EU and Euro
his all hinges on whether Scotland would be considered a successor state to the UK, or whether it would be considered an entirely new state. Would Germany, which imports much of its oil from Scotland, want to ensure Scotland remained a part of the EU? Or would Merkell and Sarkozy go along with Davie Cameron, who royally pisses them off and brings nothing to Europe except an Etonian sense of entitlement?
Let's assume that the EU decides to support Westminster in its epic sulk, and demands that Scotland reapply to join the EU but England-Wales-Northern Ireland remained a member. This would mean that Scotland is considered an entirely new state. In that circumstance, international law is very clear that Scotland would not be bound by any of the obligations of the UK. Amongst other things, that means that Scotland would not be required to take on a single penny of UK national debt. UK national debt is a UK obligation. The UK ruined the banks, so the UK can pay for it.
It's very much in Westminster's interests to ensure that Scotland is treated as a joint successor state and that Scotland remains a member of the EU, otherwise we get to walk off Scot-free and without any national debt at all. We could leave that mess to Westminster to sort out, and begin independent life as an energy rich debt-free nation. In that fortunate financial circumstance, surviving a couple of years as we apply for EU membership may well be worth it.
Another reason Westminster is blustering on this issue is that the UK was formed by the Union of Scotland and England in 1707. The state formed by that Union signed the EU membership treaties. When Scotland becomes independent, then the UK ceases to exist, and England-Wales-Northern-Ireland are in exactly the same legal situation as Scotland, because the state comprising England Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign the EU accession treaties either. This is the opinion of a former Labour Lord Chancellor, who was asked about it by no less a person than Norman On Yer Bike Tebbit, no fan of Scottish self-determination. Tebbit quoted the unnamed Lord Chancellor as saying: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."
This opinion is also shared by EU lawyers. According to a report in the Scotsman, the EU would treat Scotland and the rump-UK equally as successor states. Both would continue as EU members, but would have to renegotiate their terms of membership. That puts Westminster's precious opt-outs at risk, so you can see why they're keeching themselves on this issue. The matter would be decided by a majority vote in the EU Council, so no country could veto Scottish membership.
No country can be forced into the euro. The Czech Republic joined the EU in 2004, after the euro had been adopted as the common currency of the original 11 members of the Eurozone. The Czechs won't be bounced into the euro, and have consistently refused to make moves to adopt it.
In January 2012, Czech Prime Minister Petr Nečas stated that the country did not require a special opt-out in order to retain the koruna as its currency. Mr Nečas said: "No one can force us into joining the euro ... We have a de facto opt-out." Candidates for euro membership must sign up to ERM II for at least two years before adopting the euro as currency, however it is entirely up to the discretion of each individual member state when to sign up to ERM II and member countries can legitimately delay this indefinitely. But Mr Nečas said all this in Czech, so it wasn't reported in the Anglocentric Unionist media.
This approach has also been adopted by the government of Sweden which has likewise declined to join the Eurozone but has no negotiated opt-out.