Author: Reform Scotland

To see full report – click here

All too often the constitutional debate in Scotland fixates on the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood. However this overlooks the importanceof local government.

It is 27 years since local government reorganisation, 23 years since the Scotland Act, and 14 years since the first proportional council elections, yet there has been no review of the capabilities or structures of local government in Scotland.

Instead, power has been hoarded in Edinburgh rather than London. While greater powers have been devolved to Holyrood, there has been no devolution onwards to local government – arguably the reverse has happened through policies such as council tax caps.

In its centralising behaviour, the current Scottish Government is only continuing a trend that has existed for many years. As Andy Wightman MSP noted in the Policy Memorandum to his European Charter of Local Self- Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill: “over the past century the status, powers and freedoms of local government have been slowly eroded and marginalised. Governments of all persuasions have tended to concentrate more executive and fiscal power to the centre.”

It is past time for a major rethink, and for the genuine empowerment of Scotland’s councils. This should be a priority for the next government and Reform Scotland hopes this report can stimulate a much-needed debate. Reform Scotland first called for the devolution of greater tax powers to local government, as well as the introduction of mayors, in our 2008 report Local Power.

Today, we believe that local authorities must be given the tools and structures they need to help both the communities they serve and wider Scotland along the current, difficult road to economic recovery. Even before the damage wreaked by the Covid pandemic, our villages, towns and cities faced hugely varied challenges. It is, therefore, unsurprising that the economic impact of the virus is being felt differently around the country.

Different local and regional challenges require different local and regional solutions.

An executive directly-elected mayor working with a proportionally representative council offers an opportunity for less secrecy, more accountability and genuine scrutiny. However, mayors are not just about city management, but city representation.

We believe that a single, elected figurehead can make a real difference, providing greater accountability as well as enhanced popular focus on and understanding of local government. The lessons of the past year show that City and Metro Mayors in England were able to take effective action in securing help from the UK Government to deal with the challenging circumstances they were facing.

Greater powers alongside a strengthened identity can help create the muscular, empowered and accountable local authorities Scotland needs. It is clear that the Scottish Government sees merit in devolving greater fiscal power from Westminster to Edinburgh, and Reform Scotland agrees that this needs to happen. However, those arguments also apply to devolution from Holyrood to councils.

We shouldn’t accept a Holyrood-centric view of Scotland. To paraphrase Andy Burnham1, too many decisions are made without a proper understanding of the role our cities and regions play in producing th prosperity and innovation which will power Scotland’s future.

We therefore urge the Scottish Government to take the necessary steps to strengthen the vital role of local democracy in Scotland.

Author: Calum Ross, Press and Journal

Former Holyrood minister Peter Peacock has demanded urgent action to prevent “green lairds” from ushering in another century of land “exploitation” in Scotland.

Former Holyrood minister Peter Peacock has demanded urgent action to prevent “green lairds” from ushering in another century of land “exploitation” in Scotland.

Mr Peacock, a land reform campaigner who served as education minister in the Cabinet of Jack McConnell’s Labour government, said he is “increasingly concerned” about the threat.

The former Highland Council convener called on the next Scottish Government to use its existing agencies to “aggressively” purchase land and protect it for communities.

He proposed the radical move after expressing stark fears about a rapidly emerging trend of businesses seeking to buy estates in the Highlands and Islands, and other rural areas, for carbon offsetting purposes.

Research conducted by Savills, the long-established selling agents often involved in the purchase of large sporting estates, recently said 2020 had been “an extraordinary year for the Scottish estate market”, with a 98% increase in buyers registering to purchase rural property in Scotland.

Craft beer giant BrewDog, meanwhile, is planning to develop a “green” hotel, distillery and campsite, along with hiking and biking trails, on a “huge chunk of land” it has bought in the Highlands.

It also announced plans for the “UK’s biggest” woodland establishment and peatland restoration project at the site, understood to be the 9,300-acre Kinrara Estate, near Aviemore.

Mr Peacock and others fear the new promotion and interest in purchasing estates could be motivated by a desire to “hedge future carbon tax liabilities, and access public spending on climate actions, to offset their carbon emissions”, while enhancing their brands by displaying their green credentials.

