One immediate outcome of the so-called CFP reforms has been an increase in the discards, something that most fishermen and consumers would like to reduce to an absolute minimum. Of course, it is very difficult to do this if decisions are taken centrally for political reasons.

From the beginning of the year, boats had to start landing unwanted fish which were caught in their nets.

Incidents of throwing dead fish back into the sea had increased due to strict EU quotas on which fish could be landed in a bid to conserve stocks.

Not quite what the supporters of the CFP have been boasting about.

For quite a long time now (by that we mean some years of not decades) fishermen have been talking about the need to change fishing net designs to ensure that the fish caught was not the kind that had to be discarded. Had the UK been in charge of her own fishing industry with genuine devolution of decisions to regions, such changes could have been carried out a long time ago. As it is we had to wait for the EU and the 28 members of the common fisheries policy (some of whom carry out no sea fishing at all) to decide on this matter.

The Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF) has now received funding for trials of design modifications.

The money is from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and Marine Scotland.

The first phase will run from now until the end of the year and aims to have sea-trials of new designs of nets.

No doubt this slow and belated attempt will also be promoted as a great achievement of the CFP and of the so-called reforms.

Important though the Scottish Independence Referendum was, in some ways, as this blog tried to explain, it was something of a side issue for the Scottish fishermen. The fact is that had Scotland voted YES, had there been an "independent" Scotland within the EU as the SNP proposed it, the fishing industry would not have experienced any changes: within the Common Fisheries Policy plans and decisions would have continued to be taken centrally for political reasons. Scotland would not have been taking part in negotiations with Norway, Iceland or Greenland (well, Denmark on its behalf) and so-called reforms of the CFP would not have changed much in reality.

It is clear from the way the votes fell out that areas of Scotland where fishing is important voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the Union (and not in the European version of it, either). As did, incidentally, areas where oil is important.

So, now that the question of Scotland's role in the United Kingdom has been settle for some time to come, it is time to turn our attention to the real battle: the restoration of powers to where they belong and that is this country and its people.

There will be much on that subject in future postings. This is merely a battle cry.

Well, the job has gone to Malta and not to a landlocked country as it could have done so easily. The new Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries is Karmenu Vella, 64, a Socialist and long-serving politician. Doesn't that make one's heart lift in happiness? Come what may, Mr Vella will be considerably more important in decisions that relate to the Scottish fisheries than, for example, Richard Lochhead.

What can we find out about Mr Vella?

Mr Vella is a member of the Maltese Labour Party and has previously served in the government as Minister for Public Works, Minister for Industry and Minister for Tourism.

So he is going to know a great deal about fisheries. Of course.

Not that it matters. After all, he has advisers to advise him and he is, one assumes, picking his team, even as we speak. Whether there will be anyone there to speak for the Scottish fisheries is a moot point as his portfolio is to do with the EU and its policies. The UK is only one member state as will be Scotland, should it become "independent" within the EU. The only difference being is that, should such an eventuality occur, it will be a considerably smaller and even less important state. What a jolly prospect. The principles of the Common Fisheries Policy will not change, no matter which way that referendum goes.

In his mission letter to Mr Vella, Commission President Juncker said that he would like him to focus on the following:

◾“continuing to overhaul the existing environmental legislative framework to make it fit for purpose. In the first part of the mandate, I would ask you to carry out an in-depth evaluation of the Birds and Habitats directives and assess the potential for merging them into a more modern piece of legislation.

◾“taking stock of where we stand in the negotiations on the air strategy. We need to know whether our approach addresses the right sources of air pollution with the right instruments. In the light of your assessment, we can then see how best to conduct the negotiations.

◾“assessing the state of play of the Circular Economy package in the light of the first reactions of the European Parliament and Council to see whether and how it is consistent with our jobs and growth agenda and our broader environmental objectives.

◾“implementing the recently agreed reform of the Common Fisheries Policy to put the EU firmly on the path of a sustainable fishing sector and fishing communities.

◾“engaging in shaping international ocean governance in the UN, in other multilateral fora and bilaterally with key global partners.”

