Author: 3rd Sector Governance Forum

This Scottish Governance Code has been created for the third sector, by the third sector. It is a statement of best practice and has been developed by Scotland’s Third Sector Governance Forum following consultation with over 250 individuals and organisations.

Scotland’s Third Sector Governance Forum brings together individuals and organisations with knowledge and expertise in governance issues. We are a small group of people with a big ambition to improve governance in the third sector. We have worked with people from all types of third sector organisations in Scotland to produce this Code. It reflects and celebrates the wealth of good practice that exists in our sector and provides a standard for all to aspire to. Thank you to everyone who contributed – we could not have done it without you.

Good governance matters because it underpins successful organisations. It matters in all sectors, but especially in ours where the purpose is to serve our beneficiaries as best we can. A good reputation takes years to build and seconds to destroy. Good governance underpins our effectiveness, and is also the best way to protect and enhance the reputation of our individual organisations and our sector as a whole.

Over 250,000 trustees in Scotland are volunteers and give their time and skills on a voluntary basis to steer the work of third sector organisations. Individually as trustees and collectively as boards, they are the bastions of good governance. This Code is for them. For you.

Please use it. Please share it. Please help promote good governance

Author: James Mitchell, The Sceptical Scot

Concern that devolution would suck up power and resources from local government was a major theme of devolution debates in the 1970s.

In the 1980/90s, home rulers promised a new era in central local relations as local authorities played a full part in the Constitutional Convention.

A Commission on relations between the Parliament and local government was set up in anticipation of the Parliament’s establishment under Sir Neil McIntosh, former chief executive of Strathclyde Regional Council.  The McIntosh Report is worth reading again twenty years after its publication.  Some of its recommendations were implemented but its essential message has been lost.  Key messages included:

•             relations between local and Scottish central government should be based on mutual respect and parity of esteem, given their common democratic mandate,

•             emphasised that the principle of subsidiarity, that decisions should be taken as close to communities as possible, and local governance has to be the right shape and form for the people and places it serves, ought to inform relations

•             and that in the event of greater centralisation then the onus was on the Scottish Parliament to demonstrate the benefits that would accrue,

•             the principle of subsidiarity went beyond local government and reached down into local communities.

Andy Wightman, Green MSP, has proposed the enactment of the Council of Europe’s Charter of Local Self-Government.  This would go some way to entrenching the position of local government and ensure that any future centralisation would require Parliamentary approval.

Off on the wrong foot

Scottish local government shared in the splurge in spending in the early years of devolution.  It must also share some responsibility for the failure to use those resources wisely.  Spend, spend, spend was the order of the day.  There was no shift to prevention, as would be recommended by the Christie Commission on delivering public services, insufficient effort to look to the future, little subsidiarity to local communities and limited collaboration across public services.  Public bodies, including local government, were all too willing to believe that boom and bust had ended.

But the years of plenty were followed by years of famine.  The good times may come back but few hold out much hope that this will happen soon.  In these circumstances, the politics of austerity become a blame game.  And difficult choices are evaded like a game of pass the parcel.

The test of central-local relations post-devolution only really began following the fiscal consequences of the ‘Great Recession’ (2008-2009). Local government has suffered the brunt of cuts as the Scottish Government has passed on the decline in its share of revenue.  Indeed, the cuts to local government have exceeded cuts in grants the Scottish Government has received from the Treasury.

In large measure this is because governments of all complexions prioritise spending on the National Health Service with public support for its insatiable appetite for public funding.  Local government is set to suffer until a serious debate takes place on the long-term future funding of the NHS.

The claim by Scottish Government that local government grants have increased is a partial reading of developments.  Partnership that only exists when and where it suits one level of government precludes parity of esteem.  Devolving penury is the opposite of subsidiarity.  Centralised decision-making that runs contrary to local government wishes is fiat without dialogue.  Demanding community empowerment while limiting local resources means cuts to services essential to meaningful empowerment.

