The Scottish Government has today launched a consultation on proposals to ensure Scotland and its local communities benefit from renewable and low carbon energy developments. This is a welcome initiative. The document makes some interesting points but it is evident that the limitations of devolution are inhibiting the authors. I have blogged on this at length before on this topic.

Scotland’s crown lands are separate from England’s crown lands and they are public land defined by the Scots law of property. The only weird thing in the whole set up is that by law (the Crown Estate Act of 1961) these rights (which remember, belong to Scotland) are administered by the Crown Estate Commission in London who also collect all the revenues.

The simplest thing to do is to amend the 1961 Act to the effect that it does not apply to Scotland. This is something the Liberal Democrats who run Scotland in Westminister could effect pretty easily. The question is why MPs like Alastair Carmichael, John Thurso, Charles Kennedy, Alan Reid and Michael Moore are not doing this.

The amendment is shorter than a tweet.

Crown Estate Act 1961 Insert new Section 1(8) “This Act does not apply to Scotland”

All those who want to see control of the seabed and associated crown property rights return to Scotland should make this very simple observation to the Scottish Government in their response.

Author: Vernon Bogdanor, The Times

The stranglehold of party hacks is killing local government: random selection could stop it

We should become more active members of society, rather than mere passive beneficiaries: this is one of the coalition’s central themes. David Cameron’s Big Society seeks to shift power away from the centre to citizens and communities, while the Liberal Democrats have long believed in the decentralisation of power.

Crucial to a renewal of community must be the revival of local government, which ought to be government by lay people rather than professional politicians. In 1894, Josef Redlich, an Austrian politician and and academic, observed that “England has created for herself ‘self government’ in the true sense of the word — that is to say, the right of her people to legislate, to deliberate and to administer through councils or parliaments elected on the basis of popular suffrage . . . and this is the root of the incomparable strength and health of the English body politic”. Local government badly needs to became “self government” once again.

For today it has become far removed from Redlich’s inspiring vision. Indeed, so attenuated is it as a result of the depredations of governments of both Left and Right that it is now a merely marginal element of the British constitution. The main reason for this is the excessive dominance of political parties in most local authorities. Indeed, given the trend towards backbench rebellion in the Commons, discipline is probably tighter in much of local government than it is at Westminster.

It is a paradox that the greater the fall in party identification, the more strongly the parties have entrenched themselves in local government. Many councillors are seen, in consequence, as emissaries of their parties, members of the political class, representing not “us” but “them”.

Although turnout rates for local elections are low, there are striking indications of an unsatisfied demand for participation. Around 40 per cent of us belong to a voluntary organisation, while three million 18 to 24-year-olds, the very generation least likely to vote, volunteer each year. The democratic spirit in Britain is healthy, but it badly needs an institutional path through which it can be expressed.

One way to do this is to select a small proportion of councillors — say a tenth or a twentieth — randomly by lot from the electoral register. Those selected would include the young and members of ethnic minorities, groups markedly under-represented in most local authorities. It would be voluntary in that one could refuse to accept the role, but those who did serve would be genuine independents. They could decide what was best for their communities without being beholden to party.

Fifth-century Athens, a direct democracy, chose its office holders by lot. But there is no reason why the same principle should not be adapted to a modern representative system. This was achieved in British Columbia in 2004, when a Citizens’ Assembly was established to propose a new electoral system for the province, to be put to the people in a referendum.

The Assembly was selected randomly, to include one man and one woman from each electoral district. It collected written and oral evidence, and held 50 public hearings. Its report, Making Every Vote Count, was duly put to referendum. This experiment shows that ordinary citizens are perfectly capable of undertaking complex governmental tasks. Over the 11-month term of the Assembly, attendance was close to perfect and just one member withdrew.

Oscar Wilde once said that the prime defect of socialism was that it took up too many evenings, but the experiment in British Columbia shows that it is perfectly feasible to extend participation in a modern democracy, and such participation need not be the exclusive province of the better-off and the better-educated.

Like most other democracies, we in Britain have hardly begun to harness the potential of the ordinary citizen. What better place to begin than with local government, the Cinderella of our political institutions?

Martin Sime, Director of SCVO gave a presentation

‘Small State, Big Society’, interestingly, was a Chinese Government slogan in the 1990s. The ‘Big Society’ is currently something of an obsession in London, and has created an industry.

