For several years, Scottish agriculture has been immersed in a debate about the future.
We have debated the architecture of agricultural support, the balance between production and environmental outcomes, the role of tiers and measures, the conditions that should accompany public funding and the evidence that farmers and crofters should be expected to provide.
There has been no shortage of consultation, discussion and policy development. Much of that debate has been necessary. Agricultural support must evolve to reflect changing circumstances, policy objectives and expectations. We know our industry must play a key role in meeting climate and nature goals, while managing market pressures and becoming more resilient.
But the future support system can no longer simply be a policy discussion.
The Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 has provided the legislative framework. The Rural Support Plan has set out the direction of travel. The transition towards the new four-tiered approach is under way.
We now need to move at pace in establishing how the new system will work, both from a farmer and crofter perspective and in meeting the clear policy goals around food, climate, nature and people.
Scotland’s agricultural profile is extraordinarily diverse. The circumstances of a dairy farm are very different from those of an arable or horticultural business, just as extensive hill farms and crofts face different challenges from mixed livestock finishing units or pigs and poultry enterprises. The new support system must be capable of recognising that diversity.
That is where the focus on delivery becomes so important. Delivery starts with a fundamental principle: public support must recognise and support active farming and crofting.
There is a very real distinction between supporting land simply because it is eligible and supporting the people and businesses undertaking agricultural activity on that land to deliver the intended goals. The future system must get that distinction right.
If we want public support to underpin food production, maintain productive capacity and help farmers and crofters deliver better environmental and wider public outcomes, regardless of size, type or location, the foundation of the system has to be active farming and crofting.
That does not mean putting production and the environment into separate boxes. One of the most important lessons we should take into the next phase of policy delivery is that they are fundamentally connected. Farm business viability and profitability are not optional extras in the pursuit of sustainability and environmental gains.
The new system also needs to be sufficiently attractive and accessible to encourage farmers and crofters to participate, while ensuring that the requirements attached to public funding are proportionate to the outcomes being sought.
We should not be opposed to conditions. Receiving public money comes with responsibilities, including demonstrating that public funding is delivering public value. But there is a difference between proper accountability and unnecessary complexity.
Additional conditions, eligibility requirements, application processes and validation all come at a cost. Sometimes that cost is financial. Sometimes it is time, lost flexibility in managing enterprises, or the uncertainty and stress created when rules become difficult to navigate.
The ultimate purpose of agricultural support is not to create an impressive administrative framework. It is to change what happens on the ground.
That is particularly important for smaller farms, crofts and new entrants who may not have the administrative capacity available to larger businesses. A system designed to support active farming and crofting should not inadvertently make participation more difficult for the very businesses it is intended to support.
But good delivery requires more than getting the rules right.
There is little point in government setting out ambitious expectations for Scottish agriculture if the resources available to deliver them do not match those expectations. Farmers and crofters cannot be expected to maintain food production, improve environmental performance, adapt to climate change, enhance biodiversity, raise animal welfare standards and build business resilience while also absorbing extra costs.
Those costs will not simply disappear.
That is not a plea for agriculture to be insulated from economic reality. It is the economic reality. Ambition without adequate backing is not delivery.
Government must also recognise that agriculture is a long-term business operating within short-term political cycles. No government can promise that agricultural policy will never change, and nor should it, but governments can provide a clear direction, avoid unnecessary uncertainty and give businesses enough confidence to plan.
That is why the stability provided through the Rural Support Plan during the transition to 2030 and beyond is vital.
Farm businesses are also affected by decisions taken at Westminster on taxation, employment costs, trade, migration, energy and other economic levers. The viability of Scottish agriculture cannot be separated from those wider pressures. Our engagement with both governments will therefore remain critical.
Our message must be consistent. If food security matters, back food production. If climate and nature outcomes matter, back the businesses that are going to deliver them. If rural communities matter, underpin the economic activity that sustains them.
There will always be another scheme that could be tweaked, another condition that could be debated and another administrative detail that could be refined. But we should not lose sight of the bigger picture.
The success of Scotland’s future agricultural support system will not ultimately be determined by how sophisticated its architecture looks or how comprehensive its guidance becomes. It will be determined by what happens on Scotland’s farms and crofts.
The debate about policy objectives, outcomes and future support frameworks has taken us a long way, and it has been necessary. But it is not sufficient.
It is time to shift the focus and emphasis to delivery, and to properly back the active farmers and crofters who can and will deliver the outcomes.