Author: LPL

Isle of Jura Development Trust aims to increase community confidence and social cohesion. The Antlers project aims to bring back into use a much needed community facility. This new community resource will provide much needed fully accessible facilities will allow unrestricted access by all irrespective of age or disability.

It is proposed that an existing building will be renovated rather than replaced. The building has been fully surveyed and is structurally sound.
The renovated building will comprise an open plan tearoom, with further tables outside, an arts and crafts gallery area for local craft producers to showcase their work with an aim to increasing their business opportunities, and a local heritage interpretation facility reflecting the Jura way of life and our marine and natural environment which will be housed in the entrance area.

The Trust has recently received news that applications to both the Big Lottery and Leader have been successful which represents almost £200,000 in new investment to the island.

More here http://www.juradevelopment.co.uk/antlers/index.htm

Author: LPL

Despite a major campaign by parents and locals, Saint Augustine’s Secondary School in Milton was closed a few years ago.

Milton kids instead were sent to All Saints Secondary in Barmulloch – almost three miles away.
The blow was made bearable by a promise of free school buses being laid on to take the Milton kids to and from All Saints.

The school closure would not have been approved otherwise.
But anti closure campaigners feared the promise would not be kept, and the buses withdrawn after the closure furore had died away.

Sure enough, on the 20th June 2008, parents were informed by letter that the school buses would be withdrawn at the end of term (June 2008). The timing was deliberately set to coincide with the school holiday, to make networking and campaigning more difficult. Nevertheless, a large campaign group of Milton parents was immediately formed and swung into action. They were to go and win one of the most rapid victories in Glasgow’s political history.

The parents were not prepared to accept children as young as 11 walking almost three miles each way throughout cold dark winters, across several main roads. The sad reality of gang fighting in Glasgow means that crossing territorial boundaries – and the Milton kids would have had to go through some or all of Possil, Springburn, and Barmulloch on their way to school – can be a dangerous activity for youths to undertake.

The reality of the situation was that school attendance would have collapsed amongst Milton children and youths. And the further reality was that that was of little interest to Glasgow City Council.

But determined campaigning, including plans for direct action, had an almost immediate effect upon those in power. On 27th June 2008, the Council announced a complete, and embarrassing, U-turn. The buses are to be kept, the £642,000 money rquired per year (for all Glasgow, not just Milton) was suddenly found.

It was victory within a single week!

Author: Social Market Foundation

Community empowerment is a defining agenda of the Brown Government, and likely to feature heavily in the manifestos of all the three main parties at the next election. The Communities and Local Government White Paper on the same topic, which is due for launch in July 2008, is therefore eagerly anticipated, by the local government community at least. In this context, this essay discusses how, despite community empowerment being presented as a panacea for many social ills, the evidence in relation to some outcomes is relatively patchy.

The dramatic rise in participatory opportunities of recent years has not been accompanied by an improvement in people’s sense of connection to formal politics. Nor do people feel more empowered to influence decisions. The author asks whether there is a mismatch between the Government’s ambition to reinvigorate local democracy, and its proposition that participatory empowerment mechanisms can provide the solution.

A number of explanatory factors are explored, including: the evolution of a false dichotomy between representative and participatory democracy; a failure of initiatives to transfer power in a meaningful sense and; a lack of clarity and transparency in lines of accountability for decision-making. This essay considers the implications of these issues in designing a model of empowerment which can reinvigorate democracy.

Download report here

Author: Tommy Kane and Kyle Mitchell

Worldwide there is a water crisis. The crisis is one that is often addressed in terms of scarcity. The crisis, however, could instead be defined in terms of over-use, unequal production and distribution and a lack of political will to deviate from the present direction and policy that promotes the commodification and privatisation of water services. We find ourselves in a global dilemma: at a time when First and Third World governments are adhering to neo-liberal policy demands and increasingly slashing public spending, billions are required in order to build and improve water infrastructure.

Today’s reality is that water is unfairly shared and distributed and those who are doing without find themselves in a situation where they are doing without because they lack the financial wherewithal to gain access to adequate levels of water. Those lacking access to clean water and adequate sanitation are, disproportionately the world’s poor. It is our belief that the free market is not, and indeed cannot, remedy the unjust correlation between poverty and insufficient access to clean water and adequate sanitation. Moreover, and more disconcerting, because private water providers not only seek to re-coop costs but also profit from their capital investments and service provision, they exacerbate all forms of inequality thus making water scarcity a reality for those unable or not willing to pay.

The commercialization of a public water utilities is not exclusive to Scotland. From North America – Canada and US; to Latin America – Bolivia, Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Nicaragua; to all over Europe; Asia Pacific – India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Korea, Australia; and Africa – South Africa, Namibia, Ghana, Tanzania, and among many other places around the world the change and pressure is the same. By deregulating, liberalising and privatising water services, governments throughout the world are acquiescing to the dominant neo-liberal ideology that frames the global economy. This is the grander context in which we should situate that commercialisation of Scotland’s water services.

