Argyll Activities is a community project based in Ardrishaig and is part of the Ardrishaig Community Development Trust.  The project offers a wide variety of sporting and outdoor opportunities to the residents of Argyll. Through the Commonwealth Games Legacy for Communities Programme the project has been engaging with Argyll sports clubs and the disabled community to find out what sporting activities disabled people are currently interested in, what the barriers are to getting involved, and what will enable existing clubs to be genuinely inclusive.  

Argyll Activities first began the engagement process in August 2011 with the aim of establishing what the barriers were to disabled people in Argyll participating in sporting and outdoor activities. Although well served by outdoor activities providers, there is currently no disabled sports organisation in the area, and a detailed survey on participation rates has never before been carried out.  

A survey was undertaken with funding from the Big Lottery’s ‘Investing in Ideas’ Fund and with support from the Scottish Government’s Legacy programme.  Further support was then provided through the Scottish Community Development Centre (SCDC)’s Legacy for Communities programme, to engage with the disabled community in Argyll in order to understand what they want to see for their community as a legacy for the Commonwealth Games.

As a result of the new information gathered from the surveys and focus groups, Argyll Activities hopes to work with local partners to establish a project which will meet the identified needs of people with disabilities in Argyll.

How did they do it?

Argyll Activities undertook 4 focus groups in Campbeltown, Oban, Dunoon and Helensburgh.  These focus groups were advertised in the local press and through partnership channels.  Approximately 30 people attended the events and contributed to the discussions.  The focus groups were followed up by in-depth interviews with 17 individuals consisting solely of disabled people and support workers.  

“If you go to a gym most people there are able-bodied and relatively fit.  This can be off-putting if you are conscious of your own appearance.  If there was a place for people like me it would be great.” (Survey respondent)

At the same time Argyll Activities distributed two thematic questionnaires, one for sports organisations and one for disabled people.  The questionnaires were circulated online and in paper format at meetings and through disabled peoples’ organisations.  

” I don’t know if local clubs would accept us…” (mental health service user)

Some of the key findings from the research:

• The biggest barrier to participation in activities was cost. Health, weather and transport were cited as major difficulties. Other barriers that might be described as ‘attitudinal’ included shyness, lack of company or support and a poor welcome.

• People were interested in an extremely wide variety of sports; however archery, kayaking, walking and swimming were among the most popular.

• The majority of activity currently undertaken was in informal situations, with almost none in formal sporting institutions or locations (gyms, pools, pitches etc).

• Activity providers wanted greater access to training and adaptive aids so that they could provide better quality experiences for all their users.

Recommendations

1. Disability Training and Awareness – Disabled people and activity providers need to be supported to share knowledge and experiences.  Training is required regarding disability issues including understanding needs and particular conditions.

2. Personal & Social Support – Disabled people need some form of ‘buddy system’ to help them engage with sport and outdoor activities.  The ‘buddy system’ would lead to increased confidence & participation for disabled.

3. Access to Information – there is a need for more accessible information about what opportunities are available and when they are available.  Argyll needs tailored information about sports and outdoor activities, in appropriate formats for a wide variety of disabled users. 

4. Increased opportunity to access the environment – Access for all people to outdoor activities regardless of ability. This should be achieved in an environmentally responsible way.

5. Increased empowerment for disabled people – Increasing the involvement of disabled people in the decision making & governance of all-ability sports projects and increased representation on strategic bodies in Argyll.

What next?

Argyll Activities now have robust evidence from their engagement process, which they have recorded through the use of the VOiCE community engagement planning and evaluation tool. The group now plan to take the findings to the reference group who were a key part of the consultation, in order to get their feedback and take forward the recommendations. In addition, many of the respondents have asked to be kept up to date with the findings as they happen and their feedback will also be invaluable. The information from the report of the research will form the basis and the evidence for a future project to be agreed with the reference group.

“Argyll Activities had never conducted community action research before and had great advice and support, both in the preparation of the consultation, using VOiCE, and then at the collating of the results.  It was great to have someone help us with our focus and with good advice throughout, and we hope the work we have done together goes some way to leaving a lasting and powerful legacy in Argyll for one of the more marginalised groups in our gorgeous county.” 

