Author: David Boyle

What’s most important? It isn’t local – it’s small

Don’t just take my word for it.  This is what the Bank of England wrote in a recent report on local currencies and secondary money systems:

‘If non-local goods are cheaper because market prices do not fully factor in the additional costs that they impose on society over locally produced goods — for instance, higher carbon emissions as a result of increased transportation — then local currencies may improve welfare.’

This seems to me to be the core of the mainstream argument for any of the various radical localist approaches to building economic resilience.  Strictly speaking, some of them may be untraditional, or seem to flout some of the narrow rules of open markets – but they may help to tackle some of the intractable issues of market failure.  Even the crustiest orthodox economist could recognise that.

The question is how serious those market failures are at local level, and what is needed to unstick them.

I realise that the term ‘market failure’ is not often gargled with in New Start.  I use it now to mark the launch of the report of our project with the Friends Provident Foundation.  Over the past six months, we have been interviewing economists – with the intention of ending the gulf between the radical economic localisers and mainstream economic policymakers.

And there is a gulf, a series of misunderstandings and disagreements, which are – at the very least – frustrating the efforts of the economic localisers.  The result is a short book, by Tony Greenham and myself, called People Powered Prosperity.

I hope it can heal the rift enough to shape a new economic narrative that can turbocharge the revival of local economies, and to genuinely lay the foundations of rebalancing the economy – which, despite the rhetoric five years ago, shows few signs of happening quite yet.

The main purpose was to translate what you might call ultra-local economics – local banks, local energy, local procurement, local currencies – into terms which the mainstream can get enthusiastic about.  We have at least burst out of the conventional divide – the chief secretary to the Treasury has written the foreword.  We will be holding a seminar to discuss it at the Treasury.

But inevitably, it has worked a little the other way as well, translating some of the concerns of the economic mainstream to the radicals.  They may not forgive this.

This may also make People Powered Prosperity potentially as challenging to the radicals as it is to the mainstream.  I have certainly ended up feeling a little sceptical about the word ‘local’, because it seems to obscure the real debate.

Economic policy-makers misunderstand it.  They think it implies trade barriers and protectionism.  Since this isn’t the case – ultra-local seems to me to be more about competition than protectionism – I wonder if it might make sense to start from somewhere else.

For me, the ultra-local agenda is not really about ‘local’ at all.  It is about small.  Small infrastructure, small communities, small business, small institutions, and the failure of the national institutions – and banks in particular – to deal effectively at that scale.

That may imply local institutions, supported by a new ‘mezzo’ level of institutional support, but that is a means to an end and not necessarily an end in itself.

That is why we propose the following test.

Small business now earns 51 per cent of value added in the UK economy.  They should therefore be getting a similar proportion of the business investment available in the UK.  If they are not doing so, then it is a sign of serious market failure and we need to provide the intermediaries and institutions which could make this possible.

In the interim, the government needs to track these numbers regularly – comparing profitability and investment by size of business – and to report on them.

This is not to suggest that small business needs the same kind of investment as big business – that is the kind of assumption that has caused all the problems – but they do require effort, support and some finance.  If half the nation’s wealth derives from small business (and it does), then an effective market would make sure that half the nation’s effort, imagination and wealth was going into developing that half of the economy.

We all know that nothing like that happens.  The vast majority of the effort, imagination and finance bypasses small business altogether.

And therein lies the market failure that a realistic, radical new economic approach, that might tackle to genuinely rebalance the economy – and rebalance the rewards from the economy too.

Only, don’t let’s satisfy ourselves that we few understand that, and feel smug about that.  Let’s make sure it counts in the economic mainstream as well.

Author: Community Land Scotland

Community Land Scotland commissioned this small piece of work to be able to explore a potential and practical working methodology through which to test how it may be possible to explore and measure dimensions of social benefits deriving from community ownership. The initial work has revealed within the two areas concerned some striking differences in belief and attitudes of people living in the two community owned estates involved, and social attitudes more widely. Community Land Scotland is not drawing any conclusion or suggesting that these results are in any way or necessarily representative of other community owners, nor is it drawing any conclusion that this shows that community owners are necessarily in any way distinct as a group from any others. The study of residents within these two community owners is however both interesting and revealing, and raises wider questions: among other things, as to whether the results might be as much a function of the characteristics of these two communities in particular, within the group of community owners, or whether they are a function of remote rural living, as distinct from any ownership type? Community Land Scotland would like to see the work explored here taken further to test these and other questions more fully.

To view a summary of the results of this research – click here

Author: For Argyll

Tryng to dissect and lay bare the conduct of Argyll and Bute Council in its ‘management’ of Castle Toward [the estate it inherited free from Greater Glasgow Council in local authority rearrangements a considerable time ago] can take – and has taken – years; countless media articles; ‘investigations’ both minimal and swerved altogether by a supine Audit Scotland; threatened legal actions; failed contracts; and unsavoury rumours.

