Author: Fiona Garven, SURF

Fiona’s blog forms part of a wider set of reflections on the recent SURF conference on Community Wealth Building contained in the SURF Journal

“If you are sitting in this room thinking you’ve seen it all before then you are probably in the wrong job”. Blimey, called out and it’s not even coffee time. Just as well I’m retiring (ish).

C’mon though, throw us a bone. It’s hard not to feel a sense of frustration when you’ve been round the block a few times and seen several centrally led projects, programmes, initiatives, strategies, whatever you want to call them, come and go over the last few decades. One thing is notable, they arrive in a flourish but, not unlike old rock stars, it’s fair to say that most of them just fade away.

We’ve had AMDs, APTs, SIPs, SIMDs, LECs, URCs and CPPs.

We’ve had social strategies, the community programme, the urban programme, wider role, better neighbourhoods, total place and town centre regeneration.

We’ve had the language of social capital, co-production, strengths based, assets based and empowerment.

We’ve got outcomes and outputs, principles and policies, standards and frameworks, bling bong and ping pong.

And I’ve forgotten some…

Now we have place based approaches, 20 minute neighbourhoods and community wealth building.

To be fair, all of these things have been, and are, well intentioned. They are backed up with earnest and well-constructed policy directives setting out how we will reduce inequality and make lives better, how we can foster our own resources so that Scotland can be a good place to live and work for everyone. The words are the right ones. There have been pockets of progress and hints of hope.

But when we look back, how do we measure success at scale? What has really happened over decades of those initiatives for those still at the sharp end? What have we learned from all these worthy intentions? I would argue very little, otherwise we wouldn’t still be here chewing the fat, we’d have worked ourselves out of a job.

The main focus for discussion at the SURF conference was community wealth building, relatively new terminology in Scotland. I have struggled to properly understand what it means – simplistically it seems to mean more money going into local areas, creating local supply chains and local employment, leading to better outcomes and improved places – all unarguable as far as I’m concerned.

But I still can’t quite pin down what we mean by ‘community’ – is it the community sector, or the entire local population? And wealth – is it about wealth creation or wealth distribution? Or both? Is it only financial and economic wealth or are we including a wealth of other, more intangible assets such as opportunity, social connectedness, health and environment? What do we really believe counts the most?

What is a more recent phenomenon in regeneration (and other) policy is the attention that has been drawn to the contribution and role played by the community sector, a role now seen as critical in the pursuit of many of our national outcomes. I am one of the first to welcome these discussions. It is a sign of great progress that, at last, we in the community sector are sitting round the table and working alongside government and public sector colleagues in forging a better future for Scotland.

But, and it’s a big but, where I get very nervous is when the pendulum swings to communities being ‘the solution’. Much has been made from the critical role communities played in in the pandemic, acting swiftly to protect and support some of the groups of people in society most at risk. We are currently facing one of the most turbulent times in modern history. We have continuing deep inequalities in Scotland,  a war in Europe, a climate emergency, a pandemic still lurking, a cost of living crisis and a ticking health and social care time bomb.

As Martin Avila very articulately pointed out, it cannot be ‘communities’ who fix those structural problems. Access to care, welfare, decent housing, fair work and fair pay is for our governments to provide.

Communities can, however, do remarkable things and the evidence of this is all around us, not least in the presentation from colleagues from Dunoon. Nearly every event online and offline includes stories and case studies of community initiatives, always popular and always getting the most applause. Whilst not providing solutions to structural issues, communities can and do provide opportunities for people to exert their own agency and engage in collective action, to act or campaign for the things important to them, to create social networks and develop ideas and initiatives designed to build many different forms of local wealth.

If we all recognise this, why, then, if it is about community wealth building does it still feel like top down driven policy speak? Why are the funding streams associated with Community Wealth Building still being awarded to the public sector and trickled down into ‘projects’ through small grants and bureaucratic processes? If the community is such a key partner, why are we not seeing investment being made directly into building community capacity and infrastructure, especially in the areas where it’s needed the most?

We know that community effort can make a significant positive impact on peoples’ lives, but it cannot be co-opted. It needs to grow and flourish from the ground up, driven by local aspirations and delivered on local terms – that is what is at the root of its success.

So, the key question was ‘what should SURF’s Community Wealth Building Network explore over the next year?’ For me, if Community Wealth Building is not to be just a slogan, or to go the way of ageing rocks stars, we need to;

Play the long game – stick with it, don’t import any new gimmicky ideas, it’s the principles that count, not the slogan.

Learn from the past – retrieve some of that institutional memory, build from our mistakes, don’t repeat them.

Invest in communities, don’t just talk about them.

And lastly, think carefully about the language we use and the impact it can have. How must it feel for people living in poverty to be told they live in a ‘thriving place’ or that a local policy is all about ‘community wealth’?

As Kevin P. Gilday so eloquently pointed out, excess can have a whole new meaning when it’s paired with the word ‘mortality’.

Author: Nan Spowart, The National

Recommendations based on the research by Scotland’s Rural College have been made to the Scottish Government and include the possibility of setting up an “empty house bank”.

Japan has 7000 islands and a long history of national policies and funding packages focused on tackling demographic decline on its island and remote rural areas while the history of islands-specific legislation and policies in Scotland is more recent, the report points out.

However, the researchers found that the focus of Japan’s policies has shifted over time from an emphasis on infrastructure investments, which have brought both positive and negative impacts for island communities, to a recognition of the need for “softer” development projects, including tourism-led and culture-based projects building on local resources.

