Author: P4P

If you have 2 minutes to spare please take this survery – it will help our sector win a bigger slice of the public procurement budget.

Partnership for Procurement P4P, in partnership with Scottish Enterprise, has commissioned Community Enterprise to undertake research into the opportunities for enterprising third sector organisations and social enterprise to increase local service delivery and local spend through social enterprise clusters. 

Clusters are understood as “a group of social enterprise involved in similar product service delivery / design, who are positioned closely together. These geographically concentrated groups are interconnected enterprises who trade with each other (and/or are related in some way) and as a result; have the potential to become more productive, innovative and competitive. Together these social enterprises could; with the right support and resources, put in place a more formal structure to enhance their effectiveness.”

This survey is targeted at third sector organisations and social enterprises and aims to test the scale and nature of the interest in cluster models and what the potential impact could be.  We would be grateful if you would take a few minutes to complete this short survey and record your thoughts which will be fed into the research.  If you need any further information, you can contact Douglas at Community Enterprise (on 01506 862227 or douglas@communityenterprise.co.uk).  The deadline for responses is the 28th February.

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: Leigh Sparks

It was an eye-catching gimmick, and it did the job, getting media coverage (and me onto the radio (again)). In early February, at a London auction The Postings shopping centre in Kirkcaldy was put up for sale with a reserve of only £1.    Was it outrage, amusement or a wry shaking of the head that followed?  Or simply, well that’s Kirkcaldy  perhaps?

But, as the pension fund sellers were quoted: “The reserve price of £1 is generating significant attention and we expect to get a considerable amount at the auction.”

The fact it was Kirkcaldy does not really matter though and there are good and less good things about Kirkcaldy, as there are with all towns.  And this shopping sale was being sold as a development opportunity that could help the town centre strategy. The point really was about another milestone in the change sweeping retailing – a 1980s shopping centre for £1.  In the event of course it went for a lot more than that (£310,000 with apparently 12 bidders interested), which suggests someone has an eye for an opportunity in Kirkcaldy, even though the same day the Marks and Spencer in the town closed.

More interesting though was the story of another retail sale at the same auction.  This time in Dumfries where the Midsteeple Quarter project are hell-bent on taking over what they can in the town centre and reinventing and running it for the good of the local community. 

Fed up with absentee and/or indifferent landlords, the plan has been to buy back the high street and establish a properly based mixed economy on local talents and needs.  Negotiations with the owners of two high street buildings in the Midsteeple Quarter had apparently been well under way, but suddenly the site was put up for auction. Yes, the sellers were the same pension fund as in Kirkcaldy.

With only a week or so’s notice, the Dumfries folk set about building a fund to bid at the auction.  Perhaps this was always doomed to fail, but the energy it released will build momentum for other things of a similar ilk.  In less than a week, a crowdfunder raised over £23,000.  This proved to be insufficient as bidding quickly rose over £100,000, settling on £142,000. A currently mystery bidder now owns these two buildings.  It is to be wished they have the good of Dumfries at heart, but there is something more important underneath this as well.

At one level this story is a failure – the idea for the community to buy these buildings did not work.  But, such energy and enthusiasm (and money) in such a short space of time bodes well for the future.  The funds will be repurposed to another community venture in the high street. The whole saga (can sagas be 5 days?) demonstrates the local desire to see places reinvigorated by and for the local community.  We need to make it easier to do this and to ensure town assets are actively used for the good of the local community.

But more than that, landlords and property need to begin to work more closely with local community groups and understand the desires and talents that are around in all of our towns. We are not short of ideas, but are often short of the right opportunities. Community involvement, and community ownership are vital components of the future of our places – but that sense of pride and energy to do things also underpins existing owners and operations, and it needs to be engaged with and not fought.

Go and take a look at the Midsteeple Quarter Project and what they want to do for Dumfries. And if you are local think about getting involved. If you are not local then seek out what is happening in your town

Author: Midsteeple Quarter

The auction was held on Tuesday 5th Feb. Below is the tweet from the Midsteeple Quarter team after Lot 74 – their High Street –  came up for bidding. The team had raised £15,000+ from a crowdfunding initiative in the days beforehand…..

@midstquarter

Dunno what just happened – we got well and truly gubbed… the winning bid was £140,000 – we were nowhere near that. Sorry guys, we gave it everything and do did everyone that supported us #Scunnered #ReclaimTheHighStreet

@midstquarter

In the big picture our aim was to support new approaches to our High Street. If someone else is bringing investment and believes in Dumfries – then that is to be warmly welcomed. We’re ready to work together and share our vision with anyone. #MakingDumfries

There is something a bit unsavoury about a community’s High Street being put up for auction in a fancy hotel in Knightsbridge. We can only hope that the new owner isn’t going to sit on the property and do nothing – as the pension fund did for so many years. If that is what happens, perhaps the new Compulsory Sale Orders will have become a device that communities can take advantage of .

Great effort, Midsteeple Quarter. Keep it going.

Author: Alex de Rijke Civil Society

A local group which failed in an attempt to buy Hastings pier has launched a campaign to prevent future community assets being sold off cheaply to private owners.

Hastings pier was sold to local businessman Sheikh Abid Gulzar last year after more than £14m of charitable funding had been spent on its restoration.

Hastings Pier Charity, a charitable industrial and provident society which previously owned the pier, went into administration in November 2017.

It had been given £12.7m of Heritage Lottery Fund money to rebuild the pier, which had been destroyed in a fire, and had raised hundreds of thousands from a community share offer.

Gulzar subsequently bought the pier for £50,000 despite local group Friends of Hastings Pier (FOHP) raising more than £500,000 to keep the pier in community ownership.

