BY THE time you read this, the Royal Highland Show will be in full swing – or even in the past tense for some of you. It was definitely shaping up to be one to remember.

But what will we remember this time next year? Will it be the many champions, will it be the thundering hooves of the Clydesdale turnout or will it be the simmering debate of the small print of Brexit.

For sure, this year it remains that we can still only see the headlines and, for the most part, there is no agricultural story written under the banner headline of 'We are leaving the EU'.

In political terms, the brinkmanship being deployed by all parties is to be expected. That is the way politics in this country works, but it is still a shameful way to treat those in industries such as agriculture, where it takes years of change to suit the vagaries of any support system or, indeed, the wider aspirations of society.

Whether we will be any further forward by next year's Highland – even though the final timeline for Brexit will have passed (March 29, 2019) – is a moot point.

Various people, including NFUS president, Andrew McCornick, have described the negotiations thus far as a 'beggar's muddle'. Even changing one of the vowels doesn't adequately describe the machinations.

There was a little more clarity this week from a Scottish Government which seemingly remains frustrated by having some ideas to fill out a future agricultural policy for north of the Border, but lacks the fiscal knowledge to enable it do so.

So, it has launched yet another consultation on shaping the bold new post-Brexit future for Scottish agriculture. But is another 'think' tank' really the way to go?

We already have the well thought out 'Steps to change' document from NFUS; the Griggs 'greening' report; the thoughts of ScotGov's own Agriculture Champions and those of the National Council of Rural Advisors and then, this week, we had meat wholesalers calling for a return to headage payments to help maintain livestock throughput.

There's been a lot of time and effort put in to all of those reports – and there would appear to be some middle ground across the board, though headage payments might be a stretch for some!

However, it all begs the question: Do we really need more consultation? Surely, from all that's been presented so far, there is a plan in there somewhere and what we really need is a strategist fit to bring it all together?