Author: Niall Alexander, Airdrie Savings Bank

Airdrie Savings Bank (ASB) Scotland’s only independent, mutual bank has produced a twist onthe cashback mortgage idea as employees, trustees and volunteers of thousands of Scotland’s third sector organisations and social enterprises can see their organisation benefit by £250.

Many banks offer cashback to borrowers as part of their mortgage enticement; at ASB, they’ve decided to do it differently; the cashback from their “Social: Mortgage” product will go to the third sector organisation that the borrower works for, volunteers with, or sits on the governing body of.

ASB has an ethical ethos that is rooted in community and cooperative spirit. It is a mutual, with no paid trustees, no shareholders to satisfy and a fair wage culture. ASB doesn’t promote bonus driven lending and invests depositors’ money in an ethical manner. It is Scotland’s last independent savings bank offering loans, deposits and mortgages.

This is the only social mortgage of its kind in the UK, giving money back to third sector organisations which will help them deliver vital social services across Scotland. The £250 cashback to the borrower’s third sector organisation is unrestricted and can be used for any purpose.

The bank already offers fixed and notice deposit accounts and social investment loans to third sector organisations through its collaborative work with the Scottish Community Re:Investment Trust (SCRT). The Social Mortgage has also been developed with SCRT, and it is third sector organisations that are connected to SCRT that will potentially benefit from this cashback windfall.

ASB’s Social Enterprise Manager, Niall Alexander says:

“We wanted to do something to support the third sector, and their work. This offer is open to people across Scotland; if you’re in the market for a mortgage and your organisation can show it is connected to SCRT then you can qualify – no catches – you’ll get a great mortgage product and your organisation will benefit too”.

Pauline Hinchion, of SCRT says:

“We’re delighted to support this social mortgage offer. We work with ASB as its ethics and ways of operating are closely aligned with those of the Scottish Third Sector. Increasingly the third sector recognises that it needs to support and bank with financial institutions that have shared values in order to magnify social impact and reduce inequality across Scotland”.

We already work with ASB on delivering great deposit rates for third sector organisations through the Third Sector specific Anchor Savings Accounts example of how we have worked together to create banking products that the third sector will value”.

Further details of the Social: Mortgage can be found here

Author: Scottish Parliament

Organogram of Third Sector Division team

New MSPs take on roles scrutinising government legislation

THE MEMBERSHIP of key Scottish Parliament committees has been lodged in a motion to the parliament today [Wednesday 8 June], confirming which MSPs will be responsible for key political issues at the beginning of the fifth Scottish parliament.

The committees hold an important role considering government proposals, and reporting on issues of public interest. The recent Land Reform Act debate witnessed a committee of MSPs pushing for far bolder action from the government.

Due to the election result, the committees will reflect the make up of the parliament – where no party has an overall majority. Scottish Tory and Scottish Green representation is also higher in the system as a result of their election performances.

Conveners and vice-conveners are selected from within the committees. They will play a key role in upcoming debates on issues such as education and local government reform, setting future tax rates, and continuing debates on land reform and housing policy.

A motion, lodged by Joe FitzPatrick MSP on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, stated: “That the parliament agrees the membership of committees of the Parliament as follows:

Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee

Membership: Maurice Golden, Finlay Carson, Alexander Burnett, Mark Ruskell, Graeme Dey, Claudia Beamish, Kate Forbes, Angus MacDonald, David Stewart, Emma Harper, Gail Ross.

Local Government and Communities Committee

Membership: Graham Simpson, Andy Wightman, Bob Doris, Elaine Smith, Kenneth Gibson, Alexander Stewart, Mairi Evans.

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Membership: Edward Mountain, Jamie Greene, Peter Chapman, Mike Rumbles, John Finnie, Gail Ross, Rhoda Grant, Emma Harper, Stewart Stevenson, Richard Lyle, John Mason.

Health and Sport Committee

Membership: Donald Cameron, Miles Briggs, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Alison Johnstone, Neil Findlay, Clare Haughey, Tom Arthur, Richard Lyle, Ivan McKee, Colin Smyth, Maree Todd.

Public Petitions Committee

Membership: Maurice Corry, Brian Whittle, Johann Lamont, Angus MacDonald, Rona Mackay.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Membership: John Scott, Rachael Hamilton, Stuart McMillan, David Torrance, Elaine Smith.

Equal Opportunities Committee

Membership: Annie Wells, Jeremy Balfour, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Christina McKelvie, Willie Coffey, David Torrance, Mary Fee.

European and External Relations Committee

Membership: Jackson Carlaw, Rachael Hamilton, Ross Greer, Joan McAlpine, Bruce Crawford, Richard Lochhead, Lewis Macdonald.

Finance Committee

Membership: Alex Johnstone, Murdo Fraser, Adam Tomkins, Patrick Harvie, Michael Russell, Neil Bibby, Willie Coffey, James Kelly, Kate Forbes, Ivan McKee, Ash Denham.

Public Audit Committee

Membership: Alison Harris, Liam Kerr, Jenny Marra, Monica Lennon, Alex Neil, Colin Beattie, Jenny Gilruth.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Membership: John Scott, Alexander Stewart, Patrick Harvie, Clare Adamson, Tom Arthur, Clare Haughey, Daniel Johnson.

Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee

Membership: Gordon Lindhurst, Dean Lockhart, Liam Kerr, Andy Wightman, Ash Denham, Gordon MacDonald, Gillian Martin, John Mason, Gil Paterson, Jackie Baillie, Richard Leonard.

