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: LPL

A rural community in the Scottish Borders is set to benefit from a major lottery windfall announced today by Big Lottery Fund. Newlands Community Development Trust (NCDT) has been successful in its bid for £999,363 – the largest amount awarded to a single project in the region through BIG’s Investing in Communities fund. The grant will be used to create a much needed community facility in Romanno Bridge.

The new building, which will be attached to Newlands Primary School, will be a standalone operation owned and run by NCDT for the benefit of the whole community. Located in the geographic centre of the area, the hub will provide a focal point for local people, comprising a large sports hall, a fully equipped kitchen with dining areas, a dedicated nursery and playgroup, plus adult learning, IT and library facilities.

The diverse rural community, which incorporates a string of villages along the A701, including Blyth Bridge, Romanno Bridge, Mountain Cross and Lamancha, together with farms and smaller settlements, has witnessed a steady decline in its facilities in recent years and is working to reverse this trend by developing new assets. The community lacks sporting facilities and a hall large enough to hold its major events while also providing the flexibility to support a full range of activities for both old and young. At present, members of the community commonly need to travel ten miles to reach such facilities. One in four people served by the new hub will be in walking distance of it.

“This is a fabulous boost for the community,” said Karen Blissitt, chairman of the NCDT. “The hub will provide a much needed local facility which will strengthen the community and help bring everyone together. Until now we have had to go to Broughton to hold concerts and we have to go to Peebles, Penicuik or Biggar for sporting facilities, so this really will make a huge difference to local people. Isolation in rural communities is a real problem and this will make it easier for people to get involved in local activities and get to know each other.”

Jamie Prady, one of the directors of the trust, added: “You so often hear of the demise of rural community facilities; it’s exciting to see a community pulling together and creating new opportunities.”

Maureen Sharp, Headmistress of Newlands Primary School is also delighted with the success of the NCDT application to Big Lottery Fund, “The members of the trust have worked very hard to ensure that our lively and vibrant community has a great, and much needed, community facility. This facility will, like our school, be at the heart of the community.”

The use of the facility by the school, which will rent the hall for various needs, will provide a source of revenue to help NCDT ensure long term viability of the project.

Background
NCDT was formed in June 2007 to benefit the communities of Newlands, Lamancha and Kirkurd in Peeblesshire, in the Scottish Borders. NCDT gained charitable status in April 2008. The grant from Big Lottery Fund will meet approximately half of the total project cost of the new facility at Newlands, estimated at £1.9 Million. NCDT will now work towards securing the rest of the funding. SBC is fully supportive of this project.

Author: LPL

The Strathtay Community Company, formed earlier this year by residents of the Perthshire village of Strathtay, today announced that it has successfully registered an interest in land bordering the River Tay under the Land Reform Act 2003. The community now has the right to buy approximately 25 acres of mixed woodland and agricultural land bordering the River Tay, should it ever come on the market.

“We are delighted to hear that Scottish Ministers have registered our community interest in this land” commented Roger Graham, Chairman of the Strathtay Community Company. “This is an important stretch of land within our village that we hope will one day be owned and protected by the community.”

The community’s aspirations for the land were submitted to Scottish Ministers as part of the application process. These include protecting and strengthening woodland and biodiversity in the area. The land already supports a variety of important wildlife, including protected species such as red squirrels and bats.

The Community Company is also committed to improving residential amenity and would develop a path network which would allow safe passage through the village. Plans also include the possibility of restoring a derelict building adjacent to the Tay as a potential viewing area to watch the canoeing at Grandtully rapids.

The company is currently looking at funding options and seeking further advice on how to manage this land should it ever come on the market and are contacting organisations such as Scottish Wildlife Trust and Community Woodlands Association to seek their input and expertise.

The company has also been set up to advance environmental protection or improvement such as the overdue designation of conservation status for the village. Strathtay and Grandtully were proposed as conservation areas in the 2000 Local Plan. A conservation appraisal exhibition will be held from 24th to 26th June at Grandtully Hall. All members of the community and surrounding area are invited to attend and show their support for conservation status. “As a conservation area there may also be ways we can assist the council to enhance the character and appearance of the village, such as repairing the War Memorial and the Iron Bridge” added Mike Jackson, one of the directors.

