Briefings

Climate commons

July 6, 2021

Elinor Ostrum, the political economist who died in 2012, once declared, ‘there is no reason to believe that bureaucrats and politicians, no matter how well meaning, are better at solving problems than the people on the spot, who have the strongest incentive to get the solution right’. Her theories applied to the stewardship of natural resources by indigenous peoples which are threatened as never before by the climate and nature emergency.  Think tank IPPR have worked with Ostrum’s ideas and argue that a ‘climate commons’ should be acknowledged as the locus of community action on the climate emergency.

 

Author: IPPR

THE CLIMATE COMMONS – FULL REPORT

SUMMARY

The climate crisis, and the response to it, present opportunities for communities in the UK as well as threats. The threats that communities face range from the impacts of the climate crisis itself (flooding, heatwaves) to the impacts of the economic transition (jobs, industries), as well as the need to make changes within neighbourhoods and local areas to reduce carbon emissions and meet the challenges of the transition. But, managed well, the transition to a greener economy offers the opportunity to reshape local areas in a way that improves health and wellbeing, tackles inequalities and improves quality of life. 

The next wave of decarbonisation will impact people and communities far more than it has to date and so must necessarily involve them more too. There will be changes to industry, food, land use, transport, housing and planning, right across every aspect of the economy and society, in a way that everyone and all communities will see and feel. 

Communities across the country are already making progress in collectively addressing the climate crisis. Our report highlights the breadth and depth of local community innovation that is happening across the country, where local people are coming together to create shared low carbon assets and in so doing improve their health, wellbeing and local neighbourhood, while reducing poverty and increasing local control. This is what we describe as ‘local climate commons’ – local stewardship of resources, created and owned locally, for example community owned wind or solar, community land trusts creating affordable low carbon homes and local food cooperatives.

Climate action is often not the primary goal for many successful community-led initiatives – emissions reductions are often a co-benefit. Local climate commons are increasing community wealth, agency and regeneration, creating thriving places while also addressing the climate crisis. 

At present, we are neither making the most of the opportunities available nor managing the unequal negative impacts of the climate crisis and the transition. Policy responses are too dependent on top-down interventions to manage the mitigation and adaptation efforts, on market solutions, or are too reliant on achieving individual behaviour change, when it is a collective response that is required. 

For communities to thrive in a climate changing world they must be given greater ownership and agency not just over the process of the transition but of the assets and benefits that arise from it. Such an approach will result in better policy and fairer outcomes, as it is communities, and their local leaders, who have the best understanding of their local areas – the geography, the assets, and its strengths and weaknesses. 

KEY FINDINGS 

If local communities are to be successful and thrive in a climate changing world, this report finds that a number of barriers must be overcome, and crucial issues recognised. 

  • A vision for action: Successful cases of community action are able to articulate a strong vision for how their projects deliver direct benefits to the community rather than just focussing on addressing the climate crisis alone. 
  • Local framing drives engagement: Community initiatives are more likely to be successful when they resonate with or help create common community identities and align with perceived shared interests. 
  • Inclusion and diversity: Ensuring the objectives of climate justice deliver social and racial justice helps broaden participation and ensure community action delivers for all members of the community. 
  • Volunteer engagement: Where community-level climate action relies on voluntary time, success centres on the ability to foster inclusive voluntary engagement. 
  • External, professional support: Professional support, to guide a community group through the complex, technical planning hurdles is a key enabling factor to success.
  • Funding support: Funding is often critical to success, but it must be invested in people as well as the projects at a community level, led by local needs and available over the long term. 
  • The importance of networks: Projects which facilitate relationships between people and different organisations within a community are more effective.

Briefings

Case proven

The perennial challenge facing those in charge of our public services is how to move ‘upstream’ and start funding the much more cost effective (community based) preventative measures which they know would ease pressures on the more expensive services that are needed at times of crisis.  There is a mass of evidence to support the argument and it just keeps coming. Latest addition comes from Glasgow Caledonian’s four year study of Scotland’s Men’s Sheds. The evidence of their impact on men’s health is so compelling that  you have to wonder why there isn’t a shed in every community in Scotland.

 

Author: GCU Project Lead: Artur Steiner Project Team: Danielle Hutcheon, Artur Steiner, Simon Teasdale, Helen Mason 

Study by GCU – December 2017 – December 2021

The Sheds for Sustainable Development Project focuses on supporting Men’s Sheds in Scotland to be both financially and socially sustainable. Key components include: the collection and analysis of data pertaining to the development challenges that sheds may face; the co-creation of viable solutions to help sheds develop and sustain; and the evaluation of the potential health and wellbeing benefits associated with being a member of a shed, and taking part in shed activities. The project has two key aims: 

  • To identify the key development challenges facing sheds and, through action research, implement entrepreneurial changes enhancing the sustainability and viability of the sheds; 
  • To explore, using mixed methods, the health and wellbeing impacts of shed activities on their users and how sheds may contribute to a preventative spending approach to health and care.

Briefing Reports

 

Briefings

Library threat

As facilities gradually reopen and normal services resume, there is a sense of unease in some parts of the country that Covid is being used as a smokescreen for the permanent closure of much needed local services. Plans to close swimming pools and libraries are traditionally the actions that evoke the strongest local reaction and Glasgow’s Whiteinch community are in no mood to lose their library. They believe that the grounds for their legal challenge are well founded and indeed could be used by any other community in Scotland facing a similar threat.   

 

Author: Jim Monaghan, Bella Caledonia

As we inch towards the end of COVID restrictions, the crisis in Scotland’s libraries will not go away easily. As many as a quarter of Scotland’s public libraries remain closed, of those that are “open” they operate a limited service. In some cases libraries have been moved to ‘Community Hubs’ or ‘one-stop shops’ with experienced Librarians and Library assistants being replaced by Customer Service Assistants. In Glasgow the crisis is worse than most other places, the Council and their offshoot company Glasgow Life are using the cover of COVID to implement a programme of closures sell-offs and mergers. Campaigns have sprung up across the city to fight against these moves, with weekly read-ins, protest actions and representations to the City Council. Of these local campaigns perhaps the most proactive and forthright is the campaign to save the historic library at Whiteinch.

