Interesting article in the national today on scotland's EU membership, makes some valid points; most Scots are pro-EU and many MEPs are sympathetic. However... the devil is in the details https://www.thenational.scot/news/17754150.senior-meps-positive-indy-scotland-rejoining-eu/

Even this most optimistic of pro-indy sycophantic, nationalist propaganda mouthpieces ; the most openly biased newspaper in the UK, is forced in its quotes to include 2 caveats : 'ticks all the boxes" and "meets the Copenhagen Criteria"

Now sadly twitter is awash with many people who will guarantee you an independent Scotland will waltz into the EU but don't seem to have even *heard* of the Copenhagen criteria. You can practically sense then googling frantically when you ask...

It's boring, detailed and doesn't fit into a nice rabble-rousing tweet, but there's no real mystery to the process, which makes it amazing that so many Scots are so willingly mislead on an iScots prospect for EU membership.

The first thing to appreciate is that the EU is a body defined and operated by treaty law. It's summarised nicely in the letter from the EC to the Scottish Parliament in response to a question. It makes it clear if we had voted yes in 2014 we would be voting to leave the EU

This letter is worth examining as an example of evidence. It's an official letter of the legal position, from the body that decides, and it's in the public record published on the Scottish parliament's website. As evidence It's credentials are impeccable.

https://www.parliament.scot/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf

When Alex Salmond lied that he had legal advice saying we would stay in the EU, he had this letter saying the opposite.

When Nicola Sturgeon said there was no risk to an iScots EU status with a yes vote ...she had this letter

But when challenged with the incontrovertible evidence a yes vote would see us out of the EU, the fallback position is to jump to the next paragraph and claim iScot could easily get in. But this is the process that requires meeting the Copenhagen Criteria.

The next pitfall is even if they do conceed that an iScot would have left with a yes vote, and that we would need to apply, and to meet the Copenhagen criteria, often the level of understanding stops at a high-level summary like this one;

They may argue "We've been in the EU for 40 years"... The EU is above all else a legal body and, legally, Scotland is not and never has been an EU member State. Scotland is not a signatory to any EU treaties.

Scotland does meet *many* of the criteria ; laws aligned etc. But the devil is in the details. "ALL the boxes need to be tickes" not *most* of the boxes.

How exactly an iScot doesn't meet the criteria mainly rests on the economic criteria; but the exact problems are different with different independence scenarios.

Though it's worth saying that a unilateral declaration of independence, or a disputed negotiated exit would likely put us in a similar position to Kosovo whose application is blocked while their international recognition is disputed.

The SNPs own figures put an iScots nominal structural deficit at about £13bn or about 9% of GDP. That's not as much of a problem as you might think.

The EU define a deficit over 3% of GDP as excessive, but Croatia joined with a deficit of 5.6% ; because it had a track record of implementing an EU approved deficit reduction plan . ( It's now below 3%)

So the SNP could simply admit that their economic plan for indy is to impose mega-austerity of an additional £9+ billion cuts in public spending right when we would need to invest hugely in transfer and set up costs... Or not meet the criteria

If implementing the Growth Commission plans; they call for a decade or more of 'Sterlingisation' ; where interest rates, quantitative easing and exchange rate alignment would be decided in a non-eu http://rUK.so  we wouldn't meet macroeconomic stability criteria

If we don't have a central bank; we don't have a fully functioning free market economy, another criteria

If we divert revenue to a currency reserve and borrow for the set up costs, with a view to launching a currency there are other issues caused;

1) it would take several years, even in optimal conditions 2) it may push our debt to GDP ratio beyond what's acceptable to the EU 3) once launched it would take several years for new currency volatility to settle into an established record of stability

And *this isn't the process to become a member* this is just the process to qualify to apply to become a member, after which stage there are on average a decade of negotiations, membership needs ratified by every other member state, and can be vetoed by any of them for any reason

I'm in the largest constitutional demographic in Scotland ; the 28% who see the benefit in flawed but beneficial economic and political unions.

If we did end up in an iScot I'd probably want it to be in the EU, but the fact is we are being sold a pup by politicians presenting it as a near automatic 'done-deal' when it is anything but.

And europhiles beware, this new found Europeanism is always secondary to the primary aim. 5 years ago when challenged that an iScot wouldn't gain EU membership Nicola Sturgeon's first reaction was to threaten EU residents here. I haven't forgotten that.

The tactics don't change. Grossly oversimplify the legal process, Promise the impossible - meeting Copenhagen while using another non-eu member's currency, emotional oratory about being ripped out of Europe, attacks on MSM that question if we will get in the EU... #DemagogueBingo

The sheer cognitive dissonance of railing against an admittedly worrying harder border in Ireland while denying an iScot in the EU would need a harder border with a non EU rUK...

Done of course while wearing the white rose of SNP founder Hugh McDairmed who wrote "What we need in Scotland is another Ulster"

Brexit is a terrible idea, an absolute scam. But the solution to being sold one pup by nationalist seperatists with a loose relation to pre-referendum facts isn't to jump into bed with other nationalist seperatists on the rebound.

To lose one flawed, but on the whole beneficial economic, political and social union may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose both looks like carelessness. #Brexit #indyref2

Addenda; some are claiming that because the financial figures come from GERS, they are inaccurate so don't count...
Point; If GERS are utterly wrong *that in itself means we can't meet the criteria*, as we couldn't demonstrate the financial history with robust national accounts.

Addenda 2; this analysis gives a bit more detail of what is actually measured in the economic criteria. Note; a new currency means no track record in price stability. Currency union or peg means no control of interest rates. There is no shortcut to meet them.