'Mind your language' is something most of us have probably been told to do – most likely when we were going through that annoying rebellious teenage phase.

But this same expression came to mind recently after I’d been speaking to an MSP, recently.

Before you get the wrong idea, it wasn’t that either of us had been indulging in a fulsome flow of four-letter expletives, or even dropping the odd sweary word – it was more how certain words and phrases are interpreted that brought the saying to mind.

The Green MSP, Mark Ruskell, was struggling to work out why compulsory soil testing hadn’t been introduced as part of the last round of support measures. To him, introducing nutrient budgeting had been a no-brainer – making sure that lime levels were where they should be and that the right amount of nutrients were being applied.

I would guess that he’d get few arguments on that front from most farmers either – for to get these two important elements of growing arable crops or grass wrong can be a costly business in terms of lower yields and/or unnecessary fertiliser costs.

So, I guess I kinda struggled to give him a good reason why it just didn’t seem to be acceptable to the industry to have such a measure introduced – especially as it had been promised a couple of years ago by the then environment cabinet secretary.

However, after a bit of a hue and cry from the industry over the proposal, with the exception of some minor requirements for a nutrient plan for permanent grasslands, the idea seemed to get shelved and nothing has been forced upon us on that front.

It was only later that I figured the industry’s negative attitude to the idea wasn’t due to any fundamental argument with the idea of soil testing – it was probably due to nothing more than the use of the word 'compulsory'.

For somehow, the use of this term seemed to go further than simply indicating that the exercise was non-optional – for it also carried overtones of a top-down authoritarian approach which could be interpreted as the thin end of what might become an increasingly dictatorial wedge.

Of course, there’s no better way of getting the industry’s collective back up than telling it that has to do something in a particular way.

So, by simply taking an approach which was a bit clumsy and using the wrong sort of language, the idea backfired.

However, we’re not free from making similar language-based mistakes ourselves – and I’ve no doubt that some groups probably interpreted our opposition to compulsory soil testing as something other than a simple outcry against being told what to do.

But I read a piece recently which encouraged the industry not only to avoid saying the wrong thing and incurring the ire of other groups, but also to use our loaf and wrap up some of the things on our post-Brexit policy wish-list in the sort of language which would appeal to a much wider audience.

Such an approach could gain more support for these measures – and in the process vastly improve the chances of a successful outcome.

Using the example he chose, many in the industry would be keen to see the re-introduction of some sort of grants for drainage schemes– similar to those operated back in the 1970s.

Even although it’s been dry for a wee while now, you don’t need to stretch your memory back more than a few weeks to remember parts of fields which were no-go areas due not only to the continual wet weather but also to the geriatric nature of many of our drainage systems beginning to creak with the strain.

While the actual climate might be calling out for us to invest in some new drainage schemes, in the current economic climate they are simply too prohibitively expensive to install. Some grant aid would undoubtedly help improve this situation – but the sad fact is that we’re not really likely to get buy-in and backing from the wider community if we use the same sort of arguments as were used back in the 1970’s for getting these kinds of measures.

Because, despite the fact that the industry might want to continue to concentrate on improving productivity, future support measures look set to be much more focused on what’s being termed 'delivering public goods'.

Even although the shape of our own future support system in Scotland still remains shrouded in mystery, it has been made plain that this area will be front and centre of future policy in England – and the same arguments are being used by a range of organisations this side of the Border as well.

So, if we want our bid for helpful legislation to be successful, we should speak to the folk we want to get on-side in their own language – and dress up our arguments to attract a wider backing for their implementation.

We should point out that aid for new drainage systems would provide better overall water management – and this would improve the efficiency of resource use, allow reliable habitat maintenance, help us meet our biodiversity attainment targets and facilitate a more effective and efficient use of crop inputs such as sprays and fertilisers.

Do this and we might just manage to convince other groups, including the general public that such an investment would give a long term-payback - along with a plethora of positive outcomes. This might convince them that such a move would be money well spent.

So, maybe we should learn that while farming doesn’t necessarily need to change, how we explain things and the terminology we use to describe what we can deliver for the support we receive might need a bit of rethinking – and translated into the sort of lingo which comes in the many shades of green.

Though it might all seem a bit foreign to us, becoming a bit more fluent in this sort of language might help us get the support we both need and deserve.