Author: Rohese Devereux Taylor,  The Herald

The population of a small Hebridean island could soar by 6,000 per cent if applications to become its newest residents are accepted.

More than 350 people lodged their interest in living on the Isle of Ulva, which is currently home to just six people.

But prospective residents have been warned not to expect a decision soon.

A survey was created last year to select potential new islanders after hundreds applied to forge a new life off the west coast of Mull.

Established residents are keen for people to move to the island to start a business, or to run an enterprise from its shores.

In its prime during the 18th and 19th centuries, Ulva was home to at least 800 people buoyed by the kelp market.

It recently lost a resident with the departure of Jamie Howard, a member of the previous owning family whose grandmother bought the island for £10,000 in the 1940s.

Now in an update, the North West Mull Community Woodland Company Ltd, which owns Ulva, said: “There has been a gratifying amount of interest from people wishing to make their homes on Ulva and everyone has been added to a list and will be contacted when we are ready to move to the formal application stage.

“It does need to be clearly stated that this will not be very soon.”

Now the company that owns it will work with the Argyll and Bute Council planning department to contract architects to renovate existing houses, many of which are in a ruinous state.

There are also plans to construct new homes on the island, but the North West Mull Community Woodland Company Ltd has identified that many of the prospective residents want to restore already existing structures.

They said: “Many of the folk interested in moving to Ulva have indicated that they would be happy to carry out their own renovations, this just isn’t possible as all the major work will have to be done by accredited builders as part of the overall plan.”

They have assured applicants that the project won’t be “fulfilled in a piecemeal way” and assured them that planning to repopulate Ulva was under way, stressing that it “has to be done right”.

“We are moving the paperwork forward as fast as we can but are dependent on the procedures of many outside organisations who cannot be hurried. Everyone who has expressed an interest in living or working on Ulva will be contacted, but please bear with us while we get the infrastructure sorted out.”

The Highlands Small Communities Housing Trust (HSCHT) created the survey to identify individuals, families, and businesses who wish to relocate to Ulva and become part of the community.

The survey, accessed through the HSCHT website, Facebook or Twitter pages, highlighted the opportunities available on Ulva, and the sort of skills and experience needed for it to become sustainable.

Some of the suggested careers for applicants included joiners, roofers, crofters, tour guides and foresters.

One of the main objectives for Ulva is to get agriculture going again on the island. At present there is just a small flock of rather wild Hebridean sheep and a few feral goats.

A key part of the plan is to establish a herd of high-land cattle, starting with around 35 weaned calves this autumn. Each piece of enclosed farmland has been assessed for its potential, not only for agriculture but also in terms of biodiversity and an appropriate management plan assigned in each case.

Some fields will be managed to encourage re-establishment of corncrakes, while others will target waders, or the enhancement of species-rich wildflower meadows.

On June 21 last year, the island was the subject of a successful – and controversial – community buy-out.

Islanders, represented by North West Mull Community Woodland Company Ltd, were able to secure up to £4.4 million in funds from the Scottish Land Fund, and other grants from the Macquarie Group and a crowdfunding campaign to allow it to buy the island.

Donations of  £37,000 from more than 500 supporters from around the world boosted the campaign.

Mr Howard, whose family has owned the 4,500-acre island for more than 70 years, was unhappy over the sale.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 gives communities the right to register and then go on to buy land and assets under certain conditions.

Mr Howard previously said that the community group would “struggle to find suitable funding both for the purchase and development of the island, running into many millions of pounds.”

But local MSP Michael Russell backed the sale and said:”Community purchase gives a new opportunity for Ulva.

“There is a huge amount of goodwill on Mull, in Argyll, across Scotland and even more widely towards the proposed community buyout.

“Moreover it would give an exciting new start for an island that has great potential which will include plans for re-population which this area desperately needs.”

Author: Harris Development Ltd

Extract from the formal submission from Harris Development Ltd to Crown Estate Scotland and Scottish Government

INTRODUCTION

Harris Development own and operate the Isle of Harris Marina with pontoons at Tarbert and Scalpay North Harbour. The facility was 100% publicly funded to promote visiting and local marine tourism which has been shown to be a major economic driver.

The Crown Estate Scotland and Harris Development Limited have not agreed a lease or lease terms for the foreshore and seabed use that they have. This second formal submission to Crown Estate Scotland and to Scottish Government sets out the Harris Development proposal that will help it and other community groups continue to deliver real benefits for the local community in the years ahead.

HARRIS DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND

Harris Development Limited (HDL) is a company incorporated in 1994 ‘to foster, plan, encourage and assist all types of development within the geographical area of the Isle of Harris, with a view to promoting an economic, natural and social environment that will result in a more balanced and stable level of population’

HDL puts forward a community led vision for sustainable socio-economic development on the Isle of Harris. It is ultimately a social enterprise organisation that applies commercial strategies to maximise improvements in financial, social and environmental well-being.

It is governed by a board of Directors who give up their time and expertise voluntarily. There are no shareholders or dividends and the company is essentially not for profit. If any cash surplus is generated from activities it is re invested in current or new projects.

Proposal from Harris Development

HDL is proposing that CES adopts ‘COSE’ or Community Organisation Support Exemption which would mean that HDL would enter into a lease but that the rent charged would be ‘Nil’ or ‘peppercorn’ in recognition that HDL’s marina project exists as a community not for profit enterprise.

HDL further seeks that COSE be fully adopted by CES and applied to other community groups and that this would be a positive public relations coup, at very little cost, for the newly formed (2017) Crown Estate Scotland management.

What is ‘COSE’

Harris Development Limited’s proposal is for CES to adopt ‘COSE’ or Community Organisation Support Exemption with respect to their lease and rent negotiations with community groups seeking to develop marine assets. COSE is a concept developed by HDL.

Community organisations are clearly defined.  (They also defined under the CES act 2019-part 1 section 6) They are all focused on delivering local or community benefit and are social enterprises as well as charitable or voluntary organisations. Some will be community development trusts or companies limited by guarantee or charitable community trusts. All will in some general or focused capacity be seeking to promote economic development in their area as well as regeneration of their economic, social and physical environment. They will all be looking to improve social wellbeing and social inclusion, especially in rural areas. And they will all have environmental wellbeing and sustainable development at the heart of their organisations.

Harris Development Limited (HDL) is a community focused company limited by guarantee and has, for 25 years, delivered local initiatives that have satisfied all of these community ‘articles’

The latest project, The Isle of Harris Marina, which was 100% funded by Scottish Government and other agencies, has already begun to deliver substantial local community socio-economic benefits which are exactly why it was funded publicly in the first place.

The Crown Estate in Scotland, now Crown Estate Scotland since 1^st April 2017, has asserted its ‘right in the crown’ over the foreshore and seabed and subsequently sought to bind HDL to a lease for the installations at Tarbert and Scalpay North harbour.

Its initial rental terms of £2,160 plus VAT, largely based on assumptions of number of berths, was rejected by HDL in April 2018 and a counter proposal based on the number of anchors and shore pins placed on the foreshore and seabed was submitted 6^th April 2018. It also included a proposal for a rent-free period (to allow the project to ‘bed down’) as well as a stepped rent thereafter. This was rejected by Bidwells, agents for CES, in June 2018 and a revised offer of rent to £1,700 per annum was proposed with one rent free year and a stepped rent from £250 to £1,700 over 4 years.

This was rejected by HDL as it was clear that rents at this quantum would be detrimental to the success of the project and would detract from delivering value locally. It sought clarity and guidance as well as intervention by MSP Alasdair Allan. He wrote to Chief Executive Simon Hodge on 11^th September 2018 as well as to Roseanna Cunningham. Roseanna Cunningham replied 2^nd October 2018. No reply was received from Simon Hodge to Alasdair Allan’s letter (?)

