AN historic urban woodland has been saved for the town of Innerleithen by two mystery benefactors.

As a result, ownership of the picturesque five-acre Pirn Wood has this week been handed to the Innerleithen Community Trust (ICT) which will now embark on a programme of improvements.

The woodland was recently put on the market with a freehold asking price of £12,000 by the descendants of the famous land-owning Horsburgh (alternatively spelled Horsbrugh) family whose connections with the upper Tweed Valley date back to the 13th century.

“We had to act fast because the last thing we wanted was some absentee landlord taking over a prized amenity area and neglecting it,” said trust chairman Ross McGinn.

“And this week, we had the terrific news that our bid has been successful. This was all down to the help and generosity of a local couple who do not wish to be named, but to whom we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.”

The wood, which sits on eastern banks of the Leithen Water on the northern edge of the town and is accessed on foot from the landmark Cuddy Brig, is steeped in history and, back in 1980, a late Bronze Age socketed axe was discovered there by an English visitor.

The selling agents noted that mature oak, beech and ash trees dominate the woodland, along with expansive overgrown crowns and “some very impressive girths”.

“Scattered throughout this are smatterings of elm, hazel, holly and Scots pines, plus a vigorous under-storey of regenerating hardwoods … bluebells, crocuses and daffodils promise delightful spring colour.”

Mr McGinn enthused: “It really is every bit as beautiful as the promotional material suggests, but much of it is overgrown and the footpaths do need some serious improvement work, so we are on the lookout for all the help we can get, preferably from people with some experience of woodland management.

“This will encourage more people to use the wood and access the wider footpath network to the Iron Age Pirn Hill Fort and cairns from where there are stunning views of the Tweed Valley.

“The wood is already popular with walkers of all ages and abilities and has a picnic area with seating adjacent to the Cuddy Brig.

“The trust’s mission is to clear some of the overgrowth and improve the pathways to encourage even more community and visitor use of this natural asset, right in the heart of Innerleithen.”

The ICT, which will take over maintenance responsibility of the wood from the community council, was founded in 2004 to boost the tourism, business and heritage potential of the town.

The trust has already produced a local business directory, publishes a bi-monthly “what’s on” newsletter and organises the popular Sunday event when the town’s Christmas lights are switched on.

“The acquisition and improvement of Pirn Wood fits perfectly with our aims as a trust,” said Mr McGinn, who would welcome any offers of expert assistance. Contact him on 01896 830853 or email community@innerleithen.org.uk 

Scottish Government website 28/05/2012

A long awaited community buyout of the former RAF Machrihanish air base was confirmed today.

The Machrihanish Airbase Community Company (MACC) has purchased the former RAF base. This is the culmination of the largest and most complicated community buyout under current Scottish land reform legislation, which has been completed with support and financial assistance from the Scottish Government, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Water and the Ministry of Defence.

Environment Minister Stewart Stevenson visited the site today and met with senior members of MACC as well as other members of the board. He was given a tour of the site and heard about future plans.

Benefits of the buyout include:

• £1.7 million investment in local infrastructure

• £300,000 to address issues relating to the condition of the base (e.g. road maintenance) and other costs

• 137 former MoD houses and commercial properties connected to water supply for the first time

• Upgrade of the private sewage system and electrical infrastructure

• MACC future plans for the site include commercial and industrial use – renewable energy and biomass plans – as well as residential and recreational purposes

Mr Stevenson said:

“Land ownership is key to building independent, resilient rural communities and creating a sense of confidence and community empowerment. That’s why the Scottish Government fully support buyouts and are committed to providing opportunities for rural communities to acquire land. 

“The MACC buyout will benefit both the local community and businesses.  Benefits will include improvements to the water, sewage and electrical infrastructure at the site.

“The transfer would not have been achieved without the commitment of members the Machrihanish Airbase Community Company.  They were quick to see the benefits that community ownership could bring, ensured the community supported their vision and have worked tirelessly to deliver the base into community ownership.”

Enterprise Minister Fergus Ewing said:

“Flourishing communities are essential to building sustainable economic growth for Scotland and The Scottish Government has supported the Machrihanish Community throughout the buyout process and will continue to do so.

“There is potential now for Machrihanish to reap the benefits of the expansion of the renewables industry in Scotland and build growth in the tourism and leisure sectors and this will benefit Kintyre as a whole.