As we can see, the so-called reform of the Common Fisheries Policy has not altered anything (as this blog has pointed out a few times) - the fisheries sector remains a single one for the whole of the European Union with the ultimate aim of equal access for all member states.

Nothing but an exit from the EU and a restoration of the fisheries policy to this country will change that. Is that more likely to happen if Scotland goes "independent" or if it stays in the Union?

We need to get certain things right. This blog, obviously, deals with issues of fisheries only but it is worth considering whether a YES vote would help Scotland's fishermen. In general, we have concluded that it will not as long as the intention is to stay in the European Union, that is the Common Fisheries Policy.

On top of that we do not think that any of the politicians who are taking part in the debate (more or less) understand certain basic facts or even stay true to one opinion. Here is a letter from Tom Hay, Honorary Chairman of FAL on Alex Salmond's changing views:

Alex Salmond’s Policies Past, and Present

In the House of Commons on 02/03/2004 Alex Salmond presented his Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy and to restore National Control to Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

He began by saying: This Bill is supported by members of all eight political Parties represented in this Chamber, and is a plea for fair treatment from one of the great natural resource industries of our land, and whatever the fate of this measure today this is a demand which will return until it is successful.

He went on to say that fishermen regard this policy as a charade, a device to rob them of their birthright, and if we look back more than 30 years ago this country accepted the adoption of the CFP in negotiations to enter the Common Market, with its central provision of equal access to a common resource to support that view. Documents released under the 30 years rule show that this was done by the then Government in full knowledge of the possible damage to our own fishing industry.

Sadly however as far as I know he never presented it again.

He said if we were in a position where there were no fish in the sea, we might have to accept reluctantly that nothing could be done to sustain our fishing industry, although it would still be a very good reason for changing the policy that had brought this about. However, that is not the position. Even according to the hotly disputed ICES figures many of our stocks are in a robust condition such as haddock, prawns, herring and mackerel. The sea is teeming with fish but it may soon be empty of our fishermen.

How right he was! As a result of various de-commissioning schemes, 397 vessels have been removed from the Scottish demersal fleet, and during the same period 285 nephrops vessels have also been removed. A total of 682 vessels mostly of our larger ships have been broken up on the eastern shores of the North sea and elsewhere, to satisfy the shameful demands of the EU treaties which state that all Community fishermen must have equal access to, and use of the fishing grounds falling under the sovereignty and coming within the jurisdiction of the member states.

Thus Alex Salmond for years scathingly but rightly attacked the Conservative Party for surrendering our fishing rights and fish stocks to an alien foreign power in Brussels.

Now it appears that the very thing that he vehemently detested has become SNP policy.

In mid-summer 2013 the Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, publicly stated that Scotland is an ancient European nation, and that an independent Scotland will continue in European Union membership. Our country has the lion’s share of all the EU’s oil reserves, a huge proportion of the continent’s renewable energy as well as some of the richest fishing grounds.

Would Brussels want to lose such assets when energy security is one of the dominating issues of the 21st Century?. Would Spanish, French and Portuguese fishermen want to be blocked from fishing the lucrative waters in Scotland.s sectors of the North Sea, and West Atlantic, she continued.

The SNP should be thoroughly ashamed that by their actions their declared aim of EU integration at any price will result once again in our fishermen being treated as expendable, merely to satisfy the SNP’s nauseating ambition to get a seat at the top table in Brussels, where they will achieve nothing.

Thomas Hay

Honorary Chairman FAL

Succinctly put, as always. One can only marvel at the lack of logic displayed by the Deputy First Minister in her statements.

There is an interesting article in The Scotsman by Simon Collins, the Executive Officer of the Shetland Fishermen's Association, entitled Scots fishermen face tidal wave of red tape. We cannot really argue with the essence of that title only with the implication that somehow they did not face that tidal wave before. But then Mr Collins, while capable of seeing some of the effects, seems unable to understand the main cause of the problem, being rather a supporter of the European Union and of the Common  Fisheries Policy or so it would appear from this article.

