DESPITE THE seeming moral victory of the Yes camp over the Naws concerning the recent Juncker clarification, AhDinnaeKen asks, does the clarification really make a great deal of difference to what was said:
By WhitEU Lukkinet
BIG EURO Quangocrat, Jean-Claude Juncker, was not referring to Scotland when he said the gates were closed to new applicants to the EU.
Before the clarification, the No camp jumped the gun and gloatingly castigated the Yessers for what they perceived was the killer blow to the SNP’s Euro entry plans.
Following the unseemly stooshie, a spokesperson for the Big Euro Quangocrat clarified that Juncker was not talking about Scotland.
Cue the counter attack from the Yessers and a similar type of gloating righteousness.
In terms of tone, both campaigns looked and sounded the same. So no change there then.
Pantsonfire fighter, Nicola Sturgeon, wagged the righteous Nationalist finger of sanctimony and claimed that the No camp had engaged in a “blatant act of dishonesty”.
She should know.
Due to all the froth and white noise from both camps, one key point has been forgotten.
Of course Juncker was not referring to Scotland.
He didn’t need to.
Scotland, in the eyes of the EU, is a region presently debating separation from its current nation state.
Juncker stated that no new states would be admitted to the EC.
Scotland is not a new state, or any kind of state, in the legal treaty bound eyes of Europe.
If it becomes a new state, the stated Juncker rule regarding “candidate states”, applies.
And then, no doubt, Juncker will refer to Scotland’s “candidate” status directly.
It’s still a major blow to the Nationalists’ post-Indy assertions. No matter how you dress it up.