Copenhagen failed to deliver – where does that leave us?

Copenhagen was a watershed event. Climate change has become, in many people’s minds, the central survival issue for our species, and the Copenhagen talks provided a pivotal moment for addressing that issue. The fact that the talks failed to produce a binding agreement is therefore of some significance.

The next opportunity to forge a binding global climate treaty will be the 2010 U.N. climate conference in Mexico City. Many see this as a chance to achieve what proved elusive in Copenhagen. But the same challenges will face leaders there. And if the global economy relapses in the meantime, national politicians may be even more reluctant to take bold action to limit fossil fuel consumption, as they’ll want to keep all their economic options open. Indeed, it seems likely that for the foreseeable future economic implosion will be sucking the air from any room in which heads of state are gathered.

So, international policies are needed if we are to deal with a potentially game-ending global issue like climate change, yet there is now convincing evidence that national and supra-national institutions are incapable of producing effective climate policies.

The same could be said for other crises mentioned above. It’s not enough that national governments can’t get together to solve climate change. They can’t solve economic meltdown, peak oil, water scarcity, soil erosion, or overpopulation either. Yes, there are individual nations like Tuvalu that can muster a decent policy on one issue or another. Denmark is probably the shining example among industrial nations: it has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 14 percent since 1990 while maintaining constant energy consumption and growing its GDP by more than 40 percent. But these are the rare exceptions, and apparently destined to stay that way. We have no global means of dealing with the toxic debt that is strangling the world economy. We have no agreements in place to prevent the death of the oceans. There is no global policy to avert economic impacts from fossil fuel depletion. There is no worldwide protocol to protect the precious layer of living topsoil that is all that separates us from famine. There is no effective global convention on fresh water conservation.

This is not to say there is nothing that can be done about these problems. In fact, there are organizations and communities in many nations doing path-breaking work to address each and every one of them. Some examples:
• Agronomists at the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, led by Wes Jackson, have for years been patiently developing perennial grain crops capable of feeding billions without destroying topsoil.
• The city of Zurich has decided through popular vote to become a 2000-Watt society. This means cutting energy consumption from the current 6000 Watts per person to one-third that amount over the next three or four decades. This was evidently a response both to climate change and the problem of energy security.
• Here in Sonoma County, California, a Go Local Co-op has formed; it’s an extension of the national organization, Business Alliance for a Living Local Economy (BALLE). One of its projects is “Sustaining Capital”—a community cooperative capital formation model that, if successful and replicated widely, could end local economies’ dependence on Wall Street banks.
• At Sunga in Madhyapur Thimi, Nepal, a community-supported project has built a water treatment plant based on reed-bed constructed wetlands that also serves as the main source of irrigation for farmers in the region.

These are just a few items out of hundreds, maybe thousands that could be cited. But, in aggregate, are they enough? Obviously not—even in the estimation of the folks who are doing this admirable work. Some problems are more easily tackled at the local level than others (local efforts can help maintain biodiversity, but without international agreements it’s not obvious how the oceans could be rescued). And many local success stories actually depend on global systems of finance and provisioning (for example, the Nepalese water treatment plant mentioned above was built with financial support from the United Nations Human Settlements Program, U.N.-Habitat’s Water for Asian Cities Program, the Asian Development Bank, and Water Aid, and received technical support from the Environment and Public Health Organization).

Discouraging? Of course. But absent global agreements, local efforts are what we’ve got, and we will simply have to make the most of them that we can.

Meanwhile, given the amount of carbon emissions already in the atmosphere, climate impacts are in store no matter what happens at the U.N. negotiations in Mexico City. Something similar could be said with regard to all the other problems mentioned: even if strong policies could somehow be forged tomorrow, serious challenges will arise in the years ahead with regard to water, food, energy, and the economy.

If such impacts are unquestionably coming, then we should be doing something to prepare. Since we don’t know exactly what the impacts will be, or when or where they will land, the most sensible strategy is simply to build resilience throughout the system. Resilience implies dispersed control points and dispersed inventories, and hence regional self-sufficiency—the opposite of economic efficiency, the central rationale for globalization—and so it needs to be organized primarily at the local level.

To summarize: three factors—the need for resilience, the lack of effective policy at national and global levels, and the tendency of the best responses to emerge regionally and at a small scale—argue for dealing with the crushing crises of the new century locally, even though there is still undeniable need for larger-scale, global solutions.
Does this mean we should give up even trying to work at the national and global levels? Each person will have to make up her or his own mind on that one. To my thinking, Copenhagen is something of a last straw. I have no interest in trying to discourage anyone from undertaking national or global activism. Indeed, there is a danger in taking attention away from national and international affairs: policy could get hijacked not just by parties even less competent than those currently in command, but by ones that are just plain evil. Nevertheless, this writer is finally convinced that, with whatever energies for positive change may be available to us, we are likely to accomplish the most by working locally and on a small scale, while sharing information about successes and failures as widely as possible.

A final note: As 2010 begins we are about to enter the second decade of the 21st century. Historians often remark that the character of a new century doesn’t make itself apparent until its second decade (think World War I). Perhaps peak oil, the global financial crash, and the failure of Copenhagen are the signal events that will propel us into the Century of Decline. If these events are indeed indicative, it will be a century of economic contraction rather than growth; a century less about warnings of environmental constraints and consequences than about the fulfillment of past warnings; and a century of local action rather than grand global schemes.

I suspect that things are going to be noticeably different from now on.

For the full article click here http://postcarbon.webvanta.com/article/54564-the-meaning-of-copenhagen

Vote for change
What began as a letter to The Observer in May has snowballed into a campaign that is making inroads at No 10, filling conference halls and reaching out to supporters across the country.

The campaign rests on the assumption that politics is just too important to be left to the politicians. Voters need a choice on the future of our politics and their parliament. And that means a referendum on a new electoral system that really empowers voters. We hope you’ll join us.
 
