Briefings

Ferry tale’s happy ending

March 15, 2007

<FONT face=Arial size=2>Lottery grant saves the most spectacular way of travelling over the sea to Skye. </FONT>

 

Author: Lorna Martin

Ferry tale’s happy ending


Lottery grant saves the most spectacular way of travelling over the sea to Skye


Lorna Martin, Scotland editor
The Observer
11.03.07



For almost 400 years, a tiny boat has taken travellers from the village of Glenelg on the Scottish mainland across the sea to Skye. It is the oldest and fastest ferry route to the island. Offering unique views of Sandaig – immortalised in Ring of Bright Water as Camusfearna, where Gavin Maxwell lived with his otters – it is also the most scenic.
James Boswell and Samuel Johnson used the crossing in 1773 while on their Hebridean tour. When they arrived on Skye, they met Flora MacDonald, saviour of Bonnie Prince Charlie after his defeat at Culloden. It has since become a lifeline for numerous remote and rural communities, as well as a popular choice for tourists who want to cross to Skye in the traditional way.


But there were fears that the present ferry, the Glenachulish, the last manually operated turntable ferry in the world, would cease operating. It was put up for sale three years ago, but an attempt to take it into community ownership failed in 2005 because of lack of cash. However, the community has now been awarded a £60,000 grant from the Big Lottery’s Growing Community Assets fund that will enable it to buy the boat.
‘This is one of Scotland’s national treasures,’ said Jennifer Frances of the Isle of Skye Ferry Community Interest Company. ‘There was every chance the ferry would have closed without this money. The owner had put it on the open market, but it was too resource-hungry for any private individual to take it on.


‘Its only viable future is through community ownership, and we are thrilled that that is what we have achieved. It is not only a vital link for local people, it is a tremendous tourism asset, opening up spectacular views for the passenger.’


The Glenachulish, which can carry only six cars at a time, is one of only two remaining ferries crossing the sea to Skye. The other is the publicly subsidised CalMac route between Mallaig and Armadale. Both routes also have to compete with the Skye Bridge, but trade on the ancient crossing remains good. Last year, when the ferry was operated under a charter arrangement, it carried around 14,000 cars across the 500-yard channel between Glenelg and Kylerhea on the south of Skye.


Tourists enjoy the crossing as an authentic Scottish experience – they have to take a 10-mile mountainous single-track road to reach Glenelg. Shops, hotels and guesthouses rely on the ferry to bring visitors to the remote village of just 240 inhabitants.


Dharmendra Kanani, the lottery fund’s director for Scotland, said the future was extremely bright: ‘There is a romance here, but there is also tremendous practical potential and enthusiasm. Rather than simply preserving the ferry as an intriguing historical novelty, the community sees it as a terrific asset they can develop.’


 

Briefings

Two year review of the Community Right to Buy published

March 14, 2007

<FONT face=Arial size=2>The Caledonia Centre for Social Development have published a briefing paper on land reform called The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 - Part 2 the community right to buy: a two year review.</FONT>

 

Author: www.ruralgateway.org.uk

Two year review of the Community Right to Buy published


12.03.07



The Caledonia Centre for Social Development have published a briefing paper on land reform called The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 – Part 2 the community right to buy: a two year review.


The review looks at the operation of the community right to buy in its first two years (June 2004 – June 2006). The legislation gives communities the right to apply to register an interest in all land in Scotland outwith settlements of over 10,000. Once registered, the community will get the right to buy the land if it is ever put up for sale.


The review is written by Andy Wightman, Director of the Land Programme of the Caledonia Centre for Social Development, author of Who Owns Scotland and a leading authority on land ownership and land reform.


He says, “Our key findings are that few communities are using the legislation, the Act is far too complex and that Ministers and officials are taking decisions in an ad hoc and inconsistent fashion. If the Community Right to Buy is really going to empower communities and change the pattern of landownership then it needs to be radically simplified and the powers of Ministers and officials curtailed.”


