Scottish Statehood and Continued Membership of the European Union: do we still have no answers?

DOI10.3366/elr.2015.0305
Published date01 September 2015
Author
Date01 September 2015
Pages414-419
<p>In the immediate aftermath of the referendum of 18 September 2014, the question of Scottish independence appeared to be settled. The referendum delivered a clear result and constitutional debate moved on to the precise content of an enhanced devolution settlement. However, while the political path to independence is far from clear, the question of independence and its consequences remains firmly on Scotland's political agenda, with post-referendum polling indicating 66% support for a second vote on independence by 2024.<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1"><sup>1</sup> </xref><fn id="fn1"><label>1</label> <p>C Sulieman, “STV poll: Two thirds of Scots support second referendum within ten years”, STV News, 31 October 2014, available at <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/297867-stv-poll-third-of-scots-support-second-referendum-within-ten-years/"><italic>http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/297867-stv-poll-third-of-scots-support-second-referendum-within-ten-years/</italic> </ext-link>.</p> </fn></p> <p>In the final days of the 2014 referendum campaign, Gordon Brown famously exclaimed that “we have no answers” to many fundamental questions concerning a post-independence Scotland. Insofar as membership of the European Union (“EU”) is concerned, Mr Brown's observation could not have been intended literally. Indeed, in the run-up to the referendum, this question spawned an extraordinary array of answers, albeit sufficiently contradictory to render Mr Brown's observation politically tenable. Notwithstanding a lack of consensus, it is argued below that much legal light was shed on the politics of Scotland's EU membership. It is submitted that citizenship of a union based on democracy and the rule of law is incompatible with the notion that lawful exercises of self-determination could result in the loss of rights resulting from that citizenship. The alternative would call into question the legitimacy of the legal order of the EU and its longstanding claim that it is a distinct order in international relations.</p> STATE SUCCESSION

Arguments concerning Scotland's membership of the EU resolve themselves in what appears to be a mundane technical point regarding the appropriate treaty article governing the process. One school of thought suggests that Scotland would have to rely on the ordinary accession procedure through article 49 of the Treaty on European Union (“TEU”), whereas others suggest that article 48 governing treaty amendments would be the more appropriate route. The disagreement stems from an unclear treaty basis. The TEU does not contemplate a situation in which a sub-state region within the territory of the EU democratically determines to become a state within the union. Underpinning the opposing views are assumptions that Scotland would either (i) leave the EU when it left the UK and would therefore have to apply for readmission, or (ii) that Scotland and its people would remain in the EU and would need only to re-order their relationship through amendments to the treaties.

There is some merit in the suggestion that dissolving the relationship with the UK would result in concurrent withdrawal from the UK's international agreements. Crawford and Boyle suggest that the rest of the United Kingdom (“rUK”) would be the continuator state, whereas Scotland would start its international life afresh.2

J Crawford and A Boyle, “Opinion: Referendum on the independence of Scotland – international law aspects” in Devolution and the Implications of Scottish Independence (Cmnd 8554: 2013), Annex I, paras 25–115.

The Irish Free State, which provides the only precedent for the secession of one of the UK's nations from the union, was deemed to be a new entity in international law in 1921.3

Crawford & Boyle (n 2) paras 65–70.

Nevertheless, the historical record suggests that the cases of Ireland and Scotland are distinguishable. Scotland voluntarily became party to a union of equals by virtue of a treaty and subsequent act of a sovereign Scottish parliament. Conversely, Ireland was conquered and colonised.4

A Carty and M Clyde, “Scotland and England from a union of parliaments to two independent kingdoms” (2014) 2 London Rev of Int L 299 at 313–314.

The Act of Union 1801 abolished an Irish Parliament whose powers and membership had long been circumscribed by England. Indeed, Crawford and Boyle acknowledge that most authors view “the incorporation of Ireland not
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT