Castle Community Bank was formed from the merger of Castle Credit Union, North Edinburgh Credit Union and Water of Leith Credit Union.

The new bank said it will provide people within the EH postcode catchment area with savings and loan products, “similar to ‘high street’ institutions, but with the emphasis firmly on sustainable banking and a truly ethical approach which puts ‘people before profit’”.

The bank is fully owned by its members and will operate as a not-for-profit, and any surplus funds being used to fund community projects around Edinburgh.

Castle Community Bank said while financial cooperatives have traditionally provided financial support to those unable to access high street banking facilities, it is also attracting interest from young professionals and others looking to bank with an ethical financial institution.

Reverend Iain May, Minister of South Leith Parish Church in Edinburgh and former marketing manager with RBS and head of planning and strategy with Allied Irish Bank Group, helped set up the new bank.

He said: “Whilst we are different in structure to a traditional High Street bank, we adhere to the same robust regulatory requirements and independent scrutiny aimed at protecting our customer’s interests.

“Castle Community Bank has taken well over a year to launch, because of the systems we had to adopt.

“Our core principle is to ensure that the vulnerable in our communities do not have to get caught up in a debt spiral or turn to payday lenders to make ends meet.

“Equally, our market research indicated that people across the city would welcome a bank with a strong ethical policy, one that took corporate social responsibility to its heart within every facet of its operation and, importantly, ensures that 100 per cent of all profits were re-invested into the community at all times.

“On that basis, Castle Community Bank is a bank for all.”

The bank said its customer base is already in four figures and is active across savings and loans.

Castle Community Bank said its Capital Access Ratio is 17 per cent compared with the three per cent regulatory minimum and like other banks is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.

The bank currently has two ‘walk in’ branches in Niddrie and Wardieburn, and also offers 24/7 online banking.

Reverend May said: “People want a community lender based in their community.

“I am absolutely certain that as we grow and the word spreads and people see the very competitive interest rates we offer, many will make the decision that some or all of their money should be in our community bank, rather than a large multinational which may be based in Frankfurt, London or Shanghai.

“It will make sense to a lot of people that investment in their own community bank gives something back to the very people they live amongst.”

Author: David Wood CRNS

A letter to 24 local authorities from David Wood, CEO, CRNS 

Reuse Furniture for Scottish Welfare Fund Clients 

With the support of our membership and many local authorities across Scotland, we have been lobbying Scotland Excel to introduce a Reuse Furniture Lot on to the Domestic Furniture Framework from 1st November 2016. Earlier this year and for the sole purpose of delivering reuse furniture to Scottish Welfare Fund clients across Scotland, a consortium was formed comprising 17 of our key furniture reuse members, with CRNS operating as the lead organisation. We will, once accepted on to the Scotland Excel Framework be able to support 24 local authority areas (including your own) in providing 34 key household items through the Reuse Furniture Lot. This will include all the main household essentials such as beds, sofas, tables and chairs, cookers, fridges and washing machines.

The benefits of utilising the Scottish Welfare Fund to provide reuse furniture to families and individuals in need from a local authority and a community perspective are significantly more substantial than would initially be envisaged. The attached Position Paper outlines in greater detail why reuse furniture really should be prioritised over new furniture when a decision has been made to support families and individuals in need through the Scottish Welfare Fund. It seems a natural route for a local authority to now adopt reuse and in short for the following reasons:

•         The cost to a local authority of any Scottish Welfare Award will be less than if the same items were purchased as new and in a time of financial constraint the fund can be stretched to support more clients and essentially that means supporting more local families and individuals in need.

•         By purchasing reuse furniture from local social enterprises and charities then the local economy can be supported and potentially enhanced rather than allowing money to be spent further afield with no local social impact as a result.

•         By purchasing locally then deliveries of reused furniture can be made to families and individuals in need by local organisations efficiently and quicker than currently occurs. This is absolutely crucial when those requiring furniture perhaps have no bed, cooker or washing machine. Attached to the Positon Paper are appendices highlighting that the current system of providing new furniture is inefficient and does not meet the needs of the families that often require immediate support.

