Author: The Herald

RURAL communities could soon take control of their connectivity through “shared spectrums” with mobile providers, with businesses and residents owning the local network.

Costly infrastructure has been blamed for deterring more commercial providers into the countryside, but a dual investment approach could link up communities beyond the superfast network – 30megabits per second – towards ultrafast – 100mbps – and top-end full fibre levels of 1000mbps, or one gigabit.

The first model will be tried at a test-bed at Loch Lomond by experts at University of Strathclyde in conjunction with the Scottish Government.

The Herald revealed on Friday that Scotland is at a critical juncture over provision. Now there are also new plans for rural inclusion.

Professor Robert Stewart, head of the department of electronic and electrical engineering at University of Strathclyde, has been working closely with companies including Microsoft and Cisco in establishing new ways to connect rural Scotland to the fastest possible network delivery.

He outlined Ofcom’s recent “revolutionary” move to open up the airwaves.

Mr Stewart said: “We’ve been working on this for 10 years, it is called shared spectrum.

“It is a pretty simple thing: use it, or share it. Not use it or lose, use it or share it.

“That was revolution day, that was the day that Ofcom said ‘we can share’.”

He said: “You get the money, you build your own network, you can get shared spectrum, and that will come with cost, that will come with effort, that will come with business relationships, but it is a community co-operative and then from that you could be offering the service. Power to the people a little bit.

“With the Scottish Government we are going to run a test-bed at Loch Lomond. It is 26 miles from Glasgow to our core site, and we’ve got almost no connectivity at all in some of the locations.

“Only a few people live there, but Scottish Water are there, Sepa are there, tourists are there, and lone workers.

“So 18-20 months is the timeline that we are looking to be demonstrating viability.

“Again, a relationship with the mobile network guys is really important. They are key to it.”

Openreach is working directly with rural communities on co-funded builds towards gigabit-capability, and says it intends to test innovative ways towards “busting barriers”.

Robert Thorburn, Openreach’s partnership director for Scotland, said: “When the Digital Scotland project started, there were swathes of Scotland where there were no plans for any fast broadband. Today, 94 per cent of the country can get a superfast service. That’s truly transformational.

“It’s been a massive task to build a fibre-based network across some of Europe’s most remote and challenging terrain. Engineers have connected up 5000 new street from North Roe on Shetland to Drummore in Dumfries and Galloway using more than 13,000KM of cable – equal to a quarter of all the roads in Scotland.

“We’re going to see a seismic shift from the copper network of the last 120 years to a new, full fibre network. It will give people and businesses a platform capable of gigabit speeds which will be future-proof for decades to come.”

He added: “The challenges in rural Scotland, both physical and economic, will be unprecedented. Success will need unparalleled partnership and collaboration between the private and public sector, communities, businesses and residents.

“We’re working hard on all fronts to make it happen, from providing free full fibre in most new housing developments and working direct with communities to busting barriers that hold up progress and testing innovations to bring down rural build costs. We’re fully committed to the next stage of the country’s digital journey.”

Phil Siveter, head of Nokia Enterprise, UKI, said it is “keen to play a role in building out the infrastructure to help Scotland meet its economic and social goals, acknowledging the contribution that connectivity can play to support transport, business and community development in rural and urban communities”.

He added: “Nokia is particularly encouraged by initiatives under development with metropolitan authorities as they advance their smarter city goals.

“We anticipate that with the introduction of 5G, and acceleration of new IoT-based services, Nokia could contribute not only its skills and technology, but also know-how based on its experience elsewhere.”

James McClafferty, head of regional development at CityFibre, said collaboration is key, adding: “Digital infrastructure is the cornerstone of any successful modern economy. It is not a luxury, it is a necessity – a critical utility like water and energy.

“Although the UK has succeeded in becoming a leading digital economy over the past decade, rising demand for fast and reliable connectivity means that today’s copper networks are not fit to support our digital economy.

“It’s clear that Scotland and the UK as a whole need to upgrade to full fibre as a matter of urgency if we are to maintain our competitive advantage in an increasingly digital world.”

He also said: “Fair and effective competition is essential to making this a reality. There is too much to be done for one company to do by themselves.

“CityFibre and other industry players must work together to ensure our investment plans make the very most of that Government support and delivers a competitive market to help unlock further significant sums of private investment.”

Author: NLCF

In 2014 we kicked off the second round of a fund called Our Place. The approach we’ve taken with Our Place is a bit different from our other funding, as it’s targeted at seven communities in Scotland that we felt hadn’t received their fair share of National Lottery funding over the years.