• Helena Kennedy, QC
• Philip Pullman, author
• Damon Albarn, musician
• Stephen Fry, broadcaster
• John Sauven, Greenpeace
• Martin Bell
• Polly Toynbee, journalist
• Matthew Taylor*, RSA
• Susie Orbach, author and psychologist
• Jonathan Pryce, actor
• Caroline Lucas, Leader Green Party
• Brian Eno,musician
• Neal Lawson, Compass
• Colin Hines, Green New Deal
• Ken Ritchie, Electoral Reform Society
• Hari Kunzru, author
• Mark Thomas, comedian
• Oona King, ex Labour MP
• Michael Brown, journalist and ex Tory MP
• Pam Giddy, Power Inquiry
• Salma Yaqoob, Leader Respect
• Wes Streeting, NUS
• Gordon Roddick
• Lisa Appignanesi, Chair of PEN
• Prof James Forrester
• Carmen Callil, author and publisher
• Sunder Katwala*, Fabians
• Billy Bragg, musician
• Sam Tarry, Chair Young Labour
• Peter Facey, Unlock Democracy
• Prof David Marquand
• Dave Rowntree, musician
• Richard Reeves, Demos
• Ann Pettifor, Advocacy UK
• Prof Richard Sennett
• Sunny Hundal, Liberal Conspiracy
• Anthony Barnett, openDemocracy
• Richard Grayson, Social Liberal Forum
• John Harris, journalist
• Pete Myers, enoughsenough.org
• Steve Richards, journalist
• Tony Robinson, actor
• Richard Murphy, Tax Justice
• Jeremy Leggett, Solarcentury
• AC Grayling, philosopher
• Katie Hickman, author
• Benedict Southworth, World Development Movement
• Lance Price, journalist
• Ann Black, Labour activist
• Peter Tatchell, Human Rights campaigner
• Hilary Wainwright, Red Pepper
• David Aaronovitch, journalist
• Kevin Maguire, journalist
• Brian Caton, Prison Officers Association
• Dr Matthew Sowemimo, Director – Social Liberal Forum
• Andrew Simms, green campaigner
• Vivienne Westwood, Designer
• Tariq Ali
• Claire Rayner, Journalist
• Sir Iqbal Sacranie
• Malcolm Clark, Make Votes Count
• Nan Sloane, Centre for Women & Democracy
• Katherine Rake, Fawcett Society
• Stuart Wilks-Heeg, Democratic Audit
• Benjamin Zephaniah, Poet
• K T Tunstall, musician
• Nicholas Parsons, broadcaster
• John O’Farrell, author
• Richard Jobson, Film-maker

SNP and Tories battle it out over BIG future

A POLITICAL spat has broken out between the SNP and Conservative Party over the future of the Big Lottery Fund.

The SNP has accused the Conservative Party of attacking the public sector through plans to stop the Big Lottery Fund from distributing cash to organisations not operating in the voluntary or community sector (YCS).

However, the Conservative Party claims it aims to ensure that lottery cash does not subsidise services that should be paid for through public funding.

Conservative frontbench spokesperson, Jeremy Hunt MP, stated recently: ” …one of the first things a Conservative Government will do will be to restore the Lottery to its original four good causes. The Big Lottery Fund will – explicitly – only fund projects in the voluntary and community sectors.”

Last year in Scotland, the Big Lottery Fund spent £4.l8m on 509 non-YCS projects, including 490 awards to schools in Scotland, through its small grant schemes.

The SNP’s Pete Wishart said the money has been used to help initiatives from sensory gardens for severely disabled children to training for those with autism to educational support for pre-school children.

Examples of larger awards included £285,000 granted to a Renfrewshire project helping the long term unemployed back into work and £88,000 to help addicts in North Ayrshire move on from their addictions.

Wishart, the SNP spokesperson for culture, media and sport, said: “David Cameron’s plans would strike at the heart of the important work these organisations are doing for people in Scotland.

“What the Conservatives are trying to package nicely as “restoring funding” will actually mean funding cuts for these good causes.

“The great irony is that the Tories claim they want a lottery independent of the government but one of the first things they plan to do if they get into Downing Street is dictate to the Big Lottery Fund what they can and can’t support.”

The Conservative Party is due to reveal its full proposals for the National Lottery in the coming months, however Scottish Conservatives education spokeswoman Liz Smith, who has been involved in the process, told TFN that the party intends to increase lottery funding to culture, sport and heritage.

She said there are no current plans to reduce funding to the Big Lottery Fund, but indicated the party will be examining its current high administration costs.

“The thing that is particularly bad is that a lot of smaller charities keep their administration costs way down to four or five per cent, but then you’ve got the Big Lottery up at 11 per cent,” she said.

“The key thing though is that the voluntary and community sectors are often those that know their communities best. That is where the real hard work is going on about what is the right thing to do. I don’t think we want a system that is too governed by the pet policies of any government, whether it be Labour or the Conservatives. I think it’s better if that’s kept out of politics.”

The Big Lottery Fund Scotland spokesperson however said: “The Big Lottery Fund was recently praised by The National Audit Office as an organisation from which others could learn and whose administration costs compare favourably with public sector funders and with other funders in the voluntary sector. In the last year our administration costs were 8.6 per cent.”

John Downie, director of public affairs at the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, said: “On the face of it, we welcome the move by the Conservatives, as we’ve long argued that 100 per cent of the Big Lottery Fund’s cash should go to the voluntary sector.

“What we need to be careful of, however, is that the amount of money available to our sector through the Big Lottery Fund is not cut or diverted.

“Liz Smith’s comment that more lottery funding would be made available for culture, heritage and sport can only mean that money would be taken away from Big – a move which we could not support.”

Author: John Michael Greer

The point to be made in this week’s post is a bit complex, and I hope that my readers will have the patience to read through an apparently unrelated story that leads to it. A few years back, I researched and wrote a book on the UFO phenomenon, somewhat unimaginatively titled The UFO Phenomenon. It was an intriguing project, not least because the acronym “UFO” has all but lost  its original meaning – something seen in the sky that the witnesses don’t happen to be able to identify – and become a strange attractor for exotic belief systems that fuse the modern myth of infinite progress with archaic religious visions of immanent evil and apocalyptic renewal.

Behind the myths, though, I noted the intriguing fact that the “alien spacecraft” of each decade had quite a bit in common with whatever secret aerospace projects the US military was testing at that time. From the round silver shapes of the late 1940s, when high-altitude balloons were the last word in strategic reconnaissance, to the black triangles of the early 1980s, when stealth planes were new and highly secret, the parallels were remarkable, as was the involvement of the US military in fostering the UFO furore. While plenty of things fed into the emergence of the UFO mythology, it seems pretty clear that this mythology was used repeatedly for the kind of strategic deception the Allies used to bamboozle the Germans before D-Day, to provide cover for secret aerospace projects in the US and elsewhere, not to mention plenty of less exotic situations where it was inconvenient to talk about who was flying what in whose airspace.

What interested me most about the project in retrospect was the reaction it got. I ended up on – well, let’s just say a very well known radio talk show about the paranormal, and leave it at that. The host asked the usual questions, and got to the one about what I found most fascinating about the topic, so I sketched out the hypothesis I’ve just mentioned.

He instantly changed the subject.

I was intrigued, and as soon as the conversation allowed, I brought up the same point. He changed the subject again, so fast he must have left skidmarks on the airwaves. So I brought it up again, and the same thing happened. We had a commercial break, and after that he suddenly wanted to talk about my other books; I humored him, chatted about my other titles, worked the conversation back around to UFOs, and then brought up my hypothesis again. He changed the subject again. As soon as the next break arrived, I was off the air half an hour early, and he was inviting listeners to call in to share their favorite paranormal experiences. It’s probably unnecessary to mention that I’ve never been invited back.