In a Parliamentary Answer from earlier this year, Sarah Boyack stated that Ministers are committed to reviewing the 2003 Land Reform Act during 2007.


Wightman argues that, “It is important that this review is an independent review as any exercise carried out by the Scottish Executive’s own officials will inevitably fail to address critical questions about whether Ministers should be having anything to do with the administration of this Act.”


Download the report from the Rural Gateway document library here: http://www.ruralgateway.org.uk/cgi-bin/library.cgi?action=detail&id=1499&dir_publisher_varid=1



Link to Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 Part 2 Community Right to Buy website: http://www.landreformact.com/


Source: www.ruralgateway.org.uk


 

Briefings

Urcs are too detached to help communities, Scots practitioners told

March 5, 2007

<SPAN lang=EN-GB style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Urban regeneration companies in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w_st="on"><st1:place w_st="on">Scotland</st1:place></st1:country-region> are costly, politically complex and too detached from communities to be effective delivery vehicles in some parts of the country, according to an expert.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN>

 

Author: Barry McCarthy

Urcs are too detached to help communities, Scots practitioners told


 


Barry McCarthy


New Start Magazine


02.03.06


 


 


Urban regeneration companies in Scotland are costly, politically complex and too detached from communities to be effective delivery vehicles in some parts of the country, according to an expert.


 


Scotland’s five urcs have been allocated £44m since the programme began in 2004 to attract private sector investment in physical and economic development.


 


Leslie Huckfield, a former MP for Nuneaton and MEP for east Merseyside and now a regeneration consultant, said the delivery vehicles were costly, with running costs of up to £500,000 a year in some cases.


 


Because urcs include involvement from various stakeholders like local authorities and housing associations they can be too confusing to be successful, Mr Huckfield told delegates at a Scottish Urban Regeneration Forum conference in Edinburgh.


 


He claimed their focus on improving the economy made them ineffective in tackling social problems.


 


Mr Huckfield argued alternative models should be tried such as a combination of a housing association, community development trust and a developer.


 


Housing associations have a proven track record in delivering affordable housing and, because they are community based organisations, resident involvement is at the heart of their work, he said.


 


‘Housing associations and community development trusts are a better way of involving the community because it gives them more power and ownership,’ Mr Huckfield told New Start.


 


‘Without that involvement developments get vandalised.


 


‘I am not sure you can graft community involvement onto a urc, you need something that’s community based from the beginning like a housing association.’


 


Mr Huckfield said urcs were needed for big regeneration projects but argued the Raploch model in Stirling was an ‘over-burdened apparatus’ for a relatively small scheme of 900 homes and public realm development.


 


He claimed Scottish developers were less likely to work with urcs because strict bidding criteria had made the application process expensive.


 


A firm could lose £500,000 if its bid failed and big companies in England have emerged as the most likely candidates willing to take a risk in applying.


 


Mr Huckfield said housing associations and community development trusts should be more proactive in persuading ministers to consider them as delivery vehicles.


 


A Scottish Executive spokesperson said ministers were willing to consider alternative delivery vehicles to urcs.


 


 

Briefings

Critique of ‘Community right to buy’

March 1, 2007

<FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Land reform campaigner Andy Wightman has posted a review and critique of 'Community right to buy' on his website. Here's his page of recommendations.</FONT>

 

Author: Andy Wightman


Critique of ‘Community right to buy’


 


Andy Wightman
01.03.07


 


RECOMMENDATIONS


 


It is not the purpose of this Briefing to propose detailed recommendations for changes in the Act – this can only be done after further discussion and debate. However, some broad recommendations can be made.


 


Guiding all such recommendations is the proposition that the Act should be


 


• simplified,


 


• that the process of making an application be made less bureaucratic; and ,


 


• that the discretionary powers of Ministers be substantially curtailed.


 


Some broad recommendations are as follows.