We didn’t just want to give money to these communities – we wanted to put them in the lead in deciding how it was used. To do this we supported local people and stakeholders to come together in groups and discuss how the various projects in development could help achieve their community’s vision. As well as taking this local, ‘place-based’ approach, we’ve also committed to working closely with these communities until 2024 to help them fulfil these aspirations.

The seven Our Place areas: Douglas, Dundee; Auchmuty, Fife; Camelon, Falkirk; Ardrossan, North Ayrshire; Shortlees, East Ayrshire; Springhall and Whitlawburn, South Lanarkshire and; Lochside and Lincluden, Dumfries and Galloway.

What’s Our Place all about?

Through Our Place, The National Lottery Community Fund has supported these seven communities across Scotland so they:

• Have more influence on decisions taken locally
• Have more sustainable services and facilities that reflect their local priorities
• Say their community is a better place to live

Since 2014 we’ve invested £10.5m in funding and another £1.5m in community development delivered by organisations with expertise in supporting the third sector and communities to thrive. In this time Our Place funding has paid for all sorts of work; from developing local buildings to youth work and community projects.

What we’ve learned from Our Place

Over the last year, we’ve worked on learning from the grants we’ve made through Our Place. We visited most of the seven areas and spoke to grantholders, local authorities and people from the communities to find out more about their experience of the programme. These stories helped us bring to life the various statistics we’ve collected and analysed since the start of the programme.

We found out a lot of interesting aspects about the fund and its contribution to the community. Among other things, people have told us that Our Place:

• Boosted engagement in local activities and decision-making
• Created a buzz in the community
• Invested in improving local facilities, skills and networks

People also told us how much they have achieved within their communities using small pots of money that Our Place made readily available through what we called the ‘Community Chest’. These grants of a few pounds up to £2000 helped all sorts of community members and groups get involved.

We are delighted to share the findings of the learning review with everyone, but we expect it’ll be of particular interest to those involved in asset-based community development, place-based working, or microgrants.

We are so grateful to everyone who’s taken part in this learning review. This piece of work is a testimony to the incredible things that money raised by National Lottery players, communities and partners have achieved in the last five years.

Read the report!

The full learning review can be accessed here. We have also prepared a snapshot of the learning review which you can find here.

Hope you find it as interesting as we did!

Author: Martin Williams , The Herald

IT may be the national flag of Scotland but for increasing number of communities the Saltire is just not enough for a feeling of identity and belonging.

There are now 11 registered regional, town or city flags in Scotland with eight of those sanctioned in the past three years alone – with five designed to recognise Nordic connections.

And now a further four islands are wanting in on the act and are in the process of wanting to impose their status with their own internationally recognised emblem – Skye, Eriskay, Benbecula and North Uist.

Philip Tibbetts, community vexillologist, for the Flag Institute, the charity that maintains and manages the registry believes the appetite for such community symbols has stemmed from Scotland’s great tradition of sub-national identity as revealed through tartans and names.

“This tradition is so great that the very richness of identity within Scotland has become a defining part of Scottish identity. The desire for a county, island or regional flag is part of this,” he said.

“As to why this is taking off now I think it is due to communities seeing the popular success of other such flags. This explains why after Shetland became the first [regional flag in 1969] the momentum has been building. First with neighbouring Orkney and Caithness, then for communities across Scotland.”

Shetland’s was designed in 1969 to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the transfer of Shetland from Norway to Scotland. The colours were inspired by Scotland’s national flag, and the cross shape is from Scandinavian tradition.

According to the registry the first town or city flag arrived in Edinburgh. Auld Reekie’s city flag with its castle and colours of white, black, red dates back to 1732.

A competition to design a flag for Skye has attracted 200 entries, with shortlisting due to take place in January ahead of a public vote. The final design will be revealed in March.

Highland councillor John Finlayson from Skye said the attraction of having its own flag, was not just about identity. “Skye as you know has a unique history, culture and heritage which is becoming increasingly well known because of the huge rise in tourism,” he said.

“I am often asked by visitors from overseas if Skye has a flag and I have often thought that it would be a good idea to have one to further consolidate our identity and our distinctive place in Scottish history as well as our growing popularity as an international tourist destination.

“This is why I have been actively involved in the process to host a competition to create a Skye Flag. I also think it would add to the Skye brand and further develop our sense of identity. ”

Ultimate approval of any flag design lies with the Lyon Court, which exists to grand and record arms for those that want them. The Right Honourable the Lord Lyon King of Arms, the head of Lyon Court, is the Scottish official with responsibility for regulating heraldry in the country, issuing new grants of arms, and serving as the judge of the Court of the Lord Lyon, the oldest heraldic court in the world that is still in daily operation.