As a result, the report states there are many national and local level policy and funding initiatives which are “useful learning for Scotland”.

These include programmes to provide support for people settling in island communities, initiatives to encourage visitors to contribute more to their sustainability and vibrancy, as well as making empty buildings available for re-use, developing teleworking opportunities and launching education-focused programmes to encourage more young people to remain for their education.

The researchers claim their findings demonstrate that islands are strategically and culturally important to both countries but also economically important “in a way which goes beyond their significance in terms of their proportion of the national population”.

As the debate continues on whether more bridges should be built in Scotland to replace ferry services, Japan’s experience may be of interest, according to the report.

While some islands in Japan have benefitted from greater connections to the mainland, the report states that the improvements have been costly and, in some instances, have had “negative impacts” related to community cohesion and displacement of island-based businesses.

Scotland can also potentially learn from Japan’s various migration settlement initiatives, including “experience” schemes and initiatives, the report advises.

These provide opportunities to “test” locations before people move permanently and services to support people to settle when they first arrive. A number of municipalities offer “welcome” or “introduction” services for those looking to migrate to rural areas. Often delivered by local non-governmental organisations, these services include information about employment, welfare, education and child-rearing.

Another specific initiative the researchers found of interest for Scotland is Japan’s Community Cooperative Support (CCS) scheme, in which people moving from urban to rural areas are given a stipend for a maximum of three years in return for their participation in activities aimed at promoting or preserving local culture, history or nature. Data indicates that, overall, 63% of participants in the CCS scheme ended up staying in their adopted areas long term.

The report also cites the example of the island of Goto, where a renewable energy scheme has not only brought de-carbonisation benefits but has contributed to jobs, skills, local income, energy security and marine conservation.

“What is important to note about Goto is that at first, the renewable energy scheme was not initially conceptualised as a ‘population project’ but appears to have had a broader positive demographic impact,” says the report.

“Second, the renewable energy project was established in the context of a broader suite of measures and initiatives aimed at tackling economic and population decline and the impact of that decline. This suggests a need for a multipronged approach that engages with a range of cross- cutting issues.”

An additional initiative of interest to Scotland, the report states, is the akiya bank (empty house bank) approach, where unused houses are listed for sale or rent with the goal of attracting incomers to use them. This scheme was enabled by a change in the law in 2014, allowing local authorities to collect information on abandoned properties.

The aim is to help attract potential incomers while also utilising buildings which can become an eyesore and hazardous if not maintained.

“As the schemes are often administered by local officials, potential ‘in-migrants’ are offered support in selecting appropriate locations, and are often introduced to members of the local community, alleviating some of the anxiety about moving into a new location,” the report says. “Secondly, the scheme provides reassurance that those taking over the property are aware of local surroundings and are able and willing to try to integrate into communities.”

Author: Ninian Stuart, Falkland Estate

Allan Crow of the Fife Free Press Group has recently written a lovely feature story reminding us that 10 years ago, we had just celebrated Falkland, Fife & Scotland’s largest & most successful Big Tent Festival of the Environment, before deciding, sadly, that it was time to end a much loved event that had outgrown this place. 

Today Falkland Estate’s stewards are busy preparing for a wee Harvest Festival, at the other end of the scale, in the belief that “small is beautiful” and vital. During a year when the war in Ukraine has highlighted how dependent we are on imports of grain, oil, timber and the commodity market, Falkland is preparing the ground for a Harvest Fest celebrating the abundance of what we can grow and make from our fields and forests. Inspiring speakers – broadcaster Lesley Riddoch, Jenny Andersson of the Really Regenerative Centre, Andrew Whitley of Scotland the Bread, Prof Seaton Baxter OBE a master of natural design and Guy Watt co-chair of the Scottish Forest Industry Group – will reflect on what’s happening now and how we can learn to live more sustainably in our local places, in ways that meet people’s real costs of living and value the gifts of nature.

So on Saturday 24th September we’re going to be hosting 

• Three big talks in a tent (on food, huts & place-making), lots of small talk, some singing around a fire 🔥 as traditional at harvest time; 
• Demonstrations of rural skills and activities such as earth building with Becky Little of Rebearth;
• A chance to look at new huts we’re building in a Field of learning and talk with hutters & hut-builders who are part of the 1000 Huts movement;
• A space where people show & tell what they’ve made such as Newburgh Handloom Weavers, flour from Scotland the Bread & Falkland own apples, juice & cider; 
• Endless opportunities to play & learn in a field & forest of possibility – as well as to hear & see what local children have been imagineeering for the future of the estate; 
• A chance to enjoy a truly local lunch grown & cooked by Falkland Kitchen Farm.

To find out more and sign up to the day, simply click here

Transforming Fife’s Food System

Also in run up to Harvest Fest, we’re running a State of our Crops free online engagement session at 3pm on Tues 6th Sept to see where we are now & how we can change Fife’s food system for the better.

This online session will bring together some inspiring people – author Fi Martynoga and Pete Ritchie (Director of Nourish Scotland) as well as Jenny Andersson of the Really Regenerative Centre, India Hamilton (of SCOOP in Jersey) and Bill Bittinger (Vermont) to explore how we can change the way we grow food and feed people in Fife, as a bio-region, and what changes may be on the horizon for anyone with an interest in eating, growing, cooking or selling food in Fife. 

To register to take part, please sign up here

Author: Chaminda Jayanetti, New Start Mag

A recent paper published in the World Leisure Journal has warned that neighbourhood associations can lack inclusiveness.

