Scotland's sea-fishing industry presents a striking contradiction. It remains a major economic asset, producing valuable food, sustaining coastal communities and supporting generations of maritime knowledge. Yet its prosperity increasingly rests on marine ecosystems under pressure, disputed international quotas and a fleet whose benefits are unevenly distributed. Two recent developments capture that tension: the Our Seas petition delivered to the Scottish Government in June, and the extraordinary revelation that many tins marketed as "mackerel" in British supermarkets no longer contain the mackerel we know at all.
The industry's headline figures appear impressive. Provisional Scottish Government statistics show that Scottish vessels landed mackerel worth £497 million in 2025, representing 52 per cent of the total value of their landings. Although the quantity landed fell by five per cent to 182,000 tonnes, sharply higher prices drove the catch's value up by 68 per cent in real terms. Mackerel is therefore not a peripheral species: it has become central to the industry's economic performance.
But those figures conceal a highly concentrated industry. In 2024, Scotland had 1,525 vessels measuring 10 metres or less, compared with 473 larger vessels. Yet just 26 vessels longer than 40 metres landed 52 per cent of the total catch by value and 99 per cent of all pelagic landings. This concentration matters when policymakers discuss "the fishing industry". The needs of a large pelagic trawler pursuing migratory stocks are very different from those of a creel boat or small inshore vessels dependent on healthy local habitats.
That division formed the backdrop to the Our Seas demonstration at Holyrood on 23 June. The coalition, comprising more than 160 fishing, environmental, business and community organisations, presented Agriculture and Marine Minister Jim Fairlie with a petition carrying more than 16,500 signatures. It called for at least 30 per cent of Scotland's inshore waters to be protected from bottom trawling and scallop dredging, and urged ministers to begin implementing stronger protections within the government's first 100 days.
Our Seas argues that repeated disturbance of the seabed has contributed to the decline of habitats and coastal fish populations. Its proposed modern coastal limit is intended not simply to conserve nature but to help inshore fisheries recover, creating "more fish, more jobs" and greater returns for coastal communities. The campaign also acknowledges the need for a just transition, recognising that vessels and workers affected by new restrictions would require a managed adjustment rather than an abrupt loss of livelihood.
Phil Taylor of Open Seas summarised the urgency by saying ministers must "stop delaying and start protecting". Fairlie responded that ministers took marine restoration seriously, while recognising competing views about managing Scotland's natural resources. That difference in emphasis is important. Campaigners see ecological recovery as a prerequisite for long-term employment; opponents of further restrictions fear immediate displacement of fishing activity and income. Effective policy must address both timescales, but postponing ecological action merely increases the eventual economic cost.
The crisis surrounding mackerel illustrates what happens when management fails at a much larger scale. A September Financial Times report carried the startling headline: "UK canned 'mackerel' now contains no mackerel." Several supermarket products now use Chilean jack mackerel, a South American species which is not a true mackerel but belongs to a different fish family. Tesco, Sainsbury's and Lidl have sold tins supplied by Princes after the manufacturer switched away from Atlantic mackerel.
The substitution is partly a sustainability response. Northeast Atlantic mackerel has lost environmental certification, while scientists recommended cutting its 2026 catch by roughly 70 per cent, to no more than 174,357 tonnes. Since 2010, catches have averaged 39 per cent above scientific advice. Warming seas have pushed the stock northward, intensifying disputes among the UK, EU, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands over how the resource should be divided. Collectively, national claims have repeatedly exceeded what scientists consider sustainable.
Switching to a more abundant fish may reduce pressure on Atlantic mackerel, but the way it is marketed raises questions about transparency. UK rules were changed in December 2025 to permit certain Trachurus species to be called "jack mackerel", although they previously had to be marketed as jack, scad, trevally or horse mackerel. Critics argue that shoppers may believe they are buying the familiar oily fish, despite differences in species, taste and nutritional profile.
Together, the petition and the disappearing mackerel expose the industry's central challenge. High prices and landing values cannot compensate indefinitely for depleted habitats, excessive international catches or declining public trust. Scotland needs fisheries management that distinguishes between fleet sectors, follows scientific limits, restores damaged inshore grounds and requires honest labelling throughout the supply chain.
The goal should not be to choose between fishing and conservation. It should be to recognise that there can be no durable fishing industry without functioning seas. Protecting habitats, rebuilding stocks and sharing access fairly are not obstacles to prosperity; they are the foundations on which its future depends.
This article was originally published in the Farming Scotland November-December 2026 issue.
Sources - Scottish Government, The Guardian, Luxembourg Times, Financial Times, BBC News, Blue Marine Foundation, STV News