Meddling SNP in crisis after 'war' over Keir Starmer's new deal with EU

The SNP have been accused of being "all over the place" on Keir Starmer's new deal with the EU, as splits appeared in the party's leadership. On Monday, Sir Keir held a summit with EU leaders where they unveiled a sweeping deal on various issues inluding defence, trade, and a possible youth scheme as the Prime Minister seeks to "reset" relations with the bloc.

But the deal on fishing, which could give EU trawlers access to the British waters for a further 12 years in exchange for food exports seeing reduced checks and restrictions, has proved particularly controversial in Scotland.

The UK regained 25% of fishing rights from the EU in the last Brexit deal, but it also gave European vessels continuous access to the country's waters, as part of an agreement due to expire at the end of June next year - and which has been extended more than a decade, as per .

However, there are no changes to rules on access to fish for coastal communities and no reduction in catch quotas for either the Bloc or Britain, the outlet reports.

The Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF) branded the deal as a "horror show" for the sector, and claimed that the PM had "betrayed" the fishing industry.

Scotland's is the UK's powerhouse in the fishing industry, catching around two-thirds all fish and shellfish caught in the country annually, as per .

Reacting to the terms, First Minister John Swinney said the fishing industry "looks as if it's been surrendered by the United Kingdom government", as per our sister paper .

Meanwhile Kate Forbes, a senior figure in the SNP has her eyes on one day leading the party, echoed his disdain for the deal, describing it as a "great betrayal" of Scotland's fishing fleet.

But , the leader of the in Westminster and Swinney's most senior lieutenant, openly dismissed the First Minister's rhetoric in the House of Commons, insisting the agreement was "obviously not a surrender", though he has been critical of aspects of the deal.

Scottish Labour MP and Scotland Secretary Ian Murray voiced support for the agreement and took aim at the pro-independence party's disjointed response.

"The are all over the place on the EU deal," he said. "John Swinney called it a surrender on Monday only to be contradicted by ."

"Meanwhile his deputy, Kate Forbes, congratulated the UK government on the deal at a meeting with business leaders at Downing Street," he claimed. Forbes has insisted she was at the business reception to ensure the interests of Scotland were properly represented as the Scottish government had been repeatedly "frozen out" of the Brexit deal talks, reports.

Murray added: "The SNP is tying itself in knots to be against this new EU partnership but this simply puts John Swinney on the same side" as Tory leader Kemi Badenoch and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.

External Affairs Secretary Angus Robertson was positive about some parts of the deal, but decried what he sees as a lack of neccessary engagement with Holyrood.

"We argued for an ambitious package in the interests of people and businesses across Scotland, and there are some positive indicators here, including the agriculture, food and drink agreement which will reduce market barriers; and enhanced cooperation on energy and climate, and a clear intention to rejoin the Erasmus exchange programme.

"The fact that this agreement - not least on fisheries - was reached without the explicit engagement of the devolved governments on the negotiation detail is not just an affront to devolution, it has put at risk, and will continue to put at risk, the benefits of any commitments for the people of Scotland."

Responding to criticism of the fishing agreement, Sir Keir said: "It is incredibly important for fish because over 70% of our seafood goes into the European market, so for the first time, under this arrangement, our fishing communities are able to sell more easily into the European market, as I say 70% goes into that market.

"The length of time for the agreement provides the stability because what would have happened next year is we would have come off the current arrangements but then into year-on-year negotiations, where nobody knows year-on-year where they stand; this gives stability in relation to that."