The town is the venue

Huntly has won a Creative Place Award which will enable it to develop an ongoing walking and art programme, Walks for Life.

The project will be spearheaded by Deveron Arts, an organisation that has been a galvanising force in the town for over a decade.

The £100,000 award is one of three that were presented by Creative Scotland at a ceremony in St Andrews on Wednesday 23 January 2013. Huntly won the award for a town with fewer than 10,000 residents.

Over the past 15 years Huntly-based Deveron Arts has been in the forefront of socially engaged artistic practice. Its residency programme has seen artists from as far away as China, Africa, South America and mainland Europe coming to the town to undertake projects with the community.

The town’s Room to Roam branding was also developed through an artist residency. More recently much of the organisation’s work has begun to focus around notions of walking through such projects as 21 Days in the Cairngorms (with renowned walking artist, Hamish Fulton) and Slow Marathon (with Ethiopian artist Mihret Kedebe) and ongoing initiatives such as Walking Lunch. Walks of Life will take forward this work addressing a range of issues including health, the environment and rural economic development.

Deveron Arts director, Claudia Zeiske, said: “Over the last decade Huntly, in common with many areas of the UK, has experienced a notable economic downturn and an increasing number of health problems.

“The Creative Place Award will mean that we are able to roll out a programme of walking and art activities in the coming months that will build on our previous projects, help the town to increase its profile as a cultural and outdoor tourism destination and the town’s residents to address certain health issues all through the medium of walking.”

In Walks of Life Deveron Arts will examine how “slow travel” can act as a counterpoint to the pressures of today’s fast moving world; how walking can help with both physical and mental health; and how the town can make the most of one its greatest assets, the striking countryside, in its efforts to support the local economy. An 18-month programme of activities will include regular local events, research residencies and commissions in the vicinity of the town as well as further afield.

Chair of Aberdeenshire Council’s Education, Learning and Leisure Committee, Councillor Isobel Davidson, said: “This is fantastic news for Huntly and the wider Aberdeenshire area.

“It is great to see part of Aberdeenshire’s creative community being recognised with such a prestigious award.

“The Creative Place award with help Deveron Arts to spearhead some exciting new projects in Huntly, including the Walks for Life initiative.”

This is the second time that Huntly has been recognised in the Creative Scotland Awards. Last year Deveron Arts won support for its The Town is the Menu initiative which saw leading food specialist Simon Preston working with the community to identify and create a signature menu for the town. Using many local ingredients and incorporating dishes of historic and personal resonance to local people, the dishes are now being served in hotels and restaurants offering visitors a real taste of Huntly.

For further information on Deveron Arts wide programme of events visit: www.deveron-arts.com and follow them on twitter @deveronarts.

A new take on New Towns

Visit the website for Owenstown – click here

The first stage towards realisation of a unique and innovative new town in Scotland will be completed this week with the formal submission of detailed plans to South Lanarkshire Council.  

An application for Planning Permission in Principle is being lodged today (Thursday 29th November 2012) for a community-owned town of 3200 affordable homes in the Douglas Valley near Lanark. It will then be considered by councillors with a decision expected sometime next year.

It is to be called Owenstown after the social reformer Robert Owen, who improved the lives and working conditions of mill workers at nearby New Lanark 200 years ago. It will be self-sufficient, eco-friendly and run on a co-operative basis by its residents.

Details of the new town, the first of its kind in the UK, were first revealed three years ago. Since then an exhaustive programme of public consultation and exhibitions has taken place along with briefings to MSPs, local councillors and community councils. Other bodies such as Co-operative Development Scotland and Social Enterprise Scotland have been brought into the project to provide specialist legal and technical assistance.

As a result some modifications have been made but the objectives of a not-for-profit, co-operative model and the commitment to providing local jobs, remains the same.

Since the idea of the town was first revealed, there has been widespread interest from potential residents and businesses from all round the UK and beyond.

The Hometown Foundation, a registered charity, which has been established to help build new self-sustainable communities and regenerate rundown areas, is behind the project.

Given the go-ahead, the town will be built on a 2000 acre site near the existing village of Rigside, eventually, in a ten year programme, providing homes for 8000 people and with its own commercial and industrial businesses, creating 6000 jobs during construction and more than 3000 permanent jobs.

Owenstown will be eco-friendly – recycling its waste to produce energy for the district heating system and it will have green transport throughout the site powered by renewable sources. 