“The general principle would be that Scots can have arms & banners in principle,”said Mr Tibbetts. “This is borne out historically as former Lord Lyon Sir Thomas Innes [who served from 1945 to 1969] noted, that the general uptake of heraldry in Scotland is historically far higher per capita than in England.”

Orkney became the third Scottish community to have its own flag, receiving official recognition in April, 2007.

It was designed by postman Duncan Tullock, who sketched out his initial idea using his young grandchildren’s crayons.

Mr Tullock’s blue, yellow and red design was voted the best of 100 designs submitted to the islands’ council.

It replaced an older flag, the red and yellow cross of St Magnus which was considered to be too similar to other national banners.

It would take another nine years before a fourth Scottish community flag was approved, leading to a new wave of interest in having a recognised emblem.

Mr Tibbetts said: “For a community a flag firstly provides a simple symbol that locals can connect with together. Secondly it can then be used to raise the visibility of that community externally.

“It is also important nationally as this reinforces the Scottish tradition of having a rich array of symbolism across the nation as seen in tartans and heraldry.”

Caithness kickstarted the latest appetite for new Scottish heraldry, unfurling their flag in January, 2016.

It features a Nordic cross and galley symbolising Caithness’ ancient ties to the Vikings.

The design was picked from suggestions sent to Highland Council from all over the world.

Six months later there was one in Kirkcudbrightshire and then a flag in Denny and Dunipace in Stirlingshire.

The Kirkcudbrightshire flag was organised to mark the Queen’s 90th birthday.

The green and white quarters reference the checks that appeared on a former local authority’s coat of arms, and also the checked cloth used historically to count taxes by the Stewards of the Lords of Galloway.

It also features a St Cuthbert’s cross to reference the origin of the name Kirkcudbrightshire as the “shire of the church of Cuthbert”.

Denny and Dunipace’s town flag is a green, white and blue design showing the River Carron separating Dunipace and its 11-pointed star to the north and Denny’s two-towered castle symbolising the River of Forts to the south.

In the Western Isles, South Uist’s Nordic cross in the pattern of Norway’s flag secured official recognition for its banner in May, 2017.

Donnie Steele, a former councillor, championed South Uist’s flag, organising a petition to gather support for official recognition.

And by the end of that year Barra’s green and white Nordic cross, used by residents of the Hebridean island for decades secured official recognition.

In June, that year, the flag was draped over the coffin of Barra’s Eilidh MacLeod, 14, who was among the victims of the Manchester Arena attack.

Tiree unfurled its new official flag in September, last year. Donald Cameron’s green and gold “Land of Barley” design was chosen after a competition launched earlier that year.

“A competition allows for hundreds of designs to be in with a shout. By engaging with the community, such as with the school talks on Skye, and including information with the competition pack explaining what makes an effective flag then as many people as possible can be given as good a chance as possible at creating eligible designs and ultimately winning the final public vote,” said Mr Tibbetts.

Another public vote led to Sutherland being among the latest to get official recognition in December, 2018

The winning design features a Saltire and a Nordic cross. Three other flags were in contention, including one originally selected by a judging panel and drew public criticism for its eagle and stars design.

The design represents Sutherland’s position as the historic mainland frontier between Scotland the Vikings.

East Lothian also had a new flag registered in the same month after another competition. The designer, Archie Martin, sadly passed away after submitting his design.

Introduction

This Scottish Supplement builds from the learning across four European case-sites – Amsterdam, Birmingham, Copenhagen, Glasgow – as is considered and explored in:

• the Project Report: Socially smart cities: making a difference in urban neighbourhoods
• the Policy Briefing: Social transformation in urban neighbourhoods

The Project Report deepens understanding of the complex, socially-skilled roles of Smart Urban Intermediaries or SUIs working in urban neighbourhoods across partnerships, sectors, networks and communities of interest – so socially-smart – in order to bring together place-making, community-building and ‘people-making’ (person-centred working). SUIs align this practical know-how with their values and commitments in order to navigate opportunities and tensions on-the-ground and develop actions and strategies for local change and development.

The Policy Briefing – discussed below – highlights broad messages common to all the case-sites on how policy-makers and funders can build the capacity of SUIs to work for flexible, accountable and participative local governance (democratic innovation); collective cross-sector knowledge-sharing and innovation to meet social needs (social innovation); and, the local potential of infotech or digital infrastructure and information technology (technological innovation).

