Author: By Severin Carrell, Guardian

Environment campaigners have warned that Scotland will lose vital legal safeguards because ministers have failed to ensure environment and pollution laws will be properly enforced after Brexit.

They said ministers in Edinburgh had refused repeated requests to table new legislation to guarantee citizens and campaigners in Scotland the same rights they now had under European law.

WWF Scotland, the conservation group, said this meant it would be much harder – if the UK left the EU – for campaigners to legally challenge the Scottish government for failing to uphold air quality standards, or to stop wildlife being culled by Scottish Natural Heritage, a government agency, before other dispersal methods were tried.

In an open letter published by the Guardian, many of Scotland’s leading conservation and civic groups have urged Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, to introduce an environment act guaranteeing that legal rights available within the EU continue after Brexit.

The letter, signed by 16 bodies including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, WWF, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, National Trust for Scotland and Royal Scottish Geographic Society, said the climate emergency added to the need for legislation.

Organised by the umbrella group Scottish Environment Link, the letter says: “Nicola Sturgeon has acknowledged that our planet faces a climate emergency. Inextricably linked to this is growing ecological crisis.

“We must not let Brexit derail us from tackling these huge global challenges head on. Whatever the outcome of the current political uncertainties we need robust, binding, targets for the recovery of Scotland’s natural environment, to safeguard both nature and people.”

Its signatories want the new act to create an independent regulator to police government and public agency decisions, and enforce environmental laws to at least the same standard as the EU’s. They also want principles of environmental law used by the EU enshrined in Scots law, and binding targets set to improve and protect the environment.

Under EU law any citizen can go, for free, to the European commission to challenge a government’s or agency’s failure to uphold EU law. The commission can investigate and take enforcement action, including taking the member state to the European court of justice.

Those powers have been used at EU level by the legal group Client Earth to make the UK enforce air pollution regulations; by the RSPB to halt a cull of barnacle geese on Islay, sanctioned by Scottish Natural Heritage; and again by the RSPB, to protect peatlands in England.

Michael Gove, the UK environment secretary, is planning to introduce similar procedures after Brexit to cover environmental legal enforcement in England. The Labour-run Welsh government, which like Holyrood has devolved responsibilities for the environment, is involved in that process.

Although the UK, Scottish and Welsh governments have cooperated closely on measures to transpose EU environment regulation into UK and Scots law, ministers in Edinburgh have refused to cooperate with Gove’s plans for new regulatory measures. So the Scottish government’s own expert advisory panel and the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Scotland’s national academy, have urged ministers to set up the independent regulator, as sought by the letter’s signatories.

Roseanna Cunningham, the Scottish environment secretary, responded to the letter by insisting her government was committed to matching or exceeding the EU’s environment laws, but she refused to confirm it would introduce a new environment act or oversight agency.

She said: “While our choice would be to remain fully within EU governance systems our approach will ensure we remain true to the EU environmental principles and ensure governance that fit Scottish needs, circumstances and ambitions. I welcome the continuing involvement of environmental NGOs and civil society in Scotland in this work.”

Lang Banks, the director of WWF Scotland, said: “Citizens have a right to raise concerns but we now risk losing the ability to freely access environmental justice. We are in a climate emergency, we’re in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, and this is the point where we need to be ramping up our environmental protections. Brexit means we risk losing the protections we currently have, when we need them most.”

Author: Mike Small, Bella Caledonia

Edinburgh is buzzing. It’s week three and the kids shows are packed-out, despite the Scottish schools being back from their summer holidays. Funny that.

The response to the CITIZEN’s film by Bonnie Prince Bob has been a mixture of vitriol and epiphany, hyper-defensiveness and celebration. 45k people have watched it and it’s garnered over 1000 ‘likes’.

The PR response is now in over-drive.

The Times yesterday told us: “The Edinburgh Festival Fringe is worth about £1bn to Scotland — three times greater than had been thought — according to a fresh economic analysis of the world’s biggest arts festival.”

The paper gushes: “Official data shows admissions up by about 45% since 2010, and by nearly a quarter in the last three years alone …More than 59,600 performances of 3,841 shows will be staged across 323 venues this month, suggesting that the Fringe has grown by about 20% in five years.”