Supporting Articles:

The Scotsman – www.scotsman.com/news/council-considers-bid-for-new-town-1-2665871 

The Herald – www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/planning-milestone-for-owen-town-plan.19541838 

BBC – www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20528481

STV – m.local.stv.tv/glasgow/news/203203-council-mulling-new-co-operative-town-named-after-robert-owen/

Independence at risk

David Ainsworth, Third Sector Online, 22 January 2013 

The independence of charities has come under increasing threat over the past year and one of the sources of that threat is the government, according to the latest report from the Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector, published today.

The report is the second of four assessments to be made over five years by the panel, which comprises voluntary sector leaders. It is chaired by Sir Roger Singleton, former chair of the Independent Safeguarding Authority and a former chief executive of Barnardo’s, and funded by the Baring Foundation.

The latest report looks at whether charities have independence in their purpose, action and voice.

Sir Roger Singleton, chair of the panel, said voluntary organisations enjoyed widespread support because they are independent and distinctive, and because of their independent voice of behalf of unpopular causes.

“Our investigations show that in the past 12 months, the government has directly threatened that independence, requiring some charities which carry out work for government departments to toe the government line,” he said.

The report says the “right of some voluntary organisations to campaign and criticise the government is now coming under direct challenge, self-censorship is increasingly common and lack of financial support and effective safeguards for independence threaten the future of parts of the voluntary sector”. 

“At particular risk is the support received from the voluntary sector by the marginalised, the voiceless and the impoverished, who may have no other advocate,” it says.

“It is particularly surprising to see direct attacks by government and others on the freedom of expression of voluntary bodies working with the state”

The report calls for rules that would prohibit ministerial control of charities, stronger support for the Compact, the removal of any gagging clauses on charities related to public service-delivery contracts, such as in the Work Programme, and  a strategy by third sector infrastructure bodies to strengthen sector independence.

The report also calls for a discussion on “what constitutes a charity”, led by the sector itself.

“It is vital that charities act like charities if they enjoy that status, including exercising their independent voice,” the report says. “Sector-wide bodies should articulate the distinctive value of the voluntary sector in delivering public services.”

The panel says that one problem has been an erosion of the uniqueness of the voluntary sector, in particular its funding.

“The voluntary sector is increasingly being treated in funding, contracting and regulatory arrangements as interchangeable with the private or public sectors, potentially a mere arm of the state, a delivery agent or subcontractor without an independent voice,” the report says.

It says that there is widespread non-compliance with the Compact and Best Value Statutory Guidance by local and central government, that local authorities are increasingly requiring the right to appoint community organisation board members and that there is limited consultation with the sector over funding and policy issues.

It also highlights “a growing climate of opinion against the campaigning activities of charities”, particularly by government.

“The government recently advised local authorities to stop funding what it calls ‘fake charities’ that ‘lobby and call for more state regulation and more state funding’,” the report says.

“Voices are being directly silenced in the Work Programme through so-called ‘gagging clauses’ in contracts that prevent criticism of the government and restrict the publication of their own data.”

Ralph Michell, director of policy at the chief executives body Acevo, said the report had uncovered some “pretty disgraceful attempts by public bodies to gag charities”.

“That is bad practice, plain and simple, and the government should respond to this report by taking steps to stamp it out,” he said.

“But we need to be clear that that is the answer, rather than charities withdrawing from working in partnership with the state. We need better commissioning, not less commissioning.”

A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said: “We strongly support the independence of the voluntary sector and recognise that its ability to campaign freely is part of its value to society.

“Respect for that independence is now enshrined in the Compact, an agreement between the sector and the Government to ensure better working together.

“Our ambition is for the UK to be the most transparent and accountable Government in the world.  However we have a duty to ensure all publicly released information is accurate and validated, and contracts with providers are designed to reflect this.”

Predictable but shocking behaviour 

Ron Ferguson, The Scottish Review

Here is a parable of our times. It tells us a great deal. The story begins in 1799, when a Scottish minister moved to the parish of Ruthwell in Dumfriesshire. The Rev Henry Duncan, a man of large compassion, was appalled by the poverty he saw around about him. He was determined to do something about it. But where to start? He used his own money to buy flax for women to spin at home, and thereby make a living. He also engaged local unemployed men to turn the manse glebe into a model farm. 

Realising that other financial support was needed if indigent families were to be kept out of the poor house, he revived the local Friendly Society, which provided loans to support families in need. In 1810, he persuaded the Earl of Mansfield to donate a derelict cottage to the Friendly Society; thus was born the savings bank movement. Poor people were enabled to build up savings accounts and get loans, which would in turn fund cottage industries. 

Henry Drummond’s great idea inspired not just people in Scotland, but much further afield. The savings bank movement spread to nearly 100 countries. It was this movement that gave birth to the Trustee Savings Bank.

Fast forward to 1986. Still working in the spirit of Henry Drummond, the Trustee Savings Bank group set up four independent charitable foundations in the UK to distribute 1% of pre-tax profits. A Deed of Covenant was established to put the agreement on a legal footing. When the TSB and Lloyds Bank merged, although Lloyds was the bigger player, TSB took over Lloyds and thus the covenant continued. The banking group had no choice other than to accept what was already in place. (The banking group and the charitable foundations operate at ‘arms length’; at no time has the banking group run the foundations. The Lloyds TSB Foundation of Scotland is not simply the charitable arm of the bank – though the banking group itself has benefited from the public relations bonus it has received because of the foundation’s charitable work.)

Because of the size of the banking group, the funds available to the charitable foundations multiplied. Over more than a decade, the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland has received more than £82 million from the Lloyds TSB banking group. The importance of these funds for the voluntary sector in Scotland can hardly be over estimated. The Scottish foundation has helped fund numerous projects up and down the country – projects which have, among other things, helped to alleviate the damaging effects of poverty in Scotland, assisted people in need of support and advice, promoted the arts and sport in grassroots communities and supported pioneering projects that seek to address the problems of alcohol and drugs addiction.

I saw the Scottish foundation’s work at close hand when I was a trustee for six years. I was deeply impressed by the transparency of its processes and the skills and commitment of its staff, now under the fine leadership of chief executive Mary Craig. The presence of the trustees, who receive no payment, means that the overall working of the foundation is constantly under examination. I was very impressed by the fact that the foundation held surgeries up and down Scotland at which they taught community groups how to apply for grants. I also learned that because of its thorough scrutiny of all applications, a grant from the Lloyds TSB Foundation could trigger other successful grant applications.

I was aware when I was a trustee that there were sometimes tensions between the bank and the foundation. Some people at the top of the banking group looked with envy at the money which was being passed on to the foundation every year. There was pressure to pay awards into Lloyds TSB bank accounts and for the bank’s marketing team to follow through on any potential opportunity there might be for business. 

Fast forward to 2009. The global financial crisis, triggered by – among other things – the avarice and negligence of big bankers, started to hit home, creating misery for many families. The Lloyds Banking Group in London saw the crisis as an opportunity to renegotiate the covenant in their favour; they sought to reduce the covenanted share of profits by 50%. 

The other three foundations agreed to the change – from next year they will receive only 0.5% of the profits. The Scottish foundation refused to accept the reduction. They won a legal battle to buy shares in the bank’s placing and compensatory open offer – this money keeps the foundation afloat. Because they did not agree to the changes, Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland will still receive their share of 1% of profits until the covenant ends in 2019. (The Lloyds banking group had the right to terminate the contract by giving notice nine years in advance of the termination. In the meantime, the PPI mis-selling scandal has meant that the Lloyds banking group has had to set aside £5.3b for potential claims. The situation gets murkier by the minute.) 

Concerned about the damaging effect the moves would have on Scotland’s voluntary sector, the trustees decided to fight the banking group’s move in the law courts. Lord Glennie ruled against the charitable foundation. 

The Scottish foundation’s trustees decided to appeal against the decision. Scotland’s senior judge the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, sitting with Lord Carloway and Lord Kingarth in the Court of Session, found in favour of Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland, and decided that the banking group should pay the foundation £3.5 million. This seemed like a victory for justice, given that the foundation’s grants helped to repair at least some of the damage caused by the reckless behaviour of the banking industry.

Despite the reputational damage caused by its actions, the banking group announced that it would appeal against the Scottish decision. Last week, at the Supreme Court in London, its appeal was upheld. The Scottish foundation will receive just £38,920 instead of £3.5m; it cannot appeal against that decision.

The long-term impact of the Lloyds banking group’s actions will be devastating. The covenant will be reduced from 1% to 0.5% of pre-tax profits. In addition to losing half of its income, Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland will be required to align a significant part of its funding to the banking group’s corporate objectives. In other words, the foundation will lose its prized independence as well as its exclusive focus on community needs. 

I would like to be able to say that it’s surprising that the Lloyds banking group should inflict such damage on its own reputation by effectively undermining the efforts of volunteers to alleviate some of the worst effects of the current financial crisis. But, sadly, I’m not surprised at all. 

As well as tipping countless innocent people into wretchedness, the recession has exposed hubris and venality and contempt in high places. The current crisis is spiritual as much as it is economic. The separation of ethics from finance always had disastrous consequences.

A prophet ahead of his times, Henry Duncan understood that when financial matters are ripped out of an ethical matrix, the disadvantaged and vulnerable will suffer most. It’s not a surprise to me that this visionary Presbyterian minister was a strong supporter of the movement to abolish slavery. He also supported Catholic emancipation – a move which would not have made him popular in some quarters. I would argue that he is one of the truly great figures in Scottish history – yet why have so few Scots heard of him?

No doubt champagne corks were popping in London when the latest ruling was announced. When the Lloyds’ corporate advertising boards appear at big race meetings, it will be two fingers down the throat time, given the price that will have been paid by people who have lost jobs and homes. 

I think the time has come for individuals and corporate groups in Scotland to withdraw their accounts from the Lloyds banks. As they do so, they should write to the Lloyds banking group’s central headquarters in London and explain why they are taking this action.

Such a protest will not disturb the sleep of corporate bankers with tin ears, but at least it will cheer up the volunteers who continue to help make Scotland ‘happen’, in the face of callous decisions which make a mockery of the so-called Big Society.

A Telling Silence – Why we need Land Value Tax

By George Monbiot, Guardian 22nd January 2013

You can learn as much about a country from its silences as you can from its obsessions. The issues politicians do not discuss are as telling and decisive as those they do. While the government’s cuts beggar the vulnerable and gut public services, it’s time to talk about the turns not taken, the opportunities foregone: the taxes which could have spared us every turn of the screw. 

The extent of the forgetting is extraordinary. Take, for example, capital gains tax. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats promised to raise it from 18% to “the same rates as income” (in other words a top rate of 50%), to ensure that private equity bosses were no longer paying lower rates of tax than their office cleaners(1). It made sense, as it would have removed the bosses’ incentive to collect their earnings as capital. Despite a powerful economic case, the government refused to raise the top rate above 28%. The Lib Dems protested for a day or two(2), and have remained silent ever since. In the parliamentary debate about cuts to social security, this missed opportunity wasn’t mentioned once(3). 

But at least that tax has risen. In just two and half years, the government has cut corporation tax three times. It will fall from 28% in 2010 to 21% in 2014(4,5). George Osborne, the chancellor, boasted last month that this “is the lowest rate of any major western economy”(6): he is consciously setting up a destructive competition with other nations, creating new excuses further to reduce the UK rate. 

Labour’s near-silence on this issue is easily explained. Under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who were often as keen as the Conservatives to appease corporate power, the rate was reduced from 33% to 28%. Prefiguring Osborne’s boast, in 1999 Brown bragged that the rate he had set was “the lowest rate of any major industrialised country anywhere, including Japan and the United States.”(7) What a legacy for a Labour government. 

As for a Robin Hood tax on financial transactions, after an initial flutter of interest you are now more likely to hear the call of the jubjub bird in the House of Commons. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, a tax rate of just 0.01% would raise £25bn a year, rendering many of the chamber’s earnest debates about the devastating cuts void(8). Silence also surrounds the notion of a windfall tax on extreme wealth. And to say that Professor Greg Philo’s arresting idea of transferring the national debt to those who possess assets worth £1m or more has failed to ignite the flame of passion in parliament would not overstate the case(9). 

But the loudest silence surrounds the issue of property taxes. The most expensive flat in that favourite haunt of the international super-rich, One Hyde Park, cost £135m. The owner pays £1,369 in council tax, or 0.001% of its value(10). Last year the Independent revealed that the Sultan of Brunei pays only £32 a month more for his pleasure dome in Kensington Palace Gardens than some of the poorest people in the same borough(11). A mansion tax – slapped down by David Cameron in October(12) – is only the beginning of what the owners of such places should pay. For the simplest, fairest and least avoidable levy is one which the major parties simply will not contemplate. It’s called land value tax. 

The term is a misnomer. It’s not really a tax. It’s a return to the public of the benefits we have donated to the landlords. When land rises in value, the government and the people deliver a great unearned gift to those who happen to own it. 