Of late there was a prolonged and finally failed sale of the 143 acre property and buildings, including the 1820 Castle Toward, to a form of timeshare holiday business.

This failure followed a local business particularly suited to Argyll, Actual Reality, dispossessed of its tenancy of the premises and in the process see its survival put at risk in bizarre evolutions by the most senior council officers and the recurring and present Council Leader.

The council has recently been exercised to obstruct, through a variety of increasingly transparent devices, the registered will of South Cowal Community Development Company to purchase the property in the interests of sustainable community development, under land reform legislation.

The council frustrated the attempts of Actual Reality to buy the property and is now serially frustrating the efforts of a responsible local community to do the same. Both attempts to take the property into alternative ownership focused on strengthening the sustainability of the community in this beautiful but remote part of the mighty Cowal peninsula.

Argyll and Bute Council’s stewardship as the owner of the estate, has been neglectful and irresponsible. The property has not been maintained and will now require serious repair and restoration in order to serve any continuing useful purpose.

The latest dodge

But last week saw yet another council ploy to obstruct the community’s acquisition of the property by what can only be described as a licensed band of public sector tricksters.

Kay and final decisions, which ought to have come to a full council meeting, were diverted to the Policy and Resources Committee on 27th November – where scrutiny by elected members would have been vastly reduced in the different nature and membership of that committee.

The supporting papers for the agenda of that meeting – as is characteristic of this council on manoeuvres – did not contain the Report by Executive Director of Customer Services [Douglas Hendry] for  Item 7, ‘Castle Toward’ – the community purchase. This report was ‘to follow’.

After the end of the working day, on the evening before the committee meeting, Council Leader Dick Walsh, whose personal role in the tangled affairs of the Council’s mismanagement of Castle Toward requires investigation that has always been avoided, sent an oleaginous email to elected members:

From: Walsh, Dick Sent: 26 November 2014 18:33 

Subject: Policy and Resource – Agenda item 7 – Castle Toward [OFFICIAL]

Classification: OFFICIAL

Colleagues,

You will know that the paper regarding agenda item 7 regarding Castle Toward was not issued with the pack of papers. My apologies to you for this.

The position is that officers have been working on the paper up until now, and there are still some outstanding issues which it has not been possible to close down. On that basis no report will be submitted to this special meeting of the committee, and the report will now come forward to the next ordinary meeting, on 18th December. This will allow officers to continue  engagement with SCCDC to ensure that the paper which comes forward will allow members to take a fully informed decision.

I will make a statement covering these matters at the committee meeting and, in the meantime, hope that this advance notification is helpful to you.

Best regards, Dick

This delay rightly caused an immediate storm, with Helensburgh Councillor and former Council Leader, James Robb, within minutes, emailing Executive Director Douglas Hendry, associated closely with Council Leader Walsh in much of the murk surrounding the Council’s handling of Castle Toward:

From: Robb, James (Councillor)

Sent: 26 November 2014 18:45

To: Hendry, Douglas Cc: #All Councillors

Subject: FW: Policy and Resource – Agenda item 7 – Castle Toward [OFFICIAL]

Classification: OFFICIAL

Douglas

It seems incredible that given the length of time this has been an issue the required paper couldn’t have been produced on time (or even grudgingly as a late issue). Could you provide some detail to members on any substantive reasons for this. It would also be helpful if you could explain why it required to come back to the P&R Committee at this time anyway.

Many thanks

James

This email, circulated, as you see, to all councillors, brought, minutes later, a response from Dunoon Councillor, Michael Breslin, to Councillor Robb, also circulated to all members:

From: Breslin, Michael

Sent: 26 November 2014 18:59

To: Robb, James (Councillor); Hendry, Douglas

Cc: #All Councillors

Subject: RE: Policy and Resource – Agenda item 7 – Castle Toward [OFFICIAL]

I agree James.

SCCDC has had a very large amount of information that they have been asked to provide to the council, all of which I understand they provided within the time requested. The reality is that much of what they were asked to do was peripheral to the substantial economic benefit that was clearly there from the activities of the tenant they had for the building. See my email of last night for detail.

It was incumbent on us to then do what was needed, within the timescales we then set. We have failed, and miserably.

This matter could have been, and should have been, agreed in principle in June but here we are in late November with the usual nonsense and prevarication.

Are you not ashamed to lead such a shambles Dick? You should be but perhaps this is par for the course that you have charted for years.

Regards

Michael Breslin

Independent Councillor, Ward 7 Dunoon

There is a concern that the council’s continuing manoevering to stop the issue coming to a decision will see the community bid to buy fail by running out of the legal time period within which a purchase must be concluded.

It is now time to put a stop to the council’s room to frustrate necessary community development in such ways.

