Author: Rob Hopkins

It’s time for a rant about SACAT.  “About what?” you might most reasonably cry.  ‘Semi Attended Customer Activated Terminals’, that’s what.  In plain English, it’s those self checkout things that are taking over shops up and down the land.  In 2008 there were 92,600 such units in use worldwide, by the end of this year it is expected to top 430,000.  In the UK, 32 million shoppers now use them every week, over one third of Tesco’s store transactions every week are self checkout. I recently went to WHSmith at St Panchras station in London, the first shop I’ve been into that is 100% self checkout.  No staff.  I turned around and walked back out again. 

It’s bad enough on the occasions when I visit my local Co-operative store, who have now just two tills with actual human beings.  The rest is all self-checkout.  According to Geoffrey Barraclough of BT Expedite, who installed the system in the WHSmith store at Kings Cross, such systems are great because because they:

Enable shoppers to pay for goods quickly by making more till points available is a proven means for retailers to help boost footfall, service and sales levels”. 

That may be the case, but surely the main reason is that they need to employ less staff and thereby make more profit?  Whenever I go into a shop which has self-checkout, I refuse to use it.  I make a point of telling whoever is at the till that I am refusing to use it because I don’t want even more staff to lose their jobs.  It’s a solidarity thing.  But when I go to a shop that doesn’t even give you the choice, sorry, they just lost a customer. 

A few years ago I did a series of oral history interviews with people, asking for their memories of Totnes in the 1940s and 50s.  One woman told me of her experience of doing the week’s shopping:

I used to go to the grocer’s and I could sit down, lovely.  They’d go through your list and say yes, yes, we’ve got some new whatever it is, would you like to taste some, you’d have a little snippet of cheese or something, great, yes, we’ll have that.  Now we’ve got a tin of broken biscuits, but they’re not too bad, half price you see, would you like them? As soon as you put a biscuit in your mouth its broken isn’t it?!  Then they’d say “now Mrs Langford you’re going to the butchers yes yes and going to get some fish?  Yes yes, and paraffin?  Yes yes, and they used to say to me now bring any parcels in, we’ll put it in the box with your groceries, and bring the lot up for you.  And they did you see. 

When I go shopping, I want to interact with people.  Even the act of popping in to buy a newspaper involves a few words, a “how you doing?” or even just a “thanks”.  It’s interaction, it’s communication, it’s the glue that sticks us together.  A study in the US looking at why people use farmers markets found that ‘social interaction’ was one of the key reasons, people who shopped there having 10 times more conversations than people shopping in supermarkets.  It quoted one shopper as saying:

“You end up talking a lot more to other people than you do in a grocery store.  I mean, typically you go to the grocery store and you don’t talk to anyone.  Even the checkout people, I mean now you don’t even need to see the checkout person, you can just go through the automated line”.

And if I’m checking myself out, I am doing the shop’s business for them.  Not content with assaulting high streets with out-of-town shops, and then moving onto those self same declining high streets to add “vibrancy” to them, they have now, with most of the opposition neutralised (97% of all UK groceries are now sold through just 8,000 supermarket outlets), they are getting us to do the checking out for them!  What next?  Stacking the shelves?  Sweeping the floor on our way out?  Perhaps giving the bathrooms a lick of paint?

We wouldn’t expect to do those things unpaid, so why doing the check out?  It’s not as though they offer you a choice whereby if you check yourself out they give you a few percent off your bill. 

Of course, many people might say “actually Hopkins I rather like going shopping and not having to talk to anyone”, but for me that’s tragic.  Think forward.  Imagine if we get to the stage where every business, in order to remain competitive with the staff-less chain stores, installs self checkouts?  Imagine the day when you can do all your week’s shopping without ever speaking to anyone.  Something is lost, something as fundamental to our wellbeing as being able to hear the birdsong on a Spring morning.  As hearing the sound of children playing.  Civility, community, humanity, all start to unravel. 

So I say “no more!”  Shun the soul-less cash extracting electronic leeches!  Refuse to spend any money unless a human being is involved!  Turn around, walk out and walk on.  The kind of world we want our children to inherit is being shaped by the choices and the decisions we make today every time we go shopping.  Choose community and people and conversation over blatant money-grabbing and unemployment generation.

Or even better, you might use them for a month or so, keep a note of how much time you spend operating their checkout system, and send them a bill for your time, charging them the Living Wage for your time (which is, by the way, £8.80 in London and £7.65 an hour elsewhere).  Let’s see how they like that.

Author: Staff writers

More than 20 charities, including the Trussell Trust, the Child Poverty Action Group and Church Action on Poverty have signed a statement accusing the UK of violating the basic right to food.

The action follows a letter to the government from 600 Christian clergy and bishops seeking urgent action on the scandal of foodbanks and food poverty, a smiler statement today from Jewish leaders, and the nationwide End Hunger Fast – backed by the beliefs and values think-tank Ekklesia and many others – in solidarity with 900,000 people going hungry or short of food.

“It is our opinion that the UK has violated the human right to food and breached international law.

“This state of affairs is both avoidable and unnecessary. We call on the Government to take immediate action to ensure that the no one in the UK is denied their most basic right to sufficient and adequate food,” the common statement says.

A public vigil was held opposite Parliament at 6pm yesterday (16 April 2014) by members of the End Hunger Fast campaign.

Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner, Senior Rabbi at Movement for Reform Judaism were among those present.

The Barrow-Cadbury trust has backed the report ‘Going Hungry? The Human Right to Food in the UK’, from the new Just Fair Consortium, which was launched recently.

This sets out the situation facing those on the breadline in austerity Britain, and the case for change.

The UK government and the Department of Work and Pensions are continuing to deny that there is a problem, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Simon Barrow, co-director of the Christian think-tank Ekklesia, said: “The growing gap between the UK government’s complacent rhetoric about positive economic indicators and the demonstrable reality of food poverty points towards the need for a change of heart as well as policy in Britain today.

“Faith and civic leaders are right to press for radical change. Welfare and public spending cuts, the lower income wage squeeze, underemployment, youth joblessness, child and family poverty, and a recovery built on consumption and benefitting mostly the more prosperous — all this is leaving many people in dire straights.

“The answer is not top-down decisions made by millionaire cabinet members and remote Whitehall departments, but the practical engagement of people living at the sharp end in remaking social and economic policy for the benefit of the majority.”

* Report: ‘Going Hungry? The Human Right to Food in the UK’ (*.PDF Adobe Acrobat document):http://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Going-Hungry-…

* More on End Hunger Fast from Ekklesia: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/endhungerfast

Author: Stephen Naysmith, The Herald

IF the size of Scotland’s charitable sector leaps by 136% in the space of just a few years, you might expect charity leaders to be happy about that.

Even if the figures turn out to be exaggerated, that hardly seems to be a problem.

But the recent publication of figures mapping social enterprise activity north of the Border has been greeted with near-alarm in some quarters and a degree of bafflement in others.

Whether the conclusions are accurate (they are based on figures from the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, or OSCR, and published by the Big Lottery Fund) depends a lot on what you are counting.

In concluding that the gross annual income of Scotland’s charities rose from £8.8 billion in 2006/7 to £20.8bn by last month, compilers included not just traditional charities but also social enterprises and used a broad definition that counted businesses such as the arms-length organisations (Aleos) set up by Glasgow and other councils to deliver services.

The inclusion of universities further enhanced the rosy picture the report presented, with Edinburgh University alone accounting for nearly 10% of the claimed increase.

A final factor that explains the leap in the sector’s turnover is a push by OSCR to encourage cross-Border charities to register in Scotland as well as in England.

This has brought recognition of the Scottish income of some of the UK’s largest charities into the calculation. There’s certainly a case for doing that but it doesn’t represent an increase in activity.

Meanwhile, a broad definition of social enterprise means the turnover of businesses with a social purpose is estimated at £6.9bn.

To put that in perspective, it is bigger than the turnover of Scotland’s approximately 19,000 charities. The sector’s own body, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO), puts their combined turnover at £4.9bn.

One of the worries about this is the impact such an arguably misleading picture might have on public support for charities and the willingness of donors to reach into their pockets.

Likewise, it could lead to an overestimate of the health of the sector among policy-makers.

“Suggesting that the Scottish charity sector has boomed like some dot com giant isn’t helpful and doesn’t send funders the right message,” says Ilse Mackinnon, SCVO’s research officer.

The real picture is quite the contrary, she points out. The average Scottish charity did grow last year, but by just 0.8%; in effect, a loss in real terms.

The goal of this piece of work was to map social enterprises and their activity across Scotland, enabling funders to understand their prevalence and financial health.

Establishing a baseline means the impact of an increasing number of social-investment type funding initiatives can be measured.

That’s a laudable goal but neither charities nor social enterprises are well served by huge or misleading estimates of their size. A more than doubling of Scotland’s charitable sector might be welcome. But it isn’t really true.

Author: Senscot

Legacy 2014: Sustainable Sport for Communities Fund is a £1millon fund which will help communities to be able to realise their ambitions of owning and running their own sports facilities.

The initial package of support available will focus on clubs and organisations delivering sport and physical activity in their community who wish to:

•             take on ownership and operation of existing local facilities

•             build and operate new facilities

•             make better use of current facilities through capital improvements

In addition, applicants must also be seeking to make a wider difference in their community through their work. Making a difference in areas including health and well-being, employment and education are key aims of the Scottish Government’s legacy ambitions in addition to a primary aim of getting more people active.

