Briefings

The trick to longevity

May 2, 2023

Historically, groups that deliver youth work are often regarded as a soft touch for funders looking to make cuts. And often that’s because the true value of good youth work is rarely appreciated. A decision to close down a youth club or lose some youth work hours can take months and sometimes years to make its impact felt, but by the time it does the damage will irreversible. Consequently, it’s most unusual for a youth project to be as enduring and resilient as the one that has served the Gorbals and Govanhill communities since 1967. What’s their secret?

 

Author: Crossroads Youth and Community Association

RESISTANCE and RE:CREATION

GOOD youth and community work have never been more important, yet far too little
attention is given to its importance or its impact.
Crossroads Youth and Community Association launched Resistance and Re:creation, an
exploration of over 50 years of working alongside the people of Gorbals and Govanhill to
challenge adversity, pursue social justice, and helping people flourish.
There is much talk about the ‘wellbeing economy’: Crossroads believes that this can only be
based on the values of acceptance, inclusion, involvement and empowerment of those with
an unheard voice.
As with many other community led organisations, and despite its survival for over 50 years,
Crossroads continues to struggle against funding cuts, policy shifts, and exclusion from
public debate. The report brings together the arguments that now need to be made to
ensure a sustainable and effective community sector.
For further information please contact Stuart Hashagen at stuarth@cyca.org.uk or on 07933
541308

About Crossroads
Crossroads Youth & Community Association is, by third sector standards, an old Charity. It was
established in 1967 as a registered charity to deliver youth and community work alongside the
people of Gorbals and Govanhill areas of Glasgow. Our mission statement has remained the
same since it was articulated by one of the charity’s founders in 1967: Everyone has the right to
live gloriously. Whatever in society makes this impossible must be challenged; whatever in the
individual may make it possible must be nurtured and strengthened.
The charity was conceived by and for local people who felt best placed to identify and deliver
solutions that meet their needs in their community. Currently, Crossroads is led by a Board of
volunteers who live locally and/or care about the welfare and wellbeing of the Gorbals and
Govanhill communities.
The ‘right to live gloriously’ is the keystone of our work. Above all we recognise the right of
everyone and every community to have broadly equal access to the material and social means
necessary to live a meaningful and flourishing life. A flourishing life is one in which an individual’s
and community’s capacities and talents have developed in ways that enable them to pursue their
life goals, so that in some general sense they have realised their potential and purposes.
www.cyca.org.uk

Briefings

Challenge the groupthink

In the same way that an unproven consensus evolved around the efficacy of the PFI approach to delivering public infrastructure, a groupthink now exists around what kind of organisation is best suited to build and manage social housing - the bigger the better. Making the counter-argument, Ariane Burgess MSP led an excellent debate in the Scottish Parliament last week celebrating the work of Scotland’s small, community led housing providers. Strong contribution from Paul Sweeney MSP in defence of Reidvale Housing Association, soon to be swallowed up by predatory English-based housing behemoth Places for People. Why does the Housing Regulator permit this?  

 

Author: Scottish Housing News

Debate in Scottish Parliament can be watched here

Paul Sweeney MSP’s contribution in support of Reidvale Housing Association can be watched at 13min 26 secs

 

GWSF comment on Reidvale takeover 

Umbrella body for community controlled housing associations, Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations says it has had serious concerns about the proposed move since it was announced in May 2022, but it has held back from criticising a member organisation in the hope that the decision might be reviewed.

Founded in 1975, Reidvale is one of Scotland’s and Glasgow’s original community-based housing associations, established through a grass roots campaign to prevent the mass demolition of traditional inner city tenements. GWSF says Reidvale was a pioneer, an exemplar of what community ownership can achieve, and that. Glasgow’s historic inner city community of Dennistoun is now thriving and vibrant because of Reidvale.

The Forum’s position statement says that Reidvale has:

  • No loans over any of its properties (this is highly unusual, with typical debt in Scotland being in excess of £20,000 per unit).
  • Among the lowest rents in Scotland at around 14% below the Scottish average.
  • Among the best performance and tenant satisfaction figures in Scotland, covering such things as repairs service, overall service, standard of homes and rent collection (see the latest Charter data for Reidvale here)
  • Reserves in excess of £2m.

GWSF director David Bookbinder said: “This proposed takeover should not be happening. The decision has been steered by what are effectively external parties, all with the apparent approval of the Regulator.

“We recognise that from time to time, a Transfer of Engagements may end up being the better option for an association’s tenants. But nothing we’ve read in the Association’s engagement plans – including as recently as last month – or in other publicly available documents suggests that its issues couldn’t be dealt with by a committed staff team and governing body.

“GWSF’s primary purpose is to promote community ownership, so it’s impossible for us to remain silent when we see a community based housing association disappearing and the evidence suggests it could sort out its issues and continue to thrive as an independent organisation.

“In my address to our Annual Conference last month I warned members about the degree of control which a combination of external influences could have on an association facing problems. At Reidvale this has included a professional ’housing consultant’ co-optee recommended by the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR), and professional consultants acting as interim directors and ‘transfer specialists’. These consultants have a history of working closely together and in some cases will obviously benefit financially from the course of action they have influenced.

“Steering the Committee in the direction of takeover appears to have been carefully planned throughout. One example is that prior to the Committee taking its decision earlier this year, it was advised that arrangements had been made for it to meet with a consultant who could provide a fully independent view of the options. The chosen consultant was (using their own title) a ‘transfer specialist’.

“In situations where external consultants in these positions know each other and have worked together in other associations, it is very difficult for anyone to make legitimate challenges to stop the takeover process.