Commenting, John Swinney MSP said:
“I am very pleased at the success of the Strathtay Community Company in its efforts in engaging the local community, both in its efforts to register a community interest in the land and its conservation proposals.
“It can be seen across Scotland that towns and villages reach their full potential when they have effective community organisations, ensuring things actually get done for the local area. In Strathtay we have that and it is excellent news for locals and visitors alike.”

The company, which is seeking charitable status, wishes to invite anyone not already a member in the village to join as an ordinary member. The company also invites those living outside the village to support the company by joining as associate members. Forms can be downloaded from the website (www.strathtayvillage.co.uk).

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.”

Author: Laurence Demarco

I would like to begin by making a distinction between what is meant by civic society and civil society. The first – civic society – I take to mean – the ‘local state’ – where citizens participate in local health boards – schools – community councils – planning partnerships and all the other mechanisms ultimately under the direction of the state. All this is good stuff. Civil society – I take to mean voluntary action – undertaken by citizens not under the direction of any authority wielding the power of the state. This is the definition of voluntary action given by Lord Beveridge in his famous 1948 report of that name. Beveridge said that ‘‘the vigor and abundance of voluntary action – undertaken by citizens not under the direction of any authority wielding the power of the state – is one of the distinguishing marks of a free society!!

I have offered this distinction between the civic realm of the state – and the civil realm of the citizen because I believe that government has the inbuilt tendency to poach our space – that there is a powerful lobby within the statutory sector which believes that anything organized in our communities outwith their control is potentially dodgy. It is important for us here today to consider whether a development trust operates in the civic realm of the state – or the independent realm of the citizen. Are we active partners in public sector programmes or are we independent `civil society` actors.

As our movement gathers momentum in the acquisition of land and assets – we can anticipate that this issue of independence will come under increasing scrutiny.

I’ve been a community worker since the late 1960s – over 40 years. For much of that time – real community development work has been discouraged in Scotland. Particularly in our cities – the style of government had been municipal – that is to say – state delivered services – with citizens expected to be passive – grateful – complaint. Sometimes – in some places like Edinburgh – there have been deliberate moves to discourage – every obstruct voluntary action. It`s also my opinion that the Community Development profession which I joined, turned its back on community and went to work for the state – but that`s another story.

I would like to say a few words today about Local People Leading – the campaign for strong and independent communities in Scotland. In LPL the DTA Scotland comes together with other community based associations like woodlands – transport – recycling – housing etc. LPL is not a new organization – more an alliance of organizations – who believe that within out communities – there is an enormous reservoir of locked up imagination and energy for good – which we want to release. The aim is to provide a platform for the community sector to get together and build a national movement for community empowerment. LPL has drafted a position statement – outlining the actions we consider necessary to make this happen. Copies of this are available in your conference pack.

During my time as a community worker – Scottish communities have engaged in all manner of what they call ‘partnerships’ – with local and central government. But Partnership is not a good word – because of the gross imbalance of power inherent in these arrangements, the role of the community is too often tokenistic. Unfortunately most of the communities which were on the index of deprivation in the 60s are still on it. Truth to tell – our attempts at regenerations have mostly failed. The programme I know most about is Wester Hailes, where I worked from 1976 to 1990 – 14 years.

For 10 years – from 1988 – 1998, it was one of four areas chosen for the Scottish Office New Life for Urban Scotland Partnership. This programme invested £120m in Wester Hailes – but it`s difficult to see today what was achieved. WH was chosen for this Partnership because it already had an effective community infrastructure centred around a locally run Representative Council. When the Partnership and its funding ended the community`s independent organization was fatally damaged. Before the partnership – the community was in the lead. Gradually govt. officials and consultants took over. Last month, there was a meeting to formally dissolve the WH Rep Council. £120m to make a community less empowered than it was in the first place.

