Gone Fishing
“Some sections of Scotland’s fishing industry have accused Sir Keir Starmer’s government of “capitulating” to the EU over a deal on access to UK waters.
Labour ministers have agreed a 12-year deal which extends existing access for EU boats in exchange for reduced checks and restrictions on food exports.
The agreement, which also includes a defence and security pact, has been described as “disastrous” by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF).”
EU deal disastrous for Scotland, says fishing body
This is the marine equivalent of Grangemouth, key Scottish assets given away by Westminster, this time in a grubby deal to try and offset the worst aspects of Brexit, something Scotland rejected overwhelmingly in the referendum. The Labour Government’s task is to figure out how to replicate all of the benefits of being part of Europe, without admitting that the Brexit fiasco is what it is.
Fishing is strategically more important to Scotland than anywhere else in the UK. It is fully devolved. Seafood is Scotland’s second-largest export and was worth approximately £6 billion in 2017.
Scotland’s seas make up over 60 per cent of the UK’s total waters. Landings by Scottish vessels accounted for 60 per cent of the total value and 62 per cent of the tonnage of all landings by UK vessels in 2019. Scottish Fisheries Protection vessels are under the control of the Scottish Government.
Yet Scotland was completely excluded from any discussions. The UK Government has just reached a 12-year deal on the devolved issue of fishing without any involvement or approval of the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish governments. In fact, according to Angus Robertson, “It follows the cancellation of last three EFRA inter-ministerial meetings by UK government.”
So much for being Scotland “back at the beating heart of the UK government”?
Scotland is back at the beating heart of my government. pic.twitter.com/utgoXm5r4r
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 7, 2024
This goes to show, as we have said repeatedly, not only that Brexit is incompatible with Devolution, but that Labour’s story that somehow Ian Murray and Anas Sarwar are ‘standing up for Scotland’ is a travesty.
Meanwhile the Scottish Seafood Association (SSA) has hit out at the Labour government’s new deal with the EU over fishing rights, claiming it leaves the country’s seafood sector “reeling and disillusioned”.
Jimmy Buchan, CEO of the Scottish Seafood Association, said: “This is not just a failure of negotiation – it is a failure of understanding, leadership, and accountability.
“Our industry has endured hardship with the belief that control of our waters would lead to prosperity. Instead, the UK government has once again given away access to our marine resources with no meaningful return.”
This is a crisis of devolution as big and important as the sell-out of Grangemouth. The question is what will the Scottish Government do about it?
We are supported only by our readers. We don't have corporate backers and we don't take advertising, so we rely entirely on your support.
Help to support independent Scottish journalism
The EU grab of British and Irish fishing grounds has always been an outrageous scam.
It’s weird to watch how Europhiles defend the EU, without acknowledging how scummy it can be.
The Common Fisheries Policy was a scam which exploited EU procedure to impose a manifest injustice. Basically, the EEC 6 saw the impending membership of 4 countries with huge maritime territory (Denmark, Ireland, Norway, UK) and decided to impose a regime which made territorial fisheries an EEC shared asset. They then cited the principle of acquis communitaire to block any challenge by the aspiring new members. Outrageous.
Now they have insisted on the UK basically restoring CFP-style access to the EU27. The UK lacks the muscle to resist this grab now, and if an independent Scotland seeks to rejoin the EU it will be required to accept
the CFP.
Denouncing this grab shouldn’t be left to the swifel-eyed Brexiteers.
The interests of Scottish fishermen would carry a lot more weight if we were still in the EU. In the current political situation they can be bartered away on a whim without any consultation.
Not so, Graeme. The CFP stitchup makes it impossible for British and Irish fishermen to get a fair deal from the EU. That is the whole central purpose of the CFP.
The UK’s experience of 47 years in the EU was that the voices of British and Irish fishermen counted for sweet eff all. Too many fish-takers lined up against them from the outset, and the accession of Spain made reform impossible.
An indy Scotland in the EU will be weak. It will have less than 10% of the population and GDP that the the UK had, so it will have little clout under qualified majority voting (QMV). It simply won’t have the strength to challenge the interests of the fish-taking member states. An indy Scotland in the EU will have no choice but to sacrifice Scottish fishermen to avoid much greater harm to wider Scottish interests.