“Any larger association bidding for these homes will do so primarily for the benefit it brings to their own organisation, not the community Reidvale serves. Interested associations will have their eyes on 900 debt free homes which will enable them to finance improvement or new build work anywhere they choose in Scotland. This is nothing more than the stripping of the assets that a local community has built up over decades through rents and the initiative of countless volunteer Committee members.

“It’s clear to us that many failings in the process – including the absence of tenant consultation in the Options Appraisal in contravention of regulatory standards – have been ignored by the SHR. The SHR ‘talks up’ the interests of tenants when it suits them to do so, but remains silent when it doesn’t.

“The SHR’s steering of some associations towards employing interim directors on a consultancy basis always increases the prospect of takeover, as does ignoring an association’s failure to properly use the AGM process to attract new members to fill vacancies.

“As it always has, the SHR will say it has no merger agenda. But the GWSF considers it has an unwritten ‘merger culture’ rooted in an indifference to smaller scale community ownership which can give tenants real power and influence. Many in the sector now just accept this, but GWSF can’t.

“If community empowerment and community ownership really matter to ministers, we should have a Regulator whose role includes supporting local associations to address their issues and retain their independence wherever this is possible.

“The tenants and then the members of Reidvale will have the final say on this matter. They need to know how things have got to where they have, and they must be accurately and honestly informed as the transfer proposal is considered.”

 

 

 

Briefings

Take your community with you

You’d think it would be pretty much impossible to top the long running disruption of ferry services as the single biggest frustration for island and coastal communities, but lately the Scottish Government looked like they were trying to do just that with the announcement that Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) were to be introduced as the principle tool for tackling the biodiversity crisis in the marine environment. It’s not that comprehensive action to restrict the damage being done to the marine environment isn’t essential, it’s just that, as the community on Arran have shown, you’ve got to take your communities with you.

 

Author: COAST

Lamlash Bay shows how HPMAs should be done 

The recent consultation on Highly Protected Marine Areas has been causing a big stir in recent weeks. With misinformation, protest songs, twitter battles and political point-scoring, HPMAs have rapidly become the latest frontline in the battle over Scotland’s future.

Amidst this furore, however, and against the background of inspiring projects like Scotland: Ocean Nation and Wild Isles, there are opportunities to harness the recent attention placed on the ocean. A chance to take a step back and see the wider picture – the state of Scotland’s seas.  

It’s easy to forget how our thriving seas used to look. Recent research shows that disturbance of Scotland’s seabed is widespread, fish landings are decreasing and marine ecosystems are suffering throughout Scotland’s seas, bringing the fishing industry, along with our hopes of addressing the climate and biodiversity crises, down with it. 
 The Scottish Government has admitted that it is failing to meet its own targets to achieve healthy seas. Decades of failure to implement effective marine management and address the damage caused by unchecked scallop dredging and bottom-trawling has left Scotland with a damaged and impoverished marine environment. Without healthy seas we cannot have healthy coastal communities.  

The Highly Protected Marine Area (HPMA) project, part of the Bute House agreement between SNP and the Scottish Greens, recognises the degraded state of Scotland’s seas and the urgent need for action to recover marine ecosystem health. COAST recognises the need for action and that HPMAs could be a part of the solution. However, if pursued in isolation from joined-up spatial management and a genuine just transition, they risk upset and divided communities and a failure to address the real issues affecting the health of Scotland’s marine environment. 

 But it doesn’t have to be this way. The 13-year campaign to designate the Lamlash Bay No Take Zone galvanised the Arran community and brought people together to demand better protection of the seas for the benefit of everyone. It united people with a passion for the underwater world and opened up the possibilities of what healthy seas can deliver for coastal communities, to benefit low-impact fisheries, tourism, art, businesses, cultural heritage and identity. Of the Arran locals surveyed in 2020, 97% of people who knew about the NTZ thought it had positive benefits.   

On the seabed itself, research has shown that this level of protection has led to a significant increase in the diversity and abundance of marine life. Habitats that provide nursery and feeding areas are protected, improving the opportunities for species to thrive and grow including commercially important fish and shellfish.  

This kind of recovery spills over into surrounding areas where extractive activities are permitted, so benefitting the industries that operate there. These areas store more carbon than degraded areas, reducing the speed of climate change and boosting our resilience to its impacts.  

The possible benefits gained by allowing these small pockets to recover from decades of exploitation are innumerable. Placed in the right locations, with an effective compliance strategy, ongoing monitoring plans and nested amongst other zoned spatial measures that don’t just displace damaging practices and spatial squeeze elsewhere, HPMAs will be transformative.  

But they cannot succeed without community support. This includes local fishers, together with recreational users, business owners, families and individuals. A recent poll showed that coastal communities are more concerned than the national average about the marine environment in Scotland. The status quo will not secure the thriving coastal environment and culture we want to leave for the next generation.  

The seas are a public asset and communities have a legitimate right to demand better management and have a say in how they will look in decades to come.  

 

Briefings

What lies within 20 mins?

One of the defining features of the new National Planning Framework (NPF4) is its focus on place, what a successful place actually looks and feels like, and what it should take for us all to be able to live locally. The idea of the 20 minute neighbourhood sits at the heart of this and many of the aspirations of NPF4 will depend on whether this borrowed concept can be successfully implemented. After much speculation, last week’s publication of the draft guidance should offer some clarity as to where it’s all heading.  Consultation ends in July

 

Author: Scottish Government

Delivering thriving local communities

People are being asked for their views on how the planning system can support healthy, thriving and connected communities as part of a consultation launched by the Scottish Government.

As part of implementation of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), draft guidance has been prepared to support people to meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably through active travel or by using public transport.

