12.1 Farming, Crofting and “Buy Local” Policy

How would farming and crofting be supported?

Farming and crofting would receive stronger, more tailored support under full Scottish control of agricultural policy and funding. The priority would shift toward food security, environmental outcomes, and a clear “buy local, support local” approach in public procurement. Direct support payments, less bureaucracy, and better alignment with Scottish conditions — including crofting tenure and remote areas — would replace the current constrained system. Public-sector food purchasing would actively favour Scottish produce where quality and value allow.

Agriculture is currently shaped by a mixture of retained EU-derived rules, UK frameworks and Scottish delivery. Independence would give the Scottish Parliament complete control over agricultural policy and the associated funding. Scotland would set support schemes, regulatory requirements, land management rules, and the balance between production, environment, and rural development to suit Scottish conditions.

That control is the precondition for a system that fits Scotland’s farm structures, climate, geography and rural communities rather than one designed primarily for other places or for the residual constraints of a larger union. The main design choice is full domestic control used for tailored support, food security, environmental outcomes and preferential public procurement of Scottish produce where quality and value allow. The main constraints are the fiscal cost of support payments, the practical limits of “buy local” within procurement law and value-for-money rules, the structural pressures already facing the sector, and the time required to redesign schemes without disrupting existing producers.

Agriculture is currently shaped by a mixture of retained EU-derived rules, UK frameworks and Scottish delivery. Independence would give the Scottish Parliament complete control over agricultural policy and the associated funding. Scotland would set support schemes, regulatory requirements, land management rules, and the balance between production, environment, and rural development to suit Scottish conditions. That control is the precondition for a system that fits Scotland’s farm structures, climate, geography and rural communities rather than one designed primarily for other places or for the residual constraints of a larger union. Control does not by itself raise farm incomes; it creates the legal and budgetary space to design support that matches Scottish structures and objectives.

This section sets out the position. Farming and crofting would receive stronger, more tailored support under full Scottish control of agricultural policy and funding. The priority would shift toward food security, environmental outcomes, and a clear “buy local, support local” approach in public procurement. Direct support payments, less bureaucracy, and better alignment with Scottish conditions — including crofting tenure and remote areas — would replace the current constrained system. Public-sector food purchasing would actively favour Scottish produce where quality and value allow. Transitional arrangements would protect support for existing producers while new schemes are designed, so that payments do not fall off a cliff on Independence Day. Multi-year farm planning requires early visibility of the direction of travel; abrupt scheme replacement without transition would damage viability. Stronger, tailored support is a fiscal and design choice under full control; it is not costless. Procurement preference works only where quality and value allow and where public bodies actually change purchasing practice. Crofting and remote needs require specific, not generic, instruments.

Current Position and Legal/Institutional Baseline

Agricultural policy and support in Scotland currently operate under a mixture of retained EU-derived rules, UK frameworks and Scottish delivery. Support schemes, standards and rural development tools are shaped by residual external constraints as well as by Scottish choices. Farm structures, climate, geography and tenure systems — including crofting — differ in important respects from those that have historically shaped wider frameworks. Public-sector food procurement operates under existing procurement rules; those rules and institutional practice limit preference for Scottish produce. Crofting tenure and the needs of remote and island producers are recognised in parts of current policy, but national schemes can still misfit local cost structures and logistics.

Independence would give the Scottish Parliament complete legislative and funding control over agricultural policy. The institutional baseline includes existing producers, existing payment systems, and residual frameworks that would no longer bind once competence is fully Scottish. The task is to use that control to design stronger, more tailored support aligned with food security, environmental outcomes and rural sustainability; to simplify administration where possible; to give specific weight to crofting and remote producers; to implement practical “buy local” preference in public procurement where quality and value allow; and to protect support through transition so that redesign does not create a cliff-edge for existing producers. International practice in redesigning agricultural support after constitutional or policy change confirms that transitional continuity and staged redesign are necessary; abrupt replacement without transition is not.

Mechanism and Delivery

Complete control over agricultural policy and funding is the institutional foundation. Scotland would legislate and fund support schemes, standards, and rural development tools. That ends the residual need to fit Scottish conditions into frameworks designed for a wider UK or former EU context. Scottish legislation and secondary rules would establish support schemes, with budgets voted through the Scottish fiscal process.

