A project in Royston, one of five areas targeted for additional Lottery investment, is celebrating an award from the Big Lottery Fund’s (BIG) Our Place programme.
Rosemount Lifelong Learning will be able to create a multi-purpose community centre thanks to today’s grant of £1,173,718. It will be built as a two storey extension to their current premises on Royston Road.
The project is one of six to receive the latest awards from the Our Place programme which aims to make increased investment in five areas of Scotland, including Royston, which have not seen the expected level of Lottery funding over the last three years. 
Announcing the awards Big Lottery Fund Scotland Director, Jackie Killeen, said: “I am very pleased that this project has received Our Place funding. The new community centre will provide a central location for people to come together in a friendly environment. And it is a critical link in building the confidence of people in the community that their efforts can improve their local services and environment.”
The hub will be an inspirational venue for a range of community groups and residents who need a modern, flexible building which can hold meetings, workshops, recreational and cultural classes, community events and private functions. Neighbourhood issues will be promoted through the revived Royston Rag newsletter which will also be available online and be used as an area to attract volunteers who can gain specific skills to increase their employability.
Alex Meikle, Chief Executive of Rosemount Lifelong Learning, said: “Rosemount Lifelong Learning is delighted to accept this award. It will create a multipurpose community hub that will be built as an extension on the existing community learning facility known as the Flexi centre at the heart of the Royston community.”
“Once constructed the hub will act as a venue for a range of community groups to participate in as well as deliver a diverse range of activities such as public meetings, workshops, recreational classes, cultural classes and community events in a modern, informal and easily accessible venue. The project will also revive the `Royston Rag’ a previously successful local newsletter.”
“The new centre will be close to local schools, shops and library and we hope will become a real focal point of activity and a contribution to the regeneration of the local community as well as a vital resource for the people of Royston.”
The five areas targeted by the Our Place programme are: Greenock Central and East in Inverclyde, Bellsmyre area of Dumbarton in West Dunbartonshire; Renfrew West; Newmains near Wishaw in North Lanarkshire and Royston in North Glasgow. BIG has previously funded development work in each of the selected communities giving them a dedicated team to help them identify their local priorities.

Barr is a small community of around 250 people sitting high in the Southern Uplands of Scotland, approximately eight miles from the nearest sizeable centre of population.  Because of the very isolated nature of the village, it has always had to rely heavily on local, rather than passing trade to maintain viability.  In 2011, the owners of the village shop/PO decided that they were unable to make a decent living from it and put it on the market.  After six months with only minimal interest and no sensible offers brought to the table, the owners were prepared to close the shop and use the premises for other purposes.  This would have meant that the nearest shops would have involved a round trip of 17+ miles.  The nearest superstores in Ayr and Prestwick would mean a round trip of 53 – 58 miles.

Retaining the shop and post office was seen as essential to the community spirit of the village.  For many, especially those without transport (and there is no public transport to Barr), the shop is a meeting place, a social hub, a communication centre and also a major part of the network caring for the oldest and most vulnerable in the village as well as a source of groceries and stamps.  The Community Council asked Hadyard Hill Community Benefit Fund’s Village Development Worker Catriona Haston to conduct a survey of the residents and two public meetings to ascertain the level of interest in retaining the shop/post office and whether there was any interest in the community taking over the shop/post office.  The result was overwhelmingly in favour.   A considerable number of people also indicated their willingness to help out with fundraising and volunteering and a steering group was set up, which ultimately became the nucleus of BSSG Ltd, which runs the new community shop.
 