The local living and the 20 minute neighbourhood concepts contained in NPF4 will help the planning system to deliver sustainable and resilient places, deliver net zero ambitions, reduce social isolation, promote active travel, and provide access to green space.

Planning Minister Joe FitzPatrick launched the consultation at the Scottish Young Planners Network annual conference in Stirling.

Mr FitzPatrick said:

“Local living and 20 minute neighbourhood policies will deliver many longstanding ambitions for the planning system by supporting thriving communities and providing multiple benefits for people and the environment. 

“We want to help people to meet their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their homes, while helping them to live healthier lives and contributing towards the achievement of our net zero targets.

“We can really get to the heart of what matters to people by working with them to shape our towns and communities of the future.”

Euan Leitch, Chief Executive of SURF – Scotland’s Regeneration Forum, said:

“SURF warmly welcomes additional guidance on how we develop the value of local living and how planning, third and private sectors, public services and our transport systems will deliver this.

“Well maintained, easy to navigate places can be at the heart of community wellbeing and guidance should give communities the assurance that decisions made will improve their sense of control and enhance their quality of life.”

Background

Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhood: draft planning guidance. The deadline for responding is Thursday 20 July.

National Planning Framework 4 was adopted and published by the Scottish Ministers in February 2023. It contains a policy on local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods, which is intended to create places where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home.

The consultation on the draft guidance is part of the delivery programme for NPF4

Briefings

Make it meaningful

April 18, 2023

One of the community voices I referred to in last week’s briefing was a quietly spoken man who’d travelled all the way from Papa Westray, one of the smallest islands of the Orkney archipelago, to describe how his small community has been campaigning against the development of what’s thought to be Scotland largest salmon farm. Ironically, Crown Estate Scotland and Orkney Islands Council have just announced a landmark arrangement which they claim will give communities a greater say in the use of the seabed around them. No point in having a greater say if no one is listening.

 

Author: Vicky Allan, The Herald

Papa Westray islanders are calling for a referendum on whether more fish farms should be allowed around the island.

It follows a decision by Orkney Island council, last year to approve one of the largest salmon farms in Scotland in the waters to the south of the remote isle, where the Papay Sound already hosts six fish farms.

An opinion poll, conducted anonymously after an open public meeting on the island, found that most of those who participated would welcome a local plebiscite on the matter, and that the majority want Scotland’s Environment Minister, Mairi McAllan to call the East Moclett decision in for further examination.

Wendy Elves, a member of the Save Papay: No East Moclett Fish Farm campaign group, said: “We were not properly heard by Orkney Islands Council and we are continuing our campaign to halt the East Moclett fish farm.

“We already have six farms around us that are inshore and we say, ‘Enough is enough’.”

“Industrial fish farming impacts our quality of life on the island. The people who have taken the time to find out what is going on want a proper vote on this issue. That means a local plebiscite or a referendum. The opinion poll at the meeting was conducted properly and fairly. Until that point, no more fish farms should be allowed.

The group also, last November, sent an open letter to the Environment Minister calling for a moratorium on further fish farm development around Scotland.

The giant farm, planned by Canadian company Cooke Aquaculture will include six cages with a 160-metre circumference and host a biomass of 3,850 tonnes.

The questionnaire was presented at an open meeting hosted by the Save Papay: No East Moclett Salmon Fish Farm campaign group, and of those who answered it, 75 percent agreed that “an island plebiscite or referendum”was needed “on whether new fish farms in coastal water around the island should do ahead.”

Papa Westray has a population of just 85 and twenty people participated in the poll.

In September 2022, Orkney Islands Council approved the East Moclett fish farm but island campaigners maintain they were not properly consulted and that the cumulative impact of the effluence of six other fish farms was ignored, .

95 percent of those polled also agreed that Orkney Islands Council’s decision to approve the farm had “failed to take into account the cumulative impact of industrial fish farming around Papa Westray”.

A spokesperson for Orkney Islands Council said: “A planning application for a fish farm at East Moclett, was reported to a meeting of Planning Committee on 8 September 2022. Objectors were present at the meeting and given time to present their views to the committee, as was the applicant. In line with relevant regulations, Papa Westray Community Council was consulted, and a consultation response was provided. No objections were received from any statutory consultation body, and the application was approved.

A Cooke Aquaculture spokesperson responded: “We have listened to the valid points raised by the Papa Westray Community Council and Papa Westray residents and we will continue to engage with them and ensure that this new farm site is compliant with all appropriate regulations and best practices. As one of the largest employers in Orkney and the Northern Isles, we are an intrinsic part of the coastal and rural communities in which we live, and we take pride in our work.

“East Moclett will be positioned around 3km offshore of the nearest beach on the east coast of Papa Westray. The Orkney Islands Council Planning Committee accepted our updated Waste Management Plan on 13 February 2023 and this is publicly available on their planning website.In September, the Orkney Islands Council Planning Committee accepted and agreed unanimously that the proposed salmon farm was rigorously assessed by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), which raised no issues or objections to the site.”

The Save Papay group also expressed disappointment that they still had received no response, three months on, to their letter calling for a moratorium on fish farm development around Scotland.

Wendy Elves said, “We’re deeply disappointed that the Environment Minister has not had the time or the courtesy to respond to our very serious request for a moratorium, based on the recommendations of a committee of the Scottish Parliament in 2018, chaired by Edward Mountain. MSP.”

“We are prepared to meet her in Edinburgh to explain why the East Moclett plan, which is an onshore fish farm not an offshore one, is so damaging to the environment. This massive industrial complex and its feed barge will be in an area of abundant sea kelp and natural sealife and is idea as a blue carbon sink. Indeed, it should really be considered for Highly Protected Marine Area (HPMA) status given the important seabed ecosystem. We understand that salmon fish farming has become an important export for Scotland, but that does not mean that Ministers, politicians and civil servants in Edinburgh can simply turn a blind eye to the desecration of wonderful places such as Papa Westray.”

