Scottish independence would hurt farmers, warns Paice

17 August 2012 | By Olivia Midgley

SCOTTISH rural affairs secretary Richard Lochhead has dismissed claims farmers will be left worse off by independence as ‘scaremongering’.

Speaking exclusively to Farmers Guardian, the Scottish National Party (SNP) MSP said previous UK Governments had let Scotland down and independence would avoid ‘past mistakes being repeated’.

But critics, including UK farming Minister Jim Paice, said Scottish farmers would be hindered by independence.

It comes as Holyrood finalises the details of Scotland’s 2014 independence referendum.

Mr Lochhead said his party wanted to build on the ‘positive experiences’ of devolution and ultimately get a ‘better deal’ for the country’s farmers.

“At long last our farmers feel their distinctive needs are being taken into account and they are being listened to by a Government on their doorstep,” he said.

“When animal diseases such as foot-and-mouth impacted, the Scottish Government was able to offer quick and effective financial support, whereas the UK Government in London washed its hands of the problem and turned a deaf ear to our industry’s pleas.”

He said ‘scaremongering about border control and red tape’ were ‘out of date’ and Scotland could be a ‘powerful ally’ supporting the rest of the UK when there was a common interest in Brussels.

Past mistakes

“The message is we don’t want past mistakes to be repeated. Scotland receives the lowest level of Single Farm Payment in these islands, as well as the lowest level of rural development funding across the whole of Europe.

“These stark statistics underline why we need a stronger voice speaking up for Scotland’s farmers and crofters in Europe.”

But Mr Paice slammed Mr Lochhead’s stance, adding Scotland on its own would be one of the smallest states in the EU with ‘virtually no clout’, as opposed to Scotland in the UK, which carries a large voting participation.

He said: “Does Richard Lochhead really want to sit around the table as a state with the same amount of votes as Latvia?

“Or does he want to sit as part of a major block of votes when discussing important agricultural policy such as the CAP.”

Scottish Labour and Conservative politicians echoed Mr Paice’s comments and Aberdeenshire farmer Maitland Mackie said independence would be a ‘tragedy’.

“There is a romantic image that we would be better off by ourselves,” said Mr Mackie.

“But Scottish producers would become foreign suppliers in 90 per cent of the current market. And they have to think about our beef premium and what will happen to that if there is a border created.”

But Isle of Mull beef and sheep farmer Bert Leitch dismissed any border-related issues as ‘scare stories’.

He said: “It’s not as if we are going to have a big fence across the border.”

Voting stakes

How would Scotland fare in the voting stakes if it was its own member state?

Member states are weighted according to population size meaning the bigger the population, the more votes it has.

If Scotland went it alone it would, according to Jim Paice, be on the same level as Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia with four votes. The UK has 29 votes.

Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom: 29 votes
Spain and Poland: 27
Romania: 14
Netherlands: 13
Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary and Portugal: 12
Austria, Bulgaria and Sweden: 10
Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia and Finland: 7
Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovenia: 4
Malta: 3

Farmer views

With the debate heating up, how do farmers feel about devolution and Scotland’s push for independence?

“I do not think Scotland’s independence will have a great impact on the rest of the farmers in the UK, because we will all be governed by the EU. But if Scotland created a border and we had to get certificates for moving seed potatoes or livestock, for example, this would be very inconvenient on both sides, and definitely not benefit Scottish farmers.”

Mark Lazonby, manager of a 1,620-hectare (4,000-acre) farm on the Lincolnshire Wolds

“It would be much better if we all stayed as one country with a bigger voice and impact in Europe. I can not see how devolution would benefit farmers and it would just add another area of management.

We need to pull together. How can we guarantee we will get the same treatment? There are many questions left unanswered and no guarantee anyone will profit. For me, it is a step backwards.”

Colin McGregor, a contract arable farmer in the Scottish Borders

“It is up to the Welsh to decide on the way forward. There are some differences between British and Welsh policies and we should have more power.”

Emyr Jones, FUW president

“It has been good for Scotland. I speak to farmers in Cheshire who do not have support like we get from the Scottish Rural Development Programme and the calf subsidy scheme. If we did not have these then we would definitely see a reduction in livestock numbers. The SNP also abolished all the road and bridge tolls which has been a saviour of the west coast guys who rely on those bridges. It also works the other way when we need to get fodder to the west coast.”

James Brown, finishes 2,000 beef cattle in North Lanarkshire

Readers' comments (7)

Colin | 17 August 2012 10:47 am
But the UK wouldn't have 29 votes if Scotland went independent would it? Also like what the smaller nations such as FInland do at present, Scotland would be able to form positive alliances with other nations to protect our interests. On many occasion I imagine that would involve an alliance with rUK where we do share many mutual interests. This arguments here just do not hold up.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Siôn Jones | 17 August 2012 11:37 am
Scotland one of the smallest states in Europe? Has he never heard of Luxembourg? The country with the highest gdp per head in the WORLD? It has a population slightly smaller than that of Glasgow, one tenth of that of Scotland, so his point is completely invalid.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Heslop | 17 August 2012 12:08 pm
I'm sure if we were foolish enough to vote for separation, sales to England with be harmed. Yes produce would still be Scottish, but would be foreign produce and put down the buying preference order.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Giles Wynne | 17 August 2012 6:11 pm
The majority in England want a referendum on EU membership and Scottish people should be offered one too.
Both would predicable vote to leave the EU and sensibly trade with all who want to buy Scottish produce without tariff's complicating the issue.
Both would save on income given to the EU
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andy Connelly-Nimmo | 18 August 2012 0:18 am
Paice is being deliberately disingenuous implying that an independent Scotland would have as few votes as Latvia, etc. With a population just under the TOTAL of the all the countries in that group, Scotland would be on par with Ireland, Denmark, etc.
Yet ANOTHER example of those scared of losing Scotland hoping that people can't read for themselves for more than 2 minutes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Lind | 18 August 2012 8:35 am
Scotland has a higher population than Denmark, Lithuania, Ireland (7 Votes) Malta, Luxembourg, Latvia and Slovenia (4 Votes).
It has almost exactly the same population Finland and Slovakia. (7 Votes)
It also isn't far off the population sizes of Austria, Sweden and Bulgaria. (10 votes)

Now tell me why would Rep. of Ireland have more votes than us with them having a lesser land area and a lower population? Scotland would surely qualify for the 7 votes category.

Besides the Britain's vote together would be collectively the same after independence, with Scotland able to vote how it sees fit for its own interests as would England, while we can still work together when it is in our mutual interest.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Charles Patrick O'Brien | 18 August 2012 10:31 am
I'm quite sure we shall soon be told that we cant have any soft toilet paper anymore and we have to go back to using "IZAL"
All of these scare stories is about power and who would lose some power,and we would gain some at the expense of Westminster,but we would most definitely be more able to get on with running the country better as a single country.But it is power that should be in our own hands and should never have been sent abroad in the first place.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment