Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo

fishing grounds


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 brochbuilder

brochbuilder

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 179 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 06:06 PM

So the EU suddenly decide we can have a comprehensive free trade agreement as long as we leave access to our fishing grounds as it is.

What a surprise! They are well aware of the value of our fishing grounds, it's time for our politicians recognise this too.

Please let's tell 'em, you've been raking it in here for a long time, but it's now over. We'll sell you the fish.
  • suuusssiiieee, thebfg, George. and 2 others like this

#2 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1061 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 06:47 PM

Remember what was given away regarding fishing grounds when we gave ourselves to the Common Market.



#3 brochbuilder

brochbuilder

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 179 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 07:03 PM

That's what we want back now George.....
  • George. likes this

#4 crofterlady

crofterlady

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 07:44 PM

When I heard Tusk tonight saying that the EU should retain the status quo re fisheries I felt incandescent with annoyance.  An UNELECTED landlubber telling the people of the U.K. what to do with OUR fish!  Even though I voted against independence last time, I would, if the UK Government sell us down the swanny...AGAIN..., vote for independence next time around.  Of course, that's assuming that the Scottish Government would take their collective heads out of the Central Belt and support our fishermen.  Would they? 



#5 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1061 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 07:54 PM

Even though I voted against independence last time, I would, if the UK Government sell us down the swanny...AGAIN..., vote for independence next time around. 

 

They aren't likely to sell us down the swanny, they're more likely to give us away.



#6 Wheelsup

Wheelsup

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 08:20 PM

Yes, and it would make an excellent bargaining chip to get an independent Scotlandinto the EU and the Euro.

#7 The Cutty Sark

The Cutty Sark

    Member

  • Social Media Member
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 09:11 PM

The "public" face of the Scottish Government will show support, but the reality will be no they won't. But it's not their fault or that of the UK government in general. Fish are just recovering from the days of over fishing, and I'm guessing this is why he hopes for, or wants, a status quo. 

 

Since the collapse of the cod stocks on the Grand Bank and the eventual lose of some 30,000 jobs, politicians are always more wary of how to approach the protection of stocks and the interests of fishermen.  Politicians became far more wary of allowing fishermen to do what keeps them happy. The Canadian government did nothing while Scottish (and EU ) Factory Trawlers over-fished their Cod to the point of near extinction.  Eventually they had no choice but to close the fields and it cost them dearly. It will/has taken decades of on-going recovery, the smaller communities effected will never recover. There are many more examples from the bad ol days; the 1977 herring crisis, the cod wars, the decline of other fish that are only just recovering. No sensible person would want to return to that.

 

 

When I heard Tusk tonight saying that the EU should retain the status quo re fisheries I felt incandescent with annoyance.  An UNELECTED landlubber telling the people of the U.K. what to do with OUR fish!  Even though I voted against independence last time, I would, if the UK Government sell us down the swanny...AGAIN..., vote for independence next time around.  Of course, that's assuming that the Scottish Government would take their collective heads out of the Central Belt and support our fishermen.  Would they? 



#8 suuusssiiieee

suuusssiiieee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 10:46 PM

The EU accuse us of "cherry picking" - sounds like pot calling the kettle black to me. 

 

Donald as his fish entailed name suggests can Tusk off...



#9 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1061 posts

Posted 08 March 2018 - 12:27 AM

The "public" face of the Scottish Government will show support, but the reality will be no they won't. But it's not their fault or that of the UK government in general. Fish are just recovering from the days of over fishing, and I'm guessing this is why he hopes for, or wants, a status quo. 

 

Westminster will do nothing to help us. Remember how much of our fishing Ted Heath gave away. A huge amount of our fishing handed to the Europeans and look at the damage that has done to our fishing industry. That will probably happen again, not old Ted's fault this time but there are a lot like him. Old wee Terry May (or may not) comes to mind.


Edited by George., 08 March 2018 - 12:28 AM.


#10 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8967 posts

Posted 08 March 2018 - 05:08 AM

The EU needs us one hell of a lot more than we need them, the sooner our politicians, whoever are, grasp that fact, take control of all that's our and turn their backs on the continentals and walk away, the sooner we'll get somewhere.

 

As the old Foula man was said to say about the 'Oceanic' - I'll gie it a fortnite........

 

If they want to eat fish, they'll have to buy from somewhere, as their own territoral waters can nowhere near being to meet demand.....Unless their car manufacturers want to dramatically dowsize their operations, the Germans, French and Italians need to sell us their cars - just look at how many Mercs, Beemers, Audis, VWs, Seats, Skodas, Pugs, Renaults, Citroens, Fiats, Dacias etc are on UK roads, and the list goes on......