Education and Skills Committee

Membership: Liz Smith, Ross Thomson, Tavish Scott, Ross Greer, James Dornan, Johann Lamont, Colin Beattie, Jenny Gilruth, Fulton MacGregor, Daniel Johnson, Gillian Martin.

Justice Committee

Membership: Margaret Mitchell, Douglas Ross, Oliver Mundell, Liam McArthur, John Finnie, Rona Mackay, Mairi Evans, Mary Fee, Ben Macpherson, Fulton MacGregor, Stewart Stevenson.

Social Security Committee

Membership: Adam Tomkins, Gordon Lindhurst, Alison Johnstone, Sandra White, George Adam, Mark Griffin, Ruth Maguire, Pauline McNeill, Ben Macpherson.”

Author: Donald S Murray, The Scottish Review

Many years ago, when I was but a fledgling teacher, I used to see another young man often going about his work in my home-town of Stornoway. He would step nimbly across the school playground, leaving the grey chambers of the council buildings and heading to his workplace in Francis Street, near the centre of the town. We would exchange a few words, perhaps about the meeting he had just attended or the one at the Stornoway Trust or Harbour Authority which he was going to later that evening.

A few days afterwards, a full account of the disputes and agreements he had witnessed would appear in the columns of the newspaper, the Stornoway Gazette, for which he worked; each expression noted, the eccentricities and earnest qualities of each individual councillor and what they tried to do for their ward outlined on its pages. Alongside this, there would often be a short excerpt from Hansard, telling of the questions asked by the local MP in parliament in recent times.

This form of activity still goes on in Shetland. I often see such sterling reporters as Ryan Taylor of the Shetland Times and Neil Riddell of the local news website (imaginatively titled Shetland News) making their way from the town hall to their cars bearing something that resembles that Stornoway Gazette reporter’s little black notebook. They too are weighed down by the views and opinions of the councillors they have had the pleasure of listening to, words buzzing like fleas in their ears. They also might have a meeting of the Shetland Trust or sometimes even the local sports and arts organisations later in the evening, mute observers of all the titanic struggles going on there.

Sometimes they are even accompanied by a clutch of BBC reporters, recording all that is the subject of debate, the entire gamut of opinion from ‘Aye’ to ‘Nay’ occurring within Lerwick’s civic buildings. Every week, alternating with one or other, both the MP and MSP report back to the electorate on what has happened in their respective legislative chambers each week.

Little of that occurs in the Western Isles these days, its press and media illustrating a problem that now afflicts much of Scotland. The Stornoway Gazette has long stopped being the paper of record for the islands it purports to serve. It no longer even seeks to satisfy the purpose which provided pages and pages for readers like my friend John Neil Munro to scour and study, supplying stories which highlighted the Free Church’s disapproval of disco-dancing or life-long vendettas over the ownership of peat-banks.

Unlike the Shetland Times, still owned by people who live within the community, it has all but given up on the pretence of being a local newspaper. A strange exotic bird, its claim to supply a news service at all seem to be as frail and tenuous as the clutch on the perch of Monty Python’s famous Norwegian Blue parrot. If the trademark of island newspapers and perhaps, island life more generally is the ‘avoidance and obfuscation’ that, in Irish writer John McGahern’s view is often found in small places, it exists in fully-fledged form at the north-western edge of the Johnston Press empire.

And as for the other media outlets in these islands? Some of the community newspapers are excellent, sharp and well-written though their range is inevitably narrow. (Together with its local volunteer radio station, there is little doubt that its community news-sheets are much better than Shetland’s coverage, a reflection, perhaps, of the poor quality of much of the attention the Stornoway Gazette has given to its outlying areas. There is also an extremely well-written ‘freebie’ publication called Events.)

One looks with regret, however, at that former paid-up member of the awkward squad, the West Highland Free Press. Though one local SNP representative still refuses to speak to it on the grounds that it is a Labour-supporting newspaper, one can only wonder what merits his stand. It is – I believe – a profoundly mistaken way for any democratically-elected politician to behave. (Surely we have a duty to talk to those with whom we disagree.) It is, however, made dafter still by the way little remains – apart from its fine arts coverage – in that paper’s reporting to suggest it has the sharp edge it once possessed.

There are also the news websites, poor relations both in content and number of employees of their excellent northern equivalent, Shetland News. There is little doubt that the Island News and Advertiser is well-written and presented. However, it does suffer from the fact that it only has one full-time employee. This is also the case with Hebrides News. For all that its news is more wide-ranging than its rival, there are questions about much of its coverage. Like much of the internet, it turns CP Scott’s dictum about a good newspaper – ‘Comment is free, but facts are sacred’ – on its head. In this case, content is free but the facts are all too often clumsily written and politically-skewed fiction. This is particularly true of its letters policy where the owner time and time again panders to his own prejudices when deciding whether to publish particular offerings or not. Democratic, it ain’t. Unlike its Shetland counterpart, Shetland News, it does not openly declare its political allegiance in its occasional editorial. Instead, it sneaks it in.

And then there is the radio, its news content whittled away by the last few decades. In 1976 when Radio Highland was introduced, there used to be an hour and 10 minutes of news content, much of it covering the Western Isles. This provided time for proper analysis and detailed discussion of local issues. Nowadays, this time has been whittled down to random bulletins of six minutes in length and there is little sense of radio being a voice of either record or discussion. This is a particular issue in the Western Isles where much of the output is in Gaelic. This means that, for instance, an MP can confess on air that he left papers relating to the important local issue of marine protection areas mouldering on his desk for 18 months without many in his audience either listening or understanding.