 


• Extend the extent of eligible land to incorporate all of Scotland by including urban


settlements of over 10,000 population


 


• Eliminate most of the areas of Ministerial discretion


 


• Make the formation of community body formation more flexible.


 


• Simplify how communities are defined (line on a map rather than complex postcodes)


 


• Remove the requirement to make separate applications for each parcel of land held in separate ownership20


 


• Move the administration of the Act to Communities Scotland in the short term and in the longer term to local government.


 


• Convert late registration procedures to a simple pre-emption right


(This has led to the ridiculous situation recently where on 1 November 2006, Kinghorn Community Land Association 2005 made an application to register an interest in land surrounding Kinghorn Loch. Because the land was owned by different owners they had to prepare and submit 18 separate applications (CB00049 – CB00066).)


 


• redraft the appeal provisions to make clear that the substance of Ministerial decisions can be challenged in the Sheriff Court. Ministers have announced that they will review the Act during 2007. You are encouraged to participate in this review.


(The ruling by Sheriff McSherry in the case of Holmehill Ltd. vs. Scottish Ministers concluded that Ministerial discretion is “best left to elected representatives such as the Scottish Ministers, who are in possession of relevant information and who are charged with exercising such discretion in respect of late applications made throughout Scotland in terms of section 39.” This ruling effectively rendered the appeal provisions of the Act worthless unless in cases of gross wrong decision making.)


 


Andy Wightman


February 2007.


 


 

Briefings

TheCrown Estate in Scotland – New Opportunities for Public Benefits

February 26, 2007

<FONT face=Arial size=2>A major new report sets out the case for a review of the Crown Estate in Scotland so that the resources involved, including Scotland’s seabed and much of its foreshore, produce greater benefits for local communities. </FONT>

 

Author: Crown Estate Review Working Group

The Crown Estate in Scotland – New Opportunities for Public Benefits


Issued on behalf of the Crown Estate Review Working Group
21.02.07



A major report, published today (Wednesday), sets out the case for a review of the Crown Estate in Scotland so that the resources involved, including Scotland’s seabed and much of its foreshore, produce greater benefits for local communities.


The report – “The Crown Estate in Scotland – New Opportunities for Public Benefits” – has been produced by the Crown Estate Review Working Group, which consists of representatives of all six local authorities covering the Highlands and Islands as well as  Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA).


These organisations have all endorsed the report and copies have been submitted to the First Minister, Jack McConnell, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, Douglas Alexander, with a request for a meeting to discuss the report’s recommendation that:


“The Secretary of State for Scotland and Scottish Ministers should, given the changed circumstances of devolution, implement an appropriately constituted review to ensure that the property, rights and interests which make up the Crown Estate in Scotland contribute more fully to the delivery of Scottish Executive policies and the wellbeing of the people of Scotland.”


Expectations within the partners that there will be a review have increased as both the Secretary of State and First Minister have already said they will examine the report closely.


The property rights, which make up the Crown Estate in Scotland, are managed by the Crown Estate Commission (CEC) as part of the UK-wide Crown Estate, but are a distinct component of it because they are owned by the Crown in Scotland under Scots law.


Chairman of the CERWG, Councillor Richard Durham, said: “Many people have heard of the Crown Estate, but most are uncertain about what it is and how it is managed.  This report clears away the mist.  It provides for the first time a clear description of the property rights which make up the Crown Estate in Scotland, including their nature, ownership, use and management.  The report then identifies ways in which these property rights could be managed to deliver greater public benefits and accountability in Scotland.”


Since devolution, the Scottish Parliament can legislate to affect the Crown Estate in Scotland, but the administration of these Scottish property rights by the CEC is still reserved as a legacy of the transfer of the administration to London in the 19th century. 


Each year more than 80% of the CEC’s income from Scotland is net surplus revenue that goes to the Treasury’s Consolidated Fund for general government expenditure.  There are other property rights of the Crown in Scotland that are already devolved to the Scottish Executive and contribute to the Scottish Consolidate Fund.


