Current Most Read

The End of the Safety Net: Why Slashing Farm Subsidies Could Threaten the UK’s Food Future

The Rising Crime Rate in the UK: A Crisis in the Criminal Justice System

How to prepare for concert ticket presales and sales on Ticketmaster

Cashless Society in the UK: Pros, Cons, and Controversies

Diane Hall
Sep 18, 2023
4 min read

The United Kingdom, like many other countries, has been steadily moving towards a cashless society in recent years. The rise of digital payment methods, contactless cards, and mobile wallets has made it easier than ever for people to conduct their financial transactions without the need for physical cash. Whilst there are clear advantages to embracing a cashless economy, there are also significant drawbacks and long-term implications that must be considered.

The pros of a cashless society

Convenience: One of the most significant advantages of a cashless society is the unparalleled convenience it offers. Digital payment methods allow people to make transactions quickly and securely, whether they’re shopping online, paying bills, or splitting a restaurant bill. Contactless payments have become especially popular in the UK, making it effortless to make purchases with a simple tap of a card or smartphone.

Example: Imagine a busy commuter in London who can easily use their contactless Oyster card for public transport, pay for a coffee at a café, and purchase groceries at a supermarket, all without needing to carry cash.

Reduced crime: A cashless society can help reduce various forms of financial crime, such as theft, counterfeiting, and money laundering. With digital transactions leaving a clear and traceable electronic trail, it becomes more challenging for criminals to engage in illicit activities.

Example: By relying on digital payment methods, the UK has seen a decline in bank robberies and physical cash thefts.

Financial inclusion: Digital payments can improve financial inclusion by providing access to banking services for those who are unbanked or underbanked. Mobile banking apps and digital wallets can help people manage their finances more effectively, regardless of their geographic location.

Example: Initiatives like mobile banking vans and digital wallets have brought financial services to remote areas in Scotland, helping residents access banking services more conveniently.

The cons of a cashless society

Exclusion of vulnerable people: Whilst digital payment methods offer convenience, they can also exclude the vulnerable in society who may not have access to smartphones or bank accounts. This digital divide can further marginalise those already facing financial difficulties.

Example: Elderly individuals who are not tech-savvy or homeless people who lack access to traditional banking services may struggle to adapt to a cashless society.

Privacy concerns: The move towards digital payments raises significant privacy concerns. Every digital transaction leaves a data trail that can be exploited by governments and corporations for surveillance or marketing purposes, potentially infringing on individuals' privacy rights.

Example: Concerns have arisen about the extent to which tech giants like Google and Facebook collect and utilise personal financial data for targeted advertising.

Security risks: Despite advancements in security measures, digital transactions are not immune to cyberattacks and fraud. Phishing scams, identity theft, and hacking incidents can lead to significant financial losses for individuals and businesses.

Example: In 2020, the UK's National Cyber Security Centre reported a surge in Covid-19 related phishing attacks, demonstrating the ongoing security risks associated with digital transactions.

Long-term implications of a completely digital currency system

Monetary policy challenges: A cashless society poses challenges for central banks in implementing monetary policy. Traditional tools like adjusting interest rates may become less effective, as digital currencies can be subject to volatility driven by global financial markets.

Example: In the event of a severe economic downturn, central banks may have limited options for stimulating the economy if interest rates are already near zero.

Financial dependency on tech companies: As cash disappears, individuals and businesses become increasingly dependent on technology companies for their financial services. This concentration of power raises concerns about monopolistic practices, accountability, and access to essential financial services.

Example: Tech giants like Amazon, Apple, and Google are expanding their financial services, potentially increasing their control over the financial sector.

Loss of anonymity: A cashless society erodes the anonymity that physical cash provides. Every digital transaction can be tracked, potentially inhibiting personal freedoms and leading to a society of surveillance.

Example: In China, the widespread adoption of digital payments has been accompanied by the government's ability to monitor and control citizens' financial activities, impacting personal freedoms.

Resilience to system failures: A completely digital currency system is vulnerable to system failures, whether due to technical glitches or cyberattacks. A lack of physical cash as a backup could leave individuals and businesses stranded in the event of a widespread disruption.

Example: In June 2018, Visa experienced a widespread technical failure in the UK, leaving many unable to make digital payments for several hours.

You may not think much of those pros nor be troubled by the cons of a cashless society; however, enough people are worried about the control and loss of freedoms that could be imposed by our government if cash no longer existed.

Say you were classed as obese. To the government, you’re a potential drain on the resources of our NHS. Conspiracy theorists proffer that the powers-that-be would restrict your spending on fatty foods and unhealthy meals if the UK solely operated a digital currency.

It seems there are plenty of people who believe that cash still has merit. Cash payments rose last year for the first time in a decade, increasing by 7% to 6.4bn. On a short break to a tourist town last week, I noticed two businesses clearly stating that ONLY cash could be used on their premises. I had to read their signs twice, as I’m that used to seeing businesses state that they’re card-only enterprises, certainly after the pandemic.

