Author: Planning Democracy

Dear People Powered Planning Conference delegates

Thank you all so much for coming and taking part in our conference and for being so engaged and interested.

I attach a conference report for you, which has links to the workshop presentations and summaries of the talks by our speakers. We will endeavour to put as much on our website in the near future. Andy Inch’s presentation is being turned into a blog post which should be out next week. To receive our regular but not too often blog posts you can sign up to receive emails on our website.

IMPORTANT NEWS

The Minister has this week posted his amendments to the planning bill online.

This means it is likely the planning bill will be finalised in a parliamentary debate in mid to late June.

We need to act now to keep pressure up.

We know that the developer lobbyists have been working very hard indeed to get what they want out of the Bill and have been wining and dining ministers and having numerous meetings. It is essential we try and keep up the pressure from the community side.

We urge you to write and go and see your MSP’s (remember you have 1 constituency and 7 regional MSPs), but also to contact the Minister Kevin Stewart (Kevin.Stewart.msp@parliament.scot) You can tweet him on @KevinStewartSNP or send a message to his facebook page https://www.facebook.com/KevinStewartSNP. It is also good to contact Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson (especially asking them to consider equal rights of appeal).

Key things to say to MSPs

1) Planning is a big issue for communities is not going to go away unless they address fundamental problems. You can remind them that their own research and independent research demonstrated a shocking lack of trust and lack of influence over decisions that affect people. Many topics were covered at our conference. Please tell them that the community was sending a clear message that we need a more transformative bill that addresses the problems of a market driven approach to planning, which favours and listens to the developers it is supposed to regulate.

2) Climate change, biodiversity loss need to be addressed through the planning bill and in its current form is not good enough.

3) Community engagement mechanisms such as Local Place Plans and development plan consultations will never be adequate without a right of appeal and are unlikely to empower communities.

4) The Government should be listening to communities asking for stronger, better planning, not developers asking for less planning and de regulation.

I have attached our briefings on Equal Rights of Appeal. Please do quote them, or send them on to your MSPs.

Please do let us have a copy of any responses you get and don’t hesitate to get in touch if you need more information.

You may find these blog posts useful as well

http://www.planningdemocracy.org.uk/2019/the-best-laid-schemes-o-mice-an-men-gang-aft-a-gley/ and

http://www.planningdemocracy.org.uk/2019/part-2-them-us-or-why-we-might-need-a-dose-of-populism-in-planning/

Many thanks for taking the time to come to our conference, please do continue to support Planning Democracy and importantly right now to make a real noise about planning and what we want. (We have some plans for a bit of fun action in June, we will keep you informed if you have indicated or signed up to our blog posts). If you do not wish to be kept up to date you can let us know too.

Author: Andy Wightman MSP

Crowdfunder for Andy Wightman

On 21 March 2017 I was served with a summons by Wildcat Haven Enterprises CIC. It is a defamation action in which the pursuer is claiming £750,000 damages (plus 8% annual interest). The action relates to two blogs I wrote In September 2015 and February 2016.

The case will be heard in the Court of Session over 8 days commencing 29 October 2019. The judicial costs (the time spent in court) have been estimated by a Judicial Accountant at £110,000. In addition, there are other legal costs incurred in preparing the case. These are estimated to be in the region of a further £70,000 (thus a total cost of around £180,000). I raised £54,000 in a previous crowdfunder. Further costs that I am meeting personally include research and travel costs associated with gathering evidence across the UK and in the Channel Islands.

I am thus launching what I hope will be a final crowdfunder to raise £120,000.

Unlike other defamation actions where the content of the alleged defamatory material is well publicised, I need to conceal the blogs in question and cannot publish the detailed allegations until they are entered in court proceedings.

Please therefore note the following before deciding whether to donate. 

1. Neither you nor I can know what the result of this case will be. I am confident that I have not defamed the pursuer but the Court has been asked to determine that. Before you donate therefore, be aware that you cannot form an informed view on the likelihood of success.