Following a successful grant application to Hadyard Hill Community Benefit Fund, the shop opened on July 1st 2012 in the old shop premises which are leased from the previous owners.  Due to a number of factors, not least of which was the time scale involved, the committee opted for the legal form of a Company Limited by Guarantee.   The shop now employs two part-time managers, Judy Brzezinka and Mike Ross who run the place with the help of a team of volunteers.  Getting the sub post office up and running was a lot harder, as anyone who has done it will know, but that is also now (finally!) in place.  The shop sells a very wide range of groceries, alcohol, hardware, luxury and craft items and has plans to offer a number of extra services to the community.  Local produce and products feature strongly.  The takings are going up month on month and the shop is now about to undergo some reconstruction in order to create a small kitchen and café area.  As local councillor Alec Oattes puts it: “The future looks rosy for Barr shop with such a dedicated group of people determined to ensure its success”.

Author: Carnegie UK

To obtain a copy of the discussion paper, The Enabling State, click here

The relationship that individuals and communities have with the state has a fundamental impact on the quality of our lives.

In post war UK and Ireland the state took on the role of provider and manager of public services. This model brought about many important improvements to the quality of our lives. In the 21st century however, traditional policy interventions are starting to yield diminishing returns and governments battle to improve efficiency as the global financial crisis continues. Against this backdrop decision makers in each jurisdiction are now independently re- evaluating the role of the state.

The language and the approach used in each jurisdiction varies: ‘localism’, ‘local democracy’, ‘big society’, ‘community empowerment’ the core principals however, are similar. There is a new more active role for individuals and communities in shaping public services and improving societal well-being and the state is recast as a facilitator and enabler.

The Carnegie UK Trust’s ‘Enabling State’ project
led by Carnegie Fellow, Sir John Elvidge will examine this changing relationship between government and citizens in the UK and Ireland and seek to identify a common language across the jurisdictions.

Sir John will work with the devolved governments, UK wide, national and local organisations and community groups in the UK and Ireland to:

• Articulate the changing relationship between state and citizens and the challenges and opportunities this presents.
• Encourage awareness and understanding of the issues amongst policy makers at the local, national and UK level.
• Identify specific recommendations to support the shift toward enabling state in each jurisdiction.
• Promote a greater understanding of devolution and the opportunities it presents to learn from innovation across the jurisdictions.
For Sir John’s discussion paper, published November 2012, please click here.

Author: Jerry Mander, Resurgence Magazine, 1.11.12

Then there is the crucial matter of scale.  Most economists these days, the media at large and the general public do not make clear distinctions between large-scale domestic or global capitalism versus local, small-market capitalism.  The former operates in diverse, far-flung markets and regions, with extensive infrastructures, gathering resources or engaging in production and distribution, wherever on Earth they can do so profitably, especially after the boost provided by corporate globalisation after World War II.  Or else they franchise their activities broadly beyond their initial community.
Large national and global corporations – especially those whose stock is publicly traded – are obliged to see constant growth, constant profit expansion and the absolute primacy of short-term self-interest, no matter the social, political or environmental context or effects.  Making profits for shareholders is the primary, if not the only, legal and practical obligation of corporate structure.  If they do not succeed in that, businesses fail.
On the other hand, small-market local businesses have the option to operate in far different ways.  Private, small-scale, locally owned and oriented businesses that operate in single markets – especially those that are not listed by stock markets – are usually more directly involved in community life; their customers may also be personal friends or neighbours.  Such businesses can set priorities and retain options that large-scale capitalist enterprises cannot.  For example, privately owned, small-market businesses can opt out of any legal imperatives to continuously expand; nor do they have to pay dividends to anonymous or dominant shareholders.  This is also true of family or community-based businesses, as well as worker-owned and operated businesses, co-ops, and ‘not-for-profit’ corporations of various kinds.
Small enterprises will usually continue to seek profits, i.e. the excess of income over expenses.  But their smaller-scale and community-embedded ownership allows them at least the possibility to operate from entirely different hierarchies of value thatn their megacousins operating nationally or globally.  They can more easily avoid the intrinsic pitfalls that derive from serving the hungers of large-scale, growth-oriented, stock-market-driven enterprises.
This is not to say that smaller-scale businesses always behave morally or that they necessarily place the interests of community or Nature ahead of personal gain, but the smaller and more local that scale of the operation, the greater the opportunity for more pro-social, pro-community and pro-environmental values and an acceptance of limits to growth.
A family-run store, or a restaurant, or a local service business – even when it seeks a profit – is a very different entity from a national or global resource company or bank or manufacturer or hedge fund.  They are structurally and functionally different from large-scale or global capitalism, with mostly different motivations and drives – not really even cousins.
They should not both be called ‘capitalist’.  I think the word ‘capitalism’ should not be used to cover nearly the territory it now does.  If local entrepreneurs were the only ‘capitalists’ in the world, I would never have thought about this book.  They are not the problem