The Scottish Government’s drive on Land Reform

Yesterday, 2nd December 2014, the Scottish Government sent out for public consultation its proposals to extend powerfully Scotland’s existing land reform legislation – towards the introduction of a Land Reform Bill.

Much of the proposed change is highly controversial, politically driven and, seriously under-engaged with the consequences for rural and agricultural life, carrying the potential for profound damage to the sustainability of that sector.

It has been accused of demonising responsible landowners along with the odd rogue, for the advantage of a separatist political agenda; of trying to inflame a ‘class war’ – all of which concerns are fully sustainable in the final report of the government’s Land Reform Review Group [LRRG], whose process and progress was, at best erratic. This report forms the basis of the consultation which began yesterday.

In For Argyll’s response to the publication of the LRRG’s final report in May this year [2014] we noted that one of the many areas short on being properly thought through, was the failure to recognise and confront the basic fact that landowners exist in the public as well as the private sector.

One of the key paragraphs of the consultation document issued yesterday is:

‘Address barriers to sustainable development and begin to diversify patterns of land ownership: by providing powers for Scottish Ministers, or other public bodies, to intervene in situations where the scale or pattern of land ownership in an area, and the conduct of a landowner, is acting as a barrier to sustainable development.’

Argyll and Bute Council as the owner of the Castle Toward Estate has been, patently and on evidence, ‘acting as a barrier to sustainable development’ in South Cowal.

Cut to the chase

This is an opportunity for the SNP Scottish Government to demonstrate its objective fidelity to land reform.

Here is a landowner who is, in the recent words of the local and SNP MSP, Michael Russell, is a ‘blight on community progress’ and is inflicting ‘anti-democratic abuse’ on the community of South Cowal.

Until recently a senior Cabinet member of the Scottish Government, Mr Russell has access, influence and presents himself as a fighter,

He has recently sworn to his constituents in Argyll and Bute to work even harder in their interests now that he has more time to do so.

Here is his opportunity to bring to bear the necessary forces to intervene in this issue, using the force of land reform in existence and in intent.

Mr Russell is not only the constituency MSP but Cowal is his personal territory, since it is the area where he and his family have lived for a long time.

Here is the ideal marriage of needs and the opportunity to do good locally.

Argyll and Bute Council cannot be allowed to frustrate any longer the will and drive of the community of South Cowal to take its future into its own hands.

The government’s thinking on land reform leaves the Council adrift – as an irresponsible and neglectful landowner, with a profoundly poor record on its stewardship of this particular property – and clearly keen to be just that ‘barrier to sustainable development’ the government is willed to remove.

There should  be no more arguing on the fiddles of council conduct – cut to the chase, get them out of this picture altogether, and let South Cowal make a better sense of this estate.

At a stroke this would show that, in its land reform drive, the Scottish Government is not setting out on a class war and is not protective of deviant practices in public sector ownership – but is concerned to act against failing landowners and mangers who are proven to obstruct community moves to sustainability.

There is no better place to start than this case, with the tools that come to hand now – to free a community of a demonstrable and wilful blocking of its progress by a failed and incapable landowner interested only in making mischief.

Author: Planning Democracy

Residents of Canonbie, a village of less than 500 by the English border, are rallying against nineteen coal-bed methane (CBM) drill-sites that have been granted planning permission in their area. If developers go ahead this will be the first case of commercial CBM extraction in the UK.

Canonbie & District Residents Association (CaDRA) believes that granting planning permission for such a development without proper community consultation, or adequate assessment of environmental impact represents a significant injustice upon the local community.

Planning Democracy are committed to establishing and upholding the rights of local communities to have a fair say in planning decisions that affect their lives. When we heard about what was happening in Canonbie we decided to go and meet with Bill and Loraine Frew, owners of Byreburnfoot B&B and two of the founder members of CaDRA, to hear what they had to say.

Their story is a moving one, which highlights many of the failures of the current planning system to represent the interests of the very people it is supposedly there to benefit. In particular, this story highlights how the lack of community influence at the ‘business end’ of the planning system, can lead to local concerns being ignored if Local Authorities fail to meet standards of best practice, and why access to Equal Rights of Appeal is vital if planning decisions are ever to fairly represent the best interests of local communities.

Canonbie is a scenic riverside village and a popular salmon fishing spot on the Esk, a stone’s throw from the English border. Much of the property and land in and around Canonbie is owned by Buccleuch Estates – the UK’s largest land-owner – while many Canonbie residents are tenants of Buccleuch, or employees.

On their website Buccleuch Estates claim: “Achieving the right balance between economic, community and environmental objectives is crucial if solutions are to be sustainable”[i]. However, their ability to balance these objectives has recently been called into question. During Buccleuch’s partnership with first Greenbank Energy Ltd, and now DART Energy Ltd it seems the local community of Canonbie feel that they have been kept in the dark, while the local environment has been largely ignorePlanning permission was granted to Greenpark Energy Ltd for the first site, way back in April 2008. This decision was made by elected councillors on the Area Committee, and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) was not required.

However, this site, on this date did not explicitly have planning permission for extraction. Instead it had permission to carry out: “FORMATION OF BOREHOLES AND WELLS FOR THE APPRAISAL, EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF COAL BED METHANE” ‘Development’ here is, perhaps deliberately, ambiguous.

The following January Greenpark hosted a public meeting with the community of Canonbie. Along with many other local people, Bill Frew was in attendance, keen to learn about development in his local area, and came away understanding that the proposed development was for exploration only, and at only one site -both, at this stage, true.

However just over a year after receiving consent for the initial drill site, Greenpark submitted a further eighteen applications in two batches[iv], with no further consultations.

These applications were not considered by a planning committee. Instead they were handled by un-elected planning officials under delegated authority, with no real public scrutiny at all.

Planning permission for all eighteen sites was granted allowing:

“FORMATION OF BOREHOLES FOR THE EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION OF COAL BED METHANE”

A very different picture to the one presented at public consultation, and an astounding decision to take under delegated authority, especially when there are no precedents for CBM extraction in the UK, and (at the time) no specific planning policies in place to cover it.

As if this wasn’t alarming enough, it seems that planning permission was being granted for something that is literally impossible, as CaDRA explain:

“extraction cannot happen at any individual site, but requires physical linkages between sites, collection of gas at “hub” sites, and onward transmission to a centralised gas treatment and pressurisation plant. For extraction to be implemented, a network of linked sites, or “gasfield” requires to be established.” [vi]

CaDRA have stated that this “gasfield” will even require flaring stacks.

The fact that extraction is included in these planning applications means this isn’t nineteen minor developments – it’s one massiveone. So why all the individual applications if in reality it’s one development? Well, though we can’t make assumptions as to the motives of any individuals or organisations, the effect of this decision was that it avoided ‘Major Development’ status and allowed the developers to obscure the cumulative impact of what they were planning.

Scottish Planning Law requires that any development over 2 hectares counts as a Major Development, and any Major Developments, by law, require a pre-application community consultation.

Indeed DART made almost identical applications for CBM development around Airth. These were handled by Stirling and Falkirk councils under delegated authority for exploration only. Both Stirling and Falkirk treated subsequent applications for extraction at these sites as a “Major Development”, and the applications have gone to appeal. This is the only other example of CBM development in Scotland, and due to major development status it required a pre-application consultation.

This requirement for Major Developments is supposed to ensure that no large scale development ever makes it as far as application stage without the community affected having already had a chance to provide input – part of the Scottish Government’s commitment to the ‘frontloading’ of community input.

Greenpark never did an adequate pre-application consultation. Instead in January 2oo9 they held a ‘Public Exhibition’. Attendees at this exhibition came away believing only one site was being considered, and for exploration only. As such the community were not adequately informed about major development in their area, or able to have their concerns about it heard.

When DART Energy Ltd took over Greenpark, they ran a further ‘public exhibition’ regarding their plans for the site. Materials from this event briefly mention the nineteen sites DART already had full planning permission for, but it is clear that the focus of the event was on their new plans for a ‘Twin Drilling’ technique (See Figure 2). It seems that subsequently these plans have been abandoned as no applications for this technique were made. Once again the community had no opportunity to voice their concerns regarding an enormous development, many of them remained unaware of.

Understandably, many in the local community were left very confused and concerned as to what was actually going on. It was at this stage that the Frews decided to scrutinise the proposed plans via e-planning. This was when they uncovered the true scale and nature of the development, and confirmed that one of the drill sites was about 300m from their home and holiday business.

When they realised the true extent of the plans, they were incensed that this could happen without the community even knowing about it, let alone being given a chance to have their concerns voiced.

At this point they approached their local Community Council, and were publicly assured that only exploration was approved, although this was subsequently proved inaccurate. That at this late stage even the Community Council were unaware of the true nature of the development which already had planning permission, shows how inadequate any consultations held by the developer truly were.

The Frews then urged the Community Council to invite an environmental group, such as Friends of the Earth Scotland to explain concerns about onshore drilling. After a series of public meetings to discuss the developments, when the community became increasingly alarmed, a group of concerned residents formally organised to share information. Having identified significant local opposition to the plans from those who attended the meetings, the group actively set out to inform the community; circulating nearly 500 newsletters throughout Canonbie with a map detailing the drilling sites which already had planning permission (see Figure 1). This was followed by a door-to-door survey of 362 local residents which found that 324 (89.5%) were explicitly opposed to the developments, while only 11 (3%) were in favour.

Local residents concerns included: potential health impacts; risk of air, water and soil pollution, as well as pollution from the flare stacks required; the impact of noise, traffic, dust and dirt on the local community; loss of agricultural opportunities; the threat to other spheres of economic activity, including significant visitor activity linked to the wild Atlantic salmon fishery, and of course the fact that for many residents this was the first they had heard of the true nature of the plans.