 2. If I am successful in defending this case, I should be able to secure the recovery of most of my legal expenses. The pursuer has deposited £110,000 in the Court to cover this eventuality. In this event, I will reimburse all those who have contributed to my defence fund in proportion to what each party (including myself) has contributed. Thus, if I am successful, you can be assured that you will receive some of your donation back. I have appointed a Chartered Accountant to conduct an independent audit of my costs. An audited statement to 13 May 2018 is available here.

3. Funds raised in this crowdfunder shall be used solely for my legal expenses in the case. If I lose the case and damages are awarded to my pursuer, I shall be personally liable for those. If those damages are substantial, I may have no option but to declare myself bankrupt and be disqualified from serving as an MSP.

Finally, there are a lot of very deserving causes out there. I am launching this crowdfunder because some people have offered to help and for that I am very grateful. So please do consider carefully whether you wish to support this appeal or not.

Thank you to everyone who has provided generous support over the past two years.

Author: Patrick Butler, The Guardian

Andy Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England

Much of the discussion of the fourth industrial revolution relates to the disruptive impact of artificial intelligence, robotics, biotech, and big data on the world of work and business. It could lead to huge gains in productivity, wealth creation and human happiness. Equally, it may kill millions of jobs, fuel social tensions, and widen inequality. Civil society’s place in this massive societal shake-out, reckons Andy Haldane, is relatively unexplored – but it will be profound.

Haldane, the Bank of England’s chief economist, is regarded as a “maverick” thinker among central bankers on account not only of his views on banking and financial regulation, but society more widely: from poverty (“scarcity of money reshapes your brain and reshapes your decision-making”) to the importance of trade unions. The engaging, comprehensive school-educated west Yorkshireman was dubbed one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in 2014. Said to be in the running as the Bank’s next governor, this week Haldane delivers a “mini-manifesto” on the future of civil society.

Its role in the next epoch, he says, will be the one it has always played at times of great social change: to provide a stabilising force, and support individuals and communities displaced by technology. By civil society he means not just charities, but also faith groups, trade unions, volunteers, carers and grassroots movements for social change, like #MeToo or Extinction Rebellion. The sector’s other task is to help prepare citizens for the seismic eruptions ahead, providing a sense of purpose and meaning – community glue, if you like – as an antidote to the conditions that have helped fuel Brexit and populism.

He is clear that civil society – neglected politically and financially – is not currently in a fit state to fulfil this role. “The reason we have the triple threats of disconnection of people from society, mistrust of institutions, and the rising tide of populism is because we have structurally underinvested in [civil society],” he says, citing former Indian central banker Raghuram Rajan’s book The Third Pillar. “We have let the local community pillar break down and wither.”

One way to renew it would be to make it more visible and prominent, he says. It is not taken seriously like the private sector, or even the public sector, because we don’t measure it. In 2009, Haldane helped found a charity, ProBono Economics, which lends volunteer economists to charities to help them measure the social value they create (or don’t create). The Office for National Statistics should scale this up, measuring the social contribution of the sector as a whole to highlight the value of its social contribution, Haldane believes.

‘Work is what you do for others; art is what you do for yourself. I like that. What could be more ‘doing things for others’ than volunteering?’

This is partly cultural, he argues: we don’t see volunteering as “work” because it is unpaid. We need a broader conception of what work means. “Someone offered me the Stephen Sondheim definition of work, which is basically ‘doing things for others’. There is no connotation of income. Work is what you do for others; art is what you do for yourself. I like those. What could be more ‘doing things for others’ than volunteering?”

The second step is for the voluntary sector to reboot itself by grasping the benefits of technology. Charities, he says, are by and large late adopters of tech. “I would love a stronger partnership between the technology sector and the voluntary sector to harness that technology. It strikes me this would be win-win for both sectors”. The third is a new framework for civic service, embedding volunteering in people’s psyche at an early age in school, and nurturing it throughout their working life by treating it as a core part of a career progression, indivisible from paid work, and rewarded accordingly.

