Theatre can work wonders

To learn more about Theatre Nemo, click here

Theatre Nemo have been awarded the Robin Corbett Award from the Prison Reform Trust which they will receive at the House of Lords on the 5th February 2013.

This annual award is for outstanding rehabilitative work with prisoners done by a charity or community group, working in partnership with prison staff. Uniquely, the emphasis will be on work that fosters personal responsibility and calls on people in prison, and ex-offenders, to help themselves and others through mentoring and such like. Robin Corbett had a developed interest in prisoners’ education and people in prison ‘learning through doing’.

Here’s what people say about Theatre Nemo…. 

“Theatre NEMO have a friendly, unpretentious way of working, treating people as people and not merely as criminal or psychiatric categories. This genuinely engages often hard-to-reach individuals, enabling them to sense qualities in themselves that they may not have known they had, or lost sight of. These are strengths which state-based professionals often lose. No-one else is doing quite the same things as Theatre NEMO, and it deserves support to continue doing for them, for the good of its individual beneficiaries, and as a contribution to the quality of life in Scotland.”

Mike Nellis, Professor of Criminal and Community Justice, Glasgow School of Social Work

“ The example of Theatre Nemo deserves to be celebrated and emulated. It was set up by Isabel McCue as a creative response to the mental disintegration and suicide of her son; the company actively encourages people with mental health problems, and their carers, to use drama as a means of self-expression. Harry Burns rightly quotes it as an illustration of what needs to be done in Scotland.”

Sir Harry Burns, The vital clues to Scotland’s wretched health by Kenneth Roy Scottish Review

Here’s what Theatre Nemo do….

Theatre Nemo may be a small charity, but we have HUGE aspirations. 

Our Vision is of an inclusive, supportive, integrated society, which recognises and values the contribution made by those affected by mental ill-health alongside everyone else.

Our Mission is to empower people affected by mental ill-health to have better, more fulfilled lives through the creative arts.

Theatre Nemo’s work is based on 4 principal aims.

• To improve and promote good mental health and well-being.

• To improve the support available for carers, friends and families of those affected by mental ill-health.

• To advance society’s understanding of mental ill-health and challenge misconceptions.

• To make a significant and tangible contribution to create a more cohesive, integrated and inclusive community.

To watch a short video of this inspirational story click here

A cello made from an oil can and pieces of wood thrown in the garbage; a saxophone made of spoons and buttons. These are the instruments crafted by Nicolas, a recycler with no previous experience making musical instruments, living hand-to-mouth by the garbage dump in Catuera, Paraguay. Inspired by this initiative and creativity, Maestro Luis Szaran, director of “Sounds of the Earth,” formed a “recycled orchestra” with children living at the dump. “Our main goal isn’t to form good musicians, but to form good citizens.” Now 30 members strong, listen to the sweet sounds of these recycled instruments and the hopes and dreams of the children who play them.

Radical Land Reform
Evidence from Andy Wightman to Land Reform Review Group
January 2013
For a full version of Andy Wightman’s submission click here

INTRODUCTION
Scotland has a historical legacy of tightly framed land tenure laws designed to benefit a
property-owning elite. It also has perhaps the most concentrated pattern of private
landownership anywhere in the world (due principally to inheritance laws which until 1868
were based upon primogeniture and were only abolished entirely in 1964). This has
discriminated hugely against women in particular.
The Poor Had No Lawyers outlines how this powerful nexus of power evolved. The task of
any self-respecting land reform programme (which I assume this to be) is to break this
nexus for good, to redistribute power, to democratise the governance of land and to place
land in its proper place – as a resource to be stewarded for the benefit of the people of
Scotland.
A centralised United Kingdom government and an unelected House of Lords allowed for
almost unfettered political advantage for the landed and propertied class for centuries. The
advent of the Scottish Parliament posed a challenge but these vested interests have
adapted and are creating a narrative of their inevitability, their centrality and their role in
communities – telling stories of co-operation, partnership and provision (of land) for local
benefit. This is elegant power – offering “help” and “assistance” to communities which
serves the wider hegemonic interests of the landed elite.
The real issue remains as it has always been – that of power – how it is defined, who has it,
how it is exercised, how it is transferred and how it is held to account.
I want, for example, to live in a country where a young couple needing a parcel of land for
a home can approach their local council (local – as in municipality, kommune) and be able
to secure (through the exercise of appropriate local political power) this most basic of
needs at minimal cost. I want to live in a country where, as one travels across it, one finds
a well populated land full of energy and optimism.
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 where the ownership of land is contingent on paying a proper rent
to the community and where speculation and unearned increments are ended. I want to
live in a country where land cannot legally be held in private trusts immune from
inheritance tax or in offshore tax havens beyond the reach of the tax authorities.
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.

CHALLENGE FOR THE LAND REFORM REVIEW GROUP
In order to rejuvenate the land reform agenda it is important to be clear what is meant by
the term. To date, the term has been used to cover two categories of policy reform, namely
land law reform and reform of some land-related rural property matters such as access,
community right to buy and agricultural holdings legislation.
Consequently, the land reform process is often regarded as being about the technicalities
of property law (abolition of feudal tenure, title conditions, etc.) or about essentially rural
matters such as crofting, access and rural development. It is also, in some quarters,
almost exclusively associated with public access to the countryside.
This has contributed to the popular view that land reform is about rural areas, mainly in the
Highlands and Islands, and thus has limited relevance for most communities and individuals.
In fact, land reform is a process of reforming the relationship between land and people by
means of, for example:
• extending property rights beyond a restricted elite
• modernising land tenure laws to provide greater security to owners and tenants
• changes in land policy to increase participation in decision-making
• fiscal and taxation reform to promote specific outcomes.
Land reform is thus a rubric around which a significant number of issues that may at first
seem disparate should be given a coherent intellectual framework which fits with existing
Government initiatives on, for example, community empowerment.
In relation to land reform in Scotland, a number of topics raised in 1999 remain
unresolved. In addition, other topics have emerged that are also part of a land reform
agenda. These include: –
• Land information and registration
• Leasehold reform
• Succession law
• Law of the foreshore and seabed
• Crofting
• Law of prescription and pre-emption
• Governance of the Crown Estate
• Community right to buy
• Agricultural holdings
• Local government finance
• Housing
• Open spaces & allotments
• Community based regeneration
• Common good land
• Common property regimes
• Land use policy
• Community forestry
• Asset transfer
• Public land
• Compulsory purchase
• Access
• Wildlife legislation
• Planning
Land relations is the common theme in these topics and there are numerous linkages.
1. Individuals and families have a need for land to build homes, and yet land is overvalued
and communities wishing to promote affordable housing have few effective
means of doing so.
2. Tax arrangements are designed to enable many of Scotland’s wealthiest landowners to
avoid inheritance tax. Such owners also do not pay business rates on their land even
though they promote rural estates as businesses. 4 Millions of pounds are lost to the
Treasury every year due to land being owned in offshore tax havens and yet at the
same time, there is a lack of finance to support community acquisition of land.
3. Communities wishing to pursue marine renewable energy projects have no rights over
the seabed adjacent to them and are powerless to have any meaningful say over such
developments since the Crown Estate Commissioners administer all the property rights.
4. Contracts are being negotiated with multinational energy companies to develop
renewable energy projects on public land when such development would deliver greater
value if controlled at least in part by communities.
5. Farmers, individuals and communities could benefit from and deliver a more diverse
and integrated pattern of new forestry in the countryside and yet the Government has
no policies in place to stop multinational companies buying land, receiving millions of
pounds in public subsidy and profiting as a result.
6. Children have no legal rights to inherit land and thus Scotland continues to have one of
the most concentrated patterns of private landownership in the world.
7. Scotland and the UK continue to experience unacceptable levels of social and
economic inequality which are being exacerbated by the growing gulf between those
who own land and property and those who don’t (and perhaps never will). The richest
10% of the UK population own 44% of the wealth; some £4,000 billion of assets out of a
total personal wealth in the UK of £9,000 billion.5
How society chooses to govern public and private land rights and the economic and social
benefits that accrue from these rights is at the heart of these issues.

Scotland has no coherent policy on land ownership, occupation and governance.
The Land Reform Poilcy Group adopted a very specific remit when they set their objective
for land reform which was “to remove the land-based barriers to the sustainable
development of rural communities”. In it’s final report in January 1999, the Chair, Lord
Sewel, stated that,
“It is crucial that we regard land reform not as a one-for-all issue but as an ongoing
process. The parliament will be able to test how this early legislation works and how it
effects change. They will then have the opportunity to revisit and refine their initial
achievement.
….These present recommendations are therefore by no means the final word on land
reform; they are a platform upon which we can build for the future.”
Unfortunately, Parliament has since neglected to test, revisit and refine this ongoing
process, never mind build for the future.