Researchers interviewed community leaders in an anonymous, mid-sized city in Ontario. They found that these volunteer groups, which often receive funding and in-kind support from the municipality for the purpose of encouraging neighbourhood belonging, can be insular, exclusive and resistant to change. They also do not always reflect the dynamic communities they are intended to serve.

The research was led by Sarah Byrne and Lindsay Kalbfleisch, former undergraduate students at the University of Waterloo. Darla Fortune, an associate professor of applied human sciences in Concordia’s Faculty of Arts and Science, supervised the study.

‘We went into this research project thinking that everything was going to be positive — that these associations are creating connections between neighbours at festivals and events they plan,’ said Fortune. ‘And that did happen. But we were surprised that the most active members say that while fostering a sense of belonging played a big role in what they do, it wasn’t necessary for everyone in the neighbourhood to be included.’

The researchers noted that the nine association leaders they interviewed were almost exclusively white, affluent homeowners, with the majority raising young families. Others were retirees whose children no longer lived at home.

They researchers said that their contributions were often valuable: they organise community activities and ensure facilities such as pools and parks are maintained, sports leagues are managed and Easter egg hunts and Christmas tree lighting ceremonies are planned. And when families experience challenges, such as with a birth or death in the family, these associations often act as a valued support network.

‘But when we asked these leaders about who is involved, we encountered a lot of ambivalence,’ Fortune said. Few events were planned for older adults, and despite the multicultural nature of the neighbourhoods, association events were almost exclusively organized around Christian-inspired themes. The leaders interviewed often said that they would continue to plan events as they had in the past because they personally experienced a sense of belonging through their involvement.

‘Nobody told us that they did not want to involve all of their neighbours. But there was no intentional effort to reach out to them.’

The researchers argue that municipally funded neighbourhood associations hold a place of power within their communities and while attending to the goals of leaders — who may not represent the broader neighbourhood — associations risk perpetuating exclusion based on difference. Their hope is that these associations and the municipalities that support them can diversify and expand their focus to foster a genuine sense of belonging for all residents, not just a limited, often affluent subgroup.

‘It isn’t necessarily a problem that the most active community members are young white families,’ Fortune said. ‘However, they should be willing to take into consideration that there are people in the mix whose needs have to be met, and that they should be heard from even if they are not actively involved members.’

Author: TFN

Campaigners from across the UK gathered in the city to demand action on the cost of living crisis.

More than 1,200 people turned out in Glasgow on Wednesday night for a rally calling for a real pay rise, a cut to energy bills and other measures to tackle the rising cost of living. 

Campaigners, trade unionists and other prominent activists spoke at the city’s Old Fruitmarket for the Glasgow launch of the Enough is Enough campaign. 

Enough is Enough, unveiled last month as a collaboration between food banks, trade unions and politicians, already has more than 500,000 sign-ups and attracted a sold out crowd in its first Scottish event. 

The campaign has five key demands to be met in the coming months, including a call for a real pay rise for those working across the country, as well as a huge cute to rising energy bills which have skyrocketed over the past year. 

An end to food poverty is also a key ask for those saying Enough Is Enough, through the introduction of universal free school meals, community kitchens, and reinstating the £20-a-week Universal Credit uplift. 

Calls for a cap on rents, the building of at least 100,000 council homes a year, better insulation and the introduction of a charter for renters’ rights make up housing demands. 

Lastly, the campaign has underlined the need for a crack down on tax avoidance and evasion, as well as taxing the wealthy. 

Speaking at the event on Wednesday was Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) general secretary, Roz Foyer, representatives from tenants’ union Living Rent, as well as trade unions Unison, the Communication Workers’ Union, GMB, and the RMT – whose assistant general secretary Eddie Dempsey had travelled from London for the event.

He said: “There is no mystery, wages are down because profits are up. 

“Those at the top are having a great time, and they’re only able to do it because you are poor.

“We’ve got the government against us, we’ve got the media against us, the multinational companies – but we’re not scared, we’ll fight you.

“I’ve been waiting my whole life for a moment like this, and I believe this time is different, I believe we can do it.”

Founders of volunteer group Fans Supporting Foodbanks Scotland and Power to the People Glasgow, Robert Foster and Frances Curran, also spoke about the need to end poverty, before the crowd heard from human rights lawyer and anti-racism campaigner, Aamer Anwar. 

The event on Wednesday came ahead of a march on the Scottish Parliament on Thursday, led by the STUC. 

General secretary Roz Foyer said: “Rent Freezes and rail fare freezes, although welcome, don’t go far enough. Tomorrow we march on the Scottish Parliament to demand more – we need a radical budget for radical times. 

“We want to see real action to create a publicly-owned energy company, real action on taxing the rich, taxing wealth and creating the size of budget we need.

“We need real action on the National Care Service, and it needs to be one that’s not for profit.

“Our movement is about more than just a pay rise, it’s about the type of society we want to exist. It’s a struggle for life itself.”

Author: CTA

More Than a Minibus report

Our new More Than a Minibus report powerfully illustrates the diversity and impact of Community Transport in Scotland. It’s packed with analysis, data and insights into the sector in 2021. Read our report to learn about:

• Our key findings and conclusions
• Impact of COVID-19 on the sector
• Key challenges facing the sector – from the cost of living crisis to driver shortages
• How CTA members are tackling climate change, loneliness, poverty and more
• Scale of the sector’s net zero funding gap
• Our 9 recommendations for UK, Scottish and local government – as well as for operators, funders and stakeholders
• CTA’s plans for the future
• You can download the report here.