With these concerns in mind, Canonbie Residents Association (now CaDRA), and other supporters – including the local Conservative MP, David Mundell – called on Buccleuch Estates to: “fundamentally review these proposals, and offer assurances to local people that they will not permit DART Energy to utilise the existing Planning Consents.” They further called on them to “enter into meaningful discussion with local groups, businesses and individuals, and in partnership with Dumfries & Galloway Council identify alternative, sustainable, economic development opportunities.”

Needless to say, Buccleuch Estates did not answer this call.

Buccleuch Estates have considerable local influence, and this should not be underplayed in cases such as this. As mentioned above many Canonbie residents are tenants of Buccleuch, including tenant farmers, while others are employees or pensioners. The community claim that “not only feudalism – common power structures across much of rural Scotland –, but implicit and explicit bullying by Buccleuch, has played an effective role in intimidating local residents“.

The local Community Council for example, with several members who are Buccleuch tenants, or have other pecuniary links, have insisted that they are required to remain neutral, despite the fact that a significant proportion of the community they are supposed to represent are clearly opposed. Joan McCalpine MSP for the area said “Canonbie locals told me many were ‘too scared’ to speak out as they were Buccleuch estate tenants.” Furthermore, representatives of Buccleuch Estates have been accused of misinforming and misleading the community at public meetings, offering assurances, for instance, that there will be no flaring.

Buccleuch Estates CEO John Glen has also hit out at critics of the development. In an interview with the local newspaper Mr Glen stated: “You have to separate what are legitimate technical concerns about safety and the technology from those vociferous voices who don’t want to see any economic development in the area. I have little sympathy for that because it behoves us all to try to create economic development. There is a vociferous minority who aren’t elected by anyone and they purport to speak for a community when they have no democratic mandate”

It is ironic to accuse a community Residents Association of lacking a “democratic mandate” when you represent the largest landowner in the UK, and to accuse them of being a “vociferous minority” when it is clear they are fighting for the interests of almost 90% of the community.

Furthermore, the people of Canonbie and CaDRA do want to see economic development in the area, but development that is safe and sustainable, such as tourism, forestry, agricultural diversification, and renewable energy. Buccleuch’s plans are neither safe nor sustainable, and are not likely to provide significant or skilled local employment.

The argument that anyone who opposes a certain development is engaging with the system in the wrong kind of way is very familiar to us, but it should not be acceptable to dismiss the genuine concerns of a community, in the name of “economic development” that few of them are likely to benefit from, despite suffering all of the burden. Unfortunately however, we see this happening a great deal in Scottish planning.

The community of Canonbie are pursuing one of the few options left to them: they have made a complaint of malpractice on the part of Dumfries and Galloway Council to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO). However, even if they are successful, it is very unlikely that the planning decisions will actually be repealed.

Buccleuch Estates and Dumfries and Galloway Council were both contacted in advance of publication regarding the accusations leveled against them by members of the community of Canonbie.

Dumfries and Galloway Council chose not to comment on the grounds that it would be inappropriate due to the current investigation regarding malpractice on their part during this case by the SPSO.

Buccleuch Estates declined to comment.

To sum up:

Planning permission has been granted for a ‘gas-field’, surrounding a small village, posing risks to public health, while also risking environmental pollution to the river and the local agricultural area, and disrupting local tourism, all of which are employment providers in the area.

Permission was granted with very little public scrutiny, and in such a way that hid its true scale (even the Community Council were adamant at a late stage that the permission was granted only for exploration). Furthermore it was handled in a way that contrasts with the treatment of identical applications in Stirling and Falkirk – the only other similar applications in Scotland.

Members of the community who have attempted to engage with the system and have their voices heard claim to have been verbally abused and have been publicly criticised by the developers.

In other parts of rural Scotland, history has recorded the callous disregard of local tenants by powerful landowners when other, more profitable industries became available. Is it really acceptable for the same attitude to prevail today? It should be unacceptable that the people who stand to suffer the burdens of development, lack opportunity to voice their concerns in a meaningful way.

In Scotland once permission is granted for a development it is almost never reversed, even if it can be shown that the decision is harmful. Communities have no right to appeal planning decisions – even though developers always have the right to appeal planning refusals.

But it doesn’t have to be like this. Planning Democracy are campaigning for an Equal Right of Appeal that will establish a limited right to appeal planning decisions for local communities like Canonbie.

If such a law were in place now Bill and Loraine Frew, and the rest of the community of Canonbie would be able to have their case heard and given fair consideration, and may even be able to have the planning permission reversed.

Even more importantly, if such a law existed, it would always be in the best interests of developers to adhere to the rules, the quality of public participation in the planning system would improve significantly, and costly appeals would be avoided.