Mr Collins starts by giving a lyrical description of the Shetlands and its fishing industry but soon switches to the problems, which are well known: too much regulation, no attention paid to what fishermen want or know, decisions taken centrally regardless of what happens in reality. Yes, yes, yes. We have been saying the same thing and blaming on the Common Fisheries Policy, which is dedicated to all those ideas.

Not so Mr Collins. He thinks the EU is a splendid institution, really, but the Commission is a bit of a problem.

The Commission is an unelected body of career bureaucrats dedicated to the implementation of European law and the enforcement of what it regards as EU policy. It has long outgrown its original role as an administrative arm at the service of elected European leaders, and is now firmly convinced of its right to frame policy as well as implement it. In many areas of life, this might not matter too much. Brussels’ tentacles do not extend absolutely everywhere. Unfortunately for the fishing industry, and especially so for island communities like Shetland that depend so heavily on it, fisheries conservation is one of the few areas of “exclusive competence” reserved to the European Union.

Well, up to a point, Mr Collins. The Commission is certainly "an unelected body of career bureaucrats" but it was never envisaged as "an administrative arm at the service of elected European leaders", whoever they might be. As it happens, the EU has no elected leaders.

The Commission is seen as the guardian of the treaties, which are in their consolidated form, effectively the constitution of the European Union and of its member states. That includes the United Kingdom and will include, should things turn out that way, an "independent" Scotland within the EU (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one).

Furthermore, the Commission is, according to the rules laid down by successive treaties, the sole originator of legislation in the EU. Proposals mostly go to the Council and the European Parliament but if there is disagreement between those two bodies, the Commission, also according to the rules laid down by the treaties acts as the co-ordinator of the legislation.

In other words, it has always been far more than just an administrator that carries out politicians' instructions (incidentally, Commissioners tend to be politicians) and that is because the creators and supporters of the EU or those of the latter who understand the structure do not believe in governance by politics: they consider that it should be done by management as politicians tend to be short-sighted, governed by party loyalties, yadda-yadda-yadda.

Thus, the idea, expressed by Mr Collins that if politicians in the EU just get a grip on the Commission, clip its wings and contain its powers all will be well comes from that well known volume: Tales of Porcine Aviation. It is the Council, who are, indeed elected politicians (at least nominally) who make the decisions on fisheries, which, as Mr Collins rightly points out, is and has been since 1970 wholly EEC/EC/EU competence.

What good does it do us that they are elected? They are not elected by us. There are 28 members in each Council of Ministers and they are not going to pay too much attention to the Shetland Islands, Scotland or the UK if they can do a deal for their own benefit. As this blog has mentioned before, the UK does not take part in discussions about fishing in the North Atlantic and neither will an "independent" Scotland within the EU. Iceland, Norway and Russia do plus Greenland through Denmark. The EU will negotiate on our behalf as it sees fit and much of that negotiation, as we have pointed out over and over again, will not be based on knowledge and information supplied by fishermen or their organizations and not even on scientific evidence but on political calculation. That is how it will be as long as we remain in the Common Fisheries Policy.

As the SNP's intention is to have an "independent Scotland within the EU", we cannot do anything but put that word in quotation marks. Whether you want to be in the EU or not (and we do not), that is not independence, merely membership.

On Wednesday the White Paper, Scotland's Future - Your Guide to an Independent Scotland (not forgetting our proviso) was launched. Also to be found on the Scottish Government's website.

Chapter 8 deals with Environment, Rural Scotland, Energy and Resources, the first two of which entirely and the last very largely are EU competences, so the role of the "independent" Scottish government and parliament will be to implement those directives, regulations and decisions.

Fisheries comes under that heading, too. (See p. 282 in the pdf document or you can download it as an e-book but you will still have to find p. 282.)

In 2012, Scotland accounted for 87 per cent of the total value of UK landings of key stocks, representing 37 per cent of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of these stocks available to the EU. However, Scotland receives just 41 per cent of the European Fisheries Fund allocation to the UK, despite having a far higher share of both the UK sea fishery and aquaculture sectors. As a result of being a low priority for the UK in EU negotiations, Scotland receives just 1.1 per cent of European fisheries funding despite landing 7 per cent of the European Union’s wildcaught fish310 and accounting for more than 12 per cent of EU aquaculture production. Scotland is the world’s third largest salmon producer with 83 per cent of UK aquaculture production by volume.