Clubs and organisations will initially be invited to apply for a package of support up to a maximum of £25,000 to cover the cost of investigating and progressing their ideas. This could include technical support  such as architect and design fees, feasibility studies, community engagement, legal and financial support, mentoring support and assistance with organisational development.

The Legacy 2014 Sustainable Sport for Communities Fund is made up of an investment  of £500,000 from the Scottish Government under the Legacy 2014 programme and £500,000 from The Robertson Trust.

The closing date for expressions of interest is 23rd May 2014.

Expression of Interest Form (word doc)

Programme Overview and Application Guidlines (pdf)

Alternatively, you can contact one of the following discuss the fund:

•             Andrew Millson, Chief Development Officer, Social Investment  Scotland, email: Andrew@socialinvestmentscotland.com or call 07747 274 207

•             Linda Macdonald, Project Officer, The Robertson Trust, email: linda.macdonald@therobertsontrust.org.uk or call 0141 353 7300

Author: Jimmy Reid Foundation

To see a list of all Common Weal papers, both completed and underway, click here

The Common Weal – A Different Politics. 

We’ve had 40 years of Me First politics – and we all came second. It is time for a politics that puts All Of Us First.

Years of a conflict model of social and economic development, a belief that only the biggest and strongest matter, has divided society against itself. A small number of winners have become very rich at the expense of everyone else and we’ve been pushed to blame each other for what has been done.

This offers a future where the young are meant to blame the old, workers are meant to blame the immigrants, independent businesses are meant to blame the trade unions, the prosperous are meant to blame the poor, the able-bodied are meant to blame the disabled. This is a politics which floats on a sea of blame and anger.

This is no future for Scotland. We don’t need blame and we don’t need anger. We need change.

Scotland’s future lies not in a politics which constantly searches for the small number of things that divide us but instead is built on the much greater number of things that bring us together. We need a politics which works to coincide the interests of as many people and as many groups as possible.

The best social and economic development comes from mutuality, from working together, from diversity. It is a philosophy which states that ‘to build more we must share more’. It believes that if access to resources – human, natural, financial – is monopolised by multinational corporations then independent businesses, workers, families, towns and communities do not have the materials they need to build. It believes that if markets are controlled by corporations that are interested only in global trade it cuts off the lifeline to local trade.

This philosophy does not believe that the economy is exempt from democracy or that only the profit motive of big business can create wealth. It believes that the economy is part of our society, it believes that our society is a democratic society, and so it believes that citizens have a right to influence the kind of economy they want. Nearly 40 years of continuous government intervention to promote the interests of big business (through subsidy, deregulation, public expenditure and control of access to markets) has created a low-pay, low-productivity economy where corporations have near monopoly control of much of our lives. This is not what citizens say they want.

What citizens say they want is meaningful work, somewhere nice to live, the economic security to know they can feed their family, their health, good public services, a strong sense of community, the belief that their view counts and a chance at happiness. This is not so much to ask; but it is not what they get.

Common Weal; an old Scots phrase meaning both ‘wealth shared in common’ and ‘for the wellbeing of all’. This phrase captures what Scotland wants – a land where we are all neighbours, not a country of enemies.

The Jimmy Reid Foundation adopted this old Scots phrase to represent a different kind of politics for Scotland. It is a major project which attempts to describe a distinctly Scottish version of the mutual philosophy of social development. It applies the concepts and the practices of seeking solutions which put all of us first, help everyone to win. It is based on 50 major papers and reports which seek to identify what policies have worked elsewhere already and what they would look like if we adapted them for Scotland. Together they form a consistent view of what Scotland’s future could be. Some of the proposals would require the full powers that would come with independence; some could be implemented with the powers of devolution. Whatever the outcome of the independence referendum in 2014 these policies map out a future for the Scottish nation. A mutual, Common Weal future.

Common Weal takes citizens hopes for work, home, security, health, public services, community, democracy and happiness seriously. It emphasises a productive, innovative, creative economy which is balanced and diverse and not dominated by a small number of enterprises – because this is the kind of economy that creates high wages and low inequality. It emphasises industrial democracy because this too creates greater innovation and productivity, lower inequality and higher wages. It emphasises strong social security to tackle anxiety and fear, more drivers of a low-wage economy. It celebrates the fact that high-wage economies create prosperous citizens who are able to participate in the economy and pay their taxes. This creates the public wealth that support strong public services and good infrastructure. These in turn create high social cohesion.

A Common Weal approach rejects the idea that decisions must be made by a professional class often distant from the citizens and communities who should really be taking those decisions. The patronising belief that giving citizens control over their lives is ‘too risky’ is replaced by an assumption that people and communities should make their own decisions – and that sometimes they have the right to make mistakes and then learn from them, just like the professional class. That professional class does not have a monopoly on wisdom about our lives. Participatory democracy replaces closed government by an ‘expert’ class with open government that seeks to reflect the interests, views and experiences of the widest range of citizens possible. Powerlessness and resignation are corrosive; having a real say in our nation, our workplace, our communities and our lives makes people stand tall.