Alasdair Allan MSP wrote again to Simon Hodge on 16^th May 2019 which was replied to by Andy Wells, Head of Property (in the absence of but at the request of Simon Hodge on 3^rd June 2019)

Andy Wells writes:

Moving forward, our policies and procedures will clearly be defined by The Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019 once it is fully enacted, and policies are currently being developed to accommodate this new legislation. The Act prohibits CES from making transactions ‘for consideration of less than market value. ‘However, the act will allow us to consider transactions below market value if we are satisfied the transaction is likely to contribute to the promotion or improvement in Scotland of economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing or sustainable development

In fact the CES Act 2019 does allow CES to consider transactions below market value as well as for NO consideration (part 3 section 1):

(1)The manager of a Scottish Crown Estate asset must not make any of the following transactions (“a relevant transaction”) for consideration of less than market value-
(a)a transfer of ownership of the asset,
(b)a grant of a lease of the asset,
(c)a grant of any other right in or over the asset.

(2)Despite subsection (1), the manager may make a relevant transaction for consideration of less than market value (including for no consideration) if the manager is satisfied that the relevant transaction is likely to contribute to the promotion or the improvement in Scotland of-
(a)economic development,
(b)regeneration,

(c)social wellbeing,

(d)environmental wellbeing, or

(e)sustainable development.

In this case the ‘manager’ is assumed to be Andy Wells for CES.  The CES website suggests that the chartered surveyors Bidwells act as ‘agents’ but this does not make them the manager as defined in section 2 of the Act.   
Whilst this correspondence was going on Bidwells were still seeking agreement of rents. (Bidwells email to HDL marina 2^nd May 2019) to which HDL marina replied (29^th May 2019 saying it could not agree a rent other than ‘Nil’ and made the first proposal for ‘COSE’

Paul Bancks (for CES) replied  to HDL by email on 7^th June 2019 saying that ‘seabed rents are based on end use rather than the nature of the tenant’ and with reference to the new CES Act 2019 he goes on to say however that ‘ policies are currently being developed to accommodate this new legislation’ (which is also what Andy Wells said) . At the end of the email he threatens to involve an independent arbiter (the valuation office agency) but says that this would be a lengthy process ‘with additional costs’ This threat appears to have been carried out already as HDL has recently been contacted by the valuation office.

The Crown Estate Scotland assertions (as stated in the letter from Andy Wells (CES manager) to Alasdair Allan MSP dated 3^rd June 2019 are:

To comply with current legislation (now the Crown Estate Scotland Act 2019)

If CES intends to comply with current legislation, then it does have the power to agree a lease at Nil Consideration if the manager is satisfied that the relevant transaction is likely to contribute to the promotion or the improvement in Scotland of-
(a)economic development, (b)regeneration, (c)social wellbeing, (d)environmental wellbeing, or (e)sustainable development.

Senior managers at CES are clearly eager to ensure that they develop positive policies and procedures under the new legislation and the CES annual report and accounts to March 2019 resonates with how much CES has given back to communities and what more it can do in the future

With 2020 being Scotland’s year of coasts and waters it would seem to be extremely negative for CES to be embroiled in controversy with a community group that is delivering real benefits in a local community;  helping to drive marine tourism that is delivering financial benefits to the local and wider Scottish economy.

Ensure a fair and consistent approach across their assets

CES can adopt ‘COSE’ and ensure that all community groups are treated equally, consistently and fairly. Having contacted several other community groups both in the islands and on the mainland, it is clear that CES is not ensuring a fair and consistent approach across these assets with reports of varied and different approaches to lease terms and rents.

Going forward HDL’s support base within other community groups and development trusts will enable it to help CES in ensuring that a consistent approach is extended to all of these groups if COSE is implemented.

Conclusion

HDL believes the Crown Estate act 2019 allows the manager of a Crown estate asset to enter into a transaction at less than market value or indeed Nil consideration (it’s just that they don’t want to and believe that there is no support for a challenge to this)

The Crown estate management could be in breach of the Crown Estate Scotland Act 2019.

By adopting COSE the Crown estate will, for very little cost, gain considerable positive publicity and win a public relations coup in 2020 Scotland’s year of coasts and waters which will inevitably highlight the Crown Estate role in the growth of marine

Considerable support exists within other community groups for change and the Crown Estate Scotland have a duty to Scottish government under devolved powers and a duty and       obligation to comply with the new Crown Estate act 2019.

Harris Development Limited is a community organisation and complies with the definition of such under the CES Act 2019. HDL clearly delivers on key objectives that can satisfy the criteria for the manager of a Crown asset to enter into a transaction at less than market value or Nil consideration. HDL is ready to enter into a lease with CES under these terms.