One of the central problems is the routinely celebrated growth model. 20% in five years? Will there be another 20% in another five years? Another 20% in another five years? Is anyone thinking that’s maybe NOT a good thing?

[Note to reader: absolutely nobody drinking from the cash cow is thinking that’s a bad thing.]

At what point does somebody say “We need another measurement of success”?

Another paper, the Evening News, paints a different picture. They reveal that:

– There are more than 11,000 active listings (listings with at least one review in the last year) on Airbnb in the Capital.

– More than 7,000 of these are entire properties, with another 4,000 rooms inside houses and flats.

– Only 1,700 properties are listed as short-term self-catering units on the business rates register.

Under current Scottish Government rules, any short-term let which operates for more than 140 days a year does not have to pay council tax and instead becomes liable for business rates.

“With small businesses with a rateable value of £15,000 or under given total relief from business rates, it means the vast majority of short-term lets in the city which declare themselves as businesses pay no tax to the council whatsoever.”

Nothing. Not a bean.

This means that Air BnB, the Fringe’s official partner since 2015 gives nothing back at all.

As we said previously (‘1:48 is the new 7: 84’): “The annual UK Housing Review, shows that in the City of Edinburgh alone there are over 10,000 Airbnbs. With a population of 485,000, that means there is an Airbnb for every 48 people in the city. That compares to a figure of one Airbnb per 105 people in greater London, meaning Scotland’s capital has more than twice as many per head.”

Not everybody sees this as a problem. Certainly not AirBnB, certainly not the Fringe.

Back in 2015 when their partnership started the Fringe announced:

“Airbnb, the world’s leading community-driven hospitality company, today announced its new role as an Official Accommodation Partner of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. Edinburgh is one of the top destinations in the UK for home sharing on Airbnb, attracting close to 40,000 guests a year, and can expect to welcome thousands of visitors for the festival this August.

The region has seen impressive growth recently with a 300% increase in guests staying through Airbnb, and 87% more hosts year on year. The annual Fringe brings a huge influx of performers and spectators to the city all needing a place to stay, and home sharing is a great way for locals to reap the benefits.”

87% more hosts year on year. Endless growth. You do the math.

It’s clear that the cultural sector is enthusiastically supporting a partnership with a company that has meant the hollowing-out of residential communities, and effective social cleansing and artwashing of whole areas of the city.

That’s a disgrace.

Increasingly then the question becomes: what is the festivals long-term legacy?

Increasingly the festivals huge success raises deeper more fundamental questions.

The film-maker Bonnie Prince Bob writes:

“When asked to comment on my film, Edinburgh Council leader Adam McVey claimed that Edinburgh hosts “the biggest cultural event on the planet”.

“If this gargantuan festival of the arts was a permanent feature in any other major World tourist city, then grand Institutions of the arts would be funded on the basis of the taxes raised from the countless incomers.”

“Despite annually trumpeting the phenomenal scale and huge returns generated, this so-called Scottish City of the Enlightenment has organised no benefits in the arts for its residents, or for that matter the youth of Scotland. Where is our World famous institute of the arts?”

“Where is our Frank Gehry/ Norman Foster designed -overpriced architectural glass and steel marvel (funded through a combination of tourist tax, philanthropy and corporate loot) offering education in all artistic disciplines and providing bursaries and scholarships to the less privileged in our communities? Bilbao is a city two-thirds the size of Edinburgh in one of the most deprived areas of Spain, yet, with progressive thinking, still managed to fund the Guggenheim’s £100 million construction with a £50 million acquisition fund and plus a one-time £20 million fee towards the annual payments.”

He continues:

“When August’s orgy of corporate profit is over in Edinburgh, what is left for the populace? The vast majority of capital leaves the city. It is an indictment and embarrassment that in over 70 years of the Festival and with the increasing solicitation of the City’s public space, Edinburgh Council and successive Scottish governments have failed to adequately tax and reinvest into the artistic enrichment of Edinburgh and Scotland.”

Of course he’s right and the more the leaders of the council and the custodians of cultural capital respond to criticisms with claims of vast income and huge amounts of money swilling about the city, the more the question hangs, so what?

Detractors of the Citizen or Bonnie Prince Bob’s work argue that it’s miserabilist and ‘negative’. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have loads of ideas, as lots of other people will have too.

Why isn’t North Edinburgh Arts Centre funded by the festival? Why isn’t Whale Arts the beneficiaries of a twenty year programme of support for the people of Wester Hailes? Why isn’t the Book Festival re-located to Leith Links? Why aren’t young people in Edinburgh the beneficiaries of an incredible programme of cultural opportunity? Why isn’t there a programme of bursaries to fund places at the Conservatoire in Glasgow? Why isn’t the Kings Theatre refurbishment, or Leith Theatre’s re-development swelling with the generous endowment of the festival?

Why isn’t there a People’s Institute of the Arts as a legacy of the festival after such a long time?

Edinburgh needs to reclaim its festival through degrowth and democracy, so that our cultural asset can thrive and our city can be a capital of culture. In times of binary Brexit division, social inequality and a retreat into racism and parochialism, it’s not hard to see how the festival could reclaim its origin story and re-boot as an event for all the people.

Author: Community Shares Scotland

Gartmore group seek £55,000 for The Black Bull

A hotel and pub in Gartmore, near Stirling could soon be the first in Scotland to be owned by its local community.

The Black Bull Hotel is the subject of a community share offer aiming to crowdfund £55,000. The idea has received financial backing from the Scottish Land Fund and the volunteers behind the campaign now hope their supporters back them to raise the necessary community contribution.

The opportunity arose after current owners, Andy and Liz Malcolm decided it was time to move on, offering to sell the business to a community group for below its market value.

After a public meeting and consultation with the community, plans were drawn up to take on the hotel and convert it to a “hub and pub” space that could be enjoyed by everybody in the village. 

Colin Garvie, one of the society’s founding directors, said: “The creation of the Black Bull Hub & Pub will address some of the key challenges faced by the village, including an absence of facilities for an ageing population, social isolation, shortage of local activities for young people, limited local employment opportunities and a lack of public services and facilities to attract visitors to the area.

“The Black Bull Hub and Pub will generate the necessary revenue to pay staff, improve facilities and provide services that will empower the community to make Gartmore a better place to live, work and visit, as well as protecting the services and sustainability of the village hall and the village shop both of which are also owned and run by the community.”

The project has been helped along the way by Community Shares Scotland and could be the first of several similar schemes across Scotland. With one UK pub every twelve hours said to permanently close its door, some see community ownership as the ideal way to save much needed social spaces, especially in rural areas.

For more information and to invest in the share offer visit https://blackbullgartmore.com/

Author: Noel Mathias, WEvolution

Several years back I interviewed candidates for a community worker’s  role in a Church in Ayr. When I asked ‘what will you have achieved in the first three months of your role?’ I was quite taken aback by the answer: Lots and lots of teas and coffees.

This was pretty early on in my career here in Scotland and it took me by surprise. Having come from India, where the scale of issues means that community organising is pretty serious business, it’s not an answer one would expect in an interview. I certainly get the emphasis on building relationships and trust capital in our roles but somewhere along this trajectory we have started to forget the difference between doing ‘ministry of relationships’ and a ‘relational ministry’. 

So here’s the problem as I see it. Over the years of my work within the third/voluntary sector, I have come across three kinds of community workers .

1.            Gatekeeper – here’s a passionate worker who keeps his/her flock close and protected. Words/phrases that showcase this personality are ‘my groups/girls/boys aren’t ready for this yet’ and ‘don’t come to steal my groups’. Note the nuanced emphasis on the sense of control over people and their choices and destiny.

2.            Regulator – this is a well-intentioned person who is risk averse and ends up protecting the very system which keeps people/communities behind the rest and more affluent in the society.

3.            Messiah – here’s a kind hearted and compassionate worker who is constantly in ‘fixing’ and ‘lifting people up’ modes. A number of community workers fall into this category – at the same time as paying lip service to the value of people figuring out life and solutions themselves. Examples of this are words like “but how can the poor save?”

Introducing new community development approaches – dime a dozen these days, it would seem and more like a rehash of words I think  – like  Appreciative Inquiry, Assets Based, Strengths based, Place based, etc. isn’t really shifting what we need most: a change in the mindset and skills sets of community workers.  A number of workers come in to a job to run a project or a programme and get caught up in funding cycles and mimicking the lingo of the era (“our work is strengths based”; “we do lived experience”). 

To mark the mindset shift, we need to develop a new culture, principles and a national framework to educate and accompany a new breed of community workers in Scotland. Accompanying is an important part of the process of change, one we probably haven’t paid much attention to. Coaching and/or mentoring have to be essential parts of people’s professional development alongside appropriate support and supervision from line managers.

What are the kinds of workers we need for our current times and for the near-future? We need community workers to be economists, entrepreneurs, environmentalists and activists. Or we need economists, entrepreneurs, environmentalists and activists to become community workers. This means new forms and curriculums within academia training, benchmarking salaries so they are amongst the best (after all we need to attract good talent both in the field and management) and solid performance matrixes (as I love say: great relationships and high productivity, not one without the other).  Poverty, mental health, isolation/loneliness etc. are very serious issues for our society and ‘teas and coffees’ aren’t going to do it for a lot of people who find themselves at a cliff edge in life. 

Further, we need to build, encourage – and fund – an appetite for serious reflection and research among community workers. This could take the form of sabbaticals, study leaves or even research days as part of a working week as many university lecturers have. At the end of which, depending on levels of responsibility, one should be expected to write or publish papers/blogs. This is how we make sure that praxis and theory go hand in hand.

What are some of the fundamental principles that we need to build within any new framework? To my mind these are key:

1.            Every single person we work alongside with, regardless of their location and circumstances, is more than just a consumer, service user, beneficiary and client. He/she is a producer of value – economic, social and what have you.

2.            Stop fixing and above all, stop fixing parts. We, human beings, defy compartmentalisation.

3.            Trust people we work with as our equals who are capable of figuring out solutions themselves.

4.            Practice hard empathy (or, carefronting )

5.            Stop hand holding and, rather, tend to the space/contexts/environments around people. 

6.            Focus on creating collectives built around inter-dependence.

7.            Start with people’s resourcefulness: Start savings in every single group we run in Scotland.  

Any new framework for Scotland has to understand the complexities and gifts of our current and future times and its impact on the local. These will, hopefully, define not just a new style of working but, I dare say, a new kind of person taking up the role of the community worker.

Twitter: @Matsnoel

Author: Senscot

Senscot wants to hear from social enterprise cafes and social enterprises involved in community cafe type activity following a series of sessions in partnership with Aberdeen SEN, Glasgow SEN, Scottish Borders SEC and NHS Health Scotland to explore what purpose community cafes play within social enterprise. 

Across the wide range of activity in terms of both purpose, scale and location of community cafes, there is a clear desire to share learning of what both has and hasn’t worked and how to avoid or work around some of the challenges.

To facilitate this, we are inviting all social enterprise with experience of community café activity to share one of their biggest challenges and to provide top tips for aspiring community cafes.

THIS SURVEY should only take a few minutes to complete and if you’d like more information please contact Mary or Eddie at mail@senscot.net.

Author: Caroline Gardner , Sceptical Scot

It was a remark that elicited nods of agreement across the room.

“The less we trust each other, the less efficient the state and society is likely to be.”

So said Professor Sir John Curtice, one of several excellent speakers at our annual conference, which this year focused on trust.

Is the public more distrusting of government and public bodies than in the past? It can feel like it in the current climate, but ‘not so’, says Sir John, a Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde.

In fact, levels of trust – while subject to fluctuations due to scandals like ‘Cash for Questions’ – have remained broadly steady over the last 40 years, he explained.

But what about audit? Auditors? Following the very public collapse of BHS and construction firm Carillion – a holder of major public sector contracts – there has been growing concern about audit quality in the corporate sector, and the impact on audit’s reputation.

Last year’s Kingman report and a second report, by the Competition and Markets Authority, set out wide ranging proposals to improve trust in the sector.

Many of the changes called for are already features of the Scottish public-sector audit model that guides our work at Audit Scotland.

