I HAVE a healthy scepticism when it comes to politicians. That is even more so for ministers, with their teams of special advisers telling them how to spin a message. 
That has left me questioning what the 'reassurance' from the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, on continuing farm support after Brexit really means. In short, was he guilty of spin, while avoiding the much bigger question of whether funds will be available for agriculture after 2020?
When he was campaigning for a 'remain' vote in the referendum, the EU farm commissioner Phil Hogan told farmers they could depend on the legal certainties of the CAP, through the Treaty of Rome that set up the original EEC, or take a gamble on the generosity of the British Treasury. 
Farmers obviously chose the latter by supporting Brexit, but the comments from Mr Hammond are not proof the gamble has been effective. He is yet to answer the question, even in very broad terms, as to whether there will be funds for agriculture after 2020. He will argue that he cannot commit a future government, but there is no question that education, health or defence will be funded after 2020 and agriculture should be no different.
That funds will continue to 2020 brings some certainty for farmers. That is certainly welcome. What Hammond has promised however is, at best, one year of funding. We know we will be members of the EU until at least 2019, and Hogan has confirmed to the UK farm lobby that the CAP will operate normally until the day the UK leaves. 
When that will be is still a big guess. Some pundits are suggesting it could be the end of 2017 before Article 50, which will begin the UK's departure, is triggered, and it is not difficult to see that drifting into 2018. That would mean the CAP would be in place until the end of the present reforms in 2020 anyway.
It is some comfort to know funding is assured until the end of 2020, which will take us into a new government at Westminster. The bigger question is what will happen after that. The industry now has a golden opportunity to develop a new agricultural policy that ends the bad aspects of the CAP. It can be for the UK alone, or even better for the devolved regions; it can strike a new balance between food production and protecting the environment, and it can end the hangover from the days of production linked subsidies which distorted single farm payments and the division of funds within the UK, to Scotland's disadvantage.
For this to happen, the Chancellor needs to add to his assurance for 2020, that he is confident future funding will be available to support agriculture. He needs to say that agriculture and food security are important issues for the government. 
In the past it would have been easy for any Conservative government to offer that reassurance, but it is more difficult for the modern, urban-focussed Conservative party – and impossible for the Labour party, even when it gets its act together to be a meaningful Opposition at Westminster. 
Post-2020 funding reassurance would act as a starting gun for a real debate on the future of agricultural support. A long term industry like agriculture deserves, and must secure, more than a one year promise. This was spun by the government, but most industry observers were too wise to be taken in by spin.
What the Hammond confirmation should allow is that delayed rural development projects can get off the ground, with an assurance that funds will be available for the full term. However beyond 2020 there is not the assurance there would have been in the past about future funds. 
Science projects depending on EU support will also be able to continue. However, funding apart, when it comes to agriculture, there is a bigger challenge to the future of scientific research. For years this has been boosted in its quality and effectiveness by collaborative projects involving a number of EU countries. This has delivered quicker responses, but when the UK leaves the EU, researchers here will no longer be part of those EU projects, because Brussels funding can only be used by member states. That means UK agricultural researchers will have to forge new alliances, and in a harshly competitive era for commercial funding that will not be easy.