OF the 38 per cent of people in Scotland who voted to leave the European Union in June 2016, some would undoubtedly have done so in support of the country’s fishing industry, which has long been scathing of the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
Speak to Scots fishermen – who land some 60 per cent of the UK’s catch - and many will lay the blame for the decline of their industry at the door of the CFP, which sets catch quotas and gives other EU nations access to UK waters. Others, to be fair, would say decades of over-fishing led to the slump.
Regardless, fishermen put their faith in Brexit, believing withdrawal from the CFP in March 2019 would give them back control of fishing stocks.
Only last week, Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, and UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove, issued a joint statement calling for Britain to leave the CFP immediately upon leaving the EU in March 2019.
You can well understand, then, why so many in the industry feel betrayed following yesterday’s deal that means fishing arrangements will continue to be negotiated by the EU during the two-year Brexit transition period.
The deal, part of a much wider transition agreement negotiated by Brexit Secretary David Davis and EU chief Michel Barnier, means the UK will be “consulted” during the transition, but Brussels will continue to set quotas.
The Scottish Fisherman’s Federation said the situation fell far short of an acceptable deal, adding that the industry does not trust the EU to look after its interests.
The language used by the body was noticeably strong, with leader Bertie Armstrong warning the EU of severe consequences if care was not taken over Scottish interests. He also demanded “cast-iron guarantees” that “sovereignty will mean sovereignty” after the end of the transition period.
This deal is undoubtedly another blow to an industry still only tentatively recovering following the collapse in North Sea cod and haddock stocks. And it leaves a particularly bad taste in the mouth considering fishermen were promised so much by Brexiters in the lead-up to the referendum.
But it’s also not particularly difficult to understand how and why Mr Davis may have found himself giving away fishing rights. After all, fishing was one of the few significant bargaining chips available to him during the transition negotiations, which had been rumbling uncomfortably on for months. And with the EU making it clear it would not even begin to discuss trade agreements before this stage was complete, Mr Davis – not to mention his boss Theresa May – was desperate to sign off.
This development may seem insignificant in the grand scheme of Brexit when compared to issues such as the Irish border, but it could yet have ramifications, depending on how far the Scottish Conservatives are willing to go in their opposition.
Yesterday, Ms Davidson said she would not support any Brexit deal that failed to deliver “full control” over fishing. She has 13 MPs at Westminster, and since Mrs May’s majority is also 13, they have a key role in getting Government business through. The under-pressure PM obviously calculated that they will not bring down Brexit legislation – and her Government - over this matter, but that could turn out to be a risky strategy.
Ms Davidson, meanwhile, is also in a tricky spot, having left herself open to accusations of weakness and failing to look out for Scotland’s interests in the Brexit process.
Perhaps more than anything, however, this episode highlights just how weak the UK’s negotiating position truly is; Scottish fishermen are unlikely to be the last industry shouting “sell-out” before the Brexit process reaches its conclusion.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel