However as JM states above, you cannot evaluate the Scottish and EU positions and the likely negotiations while completely ignoring that treaties of Union and ignoring therefore that the UK as a State will no longer exist either (I presume that the name may stay the same but everything else is ‘open bar’).

Firstly, impacts to what would then be the remaining Kingdom, aka ‘rump’ UK, appears to be a taboo subject. Scotland is not leaving the UK it is ending the treaty that makes the UK exist, we would be untreating. The UK parrot would be deceased, no more, null and void, surely? As soon we say YES the UK parliament logically and essentially reverts to the English parliament, as only the Scottish Parliament would be a wholly elected body representing the Scottish public. I guess the Scottish constituency members of the UK cabinet would have to resign.

Can the rest of the UK be considered as a full status quo, clearly it cannot? However, anyone trusting in BBC coverage for answers or even questions would currently conclude that Blighty will continue on as if nothing had happened and Scotland will have a lot of work to do getting on board the global bus. This just gives weight to the perception that UK =(is equivalent to) England = Britain, an entirely Anglocentic perception.

Therefore, it seems practical to me that the remainder of the former UK would essentially have to continue as part of the EU but not as the UK as it currently stands. The new entity would also be required to renegotiate all existing agreements and exclusions and level of representation. I would further argue that this adds weight to Scotland to be treated in the same way as England: I have not bought into the idea that only one country in our Unitary State gets to keep all treaties signed up on its citizens behalf while the other gets none.

I thought we were currently in the UK “together” or is that just another great deception?

On the matter of state-centric versus citizen-centric perspectives I would offer the thought that, while there is certainly a substantive difference between the two, both can be addressed with the pragmatism Dr Kenealy acknowledges as characterising the EU’s approach to such issues.

The approach from a citizen-centric perspective has been thoroughly rehearsed by the SNP and others. Dr Kenealy suggests that this may not be sufficient on its own. Which would seem to imply that the requirements of the Barosso/UK Government state-centric approach must also be satisfied to some minimum extent.

I would suggest that this might be achieved by the EU taking the (pragmatic) view that all the treaties which define EU membership were signed on Scotland’s behalf by the UK. This approach only requires that the EU accept the premise that the UK is a voluntary union of two nations with a single parliament and government acting on behalf of both. An appreciation of the nature of the union which the UK Government would find it very difficult to dispute.

This approach provides the continuity that will surely be a priority for the EU. And it resolves another issue that is seldom spoken of. If, as is now generally accepted, the newly independent Scotland would continue as a member of the EU with only relatively minor details to be settled by negotiation, what would be the basis of this membership? What would be the starting point for negotiations?

What else could it be but the status quo of existing treaties? If those treaties no longer apply then Scotland cannot be a member and must be treated as an accession state. And if they do apply, having been signed on Scotland’s behalf by the UK, then they cannot be arbitrarily and unilaterally altered prior to the very negotiations that are presumed necessary.

Bearing in mind that it is a political issue rather than a matter of law, there seem to be two incontestable points that are relevant to this discussion. From a citizen-centric perspective there is no ready process by which Scotland can be expelled from the EU. From a state-centric perspective there is no conceivable way Scotland can continue to be a member of the EU without existing treaties remaining in place.