That experience taught me the very important lesson – that top down regeneration doesn’t work. Unless the process engages local people – unless they take it on- it simply unravels when the suits all leave – and leave they will.

But what if that £120 million spent in Wester Hailes – or even one year of it – £12 million – had been used to endow a local Development Trust. The endowment not spent, but invested – and the annual interest used by the Trust to drive local development; to develop property for social and commercial use; to operate social enterprises where the market leaves gaps; to operate public services on contract; training schemes to skill local people for employment – and to become directors of new community enterprises – a culture of enterprise. I don’t have to tell the people here, the amazing range of activities which Development Trusts undertake. If the Wester Hailes partnership had endowed a community trust all these activities would still be operating – increasing in confidence and competence.

The lesson is – that giving communities the opportunity to participate in so -called partnerships – arrangements essentially controlled by government – is no substitute for them having the power to decide and act for themselves. Empowered communities – unlocking the energy and imagination of local people – have the potential to play a major role alongside local government in making successful communities – but not as compliant subordinates. Communities can only be truly partners when they have achieved a degree of independence. A truly empowered community will have the capacity to disagree with the council – in its pursuit of its own vision for itself.

Experience across the UK shows that the most common characteristic of communities which have empowered themselves – is that they have been able to unite under the leadership of one locally owned organisation – which acts as the ‘Anchor’ for future progress. The term Anchor is not some new fashionable word that we all have to learn- LPL uses it simply to denote whichever organization it happens to be – which co-ordinates the energy of a particular community. It can be the local housing association – community council – a church group – very often it’s a Development Trust.

LPL has made the promotion of – locally owned – asset holding community anchors a key objective of our campaign. You may be aware that in 2009 an estimated £400 million in dormant bank accounts will provide a one-off windfall for the Third Sector in the UK. 10% of that – £40 million will be allocated in Scotland by our devolved government. The problem with such allocations is that they always seem to go to the agencies best able to promote themselves – at the expense of our poorest citizens. LPL calls on our government to be bold – to nominate our 20 most deprived communities and allocate to each an endowment of £2 million in perpetuity. The interest on such an endowment should provide an Anchor organisation / Development Trust in each of these areas with a core income of around £100k per annum – independent of the political and budget fluctuations of local government.

This amount would provide Development Trusts with stable management and development capacity to plan long term.

Such a bold move would signal a dramatic policy shift. It would be to acknowledge that after 40 years of `top down` urban regeneration, the poorest communities have not moved on, that the government and its partnerships have failed these people – and that it’s time to let communities get on with it. LPL believe that an endowment approach will allow communities the necessary independence and continuity to show what they can do.

Over the next 3 months – till Sept 08 – the Scottish Government will be consulting on how the dormant accounts money should be allocated. Can I ask that if you agree with our proposal, you register as a supporter of LPL on our website and consider attending one of the consultation meetings?

Finally – I started by making the distinction between civic society – the realm of the state – and civil society – the realm of the citizen. I would like to end with the question – where does community empowerment sit between these two? Is it about engaging our communities as the lowest rung in the state apparatus complimenting the role of councillors? Or is it about releasing the energy and imagination of our people as an independent force – outwith the direction of the state. This is the crunch issue – which will be decided in Scotland over the next couple of years.

The political parties` election manifestos for the 2007 Scottis Parliament Elections appeared to confirm the enthusiasm among Scottish politicians for extending the spirit of devolution to citizens and communities. The SNP`s manifesto was the most specific and included bold and radical commitments on issues such as community councils and the community ownership of assets.
Against this background – Local People Leading is very disappointed by the limited ambition and scope of the recent joint commitment on community empowerment from Scottish Government and COSLA.
We believe that as it currently stands, it will be a huge missed opportunity if it does not do more to empower communities directly. There is a wealth of experience and skills in the community sector in Scotland which would enable the piloting and implementation of a much more effective programme on community empowerment and engagement.

But I’d like to end on a positive note –
Scottish Government has decided that it will take forward the empowerment agenda jointly with COSLA. It has to be a step forward that central and local government are working together. Their joint commitment states unequivocally that they both see community empowerment as a key element of what they are about – and that this is the starting point of a long journey. In this spirit, Local People Leading looks forward to being part of the forthcoming dialogue – with a view to advancing some of the actions outlined in our position statement.