Whiteinch, for those who don’t know it, is a district on the banks of the River Clyde in the West of Glasgow. It was, at one time an island, back in the days when the Clyde was a wider and shallower free flowing river, before the days of dredging to make it a centre for trade and shipbuilding. When the island disappeared the area nearest to the banks was named after it. It developed as an industrial area, linked to the shipbuilding industry and became a ferry crossing until the opening of the Clyde Tunnel in 1963. The library was built in 1926 and has been a central focus of the community ever since. But last year plans emerged from the City Council to close the library and move the service to a leisure centre in a neighbouring district. The reaction from the community has been an overwhelming rejection of these plans.

Built on strong community links forged in active and existing community groups, the users of the library and a strong and proactive Community Council a small group of organisers were quick off the mark, organising weekly meet ups at the library where children would have read-ins, performers would play music and people would come together to share their ideas and skills. A small organising committee was formed bringing together a group of people with the right range of skills and experience to challenge the Council’s plans.

They quickly gathered the information and data that they needed to combat the plans, pointing out the demographics of the area, the high levels of poverty and the diverse nature of their local communities – people who relied on the library, who needed the resource and saw it as a central point of Whiteinch.  They launched their own Community Consultation in response to the lack of consultation by Glasgow City Council and Glasgow Life.

A series of targeted FOI requests were sent off to the Council, they analysed the community based on the SIMD index and, building on the fact that information is strength, have proved to be a very effective example of good old-fashioned community organising.

Whiteinch is a community that has faced devastation over the years due to previous Council plans, the building of the Clyde Tunnel took away their main shopping centre and a large portion of the local park, they lost (like many Glasgow communities) their local swimming pool, but this time they are not for giving in.

Last week the campaign engaged the campaigning lawyer/activist Mike Dailly to launch a legal challenge to the closure, seeking a judicial review. Dailly maintains that a judicial review at the Court Of Session is appropriate based on three point of challenge.

  1. GCC has not carried out an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) in advance of its decision to close or never re-open the library. As a public body, local authorities are subject to the public sector equality duty (PSED) in section 149 of the 2010 Equality Act. The closure of the library is having – and will have – an adverse impact on people who would otherwise use it. That includes groups with “protected characteristics” in law in relation to age, sex, race and disabilities. Those groups include children and young people; the visually impaired, those with dementia or mental health problems; asylum seekers and those from BAME communities; and young mother’s groups.
  2. GCC has not discharged its Fairer Scotland Duty under section 1 of the 2010 Act. This duty concerns the need to make strategic decisions that reduce inequalities that result from poverty. The Whiteinch Library catchment area covers some of Clydeside’s most deprived areas: Whiteinch, South Scotstoun & South Yoker. Many of these communities are recognised as being in Scotland’s poorest quintile in the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. The library is an essential lifeline for those who are unemployed and looking for work.
  3. The final area of challenge is the lack of any consultation with local people. Giving some local groups three minutes to speak to a council committee last week wasn’t formative consultation by any stretch of the imagination. The courts have held that a duty of consultation will exist where there is a legitimate expectation of consultation arising from an interest sufficient to create such expectation. Rights to consultation have been found to exist where a council proposed to close a care home without consulting the residents and where schools were to be closed without consulting parents.

This legal challenge could prove a key moment for all of the local campaigns fighting to save local assets in Glasgow and across Scotland. All of us will be watching closely to see the result of this action.

In the meantime, if you are concerned about services in your own local area, you could do worse than look to Whiteinch as an example of how to organise and fight back against decisions taken over your community’s head, behind closed doors.

Please sign the petition at https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-whiteinch-library. And if you are local to the area please fill in Whiteinch Library usage survey, which is being used to collect information on library users’ needs: https://forms.gle/xNPfx6YYCeuzJHVT6

Finally, all good campaigns need a campaign song, local songwriter Iain Mutch rose to that particular challenge – enjoy!

 

 

 

Briefings

Community-led tourism

Scotland’s tourism ‘offer’ has probably never experienced so much home-based scrutiny with the whole country seeking some local respite from their locked down existence of the past year. The extent to which communities are actively engaged in tourism is reckoned to be under-researched as a distinct sector but recent work by Senscot suggests it plays a very significant role, particularly in rural areas, as a catalyst for small business development and local area regeneration. Senscot are also currently trialing new approaches to community led tourism in Brechin and Girvan.

 

Author: Sarah Cameron, Senscot

What we mean by Community Led Tourism

Community tourism puts local people at the centre of the decision-making process to produce a tourism offering which benefits the whole community, not just a few organisations. It looks to build a strategy which allows small, local organisations and businesses to capture the footfall of visitors who are attracted to larger, popular local assets. 

Encouraging local communities to take ownership of tourism in their area can help preserve historic and cultural heritage, improve management of land and assets for community use, encourage the development of new business opportunities, and improve the quality of services and sustainability of the area; socially, economically and environmentally.  Tourism can be used as a tool for regeneration – connecting local people and local businesses in the development of their area. 

SENScot, working closely with national and local partners, will be providing direct support to the communities of Brechin, in Angus, and Girvan, In South Ayrshire, to develop their tourism offer and put community at the heart of the decision making process. 

2020 has been a catastrophic year for the Scottish tourism industry and, with many businesses struggling, we have seen communities across the country come together to provide support to one another and take a lead in local decision making.   

The Project

This project will support the development of community led tourism action plans in the two towns, keeping community needs at the heart of the project and connecting with local partners from the public, private and public sectors. SENSCot will be working with our delivery partner, Creetown Initiatives, and with local partners to set out a clear vision and objectives, assessing existing community tourism provision, and identifying opportunities for further development.   

Sustainability will be considered throughout the process – we will work with the communities to develop businesses opportunities, create new projects and build on existing activity this will include identifying funding and investment. 

SENScot is delighted to be working with the two communities and to gathering evidence of the effectiveness of giving communities greater control over their tourism offering – we are ambitious for this project and the potential for rolling this out across Scotland.