There has been a marked contrast in the response of the CEC to devolution compared to that of the Forestry Commission (FC), which was in a similar position to the CEC at devolution. Both have re-structured their operations in Scotland since 1999:


the FC has created Forestry Commission Scotland accountable to the Scottish Parliament and acting as a department of the Scottish Executive to help deliver the Executive’s policies in Scotland


The CEC has ended its management of the Crown Estate in Scotland as a distinct unit of the Crown Estate (the Scottish Estate), closed its Scottish HQ and integrated the management of the property rights of the Crown in Scotland sector by sector with those in the rest of the UK.


The CERWG report shows that there are immediate opportunities to increase the benefits from the Crown Estate in Scotland within existing arrangements as well as further opportunities under more devolved arrangements.  The planned Marine Bill at Westminster is identified as a key means by which Scotland could again become responsible for the administration of its own territorial seabed.


Councillor Durham added:  “It is over 50 years since anyone had a proper look at this issue.  There is now a compelling case for new arrangements given the changed circumstances of devolution. This is a Scotland-wide issue, but there is particular potential for the management of Scotland’s seabed and public foreshore to contribute far greater benefits to the many remote and rural communities in the Highlands and Islands.  Increased local control and accountability will be particularly important with the development of marine renewable energy in the region.”


The CERWG’s landmark report is over 180 pages long.  It is available as hard copy and on Highland Council’s website via the home page.


 

Briefings

Strong and prosperous communities – The Local Government White Paper

February 8, 2007

<SPAN lang=EN-GB style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The English local government white paper published in October now has a strong implementation plan on the DCLG site.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>This extract from its introduction shows that it aims at a fundamental re-balance of the central/local relationship. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN>

 

Author: DCLG

Strong and prosperous communities – The Local Government White Paper


 


 


08.02.07


 


The English local government white paper published in October now has a strong implementation plan on the DCLG site.  This extract from its introduction shows that it aims at a fundamental re-balance of the central/local relationship.


 


“[3.]The major public issues of our time – including tackling climate change, delivering economic prosperity, promoting greater community cohesion – have highlighted the need for ever greater citizen engagement. We need to harness the energy and creativity at the local level.


 


4.We are committed to empowering citizens and communities – to devolve more power locally and enable more choice, better redress and greater opportunity for communities to own and run local services. And to make this work we need effective, legitimate and vibrant local democracy with local government at the heart of sustainable communities – committed to empowerment, equity and value-for-money – and with the flexibility and capacity to deliver the best solutions for their areas.”


 


The full document can be downloaded as a PDF here:


 


http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1503999

Briefings

Scottish Executive criticised for further delays to action plan

February 7, 2007

<SPAN lang=EN-GB style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The Scottish Executive has been criticised for failing to produce a regeneration action plan it said would be available at the end of last year. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN>

 

Author: Barry McCarthy

Scottish Executive criticised for further delays to action plan


 


Barry McCarthy


New Start magazine


07.02.07


 


 


The Scottish Executive has been criticised for failing to produce a regeneration action plan it said would be available at the end of last year.


 


The executive’s ‘people and place’ regeneration policy statement, released in February 2006, said it would publish a detailed work programme on how it would carry out the report’s recommendations.


 


A spokesperson for the executive said the plan was now likely to be published sometime this spring.


 


Chik Collins, senior lecturer in politics at Paisley University and a writer on regeneration issues, said the delay could be down to a ‘fundamental contradiction at the heart of “people and place”.’


 


He said the statement was trying to maximise the involvement of the private sector in regeneration through the privatisation of public services while at the same time attempting to convince deprived communities they will be better off.


 


‘The executive wants to resolve two things which don’t go together,’ he said. ‘When you free up markets the poorest communities become worse off.’


 


Dr Collins said the executive should instead provide more desirable and affordable housing and lobby for a higher minimum wage and benefit levels if it is serious about reducing the gap between Scotland’s richest and poorest communities.