Antonia Baird, Project Coordinator, Argyll Activities.

In April this year a time capsule was buried in the grounds of Tynepark, a Haddington-based mental health resource centre, which closed its doors earlier this year.

The emotional ceremony took place during a ‘farewell afternoon’ to mark what was thought to be the end of an era for many who had used the facility over the past 20 years.

Closure came after CrossReach, a social care arm of the Church of Scotland, had been  unsuccessful in its tender for mental health day service provision in Midlothian, and which was based at Tynepark where there were more than 60 service users on its books at any one time. The new contract was awarded by East Lothian Council to Penumbra which will provide a different form of service at various locations across East Lothian.

When the news of the project’s closure came, the effect on service users was devastating – so many people relied on the mental health recovery and drop-in service. But now plans are being laid to ensure the service isn’t lost completely in the long term. The service users have taken it upon themselves to secure the use of the annexe, which is a small part of the existing property, although the Church of Scotland are pushing ahead with their plans to sell Tynepark House to a housing developer. 

From within the annexe, the new project, Mental Enablement and Empowerment (MEE) intends to carry on delivering as many of the services that had been running for twenty years. eg. computing; cooking; garden therapy; trips; arts and crafts; drama; horse-riding; peer support; one to one counselling, photography club; walking group; pottery group; cycling group; woodwork group; fitness and wellbeing room, horse-riding, and so on.  Although the project has attracted some interim funding from the Lottery to help with running costs this is limited and the services on offer will have to reflect the available resources.

MEE is currently working with a range of potential community partners with a view to achieving the longer term aim of purchasing Tynepark House from Church  of Scotland and converted the building into a multi purpose community hub.

Posted on www.nationalnetworkcc.com,  25 July 2012

Blog by Jenny MacKenzie , 

WE are taking our last dance on this page, and just as anyone would savour the last drink at the O.K. Corrall, the writer will make the most of the last post for the National Network of Community Councillors. 

It has come to my attention, from more than one reliable source, that the whole Community Council (CC) concept has been well and truly parked in a cul de sac of failed community engagement. The dust covers are out and the wheel lock is on.  

Regarded as unrepresentative and narrow in interest, membership and ambition, CCs are privately perceived as too often hijacked by local politicians (who ought to know better) ambitious interest groups, or older, retired middle-class men who seek former, or yet-to-be-realised glory days.  (The latter are cantankerous, wilful and ‘white and spiteful’ as one jovial observer remarked who happens to be married to one, always pleased indeed to have him out of the house for the monthly meetings). 

While sometimes made up of all of the above, representatives of their communities most of them are not – and yet, it was claimed ¬¬– that is what community councils are meant to be.    

Of course there are exceptions and one or two do work quite well.  They carry blithely on, making it clear incidentally that the very last thing they need is a national network.  Some do act as a link, for perhaps a community activist who wants to know who needs help, or for the occasional truly inspirational younger person who makes use of her CC as a gateway for community projects.  We have profiled one here (scroll to the bottom)  and commend her worthy goals.  

Several island, rural community and small village CCs function well too.  They focus on local area needs, building and maintaining community halls for example, or forming trusts to establish wind turbines that yield a healthy profit.  We have profiled one or two of those. On the whole however, they too show little need or enthusiasm for national body representation.  

But many urban areas struggle with problems that spring from the anonymity of larger groups and could do all with all the help they can get.  Sadly for them however, despite public debate about the flaws in the CC construct, it has become clear that absolutely nothing will change for them anytime soon.  

First of the problems is the artfully constructed membership list that ensures an election isn’t necessary.  Before the very first meeting, the resulting self-appointed groups begin with a predilection to please themselves. 

But the greatest obstacle of all is that there is not one check and balance to provide post holders and committees with the powers to deal effectively with nuisance trouble makers. What a ridiculous situation to be in!

Claiming to be ‘elected’ by the public, a disruptive CCllr cannot in law be sacked, removed from office, banned, or excluded.  The only effective way of getting rid is to dissolve the CC and try to start over.  This is not recommended. 