Public sector bodies do not, for example, appoint their own auditors – The Auditor General appoints the auditors for all Scottish Government, NHS, further education and other central government bodies. And the Accounts Commission does likewise for all councils and local government bodies.

That helps ensure the auditor is free from any potential or perceived conflict of interest or other pressure that might compromise their judgement.

Sarah Howard, President of CIPFA, believes the profession south of the border is now at “a really pivotal point”, and said she “looked on in envy” at the public audit model in Scotland.

Gratifying as that was to hear, sitting beside Sarah on that afternoon conference panel was Gordon Smail, one of our Audit Directors. And his point is one all of us would agree with at Audit Scotland.

Yes, Scotland should take great pride in the way it delivers public audit, said Gordon, “but we need to be vigilant and must not be complacent”.

Quite. Audited bodies, politicians, academics and the wider public rightly need to have trust in our work. It is our contribution to a more efficient society and state, and we take that responsibility extremely seriously.

We’ve worked hard to develop trust in our reports and judgments. And both myself and the Accounts Commission will be reflecting with Audit Scotland colleagues on which measures outlined in the Kingman and CMA reports might be adopted to further improve audit quality.

In the meantime, a sobering thought for all of us who have made a career in audit was delivered in the closing conference remarks by Prof Graeme Roy, Director of the Fraser of Allander Institute.

“Most people have no idea what public audit is,” he said, adding that it’s not the job of the public to understand audit, “it’s Audit Scotland’s job to communicate the results and what it means for their day to day lives. That’s how trust can be improved.”

I agree; and clear, transparent communication is something we will be continuing to strive for in the rest of 2019.

Author: Eddie Nisbet Senscot

As we continue to digest news of Scotland’s appalling number of annual drug-related deaths, viable solutions on offer to this growing national tragedy remain thin on the ground.

 The Scottish Government has already advocated the importance of a health-based to substance abuse, publishing a new national strategy to tackle the issue in November 2018.

However, with the UK Government refusing to revisit the devolved issue of drug legislation, there remains an element of finger pointing between the two legislatures in relation to who ultimately bears responsibility for a social problem which has spiralled dangerously out of control.

While the debate over legislation remains intractable for the time being, it would be worthwhile considering the options we do have at our disposal, such as expanding the scope for community-based organisations to deliver public health services at a local level.

Scotland’s social enterprise ecosystem already provides countless vital health services related to substance abuse in communities across Scotland – working in the most deprived areas to ameliorate the more acute effects of failed social policy. 

Services are often free at the point of contact, funded through a mixture of core funding, grants and enterprising activity. These services are not designed to duplicate or replace existing core health services, but rather support a system struggling under the weight of a national health crisis.

 Consider Community Food Initiatives North East (CFINE), based in Aberdeen where drug-related deaths doubled over the course of a single year. Primarily concerned with tackling food insecurity, CFINE has recognised the link between low incomes and substance abuse now supports people trying to navigate the benefits system. Beneficiaries are supported back into work through volunteering opportunities, while the most vulnerable individuals are signposted to local intervention and recovery services.

 Then there’s Street Fit Scotland, an Edinburgh-based social enterprise which runs a health, fitness and wellbeing programme for people experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity. The programme combines fitness classes such as boxercise and circuit training with wellbeing workshops covering issues such as suicide prevention, Naloxone training and boosting self-esteem.

In Erskine, Crisis Counselling has been offering free early intervention counselling services for over 23 years. Founder Jean Cumming noticed that the only services available through the NHS were acute interventions, often leaving individuals with a limited chance of making a robust recovery. Crisis Counselling now takes over 2000 NHS referrals a year, providing free support to individuals experiencing substance addiction and mental health issues. 

In Glasgow, Thriving Survivors supports men, women and children affected by trauma through its eight-week recovery programme, Discovering Me. Set up in 2017, Thriving Survivors has so far supported 350 vulnerable people, with 60% of clients presenting themselves to the organisation as having an addiction or being in recovery. Three quarters of Thriving Survivors’ current workforce completed the Discovering Me programme, having previously experienced an addiction issue.