That experience was typical of the book’s reception by the UFO community, and it taught me something worth knowing about that community, which is that a significant number of people who insist they believe in alien spaceships in Earth’s skies don’t actually believe in anything of the kind. I did hear back from some UFO believers who defended their faith in alien visitation in spirited terms. With them I have no quarrel, though I disagree with their beliefs; but much more often, the reaction I got was the one that used to be typical of liberal clergymen who no longer believed in any sort of god, but got uncomfortable, scuffed their feet, and looked out the nearest available window when anyone openly avowed atheism.

Now the point of this story is not to rehash the issue of whether UFOs are or are not alien spacecraft. It’s to provide an example of a particular kind of bad faith, as the existentialists used to call it, that pervades discussions of the point I want to raise this week.

What, dear reader, if I were to propose a citizen’s strategy for carrying out constructive social change in the United States that has worked in the past, not just once but repeatedly? A strategy that works from the grassroots up, requires next to no money or media coverage to set in motion, and uses off-the-shelf social technology? A strategy that also has the proven side effect of building community on a grand scale? Would you jump on it like a duck on a June bug, as my grandfather used to say, and get it under way as soon as possible? Let’s make the experiment.

Glance back through American history from colonial times to the present and you’ll discover that the one consistently effective strategy for citizens who seek to change the direction of their society is to organize. When Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America not long after the Revolution, one of the things he found most remarkable about the new republic was the way that ordinary citizens who wanted to bring change to their society did it by organizing societies, lodges, movements, political parties, or any other kind of citizen’s group you care to name. The same thing has been true ever since; glance back along any wave of change in American life and you’ll find an organized group of citizens behind it.

It’s popular to insist these days that such organizations can’t possibly muster the clout needed to overwhelm, say, the power of big corporations. History says otherwise. In the 1880s, for example, corporations had even more unrestricted power in the United States than they do now, and the railroad corporations were the richest and most powerful of the lot. The Grange, an organization of farmers, took on the improbable task of breaking railroad monopolies that were forcing farm families into poverty by keeping the cost of shipping farm produce to urban markets artificially high. The short version? The Grange achieved total victory, and the railroad corporations lost the monopoly status that made their fortunes.

The key to understanding the power of citizens’ organizations is that representative democracy doesn’t respond to the will of individuals; it responds to pressure exerted by groups. Those who organize to put pressure on the system generally get at least some of what they want, and the longer and harder they push, the more of it they get. Those who don’t organize, by their lack of organization, make themselves irrelevant to the political process.

You know this perfectly well, dear reader. Odds are you’ve grumbled about the influence of pressure groups in Washington DC, or your state’s capitol, or city hall, or wherever. You may even support a pressure group or two yourself with the occasional donation. The obvious question, then, is why the torrent of vocal dissatisfaction with the political status quo these days or so hasn’t resulted in another round of citizens’ organizations rising from the grassroots, as the Abolitionists and the Grange and the Progressives and the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement and so many others did in their time, to influence the political process by turning popular dissatisfaction into a force for change. If it takes a pressure group to have a voice in American politics, why not organize a pressure group to give voice to those who consider themselves voiceless? For that matter, instead of griping about the lack of a viable third party, why not start one, instead of waiting for some political equivalent of Wal-Mart
to package one in plastic and display it enticingly on a convenient shelf?

These aren’t rhetorical questions. Much of what’s wrong with the current American political system is the result of a vacuum at the center of that system – a very large empty space where organized pressure from the public used to go. Consider, for example, how political parties used to work in the United States. The basic unit was the precinct caucus, where neighbors would get together, debate issues and candidates, and organize publicity and get-out-the-vote activities for the next election. Each precinct elected representatives to the county convention, where this process was repeated, and cascaded upward through state and national conventions. These last weren’t the pointless media spectacles they’ve become; they were working sessions where the candidates and proposals that rose up from the grassroots finally got sorted out into the slate and platform the party would offer the voters come election day.

These days precinct caucuses are moribund, and county and state conventions are little more than exercises in going through the motions; policy initiatives and candidacies begin, not with neighbors meeting in living rooms, but with media campaigns orchestrated by marketing firms and strategy sessions among highly paid party officials. Yet it wasn’t some conspiracy of corporate minions who brought about that state of affairs; what happened, by and large, was that most Americans dropped out of the party system, and the professionals filled the resulting void.

It’s interesting to speculate about why that took place. I suspect many of my readers have encountered Robert Putnam’s widely discussed book Bowling Alone (2000), which traced the collapse of social networks and institutions straight across American society. The implosion of the old grassroots-based party system is simply one example of the trend Putnam documented. Putnam’s book sparked a great deal of discussion, some of it in the peak oil community, but nearly all of that discussion fixated on the benefits that might be gained by reinventing community, and left out a crucial factor: the cost.

By this I don’t mean money. Communities need regular inputs of time and effort from their members, or they collapse into mass societies of isolated individuals – roughly speaking, what we’ve got now. Communities also need subtler inputs: a sense of commitment, of shared purpose, of emotional connection, of trust. To gain the benefits of living in community, it’s necessary to sacrifice some part of the autonomy that so many Americans nowadays guard so jealously. The same thing is true of those subsets of community already discussed – political parties, for example, or citizens’ organizations, or any other framework for collective action that’s more than a place for people to hang out and participate when they feel like it.

I know a fair number of people in activist circles who speak in glowing terms about community; most of them don’t belong to a single community organization. I also know a fair number of people who’ve tried to launch community projects of one kind or another; most of these projects foundered due to a fatal shortage of people willing to commit the time, effort, and emotional energy the project needed to survive. Most, but not all; some believers in community have taken an active role in trying to build or maintain it; some projects have managed to find an audience and build a community, or at least the first rough draft of one. One of the reasons I don’t dismiss the Transition Town movement, though I have serious doubts about some aspects of it, is precisely that many of the people involved in it have committed themselves to it in a meaningful sense, and the movement itself has succeeded in some places in building a critical mass of commitment and energy.

It’s important, I think, to assess the ventures toward community that are under way now or have been tried in the recent past, both the successful ones and the ones that have failed, and try to get some sense of the factors that tip the balance one way or the other. It’s also crucial, though, to recognize that there’s a difference between fantasies of community that provides all the benefits with none of the costs, and the reality of community in which each benefit must be paid for by a corresponding commitment. I suspect the common passion among some peak oil activists for lifeboat communities that just happen to be too expensive ever to get off the ground, which often goes hand in hand with a distinct lack of enthusiasm for participation in real communities of real people that exist right now, is simply one way of evading the difference.

This is why I didn’t spend this week’s post advocating, say, the founding of Citizens Unions to give ordinary people pressure groups to exert influence on local, state and national governments, as so many successful citizens’ pressure groups have done in the past. I think this would be an excellent idea, but if people were willing to invest time, energy, and commitment into such organizations, we’d likely already have them.