A Common Weal approach recognises that much of the foundation of modern life is too important to be driven by private profit. Our energy, communications and water industries and much of our transport infrastructure should be in collective control to protect citizens from monopoly exploitation – and so they share equitably in the profits these industries bring. Life essentials such as food, housing and banking must also be subject to a degree of collective influence to make sure that they are meeting our needs.

A Common Weal approach values things beyond price tags. It takes work/life balance seriously and recognises the importance of time with friends and family. It priorities arts, culture, sport, entertainment, recreation, participation, good food, good amenities and attractive communities, all of which enrich lives. It not only seeks to protect our environment but to build a relationship where natural resources make us materially and emotionally better off through good stewardship. It measures success according to how well human needs are met and not how well corporate needs are met. It measures success not according to how well those at the top are doing but according to how well we’re all doing.

A Common Weal approach is about bringing together the interests of different groups, seeking first to identify where interests coincide and emphasising those interests before focussing on where interests diverge and where people and enterprises will compete. It recognises that more success comes from cooperation than from conflict. Which means it rejects out of hand the vile politics of division and hatred where the elite seek to blame social failure on the weak in an attempt to divide citizens and create mistrust and antagonism.

We can quite easily assess whether a conflict model or a mutual Common Weal model creates a better outcome for citizens by looking at countries which pursue either model. Nations that follow a conflict model (such as the US) have much greater inequality, lower pay, weak public services, poorer quality housing, high levels of insecurity, low reported happiness, high levels of crime and high levels of poverty. Nations that follow a mutual model (such as the Nordic countries) have low inequality, high pay, strong public services, high quality housing, low levels of insecurity, high reported happiness, low levels of crime and low levels of poverty. For the 30 years between 1945 and 1975 where Britain followed a mutual model of development, all of these indicators moved in a positive direction. In the 30 years between 1980 and 2010 when Britain changed direction and followed a conflict model, all of these indicators moved in a negative direction. There is extensive and consistent evidence to show that mutual models are more successful economically, environmentally and socially for all but a very few at the top of society. And there are a very wide range of policies and practices that have been shown to work and to create that kind of society.

There is also overwhelming evidence that shows that this is what Scotland wants. Since the middle of the last century, Scotland has been voting over and over for political parties that promise a mutual approach to development. It is the dominant philosophy espoused (if not always followed) by any Scottish politician who has had any chance of taking a seat in government. In polls and attitude surveys on whether energy should be brought back into collective ownership, workers’ rights should be strengthened, banks should be better regulated and much more, the public overwhelmingly backs a mutual approach, not a conflict approach. Champions of the conflict model may own the media and have the budgets for political lobbying but they most certainly do not reflect the democratic will of the people.

Everything that is proposed in the Common Weal project has been tried before and shown to work somewhere – this is not wishful thinking but a careful process of working out what policy approaches deliver the outcomes we are seeking. Nor is this an attempt to photocopy someone else’s social or economic system and impose it on Scotland; the proposals and ideas you will find here come from different places but all have been adapted to a context that specifically fits with Scotland in 2014. This is not about emulating others but learning from them and creating the best Scotland we are capable of creating.

So in Scotland we have a clear sense of what citizens say they want from their society. We have extensive knowledge about how the things citizens say they want have been delivered successfully in other countries. We have the human and natural resources to put those policies and approaches into practice. And we have a democratic mandate which supports those policies.

We know what we want. We know how to get it. We have all the things we need to do it. And we have the will of the people.

Now all that we need is for Scotland’s citizens to be offered the chance to support this vision for Scotland’s future at the ballot box. Not a fudge or a compromise, not a half-hearted pledge to tidy up the worst of the mess, not the status quo posing as change; just the option of choosing a different future for Scotland’s people.

A Common Weal future.

A future that puts All Of Us First.

Author: Deborah Orr, Guardian

What does it mean when culture secretary Maria Miller is backed by David Cameron after being shown to have abused her expenses allowances between 2005 and 2009? Above all else, I think it means that the Conservatives accept only formally the changes in expenses rules that came after the expenses scandal. They understand – dimly – that these new rules have to be adhered to for political reasons. They do not understand that the previous rules were corrupt, a consequence of the abusive relationship between Westminster and the voters all over the country that it claims to represent. They do not understand that it’s not all about money, either.

Miller represents the people of Basingstoke, and that was where, ostensibly, her first home was. But this first home, this real home, was not the place where her family and her parents lived. Instead, they all lived in her second home, the five-bedroom Wimbledon home she needed only for the part of her work that was centred on Westminster. Interestingly, it’s a 45-minute commute by train to Wimbledon from central London, and one hour to Basingstoke. Ms Miller needed a second home, stuffed with dependants, to save herself 30 minutes a day on the days she had parliamentary business in town.

