What is the Scottish government's Future Farming Investment Scheme?

The Scottish government's Future Farming Investment Scheme (FFIS) is a £21m fund aimed at boosting productivity, sustainability, and efficiency within the agriculture sector.

Why are Scottish farmers and crofters unhappy with the FFIS?

Scottish farmers and crofters are unhappy with the FFIS because about 3,500 out of 7,500 applications did not meet the eligibility criteria, and they claim the distribution of the funds was "unfair". Crofters in the Western Isles, in particular, received less than 1% of the total funds.

How is the Scottish government responding to the backlash over the FFIS?

The Scottish government, through Agriculture and Connectivity Minister Jim Fairlie, has refuted claims of unfairness and stated that the scheme is under review. Fairlie acknowledged that lessons will be learned, and the next iteration of the FFIS may need to be more targeted to ensure a fairer distribution of the funds.

Home / Business and Economy / Scottish Farmers Slam Unfair Grants Allocation in Future Farming Scheme

Scottish Farmers Slam Unfair Grants Allocation in Future Farming Scheme

4 Nov

•

Summary

3,500 of 7,500 applications for £21m fund did not meet eligibility criteria
Farmers and politicians claim distribution of money was "unfair"
Less than 1% of funds allocated to applicants in Western Isles

Scottish Farmers Slam Unfair Grants Allocation in Future Farming Scheme

As of November 4th, 2025, the Scottish government is under fire from some farmers and crofters over the allocation of grants for the £21m Future Farming Investment Scheme (FFIS). The scheme aimed to boost productivity, sustainability, and efficiency within the agriculture sector, but the results have left many disappointed.

Out of the 7,500 applications submitted, around 3,500 did not meet the eligibility criteria. This has led to claims from farmers and politicians that the distribution of money was "unfair". The National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS) president, Andrew Connon, acknowledged that some members secured funding, but others were left disappointed despite submitting what they believed to be "strong and eligible" applications.