The problem we face now, though, is that uncomfortable looks, scuffing feet, and abstracted gazes out the nearest convenient window are no longer adequate responses to a situation that’s rapidly spinning out of control. The costs of community may not be something most of us want to pay, but in the world that is taking shape around us, the alternative for a great many of us may be much worse. I plan to talk about that in next week’s post.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sharon Astyk has commented on John’s article over at Casaubon’s Book. http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2010/01/on_the_problem_of_community.php

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Original article available here http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Most of us will spend the last hours of the year tomorrow revelling in a cosy venue.
But a small group of Scots will brave the elements for a far more arduous celebration.

A few hardy souls from the village of Luss will embark on a journey from Bandry, on the western shore of Loch Lomond, to the highest point on the nearby island of Inchtavannach.

Together, they will trek up the steep, rocky incline to the top of Tom na Clog, which means “the hill of the bell”, while carrying a former ship’s bell that they will ring on the stroke of midnight.

The unusual ceremony is to celebrate the beginning of 2010, which marks the 1500th anniversary of Christian settlement in the area. Kessog, an Irish missionary, arrived in 510AD, between the times of St Patrick and St Columba. He lived on Inchtavannach, one of the largest islands in the loch, and founded a monastery there.

Leading the ceremony to mark the anniversary of his arrival is the Rev Dane Sherrard, minister at Luss Parish Church for the last 11 years.

He said: “The Hill of the Bell is so called because it used to have a bell fixed on the top of it and whenever it was time for worship, someone rang the bell.

“When it came time for us to start our year of celebration, there was really only one way that made sense to do it and that was to ring a bell on the top of Inchtavannach.”

Finding a bell big enough to be heard a reasonable distance away was the first challenge. “We went to Faslane where they have a big ship’s bell which weighs 64 pounds and I asked if we could borrow it,” explains Rev Sherrard.

“They said we could have it for the night on the condition that we could find a naval officer who could accompany it in full uniform with his sword to guard it.”
Up stepped Mike Palmer, an elder of the church, a retired lieutenant commander, who worked on submarines.

“It’s slightly different from the usual Hogmanay celebration,” said Mr Palmer. “It marks the start of a very significant event in the history of Christianity and I’m very pleased to be a part of it.”

Tomorrow night, the merry band will be transported across the loch on a barge by Roy Rogers, who owns the only house on Inchtavannach.

The group will then make their way up the hill before fixing the bell to a tree and striking it at midnight. Tom Stuart, the church beadle, will be standing ready at Luss church to reply by ringing out the church bells there.

When the plan for the midnight journey was formulated, thoughts turned to another bell associated with the area – St Kessog’s bell. The bronze bell was placed on Tom na Clog until early in the last century, but has since disappeared.

Mr Sherrard’s wife Rachel was convinced that she had once read about an old bell abandoned at the Church manse and decided to investigate. She discovered an ancient bell under a pile of logs in the garden of the manse. The mystery bell is to be assessed by archaeologists to establish its age, but Mr Sherrard is not ruling anything out.

“Maybe it is the famous Kessog’s bell?” he said. “We are going to take it to the top of the hill and ring it, along with the ship’s bell, because it would be dreadful if we discovered later that we actually had Kessog’s bell and we hadn’t taken it up to ring it.”

As part of the year of celebration, a heritage centre has been created in Luss. All round the wood-panelled room, the story of Kessog will be told across medieval-style manuscripts and on eight flat screen monitors. The plan is to have a series of dioramas in place by March 10, St Kessog’s Day, to illustrate events in his life.

In addition, the church itself will be the venue for a multimedia exhibition highlighting important historical events in the life of the church and the village from St Kessog’s time to the present day.

Mr Sherrard says it is an exciting time for the small church community. Money from Scottish Enterprise and the EU paid for the installation of a TV service from inside the church, which means that its reach is now global.

He said: “This tiny little rural church now has a future because of modern technology – we now broadcast our service to 157 countries and to servicemen and women around the world.”

Construction on a £200,000 project, which is due to start at Huntly will help step up tourism in the town and provide a major boost to the local economy, it is claimed.

Work has begun on converting outbuildings behind the Gordon Arms Hotel into accommodation for backpackers.

Hotelier David Sherriffs said: “The potential spin-off to the local area is estimated at upwards of £300,000 a year.”
 
Huntly architects Acanthus have drawn up plans for the transformation of storerooms behind the hotel into accommodation containing 18 bunks.

The scheme would have a drying room, kitchen area, showers and toilets, while retaining the traditional look of the B-listed buildings.

Mr Sherriffs said: “The project will not only meet a need for this type of accommodation – there is no similar provision for travellers between Aberdeen and Elgin – but the conversion of the site at the heart of the town will provide a spin-off to other businesses in the town. It will be a big boon to Huntly generally.”

Access to the place, to be named the Highlander Bunkhouse, will lead directly from The Square.

The venture recently received £200,000 of funding through the national Town Centre Regeneration Fund, which recognised its potential wider benefits to the community through attracting more visitors.

Mr Sherriffs said: “The scheme also dovetails beautifully, with Huntly having just been awarded Walkers Are Welcome status.”

He anticipates not only backpackers but also golfers and people taking part in local arts projects making use of the bunkhouse which is due for completion by March.

Huntly is the third Scottish town to gain Walkers Are Welcome recognition, following Moffat and Tomintoul. Communities have to show not only a range of attractions to walkers, but support the status by maintaining facilities.

Huntly Development Trust project leader for tourism and marketing Carolina Kenny said: “We gathered more than 400 signatures within the community.”

Businesses in Huntly are already displaying Walkers Are Welcome stickers, while this year’s town brochures and website will feature information for walkers on public transport and trails.

There is little to distinguish Catrine, a remote former mill town in Ayrshire, from many other declining Scottish communities. The high street shows similar signs of decay and many houses appear the worse for wear.

Yet residents are preparing to fight back. The community is among 28 across the UK, including four others in Scotland, that are battling to take part in a new BBC reality television show that could help to lift the town out of the mire. If Catrine becomes one of the six finalists featured on Village SOS, to be broadcast in the new year, it will receive £400,000 in lottery funding and be filmed as it undertakes a major regeneration project that, it is hoped, will create sorely needed training and jobs.

The big idea in Catrine, population around 2,000, is to restore its 19th- century reputation for technological innovation with a pioneering renewable energy scheme, including Scotland’s first environmentally-friendly recycling facility, converting used cooking oil into biofuel — a fuel that can be run in almost any diesel engine.

The product, which would be no more than half the price of forecourt diesel, would be sold to local motorists to help reduce their fuel bills, and could be used to heat public buildings. Villagers also want to construct a hydro-electric plant and visitor centre, with the profit used to invest in electric cars.

“The whole idea of this project is to provide income, training and jobs,” said Hugh Hutchison, of Catrine Community Trust. “There is 27 per cent unemployment in this area. That is much higher than the average because of the lack of industry.”
The biofuel scheme, he says, is perfect because as well as generating manufacturing, sales and marketing jobs, it will also make it cheaper for locals to travel to employment in other areas. And much of the infrastructure for the hydro-electric scheme is already in place after a previous hydro plant was installed and later shut down.