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Primary responsibility for dealing with planning applications and local planning matters rests with the relevant planning authority. The aquaculture sector is an important part of the Scottish economy, and we recognise that it must be delivered and developed sustainably, with appropriate regulatory frameworks that help minimise and address environmental impacts.”

The Minister, the spokesperson said, will shortly respond directly to the group in full.

Briefings

Democratising finance

When the concept of social enterprise first knocked at the voluntary sector’s door, the initial response was to ‘man the barricades’ and ‘resist at all costs’ this notion of generating profit or monetising the good works of the charitable sector. Much of that early resistance to this perceived intrusion by private sector motivation has fallen away and a broad understanding of how profit can be made for social good has become codified. However, there remains a certain unease when talking about wealth and finance around the community sector. There's a new concept that might easy this hesitancy - Democratic Finance.

 

Author: Morven Lyon - Community Shares Scotland Programme Manager

DEMOCRATIC FINANCE – AN AMBITIOUS NEW PROGRAMME

For some communities across Scotland, money and wealth are considered taboo subjects. Any mention of finance, investment or growth can swiftly shut down a conversation. There is a feeling, amongst many folk, that these terms, and this world of finance, just does not belong to them. Finance and funding models are too often viewed as external or elitist and wealth is concentrated in too few hands. 

We firmly believe that this needs to change and that democratic finance is the best vehicle to bring about this change. Therefore, the Development Trusts Association Scotland, in partnership with Scottish Communities Finance Ltd, is developing an ambitious programme focused on increased knowledge and use of democratic finance models that will result in more money circulating within communities for greater public benefit.

Our Democratic Finance programme will demonstrate that money can and should be generated, owned and controlled by the community. We want communities to not only better understand their sources of wealth, but also to retain more of that wealth and have more say in how it is used. Our aim is a change to the economic system itself through increased use of finance and funding models that build a new level of economic democracy.

Our Community Shares Scotland programme has proven the many strengths of citizen investment in community led enterprises. By supporting local people and organisations to invest in projects through community shares, wealth is retained and boosted within communities. This investment (£19 million in community shares raised to date) in turn drives mutual confidence and agency, unlocking support and investment from other previously closed off sources. This can include attracting investment from external sources, albeit with protections in place to ensure that the community has a say in how it is controlled and spent.

Since 2018, Scottish Communities Finance Ltd has championed community bonds as a new form of democratic finance for community and social enterprises across Scotland. Offering a unique model, it has assisted organisations seeking finance for renewable energy, new builds and business development and growth.

Building on the huge success and ethos of both Community Shares Scotland and Scottish Communities Finance, this programme will focus on increased knowledge and use of financial models that generate and capture wealth within a community. These financial models are particularly pertininent as we attempt to move away from grant dependency. We will initially focus on exploring the following models:

  • Using democratic finance to grow community shared ownership of renewable energy developments across Scotland
  • More productive local use of income from renewable energy developments – including exploring investment opportunities alongside grant giving
  • Piloting a Scottish Community Shares Booster programme to grow the community shares market in harder to reach communities and sectors. This will be based on the good practice and success of the English Community Shares Booster
  • Increasing awareness and use of community bonds and other more affordable and flexible debt options
  • Developing and piloting community-based legacy gifting
  • Creating a more coordinated system of High-Net-Worth philanthropic giving at a grassroots community level
  • Awareness raising and support for organisations to utilise community lotteries
  • Better awareness and use of common good funds and assets
  • Expanding donation-based crowdfunding
  • Promoting more cross community and cross sectoral investment via democratic finance instruments

The programme will also include a capacity building strand – focused on raising awareness of democratic finance models, both with communities and with third sector intermediaries. We will also champion a collaborative approach, bringing in sectoral expertise from other intermediaries where needed.

Our Democratic Finance Programme clearly links to the fourth finance pillar of the Community Wealth Building agenda. This finance pillar specifies that flows of investment and financial institutions should work for local people, communities, and businesses. DTAS, through our Democratic Finance programme, aims to lead on this pillar on the ground – ensuring that the theory is made practical and that communities benefit directly.

Keen to know more or to get involved? We’d be delighted to hear from you. Get in touch via morven@communitysharesscotland.org.uk.

 

Briefings

Mapping the policy landscape – literally

There’s a small group of people whose job is to track the policy world. Many policy ideas never see the light of day but some find their way into party manifestos which may in time be included in a programme for government which should then become government policy or even legislation. And, in theory, all these policy ideas are intended to form part of a coherent whole and it’s at this point - the extent to which they can be understood as being interconnected - that most people lose the will to live. Great work by Nourish Scotland to save our sanity.

 

Author: Nourish

Policy map: see it, say it, sort it 

A lot is happening in Scotland’s food policy. From community wealth building, to circular economy to agriculture bill, there is an abundance of opportunities to improve our food system.

With so many legislative openings in the mix, could this be too much of a good thing? It can certainly be easy to get lost in the complexity. What we need is a map – a way to see where different pieces of legislation overlap, criss-cross, where they could be extended and link up with other agendas. That’s what our latest policy map is all about. Inspired by the map of London tube map, it shows the potential connectivity of food policy initiatives and how to make the most of them.

We hope it will prove a useful resource for both the policy makers and the wider civil society.

