Letters: It could easily take 20 years for Scotland to rejoin the EU

Mr Avery claims "passing the [Copenhagen Criteria)] test shouldn’t be difficult”. But this test requires the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities; a functioning market economy; and the ability to take on the obligations of membership. To show stability, the EU looks for a track record which is defined as "the irreversible, sustained and verifiable implementation of reforms and policies for a long enough period to allow for a permanent change in the expectations and behaviour of economic agents and for judging that achievements will be lasting". In practice for every recent accession that track record has been at least four to five years. Given that, in an independent Scotland, many of the institutions would have to be created from scratch after independence in a landscape shaped by UK exit negotiations, it's extremely optimistic to expect we will show the required stable track record in three to four years.

Mr Avery states: "It’s obvious that Scotland could meet the criteria for a "functioning market economy", but it is far from obvious if you look at what that means, i.e macroeconomic stability, including adequate price stability as well as sustainable public finances and external accounts. When we don't know what currency we would use, and against what economic landscape, it's not obvious that we could instantly build a three- to four-year track record in price stability. He states that the “question of currency … is a tricky one” which is a giant understatement.

This question is fundamental to meeting the criteria. Joining the EU requires closing all 35 chapters of the Acquis. Chapter 17 of the Acquis is on monetary policy. An independent Scotland still using the British pound would not have an independent monetary policy.

The EU, for its own stability, would not allow a member state whose currency, at any time, could be unilaterally devalued by the rUK's decision to quantitative-ease or some other measure. So rather than considering Finland as the example to anchor to, perhaps it would be better to look at the Scottish Government's own, heavily redacted, feasibility study into EU membership which says "it might be worthwhile looking more at Montenegro's accession. Independent since 2006. In 2008, the new country applied for EU membership". Indeed it did, but Monenegro is still not a member 14 years on from application. Without its own currency, and having handed control of its economy to the EU, Montenegro is still outside the EU with membership uncertain. If it ever does get membership it is likely to be around two decades after independence. Is the nationalist pitch to remain voters really "Vote yes in 2023 for EU membership by 2043"?

Alex Gallagher, Labour councillor, Largs.

JOINING EFTA HOLDS THE KEY

BILL Brown’s comments (Letters, February 11) on my letter of February 10 cannot go unchallenged. My “in the head” inferiority complex because I favour independence for Scotland would be better attributed to those in power at Westminster who removed the UK from the EU, hiding their insularity under the thin guise of “taking back control”, which is not possible in a global world.

By comparing today’s population of Scotland at 5.5 million and England’s population at 56.5 million, Mr Brown seems to suggest big is better. The United Nations table of countries by population shows that out of 233 countries listed, 50 per cent are smaller in population than Scotland and many with a lot fewer resources are doing just grand.

In particular, whether intentional or not, I take issue with Mr Brown’s conflation of the SNP with the wider independence movement. Undoubtedly the SNP is the favoured vehicle to achieve an independence referendum but should independence be achieved, the SNP will then have to stand alongside other parties and there is no guarantee its portfolio in an independent Scotland will be successful.

On the issue of applying to join the EU, Alex Neil, former SNP minister, laid out different scenarios in your first article on Scotland’s Future ("Scots should decide on rejoining the EU in a single-issue vote", The Herald, February 9) which included joining Efta. Joining Efta would have a major bearing on trade and the movement of goods over borders. It was not mentioned in your Brexit and Borders feature (February 10) and in my view was a serious omission.

Alan M Morris, Blanefield.

THE LATEST UNIONIST SCARE

RICHARD Allison (Letters, February 11) starts his letter with the expression "the disaster of independence". Surely that must be the most incongruous combination of words anyone could imagine, unless dependence is seen by him as desirable. He then follows that up with the usual Project Fear statistics that explain to people living in Scotland why, uniquely, a nation with such an array of obvious natural advantages, resources and talents as Scotland would somehow fall into poverty and despair, unlike those very many independent nations around us who seem to thrive without being a part of the United Kingdom.

At the core of his letter is the latest scare on pensions dreamed up by unionists. The assumption made is that Westminster, post-Scotland's independence, will be the sole custodian of the wealth created in Britain by taxation over the years on Scottish people, including of course the enormous transfer of oil-generated wealth transferred to the UK Treasury over the past 50 years from Scotland.

The argument that Scotland has somehow generated an insupportable national debt while its affairs are managed from Westminster is one that argues for rather than against independence. While it is true that pensions are paid from current account rather than savings, so it is true (for a nation with debt, as the UK is) that every other national asset is funded in the same way. The English motorway network, railway infrastructure, military assets, in fact, any public asset you wish to mention, will be subject to an accounting process to separate rights and responsibilities, a big job certainly, but far from impossible.

John Jamieson, Ayr.

* IT seems remarkable that Richard Allison should write to a national newspaper to inform its readership that “simply put, a foreign country is not going to pay the Scottish state pension”. One might have thought the clue was in the word “Scottish”.

His entire argument is based on his own use of large sections of the 2014 White Paper, fusing “payment” and “funding”, when they are in fact quite separate. Your Post Office or bank might “pay” but they don’t “fund” your pension. Thus, while our “Scottish state pension would be paid by the Scottish Government”, the funding for this would accrue from the negotiations that must take place after a Yes vote to mutually agree the division of the current UK’s assets and liabilities, the latter including pension entitlements built up by Scots over the years. This would include existing pensioners but also those whose working (and contributing) lives span independence.

As I noted in my first letter (December 8) the UK Government’s own website tells us “You can claim state pension abroad if you’ve paid enough UK National Insurance contributions to qualify”. That is the legal situation and will subsist until, or unless, there is an agreement to shift that obligation to Scotland. No agreement means the current situation continues, part of Scotland’s “position of strength” in such negotiations, as Leah Gunn Barrett (Letters, February 10) presciently observed.

Put simply, “a foreign country is not going to pay the Scottish state pension” is a deliberately misleading confusion, a claim manufactured as a fictional impediment to voting for independence by causing unnecessary uncertainty and fear, and a shameful use of sophistry.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

* IT'S good that the pension issue is now in the public domain. I think there are two significant questions that we have to ask. First, does the SNP intend to means-test pensioners? Its partners in the Green Party have declared a wish for this.

Secondly, how on earth is it going to be able to afford the total cost of absorbing the pension liability in Scotland? As for increasing pension payments, well that is another escape into cloud cuckoo land.

Iain Walker, Bearsden.