Laughable, of course. But not funny. Why, when Miller was elected to parliament in 2005, was it so necessary for her to uproot her family from Basingstoke, and settle them all in London, in the second home she needed for her new job? She didn’t, of course. It was the Basingstoke home that she needed for work, because in order to continue her London-based career, she had to be elected to a safe seat. Up and down the country, constituencies are “represented” by Londoners, people whose roots in the area they speak for are non-existent.

Miller was born in Wolverhampton and brought up in Bridgend. Both generally return Labour MPs. The people she was born and bred among didn’t want her, so that was no good. There is often talk of people being “parachuted into safe seats” and cynical comment about people popping up in towns they’ve never before been seen in, claiming that they are the best person in the world to know and understand what is good for that town.

They all do it. Neil Kinnock’s son, Stephen, is raising some eyebrows because he has been selected to stand for Aberavon. He was born in Wales, at least. But he went to school in London, and has been married to the prime minister of Denmark, Helle Thorning-Schmid, since 1996. He is familiar with the second-homes concept. It was reported by a Danish tabloid in June 2010 that although for political purposes he lived with his wife and children in Copenhagen, his residence for tax purposes was in Switzerland. His arrangements were found to be “within the rules”. It would be nice if prospective Labour MPs followed principles dictating that they pay their taxes where their families reap the benefits of tax-payer funded infrastructure, whatever the rules may be. But that’s not important, apparently.

While this tendency to shove career politicians, marked for promotion within the party, into safe seats is disliked, it is also accepted. All parties make a massive meal of it, on the occasions when a local person is standing for parliament. Yet, if they think it’s such a wondrous selling point, why do they let it go hang when there’s a rising star to be shoehorned into a party’s hierarchy? Because the party is the priority, of course, not the voter. Not the country.

In terms of house prices, the north-south divide has never been greater. It’s clear, of course, that all those career politicians, whose “second homes” were in London, really viewed the capital – where their careers were – as their first homes. But with property prices so high in London, the temptation was for once to adopt the otherwise much-abused idea that the constituency was the heart and soul of the parliamentarian’s career, and London just a part-time dwelling when parliament was sitting. That was about money, of course, lots of it. Miller reportedly made £1.2m on the sale of her taxpayer-funded second home. She is now, grudgingly, going to pay back £5,800 of £44,000 in overpaid allowances, a mistake she made because interest rates dropped without her noticing.

Of course, it’s awful, the personal financial and lifestyle benefit so many MPs took from all this. But what’s less often acknowledged is that those inflated London house prices are just a symptom of the sickness of a metropolis whose magnetic pull for the ambitious is far too great, causing huge detriment to the rest of the country. Political parties see the parliamentary constituencies of Britain in much the same way as the Tudors saw the country’s estates – theirs to take if their own influence became irresistible, and to hand to those they favour.

Britain’s local government is etiolated. Britain’s local economies are d. Britain’s local media is etiolated. It would transform politics, and attitudes to politics, if MPs were expected to come up through the local rank and file; if there was a connection that made local politics interesting, because it was from there – guaranteed – that local MPs, ministers, maybe leaders or prime ministers, would come. Instead, people with national-level political ambitions are already in London, with no need to cleave to a part of the world they know something about, and engage with its people and its problems over time, advancing because they have developed a proven track record in attracting infrastructure, business investment, jobs, new ideas and better services to that area. MPs all trill the praises of competition. But they prefer to compete with each other only in networking.

We complain that politics is dominated by Etonians, the children of political families, Oxbridge graduates in politics, philosophy and economics, and the metropolitan elite. We complain that politicians have their eye to the main chance when they leave politics. We complain that they live in a Westminster bubble, far away from the concerns of real people living real lives. We complain that all over London, not just in politics, opportunities are open only to those with money, power and influence behind them. But we continue to accept a so-called parliamentary democracy that is based on metropolitan party patronage.

I don’t know why it is that no one from Basingstoke is fit to represent Basingstoke. Or why no one from Aberavon is fit to represent Aberavon. In fact, I doubt that either town deserved the insult of these decisions. But I do know that there are far, far more people living in London and hoping to become MPs than the capital can possibly accommodate. As long as that goes on, Britain will be carved up and served to career politicians as an amuse-bouche, to be gulped down before the main meal of their instant elevation to parliamentary power.

Maria Miller’s financial hypocrisies are the least of it. Her great hypocrisy is in representing people entirely in the interests of her own career, and she shares that hypocrisy with many of her colleagues. This is a deep, structural hypocrisy, one that the expenses scandal and the new rules that came of it don’t touch. Britain needs to decentralise. All of the politicians say so. The means of doing so is in their hands and always has been. But in reality they prefer anti-democratic patronage, handing out slabs of Britain to their coteries, who will reward them with partisan loyalty. In the case of Miller, we see how blatant, how egregious, politicians think they can be in doing that. None of us should let them get away with it for another single minute.

