Not really. The UK decided itself to leave the EU. The UK claims that Scotland doesn't have the legal standing to make that call itself. That's a fairly clear sign of loss of sovereignty.
Scotland voted decisively to remain in the UK, and to go the way of the UK on EU membership.
This is notwithstanding the fact Scotland is financially dependent on the rest of the UK, and would not survive on its own, let alone meet the criteria for joining the EU on its own.
People have been trying to rewrite this bit of history, but even Cameron himself didn't expect to have to follow through on his EU referendum commitment, either losing the election totally or relying on the Lib-dems to veto it in coalition.
This however seems to be a non-sequitor, from the original point, about being a member of the EU being non- or less independent than being part of the UK. So not sure what your opening "No" refers to, or why you're re-capping your anti-independence talking points.
More likely is that Spain would make things difficult - but you didn't say this
This video by an expert in EU law covers it in detail:
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/16/watch-dishonesty-ind...
> So let us start with a couple of myths. The first is the myth of sovereignty, there is no doubt whatsoever that the United Kingdom is a sovereign state under international law. There is no doubt whatsoever that the parliament in Westminster is the supreme law making authority in this country.
> Conversely there is no doubt whatsoever that the EU is not a sovereign entity, far from being a sovereign state, it is not even a sovereign entity, it has only those powers which has been given under the EU treaties. If the UK courts sometimes give priority to EU law in the event of a conflict with domestic law, it is purely because our parliament has expressly instructed them to do so in our own legislation.
> So is the UK a sovereign state? Yes.
> Is parliament our supreme legislative authority? Yes.
> So why do we keep hearing about sovereignty in this debate. The fact is that sovereignty is not really an issue in the debate, it is about power and influence and sovereignty is being used as a shorthand to talk about power and influence.
The depth of his analysis (which goes no further than the Working Time Directive!) is about consistent with most self-proclaimed experts on Law that have never practiced it themselves. The same goes for his impartiality.
For instance, his conclusion that the UK is sovereign because parliament ultimately decides what the UK courts do is nonsense: what do you think would happen if our courts started ignoring the rulings of the ECJ?
Perhaps England can leave the EU but other NI and Scotland stay?
Firstly, economically, the remainder of the UK is a far larger market for Scotland than the EU. This wouldn't be a big issue if the UK can negotiate very good access to the single market but that's highly questionable. It also is complicated by the second point.
Secondly, it is highly unlikely that Scotland would be able to (re)enter the EU without joining the Euro. There are other exemptions the UK has that Scotland won't get but this is the biggy. It was the SNP's original economic plan to join the Euro. However, when the Euro went politically toxic following the crash, this was dropped and pretty much killed SNP's economic argument in the independence referendum. It's still pretty toxic but is probably less so given that the EU referendum has hosed Sterling.
Thirdly, a big issue in the independence referendum that hasn't gone away is that an EU entry requires unanimity and Spain are dead against separatist movements because of the Basque situation. It's possible that they will have their arm twisted by the EU commission if it means another net contributor added to the Euro block but it's not clear cut.
Fourthly, legally, they don't get to choose. They can't officially negotiate with the EU as they aren't treaty partners. Only Westminster can legally grant separation. If Scotland had voted independence the first time then it would have been followed through without a doubt. It is entirely possible the UK parliament will refuse a second time because of the outcome the first.
As to NI, all of the above and then some. The whole of the Troubles was really about NI's status in the United Kingdom and giving that up is unlikely to be a quiet affair. Maybe it won't become violent but there's more history there than in Scotland.
In short, I wouldn't even begin to know how to call this.
IE could it grow fat being the middle man between the Leavers and the EU?
It's probably worth pointing out also that, currently, the UK has a lot of wiggle room when it comes to its relationship with the EU just because of its size. It is very unlikely that Scotland will be given any of this both because it's relatively small, economically, and it won;t be in a good negotiating position.
It could be said that Scotland wanting to stay would be politically super-popular with the EU, who strive to draw a sharp divide between the benefits of the EU and the costs of leaving. On the other hand, England could see the compromise where Scotland is its trade partner in Europe as a win-win too.
From the EU perspective, my own view is that if Sturgeon can find a way to persuade Scotland to go the full EU i.e. Eurozone, no opt outs and no rebate then I can definitely see Juncker finding a way to accommodate by doing some sort of quid pro quo with Spain. Whether the Eurozone economy will recover sufficiently (and/or the UK economy will tank sufficiently) to make that politically viable is anyone's guess.
For NI, if it wasn't for the super strong unionist movement, I'd say that there was a lot to be said for them going full EU: they're small, relatively poor, bordering Eire. But that's a really, really big if, probably enough to kill any real chance of it occurring in the next 20 years.
Why? There are plenty of EU countries without the Euro..
From the EU's perspective, in order for them to go against the anti-separatists such as Spain, they'd need to have a big carrot. My guess is that full EU i.e. Euro, no opt outs and no rebate would be sufficient as it's fully in keeping with the "ever closer union" agenda. I can't see anything less being sufficiently beneficial to the EU to make the necessary compromises worth it.