THE SCOTTISH FARMER'S FUTURE
By JOSEPH F. DUNCAN SCOTLAND is one of the most sparsely populated countries in Europe, and one of the most highly industrialized. It has only 9 per cent. of its occupied population engaged in agriculture. Its concentration on the heavy metal industries and on shipbuilding rendered it particularly vulnerable when world trade began to shrink, but in all its manufactures it was more dependent on markets outside Scotland than on its own market. When it was borne in upon the people of Scotland that something more than waiting for the tide to turn was necessary, all sorts of projects were canvassed, and it was natural that attention should be turned to the possibilities of developing agriculture. The Scottish National Development Council decided to make a survey of agriculture and set up a Committee representative of all agricultural interests, presided over by Lord Elgin. That Committee set up six Sub-Com- mittees composed of specialists in the six main branches of agriculture, and these Committees presented their reports during last year. The main Committee has now issued its Report which gives a survey of the present position of agriculture and outlines a long range policy.
The survey does not break new ground. It brings together in a convenient form the significant facts about Scottish agriculture, and presents them in a way that will give the intelligent layman an understanding of the organization of agriculture. It does not show that there is any special Scottish problem, and it may disappoint those nationalists who are in search of a grievance. What it does show is that Scottish agriculture has been steadily and, on the whole, successfully adapting itself to the conditions of its market even in the difficult post-War years. It has been concentrating on the better soils and improving its production ; it has increased its production of beef and mutton ; it has extended the area devoted to fruit and vegetables ; and the numbers of poultry have increased by 59 per cent. since the end of the War. The area under crops and grass has decreased, and there has been a decrease in the number of workers employed. For that, however, the industry cannot fairly be blamed. It has had to accommodate itself to an open market which has been adverse to it, and it is significant that up to 1930 the products on which it concentrated (80 per cent. of its products was livestock and livestock products) showed a greater resistance to failing prices than other products. The full effect of falling prices was not felt until the autumn of 1932, and even now Scottish agriculture is standing the strain at least as well as that of any country.
While there is no reason for complacency, there is none for despondency. The products on which Scottish agriculture depends are those for which the climate and situation and the skill of its personnel are best adapted. If it were as efficient on the marketing side, and its customers were in a position to satisfy their needs, any development in the industry would be along the lines at present pursued. The survey does not suggest any departure from the kind of production being followed. .If agriculture is to be developed, it will be by strengthening present tendencies and not by breaking new ground.
As to the future, no attempt is made by the investi- gators to produce a policy for Scotland, and here the Nationalists will find a grievance. But the last thing Scottish agriculture will be willing to lose is its English market. With one-tenth of the population of the United Kingdom, it produces one-fourth of the home production of beef and mutton (and a much higher proportion of the better qualities) and one-fourth of the production of potatoes. There is not a large enough market in Scotland for the products Scotland is best fitted to supply. The possibilities of developing agri- culture are dependent on the possibilities of supplying the larger population in the south, and that is bound up with the policy of marketing, imports and increasing consumers' demands—this last is a side of the problem too 'often neglected in agricultural policies.
Marketing Boards for the different commodities are recommended, although certain dangers will have to be avoided if these arc to be successful, particularly the danger of their being used to restrict production for the sake of maintaining prices. The danger to agriculture is that restriction in production would stereotype pro- duction and remove the impetus to efficiency and initia- tive. Even more harmful would be the bar to new producers entering the field which would impose a grave and unjust handicap on younger men. On the other hand, a policy of raising prices by restricting supplies may defeat itself by causing a fall in demand, with the result that the total revenue to producers may be no better than before the rise in prices. It is a pertinent fact that 20 to 25 per cent. of the population at present is living at a standard of income that does not permit of any increase in the price of foodstuffs, if consumption is to he main- tained. A rise in food prices would be followed by a demand for an increase in allowances to the unemployed, and an increase in State expenditure on public health services.
The proposal that a National Council for Agriculture should be set up to carry out the national policy for agriculture is something concrete on which discussion can fasten. The Council would co-ordinate the activities of the. different Marketing Board§ :which are being set up so that some relation would be secured between the developments in the industry. If a policy of increasing -home production is to be pursued, that involves deciding a policy on imports and making agreements ahead with the Dominion and foreign producers over a period to enable the policy to be worked out. Where the intention is to reduce dependence on imports, it is suggested that this can best be secured by some system of buying through Import Boards. If it is found that the prices at which home- produce can be put on the market are such as prevent an adequate supply of wholesome foodstuffs to the people, it is suggested that the wisest course is to main- tain that production by direct subsidy rather than by raising prices. The question whether such production is to be encouraged at home must be decided by the State.
There is much talk of planning these days, and big experiments are being made in agriculture. The pro- posals of the Scottish Committee are no more than an outline, but they are unusual in that they are the work of representative men who know the industry and who are of all shades of political opinion. On that ground they cannot be lightly dismissed.
Previous page