Tax-cuts or cuts in services

There are only two ways to plug the gap in funding and neither is palatable: increasing taxes or cutting services.  Central governments tend to evade this choice by passing it on to others.  The fear in the 1970s was that a Scottish Assembly, as then envisaged during this earlier period of austerity, would cut local authority grants and force Scottish local government to increase rates, the local property taxes then existing.  This situation today differs in one crucial respect.  Scottish central government not only cuts local authority grants but prevents local authorities from raising revenue locally to the extent necessary.  It is hypocritical to complain about the lack of local financial autonomy and then to oppose any proposals for local fiscal responsibility without proposing alternatives.  This oppositionalist culture is as much part of the problem as centralisation imposed by the Scottish Government.  There have been a succession of enquiries considering the options.  What has been lacking is a consensus and the political will to act.

Enquiries since devolution that have considered local taxation

1998: Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament (McIntosh)

Called for an immediate independent inquiry into local government finance (para.57)

2006: Local Government Finance Review Committee (Burt)

Proposed a flat rate percentage property tax regularly revalued based on capital values – rejected in Scotland but adopted in Northern Ireland.

2014: Commission on Strengthening Local Democracy

Full review of following propositions: local govt should be able to raise at least 50% of income locally; control whole suite of property taxes (Council Tax, Business Rates, Land and Property Transaction); general competence to set and raise new taxes.

2015: Commission on Local Tax Reform

Programme of reform introduced over time involving: multiple forms of tax (property, land and income but also reflecting local circumstances the possibility of environmental, resource, sales, tourist taxes) required including recurrent tax on property; change should be more progressive than current council tax; transitional arrangements required; review of central grants; further consideration of land value tax; longer term consideration of local income tax and possibility of local government having a share of Scottish Rate of Income Tax in interim.

Blame game

Recent debates on the Scottish budget highlighted this tawdry central-local blame game.  Local authorities may have received more in total from central government but that total includes an element that is tied to central government policy prescriptions.  The element of grant that is left for local discretion has been cut. In simple terms, this is like a parent successively cutting weekly pocket money while giving the child money to go to the shops for something that the parent wants without any consultation on whether what is to be bought is best value for the money with the added threat that failure to get exactly what is demanded will result in pocket money being reduced further.

The parent-child analogy should not be carried too far but it captures the nature of a relationship in which one partner rejects parity of esteem.  But the debate has also highlighted a child-like attitude amongst some of those who demand local autonomy but really mean the continued infantilisation of local government.  So long as local government is as highly dependent on central government for grant as it has become, then its only recourse will be to go cap in hand to the Scottish Government asking for more.  Fiscal responsibility is the flip side of fiscal autonomy.  Those who argue for more money from the Scottish Government without proposing new powers for local government to raise own revenue are also playing a blame game.

There are no easy options. The present impasse means cuts in basic services are inevitable.  If services are to be protected, then the McIntosh Report’s recommendations need to be embraced.  There has been no shortage of inquiries and recommendations on how to translate these principles into fiscal practice.  But the lack of political will and a preference for the blame game stand in the way.

Author: Adam Lent, NLGN,

In our report The Community Paradigm, published last week, Jessica Studdert and I explored a new model of public services emerging on the frontline of delivery. We argued that the key idea at the heart of this model is the transfer of power and resource from public sector institutions into the hands of communities and networks. The ultimate aim of this transfer is to create communities better able to take on the responsibility for looking after their own health, well-being and happiness.

While the Community Paradigm has emerged organically in response to the daily pressures of service delivery, it is vital to acknowledge that it also has a strong academic body of work behind its core idea. And the thinker with the greatest relevance is Elinor Ostrom.

Who was Elinor Ostrom?

Elinor Ostrom was ground-breaking in many ways. Most obviously, she was the first woman to win the Nobel Prize for Economics. In fact, she is the only woman to win the Nobel Prize for Economics. But she also challenged conventional ways of doing economics rejecting an obsession with abstract models and instead doing extensive fieldwork and even laboratory experiments. An approach that made her Nobel Prize particularly controversial amongst more conventional economists.

Her most famous work is on common pool resources. These are resources which are available for all to use. Examples might include an easily accessible fishing lake, forests used for timber and hunting or human-made resources like irrigation systems. The key thing about a common pool resource is that although it is easily accessible and can be used widely, it is not inexhaustible. As a result, a fishing lake can be overfished, a forest stripped of its timber and an irrigation system drained of its water.

