Empowering rural communities 

The first meeting of Scotland’s Rural Parliament will be held next year, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs has announced.

The Rural Parliament will empower Scotland’s rural communities by bringing people and policy makers together to look at improving policies and actions that address rural issues. 

The announcement comes a week after Mr Lochhead was in Stockholm to meet representatives from Hela Sverige Ska Leva (All Sweden Shall Live), the rural movement responsible for organising the biennial Swedish Rural Parliament.  

Following a meeting of the Scottish Cabinet in Campbeltown, Mr Lochhead said:

“Living in rural Scotland has many advantages including stunning landscapes and a vibrant and dynamic community spirit. It also brings different challenges compared to living in less remote areas. 

“Scotland’s Rural Parliament will celebrate rural culture and empower our rural communities, giving them a stronger voice and a better say in policy making.

“It is a model that works well in other European countries, and I was able to see this first hand on my recent visit to Sweden, where villages and communities work together and share ideas. I would like a similarly strong rural movement in Scotland ahead of the first sitting of our parliament.

“The Rural Parliament Management Group will now get on with the job of setting up the Parliament, involving rural communities across Scotland, and organising its first session. I look forward to being updated on its progress. ” 

Norman MacAskill, Head of Rural Policy with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO), said:  “The rural parliament model has been tried and tested in many European countries, and the time is right to give it a go in Scotland. A Scottish Rural Parliament could enable a stronger, more coherent voice for Scotland’s rural communities that reflects their strengths, their common interests and their rich diversity.”

John Hutchison, a director of Community Land Scotland, said: “We are interested in any mechanism that might encourage rural policy development and strengthen links between the community and the land.  We have much to learn from social democracy in Europe and welcome steps to build a Rural Parliament in Scotland.”

Angus Hardie, Director, Scottish Community Alliance said: “Many European countries have already adopted this concept of a ‘rural parliament’ with the result that their rural communities have a much stronger presence on the national policy landscape . The announcement that the Scottish Government is to support the establishment of a rural parliament in Scotland is very good news for the community sector.”

Sandy Brunton, Chair of Development Trusts Association (DTA) Scotland said  “As the representative body of some of Scotland’s most dynamic rural community organisations, DTA Scotland has a strong interest in creating an effective voice for rural communities. DTA Scotland played an active role within the Rural Development Council and have been heavily involved in the Rural Parliament Working Group. Conscious of the important contribution which rural parliaments have made in other European countries, DTAS welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to establish a Scottish Rural Parliament and looks forward to actively engaging in this process”.

Background

Further information about Scotland’s Rural Parliament – including the date of its first sitting – will issued by the management group in due course. 

The Management Group will:

• Establish effective governance and administration for the Rural Parliament

• Engage, involve and mobilise rural communities across Scotland

• Facilitate the development of the issues and agenda for the Rural Parliament

• Organise and deliver the inaugural event in 2014

• Monitor, evaluate and report the process and outcomes of the Rural Parliament’s first session

The Rural Parliament will bring together the people of rural Scotland and policy makers to enable better understanding, improved policy and action to address rural issues. It will sit every two years.

The Rural Parliament is not a formal part of government nor a legislative or decision making body, but will make recommendations based on the priorities identified by rural communities. Its core principals require it to be ‘rooted in and empowering of rural communities’ and ‘independent and politically neutral’. 

The Rural Parliament Management Group currently comprises representatives from Development Trusts Association Scotland, Scottish Community Alliance, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Community Land Scotland and Community Woodland Association.  The Management Group plan to invite a range of key organisations and representatives from rural communities to sit on an Advisory Group and help ensure the Rural Parliament is a success.  Many of those invited will have been actively involved in the early development of this initiative.  Representatives from key public bodies, including Scottish Government, will  also be invited to sit on the Group as observers.  

Feeding the Five Million

“Feeding the Five Million: what would it take for everyone in Scotland to eat well and sustainably?”

Nourish Scotland 2013 Conference, 3rd and 4th September, Queen Margaret University,Edinburgh.

It’s easy to make sweeping statements about what needs to happen globally, but harder to work out the details.  So, this conference is to talk and think about Scotland – a small, wealthy, well-governed country blessed with some productive soils and plenty of water, with skilled farmers and fishers, world-leading science and a strong social fabric.

And food banks. And a population which dies on average four years younger than the European average, with huge inequalities across Scotland.

This conference takes the form of a two-day enquiry.  Teams from different backgrounds will work together to explore these issues and produce a report which will subsequently be edited, published and disseminated widely.  Teams will have access to a variety of witnesses including people from all parts of the food system and academics, activists and specialists from a variety of fields.