•         That more affordable short and medium term behaviour will be encouraged for those that need to utilise their own budgets very carefully and by introducing reuse furniture to families, then the potential impact of poverty can in part be alleviated.

•         Local social enterprises and charities will be directly supported, enabling those organisations to thrive and to continue to be a much needed and integral part of the local community support network that provides opportunities for volunteering, employment and real support to those that fall outside of the traditional public and private sector employment networks.

•         Enabling the local authority to develop and enhance a more circular approach to the local economy by encouraging reuse and potentially reducing items going to landfill.

The provision of a Reuse Furniture Lot on the Scotland Excel Framework is a catalyst for real change that will allow local authorities the opportunity to adopt a more efficient and more inclusive approach that will support more vulnerable people in our local communities.

The CRNS consortium must be the natural choice for any local authority covered by the Reuse Furniture Lot. It is cost effective, efficient and is a local led solution that supports families and individuals experiencing financial hardship in our communities.

I would urge you to work with our consortium and I would be delighted to meet with you and/or your colleagues in the weeks ahead to discuss any aspect of this really quite transformational approach that we have instigated, developed and in time will deliver.

The 24 local authorities serviced by our consortium are listed within the Position Paper as are the names of the 17 CRNS members that have formed our consortium and they will work closely together to provide a cohesive network that will enable local solutions to be delivered.

We are at a very important period in the development of our reuse furniture offer and to ensure that key individuals are made aware of this highly significant development I have copied this letter to directors and/or heads of department within your local authority area and indeed to all councillors as well.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

David Wood

Chief Executive Officer

Author: DTAS, SFHA, GWSF, HSCHT

To read the full report click here

In conjunction with a range of housing organisations, the Scottish Government has developed a Joint Housing Delivery Plan to help achieve its housing objectives. Some the actions arising from this Plan are specific steps which may be needed to, for example, facilitate the provision of new homes.

Other actions in the Plan are about promoting good practice, and that’s what this short publication aims to promote good practice. Action point 17 in the Plan begins with “people want to influence what happens in their neighbourhood”, and so this booklet draws together some examples from across Scotland of how place making – in most cases involving the provision of new homes – has been driven by the local community.

Author: The Journal - Law Society

Ministers have named the first members of the Scottish Land Commission, which will come into operation next April, based in Inverness.

Andrew Thin, currently the Government’s Independent Adviser on Tenant Farming, has been selected to chair the Commission. He has served as a non-executive chair of the Cairngorm National Park Authority and Scottish Natural Heritage, and is currently chair at Scottish Canals and a non-executive director in the Scottish Government.

Other members are David Adams, Professor of Property and Urban Studies at Glasgow University, who was an adviser to the Land Reform Review Group; Lorne MacLeod, a chartered accountant, current chairman of Community Land Scotland and a board member of Storas Uibhist; Dr Sally Reynolds, a crofter, livestock keeper and agricultural consultant; and Megan MacInnes, a land adviser to Global Witness, a London-based NGO, who has expertise in land reform, community empowerment and human rights.

The Tenant Farming Comissioner will be Dr Bob McIntosh CBE, is a retired civil servant with extensive experience in public policy, in particular in land management and forestry, and currently a board member of Highlands & Islands Enterprise.

The appointments are subject to parliamentary approval.

It was previously announced that Hilary Pearce, a Scottish Government civil servant, has been appointed interim chief executive officer and will be on secondment to the Commission until summer 2017.

Author: CoHD

Commission wants your views on local democracy in the Highlands

The Commission on Highland Democracy has today published its Call for Evidence, and wants the public’s views on local democracy in the Highlands.

The Call for Evidence states:

“The Highland Council, like every other Council in Scotland, makes daily decisions about everything from home care to bin collections and from building schools to cutting grass. But are they making these decisions in the right way for you or might you be making them instead?

“We believe that people’s lives are better when they have more control over decisions which affect them. We want your views about what happens now, and what the future of democracy in the Highlands might be. 

