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: Reform Scotland

A Scottish think-tank has criticised opposition parties at Holyrood for taking a ‘centralist’ view of decision making.

Ahead of a vote on handing more powers to local authorities, Chris Deerin, director of Reform Scotland said it is “disappointing” that some political parties who have previously argued in favour of localism are not embracing this principle.

The Scottish Parliament is today expected to vote through the final stages of the Budget Bill which will give local authorities the power to make decisions on introducing workplace parking levies and a tourism tax.

Both have attracted severe criticism from opposition parties and today the Scottish Conservatives are launching an advertising campaign to halt plans for the workplace parking tax.

Mr Deerin said claims that the Scottish Government is responsible for imposing new taxes are “simply incorrect”. He said It will be for individual councils to decide whether such levies are appropriate for their area.

Different councils will make different choices about whether and how to proceed, according to local opinion and need. Reform Scotland believes that devolving more powers to local authorities to allow them to develop individual solutions is a good thing, and that the measures contained in the Budget should only be a first step.

Mr Deerin said: “It is perfectly possible to oppose the imposition of the new levies but believe it should be up to local authorities to decide. Scotland is too centralised and these measures will strengthen local accountability and allow decisions to be made on community need.

“It’s no longer the case that ‘the man in Whitehall knows best’, but neither does the man or woman in St Andrew’s House. It is disappointing that some political parties who have previously argued in favour of localism are not embracing this principle.

“Just as the UK Government is not responsible for the increase in income tax in Scotland because it devolved the power to Holyrood, neither would the Scottish Government be responsible for introducing a workplace parking charge by devolving the power to local authorities.

“Scotland is a diverse nation. If the Scottish Government is truly serious about local empowerment, these proposals must be only the first small step in greater devolution to our local authorities.”

Hypocrisy jibe

Labour and the Tories have been accused of hypocrisy after it was revealed they both backed plans for a workplace parking levy.

Tory councillors in Edinburgh last year voted in favour of the council “pursuing the power for Edinburgh to seek consent to introduce a workplace parking Levy”, while in 2017, Labour councillorsin both Edinburgh and Glasgow stood on manifesto commitments to explore introducing a levy.

SNP MSP George Adam said: “The Tories and Labour have been caught out running embarrassing and hypocritical campaigns against a measure they themselves have been demanding.

“Indeed, several Tory councils have themselves introduced car parking charges despite now decrying them, in an act of breath-taking hypocrisy.

“The public can see right through this two-faced opportunism – parties who demand localism in one breath and then demand Scottish Government acts against such policies in the next.

“Ultimately, it will be up to local authorities to decide whether a workplace parking levy is right for their areas – and if Labour, Tory or SNP councils oppose their use, that’s their choice.

“But it is outright hypocrisy to oppose giving councils that choice when their own parties have demanded it.”

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: 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.

Author: Keep Scotland Beautiful

The survey consists of a variety of yes or no questions as well as free-text boxes which provide an opportunity to share your comments. If you are responding as part of a group, the questions outlined below provide you with an indication of what the survey will ask you. To go straight to the survey click here

The core purpose of the CCF is: ‘’We want to ensure that communities in Scotland are informed, prepared and able to make the move to low carbon living’.

1. Is this purpose still relevant?

a. If no, what would you suggest the purpose becomes?

To be eligible for funding, projects must meet four criteria: community-led, carbon reduction,

sustainable legacy, and climate literacy.

2. To what extent do you believe these are the most appropriate criteria for assessing eligibility

for funding?

As the CCF currently requires all projects to be community-led, organisations that cover multiple

communities across a broader local or regional area are not currently eligible for funding.

3. In addition to maintaining individual community project grants, how would you feel about a

proportion of the funding being used to support strategic or networking projects?

Groups in receipt of CCF funding are currently required to deliver a measurable reduction in carbon emissions in their community

4. How useful do you think it is for CCF groups to calculate and report carbon emissions

reductions?

Groups who receive funding, receive support from the CCF administrators (currently KSB).

5. How do you feel about the support provided by the CCF administrators?

a. What improvements could be made to the support offered to groups?