It’s a pity that so many Europhiles choose to deny the harsh realities of the EU. The case for rejoining is not helped by misty-eyed dreams of great influence coming from a minnow taking a 28th seat at a table in Brussels.
And has Brexit given fishermen a stronger voice? It doesn’t look like it.
‘ The question is what will the Scottish Government do about it?’ Nowt is my guess, England not content with stealing Scotlands resources, now they’re giving them away to foreigners!
I think we need to see the paper trail for this latest disaster. Angus Robertson says he requasted information and briefing papers last week? But Starmer’s public wooing of the EU goes back months. There could be no question that Scotland’s marine waters would be on any list for discussion. As you point out here, the devolved government is responsible for 60% of the UK’s marine estate. Carelessly irresponsible, it would seem.
The West Coast shell industry will benefit from the SPS agreement I think?
Scotland’s system of national governance needs to be able to respond to situations like this and implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by a majority of Holyrood MSPs would do just that. It would provide access for each and every Scottish citizen (in other words Scottish fishing industry employees…) to his and her UN-defined Human Rights: direct Political Rights – Initiatives and Referendums (Direct Democracy – ICCPR Art 25) and Self-Determination (ICCPR Art. 1).
This is what Petition PE2135, currently being considered by parliament’s petititions committee, is all about: https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE2135.
We’re currently at 6,793 signatures but MSPs are still ignoring us. The Directorate for Constitution (i.e. the UK Civil Service)and Angus Robertson (Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution) are avoiding our questions (and that’s putting it politely…). This is the moment at which the Scottish People need to tell the politicians who’s boss.
Why doesn’t everyone in the entire Scottish Fishing Industry sign the petition ? This is a direct appeal to to Mr. Jimmy Buchan – please feel free to contact me if I can provide you with any further information.
Henry Ferguson (Petitioner for PE2135: [email protected])
What can the Scottish government do about it?
Power devolved is power retained.
Implementation of ICCPR is within the power of the Scottish Parliament (Scotland Act 1998 Art 30 & Schedule 5). ICCPR was ratified by UK in 1976 but never implemented. Overriding the Scotland Act would be equivalent to withdrawing from a ratified international treaty which Westminster could certainly do but which would lead to a major loss of international credibilty of the UK. Why don’t MSPs just go ahead and implement ICCPR thereby challenging the UK to withdraw from an international treaty ?
Worth a try, but I don’t think that the UK would be too bothered by anything arising from such a ‘relatively minor’ issue.
You won’t know until you try….
Agreed.
The “relatively minor issue” happens to have been highlighted by the Scottish Human Rights Commission in formal reports , since its inception, and the UN Human Rights Committee has been recommending that the UK implement ICCPR since at least 2020 – if not earlier. And MSPs have done strictly nothing although they clearly have all the power. Confirmed by SPICe, the parliamentary research service.
Angus Robertson is in violation of Art. 1.7 the Ministerial Code by not implementing an international treaty and the First MInister is complicit because he’s been copied on my various e-mails on the subject.
Interesting, one has to wonder why there is such inertia within scotgov on the issue.
Keep up the quest!
What’s even more interesting is that the parliamentary committee concerned – the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee (CPPPC) was fed biased information which the Convener, Jackson Carlaw, communicated to members at its meeting on 2nd April 2025. I’m currently trying to get the record set straight prior to the next CPPPC meeting but it’s taking time…
…however, I’m already on the written record as saying that the Convener’s information was “misleading and incomplete.”
WTAF?!
“Analysis” by Glenn Campbell over at the BBC is telling a slightly different story in his dutiful public service to Scottish license payers.:
“There are aspects of closer cooperation between the UK and EU that the Scottish government is happy to welcome.
However, there was never going to be a package that would satisfy SNP ministers, as they favour a return to the EU.
They argue the best way for that to be achieved is through Scottish independence. But that debate has lost much of its previous energy.
An earlier “reset” in relations between the UK and devolved governments has improved how they work together.
But Scottish ministers argue that they should have been consulted on today’s deal, despite foreign affairs being a matter reserved to Westminster.”
Today’s web English version of Le Monde is worth a read. Far down the page of course. Who gains? Bankers, lawyers etc..
Thanks Ellie
‘Extending an existing agreement is the marine equivalent of Grangemouth’.