And what does all this mean for democracy? A great deal, I would argue. While the internet has great value, it has done little for accountability at a local level. This is especially true of the various councils, trusts and other bodies that inform and influence lives. They are no longer either assisted or held in check by newspaper men like the one that used to cross the school playground years ago. The same is true of our parliamentary representatives. They may boast in their newspaper columns that they have made ‘X’ number of contributions in the past number of months. Few (if any of our) media outlets examine the nature and quality of the discourse. The man or woman speaks. That is all.

This, too, has its effect on the centre and, indeed, national democracy as a whole. Once upon a time, journalists in Glasgow or Edinburgh used to have my friend John Neil’s habit, scouring the newspapers of the fringes for any little snippets they could use. There is no doubt that some of the news they used was fun and irrelevant, tales like the Free Church’s ban on disco-dancing or the squabble of two men over a peat-bank in North Lochs. Some, however, was vital in ensuring local accountability, a way of keeping an eye on how well (or badly) democracy on the edge is working, how, too, the flight and ferry networks were operating, whether crofters and small farmers were receiving their grants in time. These local concerns were given an airing in the national press, in that way reaching the ears of both national government and the civil service.

Nowadays, however, there are all too many places where the local voice Is not being heard – a state of affairs which has major repercussions for the nature and quality of our nation’s democracy.

Author: Senscot

Scottish Government new ‘colourful’ approach to engaging stakeholders in a consultation.

Social enterprise sector representatives are working with Scottish Govt to co-produce a ‘Social Enterprise Strategy for Scotland’ for the next 10 years. This builds on the SE Vision 2025 (Feb 2015). A series of roundtable discussions involving the wider third sector as well as the public and private sectors are taking place during this month covering a range of topics including employability, social investment and business support. In addition to this an interactive website has been developed to collect and prioritise views of social enterprises in an open and democratic way – this is your opportunity to contribute your ideas, views and get involved in discussion forums. The hashtag to use on social media is #sestrategy.

Author: Charles Davies

When you need to get something done and you can’t do it yourself, then you need help.

When you need a lot of help, you need a lot of people.

And when you have a lot of people, then someone is likely to tell you that you need an organisation.

“Be careful, very careful about organisations…Organisations kill work.” — Vanda Scaravelli

When you start out making something, it’s because you have a need. You need somewhere to live, so you start building a house. If you need help, then you get help. And the people who agree to help might help until the house is built. Then, when the house is built, it’s over.

But when there are a lot of people involved, someone may say it’s time to start an organisation.

You’ll need a name for it. And a legal structure. And maybe a branding agency to help you work out what the identity of the organisation is. Then you’ll need people to take responsibility for different parts of the organisation. And you’ll have to divide your time between building the organisation and building the house.

At a certain point, someone might say you need to work out what the purpose of the organisation is. And you might have to ask everyone involved what they think it is. And people will start talking about ‘working for the organisation’.

But when you start talking about the organisation as a thing, you’ve created a phantom.

When you start talking about the organisation as having a purpose of its own, you’ve created a phantom.

When you start talking about the organisation having an identity of its own, you’ve created a phantom.

When you start talking about ‘working for this or that organisation’, you’re talking about working for a phantom.

Because in the first place there was just a person with a need. A real, live need. A need that could be met. A person who needed help and asked for help. Where the help was directed at meeting that need. Directly. And progress was measured by whether the need was met yet. And when the need was met, it was over.

But when you start talking about organisations as things — with purpose and identity and the rest — then the original need can find itself competing with a phantom. People start doing things ‘for the sake of the organisation’. People start investing in the idea that it’s a good thing that the organisation survives. If you’re helping the person who needs a house built, then it’s clear who you’re helping. And it’s clear what the need is and where it came from. If you’re helping ‘the organisation’, though, then it’s not clear who you are helping. And it’s not clear what the need is and it’s not clear where it came from. Because ‘helping the organisation’ is a meaningless phrase.

It’s easy to be tempted into starting an organisation. ‘But surely you need to start an organisation if things are complicated. Surely you need to start an organisation if lots of people are involved. Surely it’s OK to start an organisation, so long as it’s serving the original need — of building a house or whatever it might have been.’

When there are a lot of people involved, when things are complicated, then you may need collaboration. You may need coordination. You may need communication. You may even need to organise things. You may needorganisation. But an organisation?

Take a group of people and tell them there’s an organisation in the room and watch everything get more difficult. What is the point of this organisation? Who gets to decide what is done when? How do I fit into this organisation? The conversation takes on a certain quality: the quality of a crowd of people arguing about something that doesn’t exist as if it does exist. Where there are no right answers. It’s an exercise in fiction. And it’s a way of not doing the work.

Because the organisation doesn’t exist, it is a blank slate. A mirror in which everyone sees what they want to see. An empty page onto which anyone can write their story. It can appear to take on a life of its own, animated by the unconscious desires of those observing it. We end up seeing ourselves in it.

If we look at work through the lens of organisations, we are looking at work through the lens of identity. What is this organisation? Who are we as an organisation? When you talk about organisations, how often do you refer to the need it’s trying to meet? And how often do you just refer to it by name? Nestle. Phillip Morris. Coca Cola. General Motors. The focus ends up on the character, not the work. Colonel Sanders. Ronald McDonald. A whole drama of personalities. We treat organisations as if they are fixed. We talk about them as if they are constant. The names and the corporate faces give the impression of an enduring state. Something to identify with in perpetuity. But this is a sideshow.