Author: Housing News

Local still beautiful when it comes to tenant services, finds GWSF Charter report

Services for tenants provided by local community-controlled housing associations have again outperformed those of other social landlords, according to the latest Charter report from the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations (GWSF).

Produced for GWSF by Scotland’s Housing Network, the report compares performance across a range of key Scottish Social Housing Charter outcomes on services to tenants and wider value for money indicators.

Consistent with previous years, GWSF’s member associations – mostly operating in a single geographic patch – scored more highly than other associations and local authorities.

Examples include the average 2.4 hours it took GWSF member associations to carry out emergency repairs, compared to the Scottish average of 3.7 hours. For non-emergency repairs the average for GWSF members was 4.3 days, compared with the Scottish average of 6.6 days.

The average void re-let time for GWSF member associations was 23.9 days, as against the Scottish average of 31.9 days.

Average rents for GWSF member associations, at £80.75, fell roughly halfway between the £88.05 figure for other housing associations and £74.60 for councils.

GWSF chair Helen Moore said: “It’s fair to say that standards across the entire social housing sector in Scotland are generally high. But once again our report strongly indicates that being a genuinely local landlord maximises the chances of providing the most responsive services for tenants.

“Delivering what tenants want, at a reasonable rent, will always be a challenge. This year’s Charter outcomes again demonstrate that our members are successfully striving to achieve an effective balance between service quality, investment in stock, and affordability.

“Evidence from the Charter continues to be important for GWSF. Some in the Scottish housing sector will always find justification for unlimited growth through mergers etc., but whatever benefits are claimed for this, the evidence is that a more responsive service to tenants isn’t one of them.”

Author: Tom Peterkin, Press and Journal

Islands minster Paul Wheelhouse said some island communities face becoming “the next St Kilda” because they are losing so many young people.

The admission came as the Scottish Government came under fire for producing a “toothless” flagship plan to regenerate islands struggling with depopulation.

At a meeting of Holyrood’s Rural Economy committee, the National Islands Plan was attacked for failing to have meaningful targets and objectives for improving lives on Scotland’s islands.

Mr Wheelhouse was also unable to give a precise figure when asked how much it would cost to implement the 70-page plan launched last month.

The plan has been produced to tackle issues such as declining population and the severe transport challenges faced in the country’s most remote areas.

Quizzed by MSPs on depopulation, Mr Wheelhouse made the comparison with St Kilda, the isolated archipelago that was evacuated by islanders in 1930.

Mr Wheelhouse revealed that when consulting on the plan, some islands “were actually worried they are going to be the next St Kilda, so that’s pretty dramatic language”.

He  added: “It is actually a real threat they face, because they have no young people or they have lost young people.

“So how do we help those islands at this most critical point in their history where they are at a tipping point where they start to lose essential services because they cannot staff them any longer?”

The Scottish Government hopes its National Islands Plan will help to answer that question, but it was criticised by North East Lib Dem MSP Mike Rumbles, who claimed it was a “strategy” rather than a plan and lacked “smart objectives”.

His comments were mirrored in submissions made to the committee by local authorities and other bodies.

The Mull and Iona Community Trust answered “no” when asked if the plan set out a clear direction and practical approach to delivering objectives.

The Trust complained that the plan appeared to be “toothless” and feared it would become a “tick box exercise”.

Orkney Council said there were “no defined outcome targets, timescales or measurement of success”.

Western Isles Council said there was a lack of post-Brexit planning.

The scale of the issue for some island communities was laid bare in worrying projections published in 2018 by the National Records of Scotland (NRS).

They showed the Western Isles is expected to experience a 4.8% drop in its population by 2026 – the largest decline in Scotland.

And those predictions followed grim forecasts by Audit Scotland which indicated the islands could lose 14% of their people over the next 20 years, and could also be hit by a 28% fall in the number of children.

Projections for Orkney and Shetland were more positive.

At Holyrood yesterday, committee convener Edward Mountain also put it to Mr Wheelhouse that there was “no definitive cost” for the plan the Scottish Government has put in place in an effort to address the looming “depopulation crisis”.