The Scottish Government does not believe that communities need an Equal Right of Appeal, because of ‘frontloading’; the process where public participation is dealt with at the very start of the process, through input in pre-application consultations and Local Development Plans.

But frontloading isn’t working. It is simply not in the best interests of developers to hold open deliberative consultations with local communities, because they face no consequences if they don’t.

With no access to ‘end of the pipe’ decision making processes, local communities will continue to be ignored and hoodwinked in the name of ‘economic benefit’ that they are never likely to see.

Author: George Monbiot, The Guardian,

‘Public understanding is lethal to this attempted corporate coup,’  If a government proposes to abandon one of the fundamental principles of justice, there had better be a powerful reason. Equality before the law is not ditched lightly. Surely? Well, read this and judge for yourself. The UK government, like that of the US and 13 other EU members, wants to set up a separate judicial system, exclusively for the use of corporations. While the rest of us must take our chances in the courts, corporations across the EU and US will be allowed to sue governments before a tribunal of corporate lawyers. They will be able to challenge the laws they don’t like, and seek massive compensation if these are deemed to affect their “future anticipated profits”.

I’m talking about the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and its provisions for “investor-state dispute settlement”. If this sounds incomprehensible, that’s mission accomplished: public understanding is lethal to this attempted corporate coup.

The TTIP is widely described as a trade agreement. But while in the past trade agreements sought to address protectionism, now they seek to address protection. In other words, once they promoted free trade by removing trade taxes (tariffs); now they promote the interests of transnational capital by downgrading the defence of human health, the natural world, labour rights, and the poor and vulnerable from predatory corporate practices.

The proposed treaty has been described by the eminent professor of governance Colin Crouch as “post-democracy in its purest form”. Post-democracy refers to our neutron-bomb politics, in which the old structures, such as elections and parliaments, remain standing, but are uninhabited by political power. Power has shifted to other forums, unamenable to public challenge: “small, private circles where political elites do deals with corporate lobbies”.

Investor-state dispute settlement – ISDS – means allowing corporations to sue governments over laws that might affect their profits. The tobacco company Philip Morris is currently suing Australia and Uruguay, under similar treaties, for their attempts to discourage smoking. It describes the UK’s proposed rules on plain packaging as “unlawful”: if TTIP goes ahead, expect a challenge.

Corporations can use the courts to defend their interests. But under current treaties, ISDS lets them apply instead to offshore tribunals operating in secret, without such basic safeguards as judicial review and rights of appeal. As Crouch notes, this is not just post-democracy, but “post-law”.

Tomorrow the TTIP is debated in the House of Commons. Next month negotiations resume between the US and EU. So you’d have imagined that our government might, by now, have sought to justify it.

There is only one possible justification for a separate judicial system: a failure by existing courts to fairly arbitrate businesses’ legal claims. So which judicial systems in the US or EU treat corporations unfairly?

I have asked this question (via Twitter) to the business secretary, Vince Cable; his deputy, Lord Livingston; and the Conservative leader in the European parliament, Syed Kamall. Resounding silence. I have asked it in this column, three times. Nothing. I have asked the business department by phone. After an attempt by its spokesman to suggest that there could be something wrong with the US system, and a subsequent failure to explain what this might be; he sent me this statement: “Investor protection is needed as domestic courts are not the typical route for investors to seek redress.” Not the typical route? That’s it?

In the House of Commons, the MP Zac Goldsmith asked the business minister to name the occasions in the past five years in which companies in the EU or US have been discriminated against in courts across the Atlantic. Answer: the government “does not have access to relevant information”.

The European commission argues that “the main reason for having an ISDS mechanism is because in many countries investment agreements are not directly enforceable in domestic courts”. Perhaps. But none of those countries are in the proposed trading bloc. A condition of EU membership is “an independent and efficient judiciary” with “legal guarantees for fair trial procedures”. What is a provision designed to protect investors in failed states doing in a treaty between the EU and the US?

David Cameron has attempted a different argument. At the G20 summit last year he said: “We’ve signed trade deal after trade deal and there has never been a problem in the past.” It’s the dangerous driver’s defence: I’ve done 100mph loads of times, and I’m still alive, aren’t I?

Yes, we’ve been lucky so far; luckier than other nations in Europe, which so far have been sued 127 times under investor-state clauses in other treaties. The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland have had to pay out enough money to have employed 380,000 nurses for a year. Investor-state cases are escalating rapidly: as corporations begin to understand the power they’ve been granted, they will turn their attention from the weak nations to the strong ones.

No one will provide a justification because no one can. To protect transnational capital from a non-existent risk, our governments are recklessly abandoning the principle of equality before the law.

I believe we can win this. We’ve won it before, when the treaty they now call TTIP was the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. After a massive public response it was defeated in 1998. Now they are trying again, with a different name.

