strichener Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 8 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: Those figures are skewed by the fact that the fish we import are largely in a processed state and hence the added cost. The value pound for pound of exported unprocessed fish is considerably greater than that imported. Filleted , sea frozen Icelandic cod loin is imported as that is what the UK market wants. Compared to a raw UK caught whole fish it's expensive. A lot of the fish caught in our waters has to be exported as it's just not eaten enough here. There is very little market for Hake, Prawns, Scallops, Monkfish etc in the UK, all we want is cod, haddock and farmed salmon. Walk into any fishmongers or supermarket fish counter and it will be "cod loin". This is the strip of meet above the ribcage and constitutes a fraction of the weight of a fish. As a consequence you need cod of a large size and there simply are not enough big cod in UK waters to satisfy demand. Post Brexit the fishing industry in the UK are going to have to try to reeducate the UK consumer or continue to import fish at what will be an unsustainable rate while facing probable export tariffs when trying to export the fish they can catch but for which there is no demand in the UK. The UK fishing industry needs tariffs free access to overseas markets, primarily the EU. All this also precludes that access to UK waters will be very likely a bargaining chip in the Brexit deal. Referring to a couple of the species that you have mentioned - we do not have sufficient quotas for cod, regardless of the size etc. We import nearly 10x the amount we catch. In terms of prawns, the numbers do not support you - together with shrimp this is the single largest value import for the UK, making up nearly 1/4 of all imports. If the UK maintained the current catch quotas for UK waters for UK fishermen then we would have a larger GDP, even with EU tariffs. The UK fishing fleet is not working at capacity and therefore any increase in catches will be with minimal increases in input costs which makes the imposition of 10% tariffs pretty meaningless. The last part of your post, I largely agree with although I am not sure why we will have to import at an unsustainable rate. We would in all likelihood import less fish if we were not giving it away in quotas to other EU countries and make no mistake about it, the CFP is a net cost to the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McSpreader Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 8 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said: Maybe you should become a politician? I'm too honest ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 11 hours ago, strichener said: Referring to a couple of the species that you have mentioned - we do not have sufficient quotas for cod, regardless of the size etc. We import nearly 10x the amount we catch. In terms of prawns, the numbers do not support you - together with shrimp this is the single largest value import for the UK, making up nearly 1/4 of all imports. If the UK maintained the current catch quotas for UK waters for UK fishermen then we would have a larger GDP, even with EU tariffs. The UK fishing fleet is not working at capacity and therefore any increase in catches will be with minimal increases in input costs which makes the imposition of 10% tariffs pretty meaningless. The last part of your post, I largely agree with although I am not sure why we will have to import at an unsustainable rate. We would in all likelihood import less fish if we were not giving it away in quotas to other EU countries and make no mistake about it, the CFP is a net cost to the UK. We import 10x the catch of cod down to the size of the cod in UK waters. The large cod required for "loin" the UK consumers want nearly all come from Iceland ready processed. I agree we could up the quota but there would be little point as we still cannot target only large cod without catching smaller ones too for which there is very little market. Likewise prawn catches. The prawns (langoustine) caught in Scotland have virtually no market in the UK and hence we import farmed river prawns from Asia - that's bonkers imo but that's the UK consumer for you. UK consumers need to change their fish eating habits as we simply don't have enough of the species the market desires. What we can catch we don't want - nearly all Scottish shellfish is exported mostly to Europe. When fishermen say Brexit they really think / hope it means being able to hoover every fish in our waters out with massive quotas and keep non UK boats out. Neither will happen in reality and what's the point of hoovering up fish we can't sell all that will do is drive down the price they can command. I can;t imagine anyone in the shellfish fishing sector is exactly excited by Brexit hence why the media always focus on the large NE pelagic /white fish ports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartanWarrior Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 22 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said: Explain...... SNP are losing lots of votes. The Fish Minister is bricking it. Her incompetence, daily deceit and authoritarian beliefs make for a rancid SNP cocktail. Consider Named Person and the crazy centralisation for examples of these authoritarian tendencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Zzzzzzzzzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 1 hour ago, TartanWarrior said: SNP are losing lots of votes. The Fish Minister is bricking it. Her incompetence, daily deceit and authoritarian beliefs make for a rancid SNP cocktail. Consider Named Person and the crazy centralisation for examples of these authoritarian tendencies. Think you will find that's MP's in general you are describing . NS is no more guilty than any others with their nose in the public trough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartanWarrior Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: Think you will find that's MP's in general you are describing . NS is no more guilty than any others with their nose in the public trough I was talking about policies not corruption there. SNP have dangerous authoritarian tendencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, TartanWarrior