The fourth industrial revolution will deliver billions of hours more free time to people who live longer, he says. But if we want the millions of people whose jobs are taken by robots to volunteer, how do we reward them? Does the social security system – obsessed with the seeking of paid work as a condition of receiving state benefit payments – accept that civic service might fulfil that condition? And what might be the implications for the paid labour market of a mass army of volunteers? Would there be a role for a universal basic income?

“I don’t know what I think about universal basic income to be honest … that’s the god’s honest truth,” says Haldane. He says he’d rather duck the issues of its feasibility and financing. But he is intrigued by its potential desirability. Work is valuable because it gives people a sense of purpose, and because it signifies to others that you are making a contribution to society. If a basic income was “earned” through linking it to volunteering (which would be recorded on a digital civic service “passport”) it would in theory meet both those requirements. He cites the Young Scot charity, which encourages citizenship and volunteering and rewards it, in part via a shop discount card, as evidence the idea is feasible. “If civic service is interlaced within a 100-year life and 70-year career, then your Young Scot card shouldn’t stop at 26, it should extend until you are 95.”

He accepts the politics of an expanded civic sector are not straightforward. He is dismissive of David Cameron’s “big society” idea as “an essay question that was never answered”, and one that was “polluted” by its perception as cover for major public spending cuts. His view is that a renewed civic sector would exist alongside a “more socially purposed corporate sector” and a state and public sector that provides insurance and infrastructure support.

The boundary between paid work and volunteering, he accepts, is politically contested, requiring “careful thought and management”. But if the direst predictions of the fourth industrial revolution come to pass, it can’t be ducked. “We know that organisations who draw on volunteers, like the NHS, have found a way of navigating through this, so I don’t think it is beyond the wit of humans to think about this. But if this is the direction of travel, those issues will need to be confronted head-on, maybe to a greater degree than has happened so far.”

Author: Community Land Scotland

A new Rural Repopulation and Renewal Working Group comprised of Community Land Scotland, Development Trusts Association Scotland, The Highlands Small Communities Housing Trust and Highlands and Islands Enterprise has been formed to explore ways to encourage more people to live and work in rural parts of Scotland.  It follows recent Scottish Government-commissioned research by The James Hutton Institute which forecast that Scotland’s most Sparsely Populated Areas risk losing a quarter of their population by 2046 if current demographic trends continue.

The new Group was formed following a seminar on rural repopulation and renewal organised by Community Land Scotland last November and supported by the Carnegie UK Trust and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.  The Group aims to combine research and practical support to place communities at the heart of strategies to renew Sparsely Populated Areas which make up almost half of Scotland’s land area but contain less than 3% of its population.  Speaking after the Group’s first meeting in Inverness Community Land Scotland’s Policy Director, Dr Calum MacLeod said:

 “Our intention is to contribute to a thriving rural Scotland by helping communities to increase their populations in demographically sustainable ways.  We already know that lots of people want to move to rural communities but that there are barriers around affordable housing, employment opportunities and access to services that prevent them from doing so.  We’ll be working with a wide range of stakeholders to influence policy and ensure that the necessary infrastructure, services and other support mechanisms are available to enable communities to take a leading role in shaping their own futures.  Our initial focus is on working with existing communities. We’ll also investigate how new settlements can contribute to the repopulation and renewal of rural Scotland as our work programme evolves”.  

Contact details:

Dr Calum MacLeod, Policy Director, Community Land Scotland. Email: calum.macleod@communitylandscotland.org.uk Mobile: 07974 829149

Ronnie MacRae, Chief Executive Officer, The Highlands Small Communities Housing Trust. Email: ronnie.macrae@hscht.co.uk Mobile: 07810 391059

Dr Zoe Laird, Regional Head of Communities Infrastructure, Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Email: zoe.laird@hient.co.uk Tel: 01463 245245

The James Hutton Institute: Demographic Change in the Sparsely Populated Areas of Scotland (1991-2046)

Author: SCA

Democracy Matters – a response from Scottish Community Alliance

Proposal for new tier of local governance – The Local Assembly

The democratic gap

The system of local government that has prevailed for over 20 years is one of 32 large units, most of which have evolved, with some variation, more locally and decentralized structures often linked with Community Planning Partnerships. While these more localized structures are closer in a geographical sense to communities, they remain without exception under the control of the local authority.