Author: Civil Society, 23.10.12 by Tania Mason

Sirs Stuart Etherington and Stephen Bubb outlined their differing views on the issue of trustee remuneration when they appeared before the Public Administration Select Committee this morning.
After Sir Stuart told the committee that the NCVO’s view opposing relaxation of the rules around paying trustees was shared widely within the sector, Sir Stephen muttered: “They are wrong”, to which Sir Stuart retorted: “I don’t think they are wrong Stephen, if that’s what you said.”
Sir Stephen had opened the debate on paying trustees by refuting the assertion by committee chair Bernard Jenkin MP that the issue was a “hornet’s nest”.
He said it has never been illegal for charities to pay their trustees, but the process of getting permission from the Charity Commission to do so is a “tortuous” one. Lord Hodgson’s suggestion of allowing large charities to facilitate payment without bothering the Commission is “entirely sensible”, he said.
 
Bubb, chief executive of Acevo, pointed out that three-quarters of his members did not think they would want to pay their trustees anyway, but 25 per cent could envisage doing so.
Asked by Jenkin what problem this suggestion by Hodgson would address, Bubb said it would increase trustee diversity, improve the skill level of boards, and boost trustees’ professional engagement with the role.
But Sir Stuart, CEO of NCVO, argued that the voluntary principle of trusteeships “goes right to the heart of charity”, and is of utmost importance in preserving public trust in charitable endeavour.
“It is the wrong time to introduce measures of this kind,” he said. “The existing measures are not tortuous or onerous, they are pretty straightforward.
“Ultimately it would have very damaging effects on public trust if charities could pay whatever they wanted with no checks or balances in the system.  There is also the slippery-slope argument, that there would be pressure on other organisations to follow suit.”
Etherington also rejected Sir Stephen’s stated reasons for supporting the change, saying there was no evidence that paying trustees would attract new skills to boards, nor that it would broaden the potential pool of candidates.
But Bubb went on to remind the committee that historically staff in charities were never remunerated, and that the move to paid CEOs and staff had not resulted in a loss of trust and confidence.
He added that those of his members that had attempted to get Charity Commission approval to pay their trustees had found it “extraordinarily difficult”. He cited the example of the RNIB, which pays its chair because he had to give up other work to take on the very demanding role.
“Why should we be able to say to these charities that they can’t pay their trustees if they want to?” Sir Stephen asked.
Committee chair Jenkin asked Bubb whether RNIB would want to pay its chair if it wasn’t such a wealthy charity, to which Sir Stephen said: “I don’t know”.
Jenkin concluded the session by saying: “Isn’t there something intrinsically special about the fact that the people who have ultimate responsibility for our charities do it as a voluntary effort, as citizens, often because they want to give something back?  Doesn’t paying trustees undermine that principle?”
Bubb responded that he didn’t think we would ever get to a point where most trustees are paid, and in fact the change that Lord Hodgson is proposing is “not a big change”.

Author: Research for Real, September 27, 2012

We know that multi-agency partnership working is difficult.
“Collaboration is by nature inefficient.  It is only sensible to collaborate if real collaborative advantage can be envisaged.  The strongest piece of advice, therefore, is ‘don’t do it unless you have to’”. 
Here’s a new set of reports that document the lessons from the Fife Alcohol Partnership Project.  There are lots of lessons from the overall approach likely to be of interest to others facing similar challenges across Scotland and the wider UK. It is likely to be of particular interest to members of Alcohol and Drug Partnerships, Community Planning Partnerships and all those with an interest in the public service reform agenda.
The reports are available on the FASS website.

