klr wrote:ronmcd wrote:
Two lines of particular interest in that article you linked to:
What emerges from this is that the real determining factors are political rather than legal.
....
I personally have no doubt that Scotland would be allowed to join the EU.
I'm sorry, but I've just read the full article, and that's quote-mining. Quoting out of context if you will. The gist of the article is this: It's a political matter, but Scotland is not going to be in a very good position at all. That's hardly a revelation BTW.
No, Clinton seems to think Scotland would not be allowed to join the EU. The article says what others have said: it's not credible to think the EU would not accept Scotland. We WILL be in EU, undoubtedly after negotiations and political discussions.
It would be quote mining if I were trying to change the meaning of the author's words. I wasn't, as I wasn't commenting on the main thrust of his opinion, ie what Scotland would have to do or go through to be accepted. Just pointing out the parts I quoted - that the author like me thinks Scotland would absolutely be in EU.
Incidentally, I disagree with the article. It asserts that UK would be the successor state, with Scotland being a new state. There are many legal opinions which say that is not so, because we are not talking about the UK being a single state with a small chunk becoming a new country for the first time. We are talking about the breaking of a union between two countries, Scotland and England ie GB, rendering the UK potentially non-existent.