“We have not got to a precise figure yet to answer your question,” the minister replied, adding that a figure would come later.

On the question of objectives, Mr Wheelhouse said data did not exist to provide progress indicators in some cases, adding work would be done on targets.

Author: Scottish Farm Land Trust

Crowdfunder page

Help us reach our target of £10,000 which will allow us to employ a Development Worker to progress our innovative idea to increase access to land for agro-ecological farmers in Scotland!  To find out more, read on…

The Scottish Farm Land Trust aims to increase access to land for small-scale, ecological agriculture.

We’ll do this by acquiring land to be held in trust and rented fairly to new entrants and young people.

This will support a transition in Scottish agriculture towards:

Improving the environmental impact of agriculture by using organic methods

Making supply chains between farmers and local communities much shorter, meaning fresher more healthy food

Creating opportunities for people who currently struggle to access land for farming because of the high price of land and low supply of tenancies

The model has already been successful elsewhere, but hasn’t been tried in Scotland

We take great inspiration from successful models in other countries such as Terre de Liens in France, and the Ecological Land Coop in England & Wales.  We have seen a gap and huge need for this kind of organisation in Scotland.

In 2016/17 we commissioned a study which was conducted by Nourish with Big Lottery funding which goes into more detail about the need and impact that SFLT could have in Scotland.

We also carried out a survey in 2017 to find out how many people wanted to start farming in Scotland, and had over 1000 responses. 989 were looking to establish agroecological farm businesses in Scotland. 66% of these were under 40 years old. When asked about their motivations for farming, 85% said ‘looking after the environment’ and 79% said ‘help build/sustain rural communities’.  And the biggest barrier to starting farming came out as access to land.

The Scottish Land Commission published a research paper in 2018 on increasing access to farm land for new entrants. Written by the James Hutton Institute, and featured the SFLT as a potential “new model to increase land availability for new entrants.”

Crowdfunder page

Author: Anna Evans etal

To read full report – The impact of short term lets on communities across Scotland

Executive Summary

The aim of this research was to assess the impact, positive and negative, of short-term

lets (STLs) in Scotland, with a focus on communities, particularly on neighbourhoods and

housing. It explores the impacts of STLs from the perspective of residents, hosts,

community actors, and local businesses. The Scottish Government appointed The Indigo

House Group (Indigo House) to undertake this independent research. A case study

approach was adopted with five areas selected to demonstrate different types of

communities including urban and rural, and different experiences of STLs. In the urban

context these were Edinburgh’s City Centre ward including the world heritage site (Old

Town, New Town and Tollcross), and Glasgow’s City Centre including the central business

district and residential areas close to the Scottish Exhibition Centre (Merchant City,

Anderston and Yorkhill). In the rural context the areas explored were the East Neuk of Fife

(excluding St Andrews) as an established coastal holiday home area, Fort William with its

expanding Highland tourism centred around outdoor activities, and Eilean a’ Chèo (Skye)1

as an established tourism area based around its landscape and island experience. The

research involved a mixed method approach of secondary data analysis, short surveys of

residents and hosts, and in-depth interviews involving residents, hosts, community actors

and local businesses.

Author: We Own It

Ten Reasons Why Privatisation is Bad for You

1. Your services get worse

Public services involve caring for people. But private companies make a profit from public services by cutting corners or underinvesting. There is a conflict between making a profit and taking the time to care. For example, private care workers often can’t stop for a cup of tea with an older, vulnerable person they are caring for – because they’re only allowed 15 minutes for their visits.

2. Privatisation costs you more

You pay more, both as a taxpayer and directly when they privatise public services. Have you noticed how your water bills, energy bills, train and bus fares keep on rising in real terms? And did you know that the US privatised health system costs double what we pay for ours? In a privatised service, profits must be paid to shareholders, not reinvested in better services. Interest rates are higher for private companies than they are for government. Plus, there are the extra costs of creating and regulating an artificial market.

3. You can’t hold private companies accountable

If a private company runs a service, they are not democratically accountable to you. You don’t have a voice. Contracts to deliver public services are agreed between private companies and government behind closed doors. There is very little transparency, public accountability or scrutiny. The companies are not subject to Freedom of Information requests because of ‘commercial confidentiality’. When private companies fail to deliver, the public has no powers to intervene and government (local and national) doesn’t always have the time or expertise to force them to keep their promises.