Community Transport Map of Scotland

Our extensive research has also enabled us to build the first-ever map of Community Transport in Scotland featuring every one of our 168 members in urban, rural and island communities across 30 out of 32 local authorities.

We hope that our map will be a useful resource for:

• New and existing operators to identify and collaborate with their peers and neighbours
• Politicians, policymakers and regulators to implement policies and strategies which recognise and help our sector
• Funders and stakeholders to understand and respond to the financial needs of our sector
• Volunteers, passengers and the public to find services and opportunities near them

The map is interactive, searchable and available here on Google Maps.

We will keep the map under review on an ongoing basis and make updates where possible and necessary. The map is based on survey responses from CTA members or, where we did not receive input, our own desk-based research.

Author: Glasgow Caledonian University

John Pearce Memorial Lecture : 

“The Senscot Story – reflections and thoughts on 20 years of

social enterprise in Scotland and what the future may hold”

Lecturer: Aidan Pia, former Executive Director of Senscot

TUESDAY 11TH OCTOBER 2022, 5PM – 7.30PM, DEEPROSE LECTURE THEATRE, GOVAN MBEKI BUILDING, GCU

Registration: Click here to register for our event

Author: Siôn Whellens, Stir To Action

A new and independent organisation of worker co-operatives, cooperators, and supporters of industrial democracy will be launched in 2023.

Based in the UK, it will take on the role of a sectoral federation to unite, defend, and advance the shared interest of worker-controlled and worker-owned enterprises. Beyond this, it will strengthen worker co-operative culture by mobilising co-operators and allies through industrial networks, knowledge sharing, social movement alliances, and active internationalism. Most importantly, we want to make the system of worker control and collective ownership accessible and relevant for new groups and generations of workers, refining our propositions and organising models in the process.

Why now? The reasons are partly internal to the movement. The long drift since the 1990s intensified after the demise of the last independent national federation, the Industrial Common Ownership Movement (ICOM) in 2001. Without our own specialist federation, we’ve been unable to articulate clear and authentic messages about democracy at work, adequately respond to changes in the broader political and policy realm, or participate strategically in the wider autonomous workers’ and social justice movements. Let alone build on earlier hard-won gains. The fortunes of organised worker co-operatives have always more or less risen and fallen with those of the wider workers’ movement, so some historical and political perspective is useful to understand the present sense of urgency. 

The history of worker co-operation goes back 250 years in Europe, represented primarily through workers’ unions and worker co-operatives. The earliest worker co-operatives in the eighteenth century were a critical reaction to capitalism and the industrial revolution, particularly the violent transition from agricultural and artisanal production to the factory system.

The first self-documented worker co-operatives appeared in the weaving industry, more or less at the same time in Northern France and Lowland Scotland. The Fenwick Weavers’ Society in Ayrshire started in 1761 as a semi-secret association to defend wage levels and product quality. Later, they spun out what now would be called a consumer co-operative, and a credit union. Their model was replicated elsewhere in Scotland, and the Fenwick Society itself traded for more than 100 years.

Fear of reprisals made the earliest worker co-operative initiatives extremely risky. The Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800 made all forms of worker self-organisation illegal in Britain. Even after the repeal of these restrictions on trade unions and collective bargaining in 1825, workers were still subject to financial penalty, imprisonment, or even deportation if they were found to be part of a secret organisation. 

Two decades later, in 1844, The Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers included among its objects “to commence the manufacture of such articles as the Society may determine upon, for the employment of such members as may be without employment or who may be suffering in consequence of repeated reductions in their wages”; and furthermore, “as soon as practicable … to arrange the powers of production, distribution, education and government”.

Over the next 80 years, many small- and medium-scale producer co-operatives were created, often in partnership with workers’ unions. Some were short-lived, while others – particularly in the shoemaking, garment, construction, and printing industries – survived into the second half of the twentieth century. For more than three quarters of a century – 1882 to 1958 – these co-ops were independently organised in the Co-operative Productive Federation (CPF), whose remit was to promote unity of action among the members, find markets for their products, and secure capital for growth and development.

The next wave of worker co-operative formations in the US, UK, and elsewhere began in the 1960s and 1970s. This rediscovery of the co-operative system was associated with a rise in working class political confidence, labour militancy, and cultural change. Many of the new co-operatives were driven by the goals and demands of rising social movements and political currents such as ecology, libertarian socialism, second-wave feminism, anti-racism, and community organising. But the model also became attractive to parts of the union movement and social democratic Left, and ICOM was founded in 1971 to consolidate these developments and push the movement forward, followed in 1973 by Industrial Common Ownership Finance (ICOF), which established a revolving loan fund to mitigate the most common problem for new and established worker co-ops – their lack of access to money. 

The Labour administration of 1976 enacted a new law, defining worker common ownership enterprise and empowering the government to fund co-operative development. The national Co-operative Development Agency (CDA) was formed, and local authorities across the country funded their own agencies, leading to more than 3,000 new registrations between 1975 and 1990. But the political climate had changed decisively by 1985, and in the following decade there was a wholesale reversal of friendly policy, along with sharp attacks on working class organisation more generally. At the public policy level, the New Labour administration espoused technocratic approaches to development, with Blairite think tanks repurposing North American approaches to social enterprise, according to which the ownership and control of social resources would no longer be important – only outputs and outcomes mattered now. Following the money, most of the CDAs were forced to choose between closing or reinventing themselves as community business consultancies.