Our fishermen need a voice at the top table in Europe. Despite two thirds of the UK industry being based in Scotland, Scottish Ministers have not been allowed to speak on behalf of the UK in Europe, even on occasions where the interest is almost exclusively Scottish. This means that Scotland’s representatives – who are closest to the needs of the Scottish fishing sector – are not able to ensure that their voice is properly heard.

Which is all very well but a couple of things seem to have been neglected: Scotland's voice is not going to be particularly strong as it will be a small member of the European Union with very few votes in the Council; and, secondly, many of those problems go beyond the EU and Scotland as a member state will not be taking part in negotiations with Norway or Iceland as the EU will be doing it on the country's behalf.

There is a great deal more of the same but those two problems are not even mentioned, let alone responded to. Just how will an "independent" Scotland ensure that it gets anything at all out of the negotiations within the EU where decisions are taken by 28 countries and how will it ensure that its interests are adequately represented in international negotiations? After all, it is not going to be like Norway.

Here is the list of priorities for action:

Our priorities for action

If in power after the 2016 election we will:

■■ prioritise the needs of the Scottish fishing industry and aquaculture in European negotiations

■■ protect Scotland’s fishing quotas, preventing fishing quota being permanently transferred outside Scotland and safeguarding Scotland’s fishing rights for future generations

■■ use Scotland’s fishing levies to promote Scottish seafood. In an independent Scotland the industry’s levies will remain in Scotland to support the Scottish industry’s objectives and priorities for our catching, onshore and wider seafood sectors,

We are sorry to have to point out that whoever wrote those words does not even begin to understand how the Common Fisheries Policy functions, let alone what its purpose is.

The Faroe Islands who want the coastal countries that include Russia, Iceland and Norway (but not the UK because we do not negotiate on our behalf) to meet in September and discuss the management of the herring stock, have meanwhile taken the EU to an international tribunal under UNCLOS over those threats of sanctions.

The BBC reports that

A statement from the Faroese prime minister's office said the government had requested an international tribunal to declare the European Union "in breach of its obligations" under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

It asked for EU authorities to be "ordered to refrain from the threat or adoption of coercive economic measures on the Faroe Islands".

Iceland Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson has also demanded the EU withdraws the threats and allows a peaceful settlement to be found under "free negotiations".

European sanctions will be brought in against Faroese herring and mackerel imports from the end of August.

The Scottish fishermen are supporting this high-handed action. As we have said before, Britain should be looking to ways of negotiating with both Iceland and the Faroes. But we shall not even be there at the September meeting which is still scheduled to take place.

As this blog has pointed out before, the EU is squaring up against Iceland and, above all, the Faroe Islands, maintaining that they do far too much fishing and should, instead be obeying the rules the EU wants to impose on them. We have also pointed out that instead of joining and, indeed, leading the bully pack, the UK and its fishermen ought to start negotiating directly with Iceland and the Faroe Islands to find out whether there is a way our industry can benefit from what both these countries say has been a huge growth in their fishing stocks.

The Wall Street Journal actually had an article on the subject this morning though the information in it is a little muddled. [Hint: If you cannot call up the full article, type the title into Google; that should bypass the paywall long enough to read it.]

On Wednesday, EU member states will vote on whether to ban imports of herring and mackerel from the Faroe Islands, after the tiny archipelago nation unilaterally permitted its fishermen to dramatically increase their annual catch this year. By the end of July, the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, will also decide whether to take the first step toward similar sanctions on Iceland's mackerel exports.

The actions would represent the first time that the EU has imposed sanctions on a nation outside the bloc that doesn't comply with international fishing quotas.

Sanctions could deal a blow to the economy of the Faroe Islands, a nation of less than 50,000 people that is formally part of Denmark but has autonomy over domestic policies and isn't part of the EU. A ban on herring exports would also affect Faroese mackerel exports—since the two are often caught in the same nets—and prevent Faroese herring trawlers from unloading in EU ports.