Thank you.

Author: BBC Website

The Fife Diet is based on the principle of developing a diet which has the lowest carbon footprint possible. It is based on consuming less food that has to come into the country by air, is low in meat (to reduce the amount of harmful gases produced by cattle) and involves eating only locally grown fruit and vegetables.

Mike Small said the 200 people who were following the plan were contributing to reducing climate change. He insists: “It’s not a back-to-nature movement rejecting the 21st century. It is a flexible, consciousness-raising exercise to show what realistic changes individuals can make while enjoying local food eaten in season.

The diet is inspired by the 100 Mile diet, which began in Vancouver, Canada, but the distances have been scaled down. In the Canadian version, James McKinnon and his partner, Alisa Smith, spent a year eating only food from within a 100-mile radius of their home, and a year later still eat 85% from inside those boundaries.

“The problem’s not been finding food in Fife all year round, that’s relatively easy, but the time you spend preparing a meal from scratch every day.

“It gives us a bit of an insight into why we eat convenience food because we’re all running around like dafties working too hard and don’t have any time to cook a decent meal.”

Changing habits

The project has relied heavily on people going back to eating food only when it is in season. This has meant that many foods, like bananas and oranges, are completely off the menu to cut down on the carbon emissions produced by the aeroplanes which transport them to the UK.

People instead are directed towards farm shops and farmers markets.

Jacqui Alexander, of Bellfield Organics in Newburgh, said: “To go back to having their root vegetables in the winter and to make their soups and stews is quite an adjustment for people to have to make”

“It is difficult but then a lot of people are interested in it, you can see that at farmers’ markets that people are interested in the different things we grow at different times of year.”

After six months, the Fife Diet is moving into a new phase with land having been secured for a community garden in Falkland.

Mike Small is hoping volunteers will help maintain the patch as a vegetable garden which, he hopes, will encourage more people to exchange foods.

The eating project has attracted the support of Friends of the Earth Scotland.

Chief executive Duncan McLaren said: “Food accounts for about a quarter of household gas emissions. Most of that comes from the methane of animal production. So, a diet like this which is quite low in meat is definitely good for the environment.”

Author: Crofting Inquiry

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY ON CROFTING
FINAL REPORT

A number of themes – areas of debate – are identified:

First, there is the balance struck by crofting legislation and regulation between the interests of crofting, crofters and crofting communities …. Second, there is also the debate between those who see the future of crofting in terms of agriculture and amalgamation of holdings, on the one hand, and those who see its future in terms of non-agricultural sources of income and occupational pluralism on the other. Third, there is the difference in view between those who see the future of crofting in an Irish-style model of individualised owner-occupation and those who advocate a more collectivised model of community-owned estates and crofting tenants. Finally, there is a debate between those who see the future of crofting as lying in the hands of others (a recurrent argument has been that crofters lack the necessary ability) and those who advocate crofters themselves taking responsibility for the future of crofting and crofting communities. (p15)

The Report is clear that on the first point, there has not been the correct balance between the rights of the individual and those of the wider community

Unless there is a better balance struck than at present, giving wider interests, especially those of future generations, precedence over individual gains, crofting will ultimately disappear, and its potential contribution to sustainable rural development will be lost. (p6)

Crofting has a vital role in sustaining rural population levels:

crofting helps to sustain population levels because it provides access and a tie to the land, giving people a base from which they can earn a living in a variety of ways. In this way, crofting facilitates a connection to place, a sense of belonging and a desire to remain on, or return to, the land. In so far as crofting can provide an affordable home, some food and income, a good quality of life and a sense of purpose, we were told repeatedly that crofting constitutes a good mechanism for retaining population. (p21)

Rural development of crofting areas is dependent on building the capacity of communities…

