8/12/2019 FR cte Scot 20 2 14

1/6

COMPTES RENDUS

DE LA COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES EUROPEENNES

French Senate, European Affairs Committee

extract from the official report of proceedings

20 February 2014

unofficial translation

Mme Jolle Garriaud-Maylam I travelled to Scotland on 21 Februaryat the invitation of our consul general, Pierre-Alain Coffinier, to celebratethe birthday of the poet Robert Burns, national bard of Scotland. Iattended a dinner held by the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament,Tricia Marwick, and I met with the French community there, whichnumbers over 5,000, as well as with Scottish and UK political andgovernment leaders, to discuss the issues and consequences of thereferendum on Scottish independence.

Over 4 million Scottish voters aged 16 and over, as well as over80,000 European foreigners and 400,000 [other] Brits living in Scotlandhave a vote on 18 September, when they will decide whether or not to

remain in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the 800,000 Scotswho do not live in their country cannot cast a vote. Should there be a yesvote, Scotland is set to declare independence formally in March 2016. Thequestion being asked is a simple one: Should Scotland become anindependent country? Other formulations were made, but the ElectoralCommission ruled that they might influence the voters.

Independence is firmly anchored in the Scotlands history and spirit:Scotland had a Parliament from the 13th century until 1707, the datewhen it joined together with the Kingdom of England to form the UnitedKingdom. Following the 1997 referendum, the Scotland Act provided for

the creation of a Scottish Parliament with competence to legislate in allareas not reserved to the UK Parliament, such as foreign affairs anddefence. This autonomy, limited by the UK Parliaments right to amendthe acts of the Scottish Parliament, is no longer enough for a significantproportion of the population. The pro-independence Scottish NationalParty (SNP), led by the charismatic Alex Salmond, obtained an absolutemajority of seats at the elections of 5 May 2011.

The white paper Scotlands Future, your guide to an independentScotland was presented by the Scottish Deputy First Minister, NicolaSturgeon. In her foreword, she writes: independence within the EuropeanUnion will allow Scotland to play a distinct, constructive role in thedevelopment of a wide range of policies decided on at EU level that have adirect impact on the people and economy of Scotland. According to the

8/12/2019 FR cte Scot 20 2 14

2/6

SNP, if an independent Scotland is to be a candidate for the EuropeanUnion, it will make use of the time between the referendum and the actualdate of independence to negotiate with the UK and the EU on the termsfor joining. Scotlands joining the EU would be automatic, it is claimed: itwould become the 29th Member State of the European Union without

actually having left it. The SNPs aim, of course, is to reassure the voters.

The SNP also believes that the international community would be sensitivewith regard to how the separation process would take place. London hasalready indicated that it will respect the decision of the Scots.

In order to defend its interests, which are sometimes different from thoseof the UK as regards the common agricultural policy (CAP), structuralfunds, fishing, energy, the environment and research, an independentScotland would have its own European commissioner and judge on theCourt of Justice of the European Union, and twice as many MEPs. At thesame time, however, most Scots remain hostile to adopting the euro.

At the end of January, London responded with a document entitledScotland analysis: EU and international issues. Even if the polls havestill been indicating a win for the no side, the pro-independence sidestress that the campaign has not yet started. One poll at the end ofJanuary put support for a yes vote at 46%; this morning, Reuters givesthem one third. An increasing number of opinions are being expressed byUK leaders: David Cameron asked all [other] British people to convincethe Scots to reject independence, and George Osborne went to Edinburghon 12 February to deliver a strong message, warning in particular thatnothing obliged the British [rUK] to share the pound sterling.

Furthermore, the finance minister accused the SNP of just makingassertions and threats without foundation.

The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, in what is a sort of sacred union,have also opposed the independence process. This confirms the majoranxiety of the British and the Europeans. Jos Manuel Barroso declaredthat he was hostile to any part of the territory of a Member State ceasingto belong to it, as that would make a third State, as far as the EuropeanUnion was concerned, to which the treaties would no longer apply.Romano Prodi (in 2004) and Hermann Van Rompuy have not saidotherwise. According to them, Scotland would have to negotiate itsmembership of the European Union according to the normal procedure.The President of the European Commission recently compared theScottish situation to that of Kosovo. This example is debatable, as Kosovoseceded from Serbia, a State that is not a member of the EuropeanUnion; the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and also Croatia,were previously secessionist States.

London emphasises that, in the case of independence, continuingmembership of the European Union would not be accepted, which couldoblige Scotland to undergo a long process of application for membership.Would Scotland be stronger with regard to the UN if it was independent orpart of the UK, which entitles it to a seat on the Security Council?

