The dispute between the Duddingston Village Conservation Society and the National Trust for Scotland centres around a parcel of land in the village known as the Community Land. Below are a series of extracts from the village newsletter – The Paddock – which sets out the community’s position and then a statement from NTS which sets out their position.

From The Paddock – The Newsletter of Duddingston Village – Spring 2011

CAN WE TRUST THE TRUST?

Many of you will know the long standing relationship which we have with the National Trust for Scotland, given its role as Trustee of the McNiven Bequest, and as owners of the Community Land. The Executive Committee has been in discussion with the NTS over the last few weeks, following their own review and reorganisation. Some early proposals which have come from the NTS over the future of the Community Land have caused us concern. We understand that the new Board of Trustees is to consider this and other property matters at its meeting on Thursday 14th April. In advance of this our Chairman has written in the following terms to Sir Kenneth Calman, the new Chair of the NTS.

“Dear Sir Kenneth

Welcome to your very important role as Chairman of the National Trust for Scotland. The Duddingston Village Conservation Society has had many dealings with the Trust over the years. I have to say the experience has not always been a positive one from our perspective.

Your recent interview in the NTS magazine highlighted the importance you placed on listening, and taking heed of what you are told, and on building better relations with communities. Writing on behalf of a community which feels very badly let down by the Trust, I hope that your new approach will improve matters significantly. Chrissie McNiven was a longstanding resident of Duddingston Village, the indefatigable Secretary of the Duddingston Village Preservation Society (as we were called then) and protector and supporter of the village and its history. She left her house in the village to the care of the National Trust for Scotland so that “by its retention, or in some other means, the NTS could associate with the village of Duddingston and its history”.

For over 30 years, the NTS has been the guardian of this bequest, and has, with a few minor wobbles, upheld its financial guardianship honourably. The house was sold and the subsequent McNiven Bequest funds have grown in its care. The funds have been applied to many village projects over the years – restoring the Caithness paving in the village, contributing to the funding of the ‘conservation-style’ village lighting, and restoration of the Manse, Dr Neil’s Garden and the Thomson Tower. We have much to be thankful to Miss McNiven for – in her lifetime and beyond.

In the year 2000, sadly following the death April Johnson-Marshall who also committed many hours to the work of the Society and the village, the opportunity arose to bring together the beneficence of these two remarkable ladies. In memory of their mother, the Johnson-Marshall family offered an off-market sale of what is now called the Community Land, so that the land might be made available for the amenity of the village (which had long since lost its village green) and to protect the land in perpetuity from development. These conditions were critical for the family to agree to sell the land. The NTS agreed to use a proportion of the McNiven Bequest for this purchase (along

with a neighbouring house), and for its future upkeep.

Since then, unfortunately, our relationship with NTS has deteriorated; agreed actions are forgotten or ignored; letters have been unanswered, and opportunities for positive joint working have been disregarded. Now the corporate memory of the NTS is fading. Its financial difficulties are foremost in Trustees’ minds. The Trust views a piece of land in its ownership, in an attractive part of Edinburgh and with little national heritage value, as fair game for increasing its General Income Fund. All this irrespective of the reasons behind the

bequest by Miss McNiven, the conditions of the Johnson Marshall family on the purchase of the land, and the NTS Trustees’ duty as guardians of the bequest.

Recent discussions with your staff have shown that the NTS is prepared to consider reneging on the trust Miss McNiven placed in it, and use her legacy to dig itself out of the financial hole it finds itself in – not just by selling the land, but also by developing it – with an initial proposal shown to us of up to 5 houses on the walled garden which has been restored with immense effort by community volunteers over the last 8 years. We have already made it clear that we would regard this as legally dubious, and morally reprehensible. It would also surely be reputationally disastrous for NTS which by its very nature is dependent on bequests. The Trust could risk cutting the very rope upon which it must rely to get it out of the financial chasm in which it finds itself. We are given to understand that this matter is to come before the next meeting of the Board of Trustees, and that it also forms part of the wider property portfolio review of the Trust. I am writing to draw the

Trustees’ attention to the damage which has already been done to the Trust by its poor management of affairs here in Duddingston Village, and to ask that you and all of the Trustees take full account of this as you consider the NTS future involvement with the Duddingston

Community Land project.

We would very much welcome the opportunity to make a brief presentation to the Board on this matter and our future relationship if this can be arranged. Our aim is to have a fruitful and mutually beneficial relationship.