“Highlands and Islands Enterprise will remain on hand to offer their expertise and I know that the local community will grasp every opportunity that comes their way.”

MACC Chairman Ian Wardrop said:

“It has been a long road but all the hard work has finally paid off. I would like to acknowledge the tremendous support we have had from the community, and the ongoing help, advice and financial support from our partners in Scottish Government, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Argyll and Bute Council.

“I am also personally very grateful for the unstinting support of my fellow Directors who have all given so freely of their time during these protracted negotiations.”

Douglas Cowan, Area Manager at Highlands and Islands Enterprise, said:

“We wish to congratulate MACC on the purchase of the air base on behalf of the local community. The base has tremendous potential which will be able to be developed over the coming years through community ownership and management.

“The buyout has had strong local support and, following recent multi-million pound investments in tourism and wind tower manufacturing, is another exciting development for the long term future of Kintyre.  HIE will continue to work closely with MACC to shape and support their ambitions.

Northern Lights is a film about Scotland made by you.

As part of the Year Of Creative Scotland 2012 we are asking members of the public to collaborate with us in the creation of a unique feature-length documentary film. We want you to take out your cameras and record your own personal videos about Scotland’s past, present and future.

Project submissions are open from 20 March to 21 June 2012 and you can submit as many video contributions as you like. We will then gather together all this footage and edit it into a unique, first in a lifetime, vision of Scotland in the Year 2012.

We are not sure what you will share with us, but to help get you started we would like you to think about three questions:

What Can You See?

What Do You Wish You Had Seen?

What Would You Like To See?

Anyone can take part in the project and we are particularly interested in submissions from first-time video makers. It’s all about having your say and sharing your Scotland with us. If you are a first-timer you might want to check out our videos on Preparing, Shooting and Submitting your video or videos.

If you are looking for additional group support, there are Workshops taking place all over Scotland throughout the 3 month period. Or perhaps you’d like to Host Your Own workshop?

Northern Lights also has a £10,000 award fund available to UK residents who contribute to the project within the 3 month submission period. Visit the Awards page for details.

You can watch all submissions here and vote for your favourite videos using the ‘Vote Now’ button which appears under the player. The video with the most votes will receive the People’s Choice Award following the deadline on 21 June. If you have already submitted your video, start sharing the link and ask your friends to vote.

To keep up to date with all the news on awards, submissions and workshops or to ask us questions about the project follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook or sign up for our newsletter here.

For more information please see our FAQs and read our Terms & Conditions.

So what will you say about Scotland? Get involved.

The number of Scottish councils should be cut by almost half and their powers boosted to revitalise local government, a think tank has said.

Reform Scotland also said health and police boards should be scrapped, and their responsibility added to councils. It wants to see local authorities reduced from the current 32, to 19. The think tank said the “crisis” in local government was highlighted by poor turnouts at the 3 May council elections.

The recommendations were dismissed by local authority umbrella group Cosla and the Scottish government.

In a new report on renewing local government, Reform Scotland also proposed the election of mayors and the devolution of local taxes, all under plans to bring power closer to the people and “reverse the trend” of centralising power with government.

Under Reform Scotland’s proposals, some city councils and ones with large areas, like Edinburgh and Highland, would stay the same. But other neighbouring authorities, like North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire, would be merged into a new area simply known as “Lanarkshire”.

The new councils under the proposed structure would be:

• Ayrshire (comprising East, North and South Ayrshire)

• Dunbartonshire (comprising East and West Dunbartonshire)

• East and Midlothian (comprising East and Midlothian)

• Forth Valley (comprising Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, West Lothian and Stirling)

• Grampian (comprising Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Moray)

• Lanarkshire (comprising North and South Lanarkshire)

• Renfrewshire (comprising East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire)

• Tayside (comprising Dundee and Angus)

• Argyll and Bute, Perth and Kinross, Dumfries and Galloway, Edinburgh, Eilean Siar, Fife, Glasgow, Highland, Orkney, Shetland and Borders remain unchanged.

Reform Scotland chairman Ben Thomson said: “It is clear from the recent disappointing local election turnout that we have to take action against the erosion of local democracy in Scotland. This is not a party-political issue, and we hope to start a vital debate in this country which will result in a solution being found which empowers our councils, and which engages people at election-time.”

“It is certainly the case that there is too much confusion caused by the inconsistent number of councils, police boards and health boards, and, by making these boundaries the same and making local authorities more responsible for these essential services, we will take a big step in the right direction.”