It is increasingly apparent that the status of Scottish Water as a public utility is once more under intense scrutiny. The privatisation of Scottish Water will result in the private control of water delivery in Scotland and subsequently the destruction of any semblance of democratic governance of water in Scotland. Moreover, if privatised, decisions regarding Scotland’s water will be made in a manner that is consistent with the contours of the global economy and its capital markets and not in the interests of the Scotland’s citizenry. Given the uncertainty over water supply in the future coupled with the uneven distribution of wealth on a global level, commodifying and privatising water and thus handing the ownership and control of this vital asset to transnational water corporations, is not only dangerous but wrong.

This would be in no small part, because the transferring of control of water is, and would be, characterised by a displacement of decision-making capability and public involvement in its governance. Decisions regarding use, allocation and distribution are transferred from local officials who represent community interests to corporate executives who represent the interests of private corporations. Eric Swyngedouw – a well-known academic studying water issues – notes, “Traditional channels of democratic accountability are hereby cut, curtailed, or redefined” (Swyngedouw, 2005, p.92). Yet still the debate in Scotland takes place within a narrow field that recommends such a direction.

We recommend rejection of all market-led reforms including both mutualisation and privatisation. Change would require a move away from the current preponderance towards economic efficiency and towards a new way of thinking about how we manage and govern socially necessary goods and services. Indeed, we suggest that the status quo should be changed along much more democratised lines whereby local communities become involved in the decision-making processes of all things that affect their lives both as individuals and communities: such as water services. Clearly, the mechanics of such a change would entail some detailed consideration. If we are to truly consider ourselves a democratic country wishing to bring governance to the people, as was said at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, then such change should be welcomed as a step in that direction.

Furthermore, it is no longer sufficient to simply say we are against privatisation without suggesting alternatives; nor is it adequate to propound the logic and democratic tendencies of widespread political participation without implementing the appropriate political tools that would facilitate and encourage such participation. The provision of water and its governance are multifarious, capital intensive and technologically complex; alternative models to privatisation must reflect these factors. This entails further research and a level of public engagement that would consider the potential and possibilities for alternative models – models that are ultimately geared towards fundamental change in the direction of increased community involvement at every level of water governance and provision.

By way of conclusion we propose the creation, promotion and implementation of a formalised Scottish National Water Policy. Such a policy would address the almost continual uncertainty surrounding the level of publicness of Scottish Water. This would include the enshrining of laws not only protecting Scotland’s water as a public good and service but also extending the rights of communities with respect to decisions over water resources. The formation of such a law would include the following principles: fresh water and its related services are a form of the commons and should be governed as such; water is a human right; all decisions with respect to Scottish Water are to be made in proactive consultation with the Scottish public and therefore reflect the broader public interest; the institutionalisation and legalisation of sufficient, non-discriminatory access to fresh water and sanitation services; and the extension and increased capacity of Scottish Water as the sole public provider. In so doing Scotlands fresh water commons will be protected to serve the common good and interests of the people of Scotland.

Download document here

Author: LPL

‘hubSports’ a 4-court games hall will deliver over 15 different sports activities on a weekly basis.
This will compliment the Trusts other facilities; Innerzone, a youth venue and the Hub, an employment/training facility that have been operational for the past 4 years.

The Trust along with Wellhouse Housing Association (WHA) have a determined and driven approach to the improvement of the area and with the commitment of local people the residents are empowered through physical, social and economic regeneration.

Previously run by Glasgow City Council the hubSports (previously named Wellhouse Central) building was flooded and then partly fire damaged and then lay as an eyesore to the area for over 5 years. Only 200 yards from ‘the hub’ a new state of the art building owned by WHA and managed by WCT, hubSports was the next target for both organisations to tackle.

Local decisions and sustainability

After local community consultation and working groups the plans were drawn up and set into motion. High on the agenda is sustainability for this building by installing geo-thermal systems for heating and a wind-turbine for electricity. hubSports is an environmentally friendly, income generation model that not only supports the improvement of health & wellbeing of residents but any surpluses go back into the other services and activities of the Trust such as drop-in youth nights and elderly social activities.

Pauline Smith, Manager of the Trust said, “All activities of the Trust rely on the ownership of each and every one being taken by the community – the staff are the support mechanisms, the community are the driving force but there is a passion and dedication from both to keep moving forward. hubSports will compliment the services and activities available within ‘the hub’ and ‘innerzone’ and provide even more opportunities for local jobs, training, diversionary activities and physical activity for all the community.”
More information

For more information or to join our mailing list call Anna Marie Campbell (Development Officer) on 0141 781 2132 or e-mail: hubsports@wellhousect.org.uk

Author: Scottish Government

Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing us today. Scotland is being affected as other parts of the world are. However, Scotland can be part of the solution as well as part of the problem.