Briefings

Not too little nor too much

It’s no coincidence that the idea of measuring happiness as a national metric isn’t treated very seriously by countries where happiness is assessed to be in short supply. But for the past six years, one country - Finland - has topped the polls, and that in itself should merit an investigation into what makes the Finnish people so happy with their lives. And it seems, over and above all a number of other contributory factors, to be about the extent of income inequality. There’s an old  Finnish proverb - happiness is a place between too little and too much.  

 

Author: The Conversation

Finland has been the happiest country on earth for the past six years, according to the World Happiness Survey. This survey relies on the Cantril ladder life evaluation question:

Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?

Finland comes out top, followed by Denmark and Iceland. Just why Finns are happier than others comes down to a number of factors including lower income inequality (most importantly, the difference between the highest paid and the lowest paid), high social support, freedom to make decisions, and low levels of corruption.

The measure of income inequality used here is the Gini coefficient of income inequality, as reported by the OECD. It is the highest rate recorded in each county in any year after 2010 up to the most recent year for which there is data. The graph shows the close relationship between these two measures. In general, when income inequality is larger, money matters more and people are less happy.

Finland also has other attributes that may help people feel happier. It has a highly decentralised publicly funded healthcare system and only a very small private health sector. This is far more effective and efficient than some alternatives used in other countries. Public transport is reliable and affordable, and Helsinki airport is ranked as the best in northern Europe.

There is a Finnish proverb that seems relevant here: Onnellisuus on se paikka puuttuvaisuuden ja yltäkylläisyyden välillä (Happiness is a place between too little and too much).

How Finland compares

Finland, Norway and Hungary report similar levels of income inequality, yet people in Finland are, on average, happier. Why is this?

According to the World Inequality Database, the highest-paid tenth of people in Finland take home a third of all income (33%). That contrasts with the same group taking 36% in the UK and 46% in the US. These differences may not appear great, but they have a huge effect on overall happiness because so much less is left for the rest in the more unequal countries – and the rich become more fearful. When a small number of people become much richer, this is an understandable fear.

In 2021, it was suggested by a sociology professor that simply by having more reasonable expectations, people in Nordic countries appeared to be happier. However, that cannot explain why Finland is so very different from Norway on the happiness scale.

All kinds of explanations are possible, including slight nuances of language as well as culture. There is now even the question of whether this global survey is beginning to introduce its own bias, as Finns now know why they are being asked the question (they moved even further ahead of Denmark in the most recent survey).

However, it is very likely that Finland having more equitable schools, where you are likely to get a good education whichever you choose, as well as a fairer school policy than Norway (almost all Finns go to their nearest school) might actually matter too. So too, a better housing policy with a wide variety of social housing and lower homelessness, a health service with waiting times that are the envy of the world – sometimes just being a matter of days (even during the worst years of the pandemic) – and numerous other accolades.

Finland ranks first, second or third in over 100 global measures of economic and social success – better than Norway does. And it has less money overall (and hardly any oil). You could excuse the Finns a little smugness (omahyväisyys).

Why does Hungary do so badly despite the income gap between its people being hardly any wider than in Finland and Norway? One could argue that this is to do with its divided politics. In 2022, the European parliament suggested that “Hungary can no longer be considered a full democracy”.

Freedom matters to people greatly, as well as freedom from fear, and that could explain also why Turkey and India have lower levels of happiness than their levels of economic inequality might predict.

In contrast, South Africa and China may be a little happier than their levels of inequality would suggest. South Africa became a democracy in 1994 shortly after Nelson Mandela was freed, and many people will remember the previous period. People in China are not as fearful as they are often portrayed in the west.

Inequality is a factor

Most countries exhibit happiness levels (and much else) that are very predictable from their inequality levels. The UK is spot on in the middle of what you would expect for one of Europe’s most economically unequal countries.

The graph above also shows that (almost as unequal) Israel is a little happier than it ought to be – although it is not clear that the sample taken there included all groups that currently live under that state. Also, that sample was taken in 2022, before the recent widespread protests in Israel.

The other outlier shown in the graph is Costa Rica, where the president said in 2019:

Seventy years ago, Costa Rica did away with the army. This allows for many things. Eight per cent of our GDP is invested in education because we don’t have to spend on the army. So our strength is human talent, human wellbeing.

So what can the people of a country do if they want to be happier? The most important thing is to elect governments that will ensure the country becomes more equal by income. After that, ensuring your social services – school, housing and healthcare – are efficient and equitable matters most. And finally, consider your degree of freedom, whether you are actually including everyone in your surveys, and how fearful your population is.

 

Briefings

Powerfully symbolic 

In the days before Donald Dewar became Scotland’s first First Minister, he gave a speech in which he said, “There is undoubtedly a powerful symbolism – which attracts me greatly - of land reform being amongst the first actions of our new Scottish Parliament”.  Not only was it the Scottish Parliament’s first significant piece of legislation, in the 20 years since, land reform has been the continuous policy thread that runs through successive programmes of government. Writing in the Stornoway Gazette, land reform commentator, Dr Calum MacLeod, shares his take on the land reform story with yet  another chapter about to unfold.  

 

Author: Calum MacLeod

January 23rd of this year marked the twentieth anniversary of the Scottish Parliament passing the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, introduced by the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Scottish Executive during its first term in office.  The Act is often cited as an important step in what politicians are fond of referring to as Scotland’s ongoing land reform journey.  

It’s easy to see why.  The 2003 Act removed legal ambiguity about the ‘right to roam’ by introducing statutory non-motorised public access rights over most land in Scotland.  It also sought to diversify Scotland’s highly concentrated pattern of predominantly private rural land ownership by introducing a pre-emptive Community Right to Buy (CRtB) for eligible community bodies to buy land and associated salmon fishings and some mineral rights when the owner is willing to sell the land or associated rights.  More controversially, the Act also included a Crofting Community Right to Buy enabling croft land, salmon fishings and some mineral rights to be bought by eligible crofting community bodies without requiring a willing seller.  