If attempts are made to form a new group and exclude the offender, European court action is threatened on the grounds of abused human rights.  Though this has happened in relatively few CCs across Scotland, the results have been mass resignations or dissolution.  

Then there are budgetary issues.  In most cases, very small grants are provided for ‘communication’ matters and administration.  What many CC urban activists had hoped for in the longer term would have been reasonable budgets, as granted in some island communities that could be directed into local projects.  One or two elitist urban pilots have attempted this, and have been quoted as proof of Scottish Government good intent, but given the current distaste for the CC concept, my bet is they are unlikely to be repeated.     

                                                A hole at the heart

DESPITE all of these problems, there was a reason to build on the better aspects of the vision, to push for more publicity, better representation, more penalties for misuse and better budgets.  The national network was set up on that premise.  But that was before it was understood that the whole concept has been quietly shelved, with no will or intent to work for meaningful structural change. Fulsome praise will continue for side-line CC successes, but there is no commitment whatsoever to removing the obstacles that hamstring most of them in the stalls.  

Today the public is better informed and more decisive than it used to be.  While activists who seek to empower local communities do not look for financial reward, value for time is an absolute must. They look for ground rule honesty. Very few will settle for obfuscation and deferred discussion.  

The community council concept was flawed from the start.  We thank the contributor who asked if the model is fit for purpose and concluded that it is not.  We applaud the former local authority employee who revealed that many council officials have never taken CC members seriously and continue to display zilch intention of doing so.  

And we conclude by shining shame on the Scottish Government for setting up a system promoting local democracy that carried a death warrant within its heart right from the start.  

The site for the national network of community councils has contributed in some part to the debate about how community engagement and empowerment could work, so it will stay alive for a time as a record of that.  In the meantime however, perhaps the next meaningful conversation about how real and effective democracy can grow locally will come from you?  

Jenny MacKenzie 

Extract from ‘Social Enterprise in Anytown’ by John Pearce (2003)

Mutual Financing 

Financial institutions are required within the third sector which have the capacity to make the scale of investments that are needed to seriously grow social enterprises.

The idea of making social enterprise ‘bankable’ sends out quite the wrong message. It implies that social enterprises are, or should become, like other businesses, which they are not and should not aspire to be. It further implies that social enterprises should somehow fit themselves to the demands of the existing banking system.

The first step must be to consolidate the network of finance institutions which belong to the social economy. That may not mean proliferating small Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFIs) but building institutions of some scale which can both make loans and provide ‘patient’ equity capital.  The emphasis should be on finance institutions which are controlled by the state or by the private sector.

The second step is surely for the existing big financial players from the traditional co-operative sector in the social economy to take a lead in developing a new national institution or supporting regional social economy funds to build up and provide the investment capital which is required. They have the expertise.  There is substantial money around the social economy, but most of it is kept and used within the mainstream banking system. Therefore it does not work to benefit the social economy, The Charity Bank, Triodos Bank and others have demonstrated that there is money out there which people are willing to invest in social enterprises and to accept that social returns temper the financial return they may expect.

The third step is to make more sensible use of the substantial funds which the public sector already invests in social enterprises. That means the introduction of ‘recoverable grants’, paying revenue money as up-front capital, working through social investment funds rather than direct from the public sector, and diverting some of the expensive revenue schemes (Intermediate Labour Markets for example) into capital investment funds.

Four Main Points

• The social economy requires its own mutual financing institutions based on social economy values rather than having to become ‘bankable’ in the style of the first-system banks. 

• These mutual finance institutions must build investment funds of a scale which can deliver the growth capital required for social enterprises to make a significant difference.

• The existing co-operative financial institutions should take a lead in developing new institutions and mobilising the substantial funds already within the social economy to work for social enterprises. 

• Public-sector investment in social enterprises should be routed through the mutual financing institutions and delivered as ‘patient’ equity.