4. Privatisation creates a divided society

Public services are important to meet everyone’s basic needs, so we can all be part of the community. Schools and hospitals are not optional extras. We all need and rely on public services – they are universal. That means they need to be accessible and high quality for everyone. Privatisation often goes hand in hand with encouraging richer people to pay more and opt out of the services we all use. This leads to division, making it harder to provide excellent public services for everyone.

5. You don’t get a democratic voice. When we go to the shops, we all make our own individual decisions about what we want. Public services are different – they give us a chance to come together to decide what kind of society we want to live in. For example, we might want clean, green energy for our future – but the private companies control the energy ‘market’ and often invest in dirty energy, without giving us a say.

6. Public services are natural monopolies

Privatisation was introduced because of a belief in free markets and consumer choice. But public services are often what economists call ‘natural monopolies’. For example, when you take the train, you don’t really have a choice about which one to use. There’s no real competition. Facebook is another, relatively new ‘natural monopoly’. If all your friends are using it, it’s difficult for you not to. Private monopolies often become the worst of all worlds. You don’t have consumer power because you can’t go elsewhere. But you don’t have power as a citizen to make the service better through democratic accountability.

7. Private companies cherry pick services

Private companies cherry pick the profitable bits of a service so they can make as much money as possible. For example, bus companies will only run services in busy areas, so rural communities lose out unless government steps in with a subsidy. It’s more efficient to run public services in public ownership so that profits can be reinvested across the whole network as needed. In probation services, private companies are paid to manage medium to low risk offenders, while the state continues to take responsibility for high risk offenders.

8. Privatisation means fragmentation

When lots of private companies are involved in delivering a public service, this can create a complicated, fragmented system where it’s not always clear who’s doing what. For example, our railway. Private companies don’t necessarily have much incentive to work together and share information. This makes it difficult to provide an integrated service. Privatisation is fragmenting our NHS and the cost of the internal market is at least £4.5 billion a year.

9. Privatisation means less flexibility

Councils and government departments are responsible for meeting the needs of the public – but privatisation means less flexibility for changing circumstances. If an outsourcing contract with a private company needs changing, government must pay more to make changes or improvements, add in extras or to opt out. And selling off public assets (like student loans) or public land (like school playing fields) means we the public have fewer options and resources for delivering the services we’ll need in the future.

10. Privatisation is risky

Look what happened when Carillion failed. If private companies are running our public services and are too big to fail, the public has to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.

Author: Hilary Wainwright, The Guardian

Lessons of Porto Alegre

Last week, when Hazel Blears announced plans for participatory budgeting – people organising themselves with council support to help decide local public spending priorities – she did so with a very significant statement. “We are now at a tipping point where there is a will right across government to devolve power,” she said, pointing to the success of experiments elsewhere, most notably in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre.

Devolving power is one of those feel-good phrases that need to be considered critically if we are to make the most of such announcements. The problem with devolved power is that it can easily be revoked. This is particularly the case if the power and resources of local government are not increased. So how can participatory budgeting – which, Blears insisted, is “not just consultation” – become a foundation stone of a renewed democracy?

It is worth looking more closely at what can be learned from the Brazilian experience. Direct popular participation in decisions over the municipality’s budget for new investments earned Porto Alegre a United Nations prize as the world’s most habitable city, led to a significant redistribution of resources to the poor, and caused such an improvement in the general quality of life that middle-class citizens accepted a tax increase.

As a means of monitoring investments as well as deciding on them, the participatory budget contributed to an impressive improvement in the infrastructure and services as well as in the transparency and efficiency of financial systems. It also proved to be a strong defence against the pressure to privatise public services.

Since 1989 the participatory budgeting process in Porto Alegre has been built up steadily, renegotiated by citizens and the municipal government every year. Three important principles underpin the process: first, it is city-wide – citizens meet in open assemblies in their neighbourhoods and debate and vote on local priorities, which are then negotiated across neighbourhoods; second, the negotiation takes place on the basis of a set of agreed criteria of need and population size and through a transparent, regular cycle of meetings; third, every citizen has the right to be directly involved through the election of a representative to the neighbourhood assembly.