I have become increasingly concerned that we are seeing the next great Highlands and Islands land exploitation under way, with the danger that new patterns of external ownership of Highlands and Islands land will be established that may last for the next century and more.”

Peter Peacock

“This is likely to see, once again, the Highlands being sold from under the feet of local people to external forces who can out-compete other interests for land, forcing up land prices, and undermine communities in their ability to take a lead in tacking the climate emergency while also promoting wider social and economic benefit under local democratic control.

“Land purchased by corporates for their own purposes could lock in new patterns of external land ownership for the next century and more and hamper a shared desire across the political parties to advance local community ownership and control of land.”

Mr Peacock urged the next government to take immediate action.

My strong sense is that an urgent and significant state intervention is needed in land markets.”

“My strong sense is that an urgent and significant state intervention is needed in land markets, akin to that which created the Forestry Commission, to take land into public ownership to stop this exploitation, with the explicit intention of transferring that land to local communities to own and manage over time,” he said.

“This would release community initiative to tackle the climate emergency and provide more of the inspiring examples of community action on land for environmental, social and economic purposes already seen among community owners of land.”

He believed such a move would ensure a bigger community and public role and not leave the climate emergency to the private markets.

Author: Stop Climate Chaos Scotland

Charities and community groups get together to action the climate movement in Scotland

Climate Fringe Week (18-26 September) aims to bring communities together, generate conversation about the climate and nature emergencies, and raise awareness of the need to move towards a greener, fairer, low carbon society and world.

A variety of charities and groups across Scotland will take part in Climate Fringe Week in different ways. For example:

The Arkbound Foundation, a charity publisher, will have a book launch for their upcoming publication entitled ‘Climate Adaptation: Accounts of Resilience, Self-Sufficiency and Systems Change’. Emily Andrews, its Project Manager, said: “The book will cover case studies from 18 different authors from around the world, detailing ways to build adaptation and resilience, as well as looking at alternative socio-economic models based on zero waste, cooperation and sharing.”

Take One Action will present a special evening of short films and performances as part of its 2021 Film Festival. Presented in association with ÚNA Fest, the programme will centre on climate justice, creativity and solidarity, to “celebrate our ability to re-imagine a new faith in nature,” according to Tamara Van Strijthem, Take One Action’s Executive Director.

Time for Change Argyll & Bute are planning an event to bring together people from different industries and areas of expertise and get them talking about working together on climate solutions in Argyll and Bute. The event organiser, Freya Aitchison said: “By starting conversations about the climate crisis and showing that people care, we want to play our part in encouraging our elected representatives to take more action.”

WWF Scotland will hold a virtual exhibition, the Great Scottish Canvas. It brings together voices from across Scotland with poems, stories and artwork in Scots, Gaelic and English, including from Scottish creative icons such as Alexander McCall Smith and former Makar – National Poet for Scotland – Jackie Kay. Brita Ferguson, Campaigns Manager at WWF Scotland, said: “In this vital year for climate and nature, the Great Scottish Canvas exhibition will showcase the public’s visions for a future where we tackle the climate and nature crises and create a greener, fairer Scotland for all.”

In September, Climate Fringe Week will take place at the same time as Great Big Green Week, an initiative from The Climate Coalition. The timing also coincides with Climate Week NYC (20-26 September), when international leaders from business, government and civil society will meet for talks in New York. This is a vital time to show that communities across Scotland and the rest of the UK support strong action on climate change, prior to the COP26 climate conference taking place in Glasgow in November.

Climate Fringe Week is being spearheaded by Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, a diverse coalition of over 60 non-profit organisations, with further organisations supporting the week itself.

Kat Jones, COP26 Project Manager at Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, said:

“Climate Fringe Week is an amazing opportunity for communities throughout Scotland to showcase the work they are doing on climate action, celebrate some of our successes, and point clearly to where we need to see change.

“Climate Fringe Week gives a chance for us in Scotland to focus on those issues that matter to us, ahead of the global focus on climate that COP26 will bring, still while joining them to the international context.”

