The Great Betrayal

Preamble
Whilst researching facts and figures on the decline and the possible rebirth of the Scottish Fishing Industry, I was drawn to information held at the Public records Office (Released under the 30 years rule) by an Article in the Aberdeen Press and Journal. Further research has lifted the lid off a very unsavoury can of worms. This preamble was initially intended to be the introduction to a viable scheme of Fish Conservation for Scotland. The evidence that Scottish Fishermen and their representatives in Westminster were LIED TO, OVER AND OVER AGAIN by the British state THEN as well as NOW, is so overwhelming, that I have decided to write it as an article for the Nationalist boards. It contains ample information to be used as ammunition against the Unionist parties of the British State and is a POWERFUL INDICTMENT OF THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY, with its FAILURE to fight for Scottish fishing Interests.

THE GREAT BETRAYAL

In 1970 Britain was in the throes of negotiating entry into the EEC. This was being fiercely resisted by the French delegation who fearing loss of Power and prestige, brought up more and more demands, in the hope that Britain would withdraw is application to join. One of these proposals was for a Common Fisheries Policy or CFP. This proposal was so damaging to Britain's fishing Interests, that the French never dreamed in a thousand years, that the British delegation was so desperate to join, that they ACCEPTED IT! HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER! Scarcely believing their good fortune, the French pushed their luck for more and still more impossible demands and GOT THEM!

At this time Britain had come off worse in the Icelandic Cod war, and was in the process of negotiating with the Faroese and Norwegian Governments to gain access to their grounds. The Scottish Inshore Fleet were extremely concerned that joining the EEC would prejudice these negotiations and that a CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) would act against their best interests. Accordingly the major organisations contacted Mr Patrick Wolrige-Gordon, the Tory MP for East Aberdeenshire who became so concerned on behalf of his constituents, that he demanded a meeting with the Scottish Office to discuss the CFP as 'A MATTER OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE,' He did get a meeting with a minor Mandarin, but got nowhere as he was fobbed off with doublespeak and miles of flannel. A Hand-written Note on one of the meeting Papers by a senior Civil Servant at the S.O. said 'THAT IN THE WIDER U.K. CONTEXT THEY (THE SCOTTISH FISHERMEN) MUST BE REGARDED AS EXPENDABLE.'

Mr Wolrige-Gordon was not the only Tory MP to be seriously concerned about the CFP. Mr W Baker the MP for Banff, sought and was granted a meeting with Ministers, at which he expressed his constituents real fears that this would lead to the extinction of the Scottish Inshore Fleet. Mr Jo Grimond, the Liberal MP for Orkney and Shetland asked questions in the house of commons and was told, 'IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO TAKE A UK POSITION AS THE EEC HAD NOT YET AGREED A CFP.' Mr Grimond then had a private Foreign Office (FO) briefing at which he was told the EEC were having great difficulties on reaching an agreement between themselves. Yet 8 Days earlier a FO Confidential Memo of the 19th June said 'THE POLICY (CFP) WOULD BE LIKELY TO PRESENT US WITH ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS.' It should be noted that the FO believed that there was no common interest between Britain and the EEC Countries over Fishing, as Britain had Distant and middle water Fleets while the EEC States were more interested in protecting their inshore fishing grounds from the British!

The Norwegians took a more energetic line and sent a strongly worded Diplomatic Note to Brussels demanding a delay, but British Embassies in European capitals were instructed to give the impression that Britain was NOT supporting the Norwegians. Furthermore a confidential memo from the negotiating team, stated 'PROPOSALS ALLOWING COMMUNITY BOATS FREE ACCESS TO GROUNDS WERE CAUSING GRAVE ANXIETY' because a previous derogation setting national limits at 3 miles would last only 5 years. 'THIS WAS POLITICALLY UNACCEPTABLE!' The memo concluded that this was an EEC bargaining position and that the UK would have at least a 12 mile limit. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food demanded that the negotiators put down 'a special marker' in Brussels on fishing policy, but on June the 25th, the head negotiator Sir Con O'Neill resisted this demand because 'IT WOULD RISK PREJUDICING OUR NEGOTIATING POSITION IN A NUMBER OF OTHER FIELDS.'

However the Foreign Office felt it was extremely unwise for the UK to make any approach about the policies Brussels might adopt for fear that to do so would alert the French to our worries and encourage them to speed things up. A senior MAFF official urged Sir Con O'Neill, the Foreign Office deputy under secretary, to warn the EEC that it would be gravely misunderstood in the UK if decisions were taken just as entry negotiations were due to begin. It said British fishermen would lose advantages just gained from extending UK fishing limits to 200 miles, which would be 'politically quite unacceptable' - but added that Britain wanted access to Norwegian and Faeroese waters. The memorandum concluded the UK would be able to retain at least 12 miles.