At some distance from these formal structures of local government are the myriad local organisations that comprise the community and voluntary sector. Where these are most developed, recognizable community anchor organisations have emerged to take on some responsibilities of local civic leadership and the delivery of some public services. In some parts of the country, local authorities have recognized the contribution of these community anchors and have devolved a measure of responsibility and resource accordingly. Where these relationships exist they are typically informal and ad hoc.

The democratic gap is not just a function of physical distance, it is also one of trust and credibility. If local democracy, as we currently understand it, is to be reimagined without being formally restructured, something other than culture change and capacity building on all sides will be required. In very broad terms, there are effectively two dominant narratives at work. We in the community sector complain about a top-down, municipalist culture that predominates in local authorities and have long called for a shift in that mindset as a prerequisite for communities to be able to fulfil their potential. Equally, local authorities have long questioned the community sector’s competence and capacity to deliver what we say we want to do. The councils do not have sufficient confidence in the community sector’s capacity to take responsibility for functions currently undertaken by councils. They do not believe we have the skills, capacity or the resources necessary. These two narratives have created an impasse and it is this impasse that needs to be shifted.

In addition, there is a perennial tension that exists between the perceived democratic legitimacy of an elected representative body (such as a local council) and the popular authority that flows from widespread participatory civic action. Both are legitimate forms of power and are seen by some as oppositional and by others as complimentary.

Bridging the democratic gap – the Local Assembly

If we are to break through this impasse, some new democratic form, a hybrid that draws on elements and characteristics from both sides of the democratic gap, may be required to sit in that civic space between our participative and representative processes. If the object of the Local Governance Review is to be achieved, if power is to pass from the current structures to a lower, more local level, there needs to be some form of widely recognizable ‘vehicle’ to vest this power and authority in.  This paper considers the option of creating a new, democratic hybrid, the Local Assembly, that would meld elements of the existing formal systems of local governance (local councils, community councils) with the many and variable expressions of participatory democracy that are already well established at a community level.

Issues to consider in relation to the formation of a Local Assembly

1.            Voter mandate. The way we conceive of the community and voluntary sector is that it doesn’t draw its local legitimacy from being ‘representative’ of the local community. Its credibility is derived from actions on the ground. The Local Assembly, however will need to demonstrate a degree of electoral support in order to assume direct control of decision making and public resources. The extent of ‘ballot box’ support that is secured from the registered electorate could be used determine the extent of formal decision making that can be devolved. For instance, certain thresholds of support might need to be passed before certain powers can be assumed.

2.            Community control. The Local Assembly will be community controlled (a majority of members of the Local Assembly must be residents) and initiated from the bottom up (the proposal to invoke the right to self-govern should be prompted by a local petition or some such mechanism that is initiated by local people). It might be anticipated that in some areas the residents would look to invite other stakeholders who live out with the area to become involved – such as representatives of the small business community –  onto the Local Assembly

3.            Payment. Local Assembly members should receive a stipend that reflects the significance of the role. £50 a month would ensure that the role is not taken lightly and would ensure some degree of accountability

4.            Flexibility. The model should be flexible enough to reflect local variations in capacity, local community development history and geography. So, for instance in some communities where a local development trust has widespread support and legitimacy, the Board of the development trust might propose that they become a Local Assembly and move directly to seek a mandate for that proposition from the wider community. Alternatively there may be a number of other local organisations (community councils and other key voluntary organisations) that agree, along with the development trust, to propose the establishment of an overarching Local Assembly. In this instance the constituent groups would remain as they are, and would negotiate some relationship with the new Local Assembly. The Local Assembly might be comprised of representatives of the founding stakeholders or not. The decisions about this would have to lie with the local stakeholders.