Wednesday's vote will take place in the Fisheries Committee, as EUObserver points out, with the decision then being taken up by the Commission, which is not the EU's executive arm but the legislative and the executive. For some reason hacks on the WSJ seem unable to grasp this simple fact.

While the EU is accusing both Iceland and the Faroe Islands of breaking international agreements (unspecified in the article) the Faroese say very firmly that EU sanctions "would contravene UN conventions and argue rising sea temperatures have made more fish move to colder northern seas".

At the very least that assertion ought to be tested but we have seen no scientific arguments that disprove it, merely insistence on countries not in the EU having to obey its rules. It is not as if the common fisheries policy over the last few decades has been particularly adept at conserving the fisheries stock or managing the fishing industry particularly well.

The fishing industry in the EU and the UK is disregarding our advice. Having allowed itself to be decimated by the EU and the CFP it is calling on the EU to try to destroy the Faroese fishing industry and with it, the islands' economy with Denmark, being the only one against that. That is understandable as, for many purposes, the Faroe Islands are part of that country, though their domestic economic decisions remain independent.

According to The Scotsman:

LEADERS of Britain’s £500 million pelagic industry today urged the European Union to block the export of Faroese herring and mackerel to Europe.

• Pelagic industry leaders call on EU to block Faroe Islands from exporting herring and mackerel to Europe

• Call comes as Faroese authorities continue to refuse to enter into international agreement on division of herring stock in North Atlantic.

FishUpdate confirms it and adds:

The Scottish Pelagic Processors Association (SPPA), which represents mackerel and herring processors and has a close relationship with UK pelagic fisherman, also wants to see sanctions urgently imposed on Icelandic fisheries.

Ian McFadden, chairman of the SPPA, said: “Mackerel processing alone supports around 2,260 jobs in the UK with several hundred more involved in fishing.

“For several years now the Faroese and Icelandic fisheries have aggressively increased their quotas of mackerel and refused to negotiate with the EU and Norway, which have historically worked together to ensure sustainable fishing practices.

“This activity is a real threat to jobs in the UK and to the economy of some communities which rely on mackerel and herring as the main source of employment.

“We wholeheartedly back the UK and Scottish governments’ support for sanctions that block fresh and frozen landings of herring and mackerel. We can now conclude that other activity to encourage the Faroe Islands and Iceland to agree quotas are proving ineffective and more drastic action is required.

“While the vote on sanctions against the Faroe Islands is due tomorrow we also believe the EU will soon announce plans for sanctions against Iceland – the sooner this is formalised the better.”

Mr McFadden would probably argue that all he is doing is trying to protect British or, perhaps, Scottish jobs. If only he and his organization had been quite so tough with the European Union's Fisheries Committee, the Commission and various rules and regulations issued under the CFP.

We have received the following information from Scottish Enterprise:

NOTIFICATION TO INDUSTRY

In support of the Scottish Government’s policy of developing the offshore renewable energy capacity in Scotland while providing a sustainable future for the Scottish fishing community, Scottish Enterprise has commissioned a study on behalf of the Scottish Government to investigate the potential opportunities for the use of the Scottish Fishing fleet in support of the offshore wind industry in Scotland.

The study will incorporate the following 5 aspects:

1) A Demand Study: Where the potential demands from the offshore wind developers for vessels to service the offshore wind sector will be determined.

2) A Supply Study: Which will investigate the potential use and conversion options for the Scottish fishing fleet, should the owners express an interest.

3) A Shortfall Study: An analysis of the potential demand for vessels, and where potentially this may be met by the fishing vessel fleet following conversion or retrofit.

4) A role, retrofit and Conversion Study: Analysis and categorisation of the types of retrofit and conversion options required of a fishing vessel to fulfil a role in the offshore wind industry.