Author: DTAS

The delivery plan for Community Shares Scotland

The delivery plan is based on our experience in Scotland as a community development and enterprise support agency and the experience of our partners on delivering community shares as a product across the UK. It takes account of the fact that we can construct a rough typology of organisations:

•             Those who already have an idea and some capacity and are already thinking about or considering raising capital;

•             Those who are members of existing support networks but who do not yet have an idea suitable for community shares;

•             Those who have the potential for developing community shares but are not well connected to existing networks.

The delivery plan will have the following elements.

1. Awareness raising

This will have three components.

First we will develop a broad based approach (beyond our existing networks) to general awareness raising in order to stimulate interest from groups and communities across Scotland. This will be done through a series of nine roadshows, some of which may be thematic.

We will work with local development agencies/intermediaries (e.g. HISEZ, Community Energy Scotland, Community Woodlands Association, Community Recycling Network and the social enterprise networks) as well as our own networks, along with local/national/social media campaigns, to create interest.

Second, we will offer six masterclass events aimed at upskilling existing community support staff and other professionals/intermediaries .These events will be more detailed and practical and will have as an objective increasing knowledge and skills within these organisations, thus creating an enduring legacy of expertise

Third, we will offer to present and deliver nine workshops at national events and conferences organised by third sector intermediary bodies, support organisations, and other relevant parties.

These will all be linked to, and underpinned by, the web site which will have follow up information, a FAQ facility and a quarterly newsletter alongside a range of online resources.

2. Information and advice service

The second element will be an information and advice service, which will be a central point of contact through which individuals and organisations can:

•             Register an interest in community shares;

•             Find out about documents and guides to community shares;

•             Find out about similar organisations and best practice;

•             Register for advice and support;

•             Be signposted to other, either intensive, or more appropriate, support.

It will be based at DTAS in Edinburgh with a dedicated telephone number and an ‘Advice Line’ Service. This service will have access to support and information from the CSU.

The service will also be linked to what is available on the website in terms of:

•             Technical guidance documents;

•             ‘How to’ guides and other factsheets;

•             A database of Scottish community share issues;

•             Case studies;

•             Information about events and networks;

•             An online enquiry form.

3. Training advisors

In addition to general awareness raising and introductory training provided by the programme, the Community Shares Unit will design and deliver a package of comprehensive training to social enterprise advisors to become specialist supporters in all aspects of advising community enterprises about raising equity finance through community share issues. 

It is proposed that this training is delivered over the first year and a half of the programme to a cohort of 6-8 advisors.

Based on the best practice guidelines emerging from the Community Shares Handbook this training course will be delivered through six modules plus individual tuition sessions and final accreditation for participants. These modules will cover:  

•             Legal considerations around the formation of Community Benefit Societies including conversion from or operating alongside other legal forms;

•             Community support building for community share offers;

•             Timing and content of share offer documents/harmonisation with business plans;

•             Identification and monitoring of appropriate community benefits;

•             Promotion and marketing of share offers including the use of ‘crowd funding’ platforms and other forms of social media;

•             Post share issue best practice for Community Benefit Societies and their members, including reporting wider community benefits and managing ‘withdrawability’/liquidity issues.

4. Direct support

Direct support from trained advisors will take a different form at different development stages. Organisations who seek to be assessed for and offered direct support will come through two routes. Some will be self-referrals who either have an idea and broadly know what support they need, or who are looking for guidance on what support would be appropriate. Others will be referred by intermediaries (including intermediaries and individuals with a specialist knowledge of co-operatives).

We anticipate that not all organisations/communities seeking support will be eligible for this, and we will develop criteria with the steering group to ‘sift’ applicants into:

•             those who should access direct support as part of the programme;

•             those who need to do more work before they can access support; and

•             those who are either ineligible or who have projects that it would be inappropriate to support (who will be signposted to an appropriate support organisation).

Direct support will be either generic or specialist and be for between two and six days duration. Clients/organisations will be either matched with an existing member of consortium staff with the relevant skills/experience or to a specialist advisor from our list of associates after assessment of their outline business plan/proposition.

Direct support will be designed to help communities be in a position to articulate and decide whether to launch a community shares issue within six months of engagement. This will include promoting the share issue, legal documentation, and governance issues.

Direct support will focus on:

•             Tailoring model rules;

•             Business plan analysis;

•             Financial planning;

•             Articulating the share offer;

•             Marketing the share offer;

•             Legal and technical support;

•             Tax advice.