People and groups who are interested in getting involved are encouraged to visit the Climate Fringe website to download a toolkit, full of ideas and information about how to get involved: climatefringe.org/week

Author: Ngaire Woods and Ok Pannenborg , Social Europe

To be better prepared for future pandemics, global agreements must shape responses grounded firmly in local communities.

The World Health Assembly met last week amid a slew of proposals—most recently from the United Nations Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response—to create stronger, enforceable global rules for tackling future infectious disease outbreaks. A new global pandemic treaty, more robust and independent international institutions and an international pandemic financing facility are all in the mix. But a bottom-up strategy might work better.

A separate review by the World Health Organization earlier this year highlighted four ways to strengthen global health governance. It called for a centralised approach to bolstering countries’ preparedness for health emergencies; a worldwide notification system to ensure robust monitoring of compliance; global capacities such as a genomic sequencing infrastructure, and closer co-ordination among international institutions, including the WHO, the World Organisation for Animal Health, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme.

These are all worthy objectives. But is a top-down approach the best way to pursue them? To answer that question, global health experts should pay more attention to successful grassroots efforts to combat disease.

Bottom-up strategy

Consider the fight against onchocerciasis, or river blindness. In the 1970s, it was led by the World Bank president, Robert McNamara, the Merck chief executive officer, Roy Vagelos, and the WHO director-general, Halfdan Mahler. But, over time, a bottom-up strategy, whereby almost half a million village community-health workers owned the problem, proved more effective. A 1994-95 multi-country study showed that when communities are responsible for organising their own distribution of ivermectin (the drug that treats onchocerciasis), coverage is higher than when the health system delivers the drug. Another report by the Carter Center highlights the role that kinship and local networks play in tackling this disease.

Similarly, the Bombay Leprosy Project is a longstanding program in Mumbai’s largest slums, such as Dharavi. BLP community volunteers, trained by paramedical workers, conduct door-to-door surveys among the population to detect new cases. During the pandemic, it has been one of the most effective channels for delivering personal protective equipment (PPE), health care, food and now Covid-19 vaccinations to the poorest of the poor, in areas where the Maharashtra state and federal governments are essentially absent.

Bottom of Form

The importance of bottom-up initiatives in responding to the pandemic is not limited to developing countries. The United Kingdom’s government invested heavily in a centralised, national test-and-trace service. But evidence suggests that even relatively underfunded local schemes performed better, leading the government to rethink its approach.

Receptive audience

Increased efficacy is not the only reason to consider a grassroots strategy. Politically, many countries—perhaps scarred by their experience of trade blockages at the outset of the pandemic, the worldwide scramble for PPE supplies and vaccine nationalism—are currently more focused on national resilience than global commitments. A new emphasis on local resilience may therefore find a much more receptive audience in communities around the world. One of the shortcomings of international health regulations during the Covid-19 pandemic has been the failure to prepare, provide and co-ordinate adequate resources at the country level. A bottom-up approach could change this.

Moreover, investments in community-level health-surveillance capacity will likely be key to tackling this and future pandemics. Here, the right financial incentives are crucial. Rural smallholders in Africa and Asia will be the first to know when some of their chickens or ducks seem sick—possibly with an avian influenza virus that could trigger a human pandemic. But if farmers who report a disease outbreak face the prospect of culling their entire flock without receiving adequate compensation, they may well decide not to share the information.

Likewise, as Stefan Dercon of the University of Oxford has argued, investing in the reach and quality of community healthcare and in health workers’ protection is vital to ensure the continuation of basic medical services. These include vaccination, provision of antiretrovirals, supplementary feeding, maternal health, bed-net distribution and malaria treatment. Community health workers are also essential for shielding the most vulnerable in densely populated areas, and for tracking and controlling disease.

Such bottom-up approaches will require government support, including financing of local efforts. Any backing may need to be anchored in law to be sustainable, as was the case with the funding of Brazil’s public-health research institution Fiocruz in the early 20th century. Such statutes may protect organisations from attempts to reduce budget allocations or finance other programmes at their expense.