The totemic status of Scotland’s Land Question long foreshadowed the passing of 2003 Act.  In his 1998 McEwen Lecture on ‘Land Reform for the 21st Century’, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar remarked, “There is undoubtedly a powerful symbolism – which attracts me greatly – of land reform being amongst the first actions of our new Scottish Parliament”.  

Ross Finnie, Minster for Environment and Rural Development in the Labour-Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive tapped into that symbolism when introducing the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to Parliament during its Stage 1 debate in March 2002, claiming that “…. the historic importance of today’s debate cannot be overstated.  In the past 60 years, land reform did not get on to the Westminster parliamentary agenda, although it has consistently been on the agenda of the people of Scotland. There is no doubt that devolution and the creation of the Scottish Parliament have brought forward land reform.” 

The Minister was over-egging things slightly.  The Highlands and Islands’ land reform ‘journey’ was already over a hundred years old, spanning the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act of 1886 and subsequent crofting and related legislation over the course of the 20th century, including the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Act 1997 passed in the dying days of the then Conservative UK Government.     

Nor was community ownership a creature of devolution, given that its antecedents stretched back to 1923 and the formation of the Stornoway Trust.   Following the Assynt Crofters’ Trust’s high-profile purchase of the North Lochinver Estate in 1992, the community buyouts of Eigg, the Knoydart Estate and Gigha formed the vanguard of a community land movement that has subsequently flourished in the Highlands and Islands.  That success is attributable in no small part to Highlands and Islands Enterprise creating a Community Land Unit to support community buyouts following an instruction in 1997 from Brian Wilson, then a Scottish Office Minister in the newly elected UK Labour Government.

Notwithstanding the 2003 Land Reform Act’s pre-devolution lineage, it nevertheless signalled the new Parliament’s intention to chart a progressive legislative course on the Land Question.

Not every Parliamentarian saw the Bill that way.  In his contribution to the Stage 1 debate introducing the Land Reform Bill to Parliament, Conservative MSP, Bill Aitken channelled his party’s implacable opposition to the legislation, floridly describing it as “a deadly cocktail of restriction, inhibition to investment and downright legalised theft.”

Other MSPs felt it didn’t go far enough.   Roseanna Cunningham, speaking during the Bill’s Stage 1 debate on behalf of an SNP yet to exert its near-hegemony on the Scottish political landscape, bemoaned the legislation’s “apparent lack of ambition” and called for a right to buy for tenant farmers, together with a “right-to-buy trigger on transfers of land, rather than just on the sale of land”.  During the Bill’s Stage 2 committee scrutiny she went further, tabling a subsequently defeated amendment to enable community bodies with a registered interest in land to apply to their local authority to purchase such land on their behalf if the right to buy had not arisen within five years of their interest being registered. 

In a sign of the febrile atmosphere surrounding the Act, the Scottish Daily Mail summoned Aitkenesque levels of outrage with a front-page story headlined, ‘Let The Grab Begin’ accompanied by a full-page photograph of Robert Mugabe, then Zimbabwe’s President, the day after it was passed.   

The actual impact of the 2003 Land Reform Act in the intervening twenty years has been rather less dramatic.  Easily its most radical element has been the conferring of statutory public access rights over land; provisions that place Scotland far ahead of England in terms of legal access to the countryside.   In contrast, the Community Right to Buy, and especially the Crofting Community Right to Buy have barely dented the highly concentrated pattern of private rural landownership in Scotland.  

Post-legislative scrutiny of the Act that I and colleagues undertook on behalf of the Parliament’s Rural Affairs and Environment Committee in 2010 gave early indications of why that was the case.   Most obviously, the Community Right to Buy provides only a pre-emptive right to register an interest in the land in question.  Purchase can only proceed if the land is put on the market by the current owner and an extremely complex administrative process is successfully navigated.  The interference with individuals’ property rights against their will associated with the Crofting Community Right to Buy makes its use even more complex and time-consuming, as the Pairc Trust’s experience of using the legislation attests.  

Our 2010 review for the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee highlighted several ways to amend both Rights to Buy in favour of communities seeking to use them.  They included increasing the flexibility of what constitutes eligible ‘community bodies’; simplifying ballot arrangements; recasting timeframes associated with the process in favour of community organisations; and reducing the burden of mapping requirements.  A subsequent 2018 review of the effectiveness of current community ownership mechanisms undertaken by SRUC on behalf of the Scottish Land Commission echoed several of these findings.

A new Land Reform Bill, due to be introduced to the Scottish Parliament by the end of this year, offers an opportunity to address these shortcomings.  In her foreword to ‘Land Reform in a Net Zero Nation’, the Scottish Government’s 2022 consultation paper on the forthcoming Bill, Màiri McAllan, the then Minister for Land Reform stated, “Private ownership of land – particularly at scale – has in the past conferred significant prestige, associated with for example hereditary titles, status and ability to influence policy and law.  While many aspects of society have become more equitable, the privilege associated with the ownership of land at scale remains and takes new forms”.    

One of these ‘new forms’ of privilege is the capitalising of wealth in sharply escalating land values which have catapulted the prices of rural estates into the stratosphere.  Analysis published by the Scottish Land Commission shows the average price of estates increased by 87% between 2020 and 2021, rising for £4.7 million to £8.8 million.  Much of the current demand for rural estates is driven by prospective ‘green’ purchasers including corporations, large charities, investment companies and wealthy individuals variously motivated by natural capital, rewilding or carbon offsetting opportunities, alongside traditional ‘lifestyle’ and sporting buyers.  The analysis also shows an increase in ‘off market’ estate sales, “with 45% of estates marketed and 33% of sales completed off-market in 2020 (an increase on the last 4-5 years)” and “a further marked increase [occurring] in 2021, with 64% of successful sales occurring off market”.       

The focus of the Government’s legislative proposals for the forthcoming Bill is squarely on large-scale’ rural landholdings, partly defined in the consultation paper as holdings over 3000 hectares.  The proposals include introducing a Public Interest Test on transfers of such ‘large-scale’ landholdings; a duty to provide prior notification of an intention to sell and a linked pre-emptive right to buy for communities; compulsory compliance with aspects of the currently voluntary Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement; compulsory Land Management Plans; and conditionality regarding receipt of public funding for land-based activities.    

These are welcome proposals, but they don’t inspire confidence that the structural inequalities associated with Scotland’s concentrated pattern of rural landownership will be significantly reduced anytime soon.  The 3000 hectares threshold for ‘large-scale’ rural landholdings is far too high to have meaningful impact.  It should be reduced to 1000 hectares at most and include aggregate landholdings rather than only single units.  

The consultation proposals are curiously silent on how the Community and Crofting Community Rights to Buy can be made more straightforward for communities to use, despite the evidence of previous reviews.  The SNP may wish to consider revisiting Roseanna Cunningham’s defeated CRtB amendment to the 2003 Act given that they currently hold the levers of Governmental power.  Neither do the proposals have much to say about the pivotal role of taxation as a driver for land reform; a curious omission from a legislative prospectus apparently intent on tackling wealth inequalities associated with land.         

All these areas deserve further consideration when drafting the Bill to be introduced to Parliament.  Only then will we know if the SNP-Greens coalition Government is serious about nailing its colours to the mast of boldly progressive land reform, rather than directing that journey towards a legislative cul-de-sac of marginal change that is long on rhetoric but short on vision.    

 

Briefings

Six ideas for a new direction

You don’t need to have an active interest in Scottish politics to realise that something fairly seismic has been happening in recent weeks. Regardless of political stripe, these unfolding events have left the main protagonists slack-jawed and uncertain as to how to proceed. The political commentators have been having a field day, but in the main most of their content falls into the category of either attacking or defending long established positions. One contribution that has resonated with many and which tries to step back a little from all the heat, comes from Gerry Hassan in the Scottish Review.  

 

Author: Gerry Hassan, The Scottish Review

The SNP crisis continues. Every day at the moment sees drift, division, disunity and backbiting, with folk trying to say helpful things and putting their foot in it.

Welcome to the world of things going wrong, where the laws of political gravity and entropy reign, as bits of masonry continue to fall from the once impressive house of the SNP and its last custodians Nicola Sturgeon and Peter Murrell. And it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better; so strap yourself in for what will be a bumpy ride.

This is all going to have huge consequences for Scottish politics, the SNP and independence. People across the political spectrum will need to rethink basic assumptions. But we have been at a similar place before when the long dominance of Scottish Labour imploded. While not exactly the same, it does offer some pointers of what to do and critically what not to do.

Humza Yousaf has been left presiding over the debris with little mandate or direction – and can at best hope to survive. His narrow 52:48 victory, the implosions in the SNP just off stage, and the fact that the media smell decay and drift (as indeed do many SNP members) are all adding to the sense of crisis.

Leading SNP figures are not helping as they try to adjust to the new realities. Even trying to steady the sinking ship gives a sense of the disorientation and panic in some of the upper echelons.

Michael Russell, acting SNP chief executive said: ‘In my 50-year association with the party, this is the biggest and most challenging crisis we’ve ever faced,’ and what is obvious, but will still be a shock to some: ‘I don’t think independence can be secured right now’. Ian Blackford, former Westminster leader, declared: ‘I would appeal to everyone in the party to come together,’ the implication being that everyone is not. Countless other quotes and interventions of senior SNP people are adding to the chaos, confusion and division.

The power and collapse of the SNP’s story of Scotland

Beyond this a deep malaise is evident. The SNP’s success was based on a powerful, convincing story of Scotland, the parliament and devolution. This had a major impact on the SNP victories of 2007 and 2011, particularly in comparison to the dearth of any Labour story about what the parliament and devolution they had campaigned for so long was meant to be for and achieve.

No longer can this be said of the SNP. They have exhausted the well from which they have drawn out their story of Scotland. They no longer have a convincing story of Scotland, the purpose of the parliament and the change it is meant to bring, or indeed, of Scotland’s future. Underpinning this is the wear and tear of 16 years of office and patchy record of the nationalists. Add to that the reality that independence is, as Russell pointed out, on the backburner for now. 

Something else is going on. ‘Labour Scotland’ from 1945-75 presented itself as the bright, optimistic articulation of modernity: advancing government and public intervention as an expression of the good society transforming life chances across the country in education, health, housing and the wider public realm. This version of Scotland eventually ran out of steam, unable to deal with rising individual aspirations, aided by Scottish Labour becoming driven by its own self-preservation, clientism and patronage.

The SNP’s ‘up’ years, from 2007 to 2014-15, were filled with a sense of purpose, possibility and its story of Scotland informed by a new found belief in modernity and a bright, shiny future where government and state would be progressive and enlightened. This was always something of a mirage, not understanding the lessons of the implosion of Labour Scotland, crisis of modernity and social democracy across the globe, or the widespread popular revolt against the state – thinking instead that Scotland and the SNP were somehow exempt from all of these.