Our view is that the most effective way of stimulating the broader rural economy of crofting communities is to build the capacity of these communities to develop their own enterprises. (p43)
Local people, their knowledge, experience, skills and networks (i.e. human and social capital) are vital to successful rural development. The stock of human capital is itself critically dependent on migration of different people into and out of an area. (p44)
The social economy is an important part of the economic vitality and development
of a rural area, particularly in remote areas. Dispersed and small populations make the provision of some services expensive for the public sector and unprofitable for the private sector. The social economy can be crucial to the sustainability of communities as well as a route to economic and social well-being. (p45)

….and building meaningful partnerships from the bottom up

For successful long-term rural development, rural communities need to be able to connect with and influence non-local organisations, including regional and national public sector organisations and partnerships, business networks and markets, as well as with networks between community groups operating in different locations.
Partnership working, both between groups and across sectors is widely accepted
as critical to many bottom-up rural development schemes….However, creating partnerships which are shaped from the bottom-up can be challenging. Often the funding conditions that give rise to the formation of partnerships in rural areas mean that they are assembled quickly, and are not as representative as they should be. The key to successful partnership working lies in all partners respecting the role and value of other partners. This may require a fundamental change of attitude amongst established organisations to recognise that community groups can and should participate fully, and actively to encourage this participation.
Other factors found to be important were: having clear achievable objectives, using community agents or ‘animators’ to initiate and assist community groups; receiving a high level of continuous engagement and commitment from relevant organisations, and benefiting from support of volunteers. (p45)

Affordable housing is a , perhaps the , key issue in many areas, and the report recommends a number of changes in the support and regulation of hosing provision for both crofters and non-crofters….

…and finally, ‘sustainable ruralism’ must be embraced through a cultural change amongst planners which allows new housing to be seen as part and parcel of place-shaping and sustainable development (p52)

Empowerment of crofters and the fostering of innovation which will sustain crofting
communities requires appropriate governance structures at all levels, devolving power to the most local suitable level while ensuring that other levels operate in ways which support local action and decision-making. … A framework which devolves power towards communities, within an appropriate regulatory structure, would have the further merit of enabling policy implementation, regulation and enforcement to reflect variations in local circumstances – an important consideration across the very diverse circumstances and traditions of the crofting counties. The regulatory bodies will play a key role in safeguarding and sustaining crofting in their localities. It
will be essential that they have knowledge of crofting, the confidence and ownership of crofters and that they have local accountability. While local authorities provide local accountability to some extent we do not believe that they bring this in relation to the localised communities involved, nor do they in general bring a knowledge of crofting or have the confidence or ownership of crofters in this regulatory role. Our view therefore is that there needs to be a realignment of the responsibility for crofting regulation founded on locally elected crofter representatives, alongside representatives of other legitimate interests. (p57)

The report recommends significant changes in the regulation of crofting:

Empowerment of crofters and the fostering of innovation which will sustain crofting
communities requires appropriate governance structures at all levels, devolving power to the most local suitable level while ensuring that other levels operate in ways which support local action and decision-making. … A framework which devolves power towards communities, within an appropriate regulatory structure, would have the further merit of enabling policy implementation, regulation and enforcement to reflect variations in local circumstances – an important consideration across
the very diverse circumstances and traditions of the crofting counties. The regulatory
bodies will play a key role in safeguarding and sustaining crofting in their localities. It
will be essential that they have knowledge of crofting, the confidence and ownership of crofters and that they have local accountability. While local authorities provide local accountability to some extent we do not believe that they bring this in relation to the localised communities involved, nor do they in general bring a knowledge of crofting or have the confidence or ownership of crofters in this regulatory role. Our view therefore is that there needs to be a realignment of the responsibility for crofting regulation founded on locally elected crofter representatives, alongside representatives of other legitimate interests. (p57)

