There can be little doubt that 2014 will be a busy year for those of us who make our living as agri-hacks.
CAP reform will continue to fill more than its fair share of pages for the fourth year running. It is hard to imagine that the process started in 2010 for implementation in 2015.
The new CAP only runs to 2020 so, if the same time timetable is to apply, discussions for the next round should start in late 2015. That makes reforming the CAP an almost continuous process. No fears of redundancy then for the policy wonks.
Let us hope we are not writing at the same time about how complex the 2015 reforms turned out to be, and bemoaning the length of time Scottish farmers have had to wait for their subsidy cheques.
Farmers may yet look back fondly to the years from 2005 to 2014 when Single Farm Payments arrived within a week or two of the earliest due date.
My guess, however, is that we will see fewer column inches devoted to CAP as the year wears on towards September 18. Like it or not, the independence referendum will dominate the agenda.
It is already doing so. George Lyon, Lib Dem MEP for Scotland, had his New Year press release ready for use last Thursday. As a leading light in the Better Together campaign he had strong views to express on the need to keep the United Kingdom together.
He had conducted his own survey, inviting 16,000 farming businesses to reveal their voting intentions.
In all, his analysis showed 72% of respondents in favour of staying in the UK, 17% as yet undecided and only 11% in favour of independence.
Within a day, Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead’s embargoed press release had hit the pages. His core message came as no surprise: farmers and rural businesses would be infinitely better off if they were based in an independent country.
As he has done so often of late, he blamed the UK Government, personified by Defra Secretary Owen Paterson, for negotiating a poor CAP deal for Scotland.
He has a point, of course. The Scottish allocation of both direct aid and rural development money is at the bottom of the European league table on an area basis.
Mr Paterson was unrepentant, and his attitude has made him a very effective recruiting sergeant for the SNP and the independence movement.
Surely that is not his intention, but his handling and subsequent justification for the poor allocation of internal convergence funds within the UK were surely avoidable. Some see him as arrogant; others simply see him as straightforward.
There are mixed views about Mr Lochhead, too.
Many regard him as a good minister who has worked hard on behalf of Scottish farming.
Others see a man pursuing an independence agenda that relies too heavily on blaming the UK and Defra for all our ills, while at the same time having little real idea as to future direction should the electorate vote ‘yes’.
Certainly, anyone looking for clues in the recently published White Paper on the Future of Scotland would come away disappointed.
There was little that was specific and plenty that was general in a farming section that can’t have taken much more than an afternoon to write.
As an agricultural journalist in a country with a free press I can express these views, but it would ill behove me to take sides.
The job in hand will instead be a case of probing, questioning and then reporting the answers.
In a way it is not a dissimilar approach to that being taken by NFU Scotland. Chief executive Scott Walker has made it very clear that he and his colleagues and office-bearers will not be taking sides. They will share their personal views only with the ballot box.
Some have said this is a sad case of sitting on the fence, but it seems to me to be correct.
NFUS will have members in both camps. To favour one over the other would be a dangerous business, with mass resignations the likely consequence.
NFUS will also have to deal with whatever side wins through, and a partisan approach favouring the loser would lead to future difficulties.
The inquisition will need to be very robust.
Certainly I look forward to asking the relevant questions and pushing until they are answered in full.
For example, Mr Lochhead will need to be very explicit about how an independent Scotland would support its farmers in the interregnum between leaving the UK and joining the EU. This could be a lengthy period, and we need to hear the contingency plans
Likewise, Mr Paterson will need to be very explicit about the future. If there is to be a UK referendum on EU membership and it resulted in a parting of the ways, how then would Scottish farming be treated?
These questions and many others of equal import simply must be answered before September 18, and not in general terms.
We need specifics.