Predictably, the numbers of worker co-operatives declined. To survive in this new political environment, the remaining sector joined a new national apex organisation, Co-operatives UK, which formed from the merger of ICOM with the Co-operative Union to support and promote the values of the entire co-operative movement throughout the UK. Since then, the headline population of worker co-operatives has remained almost unchanged, with new ones forming to replace those that closed or demutualised. Many of the most recent formations have been in the technology, creative, or wellness industries. They are, typically, labour intensive enterprises, which do not require significant capital to buy or rent productive resources like equipment, land, and industrial facilities. 

So is this really a good time to be trying again? Can a renewed orientation to worker issues, worker-led organising, social solidarity, and economic justice make a difference? We can say there are straws in the wind. Some groups of workers are restless; some local councillors are tired of paternalistic initiatives accompanied by endless cuts and outsourcing. Even in the community and voluntary sector, some are realising that the rush to top-down social enterprise might have been a bit of a wrong turn, and that maybe collective ownership and democratic control of economic activity matters after all. This wouldn’t be a convincing basis for a pitch to a panel of sceptical social investors, but our feeling is it’s now or never. 

On the social front, we are seeing more instances of workers organising against attacks on their conditions and living standards, through new and revived forms of union co-operation. We have seen organised resistance to the deportations and super exploitation of migrant workers. Rent and workplace rebellions are ticking up. There is a wider questioning of capital’s right to dispose of our labour power, living spaces, and planetary resources. The machinations of states and international finance capital are also making it obvious there will be no green transition without a large-scale reorganisation of production, which can only be achieved with the active direction of workers and their communities. We will have to collectively determine what constitutes useful, and what constitutes wasteful or destructive, production. Following from here, we need to ask questions about the quantity and allocation of labour, and the meaning of waged and unwaged work more generally. People haven’t forgotten the early months of the pandemic crisis, when all of society’s material needs were met on the back of, at most, 40% of normal waged and salaried hours, put in by, at most, 40% of the labour force. Most of the workers who kept us going were and still are in low paid, low status jobs in food production, health services, care, transport, education, and essential manufacturing. 

There are currently around 400 worker co-ops in this country, of which 160 businesses are members of Co-operatives UK. With its support, we plan to work closely in the future, and have agreed – in principle – a dual membership option for worker co-ops. The formal process of asking them to join is only just starting, but informal engagement over the last six months has been positive. We know there is room to grow, and believe there is an untapped reservoir of goodwill and potential member input in the shape of our friends and allies in the wider social solidarity and radical co-operative movements.

We’ll seek organisational mentoring from other federations, including the US Federation of Worker Co-operatives, itself a relatively new organisation, and which has managed to pull together something that works with relatively low levels of member-driven income. The key will be creating a genuinely distributive and participative culture, with much of the work being done among members themselves, and adopting a creative and critical approach to communication and infrastructure. 

We aim to be a federation, a campaigning body, and a development organisation all at once, and there’s no limit to how far we want to reach. Can we keep focus and be effective, while being democratic and distributed? How can we resource the work, and what are the priorities in the first couple of years? How best to connect with workers trying to take control of their work and liberate their workplaces? How do we meet and reconcile the needs and aspirations of poor startups on the one hand and established worker co-ops and democratic employee-owned firms on the other? These are some of the questions we need to answer. One piece of received wisdom seems to be: if you’re launching a new workers’ organisation, start with no money. Was there ever another way? 

Author: The Herald

IF you want to diagnose the health of Scottish democracy, there is only one man to turn to: Professor James Mitchell from Edinburgh University, a leading authority on Scottish politics. He has spent a lifetime dissecting the constitution, devolution, and the workings of the Scottish Government.

If Mitchell were a doctor, and Scottish democracy the patient, then the diagnosis isn’t good. It is not fatal, but the patient is in serious trouble.

Mitchell was a vocal advocate for Scotland’s Parliament and self-government prior to devolution and remains so, saying he wants “as much autonomy in Scotland as possible”. But Scottish politics is “immature”.

If we became independent, we would do so with a “dysfunctional model” of Government. The SNP puts campaigning before governing; it is “fundamentalist”, a “mirror image” of Conservatives.

Local democracy is “worse than pre-devolution, which is staggering”; Government accountability is “utterly inadequate”; and “debate too parochial” with everything “viewed through a constitutionalist lens”.

“The model of democracy we’ve adopted is unimaginative and follows Westminster too closely,” Mitchell says.

Centralisation

POWER is “centralised” in Edinburgh, diminishing councils. “Cuts have been imposed”, and councils are “basically prevented from raising their own funds. That’s very harmful”. The Scottish Government “dictates priorities leaving local authorities with far less discretion”.

Says Mitchell: “Essentially, they’ve become administrative agents of central government. They basically do what they’re told and money is often tied to that … local knowledge has been sucked out of the system.”

The Scottish Government has “essentially devolved penury, devolved the difficult decision, and kept as much of the money as possible. From a public policy and democratic point of view, that’s really bad, very worrying … When it comes to local democracy, we’re an outlier, we’re weird”.

Regarding centralisation, “the only other part of Europe that’s like Scotland is England”. Mitchell adds: “We’re not only seeing centralisation to the Scottish Government, but centralisation within Government. Cabinet, from what I gather, doesn’t operate as a proper forum for debate. That’s very unhealthy … ‘presidential’ isn’t entirely the wrong word, it’s not formally presidential, but there’s a degree of that..