3.12 Recommendations
3.12.1 We recommend a separation in the functions of (1) crofting regulation and
enforcement, (2) crofting development and (3) the maintenance of the crofting register. Greater local accountability and ownership is also required in the implementation of the regulation and enforcement function.
3.12.2 The Crofters Commission would therefore be wound up. We recommend that
the regulation and enforcement function should be discharged in future by a new
Federation of Crofting Boards, a single organisation consisting of 7-10 elected Local
Crofting Boards, and an executive supplying staffing support, finance and other central services to these Boards.
3.12.3 Responsibility for development of crofting should be given to a powerful Crofting and Community Development body, ideally within HIE.
3.12.4 Responsibility for the Register of Crofts should be taken over by Registers of
Scotland – following a consultancy exercise to assess the current accuracy of the Register, the specification required to maintain appropriate regulatory action in the future and a transition plan to bring the Register up to that specification.
3.12.5 At community level, grazings committees should be modernised to become
Crofting Township Development Committees with a broader remit and more inclusive
membership. Their primary function will be to develop and agree strategic plans for
local crofting development, with the support of the new Crofting and Community
Development body. (p61)
3.12.6 An annual “State of Crofting” Report should be submitted to the Scottish Parliament by the Federation of Crofting Boards, having consulted with the Crofting and Community Development body. (p61)

New legislation is proposed to simplify existing laws and to tackle the problems of absenteeism and neglect

3.15 Recommendations
3.15.1 We believe new legislation is needed to replace, simplify and clarify the accumulated laws which set the framework for crofting today.
3.15.2 No change should be made to those rights given to individual crofters in the
1886 Act, namely security of tenure, succession, fair rents and the value of their
improvements. However these rights should only be enjoyed by those resident on
or near their croft and using the land beneficially.
3.15.3 We recommend that all croft houses be tied to residency through a real burden, which would be deemed to be included in the conveyancing when next assigned or purchased. This would run with the land in perpetuity. Decrofting the house site or purchasing the landlord’s interest will not extinguish this burden. Crofters may apply to the Local Crofting Board to have the burden removed subject to the provisions in section 3.14.3.
3.15.4 A crofter wishing to assign or transfer their croft, or forced to do so through
failing to fulfil the residency burden or enhanced burden should be given three options as set out in section 3.14.4.
3.15.5 Owner-occupiers and tenants should be treated alike, simply as crofters, in all
aspects of crofting. Each Local Crofting Board should have the power to suspend (or
not) the 1976 Act’s Crofting Reform (Scotland) right to buy.
3.15.6 All sub-lets and tenancies should require the consent of the Local Crofting Board, who should also be given the power to place a limit on the number of crofts or the amount of land which can be held or worked by any one crofter. The Boards’ policies on these matters should reflect the content of local Crofting Development Plans, where these exist.
3.15.7 Responsibility for the croft register would be taken over by the Registers of
Scotland – following a consultancy exercise to assess the accuracy of the current
register, the specification required to maintain appropriate regulatory action in the
future and a transition plan to bring the register up to that specification.
3.15.8 Boundaries of crofts which in practice have been accepted for twenty years, or
more, will not be challengeable.
3.15.9 The Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act 1857 should be amended to make a crofting lease registrable and hence eligible for standard securities.
3.15.10 All holdings similar to crofts within defined crofting parishes should, if their owners or tenants wish, become subject to crofting regulation.
3.15.11 Government should consider back-dating the introduction of the real burden on all assignations and purchases made after May 12th 2008, as to question any rush to avoid the provisions of the legislation. ( p68)

Author: Speech to Findhorn community

Scottish Government approach to Community Empowerment

As a Government we believe that too much power in Scotland has been drawn up to the national level over the last few years. We are determined to change that and to put power back where it belongs – nearer to the Scottish people.

This starts with making sure that Local Councils are given their right and proper place. They are democratically accountable. They are the tier of Government closest to communities on a day to day basis. And we are in the process of developing a new and more mature relationship with Local Government based on trust and mutual respect.

But community empowerment is also key for this Government. Its not jargon for us – it’s a real thing. We believe in the benefits of local communities having more direct control and influence over the things that affect them. You know that there is a long and proud tradition in rural areas of communities getting on and doing things for themselves.

To support community empowerment the Scottish Government must play a strategic role. Working closely with COSLA, we must provide National leadership.

In this context, I am personally determined that we make it easier than it has ever been before for communities to understand and get hold of the various Scottish Government resources that support community empowerment.