5.            Non-compulsory. Not every community will wish to invoke this community right to self-govern. The implication being that some communities will have more interest and capacity than others for becoming engaged in this type of activity. Where there is insufficient interest or capacity from within a community to establish a Local Assembly, the agreed default position is for all public agencies to continue as the primary delivery agency for local services.

6.            The role of local elected councillors from the local authority. All elected members (local councillors) would have a seat on the Local Assembly in an advisory role. They would act as a bridge into the local authority. No elected member could play a leadership role within the Local Assembly – the majority of seats on the Local Assembly to be held by residents of the area. In this respect, local Assemblies might be a de facto sub-committee of the local authority

7.            How might a community establish a Local Assembly ?

The first step would be to invoke a new community right to self govern as set out in the proposed Local Democracy Bill.

The size of the Local Assembly would something akin to community councils 12-15. It could be configured and constituted in a number of ways depending on local context. It could also be seen as a developmental journey that evolves over time in terms of its composition and functions. There would not be a specific moment when the Local Assembly would suddenly assume a raft of new responsibilities and powers. The transition of power (and resources) should be measured, negotiated and appropriate to circumstances. For instance, one might envisage a Local Assembly that sits as a shadow administration for a year or so, until it feels ready to affect the transition of power

8.            What would a Local Assembly look like? What would be its structure?

Given that no two communities are the same, would it make sense for this new form of local governance to be as flexible as possible in terms of how it is constituted? If the critical factor in determining its local legitimacy and authority is a predetermined level of support from the community achieved through the ballot box, perhaps this should be a matter for each community to determine for themselves? So it could be the local housing association, a development trust, a community council or any combination of these and other local interests working as a consortium. Or, it might be wholly comprised of individuals who put themselves forward for election. Or would it bring greater clarity to be more prescriptive about the structure.

9.            In many parts of the country there will not be sufficient interest or capacity to form a Local Assembly .

Is it reasonable or fair to expect the Local Council to operate as the default provider of all local services?

10.          What services and/or resources fall within the scope of the right to self-govern?

This could be incremental. As confidence and capacity grow, the Local Assembly could seek to acquire more powers and resources.  The extent to which the Local Assembly would have complete control over a given function might need to be mandated by mini-referendum.

11.          Local Assembly elections – three year term? As per community councils

12.          Flexible composition – citizen members/ representatives of community bodies/ local councillors

13.          A focus on local commissioning? – devolved budget, local procurement, stimulate the local multiplier

14.          Gradual transition towards their formation  – Timeframes would be hugely variable, shadow authorities, mechanisms to allow communities to test out the appetite of local people.

15.          Regulation and Inspection? – some arrangements will be necessary. Improvement Service? Education Scotland?  Audit Scotland

Author: The Herald

Mike Russell has said he is “determined” to ensure a Scottish citizens’ assembly is representative of society.

The Constitutional Relations Secretary told MSPs he visited Ireland last week to consider the model of assemblies set up there.

His trip came after First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said a citizens’ assembly would be set up to consider issues such as what kind of country Scotland should be.

It followed her announcement that plans for a second Scottish independence referendum would be pursued within the next two years if the UK quits the European Union.

“The EU exit experience has shown the weakness in the current devolution settlement and the UK’s constitutional arrangements more widely,” Mr Russell said.

“We must consider the best way forward for Scotland in light of that experience.

“In doing so, we want to avoid the division created over EU exit.

“That’s why the First Minister announced we would establish a Citizen’s Assembly to consider the best way forward for Scotland.”

Mr Russell added he hoped parties from across the chamber would take part in discussions over the design of an assembly.

He said he would write to party leaders inviting them to do so.

Scottish Green MSP Alison Johnstone urged Mr Russell to give his backing to ensuring the assembly’s diversity.

Ms Johnstone said: “A citizens’ assembly of course should represent the demographics of the whole population in a way that, as yet, this Parliament has failed to do.