Independence would also mean that it would lose access to the G8 andthe G20. How would Scotland negotiate the reassignment of hydrocarbon

8/12/2019 FR cte Scot 20 2 14

3/6

[oil] reserves, which make up 91% of British production, with London?How would it do without the exceptional strength of the Britishpromotional network for tourism and Scottish products? London suggeststhat Scotland would not automatically benefit from the various opt-outclauses that the UK has, especially on the euro, border controls with the

Schengen area and matters concerning the police and criminal law.

For its part, the Scottish Government argues that Scotland is already inthe EU, fully implements the acquis communautaireand therefore wouldnot be compelled to renegotiate its membership just some adaptationsto the existing treaties.

On 16 February, Jos Manuel Barroso once again insisted on therequirement for all Member States to agree on the Scottish request formembership, including Spain, which, it is known, would oppose it so asnot to encourage the pro-independence tendencies of Catalonia, forexample.

London has said that the cost of independence would be considerable forScotland, which would be deprived of any share of the rebate granted forthe British contribution to the European budget. Its net contribution wouldtherefore increase by 2.2 billion euros over the current budgetary period,compared with staying in the UK. According to analysts in London, thiswould mean a cost of 840 euros per household in Scotland. The currencyissue is essential. Scotland has been sharing the pound sterling with the[other] British since 1707.

Following the independence of Ireland and India and the break-up of its

Empire, the loss of Scotland would mean the UK losing a third of itsterritory, would take away 70% of its continental shelf, would reduce itsGDP by 10%, would erode its international status and would threaten itsseat on the UN Security Council. The defence policy of the UK, Francesforemost strategic partner, would also be particularly affected, withScotland playing host to a significant share of the UK defence industriesand the whole of its nuclear deterrent. As the UK is our one real Europeandefence partner, that should be a matter of concern for us.

There is no precedent for a region that wishes both to separate from anEU Member State and to remain in the EU. Legally, the position of thosecalling for Scottish independence is not guaranteed. Indeed, in

international law, the break-up of a State that confers the status ofsuccessor State on the States that emerge generally concerns federalStates. The UK, which is not a party to the 1978 Vienna Convention onSuccession of States, remains a unitary State, despite the progress ofdevolution in its various nations since 1998-1999. The party that detachesitself from a unitary State has a status of successor State, and the pre-existing state takes that of continuator State upon dissolution. Only thesuccessor state applies as a candidate for the international organisationsthat it wants to join. The Irish precedent, which is perhaps the mostpertinent in the case of Scotland, is interesting. At the time of its creationin 1922, the new Irish State applied to join the League of Nations,

whereas the United Kingdoms international position remained unchanged.According to this precedent, an independent Scotland would have to apply

8/12/2019 FR cte Scot 20 2 14

4/6

to join the European Union.

Even staying with a federalist scenario, the pro-independence positionwould not be any more secure. When a federation is dissolved, none ofthe successor states automatically inherits the rights and obligations of

the predecessor State. Following the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, theCzech Republic and Slovakia each applied to join the UN. The situation ofRussia, which was recognised as continuator State of the Soviet Union,and which inherited its seat as a permanent member of the SecurityCouncil, may be considered as an exception, essentially linked to theSoviet nuclear arsenal.

In the event of an independent Scotland wishing to join the EuropeanUnion, it is possible that many Member States will not seek to facilitate itsapplication, as has been well demonstrated by the recent statements ofMr Barroso. States facing independence movements including those ofthe Catalans in Spain, the Flemish in Belgium or even the Northern

League in Italy could prove to be hostile to the move. It is said that thelarger Member States would no doubt seek to preserve the status quo,and there may be a widespread desire to avoid creating a precedent.

It should be asked, however, how realistic these declarations are, bearingin mind the practical consequences that would flow from any suspensionof more than 40 years of Community cooperation at the same time thatan independent Scotland wishes to re-enter the Union. It seemsreasonable to suppose that most Member States will align themselveswith the position of London, which has already indicated that it willrespect the results of the referendum.

The European treaties do not contain provisions on the secession of partsof Member States. On the other hand, under the terms of article 50 ofthe Treaty on European Union [Maastricht treaty], the withdrawal of aMember State is subject to preliminary negotiations with the Europeaninstitutions and the Member States before it can take effect. By analogy,the future of an independent Scotland in the European Union could benegotiated before its change of status in relation to the United Kingdomunder article 48 of the treaty, rather than article 49, on the normaladmission procedure.

What could the result of the referendum be? Although most observers

think that the no side should win, the campaign has only just begun. Forleaders in Scotland, it is a matter of taking the step of testing how muchtheir ideas have progressed. Despite the 2011 electoral landslide, MrSalmond scheduled the referendum for as distant a date as possible so asto be able to convince the maximum number of voters. This year marksthe 500th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, where the Scotsdefeated the English despite the overwhelming numerical superiority ofthe latter. Scotland will also host the Commonwealth games. Nothingshould be pre-judged. 71% of Scots feel that their interests would betterbe defended by a Scottish Government, although 65% still want Londonto take charge of defence and foreign relations. Mr Salmond responded to

Mr Osbornes attacks by attributing them to the Westminster elites,saying that if London refused to share the currency, he would refuse to

8/12/2019 FR cte Scot 20 2 14

5/6

share British public debt.

Mr Cameron wants to avoid being a Lord North of Scotland, referring tohis predecessor who lost the American colonies in 1776. These arefundamental issues for Europe. The secession of Scotland could affect the

result of the 2017 UK referendum on EU membership.It would be useful to present a more complete report before the end ofthe summer.

M. Simon Sutour (chairman) It would be a contradiction to calloneself a democrat and to be troubled by the result of a vote, as theMoroccan Prime Minister commented to us. In this case, we can berelieved that the no side should win.

Mme Jolle Garriaud-Maylam That is not certain.

M. Simon Sutour (chairman) Larger States are always worth morethan their fragmentation into smaller entities, as we have seen with thebreak-up of Yugoslavia. Catalonia is unable to organise as clear a vote [asin Scotland], but its leaders are supporters of independence.

M. Jean Bizet This is a timely report. This is a matter that could helpour English friends resolve their ambiguity in relation to the EuropeanUnion. I regret the fact that an ill wind is blowing over Europe and fanningidentity-based tensions, as was demonstrated a few days ago by the votein Switzerland. At the same time, Richard Yungs report clearly shows thatthe European Union has not failed: since the 2008 financial crisis, the EUhas achieved the considerable task of restructuring and rationalisation.

Regrettably, public opinion is not aware of this, and there are anincreasing number of publications predicting the end of the Union. I hopethat the situation will be resolved positively, and that Mr Cameronscomments on Europe will be moderated. The European Union needs theUnited Kingdom, but the opposite is also true.

M. Pierre Bernard-Reymond Do the parties of the far right in Europehave a position on the referendum?

Mme Jolle Garriaud-Maylam Not as far as I know.

M. Andr Gattolin Well done on this communication, which is well

timed. Peoples have the right to self-determination, especially when theirdesire for independence rests on a genuine national culture and tradition;the European framework strongly ensures coherence. That said, suchirredentism always arises in rich regions or in those that discover someeconomic potential that they do not wish to share. Catalonia considersthat it would manage better without Spain. We have also let abnormalsituations develop to the advantage of certain areas. The exceptionalstatus of Rotterdam and Antwerp is scandalous, for example.

M. Jean Bizet Quite true.

M. Andr Gattolin The comments of the President of the EuropeanCommission, Mr Barroso, were quite misplaced: as the European Union

8/12/2019 FR cte Scot 20 2 14

6/6

has not drawn up any rules regarding a Member State leaving, I do notsee how we could make Scotland recommence accession procedures.

I find it hard to understand how Scots outside Scotland do not have theright to vote. Is that to do with the status of citizenship within the

Commonwealth?M. Simon Sutour (chairman) The economic aspect should not maskthe identity and culture aspects: the Scottish language [presumablyreferring to Gaelic trans.] has been massacred, and is now only spokenin a residual sense. Scottish culture has suffered from its integration in alarger whole. The Catalans, for their part, have managed to preserve theirlanguage. It might seem unseemly to see rich regions wanting to becomelike Norway, effectively, but it is also a backlash.

Mme Jolle Garriaud-Maylam Scotland was independent until 1707,and it developed a national culture, symbolised by Burns in particular,

which lives on though the diaspora. Did you know that Carnegie wasScottish, for example?

M. Andr Gattolin I did not know that.

Mme Jolle Garriaud-Maylam Of course, the Spanish Government isvehemently opposed to Catalan independence. Mr Barrosos threats areinappropriate and are the result of Spanish and English pressure; Londonis becoming more and more concerned. They are not credible: if Scotlandvotes for independence, it will remain in the European Union. It is toomuch in Englands interests for it to be otherwise. The SNP has said that itwants the Queen to remain as sovereign in Scotland.

Scots residing outside Scotland may not vote. That shocked me, too, butit corresponds with Anglo-Saxon culture [i.e. British / that of English-speaking countries trans.], where it is considered that only those whopay their taxes in the country may vote. That said, people living abroadalso make a contribution to the wealth of their country. British peopleliving outside of their country have the right to vote on the condition thatthis absence does not exceed 15 years: Mrs Thatcher provided for a limitof 18 years, but that was reduced by Labour. British emigration isdifferent from ours: they have less temporary emigration than permanentmoves. The 800,000 Scots living outside Scotland are very proud of their

origins, and they could have influenced the vote. Curiously, the SNPmade no protest about this. The number of European foreigners who haverequested to vote has increased by 16%. One SNP member of theParliament is French, and that is not a problem.

M. Simon Sutour (chairman) So, there will be two importantconsultations in September: the referendum on Scottish independenceand the senatorial elections.

Meeting closed at 12.30.

translation (unofficial) Robert Arnott, March 2014