 

The problem we have, is that we have politicians in charge everywhere in the UK, who are Europhiles as they believe it keeps their own personal gravy train running, who never considered for one second the referendum would be in favour of 'Out' - To them the concept of leaving, was as alien and unthinkable as the Pope converting to Satanism would be to Catholics. And now its happened, they haven't the first clue what to do, they're running around like headless hens trying on one hand to appear to follow through on the referendum result, but on the other panicing over where its headed for them personally, and ending up making a pig's ear of everything.

 

We need this bunch of wishy washy ditherers out, and folk in that believe in what they're doing and make the most of every opportunity. This lot believe Brexit will be a disaster, from their personal POV at least, and the way they're behaving is turning that in to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not one of them could save themselves if they were on fire and they were standing alongside a six feet deep hole of water.



#11 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1061 posts

Posted 08 March 2018 - 08:57 AM

The EU needs us one hell of a lot more than we need them, the sooner our politicians, whoever are, grasp that fact, take control of all that's our and turn their backs on the continentals and walk away, the sooner we'll get somewhere.

 

The EU do not appear to need us more than we need them. We "appear" to let them float around in our waters while they strip them bare, leaving us nothing in the way of fish. Not long ago that I spotted a Spanish boat out fishing in St Magnus Bay, about half a mile offshore when they should have been twelve miles off, minimum. Nothing was done about it but Westminster wanted to stay all friendly. How long until we give our oil away? After all, what used to come through Sullom Voe now sees a huge amount going straight to Rotterdam. I wonder if they can think of an excuse - or just some lies.



#12 The Cutty Sark

The Cutty Sark

    Member

  • Social Media Member
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 08 March 2018 - 10:01 AM

Correct, my first statement makes this clear; neither Wee Nikki Crankie, Westminster nor Ireland have managed to successfully put a stop to over-fishing by European vessels, nor stopping massive black fish landings here.

 

The EU was willing to show strength in the Turbot war back in the 90s, sending out German gun boats to protect the interests of Spain and France, two nations who had ironically over-fished many of their own inshore crustacean stocks. We may see more of the same in the future. 

 

The 70s is far more difficult and certainly not simple to navigate, both British and EU industrial fishing ships were encroaching on a number of other nations fishing grounds, while at the same time, the UK wanted to be allowed into Europe, so rightly or wrongly, "sharing" the fields was a way in. 

 

Ironically. I'm guessing if and when independence is voted for. Wee Crankie will use the same "bribe" to allow Scotland back into Europe; A public face of support, and the reality around the negotiating table. 

 

 

 

 

The "public" face of the Scottish Government will show support, but the reality will be no they won't. But it's not their fault or that of the UK government in general. Fish are just recovering from the days of over fishing, and I'm guessing this is why he hopes for, or wants, a status quo. 

 

Westminster will do nothing to help us. Remember how much of our fishing Ted Heath gave away. A huge amount of our fishing handed to the Europeans and look at the damage that has done to our fishing industry. That will probably happen again, not old Ted's fault this time but there are a lot like him. Old wee Terry May (or may not) comes to mind.

 



#13 The Cutty Sark

The Cutty Sark

    Member

  • Social Media Member
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 08 March 2018 - 10:14 AM

Not sure what you are talking about with the oil. BP made this decision on their own, and have already stated it is to cut costs and because they do not have the technology on site to clean chemicals from some of the oil returns. True or not (though can't see why they would lie), it is not a nationalised business (yet), and they do not need the approval of the Scottish or Westminster governments to make project based business decisions.......by the way, it has a mind to rain today, if your washing doesn't dry outside, it wasn't Westminster's or Holyrood's fault, blame Frey, son of Njord  :thmbsup

 

 

 

The EU needs us one hell of a lot more than we need them, the sooner our politicians, whoever are, grasp that fact, take control of all that's our and turn their backs on the continentals and walk away, the sooner we'll get somewhere.

 

The EU do not appear to need us more than we need them. We "appear" to let them float around in our waters while they strip them bare, leaving us nothing in the way of fish. Not long ago that I spotted a Spanish boat out fishing in St Magnus Bay, about half a mile offshore when they should have been twelve miles off, minimum. Nothing was done about it but Westminster wanted to stay all friendly. How long until we give our oil away? After all, what used to come through Sullom Voe now sees a huge amount going straight to Rotterdam. I wonder if they can think of an excuse - or just some lies.

 



#14 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1061 posts

Posted 08 March 2018 - 10:46 AM

Not sure what you are talking about with the oil. BP made this decision on their own, and have already stated it is to cut costs and because they do not have the technology on site to clean chemicals from some of the oil returns. 