A striking feature of the Brazilian experience is the high level of support that municipalities give to the process. In Porto Alegre teams of community organisers and popular educators have been involved in training citizens in “budget literacy” – reaching young people, the disabled, the elderly, ethnic minorities and others who might be inhibited from participating – and working with them to help them prepare their proposals.

A basic institutional contrast between the British and the Brazilian experiences is highlighted by a World Bank report on Porto Alegre, which notes that municipalities in Brazil have “considerable autonomy over their revenues and expenditures”. This is fundamental to the embedded nature of the process. Locally elected municipalities will find it difficult to take away power from an active and autonomously organised citizenry.

A recent Mori poll indicated that there is significant public support for direct involvement in budget decision-making. The Blears proposals need to build on this support in a way that avoids simply institutionalising small expectations, but rather strengthens the challenge to inequalities both within towns and cities and on a national scale.

Hilary Wainwright is the author of Reclaim the State: Experiments in Popular Democracy

hilary@redpepper.org.uk

Author: Fiona Harvey

Click here to view the first weekend’s sitting of Scotland Citizen Assembly

Thirty-thousand people across the UK have been randomly chosen to take part in a citizens’ assembly on the climate emergency convened by MPs.

Invitations to the assembly, which will be held over four weekends in Birmingham from January to mid-March, are due to arrive from Wednesday next week.

Only 110 of the 30,000 people will take part in Climate Assembly UK, at which they will be asked to discuss how the UK should respond to the climate emergency and what policies they would like to see implemented to meet the target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, now enshrined in law. Those selected to take part will be demographically representative of the country.

The initiative comes from six select committees of MPs, which have managed to get the invitations out before parliament is dissolved for the election, so the next government will receive a full report on the outcome.

Citizens’ assemblies have been used in other countries to respond to complex and emotive national issues, such as abortion in Ireland, and have been advocated by some as a response to Brexit.

Rachel Reeves, the chair of the business, energy and industrial strategy select committee, said: “Adopting the net-zero target was a major milestone for the UK, reflecting the strong cross-party support for action on climate change. We now need to set out a clear roadmap, and finding solutions which are equitable and have public support will be crucial. Parliament needs to work with the people and with government to address the issue of climate change.”

The £520,000 cost of Climate Assembly UK is being met partly by the House of Commons, providing £120,000, with the rest split between two philanthropic foundations, the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and the European Climate Foundation.

Some campaigners also want to ensure politicians do not try to use assemblies as a way to put off taking urgent action on emissions while waiting for consensus to be built on some of the trickier questions.

Dave Timms, the head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth, said: “Much of what needs to be done already commands widespread public support and it is politicians that just need to bloody well get on with it now.”

The Liberal Democrats and the Green party have supported the idea of citizens’ assemblies to assist government decision-making. Wera Hobhouse, the Lib Dem climate change spokeswoman, said: “It is vital that citizens from across the UK are directly involved with ending the climate emergency – but this must be more than a talking shop.

“It is deeply disappointing that the Tory government have failed to take the lead. If they were serious about tackling the climate emergency, they wouldn’t leave it to backbench MPs.”

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, said: “Tackling the climate emergency is not an issue just for politicians. It needs to include everyone or we will not succeed in building a sustainable, just and fair society. Citizens’ assemblies are the ideal vehicle to do this and I warmly welcome this initial step.”

Separately, the chancellor, Sajid Javid, has announced a review of the economics of reaching the net-zero target, including ways to use government policy to generate green growth and prevent the UK from exporting the emissions from manufacturing goods to other countries.

“The UK is leading the way on tackling climate change as the first major economy to legislate for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,” he said.

“We must all play a part in protecting the planet for future generations. This review is a vital next step in delivering that commitment, ensuring that we can end our contribution to global warming, while supporting growth and balancing costs, to avoid placing unfair burdens on families or businesses.”