Additional comments

6. In your experience, what aspects of the CCF are currently working well?

7. What other changes or improvements would you make to the CCF going forward?

Author: James Bloodworth, UnHerd

 ‘Who funds you?’ has become a running joke on Twitter among those working for the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), a free market think tank. It is a question those employed by the organisation are frequently asked by pious online Left-wingers. The implication on the part of their critics is that IEA spokespeople are simply parroting the (undisclosed) interests of their donors.

In one sense, this reflects an intolerant style of argument that has become ubiquitous in recent years. Rather than engaging generously with an opposing view, the conspiratorial style seeks first to impugn an individual’s motives. ‘I believe X because I am a good person, whereas you believe Y because you are paid to believe it’.

That said, when it comes to think tanks, it does seem reasonable to ask ‘Who funds you?’ – though not in the manner of a Twitter commissar.

Representatives from organisations such as the Taxpayer’s Alliance (TPA), the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), the Adam Smith Institute, Demos and the IEA regularly feature as talking heads on political discussion programmes.

In a speech to Policy Exchange in October, the Home Secretary Sajid Javid MP said the think tank “has helped us shape policy. Last year Open Democracy reported that the TPA, the pro-Brexit website Brexit Central and the IEA were holding monthly strategy meetings attended by Conservative MPs.

All of which shows that think tanks wield significant influence in the development of public policy in Britain. And just as politicians must disclose donations, and charity trustees must disclose conflicts of interest, it is legitimate to ask where think tanks get their funding.

An investigation by The Times last year reported that think tanks are earning millions of pounds from private organisations that hope to wield influence in Whitehall, and often publish reports in areas of interest to their corporate sponsors.

For example, The Times investigation reported that Demos published a paper on the costs to the NHS of untreated ADHD. The paper was funded by Shire Pharmaceuticals, which, according to newspaper, sold £1.7 billion of ADHD medicine in 2016. Similarly, Policy Network published a report on the benefits of autonomous vehicles to the European economy – commissioned by Nissan.

The think tanks featured in The Times investigation defended the independence of their publications and stressed the editorial control they exercise over them. And it would be a mistake to assume that think tanks are pushing a particular line simply because they are in the pay of shadowy donors. But soft power – as well as the way it is exercised – matters a great deal in a liberal democracy.

The ability to get a piece of research off the ground often depends on the ability to secure funding for it, and this usually means finding a wealthy sponsor to back it. In other words, you are unlikely to find a wealthy corporate sponsor if you cannot find a topic that piques the interest of a wealthy corporate sponsor. The same applies as a general rule to trade union funding for left-leaning causes: they are hardly likely to hand money over to think tanks that are advocating a more hostile environment for trade unions.

Murky sources of funding are particularly worrying where think tanks have charitable status – like the IEA and Demos – and so must have a public benefit and remain non-partisan. I am not suggesting here that British think tanks are suspending their critical faculties in order to please their corporate donors, or that they have broken any laws, but funding-driven distortions in research have the power to skew public debate. And ‘lobbying’ on behalf of individuals or small groups is not compatible with charitable status.

The IEA, one of several think tanks that refuses to routinely disclose who its donors are, has fallen foul of the Charity Commission in the past. An undercover report by Unearthed, a wing of Greenpeace, found last year that the IEA had arranged for US donors who had pledged to donate £35,000 to have a private meeting with Brexit minister Steve Baker MP. The IEA denied breaching any laws governing its charitable status.

In addition to this, in December of last year the Charity Commission ordered the IEA to remove a report from its website – Plan A+: Creating a prosperous post-Brexit UK – because it was “not sufficiently balanced and neutral”. In 2018 the Charity Commission also ordered the Legatum Institute Foundation to take down a report – Brexit Inflection Point – from its website. The commission said the report “crossed a clear line” in terms of breaching impartiality rules.

Most think tanks have a very clear agenda, however that is not the problem. In fact, those working for public-facing think tanks rarely try to disguise their ideological position. Nor is there any evidence that donors are giving money to think tanks with guarantees that future research papers will echo their own corporate interests.1

The real issue is transparency – the public should have a right to know who funds organisations that wield such influence in public life. Many think tanks are indeed financially transparent, meaning people can draw their own conclusions about their research. However, according to Transparify, which ranks them based on their financial disclosure, several high profile think tanks continue to take money from sources which they choose not to disclose.