 Full Conference Participants will need to be able to attend the full two days, which includes an evening session with a keynote speaker and a conference dinner.

For those unable to attend for the full two days, special tickets are available for the evening discussion and dinner on the evening of Tuesday 3rd September. This discussion will be chaired by Lesley Riddoch and feature a special guest from the Just Food project in New York and Robin McAlpine of the Jimmy Reid Foundation, initiator of the Scottish Common Weal project.

The conference fees will be flexible so that participants from different sectors can be included.

For more information or to register interest please email conference2013@nourishscotland.org.uk

Bookings can be made at the eventbrite website below: 

http://feedingthefivemillion.eventbrite.co.uk

Author: Jen Soriano, Yes Magazine, Jul 27, 2013

A World Without Landfills? It’s Closer Than You Think 

A short video of Rossano Ercolini’s achievements – click here

A short video of Nohra Padilla’s achievements – click here

There is a growing global movement to significantly reduce the amount of trash we produce as communities, cities, countries and even regions. It’s called the zero-waste movement, and it received a major boost this week as two of its leaders were awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize.

Nohra Padilla and Rossano Ercolini are two of the winners of this year’s Goldman Prize, which awards $150,000 to each of six grassroots environmentalists who have achieved great impact, often against great odds. On the surface, Padilla and Ercolini seem to have little in common. Padilla is a grassroots recycler—also known as a waste picker—from the embattled city of Bogotá, Colombia. Ercolini is an elementary school teacher from the rustic farmlands of Capannori, Italy.

Though their experiences are different, they share a common cause: organizing to reduce the amount of trash—everything from cans and bottles to cell phones and apple cores—that ends up buried in landfills or burned in incinerators.

What is zero waste?

Here in the United States zero waste is often thought of as a lifestyle choice, if it’s thought of at all. Blogs like Zero Waste Home and The Clean Bin Project attract a readership of thousands through tips on how to buy less, reuse more, and recycle and compost in the home. The popularity of these projects, along with the success of Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff, show a growing interest in reducing what we throw into dumpsters.

Zero waste systems are designed with the goal of eliminating the practice of sending trash to landfills and incinerators.

Padilla and Ercolini’s stories show that zero waste is not only a personal choice, but also an organized system that works at multiple levels including the community, municipality, nation, and region. Zero waste systems include:

composting, recycling, reuse, and education on how to separate materials into these categories;

door-to-door collection of recyclable and compostable stuff; swap meets, flea markets or freecycle websites to exchange reuseable goods and encourage people to buy less;

policy change, including bans on incineration and single-use plastic bags, and subsidies and incentives for recycling;

regulation of corporations to require them to buy back and recycle their products once they are used by consumers (glass soda bottles and tires are examples of products subject to this regulation in some countries).

Zero waste systems are designed with the goal of eliminating the practice of sending trash to landfills and incinerators. Not only is this possible, it’s already beginning to happen. Ercolini’s hometown of Capannori, Italy, has already achieved 82 percent recycling and reuse and is on track to bring that figure to 100 percent by 2020.

Taking on Europe’s incineration industry – watch short video here

Rossano Ercolini is an elementary school teacher. He began organizing against incinerators in the 1970s, when he learned of a plan to build one in Capannori. Concerned for the health of his students, Ercolini began a campaign to educate his community on the dangers of incineration, including how the burning of garbage releases particulates linked to asthma and other respiratory problems.

Over the course of the next 30 years, Ercolini led a David-versus-Goliath struggle, with education as his slingshot. In the 1990s, waste incineration was embraced by the Italian government as well as by big environmental organizations, all of whom bought into the premise that it was a safe and effective technology. Big business and the mafia also supported incineration because of the 20- to 30-year lucrative contracts and large government investments it involved.

The conjunction of economic and political interests behind incineration left citizens alone, not only to fight against incineration but also to develop sustainable alternatives. Ercolini worked for several years as a grassroots educator, inviting scientists and waste experts to give workshops to residents on the health effects of incineration and potential alternatives.

As a result, when the residents of Capannori succeeded in defeating the incinerator proposal, they also had gained the knowledge necessary to develop a better way of handling garbage. Ercolini himself was tapped to lead a local, publicly owned waste management company and began implementing a door-to-door waste collection system that maximized the quantity and quality of the recyclable materials recovered.

Soon after, Capannori became the first Italian municipality to declare a zero waste goal for 2020. Since then, Ercolini has helped to defeat 50 proposed incinerators and has also helped the zero waste movement to spread across Italy. Thanks to the Italian network Legge Rifiuti Zero, or the Zero Waste Alliance, and with the support of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, there are now 117 zero waste municipalities in Italy, with a population of about 3 million people.