Heightened awareness

Historically, global health and environmental co-operation has reflected various combinations of top-down and bottom-up measures. While the 1987 Montreal protocol to protect the ozone layer was an example of top-down regulation, the 2015 Paris climate agreement resulted from a much longer process involving communities, cities and countries around the world. Academic studies and research by hundreds of universities, institutes and scientists, and early initiatives by mayors and individual communities, greatly heightened grassroots awareness and commitments from families, schools, local media, municipalities and regional administrators.

In the end, even the best bottom-up disease-control efforts risk being thwarted by international failures to ensure access to PPE, genetic sequencing or vaccines. But policy-makers must not neglect local-level health care. To be better prepared for future pandemics, our top-down models and agreements must shape responses that are grounded firmly in local communities and value their engagement, risk ownership and anxieties.

Republication forbidden—copyright Project Syndicate 2021, ‘Global health governance from the grassroots’

Author: Jo Brand

We need to learn to talk to human beings again, so why not start with the ones living next door?

A survey out this week revealed 1 in 3 of us is anxious about socialising without restrictions, and millions are worried about increasing social pressures as lockdown measures lift. Clever people with letters after their names are calling it ‘re-entry anxiety’.

I can relate. While I’m chomping at the bit to see family and friends again, I certainly won’t be at the front of the queue dishing out hugs when my local rave club reopens. Everyone has their own social roadmap to what they will feel comfortable doing. We all need to go at our own pace and that’s just fine.

What I did find interesting from the research though is that a quarter of the population worry that they’ve forgotten how to have an engaging conversation.

Zoom chats, Google hangouts and WhatsApp gifs may have been a lifeline in social Siberia but as we emerge from hermit hibernation there’s no ‘mute button’ or ‘bad signal’ to cover up an awkward silence in real life.

And when we do venture out for a chat and a custard cream in the park, will our pre-pandemic friends still be the ones we call on for a natter? According to the research, millions of people believe the pandemic has changed their friendships for good.

The French very poetically call it ‘Friendship Funnelling’, which sounds like it should be a ride at Alton Towers, but it just means prioritising some relationships over others. I think we’ve all probably experienced that to some extent over the last 12 months.

So, friendships have fizzled out and we’ve forgotten the art of small talk. No wonder so many people have re-entry anxiety.

How will we break the ice with people we haven’t seen for ages if we can’t wrestle them into a bear hug? What is there to talk about once Covid and quarantine have been covered?

It’s time to get ourselves socially fit again. Forget training for a Couch to 5k, it’s all about getting from Couch to 5 conversations now – and what better place to start than on your doorstep.

I have been a supporter of The Big Lunch for the last five years as it encompasses two of my favourite things – chatting and eating. I am a strong believer in the power of getting together to talk, now more than ever.

Historically the idea of The Big Lunch has been for communities to come together as a sort of thanksgiving weekend for neighbours. The first one I ever went to was a massive street party with bunting, trestle tables, the lot. Last year this of course wasn’t possible so the event went online. That didn’t stop over 6 million people from coming together for some digital dining.

This year The Big Lunch could be outside – or online, or both – we’ll have to wait and see. But whatever socially safe gathering you are able to have it’ll be the perfect excuse to dip your toes into the post-pandemic social pool.

With 12 million people reporting they’ve grown closer to their neighbours in lockdown, what better way to celebrate that support by busting open your door and waving an egg vol-au-vent over the back fence?

We need to learn to talk to human beings again, so why not start with the humans next door?

It’s apparent that many community groups have developed expertise in working under new, and ever changing, conditions, and also that the community sector as a whole has a requirement to learn how best to manage their organisations under these same circumstances. The sector has, since lockdown, become used to and adept at communicating through various distance and virtual media such as Zoom, Skype, and Microsoft Teams.

In response, we have reconfigured the Community Learning Exchange programme so that it can be delivered via distance communication applications. 

Applications to the Community Learning Exchange (Virtual) should be made by community groups which have experience, expertise or knowledge which they are able and willing to share with other groups (as opposed to applications from groups that are keen to learn from visiting other organisations).