Links to podcasts and videos

 

Briefings

Nurture the local 

In America, the State plays a much less overt role in terms of intervening when the market fails or in attempting to resolve some aspect of social breakdown. Philanthropic giving and the not-for-profit sectors are much more to the fore. It has been suggested that the years of austerity was the British government trying to play catch up. If Scottish Government is serious about its Community Wealth Building ambitions with its focus on investing in small scale local businesses, community cooperatives and social enterprises, it has to think about how to nurture those local economies. Ilana Preuss offers some thoughts.

 

Author: Ilana Preuss

Too many U.S. cities and towns have been focused on a model of economic development that relies on recruiting one big company (such as Amazon), a single industry (usually in technology), or pursuing other narrow or short-term fixes that are inequitable and unsustainable. Some cities and towns were changing, even before the historic retail collapse brought on by COVID-19. They started to shift to a new economic model that works with the community to invest in place in an inclusive and thoughtful way, with short-term wins that build momentum for long-term growth. A secret ingredient to this successful model is small-scale manufacturing. 

In Recast Your City: How to Save Your Downtown with Small-Scale Manufacturing, community development expert Ilana Preuss explains how local leaders can revitalize their downtowns or neighborhood main streets by bringing in and supporting small-scale manufacturing. Small-scale manufacturing businesses help create thriving places, with local business ownership opportunities and well-paying jobs that other business types can’t fulfill.

Preuss draws from her experience working with local governments, large and small and illuminates her recommendations with real-world examples. She details her five-step method for recasting your city using small-scale manufacturing: (1) light the spark (assess what you can build on and establish goals); (2) find and connect (get out of your comfort zone and find connectors outside of your usual circles); (3) interview (talk to people and build trust); (4) analyze (look for patterns and gaps as well as what has not been said); and (5) act (identify short-term actions to help build long-term change). This work is difficult and sometimes uncomfortable, but necessary and critical for success. Preuss supports and inspires change by drawing from her work in cities from Knoxville, Tennessee, to Columbia, Missouri, to Fremont, California.

In Recast Your City, Preuss shows how communities across the country can build strong local businesses through small-scale manufacturing, reinvest in their downtowns, and create inclusive economic opportunity. Preuss provides tools that local leaders in government, business, and real estate as well as entrepreneurs and advocates in every community can use.

Briefings

OurLand

For lots of reasons, most people don’t consider the debate about how Scotland’s land should be owned and managed is for them. For years, both literally and metaphorically people have been denied access to land and from being part of that crucial discussion about how their land should be used. Scottish Land Commission is committed to reversing that anomaly and its latest initiative, MyLand.scot is intended to begin that process. How we use land is an incredibly sensitive and complex issue as exemplified by the debate about siting a space station on the Melness Crofters Estate at Mhoine. 

 

Author: Dani Garavelli, The Scotsman

Situated on the western periphery of the Flow Country, the Mhoine is a vast, desolate landscape rendered in the palette of Georges Braque: fifty shades of browns and greens, and so sodden you want to lift it up and wring it out. Flanked by Ben Hutig, Ben Hope and Ben Loyal, it bears within its sphagnum mosses and dubh lochans (black pools) traces of every geological shift from the Ice Age on.

To gaze on this featureless expanse is to grasp the concept of Deep Time; to glimpse the world as it must have been on the First Day; to appreciate the infinite power of nature and the ephemerality of man.

And yet – if Pritchard and Robertson prevail – the land, which belongs to the Melness Crofters Estate, will soon be in the vanguard of the UK’s burgeoning space industry. Around once a month from late next year,

Prime rockets made by aerospace company Orbex will shoot skywards from the marshes, bearing small satellites up over the North Atlantic Ocean and into orbit.

Peering through the gloom, it is a mind-boggling thought; like a gleaming cyborg emerging from primordial soup. “I still can’t get my head round it sometimes,” says Pritchard, “that this could be the site of the country’s first commercial spaceport.”

She sees the £17.3 million venture as a tourniquet to stem the flow of people from the area. The lease of the land, by Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), would provide much-needed income for the estate, while the vertical launch site would, it is claimed, create 40 jobs and stimulate the local economy.

But there are obstacles to overcome. For all its drabness, the Mhoine is a haven for wildlife. Scattered among the mosses are white tufts of cotton grass and the yellow stars of bog asphodel. Greenshanks, golden plover and red-throated divers breed on some of its lochs.

Peatlands also soak up carbon dioxide and play a crucial role in combating climate change. The Mhoine is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) while the wider Flow Country – 200,000 hectares of blanket bog across much of Sutherland and Caithness – is bidding to become a Unesco World Heritage Site. And so, though planning permission for the spaceport has been granted, there are those who still hope to thwart it.

In the last few weeks, they have fought the proposal at the Scottish Land Court and a Judicial Review. Both judgments are pending.

The objectors include three of the 59 crofters and protest group Protect the Mhoine, headed by retired physics teacher John Williams, who moved to Melness from Kent six years ago. But the most powerful objector is Danish billionaire Anders Povlsen the largest shareholder in the fashion retailer Asos and the owner of the Jenners department store building in Edinburgh. He is Scotland’s richest man and owns an estimated 230,000 acres here, more even than the Duke of Buccleuch.

The Melness crofters have had control over their estate since it was gifted to them by absentee landlord Michael Foljambe in 1995. But Povlsen has bought up most of the land around them – the neighbouring Ben Hope, Ben Loyal and Strathmore estates are all his.

To some, he is a positive force, restoring landscapes, promoting biodiversity and refurbishing dilapidated buildings, such as Lundies House in Tongue, which he has turned into a boutique hotel. To others, he is a traditional laird trying to impose his will on the indigenous population under the cover of environmentalism.

Povlsen has already unsuccessfully opposed several wind farms in Sutherland. Now he has thrown his weight behind opposition to the Melness spaceport while investing £1.4m in a rival project in Shetland. Not only is he behind the Judicial Review, but, it emerged last week, he paid the legal fees for the three dissenting crofters at the Land Court.

The Battle of the Mhoine, then, is not only a fight for the survival of one community, it is a microcosm of Scotland’s wider land debate. It pitches locals against incomers; the environment against the economy; preservation against progress. It raises questions about the commodification of “wilderness” and the balancing of economic, social and environmental sustainability.