The identity obscures the initiative. If a man is building a house and needs help building a house, then the initiative is front and centre. The need is front and centre. And it’s possible to talk about the need directly. Do you want to help meet this need? Are you helping meet this need? Has the need been met yet?

Adding anything to this obscures the need. What shall we call ourselves? What should the logo be? What’s my job title? What kind of organisation is this? What are the prospects for promotion? As soon as we start talking about anorganisation, rather than just organisation, we split our focus in two. Between the work to be done to meet the need of the person who needs help, on the one hand, and the organisation-as-phantom on the other. When we start talking about an organisation, we enter a fictional universe — one step removed from the reality of one person helping another.

When there is not an organisation, there are only people. People who ask for help and people who help.

When there is not an organisation, it forces us to put our focus on what is actually happening. We have to look at personal relationships. We have to look at personal commitments. We have to look at personal responsibility.

When there is not an organisation, we have to look at what people have appetite for. We have to look at how strong the bonds are between people. We have to see what holds people together and what doesn’t.

When there is not an organisation — no corporate song, no compelling brand, no iconic face — then, for want of something else to distract us, we end up focused on the work to be done.

________________________________________

If you want the work to be done, then communicate the vision. Have a vision. Get clear on what the vision is. Articulate the vision. Find people who believe in the vision. Who have the passion required to take the action to realise that vision. Let them bring their passion. Let them take action. Let the vision be realised.

But don’t start an organisation.

“You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, “What did that man pick up?” “He picked up a piece of Truth,” said the devil. “That is a very bad business for you, then,” said his friend. “Oh, not at all,” the devil replied, “I am going to let him organize it.” — Truth is a pathless land, Krishnamurti

Author: Scottish Parliament

Organogram of Third Sector Division team

New MSPs take on roles scrutinising government legislation

THE MEMBERSHIP of key Scottish Parliament committees has been lodged in a motion to the parliament today [Wednesday 8 June], confirming which MSPs will be responsible for key political issues at the beginning of the fifth Scottish parliament.

The committees hold an important role considering government proposals, and reporting on issues of public interest. The recent Land Reform Act debate witnessed a committee of MSPs pushing for far bolder action from the government.

Due to the election result, the committees will reflect the make up of the parliament – where no party has an overall majority. Scottish Tory and Scottish Green representation is also higher in the system as a result of their election performances.

Conveners and vice-conveners are selected from within the committees. They will play a key role in upcoming debates on issues such as education and local government reform, setting future tax rates, and continuing debates on land reform and housing policy.

A motion, lodged by Joe FitzPatrick MSP on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, stated: “That the parliament agrees the membership of committees of the Parliament as follows:

Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee

Membership: Maurice Golden, Finlay Carson, Alexander Burnett, Mark Ruskell, Graeme Dey, Claudia Beamish, Kate Forbes, Angus MacDonald, David Stewart, Emma Harper, Gail Ross.

Local Government and Communities Committee

Membership: Graham Simpson, Andy Wightman, Bob Doris, Elaine Smith, Kenneth Gibson, Alexander Stewart, Mairi Evans.

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Membership: Edward Mountain, Jamie Greene, Peter Chapman, Mike Rumbles, John Finnie, Gail Ross, Rhoda Grant, Emma Harper, Stewart Stevenson, Richard Lyle, John Mason.

Health and Sport Committee

Membership: Donald Cameron, Miles Briggs, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Alison Johnstone, Neil Findlay, Clare Haughey, Tom Arthur, Richard Lyle, Ivan McKee, Colin Smyth, Maree Todd.

Public Petitions Committee

Membership: Maurice Corry, Brian Whittle, Johann Lamont, Angus MacDonald, Rona Mackay.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Membership: John Scott, Rachael Hamilton, Stuart McMillan, David Torrance, Elaine Smith.

Equal Opportunities Committee

Membership: Annie Wells, Jeremy Balfour, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Christina McKelvie, Willie Coffey, David Torrance, Mary Fee.

European and External Relations Committee

Membership: Jackson Carlaw, Rachael Hamilton, Ross Greer, Joan McAlpine, Bruce Crawford, Richard Lochhead, Lewis Macdonald.

Finance Committee

Membership: Alex Johnstone, Murdo Fraser, Adam Tomkins, Patrick Harvie, Michael Russell, Neil Bibby, Willie Coffey, James Kelly, Kate Forbes, Ivan McKee, Ash Denham.

Public Audit Committee

Membership: Alison Harris, Liam Kerr, Jenny Marra, Monica Lennon, Alex Neil, Colin Beattie, Jenny Gilruth.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Membership: John Scott, Alexander Stewart, Patrick Harvie, Clare Adamson, Tom Arthur, Clare Haughey, Daniel Johnson.

Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee

Membership: Gordon Lindhurst, Dean Lockhart, Liam Kerr, Andy Wightman, Ash Denham, Gordon MacDonald, Gillian Martin, John Mason, Gil Paterson, Jackie Baillie, Richard Leonard.

Education and Skills Committee

Membership: Liz Smith, Ross Thomson, Tavish Scott, Ross Greer, James Dornan, Johann Lamont, Colin Beattie, Jenny Gilruth, Fulton MacGregor, Daniel Johnson, Gillian Martin.