A Cosla spokesman, described the Reform Scotland report as “disappointing” and said some of the thinking behind it was “woolly and piecemeal”.

He added: “It is also interesting and somewhat odd that a think tank that champions localism is trying to deny councils the opportunity to be truly local with some of the suggestions in this report.”

A Scottish government spokesman said: “Our approach to reforming Scotland’s public services, following on from the Christie Commission’s recommendations, is about making sure that they are consistently well-designed and delivered to the right people by the right people – it does not rely on wholesale structural reform.

“Local authorities are already finding innovative ways of collaborating and improving frontline services to deliver the best outcomes for the people of Scotland.”

To see full report, visit Jimmy Reid Foundation here.

The Jimmy Reid Foundation, Scotland’s left-wing think tank, has published The Silent Crisis: Failure and Revival in Local Democracy in Scotland. It concludes that below the national level, Scotland is the least democratic country in Europe. Seven indicators were used to assess this:

• Population size: Scotland’s councils are by far the biggest in population size in Europe – the average EU council serves is 5,630 voters while in Scotland an average council services 163,200 voters

• Geographical size: Scottish councils are by far the biggest by land area in Europe. The EU average size is 49 square kilometers compared with Scotland’s average size of 2,461 square kilometers. Even countries with lower density of population have much smaller countries – Finland averages 1,008 square kilometers.

• Turnout at elections: Scotland has an artificially high turnout rate because we’ve held the last three local elections at the same time as national electons. Even so, only England has a lower turnout and it is very likely that Scotland will fall below England on 3rd May.

• Number of elected bodies: Scotland has a tiny number of elected bodies below the natioanal level and the flattest structure of government of any EU nation. 

• Ratio of electors: Scotland has the fewest elected councillors per citizen in Europe. France has one councillor per 125 people, Finland one per 500, Spain one per 700, even England manages one per 2,860. In Scotland we have one elected councillor per 4,270 citizens.

• Participation in local politics: Scots are the least likely of any comparator to get involed in local politics. One in 84 people in Norway stands for election. One in 145 in Sweden. One in 2,071 in Scotland.

• Competition for for election: candidates in Scottish elections have the least competition of any comparator. In Norway an average of 5.5 pople contest each seat, in Sweden 4.4 people. In Scotland only 2.1 people contest each seat.

In every regard, local democracy in Scotland is failing. But the report accepts that, broadly, local administration is working reasonably efficiently. So it concludes that the cost and disruption of any wholesale reorganisation of local government would be entirely unjustified. 

It therefore calls for the Scottish Government to establish a Commission to devise a full plan for an extra layer of democracy at the community level but supported by the existing bureaucracy.

The report contains detail of the sorts of issues that need to be resolved (including finance and powers) and also puts forward a set of principles which should guide the work of the proposed Commission. Because minimal additional bureaucracy would be required, the report models the cost of running a more democratic system and concludes that it need cost no more than £20 million to run. Further details are available in the report and the summary report.

Commenting on the report Robin McAlpine, Director of the Jimmy Reid Foundation and one of the report authors, said:

“Government is a combination of good administration delivering the priorities set by real democracy. At the local level in Scotland the administration is basically fine but the democracy is an absolute disaster. I don’t think anyone really believes they can use their vote to change their community any more.That just can’t be acceptable.

There has been an assumption among the professional classes that ordinary people can’t be trusted to run their own communities. Not only is this patronising nonsense, the experience of almost every other European country shows it’s just not true. Scotland’s communities deserve better than to be treated like naughty children.

This is a cross-party issue and the only thing stopping us from fixing this problem is that hardly anyone seems to realise the problem exists. Our report proposes a relatively simple and inexpensive way to revive local democracy. We believe it would not only inject life into local communities, it would reinvogorate politics in Scotland from your doorstep all the way to Holyrood.” 

Supporting the launch of the report Rob Gibson, SNP MSP for Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, said: “Building a new democracy in today’s Scotland requires accountability and decision-taking at the most local levels. I welcome this key contribution to the debate about subsidiarity for real. Small works! “

Paul Coleshill, Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Glasgow City Council said: “This report is a significant analysis of the democratic deficit in Scotland. Taking power to the centre whilst proclaiming localism feeds disempowerment that people demonstrate by not voting. The powers passed from Westminster to Parliaments in Scotland and Wales have not inspired those bodies to redistribute them to local authorities and beyond. 