Yours sincerely

Dr Malcolm Windsor

Chairman

Duddingston Village Conservation Society”

———————————————————————————————————————————–

From The Paddock – Autumn 2011

THE COMMUNITY LAND – AN UPDATE

We had an excellent response from members in our request for members tolobby NTS Trustees in July. They were left in no doubt about the community’s deep unhappiness at, and disapproval of, the actions they are taking. However the Board of Trustees is still determined to push ahead with proposals to remove the restrictions on the McNiven Bequest, and to sell the land to us at market value. The Executive Committee therefore decided that it was important to take professional advice, both on the question of the McNiven Funds and on the valuation of the land. We consulted solicitors and an appropriate land valuer and their reports have now been lodged with the NTS.

In respect of the value of the land – which the NTS has offered to sell to us for £75,000 – our valuer concludes that, given the burdens placed upon it when it transferred to NTS ownership, it has a “de minimus” value. Indeed it will require funds to run and to maintain it as a Community garden.

However, of much greater matter is the question of the legality of NTS requisitioning the McNiven Bequest for its own purposes. The detailed legal advice which we have received is that these funds should properly be applied in accordance with Miss McNiven’s wishes.

We believe that, in the light of this advice, a copy of which we have passed to the NTS, the decision taken by the NTS Board earlier this year to divert these funds away from Duddingston must be reconsidered.

The NTS and DVCS remain, therefore, very far apart in their expectations but the DVCS’s determination is undimmed. Our Chairman, Malcolm Windsor, has sought a meeting with the Chairman and the Chief Executive of the NTS in an effort to reach a more appropriate settlement of affairs than the NTS is currently prepared to consider

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

From The Paddock – Spring 2012

THE MCNIVEN BEQUEST AND THE COMMUNITY LAND

Every time we issue a Paddock newsletter, this section begins ’……..we hope to hear from the NTS soon…….‘ this time in response to our letter to them of November 2011 challenging their legal interpretation of the McNiven Bequest. It looked like this edition would be no different, however just as we were about to go to press we received a very disappointing and dismissive response from the NTS Chief Executive on which we are now seeking legal advice. We have asked for that advice to be available in time for a full report on the DVCS and the NTS position to be presented to the AGM. You are strongly encouraged to attend to give the Executive Committee guidance and support in its future discussions with the Trust.  In the meantime the NTS has undertaken some work on the Land to address drainage problems – as have our own volunteers, but it is likely that some further remedial work will be necessary. 

The DVCS were very pleased to offer a small grant to the Field Group to help it become established. Anyone visiting the land will see how well the two projects are developing together. We look forward to continued joint  development once the uncertainties imposed by the NTS on the Community Land are removed.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

From The Paddock – Autumn 2012

NTS and the McNiven Bequest

DVCS has formally submitted a complaint to the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) over the actions by the National Trust for

Scotland in relation to their handling of the McNiven Bequest. After an initial assessment of the case presented by DVCS, OSCR has

commented that the matter ‘warrants further inquiry’. That inquiry is currently being carried out and we await OSCR’s conclusions.

 ————————————————————————————————————————–

In response to various statements and communications from local people in Duddingston (some of which are included above), Jim Whyteside, Head of Communications at NTS issued this statement of rebuttal: 

I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that there is absolutely no question of the Trust undermining its core purpose – what we are doing is following through the recommendations of the independent review conducted in 2010 by Sir George Reid and divesting ourselves of small properties and plots of lands that have no heritage significance and do not actually meet our core purpose.   We do not know what Mr. Marshall is referring to when he mentions ‘several examples’ save for two particular sites – a plot of land in Duddingston and Suntrap Garden, both in Edinburgh.  If I may, I would like to describe the background related to each property and explain why our Trustees have decided that they have no place in our portfolio.  I also have to take issue with Mr. Marshall’s suggestion that the Trust is ‘taking over’ the funds from a bequest.

Duddingston

We have offered Duddingston Village Conservation Society (DVCS) the option of purchasing land outright from the Trust in order to secure its use for local amenity purposes. The offer follows on from the strategic decision taken by our Trustees to re-evaluate ownership of holdings which have little or no heritage value and concentrate the charity’s resources on properties with heritage significance.

The three quarters of an acre plot in question rises up the side of Arthur’s Seat from Duddingston Village, and comprises the former ‘paddock’, ‘tennis court’ and an allotment.

The plot was originally purchased by the Trust (along with a neighbouring property) in 1999 and is primarily used as a local amenity with limited access for the general public. The Trust’s 30-year involvement with Duddingston Village originates with a legacy from the late Miss Christina McNiven. Her house was given to the Trust, and was put up for sale so that the proceeds could be invested by us to establish a fund to support our charitable conservation objectives.  

Although Ms McNiven never asked that the Trust do more than associate itself with the village and its history, the charity has devoted a significant proportion of monies generated from the seedcorn of her estate to local projects. Over the years this has resulted in gifts made to the village church for traffic calming, allocations to Dr Neil’s Garden Trust (which cares for another garden elsewhere in Duddingston), including the wages of a part-time gardener, and refurbishment of Thomson’s Tower. 

Following the Trust’s decision to divest itself of property and to use remainder of the funds resulting from our investment of the original bequest (a bequest made directly to the Trust and not to the Village Conservation Society) on projects of national significance, the Conservation Society has raised the matter with OSCR, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.  We have co-operated fully with OSCR and provided evidence that the Trust’s position is correct.   Our proposal is to put the site on the market with title burdens to restrict its use to a civic amenity (i.e. making it impossible to use the land for housing development) with an offer of first refusal to the Village Conservation Society.

Blog from Land Action Scotland

Since it became clear in mid-November 2012 that neither the Applecross Trust nor the Mount Stuart Trust were interested in admitting a wider membership to the respective companies, we took the decision to suspend any further campaigning on the topic. There was, however, one outstanding issue. The Mount  Stuart Trust had never responded to the applications for membership. It was clear that, following changes that the Trust had made to its constitution, that they would be accepting none of the applications but yet we waited.

On 29 April 2013, the Mount Stuart Trust wrote to all applicants (including many on Bute and the local MSP Michael Russell) to inform them that their applications had been refused. The Trust issued a media release with the news and details of three new members who are to be appointed as Directors of the company.

In response, Andy Wightman, co-ordinator of the Land Action Scotland campaign issued the following statement.

“I am disappointed that Mount Stuart Trust has turned down all the applications for membership that were made last October. Far from making the Trust more democratic, the Board has decided to restrict membership to a maximum of twelve and permit the Marquess of Bute (a tax-exile who does not even live in the UK) to appoint four of the Directors.

A charity that owns land on this scale purportedly for the public interest should be open to the public to join as members. The issue is now in front of the Land Reform Review Group since legislative change is now the only way to force these exclusive charities to properly represent and serve the interests of the residents of Bute and the wider public.”

These comments have been reported in the Buteman here.

Art of Hosting website

Within Scotland particularly, a number of developments are offering a unique opportunity to shape the future of the country. Developments such as the Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill and the Regeneration Strategy offer us the opportunity – and the responsibility- to move from consumers of services to citizens, who have an active role to play in shaping key decisions at local and national levels. A commitment to public sector reform has come with the recognition that public services need to do things differently, collaboratively, and with communities. However, our institutions must undergo significant change if they are to deliver effectively for us, and with us. Meanwhile across the country, networks for change across all sectors are forming and growing, which provide alternatives as to how Scotland can thrive.

If we are to realise this potential we need new ways of leading, of organising, and of operating which create shared and collaborative values, which enable participation from all stakeholders, and which can harness the collective intelligence of Scotland’s citizens to realise true systemic change.

The Art of Hosting philosophy and practice is coming to Scotland. Here is a video that gives a flavour of what the Art of Hosting is all about, whether your context is community, business, or public services…

Blog from Greener Leith –  Leith Walk: Consultation results so good they can be ignored entirely.

Council officials from the “co-operative council” don’t seem to be cooperating.

It’s been several weeks since the council announced its draft proposals for improving Leith Walk, following an extensive public consultation process which hundreds of people took part in.

At the time, council officials highlighted how much they valued the feedback they received, saying: “The Council has been delighted with the quality of feedback received through consultation, which highlighted a range of design concepts that could improve the scheme.”

And in the same statement, Councillor Lesley Hinds, Transport and Environment Convener, added: “We had some very useful feedback in our consultation and one of the main things people are keen to see in the final design is for pedestrians and cyclists to be better accommodated. The most challenging section for us in terms of delivering this is at the southern end, around London Road.”

And so councillors waved through a report with a draft design for the northern half of Leith Walk, and pledged to seek extra funding for the “difficult” southern half.