The theory as set out by Conservative spokespeople includes several aspects:

• Increased social responsibility by individuals and families (with the state ‘nudging’ people in this direction)

• Localism, including community empowerment

• Mobilising the ‘little platoons’ of civil society

• Increased activity by the third sector and wider aspects of civil society

• A smaller state

• The right to know and to access data.

In England national voluntary organisations are being told that this is not about their role, indeed there are significant cuts to the voluntary sector infrastructure.

Planned initiatives include:

• Training of new ‘community organisers’, who will then have to raise their own salaries

• A national programme offering three weeks National Citizen Service for young people.

• A Big Society Day

Already happening are a number of small local pilot projects, a Big Society Bank ( a repositioning of the ‘dormant bank accounts’ fund) and policies such as self-governing schools.

Other context includes:

• the ongoing marketisation of services such as the Work Programme, and the emphasis on job seekers volunteering (with no additional support other than a Job Centre advisor telling them to do so)

• the English White Paper on Care, which is perhaps the most radical initiative, with its emphasis on ‘self-directed support’, very similar to the current Scottish strategy.

In Scotland, after some initial debate, most of the major organisations backed off quickly, sensing no appetite for such a debate and an identification of it with the ‘cuts’ agenda. Even Tory MSPs say that the programme does not apply in Scotland, though it is a little known fact that the official list of Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell’s responsibilities is to advance the Big Society in Scotland.

SCVO feels some empathy with the ideas underlying the ‘big society’, but cutting or rolling back the state is not part of their agenda.

However a set of ideas about people tasking more responsibility are a necessity. Current levels of care will break the NHS and swallow our entire economy in a few years, if people cannot be enabled to live in the community instead. It is crucial to build community capacity and networks in order to combat social isolation. Older people are a huge resource.

The ‘big platoons’ of the voluntary sector are entirely involved in a commissioning and contracting culture. But the government needs a new culture of nurturing the sector at community level. Care for older people is an ideal arena to develop this.

However is it really the government’s role to say ‘we will have a big society’ (though that is no doubt how the Chinese Government sees it)?

Discussion

Comments from participants:

Community development has always been based on the argument that current public service delivery models were not sustainable. So how should we respond to this new agenda?

There are difficulties with the source of the ‘big society’ agenda. How will the influences behind it play out in Scotland? We need to find our own language for this.

Volunteering doesn’t happen because governments make it happen. Successful initiatives start with support to one or two people, breaking down social isolation. Where is the practical action to support these sources of community action?

Who can help to shape a new approach? There are many in the civil service who are sceptical about community development, and some about the value of the third sector in general. By contrast, MSPs of all parties want to see some of this agenda supported, but also face a strong demand for priority to be given to protecting ‘acute’ services.

Martin:

There have been 30 years of debates on community-led regeneration, which often amounts to asking people to engage in other people’s agendas. People have to be given their own resources. The self-directed care approach shifts the centre of gravity and requires more neighbour-based solutions.

Comments from participants:

How can we make some of the changes that are happening more systematic? Can we replicate the ‘individual choice’ approach at community level?

Communities have used resources well when given the chance. But this can lead to the development of structures that are not democratically accountable.

Resources and support for communities has often been a response to failing state intervention … No, it has mostly been required in response to the failure of the private sector.

What change agenda is needed to enable people to use their individual resources to achieve collective solutions?

At the heart of our ever growing care system is a broken philosophy – interventions that disempower people and weaken their ability to cope.

This is not about alternative forms of service delivery, but about doing things differently – strengthening individuals and communities.

Martin:

Local government should not have a ‘duty to care’ but a duty to support citizens to look after themselves.

The Change Fund  for community-based health and social care services for older people, announced in the draft budget, could be significant. The Minister has insisted that the reshaping of services involved must involve the third sector, and there is a strand in the programme described as ‘community capacity building’.

The Big Lottery Fund (BIG) wants to set up a new £15 million Trust in Scotland to help disadvantaged urban communities most affected by serious economic decline, market failure and disadvantage to become stronger and more sustainable, through their own efforts. The JESSICA (Scotland) Trust will invest in projects that create opportunities for local people and community-led organisations to develop locally owned, led and controlled assets that will lead to local regeneration. By working in this way BIG will ensure that change and development are strongly shaped by the communities
concerned. The JESSICA (Scotland) Trust projects will need to demonstrate that they can bring together agencies and communities to develop a common
approach to activities and funding, and to ensure that local people have a genuine say in developing their communities. The JESSICA (Scotland) Trust will invest in projects that deliver community assets or assets under
community control where they meet BIG’s outcomes agenda. Once established, the JESSICA (Scotland) Trust will be an independent body working to the stated objectives. The Trust will be governed by a Board of Trustees, who will take the key investment decisions related to its funds as
well as being responsible for the JESSICA (Scotland) Trust’s governance.