Now is the opportunity to do so.

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.

At its Annual Congress in April 2012, STUC agreed to undertake a wide ranging consultation with its members and across Scotland’s communities on Scotland’s constitutional future. This reflected its view that there is a duty on civil organisations to ensure that it is not left to elected politicians alone to frame and conduct the debate on Scotland’s future. 

Historically, STUC and its affiliated unions have had a major part to play in the debate over Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. As one of the architects of the Constitutional Convention and having campaigned for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, STUC is widely recognised as being a progressive force in Scotland’s democratic development and a champion of devolution. 

However, things do not stay the same. Scottish unions have changed significantly in the past two decades. The same is true of Scotland’s communities. Activism manifests itself in different ways. Community empowerment and democratic accountability have diminished. New communities of interest have been formed and communication methods have changed. However, a strong ethos of solidarity and collectivism remains. 

The starting point for the discussion was to allow individuals, trade union members and their families to be empowered to consider Scotland’s constitutional future within the wider context of the collective values we hold. Thus, for STUC, the referendum debate needs to be seen, not just as a means of discussing the form of Scotland’s constitutional arrangements, but as an exciting opportunity to reawaken a debate on social justice and equality, to talk about the sort of Scotland we want to see. 

A Just Scotland is the starting point rather than the end point of that process. STUC has not reached a point where it is able to definitively recommend a Yes or No answer to the independence question. 

It was never imagined that at this stage it would. There are, however, some key questions which STUC believes will help to shape the views of its members and some major challenges which both sides of the debate must meet. 

Challenges

The first is a general challenge. To hold a full and frank debate, we need more information and less sloganeering. A minority within the STUC discussion process were both clear about how they intended to vote and what they believed the economic, social and democratic consequences would be. A greater number, whether or not they leaned towards a yes or a no, voiced frustration at the level of information and analysis currently available and the overall poor quality of the debate. 

The second challenge, again for both sides of the debate, is to persuade us that social justice is more achievable as a consequence of their chosen constitutional option. Inevitably the focus should be on Scotland, but the impact of change on the countries within the rest of the UK, as well as Europe and wider world can also be part of that discourse. Neither side of the debate can claim with authority to be the ‘voice for social justice’. The Yes Campaign derives considerable support from sections of the business community which aspire to a low tax, low regulation economic and social model with diminished social protection. The ‘Better Together’ campaign includes the Scottish Tories. In both campaigns there is a tension between the desire to project a vision of social justice and the view that policies are a matter for the post-2016 elected governments. STUC recognises that the policies of elected Scottish Governments cannot be wholly predicted, however, it is not enough to ‘wait and see’. The result of the referendum will in large part be conditioned by what people expect will be achieved and the post-referendum future direction of Scotland in the short and long-term, whether independent or devolved, will be influenced by how the debate develops between now and October 2014. 

The third challenge is for the Yes Campaign or to the political parties which support it. A Just Scotland participants cited concern at mixed messages emanating from the campaign. A central argument for independence has been rejection of the UK approach to taxation, welfare and a range of Coalition policies relating to social justice. The First Minister said at SNP Conference in October 2012 that only independence could protect the social fabric of Scotland. However, on other occasions, a low tax economic model with ‘growth at all costs’ has appeared to be the approach with current or increased spending imagined to flow from increased GDP not redistribution. It is fair to say that our members will need to hear of a more detailed vision for fairness in an independent Scotland if the Yes campaign is to succeed. 

The fourth challenge is for the ‘Better Together’ campaign and specifically for the Scottish Labour Party. There was concern and, on occasion, outright anger at some of the economic, social and international policies which have been pursued by government, particularly at the UK level. ‘Not being the Tories’ and negative messages about the SNP will not suffice and members will require a clear steer on how economic and social justice will be achieved at all levels of government and to be convinced that the Scottish Labour party intends to play an active and radical role in achieving this. Equally, whilst not necessarily convinced of the ‘Devo Max’ model as broadly outlined by the Scottish Government, there is clear support amongst those who are opposed to independence (or undecided) for significant additional powers for the Scottish Parliament. Detailed attention to this must be given by the ‘Better Together’ parties in the next period and meaningful proposals brought forward. 

In addition to posing these challenges to the campaigns, this interim report, leaning heavily on views gleaned from those involved in the AJS discussion, looks at the key areas which will impact upon a socially just future for Scotland. The report also references the developing Scotland wide debate and views received both from affiliated organisations and a range of other organisations. 

STUC hopes that the interim report will provide a basis for further public discussion. For its part, STUC will organise a range of further discussions, reports and events concentrating on the detail of some of the issues raised whilst continuing to focus on the social justice as the outcome we aim to achieve. It will also participate in events organised by other community and campaigning organisations which share our approach. 

For a copy of the full report and associated papers, click here.

Just three weeks ago, a community looked on in horror as a garden they had collectively built from scratch was destroyed without warning.
The ‘guerrilla garden’, which had popped up on the banks of the Union Canal, was nurtured over a five-week period by friends, acquaintances and strangers.
But their project was cut short by the City of Edinburgh Council, who said the disused spot of land in Shandon had been slated for wildflowers and a bench.
Now a similar project based in the nearby Fountainbridge area aims to appropriate empty space to engage community members, build local relationships and, of course, create a garden.
But in a bid to avoid a similar fate to that of their neighbours, founders of ‘The Grove’ have come up with a novel solution.
“We realised that the garden needs to be mobile, an idea we really struggled with in the beginning,” said Susanne Müeller, a member of The Grove’s four-person steering group.
“We know how community gardening works but we haven’t seen people mobilise their garden.
“We came up with the idea that the whole garden could live on palettes – the idea of moving something on palettes has been quite well researched so we thought it can’t be that hard.
“It could be quite a unique thing and I think that could be an asset to have something that is that niche. You can always find someone who can borrow a forklift to move it and this way the garden’s not at risk.”
Over recent years Fountainbridge has been characterised by gaping building sites and construction work taking place in the area, namely caused by the demolition of the Scottish and Newcastle brewery.
 
Part of the former Scottish and Newcastle site at Fountainbridge.
Two years ago, the Fountainbridge Canalside Initiative (FCI) was established to ensure that a viable and sustainable community-focused solution was developed in the area.
Now The Grove’s steering group, in association with FCI, are bidding to transform just a tiny corner of the plot, adding to work already carried out to improve the area.
The proposed area, located next to the 600-home Springside initiative which has been built on part of the Scottish and Newcastle site, would be available to community gardeners until developers Grosvenor decided to use the plot, at which point they would transport the garden to another place.
“Together with the FCI we identified the open land and started talking to Grosvenor, who said they would be happy to use as a meantime development,” said Susanne.
“I don’t think the community feels a negative impact from Grosvenor’s work, but the fact that it doesn’t have any impact isn’t good either. Sometimes people are confused by seeing a lot of open land; you can’t make anything with it.
“We want to turn the area into something the community can embrace.”
Unlike Shandon’s Trees Not Trash, which was based on a neighbourhood beautification scheme run in Brooklyn in New York and was created without permission from the council, The Grove will be made in partnership with Grosvenor.
The Grove’s steering committee say the property group, which is responsible for the 140,000 sq ft development, has already promised to provide the ground works and fencing required, as well as supporting the purchase of planting, storage, security and shelter.
“Obviously we are speaking to the developers, we couldn’t work with them without getting the right permission,” added Susanne.
“But I live in Harrison Park and I saw the impact of the guerrilla garden. It was like a magnet for kids, they would come over from the playground and just sit there and get involved – you don’t normally see that.”
Now Susanne, a social scientist who moved here from Germany three years ago and works for a renewable energy company, will join with the steering group to collect ideas from the community in a special meeting on December 10.
The event is aimed to shape the future of the garden, what it would include, and the way in which it would be used.
“I’ve always been interested in bringing communities together and seeing through sustainable practicing,” added Susanne.
“I realised this could be amazing, there’s nothing like this in the area. We said we want to make sure it’s inclusive and also to make sure the surrounding community is kept informed about what’s actually happening on the site. At least this is one development that they can actually engage with.
“People are extremely interested but we really want them to decide what they actually think. The most important thing now is to get the community to sit in the meeting to see if it still resonates – the most important thing is to meet the people.”
Pat Bowie, chair of the FCI, is also on The Grove’s steering group, and thinks that the initiative could be developed elsewhere in the city.
“We’re hoping it will be a great development in Edinburgh. Grosvenor is putting money into it as well, so it’s nice to actually have them on side,” she said.
“We want to be the body that keeps the links of communication between what’s going to be on that site and our community, so we can keep people up to date and they can have a say.
“I think there is a genuine willingness to work together on this, hopefully we got together at the right time.”
Robin Blacklock, from Grosvenor, who has been working with members of the public on proposals for a mobile garden, added: “It’s an exciting opportunity that we are investigating and we hope to be able to do something. We’re encouraged by the support the community have for it and we’re hoping to facilitate it in due course.”