 


He added the departure of former communities minister Malcolm Chisholm, who resigned in December after opposing Labour’s plans to replace Trident submarines, was another setback to the action plan.


 


Another academic, Robert Rogerson, a senior lecturer in geography at Strathclyde University, said the delay could be because of Scottish parliament elections in May and the possibility of a new administration.


 


‘It would have been unwise to release an action plan if in four months’ time another one has to be produced,’ he said.


 


‘I expect some adjustments to be made after the election.’


Martin Johnstone, executive director of Faith in Community Scotland, said the delay was disappointing.


 


He added the action plan must demonstrate how it will work with organisations involved in regeneration to be of real value.


 


 

Briefings

True power comes with ownership

February 1, 2007

<FONT face=Arial size=2>Some communities will elect to become a lower tier of the state – much more responsive to local needs – good luck to them.&nbsp; But the ones which will be really transformed will be those which also grasp the challenges of the market; those which promote a culture of enterprise and independence – those determined to take control of their own destiny.</FONT>

 

Author: Laurence Demarco

True power comes with ownership


Laurence Demarco
Speech to the Annual General Meeting of the Volunteer Centre, Glasgow
26.01.07



The volunteers I’d like to talk about today are those citizens who give their time to improve the communities where they live – often referred to as community activists. I believe that many Scottish local authorities deliberately and routinely obstruct this work – which is frankly disgraceful. But I also believe that we are entering a period when all this will change.


I’ll start with a bit of background.


The 20th century brought increased freedom and prosperity to our citizens – but at a cost.  Many of the traditional institutions that provided care, nurtured trust and fostered cooperation have weakened.


I have just read a book, Decline of the Public, which argues that a healthy public domain – encompassing active citizenship and voluntary service – is fundamental to a society in which citizens can flourish.  But it claims that for 30 years Thatcher and Blair’s governments have attacked anything that stands in the way of the private sector markets: the notion of the public interest has been subordinated; commercial interest take precedence; the citizen domain of trust, equity and service has been diminished.


At the same time, local government has become increasingly preoccupied with regulation and control.  Citizen initiatives are routinely discouraged and resisted. Officials and councillors have connived to establish a culture of passive dependency in our communities.


I became a community worker 35 years ago because I believed society would work better if people had greater control over the decisions that affect our lives.  We set out to extend local democracy into communities by, in effect, establishing an informal community tier of government.  In Wester Hailes, where I worked for 15 years, the community subdivided itself into neighbourhoods, each with its own elected representatives who all gathered monthly as on unified Representative Council.  The energy of hundreds of local folk was mobilized through this process into a single and powerful community voice.


This was in the 1980s when many housing estates across Scotland developed effective community organisations with the capacity and independence to challenge local councils on a whole range of issues.  But in Edinburgh, the Labour Administration moved to take back control of what it called ‘its’ housing estates by imposing council controlled ‘partnerships’.  Most independent community anchor groups, including Wester Hailes, have now been brought to heel.  I believe that this wilful clampdown on grass roots activity has contributed to the stagnation of our national politics.


Throughout my working life Scotland has been a one party Labour state – like the former communist bloc – people joined the party for personal advancement. Free open debate was discouraged. The state permeated every aspect of our society.


There are council wards in central Scotland that are still run as the personal fiefdoms of authoritarian councillors with a deep distrust of grassroots activists who are branded ‘troublemakers’.  In his book Stone Voices, Neal Ascherson writes: “Scottish local government is preoccupied with control, and a condition of silent, divorced dependence is what it prefers from its tenantry – an archipelago of undemocracies, run by power cliques who want as few people as possible to participate in running their own lives.”  I believe that this dark period will be remembered in Ascherson’s words.