The JESSICA (Scotland) Trust is targeted at geographic neighbourhoods of greatest disadvantage (13 designated areas) in Scotland. The 13 local authority areas listed below have been identified as being eligible for support from the JESSICA (Scotland) Trust. The areas’ eligibility will be reviewed every year and any additional area that might become eligible under review may be added to the list of targeted areas. Equally, one of these thirteen
areas could be changed over the life of the JESSICA (Scotland) Trust.

 Clackmannanshire
  Dundee
 East Ayrshire
 Edinburgh
 Fife
 Glasgow
 Inverclyde
 North Ayrshire
 North Lanarkshire
 Renfrewshire
 South Lanarkshire
 West Dunbartonshire
 West Lothian.

Our approach
We want to provide certainty, longevity and a model that can invest and re invest for the long-term benefit of communities. To do this we have decided to
set up a new independent Trust and give it £15 million to invest and spend
over the next 10 years. An independent Trust can plan for the long-term, get money to where it’s needed most and respond quickly to new issues. It can be flexible and respond in different ways, including giving out grants, providing loans, tendering for services or recruiting staff to carry out its
work. A Trust can also raise money from other sources to add to the funds provided by BIG.

The Trust’s powers will have a deliberately narrow focus on distribution of funds to ensure that any investment made is targeted at the designated areas, but wide enough so that the Trust can consider and support any
appropriate aspect of such proposals.

The results of six ballots were announced this week- each one with more that 80% of tenants voting in favour of transferring from Glasgow Housing Association to community controlled  housing associations

Three ballots in North Glasgow – North Glasgow LHO, Red Road Balornock and Balmore – all voting in favour of transferring to North Glasgow Housing Association

The three other ballots held by Queens Cross Housing Association, Southside Housing Association and Yorkhill Housing Association  all produced the same results  – a resounding yes to transfer.

These results come hard on the heels of other ballots with the same outcome held by Govanhill Housing Association – tenants of Govanhill LHO (79% voted yes) and tenants of Merrylee LHO (76% voted yes)

Queens Cross Housing Association have already conducted two other ballots of GHA tenants – both producing the same results. Tenants prefer to have a landlord under their local control

Author: Duncan Ross, Northern times

HOPES for a community buy-out of a prime site in the centre of Lairg were dashed this week – at least for the time being – when the owner suddenly declared he is no longer willing to sell.

Solicitors acting for Irish tour operator Terry Flynn have written to the Lairg and District Community Initiative saying he has withdrawn the land from the market.

The community group is currently in the process of balloting local people to see if they support a community buy-out of the 4.4 acre site on which the Sutherland Arms Hotel once stood.

The group’s plans for the site include a £3m eco-friendly hotel and leisure complex, although these sparked some controversy at a stormy public meeting in the village last week.

The site has been independently valued at £75,000 for the purposes of the community buy-out under land reform legislation.

In a letter to this week’s NT the chairman of LDCI, retired Church of Scotland minister the Rev Leslie Goskirk, said Mr Flynn’s decision meant they could not proceed with their plans meantime.

“We understand, however, that our application to buy is still registered and would be re-activated should the land come on the market at a future date.”

Asked if he knew why Mr Flynn had taken the site off the market, Mr Goskirk added: “No idea at all. All we got was a one-line letter from his solicitors saying he had withdrawn it.

“We have never had any direct contact with Mr Flynn. Everything has been done through his solicitors.”

Mr Goskirk said that the local ballot was already under way when the letter was received, so they would continue with it.

“At least it will give us an indication of the views of the community,” he said.

“By the time we heard the news, people would have had their ballot papers and some will have sent them back already.”

The closing date for return of ballot papers is Monday of next week, and the count takes place in Lairg Community Centre on Tuesday evening at 7.30pm.

Asked if he and his fellow directors were surprised to hear the site had been taken off the market, Mr Goskirk said: “I don’t think we’re surprised. There have been so many turns and twists in this story right from the beginning.

“I think we have reached the stage where we just take things as they come.”

In his letter, Mr Goskirk also attempted to answer critics who at last week’s public meeting accused LDCI of proceeding too far with the hotel plans without a proper mandate.

“The terms of the relevant legislation are very clear – and strict,” he writes.