(Those pre-lockdown Community Learning Exchange participants who, as a result of social distancing requirements, have had to reschedule their learning visits to later in the year can do so without negatively affecting their grant.)

The Community Learning Exchange is a fantastic opportunity for communities to learn through the exchange of ideas and the sharing of common solutions.  The reconfiguration of the programme will allow community groups to deliver their knowledge and expertise remotely to other community organisations without, we hope, losing the most valuable element of the CLE: meeting new people with similar interests; gaining new insights and perspectives on shared challenges; and coming away armed with new ideas and approaches.

What will the exchange fund?

The CLE will cover up to 100% of the costs of a learning exchange by members of one community to another community project up to a limit of 13 hours at £35 per hour for planning and delivery. We expect these exchanges to be carried out online.

The Exchange will also fund follow-up support between organisations.  This might be as a result of a learning exchange when it is recognised that more specific and on-going help, support, or advice is required. This can be through face-to-face meetings (when eventually allowed), by phone, e-mail, or one of the communications platforms such as Skype or Zoom. Funding for this kind of additional support will need to be negotiated separately.

Author: Clare Symonds, Planning Democracy

Read the full blog here

With the elections coming up there is an opportunity to ask political candidates some difficult questions. We know that housing will be a key election issue, there are already a number of hustings on the topic. To be honest I don’t envy the politicians who will be in the firing line. Housing is without a doubt a difficult topic, we at PD are still getting our heads around it. What is clear is that the problem of housing frequently creates conflict, not just between developers, planners and communities, but even within communities. It can be highly divisive.

A key question to those budding politicians is: Who is benefitting and who is losing out from the way Scotland is trying to address its housing problem?

Is the current system, so heavily reliant on the market and large scale private developers, the best way to provide the housing we need? We don’t think it is. And we are worried that it ignores the roots of conflicts and abandons those who lose out in the process.

Read the full blog here

Author: Sandra Dick, The Herald

Steeped in history and at the heart of its community for over 250 years, the small inn in the Trossachs offered a warm welcome, comforting dram and the possibility of plenty of good chat.

And when last orders threatened to bring down the Black Bull’s shutters for good, the Gartmore locals who couldn’t bear to lose their village pub, stepped up.

Now the pub is preparing to unveil its new look, after a lockdown revamp that saw an army of volunteers including a marine biologist, fireman, Antarctic traveller and a secretary on crutches, swung into action to transform it from old drovers’ inn to modern hostelry and community hub.

The pub is just one of a rising number of inns and hotels dotted across Scotland to be snapped up by communities who loved their local so much, they simply had to buy it.

From the Knoydart Peninsula – where a crowdfunding campaign will be launched next month to support the community buyout of Britain’s most remote mainland pub – to Tweedsmuir in the Borders where fundraising for the Crook Inn, thought to be the oldest inn in Scotland, is said to be at a crucial stage, locals have shown impressive community spirit to become their own pub’s bosses.

At Gartmore, the 250 villagers were ahead of the pack: the Black Bull was taken into community ownership in 2019, making it the first rural community to take over the running of both its village shop and its pub.

The beer had barely been allowed to settle when lockdown restrictions struck.

According to Black Bull board member Suzanne Teed, the enforced closure sparked a major community revamp which has now seen the pub’s interior transformed.

“It needed a lot of refurbishment because not a lot had been done to it for 30 or 40 years,” she says. “It was actually fortuitous that we ended up having to close.”

Groups of volunteers painted and decorated the interior, while others in the village busied themselves creating soft furnishings.

“Everything had to be done in line with Covid restrictions,” adds Suzanne. “We would never have been able to afford what’s been done if people hadn’t given their time free of charge.

“But it’s also been good for their mental health, they’ve not been sitting around during lockdown and have had the focus of the pub to keep them going.”

The community used a £200,000 Scottish Land Fund grant and raised around £55,000 to take over the pub.

Suzanne adds: “I’m a humanist celebrant, our chair works in television, our secretary is retired – and on crutches after breaking her feet. There’s a guy who works for a travel company who is usually off in Antarctica, a marine biologist and a fireman – you couldn’t make it up!”

