WHILST signalling disquiet about proposals for Highly Protected Marine Areas, Kate Forbes is right to point out that small businesses are the backbone of the Scottish economy and the “lifeblood of rural Scotland” (No part of Scotland should be left behind as we build a wealthier country, Apr 5).
But one reason Shieldaig is relatively “bustling” is because they have healthy local fisheries and a protected seabed. 23 years ago, the waters of Loch Torridon and the northern Inner Sound became one of the few places around Scotland’s coast to ban bottom-trawling and scallop dredging. Since then, small-scale creel fishing has thrived, supplying both local eateries and markets abroad. It is consequently one of the most productive and lucrative shellfish fisheries in Scotland, employing more fishermen and delivering better social and environmental returns than equivalent bulk bottom-trawling for prawns, destined to be scampi.
READ MORE: If those fishing would all just ‘play nice’, we wouldn’t need quotas
Sadly this kind of management is an exception. Bottom-trawling was once banned within three miles of Scotland’s entire coastline, but this method of fishing and others like scallop dredging, which are similarly damaging to our seabed, are now permitted in 95% of Scotland’s inshore waters. Isn’t it time we restored spatial management of our coastal waters, with better regulation of these environmentally damaging methods of fishing?
We support the Our Seas coalition petition for a modern “inshore limit” on bottom-towed fishing to recover fish populations and safeguard low-impact fisheries. Improving the environmental health of our seas, as has happened around Shieldaig, would sustain communities and make local economies more resilient.
Allan Young
Open Seas
INTERESTING and well-written article by Ms Forbes on Wednesday, advocating strongly for the maintenance and improvement of threatened local economies and populations. Just one question. The article expresses a passionate concern for the efficacy of the ministerial post she turned down. Why did she turn it down?
Les Hunter
Lanark
I AM aware that Alyn Smith MP possibly believes that all Scottish Leave voters were over 65 years of age, only read the Daily Mail, vote Tory, and listen exclusively to BBC news. No doubt some were, but post-Brexit analysis showed that 35% of SNP and Labour voters voted Leave.
Therefore, in the spirit of dialogue and reason – and I know Mr Smith believes in respectful dialogue – surely he can do better in his latest column (Apr 5) than simply parrot the myth that being in the EU means we are rule-makers whereas being in the European Free Trade Association (Efta) means we will be rule-takers?
READ MORE: Alyn Smith: We can be EU rule-makers instead of UK rule-takers
This is mythology because Article 100 of the agreement between the EU and Efta, which established the EEA in 1994, states in relation to the operation of the single market that “the EC Commission shall ensure experts of the Efta states as wide a participation as possible according to the areas concerned, in the preparatory stage of draft to be submitted subsequently to the committees which assist the EC Commission in the exercise of its executive powers”. In addition, Article 99 preceding it has four sub-clauses which detail the extensive way in which Efta members are consulted at each stage of the policy process regarding the single market.
If most Scots, post-independence, wish to go full tilt back into a neo-liberal, pro-austerity EU which would limit Scottish sovereignty in many key areas, that is their right, and as a democrat I would accept that decision. What galls me about Mr Smith and the current SNP leadership is their sloth-like attitude to EU reform. Key issues like the inability of the European Parliament to initiate its own legislation, as opposed to simply amending EU Commission proposals, are simply ignored, as is the continual pressure for further EU political integration.
READ MORE: Independence is young Scots only saviour from this Brexit delusion
I am perhaps doing Mr Smith a disservice but it seems like his key concern post-independence is not to open up the economic and political options available to Scotland, but to close them down in favour of a prescribed status-quo model.
In his weekly column can Mr Smith please give us propositions substantiated by facts, and not empty slogans that do not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. It was the lack of intellectual rigour on defence, pensions, and the economy that lost us the last independence referendum, and slogans will not cut it the next time either.
Cllr Andy Doig (Independent)
Renfrewshire Council
IS it just my interpretation of the paragraph in James Walker’s Thursday article that states “no reason to think that the Stone that’s in Edinburgh Castle … is the very stone that was removed … more than 700 years ago”, implying that this is not the real stone? Is there a missing “not”? The conspiracy continues! A company of 100 Scots to guard the stone while away from Scotland would add to the pageantry and relevance of the occasion.
Nick Cole
Meigle, Perthshire
(Ed: “not” was indeed missing)
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel