To read a copy of the full report click here

Oban has one medical practice, the Lorn Medical Centre (LMC) which, at the time of planning Healthy Options had just over 10,000 patients of whom 3,800 – 4,000 had a chronic medical condition/s. Almost 40% of people in our community are affected -these are our work colleagues, friends, neighbours, relatives, and family members. Shocking as that statistic is the positive message is that these conditions can be improved or control managed by adopting an active healthy lifestyle. That was our challenge – to improve the wellbeing of ‘our 40%’ and for Oban and Lorn to become a more active, fitter, healthier community.

Healthy Options was our response to these health problems prevalent in our area. In developing the concept and throughout the pilot we became ever conscious of the national concerns and the policies that have developed in recent years. It encourages us knowing that our work dovetails with policy from national through to Argyll & Bute Community Health Partnership objectives and is, in our own small way, helping to address the nation’s health issues.

As community activators we believe in the saying ‘ifthere is a problem in the community then the answeris in the community’. Completing the 2-year pilot has strengthened this belief, we live in a healthy environment, we have well developed community resources and valuable community assets, we have strong social networks and an inbuilt community resilience to ‘just do it’.

This 2-year pilot has proved that we can meetthis challenge, we now view this as our responsibility. Healthy Options has great potential for the community to pull together by volunteering and assisting others going onto and through their programme/s. This was demonstrated from the client questionnaire where 30 respondents through the programme indicated they were interested in volunteering to help others. Healthy Options has also been a vehicle for change and improvement in how NHS departments and health professionals within the departments interact with each other and with the community they serve.

We would like to thank those organisations which have funded the 2 year pilot project. Leader funding was matched by The Robertson Trust, Awards for All, Oban CommonGood Fund, Lloyds TSB, West Highland Housing Association and the Susan H Guy Charitable Trust and another one off local source was secured which enabled us, in the second year,to increase the range of services to clients.

We are extremely grateful for the interim funding provided through Elaine Garman – NHS Highland Public Health Specialist Argyll and Bute to tide us over from the end of Leader funding to the end of 31st March 2014.

Whilst everyone involved in Healthy Options has made a considerable contribution there is no doubt the debt we owe to our staff and principally Project Manager – Andrea James for her dedicated service allied to her caring and professional approach to all the clients.

We now enter a period of uncertainty as we do not believe this work, addressing health issues prevalent in our society and extending the work of the NHS into our community, can be made sustainable in the longer term without considerable input from government. Current funds will run out by the end of June 2014. It is with the certain knowledge of the value of this project that we welcome any discussions with all interested parties on securing a sustainable future.

Please enjoy our report – I encourage you to read the case studies, they are a powerful advocate for Healthy Options.

To read a copy of the full report click here

Author: Ally Tibbitt, Greener Leith

For more details click here

Long standing supporters of Greener Leith will remember that we won a UK wide funding competition, in partnership with PEDAL, to help us build a community owned wind turbine at Seafield.

Although Scottish Water subsequently pulled out of the project, preventing us from building a turbine at Seafield, we did not give up, and are now pleased to be able to confirm that we’ve secured a new site for the community turbine project – four kilometres south west of Inverness.

The new agreement follows a year of complex negotiations. The land deal gives us exclusive rights to conduct studies at the site and build two wind turbines of up to 800KWp capacity each. To take the project forwards we have established a joint venture company which is majority owned by PEDAL and Greener Leith. Consultants to the project, SCENE, own a minority (five percent) stake.

In addition, planning permission has recently been granted to install a met mast on the site to measure the wind resource, which will happen in the next month or so.

The next step is to meet with the communities near to the site. We hope local non-profit groups will become partners in the project too, and are offering them the chance to invest in, and become part owners of it. We want this to be a project that brings real environmental and financial benefits, not just to our own communities, but to those where the turbines will be located.

We’ve already begun this process and will be presenting on the project at Strathnairn Community Council’s meeting on 26th May.

The aim is to submit a full planning application to Highland Council sometime in August. If it gets planning permission, the project could generate an estimated £7m surplus over the twenty year lifespan of the project, to be distributed between the community groups who invest in the project – including Greener Leith.

A spokesperson for the project said: “Signing a land deal is a huge milestone for this project. Greener Leith and PEDAL volunteers have worked for years on this project and both organisations remain firmly committed to community-owned renewable energy. Our attention is now focussed on identifying potential non-profit community partners local to the site who we can work with to help us take the project forwards and share in the subsequent benefits.

“Although a lot still needs to happen before we can be certain the project will go ahead, we hope to put in a full planning application later in the year, with a view to starting construction on site in 2015. We’d like to thank all the people who have got behind the project, especially our key funders, for their ongoing support.”

You can find out more about the project at the specially set-up website athttp://communityturbines.wordpress.com

Author: Robert Armour TFN

It is an issue dividing a normally laidback community, and if objectors get their way, plans for a brand new state-of-the-art school in Portobello won’t go ahead.

This week objectors said they would mount “vociferous” opposition to plans to build the school in Portobello Park, as a Scottish Parliament committee convened to consider written objections the Edinburgh City Council (Portobello Park) bill – a private bill put forward by the council in a bid to overturn a legal decision preventing it from building in the park.

Despite the bill likely to become legislation, campaigners, who after winning the historic legal battle in 2012 to block the initial plans to build on the park, say they will continue to mount oppostition “at every turn”.

Their continued opposition to the bill, flies in the face of other local groups who claim the current high school is not fit for purpose and the park is the only viable option for a new school.

If the City of Edinburgh Council is successful in passing this bill then other local authorities throughout Scotland would introduce similar measures – Mike Cardwell

However, Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG), the organising force behind the objections, says the bill would create a precedent for other councils to build on green space across Scotland. 

Campaigners believe the land, given to the public for perpetuity back in the late 19th century, has been deliberately run down by the council.

They want it to be redeveloped as a natural community resource for all to use.

Mike Cardwell, an objector and supporter of PPAG, said the issue went beyond a local community at loggerheads.

He said many of the objections – over 500 – were concerned the bill would set a precedent for the removal of the current legal protection for parks and open spaces.

“Ultimately, if the City of Edinburgh Council is successful in passing this bill then other local authorities throughout Scotland would introduce similar measures,” he said.

“Stated bluntly, it would set a precedent for other common good land throughout Scotland to be built upon.

“One of the consequences of this would be to undermine the security of Scotland’s park land for future generations.”

Faye Arnold, who backs the council’s plans, however, told TFN the issue is being driven by a number of “prominent, middle class people” who are more interested in their house prices than the local community.

“Protesters aren’t making any sense,” she said. “It’s gone on too long. The bill has been a last resort and the majority of residents support it.

“We’re seeing a very articulate minority of people who worry more about the value of their homes than they do the community.”

Alison Johnstone, Green MSP and a former Edinburgh councillor, agrees. She said after 10 years of opposition to the bill, it should be supported.

“The choices we face now, with so much water having flowed under the bridge, are different,” she said.

“The school has planning permission to be built in the park and a contractor is in place to do so.

“The consultation a year ago had a massive response and a fairly hefty majority in favour of building in the park.

“However many criticisms one can level at the community consultation, it is difficult to argue that the will of the community is other than that which emerged from the consultation.”

Arguments for the proposed site of the new school

Pro-school campaigners say building on Portobello Park is the best option for the community. As well as a brand new, state-of-the-art high school to benefit 1,400 children for generations to come, the new school offers two full-sized all-weather pitches that will be freely accessible to the public. And the council will put £1 million towards a brand new public park on the site of the existing high school – a new facility for the community that more than compensates for the loss of an under-used park that takes up just 3% of the open space in the catchment, say campaigners.    

Arguments against the site of the new school

PPAG says the park is the only sizeable piece of green land in the area and is much used by a wide variety of local residents, golfers, dog walkers and nature lovers. Its aim is to preserve it for future generations to enjoy because, once built upon, it will be lost forever. Moreover, the park is inalienable common good land and belongs to the public under Scottish law. With a little investment the park would once again become an asset to the whole community. And going against this would create a precedent for all local authorities in Scotland to build on similar common good land.

For more information on West Wemyss Development Trust’s reasons for buying the the Walk Inn click here 

Prospects at the the West Wemyss Walk Inn, which was hit by financial difficulty and had to partially close last month, are looking up thanks to a positive public meeting.

The meeting, which was held on May 2, was well attended by locals who are all keen to see the Walk Inn retained as a local business to attract visitors into the village.

And although the main bistro area has had to close, a small team of dedicated volunteers has continued to run the cafe for five days a week.

The public event followed a meeting held to discuss plans to re-instate a pub inside the Walk Inn.

The meeting – which was attended by around 25 people – followed strong support from a number of locals who said they had not been listened to when the original plans for the Walk Inn were drawn up. A committee has now been formed.

At the public meeting, those who were there were divided up into four groups who then prepared options and voted for their favourite.

Mikko Ramstedt, who sits on the board for the West Wemyss Community Development Trust, which had been running the Walk Inn, said: “The plan is to have the pub running soon, we are just working through the plan of switching cafe and pub around so that we can plan and cost the ‘move’, and then do this so that it does not interrupt the cafe for instance, on the days when it it closed anyway.

“Business is picking up and the cafe is busy so we are hoping that we can find enough volunteers to keep it going and to extend operations!”

Author: Robert Armour, TFN

The Scottish Government has missed an opportunity to ensure more Scots are paid a living wage and that the £9 billion it has to buy goods and services each year is spent ethically.

Charities and civil society bodies that united to campaign for new laws to ensure more ethical use of government budgets have said they are disappointed in the final Procurement Reform Act, passed this week.

A coalition of organisations including the Scottish Catholic International Aid Agency (SCIAF), Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, the Scottish Trades Union Council (STUC) and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations had called for the act to ensure all companies that provide services to local or national government pay the living wage.

They also called for penalties on companies for tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, and urged for suppliers to publish annual assessment of their carbon emissions.

How billions of pounds of public funds are spent in Scotland has a huge impact on the public sector’s carbon footprint – Gail Wilson, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland

“SCIAF, and others in the third sector, view the final act as a lost opportunity to make a huge difference to poor communities around the world,” said Philippa Bonella, head of communications and education at SCIAF.

“It could have sent a clear signal to public bodies and business that they must consider the global impact of their purchasing decisions and actions. That opportunity has been missed.”

A last minute Scottish Labour Party amendment to make paying the living wage a compulsory part of all public sector contracts was rejected during the final debate on the act, with the Scottish Government claiming it would breach EU law.

Instead, the act calls for the creation of guidance from public agencies on their policy towards the living wage, such as whether they will give preference to companies that pay staff the salary. The living wage is currently £7.65 an hour, while the national minimum wage for over 21-year-olds is just £6.31.

STUC said it welcomed the progress made on the living wage but had hoped for more.

Dave Moxham, deputy general secretary of the STUC, said he was: “disappointed at the Scottish Government’s interpretation of the advice it received from the European Commission which has led it to miss an opportunity to take the strongest possible action to protect low paid public service workers, the majority of whom are women.”

Green groups also said the Scottish Government has failed to ensure the new laws help Scotland reach its climate change targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

Gail Wilson, coordinator of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland (SCCS) said: “SCCS is disappointed that MSPs did not grasp the opportunity to embed ethical and sustainable procurement practices in the legislation.” 

“How billions of pounds of public funds are spent in Scotland has a huge impact on the public sector’s carbon footprint so this does need to be addressed.”

The charities are now urging the government to create strong guidance following the publication of the act to ensure that contractors are as ethically accountable as possible.

Some important amendments did make the final act following the stage three debate on Tuesday, including measures to reduce inequality.

Public bodies granting contracts will be allowed to show preference to companies who who reduce inequality in their area. This could be through, for example, offering apprenticeships or improving pay.

Bids for contracts such as school meals will also have to show how their services will improve the health and wellbeing of the local area.

Author: Rob Hopkins, Transition News

There is huge scope, as the Evergreen Cooperatives in the US demonstrate, to reimagine how the economy of a hospital work. It need not follow the neo-liberal model of out-sourcing everything which is being so pushed by the current UK government. Subcontract the cleaning to Serco, the catering to Serco, the cafe franchise to Costa, the security to G4S etc. While many in the current government look to the US for inspiration in terms of how to design and run a healthcare system, they are looking at the wrong models there.  Have a look at this:

Here’s an approach which offers a way of procuring services which keeps money local, builds jobs, ownership, training and so on.  Given the choice between promoting that, and the current approach which results in minimum wages and zero hour contracts, a strong argument can be made that the public health, financial health and mental health of the local community are far better served by taking a different approach. 

Kick out the Costas, and get in a locally owned cafe, serving local produce, indeed produce grown in the hospital grounds (see below).  Kick out Serco, and let a thousand co-ops bloom.   Place the hospital at the centre of the web of the new local economy.  Procure locally like they do in Nottinghamshire Healthcare Trust.

In an inspiring story that could be replicated anywhere, catering manager John Hughes shifted their procurement so they now source 90% of their fresh red meat and all of their vegetables, salad and fruit in season from within a 30-mile radius.  Now they have created a ‘super kitchen’ and have taken on to provide all the meals that Nottingham City Council provide to people who use the Meals at Homes service.  As Hughes said in a recent interview “we can continually change with the seasons”.  Anywhere else interested in such an approach can get great support from the Soil Association, who have been doing amazing work on this.

Hospital as Market Garden: Why not take a look at the grounds of the hospital and reimagine them in a different way? Gardens have been shown to have great benefits to peoples’ health.  A 2003 study from the Netherlands, based on interviews with 10,000 people, showed that the greener peoples’ environments, the better their general health and the less symptoms they report, and the better their mental health too. 

An evidence review for Community Food and Health (Scotland) showed how involvement in food growing is linked to improved mental health and wellbeing in a variety of ways, such as enabling people to learn new skills, have more physical exercise and relaxation.  So why not bring the two things together, and put food growing on hospital grounds as being central to their public health work? 

Instead of seeing hospital grounds as large areas of ornamental grass which no-one ever walks on, outsourced to a contractor who cuts the grass and plants annual bedding plants, rethink them instead as intensive market gardens, as food forests, as orchards undergrazed by chickens. Such spaces also serve a powerful role in creating stress-free environments for staff and patients, reducing sickness time in staff and hastening recovery for patients.  As Christina Fox put it in her dissertation for her Landscape Architecture degree at Leeds Metropolitan University:

“In the current economic crisis, budgets should be re-addressed with the emphasis on volunteering, fundraising, shared services and changes of use of external landscapes and gardens.  With a focus on educating staff and managers on health benefits of natural environments and links with external expertise such as universities and colleges should maximise the potential of hospitals landscapes and gardens”.  

Create a co-operative to manage them and to train local people to become growers.  Create walkways through them for patients and their families.  Focus on leafy greens, salads, and other high value crops which also introduce a healthy seasonal boost to the hospital meals.

Be ambitious in terms of scale.  Work the ground like you would work a market garden. Redesign the menus around the seasonal produce.  Grow produce that patients at the hospital who originate from oversees connect with home, and invite them out to see it, smell it, taste it.  Design into the business plan a percentage of food distributed free to local families struggling to provide good food.  Harness the healing power of food memories around food. Use the waste heat from the hospital air conditioning or from the incinerator to heat glasshouses to extend the season and the varieties that can be grown (NHS bananas anyone?).

Such an approach also tackles a range of other problems hospitals face.  It can reduce crime (a study from Chicago showed that that the presence of vegetation can significantly reduce both property crime and violent crime).  It can improve air quality and the problems associated with that.  It can be a sink for water, stopping surges associated with heavy rainfall.  It can reduce the heat island effect and therefore lead to reduced need for air conditioning.  It can provide enjoyable occupational therapy for patients.  Looked at in this way, although the ‘contract-it-out-to-the-guys-with-the-sit-on-mowers’ approach may be cheaper, in the longer run, the approach outlined above would make far more sense.

Hospital as community power station: Let’s take the WTO’s suggestion to “produce and/or consume clean, renewable energy onsite to ensure reliable and resilient operation”.  How about the hospital reimagines itself as a community energy power station, and invite the local community to invest in and benefit from the energy?  Hospitals often have some of the largest roofs in an area and the highest potential for installing renewables.  For example, Totnes Renewable Energy Society (TRESOC) recently invested £39,000 of members’ money in installing solar onto the local doctors’ surgery.

Author: Open Democracy - Thorvaldur Gylfason

In spite of clear popular support, Iceland’s new crowd-sourced constitution was recently killed by politicians. An ex-member of the constitutional council, Thorvaldur Gylfason is Professor of Economics at the University of Iceland.  sheds some light on what happened – and why there might still be some hope for this unique experiment.

Iceland earned the respect of many observers of democracy around the world when, after the financial crash of 2008, its parliament decided to go back to basics and revise the country‘s constitution. A constitutional overhaul was long overdue. For nearly 70 years, Iceland’s political class had repeatedly promised and failed to revise the provisional constitution of 1944, which was drawn up in haste with minimal adjustment of the 1874 constitution as part of Iceland’s declaration of independence from Nazi-occupied Denmark. Clearly, the 1944 constitution had not prevented the executive overreach and cronyism that paved the way for the corrupt privatization of the Icelandic banks from 1998 to 2003 – and their subsequent crash a few years later.

Collective intelligence

Faced by pots- and pans-banging crowds in Parliament Square in Reykjavík in late 2008 and early 2009, the politicians admitted failure, accepting the protesters’ demands for, among other things, a new constitution.

The new post-crash government that came to office in early 2009 – the first majority government to include neither the centre-right Independence Party nor the agrarian Progressive Party – decided to break new ground by asking the people, not the politicians, to draft a new constitution. To this end, the parliament appointed a constitutional committee of seven to prepare the ground and organize a national assembly comprising 950 individuals drawn at random from the national registry.

The national assembly, organized in 2010 in accordance with the notion ofCollective Intelligence,[1] concluded after a day’s deliberations in November that a new constitution was called for and ought to contain certain key provisions concerning, e.g., electoral reform and the ownership of natural resources, for a long time two of the most contentious political issues in Iceland. In October of that year, the government also held a national election to a constituent assembly to which 25 individuals were elected from a roster of 522 candidates from all walks of life, most of them with no particular political or special interest affiliations.

With the constituent assembly about to start its work in early 2011, some opposition politicians could not conceal their displeasure. The conclusion of the national assembly constituted an unequivocal appeal for the revocation of privileges – e.g., the privileges of those who benefit from unequal access to the country’s common-property natural resources as well as from unequal voting rights. Understandably, the prospect of 25 individuals over whom the political parties had no control being about to begin their work guided by a legal mandate to revise the constitution in broad accord with the conclusions of the national assembly made some politicians uneasy.

Obstacles

What happened next? Three individuals with documented connections to the Independence Party, Iceland’s largest political party until the crash of 2008, filed a bizarre technical complaint about the way the election to the constituent assembly had been conducted. On the basis of these complaints, six Supreme Court justices, five of whom had been appointed by successive ministers of justice from the Independence Party, declared the election null and void – even if no one had ever claimed that the results of the election were at all affected by the alleged technical flaws.

Never before had a national election in a fully fledged democracy been invalidated on technical grounds. The parliament reacted to the ruling by appointing the 25 representatives who had received the most votes to a constitutional council, thereby changing a popularly elected assembly into one appointed by parliament. The opponents of constitutional change celebrated victory and thereafter used every opportunity to undermine the creditworthiness of the council.

The opposition was not confined to the Independence Party. The Progressives, who had previously expressed strong support for a new constitution, changed course and joined the opposition to reform. Even within the new governing coalition of the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left-Green Movement, there were pockets of passive resistance to change as well as among some academics apparently disappointed that they had not been asked to rewrite the constitution.

Whence the fierce opposition to constitutional reform? The chief opponents were the usual suspects: the political allies of special interest groups such as the fishing vessel owners whom the politicians had turned into a state within the state through gratis, or practically gratis, allocation of valuable fishing licenses. The opposition also came from politicians who would not stand much chance of being reelected to parliament under the principle of ‘one person, one vote’ (as the current system requires much more votes to be elected as an MP in Reykjavik than in one of the more rural areas). Indeed, constitutionally protected national ownership of natural resources and electoral reform to ensure ’one person, one vote’ were the two principal hallmarks of the bill.

But the constitutional council paid no attention to any of this. Within four months, it produced a constitutional bill incorporating virtually all the conclusions of the national assembly, and approved the bill unanimously by 25 votes to zero, no abstentions, and delivered the bill to parliament in mid-2011. In the course of preparing the bill, the council sought and received the advice of numerous experts in different areas as well as from ordinary citizens who were invited to offer their comments and suggestions on the council’s interactive website. Representatives of special interest groups, unused to not being invited to exclusive legislative meetings, did not respond to this open invitation to the public. After the bill was completed, they could not rightly complain that they had not been consulted.

After delivering the bill to parliament, the constitutional council disbanded. The parliament took over, seeking further comments from local lawyers as well as, ultimately, from the Venice Commission. The parliament was encouraged to translate the bill into English so as to be able to solicit foreign expert opinion, but failed to respond. Instead, a translation was arranged and paid for by the Constitutional Society, a private nonprofit organization. This translation made it possible for world-renowned constitutional experts such as Prof. Jon Elster from Columbia University and Prof. Tom Ginsburg from the University of Chicago to express their helpful views of the bill.

Referendum

The bill was brought to a national referendum in late 2012. Initially, the parliament intended the referendum to coincide with the presidential election in June 2012 to secure a good turnout, but the opposition Independence Party and Progressive Party resorted to filibuster to thwart this plan, holding parliament hostage for days and weeks on end.

At the same time, they complained about not having enough time to consider the bill – which was, of course, largely due to their reluctance to accept and follow the constitutional process. When the Independence Party leader was reminded of the classic example of chutzpah (this is when you murder your parents and ask for mercy on the grounds that you are an orphan), he complained about being unfairly likened to a murderer.

Nevertheless, the referendum was delayed until October 2012. Voter turnout was 49 percent. No less than 67 percent of the electorate declared their support for the bill as well as for its key individual provisions such as national ownership of natural resources (83 percent said Yes) and equal voting rights, meaning one person, one vote (67 percent said Yes). By inviting the voters to accept or reject the bill in toto (specifically, the first question on the ballot was: “Do you want the proposals of the Constitutional Council to form the basis of a legislative bill for a new Constitution?”) as well as its key individual provisions, the parliamentary majority was able to say to the bill’s opponents: Look, the voters support both the bill as a whole and its key provisions. In view of the results, parliament decided to suggest only changes of wording where considered necessary and to abstain from substantive changes (except concerning the church where the voters did not accept the formulation in the bill). The people had spoken.

Further obstacles

The path forward, however, proved tricky. Three of the seven members of the constitutional committee which had been fairly unanimous in its work criticized the bill, unmoved by the result of the referendum, conducting themselves ex post like agents of the parliamentary opposition to the bill. The majority of four is known to support the bill and to respect the result of the referendum. A committee of lawyers asked by parliament to suggest only changes of wording went beyond its mandate by, among other things, suggesting substantive changes to the natural resource clause in a poorly disguised attempt to thwart the intent of the constitutional council and the will of the voters as expressed in the referendum. The council had made it clear in its proposed constitutional provision as well as in its supporting documents that the allocation of fishing quotas does not bestow on the recipients of such allocations any private property rights to the common-property resources. To its credit, the parliamentary committee in charge restored the council’s original formulation.

There was no dearth of academic viewpoints on the council as five of its 25 members were professors and three others were junior academics. But unlike the many academic experts who generously offered their help and advice to the council during its four months of intensive work in 2011, a few others were less forthcoming.

It was only after the October 2012 referendum that some of the unsupportive academics stepped forward with critical comments on the bill, presented in newspaper articles and television interviews as well as at a series of conferences organized by some universities. The criticism offered was generally of low quality on top of being late, reflecting personal opinions rather than academic research as well as total disregard for the timetable laid down by parliament.

In a newspaper interview, after the referendum, one professor called the council “completely illegitimate,” adding that “a certain elite” (presumably including himself) should rewrite the constitution. The poor timing of this late criticism is noteworthy because the Alliance for a New Constitution, a private association established to explain the constitutional bill to the voters before the referendum, had written to the rectors of the universities ahead of the referendum, asking them to encourage their experts to contribute to public debate on the bill. Their reaction appeared only after the referendum. It seems that the dissenting academics hoped the bill would be rejected in the referendum and thought it unnecessary to discuss it.

Endgame

A month after the referendum, parliament at last asked the Venice Commission for its reaction to the bill. In record time, Venice produced a draft report with various suggestions, several of which the relevant parliamentary committee decided to incorporate into the bill. The bill was now ready for a final vote in parliament. A majority of 32 MPs out of 63 declared in public and in writing that they supported the bill and wanted it passed before parliament was dissolved in time for the April election. Based on earlier related votes in parliament, it seemed likely that only fifteen or twenty MPs would vote against the bill; the October 2012 referendum was approved by 35 votes against fifteen, with thirteen abstentions. Victory seemed assured.

Or was it? The main opposition parties, the Independence Party and the Progressives, threatened a final act of filibuster, a tactic they had used successfully to delay the 2012 referendum and to derail and destroy various other legislative initiatives of the government. (In a telling comparison, one pro-constitution bill MP likened her attempts to get work done in parliament to trying to file her income tax return with monkeys at the kitchen table.) The government majority behind the bill, including a small opposition party, the Movement, did have the legislative means to stop the filibuster to prevent time from running out but they were reluctant to do so, even if it was clear that failing to do so would kill the bill.

I received advance warnings from MPs that the bill would not be passed; “I smell sulfur,” one MP wrote to me. Some council members with good connections to parliament had warned all along that parliamentary support for the bill was rather weak. The strategy of the Alliance for a New Constitution was to force the issue into the open. We understood from the outset that in a secret ballot the bill might fail in parliament; after all, rising against the fishing vessel owners in Iceland has been described as “suicide” for rural MPs.

Parliament does not vote in secret, however, and this was key. In an attempt to ensure that the constitutional bill would have to be brought to a vote, Margrét Tryggvadóttir MP presented the bill put forward by the parliamentary committee in charge (of which she was a member) as an amendment to another related last-minute bill. But the president of the parliament put the last-minute bill to a vote without first presenting the amendment, thereby failing to bring the constitutional bill to a vote, in violation of parliamentary procedure. This happened at 2 A.M. on the morning of the last session of parliament before recess. The enemies of constitutional reform carried the day and democracy was put on ice. The government blamed the misbehaving opposition for the debacle, while the outgoing prime minister who had launched the process in 2009 said this was the saddest day of her 35 years in parliament.

More ice, then thaw

The April 2013 election produced a coalition government of the Independence Party and the Progressives, the two parties that privatized the banks à la Russeand set the stage for the crash of 2008. The parties represented in parliament hardly mentioned the constitution in the campaign; they wanted to avoid the subject. The Progressives won the election by promising instant household debt relief. In office, the first thing they did – surprise, surprise – was arrange instant tax relief for the vessel owners. It is clear that the two parties have no intention of reviving the constitutional bill. To them, it does not matter that 67 percent of the electorate expressed support for the bill and its key provisions. Further, they have decided to put Iceland’s 2009 application for EU membership on ice. Expect more ice to come.

As always, however, there will be a new parliament after this one. One day, most probably, the constitutional bill approved by the people of Iceland in the 2012 referendum or a similar one will become the law of the land. Stay tuned.

Author: Newstart magazine May 1, 2014

The former Motor City has come to epitomise urban decline in recent years. But it is now discovering a different kind of growth, led by its citizens and their love of place, as Dan Gilmartin and Sarah Craft report

Detroit is known to the world as a poster child of industrial decline. Finding articles on the Motor City’s challenges is all too easy. But there’s much more to Detroit than the stories of dramatic loss of auto-industry jobs, crime, race relations, significant population decline, home foreclosures, criminal mismanagement and challenged schools.

Behind these negative headlines is a story of perseverance. It’s a story of passionate people. It’s a story of innovation. When Detroiters have a problem, they don’t often wait for government intervention. Instead, they organise neighbours and solve the problem themselves.

It’s the passion that people have for the city of Detroit that makes it great. People say we’re gritty, determined, stubborn, boisterous, cantankerous, opinionated, assertive and defensive — and we’re just fine with all those adjectives. Just don’t call us dead because the people of Detroit prove day in and day out that we’re far from that. We may be knocked down, but we keep getting back up.

There are countless examples across the city of residents working together to improve neighbourhood safety, expand public art, develop youth, and activate vacant storefronts. Economic factors often forced local leaders to the side lines, allowing for an active grassroots improvement movement across the city. The examples that follow don’t attempt to tell Detroit’s whole story, but act as a snapshot of how resident engagement can change the scene and attitude of the entire city.

 Detroit Soup

Co-working space – Ponyride

Recycling & Community Centre: Recycle Here! 

Detroit’s Future: Engagement & Community Partnerships

• Dan Gilmartin is CEO and executive director of the Michigan Municipal League, a non-profit organisation that advocates on behalf of Michigan’s cities and villages.

• Sarah Craft is a programme coordinator for the Michigan Municipal League.

The bus from Dumfries to Galloway takes the busy A75 in its unhurried stride, eventually touching the waves of the Solway Firth at Wigtown Bay, then shadowing the coastline up through the small village of Carsluith, and onto its larger neighbour Creetown (population c.680); the two together and hills and small settlements beyond form the old parish of Kirkmabreck (population c.1000). Stepping out onto the old high street at Creetown conjures up times past, with the village having taken shape in the 1800s. Yet, this is no country retreat rather a working village built on employment in the parish’s granite quarries from the 1850s onwards. The quarries are now closed, and the last local employer of size – the Solway Steel works – shut too in 2012, but the Creetown Initiative, a community anchor organisation, remains hard at work and committed to a longer-term vision of sustainability for their community.

As with my two earlier articles, on Northmavine Community Development Company (NCDC) in Shetland and Govanhill Housing Association (GHHA) in Glasgow, the Creetown Initiative shows all the hallmarks of a community anchor: being community-led and concerned for local community interests (mission); seeking financial independence and strength to pursue that mission; and undertaking complex, multi-purpose working across local economic development, community building, service provision, and community leadership/advocacy.

And, as with those earlier articles, it’s how the Initiative works with the public sector and wider state that is my focus. NCDC and GHHA have benefitted from longer-term working relationships, if not necessarily always consistent, with the local and central state, while Creetown Initiative’s success has been built on its ability to access successfully significant levels of funding and resources from a range of largely national sources – central government, public bodies and some philanthropic trusts. This is not to say that the Initiative doesn’t have productive relations with the local authority (indeed it receives a small amount of core funding from Dumfries and Galloway Council currently), nor that it doesn’t generate earned income itself (it earns through consultancy and development work), but that it is its ability to access this much larger body of funding and investment that has been crucial to its extensive economic and social activities in Creetown. In so doing, the Initiative’s work has turned my attention to thinking about what would happen if public sector and community sector worked together for ‘the local economy’, as well as service provision; and as an alternative to the public sector being focused on economic and service development through the ‘same old, same old’ of centralisation and ‘efficiency’ via economies of scale.

Local staff and volunteers at the Initiative generate a rich picture of their community: ‘mixed’, with strong working class roots from the old granite quarries; but also with many ‘incomers’ seeking to enjoy rural life – running ‘lifestyles businesses’ or come to retire. They flag up, too, that many people struggle to make a decent living, with earnings low and many either self-employed, working part-time or unemployed. There is a seeming paradox here, for while Rural Scotland in Focus 2012 notes the region (and Southern Scotland more generally) as economically vulnerable – with declining employment levels and many economically vulnerable towns – and facing both an ‘ageing’ and declining (working-age) population; in fact a recent report pointed to approximately a third of workers in the region earning below the Living Wage (the highest level in Scotland). Yet Dumfries and Galloway also scores as highly as anywhere on the Scottish mainland within the Office for National Statistics’ Personal well-being statistics. Those working for the Initiative clearly value the community life, but were likewise concerned for its future; in particular, given the lack of opportunities for young people, support and housing need for older people, a lack of local employment and related poverty, and fears of families moving out and leaving the village a ‘tumble-town’.

Crucially, however, local morale hasn’t collapsed, in fact quite the reverse: diverse sources – local authority planning documents and estate agent brochures – specifically recognise Creetown as an ‘active community’. Early community stirrings to action, from over a decade ago, include the establishment of the Creetown Heritage Museum and the Creetown Country Music Festival: the latter running for ten years until 2010, winning a Visit Scotland award in 2004, and bringing thousands from around the globe to visit and perform. The Initiative’s first project, in 2001, was a joint management agreement with Forestry Commission Scotland of the local Balloch Wood, and this has continued since through a series of environmental, public art and community participation projects as the Balloch Wood Community Project. Employment, in 2006, of Andrew Ward as the local project worker marked the start of very significant growth since, and the Initiative has accessed a range of public and philanthropic funding: over £1m in the last seven years.

Managing these diverse sources, has allowed the organisation – now with five FT and four PT staff, a hands-on-hands Board, and a significant pool of local volunteer support – to generate a complex, skilled interweaving of initiatives that include:

•          environmental and conservation: community woodlands, the local river, wildlife zones

•          village regeneration: the local park, the town square, an all-weather sports surface

•          community arts: with the primary school, young people and the wider village

•          community events and festivals: many and varied – musical, social, for young and old

•          public art projects: increasing numbers including Cree Baby and recently Ferry-Bell Tower

•          community hall: under development, and to act also as a training facility e.g. for the Duke of Edinburgh Award programme

•          local transport: improving access through Creetown car and scooter clubs

•          ‘green infrastructure’: energy auditing, cycle project and promotion, a community market

•          community infrastructure: development of a football pavilion, bowling club refurbishment.

The Initiative has worked across the different local ‘constituencies’: other community organisations – such as Kirkmabreck Community Council, football club(s), Creetown Bowling Club – and developed the Creetown Building Preservation Trust (with other organisations) to own/manage the community hall; (extensive) community-wide consultation work on the village hall, park regeneration and now a micro-hydro-electric project; joint-working on projects with the local primary school, and, joint-working with local/micro-business on activities and events, in particular the Creetown Gem Rock Museum.

As the range of projects, the numbers of local staff and activists/volunteers, and the extent of funding has grown, so a wider synergy has resulted; one where the many activities support each other and generate shared economic, social and environmental benefits. The key local ‘industry’ of tourism gains from the environmental improvements and the richness of community life, but without coming to dominate. The focus on the three-pronged approach of local economic developments, service provision and community building continues apace. The Initiative undertakes consultancy work with third and public sector organisations in the region to build its own financial stability. It is working to develop a micro-hydro turbine in the local burn, which will significantly boost the organisation’s core income and enable it to invest in community projects – net income anticipated to be almost £20k initially, rising to £190k after 15 years as the loan is paid off. There are plans, too, for a community enterprise centre through community ownership of the old Barholm Arms on the high street, which will provide retail space for local crafts people, a bunkhouse for back-packers, and workshops for rent. The Initiative is active, too, within the Dumfries & Galloway Farmers and Community Markets Association (and running its own monthly market) which promotes community markets across the region to support local tourism, local health and local food production.

This is still ‘early days’, and the scale of activity remains constrained by funding and investment, yet the Initiative’s broad approach, illustrates the effectiveness of community anchors in coordinating complex activities that grow the local economy – one with economic, social and ecological benefits. Indeed, the Initiative is now active in supporting local economic and social developments in four other places in the region, including a community farm in Crocketford.

Such a focus on ‘local economy’ is not, however, a key concern of the current orthodoxy of centralisation and economies of scale. For example in Dumfries and Galloway, a scan of the region’s Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP) suggests a particular focus on concentrating and centralising economic development, housing and services to Dumfries and Galloway’s more ‘urban’ areas to the east: the ‘regional capital’ of Dumfries, larger towns of Annan, Gretna and Lockerbie, and the related ‘M74 corridor’. I would argue, too, that the highly controversial (actual and planned) large scale developments of wind-farms across south-west Scotland, privately-owned and offering limited community benefits, is far from a ‘community-agreed and -owned’ renewable energy strategy concerned for local economic and social development and interests.

This is not to say that the LDP pays no heed to the wider region. Nor that such a centralisation is unique, but instead part of a larger pattern of centralisation across both urban and rural Scotland, and the UK domestic market (and globally), and one that creates an uneven development in which there will be clear ‘winners’ and ‘losers’; those communities to be well-resourced and those that will be marginalised. Several at the Initiative recognised such a wider economic and political ‘marginality’, pointing to their region’s lack of the political muscle (in comparison to urban areas) needed to wrestle: suitable investment for community-led regeneration and a suitable financial ‘playing field’ and support for rural businesses. And, I would add a suitably agreed regional framework for local renewable energy development (hydro and wind) built around community ownership/benefits.

Yet such a centralisation, and a related prioritisation of ‘economies of scale’, is not the only broad strategy available. There are definite signs of alternative ‘decentralist’ approaches and thinking on the horizon, as has been flagged-up by the Scottish Community Alliance e-bulletin in recent months and now by COSLA’s Commission on Strengthening Local Democracy: interim report; with the latter pointing to the need for genuinely local decision-making on resources and services. One fresh approach to public services in England, developed by Bromsgrove & Redditch and Stoke City Councils, and similarly community sector body Locality, is that of putting emphasis on local decision-making and coordination (a ‘local by default’), and keeping the focus on the purposes of local people; so on ‘effectiveness’, rather than on targets and ‘efficiency’ through central control. Likewise, the work of the New Economics Foundation has highlighted the value of focusing on the local economy, and supporting a local multiplier effect through its strategy of Plugging the leaky bucket; with both the community sector and public sector having key roles here. Within Scotland, this concern for local economy, and the role of both public and community sectors in developing it, is increasingly being highlighted too, for instance: in relation to local food production and distribution, as per the Fife Diet’s Manifesto; and in the Reid Foundation’s Common Weal given its recognition of the importance of ‘ownership’ – social/community, public and private (domestic) – in economic and social development.

There are then alternative decentralist models to funding, investment and development on offer which can become part of serious efforts to tackle uneven development (inequalities) in Scotland. Success, however, requires both a capable community sector and a shift in public sector/state culture, strategy and patterns of investment. The complex workings of the Creetown Initiative in leading and coordinating local economic and community development illustrate that such a community sector is certainly achievable. Further, a shift in government thinking away from centralisation, and towards a national community sector strategy, and in regional community-focused investment bodies – like Highlands & Islands Enterprise – across Scotland, would provide a crucial step-change in opportunities for action. While for the local state and public sector, surely it’s time to explore significant investment in the ‘local economy’ and in ‘local-by-default’ service provision, and to learn to draw on the strengths of the community sector in coordinating such local development.

James Henderson is a researcher and has (finally) submitted a PhD at Heriot-Watt University on the community sector.

Author: Cassiltoun Housing Association

For more information on Castlemilk Woodlands click here

Although the past twenty years has seen a significant regeneration of the built environment of Castlemilk, the woodlands which run through the heart of this community have not received the same attention. Since 2010, Cassiltoun Housing Association has led a multi-agency approach which has transformed the woodlands from a no-go area into a green space that brings important health, environmental, social and economic benefits to the local community.

Context

Castlemilk Woodlands cover an area of 30 hectares located around a densely populated housing scheme on the periphery of Glasgow. 13,500 people live in Castlemilk and there is a remarkable concentration of deprivation in this area with 9 of the 16 datazones that make up the area falling within the bottom 5% of Scotland’s most deprived datazones.

Unemployment is high and around 3,500 local people claim benefits, this represents some 39% of the working age population (more than twice the Scottish average). Well over half of these people are in receipt of incapacity or disability benefi ts.

Coronary heart disease is a particular local issue and the area also has above average incidence of hospital admissions for cancer, respiratory disease and drug missuse problems. It is estimated that some 1,732 local residents are being prescribed drugs for anxiety, depression or psychosis. This equates to 13% of the local population, considerably higher than the 8% national average.

Statistics also reveal that lack of educational attainment is a local issue, as only 8% of local school children go on to higher education, compared to 29% in Glasgow as a whole.

Project Background

It was recognised that, as a local greenspace, Castlemilk Woodlands could play a vital role in improving the social, economic and environmental fabric of the area.

A multi-agency partnership was established in 2010 led by Cassiltoun Housing Association with the ambition to provide physical greenspace improvements and to improve and enhance opportunities for people to engage with and use the woodlands to improve their own lives.

The project seeks to deliver on the Scottish Government’s targets to increase employment opportunities, improve health, create a greener community and enhance better life styles and choices.

What it did

By proactively addressing local issues and challenges the project is developing a greenspace asset for the local community. It delivers this by opening up access and increasing opportunities for the community to engage with the woodlands. This helps to break the spiral of decline created through years of neglect and anti-social activity. A website and promotional resources, including a user-friendly map, have been created. These have been successful in inspiring and encouraging local people to discover the greenspace on their doorstep.

The project works to improve local physical health and mental well-being through hosting and promoting a range of programmes and events including, the successful ‘Branching Out’ programme, the ‘Go Play’ childrens’ project, frequent evening health walks and a monthly Cup of Tea in the Park.

With high levels of local unemployment, the Project has also set up a programme which provides local people with opportunities to develop new skills and attain qualifications.

This has been delivered through a two-year employability project (supported through CSGN Development Funds) and through fortnightly volunteering opportunities.

The training and volunteer work has improved lines of sight, upgraded paths and increased maintenance, ensuring that users can access the woodlands and feel safe in their local greenspace.

With two high schools, six primary schools and many nurseries within walking distance, the woodlands provide an excellent opportunity for environmental education. This has been encouraged by the Project which has organised special fun days and educational events. Along with the volunteer work, these events have helped improve the biodiversity in the woodlands by the removal of invasive species and habitat management.

Outcomes

•             Recreated a Community Resource: Through addressing local maintenance and access issues, the woodland has changed from being a sometimes feared short-cut, to being used by the whole community. With increased usage, anti-social behaviour has decreased and the woodland is now used as community resource for or informal recreation, access and education.

•             Improved Local Community Pride: Education and engagement sessions have helped to improve awareness of the biodiversity value of the woodland and informed people of the threats posed by invasive species. This has helped to increased community pride in this rich and varied greenspace.

•             Health Benefits: Encouraging people to take walks in the woodland has increased levels of physical activity. Establishing group walking sessions has also reduced social isolation and increased levels of well-being, particularly amongst older residents.

•             Increased Confidence and Skills: The project has enabled people to increase their levels of self confidence, built community capacity, and improve skills and employment prospects by volunteering, training and employability programmes.