Scotland in Europe

~ Peter A Bell

Should an Independent Scotland seek to join the EU,
or does EFTA provide a more appropriate and viable alternative?

Prepared by Geoff Bush for SSRG and Independence Forum Scotland

ABSTRACT

This paper was written in order to more fully inform the debate about whether Scotland should apply for membership of the EU or the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) on becoming an independent country. EFTA is less well known than the EU so we explain the structure and purpose of EFTA, and outline what EFTA actually does in the interests of its member states, and also what it does not do in terms of the lack of constraints it imposes on the state interests of its members. EFTA is the gateway into the European Economic Area (EEA) or Single Market for its members, who as EEA/EFTA states have access to the Single Market of 450 million people.

We look even-handedly at Scotland’s objectives in applying to join the EU or EFTA on becoming independent and compare the benefits and drawbacks of each course of action. For the purposes of this comparison we draw mostly on the list of EU membership benefits published by the Scottish Government in November 2023.

There are many important practical political and economic issues associated with the choice between the EFTA and EU options for Scotland in Europe. These include timescales for membership, EU accession requirements, perceptions that EFTA members are lacking in influence, trade with England, and a good deal more.

Our conclusions are that EFTA membership needs to be seriously considered as a rapid and effective path for Scotland in Europe. EFTA offers many additional advantages over the more widely and exclusively promoted proposals that Scotland should apply for EU membership. In the longer term Scotland as an EFTA member could apply to join the EU based on any perceived advantages at that time, and based on a clear expression that it was the will of the Scottish people.

CONTENTS

  1. Introduction
  2. What is EFTA, structure & operations. How is it different from the EU. What are the European Economic Area (EEA) and the EEA Agreement?
  3. What are Scotland’s objectives in applying to join the EU on independence?
  4. What are Scotland’s objectives in applying to join EFTA and subsequently the EEA on independence?
  5. Discussion of some Practical Political issues associated with Scotland joining either EFTA or the EU. The Realpolitick of Scotland in Europe
  6. Conclusions
Scotland in EuropeDownload

Published by Peter A Bell

Thinker. Listener. Talker. Reader. Writer. No attitude immutable. No conclusion final. No opinion humble. Lifelong campaigner for the restoration of Scotland's independence.

20 thoughts on “Scotland in Europe”

  1. I agree Peter EFTA I think allows us access to the EU market but will less (I hope) bureaucratic red tape. I feel full membership of the EU would give the EU bigwigs far too much say in Scottish affairs, I think the ISP party was first to push for a Scottish EFTA membership.

    I used to have a lot of respect for the EU, but that has faded due to what they are doing to their farmers, their backing for the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, their continued and full support and their funding for the war in Ukraine (the EU recently agreed a whopping 50 billion Euro package for Ukraine) whilst EU citizens suffer higher prices on everything with the Atlanticists running the show in the EU parliaments.

    So EFTA it is.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. It’s not my work. You have Geoff Bush to thank for the document. I am not at all persuaded that EFTA membership is the wondrous thing some are making it out to be. I smell a strong odour of pandering to the anti-EU mob.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Peter, no not a wonderous thing not by a long shot, but its a means to accessing the EU market for Scottish businesses, for me that’s all its worth.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Haven’t read the paper but AFAIK EFTA members would have to agree to accept Scotland as a member. They might, (I seem to remember they said they would during Brexit), as Scotland is a small country, unlike the UK which they refused to accept as it was too big and liable to domineer the others.
          EFTA members are in the position of “rule takers, not rule makers” since they apply EU directives but have no voice in their making, not being members of the EU. Would that suit an Independent Scotland?

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. Good idea to read the paper BenM. On your specific points, there is little doubt that EFTA members would accept Scotland as a member – unlike the SG we (SSRG) have been and talked directly with EFTA – and you are right Scotland is a good “fit” with EFTA. On the “rule taker” vs “rule maker” issue, there are 3 points to make. First is that EFTA countries are members of the EEA (single market) and as such they are consulted early in the EU’s rule-making process, and their views are seriously taken into account. Second is that if EFTA countries do not like the rules proposed by the EU, then they are free to opt out of these – like Norway when the EU proposed control over N.Sea resources. Thirdly as a so-called “rule maker” within the EU Scotland, as a very small component in the EU would simply have to go along with new rules, and would have neither a veto thanks to qualified majority voting nor the ability to opt out.

