AntelopeValley @AchatAVendre where did you get the minimum of 8 years from? Sweden 4 years, Finland 2/3 years with negotiations beginning in Feb 1993 Croatia 11 years. Of course, it depends on what you count as the start. I have counted when countries apply for membership. But some countries have their own referendums with citizens about whether to join the EU and many years of public debate before actually applying. But the process can take 2-3 years or can take longer. Generally, the more unstable a country is, or the larger and more complex a country is, the longer it takes.
No. No. No.
The accession procedure is the end of the entire accession procedure of various stages. By the time a country has reached accession, it will already have spent many years in negotiation and being guided by the EU Commission on how to prepare its application. Countries don't just apply, they have to be invited to apply by the EU.
So, long before the application process begins, a country enters into a dialogue with the EU. Article 49 of the TEU sets out the four stages of accession, and all of the EU member states must approve this. The 4 stages are:
(1) application
(2) candidate status
(3) negotiation
(4) accession
Moving on from any of the stages requires unanimity and the agreement of the EU institutions, both the Commission and the Council, and the EU Parliament also being involved.
Countries which want to even apply must respect the EU's fundamental values of democracy, rule of law, human rights and fully functioning market economies with the ability to withstand competition in the single market. I don't think people really understand what this means. In practice, countries must welcome competition from the rest of the EU into its own established markets and not place obstacles in their way.
There are 35 chapters of EU law that have to be negotiated and the laws in the country in question are examined in microscopic detail. It would be a massive problem for Scotland that it has a unicameral legislature (there is no second independent body examining legislation and instead it is approved by committees of MSPs who make the legislation they are examining) and it is astonishing that at this stage of the Scottish independence debate, with talk of a second referendum, that the party promoting it i.e. the SNP haven't addressed this and other issues in detail. It is highly unlikely that the EU would permit Scotland to be the only country in Europe with a non-bicameral legislature as it affects the separation of powers and the rule of law but this is where EU interference comes in - all those MSPs lining their pockets with pet projects and all those "nice to have pieces of legislation coming out of the Scottish Parliament" would probably not see the light of day in an EU country and many of them would have to be got rid of. I'm thinking of micro-interference with the market on areas ranging from holiday let licensing to minimum alcohol pricing. Unlikely to even allow an NHS because it doesn't meet EU competition law requirements because its a single, non-competitive supplier of health services in a closed market.
Since 2020, there have been even more robust criteria for accession so that stronger demands can be made of candidate countries' respect for the rule of law and the functioning of democratic institutions. Since the much vaunted (by the Scottish Parliament at least) committee system seems to be modelled on the former Iron Curtain countries before their overthrow and not on a modern, accountable system of constitutionally enshrined checks and balances, its surprising that the SNP hasn't paid more attention to reforming the institutions of state so as to get them ready for EU candidature.
I haven't even mentioned the economic criteria which Scotland doesn't meet and seems unlikely to. The SNP can't even provide a plan for which currency they would use in the event of independence.
As a result, I'm not sure that I really believe the SNP on how keen they are on EU membership. They changed their mind on oil and gas quickly enough. The former White Paper last time around on the EU membership issue claimed that the Court of Justice of the EU "supported" Scottish candidature, which is patently wrong - it certainly isn't the court's job to do such a thing - along with claiming that there would be a "Scottish version of the ECHR", rather than a promise to sign up.
If I were going to vote for Scottish independence (which I'm not), I would be looking for a far greater and more active commitment to EU laws and values right now, rather than these wishy washy vague and often pie in the sky claims that are forming part of the debate. I don't think support for Scotland joining the EU is that high within many EU member states. The EU was last enlarged because its better to have your neighbouring countries with you than against you, particularly where they are themselves neighboured by Russia. That isn't the case for Scotland, which is on the periphery of Europe and which offers no real economic advantages in market accessibility either - most of its trade is done with England and it is awkward and expensive to get to with a limited population size of only 5 million once you have overcome those hurdles. Its also not in the least Scandinavian in nature - its a celtic country predominately. Norway hasn't joined the EU because it has a massive oil fund but the SNP has done an about turn and doesn't like oil any more so without the EU its difficult to see an independent Scotland being very prosperous - and lack of prosperity is why it joined the UK way back in 1707.
Current applicant countries are Turkey (since 1987), North Macedonia (2004), Montenegro (2008), Albania (2009) and Serbia (also 2009) and they are all stuck because they do not meet accession criteria.
Added to that the last enlargement of the EU for former Eastern European member states was ludicrously expensive for the richer member states and that several of them have caused problems since in failing to meet EU values (namely Hungary, notoriously and repeatedly) and Poland (with its forced retirement of independent judges in favour of government appointees for one matter), I really can't see the EU rushing to embrace an independent Scotland. Theres just not enough gain for the EU, its non-compliant in too many areas and theres unlikely to be unanimity to even allow it to progress its membership. Basically, existing EU member states would have to unanimously approve giving Scotland lots of money in funding to address its balance of trade deficit and national debt and then the EU would pretty much spend the next however many number of years telling the Scottish Parliament that they would have to repeal many of its newest laws or change them. The new Hate Crime bill for example clearly breaches the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights in a number of areas, not lest the rights to respect for family life and to privacy.
So an independent Scotland would certainly be outwith both the EU and the UK and possibly not even a signatory to the ECHR. Those are hard facts, rather than vague promises by a political party.