Before Ostrom, the consensual view was that common pool resources were destined to depletion through over-use. To avoid this the state needed to step in to limit access through approaches such as licencing. Alternatively, the resource would need to be privatised so that it was legally owned by one or a number of people who would then have a financial or personal interest in limiting access and maintaining the resource in a sustainable fashion.

Ostrom’s fieldwork revealed that this assumption was wrong. She showed that common pool resources were very widely managed in entirely sustainable ways – sometimes for many centuries – by rules and practices mutually agreed by those using the resource. There was no need for the state to intervene and no need for private ownership for things to work fine.

Ostrom used many real-world examples to prove her case such as the Swiss farmers who ensured communal summer pasture was not exhausted by applying the informal rule that no farmer could send more cows to the pasture than they could adequately feed on their private plot during the winter. To this Ostrom added dozens of similar case studies covering a wide variety of different types of resource and exploring systems requiring varying levels of complexity.

Ostrom was no narrow economic specialist. Her work extended beyond the study of common pool resources to explore more generally how self-governing systems operate. For example, she did extensive work on policing concluding that small police forces rooted in their communities were both more efficient and effective than larger, centrally controlled forces.

Nor was she a dogmatist. She recognised that the relationship between self-governing systems, the state and the market was complex and nuanced with all three sometimes playing a valuable, mutually beneficial role under the right circumstances.

Ostrom and the Community Paradigm

Ostrom died in 2012 and her work spanned five decades but, within the public sector at least, her analysis seems fresher and more relevant than ever.

Most important is her vast body of empirical work proving that communities can run themselves perfectly well without help from the state or without having to resort to market transactions. This is analysis that provides a powerful intellectual underpinning to the work being done by a growing band of public sector innovators. They are implicitly rejecting the state-centric view of public service that dominated thinking for four decades after the war and which has undergone something of a resurrection in the Labour Party. But they aren’t taking any lessons from the marketisation trend so popular with policy-makers since the 1980s and which the Conservative Party still clings to if rather half-heartedly.

Like Ostrom, these innovators have seen that there is another way: they know that when communities can be mobilised to care for themselves driven by shared behavioural norms rather than top-down edict or market transaction, public money is used more efficiently and positive outcomes are enhanced.

Ostrom also gives backing to the seemingly contradictory idea that pubic servants working for the state can play a role in self-governance. She believed in self-governing communities but she was no anarchist or libertarian. Her extensive fieldwork revealed that the state does play an important role in helping communities to launch and maintain self-governing approaches. Her work on fisheries, for example, found that when community self-governance breaks down, the state can intervene effectively to protect resources and to establish new ways of managing things. The key, however, is not for the state to take over but to act as a catalyst for new self-governing systems to emerge. It is a principle that can be seen at work in innovations such as Big Local, community business, Participatory City as well as a plethora of others.

Finally, Ostrom’s work has something powerful to say about the wider national policy framework within which the Community Paradigm is emerging. She argued for a system built around multiple centres of control with overlapping decision-making made up of a complex web of state provision, market transaction and self-governance operating at national, regional and local level. She was a political control freak’s nightmare having produced extensive evidence that undermines the common-sense assumption that things are always best when standardised and centrally controlled. Ofsted she wasn’t!

Such ‘polycentricity’, as she called it, would inevitably allow greater innovation to flourish, enable learning and, most importantly, be more resilient than systems with only one or a handful of power centres where mistakes can cause widespread suffering and even systemic collapse.

Public sector innovators handing power over to communities can take a great deal of comfort from Ostrom. Firstly, their approach is backed by a Nobel prize-winning economist who based her conclusions on decades of empirical, real world research. Secondly, Ostrom’s wider polycentric vision shows that their innovations are not one-offs or local curiosities with little transferability: they are the beginnings of a much more creative and resilient system for public service delivery with national and even global relevance.

Finally, and maybe most intriguingly, it suggests that there is a whole world of intellectual analysis out there that can be dived into to help develop Community Paradigm approaches. Ostrom’s output is prodigious but she also had many followers who have deepened her analysis further since she first started publishing fifty years age. A treasure trove awaits.

Author: Joanna Kusiak The Conversation

In major cities throughout the world, the price of housing is on the rise: in 2017 alone, prices leaped by 20.5% in Berlin, 16% in Vancouver and 14.8% in Hong Kong. As rents keep going up, activists in Berlin are spearheading a novel proposal to nationalise housing. Such response might sound quixotic in cities such as London, but 54.9% of Berliners consider it reasonable. And instead of waiting for the government to act, citizens have taken matters into their own hands.

On April 6, 2019 the civic campaign Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen (DWE for short) starts collecting signatures, with the aim to hold a referendum that could lead to renationalisation of up to 200,000 council flats, which were previously sold to corporate landlords.

If successful, the move could provide a legal precedent for other cities to call for nationalisaton as a modern and legitimate solution to their housing crises. It could also prompt changes to international law, empowering legislation initiatives that see housing as a human right, as a strategic resource or as global commons.

For Berliners, it not only matters who owns the housing, but also how they own it. Nationalisation is often associated with centralised, if not authoritarian governance, and inefficient administration. That’s why DWE uses a different legal concept: “Vergesellschaftung” (which translates to “socialisation”) – or social ownership. This model presumes that once flats are made public, they will also be democratically managed.

The new social housing

The activists envision a new public institution aimed at providing affordable flats to Berliners of all nationalities. Tenants, administration workers and members of the public would be equally represented in its governing body, which would also include members of Berlin’s senate. All profits from rent would be used for the maintenance and modernisation of buildings, and for the construction of new housing.

But how much would it cost the city to reclaim apartments sold to corporate landlords, considering the record 20.5% leap in housing prices in 2017? While the exact amount of compensation would be negotiated in the court, there are reasons to believe that it won’t be anywhere near market prices.

 Housing in trendy Prenzlauer Berg, Berlin. Jonas Denil/Unsplash., FAL

Crucial here is article 15 of the German constitution, created after World War II, which allows either state or local governments to turn land, natural resources and means of production into collective ownership “for the purposes of socialisation”. This legal clause would be the key leverage to ban corporate landlords with more than 3,000 properties from of the city.

After World War II, legislators of all political factions believed economic monopolies to be dangerous for democracy. Indeed, several German industry giants had willingly cooperatedwith the Nazi state. Article 15 of the German constitution was designed as a tool to prevent what legal experts called a “misuse of economic power against society”.

Taking back power

According to Berlin’s housing activists, that is precisely what large housing corporations are doing today: using their economic power against society. Companies such as Deutsche Wohnen, Vonovia or Akelius – which all together own more than 200,000 flats in Berlin – can use their scale in such a way that existing mechanisms for rent control are bypassed.

For example, in Germany rent increases are usually justified in relation to the “Mietspiegel” (or “rent mirror”), calculated every year in relation to the average rent in the area. If a company owns several thousand units in one neighbourhood, its rent increases drive up the entire “rent mirror”, and so would perpetually justify further increases.

As demand for housing in Berlin has grown over the past 15 years, rents have been driven up to the point that – according to a recent study – 40% of Berliners aged between 45 and 55 are unlikely to be able to afford to stay in the city after they retire. Unless housing is socialised, that is.

Berliners are also entering into unknown legal terrain. Never in the history of the German constitution has article 15 been actually used, and until recently it seemed to have been largely forgotten. But it would be a mistake to see socialisation as an initiative confined to German law. Berlin’s housing corporations are active on the international stock market, and taking their property would lead the city government into a confrontation with international law which, in general, strongly protects corporate private property.

This battle will be watched closely by proponents of nationalisation and other forms of progressive politics, right across Europe. While the lack of affordable housing in other cities may be driven by other factors – aside from mass housing ownership by large corporate landlords – the outcome in Berlin could lend strength to calls to nationalise empty property or vacant lots.

This would make a big difference in cities such as London, for example, where more than a third of properties in “prime” market areas remain empty. As it stands, compulsory purchase – a tool related to nationalisation – is currently being used in London for quite the opposite purpose. The city seizes council flats from tenants (who became homeowners under right-to-buy) to make space for commercial redevelopment of sites.

Enraged about the housing crisis, Berlin activists do not just push their legislators, they show them the way by actively searching for progressive possibilities inside the existing law and beyond it. However this particular legal battle pans out, Berliners have already reinvented and democratised nationalisation, turning it from a top-down state intervention, into a grassroots project.

Author: SCCE

Thanks to the generosity of two local businesses, the community of South Cowal will be the first in Scotland to gift a Community Share to all of the children in its area.

South Cowal Community Enterprises (SCCE) is running a Community Share Offer to save its local shop and Post Office, The Lido, from closure. £256,680 has already been raised for the buyout and the community is now trying to bring in a further £60,000 through Community Shares. If successful, SCCE also plans to open a bunkhouse aimed at walkers, cyclists and kayakers in the space above the shop. 

Local businesses, Stewart & Bennett and BC technologies, have gifted £1,800 to buy Shares for all 180 children in the area under the age of 16. 

Linsay Chalmers, Chair of SCCE, which is leading the buyout, said “we want South Cowal to be a brilliant place to grow up. Now, as well as having two great primary schools and a fantastic outdoor lifestyle, children will become part-owners in their local community shop. We are delighted that two local businesses have made this possible”. 

Euan Macdonald, Sole Principal of Stewart & Bennett said: “This initiative sends a positive message to young people that it’s up to all of us to improve our own community.”

Brendon Wallace, Managing Partner of BC technologies said “this is an excellent opportunity for the community to get behind this project. I’m delighted to be able to support this project with such a unique and fantastic idea that provides all the local children with a share in The Lido. The amount of work and effort that has been put in by the local community group is outstanding and they should all be incredibly proud of what they have achieved”.

Brendon and Euan are also involved in the Dunoon Project, which plans to develop a major community-owned outdoor activities resort in Dunoon and South Cowal.

Extensive community engagement carried out in 2018 showed that 98% of people in the South Cowal wanted the shop to stay open and 64% of people thought that it would be a disaster for the community if The Lido closed. Local children were involved in the consultation process and came up with lots of great ideas for the shop. Linsay Chalmers said “we have had some fantastic ideas from local primary children about what we could stock such as fresh fruit and veg, toys and more vegan food, although we might not take up their suggestion to slime all of our customers!”

The Lido Community Share Offer is open until 23rd March 2019. Shares for local children will be held by by a nominee until they reach the age of 16. Further information can be found on SCCE’s web site.

Author: Crawford Beveridge

A panel of government-appointed advisers on the new planning system are close to withdrawing their support for the controversial bill currently in parliament.

In a letter to Kevin Stewart, the Planning Minister, Crawford Beveridge (pictured), Petra Biberbach and John Hamilton, say the Planning (Scotland) bill is “dangerously close to creating a system that is more complex than before.”

They say it is more remote and in danger of losing the spirit of the original review recommendations, placing “a range of additional burdens upon local authorities and the Scottish Government, as well as those working in Scotland’s private and third sectors.”

It is now estimated that the Bill adds 91 additional burdens to the current planning system (66 on Local Authorities and 25 on the Scottish Government).

Their comments follow concerns expressed by Miller Mathieson, chairman of the Scottish Property Federation (SPF), who last week called for a rethink after stating the current proposals were “unworkable”.

Derek Mackay, the Finance and Economy Secretary, admitted at the SPF conference that the bill was “not fit for purpose”.

 Dear Mr Stewart 

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL 

As the original authors of Empowering planning to deliver great places: An independent review of the Scottish planning system we are writing to express our concern about the current condition of the Planning (Scotland) Bill which is currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament’s legislative processes.

The independent review of the Scottish planning system which was commissioned by Scottish Ministers in September 2015 tasked us with undertaking a root & branch review and encouraged us to explore game-changing ideas for radical reform of the system.

