A DISTINGUISHED legal expert, whose views have been used to support Alex Salmond's case for independence, explains today why he will vote No in September's referendum.
In an article for The Herald, Sir David Edward, a former European Court judge, said Scotland would be launching itself on an "unpredictable sea of uncertainty" if it left the UK.
He said that, while the SNP suggested "everything we value in the Union will remain the same", Scotland and the rest of the UK would pursue their own interests, throwing present arrangements into doubt.
Sir David, an emeritus professor at Edinburgh University, also said he was disturbed by claims that only independence would allow Scots to regain a sense of identity and realise their potential.
A spokesman for the First Minister stressed the SNP's case for independence was not based on Scottish identity.
Sir David is one of the most cited experts in the constitutional debate. His views on an independent Scotland's membership of the European Union have been used regularly to support the SNP's claim that joining the bloc would be seamless and straightforward.
Two years ago he challenged comments by the outgoing president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, who suggested an independent Scotland would have to reapply for EU membership.
Sir David argued that membership could be negotiated before Scotland formally became independent and existing EU treaties amended to accommodate the new state. Since then, he said he had found himself described as "the poster child of the Yes campaign".
Sir David says he stands by his assessment that an independent Scotland would not be automatically excluded from the EU and accepts the First Minister is entitled to cite his work "within limits".
But he adds: "This is as far as I can go."
He says the outcome of negotiations "cannot be certain" and warns that, although an acceptable deal could be achieved, it would not be reached by the Scottish Government's proposed independence date of March 2016.
Sir David concludes: "Siren voices urge us to vote Yes or No on the basis of unprovable (and often improbable) predictions that we will personally be better off or worse off.
"It is said that the Union of 1707 was purchased by English gold. As Dr Johnson said: 'That is no defence: it only makes you worse'. Anyhow, I fear that, this time, the gold is at the end of the rainbow."
In a keynote speech in Bruges in April, the First Minister praised Sir David as "one of the true architects of the European Union" and quoted the legal expert as saying it would be absurd for Scotland to have to leave the EU only to reapply.
Sir David disagreed with European Council President Herman Van Rompuy's use of moral arguments against separation. He argued instead that, although he disagreed with it, a desire for independence was consistent with the founding values of the EU.
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "Sir David is hugely respected in his field, and is certainly entitled to his views on Scotland's future. But the fact he is opposed to independence simply lends even more weight and authority to his expert views on Scotland's place in Europe, where he has made clear Scotland cannot be deprived of the rights and status we already enjoy within the EU.
"In terms of the wider case for independence, it is not about regaining Scotland's identity, which is already secure. It is about democracy, about always getting the governments we vote for and ensuring a wealthy country becomes a more prosperous and fairer society."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article