“Incineration is no longer wanted or needed in these areas,” Ercolini says. “Instead, they have established comprehensive recycling and composting systems guided by zero waste goals. This has helped improve community health and has sparked strong collaborations between communities and local governments.”

Grassroots recyclers unite – watch short video here

Nohra Padilla is a third generation recycler. For decades her family has survived by salvaging plastic bottles, aluminum cans, paper scraps, and the like from dumps, curbside trash cans, and collection centers. They made a living by reselling these materials to junk shops and also to businesses, which used them as raw material to create new products ranging from blue jeans to paper.

In the 1980s, Padilla began organizing her fellow recycling workers, creating the first grassroots recycler cooperative in Bogotá. Since then she has helped to form the Asociación de Recicladores de Bogotá, or Bogotá Recyclers Association, where she now serves as executive director. The association includes 24 cooperatives representing 3,000 people. She also played an important role in forming and leading Colombia’s National Recyclers Association.

“Grassroots recycling is a key component of a zero waste system,” Padilla says. Through their network of cooperatives, grassroots recyclers in Bogotá recover 20 to 25 percent of all material thrown away by city residents. This amounts to about 100 times more recyclable material than is collected by the city’s large private recycling companies.

Padilla has shown how recycling can incorporate workers into unionized labor, with a clear agenda to reduce trash and carbon emissions.

In March the association won a milestone victory: Grassroots recyclers are now city employees. They will be paid $48 per ton of material they deliver to collection centers, and will be eligible for government pensions and health coverage.

“After years of battling for recognition from the Bogotá government, we will finally be treated as dignified workers and paid just like any large company would be,” Padilla says. “I believe this is a victory that can be replicated across Latin America.”

Padilla has achieved this success in the face of powerful political opponents, a violent environment for worker organizing, and climate subsidies that cut recyclers out of the picture. In 2009, for example, the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism awarded carbon credits to the Doña Juana landfill gas project. This project threatened the livelihoods of Bogotá’s 21,000 informal recyclers by making it more profitable to landfill waste than to recycle it, and by limiting access to recyclable materials.

Padilla and the Grassroots Recyclers Association worked to mitigate the impact of the project, but faced many challenges in making sure that their community benefits agreement was implemented. In contrast to large landfills like Doña Juana, Padilla and the association have created infrastructure to recycle waste instead of bury it. They raised nearly two million dollars, about 75 percent from outside funds and 25 percent co-financed by the association, to build the biggest grassroots-run recycling center in Latin America.

A future without landfills

The stories of these two organizers show how zero waste movements from around the world share common problems and goals, as well as a need to confront powerful opponents with a vested interest in the business of trash.

Both stories also demonstrate the potential of zero waste organizing to bring people together across issues and sectors. For example, Ercolini has organized at the intersection of food sovereignty and trash reduction, advocating for a “Zero Miles, Zero Waste” approach to promoting local food. Meanwhile, Padilla has shown how zero waste approaches, and recycling in particular, can incorporate previously excluded workers into unionized labor, with a clear agenda to reduce trash and carbon emissions.

Padilla and Ercolini’s work has created a model for building viable zero waste alternatives to landfills and incinerators. The struggles of the Colombian recyclers’ movement, and the Bogotá Recyclers Association in particular, serve as an inspiration to recyclers throughout Latin America and beyond.

Meanwhile, the example of the Zero Waste network in Italy is being copied in many other places in Europe, decreasing the popularity of and need for incineration and sparking the creation of a continent-wide organization that advocates for zero waste.

Phil Welsh – Housing volunteer and leader

Born: September 24, 1942; Died: July 12, 2013.

Phil Welsh, who has died aged 70, was a well-known figure in the Scottish housing movement, a founder member of West Whitlawburn Housing Co-operative (WWHC) in Cambuslang and the co-operative’s first chairperson. He was instrumental in transforming Whitlawburn and was well-known and loved in the Cambuslang area. He was awarded the MBE in 1996 for his services to voluntary housing.

Originally from Eastfield, he was schooled at the local St Brides School and was popular with both fellow pupils and teachers, with his wit and intelligence to the fore. He was an early settler in the newly-built Whitlawburn estate in 1968 and worked in the steelworks in Clydebridge, and the famous Hoover factory in Cambuslang. He was an active trade unionist in both places. He was also well known for his love of football and ran local amateur football teams, Clyde United and Eastfield United.