“So will the Cabinet Secretary be considering ensuring a diversity of assembly that can properly consider all perspectives and help deliver a real, meaningful outcome?”

Mr Russell responded: “The establishment of a citizens’ assembly should endeavour to establish a body for a particular purpose, and that purpose mustn’t be too wide, but it must be representative of society.

“And there are a number of ways in which that can be done.

“It was an issue in both the Constitutional Convention in Ireland and in the Citizens Assembly in Ireland.

“How do you do so? It’s a very hard thing to do because you are trying to balance demography, you’re trying to balance geography, you’re trying to balance sexual interests and a variety of minorities and majorities.

“It will require a lot of work by us and I hope it will be a task that all the parties will find themselves involved in to do that.”

He added: “But I am determined that the citizens’ assembly, which we will establish and I hope will be meeting by the autumn of this year, I am determined that it should represent in that way,  and there are a number of ways to do so, and I’d be happy to discuss with other parties about how we are trying to do that and to seek the input of other parties in their views about how we should do that.”

Scottish Tory MSP Adam Tomkins asked Mr Russell what the costs would be of establishing a citizens’ assembly.

Mr Russell said: “That will depend on the design of the assembly, which I wish to discuss with party representatives and to get their views.

“We certainly have learned from the Irish experience it should be an open and transparent process.

“All details, including costs, will be published in full as the process goes forward.”

Later, Mr Tomkins tweeted that the country already had a citizens’ assembly in the form of the Scottish Parliament.

Author: Anoosh Chakelian, New Statesman

The government has violated its human rights obligations, concludes the UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty in his final report.

It’s official. The UN’s special rapporteur Philip Alston who investigated poverty in the UK last November has found the government in breach of its human rights obligations.

Delivering his final report on extreme poverty and human rights in the UK, he concludes: “Given the significant resources available in the country, the sustained and widespread cuts to social support, which have caused so much pain and misery, amount to retrogressive measures in clear violation of the United Kingdom’s human rights obligations.”

Here are the key conclusions, from the report, and Philip Alston’s own comments on his findings:

Government-led misery

The UK Government’s policies have led to the systematic immiseration of millions across Great Britain.

Child poverty

Close to 40 per cent of children are predicted to be living in poverty by 2021.

Following drastic changes in government economic policy beginning in 2010, the two preceding decades of progress in tackling child and pensioner poverty have begun to unravel and poverty is again on the rise.

Relative child poverty rates are expected to increase by 7 per cent between 2015 and 2021 and overall child poverty rates to reach close to 40 per cent. For almost one in every two children to be poor in twenty-first century Britain would not just be a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster rolled into one.

Inequality

Although the United Kingdom is the world’s fifth largest economy, one fifth of its population (14 million people) live in poverty, four million of those are more than 50 per cent below the poverty line, and 1.5 million of them experienced destitution in 2017, unable to afford basic essentials. And 2.5 million people survive with incomes no more than 10 per cent above the poverty line – just one crisis away from falling into poverty.

Given the significant resources available in the country, the sustained and widespread cuts to social support, which have caused so much pain and misery, amount to retrogressive measures in clear violation of the United Kingdom’s human rights obligations.

The “austerity experiment” continues…

Policies of austerity introduced in 2010 continue largely unabated, despite the tragic social consequences.

For all the talk that austerity is over, massive disinvestment in the social safety net continues unabated.

…it has resulted in:

• 14 million people living in poverty,

• Record levels of hunger and homelessness,

• Falling life expectancy for some groups,

• Ever fewer community services,

• Greatly reduced policing,

• Access to the courts for lower-income groups has been dramatically rolled back by cuts to legal aid.

…and it’s ideological…

The imposition of austerity was an ideological project designed to radically reshape the relationship between the Government and the citizenry. UK standards of well-being have descended precipitately in a remarkably short period of time, as a result of deliberate policy choices made when many other options were available.

A booming economy, high employment and a budget surplus have not reversed austerity, a policy pursued more as an ideological than an economic agenda.