By reducing the impact of social factors linked to problematic drug use, social enterprises across Scotland are already having a hugely positive impact on our complicated relationship with drugs – at a local level.

Rooted in their communities, they have the sort of trusting relationship with beneficiaries which is often lacking in centralised services, meaning people are more likely to access these services than they are to present themselves to the NHS. 

Smaller, community-based organisations often have a much better picture of the localised social factors which are contributing to substance abuse, including unemployment, homelessness, mental health issues, and low incomes.

Their strength lies in being able to identify hyperlocal needs and put in place a programme of services which address the causes of substance abuse and not simply react to the symptoms. Often surviving on miniscule budgets and year-on-year funding applications, they continue to return an impressive social impact with the adaptive services they develop.

In which case, the solution is not to take one effective model and attempt to roll it out nationwide, or to inject huge amounts of cash into small organisations and expect them to be able to achieve rapid growth both in terms of capacity and social impact. Rather, we should aim to support this network of small, successful operations to become appropriately funded through the delivery of local public services in the communities they already serve so well.

The procurement process by which the Scottish Government can subcontract public services can be extremely difficult for smaller organisations to navigate. Smaller social enterprises often report struggling to access opportunities due to lacking in capacity to fulfil contracts, or being outbid or undercut by larger organisations. 

Ultimately, a procurement process which is heavily weighted towards larger organisations potentially runs the risk of more and more public health services are ending up in the hands of private businesses – a trend which public opinion is decidedly against.

Recent YouGov polling indicated that 51% of people consider it a risk to subcontract local public services to private businesses, whereas only 24% would consider it a risk for social enterprises to deliver these services. The figures also revealed that social enterprises were trusted to deliver better value for money in relation to public services.

Tellingly, when asked to make a choice between social enterprise or private business being handed local council or NHS subcontracts, 90% of people who had a preference indicated that they would choose social enterprise. 

Despite this striking level of public support for social enterprises delivering public services, the vast majority of Scotland’s £11bn public procurement spend remains incredibly hard to access for small, community-based organisations – with private businesses and national charities enjoying the most lucrative contracts. 

This is backed up by figures in the 2017 Social Enterprise Census which indicate that 80% of social enterprises in Scotland did not bid for a public service contract in the past 12 months. Only 15% of these community organisations end up successfully navigating the procurement process. 

The Scottish Government has made a commitment to “public service reform which will see increasingly localised, preventative and personalised public services”, but for this to be a success the onus must be on widening the access to smaller organisations – not encouraging social enterprises and other community organisations to rapidly increase their capacity.

The strength of Scotland’s social enterprise sector is that it provides a nationwide network of small, effective organisations that can breathe lives into their communities precisely because they know them inside out.

Expecting social enterprises to expand and increase their capacity until fit the current model not only jeopardizes their innate nature, it also runs the risk of eventually replicating the system already in place which has proven to be so deeply flawed. 

The introduction of new legislation to reduce the problematic use of drugs in Scotland might not be an option on the table right now, and that’s not likely to change any time soon 

The Procurement Reform Act Scotland (2014) was lofty in its aims in this regard, but unfortunately follows a trend for well-written strategies which have not been backed up by a robust implementation and a faithful interpretation.

Substance abuse is closely related to the social condition of a community. The longer we delay in widening access to public service contracts to this nationwide network of small but effective community organisations, the greater the risk of Scotland sliding further and further into a public health crisis which so far shows few signs of abating.

Eddie Nisbet is research and communications officer at Senscot

Author: SCDC

Full briefing paper

In the year since they were introduced, SCDC has learned a lot about participation requests. Our new briefing summarises our learning so far.

Participation requests are a way for people to have their say about what improvements they would like to see made to public services they use. Community groups in Scotland have been able to make them since April 2017, when they were introduced as part of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act.

The briefing highlights that more information and support needs to be available to groups that want to make participation requests. The legislation and guidance may require some strengthening as well. If this happens, participation requests have the potential to be an important piece of the puzzle in making bottom-up co-production happen in Scotland.

Key findings.