The policy intent is stronger and more tailored support, not the withdrawal of support. Farming and crofting face structural pressures: volatile prices, rising costs, succession challenges, remote geography and the demands of environmental standards. Full control would be used to design support that provides meaningful direct payments where they are needed for viability; reduces unnecessary bureaucracy so that time and resources go into production and stewardship rather than administration; reflects the reality of Scottish farm sizes, tenure systems and regional variation; and gives particular weight to crofting tenure and to the needs of remote and island producers. Support would align with clear objectives — food production, environmental outcomes and the sustainability of rural communities — rather than the residual logic of previous external regimes. Tailoring is a design task; it requires evidence, consultation and fiscal prioritisation.

Two strategic priorities would guide the redesigned system. Food security: maintaining and strengthening Scotland’s capacity to produce food for domestic consumption and for high-value export. Policy would support productive capacity, resilience to supply shocks, and Scottish producers' ability to meet Scottish public and private demand. Environmental outcomes: integrating environmental standards and climate objectives into agricultural support so that production and stewardship reinforce each other. Rules and incentives would be designed for Scottish landscapes and farming systems, not imported wholesale from systems designed elsewhere. The Scottish Parliament would set the balance between these objectives. Both would be treated as core purposes of agricultural policy, not as afterthoughts. Trade-offs between short-term production incentives and long-term environmental conditions would be explicit, not hidden.

A clear “buy local, support local” approach would be applied to public-sector food purchasing. Where quality and value allow, public bodies — schools, hospitals, care settings and other publicly funded institutions — would actively favour Scottish produce. This would create a stable channel of demand for Scottish farmers and crofters, shorten supply chains, and link public spending to domestic primary production. The approach would be practical rather than absolute: quality, safety and value for money remain requirements. Within those constraints, preference for Scottish produce would be an explicit policy objective, backed by procurement guidance and, where appropriate, by targets and reporting so that intent translates into purchasing behaviour. An absolute preference, regardless of quality or cost, would breach value-for-money discipline and is not the design. Public procurement preference would operate within Scottish procurement law and any applicable international trade commitments, using lawful criteria of quality, value and, where permitted, local benefit.

Crofting tenure and the needs of remote and island agriculture would receive specific attention. These systems are not simply smaller versions of mainland commercial farming; they support population, land management and community viability in areas where standard commercial models often fail. Policy would recognise this distinctiveness through support schemes that fit crofting structures and common grazing; address the higher costs and logistical constraints of remote and island production; and align with wider island and remote-community priorities on transport, housing and population. The aim is for agricultural policy to reinforce, rather than undermine, these communities' sustainability. Uniform national schemes that ignore crofting and island cost structures would recreate the misfit the policy is meant to correct. Crofting law remains Scottish; support design would align with it rather than override it.

A recurring demand from the sector is less bureaucracy and clearer purpose in support schemes. Full Scottish control would simplify application and compliance processes where possible, make the link between payment and public objectives transparent, and avoid layering new complexity onto producers. Simplicity is a design goal; it supports both uptake and the system's legitimacy. Simplification takes administrative capacity; it is not achieved by announcement alone.

Sequencing prioritises continuity of support for existing producers while new schemes are designed: transitional arrangements so that payments do not fall off a cliff on Independence Day; parallel design of tailored Scottish schemes with clear objectives and simpler processes; phased introduction of procurement guidance and reporting for public bodies; and specific workstreams for crofting and remote producers. Multi-year farm planning requires early visibility of the direction of travel; abrupt scheme replacement without transition would damage viability.

Continuity Design

Continuity of support for existing producers is a design requirement. Transitional arrangements protect payments while new schemes are designed and introduced, so that producers do not face a cliff-edge on Independence Day. Continuity of crofting law and of the distinctiveness of remote and island production is secured by aligning support design with existing tenure and cost structures rather than overriding them. Continuity of public procurement demand is pursued through guidance, lawful criteria, and reporting so that preference for Scottish produce, where quality and value allow, becomes institutional practice rather than aspiration. Early publication of the direction of travel for scheme redesign supports continuity of multi-year planning certainty.

The design therefore treats transitional payment continuity as non-negotiable, treats scheme redesign as a staged process with clear objectives, and treats “buy local” as a practical procurement objective constrained by quality and value rather than as an absolute preference. Control is used to fit policy to Scotland’s farms, crofts and communities; demand from the public sector is used to support domestic production; bureaucracy is reduced so that support reaches the ground.