Justice Committee

Membership: Margaret Mitchell, Douglas Ross, Oliver Mundell, Liam McArthur, John Finnie, Rona Mackay, Mairi Evans, Mary Fee, Ben Macpherson, Fulton MacGregor, Stewart Stevenson.

Social Security Committee

Membership: Adam Tomkins, Gordon Lindhurst, Alison Johnstone, Sandra White, George Adam, Mark Griffin, Ruth Maguire, Pauline McNeill, Ben Macpherson.”

Author: Cabinet Secretary, Roseanna Cunningham

Speech by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham MSP at the Community Land Scotland conference 2016

Thank you for that welcome, and for inviting me to speak at this conference.  It’s good to see so many community landowners getting together to exchange ideas and best practice, along with representatives from supporting organisations. 

It’s this spirit of co-operation and mutual support that makes community land ownership such a success.

Over the last few years, community ownership and indeed land reform in a wider sense, has taken on a momentum of its own, which is fantastic.

There have been some momentous achievements in the last few years.

The Land Reform Review Group, which this government set up in 2012, published its final report in May 2014.  The report had 63 recommendations, many of which have found their way into legislation.

In 2013, at this very conference on Skye, the then First Minister  Alex Salmond, announced an ambitious target of 1 million acres of land in community ownership by 2020. 

We are over halfway to that target.

In June 2015, the Community Empowerment Act was passed.  Amongst other things, this introduced the right for communities to request asset transfers, participate in local decision making, and opened up the Community Right to Buy to the whole of Scotland.

And of course, the Land Reform Act went further still, giving even more opportunities for communities. 

It widened the right to buy still further, as well as committing to a Land Rights and Responsibilities statement and a Land Commission to oversee the future of land reform. 

I said on Wednesday morning that I did not believe that you could simply draw a line underneath land reform and regard it as ‘job done’.  The Land Commission will ensure that it becomes an ongoing process, evolving over time, to suit the needs of the people of Scotland.

All of these steps have been taken with the overarching aim of using land strategically and sustainably. 

This will contribute to a more prosperous and successful nation.

Communities most affected by decisions about land must be fully engaged in those decisions.

Over the same period, Community Land Scotland has been alongside the government on this journey.  It has seen its own membership more than triple, from 21 to 67. 

One of their newest members, Wanlockhead Community Trust, is looking to buy land from one of the largest land owners in Scotland and with the advice and support of the people and organisations in this room, I hope that they are successful.

Community Land Scotland has engaged fully with the parliamentary passage of both the Community Empowerment and the Land Reform Acts. 

In particular Peter Peacock has been instrumental in ensuring that the interests of community owners are kept to the fore and I thank him for his contribution to both Acts. 

This willingness to engage, across the spectrum of landowners, community groups and support organisations, has delivered two pieces of legislation which embody our ideals. 

We have a new spirit of co-operation which can only be good for communities in the long run.

As a perfect example of that, I am delighted that Community Land Scotland, working in partnership with Scottish Land & Estates, are to formally launch the new Protocol for Negotiated Sales at this Conference tomorrow.

The Protocol is intended to promote and facilitate the transfer of more land and associated assets from willing private landowners to community owners 

This will deliver both a greater diversity of ownership of land in Scotland and enhance the delivery of public benefits.

Scottish Government has been, and remains committed to strengthening the rights of communities who may wish to purchase land.

These community rights, now enshrined in law ,are there to be used if necessary.  However, I recognise that the best, most positive solution, is where the transfer of land can take place via a negotiated sale between a willing seller and a willing community.

The Protocol builds on the experience of many community purchases that have followed just such a route.  It has drawn on the knowledge of communities, landowners and a wide range of professional advisors, and their input should be acknowledged.

It is no surprise that many of the lessons have been learnt here, in the Western Isles, where 70% of the land mass Is now under community ownership.

I am sure that, with the backing of both Community Land Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates, the Protocol, while not delivering the same high percentage of community ownership of all land in Scotland, can certainly assist in the delivery of meeting the Scottish Government’s million acre target

To back these policies up, the Scottish Land Fund was increased from £3m to £10m a year, as well as now being available to urban communities in keeping with the changes to community right to buy.

In fact, the first urban community group, Barmulloch  Community Development Company, received a grant of £85,000 to allow them to purchase a former church in North Glasgow.

The church is currently leased by the development company and used for a boxing gym, Money Advice Centre and meeting rooms.  

They now intend to modify and refurbish the premises to create more space for additional services and activities. 

In the longer term they will seek to build small serviced industrial units and workshops on the land at the rear of the site, to provide new employment opportunities and generate income to support community services. 

As well as expanding the scope of the fund, applications to the Land Fund have now been split into two stages. 

This will allow community groups to apply at Stage 1 for pre-acquisition grants to assist in planning and developing their ideas, before taking the big step of acquisition at Stage 2.  So far this year £71,000 has been allocated to 7 groups across Scotland.

But there is still more to be done.  In the short term, we currently have consultations on many of the proposed changes in the Community Empowerment Act.

There is the crofting community right to buy, which seeks to simplify the right and make it more accessible to potential new community landowners.

There is the right to buy abandoned and neglected land, which seeks to bring land back into productive use, where a community can show that it can develop that land sustainably. 

This is a powerful tool, as it does not require the owner’s consent to sell the land.  Of course, that puts an increased  burden of proof on the community, which is only right, but the potential is there for communities that want to seize the opportunity.

