GENERAL practitioners have rebelled against their leadership body and called on the Scottish Government to allocate a minimum of 11 per cent of the NHS budget to primary care, despite warnings it would set therm on a collision course with hospital medics.

GPs attending the annual Scottish Local Medical Committee (SLMC) conference in Clydebank voted overwhelmingly to support a motion which urges ministers to boost their share of health service funding from less than eight per cent to at least 11 per cent under the terms of the new GP contract, due to come into force from 2017.

The backing came despite warnings from the committee chairman, Dr Alan McDevitt, that it would "divide the profession" by pitting GPs against consultants working on the frontline in hospitals.

The conference were told that GPs in Scotland held 24.2 million consultations with patients in 2013, and that a third of the entire Scottish population visits their GP once a month.

However, while the workload for primary care had increased 10 per cent in a decade, the share of funding flowing into surgeries from the health service had been cut by a fifth - falling from nearly 10 per cent of the NHS budget to less than 8 per cent today.

Representatives for GPs in NHS Lothian argued that without a shift in resources, practices would be unable to deliver the Scottish Government's "2020 Vision", which aims to shift the burden of care into the community to allow more older people to stay in their own homes.

The motion stated that: "This conference believes that although Scottish general practice offers excellent access and a very high quality of care despite rising public expectation and demand, it believes that practices will be unable to deliver the Scottish Government's 2020 Vision unless: there is a real terms significant shift in resource from secondary to primary care; as a minimum, the GP portion of the NHS budget should be 11 per cent."

The increase has already been recommended by the Royal College of GPs, but is seen as controversial by some primary care professionals because it would be funded by diverting cash away from similarly strained hospital services.

Andrew Cowie, a Tayside GP said practices had seen their share of funding shrink in recent years as consultants got priority.

He added: "I don't believe our acute hospital colleagues are wasting that money but they have huge demands which swallow up that money very quickly and we are left fighting over the scraps."

The motion sparked a debate with one GP arguing that the NHS needed more funding overall "so that any slice of that pie is bigger". Another medic, who worked as a consultant specialising in old age psychiatry, said his wards already operated at 100 per cent capacity and it was "fantasy land" for GPs to expect to take money from secondary care.

Dr McDevitt unsuccessfully urged attendees to vote down the motion.

He said: "We have had this debate for a long time because we feel that we, as GPs, are the underdogs - and a lot of the time we are. But this has the potential to divide the profession when it should be about us standing together.

"Our hospital colleagues often work in desperate conditions with understaffing, and I think it would be better to find a way to work together to send a message to Government whereas this will just mean butting heads.

"We've been here before and I think it's a sterile waste of time.

"I know feelings are very strong because we have had a disinvestment in primary care, but I don't think this helps."

Although not binding, the motion will now form part of negotiations for the new GP contract between SLMC leaders and ministers.