I and my colleague Stewart Maxwell have asked officials from across Government to put themselves in your shoes. We have asked them report to us on how we can simplify things to help you.

Author: LPL

Edinburgh Mela this year has built on its success with a move to a bigger venue – Ocean Terminal in Leith – and extended its programme to a week-long festival ( August 25-31) rather than the weekend event of previous years.

As a lively event for all the family, supported by the City of Edinburgh Council and the Scottish Arts Council, the Mela Festival contributes an estimated £1 million annually to the local economy and has drawn in over 50,000 people each year. It is considered to be Scotland’s leading celebration of cultural diversity through the arts.

The Mela adds another dimension to Edinburgh’s festival season with its focus on multicultural talents within Scotland and beyond. It has grown far since it was founded in 1995 by members of Edinburgh’s Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi communities, and one of its key objectives from the outset was to reflect and celebrate Scotland’s cultural diversity, while retaining its roots in the South Asian communities.
The website will go live following the launch of the programme on July 1. www.edinburgh-mela.co.uk

A video clip of the launch event and interviews is available at www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.2214183.0.capital_gains.php

Author: Matt Jarratt, Scottish Council Foundation

The commons… a progressive framework for the future of Scotland?

Our interpretations of what it takes to create and sustain a healthy, developing nation are changing; they have to.

Where once the chief priorities of government were to promote and facilitate the financial, personal and social security of its citizens, the language of governance has altered to include less easily measured, arguably more complex priorities. Happiness, health and wellbeing, environmental sustainability, community cohesion and integration, social justice and collective civic responsibility are concepts occupying policy makers from across the political spectrum.

The driver of that change is clear. Whilst it may be political hyperbole to argue, as David Cameron has, that society is ‘broken’, his comments strike a chord with many across Britain. In Scotland, as across much of the rest of the UK, the equality gap is growing; crime continues to evolve and become ever more sophisticated; we are increasingly aware of the damage we are doing to our environment, yet we keep doing it; fewer people feel part of their local community; and businesses are perceived, despite their often meaningful nods to ‘corporate social responsibility’, to be pursuing financial gain to the detriment of all else. Whilst the so called ‘softer’ government priorities listed above have been around for a while, the desired outcomes of a ‘healthier’, ‘happier’ nation remain elusive.

These issues, which in one form or another dominate the news agenda across the West, are a manifestation of our abandonment of the ‘commons’. According to US based commons theorist David Bollier, ‘the commons is a new way to express a very old idea — that some forms of wealth belong to all of us, and that these community resources must be actively protected and managed for the good of all.’ Daniel Leighton of the UK based journal –I—Renewal contextualises the commons as an ‘umbrella term linking a seemingly disparate range of material and immaterial resources that are said to morally, if not legally, belong to us all as ‘gifts’ of nature and culture’. Leighton cites the forms of common wealth which belong to all of us as including our environment, our land, our intellectual and social creations, our democratic institutions and our collective health, safety and welfare. ‘The values of the commons are… values of sustainability, equality, liberty and fraternity’.

These sentiments certainly chime with much contemporary political discourse, but do they mean anything? After all, Leighton acknowledges that ‘contemporary commons rhetoric is a metaphorical appropriation of the criticisms of the original enclosure movement that accompanied the development of capitalism in England’… A ‘metaphorical appropriation?!’ How does that relate to the realities of contemporary policy making?

The Scottish Council Foundation argues that the commons may offer a progressive framework through which to view many of the challenges facing policy makers. For example, the debate surrounding how best to tackle climate change whilst continuing to develop the economy has yet to be convincingly addressed by any mainstream political party. But the commons solution to renewable energy is genuinely innovative, economically productive and environmentally sustainable. A fine example of this is the island of Eday, off Orkney –I–(see below), which provides a practical, profitable and community led response to the need for cheap sustainable energy, which typifies what the commons is all about.