In the late 1980s, it was clear the Whitlawburn Estate was rapidly going downhill. Mr Welsh’s wife, Sadie, encouraged him to get involved with the local tenants association, and since then Whitlawburn has improved beyond recognition.

He was instrumental in the successful tenants’ ballot to transfer the housing stock from Glasgow City Council to the community-owned West Whitlawburn Housing Co-operative. He said at the time the first cheque he ever signed in his life was for £2.2m to buy the houses on behalf of WWHC while he only had 10p in his pocket, such was his humility.

The stunning transformation of the West Whitlawburn estate is all due to the vision, determination and sheer hard work of Mr Welsh and his colleagues who established the co-operative. Glasgow City Council was starved of funding at the time, the estate was crumbling, physically and socially, and something had to change. Step forward Mr Welsh and his colleagues who bravely took on the ownership and management of the housing stock, and set about the huge task of estate regeneration. Community ownership was born in Whitlawburn, and there was no looking back.

His leadership, drive and selflessness were essential in making the co-operative such an outstanding success. He was awarded the MBE in 1996 but would only accept the accolade if it was recognised that the award was not only for him personally, but was on behalf of all WWHC committee and staff. He had a nice chat with the Queen and put her right about a few things too in his inimitable style. He quipped that they were alike in that neither of them ever carried money.

Mr Welsh often said that housing was more about people than it was about bricks and mortar and he evangelised this philosophy wherever he spoke about housing. He had no time for institutionalised bureaucracy or ivory tower pontificators.

As a well-known figure around the Scottish housing movement, he had a reputation for speaking his mind as a passionate advocate for the housing co-operative model. He believed it was the best vehicle for tenant empowerment and community regeneration.

He espoused the values and principles of The International Co-operative Alliance. He instinctively shared the values of Robert Owen at New Lanark and The Rochdale Pioneers. Mr Welsh’s name was regularly mentioned as an inspiration in discussions on co-operatives from Singapore to Rio de Janeiro. The boy from Eastfield became known worldwide. One of his last WWHC engagements saw him speaking to local politicians during Co-operatives Fortnight 2013. The strapline for the event fortnight is “local, loved and trusted” and that is as true for Mr Welsh as it is for co-ops generally.

His reputation also led to other housing organisations seeking his advice and services. He was asked to join the committees of various other housing organisations, such as New Gorbals HA, Camlachie HA and Cadder HA. He gladly accepted these challenges and helped strengthen those organisations in their early years.

He also joined the committee of SHARE, the housing association training organisation, where he served for almost 17 years, two of them as chair. He was a passionate believer in the importance of training particularly for voluntary committee members and he was a regular attendee and contributor at SHARE’s annual conference at Peebles Hydro Hotel. He was always interested in the evening entertainment, particularly the karaoke. In the mid to late 1990s he was part of a great double act with the late John Butterly of Reidvale HA, when they regularly delivered an entertaining and informative training session on the role of the committee member in a housing co-operative/association for staff new to the housing sector.

He was highly intelligent with a tremendous human touch. He touched many people with his warmth, spirit and generosity. He will be very warmly remembered and it would be fitting that everyone toasts his amazing and hugely successful life, with a drop of his favourite tipple- a wee Jack Daniels and ice.

His family and WWHC have established The Phil Welsh Welfare Fund to help alleviate poverty and hardship locally, and help provide food parcels to those in greatest need.

He is survived by his wife Sadie, son Phil, granddaughter Lauren and sister Elizabeth. His other sister, Nora, died some years ago.

His life, work and success will remain as an enormous inspiration to the many people who were touched by his huge personality, warmth, generosity and his caring wisdom.

The Plunkett Foundation has been awarded £50,000 from the Prince’s Countryside Fund to promote community ownership and co-operative enterprise as one solution to the challenges facing rural Scottish communities.  

Plunkett Scotland aims to provide a comprehensive support service to rural communities throughout Scotland who wish to retain essential services, or develop new enterprises, through community ownership and co-operation. Examples could include the local shop, pub, petrol pumps, vital transport link, renewable energy, broadband, food or forestry based enterprises. Support will be provided by a network of trained mentor-advisers. 

Peter Couchman, Chief Executive of Plunkett Foundation, said: “The £50,000 over the next two years from the Prince’s Countryside Fund is great news for rural Scottish communities who are at risk of physical or social isolation following the loss of, or, for example, the threat to their village shop; as well as for communities wishing to explore other forms of community enterprise.”  

Peter continues, “The grant will enable aspiring community enterprises to benefit from the experience of a mentor who has first-hand knowledge of starting and running a business in the same sector, as well as facilitated visits to real-life enterprises in comparable communities, with opportunities for sharing, networking and asking the awkward questions.”