Below we illustrate the often unrecognised, crucial role that SUIs play in affecting change with local people in communities and places in innovative, committed ways. This is considered in the Scottish policy context and alongside aspirations for a more equitable society and the eradication of poverty.

To read this briefing in full click here

Author: Joyce McMillan

Know your enemy. It is the first rule of war, and of the proxy ­warfare we call politics. Yet in the weeks since the general ­election, it has been comprehensively broken, by left and centre-left political actors and analysts across the UK; so much so that when Boris Johnson appears on the political stage waving his supremely hypocritical olive branch, the temptation for many must be to knuckle under and take the proffered pudgy hand, purely because, from a ­Westminster perspective, the Prime Minister and his backers seem like the only functioning political game in town.

In the aftermath of the ­election, it seems that the ­primary impulse of many among the losing parties has not been to understand the force that defeated them, but to use the election result as a stick with which to beat old enemies on their own side, and to refight the ever more bitter internecine battles of the last two decades.

For Labour Blairites, for example, this result is the chance to take back the party which they believe was somehow stolen from them, between 2010 and 2015. For ­Corbyn supporters, by contrast, it is the final bitter fruit of the Blairite betrayal of the British working class, which hollowed out Labour ­support in areas like the ex-industrial north. Either way, the aim seems to be to return to something lost; nor, despite Nicola Sturgeon’s impressive electoral victory in Scotland, is the SNP, the third party at Westminster, entirely free of similar yearnings and recriminations.

Yet the most cursory examination of the Conservative Party and government that won power last month confirms that no past template, in the recent history of British politics, is likely to be of much use in creating a successful opposition to it. In the first place, both Blairite moderation and Corbynist radicalism emerged as responses to the four decades of neoliberal economic policy imposed on Britain since 1979; Blairites want to go with the neoliberal flow but ameliorate its impact, ­Corbynists to challenge the fundamentals of neoliberal thinking.

Yet while the row between these two factions continues on the left, the Tories – over the last three years – have quietly abandoned most of their neoliberal rhetoric, and begun to present themselves as a party of patriotic top-down statism. The magic money tree whose existence was so robustly denied during the Osborne ­austerity years has been found, and is about to rain down largesse, particularly on those who are prepared to eat their cornflakes, and adorn the public spending projects of the future with large Union flags.

Opposing this kind of pseudo-patriotic Toryism is a very different business from opposing global neoliberalism; and both Labour and the SNP risk finding themselves deploying the anti-austerity ­arguments of the 2010’s against a government riding the populist-nationalist wave of a new and very different decade.

Secondly, the Boris Johnson government has given clear warning that the days of constitutional flexibility and politesse are over. In post-Brexit Britain, power resides at Westminster, and with those who fund and back the governing party at Westminster – all other levels of administration, from the devolved governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh to the city mayors of ­England are, I suspect, in for a series of short sharp shocks about how little real power they have, when Westminster decides to play hardball.

Thirdly, that authoritarian attitude will also extend to individual rights, on ­matters from employment rights to freedom of movement and freedom of speech, as dissident anti-government views are increasingly dismissed as the griping of a defeated and irrelevant faction. Fourthly, future oppositions must learn how to contend with the near-absolute control of the political narrative, and the national political conversation, now exerted by the Tory ­government and its wealthy backers, via a predominantly right-wing print media whose news agenda is loyally mirrored by the major broadcasters.

So that is where we stand, as the new decade dawns. Any successful political opposition will have to find profoundly new ways of challenging the hegemonic power of this new generation of leaders, and those who stand behind them. The essential counter-force is the fact, and the spectacle, of ordinary people at the grassroots of society doing things differently, doing it for themselves, and making it work; from Extinction Rebellion to transformative local power projects, people increasingly need to stop waiting for permission and begin to embody the change our society and environment desperately needs. We should also bear in mind that there is no real majority for Johnsonism in the UK, any more than there is one for Trumpism in the USA; these movements only represent the largest minority, in both cases, and can be defeated by strong strategic alliances at all levels among those with different priorities.

In Scotland, likewise, we urgently need a new independence movement that goes far beyond the SNP, to build strength from the grassroots, and to look outwards to new confederal alliances, against the growing constitutional absolutism of the old power centres; in a decade or two, what will matter between nations will not be the idea of absolute sovereignty, but the extent to which the structures within which they work together are based on creative mutual respect, rather than brutal and destructive power-plays.