Fuck off.
No, I think you’ll be the one fucking off.
It s mildly amusing that Mike Small has become aligned with Reform UK.
Two cheeks of the same arse…
I recall a post BTL in The Hootsmon by one veteran indy supporter, following the LEAVE vote in 2016:
“REJOICE! That is one union down; one to go“ – or words to that effect.
I don’t think that comment was by Mike.
Scottish Brexiters, as rare as hens’ teeth these days.
You’re talking nonsense (offensive if you include the swearing).
Bella Caledonia and vast majority of independence supporters are in favour of EU membership. Scotland was removed from EU despite voters in Scotland being nearly 2/3rd in favour of Remain. This does not mean universal love of all things EU just overall we think it would be preferable to be in EU. The point Mike makes is that fishing is not only proportionally far more important to Scotland but it is also a devolved issue and that Westminster appears not to have involved Holyrood at all in negotiations. I also note that First Minister of Wales makes a similar complaint. This shows a fundamental lack of respect for devolved institutions as previous Tory government did in original Brexit negotiations.
The editor is pointing out the similarities to Grangemouth closure where specific Scottish interests have been disregarded by Westminster.
It is possible to be both happy to see closer arrangements with EU but point out how Scottish interests have been overlooked by Westminster governments who have little interest or respect for devolved governments.
I would add that if Scotland were independent and negotiating a deal with EU then the interests of Scottish people and industries would be the top priority. The white fish industry is of far greater significance to Scotland than UK, as explained in article, and would consequently have a higher priority.
Scottish fishing would of course be a higher priority for an indy Scotland negotiating with the EU.
But an indy Scotland would have much less clout in EU negotiations than the UK had. The same calculations will apply: Scotland lacks the clout to outvote the countries whose fishermen have been grabbing Scottish fish since 1973.
Claire- Scotland would have one vote in EU same as UK had. I recognise that the bigger countries have more influence in EU but smaller countries do still have a significant say and an equal vote.
Scotland would have more influence and respect in EU as an independent nation than it did as a devolved part of UK prior to 2016. Scotland would have more influence and respect within EU as it does as a devolved part of UK since 2016.
EFTA makes much more sense for an independent Scotland…
John, Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) means that it’s not a one-counry-one-vote situation.
Even without QMV, votes on one issue are traded for votes on other issues.
Small countries have to choose their battles, and little Ireland had to pay a price for EU support over Brexit. An indy Scotland in the EU will also need to prioritise winning support in standing up to England, and the price of that support will be concessions elsewhere.
Less than 20% of Ireland’s trade is with the UK. But more than 60% of Scotland’s trade is with the rUK, so Scotland will need to call in a lot of favours.
I’ve lived in Switzerland for 50 years and am convinced that EFTA is a better option for an independent Scotland…
Claire – most of Ireland’s trade used to be with the UK, and joining the EEC changed that. We can expect the same to happen, eventually, if Scotland joins the EU, and a good thing too.
Claire – how is ‘little Scotland’ going to stand up to England without support from EU?
EFTA is an easier first step but no matter what organisation an independent Scotland joins there will be trade offs – unless you believe in Boris Johnson’s ‘having your cake and eat it’ nonsense.
Majority of Scots voted to stay in EU and polls indicate only increased support. An independent Scotland would need to negotiate a deal to gain entry to EU and this would require ratification by Scottish electorate. I will be happy to abide by majority sentiment of my fellow countrymen- a primary principle of independence IMO.
To exclude the highly experienced Scottish negotiators from discussions on fishing access with the E U is gross folly. DEFRA do not have anything like their knowledge of the complex strands that come into play in fishing. It was clearly a political decision to exclude Scottish civil servants in order that UK labour could sacrifice yet another Scottish asset in the UK national interest. While fishermen have often made less than astute political allegiances over the entire Brexit process, their industry because of its disparate nature is even more of a soft target for UK colonial asset stripping. If Scotland were an independent nation within the EU its status would change in terms of how it would negotiate entry. It could argue that as a developing independent state that fishing was a crucial economic pillar of its economy ( unlike for the UK as a whole), that the EU recognise this in terms of more favourable settlements for Scotland. Scotland as an entity within the EU would have a whole different economic complexion of resources and need than the UK during any access process.