In 1909 a dangerous subversive explained the issue thus. “Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains – and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labor and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived. … the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done.”(13) 

Who was this firebrand? Winston Churchill. As Churchill, Adam Smith(14) and many others have pointed out, those who own the land skim wealth from everyone else, without exertion or enterprise. They “levy a toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry.”(15) Land value tax recoups this toll. 

It has a number of other benefits(16). It stops the speculative land hoarding that prevents homes from being built. It ensures that the most valuable real estate – in city centres – is developed first, discouraging urban sprawl. It prevents speculative property bubbles, of the kind that have recently trashed the economies of Ireland, Spain and other nations and which make rents and first homes so hard to afford. Because it does not affect the supply of land (they stopped making it some time ago), it cannot cause the rents that people must pay to the landlords to be raised. It is easy to calculate and hard to avoid: you can’t hide your land in London in a secret account in the Cayman Islands. And it could probably discharge the entire deficit. 

It is altogether remarkable, in these straitened and inequitable times, that land value tax is not at the heart of the current political debate. Perhaps it is a sign of how powerful the rent-seeking class in Britain has become. While the silence surrounding this obvious solution exposes Labour’s limitations, it also exposes the contradiction at heart of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives claim, in David Cameron’s words, to be “the party of enterprise”(17). But those who benefit most from its policies are those who are rich already. It is, in reality, the party of rent. 

This is where the debate about workers and shirkers, strivers and skivers should have led. The skivers and shirkers sucking the money out of your pockets are not the recipients of social security demonised by the Daily Mail and the Conservative Party, the overwhelming majority of whom are honest claimants. We are being parasitised from above, not below, and the tax system should reflect this. 

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/22/budget-capital-gains-tax-rises

3. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130108/debtext/130108-0002.htm

4. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/corp.htm

5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/05/corporation-tax-cut-autumn-statement

6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/05/corporation-tax-cut-autumn-statement

7. Gordon Brown, 1st November 1999. Speech to the CBI Conference. 

8. Tony Dolphin, June 2010. Financial Sector Taxes. Institute for Public Policy Research. http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/1779/financial-sector-taxes

9. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/15/deficit-crisis-tax-the-rich

10. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sultans-tax-discount-on-london-house-shows-law-favours-rich-8229543.html

11. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sultans-tax-discount-on-london-house-shows-law-favours-rich-8229543.html

12. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/07/david-cameron-mansion-tax-cuts

13. http://www.landvaluetax.org/current-affairs-comment/winston-churchill-said-it-all-better-then-we-can.html

14. “Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground.” Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2.

15. Winston Churchill, as above. 

16. http://www.landvaluetax.org/

17. http://www.newstatesman.com/2011/03/enterprise-government-party

Recession impacts on regeneration

A paper by Andy Milne & Derek Rankine of SURF  – REALITY, RESOURCES, RESILIENCE:  REGENERATION IN A RECESSION  January 2013 

This paper: 

• Looks at how the recession is impacting upon disadvantaged communities in Scotland; 

• Summarises experience and practical initiatives in two contrasting case study neighbourhoods; 

• Explores how communities and partner agencies are responding; and 

• Asks what opportunities are presented by the distinct Scottish policy context. 

How is the recession impacting upon disadvantaged communities in Scotland? How are communities and partner agencies responding? What opportunities are presented by the distinct Scottish policy context? A summary report based on SURF’s explorations of lived experience and practical initiatives in two contrasting case study neighbourhoods. 

Key points :

Dislocation The understanding and responses of policy makers to the lived ‘Reality, Resources and Resilience’ of disadvantaged communities are being undermined by the erosion of relatively small investments in community organisations, local service projects and interactive partnership links. The resulting dislocation of vital knowledge, assets and cooperation threatens the efficacy of larger public service plans and investments. 

Re-engagement Some encouraging possibilities can be drawn from this exploration of the Reality, Resources and Resilience in two contrasting case study settings at both local activity and strategic organisational levels. SURF partner organisations with ‘community asset’ focused policies and resources are keen to engage practically in support of the successful ‘ameliorative responses’ initiatives highlighted in this study. 

Exchanging The current convergence of policy initiatives and constitutional considerations in Scotland provides a unique opportunity to radically reconsider what could be achieved to improve the climate for more resilient community regeneration. The increasingly divergent policy approaches between Scotland and the rest of the UK offers a potentially productive context for exchanging practical experience and learning towards more effective responses in all areas.  

For a full copy of this report click here

Planners on tap

The Planning Mentoring Scheme aims to link Planning Aid for Scotland (PAS) with community organisations and third sector groups to provide planning advice and guidance to unlock the potential of community led development projects across Scotland. 

This scheme was piloted with rural voluntary groups which led to the publication of the practical guide for community-led development.

If you are involved in a community or voluntary group or have a vision for one, whether it be a community council, a development trust, allotment association, village hall association, amenity society etc and you have a community asset project in mind, and be owned by the community, our planning mentoring scheme may be able to give you planning advice to enable you to get your project off the ground and develop a relationship with your group for the duration of the project.

A few examples could be a new village hall, a new community centre, a new play park or a skate park, a community turbine, a new allotment, a community recycling centre, which will benefit the community

To discuss this further please contact Mark on 0131 220 9730 or e-mail mark@planningaidscotland.org.uk

Planning Aid for Scotland’s advice will be independent, confidential and impartial. The advisors, all of which are volunteers, are all fully qualified, experienced town planners and are all members of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI).

Remember, we can also help your group comment on planning applications or answer any other planning related questions you may have.

________________________________________

The Planning Mentoring Scheme has 4 key aims:

• demonstrate how community groups can participate in shaping their environment and achieve positive outcomes by working closely with PAS over a longer period of time.

• provide an opportunity for planning professionals to increase awareness and understanding of how to best engage with community groups.

• help community groups to enhance and deepen their understanding of how to work positively with the planning system and deliver their objectives.

• link planning mentors with community groups to build capacities and share knowledge across Scotland.

Hebrides News, 19th Dec 2012

The forced sale of a crofting estate under the controversial Land Reform Act does not violate a landlord’s human rights, Scotland’s highest civil court has found.

The first test case of a hostile land buyout under the Scottish Land Reform Act has been heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh nearly ten years after the legislation was introduced.  

Ironically, nobody actually lives on the 20,000 acres of boggy moorland in the Pairc estate in South Lochs on Lewis but at stake is the control of potentially lucrative profits from a proposed multi-million wind farm. The crofting land sale legislation – under part Three of the Act – has never been used in anger since it was introduced by the former Labour administration. Elements of it were seriously flawed and required corrective legislation.

Barry Lomas, the owner of the Pairc estate took the Scottish Government to court after it sanctioned villagers’ right to proceed with a buyout despite Mr Lomas’ protests last year.

Community body Pairc Trust’s aim to take over the land was halted when court action was first raised in May last year.  Residents have declined to buy out the croftland villages, opting, instead, for the unoccupied common grazings. The ground presently has little value expect as rough pasture for livestock but Scottish and Southern Energy’s (SSE) application to build a £110 million dramatically raised the odds. In the middle of the legal fight SSE sold the energy rights to International Power which plans smaller scheme. 

Barry Lomas said: “Pairc Estate has received the Opinion of the Inner House of the Court of Session on the two questions relating to human rights and this now enables the matter to be returned to the Sheriff Court to consider the actual detail of the contested applications to buy the land and the lease, as part of a complex, long and continuing process. 

“This does not affect any efforts by either Pairc Estate or the community to achieve any amicable arrangements.”

The legal row will return to Stornoway Sheriff Court  early 2013 where Sheriff David Sutherland will be asked to rule by the landlord that the public ballot, which returned a Yes vote for the buyout, was invalid. The Scottish Government argues otherwise.  The price tag of the estate is unknown despite an independent valuation by Baird Lumsden. The Scottish Government refuses to reveal the figure until the court cases are over.

In the Court of Session Mr Lomas’ lawyers maintained the land reform law conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights, is unreasonable under the law and is incompatible with natural justice. They accepted the Scottish Parliament was entitled to legislate for a crofting community right to buy but insisted such a law must meet the “fair hearing” requirements under human rights rules.

They argued the Scottish Government failed to give Mr Lomas “a reasonable opportunity of putting his case.”

It was said the hostile takeover should be carefully scrutinised because it deprived the owner of his property, and was handing it over to a another private owner, thus such a law must meet the “fair hearing” requirements under human rights rules.   Mr Lomas’ legal team claimed the law has “structural flaws” by failing to give the landowner any influence over a community ballot, disregards the landowner’s interests and does not give the landowner an adequate opportunity to put his case to the Scottish Ministers. In addition it fails to provide for an “independent factual inquiry into matters relevant to certain policy aspects of the application.”