As for the forces that shape our political narrative and debate – well, the truth is that we will have little future, environmentally, politically or personally, unless we stop listening to narratives framed by the people in power who have brought us to this point, and start writing our own stories, about how to build a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren. Artists and other visionaries – like the mighty Alasdair Gray, whom we lost this week – do this all the time, and now we must do it for ourselves.

“Work as if you were living in the early days of a better nation”, Gray famously said, inspiring a generation of Scottish artists – now, every one of us needs to begin to work, create and imagine, as if we were ­living in the early days both of a better nation, and of a better world.

Author: Scottish Land Commission

As Scotland marks the Centenary of the Land Settlement Act, the Scottish Land Commission says more reform to land ownership and land use is needed, to make the most of Scotland’s land for the benefit of all.

This month, December 2019, marks 100 years since the Land Settlement Act in Scotland.

The Act aimed to resettle populations following the end of the First World War through the creation of smallholdings and crofts.

As a result, a great deal of resettlement was made possible in areas that had suffered population declines over previous years, for example, the settlement of 67 previously landless families from Harris and Lewis at Portnalong which is now a populated and thriving township.

To mark the Centenary, the Land Commission is publishing a paper – Re-peopling Empty Places – by Professor Jim Hunter. This examines the impact the Act had, its long term legacy and what we can learn from it in addressing the population challenge now facing some of Scotland’s most fragile rural communities.

Commenting on the Centenary, Andrew Thin, Chair of the Land Commission said: “Many see the Act as being a significant piece of land reform for Scotland. Land reform is not a new thing. Now, when we are faced with declining populations in some of our most fragile rural communities, we should reflect on the legacy of the 1919 Act and challenge ourselves to find today’s equivalent solutions”.

“The momentum for change is growing, with a focus on population challenges in the new Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 and a commitment to ‘increasing the population of the rural areas of Scotland’.”

Andrew Thin pointed out that the way we own and use land is fundamental to realising Scotland’s ambitions for fairer and greener economy: “Land availability in the right place at the right price, is core to securing long term renewal of remote rural populations, and land ownership is key to making this happen.

“The way we own and use land is central to big public policy challenges including climate action, productivity, and inclusive growth.

“Reforms to both land ownership and use are needed to unlock opportunities for inclusive growth and to make the most of our land for everyone.”

During 2020 the Land Commission will continue to investigate how new approaches to land ownership and governance models can help to increase access to land and support sustainable communities as part of the ongoing programme of land reform.

Retired housing professional John Clark believes that following its statement last week, the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR) still has some questions to answer.

Mr Walker, SHR’s chair, has written to Scottish Housing News to address some of the criticisms directed at his organisation. He refers to SHR as working to be an effective, open and transparent regulator, intervening proportionately when required, and to the importance of being transparent and accountable in how SHR uses its powers.

No problem with any of that, it’s just that actions speak louder than words and SHR’s practice is clearly at odds with the rhetoric in many people’s minds.

Critically, the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 says that SHR must carry out its functions in a way that is “proportionate, accountable and transparent, and targeted only where action is needed”.  These are not just words – they are statutory obligations that SHR must meet.

SHR’s failure to comply in its delivery of these things is why many in the sector are so concerned. This is not just an issue for organisations that have experienced formal intervention – lower-level engagement with SHR can also be a suffocating and disruptive experience that is disproportionate to the issues involved.

Housing association governing bodies typically combine strategic oversight and decision making, along with a firm grasp of the actual work carried out by their organisations on behalf of their tenants and communities. By contrast, there is nothing in the public record of SHR board’s proceedings to indicate it has strong oversight of regulatory practice and decisions – or of the impact on regulated organisations.

This is not about the board being involved in operational matters – it’s about the assurance the board should be getting periodically so that it has real knowledge of how the organisation is really working when carrying out its role. Good governance, in other words. On which note, a few questions for SHR.

1) What formal, evidence-based assurance does the SHR board have that regulatory actions and practice meet its statutory obligations to perform its functions in a way that is proportionate, accountable and transparent, and targeted only where action is needed? 

SHR has placed an obligation on all housing association governing bodies to carry out detailed, evidence-based self-assurance assessments covering around 90 individual regulatory requirements. Has SHR’s board taken similar action to be assured that SHR is meeting all of its legal obligations as well as the Regulatory Framework itself?  How is this documented and reported to the board?

2) What external assurance has the board received about how SHR is carrying out its regulatory functions and activities, in the eight years since SHR was first set up?