A blog by Malcolm Harvey, Electoral Reform Society Scotland – Scots are ready for real, meaningful constitutional debate

Since the launch of Yes Scotland and Better Together, the campaigns in support of independence and the Union respectively, the constitutional debate has entered a phase of relative quiet. While partisans and activists continue to fight the campaigns on the doorsteps and on street stalls (and, more vociferously  through social media outlets,) the campaigns – at least in the national media – appear to be on a summer hiatus.  Which has meant that writing about the campaigns themselves has been somewhat limited. 

The absence of partisan debate has allowed the non-aligned an opportunity to engage with the constitutional debate – an opportunity which was grasped eagerly at an event I attended last month.

And though I am currently an intern at the Society which organised the event, I don’t think I need any kind of bias to suggest that the event was a resounding success. Dubbed a “People’s Gathering”, the event brought together people from all over Scotland – a sample of the population, albeit opt-in, representative of age, gender, home town and political affiliation for a dialogic discussion in two parts. 

The morning session asked delegates to consider how a Scottish democracy might look in 2030 and discuss what particular aspects of this utopian ideal they liked the most.   The afternoon session subsequently saw delegates consider the obstacles which would need to be overcome to achieve such ideals.

Professor Alice Brown opened the day by reminding delegates of the ideals upon which the Scottish Parliament was based on its (re)opening in 1999: wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity, words inscribed upon the Parliament’s Mace.  And while that was the starting point for discussions of how the infant parliament should conduct itself, there were no such constraints on the delegates at the People’s Gathering.

Different ideas for Scotland’s future ranged from increased engagement in the political process through a better informed electorate, social justice and a better informed policy process, to praise for the principle of subsidiarity, an end to money being able to buy political influence, and an open process to consider a written constitution for Scotland.  From a personal perspective, as a note-taker for one of the groups, I was taken by the knowledge and experience which the delegates brought to the day, and the vibrancy with which the discussions flowed.

While the People’s Gathering was but the beginning of the process for the Electoral Reform Society’s “Democracy Max” programme (which continues later this year with several round table events), the early signs are that it is doing something which the two sides of the referendum campaign would like to do: engage the Scottish electorate in discussions about Scotland’s future.

That delegates from all over Scotland were happy to voluntarily give up their time on a summer Saturday to come to Edinburgh and discuss ways to improve Scotland’s democracy suggests there is an appetite within the Scottish electorate for this kind of debate.  Herein, I think, lies the lesson for politicians and political commentators alike.

The Scottish public are happy – eager, even – to engage in political discussions, to consider how we might improve democracy, our political institutions and our society. But the discussion needs to be meaningful, the consultation two-sided and the outcomes identifiable. If we start to see this kind of engagement from Yes Scotland and Better Together, there’s hope for us all yet.

Extract from Andy Wightman’s Blog 

Today, the Scottish Government announced the establishment of a “Land Reform Review Group” that will oversee a “wide ranging review of land reform in Scotland”. If this happens it will be very worthwhile.

However, the remit and membership of this group are yet to be agreed with Scottish Ministers and it is unclear how wide the remit will be. If it is simply to undertake a technical review of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, it will be of very limited value when the real issues concern inflated land values, affordability of housing, succession law, tax avoidance, secrecy, absentee landlordism, theft of common land, land registration laws, common good etc. etc. etc.

Whether any of this gets looked at depends on two things.

The definition of the term “land reform” and the remit for the group. Let’s crowdsource ideas on both of these. Please leave comments at www.andywightman.com on :-

1. a definition of land reform and

2. a remit for the Land Reform Review Group.

My interview on Radio Scotland Newsdrive at 1750, 24 July 2012.

Article by Robbie Dinwoodie, The Herald, 25th July

URBAN communities are in line to benefit from land buyouts after the Scottish Government announced plans for a radical rethink of the policy.

First Minister Alex Salmond yesterday set up a new expert panel, chaired by former Kirk moderator Dr Alison Elliot and including in its ranks a critic of this Government’s rate of progress on the issue, Professor James Hunter.

Part of the Land Reform Review Group’s role will be to show how it would benefit people from the remote communities which have bought out their land already, to those living in towns and cities who want to reclaim brown field sites.