The job of the Commission on Highland Democracy is to find out how local people want to be involved in decisions and services that directly affect their lives and their communities. We believe we should not even start our work without asking local people what you think of this issue and how we should move forward. We hope your answers will direct our work and tell us what problems, if any, you want to get sorted.”

Members of the public are being invited to view the Call for Evidence on the Commission’s website and to complete a short survey online, or join the discussion at Highland Dialogue

Comments can also be emailed to: Commission@highland.gov.uk, or sent by post to: Commission on Highland Democracy, Policy Team, Highland Council HQ, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness IV3 5NX.

The 8 questions in the Call for Evidence are designed to help people say the things they want to say and to allow the Commission to easily spot and interpret any common themes provided in the answers received. There is scope however, in the Call for Evidence for people to say something quite different and a promise is provided that every response will be taken into account as the Commission moves forward.

Author: Power to Change

To read full report click here

Community businesses grew by 5 per cent over the past year, in response to community efforts to rescue public services under threat of closure, according to a report by the research institute, Power to Change.

The Big Lottery funded organisation which was set up in January to support community businesses, found that the growth of community businesses outstripped the growth of charities by 1 per cent and small businesses by 2.3 per cent.

According to the report, The Community Business Market in 2016, some 300 local libraries in England are now run as community businesses, marking a 20 per cent growth from 2015.

Some 1,100 sports and leisure facilities (10 per cent) are now run as community businesses, while 40 local pubs (14 per cent) and 330 local shops (3 per cent) are also now run as community businesses.

The businesses re-invest surplus back into the local area and are also more likely to make ends meet through trading profits rather than grant income – with 35 per cent reporting trade as a priority over the next year, according to Power to Change.

Richard Harries, director of Power to Change, said: “Community groups are showing themselves to be increasingly business savvy and resilient as they gear-up for more tough times ahead.

“Communities are worried about the future of their public services and high streets, but these figures show that local people are also taking solutions into their own hands. Thousands of much-loved buildings and services would have disappeared if community businesses hadn’t stepped in. This sort of model is here to stay. It represents a sea-change in the way our local communities are planning for the future.”

Income from community businesses currently stands at more than £1bn, while combined assets rose to £2.1bn in the last year, according to the report.

Author: Steve Tolson

To see the full report of the review of current practice across a range of communities whereby community led plans have been developed and published by local residents  – click here

Author: Daily Record

A community group are going the extra mile to tackle food poverty in their area.

Founders of the Ruchazie Poverty Action group set up their community stalls, which run every fortnight, as they recognised a serious issue of deprivation in the area.

They said there is limited access to supermarkets from where the majority of locals live, and smaller shops charge high prices as there is not much competition.

As a result, locals were struggling to afford food and the group stepped in to help.

Every two weeks they travel to various locals around Ruchazie and sell fresh fruit and vegetables, tea, coffee, washing powder, rice and pasta at rock bottom prices.

They also sell it in small quantities to keep the costs down, and help tide people over for a few days if they are desperate.

A packet of 20 Tetley teabags on sale by the group costs just 40p, coffee sachets are on offer for 20p while pasta and rice portions for two to three people cost 40p.

The group was started by Brian Tollett, a 62-year-old security worker, and Annette Bowers, a 52 year old who was born and bred in the area.

Every fortnight Brian visits the fruit and vegetable wholesale market and haggles for hours to get the best prices for high quality produce.

He then bring it back in his van and sells it as cheaply as possible to locals, without taking any profits.

Brian said: ” Out typical customers are just normal people who live in the area who want to save money. Families, pensioners, everyone really.

“Our goal is to open up a community shop and we can sell this stuff all the time to people and introduce a bit more competition in the area.”

Annette added: ” There is a real problem with food poverty here in Ruchazie and we wanted to tackle that.

It’s taken us a while to get to where we are but we’re determined to succeed. People need to eat decent food. When the buses stop running, or if you don’t have any money for the bus to get to the supermarkets, you are forced to go to shops which charge a fortune and usually don’t sell fresh produce.