The requirement for housing association governing bodies to obtain external assurance is a central requirement of the Regulatory Framework. Does SHR follow the same rules, and how is the external assurance has it received documented and reported to the board?

3) How many of SHR’s senior management (CEO, directors, assistant directors) have worked in a senior management role in a housing association – with senior experience of governance, financial management or tenant services?

4) How many secondments of SHR senior managers to housing associations have taken place in the eight years since SHR was first set up?

SHR’s Regulatory Standards for housing associations require senior staff to have the skills and knowledge to do their job. It is reasonable to expect that SHR’s senior staff should have a strong understanding of the bodies they regulate.

By responding to these questions, SHR can show whether its statements about how it regulates are based on hard facts and that actions really do count more than mere words.

The idea of Universal Basic Services (UBS) was only coined in 2017, but has been taken up unusually quickly. It’s given a name to something people were already aspiring to. The Labour Party have taken it the furthest, adopting it as a pillar of their economic thinking at their conference this year. Though their manifesto doesn’t use the term, it’s there in the ideas of free bus travel for under 25s or universal free broadband access.

I’ve explored the idea in this previous post, and that’s where I raised some questions about it too. Is this just riding on the interest in a Universal Basic Income to justify government spending? Do we want the state running the buses and the broadband? I wanted more detail, and that is helpfully provided by Anna Coote and Andrew Percy’s new book, The Case for Universal Basic Services.

It’s not a long book – 134 pages until you hit the notes. It explains basic services and why they are needed. Then it goes on to explain how it would work and how it could be rolled out. The book is written in admirably plain English, making it a fine introduction to a potentially important idea.

Basic government services already exist. In Britain we get our education for free, and healthcare for free. Police and emergency services are free. But what else should we consider basic? In the connected 21st century, should internet access be considered basic? What about access to travel? Or childcare? The UBS approach invites us to work out what we might consider “everyday essentials that everybody neess to live a decent life”, and then pool our funds so that they are “available and affordable for everyone.”

It’s important to note that affordability and accessibility are the main thing here. It doesn’t mean that everything necessarily has to be free of charge. The book considers housing, and there’s no discussion of the government building free houses for everyone. But it shouldn’t be beyond us, in a wealthy nation, to make sure that everybody has an affordable and comfortable home. The same goes for childcare. Couples in Britain who rely on childcare for both of them to work typically spend a third of their income on childcare. That means only those in highly paid jobs can consider it. A UBS approach would mean that anybody who wanted to work and needed childcare would be able to get it at a price that they could afford.

This doesn’t always mean state provision either. The book mentions things like housing co-ops, the model used in Denmark and that I wrote about recently with the LILAC project. UBS would call on a wide ecosystem of community owned enterprises, charities, businesses, mutuals, etc to deliver its services.

As the book describes, organising things collectively lowers costs. People get more for their money if services are provided universally than if we all had to pay for everything individually. That makes UBS, in the authors estimation, better than a Universal Basic Income. It also addresses inequality better, since those on lower incomes would benefit more, whereas a basic income goes to everybody whether they need it or not.

One thing I like about UBS is that it is preventative. Too often government spending goes to patching up things that have been broken elsewhere. The housing market fails the poorest, and government housing benefit steps in. Companies pay low wages, and the state tops them up. UBS gets ahead of the issues. By making sure that all children get a good start in life through generous childcare, you cut off all sorts of future costs in policing or healthcare. If everyone has a decent home, you ultimately save on all the damage caused by cold and unhealthy homes. This kind of preventative ethic is a big theme of my book The Economics of Arrival, and an updated edition would have to include something on Universal Basic Services.

Finally, one of the best things about UBS is that all the various bits of it are already done somewhere in the world. They’re just not usuall all in one place. Lithuania has universal free broadband and it’s the best in Europe. Estonia has free bus transport. The Scandinavian countries prioritise childcare. In that sense UBS isn’t revolutionary. It’s a new articulation of how wealthy countries could make the best use of their wealth, and create inclusive economies that benefit everybody. I’d vote for that.

Author: Angelique Chrisafis, The Guardian

In a grandiose 1930s building on the banks of the Seine in Paris, 150 French citizens chosen at random had gathered. Ranging from 16-year-old school pupils to carers, shuttle-bus drivers and retired rail workers, the French president said these ordinary people would define the next phase of his term in power.

They are part of France’s latest democratic experiment: a randomly selected citizens’ assembly that has been promised more power than any other – the ability to set Emmanuel Macron’s policy on cutting carbon emissions, as he faces harsh criticism that he is not doing enough to tackle the climate emergency.

“You took a risk in being here,” Macron told them on Friday. “But we must have this debate at the heart of society.”

In the coming months, the citizens must draw up a series of far-reaching policies on how France can cut carbon emissions by 40% before 2030. Macron has vowed their policies will then be put to parliament “unfiltered”, transformed into executive decrees or even used as the basis for a referendum. The process is being closely observed from abroad – particularly by the UK, which begins its own form of citizens’ assembly this month.

Although Macron has presented himself as a world leader on the climate emergency, France is in fact far from delivering its goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, the year-long gilets jaunes (yellow vests) anti-government protests began as a crisis in climate policy. Demonstrators first took to the streets against Macron’s new carbon tax intended to urge motorists to change their behaviour. People in the countryside said it was deeply unfair to raise taxes on fuel use where there was no alternative transport to private cars. The tax was abandoned and the government has been struggling to catch up.

Macron hopes a sample of everyday French people sensitive to issues of “social justice” can do better at bringing society on board.

“This deliberation exercise wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been for the gilets jaunes crisis,” said Mathilde Immer, who founded the Gilets Citoyens group for more citizen involvement in policy decisions, and who now sits on the climate assembly committee.

Over several months, across seven weekends, the assembly members have been briefed by experts and have deliberated on issues including fast fashion, plastics, transport and housing. “This is not a consultation asking for people’s views, we’re asking them to produce concrete, structural measures, that’s what’s original,” said Julien Blanchet, who is overseeing the process.

Macron’s party has said involving citizens could even be an answer to populism and the crisis in western democracy.

The participants themselves have said they were struck by the human element of the exercise and the sense of making a difference.

Romane, 17, a school student from a Brittany village, was in her bedroom one Sunday night last autumn when she was surprised to get a text message saying she had been randomly picked from more than 300,000 phone numbers. Her parents, a farmer and recruitment agent, encouraged her to sign up. It was crucial for organisers to include people under 18.

“Climate change is the key issue for our generation and our future,” said Romane, who wants to study management. “At my first sessions, the full sense of the climate emergency really hit me and I was a bit scared, but now I think if we give our all, we can make proposals for change.” Personally, she does what she can. “I try to use public transport, but the nearest bus stop is in the next village so I have to take a car to get there.”

Grégoire Fraty, 31, who lives in Normandy, is from what geographers call the French periphery – the hinterland outside cities where gilets jaunes protesters mobilised and which is increasingly targeted by the far right. He grew up in a tower block in a Paris banlieue before moving to the country “for the clean air”, and works helping jobless people get back into employment. He liked working through different opinions to find consensus. “When a Parisian who lives right next to a metro station says, ‘Oh, we need to ban cars’, I might say, ‘Look, when you live in the countryside and have to drive your car 15km to buy bread, it’s something else’.”

He added: “If we build an efficient public transport network for 90% of French people across the country, then we can reduce cars. But surely you have to do things in the right order? You can’t put people in difficulty before finding solutions.”

He said his family used one car, not two, and he now would not take flights for a holiday. “I see myself as the silent majority: someone who does a little bit for the environment, but could do more.” He said it was about getting society on board. “We’re not inventing miracle solutions, we’re just reinventing the workings to make sure solutions will be accepted.”

Sylvain Burquier, 45, described himself as a typical “cynical Parisian advertising executive” despite spending his childhood in the Alps. “I’ve become really passionate about the human experience of putting so many different people together. We’re being asked to come up with proposals to basically save humanity, so there’s a lot resting on this! When you take 150 different people, with different complaints and incoherences and indiscipline, and then they get together to produce a work of collective intelligence, I find that remarkable and very touching.”

He said it was not just about creating policy for individuals to change their habits. “Even if we do something drastic and demand a huge effort from individuals on travel and consumption, that would only get us 25% of the way there. Companies have a huge role to play – but it doesn’t have to be a negative message of fear and collapse, there can be positive ways to encourage change.”

He said inserting new climate elements into the French constitution would be a revolutionary possibility, but there would also be concrete measures impacting people’s everyday lives. The process had reignited his interest in politics and debate. “I’ve got back some of my teenage enthusiasm.”

Author: Sam Wren-Lewis

The Happiness Problem: Expecting Better in an Uncertain World.

Imagine two different societies. In the first, people tend to be stressed, tense, irritable, distracted and self-absorbed. In the second, people tend to be at ease, untroubled, quick to laugh, expansive and self-assured.