There is asset transfer, where communities can request the transfer of assets from public authorities.  Those authorities now have additional responsibilities in how they deal with such requests, and engage with those communities who make them.

There is a consultation on participation requests. Where a community body believes it could help to improve an outcome,  it will be able to request that the public body takes part in a process to improve that outcome. 

Finally, there is a consultation on community planning guidance.  This is about how public bodies work together and, with the local community, plan for, resource and provide or secure services which improve local outcomes.

As you can see, we are keen to hear your views on how we can progress all of these tools for communities, so I encourage you, both individually, and as organisations, to respond.

…and there’s still more…

The target of a million acres in community ownership by 2020 is a stretching one.  A short life working group was set up in March last year, to look at several things.  Some of the key elements were;

•           A summary of the benefits of community ownership and a vision and agreed set of principles to guide the 1 million acre strategy

•           A strategy outlining how to achieve the target by 2020

•           An action plan outlining how to implement the strategy to shape the functions of a new dedicated community land ownership resource

The group’s final report was published in December and they identified seven major factors that were seen as the key barriers to achieving the target.

•           There is a need to stimulate demand for land through raising awareness

•           There is a need to build the capacity of communities to take land ownership projects forward

•           There is a need to support engagement with and within communities

•           There is a need to improve access to support services

•           There is a need to develop the network of support providers

•           We need to address the availability of land

•           We need to address barriers to the supply of land

As with land reform in a wider sense, there is no single solution, no magic bullet, which will solve all of the issues and overcome all of the barriers. 

We have already taken some initial steps on the road to the target.

A strategic group has been set up to look at how to tackle these issues.  As I’ve already said, co-operation is key to achieving change, and the membership of the group is a clear indication of that.

We have representatives from Community Land Scotland, Scottish Land and Estates, Forestry Commission,  Community Ownership Support Services, Scottish Government, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Big Lottery, on the group.

Their first priorities are focussed on two areas, raising awareness and mapping community support.

The first priority – raising awareness – will ensure that everyone involved (or potentially involved) in community ownership knows about the opportunities, benefits and challenges that come with having the ambition to take control and put together a bid for community ownership.This includes communities themselves, the public and private landowners, and the organisations that provide financial support and capacity building.

Over the course of the next year or two, a range of engagement events and promotional activity will take place across the whole of Scotland, to raise awareness and promote the benefits of community ownership.

It is widely recognised that, whilst promoting awareness is important, it does not help if the capacity to take advantage of the opportunities it brings, is not there.

It is no good “forcing” community ownership on a community that does not have the resources, both financial and in terms of the skills and knowledge, to take that on.

It is no easy task, as I’m sure you are all well aware.  There is support out there for communities, but it is not always easy to find, or easy to access.

So the strategic group is looking at how best to map this support.  Then they will look at how to make it more co-ordinated, easier to access and easier to understand. 

This is crucial for those groups who are thinking about community ownership for the first time.

All of you have a role to play in that support network, by sharing your experiences, both good and bad, and helping those groups take the first few steps.

You can share your stories of struggle and frustration, of success and inspiration.  But most of all, you can inspire those groups and help them see just what community ownership can achieve.

The range of uses that communities put their newly acquired land to varies enormously. 

From army camps at Cultybraggan to whale songs at Gallan Head, from villages like Glenelg who are twinned with Mars to spaceports in Machrihanish, it just goes to show that land and assets can be used for almost anything. 

The title of this conference is “What Next for the Sector?”

With the spirit of willingness that has been witnessed over the last few years, and with the legislation and support mechanism to back this up, I say that it can be almost anything you want it to be.

Thank you

Author: Planning Review Group

Today we have published our planning review report Empowering Planning to Deliver Great Places.  The report and further background information about the review is available at http://www.gov.scot/planningreview

We are extremely grateful to all those who took part in the review process, through the call for written evidence, the oral evidence sessions and the online discussion forum.   The evidence was vast and spanned a large number of subjects.  Whilst views differed on the priorities and the solutions, we were impressed by the collective will from all stakeholder groups to improve Scotland’s planning system.

From the outset, it was clear to us that the main structure of our planning system is not broken. However, it was also clear that for the potential of planning to be realised, a strong commitment to change existing practices and culture, and to re-focus the profession’s improvement agenda will be required.   The Scottish Ministers set out 6 themes for us to address and as the review progressed it was obvious that those were the right areas for priority action.  Our report builds on these themes and proposes a package of measures for change.   Some of the recommendations represent large scale and in our view, game changing, proposals.  Others are smaller scale improvements to ensure existing processes are as effective as possible.   Some would require legislative change, others could be done quickly and easily with collective buy in and co-operation and embed a culture of inclusion.

We appreciate that some stakeholders may have reservations about some of our recommendations, but based on the evidence before us, we are confident that these changes would significantly improve the operation and reputation of Scotland’s planning system.

We look forward to seeing the Scottish Minister’s response to our recommendations in due course, and call on all those with an interest in planning to work together to deliver real and positive change in the coming years.  

Crawford Beveridge, Petra Biberbach and John Hamilton.

See the whole report here –  Empowering Planning to deliver great places.

The section which deals most directly with the community empowerment agenda is Chapter 8. PP35-39 

Author: University of West of Scotland

‘I don’t smoke; don’t drink. The only thing wrong with me is my health’ – new report

A series of interviews with people living in two towns in Ayrshire has highlighted the impact that wider social issues have on people’s health – and need for local communities to be at the centre of solutions.