In its 2015 Programme for Government, the Scottish Government committed to a review that would look at wide-ranging issues affecting the planning system, including how planning is resourced and how we can streamline and improve our system in Scotland. One of the particular aims of the review was to increase delivery of high-quality housing developments, by delivering a quicker, more accessible and efficient process.    The panel also envisaged a planning system that would enable communities to readily and meaningfully engage in decision-making, that would rationalise a complex system and one that would be properly resourced to deliver on this. As such, the review was conducted in the spirit of delivering an efficient, inclusive and more simplified planning system.

In May 2016, the panel concluded its review and published Empowering Planning to Deliver Great Places. The report set out 48 recommendations across six themes. Public discussion at the time indicated widespread general support for the recommendations of the review.

It is now apparent that the likely impact of recent amendments introduced during Stage Two proceedings will lead to significant departures from our original recommendations and that these will place a range of additional burdens upon local authorities and the Scottish Government, as well as those working in Scotland’s private and third sectors.  Indeed, it is estimated by the RTPI that the Bill adds 91 additional burdens to the current planning system (66 on Local Authorities and 25 on the Scottish Government).    

Accordingly, despite the well-focussed objectives of the Review Panel, at its current stage in the legislative process the Planning (Scotland) Bill finds itself dangerously close to creating a system that is more complex than before, more remote and in danger of losing the spirit of the original review recommendations.

We feel that without swift intervention from the Scottish Government Scotland is at risk of being left with a planning system that operates in ways directly counter to the key principles of simplification, efficiency and effective place-making that we placed at the heart of our review’s conclusions in 2016.

Whilst we remain encouraged that several positive aspects of the Bill envisaged by our review remain on course for delivery, such as the creation of local place plans or the desire to involve young people on planning issues, there remain fundamental flaws which make it difficult for us, as members of the original independent review of planning, to support the draft legislation in the form that is now being proposed.

Notwithstanding the fact that MSPs approaching the bill at Stage Two have clearly had varying and sometimes wholly opposing views of the bill’s purpose, we are hopeful that practical steps might be taken to ensure that this vital legislation has the once-in-a-generation positive impact on our planning system that was originally foreseen.

In light of the concerns articulated in summary above, we are writing to you to request an early meeting to discuss how the Bill can be brought to a state which more closely mirrors the recommendations and outcomes advocated by the independent review of planning in 2016.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Signed:

Crawford Beveridge (Chair) 

Petra Biberbach 

John Hamilton

Author: NDT

East Renfrewshire Council has committed £30 million to building the Neilston Joint Campus which is to replace the existing primary school provision in the village. When considering where the new joint campus should be located, the Council restricted its appraisal of potential sites to those which are in the Education Department’s estate i.e. St Thomas’ Primary and Neilston Primary effectively presenting this site as the only realistic option. NDT believes that that is not the best site available.

While Neilston Development Trust fully supports the Joint Campus proposal, the Trust believes there is a good case for further examination and discussion about where the new campus should be located.

The purpose of the attached document is to raise public awareness, stimulate discussion, and encourage East Renfrewshire Council to re-open their Joint Campus Options Appraisal with a wider scope. The Trust considers that a new appraisal should examine all possible sites and recommend options for the vacated sites.

Thus far the Council have refused to acknowledge the experience and knowledge around place-making that the community have developed over many years and instead seem intent on pressing forward with a unilateral, top down imposition of a decision as to where this highly significant investment in Neilston should be made. 

Author: Scottish Government

The research has been commissioned by the Scottish Government. It is being undertaken by the Scottish rural planning team at Savills and by the research institute Inherit, which is part of an independent charity.

The research is being undertaken to provide an evidence base to inform the future preparation of the National Planning Framework (NPF) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). NPF is a long-term strategy of the Scottish Government that provides a framework for spatial developments and other strategically important development opportunities in Scotland. SPP is Scottish Government policy on how land use planning matters should be addressed across the country.                                                     

The Planning (Scotland) Bill is currently being considered by parliament. It proposes that NPF and SPP are combined and have a statutory status in decision making on planning applications. Preparation of NPF4 will not begin until after the content of the Bill has been agreed by Parliament. At present, it is expected that NPF4 will look ahead to 2050.