Control should cascade from Westminster to Holyrood to local councils to geographically small but general local bodies like community councils. Voters care about their local GP surgery, their local bus service, the swimming baths and the primary school in a way they don’t about the whole NHS, or centralised leisure policy or educational administration. So take control over these things and give it to local communities. Taking the implications of this report seriously might get people voting.”

Patrick Harvie, Co-convener of the Scottish Greens said:

“Greens have long argued for decision-making closer to communities and across Scotland we have dozens of council candidates campaigning on this issue. Sadly we’ve seen centrist tendencies hold sway for years, under successive governments. Greens at local level have a track record of encouraging community involvement in decision-making. The Jimmy Reid Foundation has put forward some radical and provocative ideas, which deserve serious consideration from all parties.

“I’d like to see this debate go beyond local decision-making, and address local ownership too. Banking, media, energy, retail and food production are all areas where a more diverse ownership structure would bring about more democratic accountability for the economy as a whole, not just for the public sector.”

Extract of an article by Lesley Riddoch in The Scotsman 2/4/12 

…In Iceland the standards, expectations and capacity of “the people” are rather higher (than in Britain). The 2009 banking crash in Reykjavik created losses equal to seven times the country’s annual income and plunged Iceland into near bankruptcy. The subsequent “pots and pans” revolution of 2009 (a series of large, noisy, weekend demonstrations) saw the election of Jóhanna Sigurdardóttir and moves to prosecute former Premier Geir Haarde for negligence. The world’s first openly lesbian Prime Minister was (more to the point) also a green activist who supported the growing clamour for a politician-free “reboot” of Icelandic democracy.

Public scrutiny uncovered an absence of checks and balances in Iceland’s system of government – a crucial weakness in the “old” constitution borrowed from “Mother” Denmark when Iceland declared independence in 1944.

Political donations by commercial interests in Iceland have been outrageously high – averaging an annual $8 per Icelander, compared to just 60 cents per person in the donation-crazy US.

Two Icelandic government ministers were able to commit Iceland to the invasion of Iraq without consulting parliament. The justice minister could appoint judges without oversight. Public land had been sold to private aluminium firms for hydro dams and fishing grants and quotas had been awarded to a suspiciously small number of boat owners.

Enough was enough. A new constitution was needed, but after such compelling evidence of “establishment capture” – and after 67 years failing to deliver a promised overhaul – the political class could not be trusted to write it. So Iceland’s “crowd sourced” constitutional process was born. The first move in 2010 was a National Assembly populated by a random sample of 953 ordinary Icelanders who created a basic framework for the constitutional review. Then 25 people were elected from 550 self-nominating volunteers to rewrite the democratic rulebook.

The Icelandic Constitutional Council (ICC) took four months to write the world’s newest constitution with input by e-mail and social media (95 per cent of Icelanders are online with 66 per cent on Facebook). The resulting people’s constitution was debated last week and will be put to a referendum this summer. The Icelandic economist Professor Thorvaldur Gylfason won the highest number of votes – and was in the Scottish Parliament this week to explain what happened next.

“This is the first time a constitution has been drafted on the internet. The public could see new rules come into being before their eyes … very different from old times where constitution-makers found themselves a remote spot out of sight and out of touch.”

The ICC posted draft clauses on its website every week and weekly rewrites, which took into account 3,600 public comments, 323 formal propositions and subsequent discussions on the ICC Facebook page. The ICC also had a Twitter account and a YouTube page where interviews with constitution-writers were watched by 5,000 people. ICC meetings were open to the public and streamed live on the website and Facebook page. There was no special access for once-preferred interest groups like bankers, farmers and boat owners. As Professor Gylfason told a packed Committee room, the forces of the establishment clearly believe “their” representatives will be able to amend or somehow blunt the Constitution’s force during parliamentary debate.

Perhaps they will. But perhaps “the people” are now a political force to be reckoned with in Iceland, distinct from party, parliamentary and establishment interests. So what has Iceland’s democratic renewal got to do with Broken Britain or even self-determining Scotland?

Disillusioned voters here want a fresh start every bit as badly as the 320,000 inhabitants of Iceland. What the public here gets is the chance to elect a man as excluded and resentful as themselves. What disillusioned voters in “basket case”, Iceland have done is go a whole step further – writing a constitution that would end a culture of cronyism their own politicians had failed to tackle.

