Amy international law experts around?

[andrewducker]

I am confused by some of the reporting around Independence, so hopefully someone can clear things up for me*.

My understanding is that if Scotland becomes independent, then that ends the United Kingdom (which is named after the uniting of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland into one Kingdom). We are not left with The United Kingdom, and "that bit which used to be part of it, but isn't any more". We have two new countries.

So why is it that I keep reading stories about how Scotland will have to renegotiate X and Y with Europe, NATO, the UN, etc. - which also assume that England+Wales+NI won't have to negotiate anything at all. Surely either both new nations will have to negotiate their relationship with various organisations, or both will inherit the relationship from the nation they are successors to.

Anyone care to put me right? Or at least tell me that everyone disagrees?



*Although the experts also seem to be confused, so probably not.

Comments

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

It's all a bit of a grey area. There was a recent House of Commons report that considered the issues, and the summary conclusion was as follows:

If Scotland became independent, would it automatically remain a member of the European Union (EU) – or would it have to go through the whole accession process for new Member States, either alone or alongside the rest of the UK?

This is a major question in the independence debate, and one to which there is no clear answer. There is no precedent for a devolved part of an EU Member State becoming independent and having to determine its membership of the EU as a separate entity, and the question has given rise to widely different views.

There are at least three different possibilities under international law for a newly-independent Scotland: continuation and secession (the rest of the UK would retain its treaty obligations and membership of international organisations, but Scotland would not); separation (both entities would retain them); and dissolution (both would lose them).

Whatever the position under general international law, a decision on Scotland’s status within the European Union is likely to be a political one. If all the EU Member States agreed, then Scotland could continue automatically as a Member State (pending negotiations with the other member states on details of membership, including the number of MEPs to represent Scotland). On the other hand, Member States with their own domestic concerns about separatist movements might argue that Scotland should lose its membership on independence, and hold up or even veto its accession.

EU Member States, with the exception of Denmark and the UK, are expected to join the single currency if and when they meet the criteria. Five of the twelve states joining the EU since 2004 have gone on to join the euro. Whether Scotland joined the euro would have implications for its post-independence monetary policy, and the size of its liability for loans provided to countries facing sovereign debt problems. Finally, Scotland is likely to be a net contributor to the EU Budget (in other words it will pay out more than it receives in structural funding and payments under the Common Agricultural Policy), but the size of this contribution will depend critically on whether it benefits from an abatement (rebate) on the same terms as does the UK currently.

The full report is available here - it's not too long, and surprisingly readable.

[andrewducker]

Thank you, that was really useful!

I suspect that there is no official way of specifying which of the three possibilities is the correct one. I'd go with separation myself, but IANAIL.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

I think they key point is that it will ultimately be a political, not a legal, judgement.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I would think a lot would also depend on how the rest of the EU decides to view it.

If France and Germany decide that the UK no longer exists and Westminster has to re-apply for everything, then Westminster will jolly well have to re-apply for everything.

So how difficult this process will be for Westminster depends, I think, on how popular we are with the rest of the world.

... So. Yeah. I think England/Wales/Whatever they decide to call themselves, will probably have to re-apply for membership of everything.

[nwhyte]

Yes, I found that convincing. There are precedents both ways, and it will essentially be a political judgement. If I were the rUK government at the time of Scottish independence I would want to make the process as smooth as possible, which really means allowing Scotland to be a joint heir of the UK's current status rather than forcing a renegotiation from the beginning. It's not really in England's interests to block Scotland's EU integration.

Just on a technical point, Andy - the United Kingdom was formed by the Union of 1801, not 1707. The state formed in 1707 was called Great Britain; the state formed in 1801 was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Northern Ireland from 1922).

[andrewducker]

Oh, yes - the name didn't enter official usage until 1801, but I believe it was used colloquially before that. Any idea as to the choice of name?

I assume that the EU has no law which specifically states what the difference between a succession and a continuation are, otherwise this would be nicely clear-cut.