In its heyday, Catrine was renowned for embracing new technology. In 1806, its mill was the first in Scotland to install power looms. In 1816, a gas works began to operate, bringing street lighting to the village two years before London, and in 1828 the mill installed suspension water wheels that were the biggest in Britain. But the village could not compete when cheap cotton imports from India began to flood the market in the 1900s. Trade declined and in the 1960s the mill closed, only to be destroyed by fire and demolished.

The 28 communities shortlisted to take part in Village SOS was awarded a grant worth up to £10,000 from the Big Lottery Fund to produce a business plan for their regeneration projects. The deadline for the business plan is March 2010, with the winners to be announced in May. During the reality series, the six finalists will be seen working with a “village champion” who will help to turn their proposals into reality by moving into the communities for a year. Catrine’s champion is Pete Cooper, an accountant from Fife. “This will do Catrine some good regardless of whether or not it becomes one of the six finalists, because it will help them to consider ways of raising funds,” he said.

Mr Hutchison added: “This is a commendable idea from the Big Lottery Fund and the BBC, and also very stimulating. It is going to show village life, and all the trials and tribulations people go through, and in the process change the lives of the community.”

POWER2010 is a unique campaign to give everyone the chance to have a say in how our democracy works for us.

What is different about POWER2010 is that you’re in the driving seat. We’re not asking you to back our goals. We’re asking you to help create them.

At the next election we will work to ensure every candidate commits to the reforms you most want to see as part of a nation-wide campaign to reinvigorate our democracy from the bottom up.

Why now?

We were all outraged over MPs’ expenses. But this scandal was only a symptom of a much bigger problem. Simply cleaning up the expenses system and sacrificing a few token offenders is not enough to fix our broken politics.

The serious challenges we face today, from climate change and financial breakdown, to attacks on our civil liberties, can only be tackled with a healthy democracy that works for all of us and not just a powerful few.

But it is already too late for this set of MPs. They lack the time and the will to make the kind of changes that are needed.

With only months until the next election we must now focus all our efforts on ensuring that the next Parliament is a reforming one. POWER2010 is designed to do just that.

POWER2010 has its roots in the Power Inquiry, which was established by the Rowntree Trusts in 2005 and undertook the biggest ever inquiry into the health of Britain’s democracy.

What are we doing?

Our plan is simple. We want to identify the five key reforms that will change the way we do politics in this country – and we want you to tell us what these should be.

Together we will ensure every candidate standing for election backs these reforms so that the next Parliament delivers the change we need.

Tell us your ideas

This phase of the campaign (which ran from September 15th to November 30th 2009) was all about you telling us your ideas – the democratic and political reforms you most want from the next Parliament.

In just a short space of time it generated a fantastic response with over 4,000 ideas submitted by people of all political persuasions from across the UK- you can take a look and comment on some of the best of them here.

These ideas have been organised by academics from Southampton University and will be now be fed into a Deliberative Poll to draw up a shortlist which will be put to the public vote.

Deliberative Poll

On the weekend of 9 –10th January 2010, a scientific sample of up to 200 citizens, representative of the population as a whole, will gather in London for a two-day deliberative event. These 200 citizens will distil the many ideas we have received into a manageable shortlist of proposals which will be put to the public vote.

The public vote

The public vote begins January 18th and lasts five weeks until 22nd February. During this time we will be working with individuals and organisations across the country to meet up, discuss, and vote, ensuring as many people as possible participate and tell us the reforms they most want to see.

The five most popular ideas following the vote will become the POWER2010 Pledge and the focus for our nation-wide campaign at the next election.

Election campaign

The aim is for as many people as possible to sign the Pledge and then take it to the candidates in their constituency, by writing to them, calling them, and attending local hustings, public meetings and MPs’ surgeries.

Together we will ask every candidate standing at the next election to make a public commitment – a pledge – to clean up and reform our politics.

In this way we will ensure that the next Parliament is a reforming one and delivers the changes our broken democracy so desperately needs.

What can you do?

POWER2010 is a campaign led from the bottom up – it’s thanks to your support and your participation that it will succeed.

There are many different ways to get involved in the campaign and you can check them out here.

If you support POWER2010’s call for a new politics then a great place to start is by signing our Declaration saying that the democratic system is broken and change must come from the people.

Who are we?

POWER2010 is funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and supported by a wide range of individuals and organisations.

Click here for more information about the POWER2010 team.

We can be contacted at:

POWER2010
Southbank House
Black Prince Road
London SE1 7SJ

Email: office@power2010.org.uk

Tel: 020 7806 6239

Author: Bob Holman

The recession has hit some sections of society harder than others.

While the affluent have generally retained their salaries and homes, those on lower incomes have been more vulnerable to losing both jobs and houses. This growing gulf between the affluent and the poor is harming our society – and it’s not only the poor who are suffering.

A Joseph Rowntree Foundation report published last June demonstrated widespread unease about the effects of greed, consumerism and individualism on our lives. Based on extensive research among 3,500 individuals, it showed most people believed that the improvements that have occurred during their lifetimes were increasingly outweighed by personal greed, lack of community involvement and excessive materialism so severe as to be termed social evils. It also revealed deep feelings of frustration and individual powerlessness to alter the direction of the trends currently shaping society.

Public reaction to the MPs’ expenses scandal was similar. Many constituents expressed anger, disgust, and also a fear that MPs’ values were damaging our country. They too felt powerless in the sense that they doubted if any of the major political parties would take effective action against senior MPs who had played the system for their own financial ends.

Another illuminating publication of 2009 was The Spirit Level. Subtitled Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, the book, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, showed that inequality is bad for everyone – the well-off as well as the poor. Almost every social and environmental problem – from obesity and mental ill-health to violence and long working hours – is more prevalent within countries such as the UK and US, which have a large wealth gap, than in nations like Sweden and Norway, where the gap is much narrower. Politicians do nothing to tackle inequality. Gordon Brown’s government has given titles to many wealthy financiers for services to banking, yet not one honour has been presented for services to equality.

The result of all this is to make Britain an unhappy and unjust country about which many feel they can take no action. My response, however, is that we are not powerless and that, as individuals, we can still make choices which rebuff these trends. We can be socially pro-active by the nature of our individual lifestyles, as was admirably demonstrated by two very different individuals, both of whom died last year.

The first was the sociologist Peter Townsend, whose essay, You Cannot Live Like A Lord And Preach As A Socialist, I discovered as a young student in 1958, and who would later become my teacher and friend. Townsend was brought up the hard way by a lone mother who tried, unsuccessfully, to make a career on the stage. A lecturer at the London School of Economics, he was horrified at the extent of poverty and inequality. He turned to socialism but soon realised that political words had to be matched by living actions.