5) Identification of Operational Locations: An evaluation of the location, facilities and constraints of potential operational support locations for vessels deployed to support the development, construction and operation of Scottish offshore wind farms. Initial engagement with industry stakeholders will be through a targeted perception survey, and this will be used to gather industry input, viewpoints and data. Contact with industry stakeholders will be made shortly and, input and opinion sought.

The study is being undertaken by SeaEnergy PLC, and supported by BVG Associates. For further information please contact SeaEnergy PLC through the following e-mail address:

fishingvesselstudy@seaenergy-plc.com

We cannot help agreeing with the anger expressed by Michael Fry in The Scotsman about the Common Fisheries Policy. It has been a disaster, he argues, throughout its history and Scotland with its fishermen has suffered. (As have England and Northern Ireland but The Scotsman is unlikely to mention that.) All Scottish politicians agree on this, no matter what party they are in but nothing much seems to happen, despite all the tough words.

So what is the answer? Raise the subject of reform once Scotland has voted for independence and has to rethink its position in relation to EU membership. That's it, ladies and gentlemen. The course of action that has produced no result so far needs to be tried again and made really tough. Good luck with that. How about reconsidering the need for a Common Fisheries Policy altogether?

Sandy Patience, Chairman of FAL had a letter published in The Press and Journal on January 14 of this year. Here is the full text:

The letter on Scottish Independence in yesterday’s Press and Journal by Ian Walker is absolutely correct.

It is pure fantasy for Alex Salmond to hoodwink the Scottish people into believing that we can have an independent Scotland within the European Union.

We need to waken up to the undeniable fact that the European Union exists for the benefit of the European Union, not for the benefit of the member states.

EU law demands that new member states must accept existing Community legislation in its entirety and subscribe to the common policies. No exceptions can be allowed other than those agreed upon for a transitional period.

So what does the future hold for the fishing industry in an independent Scotland within the EU? - the continuation of the deliberate and decisive destruction of the Scottish fishing fleet, under the pretence of the need for more and more conservation, while at the same time allowing a seal population to explode and consume more fish than the EU allows the industry to catch.

And what does the future hold for us all with so called independence in the European Union?

There would be nothing but political intrusion, suppression and diktat while commanded to hand over billions of pounds a year for illusory benefits

The idea that Scottish fishermen will, somehow, do well out of that weird status of "independence within the EU" is, as Sandy Patience, says, complete fantasy. Unsurprisingly, many other people in Scotland may realize this truth. According to the top news story in the same newspaper:

VOTERS across northern Scotland have said no to independence in a survey commissioned by the Press and Journal.

And they want to have their say on the issue now – not in 2014, when the SNP says it will put the question to the nation.

Nearly 45% of those polled said they would reject the chance to let Scotland go it alone.

That may be why Alex Salmond wants to postpone the referendum.

This is to be found on page 10 of the Newsletter:

Sandy Patience, Chairman

All political parties agree and admit that the CFP has been a disaster for the conservation of fish stocks and the communities which depend on their livelihoods.

When are you and your officials ever going to realise that the CFP has nothing whatever to do with conservation but all to do with the principle of equal access to the common resource?
It is fair to say that all of us who have told the truth all these years about the CFP have been accused of all sorts of unpleasant things, including lunacy. Even now, as all sorts of celebrities talk ignorantly about what they see as the main problem, discards (not that is not a problem but it is the effect not the cause) the reality of the situation seems to be beyond the average politician and political commentator.

Tom Hay, Honorary ChairmanIt might be that it is already too late but it certainly will be if we do not face up to the truth of what the CFP is all about and what will happen when the real CFP is in place.

A number of Scottish Fishing Industry Associations have been approached to fund the setting up of a

This idea must not be dismissed. After all since seals are so well protected why not do the same for the stressed out fishermen who, having saved 1200 tonnes of cod in 2010, only saw that wiped out by an extra 42,000 grey seal pups.

While Scottish fishermen are expected to sacrifice their very livelihood on conservation measures and allow a seal population to explode the National Trust for Scotland working alongside Scottish Natural Heritage to introduce a Caledonian pine forest on Mar Lodge estate have shot 6,000 red deer reducing their number to 40 animals.

Clearly a case of double standards.