The Plunkett Foundation was established to help rural communities tackle the problems they face by working together through co-operative action. The project is intended to promote community ownership and co-operative enterprise as one solution to the challenges facing rural communities in Scotland. 

Plunkett Foundation extended its services to form Plunkett Scotland by merging with the Scotland based Community Retailing Network (CRN) in January this year to give Scotland’s rural communities greater access to Plunkett’s support to set up community-owned enterprise.

Author: Karen Suchek, NewStart, 29.07.13

Wherever you read the words ‘sharing economy’ you can guarantee they’ll be soon followed by the words Airbnb, TaskRabbit, Sorted, taskPandas, Lyft and a whole host of ever-increasing copycats.

All of these organisations use technology to connect those who have assets to those who want to use them. But it’s not only new technology that links them: they all promote themselves as embracing a set of values that favours access over ownership, anti-consumerism in the post-financial-crash world of austerity and rising poverty, and as vanguards of an economic revolution.

What I don’t understand is how any of these companies can be described as ‘sharing’: they all exchange services for money. Airbnb enables people to rent out rooms in their homes. TaskRabbit (USA), taskPandas (UK) and Sorted (UK) connect people who want odd jobs or errands done to people who will do them for a fee. Uber and Lyft work like a local taxi service but with community drivers.

These companies use smartphone apps to connect buyers and sellers of services. The only services the company provide is an online venue to bring both parties together and a fee transaction service on the PayPal model. All of the companies take a commission; Airbnb is savvy enough to take a fee from both guest and host. I don’t understand how this is sharing; it’s renting and cash for labour. Just old fashioned capitalism run by tech savvy entrepreneurs.

Aside from these companies being high tech and dressed up in ethical language, the other common denominator is that they provide ways to cheat the system. With TaskRabbit/Panda and Sorted you sign up to receive notifications of tasks on your smartphone and then bid in the hope you’ll get picked for the job. Obviously the cheaper you rent yourself out the more likely you’ll be to get picked. Very tempting in these cash-strapped times, but I have to wonder who in reality would go to the trouble of paying income tax on work like this. The same has to be asked of Airbnb hosts.

All of the sites make it clear that tax reporting is the responsibility of the service provider and all state they will release your personal information if legally required. With transactions being digitally recorded the taxman and the DWP might find them a very useful source of information.

What’s so sharing about this? Paying tax is participating in a sharing economy, dodging it is not.

Massive unemployment is fuelling a market whereby people are encouraged to undermine each other with cheaper bids for one-off jobs. In harsh times people are prepared to work without protection and for less than the minimum wage. The companies absolve themselves of all legal responsibility towards those providing and receiving the services, including health and safety and workers’ rights. The New Start April 2009 special on unemployment predicted an increase of illegal workers as unemployment rises. Is the ‘sharing economy’ nothing more than the high tech organisation of the black market to enable the wealthy to exploit the poor?

Forbes magazine calls the sharing economy a disruptive economic force in the USA and estimates the value flowing through it will reach $5bn this year. It’s not saying it’s a bad thing, just that it is disrupting major markets who cannot afford to ignore the phenomenon. One thing for certain is that these companies are making money. Airbnb was valued at $2.5bn earlier this year and the partners are likely to become the sharing economy’s first billionaires. Pretty serious stuff underneath that fluffy community marketplace mask it wears.

Any ‘sharing economy’ model where money changes hands can’t really contribute to regeneration: someone is always getting rich at the expense of the poor; employment rights are being dispensed with; local taxation is losing out; the health and safety of consumers is ignored. There are concerns that the massive success of Airbnb is contributing to gentrification and evidence that some hosts are avoiding tax and violating tenant laws in rent controlled homes.

There is a real sharing economy out there: Time banks are the most obvious way to share skills. Freecycle has been connecting those with goods to spare to those with no money for years; it’s low tech, but simple and effective. Couchsurfing has been doing what Airbnb does for nearly a decade and it’s always been free. For everything else there’s Craigslist, so low tech it’s positively ugly but also a repository of everything for which the human heart might yearn (no matter how disturbing).

Another great example of the real sharing economy is Peerby – it’s all about connecting people within their neighbourhoods. If you want to borrow something Peerby will ask the 100 closest lenders to you. If the item can’t be found they’ll extend the search, but keep it within cycling distance. No money changes hands (though they don’t object to muffins); it’s all built on trust. You’re unlikely to rip off someone if you might bump into them down the pub – conversely you’re quite likely to chat to someone you borrowed something from if you bump into them down the pub. Peerby is a strong advocate of community cohesion and environmental sustainability and the forward-thinking Dutch are happy to grant-fund it.