That raises a big question for Scotland. Would political independence from England guarantee an end to the influence of the Edinburgh Establishment, described by Bill Jamieson as “the largest and most enduring elite in Scottish life – interlocked, cross-connected and intensely self-reinforcing (with) power and influence (that) extends over culture, the arts, business, politics and government”.

A Scottish Government minister said recently that the SNP controls the government but isn’t even a member of the establishment. Three cheers for that – look what the Tories’ monopoly on power has done to civic life in England.

But is Scotland much better? Conformity reigns in many walks of life and dissidents fast become unemployable. Is there evidence that the SNP will tackle the entitlement, privilege, cliques and special pleading that still hobbles Scotland? A politician-free Constitutional Commission would be a way to champion the sovereignty of the people. Otherwise many will conclude that Scotland – unlike Iceland – is incapable of elite-challenging constitutional change, inside or outside the Union. 

Prof Gylfason’s Edinburgh lecture can be heard at nordichorizons.org

For further information on the plans of So Say Scotland contact 

Susan Pettie : hq@prophetscotland.co.uk

Oliver Escobar : oliver.escobar@ed.ac.uk

Stephen Elstub : stephen.elstub@uws.ac.uk

“Democracy does not require perfect equality, but it does require that citizens share a common life. What matters is that people of different backgrounds and social positions encounter one another, and bump up against one another, in the course of ordinary life.”  Michael Sandel

An extract of a review, which appeared in the Guardian, by John Lanchester of Sandel’s book – What Money Can’t Buy. 

Dead peasants insurance” is a term that sounds as if it comes straight out of Monty Python. If only that were true. Here’s an example of what it means: in 1999, Michael Rice, a 48-year-old employee of the supermarket firm Walmart, collapsed while helping a customer carry a television to her car. He died a week later, and an insurance company paid out $300,000 for the loss of his life.

So far, a sad but not unusual story; the twist was in the identity of the people who benefited from the insurance. It wasn’t Rice’s family, who didn’t get a penny, but Walmart. In a subsequent lawsuit, it turned out that Walmart had hundreds of thousands of such policies on employees, so every time one of them died, the huge corporation enjoyed a tiny windfall. And that’s dead peasants insurance, or, as it is also known, “janitors insurance”. They are forms of what the insurance industry calls Stoli, or “stranger originated life insurance” – in other words, an insurance policy taken out on your life by someone else, not on your behalf but on theirs.

Michael Sandel is a professor of politics at Harvard, and is one of the best known public intellectuals in America. He enjoyed a worldwide hit with his last book, Justice, the subject of a famous lecture course at Harvard, and gave the 2009 Reith lectures. His new book, What Money Can’t Buy, is a study of “the moral limits of markets”. For him, the story of dead peasants insurance is an example of how the encroachment of market values can change the character of an industry. Sandel shows how life insurance, which had its origins in the idea that we can mitigate the economic impact of death on survivors and dependents – an idea which was always controversial, and indeed was illegal across much of Europe – was gradually corrupted into a form of betting against other people’s lives.

Another example of this process was the development of “viaticals”. These were insurance policies that had been taken out earlier in their lives by people who were dying of Aids. The life insurance policies of these dying patients were valuable – so a market developed in which these policies were bought by investors, who would give the Aids sufferer a lump sum and would pay for their care during the terminal illness. Then, when the patient died, the policy would pay out: kerching! The catch for investors was that the longer the patient lived, the less money they would make. “There have been some phenomenal returns,” said the president of one company that specialised in viaticals, “but there have also been some horror stories where people live longer.”

This trajectory, for Sandel, is paradigmatic. We can all instinctively understand the idea of life insurance; most of us will feel an instinctive repugnance at the thought of the viatical industry or dead peasants insurance. As market thinking penetrated the life insurance industry, a moral line was crossed, and the application of market ideas was taken too far.

That shows what has happened with the increasing ubiquity of market ideas. “Over the past three decades,” Sandel writes, “markets – and market values – have come to govern out lives as never before.” Sandel is no socialist and isn’t against markets per se. He is forthright about the positive impact markets can have in their correct sphere. “No other mechanism for organising the production and distribution of goods had proved as successful for generating affluence and prosperity.” His focus, perhaps unexpectedly, isn’t on the 2008 crash and the great recession that followed. Instead, Sandel is interested in what he sees as a deeper and more consequential loss of our collective moral compass. “The most fateful change that unfolded in the last three decades was not an increase in greed. It was the expansion of markets, and of market values, into spheres of life where they don’t belong.”