Once made a professor, he declared that professors were over-paid. He was one of the founders of the Child Poverty Action Group and gave much of his salary to support it. His whole life was devoted to organising and financing agencies which spoke for the most deprived. Peter never ingratiated himself with the political and social elites who could have promoted his career. He always maintained links and friendships with those who faced social and physical disadvantages. In addition, he refused the chance of a peerage, for he considered it to be inconsistent with social equality.

The second was John Kerr, who was a Glasgow street fighter until a local policeman drew him into a boxing club which made him a champion and kept him out of trouble. Married with a family, he got into debt with the “provys” (doorstep lenders). He then met a Christian community activist who ran a credit union which charged low interest rates on loans. John joined, got out of debt and saved. Moving to Cranhill, he founded a credit union which still thrives and which has ploughed over £15 million back into the community. John’s gift was for recruiting residents to run local activities. He could do so because he stayed in Cranhill and refused to move out to a well-paid job in a posh area. His life influenced hundreds of people.

As for me, in the 1970s, I left a professorship at Bath University to run a community project on a council estate. I did so because, as a Christian, I felt the example of Christ was to be close to those in poverty. As a social worker, I wanted to be in practice. After 10 years, the project was completely in local hands. With my Scottish wife, Annette, I moved to a flat in Glasgow’s Easterhouse.

I do not know what effect I have had on the community. There were occasions when I was terrified by threats of violence from drug users. I could have wept at the extreme poverty, the debts to loan sharks, and the impossibility of finding jobs. Yet I never wanted to leave and regard the Easterhouse years as the best of my life. I benefited enormously from the fellowship with local people as we strove to improve the neighbourhood. I found more loyal friendships, more altruism and more love among them than I ever did with wealthy establishment figures in my academic years. I never earned more than the average salary but Annette and I, and our children, have been content. Life is more than a large income.
It is within the power of many to change their lifestyles. But I am not calling for a mass movement to deprived areas. My wife and I, on retirement, moved to a small house on the other side of Glasgow to mind our grandsons. But we still try to live according to certain values and guidelines. I am calling for modest living.

Few people need more more than £40,000 a year for a comfortable life. My suggestion is not that high earners give up their important jobs. Rather it is that they distribute any surplus over £40,000 to those in need or to agencies serving the needy. We can reduce spending on cars, plasma TVs, the latest audio systems, expensive mobiles, electronic gadgets, holidays abroad, pricey restaurants, too many clothes and so on. This does not entail living like a monk or a nun. Rather it means not spending excessively, giving less attention to the quantity of our material possessions and more to the quality of our personal relationships.

We can also spend our money on consumer and financial institutions which do not just stimulate greed, consumerism and materialism. For instance, the Co-op Bank centres on ethical policies with customers voting on the ethical issues they want promoted. The Co-op Bank (unlike the high street banks) did not make the kind of high-risk loans which stimulated the recession. It does not pay to bankers the kind of high bonuses which reinforce inequality. It is gaining customers because it can be trusted. Recently, Which? awarded its prestigious award for Best Financial Services Provider to the Co-op Bank.
We can buy our goods from Co-op shops, not the large supermarkets which channel huge profits into the hands of directors and shareholders. I shop every day with the Co-op, where I know the staff. I get my insurance and prescriptions from them and I will be buried by them – with my wife getting the divi. For the Co-op does not have shareholders to pay and instead money goes back as dividends to thousands of shoppers.

Mutual building societies, not-for-profit agencies and credit unions exist for the good of users, not just directors. Small, independent shops are also an integral part of communities.

Particularly important is how and where we reside. Instead of seeking the largest possible home in a fashionable area, why not a smaller, cheaper one in a less upmarket location? Yes, a modest lifestyle may mean financial sacrifices. A smaller house in such an area won’t increase in value as quickly as one elsewhere. But modest living is a statement against financial greed and materialism, because it doesn’t reinforce these evils. It challenges the dominance of inequality, since it means accepting less so that others can have more. Those prepared to live in cheaper areas will counter the domiciliary fragmentation of our society, helping to make Britain a less divisive, more united country.

Finally, modest-living people who opt for cheaper communities will find opportunities for a practical contribution to improve the locality. This is not meant to imply going in as a missionary with all the answers. More humility is required. A young couple, both with professional qualifications, chose to reside in an unfashionable neighbourhood. Years later, they do not regard themselves as leaders. Their children go to the local school. They are liked and respected as good neighbours. With others, they volunteer to run a summer camp.
Living there makes a difference to community life.

As an egalitarian, I believe that more equal societies are more just, more fair, more content. But there are those who don’t want greater equality. How can those on high and comfortable incomes be persuaded to take less, to move into the kind of neighbourhoods which they consider socially inferior, to place importance on improving life for all children, not just their own? There are strong moral arguments to be considered. First, as Wilkinson and Pickett make clear, more equal societies are more contented and suffer fewer social problems than unequal ones. In short, by living more modestly we can improve life for all.
Second, the wellbeing of people in poorer countries depends on our actions. Indeed the very future of the planet may do so. The world is running short of vital resources such as food, water, fuel, power and raw materials. Already millions face dire poverty. One outcome could be war over resources. It makes moral as well as economic sense for the affluent to adopt lifestyles that both favour greater equality and also consume less. We may have to share in order to survive.

The goal of achieving a better and fairer society demands a moral response, the response of modest living. We do have the power to live in this way. If enough people do so, it becomes collective action – and that can change society.

Bob Holman is a retired professor of social policy and a retired community worker. His new book on Keir Hardie will be published in March

Author: Laurence Demarco

1. Introduction
“Democracy can only be based on tiers of autonomy- on people trusting people who trust other people- a hierarchy of trusts.  Westminster, Holyrood, Local Authority, the Community, the Citizen.  Some say more power should accrue to the Holyrood tier- (the citizens of Scotland are still deliberating)- but the most serious democratic deficit in our country is at the level of our communities.  For 50 years the Labour Party ruled Scotland like a one party state- with a centralism openly hostile to the devolution of power to communities.  It is important to realise that the Wester Hailes story happened in the context of determined Labour municipalism.” 
 
I was pleased to respond to the invitation to write about my time working in Wester Hailes (1976-1990) because it forced me to think about a period which had a major influence on my life.  What follows is not an attempted critique – but selective and subjective memories.  The passage above is the nearest I come to any theoretical perspective. 

Revisiting my text I am struck by the number of things which I have failed to express.  I have chosen not to mention anyone’s name for fear of missing out people- but this has the effect of exaggerating my own role.  I have failed to communicate emotion- yet many of us felt passionate about these events- standing with the powerless against what we perceived as arrogant bureaucracy.  I have failed to celebrate adequately the considerable achievements – how against determined opposition, local people created mechanisms which exercised real power.  And I have failed to express my appreciation for those years.  Whatever the effect may have been on the community, I know it was a profoundly empowering experience for me personally. 

2. Employed

I was born in 1940 and left school aged 15 to work in the family fish and chip shop in Edinburgh.  Apart from 2 years in a seminary, I stayed in business till I was 30- setting up several small enterprises- with mixed success.  In 1973 I graduated from Moray House with a Diploma in Community Work and during 1974 and 1975 I led the development of Panmure House, a day centre for youngsters experiencing difficulties at home or in school.  Panmure still operates.