Already two petitions have gathered 2.5m signatures between them. In response, the EU has frantically been making concessions. For the first time in its history, it has made its negotiating positions public. It has launched a consultation on investor-state dispute settlement (though still, after six months, not published the results); promised protections for public services; and proposed to improve the offshore arbitration system – while still failing to explain what’s wrong with the courts we already possess. These are desperate concessions from an organisation that knows the window is closing: if it can’t secure an agreement before the next US election, TTIP is probably finished.

So keep marching, keep signing, keep joining the campaigns that have come together under the Stop TTIP banner. In an age of ecocide, food banks and financial collapse, do we need more protection from predatory corporate practices, or less? This is a reckless, unjustified destruction of our rights. We can defeat it.

Author: Suzanne Brodie, East Ayrshire Council

East Ayrshire Council’s Vibrant Communities has a dedicated team of Community Workers who support local communities through a process which will empower and build the capacity of local people and facilitate the development of a five year community led action plan.

Work is already underway to support the development of locally led action plans in every one of East Ayrshire’s communities over the next three years. This approach underpins the Council’s aspiration to transform our relationship with the communitie we serve, ensuring that communities are empowered to plan, prioritise and progress community led regeneration in their area.

Initial funding from Ayrshire LEADER Rural 21 Programme has enabled six of East Ayrshire’s communities to participate in a short term local area planning programme to provide them with the skills and confidence to take a more proactive role in shaping the future of their community.

East Ayrshire Council has been working in partnership with STAR Development Group and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust to build capacity and understanding of the approach. STAR Development Group has a strong track record in facilitating this work within local communities across Scotland and Ireland and in East Ayrshire the group facilitated the initial development of the Dalmellington Local Action Plan.

The programme aims to

• provide rural communities with an opportunity to participate in planning for their future

• generate more involvement and interest in communities from local residents, businesses, organisations and other stakeholders

• create sustainable community-led action plans

• enable communities to be partners in their own development

• assist communities in seeking additional funding to support projects identified within their plans

• encourage innovation and co-operation within communities across Ayrshire

The Process

The first step in the process is to establish a local steering group to lead the community. Typically membership of the steering groups includes representation from community councils; community associations and uniformed organisations; schools, youth organisations and parent/teacher associations; tenants’ and residents’ groups; church representatives and local businesses.

Once established, the steering group will develop and distribute a household survey to determine what local people think about their own community. A community profile is also prepared. As part of the consultation process, local stakeholders are identified and interviewed. All responses are analysed and the findings are fed back to the community before the action plan is finalised. The final stage in this planning process is the launch of the action plan.

With specialist, dedicated support from staff within East Ayrshire Council’s Vibrant Communities Team, six communities have finalised their individual plans as part of the initial launch phase of the programme.

These include:

• New Cumnock

• Logan, Lugar and Cronberry

• Mauchline

• Newmilns

• Fenwick

• Darvel

Work is well underway to develop further action plans in communities across East Ayrshire with the vision to offer every community the opportunity to develop a plan by 2016.

Some common themes have emerged from the initial six communities to participate in the process:

• roads and transportation

• local economy and tourism

• heritage and environment

• housing

• community activity and facilities

Benefits

This rewarding approach brings many benefits for the communities involved:

• more people want to take part in shaping the future of their community

• changing and more sophisticated leadership within communities

• communities becoming more proactive and less reactive

• communities becoming partners in their own development

• a wide range of community projects and initiatives

• greater ability for communities to partner with public agencies to deliver services

• increased membership of existing local groups

• creation of new community organisations

• increased local capacity to develop and manage community projects

Author: Andy Wightman

To access Andy Wightman’s briefing on the future of land reform click here

Author: Greenspace Scotland

Since January 2014 a small group of local people have been working with Twechar Community Action and greenspace scotland to find new places to grow food in Twechar.

Together we have:

•             found out what spaces in and around the village could be used for community growing

•             used the community growing poster, guidance notes and local knowledge to decide what kind of growing could happen in the spaces

•             shared the information with local people along the way (using Facebook and events)

•             created an action plan to make it happen

•             established two new community growing spaces

•             created the Edible Twechar map with a graphic artist

Twechar now has a vision and an action plan for Edible Twechar which will be used to look for resources and funding to create more spaces to “grow your own” across the village.

At the same time as we have been developing the action plan and Edible Twechar map two spaces in the village presented themselves as “quick wins” i.e. where community growing could happen now. The volunteers supported by Twechar Community Action have already begun work here and hope to attract more community growers through regular activities in these spaces.

Edible Twechar has a Facebook page – visit it here

Download the Edible Twechar action plan and the map

Do you want to be the next pioneer growing community? Contact us here to find out more.

Author: Liam O'Hare and Michael Gray

The Common Space, new rolling media website part of the Common Weal, launched on Monday 15 December for a three day test run to get feedback on the site before the full launch in January. Here, CommonSpace editor Angela Haggerty reports on the 3 day test launch and the feedback received.