“In order to succeed with an application to buy land on behalf of the community, the applicants must produce proposals for the future development of the land.

“LDCI, in good faith, believing that the community of Lairg had expressed at public meetings between November 2007 and January 2008 its desire to see a hotel once again occupying the site, proceeded on that basis.

“Other suggested options, having been carefully researched, were considered to be impracticable.”

Mr Flynn’s announcement is the latest twist in a long and convoluted saga. He bought the derelict hotel in 2000 and had it demolished, but then failed to find funding to redevelop the site himself.

Attempts to sell it to another company fell through in 2008 when the prospective purchasers went into liquidation following a police investigation for alleged fraud.

It finally came on the open market this summer, and the community group were able to take their plans forward – until now.

Mr Flynn was unavailable for comment this week and did not return the NT’s calls.

North, West and Central Sutherland Councillor Robbie Rowantree yesterday (Thursday) accused Mr Flynn of frustrating the community’s efforts to revive the local economy and called on him to give them an explanation.

“Mr Flynn’s intransigence has been at the root of the problems the community has faced,” he said.

“We don’t know enough about Mr Flynn’s financial affairs to understand why he has changed his mind.

“I can only assume he doesn’t think the price is good enough.

“What Mr Flynn should do now is release a statement saying why he has done what he has done, and I would call on him to be honest with the community.”

Author: Ed Cox

You have to admire David Cameron’s persistence with the Big Society theme. Behind the scenes at the Conservative Party Conference it was treated with considerable mirth with ministers apparently referring to it as “BS”. At the ippr north fringe event, there was less scepticism as Nat Wei made a strong case for the role Big Society played historically in the industrialisation of Northern cities and pointed out its potential for future economic and social transformation.

Although the concept of ‘Big Society’ seems ever more elastic, new evidence of the importance of community dynamics in the pursuit of economic development is coming to light. In a new report published today, researchers compared three ‘matched pairs’ of deprived neighbourhoods in Liverpool, Wakefield and Middlesbrough and analysed why some areas improved their prospects over the past decade while others lagged.

The study controlled for issues such as ethnicity and housing tenure,  and three factors came to the fore in explaining why some neighbourhoods improved and others did not. First, the extent of ‘residential sorting’ – the impact of people moving in and out of an area. Second, the relative success of welfare-to-work programmes in linking local residents with jobs in the wider area. But thirdly, and significantly, it was the internal and external relationships that characterise the neighbourhood which seem to make a big difference as to whether people were more or less likely to travel any distance to get a job.

In improving neighbourhoods, higher levels of informal community activity, strong leadership and wide travel horizons were clearly associated with people’s outlook on the world of work and their propensity to travel to nearby job opportunities. By contrast, lagging neighbourhoods seemed characterised by more defensive and inward looking community identity, lower confidence and aspiration and less likelihood to travel out of the neighbourhood to find work. Whilst it is difficult to determine the relationship between cause and effect, in simple terms it would appear that the big society has an important contribution to make to tackling economic deprivation.

Some examples illustrate the case. Speke and Croxteth in Liverpool are considered to be two of the most deprived neighbourhoods in England. Speke has been the site of remarkable investment, including at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Jaguar Land Rover and a number of new retail and business parks, and yet even with so many jobs on the doorstep, levels of deprivation have grown. Residents talk of the neighbourhood having an ‘island mentality’ and this is one of the factors which makes it difficult for people to benefit from the new opportunities created by investment.

Croxteth on the other hand, despite its negative reputation, has seen significant improvements for the local population without as much nearby investment. A key to Croxteth’s success seems to stem from such initiatives as its community-run ‘communiversity’. Not only does this local initiative build skills and offer apprenticeship-type opportunities, but its very existence appears to provide leadership and generate a sense of shared confidence in the area which then ensures any local investment is turned into local opportunities.

Traditionally, community development and economic development specialists might not have been comfortable bedfellows, but perhaps this needs to change. Whilst the report shows that improvement in Northern cities has depended heavily on economic growth, a rising tide does not lift all boats and more strategic approaches to economic development must be complemented by carefully targeted intervention at the micro-level. If Big Society is a call to arms, then perhaps it needs to call Local Enterprise Partnerships to take very seriously the quite specific needs and dynamics of its poorest neighbourhoods.

The report Rebalancing Local Economies has been produced by ippr north, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Northern Way.

Author: David Maddox, Westminster Editor

Full report here

A SCOTTISH-style right to buy land will be extended to communities in England under radical proposals to turn Britain into an “asset-owning democracy” being endorsed by the coalition government.

