Our seafood can use US tariff volatility to create competitive edge
I was in New York for Tartan Week on the day of the initial tariff declarations and spoke with a big-hitter in our industry – a fish market servicing around 80% of the city's Michelin-star restaurants. They deal in quick turnover produce, with immediate exposure to price hikes.
So, while the 90-day reprieve may signal some relief, buyers like our friends in NYC will be recovering from the immediate shockwaves, assessing the impact of blanket baseline tariffs – and looking ahead with trepidation around what may happen next.
For our domestic seafood industry, the goalposts also changed quickly. We moved from a situation where the UK's minimum 10% tariff had the potential to create a real competitive advantage, as competitor countries were handed higher rates, to a more level playing field with baseline tariffs for the majority.
I believe Scotland's seafood industry can utilise our competitive edge in the face of any future volatility. We've long recognised the significance of the US market for Scottish seafood producers, working hard to facilitate strong relationships with American buyers and bringing Scottish seafood to the fore at events like Seafood Expo North America in Boston.
The feedback we get is consistently positive – the reputation of Scotland's seafood, in terms of world-class quality and consistency of supply, is well established.
As an industry, we have also become more agile and reactive to market demands and external challenges, like creating added-value products to suit specific locations, and fostering incredibly strong ties with other key seafood markets including Asia and the Middle East, plus our neighbours in Europe, who remain our biggest export customers.
Just last week, my colleague was in Japan with Scotland's Minister for Business and Scottish Enterprise's international team – where Scottish mackerel has experienced a ten-fold growth in market share in four years. Reaching out globally allows our industry to showcase its quality, develop new market opportunities, and most importantly at times like these, spread trading risks.
However, we deeply value our strong trade ties with the US and are confident our neighbours across the pond value the quality Scotland's seafood industry brings to the table. We also recognise the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, his team and wider UK Government have been working to mitigate tariffs, remaining committed to a future trade deal with the US. This could put us on the front foot again.
As the impact of the tariffs becomes clearer, we will listen, engage and work closely with industry and Governments here and abroad to navigate any challenges and sustain Scotland's position in the US market – standing on our reputation for quality to retain our competitive advantage in the face of any volatility.
Matthew Hurst is head of trade marketing for the Americas, Seafood Scotland
Agenda is a column for outside contributors. Contact: agenda@theherald.co.uk
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
21 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Controversial Loch Lomond Flamingo Land plans recalled
In September 2024, the Yorkshire-based theme park operator, Flamingo Land Ltd, had their planning permission in principle rejected by all 14 board members of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs Planning Authority. Now, plans for the development at Lomond Banks have been recalled by Scottish Ministers reports our sister title The National. Minister for Public Finance, Ivan McKee (below), said he has recalled the plans as the proposed development raises issues of 'national significance'. He said: 'I have decided to recall the Lomond Banks appeal as the proposed development raises issues of national significance in view of its potential impact on Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. 'This means that the appeal should be determined at a national level.' The news comes after more than 50,000 people wrote to McKee in just two weeks, demanding that the Scottish Government withdraw its approval of the mega-resort planning application. Scottish Greens MSP Ross Greer said the public's opinion on the proposal, which is the most opposed in Scottish planning history with more than 155,000 individuals lodging objections, 'couldn't be clearer'. He said: 'In just two weeks the Planning Minister has heard directly from over 50,000 people calling on him to block these proposals. Public opinion couldn't be clearer and it is backed up by experts including the Government's own environment watchdog.' Organisations such as the National Trust for Scotland, the Woodland Trust, the Ramblers, and the Scottish Government environment watchdog, SEPA, also raised objections against the plans.
