up of all 27 members states which has a key influence over European policy and expension.
Mr Van Rompuy was answering a question about a proposed referendum in Catalonia. He declined to comment on a specific country, but agreed to set out “some of the principles that would apply in such a scenario.”
Speaking at a press conference in Madrid yesterday, he said: “If a part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.
“In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.”
Any new state could “apply to become a member of the Union” in line with established accession treaties, but “this would be subject to ratification by all Member States and the Applicant State.”I've bolded the bit above as Spain would never agree to a breakaway independant state joining the EU, because of Catalonia.
Then, of course, there are all the other economic benefits of a large, open marketplace, and the fact that quite a few businesses and industries rely, in part, on EU subsidies (this is true throughout the UK,
There are only 3 EEA countries that pay more into the EU than they take out and the UK is one of them. Germany is another and they pay the most in, but their price for that is that they insist on the Euro being based on the German economy.
The UK is the second biggest contributor of the 3 countries that pay for the EU, which is why the UK is able to negotaite itself into a stong position too.
I'm sure I'm missing quite a bit, but off the top of my head, those are a few reasons I think it's worth remaining in the EU.
The economic side of it. Which is
the major factor.
The EU chiefs have always said that Scotland will have to apply to join the EU. No mean feat for a small country with big debts (the 2 biggest failed UK banks are the Scottish banks Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS). So why bank ('scuse the pun) all your hopes of surviving as an independant country, on being able to join the EU and get the same things the UK (as one of the major players financially inthe EU) has? i.e. just the special EU rule the UK has negotiated for 'no VAT no childrens' clothes' is worth 300 million to Scotland.
Don't get me wrong, as the UK is having to borrow just to pay the interest on it's debt and it would be great to lose those RBS and HBOS massive debts and give the government jobs in Scotland to NE England, Wales and NI, but why would anyone vote to take on massive debts in these economic times? The ratings agencies are likey to rate Scotland low (new, small country with big debts). A low rating will mean higher interest rates when Scotland borrow and greater government cutbacks to service those debts. No country can afford to default on it's debts.
What would the EU have to gain by excluding Scotland?
No doubt Iceland is asking the same thing and they haven't been allowed to join the EU yet despite years of trying. It's not up to the EU to exclude Scotland, it is up to Scotland to apply to join the EU. It takes countries years to try to negotiate their way into the EU.
There's all sorts of things they'd lose, from the stuff I mentioned above (migration, markets), to things like access to fishing grounds (a key reason why Spain is pretty much all talk) and oil fields.
I'm not sure why you think Spain is all talk? They do not want to split their country and it would be in their interest to veto Scotland so that Scotland does not get EU funding. Spain are well aware that if Scotland had been independant when their banks failed, then they would have been another Iceland.
And as far as the Euro goes, 'new member' rules aside, I don't know that they'd be in a big hurry to add another potentially volatile economy just now. I'm pretty sure there's some room for negotiation there.
They will be in a hurry to make new EU members adopt the Euro, as they will be expect the new members to go above and beyond, to bail out the Euro and help the failing eurozone countries.
Although the UK gave extra money to the EU to help the Euro (and gave an extra loan to Ireland) they would not be forced by Germany to hand over billions of UK money to prop up the Euro. Hence Cameron's veto to stop the German and French plans to grab UK money to bail out the Euro. Obviously the UK is concerned about the Euro as they have loaned so much money to France, but not so concerned that they will sacrifice the UK's economy.
And as long is it remains in the UK, none of those differences will matter, or will be given any real consideration, because Scotland's needs and wishes will always come a distant second to London's.
The Scots were in power in London for over a decade (the last Labour government). What else do you think they should have done for Scotland?
