A bit of a spat broke out today, 7th July, between the First Minister, Alex Salmond, and a diplomatic but firm CEO of the Scottish Fishermens’ Federation, Bertie Armstrong.
Mr Armstrong had written to the First Minister asking questions for clarification of consequences for the Scottish fishing industry of some specific statements he, Mr Salmond, had made in a speech he gave in Bruges on 28th April. On that date, the First Minister had addressed the College of Europe in Bruges.
Mr Salmond had replied to Mr Armstrong in terms which the Scottish Fisheries CEO said that he personally found intimidating. He defined this as implicit in suggesting that he ought not to have asked these questions and should desist from asking more.
Despite the First Minister’s furious denials of any intent to intimidate, Mr Armstrong held his ground, saying politely and clearly that ‘it had seemed intimidating to me’.
In rather juvenile terms, Mr Salmond accused Mr Armstrong of ‘having bought the Tory line’ in his ‘ridiculous interpretation;’ of his, Mr Salmond’s response.
Given Mr Salmond’s overtly intimidatory style in his address to the College of Europe [ evidenced below], his ability to act in this way can hardly be credibly dismissed as a ‘ridiculous interpretation.’
The text of Mr Salmond’s letter is not, as yet, available – but it ought to be, so that people can make up their own mind on the nuances. The first Minister is no shrinking violet and both he and senior colleagues in the SNP have serious form in robust intimidation of their critics in a variety of ways.
Ironically, a major example of the First Minister’s increasingly threatening style could hardy be clearer than in part of his speech to The College of Europe in Bruges – about whose impact Mr Armstrong has enquired.
Mr Armstrong has shown significant courage in making it public that the questions he put in his members interests – focused and objective, as can be seen below – had met an unnecessarily robust response that appaered to him to be designed to intimidate.
Many others have similar stories to tell but most stay silent from fear of retribution – which may be pragmatic but does not command respect.
This way do bullies become dictators.
Mr Salmond’s direct threat to The College of Europe in Bruges
During his address Mr Salmond was exercised to put the case for continuing Scottish membership of the EU.
He said:
‘We propose a practical, common sense approach to membership, which means that there is no detriment – none whatsoever – to any other member of the European Union as a result of Scotland’s continuing membership. And the alternative – the fishing fleets of 12 countries being denied any access to Scottish waters and as a consequence, their access to Norwegian waters, which is also dependent on Scottish access;..’
Mr Armstrong’s consequent letter to the First Minister
The Scottish Fishermens’ Federation’s Chief Executive, Bertie Armstrong, had, on 21st April, already written to both the Scottish and the UK Fisheries Ministers, putting to each of them the same questions on the future of Scottish fishing sector as they saw it, depending on whether the September referendum chooses independence or continuing membership of the United Kingdom.
On 12th May, Mr Armstrong wrote directly to the First Minister. He was courteous and clear, noting that the First Minister would be aware that the SFF had written to the two ministers and telling Mr Salmond that:
‘Our letters to the Fisheries Ministers make clear the basis of our enquiry and for avoidance of doubt I repeat it here. We seek from both ministers as assessment of risk and benefit on specific matters affecting the fishing industry post referendum. Our requests are made noting the neutrality of the SFF in the referendum debate – the September vote is not for trade associations or businesses, it is for individuals. The SFF’s function in the debate, agreed by its membership, is therefore to pursue answers and analyses to provide illumination for its members in their own decision-making. We will not offer guidance.
‘Your Bruges speech raises questions, in the event of a Yes vote, on the journey to, and end-point of – changed EU membership. Since the fishing industry is governed wholly by the CFP [Ed: The EU's Common Fisheries Policy] this issue concerns us greatly. We have two question areas…’
These ‘question areas’ are those Mr Armstrong has mentioned above – the journey to and the end-point of – changed EU membership’. He details the issues arising under the first of these and then moves to the second – the end-point of changed EU membership, saying to the First Minister:
‘Regarding fishing in your speech you said: “We propose a practical common sense approach to membership – which means that there is no detriment – none whatsoever – to any other member of the European Union as a result of Scotland’s continuing membership. And the alternative – the fishing fleets of 12 countries being denied any access to Scottish waters and as a consequence,their access to Norwegian waters, which is also dependent on Scottish access…’
Mr Armstrong’s questions following from this statement of the First Minister’s which he had cited were:
- ‘Firstly regarding fact, you indicate that should Scotland find itself outside the EU, the transit of EU fishing vessels through Scottish waters to the Norwegian zone will be prohibited. That would be contrary to the principle of Innocent Passage laid down in the law of the sea – will you explain what you meant by this?
- Noting that 12 EU Member States currently have access to our waters [under certain conditions - not all of them - everywhere] and you have stated a principle of “no detriment”, is the best end-point for the Scottish industry at the commencement of EU membership the status quo?
- Given that there will be negotiation and, as you clearly recognise, fishing will be an important part of that, is there a risk of a worse end point fisheries funding, in Bruges you referred as follows the EU budget: “So there need be no reopening of the EU budget agreed last year to 2020. Scotland would take responsibility for its share of EU contributions and receipts – which means that we would still be a net contributor to the EU.” If acceptable to the EU, this proportional split with the UK would perpetuate for Scotland the UK rebate, which in turn reduces access to EU funding. On the 1st May in Holyrood the Cabinet Secretary said: “Our fishermen benefited only from 1.1% of the European fisheries fund, despite having 7% of the EU catch and 13% of EU aquaculture production. There is no way whatsoever that any independent Scottish government, no matter who was in charge of it, would have negotiated such poor deals for Scottish farmers, crofters and fishermen, which shows why we would all be better off with a Yes vote in September.” Could you please clarify the position regarding rebate of Scotland’s EU contributions and its impact on access to funding?’
Mr Armstrong’s position
In the situation following the First Minister’s as yet unseen response to him and his own recoil from it, Mr Armstrong has been quoted as saying: ‘As an organisation we are apolitical and are adopting a neutral position in the referendum debate. But we have been charged by our membership to ask questions and seek clarity over issues raised in the debate, so as to enable individual fishermen to make their own minds up.
‘This is why we have written to the First Minister seeking clarification about some of the comments made in his Bruges speech. In particular, we are interested in expansion on his comment that if Scotland were denied EU entry, then this could lead to the fishing fleets of 12 countries being denied any access to Scottish waters and as a consequence, their access to Norwegian waters, which is also dependent on Scottish access.’
Note: Mr Armstrong’s letter to the First Minister is here: 20140512 14-079 SFF to The First Minister Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP
