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.

No doubt, readers of this blog would have heard the Prime Minister and other fervid supporters of Britain's EU membership talk dismissively of Norway's position in the European Economic Area (EEA) but not in the European Union (EU).

Or, in other words, Norway is in the Single Market but is not part of the rest of the EU legislation and is very jealous of her ability to dismiss that legislation if it does not suit the national interest as not being part of what they had agreed to when the EEA Agreement was signed. The UK, let me remind my readers, can do no such thing. Mr Cameron, this country's Prime Minister, does not think that would suit Britain as that would mean that we would just "“just accept all the rules of the Single Market, pay for the privilege of being part of it and, as it were, be governed by fax rule".

Let us be charitable and assume that it is ignorance rather than a desire to be economical with the truth that inspired Mr Cameron to make that statement.

A new paper published by the Bruges Group, The Norway Option by Dr Richard North, goes into the subject in some detail, showing how many of the decisions the EU implements are actually made at a higher, international level and how important Norway's role is in a number of those organizations while the UK is represented by the Commission and, possibly, the Council.

Fishing does not come under the Single Market though the original CFP was set up through sleight of hand, by using Treaty Articles that applied to trade. (Here, here and a letter by Tom Hay here.)

Let us now have a look at how "powerless" Norway, who remains outside the CFP,  is in the question of fisheries. This is what Dr North writes on page 16 of the pamphlet:

As regards the European Union, the EU ratified the UNCLOS [UN Convention on the Law of the Sea] agreement in 1998, and subscribes to the FAO codes, the combination being part of the external dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy.42,43 Although the CFP is not part of the internal market acquis and is not part of the EEA Agreement, trade in fish and fish products is covered, and to some extent is affected by these international treaties and agreements. Norway, of course, represents herself on the relevant bodies, but EU Member States are represented by the European Commission and the EEAS[European External Action Service].

As regards the CFP, much of the current provisions are hedged by the international agreements, to the extent that it would be very difficult for individual member states to formulate their own independent policies. This is especially the case as the EU has also concluded or is party to multiple bilateral and multilateral treaties with neighbouring fishing states. For instance, it lists eleven with Norway, of which three are bilateral, eight with Iceland, and one with the Faroes. These inter-relate with regional organisations such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), to which the Russian Federation, Norway, Iceland, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland) and the European Union are parties.

Even before that, on pages 12 and 13 we can read this:

Codex Alimentarius promulgates international food standards, which are then adopted regionally and locally. All EU Member States are members of the governing commission. In 2003, the European Community joined, sharing competence with EU countries depending on the level of harmonisation of the respective legislation. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, the EU became the body of record. The EU and its Member States draw up EU position papers on the issues discussed in the Commission, the various Committees and Task Forces. The Committee on Fish and Fishery Products is hosted by Norway.

Just in case anyone can misunderstand the implications, on page 31 there is a clear explanation:

For another example, in Codex Alimentarius negotiations, the UK and other EU member states have ceded authority to the EU on some technical issues, allowing exclusive EU “competence”. By contrast, Norway is not only an independent member but, in hosting the Fish and Fisheries Products Committee, is the lead nation globally in an area of significant economic importance to it. It is thus able to guide, if not control, the agenda on standards relevant to this product group, to which the EU then reacts. In all respects, Norway has a far greater say in Codex Alimentarius affairs than does the UK.

Outside the framework of the EU, Norway is thus able to make its voice heard on the international stage, permitting it to express its own interests and take up its own negotiating positions. It can also initiate rules on its own account, without first having to seek EU approval. It has, for instance, been particularly active in exploiting the opportunities afforded by international conventions.

Whether anybody really legislates or imposes rules by fax in this day of e-mail is an interesting question but whoever does that it is not the EU on Norway. It might happen the other way round. Oh, and let us not forget that in negotiations about fishing in the North Sea the UK is represented by the EU (as will be Scotland should it ever achieve that glorious aim of "independence within the EU"). Norway and Iceland represent themselves.

Purely technical problems (with internet access rather than fishing nets) made it impossible to post for a couple of weeks but we are now back and will post with renewed vigour.

Some catching up is in order. The European Parliament voted on October 23 "on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF. The proposal to subsidise new vessels was rejected. MEPs voted for a cap that would force member states to choose between new engines and new jobs for young people".

So, Mr Cameron et al, what happened to that idea of restoring some control over fisheries to the member states who are actually doing the fishing, assuming they are allowed to do so? Should they not be the ones to decide what they want to do and plan according to what they see as the best way forward for their fishing communities?

Just how difficult is it to understand what the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is really about? Judging by pronouncements made by politicians, policy wonks, media "experts" and civil servants (though that may be with tongue firmly in cheek) difficult to the point of being impossible.

John Ashworth, who used to run Save Britain's Fish, sent this e-mail to Fishing News. So far it has not been published: It never ceases to amaze me how cunning the EU system is in hiding their real intentions. Ever since 1982 when the first derogation from the CFP expired, the system has always portrayed the temporary management arrangement as the CFP, and the present “Regional CFP” is no exception.

By using this clever wordage, the Fisheries acquis communautaire of equal access to a common resource without discrimination, which is the real CFP, is concealed as the EU Fisheries Directorate grapples over many years, complicated by a steady continual increase of nations joining the EU, to bring about the acquis through various management means by stealth.

The fishing issue has always been an excellent example of EU manipulation. As we approach the European, followed by the General election, and in turn pressure for an in/out EU referendum, watch the number of times the word “Reform“ is used. The question is what is being reformed, and how, because as in Fisheries, reforming the temporary management arrangement, which most people are being led to believe is the CFP, is no solution, because whatever is devised, and what you think you have reformed, the direction is still to accomplish the acquis.

The decimation of the British Fishing Industry has, and is, taking place solely because of the acquis communautaire. After all these years it is still not fully understood, which is why the EU system gets away with the continual advancement to full political union, and those following a "reformist agenda", without tackling the question of the acquis are furthering that advancement.

European Voice reports that

European Union fisheries ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Thursday (17 October) are expected to agree on the distribution of rights to fish in the Baltic Sea in 2014.

There is, however, to be another item on the agenda:

The ministers will also discuss the annual consultations between the EU and Norway on their bilateral fisheries agreement, which is likely to encompass the ongoing fishing dispute over mackerel with Iceland.

There has been a great deal on this blog about the bullying of Iceland and the Faroe Islands. There is no need to repeat any of that for the time being. However, it is interesting to note in the light of the argument about the size of catches and whether, as both the Icelanders and the Faroese insist, there has been an increase in the amount of fish available, that

Last week, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), an independent scientific organisation, issued recommended mackerel catch levels for 2014 of 889,886 tonnes, a 64% increase from 2013, based on the fact that the stock has expanded north-west towards Iceland. Based on this migration, Iceland has begun unilaterally increasing its fishing, but the EU has threatened sanctions. Iceland welcomed the ICES report.

What exactly is the EU's argument and why is Britain supporting it, given the facts? Come to think of it, does Britain have the right not to support it as long as the common fisheries policy remains in place?

Richard Benyon who was responsible for the fisheries policy has left his position. Paul Goodman on ConHome says:

The Government is losing good, solid, experienced Ministers. Richard Benyon, Simon Burns, Mark Hoban, Mark Prisk…these are all Ministers who have either been at their brief or on the front bench for a long time, and know their stuff. It’s a brutal fact of political life that most Ministers are sacked sooner or later. This will be scant consolation to the “innocents”, as they’ve been called, who’ve done nothing wrong.

Whether all who have had to deal with the fisheries issue would agree with that assessment of Benyon's activity is questionable. More as it comes in.

15.57 He is being replaced by George Eustice, MP for Camborne and Redruth. We need to wait for his first pronouncements to be able to judge how he intends to proceed.

16.15 Apparently Dan Rogerson MP for North Cornwall has also been appointed to DEFRA though that does not seem to have percolated to the media yet. That leaves two places on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee at the House of Commons.

The Autumn Newsletter of the Fishermen's Association Limited (FAL) is out and we thought our readers would like to see some snippets from it.

First off, there is an article by the Chairman about the discards in the West of Scotland Demersal fisheries, which strangely echo the arguments made by Icelanders and Faroese in their fierce debates with the EU (here, here, here, here and here):

It is difficult not to be dismayed at the continuing demands of the Commission for more fishing restrictions on West of Scotland fish stocks especially as skippers who fish the grounds have seen more fish these past 2 years than at any time since 2001.