The report from the University of the West of Scotland links the experiences of austerity, de-industrialisation and welfare reform over the last 40 years with people’s experiences of ill-health.

It adds further evidence of the need to tackle root causes of poverty and inequality when facing the health issues of deprived communities. It also notes that tendency for public health campaigns, even ones which are well-meaning, to suffer from ‘lifestyle drift’ where the poor are often blamed for their problems.

The report is based upon the interviews with people living in Kilmarnock and Cumnock, where they told researchers about the issues which they saw affecting their communities – often directly related to government social policies.

In one extract John, an ex-miner, describes how other people might judge those in poverty:

“We’re going way back to the Victorian times here, like…They think if you’re in poverty, it’s through your own making, and if you’re in bad health, like myself, it’s through my own making. [They’ll think] I’ve probably drunk all my days and, I’ve took drugs and I’ve partied to the early hours of the morning and it’s all self-inflicted. That’s how a lot of people will look at it, and the way the government’s at it just now, anybody that’s on benefits – there’s got to be some reason why they’re on benefits.”

“Nearly every day I’m picking this paper up, I’m reading aboot the life expectancy wae me and [compared to] maybe staying doon in London…They’re absolutely kicking you every way they can, like. And if you’re in a poor area, you’ll always be in a poor area…”

The report concludes that local communities should be at the centre of addressing these issues, noting that “not only do many policy makers and practitioners have something to learn from them, so too does a significant section of the research community – ourselves included”.

This study was part-funded by the University of the West of Scotland-Oxfam Partnership and NHS Health Scotland, which also funds CHEX.

You can read a summary on the Herald website here and an opinion piece here.

Author: Volunteer Scotland

Many volunteers don’t have the time for a traditional role but would contribute if volunteering was a bit more flexible.

Micro-volunteering can offer flexibility, providing small, bite-size chunks of volunteering for people to complete at a time that suits them, either on a regular or one-off basis. Micro-volunteering can take place online or in person. Help from Home enables people to ‘Change the world in just your pyjamas!’ and support organisations through online actions such as signing petitions, completing questionnaires, translating and proofreading. Other organisations, including larger national charities, offer community-based roles such as writing to your MP or MSP about a particular issue, taking part in a community event or baking a cake for a local fundraiser. The RSPB has a page on the volunteering section of its website asking ‘Got less than an hour?’ offering people opportunities to support the organisation by fitting smaller volunteering activities into their own free time and lifestyle.

Micro-volunteering could be a one-off contribution or could be a regular commitment of a small amount of time.

The Institute of Volunteering Research (IVR) identified eight common features of micro-volunteering activities in their report The value of giving a little time: Understanding the potential of micro-volunteering.

1.            Duration – it involves small increments of time

2.            Access – it is easy to get started and do

3.            Immediacy – it is quick to start and complete, and requires minimal planning

4.            Convenience – [the volunteer] decides when and where

5.            Level of formality – no formal agreement between the organisation and the volunteer is usually needed

6.            Frequency – it can be a one-off or repeated

7.            Activity – it involves discrete actions

8.            Location – it can be online or offline, onsite or offsite.

These pages will tell you all you need to know about setting up micro-volunteering in your organisation – and if you’re already offering micro-volunteering opportunities, we’d love to hear from you to find out what you’re doing and to learn from your experience so far.

Thinking about micro-volunteering

There are different ways to approach micro-volunteering: you could break down existing roles into separate tasks to be completed individually, perhaps offering greater flexibility for your current volunteers; or you could identify new activities that would bring added value to your organisation and potentially attract a new audience for volunteering. Think about what the need is for your organisation, how micro-volunteering can support your aims and enhance your volunteer offer.

Talk to your existing volunteers to get their ideas and opinions about the sort of tasks that could be completed by someone with minimal knowledge of the organisation and to ensure you don’t take away any tasks that people enjoy doing as part of a larger role. You can also offer new micro-volunteering opportunities to your existing team, who might be glad of the additional flexibility or alternative ways to contribute to the organisation.

If you’ve got roles that could be completed by someone at home, over the internet or on a smartphone this enables more people to take part when they’re available. Think about how you define volunteering within your organisation – do campaigning and fundraising activities count as volunteering? What about following, retweeting or liking you on social media? One popular smartphone app is Donate a Photo from Johnson & Johnson – would an activity like this count as micro-volunteering for your organisation?

Consider the resources, time and money you’ll need for micro-volunteering. The input from volunteers may be more sporadic and take less time than traditional roles, but support is still needed to make the volunteering effective and mutually beneficial. Agree who is responsible for each step in the volunteer journey, from promoting micro-volunteering opportunities through to rewarding and recognising people who volunteer in this way. Also think about how you’ll record the amount that people are contributing through micro-volunteering so that you can share with others the difference your volunteers are making.

Budgeting for micro-volunteering depends on the nature of the role, the location of the volunteering and any additional resources required; for example, if you’re asking people to travel within their local community, you’ll need to cover their travel expenses. As with all volunteer roles, it’s important to think through the costs involved and be sure you’re able to support micro-volunteering effectively.

Getting started with micro-volunteering

Since micro-volunteering involves small amounts of time, potential volunteers may not have much time to look for opportunities. Think about where to promote your roles in your local community and consider using online platforms such as Help from Home. Do you have followers on social media who you could ask to complete a short task when it’s needed, or do you have ongoing opportunities that you could advertise more permanently on your website, like the RSPB?

