Okay, back in the days before the race to succeed Nicola became its sole focus of attention, it has to be admitted that the mandarins of the Scottish Government played a bit of a blinder in the big 'face-to-face' with the industry.

For, with many of those at NFU Scotland's agm ready to bay for blood if there was no substantial announcement from the administration on its future farm policy at the event, the crowd was totally wrong-footed by CabSec Mairi Gougeon’s address.

Any upswelling of the lynch mob was swiftly subdued when Ms Gougeon revealed to the conference that both the route map and a list of measures on policy development would be published that very day and would be available to everyone immediately after her talk.

So, rather than resounding to the bellowing of uprising, the conference room soon echoed to a frantic tapping on ‘phone screens as several hundred farmers tested the Raddison Blue’s wi-fi to the limit as they attempted to gain access to the new plans.

This diversionary tactic certainly seemed to have bamboozled the audience for long enough to allow the minister and her attendant civil servants to escape what could otherwise have been a sticky moment (cue the Simpsons’ off-screen sound effects of someone running down stairs, opening car doors and driving off at great speed, followed shortly by the scream of a jet engine taking off…).

But, to be serious, we must ask – did what was published actually tell us anything new? And did it provide any real clarity on where we are going or how we are going to get there? It could be easily argued that, on all counts, the answer had to be 'no, not really'.

For, while it might have been the first time all the aspirations and possible pathways have been drawn together in one document, I’m pretty sure that all the info had been widely available for quite some time.

On top of this, the documents pretty much admitted that nothing had been finalised: “Whilst the Route Map does not yet answer all the questions about the new support framework, or provide the detail of how measures will be applied and what applicants will be paid, it does provide a clear set of programme dates to explain when current schemes will transition or end, and when more guidance, support and information will become available.”

It also promised that the Route Map would be updated regularly to ensure that the most up to date information is available. “If things change you will be told clearly and quickly ....”

While it wasn’t strictly news, what was pressed home was the fact that, in the future, at least half of all funding for farming and crofting would be targeted towards outcomes for biodiversity gain and a drive towards low carbon approaches in what they term a bid to improve the resilience, efficiency and profitability of the sector.

The fact that the new system would consist of four tiers had been known for some time but the big question on how the budget would be split between them remained unanswered – and while it was once again repeated that at least 50% of the basic payments will be 'conditional' by 2025, we’re not really any further forward on knowing what these conditions would be and how they would be applied.

The documents also revealed that while the prospect of introducing a requirement for a whole farm plan was still being considered, no decisions had been taken on what such a requirement would include – or how it could actually be used to deliver the outcomes sought.

Reading between the lines, it seemed to indicate that the whole thing would pretty much be a tinkering exercise until 2026, with the details on the Brave New World of post-2026 support not being fully divulged until 2025.

So far, so well-known – and an awful lot of the rest of the route map was a simple re-stating of the more aspirational prerequisites put out in the likes of the ‘Vision’ paper released by the Scottish Government a year or so ago.

Moving on to the list of measures, the Route Map made it plain that what was published was merely a list of ‘illustrative examples’ which were open to further discussion and amendments before they were introduced and which have been gleaned mainly from the work of the Farmer-Led Groups published two years ago.

The ‘for example’ for the arable sector made it clear that to key into basic support, growers must meet 'essential standards', like greening, cross compliance requirements – the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) – and Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs)) and possibly complete a Whole Farm Plan.

Then, to key into further support it stated that growers might be asked to undertake specific actions aimed at addressing climate mitigation and nature restoration actions – choosing, as an example from a list of actions which, for cultivated soils might include:

* Continuous soil cover through maintaining stubble cover overwinte,r or through min/no tillage cultivations;

* Measures for efficient/reduced use of synthetic inputs – either through a reduction in the use of inorganic fertilisers and lime, efficient/reduced use of synthetic pesticides, greater use of N fixing crops and a greater diversification in crop rotations.

Further measures were also to be available for field margins and uncultivated features for increasing biodiversity and by enhancing things like hedgerows.

Funding for targeted actions to support specific species, or habitats, encourage innovation and provide supply chain support are also in the mix – with advice made available on how to meet the new requirements and undertake new activities.

There is a recognition that some of the measures would be simple to adopt, while others be more costly to adopt and implement, and that some would incur additional costs to businesses. But there is no mention of whether payments would be based on income foregone or at a level which would actually reward participation.

Encouragingly, it explicitly stated that flexibility was needed because some farmers, crofters and land managers were already undertaking some of these measures, adding that 'it is important that actions that are already being done are recognised, alongside providing an opportunity for everyone to do more towards the outcomes.'

But, at the end of the day, if the aim of the documents was to provide real clarity on what the next few years are likely to hold, I’d hazard that few would be able to draw up a business plan based on the content.

Now I know that it’s often difficult to have all the Ts crossed and Is dotted before a new plan is launched. And, taking the development of new tractors as an example, we’ve probably all been aware that some of the big names have a bit of a habit of carrying out the beta testing of new products only after they have been launched commercially – by judging their performance by the number of warranty claims and complaints which are received.

But if the 'Waiting for Godot' support policy could be portrayed as a new tractor, then development would still be well behind and running something along the lines of: “We’re going to produce a new tractor and its going to be great. Really great. And it’ll make us recognised the world over as leaders in the field, we can tell you that.

“Now we can also tell you that the new wonder tractor will most likely have wheels, but obviously that’s still up for discussion. Now we think that it will probably have four – but it might have three, or indeed only two – or maybe just one big massive wheel, we’re still working on that one yet.

“And while most of the wheels are likely to be round, some of them might be square, we haven’t decided that either but, rest assured we’re working on it – and we’ll tell you straight away if anything changes.

“Oh ... and expect delivery sometime after 2026 ..."