Sandel is methodical about assembling evidence to refute the idea that markets are amoral and have no moral impact. Paying people to queue, for example: Sandel studies this practice in areas such as US congressional hearings and free outdoor theatre performances. In both cases, companies have come into being to allow the well-off to hire a homeless person to go and hold a place in the queue until the rich person turns up just in time for the main event. This is an example of something which is supposed to be a communal good being marketised and turned into cash. This has two consequences that often recur and are stressed by Sandel: one is that the process is unfair, and the other is that it is corrupting or degrading to the thing being marketised.

He sees this dual phenomenon, of unfairness and the degradation of values, at work in many areas: from the market in sports memorabilia to carbon trading to on-call doctor services to Chinese population control policy to the growth of executive boxes at sports grounds – “skyboxification”, as he calls it. That leads to one of his most direct statements of political engagement: “Democracy does not require perfect equality, but it does require that citizens share a common life. What matters is that people of different backgrounds and social positions encounter one another, and bump up against one another, in the course of ordinary life.”

There’s one example in particular that comes close to summing up the entire argument of What Money Can’t Buy. It concerns an Israeli daycare centre, which responded to a problem with parents turning up late to collect their children by introducing fines. The result? Late pick-ups increased. Parents turned up late, paid the fine, and thought no more of it; the fine had turned into a fee.

The fear of disapproval and of doing the wrong thing was based on non-monetary values, and was a stronger force than mere cash. The daycare centre went back to the old system, but parents kept turning up late, because the introduction of market values had killed the old ideas of collective responsibility. Once the old “norm” of turning up on time had been marketised, it was impossible to change back.

This is such a vivid illustration of Sandel’s thinking that it is almost a parable. His book What Money Can’t Buy, by being so patient and so accumulative in its argument and its examples, marks a permanent shift in these debates. Markets are not morally neutral. Let’s all be clear about that. As Sandel concludes: “The question of markets is really a question about how we want to live together. Do we want a society where everything is up for sale? Or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honour and money cannot buy?”

Monday 30 April 2012, Community Energy Scotland

CARES loans have new strands and new guidelines – can they help you advance your plans?

Speaking at the Scottish Highland Renewable Energy Conference in Inverness on Thursday 26 April 2012, Mr Ewing restated his Government’s priority to give help to developers of smaller scale renewable energy projects.  Local community groups and rural businesses such as farmers and estate owners are to be encouraged to develop their plans for wind, hydro and other renewable energy technologies, seek consents and work-up business plans.

Community Energy Scotland will be responsible for delivering these Scottish Government funds in the year ahead.  The loans will be provided for the Scottish Government by the  Energy Saving Trust.  The main focus of the funds is to reduce the barriers to community or local rural business entrepreneurs who want to test and develop additional renewable energy generation projects.  Even if there is no dedicated strand to assist a project, prospective developers should still advise Community Energy Scotland of what they require to overcome obstacles to progress.

There are now a number of CARES strands to help different types of development.  All have detailed terms and conditions to which applicants should refer, and there is a competitive application system.

CARES LOANS Rural Businesses 2012/2013

This strand is for rural businesses, typically farming businesses who want to put a renewable energy generation project on land they own or can lease, CARES LOANS will cover up to 95% of PRE DEVELOPMENT costs such as Environmental Impact Assessments and technical feasibility.  The maximum loan per entity is £150,000. Applicants must contribute a minimum of 5% and must fund any recoverable VAT.  Credit checks are undertaken, but security is not required.  Interest is charged at 10% per annum from drawdown of each instalment.  If the project is prevented from proceeding for an insurmountable reason, the loan drawn down to that point can be written-off. If the project proceeds, the developer must make an annual payment of at least £10,000 per megawatt of installed capacity to a local community organisation – for 20 years.  The community group will use the funds for community development purposes. Loans are to be drawn down during the current financial year and the financial year 2013/14 – last date for drawdown 20 March 2014. These loans are repayable at financial close – when the capital stage of the project is financed. The first stage of the process is to register your interest with Community Energy Scotland.