Constraints and Trade-offs

Legal constraints

Agricultural policy and funding would sit under full Scottish legislative competence. Support schemes would be established in Scottish legislation and secondary rules. Public procurement preference for Scottish produce would operate within Scottish procurement law and any applicable international trade commitments, using lawful criteria of quality, value and, where permitted, local benefit. Crofting law remains Scottish; support design would align with it. Transitional payment arrangements must have legal force so that support does not lapse. Legal design must avoid absolute preference rules that breach value-for-money or trade commitments, and must avoid scheme designs that override crofting tenure.

Fiscal constraints

Direct support and rural development are significant public spending. The Scottish budget pays, within fiscal rules. “Buy local” shifts existing public food spend toward Scottish producers where quality and value allow; it is not a new open-ended subsidy line, but support payments themselves are fiscal choices. Stronger support means higher spend, reallocation, or both; the medium-term plan must own that. Under the opening fiscal position, support levels must be prioritised against other claims. Scotland retains full control of design even when fiscal pressure constrains support levels. Underestimating the cost of stronger tailored support would break the medium-term plan.

Operational constraints

Redesigning schemes requires evidence, consultation, administrative capacity and time. Simplification of bureaucracy is a design goal that itself requires capacity. Transitional payment systems must run while new schemes are built. Procurement guidance and reporting must change institutional purchasing behaviour; guidance alone does not guarantee a shift. Crofting and remote scheme design requires specific workstreams that fit local structures and costs. Operational sequencing that prioritises transitional continuity, parallel scheme design and phased procurement implementation reduces the risk of payment interruption or procurement inertia. Underestimating administrative capacity for simplification or for crofting-specific design would reproduce complexity or misfit.

Political constraints

Stronger support and “buy local” are high-visibility for rural communities and for the wider public. Credibility depends on continuity of support through transition, measurable procurement shifts, and visible fit with Scottish farm and croft structures. Domestic political management must present stronger support as a fiscal and design choice, not as costless, and must present procurement preference as practical and constrained by quality and value. Adversarial relations with the UK do not prevent Scotland from running its own agricultural policy; residual transitional alignment of payments or data may still require practical cooperation. Trade conditions for exports remain relevant to farm incomes and are handled in the wider trade framework.

Time constraints

Transitional payment continuity must be in place for Independence Day. Parallel design of tailored schemes, with early visibility of direction of travel, supports multi-year farm planning. Phased introduction of procurement guidance and reporting follows. Specific workstreams for crofting and remote producers run in parallel. Delays in transitional arrangements create a payment cliff-edge; delays in scheme design leave producers without planning clarity; delays in procurement guidance leave “buy local” aspirational. Staged redesign with transitional continuity is the operable path; abrupt replacement without transition is not.

Consistency with the Wider Framework

Farming and crofting policy sits alongside full control of trade policy and the ability to design market access around Scottish food and drink strengths; the non-EU stance, which removes CAP constraints and leaves design fully in Holyrood; island and remote-community priorities in local government and transport; and the overall emphasis on practical, Scotland-first delivery rather than symbolic policy. Agriculture becomes a fully domestic policy domain, funded and designed for Scottish conditions and Scottish objectives. There is no tension with fiscal rules: support levels are explicit choices inside the plan. There is no tension with the non-EU position: domestic control is the point. There is no tension with island policy: crofting and remote agricultural support are designed to reinforce community sustainability.

The section aligns with the continuity-first approach applied to public services and to other sector policies: support is protected through transition while redesign proceeds. It aligns with the partnership model of UK relations only residually, for transitional payment or data alignment; core scheme design is fully Scottish. In every case, the design subordinates scheme redesign and procurement preference to transitional continuity for producers and to fiscal and value-for-money discipline.

Hardest Critiques and Direct Responses

Feasibility

Full Scottish control of agricultural policy is feasible as a constitutional and legislative matter. Designing tailored schemes, simplifying administration and implementing procurement preference are feasible but require capacity, consultation and time. They are not automatic results of independence day. Feasibility fails only if transitional payment continuity is neglected, scheme design lacks evidence and consultation, or procurement guidance is issued without monitoring to ensure purchasing practice does not change.