This matters when money translates into a form of soft power. Think tanks generate reports that can alter the direction of – some might even say distort – public debate. It doesn’t necessarily invalidate a report on, say, climate change to know that those who financed it have links to the oil industry. But is reasonable that readers are informed about such links.

One of the biggest issues in public life in Britain today is trust. The public lacks trust in politicians, in institutions, and in the way the country is being run. There is also a growing sense that politicians are too close to big business. Transparency in public life is essential to reversing this trend. As part of the democratic process, ‘Who funds you?’ is a vital question.

Author: TFN

The public must get behind a landmark bid to transform our food system, a charity coalition has said.

Action is urgent as Scotland is failing to meet the needs of its people and the environment in how it deals with what and how we eat.

The Scottish Food Coalition – a diverse group of civil society organisations including major charities and trade unions – wants people to get behind a planned Good Food Nation bill.

This would transform how food is seen in Scotland, tackling the country’s connected food challenges, setting out measures to attack child poverty, obesity, the environmental impact of food production and waste, and the scandal of low pay for food production and service workers.

The coalition scored a major victory last year when campaigning saw the bill’s inclusion in the Scottish Government’s legislative programme, amid fears it would be dropped.

However, TFN understands there has been frustrations in the sector about a lack of government impetus in promoting it, and concerns about how parts of it have been worded.

Now, with the closing date for the consultation looming on 29 March, the coalition is making a major push for the public’s participation.

They say it is vitally important to everyone – as over a third of working Scots worry about putting food on the table, and more and more people are forced to rely on foodbanks.

At the same time, while many farmers and crofters go above and beyond for the environment, in other places, food production has contributed to declines in wildlife, soil and water quality, and climate-warming emissions.

Issues of food poverty, diet-related disease and exploitation of our workforce and our natural resources must all be addressed.

A new law to deliver Scotland’s Good Food Nation ambitions could help us do that, says the coalition.

The bill will contain a statutory right to food at its heart, so joined-up policy making can ensure everyone has reliable access to healthy sustainable food for themselves and their families. It also believes there needs to be a statutory Scottish Food Commission to drive the necessary change towards a fairer, healthier, and more environmentally friendly food system.

Professor Mary Brennan, chair of the Scottish Food Coalition, said: “I urge everyone to respond to this consultation, the outcomes of which will shape how the Scottish food system is managed for generations to come.

“Scotland has an exciting opportunity to be world leading in placing food at the heart of all decision making. By doing so we can improve the quality, healthiness, and environmental sustainability of our food while ensuring that those who produce and prepare it do so under fair, safe and secure conditions.”

Jackson Cullinane from Unite the Union added: “This consultation is very welcome and long overdue. It is important that it considers ideas and proposals on the broad range of issues relative to good food provision, including the need to tackle food poverty, improve health and ensure that workers across the food chain have decent wages, conditions and the highest possible standards of health and safety.”

Author: The National, by Lesley Riddoch

IT’S the thing most towns dread – a Plook On The Plinth nomination as the most dismal town in Scotland. Yet when Lochgelly attracted the critical eye of the Carbuncle Awards judges in 2010, something important happened.

Firstly, the former mining town in Fife didn’t win. Secondly, a group of three women, who’d been working in the community since 1998, resolved to step up their efforts and transform their town. In 2016, their hard work was finally rewarded, when Lochgelly won the title of Scotland’s Most Improved Town in the annual Scottish Urban Regeneration Forum Awards.

According to Helen Ross, treasurer of the Lochgelly Community Development Forum (LCDF): “I was the proudest person in the world that night.”

But transformation didn’t really start with the carbuncle nomination in 2010. The impetus for change began much earlier.

Helen recalls the bleakest days of 2004 when the town was voted the “Worst Place To Live In Britain”.

“Journalists sat at street corners, waiting till mangey dogs walked past to take pictures,” says Ross.

“Everyone’s heart sank because behind the scenes we were already doing so much and we were all working so hard to change things.

“But pits had closed, and the town was full of three storey flats no-one wanted – there were even maisonettes on top of the flats. Improvement plans had been hatched but demolition had to take place before renewal could begin – it was a long-term process.”