Iain Cooke, of Development Trusts Association Scotland, which has championed causes such as Inverclyde Community Development Trust, the bid to reclaim Moffat Town Hall, and the Castlemilk Stables project in Glasgow, said: “This should be something that is open to all com- munities – sustainable and com-munity-led development. The principle of communities taking control should be universal.”

The issue of land reform has traditionally been seen as one for the Highlands and Islands, prompting activists to recognise that spreading recognition of the benefits and principles will advance the cause more generally.

Mr Salmond said after the Scottish Cabinet meeting in Skye: “Land reform is an important part of Scotland’s story. From the Crofting Acts of the 1880s and 1890s to the more recent right-to-buy legislation and support for community land purchase, significant progress has been made. 

“We cannot underestimate the crucial part land reform will play in contributing to the future success of Scotland for the next generation. By improving the relationship between our land and people, we can create stronger communities and deliver the economic growth and fairer society the people of Scotland quite rightly expect.”

He added: “I want this review to deliver radical change for both rural and urban areas, developing new ideas which will improve current legislation as well as generating even more innovative proposals.”

Dr Elliot said: “I want to take a look at all the opportunities that exist to promote more communities taking control of their future by taking control of their land.”

Her joint deputies will be Professor Hunter and Dr Sarah Skerrat, with 10 advisers to be appointed soon to look at possible legislative needs.

Mr Hunter said: “I am very pleased to have been asked as I have a long-standing involvement in this area.”

He has been a strong critic of the way politicians of all parties have failed to carry through on land reform since the first legislation was carried in the first term of the Parliament.

David Cameron, chairman of Community Land Scotland, the body representing previous buyouts, said: “The terms of reference appear to be broad as this will allow scope for the group to examine radical action that will help advance the cause of securing further change in land ownership across Scotland.

“The review can learn from the success of the land reform that has already taken place over recent decades and help plan how to accelerate that.

“Community Land Scotland will play an active part in presenting evidence for further reforms to promote an ever greater role for communities in the ownership and management of their land and look forward to contributing actively to the work now getting under way.

“The review group have a significant number of months to complete their work and it will be important that options for any necessary legislation can be developed in tandem with their work to avoid any delay in being able to legislate.”

Susan Smith, Third Force News

FEARS that asking difficult questions could impact on funding and relationships with public authorities is stopping charities using Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.

New research from Scotland’s Information Commission reveals that concern about funding and working relationships is a key concern for voluntary organisations making FOI enquiries. The legislation, which provides the right to access information held by public authorities, is generally under-used by voluntary organisations.

Around half of Scotland’s voluntary organisations have said they would be put off from requesting information from public bodies because of fears it would impact on their funding. Public bodies do not do enough to protect the identities of voluntary organisations that seek information, the research found. As a result FOI is more often used by smaller, more independent organisations or as a “last resort” when other lines of communication breakdown.

Voluntary organisations also complained that they feel public authorities, such as councils and health boards, deliberately try to frustrate the process.  They accused public bodies of delaying responses, inappropriately withholding information, interpreting requests too narrowly or exploiting ambiguities in request wording to avoid disclosure.

Scottish Information Commissioner Rosemary Agnew said: “FOI was introduced to make Scotland’s public authorities more open and accountable to the communities they serve. We have seen many examples of the information released to voluntary organisations through FOI being used to inform and support public authorities in the delivery of better services.”

“This study raises some serious concerns. Any perception that an FOI request can result in negative consequences will deter people from using their right to access information – information which is often critical to asserting other rights.  I think that many public authorities will be surprised by these findings. They will not want to be viewed as treating FOI requests from voluntary organisations as a challenge or a threat. Public authorities need to engage with voluntary organisations to understand and address any fears.”

The report found that often organisations use third parties, such as umbrella bodies, MSPs or journalists to make requests on their behalf.  The Coalition of Care and Support Providers Scotland recently requested information from all 32 local authorities on the rates they pay for care at home services.

Davina Adamson, its information and communications officer, said: “Members came to us because of concerns in a specific area, but as we were concerned that this may be a broader issue, it seemed logical that CCPS should undertake a national request under FOI, rather than expecting our members to individually enquire at a local level.  We were very specific in what we asked for from the local authorities, having checked the detail of our request beforehand with the Scottish Information Commissioner’s office.”

