Andrew Arbuckle: Those with muddy boots keep an ear to political ground

NOTHING much happens in the small Fife village of Kilconquhar. You have to be quite determined to get there, as the road from the south and west is long and winding, and the road from the north takes one over the riggin of Fife, not in itself the most attractive part of the kingdom.

Kilconquhar has a pub that serves good food. It has an annual onion-growing competition that non-locals believe is nothing more than an excuse for yet another party for the villagers.

But it also has important neighbours in John and Margaret Cameron, and last week the main road through the hamlet was filled with muddy 4x4 vehicles as they made their way to their farm at Balbuthie.

The event was nominally organised by the Scottish Beef Cattle Association, but all those associated with it knew that it was John Cameron’s personal organisation that brought it into being.

Despite now being in his eighth decade, and with his own farming operation dramatically scaled back from a period when he was known as the largest sheep farmer in Europe, his enthusiasm for the farming industry remains undimmed.

Many years have passed since his stint as the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland (NFUS), but since then he has been involved in many lobbying organisations in the cattle and sheep sector.

In my time as a journalist, he has always had close contacts with whoever is in political power. This is no mean feat, as it has involved dealing with Conservative ministers, including ironically his landlord, Lord Lindsay; Labour ministers, including the not very affable Lord Sewel; and a Liberal Democrat minister in the shape of Ross Finnie, who held the rural affairs post in the first two Scottish parliaments. All of these politicians have, in turn, been invited to and embraced at Balbuthie.

Now it is the turn of the Scottish National Party, and this week Richard Lochhead was given the “John Cameron” treatment – which, for those who do not know the technique, is to simultaneously embrace and twist the arm up the back.

All very remarkable and it was compounded by the presence of many other agricultural luminaries at the event, including former NFUS presidents, heads of research institutes and educational establishments.

The press was also there in force. The invite to a Cameron “do” comes with an invisible three-line whip – and anyway, with all those important bods about, stories emerge and, even if they do not surface, they provide little hints as to what is round the corner.

The point of this preamble is that it is possible in Scotland to bring together all those involved in a sector of farming and this permits discussion, either on the record or, more often, off.

This gathering together of the main players in an informal setting is one of the strengths of a relatively small country such as Scotland. It allows the sort of discussion that would either be more formalised or structured in larger places.

And that is why, when the practical, muddy-boot farmers are picking up the latest information on improving the profitability of their cattle enterprises, there are little huddles of what I believe are called decision-makers muttering informally on the issues of the moment.

Later that night, there was another example of the gathering together of those who make many of the decisions in Scottish agriculture, at the annual meeting of the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC).

As guest speaker at the dinner that followed, Scottish Secretary Michael Moore commented on who would be the next SAC director after the retiring Bill McKelvey.

As his eyes swept round the tables, Moore remarked: “If I know Scottish agriculture, the person is in this room.”

Everyone laughed in acknowledgement that even although the decision has not been made, that view might well be true.

It will be noticed that I do not refer to those attending either gathering as “the great and the good”. To me they are just the people who are currently running the show.

If anyone attending the SAC event had pretensions of greatness or immortality, they might consider that when former SAC chairman Maitland Mackie passed around a cartoon with the college’s board of directors of a mere ten years ago, few could identify many of the then “great and good”.

And this despite Mackie’s promise of free ice cream to the first correct entry.

So while it is good that today’s decision-makers can all meet and greet, let them not get carried away with any deceit on either their importance or permanence.

That is apart from John Cameron, who appears to have more durability than most.