Author: Linda Somerville

Scotland needs a community organising movement

Drawing on her Leith experience, Linda Somerville argues there are new and effective ways of organising

The good citizens of Leith are currently in uproar at plans to demolish a two-storey art deco sandstone building at the bottom of Leith Walk. Until recently, the proposed development site contained much loved local businesses and social enterprises in the row of art deco shops. The £50m development includes a 471-bed student accommodation complex with hotel, restaurant, retail units and 53 ‘affordable’ homes. The developer believes it has gone above and beyond with both community consultation and by providing ‘affordable’ housing in the development. Under current legislation, developers are not required to provide any ‘affordable’ housing in purpose built student accommodation – exposing why student flats appear to be filling any gap sites available in our cities.

Leithers became aware of this in spring last year and in the eight months since the campaign has gathered 12,000 signatures against the demolition, supported residents to formally object to the proposals with over 3,500 objections lodged on the council planning portal and hosted large and lively public meetings with hundreds of Leithers. The campaign has received wide spread support from leading artists including Irvine Welsh, Young Fathers, the Proclaimers and cross party support from local councillors, MSPs, MPs with Jeremy Corbyn calling the campaign ‘iconic’ during his recent meeting with community groups in Edinburgh.

While there is wide and solid support for saving the building and influencing the development, a number of underlying issues have contributed to the uproar around this proposal. Housing in Edinburgh has always topped the rest of Scotland for expensiveness and Leith filled the affordability gap with lower rents and flats for sale is an area that was often overlooked by many. The growing number of tourists and short-term lets have pushed Edinburgh’s housing into a crisis with basic rents set at over £1,000 per month. The local authority’s economic reliance on tourism and higher education has tipped the balance with hotels and student accommodation peppering an ever widening area.

While the developers may have ticked the community consultation box, locals don’t feel they have had a say in what happens in the area nor had their concerns listened to when raised. Scotland’s flawed planning process limits community involvement and has no right of appeal for communities, only for the developer. The lack of agency is widely felt and represents the disconnect with elected representatives that many working class communities face.

None of this is unique to Leith or Edinburgh with communities across Scotland and Britain facing similar challenges as big business dictates what happens on our doorstep. The campaign has received enquiries from Canada to Berlin as journalists and academics examine how working class populations are faring in our changing cities.   Public Servant not Listening

The lack of trust in the political and planning process highlights failures in our local democracy. The model is transactional where each citizen is asked to give a vote in return for a commitment. There is no ownership of decisions for voters, no power transferred to communities, just a hope that the winner will follow through on its promise. Local democracy needs to be overhauled to bring decision making closer to people, with smaller constituencies, more power held locally and support for communities to, as the Electoral Reform Society Scotland calls it, ‘Act like you own the Place’.

While we don’t know the outcome of the planning process yet and the focus is still on stopping the demolition to Save Leith Walk, the energy, spirit and creativity of the campaign has emboldened locals to think more strategically about their area and what they want from Our Leith Walk.

All too often campaigns are focused on opposition and use mobilising tactics with a strategy based on increased numbers and a centralised structure. This campaign has utilised community organising tools to consider how to agree objectives, examine where power lies and offer a way to build our power in the community. With consensus decision making and distributed responsibility for activity, there is no committee or rigid structures that are often associated with campaigning and the left. It feels like an experiment, and in many ways it is.

As the impacts of neo-liberalism sweep through our towns and cities and the economy shakes before Brexit and the next financial crash, we need to defend and develop our communities and ensure the toxicity of the far right does not gain ground. Scotland needs a community organising strategy. Community organising can provide the key to a diverse and lively local democracy bringing people together to make the changes they want to see. We need trained community organisers, a network for campaigners for peer to peer learning, opportunities to problem solve together, consider how technology helps or hinders us as well as share tools and tactics that win.

A movement of community organising provides a different way of campaigning, recognising that this will also challenge some of the power structures and practices within the left that are too reliant upon models that centralise power and ensure that certain skills and experience stay at the top table. Creating a community organising movement would be transformative across Scotland as individuals and groups are brought together, heard and supported to build collective power and make the change they want to see.

Linda Somerville is Director of NUS Scotland, and lives and works in Leith. She has been a key figure in the Save Leith Walk campaign (https://saveleithwalk.org/). She is on twitter @lindasomervill