5. Covering Scotland

Our events and awareness raising programme will take place in all parts of Scotland. Our own membership and networks are already Scotland wide. DTAS has over 200 members in all local authority areas. We have robust working relationships with a number of sector leaders with national coverage (Community Woodlands Association, Community Energy Scotland, Community Resource Network Scotland, Scottish Community Alliance, Community Ownership and Support Service (COSS)) and prior to the award of the contract will build on our existing strong relationships with:

•             Scottish Council Voluntary Organisations;

•             Co-operative Development Scotland;

•             Community Energy Scotland

•             Social Enterprise Scotland;

•             Scottish Community Alliance;

•             Federation of City Farms & Community Gardens

•             Rural Housing Scotland

•             Social Enterprise Academy;

•             Third Sector Interfaces;

•             HISEZ;

•             Social Enterprise Networks;

•             Other co-operative networks covering Scotland.

6. Learning and networking

In order to make sure that we capture the lessons of the programme, DTAS will convene an expert reference group to inform and guide the development of the Community Shares programme in Scotland

This expert reference group will comprise the Scottish Lottery, specialist social enterprise supporters, social investment specialist funders, representatives from Scottish Government, the Community Shares Unit in England and other interested parties in the development of the market for Community Shares in Scotland.

It is envisaged this group will have 8-10 members and meet twice a year to:

•             Share best practice information including learning from developments in other parts of the UK and internationally;

•             Discuss challenges and issues that emerge during the roll out of the programme;

•             Discuss problems and issues that may emerge in relation to specific sectors or business models in relation to raising equity finance through community share issues; 

•             Help plan communication, training and development events to support the Community Shares Scotland programme;

•             Feed into the evaluation of the programme especially through the identification of suitable case studies and helping capture elements of the wider community benefits arising from community share issues;

•             Help frame recommendations to Scottish Government, specialist social investors and others to maximise policy synergies and the sustainable impact of the programme in Scotland.

The group will hold two learning network meetings each year to showcase good practice and discuss common issues.

In addition, we will have a fund of £5K each year for visits and networking events in communities. We will also have 10K available for specialist legal advice.

Author: Scottish Government

Around 50 community-led organisations have been identified to receive investment of up to £3 million which will support the regeneration of areas throughout Scotland.

Housing and Welfare Minister Margaret Burgess announced the funding, which will be delivered through the Scottish Government’s Strengthening Communities Programme, during a visit to GNH Life Centre in Glenboig today (Tuesday).

The funding will support emerging community groups and provide direct investment to community organisations to increase their capacity in order to make them more sustainable while empowering local people through community ownership. 

Initiatives will respond to local community needs by developing activities such as advocacy projects, community windfarms, environmental action and transferring assets into community ownership.

Some of the funds have already been allocated, with GNH Life Centre – a community run facility offering services for local residents – receiving £88,000 to employ a development manager to help transfer the centre into community ownership and to develop activities and services for the local community. This will include managing the re-location of local post office facilities into the community centre by May 2014.

During her visit Mrs Burgess met with project staff and parents and children attending the centre’s toddlers group.

Mrs Burgess said: “Investing in community organisations is absolutely key for creating change at a local level within communities. 

“The aim of the Strengthening Communities Programme, which will benefit up to 50 local initiatives, is to help build capacity in local communities  and inject new life into some of Scotland’s most disadvantaged areas. This new investment will support the aims of our forthcoming Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill.

“This government puts community-led change at the heart of our regeneration strategy, recognising that community involvement is integral to the success of the design and delivery of local economic and social regeneration initiatives.

 “Through the Strengthening Communities Programme we will test the impact of targeted investment within communities. It is only by improving on community-based initiatives and empowering local people that we will see real, sustainable change.”

Ian Cook, Director of the Development Trusts Association Scotland, said:

“Our members across Scotland have consistently raised the issue of the need for core funding to build capacity in community anchor organisations. Development Trusts Association Scotland therefore welcomes the Strengthening Communities programme and is delighted to be invited to be a key delivery partner.”

Rachael McCormack, Director of Strengthening Communities with Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), said:

“We are delighted to be working so closely with the Scottish Government and partners on this Scotland wide initiative. HIE and its predecessor have played a leading role in community development across half of Scotland for almost 50 years, and we welcome the new opportunities which this programme will extend across Scotland.

“The new Scottish Government Strengthening Communities programme is very well aligned with the development needs of the communities it is seeking to enable, and is designed to bring about a significant step change in the resilience of the community groups which take part.”

Funding allocated to date: click here

Author: Alistair Munro, Scotsman

A PROPOSED trail around the island of Mull could provide a £1 million boost to the local economy, according to Scottish Natural Heritage.

The body claims the route, for cyclists and walkers, would create a visitor attraction unique to the island and encourage visitors to stay in the area longer and spend more.

A SNH report also claims that the trail would create opportunities for businesses such as cafes, accommodation providers, cycling supply shops and baggage transfer services.

If well designed and with the right services in place, the report estimates that the route could attract around 10,000 part-way walkers, 2,500 full length walkers and 1,000 cyclists each year, generating additional income of more than £900,000 a year. A proactive advertising campaign could see that figure rise even further.