At this early stage ahead of the review process commencing, to inform the evidence base for NPF4, we are:

·         drawing together a national picture of communities across rural Scotland;

·         seeking to identify the future needs of rural communities and businesses, as relevant to planning;

·         exploring how these future needs are likely to translate into development on the ground over the next 30 years or so;

·         looking at future opportunities to support the diversification of land use in rural areas;

·         asking whether there are particular types of development that will act as a catalyst and generate wider positive change for rural communities and businesses.

It is important that the research is informed directly by rural communities and businesses, by the organisations that represent them and by others with a particular interest. Your response to this survey will help to achieve that.

There are 17 questions in the survey in four sections: About you; Types of ‘rural’; Future needs of rural communities and businesses; and Supporting positive changes for rural communities and businesses.

With the exception of the questions in the initial ‘About you’ section of the survey, you can skip a question if it is not relevant to you.

Survey closes on March 22nd

Author: Scottish Review, Ronnie Smith

The exercise of any kind of true democracy depends almost entirely on information. Citizens cannot hope to make what we like to call ‘informed decisions’ when invited to vote without the availability of at least some knowledge and understanding of what is going on at every level of government.

It used to be considered a truism that the greater the level of available information, the more intelligent and sophisticated would be the choices made by the electorate. Unfortunately, technology and social media have made a nonsense of this idea. Now there is too much information, creating a chaos of fragmented knowledge ghettos within a global political culture subdivided by country. This makes it almost impossible for most people to acquire real and useful political knowledge.

Perhaps more important than ever before is the provision, or indeed capture, of clear and credible information from those in public office, whether elected or appointed. For this we need news media or, to be old fashioned about it, a dedicated band of tenacious individuals who care enough about people having access to the truth. Individuals who understand how easily democracy can wither when it is denied the oxygen, sunshine and water of accountability. Individuals who are willing, in fact personally obligated, to continue the struggle for accountability on behalf of a confused and half-blind population.

Kenneth Roy was one such individual. Bill Heaney is another and his life-long struggle for the truth continues, even in what some refer to as his retirement. Bill is well-known as one of Scotland’s most respected and professional journalists, who has had a long and distinguished career. He has won far more awards than I have space to set out here, but perhaps the grandest sounding is ‘editor emeritus of the Society of Editors’. Bill Heaney stands for integrity in journalism and I’ve never heard that view being challenged.

Unsatisfied with his retirement, Bill established an online newspaper to report on events in and around West Dunbartonshire, where he lives. We all know what a local newspaper looks like and, as Bill was editor of the Lennox Herald for many years, we can accept that he knows what he is doing. However, Bill Heaney has effectively been banned by the political leadership of West Dunbartonshire Council because they do not like him asking questions about their policies and activities. This is particularly the case in relation to cuts and local services and their management of schools in the area.

West Dunbartonshire Council refuses to take Bill’s questions and have rejected his credentials as a life-long member of the National Union of Journalists, by denying him the normal access to elected members and council officials. Instead, they refer him to their one-sided press releases and the sterile statements made by them from time to time.

I’m not going to refer to any political party or to any individual in West Dunbartonshire Council responsible for this situation, and readers can research this information easily enough if they wish. My purpose here is not to make a tribal political point because our little country ought to have had enough of that by now. And, I have always been aware of the fear that some politicians in all parties, hold for openness. I think of our current prime minister for one. 

No, I am more concerned with the question of how, in the 21st century, we in Scotland are still dealing with politicians who refuse to accept their obligation to be open and transparent in their management of our resources. Are some of these people really still claiming the right to operate in semi-secrecy by refusing to answer legitimate questions from our press and demanding full control of the information that we require in order to make ‘informed decisions’?

In the United Kingdom we find ourselves in a period of crisis without a clear path to the future and little idea of what it will look like. The union has never seemed more under threat and it may be that Brexit will result in its break-up. Consequently, those who care about the establishment of a new, future Scotland must start to think seriously about what that country will look and feel like. The time for vacuous campaigning is at an end, we must all get serious now.