“The project has worked out, but oh boy, it has caused pain.” – senior health promotion officer, health promotion partnership
“Decisions are made by the Alliance Executive, but they keep procrastinating over big decisions … you can’t afford to procrastinate over spending a million pounds.”  – information manager, retail property development alliance
“Multi-agency work is very slow … trying to get people moving collectively rather than alone is difficult.”– project officer, young offender community organization
“I am under partnership attack from my colleagues.” – operations manager, engineering supply chain
“The long catalogue of failed JVs—lcatel/Sharp, Sony/Qualcomm, Lucent/Philips—demonstrates the enormous difficulties in pulling companies like these together.” – a Gartner analyst quoted in the Financial Times, 10 December 2002, p. 8
Not everyone who works daily in collaborative alliances, partnerships or networks reports such negative experiences as those quoted above. Indeed the Financial Times (24 June 2003, p. 14) reports a Nokia executive as saying that their linkages are paying off. Others talk similarly enthusiastically about their partnership experiences:
When it works well you feel inspired … you can feel the collaborative energy.
However, very many do express frustration. There has been much rhetoric about the value of strategic alliances, industry networks, public service delivery partnerships and many other collaborative forms, but reports of unmitigated success are not common. In this article we explore the nature of the practice of collaboration, focusing in particular on some of the reasons why collaborative initiatives tend to challenge those involved. Two concepts are central to this exploration. The first is collaborative advantage. This captures the synergy argument: to gain real advantage from collaboration, something has to be achieved that could not have been achieved by any one of the organizations acting alone. This concept provides a useful ‘guiding light’ for the purpose of collaboration. The second concept, collaborative inertia, captures what happens very frequently in practice: the output from a collaborative arrangement is negligible, the rate of output is extremely slow, or stories of pain and hard grind are integral to successes achieved.
Clearly there is a dilemma between advantage and inertia. The key question seems to be:
If achievement of collaborative advantage is the goal for those who initiate collaborative arrangements, why is collaborative inertia so often the outcome?
To read a copy of the full article click here

A new briefing is available which provides information on the Learning Exchanges between Community and Voluntary Sector Health Organisations & Scottish Government Civil Servants which CHEX has been part of.
To give a bit more detail on these, the Scottish Government in collaboration with CHEX, Community Food and Health Scotland and Voluntary Health Scotland sought to create opportunities for structured dialogue between community-led and voluntary health organisations and civil servants.  The Exchanges aimed to increase the understanding of each other’s role and the potential for joint working on the planning delivery of policies on health outcomes.
This briefing summarises the process and activities together with the lessons to support national bodies and community-led and voluntary health organisations in joint working on health outcomes.  It provides insights into (a) the work and impact of 4 organisations – Lifelink, Healthy Valleys, Broomhouse Strategy Group and Car Gomm (b) the role of civil servants in implementing national health and social care policies and (c) outlines a model to develop opportunities to enhance national and local collaborative working.  Click here to download the briefing.

Author: Jennifer Wallace and Katie Schmuecker , 2012

At a time of economic turmoil it is perhaps unsurprising that the minds of policy makers focus on the question of how to restart economic growth.  But in recent decades people have begun to question the adequacy of GDP as the primary indicator of the progress of societies.  A number of governments, local, devolved and national have begun to explore how to measure wellbeing as a complement to traditional measures such as GDP.
The project was carried out in partnership with IPPR North and provides evidence from six case studies of experiences of measuring wellbeing in France, the USA and Canada.
The report concludes that wellbeing measures are at their most effective when they are supported by a combination of strong leadership, technocractic policy processes and building momentum through wide buy-in from civil society, citizens and the media.  Where these elements come together, we have seen benefits for individual and community wellbeing by identifying policy gaps and innovative ways of working.  It can also provide a valuable tool for holding governments to account.
To obtain copy of full report click here

Author: New Start Magazine

Extract from interview by New Start magazine with Malcolm Fraser .