But many people who looked at the detail of the draft design for the northern half of Leith Walk have been disappointed.

Even though everyone – even the council officials – had apparently accepted that there is real public support, and indeed a policy imperative, to improve the whole street for pedestrians and cyclists, the proposed design for the northern half of the street differs very little from the old pre-tram design – a design that we know is dangerous and unpleasant for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Despite officer pledges that they’d publish all the consultation response in full, we ended up having to put in an FOI request to try to get hold of all the consultation responses – thinking that perhaps that council officials knew something we didn’t.

After all, in public meetings, officials were often keen to talk up the difficulty they had balancing “competing” uses on the street, even though it seemed to almost everyone  else that there was far more consensus than disagreement about what people would like to see.

Were there other voices in this discussion that we weren’t aware of, that council officers were too discreet to reveal?

And after a bit of FOI too-ing and fro-ing, and the threat of a legal review to their first response, officials have indeed published all the consultation responses they received on their website.

They make interesting reading. Primarily because there are is virtually no-one opposing cycle lanes, or arguing that the design of the street should be changed to reduce traffic congestion.

And on the other hand the vast majority of people and organisations that responded to the consultation support big changes to the design of the street to make it safer.

Despite this, the draft design for the northern half of Leith Walk still includes a remarkable number of poor design choices, including these blatant fails… To read more about these ‘blatant fails’ go tp Greener Leith by clicking here

Susan Smith, Third Force News, 2nd may 2013

CHARITIES this week called for the Scottish charity regulator to rethink rushed guidance on the role of charities in the independence referendum.

The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulators (OSCR) has published draft guidance for charity trustees on the referendum which appears to imply that charities cannot support a particular yes or no outcome in the referendum.

The confusing seven-page advice document, which the regulator plans to finalise by the end of the month, contradicts what many charities, some of whom were involved in a recent meeting with OSCR on the subject, believed to be the case.

The role of charities in politics has always been controversial. Charities are not allowed to be political parties or to support political parties. However, they regularly get involved in election campaigns by encouraging politicians to back policies that are in their charity’s interest.

“This guidance is conflating the worry about charities getting involved in overtly political activity and supporting political parties with becoming involved in something that has manifestly significant implications for everybody on every level, taking it beyond the realm of politicians,” said Angus Hardie of the Scottish Community Alliance, who attended the recent meeting on the issue.

“If the outcome of the referendum is clearly going to be in the interests of a charity’s aims and objectives then it seems strange to forbid them from becoming involved in that debate.”

The document, which the regulator claims is designed to encourage charities to get involved in the debate, states that charities can participate in the referendum debate only as long as they are confident it furthers their charitable purposes and will not have a negative impact on their reputation. It also discourages charities from getting involved in the debate in areas beyond their remit.

It states: “It seems unlikely to OSCR that supporting or opposing the prospect of Scottish independence as a whole can be easily linked to the furtherance of charitable purposes.”

However, speaking to TFN this week, OSCR’s own chief executive David Robb, who admitted that the document was still in draft format, suggested the opposite.

“What we’re trying to do here is encourage participation in this agenda because we know that many charities will want to do that, but obviously trustees will want to be careful that they don’t overstep the mark,” Robb told TFN.

“What we’re saying is not that it can’t happen but that trustees should think carefully, consider what their constitution permits, consider what their charitable purpose is, and consider the risk to their business and reputation. If they’ve done all of that responsibly and still conclude that it’s in the best interests of their charity to actively campaign for one outcome or another, then we think that’s legitimate.”

Charities, however, have said the guidance is confusing and won’t reassure trustees at all.

Andy Myles from Scottish Environment Link, said: “The OSCR guidance could do with considerable shortening to make it clear that charities might within limitations campaign for a yes or no vote should they so choose.

“OSCR should be encouraging charities to take part in Scottish political discussions and pointing out that it doesn’t necessarily mean that have to take sides.”

Martin Sime, chief executive of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, said that the sector had significant concerns about the document and called for a rethink.

“This draft guidance fails to clarify the issue for trustees and actually muddies the water,” said Sime.

“Also, we are unconvinced about the need to rush formal guidance out and we’d like OSCR to take the time to get this right.

“Trustees should know, quite simply, that they can fully engage in the referendum debate to advance the interests of the people they serve.”

Charities have until 15 May to tell OSCR what they think of the guidance. Responses can be emailed to  info@oscr.org.uk

Ian Cooke has been appointed as vice-chairperson on the Land Reform Review Group, following the decision of Professor James Hunter to step down for personal reasons.

The Review Group, chaired by Dr Alison Elliot, is overseeing a wide ranging review of land reform in Scotland with the key aim of delivering a more successful Scotland with stronger communities and economic growth.

Mr Cooke will bring to the group excellent knowledge and experience in community regeneration and development.

Dr Elliot said:

“It’s been a privilege working with Jim on the Land Reform Review Group. He’s kept our eyes firmly on the challenges of land reform and reminded us continually of our heritage. He has brought a unique kind of insight to our task and we are grateful for the abiding contribution he has made to our investigations.  

“We now look forward to carrying on our work with Ian, who has already made an impact as an adviser to the group and whose experience in community development in urban and rural contexts will enrich the scope of our review.”

Professor Hunter said:

“Due to personal reasons, I regret I am having to stand back from the land review group but wish it well with its deliberations given the importance of the land reform agenda to Scotland. I was pleased to be able to contribute to its work to date. 

“I very much welcome Ian’s appointment which will ensure the community sector’s voice is heard loud and clear in the context of providing the radical ideas the Scottish Government is looking to get from the Land Reform Review Group.”

Ian Cooke said:

“I am delighted to be asked to join the Land Reform Review Group and to be able to build on my role to date as an Advisor. The review presents an exciting opportunity to build on previous land reform, and the work of the LRRG can potentially make a crucial contribution to a future, successful Scotland.  I look forward to being part of the Land Reform Review Group and contributing to the challenge of getting land reform right.”

It is anticipated that the Land Reform Review Group will report in a series of stages to Scottish Ministers, providing consideration of what the outcomes of land reform should be and what reforms are required. By the end of 2013 the Scottish Government would expect a report on any legislative changes that are required to allow this to be taken forward.

The Standhill wind turbine controversy has taken a new twist. The application for a 74m high turbine by local farmer Jim Shanks was refused by councillors last month. But he has passed on the proposals to Community Energy Scotland (CES), who are to gauge public support in Denholm and Ancrum before deciding whether to appeal the council’s decision.

The move would see Denholm and Ancrum communities taking ownership of the turbine and reaping any financial benefits from that, while paying Mr Shanks an agreed fee of rent which would be determined by CES. Mr Shanks said: “Out of respect of those who have supported me through what have been at times, very difficult circumstances, I have offered the appeal to the community of Denholm and Ancrum.  I’ve contacted Community Energy Scotland (CES) and informed them of my decision and they would manage the appeal. The benefits to householders in the Denholm area are considerable over the next 25 years.”

However, any appeal would only go ahead should there be support from the local communities. A public meeting has been arranged by Denholm Community Council where representatives from CES will be in attendance to give a presentation on how the scheme would work. Community council chairman Sid Huddart said: “The timescale for this is quite short, but this is too big an issue to be decided by just a few people so we’re giving the people of Denholm the opportunity to see if this is something they would like to see happen.”

The application was refused by members of the planning committee on the grounds that it would have an adverse impact on the landscape, contravened policy and was rejected by the Ministry of Defence. It attracted 300 objections with 90 indications of support. One of the groups strongly opposed to the plans was the Minto Hills Conservation Group. 

Chairman David Walmsley told the Hawick News this week: “My reaction to this is one of great reservation. It was said by officials and councillors at the planning meeting that it was too large and in the wrong place and that is exactly our thoughts.” 

He added: “It doesn’t really matter to us who takes it to appeal. If they want the community involved then fine but the appeal by the Scottish Government Reporter won’t take that into account because community benefit is not a material planning consideration and is ruled out.”

Grow your own

Plans to simplify and overhaul Scotland’s allotment rules were announced last week.

Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead has launched a consultation to consider the shape of future allotment legislation.

Among the questions being asked are:

• Should councils be required to provide people in their area within a specified timeframe

• Should councils have a duty to provide a specific number of allotments in their area per head of population

Mr Lochhead said:

“Growing your own food is continuing to grow in popularity in Scotland and this goes hand in hand with an increasing desire to know where our food comes from.

“Allotments provide a range of benefits including better health, an opportunity to learn new skills, and an understanding of where food comes from – not forgetting the chance to eat the fruits of your labour.

“We’re committed to helping people to grow their own food and this consultation will consider what changes should be made to the existing legislation to make it simpler and fit for today’s community needs.

“Many communities have expressed a desire to get back to nature and more involved with growing their own food and that’s exactly what we’re working to make possible.”    

Consultation details

In his latest book Local Dollars, Local Sense, Michael Shuman makes the case for local alternatives to the global financial system. Clare Goff, for New Start magazine, interviews him about how to create the infrastructure for local investment. 

THE SUBTITLE OF YOUR BOOK IS ‘HOW TO SHIFT YOUR MONEY FROM WALL STREET TO MAIN STREET AND ACHIEVE REAL PROSPERITY’. HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS HAPPEN?

We need to abandon one very widely-used practice in economic development – the attraction of corporate business – and embrace three new ones. The effort to attract and attain non-local business is an obsession. In the United States it is synonymous with economic development. People may understand that there is another way but it is still widely practiced, not only in subsidies but in time. Every hour of economic development time put into this is an hour not available for creating real prosperity by better means.

The three principles I urge people to take on are:

MAXIMISE THE PERCENTAGE OF JOBS IN LOCALLY-OWNED BUSINESSES. Ownership is key. There’s too much focus on distances travelled – e.g. in food, from farm to table – but to me of greater consequence is that the businesses in the chain are locally owned. Ownership governs economic impact.

MAXIMISE LOCAL SELF-RELIANCE, not to hermetically seal ourselves from global trade but because a community that increases its local self-reliance will be in a better position to benefit from global links from a position of strength

IDENTIFY, CELEBRATE AND SPREAD MODELS OF THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE. Many believe business that is mindful of standards will perform poorly but so many disprove that and we need to spread that.

WHY DID WE GET STUCK IN THE CURRENT LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRACTICE AND HOW CAN WE GET OUT OF IT? 

For a long time attracting corporate business was part of the school and the theories were widely prevalent. Now there is so much evidence against it but it’s not so much about economics but about politics. Politicians want to attract big corporates. Compare one business that brings in 1000 jobs with the difficult but important work of a few jobs in a lot of businesses that don’t grab headlines. We need to get practices back in alignment. We need to either abolish economic development or figure out ways to make it less biased. I will be urging the abolition. I feel most of the people working in economic development are so far beyond reform we have to start from scratch. Practitioners love international travel. I think we should tell staff that we’ll send them on an international trip anywhere on the condition that they spend 11 months of the year doing their job at home. I would also take economic development out of the public sector and put it in to private sector.HOW CAN WE GET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRACTITIONERS TO THINK DIFFERENTLY? 

In the work that I do it’s around helping better thinking economic development practitioners to recalibrate their programmes. I get them to focus on six categories, all of which begin with P – planning, people, partners, purse, purchasing, public policy.

PLANNING: We need to identify leaks in the local economy and find those businesses that will make progress in plugging those leaks.

PEOPLE: We need to train entrepreneurs or a new generation to lead replugging businesses

PARTNERS: We need to create partners to achieve more competitive networks

PURSE: Local investment (see my Top Tools for local investment below)

PURCHASING: This is the most common feature. We have to think local first and move towards full cost accounting of tax revenues that are collected. You will collect more from a company that spends more money locally. That is the direction for reform for procurement. I’m not in favour of overt favoritism for local but favour full cost accounting that takes into account tax revenues.

PUBLIC POLICY: A lot look for ways government can be in favour of local business. I’m more modest. I’d like to end government discrimination against local business. Most economic development can be considered a subsidy for global companies against local business. My view is to remove the advantages to global business. There are so many examples: no anti-trust laws followed with rigour; tax policies that impinge heavily on local retailers but not on internet sales. There is some movement to fix this in the US.

Local economic development can try to think about the ecology one can create in a community in support of those six Ps listed above. Can we do many of those ‘P’ activities through self-financing business?

SO HOW CAN WE CREATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO ALLOW MORE LOCAL INVESTMENT TO HAPPEN? 

We have a four-page overview of tools and we’ve seen a huge revolution in local investment in the last year. The basic problem is that when you look at long term investment in US – for retirement for example – it totals about $30tn and they are big categories – stocks, bonds, mutual funds, pension funds and insurance. All of that money is invested in corporates but half of the US economy is local/small business. Roughly speaking in an efficient capital market place half of the capital should go to small businesses but at the moment nothing is. To me this represents a massive capital market failure.