Social enterprise, a practical manifestation of the commons and the model for the Orkney example below, is in vogue. Support for the social economy is being emphasised in, amongst other areas, public sector procurement guidelines, health and wellbeing legislation, business support services and it is increasingly perceived as a solution to long term unemployment. Other high profile initiatives which represent commons thinking are also achieving widespread support; for example the planned distribution of laptop computers to some of the world’s poorest children, to enable them to benefit from the common educational opportunities offered through the internet; the increasing availability of free computer software online; the growing recognition of the value of attractive public parks and green spaces; and increased investment in public works of art.

In Scottish policy making, reconsidering well worn arguments through this framework could lead to fresh ideas on the challenge of bringing about greater social cohesion. The Scottish National Party election manifesto of May 2007 committed to; “giving deprived communities the ability to opt for a new ’empowered status’, which might allow local people to co-manage a proportion of public spending and services” and “devolving greater responsibilities to community councils, including possible responsibility for a portion of current local spending.” These commitments are encouraging, but many in the regeneration sector are concerned that current policies do not either go far enough or display enough of a grasp of what ‘empowering communities’ really means.

Indeed according to Dr. Adam Dinham (2005) of Anglia Ruskin University the term ‘community’ has become damagingly linked to ‘poverty’, in that the designation of ‘community conceals in its cosiness the realities of poverty and disadvantage’. Revisiting ideas of ‘community’, and particularly decision making powers over common assets held within communities could open up a new conversation. It could spark moves towards greater cohesion between community groups, local and national government and non-governmental actors such as charities and businesses.

So far so good; the value of common asset ownership and management is being recognised, and its potential in delivering on many of the key challenges affecting the whole of the UK is the source of much enthusiasm. But behind this excitement is there enough substance to suggest anything more than a passing fad? Perhaps the lack of controversy or genuine debate surrounding the aspects of the commons which have achieved political popularity suggests we are skirting the real issues; using social enterprise as a satisfyingly ‘ethical’ solution where it suits, reclaiming and improving common community facilities only when it’s in someone’s political or corporate interest to pay for it, encouraging environmentally sustainable consumer behaviour as long as the multi-nationals don’t mind. In short, are we dealing with the easy, peripheral issues, but failing to tackle the difficult, meaningful ones?

We must recognise that tackling the most significant environmental, social and economic challenges in a sustainable and mutually beneficial way will be painful, and if the commons is to provide any answers then the difficult questions must be addressed. An example of these questions being faced occurred recently with the controversy over American entrepreneur Donald Trump’s proposed multi million pound golf resort near Aberdeen –I–(see case study). This is an issue of the commons; enclosure versus universal access; capitalism versus socialism; the economy versus the environment; globalisation versus localism. These questions will continue to arise, and if we are to address them with sustainable, visionary solutions then we must face up to the fact that the immediate impact of the right decisions will not always benefit everyone straight away. Added to this is the fact that policy decisions, when viewed through the framework of the commons, can become more complicated still by the fact that two apparently opposing options may both enhance common assets but in different ways.

However, aiming to meet these challenges through an explicitly stated commons agenda will arguably make good decision making easier, and could make the right decisions easier to discern. This is because the commons is a long term, holistic framework. Whilst it is typically a concept of the left, and specifically the anti-globalisation, global justice lobby (Leighton 2008), this need not exclusively be the case. A commons framework does not need to stand against economic development or corporate expansion, but it does demand that social and environmental returns from public and corporate decision making be considered alongside and in equal regard to financial returns, and that decisions are taken on a common basis, where all parts of the community are empowered to effect change. This is radical, but it is achievable.

The discourse of the commons is at an embryonic stage, and not many people know about it. But much contemporary policy argument in Scotland conforms, albeit unconsciously, to the commons ideology. As such it would be of great value to explore how Westminster and the devolved administrations might look in policy terms if they paid explicit attention to the protection of common intellectual, community, environmental and physical assets. Most importantly, policy makers would have greater opportunity to find innovative, inclusive and above all sustainable solutions to the most complex policy challenges.

Our altered interpretations of what it takes to create and sustain a healthy, developing nation will arguably achieve greater clarity and genuine progressiveness when we embrace the commons agenda.