I’ve read of many small businesses in the current-cost-of-living crisis that claim the fees that card companies currently charge are severely eating into their profits. Maybe they’ll also turn back to cash?

What are your thoughts? Would you like to see cash phased out?

The End of the Safety Net: Why Slashing Farm Subsidies Could Threaten the UK’s Food Future

All Articles

16 April 2025

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Not only do UK farmers now face the looming threat of inheritance tax reforms that could force centuries-old family farms to be sold off - but they’re also contending with a policy shift that dismantles the very foundation of their economic stability: the withdrawal of direct farm subsidies.

A black-and-white cow grazes on a lush, green field with a dense forest in the background. The scene is peaceful and natural.

In a time of global instability - wars in Europe and the Middle East, disrupted trade routes, volatile commodity markets - the UK government is removing financial safeguards that have underpinned British agriculture for decades. And it’s doing so faster than many in the industry can adapt.

The Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), a direct subsidy paid to farmers under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), is in its final years. By 2027, it will be completely gone. In its place: a complex, tiered system of environmental schemes under the umbrella of the Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS). Worthy in theory, but in practice? A mess of bureaucracy, delays, and shortfalls.

And the timing couldn’t be worse.

A Lifeline Cut-Off Before the Bridge Was Built

The BPS wasn’t perfect, but it provided one essential function - it kept farms afloat. Payments were calculated based on the amount of land farmed, offering predictability and a cashflow buffer that allowed British farms to invest in new equipment, manage seasonal fluctuations, and ride out the weather, both literal and economic.

Now, payments have been rapidly reduced. By 2024, many farmers had already lost 35%–50% of their BPS income. In 2025, a new cap of £7,200 per farm will apply. That’s a fraction of the £20,000 to £50,000 mid-size farms previously received.

The replacement - ELMS - promises payments for "public goods": improving soil health, reducing carbon emissions, boosting biodiversity. Laudable aims. But ask most farmers, and they’ll tell you: they don’t object to sustainability. What they object to is the speed and scale of the transition, and the fact that the new payments often don’t come close to replacing what’s being lost.

Environmental Schemes: Aspirations Without Infrastructure

At the core of ELMS are three tiers:

Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI): Encourages low-level changes such as herbal leys, no-till farming, and reducing fertiliser use.
Local Nature Recovery: Pays for habitat restoration and targeted environmental actions.
Landscape Recovery: Funds large-scale, long-term ecosystem restoration, often in collaboration with multiple landowners.

But uptake has been patchy at best. As of late 2024, fewer than half of eligible farms had enrolled in any ELMS scheme. Why?

The schemes are confusing. Farmers must navigate different options, overlapping rules, and constant revisions.
The application process is time-consuming and opaque.
Payments under SFI are often insufficient, especially for mixed or livestock farms in upland areas where land-use change is more difficult.
Crucially, many tenanted farmers - nearly a third of all farms in England - face legal and logistical barriers to taking part.

DEFRA has promised streamlining. But meanwhile, farmers are left in limbo - without clear income streams, but still expected to feed the nation.

The Cost of Poor Policy Timing

Agricultural experts, rural economists, and even major retailers have raised alarm bells. In a scathing 2023 report, the National Audit Office warned that DEFRA had failed to communicate the changes effectively, leaving many in the dark about what the new schemes offer.

The NFU (National Farmers’ Union) has repeatedly called on the government to pause BPS cuts until ELMS is fully functioning, but those calls have largely been ignored. In late 2024, a coalition of MPs from all parties demanded a review, warning that this abrupt withdrawal of support could lead to an exodus from the industry.

And that’s not just a theoretical risk. A nationwide NFU survey found that 11% of farmers were considering leaving farming altogether due to the combined impact of reduced subsidies, labour shortages, and rising costs.

Food Security in an Uncertain World

This isn’t just a farming problem - it’s a national one.

The UK is already heavily reliant on imports for key food items. And with international trade routes threatened by conflict in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, and shipping disruptions in the Red Sea, supply chains are becoming more fragile by the month.

Should we really be cutting back our domestic food production capacity now?

Government ambitions to rewild 10% of farmland, promote biodiversity, and shift toward carbon sequestration may look good on a whiteboard in Whitehall. But on the ground, it’s leading to reduced livestock numbers, lower domestic output, and a growing dependence on foreign markets that may not be as reliable as once assumed.

A Dangerous Gamble

To many farmers, this feels like an ideological experiment being conducted in real-time -with their livelihoods and our food supply on the line. And as supermarket CEOs and farming groups increasingly speak out, it’s clear this isn’t just grumbling from the shires. It’s a cry of alarm from the foundation of the UK’s food system.

Environmental ambition is important. Climate change is real. But so is hunger.

We can pursue sustainability - but not by pulling the rug out from under those who feed us. The government’s subsidy reform may have noble aims, but its execution is flawed, its timeline reckless, and its consequences potentially devastating.

If we want a resilient, secure food future, we must support the people who make it possible - not push them to the brink.