At Ballantrae, the 18th century King’s Arms was the last pub standing in the village. Faced with losing the inn, the community rallied support from the Scottish Land Fund and others to take over ownership.

It has now launched a Community Share offer to give locals and others the chance to buy a share in the pub from just £25 and ensure its future.

“It had lacked investment and over the years people had drifted away,” says Dan Cunningham of the Ballantrae Trust.

“People want somewhere with a broad offering, where they can go for coffee and a cake during the day, have a drink and get together in the evening, and with space for a get together.

“It needs some TLC but it’s a busy road and we think it has plenty of potential.”

Meanwhile in the village of Inverie on the Knoydart Peninsula – accessible only by boat from Mallaig, an 18-mile hike from Glenfinnan, The Old Forge Community Benefit Society has launched a £250,000 crowdfunding campaign in the hope it can buy The Old Forge Inn.

It has been put on the market by its Belgian owner Jean-Pierre Robinet at £425,000.

The society said: “We know how many folk there are from out with Knoydart that hold the Forge in high regard and want to help us achieve our dream of community ownership.

“The theme of our campaign will be ‘community’ – we want everyone who has a tie to Knoydart and the Forge to be a part of this buyout regardless of where you live.”

Unfortunately, not all communities achieve their dream.

Plans by locals to take over the 18th century Garmouth Hotel in Moray appear to have been scuppered after the owners decided to take it off the market, apparently to turn it into self-catering properties.

“It’s disappointing,” says Roddy Robertson, chairman of Garmouth and Kingston Amenities Association. “We had a lot of support and plans to turn it into a community hub, hotel and pub whichi made the most of local produce.

“Not being able to move on with our plans has ripped the heart out of the village.”

Author: Paul Dobson, The Ferret. https://theferret.scot/green-scottish-government-false-solutions-climate/

The Scottish Government’s climate change plan contains “false solutions” to meet its net-zero targets, a leading environmental group has claimed.

The updated government plan includes pledges to increase woodland cover across Scotland from 18 to 21 per cent, and to restore 40 per cent of Scotland’s degraded peatland by 2032.

There’s also a commitment to achieve a quarter of carbon emissions reductions through negative emissions technologies (NETs) by 2032.

The term net-zero refers to a position in which carbon emissions going into the atmosphere are balanced by their removal by carbon sinks.

But head of campaigns at Friends of The Earth Scotland (FoES), Mary Church, told The Ferret the commitment to achieve carbon emissions reductions through “unproven” NETs was “really worrying”. She also raised concerns over plans to sell Scottish woodland and peatland projects on the open carbon market.

In reply the Scottish Government said it had “the world’s most ambitious” legal framework for emissions reductions.

Church’s comments follow a report by Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) last week, which accused global governments and corporations of relying on unrealistic “carbon unicorns” to limit warming.

The report argued the current global focus on net-zero pledges, carbon markets, and NETs are “part of the strategy basket of those fighting to maintain the status quo” on carbon emissions.

Church said that framing targets around net-zero hides a “multitude of sins”, and avoids “the decision that needs to be made for a planned phase out of fossil fuels and a just transition to a renewable energy economy.”

Currently the main carbon sinking methods in Scotland are through the planting of woodland and the restoration of degraded peatland. Both trees and peat absorb and store atmospheric carbon.

One way of funding woodland creation and peatland restoration is through the sale of projects as carbon credits on the open carbon market.

Theoretically, polluting companies ‘offset’ emissions they cannot remove from their businesses by buying these carbon credits, and funding projects which absorb the residual carbon emissions.

But the FOEI report points out that any difference between the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere and that being removed by carbon sinks could lead to extra carbon dioxide in the air for “hundreds to thousands of years”.

In its updated climate plan, published in December 2020, the Scottish Government pledged to increase woodland cover across the country from 18 to 21 per cent and to restore 40 per cent of Scotland’s degraded peatland by 2032. It is noted that private investment through the carbon market will be needed to achieve these targets.

