By and large, the news that Scotland was to join the growing number of European countries with a rural parliament was met by some pretty energetic head-scratching.

The SNP's manifesto commitment in 2011 to convene such a gathering "to enable rural communities to engage more effectively with government" had passed many by, and confused others.

But the following year Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead made clear it was definitely on the agenda: "Scotland's Rural Parliament will empower our rural communities, giving them a stronger voice and genuine access to decision-making."

However it would not be a formal part of government, nor a parliament in the sense of a legislative or decision-making body. Rather it was billed as a "bottom-up" process of engagement and debate between the people of rural Scotland and policy makers "to enable better understanding, improved policy and action to address rural issues".

That is what's expected of its first meeting when 400 from across the land gather in Oban for three days next week. The project has been criticised, but mostly it has been ignored. However it is intriguing. It can hardly be presented as a cynical ploy to gain party political advantage.

Rather it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mr Lochhead has been carefully preparing a stick with which rural Scotland is going to give him, or his ministerial successors, a damn good thrashing.

The million-plus people who live in Scotland's rural areas have very different interests. There is much that divides the "barley barons" of East Lothian from the crofters on Tiree, the bed and breakfast operator in Caithness from the community councillor in a Borders village.

But there is also much that can unite them in common complaint, including poor broadband and concern about out-of-hours GP services, transport and fuel costs. Scotland's first rural parliament surely will be seen as a failure unless it throws down the gauntlet on these or similar matters. This will be to the Scottish Government primarily, although the likes of local authorities, health boards and quangos will also be in its sights.

There is likely to be a list of demands and aspirations, many of which will be hard to satisfy. The next such gathering will then probably go through a report card grading progress on each item.

If the examples of Sweden, the Netherlands, Estonia, Slovakia and Finland are followed, the rural parliament will not be reconvened for two years. This should put it beyond the next Holyrood elections, so it will be the next Scottish administration that has to account for its actions on the rural parliament's wish list.

This may have reassured colleagues in the Scottish Cabinet who were understood to have been initially sceptical about Mr Lochhead's idea.

Now it is over to those participating in Oban, government and community representatives alike to show a rural parliament can enhance this participative democracy in terms of engagement and accountability, rather than clutter it up for no good reason.