Constant campaigning

“OUR First Minister is more engaged in constant campaigning, with a referendum in mind, than governing. We don’t have the governing mindset which requires openness, compromise, listening, engaging. There’s a kind of control freakery. Everything is presented in very sharp terms, primary colours. Politics is often not black and white, it’s grey. That gets lost in the campaigning mindset.

“That’s sad because our democracy isn’t the democracy many who campaigned for devolution envisaged. The Parliament hasn’t really lived up to those hopes and expectations. It’s a very Westminster-style Parliament. Why in God’s name did we adopt First Minister’s Questions, the worst feature of Westminster?”

Mitchell adds: “I don’t think the Scottish Parliament is as significant a Parliament vis-a-vis the executive as the House of Commons. Committees are nowhere near as powerful or effective as committees down there. We’re worse than Westminster and it’s bad enough. Committees are too controlled by the leadership of the political parties. They aren’t properly resourced. We need a much more assertive Parliament. It’s all about Government’s empowerment.”

Dysfunction

MITCHELL goes on: “Before we start talking about more powers being devolved, let’s sort out what we’ve got – make it more democratic. It’s not good enough to say ‘it’s all Westminster’s fault and everything will be wonderful when we’re independent’. There’s a hell of a lot we could and must do now, because if Scotland became independent tomorrow with this model you can rest assured it would be very dysfunctional. I don’t understand why the SNP isn’t doing more to create a better system which would make the transition to independence more appealing to many.”

Mitchell – a strong advocate of devolution – believes “the creation of the Scottish Parliament was a major step forward … I remember vividly what it was like before devolution. We’ve come a long way”.

The sea change in Scottish politics came in 2011. The SNP majority, and resulting referendum, meant “we really moved into full-scale campaigning. Governing gets pushed aside. Nicola Sturgeon is a phenomenal campaigner, an amazingly effective communicator – the best in the UK. However, I wouldn’t say that about her ability in Government”.

He adds: “We’re not focusing on everyday things that affect people’s lives – that must be central to democracy.”

Constitutional obsession across all parties, says Mitchell, has created “parochialism”, adding: “Debate has shrunk to the constitution, everything is viewed through a constitutionalist lens.”

He notes how some SNP figures can “take any issue” and see it from a constitutional perspective. “It’s remarkable, frightening, absurd – but also rather effective.”

Scotland also “tends to measure everything” against London. “We don’t really raise our eyes,” says Mitchell. He finds it ironic that “we love to talk about Scotland being a European nation” but followed the Westminster model at Holyrood rather than “taking seriously how European parliaments operate”. Talk of the “Scandinavian model” is also “very crude … there’s a tendency to say ‘we’re not England, we’re going to do things differently’, but sometimes there are occasions when we need to do what’s done in England because it’s appropriate. There’s an immaturity”. He adds: “We need more grown-up, confident politics.”

Mitchell calls the constitution “the Upas tree of Scottish politics”. In myth, the Upas tree kills all nearby plants. “We need to stop presenting everything in binary, crude terms. It’s irritating to hear SNP people say it’s undemocratic [for the UK Government to deny another referendum] – and I’ve some sympathy for that – but what I’ve no sympathy for is the idea we just have a vote on independence. There are other options. We need to broaden out the constitutional question.” Scottish Labour must “address this” and provide alternatives “because if the alternative is the status quo or independence, it’s not giving us much choice”.

Damage to independence

MITCHELL says “there’s logic” to criticism that by constantly campaigning the SNP has failed to govern well and therefore damaged independence, as governing Scotland better would see support rise.

The SNP is “a very cautious Government that’s hiding behind the constitutional question. It is fearful that if it was to do many of the things needed it would lose support”. Many problems facing Scotland require hard decisions that “come at a financial cost in terms of shifting resources, and a political cost because to do that someone’s going to lose. This Government doesn’t want to do things that would bring it into conflict with the middle classes, which it needs to win independence. But sometimes Government has to do unpopular things”.

This strategy “is building up problems that would make an independent Scotland incredibly difficult to govern”.

A nation will “only ever be a true democracy when you’ve greater equality”. Mitchell says: “I don’t think [the SNP] is progressive. There are progressive elements. The leadership probably at heart wants to be progressive but it feels constrained, timid. It’s not as progressive as the rhetoric.”

The SNP “has to be forced” at times to act progressively. “It’s a bit of a blancmange, it’s quite soft and can be manipulated. But my worry about manipulated parties is that they’re most likely manipulated by the powerful.”

Mitchell says the SNP has changed significantly. “Since 2014, it’s become very absolutist. There’s a new fundamentalism. The SNP needs to go away and think about what it actually wants. At the moment, it’s purely sloganistic. It talks about rejoining Europe as an independent state, while the rest of the UK is out. That’s very difficult to imagine. How do we do that, particularly if you believe, as the SNP does, that London is governed by crazy people like Boris Johnson, as that would mean [independence would be like] a hard Brexit. The SNP has stuck its head in the sand.”

Brexit is separatism

MITCHELL says “the UK has become separatist in its relations with the EU with Brexit”. “This has unavoidable consequences for an independent Scotland. Hence, Scotland finds itself in an invidious, if not impossible, situation – caught between a choice of two unions with either choice being damaging. There’s no doubt leaving the UK would be far more damaging that the current situation.