To read full interview click here

Can you talk through some of the main areas of change in the review?
Well it’s early days, but these are some of the areas we’d like to see brought forward. Firstly, housing. I’m interested in increasing the numbers of people living in towns, and in particular in unoccupied flats above shops. Residential leaseholds in Scotland at the moment are set at a maximum of 20 years but we want to get that raised so that there’s more financial incentive. We’re also approaching housing associations to discuss whether they might take the redevelopment and management of units on. The housing associations could use the flats to bring young people to live in the town centre, people who currently can’t access a mortgage and would love to be at the heart of their communities.
Second is community assets. We want to bring estate agents with vacant properties together with community groups to find new ways to fill them. Estate agents are interested in any use of property and with a microfinance fund in place to assist the community groups – from the Church of Scotland, the Grameen bank or even Tesco – we can get, say, the local creche working with a local community business and the local bridge or dance club to all move in together into, say, an empty hall. And would the government consider such a microfinance fund, that will grow as a new community business is successful? Banks won’t act like proper, traditional lending institutions these days so what are community businesses to do?
Thirdly we want to streamline planning to make it easier for developers and retailers to move into the centre of towns. We need to understand how cities and towns evolve. I like Patrick Geddes’ view of towns as ecosystems, which is very different to conventional idea of build and then conserve. His view is more subtle and creative and allows shopfronts to be knocked about, sites to be redeveloped in different ways. We need to accept these things and do them joyfully.
The fourth area is the very important area of rates and retail and I urge the Scottish Government not to put off its rates review, as Westminster has done. Everyone knows that a review of the rates landscape is needed and a rebalancing, to reflect the reality that many town centres are struggling, would greatly assist their recovery.
A fifth area is around accessibility to public services. We’d like to see the planned community empowerment bill encouraging local authorities to consider how people get to and use public services. If you move services out of town you put a burden on the person trying to use those services who then has to access a car to reach them. We’d like to talk about how to make the best use of public buildings so that old town halls can be done up and improved and used, rather than services moved out of town.
A sixth area is about digital towns, how broadband can link within and across towns.

See short video of interview with the head of social innovation at Twitter,Claire Diaz-Ortiz,   here

Social media is part of how the world now does business and communicates: in the UK alone there are 41 million people on Facebook, and 10 million on Twitter. But has social media become a critical part of how the world does good?
At Unity Trust Bank and Social Misfits Media, we engage every day with charities, social enterprises, and other organisations who are dedicated to making social change. And yet, many of them are not strategically using social media to broaden their audiences, spread messages and, crucially, fundraise. That’s why we’ve put together  “About that First Tweet” – a practical guide to social media for charities and social enterprises. 
In our Guide, we assemble the thoughts of nearly 200 small and medium-sized charities and social enterprises on social media. The Guide also includes interviews with social media experts from Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, all of who give tips on how to best engage with the platforms they provide; case studies of organisations who’ve successfully used social media to achieve off-line goals; a checklist of reminders and tips; and further reading.
We hope you’ll find the Guide helpful, and we look forward to hearing from you about your own social media experiences, success stories, and questions. Enjoy and make sure you share!
Now, for Social Enterprise Day and Global Entrepreneurship Week, Twitter’s head of social innovation Claire Diaz-Ortiz gives an exclusive film interview, providing advice to civil society organisations about using Twitter and to young people considering a career as a social entrepreneur.
Adrian Oldman, head of marketing at Unity Trust Bank, said: “Following the well received ‘About that First Tweet’ social media guide, Unity is really pleased to be able to bring further insight and advice to social enterprises and charities on how they can improve their social media output and in turn deliver increased powerful and sustainable social change in their communities.”