Resilient neighbourhoods are built on community cohesion, so only the real sharing economy can contribute to regeneration.Bring on the ‘real’ sharing economy

Author: Tom Peterkin,Scotsman

SCOTLAND’S landowners have warned the Scottish Government against breaking up their sporting estates, saying that the move could have a “disastrous” effect on rural communities.

The Duke of Roxburghe and other representatives of the nobility have taken the rare step of putting their heads above their parapets to express reservations about government moves to help individuals and communities buy land that has been in their hands for generations.

They say private ownership has led to real economic benefits for local communities, providing employment and investment. Some of the submissions highlight the benefit of private ownership to endangered species, while others say absolute right-to-buy proposals have “no place in any democratic system”.

The fact that around half of Scotland is owned by just 500 people has long been a matter for fierce political debate, with land-reform campaigners arguing for a redistribution of countryside ownership.

A Land Reform Review Group (LRRG) has been set up by the Scottish Government to examine ways of increasing community ownership of the land, with an interim report suggesting earlier this year that a Land Agency could be set up to help negotiate land purchases.

In a separate move, the environment secretary, Richard Lochhead, has said that a forthcoming review of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act will look at granting an absolute right-to-buy for tenant farmers. That would give them the right to buy-out landowners, even if they are unwilling to sell.

But now a host of Scottish aristocratic families have made their views known in a series of documents published this week, defending their role as custodians of their estates.

In his submission to the Scottish Government, the Duke of Roxburghe said he was “disappointed” that the Land Reform Group appeared to concentrate on community ownership, when private ownership delivered “social, economic and environmental benefits”.

The duke owns the Roxburghe Estate, an enterprise with a £10.1 million turnover with Floors Castle, near Kelso, at its heart. The estate employs 164 people and includes the Roxburghe Hotel and a championship golf course.

Referring to an absolute right-to-buy which would increase the number of owner-occupier farms, the duke added: “Radical proposals that threaten private property rights and which impact adversely on private enterprise, investment and development or which deprive young aspiring farmers the opportunity to get a firm foothold on the farming ladder would be immensely damaging in our view and act against the interests of the communities involved.”

Roxburghe Estates emphasised that it had created employment which benefited the community, through its sporting estates, golf course, hotel and other enterprises. That theme was taken up by other lairds, who argued that breaking up estates would do little for employment prospects or investment in the countryside.

In its submission, Seafield and Strathspey Estates, which has the Earl of Seafield at its head, warned against the “fragmentation” of the land.

“Flora and fauna live in a habitat not bounded by ownership issues and the larger footprint of estate management allows government policy – including programmes for the benefit of endangered species and habitats, such as capercaillie, black grouse, native woodland, moorland etc – to be implemented more easily and cost-effectively than would be the case in fragmented ownership,” the estate’s submission said.

On the absolute right-to-buy, James Carnegy-Arbuthnot, director a family company that owns the 3,250-acre Balnamoon Estate, near Brechin, described it as a “highly vexatious proposal in the eyes of landowners”.

He added: “This amounts to the dispossession of land from one person to the advantage of another and has no place in any democratic system. Remove this threat and discussion on other land reform issues will become easier.”

Atholl Estates, which oversees 145,000 acres in Highland Perthshire, was critical of increasing community ownership as a means of redistributing land, saying: “It certainly should not be used as a tool to politically engineer property ownership away from one group of people to another as this fundamentally undermines Scotland’s credibility as a nation that respects the private sector, free markets and the protection of property rights as a cornerstone of human rights and financial security.”

Other lairds were keen to shed the pariah status that some critics have conferred on the landed classes, emphasising the benefits brought to the community through responsible land management.

A document prepared by the Douglas and Angus Estates, which are owned by the family of the former Tory prime minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home and currently under the stewardship of David, the 15th Earl of Home, remarked that the LRRG would be a “positive step, if it can help to dispel many of the popular misconceptions that landowners are villains and estates contribute little of benefit to life of rural Scotland”.

Douglas and Angus Estates argued an absolute right-to-buy would be “disastrous” for rural communities and the current ownership arrangement put the estates at the heart of community life.

Kinnordy Estates, Kirriemuir, owned by Lord Lyell, the former Tory minister, noted in a submission that it provided housing for the local letting market and land for the local golf course.

But other responses underlined the controversial nature of the lairds’ position. A submission by land-reform campaigner Andy Wightman said: “I want to live in a land where class distinctions are no longer legitimised by the recognition of aristocratic titles and where the principle of equality underpins access to land rights… I want to live in a country that finally puts an end to the centuries of landed power and returns the land to the people of Scotland – both men and women.”

The Scottish Government’s LRRG was established to build on the work carried out by the Labour-led Scottish Executive, which passed a Land Reform Act around ten years ago enshrining a community right- to-buy. The Review Group is looking at strengthening those measures.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Scottish ministers previously announced that a review of agricultural holdings legislation would be undertaken within 18 months of the Agricultural Holdings Act 2012 coming into force. The timetable for that review will be announced soon after the summer.”

“The review, once undertaken, will consider recommendations made by the Tenant Farming Forum, which is expected in the autumn.

“This will cover matters such as rent reviews; succession; compensation; and provision of fixed equipment.

“The rural affairs secretary has also confirmed an opportunity will now be provided for the industry to express views on the absolute right-to-buy as part of the review.”

What the landowners think:

‘We welcome the Land Reform Review’

Douglas and Angus estates – owned by Douglas-Home family, whose current head is David, 15th Earl of Home, pictured, “welcome the Land Reform Review as a positive step if it can helpto dispel many of the popular misconceptions that landowners are villains and estates contribute little of benefit to life of Rural Scotland. There is a huge amount of ‘popular’ criticism banded about both by the local and national Press and by government vilifying landowners in Scotland for not letting land, alienating communities, taking and not giving anything back – which we can only assume is the reason behind the current review?”

‘Land must remain with those qualified for the task’

The agent for Kinnordy Estates, Kirriemuir, owned by Lord Lyell, former Tory minister said: “In the instance of Kinnordy Estate and its locality to the town of Kirriemuir, I do not believe there is justification for the wider public community to have a stake in ownership, governance, management or use of the land… land and estate management must remain in the hands of those qualified for the task (by merit of both qualification and experience) as demonstrated on Kinnordy Estate. The Estate invests heavily in the local community – by way of investment in people, businesses and and property. It employs six full-time staff. The families of these workers, as well as those occupying estate farms and houses help support local schools and businesses, and form part of the wider community.

The estate supports local contractors and tradesmen (joiners, plumbers, electricians cleaners, fuel stations, tyre services, etc), providing benefit to the local community, on a daily basis.”

‘Responsible use should be the determining factor’

The Duke of Roxburghe said: “Responsible use of land whether in private, public or community ownership, should be the determining factor and we are disappointed that the remit of the Review Group concentrates so heavily on expansion of community ownership.

“Private membership can and does deliver, as we demonstrate in our evidence, significant social, economic and environmental benefits.”

Roxburghe Estates argues that its activities have created employment which benefits the community, through its sporting estates, golf course, hotel and other commercial enterprises.

The duke added that the proposals threatening private property rights would impact adversely on private enterprise, investment and development. He also felt they would hit young farmers, depriving them of the chance to get a firm foothold on the rural ladder. This would, he said, be immensely damaging and act against the interests of the communities involved.

‘Landowners do not harm communities’

Seafield and Strathspey Estates, the head of which is the Earl of Seafield commented: “There is a myth presented by individuals sponsoring land reform in Scotland that ‘too many acres are owned by too few individuals.’ It may be true that ‘many acres are owned by few individuals’ but there is very little evidence presented to show that this is a bad thing.

“The argument that landowners today continue to wield power to the detriment of local communities is false.”

The estate’s submission said that the fact that wildlife could live in “a habitat not bounded by ownership issues” was also a benefit.

‘So much land is unproductive’

James Carnegy-Arbuthnot, director of a family company that owns 3,250 Balnamoon Estate, near Brechin, said: “Although I have no evidence to support my opinion, I expect that one of the principal reasons why land in Scotland is owned by fewer people than anywhere else in Europe is because so much of the land is unproductive wilderness.”

He added: ”The Scottish rural economy is fragile enough without legislation being introduced for highly political reasons which will act as a major disincentive to investment in rural areas.”

 ‘Privately owned land is employed productively’ – Sarah-Jane Laing is director of policy and parliamentary affairs at Scottish Land and Estates

Scotland’s private landowners have a clear vision for the future of rural Scotland – to help build and sustain a healthy economy where private and community enterprises can flourish in harmony.

Our 2,500 members, across Scotland, believe this is the most productive way forward and would welcome the creation of a progressive political and legislative environment where this approach is encouraged.