said: I was talking about policies not corruption there. SNP have dangerous authoritarian tendencies. And removing human rights isn't ??? At least they have policies and are not just making them up on the hoof reactively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartanWarrior Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: And removing human rights isn't ??? At least they have policies and are not just making them up on the hoof reactively. Agreed SNP removing the human rights of parents (as determined by courts) is a very serious issue. Disgraceful from the SNP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakedee Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Agreed SNP removing the human rights of parents (as determined by courts) is a very serious issue. Disgraceful from the SNP. Which part of the Human Rights Act is contravened by the NPA ?This one could be your chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartanWarrior Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Just now, jakedee said: Which part of the Human Rights Act is contravened by the NPA ?This one could be your chance. I didn't say the human rights act. I said human rights of parents. Judges agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakedee Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I didn't say the human rights act. I said human rights of parents. Judges agree. We're getting there,I'll rephrase my question. Which human rights of parents have Judges agreed that are being infringed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 5 hours ago, Billy Jean King said: We import 10x the catch of cod down to the size of the cod in UK waters. The large cod required for "loin" the UK consumers want nearly all come from Iceland ready processed. I agree we could up the quota but there would be little point as we still cannot target only large cod without catching smaller ones too for which there is very little market. Likewise prawn catches. The prawns (langoustine) caught in Scotland have virtually no market in the UK and hence we import farmed river prawns from Asia - that's bonkers imo but that's the UK consumer for you. UK consumers need to change their fish eating habits as we simply don't have enough of the species the market desires. What we can catch we don't want - nearly all Scottish shellfish is exported mostly to Europe. When fishermen say Brexit they really think / hope it means being able to hoover every fish in our waters out with massive quotas and keep non UK boats out. Neither will happen in reality and what's the point of hoovering up fish we can't sell all that will do is drive down the price they can command. I can;t imagine anyone in the shellfish fishing sector is exactly excited by Brexit hence why the media always focus on the large NE pelagic /white fish ports. We currently catch 98% of the UK quota for cod. Even if the fish were bigger we would still be importing cod and at no time have I suggested upping the quota as a solution to cod imports. Regardless of what is happening within the UK regarding the importing of Prawns or tuna etc. from Asia & Africa, there can be no dispute that the UK receives economic benefit from less than 50% of the fish that are caught in our waters. You can argue about the attractiveness or otherwise of the product to the UK consumer but the other 50% has a market - it is already being sold by the other EU nations that are fishing in our waters. Therefore if the UK were to catch the current EU quotas without increases then we would have a much greater benefit, even after taking into account tariffs. Can you imagine a similar situation occurring with oil or wind - having to pass on 50% of the resource without any recompense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartanWarrior Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 2 hours ago, jakedee said: We're getting there,I'll rephrase my question. Which human rights of parents have Judges agreed that are being infringed? The right to privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerberus Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Who gives a f**k about a few stinking fishermen looking to make a few extra bob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 2 hours ago, jakedee said: We're getting there,I'll rephrase my question. Which human rights of parents have Judges agreed that are being infringed? I thought the judgement was quite clear - the NP as presented was incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, Cerberus said: Who gives a f**k about a few stinking fishermen looking to make a few extra bob? Angus Robertson probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakedee Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I thought the judgement was quite clear - the NP as presented was incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR. And hence why the NP is being amended,the original discussion was about scrapping the part of the EHCR that doesn't suit May. Not about altering proposals which don't pass it as written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, jakedee said: And hence why the NP is being amended,the original discussion was about scrapping the part of the EHCR that doesn't suit May. Not about altering proposals which don't pass it as written. That may be the case but you have on multiple occasions asked the question that I answered. 4 hours ago, jakedee said: Which part of the Human Rights Act is contravened by the NPA ?This one could be your chance. 3 hours ago, jakedee said: We're getting there,I'll rephrase my question. Which human rights of parents have Judges agreed that are being infringed? Why bother asking if you cannot accept the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakedee Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 The answer is accepted,and as it has not been implemented then no human rights are/ will be infringed.The discussion centered around the UK Government scrapping parts of the Human Rights act it disagreed with to suit,even though it stated that through the Great Repeal Bill it would be enshrined in British law. There is the difference I'm trying to point out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.