WHEN PEOPLE say social media is 'gripped' by a row, it is generally an exaggeration.

Most rows represents the views of a minority that spend their days waiting to be offended. The majority are not interested.

The issues around Brexit are different, however. There is a spectrum of how avidly people hold opinions, but just about everyone will have a view. That means all comments have to be seen in the context that people find it difficult to take a detached view.

That applies to academics, and indeed journalists, but a report by the Centre of Constitutional Change, based at the University of Edinburgh, takes an honest look at the implications for agriculture of what will be a huge constitutional change for the UK.

Coming as it does after the Defra Secretary, Michael Gove, sought to reassure farmers about future support for agriculture, it is a bit akin to the story of the Emperor's clothes. It is something of a reality check, in that it raises key differences between English agriculture and the situation elsewhere.

This confirms concerns that without proper devolution of decision making on support arrangements after Brexit, Scotland, and indeed Wales and Northern Ireland, are in danger of being handed English solutions to English problems. This would contrast with what was promised before the EU referendum by Brexit advocates. Their vision then was of an escape from the centralisation of the CAP to a situation where local decisions reflect local farming conditions.

The document, 'Uncertain post-Brexit Future for Farmers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland', sets out the statistics that suggest a London-driven solution would be the wrong approach. It says that while in England half of farm incomes depend on CAP payments, this figure rises to 75% in Scotland, to 80% in Wales and to a massive 87% in Northern Ireland. That underlines why it is largely key English farming regions that believe a subsidy-free future is possible, and indeed one for which many are now planning.

Also raised is the issue of the very different proportion of land that is in EU-defined areas of natural constraint. In the regions this ranges from around 70% in Northern Ireland to 85% in Scotland. In England the figure is just 17%. This is why a solution to suit England cannot work on a UK-wide basis, despite Gove's new enthusiasm for a green agricultural support structures.

The report says that in an EU context, devolution of agricultural decision making worked reasonably well. It warns however that how much flexibility there will be after Brexit is still an unknown. Gove has said he is committed to decisions being devolved, but to date there is not a lot of evidence of the regions being involved in decisions on the new support model.

Instead Gove has been promising a green Brexit, higher animal welfare standards, and, to be fair, a greater commitment to a technologically driven farming industry and support for British food. However what we need to see is some evidence that officials and the farming lobby from Scotland and the other devolved regions are at the centre of the process of drawing up new structures.

For now there is no evidence this is happening. Instead Gove seems to be driving a one-person train, setting out policy initiatives that he believes will help persuade people to view the Conservative party as one committed to the environment.

The report raises some difficult constitutional issues. One is that on a per head basis, Scotland and Wales receive twice the CAP direct funding payment of England, while in Northern Ireland the figure is four times the English level. This has been a bone of contention in Scotland for some time, but the report says that unless agricultural funding is linked to the Barnett formula that decides what the regions receive, there is no firm mechanism to ensure fairness.

It also warns that as the government ratchets down support payments in England, with less political fallout than would be the case elsewhere, the UK devolved regions will suffer. This would not have been the case before Brexit, when the core level of funding to be divided was set under EU rules, and not by the UK government. The report also warns that trade decisions, including free trade deals, will remain entirely the responsibility of London, with no devolved element.