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

            1. There are two Councils, the first is the European Council, the heads of state, and decisions are mostly reached by concensus. These are at the level when members could simply refuse (effectively a veto).

              In the Council of the EU (Known as “the Council”), Scotland would actually be one member same as Germany when it comes to QMV for the part about “55% of member states vote in favour”:

              “A qualified majority is reached if two conditions are simultaneously met:

              55% of member states vote in favour - in practice this means 15 out of 27
the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population

              This procedure is also known as the ‘double majority rule’.”

              So it’s an “AND”, not an “OR”, though “The blocking minority must include at least four Council members”

              https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/

              The EU likes to empower smaller nations, and for such a vote smaller members can wring out concessions from the larger.

              I did a guide on the EU, but stopped bothering keeping it up to date in 2020 (https://yesindyref2.wordpress.com/)

              Liked by 2 people

              Reply

        2. I suspect there may be a bit more to it than that.

          One of the things that troubles me about any EFTA membership proposal is that is only a way of avoiding proposing EU membership and thus calling down the wrath of the Farage-faithful. Those proposing EFTA membership would doubtless insist that they have strong moral/ethical reasons for rejecting EU membership – citing the bloc’s response to the Gaza genocide, among other things. But there’s a big chunk of hypocrisy in this position given that EFTA is dependent on the EU.

          The whole ‘rule-takers’ aspect of EFTA membership is also problematic. Or potentially so. It seems a rather high price paid in lack of influence for what is really only token distancing from the EU. That the existing members of EFTA tolerate this is no guarantee that Scotland would long be able to.

          Another point is that, if people don’t like the way the EU is, then eschewing full membership in favour of being a rule-taker without influence is just about the worst way imaginable to change things. It is certainly possible to envisage Scotland combining with other ‘small’ nations within the EU to counter-balance Franco-German domination.

          All things considered; I’d have to put myself down as a shrugger on the EU/EFTA question. Independence isn’t an event. It’s a status. We must reckon on Scotland being an independent nation for a long time. Things change. There is unlikely to be any arrangement which is ideal in all circumstances and at all times. The point of independence is that it restores to the people of Scotland capacity to fully exercise our sovereignty as the nation adapts to changing circumstances. I am fully confident that we will handle that process of adapting better when we do it ourselves in our own interests rather than having another country’s corrupt and inept political elite do it for us.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. EFTA are not rule takers Peter, that is a myth perpetrated by the pro EU lobby, – why would they do that ? Scotland as an EU member is more of a rule-taker than EFTA members in that it would have very little influence on decision making, effectively no vote on the big decisions regardless of whether these were in our interests due to qualified majority voting, and no way of opting out of decisions made by the majority and not necessarily in Scotland’s interests – remind you of anything ?

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. “These are arguments that you often hear. I do not think there is any doubt that there are some advantages in EFTA/EEA, in terms of sovereignty as compared to the EU, for example in terms of the right of reservation. However, the right of reservation is really only a right to delay. For example, Norway managed to delay the implementation of the postal liberalisation directive, but ultimately it had to fold. I am sure you know the quote from the current NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. He has been saying that, when he was Prime Minister of Norway, his own country was a “fax democracy”. Now, again, you are right that at the moment, if you are a member of the EU, there is QMV so you do not have a veto. However, what is very important in this is that, as an EFTA/EEA member state, one is obliged to take up 100% of the relevant legislation. It is true that many of the European Union rules are not relevant to countries like Iceland or Norway, and there is often a bit of haggling about the question whether a piece of legislation is actually relevant or not. Fundamentally, if regulations are relevant, an EFTA/EEA member state has to apply it.”

              https://www.stephenkinnock.co.uk/busting-the-rule-takers-myth/#:~:text=These%20are%20arguments,to%20apply%20it.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

            2. The populations are slightly out of date (2019), but if iScotland were in the EU -Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Croatia, Ireland, Scotland, Slovakia, Finland and Denmark with a total population of 41,296,400 could stop or force changes to EU legislation for a population of 452,272,900 – 9.13% of the total.

              Compare that to the UK where Scotland with 8% has absolutely no influence at all. Nil, nada, zilch, nihil!

              Liked by 2 people

              Reply

          2. EFTA members are not part of the EU Customs Union, that’s the biggie. EFTA is also able to reach separate trade agreements with whoever they like.

