FISHING chiefs fear Scotland could be left with a weaker voice in crunch European quota negotiations if the country chooses independence.
The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF) has carried out its own risk assessment, following the likes of financial services giants Standard Life and Alliance Trust, in an attempt to identify the implications of September’s referendum.
The industry body, which represents more than 500 vessels, from inshore creel boats to pelagic trawlers, has stressed it is apolitical – so cannot advise members which way to vote. But its chief executive Bertie Armstrong has highlighted a number of uncertainties about how fishing will be managed if Scotland becomes independent – not least the extent of the country’s clout on the international stage.
The warning of a potential weakening of Scottish influence flies in the face of past claims from the SNP that Scotland would be better off fighting its own corner at fishing talks in Brussels.
Last night, Fisheries Secretary Richard Lochhead insisted the SFF and its members had nothing to fear from independence and pledged their interests would be a national priority.
“Given the importance of the industry in the eyes of the Scottish people and the Scottish Government, we would never use it as a bargaining chip in the way successive UK governments have done through the decades,” he said.
In an exclusive interview with the Press and Journal, SFF chief Mr Armstrong said politicians on both sides of the independence debate had failed to explain what was at stake for the fishing fleet.
However, he said the onus was more on the Yes camp to provide clarity on what the future held as it was proposing the biggest change.
Mr Armstrong said: “If there were a Yes vote, then it can be reasonably assumed that Scotland would eventually end up in the EU, although the process is likely to be protracted and tortuous. The real question, therefore, concerns that journey, how long it will take and whether the eventual conditions of membership would be better or worse than now.”
Mr Armstrong said it was vital to take a “clear, sober view” of the pros and cons of Scotland going its own way, adding: “For the fishing industry, the key question is what our relationship with Europe will be – and will we be better off as an independent country?
“There are arguments on both sides to explore, particularly whether a small voice speaking exclusively for Scotland on fishing would be better than a big one speaking for all the home nations.”
The SFF chief said an independent Scotland would be entitled to seven votes at top-level meetings in Brussels, compared with the UK’s 29.
He added: “We would have a place at the top table, but we would have a small voice and would have to convince a great many allies on anything we wanted support for.”
Mr Armstrong also raised fears about fishing interests being traded away or pushed down the list of national priorities in negotiations with both London and Brussels in the event of a Yes vote.
He said: “The negotiating circumstances would change from one between partners looking after the collective interest to a divorce-like split between commercial competitors.
“Would our fishing industry be protected or would we become pawns in the game?”
Uncertainty over the conditions of EU membership gave rise to further questions, including the method for sharing UK quota, he said.
The SFF is also asking what arrangements will be made for the ownership of the seabed after any independence vote, and what access there would be for Scottish boats to other countries’ waters.
“The fishing industry needs balanced assessments now,” Mr Armstrong said.
“We do not need assertions that everything will be fine from one side or that we are all doomed from the other,” added the chief executive.
Comment, Page 32