According to Church, however, there is “no evidence that existing carbon markets work, and even if they could, there is no time left to trade emissions” if warming is to be kept under 1.5 degrees, the level deemed acceptable by the 2015 Paris Agreement.

The Scottish Government’s updated plan lays out for the first time the role that NETs will play in Scotland’s transition to net-zero.

Negative emissions technologies capture carbon from industrial processes and then either store it to prevent it entering the atmosphere, or utilise it for clean energy production.

There are concerns, though, that NETs would have to “scale up hundreds of times compared with today’s levels” to have a meaningful impact on emissions.

Despite this, the updated climate plan predicts that NETs infrastructure in the north east of Scotland will capture and store the equivalent of 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year by 2032. This is just under a quarter of current greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland.

Professor Pete Smith, Science Director of the Scottish Climate Change Centre of Expertise at the University of Aberdeen, said that while it made sense to “mop up difficult to abate emissions” using NETs, “plan A must be immediate and aggressive emissions reductions across all sectors of the economy”.

“There is no evidence that existing carbon markets work, and even if they could, there is no time left to trade emissions.”

Mark Ruskell, environment spokesperson for the Scottish Greens, said the Scottish Government had “taken a massive gamble” staking its net-zero plans on NETs that “don’t yet exist”.

“We must see state intervention, such as the Scottish Greens propose, to switch to low carbon industries and accelerate the lowering of emissions, not wait for the promises of those who make billions from oil and gas,” Ruskell added.

The updated plan also outlines proposals to develop a carbon storage site in the North Sea, capable of housing 20 gigatonnes of carbon which would be delivered by a repurposed North Sea gas pipeline.

Church argues this proposal “raises the prospect of the world using the North Sea as a dumping ground for carbon.”

Net-zero rhetoric and the role of carbon markets are both expected to feature heavily in the talks at the UN’s COP26 climate conference, due to be held in Glasgow in November.

In June last year the UK government, which is hosting the summit in partnership with Italy, launched the Race to Zero campaign, which aims to encourage governments across the world to set ‘net-zero’ targets before COP26.

Consensus on the workings of an international carbon market is one of the last obstacles to the ratification of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Meena Raman of the Third World Network, based in Malaysia, told The Ferret that a COP focussed on these issues would be promoting “climate injustice”.

“Such approaches are dangerously unambitious and inequitable, as we cannot afford further emissions by the rich north in a carbon-constrained world. We must end carbon colonialism, where the poor have to sequester the emissions of the rich, which are what carbon offsets represent.”

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “We are proud to have the most ambitious legal framework for emissions reductions in the world. We have already halved emissions since 1990 and are committed to ending Scotland’s contribution to climate change in one generation. In no way does this amount to maintaining the status quo.”

Author: Chris Yui, Tony Blair Institute

A lot of governments still think about technology as something they can graft onto their existing ways of working to make things run a little bit faster and / or cheaper. What many fail to grasp is that real digital transformation runs much deeper: not just seeking to improve industrial-era bureaucracies at the margins but rather to re-imagine them altogether for the internet era.

If you could X-ray institutions then peering inside a truly digital state would reveal something set up very differently to its predecessors, like comparing an iPhone to an IBM 700 Series or Google to the Library of Congress.

But what we didn’t talk so much about last time is motivation — and motivation for public sector reform comes in two very different guises.

A lot of public sector reform activity is driven by instrumental motivation. In other words, it’s done in the hope that it will lead to something else: saving money, stopping complaints about a failing service, consolidating power, getting re-elected, or one of the countless other things vying for leaders’ attention.

Governments that are used to operating under this sort of direction tend to look inward, and to organise around a hierarchy of needs that puts themselves at the top.

The counterpoint to this is reform driven by fundamental motivation. From this perspective public sector reform has inherent value; progressive leaders champion it so that the public can better and more freely enjoy the benefits and security the state exists to provide.

This is where the comparison between running a country and running a company is most instructive. A company put in charge of the business of government would view the citizen as the customer — and consequently build government services around them based on a sophisticated understanding of user needs.