 

BP's decision to take the oil to Rotterdam was distinctly unfortunately and certainly not beneficial to us. Very beneficial for Rotterdam, the Netherlands and no doubt Europe will continue to benefit from it after we've left. It comes out of the sea that is closest to us and then goes away, no doubt to come back as required - at a price. To say that it is unfortunate is being courteous but no more.

 

We want our oil-based industry back, as we do our fish and all the rest that has been handed out for no good reason.



#15 The Cutty Sark

The Cutty Sark

    Member

  • Social Media Member
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 08 March 2018 - 11:22 AM

I agree, it's not beneficial to us, at least not in the long term.

 

At the same time, Holyrood has a clear vision towards a renewable energy policy which should see fossil fuels halved by 2030, it's a great way forward and offers some great business opportunities.

 

BP have no interest in investing heavily, they fear independence which will "more than likely"  see the nationalisation of the oil industry, and the inevitable collapse of oil revenue by 2050. But maybe it doesn't matter. As a nation, we (Scotland) spend around £70bn a year, which is around £12bn short of what we currently return in tax. Oil returns would not fill that gap in the future. It's nice extra cash, but it's not something we can use for future spending plans.

 

But sensible fish management, and without a return to a 70s style over-fishing,  should see us with a national resource that will last indefinitely. 

 

 

 

Not sure what you are talking about with the oil. BP made this decision on their own, and have already stated it is to cut costs and because they do not have the technology on site to clean chemicals from some of the oil returns. 

 

BP's decision to take the oil to Rotterdam was distinctly unfortunately and certainly not beneficial to us. Very beneficial for Rotterdam, the Netherlands and no doubt Europe will continue to benefit from it after we've left. It comes out of the sea that is closest to us and then goes away, no doubt to come back as required - at a price. To say that it is unfortunate is being courteous but no more.

 

We want our oil-based industry back, as we do our fish and all the rest that has been handed out for no good reason.

 


Edited by The Cutty Sark, 08 March 2018 - 11:25 AM.


#16 Urabug

Urabug

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 681 posts

Posted 08 March 2018 - 03:37 PM

Just as a point of interest how many of our fishing boats have been built in Britain , and how much fishing gear is British.

 

I suspect that some of the UK "fishing companies"  have not been truly faithful in supporting there own country before going elsewhere !

 

But even so this does not give the government the right to trade away our territorial waters. 



#17 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1061 posts

Posted 08 March 2018 - 04:35 PM

But even so this does not give the government the right to trade away our territorial waters. 

 

Dig Ted Heath out of his grave and tell him that he got it wrong.



#18 The Cutty Sark

The Cutty Sark

    Member

  • Social Media Member
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 08 March 2018 - 05:24 PM

It's a good point.  I guess issues range from constant demarcation disputes right up until the 80s, ( and as you note )  fishing companies buying boats from other countries instead of the British shipbuilders. Capacity containment to over-come the issues with over-fishing in the 70s-80s hit returns and meaning countries didn't need to add as many ships to their fleets. And a hundred other reasons.

 

Mind you, the UK has over 1,100 fishing vessels built after 1980 that are 10 metres or more, with a dry tonnage of just under 300,000. So  I guess replacements would be far and few between with most work just being maintenance and repair.

 

 

Just as a point of interest how many of our fishing boats have been built in Britain , and how much fishing gear is British.

 

I suspect that some of the UK "fishing companies"  have not been truly faithful in supporting there own country before going elsewhere !

 

But even so this does not give the government the right to trade away our territorial waters. 

 

 


 


Edited by The Cutty Sark, 08 March 2018 - 05:35 PM.


#19 The Cutty Sark

The Cutty Sark

    Member

  • Social Media Member
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 08 March 2018 - 05:34 PM

Feels a wee bit crass for my tastes. But if you have a Quija board, you give it a go and let us know how you get on  :thmbsup  

 

 

 

But even so this does not give the government the right to trade away our territorial waters. 

 

Dig Ted Heath out of his grave and tell him that he got it wrong.

 



#20 Capeesh

Capeesh

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 308 posts

Posted 10 March 2018 - 09:38 AM

The Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond has come out and said he's open to bartering away fishing access to our waters in exchange for a better trade deal.
After the original betrayal by Ted Heath and his Tory government in the 70's, they're at it again with an extraordinary second betrayal on the cards for our fishing industry.
I had my doubts when I heard them harp on about taking back control, seems to me they're only taking back control for as long as it takes to barter it all away again to protect their interests in the city of London.
What's that old proverb...
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.