Andrew Arbuckle: The devil will be in the details as the Pack report is picked over

A few comments: "Well, at least you have some idea of what you (Scotland] want." "We (England] may have a minister with farming experience for the first time in 40 years but so far we have heard more about the environmental agenda than about protecting food production."

You get the drift. Our southern cousins are not happy. The UK coalition government has swept away many quangos and has begun to deal with the TB/badger issue, but it has not produced much to ensure a viable agricultural industry. This will make the coming months particularly difficult and interesting.

At some point, the UK position at the EU ministerial negotiating table will have to be settled. Scotland seems to have an agenda with the Pack report, but what will happen to that report if there is a change in government after the Scottish Parliamentary elections next May?

Even if the Pack report is seen as the settled view of Scotland, how much of it will come through the home nations negotiations? If English politicians do want to concentrate on an environmental agenda, where does this leave a production-based set of proposals from Pack?

Although they have not, to the best of my knowledge, expressed a view, the Northern Irish and Welsh politicians might be considered likely to largely support the Scottish position. This is partly because their farming is quite similar to Scotland, with a large percentage of ground classified as Less Favoured, and partly as their politics tend to link in with their fellow Celts.

And all this before the various ministerial politicians get over to Brussels for the next stage of the fudge operation. (And, as we know, we have the MEPs in the act this time as well. We already have George Lyon's proposals but these are far from the final Parliamentary position.)

Only now that I have all that off my chest do I realise that I should have raised more caution on the domestic reaction to the Pack proposals. While most of those commenting so far on them have been largely supportive, there have been words of caution from NFU Scotland, which is concerned about the headage support tying livestock farmers into specific production systems. The meat wholesalers have also expressed concern over the effect of support in the hills eroding cattle and sheep enterprises on the low ground.

And there is little mention of forestry despite the Scottish Government's ambitious plans to double the area of land given over to trees. This was perhaps typical of the current position of the Pack document with lots of details still to be drawn into the script.The CAP stakeholders group set up by the Scottish Government has a lot to do in the coming months in providing the detail required to add to the robustness of the proposals.

Meanwhile, despite Pack requesting that people take a wider view of the plans, everyone (with self interest being a strong emotion) is already working out how best to take advantage of a shifting situation. In fact, the more I or anyone else guddles about in its innards, and those of CAP reform, the more I realise that I will be one of the winners.

Without any great skill of foresight, I reckon there will be about three full years of writing about the reform, so if we are looking at who is going to win and who is going to lose, put me in the winners' pen.