The reason is the bias in the law that makes it so expensive for a small business to do the paperwork to get a dollar that it doesn’t happen. In the US we have recently overhauled securities to make it cheaper and easier to issue stock. We’ve addressed one problem in law, but it’s still very difficult to trade stock and a whole new set of laws are needed. In a local ecosystem you would have a lot of stock, trading of stock and also investment companies that created that stock. We need to do it one step at time.

I’ve been arguing that economic development would be stronger, and smarter, if it embraced self-financing models. This way, it would be less dependent on fickle contributions for local government and philanthropy. So, there are examples of incubators that self-finance, mostly by charging a fee for service before or after incubation.  The problem with these models is that they adversely affect the incubated business’s bottom line. A smarter approach is for the incubator to take an equity share in the company, and then sell it. My thought, then, is that an incubator might help client businesses transform themselves into small stock companies and market the shares. But the incubator would keep, say, 10-20%, just like an underwriter does when it assists companies doing an IPO.WHAT ARE YOUR TOOLS FOR LOCAL INVESTMENT? 

I have 24 tools for local investing. Here are five of them:

1.    MOVE YOUR MONEY: Move all your day-to-day financial activities to a local bank or credit union so that the capital is recycled locally.

2.    TAKE YOUR LOCAL BUSINESSES PUBLIC: In the US thanks to crowdfunding reforms companies can now ‘go public’ very cheaply and unaccredited investors can purchase stock.

3.    ISSUE SLOW MUNIS: Local government issues bonds all the time. How about creating bonds to finance local businesses? Food bonds for example could be created the proceeds of which go into a local fund that collateralized loans from local banks and credit unions to high-priority local food businesses. If structured properly these bonds could be tax exempt and the bonds could be purchased by local residents.

4.    CREATE A LOCAL STOCK MARKET: As crowdfunding spreads there will be a growing number of local stock purchasers who will to sell their share and you can facilitate this by creating a local or regional stock exchange.

5.    PREPARE A COMMUNITY LIST: Imagine a local Craig’s List of all the local investment opportunities in your community.  A list like this is easy to create and invaluable for potential local investors.  As long as the list does not ‘offer advice’ on the quality of various investments, it is completely legal.

ARE THERE ANY GOOD EXAMPLES OF THIS HAPPENING NOW?

There are a lot of great models everywhere. One model is Bendigo Bank. It’s a global bank – the fourth largest in Australia – and they have created community franchises to allow the local community to own and operate a local branch. It was initially launched as a response to the closure of rural banks but has since been rolled out in cities.

Michael Shuman is director of community portals at Mission Markets and fellow at Cutting Edge Capital, Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) and the Post Carbon Institute.

Watch Michael Shuman on Youtube here (first ten minutes for an outline)

The Jimmy Reid Foundation has launched a Commission on Fair Access to Political Influence. It was launched with a report, Not By The People (supported by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust), which showed that the people who are invited to influence government policy in Scotland are drawn from a very narrow section of the population, almost all in the top 10 per cent by income. Meanwhile, the 70 per cent of the population which earns average wage or below makes up only about three per cent of these ‘influencers’.

Political decisions made on the basis of the views of such a limited spectrum of the Scottish people risks being unrepresentative. Giving the impression of not listening to the experiences of the majority of the population risks increasing disillusionment. And revelations about the lobbying industry has caused concerns about political accountability.

We want to produce a set of proposals for how a much more diverse set of people can gain access to decision-making processes. We’re calling for people to tell us about their experience of trying to influence politics without large PR budgets and to propose concrete solutions. The sorts of things we think might start to address the problem are:

• Alternative forms of decision-making which include more diverse groups of people making decision – for example Citizens’ Juries.

• Initiatives that bring decision-makers closer to those affected by their decisions – for example secondments to community groups

• Actions which can make existing decision-making processes more representative – for example an expectation that evidence will be taken in proportion to those affected by a decision

• Means of drawing people into debate about public policy – for example web-based participative democracy initiatives

• Ways to get a better picture of how decisions will affect different groups – for example by producing more detailed social impact studies

• Opportunities for ordinary people to influence political agendas – for example, through additional powers for the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee

We will produce a final report which will collect the best proposals together and will present these to the Scottish Government and all the political parties in Scotland. The aim is not to produce a ‘discussion document’ but a call for action; we will follow up its publication with a coordinated push to get its recommendations implemented.