“We sell everything in small, affordable packets as it can help tide people over and means they don’t spend all their money at once buying more food than they need,”

SNP Councillor Gerry Boyle, who represents the area, praised the group for all their efforts in helping the people of Ruchazie.

He said: ” The project is absolutely fantastic and it is helping maintain people’s dignity and giving them access to good quality food.

“It would be great to see community shops like this across Glasgow so more people could benefit.”

Author: Community Woodlands Association

Scottish Government is consulting on its proposals for the The Future of Forestry in Scotland. The consultation ends on 9/11/16.

Below is the draft response from Community Woodlands Association recently circulated to members for comment and further contribution.

Introduction

The Community Woodlands Association welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation

CWA was established by its members in 2003: it represents 200 community woodland groups across Scotland who collectively manage a hundred thousand hectares of woodland and other land, delivering very significant public benefits in a range of fields from timber production and recreation to health and education.

We support the principle of completing the devolution of forestry, by agreeing a transfer of Forestry Commissioners’ powers and duties, as they relate to Scotland, to Scottish Ministers, and recognise the need for a new legislative framework for forestry in Scotland, but have some significant concerns regarding the specific proposals.

We note that in most practical respects Scottish forestry is devolved already: the Scottish National Forest Estate is owned by Scottish Ministers and the activities of private (and community) sector forestry are funded through the Scottish Rural Development Programme. FCS and FES are funded by the Scottish Government, they work to deliver the Scottish Forestry Strategy and other Scottish Government policies, and the heads of FCS and FES report through the Scottish Government’s Environment and Forestry Directorate to Scottish Ministers. We note also that even after the proposed changes, some matters will remain reserved to Westminster, most notably many of the tax arrangements pertaining to forestry.

1              New organisational arrangements for the management of forestry in Scotland

•             Our proposals are for a dedicated Forestry Division in the Scottish Government (SG) and an Executive Agency to manage the NFE. Do you agree with this approach? Please explain your answer.

We do not agree with this approach.  We do not believe that the benefits of such an approach have been effectively articulated by the Scottish Government, nor are there sufficient reassurances regarding the mitigation of the potential disbenefits of such an approach.

In particular we are concerned at the proposal to subsume the policy and regulation functions of FCS within a dedicated Forestry Division in the Scottish Government; we note that such a division could be subject to merger or restructuring without any further public consultation.

As currently structured, Forestry Commission Scotland has successfully championed forestry in Scotland as a broad church embracing a wide range of stakeholders, delivering a huge variety of public benefits and enjoying unprecedented levels of public approval. In particular, FCS has been a strong and committed supporter of community forestry, both in terms of the developing policy context and through funding, e.g. the Seedcorn & Community funds: small pots of money which have facilitated very substantial change.

We are concerned that once FCS is absorbed into the SG it will lose the ability to maintain this broad vision and the budget to support it; and that its focus will be progressively narrowed to supporting a small cadre of industrial stakeholders.

CWA believes that Scottish forestry and the Scottish people would be best served by the establishment of a unified Scottish Forest and Land Service, charged with managing the National Forest Estate, regulating and supporting the full diversity of private and community sector forestry and retaining responsibility for policy development for the sector.

•             In bringing the functions of FCS formally into the SG, how best can we ensure that the benefits of greater integration are delivered within the wider SG structure? What additional benefits should we be looking to achieve?

The “benefits of greater integration” are not well articulated in the consultation document, so naturally it is unclear how to ensure they will be delivered.

We also see no direct link between integration within SG structures and integration of thinking or delivery against SG policies and agendas.  We note that FCS has demonstrated remarkable flexibility in recognising and delivering against a broad range of SG agendas from climate change mitigation to community empowerment and with programmes from starter farms to Branching Out. This is in stark contrast to some apparently “integrated” divisions within SG which remain locked in a silo mentality.

We would also be very concerned that there would be a drive to further integrate FCS IT and other back office systems with those of other SG divisions. The experience of SRDP has been that such integration failed to deliver promised efficiencies and has proven a major obstacle to delivery.

•             How should we ensure that professional skills and knowledge of forestry are maintained within the proposed new forestry structures?