Remember that your potential audience includes people who wouldn’t otherwise be looking for volunteering because they feel they don’t have enough time available. One way to attract new people is to ask your existing volunteers to spread the word among their friends and families – and to complete some micro-volunteering themselves by sharing a message through their own social media channels to promote your new roles.

One of the key differences between micro-volunteering and more traditional roles is that volunteers are in control of how, when, where and for how long they participate in micro-volunteering opportunities. This shifts the balance in the selection process towards the volunteer, who will choose the organisation and the opportunity that best suits them. Two examples of micro-volunteering opportunities for which people can choose exactly when and how often they want to volunteer are Casserole Club and Free Cakes for Kids UK.

Unless your micro-volunteering requires specific skills, such as a particular language or the ability to drive, you probably won’t have much of a selection process for these roles – and even then you may need to rely on self-selection by volunteers so that they complete a task that they are able to do. For some roles, you might want to complete background checks for volunteers – think about the time and commitment this asks of people and whether the role you’re offering is suitable for micro-volunteering.

Many micro-volunteering roles don’t require advance registration, they simply ask for a task to be completed and submitted. Others, including English Out There use existing channels such as Facebook, asking people to connect with them online and to volunteer from there. Think about how you can capture individuals’ details when they choose to volunteer. Rather than a full application form, could you ask simply for a name and email address? Do you need any further details to be able to provide the appropriate support for the role?

You might find that you have almost no contact with individual volunteers. In this case, the key to successful micro-volunteering is attracting the right people in the first place. This will depend upon providing clear instructions, purpose and outcomes at the point of advertising the role, which might be the only information the volunteer has about both the role and the organisation. Make sure your advert is as clear and concise as possible, like this micro-volunteering campaign from Crea8ing Careers.

One of the advantages of this approach to attracting volunteers, with minimal communication between the organisation and the individual, is that all volunteering will be completed proactively by people who believe they can do the role and have chosen to contribute to your organisation. One of the biggest disadvantages, however, is that you won’t know when someone will choose to volunteer, when the tasks will be completed or to what standard. If you’ve got something that needs to be completed by a certain deadline, it might be best to ask existing volunteers or supporters if they would like to take on the role.

Micro-volunteering doesn’t usually have an induction. You may have some information that you need to share with new volunteers, such as how to complete the task and the impact it will have, but ideally your micro-volunteering activities should be straightforward and self-explanatory, to ensure they can be completed quickly and easily. You could perhaps offer people a chance to find out more about your organisation via a website or e-learning link, so that those people who do want to engage with you have the chance to do so in their own time, without this being a requirement for their volunteering.

Making a difference through micro-volunteering

As with all volunteer roles, it’s important to keep in mind an individual’s motivation for volunteering and aim to provide mutually beneficial opportunities. Perhaps people have limited time because they have full-time work or family commitments, but they still have skills that they would like to use or develop through volunteering. Perhaps someone wishes to contribute to an organisation that fits with their own values, but wants to do so quietly, without recognition or praise. Or perhaps someone’s lifestyle means they are only available to volunteer overnight.

If people are interested in the wider work of your organisation, think about how you can communicate with them and keep them up-to-date. Would they like to be included in regular updates and newsletters, or would they like to attend any events? Think about how you can ask people for their communication preferences rather than assuming all volunteers would, or would not, like to receive news and updates from you.

It’s also important to ensure all volunteers know who to contact if they’ve got any questions or concerns. Identify a point of contact for all micro-volunteering roles and then ensure that there is an alternative contact available should the named person be away for any reason. If a volunteer has a question, chances are they’ll need an answer immediately to be able to complete their volunteering.

You’re unlikely to have regular one-to-ones with volunteers so think about how you want to share key messages such as thanks and praise with individuals. It can be particularly difficult to communicate with volunteers who are completing micro-volunteering tasks online at any time of day or night, and it’s therefore important to ensure that the roles you promote as micro-volunteering require little or no support from a manager or supervisor.

Building on the success of micro-volunteering

Once you’re up and running with micro-volunteering, record the contributions people are making. Think about how you can celebrate micro-volunteering within your organisation and also how to share your success, and learning, with other organisations.

Even if someone only participates once through micro-volunteering and so only gives you a few minutes of their time, it’s important to recognise this and thank the volunteer for their contribution. Rewards should be appropriate and proportional, so think about the best way to say thank you; if you’ve recorded each volunteer’s email address then perhaps sending an email is the most appropriate way, but you could also have immediate, automated responses if someone has uploaded photos or information into a database. If someone has contributed via social media, you could thank them by mentioning them in a post or tweet.

It’s essential to aim to build a good relationship with all your volunteers, even if you’re not in regular contact with someone who is micro-volunteering. By contacting someone to say thank you you also create an opportunity to share more information with the individual about how to engage with your organisation in other ways. You could ask for feedback about their experience – perhaps a micro-volunteering task could be completing a survey about volunteering. You could also share information about the impact their volunteering has had, to encourage people to return to your organisation next time they want to volunteer.

Remember that volunteers’ motivations and availability change over time. Someone who starts out with micro-volunteering could perhaps in future contribute in other volunteer roles and give you more of their time, skills and energy. Offering an excellent experience of micro-volunteering might therefore lead to a long-term relationship between the individual and your organisation. Don’t be afraid to let volunteers know about other opportunities that have a greater time commitment – but also be clear that a one-off contribution through micro-volunteering is just as valuable to the organisation. Either way, micro-volunteering can be a great benefit for your organisation and for the individual as well.