…and doesn’t even make economic sense

Far-reaching changes to the role of Government in supporting people in distress are almost always “sold” as part of an unavoidable fiscal “austerity” programme needed to save the country from bankruptcy. In fact, the reforms have almost certainly cost far more than their proponents will admit. The many billions extracted from the benefits system since 2010 have been offset by additional resources required, by local government, by doctors and hospital accident and emergency centres, and even by the ever-shrinking, overworked and underfunded police force to fund the increasing need for emergency services.

The welfare state has fallen away

The Government’s ‘work not welfare’ mantra conveys the message that individuals and families can seek charity but that the State will no longer provide the basic social safety net to which all political parties had been committed since 1945.

The bottom line is that much of the glue that has held British society together since the Second World War has been deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos.

In fact, we’ve rewound from 1945 back to Dickens…

It might seem to some observers that the Department of Work and Pensions has been tasked with designing a digital and sanitized version of the nineteenth century workhouse, made infamous by Charles Dickens, rather than seeking to respond creatively and compassionately to the real needs of those facing widespread economic insecurity in an age of deep and rapid transformation brought about by automation, zero-hour contracts and rapidly growing inequality.

…via Thomas Hobbes

As Thomas Hobbes observed long ago, such an approach condemns the least well off to lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. As the British social contract slowly evaporates, Hobbes’ prediction risks becoming the new reality.

The recent changes are not good enough

I welcome the moves to adopt a uniform poverty measure, to systematically survey food insecurity, and to further delay the rollout of Universal Credit. That programme will be improved by plans to provide more time to repay advances, to reduce debt payment limits, and to reduce extreme penalties. But, for all the talk that austerity is over, massive disinvestment in the social safety net continues unabated.

It is difficult to see recent changes as more than window dressing to minimise political fallout. The situation demands a new vision that embodies British compassion and places social rights and economic security front and centre.

Some Universal Credit reforms have been positive – but not enough to turn the tide

The 2018 budget introduced several changes to the Government’s flagship benefits programme, Universal Credit (UC), including a welcome increase in work allowances, as a consequence of which an estimated 2.4 million households will be better off in 2019, and some 200,000 people will rise out of poverty. And the introduction of a minimum wage has helped reduce low pay.

But these developments have not stemmed the overall direction of the tide.

Loneliness is worsening

Austerity policies have deliberately gutted local authorities and thereby effectively eliminated many social services, reduced policing services to skeletal proportions, closed libraries in record numbers, shrunk community and youth centres, and sold off public spaces and buildings including parks and recreation centres. It is hardly surprising that civil society has reported unheard-of levels of loneliness and isolation, prompting the Government to appoint a Minister for Suicide Prevention.

Solutions lie in resurrecting public spending and less harsh welfare measures

The Government should restore local government funding to ensure crucial social protection can help people escape poverty, reverse particularly regressive measures such as the benefits cap and two-child limit, and audit the impact of tax and spending decisions on different groups.

The Department for Work & Pensions’ response is predictable. The secretary of state Amber Rudd is trying to curry some PR by lodging a formal complaint with the UN about it. And a spokesperson points out that the UN’s own data shows that the UK is “one of the happiest places in the world to live” (it came 15th actually), and that Alston’s report “paints a completely inaccurate picture of our approach to tackling poverty” and is a “barely believable documentation of Britain, based on a tiny period of time spent here”.

True, Alston only conducted his investigation from 5 to 16 November 2018. But as his report says itself, even if you put statistics aside, the extent of poverty in Britain “is obvious to anyone who opens their eyes”. And that’s why government responses will never ring true until it actually engages with the problem and starts afresh.

Author: Scottish Land Commission

Scottish Land Commission have published this protocol in support of the Scottish Government’s Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement, and in particular the principle that “there should be greater collaboration and community engagement in decisions about land”.  The Scottish Land Commission are keen to develop case studies of of where community engagement has been successful or where it has been less so. 