NBC News
22 minutes ago
- NBC News
Harvard gets new legal backing from 5 Ivies and over 12,000 alumni
Twenty four universities, including five Ivy League schools, and more than 12,000 alumni took measures to back Harvard University in its legal battle against the Trump administration, which has threatened it with slashing billions of dollars in grants. Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown and the University of Pennsylvania, along with several other schools, filed an amicus brief on Monday in support of the nation's oldest university, arguing that the funding freeze would impact more than just Harvard, due to the interconnectedness of scientific research, and would ultimately hinder American innovation and economic growth. Also on Monday, the group of 12,041 Harvard alumni filed a separate brief describing the withholding of funds as a 'reckless and unlawful' attempt to assert control over the school and other higher education institutions. 'The escalating campaign against Harvard threatens the very foundation of who we are as a nation,' the alumni said in the brief. 'We embrace our responsibility to stand up for our freedoms and values, to safeguard liberty and democracy, and to serve as bulwarks against these threats to the safety and well-being of all.' The amicus briefs aim to provide expertise or insight to the court, but the schools and individuals are not parties in the lawsuit itself. The filings come after Harvard in April rejected the government's list of 10 demands, including auditing viewpoints of the student body, a move that the administration says is aimed at addressing antisemitism on campus. After the government threatened to freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million 'in multi-year contract value,' Harvard hit back with a lawsuit. The brief filed by the universities included other prominent institutions like Georgetown, Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The only Ivy League schools missing were Cornell and Columbia universities. The schools argued that the partnership between the government and academia has long led to critical advancements, from the The Human Genome Project to the Covid-19 vaccine. And that funding cuts to one school could endanger research at others. Harvard, MIT and Princeton, for example, have received funding from the National Institutes of Health for a project that could potentially yield tools to treat Alzheimer's disease. 'The work cannot continue at individual sites; MIT cannot use machine learning to uncover patterns, for example, without data from Princeton and Harvard,' the brief said. The universities said in the brief that the cuts would only cause more harm to the United States' ability to compete in science and academia. 'These cuts to research funding risk a future where the next pathbreaking innovation — whether it is a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, a military technology, or the next Internet — is discovered beyond our shores, if at all,' the brief said. Sally Kornbluth, president of MIT, said in a letter to the school's community that it was critical to make a legal argument against the funding cuts. 'Although the value to the public of federally funded university research feels obvious to us at MIT, we felt compelled to make the case for its countless benefits to the court and, in effect, to the American people,' Kornbluth said. The Harvard alumni filed their brief in support of the school's motion for a summary judgement submitted last week. If granted, the summary judgment would allow the court to decide the case without a full trial. The alumni, which include comedian Conan O'Brien, author Margaret E. Atwood and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., wrote in the brief that the administration's 'end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think, and act, and to claim for itself the right to dictate who may enjoy those freedoms.' The alumni also slammed the administration's concerns over antisemitism as rationale over the funding freeze. 'We unequivocally condemn antisemitism and every other form of discrimination and hate, which have no place at Harvard or anywhere else in our society,' the alumni said in its brief. 'Yet charges of antisemitism — particularly without due process and proper bases and findings by the Government — should not be used as a pretext for the illegal and unconstitutional punishment and takeover of an academic institution by the Government.' The government's demands on Harvard, the alumni said in the brief, 'have little or nothing to do with combating antisemitism' or any other form of discrimination on campus. 'Rather, its demands stifle the very engagement, teaching, and research that bring communities together, heighten our understanding of one another, and advance solutions that directly benefit us all,' the brief said. The show of legal support comes amid a monthslong back-and-forth between the administration and Harvard University. Most recently, the school sued the administration after Trump issued a proclamation last week denying visas for foreign students trying to come to the U.S. to attend the prestigious school.
Daily Record
28 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Lanarkshire MSP calls on Holyrood to make sure OAPs aren't left behind on winter fuel payments
More than 75 per cent of pensioners in England and Wales will be entitled to the new annual payment of up to £300 after the Labour government abandoned one of its first, and most controversial, policies. A Lanarkshire MSP has called on the Scottish Government to ensure local pensioners aren't left behind following the UK Government's u-turn on winter fuel payments. More than 75 per cent of pensioners in England and Wales will be entitled to the new annual payment of up to £300 after the Labour government abandoned one of its first, and most controversial, policies. Scotland has already created a devolved benefit of £100 for all pensioner households, potentially leaving hundreds of thousands of Scots worse off than their counterparts south of the border. Central Scotland list Labour MSP Monica Lennon said 'This is welcome news that will bring even more money to people in Lanarkshire – on top of the record funding settlement Labour delivered for Scotland in the budget. 'While the last Tory government left our public finances in chaos, Labour has made good progress cleaning up the mess it inherited. 'The Winer Fuel Payment is a devolved payment in Scotland and Scottish Labour has been clear that we want to see it reinstated for the majority of pensioners here – but despite their loud spin, the SNP voted against our attempts to do so. 'That's why we are urging the SNP not go ahead with plans that would unfairly hit poorer pensioners. 'The SNP must re-examine their own proposals in light of this game-changing announcement, ensure payments reach those most in need, and give a cast-iron guarantee that no struggling Scottish pensioners will be left out of pocket under their plans.' Last July, Chancellor Reeves drew widespread criticism over cuts to the winter fuel payment - a lump sum of £200 a year for households with a pensioner under 80, or £300 for households with a pensioner over 80 - in a bid to save an estimated £1.4 billion. In response, the Scottish Government introduced a new scheme offering those in receipt of qualifying benefits like Pension Credit £200 or £300 depending on their age, and £100 for all other pensioner households. However, while the benefit for pensioners above the income threshold will be clawed back through tax, richer pensioners in Scotland will be able to keep the payment. Following the latest announcement from Westminster, Scottish pensioners who do not get pension credit but whose income is below that £35,000 threshold are expected to receive £100 less than if they lived in England or Wales. Shirley-Anne Somerville said Scotland introduced a winter heating payment for all pensioners because of the UK government's 'betrayal of millions of pensioners'. She said the Scottish Government welcomed the U-turn, but 'there is still no detail about how the Chancellor intends to go about that'. The social justice secretary said: 'We have once again not been consulted on the policy and its implications in Scotland and will scrutinise the proposals carefully when they are announced. 'I would therefore urge the UK Government to ensure the Scottish government is fully appraised of the proposed changes as soon as possible.'