Whilst there would be little immediate change as FCS staff would be transferred into the new SG division we believe it inevitable that forestry expertise and background would be diluted over time, even if the forestry division retains its identity.

We consider that professional skills and knowledge of forestry would be best maintained by establishing a unified Scottish Forest and Land Service.

•             What do you think a future land agency for Scotland could and should manage and how might that best be achieved?

We recognise that FES already manages very substantial (>200,000ha) non-forest assets, and we have no objection in principle to this increasing, either through acquisition (e.g. following the devolution of the Crown Estate) or the transfer of assets from other SG bodies, however we note that this may also require the transfer of budgets and specialised staff.

The more important questions in our opinion relate to the objectives of management. As the Land Reform Review Group noted, land is a precious and finite resource which must be managed in the public interest and for the common good, and this should be the guiding principle for a land agency for Scotland.

2              Cross-border arrangements

•             Do you agree with the priorities for cross-border co-operation set out above, i.e. forestry research and science, plant health and common codes such as UK Forestry Standard? Y/N

Yes

•             Do you have views on the means by which cross-border arrangements might be delivered effectively to reflect Scottish needs? E.g. Memorandum of Understanding between countries? Scotland taking the lead on certain arrangements?

We believe the most effective means to deliver forestry research and science is through the retention of a specialised Forest Research & Science (FRS) organisation.

Such a body would have responsibility for plant health issues on a UK basis, and could also take ownership of common codes (UKFS, etc)

The future FRS could be “owned” by one of the partner nations, but might better be structured as a jointly owned company or partnership.

The process for commissioning research will inevitably change, and this may have implications for research priorities in the future.  We note that Forest Research has well-established social research programmes which have gradually become more attuned to the needs of the sector – it is important that there is continuity in commissioning to maintain expertise in the organisation.

3              New legislation

•             Should the Scottish Ministers be placed under a duty to promote forestry? Y/N

Yes

•             What specifically should be included in such a general duty?

We agree with the provisions outlined in the consultation document, however we consider they are incomplete, and that the duties on Scottish Ministers should include the management of the national estate to deliver social policy agendas, notably with regard to Land Reform & Community Empowerment.

•             Recognising the need to balance economic, environmental and social benefits of forestry, what are your views of the principles set out above?

We note that the document references social benefits from forestry in this question but is otherwise silent on specifics; it appears to draw heavily on the principles of the 1967 Act, which do not adequately represent the broad range of objectives and activities which constitute modern forestry. We are therefore concerned that the statutory focus will be overly on the “economic” (understood narrowly as equating solely to timber production), and believe that there should be a much more specific elaboration of “social” and “environmental” objectives, as well a broader understanding of the economic benefit of forestry. As noted previously we consider that the guiding principle should be that “land is a precious and finite resource which must be managed in the public interest and for the common good”.

Author: Forest Policy Group

The Forest Policy Group is an independent thinktank dedicated to diversifying and strengthening Scotland’s forest industry. We believe that forestry could and should contribute much more to the economy than it presently does, particularly in rural areas and through small- to medium-scale enterprises.  It is important that it also becomes more resilient and sustainable.

We would love to see you at our groundbreaking event in Birnam, Dunkeld, on the 11th of November 2016. We will be exploring the social, economic an environmental values and benefits derived from local, small scale woodland ownership and management, as well as forest enterprises and business.

We’ll be showcasing a number of inspiring examples of local control of woodlands yielding a wide range of extra benefits for the local area, way beyond what most public or private sector management tends to provide.  The aim is to inspire and encourage local initiatives, and identify policy measures which a government interested in communities could implement to help this movement along.  From creating a firewood enterprise, to using timber sales to finance a wide range of community assets and activities, to offering woodland activities as a therapy for those with physical and mental health issues, to sourcing high quality niche timber for beautiful furniture manufacture. And lots more…

We will hear from people and groups who have been doing good things and share their experiences; what has worked and what has not worked – and what can we learn. And to ask the question, what changes in policy will assist these new approaches to forestry?

All welcome. More information on the programme here.

To register click here