Overwhelmingly, scientists, economists and politicians agree that climate change is caused by our everyday activities. People are emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to climate change and as a result we are trapping more of the sun’s heat and the planet is getting hotter.

There are lots of things we can do as individuals to reduce our carbon emissions but if we act together by working as communities we can do even more.

The Climate Challenge Fund is here to help communities make a real difference by significantly reducing their carbon emissions.

See more here http://www.itsourfuture.co.uk

Author: DTA England

Community organisations in our membership feel very strongly that the approach to community empowerment set In the Department for Communities and Local Government’s (CLG) paper ‘Unlocking the Talent of our Communities’ does not go nearly far enough.

We note with concern that CLG’s views as expressed in that paper are not consistent with the more ambitious approach which the Department has been taking over the last year. The strategy appears to have narrowed to a focus on the role of individual citizens in their relationship to the state, and on tackling worklessness. While important, these do not represent a community empowerment programme sufficient to generate the change that government wishes to see.

Our experience is that community empowerment works best where there are resilient multi-purpose community vehicles (of which development trusts are an example), that are community led, generating some of their own income, owning assets, and able to tackle problems and deliver a change-agenda themselves and through partnerships.

Furthermore, while we welcome a focus on worklessness, the recent paper does not offer a specific strategy to harness the vast potential contribution of community-led social enterprise in helping people towards positive activity, training, volunteering, and paid employment.

1. The Community Empowerment White Paper should introduce an incentive scheme linked to the Working Neighbourhoods Fund to make this happen.

2. We do agree with the Department’s view that participatory budgeting could be a useful way to empower local communities. We also welcome the Department’s proposals for community petitions.

But above all we believe that a community empowerment programme must include a strong focus on community anchors, community assets, and community enterprise. In our experience this Is the single most effective way to achieve long term sustained community empowerment.

3. We therefore urge CLG to invite tenders to deliver the community anchors investment programme without further delay.

4. We hope that the conclusions of the second phase of the Quirk review on community assets will be fully reflected in the Community Empowerment White Paper.

5- We recommend that the White Paper includes proposals for enhanced development finance, knowledge and skills exchange, and business mentoring, for community-led social enterprise.

We have the potential to achieve high quality community anchors, community asset ownership, and community enterprise, in every neighbourhood in the country -and therefore we do have the opportunity to truly unlock the talents in our communities.

Author: Tiree Community Development Trust

‘Tiree – Harvesting the Wind’ is a five year project based on the Isle of Tiree in Argyll. The project has been designed by the community bring stability to the islands future sustainability. The project will be managed by the Tiree Community Development Trust (The Trust).

The plan is to build a wind turbine which will be owned and managed by the community. Electricity produced by the turbine will be sold to the national grid and the money from sales will be used to support community development on Tiree.

Included in the project is provision of funds to pay for the Tiree Trust and its core activities. Staff will be employed to help the directors to carry out the Trust’s work. The staff will also work with the relevant agencies and the island community organisations to progress development on the ground.

The project will benefit the whole community of Tiree by providing an income. The island community is exposed to the kind of issues associated with isolation such as limited services and infrastructure.

It is expected that the turbine will generate around £3.9m over its 25 year life

The combination of isolation and a small population means that the cost of development on Tiree is higher than on the mainland. Tiree has relied for many years on public funding and local fund-raising to support development – this new revenue will alleviate the lack of available funds for development.

Many of the islands activities and services are currently provided by the twenty or so voluntary organisations on Tiree. These are wide ranging and cross all sectors of the community. This project will allow the Trust to support these groups both practically and financially.

Basic island services and facilities which presently rely on public funding often suffer from competition for funds. Complicated application processes, restrictive criteria and need for endless exhausting community fund-raising add to the difficulties which the community has in securing money for development. The community have designed this project to generate revenue which belongs to the community, this will reduce the amount of bureaucracy volunteers have to deal with, reduce volunteer fatigue and stop any potential loss of facilities and activities.

The Trust board of Directors will oversee the project and continue to look at future development plans for the island with the support of a full-time development manager. The Directors will report to the community through local publicity, direct mail and public and membership meetings.

The project budget will be managed by a part-time Finance & Governance Manager overseen by the Treasurer. Monthly reports will be made to the directors at board meeting. An annual financial report will be made to the membership at the A.G.M.

Tiree Renewable Energy Limited (TREL) which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trust, has nine voluntary directors and was set-up to develop the wind turbine. Two Trust directors are also directors of TREL; this creates a line of communication between the two boards.