In 1976 I was appointed by Lothian Regional Council as their lead community worker in Wester Hailes, a large new social housing estate still being completed.  As Area Co-ordinator my job was to act as a bridge between local government and the community.  My appointment had to be ratified by community activists in Wester Hailes, so I was interviewed again by 5 local women in a flat in Murrayburn.  I remember being asked “Whose side are you on?”- I had never been asked this question so directly before.  I tried to explain that things were more complex than that – but my explanation sounded like excuses – so I said “If it came to a choice between the Council and the community- I’d side with the community.”  I got the job.  That incident stayed with me.
 
I was employed by the Council but had no desire for a career in local government so felt no pressure on that score.  My pattern was to work at things flat out for 2 years- and then move on.  The reason that I stayed in Wester Hailes for 14 years is that I really enjoyed it.  The bond I formed with people during those years- residents and colleagues, made it one of the most rewarding periods of my life. 

3. First Three Basics

In October 1976 when I set up office in a flat at 16/4 Murrayburn Place, there were two local local authorities- the Region and the District.  These two Councils, and all the other statutory bodies, used between them around 30 different boundaries and names for Wester Hailes- the first task was to define the area as an actual place where people belonged.  I persuaded an artist friend to draw a map of Wester Hailes, in cartoon form, identifying every single dwelling.  This was very well received- universally adopted- amended over the years. 
Ghandi once said that one cannot unite a community without a newspaper or journal of some sort.  A local man had produced several editions of a newsletter called the Sentinel.  I helped develop this into a monthly free sheet distributed around the doors (circa 7,000).  The printed word has a surprising impact- particularly on public officials.  Over the years the Sentinel proved one of the key elements in the empowerment of the community.

In 1976, community action in Wester Hailes was already 6 years old and several neighbourhoods had formed representative groups.  The time was right for the emergence of an overall Wester Hailes coordinating body which people trusted enough to lend their authority.  I spent a lot of time in people’s houses talking and talking- trying to build concensus.  Local activists were determined that their representative body should be as independent as possible from outside influences- like the remoteness of local government officialdom- or the partisan interests of professional politicians.  The achievement of a unified independent voice was the Wester Hailes community’s most telling achievement.  This voice found its fullest expression in what eventually became the Wester Hailes Representative Council.    

4. The Venchie

The politicans and officials responsible for Wester Hailes, failed to make provision for even the most basic social facilities where folk could meet and congregate.  This lack proved a major barrier to the emergence of a community spirit.  Through job creation schemes, local people learned the skills to move and rebuild transportable units from schools around the region- and this proved a breakthrough.  The physical hub of our activities became a central vacant site in Hailesland Place (earmarked for a future old folk’s home) which we gradually commandeered.  Bit by bit it evolved as a shanty town of ramshackle buildings around a very popular adventure playground called the Venchie. 

Without fuss or bureaucracy, buildings went up- were extended- a fluid system, adaptable like lego.  If we’d waited for all the official permissions and documents it would never have happened; we depended on pockets of goodwill from free spirited individuals in Council departments- Planning, Building Control etc.  Bold and delinquent , these physical structures came to symbolise the enterprise and determination of the community to take control of its own future.  A sense of adventure – defiance “we’ll show them.”  Collectively, the encampment was known as the Community Workshop and at one stage around 40 local organisations were housed there. 

‘The Workshop’ became the gathering point for hundreds of local people – where a core culture of ‘community’ caught alight.  Sitting chatting in the Café Venchie, person by person, folk were invited to join in.  Whether volunteers or workers, most of us were looking for something to believe in – to belong to- to give our lives more meaning.  Every few weeks a new organisation started up- it didn’t much matter whether it was about child care- or allotments – or ear piercing.  People were on the move.  It is worth recording that the overwhelming majority if our recruits were women – a huge unused creativity in our communities just waiting to be released.

5. Going Local

Once the community workshop and its facilities had reached capacity our vision widened to create a similar hub in each of the estate’s 7 distinct neighbourhoods.  Clovenstone, Hailesland and the Calders already had dedicated community buildings of some kind or another, so we focused our efforts on constructing (and manning) community bases at Westburn, Park & Drive, Murrayburn and Dumdryden. 
There are stories to be told (some hilarious, some sad) about how each of these hubs evolved – important lessons at the very heart of how a shared sense of community forms- or doesn’t.  I think more than anything I learned the importance of leadership- how someone has to respresent (personify) where we’re all trying to go-  generous individuals with their ego well parked.
 
During my time in Wester Hailes I was lucky to have 5 weeks in the USA to look at similar community developments.  One of the main things I learned was that blocks of social housing with 12 thousand residents simply don’t exist over there.  People were incredulous at the scale of Scottish social housing estates.  I returned with the idea of subdividing Wester Hailes into villages- managed to convince local people and the ‘powers that be’ to invest in a pilot.  Over several years the Neighbourhood Strategy offered local residents the opportunity to define ‘their bit’ and form a neighbourhood Council. At one stage there were 30 active local groups – but this settled down at around 20.  Annual elections attracted very high turnouts.  Each of the neighbourhood Councils fed into the unifying Wester Hailes representative Councils.  It was a model of representative democracy which Professor Alan McGregor called the most impressive in the UK.   
 
6. Treasure Island

As more and more volunteers got involved the range of activities widened, eventually there was hardly any department of the statutory agencies which wasn’t working with local people on something or other.  Elected Councillors referred to Wester Hailes ironically as ‘Treasure Island.’ We were trying to put in place networks of local services truly responsive to people’s needs whatever their circumstances. 

One of my favourite examples was the Wester Hailes Management Agency which offered a large number of jobs/ training places via the Community Programme.  Managed by local people, the Agency has a deliberate policy of offering places to youngsters from families with most problems.  Through this activity, and that of the extensive Youth Programme, local adults were in touch with all the youngsters on the streets.  Street gangs never took hold in Wester Hailes.  Young people going up to court were accompanied- ‘Patient’ loans made available for fines.  The message was “you’re part of this community and we all look after each other.”

After giving a talk recently I was approached by a woman in her 30s who remembered me from Wester Hailes.  I recognised her name as one of the ‘tougher’ families- she recounted her chaotic history; kicked out of the house at 16- drugs- rough sleeping etc.  In prison she thought about skipping school aged 14- hanging around the Venchie- the Café- sharing a fag and a cup of tea with various workers.  She realised that the folk at the Venchie and the Café and the school all spoke to each other.  She understood that there was a connected supportive network watching over her.  She understood community.  She told me that she had gone on to college and was now a practising youth worker.  And so it goes on.
 
I didn’t know the term ‘social capital’ in those days but now I find it a valuable way to understand and to express what we were trying to do – to build. 