Lochgelly is in the poorest 10% of communities in the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, but still the Carbuncle nomination came as a crushing blow. It read: “Lochgelly imparts a funeral air and the Lochgelly Centre, the heart of the community, lies boarded up waiting redevelopment.”

Of course, it wasn’t always like this – and that’s what hurt townspeople most. The Fife town was a weaving and agricultural village, but after the discovery of ironstone and then coal, it became one of the main centres of coal mining in Fife.

Lochgelly miners – a self-regulating and self-sufficient, community-minded bunch – paid a penny from their wages to build their own Miners’ Institute.

Soon after, subscriptions paid for a Co-operative Society.

Around Fife, mining communities built libraries, schools and provided services. Bit by bit that self-starting attitude disappeared as the mines closed.

By 1998, local women Christine McGrath and Eileen McKenna decided they’d had enough. Lochgelly had become a forgotten town and the two women were determined to change that. They formed a local regeneration group and recruited Helen Ross. She recalls; “We had different personalities, different skills and a lot of life experience.”

That was an understatement.

Ross has worked as a window dresser, telephonist, driving instructor and market trader, as well as having travelled round the world.

She’s worked for insurance companies, credit firms and local councils. Together with McKenna (an expert form-filler) and Eileen (a talented planner) they formed a strong, determined team.

Their timing was good. Fife Council and Ore Valley Housing Association (OVHA) had just started work with the community on the Lochgelly Masterplan. This ultimately led to five housing developments and an award-winning business centre beside the refurbished Miners’ Institute.

The Lochgelly Centre finally got its refit and was extended to include a 415-seat theatre, library, local office, e-commerce suite, sports hall, creative classrooms and a cafe.

Satisfied that many of the “hardware” issues were being tackled, the Regeneration Group reformed as the Development Forum (LCDF) and decided to tackle the big “software” problem – how locals felt about their own town.

Relaunching the annual gala and parade in 2006 began the process of social change, followed by a community Christmas light switch-on event, which involved fundraising for the lights, closing the road, organising a torchlight parade and a Christmas Craft fayre. These simple things were transformational.

Ross remembers; “When we saw about a thousand people coming down the road carrying lights – we all just burst into tears. It was such a beautiful sight.”

The next advance also resulted from what seemed like a setback at the time.

In 2010, the world-renowned planning expert Andres Duany led what newspapers described as “a ground-breaking charrette” (planning forum), but what locals less charitably described as “a shovette” – a culture crash in which imported professionals seemed to run roughshod over locals.

But the event ultimately did a lot of good, unlocking funding to transform the much-loved, B-listed Town House into four mid-market rented flats. New flats have also been built on other vacant and derelict sites in the town, bringing 31 new affordable homes to the town centre.

Another important legacy of the Lochgelly charrette was a change in Scottish Government practice, recognising that local people know their towns better than anyone and professionals should listen, help shape community aspirations, facilitate and enable change, but always encourage local people to do the leading.

A final happy outcome was that Fife Council allocated Hazel Cross to work in the town.

Ross recalls: “Believe me, she had a hard time when she came in because of the feeling generated by the charrette, but Hazel won everyone around. She really listened to us, could see all the work that had gone on, valued us, rolled up her sleeves and made us a promise she would help.”

One of her early achievements was “intercepting” the Indoor Climbing and Bouldering Centre originally looking for space in Glenrothes or Kirkcaldy. Cross pointed out that Lochgelly was just off the A92, with its own train station, and the open space of Lochore Meadows nearby. The centre would kickstart plans to develop Lochgelly as an accessible active leisure cluster for residents and visitors, and give the sport a town-centre shop-window instead of obscurity on an industrial estate.

Her argument was persuasive and the centre should open later this year in the refurbished St Andrews Church, run by a new community interest company, Rockgelly – just part of the astonishing rise in occupancy rates of shops and offices in Lochgelly.

From 2009 to 2016 town centre vacancy rates have halved. The new OVHA business centre is 86% let and the refurbished Miners’ Institute is 70% let. An eloquent riposte to naysayers who predicted the new units would sit empty.

And there is a blizzard of projects on the go – organised, prompted, mentored or supported by LCDF. The Community Shop sells affordable clothing and homeware and provides a place to blether, volunteer and overcome social isolation. The Connect Project will link would-be volunteers with local vacancies and the chance to gain qualifications. Heritage trails and guided tours are starting up, featuring the birthplace of Jennie Lee, who became the youngest woman elected to the House of Commons in 1929. And lots more.