“The Conservatives and SNP are mirror images of each other – both fundamentalist, nationalist parties, unwilling to consider the essential interdependencies that will always exist within Britain. The rise of fundamentalism and demise of pragmatism is key to understanding the current unhappy situation. Each adopts hardline rhetoric and cuts out what will inevitably have to be faced – serious negotiations.” If “SNP rhetoric is correct then an independent Scotland would face a very difficult relationship with its main trading partner. The SNP needs to present the rest of the UK in a very negative light but in doing so undermines its case for independence as this would suggest very difficult negotiations”. The SNP’s embrace of Europe in the 1980s was to underscore that if independence happened then “relations between Scotland and England would remain pretty smooth. Now it has reversed its logic. It supports the European Union but that means we’d have a massive border problem. It’s great rhetoric – ‘let’s all join Europe’ – and I’m very strongly in favour of getting back into Europe, but the only route, whether you believe in independence or not, is through the whole UK rejoining”.

The alternative is a “border problem similar to Ireland-Northern Ireland. Trade issues are horrendous. The SNP is right to say the context [around independence] has changed [because of Brexit], but [Brexit] also simultaneously undermines the case for independence. We’ll always need good relationships with our nearest neighbour”.

Extremism

MITCHELL turns to extremism. “The treatment of journalists by some political activists is very worrying – that’s scary in a democracy,” he says. “We need a strong media. Some of the biggest stories – like the ferries fiasco – come from journalists. I’m not sure Parliament would have picked that up.” Attacks, he adds, come “from all sides”. Abuse is “putting people off politics. It’s unhealthy for democracy”.

Politicians have shown “a lack of responsibility” in not condemning abuse immediately and unequivocally. Politicians also go too far in their own language calling opponents “fascist or undemocratic”. Mitchell adds: “Most people see through this and find it off-putting. Political leaders should refrain from presenting opponents as all bad and show a bit more respect. In every party there’s ugly elements. There’s also decent people. We should stop the crude, simplistic black and white [rhetoric]. Political leadership has been very disappointing.”

Government powers

CONCERNS have been raised that some charities feel financially dependent on Government and so limit criticism. “That’s unhealthy. Some of these organisations were far too close to Labour in the past. In a very short space of time, they’re far too close to the SNP.”

There has been criticism that although the SNP has limited powers, it’s been reluctant to use what powers it has to deal with Scotland’s problems. Instead, it’s accused of shifting responsibility to Westminster. “It’s classic blame game,” Mitchell says. “We’ve a combination of immaturity plus real challenges.” The SNP is “clearly not using the range of powers available – there’s much more that can be done. They’ve got powers, not as many as they might have, but certainly more than previously”.

When it comes to how London and Edinburgh portray relations, “the emphasis publicly is on conflict”. Between 2007, when the SNP took power, and 2011, when it won its majority, Edinburgh-London relations were “pretty good. Since 2011, it’s gone the other way”. However, both governments “exaggerate differences”.

The Johnson factor

MODERN Conservatism has changed the political climate, however. “One reason there’s a demand for independence is the understandable perception I share that the London Government is dysfunctional in the extreme. The fact you’ve someone like Johnson as Prime Minister is a manifestation of that on stilts.”

To fix the dysfunction, “we’ve looked to [devolving power] as if that alone is the answer. It’s part of the answer. The bit we’ve neglected is reforming the state as a whole”. He adds: “What gives me hope is there’s common agreement emerging that something needs done about the UK and our centralised system of government in London.

“We can’t carry on with a system where a party takes power at Westminster and everybody else is out. When the Tories are in they can ignore large chunks of the country and get reelected. There’s something fundamentally wrong with that.”

Federalism

MITCHELL cites the German Bundesrat – Germany’s upper house representing the federal states. “It’s an authoritative voice. It can stop things,” he adds. Mitchell raises British federalism: England broken up into smaller regions like Cornwall or Yorkshire so each part of Britain is roughly the same size, with the same clout – and then reforming the House of Lords with members from federal regions elected by PR. This would mean “you couldn’t have central government in London riding roughshod over devolution as we’re seeing post-Brexit. Scottish Labour needs to start thinking like this.” He adds: “Maybe I’m overly optimistic but we may look back and think ‘God, that Johnson period was bloody mad but it woke us up.”

Scotland will still be affected by decisions in London even if we’re independent, just as London remains affected by European decisions. “Independence won’t insulate Scots from decisions made by the Treasury or Bank of England,” says Mitchell. Independence, therefore, risks losing “an effective voice” in London, although he adds “the London Government at the moment just ignores us. But if there’s a change of Government that wouldn’t necessarily be the case”.

The Sturgeon plan

MITCHELL is highly critical of the SNP’s “Supreme Court and de facto referendum” plan. “It’s just madness.” He feels the Scottish Government knows its chances of winning in court are “limited and that’s why there’s this back-up”. However, “there’s no such thing as a de facto referendum, there’s elections and there’s referendums. You can go into an election as a single-issue party – essentially what the SNP is saying – but that doesn’t make it a referendum. You can’t change the rules of democracy. It seems a function of understandable frustration that they’re not making progress to get the referendum but it’s not very mature, and it’s dangerous. It’s us, voters, who decide what we vote on.”

Under Sturgeon’s plan, getting less than 50 per cent at the next election would mean “she’d failed. It’s an odd thing to say”. The SNP should rather maintain pressure on London through its “high levels of support. Sturgeon’s odd course has taken a lot of pressure off the UK Government”. Westminster would be “mistaken” to “think the Sturgeon strategy is bound to fail and leave the SNP high and dry. That may happen but there’s little doubt the SNP won’t disappear and pressure will recover and probably grow again in the not too distant future under another leader”. Despite criticism of SNP tactics, he says “it’s incumbent on others to come up with some kind of response” given the size of support for independence. “A significant minority is essentially saying ‘we’re so pissed off that we’ll vote to leave this state’. In any other country that would ring alarm bells that something is fundamentally wrong.”