Advice and expertise will be sought from external professionals, agency advisors and other community trusts for any project work considered to be too difficult for the Trust Directors and staff to manage. As the project progresses it is anticipated that local knowledge and skills will grow. Any training required for local people involved in project development will be organised. Advice will be taken at all times to ensure that benefits are maximised.

Author: Andy Wightman

Community ownership is nothing new and it is not restricted to a few crofting communities in the far north west of Scotland. In your community you most probably have property that already belongs to you, the people. One important element of this is Common Good land and property, much of which was granted to the Burghs of Scotland in their original charters and gifted to the people in subsequent years.

This property represents a potential source of wealth and investment for the public good of your community. In recent years, however, a worrying trend of disappearing assets, shoddy accounting, poor record-keeping and lack of awareness has become evident.

Properly accounted for and properly managed, Scotland’s Common Good can be used to revitalise communities and return to them the autonomy and initiative after years of municipal maladministration.

Read this Quick Guide and join the campaign to identify, document and restore your common heritage.

Download guide here

Author: The Times

It is one of the most romantic of all the islands of the Hebrides – but also one of the saddest. On one single day in July 1826, the Island of Rum was “cleared” of its entire population of 350 people, shipped out to Nova Scotia by its debt-ridden owner, to be replaced by 8,000 sheep.

One contemporary account said that the howling of its people could be heard from one side of the island to the other. Even today it is still known locally as “the forbidden island”.

Later this week, however, in a dramatic intervention by the Scottish government, the island’s only village, which has since 1957 been managed by a conservation quango, is to be handed back to its community. The plan is to establish a locally-run trust which will reintroduce traditional crofting settlements to the land around Kinloch village, so that it can once again be occupied by its own inhabitants. The Scottish Environment Minister Michael Russell is to visit Rum on Friday, when he will announce the most radical change in the fortunes of the island since its people were forced to leave 182 years ago.

There is, however, one small catch to this 21st century exercise in land reform. There is no native community left in Rum. The present inhabitants, numbering some 35 and vastly outnumbered by an estimated deer population of close on 1,000, are mainly employees of Scottish Natural Heritage, a government-run body whose principal task is to monitor the wildlife of the island. It is they, rather than descendants of the original crofters, who will take over the running of the island and begin planning its regeneration.

Despite that, there is enthusiasm on the island over the new move. A local activist behind the move, English-born Fliss Hough, who has been a resident for nine years and is an SNH employee, said: “It will be wonderful for me to say to my eight-year-old daughter that she will not have to leave the island [where] she was brought up when I retire.”

The BBC Scotland broadcaster, Lesley Riddoch, who has been advising the minister on the handover, added: “The handover of Kinloch village will let the community give Rum the kiss of life. The transfer is long overdue and will let the people pour their hope and energy into a place they want to live in.”

Although the transfer has been described as a community buyout, it is, in fact, a government-imposed solution to the future running of the island. The effect of the change, which took most of the island’s inhabitants by surprise, will be to hand over the keys of the village to the community trust, with full legal deeds to follow. Kinloch is the only fertile part of the otherwise mountainous island which lies just to the south of Skye and has no harbour, a high rainfall and notoriously vicious midges.

The 40-square-mile island, which was bought in 1888 by the Bullough family who built the eccentric Kinloch Castle, which will not be part of the deal, has been owned by the nation since 1957. Six months ago Mr Russell appointed Ms Riddoch to head up a committee for proactive change on the island. Known as the Rum Task Force, the committee has brought forward its radical proposals sooner than anticipated.

No mention has been made as yet of how much the government is prepared to invest in its new venture, but Ms Riddoch, who was involved in a community buyout on the nearby Island of Eigg, said: “I think co-operative island communities freed of red tape can be pioneers for new ways of working. Rum has a huge potential for exploring community initiatives.”

Since it has been in the ownership of SNH, the island has been used primarily as a research centre with work concentrating on deer evaluation, the last count suggesting numbers of more than 900 animals.

To facilitate this research, the government scientists were charged with the task of also managing the island’s buildings and small parcel of agricultural land, which they did primarily to provide accommodation for their own staff. This created a situation in which it was almost impossible to live on the island unless you worked for the government, and even those who did so would have to leave once their contracts were up. It is this task of building and land management that will now pass to the new Community Trust, whose members are further charged with seeking new settlers and establishing three to five new crofts.

However, the move has not been entirely supported. Ian Mitchell, whose bestselling book Isles of the West made strong attacks on the management systems on Rum, observed: “I am sceptical because I think it is better that land is owned rather than crofted. Today crofters are too much under the control of government. It would be healthier if the fertile areas of Rum were sold off to people prepared to work the ground independently rather than let out to crofters who in the end will always be beholden to the Lairds – Scottish Natural Heritage.”