Andrew Arbuckle: It’s good to talk, and farmers just love to

Two or three weeks ago, there was a farm roup up in one of the Angus Glens. With a history of success in the commercial show ring, there was bound to be a good turnout from colleagues and competitors hungry for some of the winning breed lines even though the machinery lines were not as lengthy as would be the case with a lowland arable unit.

And that was it – apart from the fact that the farming family were coming out after around about 150 years holding the tenancy. So there was more than the normal level of nostalgia around the way going.

What happened was that more than 1,000 people turned up and all around the sale little groups and huddles were talking. You could close your eyes and just listen to the conversational hum punctuated by the rapid commentary of the auctioneer.

That got me thinking that there can be no other industry where work and leisure are so joined together that it is difficult to tell them apart.

So, if there is all this chat around, what, apart from neighbour type gossip and there is a deal of that, are the main topics?

It is assumed that weather opens most rural discussions followed by a quick resume on the effects it is having on the farm work.

Then there might be a reference or two to market prices and trends but nothing too specific which might verge on private business.

And a similar approach is taken with any discussion on the CAP. It is all very well to have a general broadside on the proposal to top limit the subsidy cash to any individual or comment on the nonsense of taking 7 per cent of land out of production in an era when the scientists are predicting a need for more food but again no-one veers towards providing any view on their own single farm payment. The divide is there between the general and private business.

In the sheep world, there is animated discussion on the electronic identification of sheep because, from what I hear, there is a divide between what the government is saying and what is happening on the ground.

To recap, the EU Audit office has called for 100 per cent accuracy when recording sheep movements. This cannot be achieved with the electronic readers so recently installed at markets and at processing plants.

The Scottish Government then went off to Brussels and on their return claimed that they had negotiated a tolerance to this 100 per cent ideal but they would not reveal what this leeway might be.

I interject at this point to bring in news from the past week that the Scottish Government was fined £30 million by the EU for failings in the administration of the eligible acres for the Single farm payment scheme. Now cabinet secretary Richard Lochhead has been asked for months what the penalty would be for this transgression but the normally very approachable politician has been extremely shy and reticent to say the least.

Last week, when the news emerged, it was left to his spin doctor, who blamed the previous administration and this was partially correct as the failings went back to that regime.

But it is equally correct to say that there were failings under this Scottish Government although no-one has admitted it.

Now what normally happens nowadays when governments make mistakes is first of all a fudge then possibly a denial but seldom a “hands up we made a mistake”.

And what is certain is that civil servants will be hauled on to the ministerial red carpet and told in no uncertain terms never to let it happen again.

And that brings us back to the on-farm sheep movement checks where there are three possible outcomes to the sheep EID issue. It is entirely possible that the EU Audit office will take a 100 per cent record as mandatory and enforce fines if this is not achieved.

The politicians currently are using every word in the lexicon to say there is some room for manoeuvre and all the while having their fingers crossed as they have spent several million on a “not quite but almost 100 per cent system”. The industry waits to see what leeway there might be.

And the civil servants, having received one rollicking and not wanting another, are making the implementation of the regulations is as tight as it can be.

Apparently this even extends to involving the knackery men to record the identification numbers on dead stock; a proposal which one well known farmer has already said should require those insisting on it to do some work experience specifically carrying out this task.

There is indeed a lot to talk about when farmers get together.