SNP MSP Roderick Campbell lead a debate on the benefits of co-housing for older people in Scotland on 31 October 2012.

In his motion he cited some of the benefits as security and mutual support among peers, autonomy, people retaining control over their own circumstances, companionship instead of isolation, a sense of belonging and community and commitment and affordability through shared costs.

He announced to MSPs a new pilot project between the Vivarium Trust and Kingdom Housing Association which will build around 30 houses with residents deciding democratically what facilities they need.

Mr Campbell said in the current economic climate many housing options do not meet the needs of older people and he went on to say this model could offer a solution to many of Scotland’s pensioners.

Closing the debate for the Scottish government, Housing Minister Margaret Burgess welcomed the opportunity to discuss co-housing and said it was a model that should be looked at across the whole of Scotland.

To read more about the work of the Vivarium Trust click here

One in the south of Scotland…
SNP MSP for the South of Scotland Dr Aileen McLeod has welcomed the news that the South Rhins Community Development Trust is to commence community consultation under right-to-buy legislation, following the decision by the Northern Lighthouse Board to sell the 30-acre site and buildings apart from the lighthouse itself.
Dr McLeod commented: “The South Rhins Community Development Trust wants to keep this iconic site in community ownership and build on the good work that has been done over the past twelve years to turn the Mull of Galloway into a popular tourist destination.
“I hope these plans will gain the support of the wider community and allow the Trust to proceed with the community buy-out process.
“A great deal of good work has been done over the past twelve years and I am confident that the community has the skills and commitment to ensure the continuing success of the Mull of Galloway as a tourist destination, but in the future with many of its assets owned and managed by the community itself.”

And one in the north east…
A local community has given a resounding ‘Yes’ vote to plans for the transformation of an iconic lighthouse into a major tourism hub.
Voters in Lossiemouth were polled on if community buyout plans for the Covesea Skerries Lighthouse should go ahead, with the Moray electoral officer undertaking a ballot of every voter in the IV31 6 postcode district.
Hours after the deadline for returned ballot papers the result on Friday revealed an “astonishing” 94.9% of residents in favour of the Lossiemouth Community Company Limited (LCCL) taking the plan forward.
Now the group plan to press ahead with identifying funding sources for the estimated £300,000 required to purchase the lighthouse from current owners, the Northern Lighthouse Board.
Speaking for the LCCL on Friday a delighted Bernard Annikin said: “Under the terms of the Scottish Government’s community buyout scheme we had to show that we had the backing of the local community to purchase the lighthouse, and we felt the best way of doing that was to conduct this poll.
“In talking to people we were aware that they were in favour of this move, but even then we were astonished at the level of support the poll revealed. Almost half of those who could vote did so, which in electoral terms is not at all bad.
“With 2454 of them voting ‘Yes’ and only 130 saying ‘No’, there is a very clear message from the people of Lossiemouth on the way ahead. With that level of backing we know that we can progress with a great deal of confidence.”
Mr Annikin added that the intention now was to first secure ownership of the lighthouse and the LCCL will also consult with a variety of groups on how it will be used in the future. He said: “The main thing that has come through already is that people would like to see the lighthouse become a hub for all tourism activities in and around Lossiemouth.
“There are a number of groups showing an interest in joining us in this venture, including the RAF who may well establish a museum on the site.
“The poll has shown that people are prepared to work together on this and that is vital. We are looking at attracting perhaps 20,000 additional visitors to the area and that will provide a tremendous boost not only for the lighthouse but for all of the existing tourist attractions the area has to offer.”
Chairman of the LCCL is David Stewart, who added: “I am thrilled by the results of this poll which gives us a very clear mandate to proceed with our plans for the lighthouse.
“The LCCL has already looked at a variety of groups who would be able to assist the community in the purchase and that will now be our main priority. The Scottish Government withdrew the lighthouse from public sale and we will seek to ensure that it is under community ownership as soon as possible.
“These are exciting times for Lossiemouth and I’m sure that communities throughout Moray will be watching closely on how our plans progress.”