“There is a history of rival visions for the Highlands – the tension here is to what extent do these visions coalesce and diverge?” says Calum MacLeod, policy director for Community Land Scotland. “What factors are shaping what is done in Sutherland? Whose vision takes precedence and why?”

If you look down on Melness from the other side of the Kyle of Tongue, you see the crofts, a necklace strung out along the north-east coast of the Mhoine. At Mid Town, where Robertson and Williams are next door neighbours, the houses sit on one side of the road, the patches of land on the other

Where the moorland has a bleak beauty, the beaches are bright, the water crystalline. At Talmine, the wreck of an old skiff lies like the skeleton of a beached whale, its ribs poking up out of the pebbles. At Skinnet, when the tide is out, the sand stretches across the Kyle, smooth as butter.

All the women – and it is mostly women – who are driving plans for the Spaceport have roots in Melness and Tongue going back generations. Their crofts were passed down by parents, grandparents, great-grandparents. Their ancestors lie in tiny Melness cemetery, where the gravestones stand like chess pieces in the shadow of Ben Loyal.

The rain is bouncing off the ground, so we are chatting in the Ben Loyal Hotel, which is co-owned by Robertson’s daughter, Sarah. Last year, she and her business partner installed glamping pods in the grounds to attract tourists driving the North Coast 500. But both Covid and Brexit have affected trade.

Pritchard, the chairwoman of Melness Crofters Estate, and Robertson, its secretary, went to Melness Primary together, then Golspie Secondary, and then to university. They got jobs, married, lived elsewhere before returning home to Sutherland. Over the years, they have seen their community decline.

Pritchard has now retired. But as a teacher at Tongue Primary, where the children of Melness now go, she mourned every departure, celebrated every birth. “I remember when the MacPhails left with their four boys – that was a huge loss,” she says. “But another day a wee boy came in and said, ‘Mum’s pregnant again – she’s having twins’. I said, ‘Are you sure?’ He said, ‘Aye, I saw the scan’, so I ran straight to the office and shouted out the good news.”

When Frances Gunn, of UpNorth! Community Development Trust started school in 1964, there were 60 children in Tongue Primary and 30 in Melness. By the time her daughter went in the 1980s , there were 30 in Tongue and Melness Primary had shut. Today there are just 18 pupils in Tongue Primary. “We are losing breeding pairs,” she says. “It’s a downward spiral.”

Melness’ history is one of displacement. Its population grew in the early 19th century as the Duke of Sutherland cleared his tenants to make way for sheep. Those who didn’t emigrate to the New World were pushed to Scotland’s coastal fringes.

Today, life remains precarious. It is impossible to make a living out of crofting alone. And while the tourist industry is a boon, most work is low-paid and seasonal. “People want the kinds of jobs that allow them a certain lifestyle – a car and foreign holidays,” says Gunn. But those are increasingly hard to come by.

The oil and gas industry, which sustained the Highlands for several decades, is in decline and Dounreay is being decommissioned. “Three buses a day used to ferry workers to and from the nuclear power station,” Gunn says. “Now there can’t be more than 30 people along the whole of the north coast employed there.”

Highlanders are still crossing the Atlantic. Another of Robertson’s daughters, Suzanne Mackay, a science graduate, made the journey two years ago with her husband Richard and their three children. They had lived in Tongue and worked in Dounreay, but Richard’s career had progressed as far as it could. He was offered a job at a nuclear plant in Canada. “My daughter was devastated. We all were. She didn’t know if it was the thing to do or not,” Robertson says.

Ever since they were gifted their estate, the Melness crofters have been looking for ways to reverse the trend: to keep young people from leaving, and attract new families in. In the 2000s, a plan for a community wind farm fell through.

When HIE first mooted the spaceport, they were wary – Cape Canaveral, but 23 miles from Cape Wrath. But then there were those who dismissed the oil industry in the 1970s.

Pritchard says they agreed it could be the boost they needed “but not at any cost”. They worked with HIE to make sure it would have as little impact on the environment as possible. One of the things they insisted on was that only the core facilities would be permanently fenced off so the sheep could continue to roam on the Common Grazings. On launch days, they will be cleared from a wider exclusion zone, with the crofters compensated for the inconvenience.

The spaceport will take up just 13 of the estate’s 10,700 acres and be carbon neutral. “Cape Canaveral it is not,” Pritchard says.

The following day, she and Robertson take me on a tour. On the Mhoine, they point out where the control centre, launch pad, antennae park and new entry road will be located. Later, we pore over projections which demonstrate how little will be visible from various viewpoints. At Talmine, Pritchard tells me how money gained from the scheme will be used to upgrade the pier, adding a second, more gentle slipway.

Like the townie I am, I ask to see the slabs of machine-cut peat which have been lifted to dry. They are propped against each other like the first storeys in multiple houses of cards. Crofters have a right to cut peat for fuel, but only from historic peat banks. Any peat removed to create the spaceport will be used to restore and re-wet the 76.5 hectares damaged by decades of such extraction.

“There is no-one more invested in the Mhoine than us,” Pritchard says. “Why would we do anything that might risk destroying it?”

Chris Larmour, Orbex’s congenial CEO, remembers the first time he met the space crofters. It is easy to imagine him ambling into the Ben Loyal Hotel like Mac, the oil executive from the film Local Hero, and immediately falling for the landscape and the people.

Both he and they tell me the story of how he gazed at the scenery and blurted out: “Why would you want to build a spaceport here?” “I said, ‘Just look out of the window’,” Larmour recalls. “They replied, ‘We know it’s beautiful and we get a lot of tourists because it’s beautiful, but tourism is not enough’.”

There are Local Hero overtones, too, to the company’s commitment to building eco-friendly rockets – although, of course, flaunting their green credentials is the best way to win over sceptics. “Do you know that space rockets create the same amount of black carbon as the entire global aviation industry, even though there are only 120 launches a year?” Larmour asks. “Our rockets create zero black carbon. We are building something future-proof whereas others are going to have to adapt.”

Orbex’s Prime vehicles are 19m tall, with a 1.45m diameter. Made of carbon fibre, they can carry payloads of up to 150kg and reach a speed of 8,000 metres a second.