If the words ‘inclusive, tolerant and civic’ are to mean anything, then respected Scots like Bill Heaney simply cannot be banned from asking questions at any level of our polity. That would add the word ‘authoritarian’ to the expression of the guid conceit that we hold for ourselves. If West Dunbartonshire Council can take themselves more seriously and find a higher level of maturity, I am sure that would be seen as a positive sign for the rest of our country.

Author: NCRA

FOREWORD AND INTRODUCTION to Full Report National Council of Rural Advisers– Click here

We have a bold and ambitious vision for the future of our rural economy – inspired by the conversations and contributions to the NCRA process, from people across Scotland.

To achieve this vision will require radical change and a new approach to policymaking and action.  Scotland’s rural economy is bursting with talent and potential. With an abundance of natural capital, world-renowned heritage and vibrant, diverse communities, our rural economy is not just crucial to Scotland’s national brand, it is crucial to our national prosperity.

Yet when the NCRA examined the legacy of rural policy making and listened to the voices of rural Scotland, it became apparent that whilst ambitious recommendations have been made in the past, the same challenges remain. National policy making processes do not always effectively represent rural interests and have not delivered the best economic outcomes for Scotland.

In delivering on our remit “to provide advice and recommendations on future rural policy and support” we recognise that only by addressing the complex structural issues that prevent change can we realise the vast opportunity that rural Scotland presents.

In our consultation paper, ‘A Rural Conversation: Together We Can, Together We Will’, we called for a Rural Economic Strategy, putting the rural economy at the heart of the national economic plan. It is significant to see the Scottish Government embrace this idea in the Programme for Government, with the proposal for a Rural Economic Action Plan. This commitment is testament to the enthusiasm and expertise gained from all those who have influenced the NCRA’s work, and the opportunity presented to us by a listening government. We have achieved our aim of starting a national conversation about the future of the rural economy, and we are extremely grateful to everyone who contributed to this work. We must all now build the momentum. We need radical change that redefines therural contribution and makes clear its significance in achieving Scotland’s national ambitions.

Our Recommendations

The leading recommendation is that a vibrant, sustainable and inclusive rural economy can only be achieved by recognising its strategic importance – and effectively mainstreaming it within all policy and decision-making processes. When this is achieved, ultimately, there should be no need for a separate rural economic strategy – it will simply be part of ‘the way things are done’. But we know that requires a change in mindset, culture and structure, and that takes time. 

That is why our second recommendation is to develop an interim Rural Economic Framework (REF), aligned to the National Performance Framework. The REF will provide a structure to enable transition, including the development and implementation of a new approach and delivery model for rural policy, development support and investment. We have the opportunity to remove the complexity and lack of understanding surrounding rural support by clearly linking it to the achievement of national outcomes: ensuring it is well understood, accepted and celebrated for improving national economic prosperity and wellbeing. The Agricultural Champions’ report called for a transitionary period before the implementation of a new approach to rural development support: the REF will align with this and work to develop a future strategy with industry and government.

The REF will be our roadmap and investment strategy for the transitional journey towards mainstreaming the rural economy.  The framework describes what needs to happen to nurture and protect our people and natural assets; with inclusive support and a robust infrastructure, while ensuring that everything we do continues to support national economic priorities. It will be the tool to leverage opportunities and demonstrate that not only can rural Scotland support national priorities, there are many areas where we can lead the way. It also provides a mechanism by which we can hold each other to account and maintain the momentum. To that end, our third recommendation is to create a Rural Economy Action Group (REAG), which has the clout to get things done and set the tone for change.

We know there have been numerous papers published in the past, calling for action that, despite everyone’s best efforts, was never fully achieved. We do not want that to happen this time. For that reason, we have begun with the fundamental structural changes required but also recommend a number of specific, foundational actions for the action group to focus on from the outset.

It is time for the rural community to own its future and ensure its voice is heard, and our ambitions and potential are delivered. We all have a part to play in shaping Scotland’s future into one we are proud to be involved in creating. This is the first step in a journey towards ensuring Scotland is recognised as a world leader in rural economic development and inclusive growth – together we can, together we will.