The difference between these two imagined scenarios is vast. You’re not only more likely to be happier in the second scenario – you’re also more likely to be safer, healthier and have better relationships. The difference between a happy and an unhappy society is not trivial. We know that happiness matters beyond our desire to feel good.

So how can we create a happy society? The Buddhist nation of Bhutan was the first society to determine policy based on the happiness of its citizens, with the king of Bhutan famously claiming in 1972 that Gross National Happiness (GNH) was a more important measure of progress than Gross National Product (GNP).

Many other countries have since followed suit – looking to move “beyond GDP” as a measure of national progress. For instance, the UK developed a national well-being programme in 2010 and has since measured the nation’s well-being across ten domains, not too dissimilar to Bhutan’s approach. More recently, New Zealand introduced its first “well-being budget”, with a focus on improving the well-being of the country’s most vulnerable people.

Such initiatives tend to broadly agree over the conditions required for a happy society. According to the World Happiness Report, there are six key ingredients for national happiness: income, healthy life expectancy, social support, freedom, trust and generosity. Scandinavian countries – which typically top the global happiness rankings (Finland is currently first) – tend to do well on all these measures. In contrast, war-torn nations such as South Sudan, Central African Republic and Afghanistan tend to do badly. So does happiness rely on these six key ingredients?

The what, not the how

I don’t think so. This approach is, ultimately, too simple – even potentially harmful. The problem is that it focuses on what happiness is, not how to achieve it. Clearly, things such as a good life expectancy, social support and trust are good for us. But how we come to that conclusion may matter more than the conclusion itself.

For instance, how do we know that we are measuring what is most important? The world happiness rankings largely rely on measures of life satisfaction. But it is far from obvious that such measures can account for important differences in emotional well-being.

Alternatively, perhaps we could ask people what they think matters. The development of the UK’s national well-being programme took this approach, undertaking qualitative research to develop their ten domains of happiness. But this approach is also problematic. How do we know which of the ten domains are most important? The most important ingredients for one community may not be the same for another. Asking people is a good idea. But we can’t just do it once and then assume the job is done.

Don’t get me wrong – I believe these kinds of initiatives are an improvement on more narrow ways of measuring national progress, such as an exclusive focus on income and GDP. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore their faults.

There are parallels here with the pursuit of happiness on an individual level. We typically go about our lives with a list of things in our head which we think will make us happy – if only we get that promotion, have a loving relationship, and so on. Achieving these things can certainly improve our lives – and may even make us happier.

But we are fooling ourselves if we think they will make us happy in a lasting sense. Life is too complicated for that. We are vulnerable, insecure creatures and will inevitably experience disappointment, loss and suffering. By exclusively focusing on the things we think will make us happy, we blind ourselves to the other things in life that matter.

Psychologists are beginning to focus their attention not just on the ingredients of individual happiness, but also on the capacities people need to be happy within inevitably insecure and fragile circumstances.

For instance, the so-called “second wave” of positive psychology is as interested in the benefits of negative emotions as positive ones. The mindfulness revolution, meanwhile, urges people to go beyond their notions of good and bad and instead learn how to accept things as they are. These approaches are less concerned with what conditions make people happy and more interested in how people can pursue happiness within conditions of insecurity and uncertainty.

The more we focus on our list of desired things, the more we fail to see what really matters. When we are certain of the things that make us happy, and urgently try to achieve them, we fail to appreciate the value of the things we already have and the multiple unknown opportunities we have yet to discover. When things inevitably go wrong in our lives, we blame others or ourselves instead of learning from what happened.

Psychologists are beginning to understand the limits of this. Happy individuals tend to have humility as well as certainty; curiosity as well as urgency; and compassion as well as blame.

We can apply these same lessons on a national scale. Creating a happier society requires not just promoting what matters, but also promoting the capacities for discovering what matters.

We know this on an institutional level. In education, we know that it is important to promote curiosity and a love of learning as well as good exam results. In academia, we know that, although we can discover important scientific truths, almost all of our current scientific theories might be surpassed by other theories and we should remain open minded. We know that the appeal and relevance of religious institutions depends on balancing dogmatic teachings with mystery and curiosity – order and faith on the one hand, openness and flexibility on the other.

Creating a happy society does not just depend on creating the right conditions. It also depends on creating the right institutions and processes for discovering those conditions. The irony is that members of the happy society described at the beginning of this article – who tend to be at ease, untroubled, quick to laugh, expansive and self-assured – are probably less focused on what makes them happy and more focused on exploring what really matters – with humility, curiosity and compassion.

To actually create a happy society, we need measures and institutions that do much the same.