Larmour says they are designed so no debris will be left on land, sea or space. “The first section accelerates the rocket through the atmosphere, then falls back into the water from which it is recovered and reused,” he says. “The second deploys the satellites in space and burns up on re-entry.” The rocket engines are created by 3D printers and they burn biopropane fuel and liquid oxygen, a combination Orbex claims will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90 per cent compared with rockets burning kerosene.

Larmour also points out that many of the satellites the rockets carry into orbit will be used to monitor evidence of climate change: “They will look at ice patterns in the Arctic, forest fires in South America, algae blooms in the oceans and other evidence of climate change.”

Critics have challenged the claim the spaceport will create 40 new jobs. But Orbex is already bringing jobs to the wider Highlands. It now employs more than 40 people at its factory in Forres, and Lamour says the company has submitted a planning application for a new building that will employ 300-400 more. “We have hired 35 people since December. A significant proportion of those have been local, and an intern we took on from university 10 months ago has now been offered a full-time job. The next stage will be to offer apprenticeships for more production-oriented roles.”

The spaceport itself will be owned and operated by HIE, but Orbex has just taken on its first employee in Melness: crofter and estate director, Kirsteen Mackay as spaceport preparation manager. Mackay formerly worked at Lundies House.

“It’s fair to say we won’t be providing a lot of jobs directly because the work is highly specialised, but I can see four or five, maybe 10 if some of our engineers want to relocate there,” Larmour says

“But you don’t just turn up with your rocket and launch it the same day. Your rocket arrives, the technicians arrive to work on the rocket, then the customer arrives and then they integrate their payload. The spaceport will need people to run the administration and the finances, people taking care of security and logistics, site management and marketing. It’s going to be a day-to-day business.”

Larmour is a good salesman. But not good enough to convince Williams, whose opposition to the spaceport is fierce and implacable. His group, Protect the Mhoine, has 14 local members and a lot of support further afield. “I think our furthest away supporter lives in Paraguay,” he says.

From his garden wall, he rails against the project on environmental, safety, aesthetic grounds. “The failure rate for human-carrying rockets is 6 per cent,” he says. “Sure these ones are small, if you consider something slightly bigger than a V2 small, but that amount of propellant combined with that amount of liquid oxygen could still do a lot of damage.”

Williams is worried a rocket might go off-course and land on Orkney or the Faroe Islands; or that it might spark a peat fire like the one which burned 22,000 acres of hill and woodland around Strathy in 2019.

He talks about the potential impact on birdlife: snipe, greenshank, and red-throated divers, along with the sea eagles, which do not nest on the Mhoine, but fly over it. “They don’t take kindly to human interaction. If you start messing with the peatland, they won’t hang around for long,” he says.

As for jobs, he says random and inflated figures are being bandied around. “Would you like to pick a number?” he asks. He believes if Orbex are looking for specialists, they will recruit from elsewhere. “They won’t be recruiting crofters’ sons,” he says.

Williams’ fears are genuine, but there is a wider culture clash playing out here, too: the tension that exists between those who live and work in the Highlands, and those who retire there.

He sees the space crofters as a clique who want to line their own pockets while wrecking the view he moved north to consume. They see him as a man with little stake in the community; a man who wants to deprive them of the comfortable living he made throughout his working life.

“We are not against retired people coming here, not at all, but what often happens is after a few years of retirement they get ill,” Pritchard says. “The nearest hospital is 100 miles away, so they sell up to be closer and then someone else comes. It’s a revolving door.”

Williams’ assessment of the crofters is more brutal. “A lot of the people who were cleared went abroad and their descendents are in Canada, Australia and New Zealand and doing very well,” he says. “You could argue that those who remained were the ones who didn’t have the energy to get up and go. They stayed behind and grumbled. And they have been grumbling ever since.”

Williams has powerful allies. Those who opposed the initial planning application included celebrities like TV presenter Chris Packham, 13-year-old Finlay Pringle – Scotland’s answer to Greta Thunberg – and the RSPB, although the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency withdrew its objection.

And, of course, there’s Povlsen. His reputation as an environmentalist was established at Glenfeshie, where he culled large numbers of deer, allowing native woodland and species to regenerate and flourish.

He and his wife Anne have a particular vision for the Highlands. Some call it “rewilding”. He prefers “the realisation of ecological potential on a landscape scale”.

Povlsen rarely gives interviews but last week Tim Kirkwood, chief executive officer of Povlsen’s conservation company Wildland Ltd, defended his policies: “We all have an equal responsibility to do more to cherish the natural environment and stand up for its protection – and that responsibility is only growing as we come to a fuller understanding of how ecosystems like the Flow Country are key to meeting the global challenge of fighting climate change and biodiversity loss.

“What we have tried to do is ensure that this vulnerable, beautiful part of Scotland benefits from the full protection of laws and regulations already in place to protect, not exploit, the natural environment.”

Others, however, accuse Povlsen of using Scotland to offset the carbon footprint he has created elsewhere. And they point to apparent contradictions in his ideology. Why, if he is concerned about pollution, has he invested in the Shetland spaceport? Why is Wildland Ventures Ltd, the sister company of Wildland Ltd, the majority shareholder of the congestion-generating North Coast 500 Ltd?

Magnus Davidson, who researches interactions between the environment, the economy, and society at the University of the Highlands and Islands, is exasperated by the marketing of the less-populated parts of the country as “wild places”.

The concept of “wilderness” has been contested ever since the native Americans, who had managed the land in the west for centuries, were cleared out of Yosemite Valley to create the National Park.

In 2014, Scottish Natural Heritage drew up a map of “wild land” in Scotland. But Davidson points out some of that land is clearance country. “My daughter’s great-great-great-great-great-grandfather on her mother’s side was cleared from the slopes of Ben Loyal at Loch Coulside – land that now belongs to Povlsen,” he says. “It is defined as wild land to be protected from development, but I look and I see rubble on the ground. People used to live there.”

Kirkwood said Wildland Venture Ltd invested in the rival spaceport because it understands the potential benefits to the economy but believes the Shetland site, a former RAF base at Unst, is a more appropriate location.