            Like

            Reply

      2. There are at least 3 options for Scotland’s trading and other relationships with Europe post independence. Join the EU, join EFTA, go it alone with bilateral trade deals. The paper attempts to be objective, but doesn’t sit on the fence in its conclusions.

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

  2. Thanks to Geoff Bush and SSRG/Independence Forum Scotland for producing this thoughtful and informative paper and to Peter A Bell for publishing it on his blog.

    Just as it is crucial that Salvo are educating the public on the people’s sovereignty through the Claim of Right (1689) and pre-1707 Scottish Constitution as well as our people’s inalienable right of self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter it is important that people like those comprising the SSRG are preparing the groundwork and planning for the challenges that will face Scotland on its return to independent statehood.

    Whilst the paper argues for EFTA and the EEA as Scotland’s route back ‘into Europe’ it sensibly avoids tying this to a vote for Independence itself.

    This is already refreshingly different from the SNP/Scottish Government “Independence in the EU” supposed ‘campaign’ which, as the authors point out, is both contradictory and self-defeating. (In addition the latter position is stupid as it risks alienating the large minority of YES supporters from 2014 voted “Leave” in the 2016 EU Membership referendum of 2016).

    However, all that folk really need to know for now on our future relationship with European trading partners is that:

    a) Scotland’s people will have a menu of options from which to choose
    b) The alternatives seemingly on offer are viable
    c) The people will be able to make an informed decision
    d) Political representatives will be mandated to pursue the people’s preference

    And that all this will be done post-Independence.

    Just as the SNP “Independence in the EU” campaign is Independence itself is not conditional on Scotland being ‘in Europe’ (however preferential one of these variants may be).

    This paper seems to me to reasonably summarise what being ‘in Europe’ could mean and imply for a future Independent Scotland without compromising the non-negotiability of Scotland’s Cause.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

  3. I haven’t read it yet Geoff, but on general principles I do think that EFTA should be considered as an alternative to the EU, and indeed needs more understanding, consideration and debate.

    Personally I’m open-minded.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. That is the main purpose of the work that has gone into the paper, to open the debate in the face of the irrational and one-sided campaigning which we are being subjected to by the pro-EU advocates. I’m very pissed off that Scotland is no longer in the EU, I’m an EU enthusiast in many ways, but joining EFTA and the EEA will bring Scotland all of the major benefits of EU membership, much sooner than applying to join the EU, and without the restrictions imposed by EU membership.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  4. As the emphasis appears to tend towards matters AFTER independence in this hypothesis is any consideration on how we first achieve independence now null and void?

    Scotland has been subject to ‘rule taking’ for centuries now and it has not served our condition OR cause well. Scotland, WHEN it achieves Independence, may well find itself
    not short of suitors in a changing world particularly with the emergence of BRICS and the huge potential of new markets on a vast scale.

    Derek Henry in his comments on YOURS FOR SCOTLAND makes for interesting if not controversial opinion on the concepts surrounding EFTA ,EEA and the EU, in the meantime we have but one task; #END THE UNION!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  5. since independence has stalled and is not going to happen the european situation is possibly going to be different by the time we are ready to do anything

    Like

    Reply

  6. I made a mistake when I attributed the three ways of Scotland becoming independent to Aidan O’Neill, it was him commenting on a paper by Arabella Thorp and Gavin Thompson on the International relations viewpoint, specially regards EU membership at the time (2011).

    “Scotland, independence and the EU”

    https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06110/SN06110. pdf (remove space before pdf)

    It was him commenting on their paper I’d seen at the time, or a re-reporting of it:

    A Quarrel in a Faraway Country?: Scotland, Independence and the EU

    So Annex A of the UK Government’s very first paper against Independence in 2013 was probably based on their paper, and countering the two (separation and dissolution) that didn’t favour the Continuing UK claim by them, their paid for view that the Treaty and Acts of Union no longer sound as a treaty, even if they ever were one. And that therefore the UK is the Continuing UK, and Scotland a new state (secession).

    It’s always knowing what is most important to the enemy, because that is their weak point to exploit. In the case of the UK Government, it’s the treaty of Union. Which is why it was the subject of their very first white paper.

    I did wonder why the ScotGov at the time and YES Scotland didn’t seize on this and make it a mainstay of the campaign. I put it down to “Keep your legal advice to yourself”. Now I wonder.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.