As others have mentioned, there have been a number of important reports in recent months.

We have had reports from the Scottish Agricultural College and the Royal Society of Edinburgh; the

NFUS's "Manifesto for the Hills", which rightly identifies the problems but, perhaps, does not come up with all the right answers; Scottish Environment LINK's report; the Shucksmith report on crofting; and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on rural Scotland.

All have something to say about farming in the less favoured areas and they raise important issues and record important facts about the current state of agriculture in those areas and about wider rural issues.

However, the RSE report is perhaps the most comprehensive, far-reaching and challenging in terms of how we can develop public policy.

All the reports set out current and clear challenges.

Those include cost pressures—for example, the rising costs of fuel and fertiliser—and changes in farming and crofting practice, which are driven by changes in agricultural payments and cause difficulties for people who are trying to make a living, or supplement their living, as is the case for a number of crofters.

Such difficulties are partly market driven, but they are also driven by the support systems that are in place.

Another challenge is the reduction in stock numbers, particularly of sheep and cattle, that many members have mentioned.

That has a knock-on effect on grazing and cropping practice, which in turn has an effect on species.

If there are fewer sheep, there will be fewer fallen sheep, which has implications for the ability of raptors to feed in the countryside.

There are also knock-on effects on biodiversity, as changing habitat practices are, for example, potentially harmful to bird numbers.

If there are fewer sheep, there will be more ticks—a subject that is dear to John Scott's heart—which can affect ground-nesting birds as well as humans, as we use the countryside increasingly in the future.

There are also effects on the landscape.

Many hill farms might go out of business, as Liam McArthur said, which will result in population loss and questions about the viability of public services, which in turn will have an impact on tourism infrastructure.

Reduced production in less favoured areas would—as Roseanna Cunningham and John Scott mentioned—have implications for food security, as well as local food policy, which in turn also feeds back into tourism.

There is a series of interconnections between different areas of public policy, and it is a huge amount to wrestle with.

This debate appears on the surface to be about inputs to subsidise farmers, but it is much more profound than that. Because of the interconnections that involve other areas of public policy, it covers a much wider range of issues.

There is a danger in thinking about the issues in a narrow way as being all about subsidies for farmers and the cost for the taxpayer, when in fact the implications run across every dimension of our rural communities.

The RSE report performs a great service in giving an overview and connecting a wide range of issues.

The report states:

"The overall objective is"

—or should be—

"a sustainable future for the Hills and Islands with vibrant and viable human communities; an integrated diversity of land uses; well managed natural systems and landscapes that also contribute to amelioration of climate change; development of other economic opportunities such as tourism, renewable energy and food; supported by appropriate financial mechanisms and services."

That encapsulates, in a cogent way that uses very few words, the rationale for continuing to produce public goods with public support in the countryside.

We need to consider stating, as the RSE suggests, the retention of "vibrant and viable human communities" as an explicit purpose in our public policy.

I will go on to talk about the UK Government, but I want to stick to the theme that I have been developing.

We need to use the public policy instruments that we have at our disposal to support the goal of population retention.

That can be done in part through food production, and by paying closer attention to food security and local food.

It also involves biodiversity action, habitat protection and enhancement, maintaining the landscape value, and developing tourism and recreation. I could go on—we need to support and develop a range of public policy instruments.

We need to take that Scottish perspective into the discussions about CAP reform post-2013, and into our domestic policy thinking as we develop rural policy in the future.

I am in no doubt—I make this clear to John Scott—that we will continue well into the future to need a mix of payments that are made directly to farmers, crofters and other land managers, and that we will also need wider rural development incentives if we are to retain those "vibrant and viable human communities".

I am surprised at the naivety of some members' comments about the UK position.

I have, given my advancing years, watched European negotiations over many years, and I know that at the beginning of those processes, Governments stake out their starting points.

We are seeing a starting point from the UK Government rather than an end point, and I do not believe for a millisecond that the UK Government believes that that will be the end point.

I have made clear my position on what the end point ought to be.

We should not hide behind debates about future European negotiations—which will take four or five years to be concluded—or view them as an obstacle to what we can do now with the Government's current powers.

While noting the consultation, we must also note the point that Liam McArthur made about improving cash flow to farmers in the short term, and we should consider the issues on which Shucksmith made recommendations; for example, on housing support for crofters.

Necessary and urgent changes to the SRDP are required: one crofter described the scheme to me as an

"impossible to access, pie in the sky and possibly bankruptcy inducing elaborate SRDP."

The minister needs to acknowledge that change is needed.

We must also acknowledge the need to make changes to procurement policy, as Sarah Boyack suggested.

We need to drive harder on job relocation to rural areas and to find solutions to funding local abattoirs in order to help with local food production.

We need to stick to the commitments that the Government made before the election about the new entrants scheme.

I could go on, as there are many more things on which the Government could act now.

I urge it to do what it can and to participate in the debate about Europe—rather than hiding behind it—in the way in which I suggested.