And he denied Povlsen commodifies “wilderness” for the consumption of rich tourists at the expense of local residents.

“Our approach is to look for balance; to encourage practices that support environmental recovery in and around protected areas and create more biodiversity on a large scale, while allowing new sources of spending and wealth to flow into remote rural communities,” he said. “We are creating opportunities for all – visitors, locals, rich or otherwise.”

But Davidson sees Povlsen as one more laird accruing land as power. “He owns those estates because of the status they bring,” he says.

“He uses his concentrated land wealth to try to dictate developments outwith his estates, whether that’s ploughing a million and a half quid into an opposition spaceport, opposing neighbouring renewable energy developments or taking judicial reviews. He is just a traditional landlord with a veneer of environmentalism.”

Back in Talmine, Lara Gunn, daughter of Frances, is strolling along the strandline with Nell, 22 months, and four-week-old Kit in a sling. She had been working in digital marketing with Lloyds Bank in Bristol and London, but moved home two years ago just before the birth of her daughter.

“I wanted to raise my children here. It is so beautiful and has always felt like home, but my career is too important to me to give it up,” she says. “I am lucky because I can work remotely, but there are many other jobs where that would not be possible.”

Some 3,500 miles away, Suzanne and Richard Mackay are settling into their new life in Petawawa, southern Ontario. “We miss home especially since the pandemic has prevented us from visiting,” Suzanne says on a Zoom call. “But, because there weren’t many young families, we had to make a two-hour round trip to take the children to clubs. Here we have gymnastics and football five minutes from our front door.”

Both of them support efforts to bring the spaceport to Melness. “The potential benefits for the area of having another major employer in science and tech are huge,” Richard says. “We would definitely like to come home some day given the right opportunity.”

The space crofters hope the verdicts of the Land Court and the Judicial Review will clear the way for an inaugural rocket launch next year. It is an event that will require careful planning. Space travel tends to capture the public imagination. It is likely to draw a large crowd.

The final frontier. So long as it is done sustainably, Pritchard too regards rockets soaring into orbit from the Mhoine as a source of wonder and a potential salvation.

“Some people want to preserve the world in aspic,” she says, “but a place that is bereft of its people has lost its soul. We can’t stand still and let our community die. We have to look to the future.”

 

Briefings

Reprehensible behaviour

More than a quarter of the population - mostly residing in west/central belt - live within 500m of a derelict piece of land. That’s land not being put to any productive use, uncared for, often unsightly and causing a blight on the neighbourhood. The owners of these sites show little or no regard for the impact they have on local people and appear to pay little heed to the protocols supporting Scottish Government’s Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement. The recent reprehensible behaviour of a developer towards the community growers of Govanhill is more evidence that tighter controls are required.  

 

Author: Cordelia O'Neill, Glasgow Now

The South Seed project moved on to a neglected site in St Agnew Lane in Govanhill in 2011, and turned the concrete jungle into an urban garden for the community.

Over time, they planted fruit trees, flowers and vegetables on the land, which had been a magnet for antisocial behaviour in the area.

Because they knew the site was temporary, and could be developed at any moment, South Seed deliberately used techniques and tools that meant the plants could be moved to another site.

They said they made repeated efforts to contact the landowners and let them know what they were doing.

But they were saddened when the site was cleared by the owners at the weekend and say they would have appreciated the chance to move the plants to safety.

Some trees and undamaged raised beds have been rescued, but much of the community’s work was destroyed.

Planning permission had been granted to turn the St Agnew Lane site into housing, but permission was due to expire and a fresh application by Hunter Homes LLP was submitted to Glasgow City Council. They want to build eight mews houses on the land.

Resident Esther O’Connor said: “The Agnew Lane community garden was a beacon of hope in Govanhill. It was a lifegiving project that brought neighbours together.

“It encouraged local kids to grow and eat vegetables. My husband and I have lived on Albert Road for 10 years and through the community garden we have built relationships with people we otherwise would have been unlikely to have engaged with.”

A South Seeds spokesman said: “This is a blow to everyone who has been involved with the project.

“From the very beginning, we were aware that the site was owned by a developer and that planning permission was in place.

“However the land had lain vacant for many years and was a target for fly-tipping, drug abuse and other antisocial behaviour.

“We had always hoped that, given our repeated efforts to engage with the landowner, when such time came they would be prepared to engage with us, and allow us to plan an orderly move from the site. But, due to the nature of our work there, this could never be guaranteed, and we must reluctantly accept that the landowners were within their rights to reclaim the space.

“We were still shocked and disappointed that no such attempts were made to engage with us and that the site was destroyed without notice and without consultation.

“We are particularly upset as we had also been in talks with another local landowner with regard to signing an agreement to use another space very near to the Agnew Lane site, which could have provided a great home for the raised beds, plants and trees that our volunteers have worked so hard to cultivate

“We managed to speak to the contractors while they were in the process of dismantling the site.

“They were sympathetic to our situation and have assisted us in salvaging what remained of the raised beds and timber, and even some fruit trees.

We have put these to one side so that, hopefully, all will not be lost.

“We will be attempting to reinstall what we can in the near future at an alternative site.”

 

Briefings

Implementation inertia

The policy landscape is littered with well intended reports, strategies and position papers. But the process that determines how a policy idea is converted into practice is somewhat a mystery. Ideas which carry no obvious political support can suddenly appear in the real world and proposals that have attracted universal, all party support can seem incapable of getting out of the starting blocks. The most stark and longstanding example of the latter has to be the recommendations for public service reform published by the Christie Commission in 2011.  An excellent explanation for this ‘implementation inertia’ in Holyrood magazine.

 

Author: Jenni Davidson, Holyrood Magazine

It’s rare for a commission, particularly one on something as arcane as public sector reform, to continue to be referred to and quoted from long after it’s over, but 10 years after it concluded, the Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services, better known as the Christie Commission, holds a special place in the heart of Scotland’s public sector and continues to be held up as the gold standard of how to do public services.

Part of that is about Dr Campbell Christie himself, the former STUC chief who died in 2011, just a few months after the commission report was published, and who before the commission had been one of the architects of bringing different groups together to campaign for a Scottish parliament.