1. More needs to be done to raise awareness of participation requests.

 2. When people know about participation requests they need support in order to make them.

3. Disadvantaged and marginalised groups, such as people experiencing poverty, disabled people and black and minority ethnic groups, need targeted support in order to make participation requests.

4. There needs to be stronger legislation and/or guidance around the outcome improvement process which is set up when a participation request is agreed to.

5. There was a strong feeling amongst people we spoke to that, in order to work, participation requests need to have independent oversight and an appeals mechanism – people regularly described the legislation as “lacking teeth”.

 6. Participation requests may not be the ‘silver bullet’ to increasing participation in public service design, but they could be an important ‘piece of the puzzle’.

7. Many people we have spoken to feel that they should be able to make participation requests to more public bodies than those already listed in the legislation.

Full briefing paper

Author: Tom Gordon, The Herald

THE bill for consultants on the new Citizens Assembly of Scotland has hit a quarter of a million pounds.

Taxpayers will have to pay between £200,000 and £225,000 for outside experts to “design and facilitate” the forum, which has been dubbed a Nationalist front by its critics.

A new official tender document issued also says the 120 members of the Assembly will be thrown a party on the first of their six weekends considering Scotland’s future.

It says the inaugural meeting in Edinburgh on the last weekend of October will include “an evening reception for members”.

The remaining five weekends, which run monthly until April next year, will “take place at a hotel and conferencing facility in Glasgow”.

Last week pollster Mark Diffley landed a £22,475 contract to find the Assembly’s members.

Both contracts exclude VAT, which could come to an additional £49,500.

The details emerged as the Scottish Government named Kate Wimpress as the Assembly’s second independent convener alongside former Labour MEP David Martin.

Mr Martin served in Brussels for 35 years until losing his seat in May, while Ms Wimpress is the director of North Edinburgh Arts and chair of Scotland’s Regeneration Forum.

Announced by Nicola Sturgeon in April as a way of thrashing out the long-term challenges facing Scotland, the Assembly has faced sharp criticism from opposition parties.

It is based on Irish models which led to referendums legalising same-sex marriage and abortion, where cross party buy-in and independence were vital to the exercise’s success.

However the Scottish Tories have urged other Unionists to boycott it.

SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC also called it the “perfect way” to advance independence.

According to the new tender document, the facilitator will work with conveners, a secretariat and a “stewarding group” to co-design the Assembly’s meetings with its members and enable “an effective process of learning, dialogue, deliberation and decision making”.

As well as outside consultants, the cost for Assembly will also include travel and accommodation for its members and staff

The tender document says: “The meetings of the Assembly are planned as residential events. Travel and accommodation costs for members of the Assembly will be covered and each member will receive a thank-you gift of £200 per weekend to acknowledge their commitment to the process.”

Constitutional relations Secretary Michael Russell said: “The Citizens’ Assembly will enable people to engage with complex and contested issues about our constitution on an inclusive, informed and respectful basis.

“It is part of a process of expanding and enriching our democracy. Politicians do not have all the answers and people’s voices need to be heard.”

Ms Wimpress said: I applaud the Assembly’s ambition, enabling mature debate by making enough time, space and support available to interrogate complex issues.

“Twenty five years working with communities has shown me, many times over, that transparent, inclusive and respectful engagement leads to the best outcomes.”

Mr Martin added: “This is an unprecedented chance to place Scottish citizens at the heart of our political debate at a time of momentous change in our relationship with Europe.

“I am greatly looking forward to hearing directly from the members of the Assembly on how they want to shape our country.”

A Government spokesperson said: “This contract is central to the organisation of the Citizens Assembly of Scotland, requiring a range of specialist skills and full engagement with the project for approximately 10 months

“The successful tenderer will ensure the smooth running of the Assembly, co-designing its meetings and supplying skilled facilitators for each session. It will also advise on and support the production of reports of Assembly proceedings.

“It will be up to the Assembly conveners to agree further details of the contractor’s role, working in conjunction with the independent secretariat and stewarding group.”

Author: Julian Corner, Lankelly Chase

My acid test for any would-be solution to a social problem is whether it reproduces or disrupts the dynamics that created the problem in the first place. For example, if you are attempting to tackle inequality, is there inequality built into your intervention? If so, you’ve got a perpetuating system right there. You say you’re doing one thing but being the opposite.