Cost and fiscal burden

Direct support and rural development are significant public spending. The Scottish budget pays, within fiscal rules. “Buy local” shifts existing public food spend toward Scottish producers where quality and value allow; it is not a new open-ended subsidy line. Stronger support means higher spend, reallocation, or both; the medium-term plan must own that. The framework does not claim that stronger support is costless or that procurement preference transforms farm incomes without effort; it claims that full control creates the space for tailored design, and that levels of support and the strength of procurement preference are fiscal and operational choices inside the rules.

Dependence on agreement

Dependence on the United Kingdom is low for domestic scheme design. Residual dependence exists for any transitional alignment of payments or data during the move from current UK frameworks. Trade conditions for exports depend on the wider trade settlement. Adversarial UK relations do not prevent Scotland from running its own agricultural policy. Contingency planning prioritises transitional payment continuity and domestic scheme design, while securing any residual transitional cooperation.

Transition risk

Payment interruption, confusion over scheme rules, and procurement inertia are material risks. Mitigation is transitional payment continuity, early publication of scheme direction, and mandatory procurement guidance with monitoring. Residual risk of scheme complexity or of under-weighting crofting and remote costs is mitigated by deliberate simplification as a design objective and by specific scheme design for crofting and remote producers. Multi-year farm planning risk is mitigated by early visibility of the direction of travel.

Alternatives (status quo and previous proposals)

Keeping residual UK-constrained frameworks after independence would waste the point of full control; it is rejected. Withdrawing support to cut spending abruptly would damage viability and food capacity; it is rejected. Absolute “buy local” regardless of quality or cost would breach value-for-money and practical supply constraints; it is rejected. Full control, tailored support, dual food-security and environmental objectives, practical procurement preference, and crofting-specific design is the coherent approach. Treating agricultural support as outside the fiscal rules is rejected as incompatible with the fiscal framework.

Political and public credibility

The claim most likely to be called unrealistic is that support will be both stronger and cheaper, or that “buy local” will transform farm incomes without fiscal and procurement effort. The precise answer is that stronger, tailored support is a fiscal and design choice under full control; it is not costless; procurement preference works only where quality and value allow and where public bodies actually change purchasing practice; and crofting and remote needs require specific, not generic, instruments. Credibility is continuity of support through transition, published scheme objectives, measurable procurement shift and visible fit with Scottish farm and croft structures. Readers who prefer residual external frameworks, abrupt withdrawal of support, or absolute preference regardless of quality and cost are invited to evaluate the framework on the need for tailored design under full control and on the fiscal and operational constraints that still apply.

Position Summarised

Farming and crofting would receive stronger, more tailored support under full Scottish control of agricultural policy and funding. Priorities would shift toward food security, environmental outcomes, and a clear “buy local, support local” approach in public procurement. Direct support payments, less bureaucracy, and better alignment with Scottish conditions — including crofting tenure and remote areas — would replace the current constrained system.

Public-sector food purchasing would actively favour Scottish produce where quality and value allow. Control is used to fit policy to Scotland’s farms, crofts and communities; demand from the public sector is used to support domestic production; bureaucracy is reduced so that support reaches the ground. That is the agricultural settlement. Transitional arrangements protect support while schemes are redesigned. Stronger support is a fiscal choice within the rules. Procurement preference is constrained by quality and value. Crofting and remote needs receive specific scheme design.

Conclusion

How would farming and crofting be supported? Through full Scottish control of policy and funding, used to deliver stronger, more tailored support aimed at food security, environmental outcomes and rural sustainability; through simpler scheme design; through specific attention to crofting and remote producers; and through practical “buy local” preference in public food procurement where quality and value allow.

The design meets the continuity test by protecting support through transition. At the same time, schemes are redesigned and meet the fit-for-Scotland test by aligning rules and payments with Scottish structures rather than residual external frameworks. The claim's limit is clear: stronger support is a fiscal choice; procurement preference is constrained by quality and value; and administrative simplification requires capacity. The next sections turn to fishing, whisky and food and drink, tourism and the other specific sectors in this part of the framework.

Series Footer

This analysis forms part of People’s Future Scotland: The Independence Debate, a non-party framework examining the practical design of independence. Each section is written to withstand professional scrutiny and to prioritise mechanism, constraint and continuity over aspiration.