So, just as the announcement that England was to get a consultation on the issue of genetic engineering was being widely welcomed by scientists and farmers, we in Scotland learnt that we’re not likely to be getting anything similar – in the short term at least.

The consultation was the big announcement at last week’s on-line Oxford Farming Conference – where Defra secretary, George Eustice, took the opportunity to announce that the cultivation of crops bred by these techniques was to be opened up to a national review.

Implicit in this announcement was an understanding that there would be a move away from the EU's cautious approach – given in the 2018 European Court of Justice ruling. That meant that crops developed by such new precision breeding techniques were subjected to the same restrictions and treated in a similar manner to those produced using the transgenic modification techniques used in early GMOs which saw sections of DNA from other species added to an existing genome.

To re-rehearse the distinctions in genetic engineering technologies – at least as far as you would gather from what Eustice said – gene editing just makes changes to traits already present in a species by a bit of subtle rearrangement, rather than by introducing sections of foreign DNA from entirely different species from any part of the plant, animal or micro-organism kingdoms. That, as mentioned above, was the practice in early genetic modification techniques.

He argued that this would simply allow those involved in breeding new varieties to speed up a process which, while achievable by normal breeding techniques, would simply take far too long to achieve.

Of course, as is the fashion, rather than sell it purely as a way of introducing improved varieties for farmers, the emphasis was on the role which new breeding techniques could play by unlocking substantial benefits to nature, the environment as well as providing farmers with crops resistant to pests, disease or extreme weather and which produce healthier, more nutritious food.

He put it: “Offering greater opportunities to be more sustainable and produce better with fewer inputs.”

But while his decision seemed laudable, I found myself feeling slightly irritated by his stroll back in time to Olde England in the post-war years how we’ve got things wrong since then. Then I felt distinctly uneasy as he slipped into Boris Johnson-type jingoism to claim that our ability to address the future was all down to Brexit.

Now it is true that the EU’s ruling taken by the ECJ mentioned above was based on a legal argument, rather than a scientific one.

But Eustice’s emotive rhetoric that the ability to hold the consultation was all because Brexit had liberated the country from 'having to sit on its hands' and then 'slavishly follow' the ruling of the ECJ had me expecting to see a Union Jack unfurl as his backdrop and ‘Land of Hope and Glory’ chiming in as he spoke.

Of course, with genetic engineering playing a significant role in the development of the Covid-19 vaccines which are being launched – along with the fact that the two researchers who developed the CRISPR-Cas9 techniques were recently awarded the Nobel prize for chemistry – gene editing’s stock is running high at the moment.

So, the time might just be right to persuade the country that using the technology isn’t simply another attempt at introducing Frankenfoods.

However, also speaking at the event, Scotland’s rural economy secretary, Fergus Ewing, made it plain that Scotland was likely to take a different approach. He could have been accused of putting a bit of a dampener on the party by revealing Scotland’s not likely to be following suit any time soon on consulting on, or encouraging the uptake of such techniques.

But while this approach probably didn’t come as any surprise to anyone who knows the long-held ScotGov line on the issue, I’ve heard that, apparently behind the scenes, there might just be a wee bit of a thaw going on in the SNP’s icily dogmatic anti-genetic engineering stance.

Now there’s always been a bit of a split personality in the administration’s approach anyway. Pride has often been expressed by members of ScotGov in the important role which the country’s scientists play in developing this area of research, in both animal and plants.

That includes the actual applications of these techniques – but apparently just as long as that remains strictly within the confines of the laboratory and secure research greenhouses.

Unofficial though any change in mindset might be at the current time, I suspect that there would be a fair bit of work required to convince the administration to develop this small chink of light enough to let in the sort of illumination which the issue requires.

At the same time, though, amongst those who would undoubtedly like to see the issue openly discussed, there’s a bit of reluctance to push the issue too hard at the moment. I would guess that might be linked to the upcoming Scottish elections.

No one particularly wants the issue to be raised just at a time when it’s likely to be treated as a political football by pressure groups and in the wider media.

Speaking on the panel at the conference, Ewing was a deal more restrained in entering into the sort of jingoism which had been adopted by Eustice – and actually appeared to be a bit reluctant to condemn either the technology or the actual consultation to any great extent. He focused more on the timing of the consultation.

Claiming that jumping feet first into such a review was 'premature', rather than stone-walling, he stated that Scotland had reservations about rushing into such a move. He pointed out that the EU Commission was in the process of re-visiting the ECJ ruling itself – and that this was due to be published in April, only a few short months away.

Of course, any change of heart from the EU as a result of their review might just be the easiest outcome for ScotGov, as there’s no doubting the fact that the SNP administration wants to remain as closely aligned with the EU as it possibly can – a move which ties in with its ultimate aim of gaining independence and re-joining the trading block.

But there would undoubtedly be risks on the broader front as well if the UK went down a different direction to the EU in developing and cultivating gene edited varieties. I would suspect that such an in-your-face move could well disturb the uneasy truce which currently allows a fair range of our products to continue to be traded relatively freely and without the imposition of tariffs.

Of course, the worst of all scenarios of different approaches being taken by the different administrations in the UK would create a nightmare scenario for Scottish growers, because under the terms of the UK’s Internal Market Bill, there can be no barrier on the trade of goods which are produced to a set of standards which is adopted in one part of the UK in the other regions.

Effectively, that would mean that while Scottish growers might not be allowed to grow gene-edited crops, there would be no means to halt the importation of grain or other goods from down south where the technology and resulting goods had been adopted.

Such a move could give huge potential benefits to growers in other regions, whilst leaving us at a huge disadvantage.

Away from the politics, though, while the technology is being portrayed a bit like a new washing powder which is whiter than white, a minority of scientists have expressed concerns about gene editing – although these seem to be mainly confined to using the techniques in humans.

But while ‘editing’ might sound safer than ‘modification’, anyone who has ever written for newspapers, or magazines knows that a slight mistake in the editing process can dramatically alter what was initially meant.

And just to finish on a slightly less serious note, I came across a good example of the power of editing in someone’s proposed New Year’s resolution. Fed up with the on-going Covid-19 crisis and the renewed lockdown they wrote:

“I’m giving up drinking until this is over” – only to admit they had miss-typed and edited the sentence to read:

“I’m giving up.

“Drinking until this is over.”