CARES LOANS Communities 2012/13  

This strand is for community groups and charitable bodies to take forward plans for renewable energy generation schemes on land they own or can lease.  CARES LOANS will cover up to 95% of PRE DEVELOPMENT costs such as Environmental Impact Assessments and technical feasibility.  The maximum loan per entity is £150,000. Applicants must contribute a minimum of 5% and must fund any recoverable VAT. Credit checks are undertaken, but security is not required.   Interest is charged at 10% per annum from the date of each drawdown.  If the project is prevented from proceeding for an insurmountable reason, the loan drawn down to that point can be written-off.  All proceeds of the generation business after costs must be applied to a community development plan.  Loans are to be drawn down during the current financial year and the financial year 2013/14 – last date for drawdown 20 March 2014.  These loans are repayable at financial close – when the capital stage of the project is financed. The first stage of the process is to register your interest with Community Energy Scotland.

CARES LOANS Cluster Developments

There is an allocation of loan funds to assist innovate clusters of groups, individuals or firms working together towards substantial locally-owned renewable energy projects.  If your group has a proposal, and needs loan funds to develop it, please contact CES.

CARES INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT – Community Only

There is a limited allocation of funds for innovative infrastructure costs associated with making community connections to the grid possible. Businesses are not eligible. Generation plant is excluded.  Contact CES for more details.

CARES LOANS – Longer term funding – Community Only

There is a limited allocation of funds to community projects which require a loan, generally after planning consent has been obtained, to meet the costs of reaching financial close.  These loans (max £250k per entity) are at 8% interest, have no write-off facility and are repayable over ten years, with the option of no repayments during years 1, 2 and 3.  The purpose of these loans is to meet a gap between commercial borrowing and project costs.  Contact CES if you are interested.

The over-riding message is that if you have a plan to harness renewable energy – whether for the benefit of your own rural business or your community, loan funds from CARES could reduce your risks and allow you to participate in Scotland’s renewable energy future.

England director Dharmendra Kanani says the BLF will put hundreds of millions of pounds into initiatives lasting up to eight years

Announcing its priorities in England to 2015, the BLF said it could award between £100m and £150m in each of three or four cause areas to fund schemes lasting up to eight years.

The funder will decide on the geographical areas in England with the greatest need that it wants to target over the next few months for the long-term funding. Partnerships, which could include charities, community groups and councils, can apply for grants to develop their schemes and, if the pilots are successful, they can get longer-term funding.

One of the cause areas would be tackling entrenched problems such as alcoholism, drug abuse and domestic violence. Another would be projects for older people, and two more cause areas are yet to be announced.

Dharmendra Kanani, BLF’s England director, said: “Rather than tackle them in silos, we want to look at where they come together and have a negative impact.”

He said he did not yet know how many projects would be supported, but the BLF was keen to be able to measure the impact of the projects.

Kanani said the BLF was considering the use of social investment in some projects in various funding programmes, where appropriate, and helping projects develop the skills to attract social investors.

A spokesman for the BLF said it had the power to make loans. “But we really want to understand where we can add value and what would be most appropriate. We cannot make a profit on anything, so if we were to make a loan, in that respect we would have to think about how that requirement would work.”

Third Force News 10/05/2012

A NEW £6m fund for community-led regeneration initiatives across Scotland was launched this week.

The People and Communities Fund will invest in community organisations that provide a focus for community activities and people – so called community anchor organisations.

While community organisations welcomed the fund, some expressed concern about the definition of a community anchor organisation and the restricted remit of the fund.

Ian Cooke of Development Trusts Association Scotland (DTAS) said: “DTAS welcomes the launch of the new People and Communities Fund and particularly the recognition of the positive role which different kinds of community anchor organisations, such as development trusts, can play within community-led regeneration.

“However, to restrict the funding priorities to employability and preventative action (while both potentially key issues) seems to be unnecessarily restrictive and unconducive to the ability of communities to set their own agenda, surely a critical component of meaningful community-led regeneration.”

Pauline Barbour, policy consultant at the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations (SFHA) also questioned whether the fund will be able to support housing associations to deliver community regeneration.

She said: “Aspects of the fund continue to require further examination, such as the fact that the in kind work undertaken by associations will not be considered within any funding bid.

“In addition, there will be an extra duty on national housing associations to demonstrate local community involvement, and at this stage there is no commitment to the fund beyond March 2015.”