The minister for decentralisation, Greg Clark, will tomorrow formally introduce a report – To Buy, to Bid, to Build Community rights for an Asset Owning Democracy – by the centre right think-tank ResPublica, which will call for legislation giving communities across the UK the right to buy local assets and land.

It will offer ten ideas for unlocking ownership for the less wealthy, arguing that it will transform the life chances of many and provide a much needed boost for many parts of the country. The proposals are also seen by the government as a key part of realising David Cameron’s “big society” vision.

Inspiration has been provided by the success of the Scottish Parliament’s land reform laws, which have provided a stimulus to many formerly moribund rural and island communities, such as Gigha, Knoydart and Assynt where decades of population decline has been reversed by community buy-outs.

The report’s co-author Phillip Blond, whose Red Tory book formed much of the thinking behind David Cameron’s “big society” and the Conservative manifesto, will argue that after a decade of booming state investment and welfare spending under Labour, “meaningful assets and market entry have become the preserve of the rich.”

Blond and his co-author Steve Wyler take their cue from the 2003 Land Reform Act (Scotland) passed by MSPs which allowed communities to buy up vast tracks of land north of the Border.

The report argues that buy-outs have led to entrepreneurship in Scotland in communities where people have a stake in the assets.

It notes: “in Scotland especially, there has been a rapid increase in community energy experimentation, including community owned wind power, ground source heat pumps, biofuels, anaerobic digestion, hydro-electric schemes, solar power, etc.”

But while the report is mainly aimed at spreading the ideas of the Land Reform Act to other parts of the UK there is also advice for Scotland to improve what it has got.

The report describes the buyout process in Scotland as “too cumbersome” saying it needs to be more streamlined.

A source close to Blond said: “We like what has happened in Scotland but it is not the model for England because it is too complicated.

We think that the Scottish Parliament should make it easier for community buyouts to happen, then it could spread principle to urban communities as well.”

Author: Lesley Riddoch, The Scotsman

WHAT do the Tories actually mean by localism? Scots may never know, since all things local are devolved. But maybe we should.

A bonfire of quangos and regional planning could knock local heads together in England, reintroduce common sense to public life and end a long history of top-down governance. Or it could create a free-for-all where the strongest local voice wins and a patchwork replaces national standards of social provision.
 
The Tory MEP Daniel Hannan recently made the case for localism in this paper: “Give councils more power and you will attract a higher calibre of candidate, as well as boosting participation at local elections.
 
“In Britain, local authorities raise 25 per cent of their budgets and turn-out is typically around 30 per cent. In France, those figures are, respectively, 50 and 55 per cent; in Switzerland 85 and 90 per cent.”
 
Interesting comparisons – and not just because Gallic councils raise more cash and enjoy higher voter turn-out. They also have tiny units of local governance compared with big, remote, clunky old Britain.
 
France has 22 regions, 96 départements and 36,000 communes with an average population of just 380. The Swiss have 7.6 million people in 23 cantons and 2,900 communes with an average population of 2,600.
 
Norway – same population as Scotland – has 431 municipalities responsible for primary and secondary education, outpatient health, senior citizen and social services, unemployment, planning, economic development and roads.
 
The average Norwegian municipality has 12,500 people – the average Scottish council serves 162,500.
 
North or south, Baltic or Mediterranean, most European states are micro-sized at their local tier. That means more councillors and more cost. It also means more connection, traction, trust, effective service delivery and involvement than our disempowering and distant “local” government.
 
Since the majority of MPs start as councillors, their early experience of community really matters. In municipal, small-scale, active and co-operative Norway, an expectation of local competence and involvement has informed national policy-making. The opposite has happened at Holyrood.
 
Politicians of all parties like the idea of involving local people, but in practice wouldn’t trust them to run the proverbial in a brewery.
 
So we are stuck with the biggest “local” government in Europe – too large to connect with actual communities, too small to achieve genuine efficiencies of scale. Kind of the mummy bowl size in Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Betwixt and between.
 
Take Highland Council, which covers an area the size of Belgium with a population the size of Belfast. Councillors drive hundreds of thousands of miles a year to create a sense of connection through meetings, surgeries and local events. Despite such superhuman efforts, many remote communities feel largely negative, reduced to questioning, suspecting and vetoing whatever emanates from Inverness.
 
Meanwhile, Europe’s fastest growing city also lacks a dedicated council of its own. One size doesn’t fit all – in fact, it doesn’t fit very much.
 