On June 30, the French won a key battle against a German, Dutch and Italian bid to make any CFP decisions subject to negotiations with the applicant countries and insisted on full implementation by November 1. The UK Government did include a weak reference to fisheries in the UK's opening statement in the negotiations and promised to take the interests of the fishing industry into account.

On October 21, the EEC council agreed the new CFP, sparking protests in Parliament from MPs like Robert Maclennan. The MP For Caithness and Sutherland who wrote to Tory Europe Minister Geoffrey Rippon saying he shared the concern of fishermen about free access to fishing grounds in the CFP. Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association warned of herring stocks in the Minches being swept away if foreigners were allowed in.

But a draft government reply to the wave of protest said it would be misleading to discuss individual elements of the EEC decision and that there were other advantages of joining, such as a faster economic growth rate.

On the 9th November the Tory M.P. for North Angus and Mearns, Mr Alick Buchanan Smith then a junior Scottish Office minister was given a Secret briefing document which I quote 'THERE IS SUBSTANCE TO THE FEARS EXPRESSED BY THE SCOTTISH INSHORE FISHERMEN.' However he was warned NOT to promise that the Government would obtain tolerable entry conditions in the Talks. One Senior Civil Servant posed the question to Ministers as 'WAS IT WISE TO COMMIT BRITAINS LIMITED NEGOTIATING CAPITAL TO DEFENDING FISHERMEN!' To Reassure the Fishermen's associations. the Foreign Office peddled the Snake oil sales tactic of 'THAT AFTER ENTRY, BRITAIN WOULD BE A POWERFUL COUNTRY, WELL ABLE TO DEFEND ITS INTERESTS.'

***** IN SHORT, SCOTTISH FISHERMEN WERE EXPENDABLE!!!!!!!!*****

30 Years on is it any better? The answer has to be a resounding NO! NO! NO! Just recently the two national Federations have held four meetings with MAFF, three with Ministers and two with Agriculture Minister Nick Brown, but have emerged with nothing more than tea and sympathy. The fundamental problem is the British Treasury's iron resistance to releasing any funding to the fishing industry and, indeed, its eagerness to recover enforcement and research costs from the industry (which is NOT DONE in the E.U.).

The Treasury's short term, blinkered, approach to the fishing industry has time and time again thwarted the adoption of sensible policies. It was for example, the Treasury's resistance to decommissioning in the early 1990s which allowed the quota hopping problem to grow to such magnitude in the UK. It is also the Treasury's peculiar view of European grant money that allows the British tax payer to support the rebuilding of French, Spanish and Irish fleets, whilst denying the same funding to the UK fleet. For these and other reasons the Federation is pressing for an early meeting with Treasury ministers. Through the offices of Austin Mitchell MP the NFFO secured a debate in the House of Commons in which the industry's case for an aid package was made plain. It is clear that Fishermen will need all the support that they can muster to break the Governments inertia.

Can the E.U. be made to change its' stance if Scotland became independent in Europe? Not a Snowball's chance in hell. The E.U. treats Farming and Fishing as Huge Collectives on the Stalinist model, where Farmers are told what and where to grow, and Fishermen where to and what to catch. The Chief E.U Fisheries Commissioner and German Foreign Minister Herr Joschka Fischer has always been honest about his views, there is continuity in his political views, and it appears he distrusts the concept of the nation state. (What hope for Scottish Independence here?) Interviewed in the Austrian magazine Profil in June 1997, Fischer declared: 'I realise more and more the extent to which I have remained a Marxist... Europe is an objectively Left project'.

In his 1998 book Fur einen neuen Gesellschaftsvertrag ('For a New Social Contract') Fischer expounded his views in advance of the election which was to sweep Kohl from office. He referred repeatedly to the Communist Manifesto and the need to adapt historical materialism to today's situation. His new social contract contained the following theses:
'The state will have to say that it can no longer guarantee living standards and social security. It will declare that these are too high for the present and that capitalism is responsible for this state of affairs.'
'Globalization must be presented as a historic necessity. It must be organised, canalised and used as a means of securing totalitarian control in all realms of society. Leaving globalization to the capitalists would lead to catastrophe.'
'At special times in history, violence is required to change society.'
Are these the words of a man who can be trusted to fairly apportion Fishing Quota's? His Vision of Europe is diametrically opposed to that of the SNP's, 'Independent Nation State in Europe'

Finally, as for our Fishing Industry, it can be brought back from the dead, but only at the price of leaving Europe altogether. The SNP have no Fisheries policy except to leave it in the SAFE?!?! HANDS OF HERR FISCHER AND HIS MARXIST CRONIES.????? If the SNP would like a Discussion document on resurrecting our Fishing Industry, I have such a one here and will forward it to the Leadership.

Thank you for your patience in getting to this point.
Saoir Alba!
Niall.

Return to Articles Index