But if Scotland is stuck in a municipal time-warp, that is not the case in England where both the major parties seem to be competing for the role of championing the Third Sector and empowering communities. For Labour’s David Milleband it comes out of an acute awareness of what he calls a ‘democratic deficit’. Two thirds of British citizens feel remote from the big institutions that affect their lives, according to recent research.  Politicians and their media entourage have lost touch with the aspirations of the people. As a result, individuals and communities feel powerless.  Milleband sees what he calls a “serious and damaging power gap” and the need to “shift power decisively to individuals and communities”.


He says he is not talking about a new formal tier of government, but his proposals include delegated budgets and new powers at neighbourhood level for deciding those things that are best understood locally including the right to acquire and manage physical assets such as land and buildings. He cites the model of continental communes.  There are 32,000 of these in France alone, each with fewer than 2,000 residents. In the whole of Europe the UK has the biggest gap between the citizen and the 1st tier of democracy.


Conservative leader David Cameron is, if anything even more enthusiastic about the power of the third sector to transform society.  He consistently demonstrates an impressive understanding of the potential particularly of the small local groups – imbedded in the communities they serve – and the Tories would like to shift a major chunk of service delivery to a local level.  I anticipate that this ethos of local control will continue to gather support and is likely to be reinforced by a growing workforce of “para-professionals”.  These are the teaching assistants, community support officers and childcare workers etc who usually live in the same communities in which they work and who have strong motivation and local knowledge. In a recent paper, Professor David Donnison predicted the emergence of a new professional trained specifically to work with local people.


So things are looking good – I can’t think of any time in my working life when there was so much political support for the work we do even in Scotland, where politicians are doing their best to ignore all this, we will catch at least the slipstream of all this energy.  The Scottish elections in May under the new PR system will shift some of the ‘old brigade’ labour fiefdoms and bring some fresh people and new thinking to our Town Halls.  But let’s not imagine this is going to be easy – there are major hurdles to jump – here are a couple of them.


Firstly you can be sure that local government will not willingly give up its control of our communities – and that’s not only in Scotland.  Last week Steven Bubb CEO of ACEVO spoke to a local government conference in England and said to the assembled council officials “In terms of your mindset and culture, you are not fit for purpose,” he said.  “What you perceive as partnership, we perceive as patronage.  On a scale of one to 10, if 10 is partnership and 1 is patronage, we are at 10 and you are at one.”  I maybe wouldn’t have said it quite so bluntly but he gets to the heart of the matter – which is that local authorities which make the contractual decisions, show no inclination to pass power downstairs. This is frankly the main challenge – changing the mindset of Councils – why are they going to shift power to citizens?


The second challenge facing us is that politicians and officials don’t seem to realise that “empowering communities” is not a simple policy decision.  It takes years, and skilled help, for communities to develop the necessary structures and capacity.  People who make extravagant claims for what social enterprise could do are doing us no favours.  This sector is growing, but most of it is nowhere near ready to deliver public services.  50 people each month register online for Senscot’s bulletin – but less than a third of these have direct connections with a real social enterprise. Our sector is fashionable – and casts a shadow much bigger than its substance. I can remember the 1970s and 80s – when the co-operative and community business movement was hyped – and burst like a bubble. We don’t want to do this again.


My final point relates to community owning assets – to the unique power of ownership to galvanise local morale and confidence.  Its one thing to elect a local management committee which the council ‘allows’ to operate some services.  It’s quite different for a community to own the local operating companies and the premises they use.


This is not an argument against the benefits of elected neighbourhood councils – it’s a recognition that true power comes with ownership.  Some communities will elect to become a lower tier of the state – much more responsive to local needs – good luck to them.  But the ones which will be really transformed will be those which also grasp the challenges of the market; those which promote a culture of enterprise and independence – those determined to take control of their own destiny.


Gordon Brown was in Glasgow on 13th October giving the Donald Dewar Memorial Lecture.  Once again he used a phrase he’s used before and since – he spoke about “shaping a new constitutional settlement of the relationship between individuals, their communities and government”. I think he’s got something up his sleeve – for when he takes power.  But no matter who wins the next General Election I believe we are entering a golden period for the realm of the citizen. I’m an optimist – I believe that we are about to see a decisive shift of power to individuals and communities – and in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the people themselves.”