His counsel also said it was unfair the very body that wants a positive result from a community ballot which determines villagers go-ahead for the buyout gets a free hand to conduct the vote itself and could “manipulate the ballot to its own advantage.”

Lord Gill, the the Lord President, Scotland’s top ranking judge, headed a panel of three judges which  considered the legal row.  He said he disagreed with Mr Lomas’ stance that human right safeguards must be “explicitly spelled out.”

Lord Gill added: “The question of competence, in my view, depends on how the legislation operates in practice and not on how any specific provision may appear if looked at in isolation. 

He said other regulations provided a remedy for the landlord if the ballot was unfair.   Lord Gill said when the Scottish Government look at the overall public interest, “the central consideration” was of balancing the harm to the landowner against the benefit  to the wider public and boosting the crofting economy. 

He highlighted the weight given to the landowner’s interests when compulsory transferring the land  was “pre-eminently” a matter for the Scottish ministers though the landlord’s right to compensation then comes into play. 

Mr Lomas has offered an amicable deal to villagers on the crofting estate but, to date, there has been no agreement between him and Pairc Trust. He has also criticised two directors on Pairc Trust for standing to profit personally under a giant windfarm application from Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE).  They could make lucrative rentals because  turbines are earmarked to be sited within apportionments they took out on the common grazings.

But Pairc Trust previously attacked Mr Lomas’ criticism of the pair by insisting that was not their motivation for the buyout. The Trust said decisions on turbines locations were made by SSE and Mr Lomas, not by the Pairc Trust while Pairc Trust has no role approving the windfarm.

Pairc Trust said it held a “neutral” view on the giant energy scheme though it highlighted its mandate by the community to maximise the community benefit if it goes ahead.

Over the last year, we’ve seen protests from Cairo to New York to London, and now everyone from the world’s billionaires to Barack Obama have claimed inequality is the number one problem of our time.

Based on the best-selling book The Spirit Level, this film looks at how the rising gap between rich and poor has impacted on our societies. How has it risen? Why does it impact on society? And could greater equality really benefit everyone, even the rich?

We’ll be hearing from people around the world, in different societies, at different income levels. How far do they believe that society makes you who you are, and what do we all want for a better future?

But we need your help to make this film a reality – PRE-BUYING YOUR COPY OF THE FILM NOW is one of the easiest ways you can support us.   Of course, if you want to donate more you can – and we have a whole range of attractive perks on offer (from signed copies of the book, to tickets to the premiere!). Visit our ‘Fund’ page above.

You can also help by sharing this website – the more people know about the film, the easier it is to get them talking about the issues it raises.

“profoundly important” Richard Layard 

“the evidence, here painstakingly marshalled, is hard to dispute” The Economist 

“they’re onto something here, aren’t they?” The Guardian 

Plunkett Foundation has announced today it will be extending its services by merging with the Scotland based Community Retailing Network (CRN) to give Scotland’s rural communities greater access to Plunkett’s support.

The CRN worked across Scotland supporting community-owned shops in some of the remotest rural locations to thrive. Plunkett Foundation has worked with the CRN to support the development of community-owned shops in Scotland and the merging of the activities of the two organisations will see significant expertise in developing community shops, co-operative pubs and other rural community services across the UK being shared with Scotland’s communities.

Norman MacDonald, Chair of CRN and Convener of the Western Isles Council, said: “This is great news for Scottish communities who are at risk of physical or social isolation following the loss of or threat to their village shop, as well as communities wishing to explore other forms of community enterprise. By merging with Plunkett our combined support will reach more communities in need of support to explore solutions that are controlled by them.”

Peter Couchman, Chief Executive of Plunkett Foundation, said: “We are delighted to be merging with the Community Retailing Network to extend our services into Scotland. Founded in 1919 by the Irish co-operative pioneer, Sir Horace Plunkett, we have a long tradition of supporting and sharing knowledge between communities across the UK. The creation of Plunkett Scotland and the additional resources this will bring will create even more opportunities for rural communities across Scotland to take control of the issues important to them.”

The CRN will merge with Plunkett Foundation on 1st January 2013. The current CRN co-ordinator will remain and the merger will also see the creation of a new post to promote and support community-owned enterprises.