Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2025
I am grateful to Alasdair Allan and congratulate him on bringing the debate to the chamber. The unfairness that his motion describes is felt from the Western Isles to the north-east of Scotland.
In Banffshire and Buchan Coast, fishing is not just an abstract sector; it is boats leaving before first light, processors keeping lines moving and families whose weekly wage depends on what lands at the quayside. That is why the UK Government’s approach to the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund is so hard to justify.
Scotland is being allocated, as has been said, around £28 million—under 8 per cent—because the distribution is based on population and not on the scale of our fishing industry. Barnett, as has been said, counts people; it does not count ports, processors or the real costs of keeping coastal economies working.
Scotland’s contribution is not in dispute. Scottish vessels consistently land more than half of the UK’s total catch, 63 per cent of total catch value and more than 60 per cent of seafood exports. If the aim of this fund is fishing and coastal growth, those figures should be the starting point.
Since the motion was lodged, the pressure on the pelagic supply chain has become even clearer. Quota reductions coming for mackerel and herring next year will bite, especially when processing factories have fixed costs, contracts and a workforce that cannot simply be switched off and on.
That is why I welcome the Scottish Government’s decision to introduce an emergency measure for 2026 by amending the economic link licence condition. From 1 January 2026, the requirement will be species specific—70 per cent of mackerel landings and 70 per cent of herring landings into Scotland in 2026, up from the current combined requirement of 55 per cent—with the measures kept under review.
Processors tell us plainly that reduced volume next year threatens jobs and undermines confidence to invest. If we lose onshore capacity—skills, plant, contracts—it does not spring back overnight, so when the Scottish Government uses a devolved lever to help to keep more of that reduced volume landing into Scotland, so that the cash flow stays in our coastal communities and wages are protected, I struggle to see who can argue against that principle. It is not forever and is not without review; it is a stabiliser—an emergency condition—for 2026.
We also have to be honest about the limits of what Holyrood can do. Two of the biggest pressure points that processors raise with me are trade friction and immigration rules, which are not devolved. Those decisions are taken elsewhere, but the strain lands on our harbours and in our coastal communities.
Yes, the debate is about fairness, but it is also about respect. If Scotland’s fishing industry is held up as a national asset when it suits, it cannot be treated as if it is a rounding error when money is allocated.
Our coastal and island communities are not asking for any special treatment. They are asking for a mechanism that reflects contribution, recognises need, invests where the potential is, and underlines the wider point at the heart of the motion that decisions that are taken closest to the industry tend to fit the industry better. The Scottish Government is engaging intensively with stakeholders and using its powers to protect jobs and investment. Meanwhile, the UK Government is telling Scotland to accept a population-based share of a fund that was designed for fishing and coastal communities.
If Westminster wants to prove that it respects Scotland’s fishers, it should start with the simple step of rethinking the allocation of the fund so that it reflects contribution and need. Coastal growth cannot be delivered by treating Scotland as an afterthought.
Scotland’s fishing and coastal communities deserve fairness in funding and practical support that keeps value and jobs where the fish is landed. I support the motion, and I urge the UK Government to do the right thing at last and support an uplift in the coastal communities growth fund.
14:31