The way we largely do governance in the UK is a good example of this. The people we consider suitable for our Boards, how they are recruited, the power we vest in them, their modes of meeting and decision making all reinforce the idea of a hierarchy, that some types of people are entitled to make decisions about other types of people.

One of Lankelly Chase’s core contentions is that in an interconnected world all parts of a system have direct or indirect effects on all other parts. We think this holds true for the governance of organisations, the influence of which permeates everywhere, not just down a line of command. I’m not sure though there is much agreement about this. Yes we’re increasingly talking about Board diversity, and we jump on governance when charities hit the headlines, but I still get little sense that we view governance as a critical determinant of the outcomes our systems produce.

At Lankelly Chase, we have come to the uncomfortable realisation that if we want to change a system, we have to start with changing ourselves. Time and again we have found that the changes we think are needed ‘out there’ are equally needed ‘in here’. For example, we were saying outwardly that decision making in any system should be delegated as close as possible to the ground, yet within our own organisation grant making decisions were retained by our Board. It was out of a growing discomfort with this contradiction that we started to view our governance as part of the system we were trying to change.

The implications of this realisation are as practical as they are moral or ethical. A Board that is exclusively populated with accomplished senior professionals will seek the kinds of reassurances and controls that accomplished senior professionals are disciplined to need. This kind of Board can serve a charity very well, and I have benefited many times from having such expertise around the table. Yet it represents only one worldview about the way organisations should be run and what effectiveness should look like. It is a worldview that seeks clear causal certainties about the future, most obviously in terms of money, outcomes, evidence and accountability. These are hard to argue with, especially when voiced by people with rank and privilege, but also hard to square with the messy unpredictability of interconnected social problems.

Understandably, most governance is concerned with safeguarding the future of organisations, which is why we think we need so much professional expertise. But safe organisations aren’t the only determinant of improved social outcomes. Just as important is the interplay between organisations, the people they serve, funders, regulatory systems, communities, media and so on. Arguably, the quality of the relationship between the parts of the system contributes more to the outcomes we seek than the quality of the individual parts themselves. And yet where is the governance of the interrelations? Whose job is it to notice how things connect – or not – beyond organisational boundaries? Just look at any Annual Report and you’ll see how Trustees account for their own small part of the system to the exclusion of all else. I’d suggest this results in good parts operating in bad systems. So who takes responsibility for systems governance?

At Lankelly Chase, we have tried to think about how we govern ourselves as system actors – i.e. our responsibility towards the health of the whole system – and we have found little guidance or models to help us. Most advice urges Trustees to keep things as tight and tidy as possible. This is why we have started to view our governance as an action inquiry. We don’t know what good governance in an interconnected system should look like, but we do want to act and explore our way through to a new understanding. The kind of questions we are asking include: how can multiple perspectives be drawn into governance, both at the Board and beyond, and successfully form a productive whole? How should power be distributed or shared? How should an organisation, especially a foundation, be accountable to the system it occupies? Where and how should decisions be made? How should effectiveness be judged and on whose terms? What should governance pay attention to? And – because we are a foundation – where is our endowment invested and what impact does this have on the very issues we are set up to address?

I’ve heard it said of foundations that we will act up to the point at which our own vested interest starts to be affected, and no further. We have to state clearly that foundations should not be immune to the changes we espouse and, as manifestations of the inequality we say we want to tackle, our governance cannot be off the table. It is our view that such a blindspot will defeat our best efforts and intentions. Put more positively, as wealthy or cash-rich charities, we have far greater freedom to think and act radically, and in these challenging times we should view that freedom as bringing greater responsibility.

Lankelly Chase is up for this. We are daunted by the challenge, know we have and will continue to make mistakes, and want to act iteratively so that we can learn as we go along. We detect that others are thinking down similar lines, and we would welcome ideas, challenge and support. We will share our learning, progress, breakthroughs and mistakes as they emerge, and will be keen to hear others’ experience.

Our Governance Action Inquiry in full: What does effective governance look like of organisations trying to think and act systemically, starting with Lankelly Chase itself?