This gathering crisis is informed by a shift in how people see authority, which was once all-powerful and pervasive in Scotland, and then seen as enlightened, benign and progressive at the high point of Labour Scotland from 1945-75. No longer can that be said of authority in Scotland or anywhere: part of a pattern whereby society has become more disputatious, argumentative and questioning, where all authority including that of professionals and experts has to continually win people’s trust. This is equally true of the SNP’s version of the state and its obvious limitations.

That tension between the SNP’s reinvention of modernity and a more self-organised, diverse Scotland was evident in the independence offer of 2014. And it has become a chasm in the years since to the point today where the nationalist vision of modernity and its story of Scotland have become increasingly unconvincing.

Just over 10 years ago at the first ever talk on my book The Strange Death of Labour Scotland at the SOLAS Festival, the first question after my presentation came from Andy Wightman, land reform campaigner and future Green MSP. Andy asked with an element of soft provocation how long it would take for ‘the strange death of nationalist Scotland to come true and to what extent was it inevitable and shared common characteristics with the demise of Labour?’ It was a good observation a decade ago and a good one now: the descent of SNP Scotland was always written into its contradictions and limitations. 

Sections of the SNP are shellshocked by these developments, seeking solace in tales of unionist perfidy and ganging up against our brave nationalist heroes and heroines. There is the diversionary anger at Douglas Ross, Scottish Tory leader, for suggesting that people could tactically vote Labour to defeat the SNP, with lots of energy being expended on how outrageous this is and nothing more than a unionist attempt to reinvent ‘Better Together’.

One veteran SNP member at a recent Leith meeting I was speaking at asked me, after my critique of the state of the party and independence: ‘Do you like the SNP?’ She was clearly looking for reassurance in a world turned upside down, compared to a few months ago. Afterwards, I thought how understandable it was and could visualise similar comments being made in a cold Maryhill Burgh Halls Labour Party meeting 20 years previous: symbolic of a party losing its way and place.

What should the SNP and independence do? For a start, they need to understand that the political weather is changing and the years of dominance have come at a price. People can debate the obvious differences between Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership styles but there is a cumulative cost of 16 years in office, presidential politics and gathering power to the political centre, while diminishing other power centres such as local government and the voluntary sector.

Add to this the blunt fact that the SNP under Salmond and Sturgeon morphed into a court party – characterised by access, patronage and privilege – and the SNP became a system party representing an insider class version of politics. The similarities with what Scottish Labour turned into are stark, as indeed is the uncomfortable reality that both parties hid behind vague abstracts in the distant future – ‘socialism’ and ‘independence’ – to offer a veneer over their conservative politics.

Politics will get tougher for the SNP. Opponents will become galvinised and the elections of 2024 and 2026 more difficult. The political generation of Yousaf and Kate Forbes who have only known the good times will struggle to adapt to such a different political environment, as will many of the grass roots members. 

Mapping out a different direction for Scotland and independence 

Here are six suggestions for a change of direction, different SNP and version of independence. First, think about policy. Scottish politics, despite 24 years of the parliament and hundreds of laws, is policy light. Many parliamentary acts are tidying up exercises undertaken by a civil service mindset. Thinking about policy which addresses big stuff – child poverty, early years, revitalising local government – would be a good start.

Second, policy is not everything. Delivery and practice matters, something politicians and many academics ignore. Delivery and practice is how real, sustainable change happens and is often messy. The Sistema Big Noise Orchestras; the work of the Violence Reduction Unit; the spaces where local champions bring people together and make a difference, often despite, not because of the system.

Third, focus on the ‘missing Scotland’ – those marginalised, forgotten and let down by the official narrative that our country is getting fairer and more equal. One major scar on the complacent story of Scotland is our disgraceful drug death total – the highest anywhere in Europe per head – aided by cuts to frontline services.

Fourth, Scotland’s policy community is poorly supported and ill-equipped to contribute as constructively as it could. There are too few places of expertise which aid deep thinking and bring together people beyond those whose self-interest and status is interwoven with official narratives of devolved Scotland. Independence needs a pro-independence research body and think tank but so too does Scotland’s centre-left constituency; indeed, we need a plethora of such initiatives.

Fifth, stop buying into and giving sustenance to ‘the official story’ of Scotland: that we are a community more moral, enlightened and progressive than elsewhere. The SNP version of this has said until recent events that Scotland is the one country in which social democracy has stood up and remains unbowed. This was always delusional and Scottish exceptionalism, considering the scale of our inequalities on any measurement. But it also overlaps with the official story of Scotland – of devolution and the insider class slowly making incremental progress without shifting power or threatening their privileged position. Any politics of real change – egalitarian, rooted in social justice, and any version of independence connected to everyday life – would relentlessly question this.

Sixth, a politics of depth, reflection and pluralism, which aids an ecology of ideas, has to link to and be informed by a new story of Scotland – or, more accurately, a set of stories. This new story/stories has to be less about the parliament, devolution and even independence as an abstract. It should be firmly focused on the kind of society we want to live in and create, the kind of people we want to be collectively, how we connect to and support one another, and the networks and relationships we build to nurture better lives.

This is about a kind of Scotland focused on self-government and self-determination made real and tangible: in the everyday exchanges and relationships we have, in our lives and communities, and shifting power from that supposedly benign all-knowing political centre all across Scotland.

That kind of vision – breaking with the limits of devolution, official stories, insider class politics and the patronage of the court party – would be a dramatic shift compared to the past 16 years and 24 years of the Scottish parliament. It would require a different SNP and different idea of political and social change as well as independence.

But then every crisis carries within it the birth pains of the new and opportunity. No-one should ever think long-term political change is easy, but now is a moment to take stock and map out a different direction and future.