Those who run Scotland’s overlarge authorities are on big salaries and a losing wicket. Many struggle valiantly to keep their ears to the ground. But the ground is simply too large. Ironically, this means more money spent on consultation, which then decreases confidence in community capacity because few locals bother to respond.
 
A recent Rotary event in Fort William was packed with retired planners, civil engineers, project managers and council chiefs despairing about the lack of vibrancy in their town. What had this talented, practical bunch done about it? Nothing.
 
Our disempowering, paternalist system of local government has stifled localism for decades – why should anything change now?
 
Local confidence, capacity and management skills come from running real assets and sweating over real decisions with real neighbours able to really help or really obstruct. Not from box-ticking consultation exercises.
 
So as life in Scotland looks set to become even more centralised in the name of efficiency, could it also become more localised at the same time? Should our current local authorities become the tier to scrap or – given Scotland’s penchant for failing to grasp the thistle – circumvent?
 
Prominent Scots have already been thinking the unthinkable.
 
Former Inspector of Constabulary Paddy Tomkins has called for a single police force in Scotland which communicates directly with beefed-up beat patrols. Labour’s education minister Peter Peacock has proposed scrapping Scotland’s 32 education authorities, allowing ministers in Edinburgh to fund headteachers directly.
 
Local police and municipal schools – why stop there? Why not ultra-local mini-councils à la Europe? Why not – because there’s no cash, no spare energy, no appetite for local government reform and no real belief that the massive distance between people and power in Britain actually matters. Happily, there may be an ad hoc solution.
 
Powerless community councils are so toothless they can’t legally own an asset. So development trusts have been set up to handle community orchards, lochs, pubs, libraries, bridges and wind turbines – and in the process a very practical, capable and focused set of people have been gathered together and let rip.
 
Community-owned or joint-venture wind farms will soon be netting millions (not peanuts) for their areas. Already in Fintry near Glasgow, community wind cash has paid to insulate homes and replace axed bus services.
 
It’s a silent revolution. There are 4-500 development trusts in Scotland – community-led, multiple-activity, enterprising, partnership-oriented and keen to move away from reliance on grants. Working with local housing associations, they could become a powerful force for local good.
 
Could they help to run Scotland? They soon will be.
 
Cost-cutting councils are already closing libraries and village halls. Development Trusts are ready to take them on – pigs in pokes excepted.
 
Joint procurement, shared backroom functions, local energy companies and district heating must become the norm in Scottish life, not the praiseworthy exception.
 
That can only happen if little and large combine powerfully to improve governance. Cometh the hour, cometh the community.

To access consultation click here

Consultation on the Scottish Government’s Draft Land Use Strategy

The land and how we use it literally shapes our country. It has seen communities grow and prosper, and provided food, water, energy and spectacular natural landscapes over the centuries. In short, it helps make Scotland unique. This is why it is so important that we plan ahead to make best use of it in the future.

This will be Scotland’s first national strategy for land use – so it’s vital that we get it right. We want to hear the views of everyone across the country, because everyone has an interest in the land.

Sharing knowledge and working together is key. History also offers lessons of where things can go wrong – from Highland peat damage to the Lowland legacy of industrial dereliction. Now we face new challenges from climate change and other modern-day pressures. In response, we need to harness the land’s potential fully, to create a prosperous and sustainable low-carbon economy, and at the same time improve our environment, our biodiversity and our wellbeing.

There are roles for Government, other bodies and the people of Scotland. Together we will develop a national framework of key principles to inform decisions taken locally about the land.

We can all help to shape our land for the generations to come.
Consultation on the Draft Land Use Strategy is Now Open

Be part of the discussion: email or post your submission via the contact details on the left, or phone us if you require further information.

We would appreciate early responses by end of November 2010. Responses will be accepted up until 17 December 2010, when the consultation closes. We regret that responses received after that date cannot be considered.

Please could you return the Respondent Information Form with your comments to allow your response to be handled in the appropriate way.

Hard copies of all documents may also be obtained via the contact details on the left.

What Else is Happening During the Consultation

Scottish Ministers and officials are attending and supporting a number of stakeholder events, including those listed on the left. If you would like a member of the Land Use Strategy team to speak at an event during the consultation, please get in touch with us.

The Scottish Government has just completed a consultation on Speak Up for Rural Scotland – how to maximise rural Scotland’s contribution to sustainable economic growth. We will consider responses to both consultations to offer a consistent approach to shaping the future of land use and of rural Scotland.