7. Doing the Business

The present attention paid by Government to Social Enterprise might suggest that it’s a new thing- but the idea of trading for social purposes has been going on in Scottish communities for as long as I can remember.  Certainly from the outset the Wester Hailes community showed a considerable appetite for developing property- for commercial as well as social uses.  Thousands of sq ft of shops and workshops were built in community ownership – some to be operated directly- most to be leased to house services missing in the estate- like solicitors, vet, tradesmen etc.   In all the TV Soaps, the heart of the community is invariably the local pub- and Wester Hailes was much diminished by the lack of such.  The social and commercial success of the community operated social club was an important symbol of the growing confidence. 

The property development operation was fairly sophisticated; an inventory was made of all vacant land with its potential for commercial development; an inhouse design unit was created with architects, planners etc; the inhouse building company, though restricted by being a training programme- nevertheless achieved impressive capacity.

The vision was of a community owning land – developing and managing property – creating trading enterprises to fill gaps in local service provision – and through these activities achieving a level of self-reliance. The main problem was that those responsible for running Edinburgh –elected members and public servants alike – were united in their opposition to this model.

Reflecting on this period I have two thoughts.  In Scotland’s housing estates the local Council typically owns every brick and every blade of grass.  Though not as bad as Edinburgh, most Councils remain to be convinced of the Wester Hailes model of development.  My second thought is that we failed to link commercial development and potential profit to the local democratic structure.  Someone said ‘let democracy be the first philanthropy.’ I would now argue that any independent income a community can achieve should firstly be used to protect its tier of democracy from the uncertainties of external funding.  We failed to connect all the bits together – so that the profit generating activities remain unattached to local democracy. 

8. The Gyle and the Sack

I lost my job as the Lothian Region’s man in Wester Hailes through opposing the development of the West Edinburgh Shopping Centre, now known as The Gyle.  The residents of Wester Hailes felt, quite rightly that the The Gyle development would be a death blow to the already weakened Wester Hailes Centre.  The Rep Council gave very strong evidence to this effect to the 1985 public enquiry – spelling out the potential damage to the local economy and morale.  This evidence is a matter of public record.  In the event the impact on Wester Hailes, of West Edinburgh retail development, is worse than the bleakest 1985 predictions.  The Reporter imposed conditions on the Council (as developer of the Gyle) to protect Wester Hailes from anticipated impact.  Some of these conditions have been disregarded and it would be interesting to raise an action against the Council as developer. 
But it wasn’t my involvement in presenting evidence to the planning enquiry which angered my employer- it was our proposal to situate the new shopping centre actually in Wester Hailes.  Although this sounds preposterous now- it was taken very seriously at the time.  In a bold move, the community purchased “a ransom strip” of land from Barretts, who were trying to develop private housing at Westburn.  We assembled a team of architects, surveyors, lawyers, planners- prepared a blueprint to develop the equivalent of The Gyle off the bypass at Westburn and submitted a planning application.  A senior civil servant came to see us- direct from the Secretary of State- to say that if we could find a credible developer- our proposal was a serious option. The Tory government’s pet policy at that time was regeneration through private sector investment and the Scottish Office led Wester Hailes Partnership was getting ready to roll.

I got a letter from my boss telling me to disassociate from this project- or else.  But I had long ago ‘gone native’ and resigned from the Council.  As it turned out we couldn’t confirm a developer in time- our bid failed but all was not in vain.  The Council agreed that if we would withdraw our application they would agree to support the ongoing transfer of land and buildings to the community through the new Land and Property Trust.  Not many people know that story, but it deserves to be recorded because it’s the reason Edinburgh Council were persuaded to support the transfer of assets to community ownership in Wester Hailes. 

9. The Partnership

When my employment with Lothian Regional ended in October ’88, I took up post as the initial CEO of the Land and Property Trust- just carried on as before; I remained in this post until the Spring of 1990 when I left Wester Hailes for pastures new.  This, my final period, coincided with the arrival of the Wester Hailes Partnership, which proved so destructive to much of what had been achieved. I’m not suggesting that I foresaw the dangers of the Partnership- I was as guilty as anyone of being seduced by the prospect of serious investment; but it soon became clear that a new script was being written- and I wasn’t in it.  I believe we owe it to what came before, to place on the record some of the real consequences of the Partnership.

For 10 years- from 1988 to 1998- Wester Hailes was one of the 4 areas chosen by the Scottish Office for its New Life for Urban Scotland Programme.  Wester Hailes was chosen because of the effective community infrastructure outlined above- a decade of pains- taking community development bearing fruit.  Over 10 years the Partnership invested £120 million in the area- and when the funding ended, the community’s independent structures were fatally damaged- have now virtually disappeared.  The local people gave their trust to a process which neither supported nor even understood community empowerment.
 
It could have been so different. What if some of the millions had been used to endow a Development Trust? – a permanent, locally owned regeneration engine: to develop property- train and employ local people- set up trading businesses to fill market gaps- dozens of community enterprises with local directors and employees- a culture of entrepreneurship and independence.  The partnership could have left a permanent legacy.  New life for Wester Hailes – instead it extinguished what life was already there. 

10. Reflections

Looking back at what was built through community action in Wester Hailes – and its subsequent unravelling- it is clear that we were doing something wrong.  If those achievements, and the values underpinning them, had truly been owned by local people- they would not so easily have disappeared.   It must be that along the way we allowed the excitement of our projects to distract us from our true task- the process of empowerment.  For a community worker like me this was a serious error of judgement which I regret.  I would do it differently next time. 

Apart from that, I believe our basic model was right.  A healthy body politic needs a tier of decision making below that of local government.  An effective community needs its own autonomous representative and operational mechanisms- to take control of its future.  Much of the Wester Hailes story remains an example of how this can be achieved. 

Over ten years community leaders built and operated a local infrastructure which engaged with thousands of residents.  The vision was of independent local democracy- supported by trading activity- developing a caring community, with first rate services.  This momentum was ambushed and destroyed by the arrival of the Partnership – an alternative vision of development led by public and private sector activity- with £100m to spend.
 
Before the arrival of the Partnership, the community was in the lead.  Gradually public sector officials and consultants took over.  When the Partnership left, Edinburgh Council (surely the most centralist in Scotland) continued the dismantling; the distinct identity of Wester Hailes- so carefully differentiated, was systematically unpicked.  The boundaries, the newspaper, the structures, the funding- merged with West Edinburgh- back into the indifference and anonymity of municipal bureaucracy.
 
Even now in Wester Hailes there are two locally owned institutions which have the potential capacity to revive local democracy.  Both Prospect Housing Association and  the Land and Property Trust (LPT) are financially independent of local government- although the independence of their governance is less clear.
 
Some commentators say that the UK is now moving into a decade of financial stringency- and that the present level of services can only be maintained with much more direct involvement from citizens and communities.  It may be that the Wester Hailes model will emerge out of necessity – and that some of the lessons outlined in this book will be helpful for those designing the future.