Scotland’s landowners do not oppose community right to buy. Many of our members were disappointed the Land Reform Review Group appeared to focus almost exclusively on this issue rather than explore other areas of policy improvement available such as effective community planning, increased affordable housing and better local decision-making processes. We support a wide variety of community involvement and ownership models and also the principle of extending the existing community right-to-buy provisions to urban areas. Our position remains the sale of an asset should be on the basis of willing seller, willing buyer, and would not support any form of enforced asset transfer.

We were looking to the LRRG to formulate ideas which support communities in crystallising opportunities for sustainable development while at the same time reject ideas which would impact adversely on private ownership and investment to the detriment of those communities affected – such as an absolute right to buy.

We believe responsible use of land – whether in public, private or community ownership – should be the determining factor in the policy landscape.

Land in the ownership of private organisations is overwhelmingly employed productively. It benefits local communities through tourism, job creation, agriculture, housing and more. Private and community ownership should not be viewed as opposite ends of a spectrum – both ensure the viability of our rural areas.

Resilient’s Social Investment events

Resilient Scotland is committed to working across the 13 eligible JESSICA local authority areas* over the next three years.  In each area there will be a Resilient Social Investment event.  The first events will be held in September, in Edinburgh and Dundee.

Following these events, interested parties will be invited to complete an Expression of Interest form outlining their investment proposal.  If your investment has potential, the Resilient team will work with you to put together a suitable investment package.

The first of these events will be held in Dundee and Edinburgh at the beginning of September, details below

Tuesday 3 September, Tayside Deaf Hub, Dundee, 18.00 – 20.00 

Book your place for Dundee here

Thursday 5 September, Out of the Blue,  Edinburgh 18.00  – 20.00

Book your place for Edinburgh here

Not in Edinburgh or Dundee?  If you are an established organisation looking for investment and working in another of the 13 eligible areas we still want to hear from you.  Please click here

Author: Sunday Mail, 4th Aug

Football supporters could be first in line to buy their clubs if they are put up for sale under a proposal by the Scottish Greens.

The party wants fan groups to be given first refusal on any sales to make clubs more representative of communities and to prevent them becoming “an extension of their owners’ egos”.

Under current right-to-buy laws rural groups have the right to buy their land and the Greens want to bring an amendment to the Scottish Government’s forthcoming Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill to extend it to supporters’ groups.

Many clubs across Europe are owned or partly owned by fans and this week it was agreed that fans’ group Pars United will take over Dunfermline Athletic, which has been in administration.

Also last week, Manchester United Supporters Trust had their application to have Old Trafford stadium listed as an asset of community value approved by Trafford Council, reducing the possibility that the stadium could be sold by the club’s owners, or that the club could move to another ground.

Green MSP Alison Johnstone said: “Scottish football continues to be beset by financial and organisational problems. Just since the last election, three iconic Scottish teams have found themselves in trouble: Rangers, Dunfermline and Hearts.

“Long-suffering fans deserve responsible owners, and it’s increasingly understood that fans themselves are the best stewards of their own clubs. It’s time to give a red card to the mismanagement from the people who’ve been running our national game.

“It’s time for a new team to take control in the game – the supporters who are the game’s lifeblood.

“It won’t be easy to find the money, especially for bigger clubs, but just knowing they’ll be first in line would make supporters’ trusts much more important in the eyes of the ordinary fans as they’d be able to position themselves as the next owners of the club.

“In the long term, clubs of all sizes will only thrive on and off the pitch when they are firmly rooted in their communities.”

The party said they will consult widely on the proposal which has already won the backing of Supporters Direct, an organisation that promotes fan involvement in clubs.

Chief executive David Lampitt said: “Fans are more and more involved in bidding for clubs but too often they are the last resort when a club has hit rock bottom and is insolvent.

“Fans should have the right to buy their club before the wheels come off. We’ve successfully argued that the right to bid for a ground – as Manchester United Supporters Trust secured this week – is an important step, but the club itself is even more important as a community asset and should be protected.”

The Common Weal website

Common Weal is an emerging movement which is developing a vision for economic and social development in Scotland which is distinct and different from the political orthodoxy that dominates politics and economics in London.

It is based on the conviction that we will get better outcomes for both society and individuals if we emphasise mutuality and equity rather than conflict and inequality.

All of this can be captured in one simple phrase: to build more we must share more.

It comes from the old Scots term, which carries the meanings of both ‘shared wealth’ and ‘our wellbeing is common to us all’. These values are strong both in Scottish history and in contemporary Scottish life.

Many people who support a Common Weal vision support independence, but some don’t. The aim is to create a programme for the economic and social transformation of Scotland. That programme will outline what powers are needed to achieve change and where they are held. It is then for others to explain how they would achieve this vision in their preferred constitutional outcome.