First of all, thank you all for taking part in our test launch and for taking the time to give us the thoughtful and detailed suggestions that you’ve been submitting to the media team.

It helps us massively to know what you think of CommonSpace and the site will only work if it’s built around what works best for everyone.

All of your comments will be passed on to the tech wizards behind the scenes, who I’d like to thank for doing such a great job in producing an ambitious website like CommonSpace in such a short period of time.

The overall design of the site was received overwhelmingly positively by everyone who got in touch, and so we will be sticking with that design – with a few tweaks – moving forward.

Some things will change. Many of you told us that you have trouble reading the text on the story cards, for example, and our web team is already working on improving that.

The biggest request by far from all of you has been for a better mobile presence. The good news is that it’s something we’re already developing, although it’s a shame we couldn’t unveil that during the test launch. We understand how important it is to have a well-designed, functioning mobile presence and that will arrive soon.

We’ve also had a lot of requests for development of the CommonSpace network. Moving ahead, the network will be a huge part of the site and that’s where we hope people will really connect with each other and debate the issues that matter most. We have so many ideas for that part of the site, and we will likely always be developing and tailoring it.

Privacy and data protection is also another important issue for people, and we will carry on consulting with you to make sure CommonSpace is a safe place in which our members are comfortable. The great news is that those of you who signed up for the CommonSpace network during the test launch are as excited as we are about the potential of it, and by working together it can really become an innovation in Scottish media to be proud of.

The website will stay online over Christmas to allow people who didn’t get a chance over the last few days to have a browse and get to know it. The sign-up function for the CommonSpace network will be closed until we return on 6 January for our full launch, and at times the site may go offline while the web team are working on it.

I’d like to say one more huge thanks to everyone for the support in getting CommonSpace up and running. The Common Weal – which owns CommonSpace – is funded entirely and directly by you, the public, and without your donations we simply wouldn’t be at this exciting stage in Scottish media.

Author: LAUREN RAZAVI

With the potential to appease both the left and the right of the political spectrum, the citizen’s income concept could well mark the road to a fairer, more equal welfare system in Britain.

What would you do with an extra £71 per week? That’s the question posed by The Citizen’s Income Trust, an organisation that promotes debate on the concept of a universal income for Britain, with citizenship as the only basis of entitlement.

The Trust proposes a radical reform of the national welfare system, suggesting the annual spend on benefits should be distributed equally among all citizens, regardless of their income or employment status. Under their proposals, 0-24 year olds would receive £56.25 per week, 25-64 year olds would receive £71 per week and those 65 and over would receive £142.70 per week.

Analysing figures from the 2012-13 financial year, the cost of such a scheme is projected at around £276bn per year – just £1bn more than the annual welfare budget that year –making the implementation of a citizen’s income close to revenue and cost neutral.

Disability and housing benefits would remain intact, but the scheme would replace all other benefits including child benefits, income support and jobseeker’s allowance, national insurance and state pensions. Included in the current annual spend figures is £8bn in Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) administration and £2bn in HMRC tax credit administration and write-offs.

A common objection to universal income is its potential to deter a population from working by creating a “money-for-nothing” culture. But in a 1970s pilot study called Mincome in Canada, establishing a citizen’s income didn’t produce a workshy population. In fact, the only people who stopped working or worked less were young mothers, teenagers in education and those due to retire soon.

Taking the Trust’s figures, it also appears unlikely that £3,692 per year would dissuade people from working or replace income from employment. Rather, it would prevent the poorest sections of society falling into dependency on state welfare and being discouraged from entering paid employment for fear of losing benefit entitlements. This welfare trap would be eliminated; a citizen’s income would be paid, tax-free, regardless of an individual’s working status or income level.

In this way, a citizen’s income has the potential to lead to a more equal and meritocratic society. Debates around reducing weekly working hours have been circulating for some time, and citizen’s income could aid this. For a person who currently works 40 hours per week at minimum wage, a £71 per week citizen’s income would facilitate a reduction of around 10 working hours.

A citizen’s income also helps compensate for people’s non-financial contributions in a society and culture such as caring for children or elderly parents, undertaking voluntary work or pursuing hobbies and creative interests. Given the safety net of a small guaranteed income, there’s more room for career changes, education and enterprise projects too.

With no need to prove entitlement in order to claim a citizen’s income, benefit fraud would be abolished and government bureaucracy reduced as the need for DWP administrators became significantly lower. No more invasive checks on an individual’s circumstances and no more stigmatisation of claimants; no need to spend money on chasing and punishing “benefit fraudsters”.

The Swiss are due to vote in a referendum on citizen’s income this year, while here in the UK, Green party leader Natalie Bennett has announced the policy will feature prominently in her party’s 2015 election manifesto. With the potential to appease both the left and the right of the political spectrum, the citizen’s income concept could well mark the road to a fairer, more equal welfare system in Britain.