He was, says former president of COSLA and commission member Pat Watters, “a charming person” and “a lovely man” who never had a bad word to say about anyone.

He was also an “excellent chair”, says Professor James Mitchell, chair of public policy at the University of Edinburgh, another member of the commission.

Mitchell remembers that at the first meeting of the commission they went round the room saying what they wanted to achieve, and when someone asked Christie himself the same question, he said he just wanted to make sure that they got a report at the end of it.

“And so I think that was his priority, was to make sure that something emerged that was worth having at the end of the day, and I think that was what he focused upon.”

“I think, and still think, the Christie Commission set the tone for how we think about the future of public services in a way that remains just as relevant really today,” says Jim McCormick, chief executive of the Robertson Trust, who was at the time of the report with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and has since chaired the Edinburgh Poverty Commission.

“The insights remain just as relevant, I think.”

The commission set out four key principles or pillars for improving the delivery of public services: participation – empowering individuals and communities by involving them in the design of services; partnership working to create more integrated services that improved outcomes; prioritising expenditure on prevention; and reducing duplication of services to become more efficient.

The outcomes of the commission are often attributed to Christie himself, but while they undoubtedly do chime with things he cared about, Mitchell suggests this can be “exaggerated” because actually what the commission came up with had been talked about since the 1950s and even earlier.

“The thing I would say about the commission’s report is there was nothing new in it. And there was nothing earth shatteringly important; there was no eureka moment.

“And in a sense, what the report did isn’t so much a reflection of the commission members or the chair, it’s what we were hearing from below.

“We were a filter through which good practice was gathered, articulated and condensed into a report… What the commission did was give voice to already existing thinking and views in the communities.

“And, of course, it did raise questions on why is this not happening everywhere. That’s the fundamental question.

“And what, in a sense, remains the fundamental question. If we’re all agreed this is the thing we should be doing, why is it not happening?

“I mean, probably a question I’ve asked more than any other with respect to Christie over the last 10 years. Why is it still not happening? Why is it still not happening? If we’re all agreed, why is it not happening? And I think that’s the nut we’ve yet to crack.”

Everyone likes to claim they are ‘doing Christie’, but how much has really changed?

“Not enough, is the short answer to it. Not enough,” says Watters.

There is, says Mitchell, “a lot of rhetoric” in Scotland, while “the kind of people who do that kind of stuff” are just quietly getting on with it.

“I think the fundamental point is how we close the gap between policy and practice in Scotland,” says McCormick.

“We are proud, I think, mostly legitimately, of many of our policy commitments, but I think, from government ministers to members of the public who were voting a month ago, there was a lot of frustration about the slow rate of progress in many areas.

“So I think understanding what it takes to make improvement and shift delivery is the biggest single challenge actually.”

Mitchell says he hadn’t expected the commission to drive dramatic change immediately because policy-making is “incremental, it’s slow, it’s gradual” and you would rarely get a report that really transforms something overnight.

He didn’t see it as the start of something so much as “one of the points in a very long journey that goes back decades.”

“And actually, what it contributed more than anything was it gave validation to many people who were already doing this or wanted to do this kind of thing.

“It gave them validation. It gave them something they could point to. And really, to be able to do that alone was enough.”

Mitchell says people are often surprised that, as a member of the commission, he openly admits there are problems with the recommendations, but he says critical engagement is needed and people need to acknowledge that it is difficult and the different recommendations aren’t always compatible.

He points out that community empowerment or collaborative working might reduce efficiency, for example.

Likewise, prevention doesn’t necessarily gel with empowerment, as it will most likely involve taking money away from some existing services and that is likely to be unpopular with the public.

Watters echoes this with the example of school closures or reducing the prison population: “It will take very brave politicians to say we’re not going to do that anymore. Here’s what we’re going to do. Because people are used to getting service in a particular way.

“I mean, it’s like anything, you go to close a school and all of sudden that school becomes the greatest school that’s ever been.

“It doesn’t matter what the results are, what the outcome is actually telling you, it becomes the greatest school there’s ever been, and it’s about trying to take communities with you when you’re trying to change things, but it’ll take brave people to actually say we’re not going to do that anymore.”

Watters says we’ve “got a long way” to go in prevention and “we have put our toe in the water, and sometimes we take it out because we think it’s too cold or too hot.”

There have been examples of progress though. Mitchell and Watters both cite the police and the fire services as examples of that.

Part of it is the integration of both services, fulfilling the aim of reducing duplication, but also the role of prevention in both bodies.

“I think there’s been real progress and possibly, in a way, the most remarkable progress, and in some ways most surprising, it has been in policing,” says Mitchell.

But Watters does suggest that those have been among the easier targets. “I think we have taken some of the easy decisions.

“Now, I’m not saying that the likes of putting police, fire and the likes of the care system into national organisations was easy. It’s not. But they were low lying fruit on that tree.”

There is still too much duplication in the public sector, he says, and we need to remove that to free up resources to do the early intervention.

McCormick also mentions progress on participation. “If you look at participation – that’s one of the four Ps – I think there’s a more hopeful story to tell.

“You’ve got The Promise as, I think, a world-class process of involving from the grassroots up children and young people, families, and all kinds of players in the care system.

“You think about what we’ve done with the social security system and experience panels and tried to build in disabled people’s experiences from scratch in a way that certainly the DWP has never managed to do.

“And there are other examples around homelessness of people with experience becoming not just people who tell their stories, which may be where we were 10 years ago, but becoming advocates for change, and being really clear sighted on the changes that are required and that are feasible.

“So I would not exaggerate where we are, but when I think about those examples, the poverty truth movement that we see in Glasgow and Dundee and Edinburgh, even in Shetland, I think we are in a very different place from 10 years ago in terms of expectations of involvement and co-design.”

And the COVID pandemic brought about rapid change in a number of areas, which shows it can be done.

“I think it comes down to priorities,” says McCormick. “Take something like rough sleeping, or the drugs crisis, which we’ve only very recently revisited as a national emergency, I think possibly, as a society, even as a group of policymakers, we can become so familiar with what the problem is, and so used to seeing incremental improvements, that we maybe lost sight of bigger and faster changes that clearly are possible.

“So I think there is something about it that took a crisis to shift those things.”