The report was welcomed by Ian Ross, new chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage and a former forester on Mull.

Ross said: “Scotland’s growing network of trails is creating improved opportunities for people to enjoy the mental and physical health benefits associated with being outdoors.

“We have been working with the Mull and Iona Community Trust to help develop their plans for the route and one of the great things about this proposal is that it has come from the local community.

“The people living here know that it is a special place and they want visitors to come and enjoy Mull and Iona’s spectacular environment for themselves.

“We are very keen to see more trails developed across the country to help people get out and enjoy the outdoors and generate income for rural economies.”

Moray Finch, from the Mull and Iona Community Trust (MICT), said: “Developing a pathway on the island which links the main ferry port at Craignure with the ferryport to Iona at Fionnphort, has been discussed in the community for several years.

“As well as the economic benefits it could bring, the path appeals to local people for a range of outdoors activities such as walking, jogging and cycling.”

The proposed route would connect directly with the Oban to Fort William section of the National Cycle Network.

This section will link, via ferry, with the proposed Tyndrum to Oban path, which will in turn link to the West Highland Way. Work is currently ongoing to identify the best route for the Tyndrum path.

SNH claim that promoting the trail as part of a longer pilgrimage route to St Andrews, as well as a standalone route, will help raise its profile and its status alongside other long distance routes such as the West Highland Way and Great Glen Way.

Author: robedwards.com

Rob Edwards   robedwards.com

Local communities have won a record-breaking £13 million deal from a French multinational company planning to build a wind farm near Edinburgh.

A healthy slice of the profits from 22 wind turbines proposed for Fauch Hill in West Lothian will be shared by surrounding towns and villages – plus all the profits from another turbine to be wholly owned by local people.

The deal, agreed after tough negotiations, is reckoned to be one of the best ever from a wind power developer, and could have major implications for other Scottish communities considering hosting wind farms.

The 69-megawatt wind farm is proposed by the Louis Dreyfus Group, a privately owned company founded in 1851 in Alsace, France. Two opinion polls have suggested it is backed by 60% of local residents.

But the development has been opposed by some environmental groups, and was rejected by West Lothian Council in 2012. Last year, it was the subject of a public inquiry, and is now awaiting a decision by Scottish ministers.

Community groups, meanwhile, have negotiated payments from Dreyfus of £5000 per megawatt per year, which is expected to total £8.25m over the 25-year lifetime of the project. The company is putting an additional £330,000 into a fund to improve energy efficiency and boost broadband locally in compensation for disruption during construction.

Unusually, Dreyfus has agreed to let the community own one of the three-megawatt turbines, and will lend the money to buy it on favourable terms. One conservative estimate says the turbine could net more than £4.5m over 25 years, though others suggest it could be two or three times that, depending on future electricity prices.

Dreyfus also promised the wind farm can be used by walkers, horse-riders and cyclists. It is planning a visitor centre, free parking and better access to the neighbouring Pentland Hills Regional Park.

Stewart McKenna, who chairs one of the local groups, Kirknewton Community Development Trust, predicted that the social and environmental benefits to local people would be “enormous”. It was a hard-won victory that others could learn from, he said.

“Scotland’s people and its renewable resources are two of our greatest assets,” he said. “In combination they form a powerful positive force and will help to deliver a more resilient local democracy, better able to make decisions for itself.”

The Kirknewton trust tried for seven years to develop its own renewable energy project, but had to abandon the idea due to lack of cash and land.

Instead, the community has driven a hard bargain with a foreign developer. “I cannot see how long-term, meaningful projects such as this can be delivered unless there is some form of partnership with a larger developer who is prepared to undertake the first and significant quantum of risk,” McKenna argued.

The community benefits package agreed for the Fauch Hill wind farm was praised as “excellent” by Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland. “Locals have clearly bargained hard to get a good deal,” he said.

“Simple financial contributions are welcome, but we would like to see the community owning a part of every new renewable energy development. The proposal at Fauch Hill sets an important standard for all the big renewables developers.”

Deborah Chawner, director of Dreyfus’s Fauch Hill Sustainable Energy company, said the project offered “the best package of community benefits”. It included “valuable suggestions that were made to us by local groups”.

She added: “If consented, this will represent a new model for community participation for communities hosting a wind farm in the future. In addition, all funds from both the cash element and the community turbine will be managed and distributed by local community development trusts.”

Chawner was not aware of another community wind-power scheme in which the developer would finance a turbine with a low-interest loan for which the borrower was not personally liable. The Fauch Hill deal was a response to Scottish Government guidelines encouraging communities to take a share in wind-farm ownership, she said.

Scottish ministers have set a target for 500 megawatts of renewable energy to be owned by local communities by 2020. The aim is “to maximise the benefits for communities from renewable energy”.