Agreeing with Cllr Maciver, Richard Lochhead, Scottish Government's Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment went on: "In this decision, the UK Government is trying to defend the indefensible. I thought former DEFRA Minister Hilary Benn’s decision not to compensate sheep farmers for foot-and-mouth was terrible, but this is worse.
“The EU brought in the convergence uplift to benefit those farmers with the lowest per hectare rates. If Scotland had been an independent EU member state, we would have benefited from a €1 billon uplift between 2014-2020. In the event, Scotland’s low payments meant the UK qualified for an uplift of €223 million over the whole budget period.
“Were it not for Scotland, the rest of the UK would get nothing extra - and therefore it is only right and proper that the UK’s convergence uplift should come to Scotland.
“This view received cross-party support in this Parliament in a debate last month, and the cross-party letter on this matter that was sent to the UK Government soon after.
“However, the UK Government announced last Friday that the uplift will not be allocated to Scotland. Instead, it has been divided among all parts of the UK – even though England, Wales and Northern Ireland are already above Europe’s low payment rate threshold.
“This decision goes against the intentions of the EU. It defies the wishes of this Parliament. And it takes away from Scottish farmers and crofters resources which should be theirs, and on which their livelihoods depend.
“No surprise then that Scottish farmers are bitterly disappointed by the decision. The UK Government’s arguments to defend its position are spurious.
“Scotland’s farmers and crofters, our environment and our rural communities are worse off as a result of the UK Government’s CAP negotiations and decisions. This deeply regrettable position means we
have tough decisions ahead.
“I deeply regret the appalling budget position we are in due to the UK Government not making Scottish agriculture a priority, and I thank Parliament for its efforts in arguing the case to London.”