“The pandemic’s been fascinating in that respect,” says Mitchell. “I think it’s highlighted rather than created more problems. It’s exposed weaknesses in our system, and it also highlighted strengths in our system. And we shouldn’t lose sight of those strengths and the lessons.

“And I think one of the big lessons for me has been that extraordinary work in community, local authority linkages and relationships.”

A lot of the best work and expertise around Christie principles is in local government, Michell says – “They didn’t need Christie to tell them to do it in many cases, they just got on with it and did it and they listened to the communities” – while the centralisation of power is one of the main barriers to really implementing the commission recommendations, particularly around empowerment.

“We’re still getting too much prescription from government, from central government, the Scottish Government,” says Mitchell.

“Far too much. You will do this. You will have this number of teachers in a classroom per pupil. It’s stupid. That’s not how you make good policy on education.

“I can take you to schools in Scotland where the resource that’s used for an extra teacher isn’t making a huge difference, but what would make a difference is to use that same resource for breakfast clubs.”

He adds: “Empowering, by definition, cannot be prescriptive. If you empower someone, you’re saying, here, I’m letting you decide.

“So if I empower you, or you empower me, you’re saying to me, you can do X, go and do it and I’ll give you the resources. Crucially, I’ll give you the resources.

“Because you could say to me, I’m empowering you to go out and do X, Y or Z, but if I’ve got no resources to do it, you’re not empowering me, you’re disempowering me.

“And that’s what I’m finding very worrying at the moment is that the government is disempowering local government, is taking away resources and therefore making empowering communities simply more difficult than it should be.”

Mitchell says we have a “very top-down, paternalistic culture” and “very power-hoarding government, both in the UK and in Scotland”.

Devolution hasn’t really altered that he says, and “I’m not convinced that the last decade we’ve seen a great alteration in that either.”

There is also “a very risk averse kind of culture in public institutions” that makes it difficult to try new things or challenge the status quo for fear of something going wrong.

Mitchell says: “Sometimes we have to accept that things will go wrong. And I think we’re not very good at that… If you start to truly decentralise and give people power, things will go wrong, as they do at the moment, but they’ll go wrong in smaller ways than they do at the moment.

“I mean, at the moment, take education, things are going wrong, and they go wrong for the whole of Scotland, whereas if you were decentralising it, then it would be going wrong in, maybe, East Lothian, where I live, or even within a school or whatever.

“But we need to get that bit right. And we’ve not got that right. And I think that stems from a very deep-rooted political culture of paternalism, top down, people doing things for you, doing things to you, rather than allowing you to do your own thing.

“So that, in a sense, is part of the kind of change that we’re looking for. Some would call it a cultural change; I prefer the term behavioural change. It’s a change in behaviour.”

Mitchell adds: “I think what we need to do there is to provide the resources and the power to empower local communities, local government, and they’re not to be divorced.

“Too much of the Scottish Government rhetoric divorces the two, and that’s stupid, it’s wrong, it’s a mistake, and it will not work.

“What the pandemic has shown us, abundantly, is that when local authorities and local communities work hand in hand together, they can do amazing things.

“We’ve seen this throughout this pandemic across Scotland. You disempower one, you disempower the other.

“And one of the things the Scottish Government needs to do is let go, let go of resources and let go of control”

 

Briefings

True power comes from ownership

June 22, 2021

Working in Wester Hailes (see above) was a formative time for me. Another person who worked there at the same time was Laurence Demarco - subsequently the founder of Senscot and for many years a key influence in the development of Scotland’s community and social enterprise sector. Back in 2007, he spoke at the annual conference of Glasgow’s Volunteer Centre. His reflections on the power dynamics between the state and the citizen, the nature of local democracy and the value of asset ownership by communities resonate as much today as they did 14 years ago. Has anything really changed?  

 

Author: Laurence Demarco

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 majorhurdles 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

Learning Exchange reopens for business

As the country slowly opens up again, many communities may be thinking that they can start to pick up the threads of ideas for new ventures that have been on hold since lockdown. One of the most effective ways to inspire new ideas is to visit somewhere where something of interest is happening. The Community Learning Exchange has long been a source of creativity and the mutual exchange of knowledge and has been enjoyed by hundreds of community groups. Today it is being relaunched to support Scotland’s Covid recovery. Both virtual and face to face learning exchanges are being supported.

 

Author: SCA

Community Learning Exchange

SCA seeks to build levels of  mutual support across the sector – both by encouraging communities to support one another and by supporting our national networks and intermediaries to collaborate and to share resources to best effect. The Community Learning Exchange which is funded by the Scottish Government is one of the ways in which we seek to do this.

The Community Learning Exchange is a fantastic opportunity for communities who are planning new ventures or thinking about future possibilities, to learn from the experience of other communities. There is nothing so powerful as learning from your peers and the Learning Exchange offers an opportunity to do just that.

While the Community Learning Exchange is administered by Scottish Community Alliance, it is primarily intended as a resource to be shared by SCA’s member networks and offered to their members and partners. For this reason, all applications to the Exchange must come through one of SCA’s member networks

Prior to the pandemic, the Learning Exchange operated solely on a face-to-face basis with groups travelling the length and breadth of the country to make visits to communities where there was something of interest to see and learn about.

As the world moved online, so did the Learning Exchange. Virtual learning exchanges proved surprisingly effective and in many respects were considered to be more accessible, certainly cheaper to organise, and with a much reduced carbon footprint..  For these reasons we are now offering a blended form of the Community Learning Exchange which can include either virtual or face to face visits.

Virtual

The Community Learning Exchange will cover up to 100% of the costs of the preparation and delivery time incurred by the host organisation. Virtual visits may be initiated by a community group approaching another, requesting that they ‘host’ a virtual visit. Alternatively, a community group with knowledge and experience to share, might choose to promote a virtual visit more widely. We are keen explore new and innovative ways that communities use to tell their stories in order to inspire others. To this end, the Exchange will fund proposals for planning and delivery for up to 13 hours at £35 per hour.

Face to face

The Exchange will fund up to 100% of the costs of a visit by members of one community to another community project up to a limit of £750 to include travel, accommodation and subsistence.