According to Cross, the key to Lochgelly’s success has been strong partnerships, trust, honest discussion, ambition for the town and a realisation that change doesn’t happen overnight.

Jennie Lee would surely admire the dogged determination displayed by the modern lasses of her own home town.

Author: Senscot

The social enterprise sector in Scotland is a rich and varied landscape, so it’s often hard to know where to look to find the appropriate support, or even who does what.

That’s why Community Enterprise teamed up with social enterprise creative agency BOLD to produce the Social Enterprise Ecosystem, a comprehensive map of support, funding, information, mentoring and networking.

The Ecosystem is colour-coded for ease of navigation and has five distinct categories: Development, Finance, Learning, Networking, and Policy & Info.

 The map guides users towards relevant support agencies and funding avenues.

Around the edges of the Ecosystem are common entry points, designed to make reading and navigating the map an effective way for social entrepreneurs to determine their next move, depending on what stage their enterprise is at.

These common entry points include ‘an individual with an idea’, where the map guides the user towards support agencies such as Social Enterprise Academy (which delivers learning and development programmes) and business support agency Firstport (which offers startup funding and advice on business plans etc).

Other entry points include ‘sustain or grow your enterprise’, for those looking to increase capacity, and ‘winning contracts’ for those looking to take their first steps into the procurement process.

Click here to view and explore the ecosystem in full.

Author: The Herald

The Isle of Arran has become the first community in Scotland to achieve Surfers Against Sewage’s Plastic Free Communities status.

The accreditation was given in recognition of the island’s work to start reducing the impact of single-use plastic on the environment.

The Surfers Against Sewage Plastic Free Community network has already accredited over 400 communities, with Arran becoming the first in Scotland.

Islanders formed the group ‘Think About Plastic – Arran’ (TAP-Arran) in February 2018 and focused on ways key organisations and business could reduce their plastic use.

Accommodation providers quickly changed habits; they replaced single use mineral water with reusable water bottles; introduced bars of soap and solid shampoo to replace bottled products and gave fresh milk in place of mini pots of UHT.

Helen How, chair of TAP-Arran, said: “We are delighted by the support we have experienced from residents and businesses.

“Everybody can take simple and effective action to minimise usage of single use plastic items.”

Residents on the island often take part in organised beach cleans, and retailers including The Co-operative in Brodick are trialling plastic-free produce.

She added: “Having gained this accreditation from SAS, we will continue to expand the campaigning to include more businesses and get the message out to the many visitors Arran attracts.

“Arran’s residents are proud of their environment and we want everybody to know that we care and take positive action to protect where we live.”

North Ayrshire Councillor Jim Montgomerie, cabinet member for place, said: “Congratulations to the TAP team on this recognition and hopefully their determination to eradicate plastic waste will rub off on other businesses and groups across North Ayrshire.

“North Ayrshire Council is delighted to support TAP – Arran and indeed as a Council we have already made huge strides in eradicating plastic from our facilities – last year alone we have removed more than 800,000 straws from milk cartons and fruit juice cartons in our schools as well as our cafes across all North Ayrshire.

“Our commitment to become a Plastic-Free Council takes this on to a whole new level by removing single-use plastics from a whole range of services. We know that many plastics play an important role in everyday life but it is single-use plastics which have the most detrimental impact on our environment.

“We hope that our actions, and the efforts of groups like TAP, will help to get people thinking about how discarding single-use plastics has a negative effect on the environment, encouraging people to look more closely at alternative materials.

“While going plastic-free isn’t something that can happen overnight, we are moving forward as quickly as we can on this to ensure North Ayrshire Council is Plastic-Free by 2022 at the very latest.”

Rachel Yates, SAS Plastic Free Communities project officer, said: “It’s great to see Arran leading the way in Scotland as the community works to reduce the availability of avoidable plastics, raise awareness and encourage people to refill and reuse.

“We have over four hundred communities across the UK working to reduce single use plastic and the impact it has on our environment.

“Every step these communities and the individuals in them take is a step towards tackling the problem at source, challenging our throwaway culture and encouraging the habit changes we need to see.”