“However, we received mixed responses following our request and although some councils were readily able to send the information requested, others appeared to struggle, and either asked for more time to locate all the data, or sent information which was incomplete or did not fully match the original FOI request.”

Some voluntary organisations also told the Scottish Information Commissioner they would be more likely to make requests if their identities as FOI requesters were only disclosed to a designated FOI officer.  Dr Will Dinan, from Strathclyde University, was one of the authors of the report.  He said: “It appears there is real reluctance to use FOI, with some voluntary groups concerned about harming working relationship and funding.  Such sensitivities are only likely to increase with public spending cutbacks. In this context it is very important that public authorities respect the rights of those using FOI to promote accountability.”

Rationale  – The New Road: Charting Scotland’s inspirational communities. Carol Craig

In the face of huge challenges such as climate change, resource depletion, financial melt-down, globalisation, falling living standards, rising inequality and mental health problems,  it is becoming increasingly clear that western societies will have to make huge changes. In short, we cannot go on in the same vein: we need to envision and enact a radically different future.

Scotland is well-placed in some respects to make a significant contribution to this new thinking: we played a major part in the 18th century Enlightenment and many of the factors which facilitated Scotland’s leading role are still in place. Namely, we are a small, networked society with high levels of education and commitment to social improvement where it is easy to have conversations across subject disciplines. 

In the Enlightenment period Scotland had ‘settled politics’ thus allowing energy to be channelled into non-constitutional issues. This is not true today. The case for and against Independence may absorb a lot of the country’s intellectual energy. But then again it may release it – giving Scots the first opportunity to really consider what we want Scotland to become independent for. In short, the independence debate may encourage us to consider what kind of society we want to be. 

This juncture in western culture and Scottish political culture requires outlets for new ideas across a whole range of topics – environmental, social, organisational, political, cultural, psychological, economic and spiritual – as well as new frameworks and ways of conceptualising.

Postcards from Scotland aims to help develop this new thinking in a readable and accessible format and publicise, to a much greater audience, some of the projects in Scotland which are already aiming to help bring about a new way of living.

When I finished working on the new edition of The Scots’ Crisis of Confidence last year I felt a certain sadness that I had come to the end of my working relationship with Derek Rodger from Argyll Publishing who I found a joy to work with.  He had published The Tears that Made the Clyde and then proposed to republish my first book. So as I handed over the last rewritten chapters of The Scots’ Crisis of Confidence I wondered if there might be another book that we could work on. 

I was increasingly interested in materialist values but didn’t think this a particularly likely topic for Argyll nor did  I envisage myself writing a substantial book on the topic. So this is why I started to think about a series of small books relevant to Scotland but also about the big issues of our time – hence the series we have announced today called Postcards from Scotland.

So when I started to think about this book series I knew I did not want a series of books written by isolated, abstracted thinkers sitting at their desk somewhere divorced from reality. I wanted a series which was more ’embodied’ and connected to human experience. I also didn’t want to have a precise template which would then dictate the shape of each volume. No I was keen to have a series that had some recognisable form but which also had space for individuality. After all few things in the natural world are consistent; diversity is the norm. 

I also wanted to put collaboration and relationships at the heart of this series. This is why we are so keen on the idea of having at least two people contributing to each volume. Ideally this will be an older person with a young person who makes up for their lack of writing skills or expertise in the area with their energy and freshness of perspective

As there is very little money in publishing I was also aware that most of the contributors would have to participate knowing that they would get no financial recompense whatsoever for their involvement. The Centre is putting some money into the first six volumes and all authors’ royalties will come to us to invest in future books. 

Very early on I knew that one of the books I wanted to commission would recount some of the great work which is currently happening in Scottish communities – particularly environmental and social enterprise projects.  The problem was who could I commission to do this?  Who could I ask to go round Scotland visiting projects and then writing this up when (other than expenses) they would not get paid one penny? 