 

Briefings

Bill passed to secure future of crofting

January 29, 2007

<SPAN lang=EN-GB style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The Scottish Parliament yesterday overwhelmingly backed a Bill to revitalise <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w_st="on"><st1:place w_st="on">Scotland</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s crofting communities.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN>

 

Author: Scottish Executive

Bill passed to secure future of crofting


 


26.01.07


 


 


The Scottish Parliament yesterday overwhelmingly backed a Bill to revitalise Scotland‘s crofting communities.


 


The Crofting Reform Bill introduces powers to create new crofts, bring neglected croft land back into productive land and extend crofting tenure beyond the crofting counties.


 


It builds on the Executive’s land reform legislation which has already seen successful community buy-outs of croft land.


 


Speaking during the stage three debate Rural Development Minister Ross Finnie said:


 


“This is an important Bill.


 


“Already the Land Reform Act has liberated and inspired crofting communities.


 


“This Bill was introduced to promote more sustainable crofting communities, more local involvement in crofting administration, simplified crofting regulation, more active crofters and to give crofters greater scope to diversify their activities.”


 


Deputy Rural Development Minister Sarah Boyack added:


 


“Crofting has played a vital role in sustaining remote rural communities and the economy of the Highlands and Islands.


 


“This Bill is not the last word in crofting legislation.. It is part of a long term commitment by the Executive to the future of crofting, crofting communities and some of the most fragile island and rural parts of Scotland.


 


“Its will help to bring new business and new blood into crofting areas, revitalising crofting for the 21st century.”


 


The Scottish Executive announced during stage two of the Bill’s progress through Parliament that a Committee of Inquiry would be established to consider issues around the role and function of the Crofters Commission.


 


Professor Mark Shucksmith, Professor of Planning at Newcastle University, has been appointed to chair that committee.


 


Communities on Gigha, Colonsay, Shetland and Orkney are considering how these powers could be use to boost local populations and enhance their economies


 


Small-holders on Arran have expressed an interest in converting their land into crofts.


 


Source: Scottish Executive


 

Briefings

Youthstart help make sense of voting system

January 25, 2007

<FONT face=Arial size=2>A clear and entertaining online graphic that explains how the Single Transferable Voting (STV) system will work in May's local elections, is now available. The system is frequently criticised as being hard to understand.</FONT>

 

Author: Senscot

Youthstart help make sense of voting system


24.01.07



A clear and entertaining online graphic that explains how the Single Transferable Voting (STV) system will work in May’s local elections, is now available here:


http://www.youthstart.org/STV/


Moray Youthstart has developed it to encourage young people’s participation in the democratic process. Moray Council has adopted it, and a number of other local authorities are showing interest.


Youthstart says: “We want to encourage all young people to take part in the democratic process, particularly locally and so it made sense that they should be the driving force behind bringing understanding of STV to Moray.


“After a small amount of publicity in the local press we are now getting enquiries about badging this for other councils, which we will be delighted to do for a small charge.”


The graphic has been develped as a unique collaboration between Moray Youthstart as part of Moray Community Planning Partnership, The Moray Council, and Colourjam, a young, Moray-based web development company.


STV has had many proponents over the years as a systme that is fairer than first past the post, but a frequent concern with STV among electorates considering its adoption is its relative complexity. When the Canadian province of British Columbia held a referendum on adopting the BC-STV Single Transferable Vote in 2005, according to polls most of the “no” voters gave their reason as “wasn’t knowledgeable” when they were asked why, specifically, they voted against STV.


The concept of transferable voting was first proposed by Thomas Wright Hill in 1821. The system remained unused in real elections until 1855, when Carl Andrae proposed a transferable vote system for elections in Denmark.


http://www.youthstart.org/STV/