He feels Conservatives have “absolutely” endangered the union by making it seem a “prison”. “The respect agenda is dead. This suits both the SNP and Tories but ultimately nothing gets done. But there’s no doubt you’ve people in London clearly out of touch with what’s going on up here or don’t care. That’s certainly true of Johnson and may be true with his successor. Compromise needs to come from both sides and we’re getting damn all from either at the moment. What we’re seeing from London is encouraging Sturgeon to behave this way. It’s counterproductive for her, but I understand why. The Conservatives aren’t the party of the past, previous Prime Ministers would never have behaved this way. It’s dangerous for them.”

Scotland “shares illness” when it comes to politics “with the rest of the UK”. Mitchell concludes: “If I were a doctor, I’d say ‘if we don’t do something it’s going to get worse, it’s going to get really bad’. It’s not too late to intervene. There’s still life, and compared to democracy in other parts of the world we’re incredibly fortunate. There’s elements of our democracy that are flawed, but there’s no way we aren’t democratic.”

Author: Sandra Dick, The Herald

For generations, they were a familiar sight on the Scottish landscape, their huge sails spinning in the wind producing the power to drive the heavy millstone below.

Commonplace across the country from the mid-15th century, eventually the wind power that gave windmills their name would be replaced by steam and, eventually, gas.

Before long, the towering, elegant structures became obsolete, tumbling into disuse and either dismantled so their stones could be used elsewhere or left to simply crumble away.

Now efforts to restore one of Scotland’s few remaining windmills and the most complete one left in the country, are growing – driven forward by a remarkably determined community effort that has spanned almost half a century.

After nearly 50 years of battling to secure the future of Carluke’s landmark High Mill, built more than 220 years ago and perhaps the ‘greenest’ form of energy around, locals are now within touching distance of seeing restoration work begin.

Powering them forward – in a perfect example of ‘laying the groundwork’ – has been a small but eager and green-fingered community who, determined that the dilapidated mill shouldn’t be forgotten, have turned the derelict area around it into a thriving cottage garden.

For 20 years one of Scotland’s ‘stuck sites’ – eyesore areas that are trapped by issues such as ownership and apparently without any use – it has now burst into life, bringing new hope that the Category A listed building will soon follow.

According to Bill Anderson, of Carluke Development Trust, the community garden, with its corn crop – a nod to the mill’s historic past – potato and tomato patches, colourful flower beds, sprouting fungi and newly laid winding paths, has been a vital component in the £3.2 million bid to breathe new life into the mill.

Before much longer, work at the 1.2 acres site will shift from cultivating crops, to rebuilding the crumbled tower, turning back into a working mill complete with original millstone and once again powered by nature.

“This garden has become the hook that brings in new people who didn’t know about the mill but who want to come and do some gardening and work on the ground,” he says.

“It’s been a long journey to restore the mill – for some, it’s been a 40- and 50-year long journey.

“The most important thing has been to keep the mill buildings in the minds of the community and the garden lets them see things happening on the site; it might not be work on the buildings, but they can see something is happening.”

The town’s High Mill, named after the hill on which it sits in the centre of Carluke, was built in 1801, one of two mills taking oat and barley from nearby farms and grinding it into meal. The other, Low Mill, relied on water power.

By the time of its construction, however, it was already almost out of date, with new forms of technology driven by the Industrial Revolution set to overtake wind power in favour of steam.

Within a few decades, High Mill had been converted to make use of the new source of energy, with a kiln and engine room added to provide steam power, and the once elegant sails stripped.

Not everyone was in favour of progress, and across Scotland debate flowed among certain groups who questioned the need to shift from wind power. Nevertheless, windmills across the country were either closed in favour of new, large milling factories or adapted to make use of new technologies.

High Mill continued to be used until the 1930s, but its closure saw it slowly fall into disrepair.

It was placed on Scotland’s Buildings at Risk Register in 2008, but by 2014, with water seeping through the roof and windows and despite various plans for its restoration having failed, it suffered a major collapse.

Now hopes are growing that work to revive the 221-year-old mill and turn the site into a visitor attraction, can begin within the coming year.

Plans include repairing the mill’s original machinery, including its 150-year-old millstone mill, returning it to the site and creating a working mill powered by wind and solar energy.

Carluke Development Trust, the group behind plans to restore the mill, took over the property from its owner in 2017 after securing a £278,000 Scottish Land Fund award.

A further £112,000 from the Fund last summer secured a two storey house next to the mill, completing community ownership of the whole site.

While recent support from the Vacant and Derelict Land Fund enabled the development of the community garden, paving the way for new funding applications from sources including the National Heritage Lottery Fund.

With the go-ahead already given to begin alterations and renovations to the mill and former stable building, as well as construction on community spaces, work is set to begin within months.

A major factor will be the replacement of the ‘cap’, the element of the windmill which once turned its magnificent sails.

“We don’t know what the sails would have looked like, whether there were six or eight,” adds Bill. “And because the kiln building was added to the tower, we can’t attach new sails as they wouldn’t have room to turn.

“Instead we will be the cap on the top of the tower with a fantail, so the mill will still be driven by the wind.

The hope is that the mill will soon be operational again – offering visitors a glimpse into a long lost way of life when communities relied on local mills to grind barley, grain and corn.

“It started as a green energy project and 200 years later we are returning it to green power,” he added.