Author: Pete Ritchie, Nourish Scotland

The wind and the willows

It was disappointing if predictable that much of the media coverage for the UKCCC’s net zero report last week focused on lifestyle changes – did this mean going back to the Stone Age, never flying and living in the dark to save the planet? – rather than on the main message of the report.

Because this isn’t a sackcloth and ashes report. The core argument is that tech will do most of the heavy lifting. Progress with renewable energy, especially the remarkable drop in offshore wind costs, makes the more ambitious net zero target affordable. Residual emissions will be mopped up with more tree-planting, and the carbon from swathes of willow and other biomass crops will be captured and stored.

According to the report we can get nearly all the way to net zero with minimal change in lifestyle. A 20% drop in red meat and dairy consumption over the next thirty years is almost imperceptible. We can fly a bit more than we do now and still stay inside the envelope. And while we are being asked to heat our homes with heat pumps and drive electric cars, this is more gain than pain.

So what’s the role of citizens here? Now the Scottish Government’s signed up to net zero by 2045 can we just buy into this gradual greening and get on with the rest of our lives?

Bad idea. We’ve got work to do. First, we need to maintain a sense of urgency. It’s particularly welcome that Scottish Government’s scrapped plans to reduce the airport departure tax, and has proposed a new climate plan within six months. We need a quarterly progress report from government and business to keep up the momentum.

Second, we need to get involved in the how, not just as consumers switching to greener products but as citizens shaping a just transition. Getting to net zero has to mean a fairer as well as a greener Scotland. Where is the climate change dividend for people who don’t have a car or own a house, who already tread more lightly?

The Scottish Government requirements on private landlords to upgrade their houses are welcome, and could be accelerated. But it’s time to implement the old idea of fairer tariffs which scrap standing charges and provide the first few units free while charging much more per unit for high users. Public ownership of energy should be part of the change.

Time to plan for mobility as a service to which everyone has fair access, with excellent affordable public transport and the driverless car network in public ownership. Time to look at clothing, food and appliances so that making sustainable choices is easier for all and creates new good jobs.

A just transition matters for farmers and rural communities too. If we followed the UKCCC advice on land use change we’d see around 30% less grassland, a sharp decline in ruminant livestock numbers and up to 27,000 km2 of new woodland and bio-energy crops in the UK. That’s a third of the area of Scotland. How will the benefits from this new bio-economy be shared, so this doesn’t simply become a new version of the clearances?

Third, we need to connect internationally. It’s good to have a sense of renewed momentum in Scotland. But this is a global issue: and the EU has a pivotal role not just in raising ambition but in creating the financial and governance mechanisms to respond to this global emergency. Scotland and the UK staying in the EU gives us much more leverage on the agenda. While the Brexit party  is led by a climate change sceptic, the forthcoming European election is a chance to vote for one of the parties which takes climate change seriously.

And finally: reducing our food waste, getting out of our cars, staying on the ground rather than flying, eating less and better meat, buying seasonal and local, making things last: these prosaic acts of everyday stewardship won’t be enough on their own. But if we want government and businesses to care enough to make changes, we also have to do our bit.

As it says in the book “The Mole had been working very hard all the morning, spring-cleaning his little home” while “Toad talked big about all he was going to do in the days to come”.

Author: SCDC

Are you a community organisation working across Scotland in and with disadvantaged communities? If so, this will be of interest.

This week, the Scottish Government launched the new Investing in Communities Fund with grants of up to £250k available for over 3 years.

The £11.5 million Fund is a new streamlined communities fund to tackle disadvantage, poverty and inequality that encourages community-led development, design and delivery of sustainable local solutions addressing local issues, circumstances and aspirations across a broad range of community led activity.

You can find more information by visiting the Empowering Communities Programme webpage here and download guidance, help notes and the application form here.

If you have any questions regarding this guidance and/or the application process you can contact the Investing in Communities Fund Team by email at: InvestingInCommunities@gov.scot

This fund is informed by Scottish Government’s Regeneration Strategy published in 2011