The late Clayton Christensen described his jobs to be done theory as follows: the customer has a job to do and will hire the best product or service to get it done.

The threat that a competitor will provide customers with a better alternative forces businesses to focus relentlessly on user needs. Tech companies in particular owe a lot of their success to their proficiency at translating an understanding of customer needs into service design and product strategy.

Google indexes web content, but the job to be done is finding answers, which helps to explain why snippets and cards now appear alongside links on search results pages. Tapping on the Uber app requests a car, but the job to be done is getting easily from A to B, which is why things like maps and payments are a core part of the experience.

Apply this lens to public services and it’s clear that many of the touchpoints between citizens and the state are still optimised for government silos and historic processes, not for people or the lives they lead.

Every time you’re asked to call between 9am and 5pm to complete a transaction, or required to print out and return a paper form to get something done, or a service is impossible to find in the first place without an intimate knowledge of the machinery of government — all are stark reminders of just how far there is still to go.

There are of course instances of great user experience design in and around the public sector. Harry Beck’s map of the London Underground is one iconic example: while most maps drawn at the time tried to stay true to surface geography, he realised that for passengers the job to be done was getting from one station to another.

More broadly, in our increasingly digital lives we’ve come to expect both great usability and a high and rising standard of customer service. The best digital services present information in ways that are easy to navigate and understand, communicate with us using channels that suit our lifestyles, are sensitive to our personal circumstances, make transactions quick and simple, give us status updates at our convenience, and so on.

Governments are getting better at this: Estonia is out in front (of course), and for some time now many countries have tried to organise official websites around citizens’ interactions with government.

Investments in digital infrastructure like GOV.UK Notify (for notifications) and a renewed appreciation for service standards, pattern libraries and inclusive design, along with collaborative projects like FixMyStreet Platform (for civic issue tracking), have made it significantly easier for public sector teams to focus on user needs.

All of this is welcome and long overdue. It’s also only the start: political leaders in particular need to realise that, in the end, delivering on user needs isn’t about changing websites but rather about changing government itself.

After all, an obsolete operating model made incrementally better is still an obsolete operating model (if you don’t believe me, ask Blockbuster).

Show, don’t tell

There is huge potential to improve public services by fusing digital technologies with a laser focus on user needs. There are also some important considerations that weigh more heavily on the state than on private companies.

Unlike companies, governments can’t choose their customers or opt out of serving difficult demographics. Techniques intended to optimise for commercial metrics like engagement or conversion may not be appropriate for public services. User needs for many public services can be much more complex than for consumer products — in healthcare for example, there are clinical needs, practical needs and emotional needs to consider. And the public is complicated; the many and varied things citizens want from government may well add up to incompatible demands and inconsistent priorities.

Some people see this complexity as a reason to push back on bringing more of a business mindset into public service delivery. But retreating to tired debates about the size of the state and the extent of privatisation is a sideshow that a busy public has little patience for and that progressives ought not to indulge.

For too long now, governments’ monopolies on public service delivery have insulated them from the internet revolution.

At first, as the gap between our experiences as citizens and as internet-era consumers started to widen, it was easy to shrug it off. Being on the cutting edge of innovation is exciting but also risky and expensive, and not where we expect most public services to be.

Now that great digital experiences are commonplace in our lives, however, a yawning chasm between the user experience in public services and everything else may be a bigger risk that many political leaders realise — particularly if repeated disappointment causes some people seriously to question the point of speaking up, showing up to vote or paying the tax they owe.

But this risk is also an opportunity for leaders bold enough to rise to the challenge. Technology makes it easier than ever before for new collaborations to build and deploy services that do a much better job of meeting user needs.

Modern states that put citizens’ needs first will measure themselves not by what they themselves control, but by what they make possible for the people they serve. In many cases a public sector entity will still be best placed to meet user needs. But other times the state will do far better by providing the digital platforms and infrastructure upon which companies, social enterprises, charities and communities can innovate.

It’s even possible that, with enough imagination, political parties of the future will win support not by writing grand manifestos or crafting viral tweets, but by shipping better public services — whether they find themselves in government or in opposition.