When I retired the deep water fleet or “edge of shelf “fleet stood at 37 vessels. This has now reduced to 8 who spend most of the year in Area VIa / VIb.

This year alone we have seen 4 vessels leave the fleet who traditionally fished West of 4 grounds.

This is why we have been advocating that instead of supporting the EU's bullying, Britain's and Scotland's fishermen should take the side of the Icelanders and the Faroese and negotiate some agreement with them. Ah, but they cannot, not while we are in the CFP. Norway can negotiate, Iceland and Russia can negotiate, Denmark on behalf of the Faroe Islands can negotiate but Britain? We shall have the EU negotiating on our behalf should they be inclined to do so.

On the Scrap and Build policy we have this:

Over the years FAL has argued for a vessel scrap and build policy. In June 2010 Richard Lochhead was informed by Sandy Patience that: “In the past one saved to build up the business – either by re-engining and proper care and maintenance or new building. However there are so many other demands now—buying of fish or shellfish or leasing quota and days plus buying of licence parking to obtain more days that nothing is being set aside for reinvestment.

Had a scrap and build scheme been introduced this would have encouraged the young men left in the industry to look forward with hope not despair.”

Regrettably this was never promoted by Marine Scotland.

On 10 July 2013 at a meeting of the EU Parliament Fisheries Committee, Alain Cadec MEP, Rapporteur on the EMFF proposals emphasised that ‘the money for fleet renewal (vessel construction) would only be available for a part of the fishing fleet — replacing vessels older than 35 years, smaller than 12 metres, with an obligation to reduce the vessel’s capacity by 40 percent.’

Mr Cadec stated that “his is responsible fleet renewal. Furthermore, you may only receive money to replace your engine if you reduce capacity. These are the only real measures in the EMFF and the basic regulation in the fisheries reform to reduce capacity in the EU fishing fleet.”

Unfortunately that fleet renewal proposal is not a scrap and build policy. In any event if passed in Parliament’s Plenary session in October (See page 14 CFP Reform Watch Article) it will do little, if anything, for the Scottish whitefish/prawn fleets but may assist some of the owners of very old boats in the Scottish/UK fleet.

The SNP has been making noises about an independent Scotland (within the EU, which is something of an oxymoron) being able to sort out the mess that Edward Heath's government had imposed on Scottish (and other) fishermen. They have not yet specified how they will do it.

In the SPRING 2013 NEWSLETTER we asked the following question:

In view of the condemnation by both politicians of the CFP and their call for restoration of national control would they care to explain how they are going to ensure the livelihoods of the Scottish fishing industry both offshore and onshore and the communities they support IF the Scottish people vote for independence and the SNP subsequently achieves its overwhelming ambition to become a member State of the EU?

We still await a reply. Perhaps we will obtain that when FAL meets Mr Lochhead on 31 October.

As soon as we have an answer it will be published on this blog.

Let us finish on a more cheerful note, to with the recipe in this edition of the Newsletter, for Mussles au Gratin (nothing wrong with European cooking, after all):

Ingredients

455g (1lb) vacuumpacked mussels in garlic butter sauce 55g (2oz) parsley, chopped 2 cloves garlic, crushed 6 x 15ml spoon (6 tablespoons) breadcrumbs 6 x 15ml spoon (6 tablespoons) pecorino or Parmesan cheese, grated grated rind 1 lime and juice of half a lime salt and freshly ground black pepper 6 x 15ml spoon (6 tablespoons) olive oil 1 lemon and 1 lime to garnish

Method

Mix together parsley, garlic, breadcrumbs, cheese,grated rind and lime juice. Season and mix with theolive oil. Blend thoroughly.

Split cooked mussels in half and discard the empty shells. Spread mussels in half shells with the breadcrumb mixture and arrange in a shallow ovenproof dish.

Bake for approximately 15-20 minutes until lightly browned.

Serve garnished with lemon and lime wedges.

Bon Appétit! Buon Appetito! Guten Appetit! And in Icelandic: Verði þér að góðu!