Playing fast and loose with the future of the Scottish fishing fleet and Scottish waters is not good politics yet that is what Alex Salmond did in Bruges this week.
Knowing full well the considered view among the great majority of policy makers in Brussels is that an independent Scotland will not automatically become a member of the EU and will have to apply to join and face the prospect of tortuous negotiations, the First Minister raised the possibility of foreign boats being denied access to Scottish waters and, as a consequence, access to Norwegian waters if the way was not cleared for an early Scottish entry.
As he said himself, this is clearly absurd. So why he raised this in the first place? Does he think the bureaucrats of Brussels would roll over, tear up the rule book, and make an exception of Scotland because he made threatening noises?
Having endured too many all-night sittings on the European circuit as officials and politicians wrestled over a paragraph, I know it is the prospect of a new applicant to the EU being accepted in 18 months that is absurd.
And it is neither diplomatically nor politically sensible to hold a gun to the head of member states of the EU.
The Spanish and Portuguese fishermen will have recoiled in horror before it dawned on them they would be entitled to free passage to Scottish waters for vessels passing en route to Norwegian waters under international law, even if Scotland split from the UK.
Regardless of the shock and concern in the ports of Cadiz and Porto, it would be nothing compared to the indignation and horror of the fisherman back home: on Whalsay, in Grimsby, Peterhead and Fraserburgh, Ullapool and Lochinver; wherever fishermen earned their living.
Even if it were possible to ban foreign fishermen from Scottish waters, Scottish fishermen would know that banned countries might play tit-for-tat and ban Scottish fishermen from their waters and, importantly, access to European markets. Large areas of the North Sea and the Irish Sea would be no-go areas for the Scottish fleet.
Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation who demanded an explanation from Mr Salmond, knows the stakes are high and that fishermen from the north east of Scotland in particular depend on the fish resources of other countries.
For the fragile communities of the west, the isolation of the Scottish fishing fleet in Europe would have dismal consequences.
An already depleted industry would face even greater pressure if the large, hugely capitalised boats became dependent on the prawn fishery of the Minch.
And there is no historical evidence to suggest that the bigger, more expensive boats of the east coast would indulge the smaller boats on the west.
Scottish waters, like the waters of every other country, are governed by international law.
There is, however, not such a thing as Scottish fish since fish do not recognise political borders. It is imperative, however, that fish, wherever they swim, are protected.
National management schemes cannot work and this would spell disaster for fish stocks, thereby threatening fishing and fishing-dependent communities.
Fishermen and marine scientists know this. It is why international treaties exist and why they are important to every fishing community in Europe and beyond.
Fishing have always been an emotive issue, not least because a great deal of money is at stake. It is not so long ago (1976) since the furore over cod brought two countries, and two Nato allies at that, to the brink of war.
Icelandic costguard vessels cut the nets or British trawlers and there were numerous violent incidents between Icelandic ships and British trawlers.
It is genuinely difficult to work out Mr Salmond's attitude to the EU. He wants Scotland, if broken away from the UK, to join up but he wants the rules changed to meet his demands.
The delicate subject of fish is but one of the issues.
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