This is when I realised that the answer lay close to home – my husband Alf Young to be precise.  Alf is often described as the best living Scottish journalist. He is particularly gifted at writing about what is going on in organisations and many readers used to love his weekly profiles of Scottish businesses. He is now semi-retired and so has some free time. However, I am still not sure if he would have accepted the commission if I hadn’t then added another dimension to my request. Would he undertake this journey round some of Scotland’s most inspirational community projects with our son Ewan? Ewan is passionate about sustainable development. He has a degree in the subject, lives a low carbon life in a cabin in the woods and works for the Ullapool Community Trust. This is Ewan’s world. He could help choose the projects and would be a knowledgeable and helpful travelling companion and collaborator in the writing phase. As soon as this was agreed the title became obvious: A father and a son go on a journey – that sounds like ‘the Road’, except it is a hopeful journey hence the title ‘The New Road’.

The Dept of Work and Pensions has published proposals for providing around £50 million in grant funding to credit unions If implemented, the cash will be offered to a ‘carefully’ selected group of credit unions, for lending and expansion – provided that they comply with changes to their business and culture, recommended in the feasibility study. 

Credit unions are not-for-profit, fully autonomous financial co-operatives which are committed to the service of members, promoting small savings and access to low cost credit. The DWP proposals, which are at total variance with these objectives, have not been welcomed by many Scottish credit unions. 

The report recommends, among other things, that the rate of interest charged on loans should be 3% per month; currently most Scottish credit unions charge a maximum of 1% per month on the outstanding loan balance. Its authors believe that interest rates must increase to at least 3%, if credit unions are to be sustainable. 

They ignore the evidence in Scotland of many large, successful credit unions which have never exceeded the standard 1% per month – St Johnstone, Newarthill, Castlemilk and Cranhill all spring to mind. 

While regulated by the FSA, credit unions are free to exercise control of their own policies and procedures. It is a model that has served credit unions well throughout the world. 

More people, across all income levels, are currently turning to credit unions as financial providers because they appreciate and trust their ethical nature. It is the duty of Government to provide a reasonable standard of living for all of its citizens and to address issues of social and financial exclusion. 

The DWP is the appropriate department through which to attempt change. However, credit unions should not become a vehicle at the disposal of Government to utilise in the process. 

Undoubtedly, there is a greater empathy within the credit union movement for those on low incomes than we would expect to find among other financial service providers.

However, capacity to repay is a consistent criterion for ethical lenders such as credit unions. Adding to the debt burden of the impoverished will not solve their difficulties. Government has shown little urgency in tackling the exorbitant rates, legally charged by home credit providers and the pay-day loans industry. 

Global economies are still reeling from a banking crisis which grew out of sub-prime lending at high interest rates to the poor in the United States. I fear that the Westminster Government will seek unilaterally to re-brand credit unions solely as instruments for tackling financial exclusion. In my view, this would be commercially damaging to an image which our members have been carefully nurturing in Scotland; that credit unions should attract and serve members from across all income groups in the Community. 

When Labour came to power in 1997, Chancellor Gordon Brown, established a ‘Credit union Task Force’ and appointed Fred Goodwin to chair it. 

The Coalition has demonstrated a remarkably consistent insight in its selection. To advise the Credit Union Movement on interest rates, it chose as Head of the Project Steering Committee, Deanna Oppenheimer, a senior executive of Barclays Bank.

John Patton is Secretary of the Scottish League of Credit Unions (SLCU). He writes in a personal capacity.

Intro Paper for: “A Policy on Architecture and Placemaking for Scotland – Public Consultation 2012”

The Scottish Government is undertaking a public consultation to inform the shape of future policy. It was launched on 29 May 2012 and responses should be submitted to the Scottish Government by 7 September 2012.

The architecture and design industry contributes about £1.3 billion per year to the economy of Scotland. The design of buildings and places supports the economic and social well being of all our communities as well as mitigating the effects of climate change. As such good quality architecture, urban design and place making is pivotal in shaping Scotland and it communities. The consultation poses a number of related issues as well as seeking comments on any other relevant areas that have not been specifically identified.

Click here to view consultation paper.