Scotland should be aiming for associate membership of EU

However, there is another possibility which initially would appear to be equally impossible but is worth thinking about.

Could Scotland within the UK, as we are, continue to be a member or become an associate member of the EU? The present EU rules would not allow such an arrangement. The EU is an association of nation states, so how could part of a state become a member? Surely Westminster and Brussels would squash the very concept.

But wait. It is possible to have different status within related organisations. In most sport Scotland competes as a nation, but on some occasions such as the Olympics, Scotland is part of Great Britain. Countries within the Commonwealth have a wide range of different international relationships. So it would be possible for Scotland to be an associated member if the political will were there and the arrangement had benefits for the EU and the UK. That is the critical point - if the affected powers, UK and EU, gain from an arrangement of this sort it becomes possible.

The EU has a growing problem with restless nations such as Scotland which are incorporated within a nation state. On Scottish independence referendum day the Washington Post listed eight other countries in Europe which have movements seeking independence. Each of these movements is potentially disrupting for the countries they are part of and for the general smooth organisation of the EU. A solution for Scotland which could apply to other states if need be and which kept these states less restless would be valuable for the EU.

After England ceases to be a member of the EU the country will become much less attractive as a place for inward investment. One of the reasons for investing in the UK is access to the European Union. Over the years this would become a serious economic disadvantage. If part of the UK still had a formal connection with the EU then a route from England into Europe for inwardly-investing companies might be developed which would benefit England.

And so asking a seemingly impossible question may yet open up a new way of thinking about some current matters.

Hugh Boyd,

65 Antonine Road,

Bearsden.

YOUR editorial ("It is not so simple as in-out EU vote", The Herald, October, 29) illustrates that Nicola Sturgeon is just as cunning as Alex Salmond with her plans to table an amendment to the EU referendum bill which will require all four home nations to veto an exit from the EU. The amendment will be put forward in the hope that it fails, since should it pass it will be exactly what her opponents, with the exception of Ukip, want.

If there is a veto then it reduces the chances of the UK leaving the EU and David Cameron will be able to say that it was the Scots, Welsh and/or Northern Irish, and not him, who have kept the UK in the EU. Further­more, it will set a precedent in that if Scotland wishes to leave the UK then that decision will have to be ratified by the other three home nations.

Perhaps it is time for the SNP leadership to be more honest and make the perfectly reasonable suggestion that if there is a vote to leave the EU without the support of all the home nations then further referendums should be held in order to determine if these dissenting home nations wish to leave the UK and remain in the EU.

That would appear to be an opportune time to negotiate a break-up within the UK.

Sandy Gemmill,

40 Warriston Gardens,

Edinburgh.

AS a former MEP I have a keen interest in Scotland's relationship to the EU. I applaud Nicola Sturgeon's attempt to secure a veto on the UK exit via a referendum in 2017. . However, observing the indignant response from English commen­tators to the suggestion that Scotland might have a veto on the referendum is instructive.

The truth is that Scotland does not feature on the UK horizon unless it threatens to leave the UK. This was demonstrated graphically on last weekend's edition of Andrew Marr's Sunday Politics programme on the BBC when, despite Scottish Labour being in turmoil, there was no mention of Johann Lamont's resignation.

The truth is that the proposed referendum in 2017 has nothing to do with Scotland and is all about combatting Ukip in England. The reactionary agenda of the Little Englander party is driving the political agenda down south and since England comprises 85 per cent of the electorate we can safely predict that English votes will decide our future.

However, I think that the referendum is likely to ensure that Scotland will realise that the only way to protect our interest within the EU is to be an independent country. After all, an independent Scotland would have a seat at the Council of Ministers meetings, whereas at present we are not even allowed to attend. We would have a European Commissioner fighting our corner rather than an English Tory banker. We would have 12 MEPs like Denmark, rather than the six we have now.

Faced with five more years of Tory government, perhaps backed up by a rump of Ukip MPs, plus a vote to leave the EU in 2017 (even if Scotland votes differently) the majority of Scots will demand and get their independence from the UK.

Hugh Kerr,

Wharton Square,

Edinburgh.

The notion that each of the four members states would have to vote in favour of UK withdrawal from the EU in order for this to be implemented has strong international comparisons.

In Australia, for example, constitutional changes must be passed at a referendum in a majority of states (four of the six), and by a majority of voters nationally.

In Switzerland, the passing of a constitutional amendment by initiative requires a double majority. Not only must a majority of people vote for the amendment but a majority of cantons must also give their consent. This is to prevent a larger canton from foisting amendments on to the smaller ones and vice versa.

We were told consistently during the referendum campaign that the UK is a "family of nations" of equal status. Such a "double majority" procedure would give proper protections against any of the nations of the UK being removed from the EU against their will.

Alex Orr,

Flat 2,

77 Leamington Terrace,

Edinburgh.

THE proposal of Nicola Sturgeon for a Scottish (or English, or Welsh, or Northern Irish) veto in an in-out EU referendum is to be very much welcomed.

It is very much in line with the position of many other countries where constitutional change must be subject to a high level of approval by the population. Examples of this principle include the United States, which requires a two-thirds majority for amendments to the Constitution, and Canada, where a "double majority" of voters and provinces applies. To adopt a similar requirement for constitutional measures in the UK would be an excellent measure.

Let us hope that the Smith Commission adopts this proposal from Ms Sturgeon, as it would ensure that any independence proposal for Scotland would require a referendum of the whole UK, and allow a veto to voters in Wales, Northern Ireland and England.

Well done, Nicola.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road,

Jordanhill,

Glasgow.

IT was only a few months ago that the majority of people who voted in the independence referendum decided that it was better for Scotland to stay within the UK. Yet Nicola Sturgeon seems to be oblivious to that fact or continues to be in a state of denial. For her to demand that Scotland should have a veto upon the UK leaving the EU is ludicrous.

A constituent part of the UK should not be able to hold the remainder to ransom if the majority of people vote otherwise. It's called democracy.

It never ceases to amaze me that a party so desperate for independence should be so willing to cede powers and control to an authoritarian entity like the EU.

Bob MacDougall,

Oxhill, Kippen, Stirlingshire.