Now, FOHP has begun a campaign to scrutinise the laws around community assets that have being sold off without consideration for local community interests.

A spokesperson for FOHP said: “We are campaigning for a parliamentary review of the administration process relating to community assets.

“At the moment, administrators have to apply purely commercial considerations even when there has been considerable community investment and involvement, as was the case with the pier.

“This is clearly inappropriate. We are seeking a change of the law so that community interests can be taken in to account in future. This will not help us but may hopefully prevent what we went through happening to others.”

The local group wrote to Amber Rudd, MP for Hastings and Rye, requesting an inquiry into policy implications that arise from it for the operation of the Community Right to Bid and the other community rights enshrined in the Localism Act.

Amber Rudd, MP for Hastings and Rye, has passed FOHP’s request for an inquiry to Clive Betts, chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government select committee in September.

Betts said in his response that scrutiny of the Localism Act would likely have to follow the government’s publication of a memorandum assessing the operation of the act so far, which he hoped would happen soon.

Following a small electrical fire, Hastings pier, which won the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Stirling prize for its design in 2017, closed for repairs and improvements in December and is not expected to open until at least March.

Local residents organised a community event, If You Love The Pier Then Join The Queue, earlier this month calling for the pier to be reopened.

About 250 people including Rudd attended the event but there has been no subsequent update on whether the pier will reopen any earlier.

Author: Ada Wong

As cities grow in size and significance, they can become sites of complex social problems – but also hubs for exploring possible solutions. While every city faces distinct problems, they all share a need for innovative approaches to tackle today’s challenges.

This essay is one in a series on future trends for innovative cities, written by the leading thinkers of the Mayor of Seoul’s Social Innovation Global Advisory Committee. First up: Ada Wong, founder of the Make A Difference initiative and The Good Lab in Hong Kong

Mr Park Won-soon is Asia’s first social innovation Mayor. In his role as Mayor, he has introduced social innovation policies to facilitate social change, bringing government closer to citizens through collaborative governance. In the last few years I have seen how the Seoul Metropolitan Government became facilitator and catalyst, giving the people of Seoul opportunities to share their views (as in participatory budgeting) and enabling social innovations to be tested (as in allowing government car parks for sharing economy and car share initiatives).

Short of having a visionary innovator as Mayor, how might other cities facilitate their citizens to participate and influence policy making? Could a small innovation that originates from people in the community become city-wide policy? Are there ways to build trust between government and civil society?

That was the starting point of my enthusiasm towards the idea of social labs. Social Labs are laboratories where one experiments with finding small, local solutions to (big) social problems. There are all kinds of social labs in the global landscape. Some call themselves design labs, change labs, digital labs or living labs, but whatever they are called, they are incubators for new solutions.

Social Labs are anchored in neighbourhoods with real people, real stories and real issues

In 2016, the non-profit Make A Difference (MaD) Institute decided to form a community-driven public sector innovation lab with a grant from the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust. Three years later, we have knocked on the doors of three government departments and completed three labs (on innovations for better public libraries, parks and public space, and more walkable and healthier streets), and are preparing for the fourth one (on modernisation of markets). These Social Labs are anchored in neighbourhoods with real people, real stories and real issues.

At each Social Lab, the lab team works with citizens closely to find out where challenges lie and experiment with alternative scenarios, and to come up with services and policy recommendations. As the MaD Social Lab is not steered from within government, insights gained and recommendations need more advocacy before adoption. On the other hand, the MaD Social Lab has been more successful as a platform for citizen-government collaborations where small scale prototypes could be experimented on. While social labs around the world might have more immediate outcomes and policy change, the MaD Social Lab could be seen as a process innovator, enabling citizens to co-create and co-design new services and policies with government to respond to different challenges.

As a prototype before the launch of the MaD Social Lab, we experimented with a one-week ‘Lab Sprint’ in 2015 with Kennisland, an Amsterdam-based think-and-do-tank which runs social labs in the Netherlands, as our lab partner. We explored issues faced by the homeless and elderly communities in a grassroots community in Hong Kong. We openly recruited our lab team of 30+ young people and the feedback was overwhelming – it was over-subscribed within a few days by young people from diverse backgrounds, all eager for new ways to contribute and be engaged. During the one-week Lab Sprint, lab team members worked day and night, made interesting discoveries and prototyped workable community initiatives. We felt there was thirst for platforms that encourage participation and empathy.

There was thirst for platforms that encourage participation and empathy

Our next surprise was the enthusiasm of participating civil servants during the three Social Labs. I witnessed how the social lab experience gradually changed them from being reluctant team members (as they were identified by their seniors to join the Social Lab) to appreciating the story collection and prototyping process of a social lab. One senior librarian remarked, “I have been working in libraries for a long time, and at work I talk directly with the public all the time. But those communications tend to be formal and direct, with many complaints. In contrast, Social Lab collects in-depth stories. I got to sit and talk with neighbourhood folks, and take the initiative to understand their inner thoughts and feelings about the library. That was very different from our usual form of engaging with readers.”

Most social labs, including ours, prioritise people’s stories over dry statistical data to better sense the urgency for action and reinstate an empathetic dimension to policy-making. We see this as a big takeaway for civil servants to see beyond data.

Public sector innovation is often seen as daunting and not easy to sustain. Social labs offer one way of overcoming the innovation barrier as they provide a safe space for experimentation and for failure. This safe environment is a co-created hybrid space, so when the prototypes did not work well, there is also a safe distance between the failed experiment and the relevant government office.

To reiterate, innovative cities need innovative ways for sustainable collaborative governance, like what Mayor Park has done for Seoul. Social labs are by nature pro-innovation; they are also temporary and will dissolve after a short lab period. Perhaps it is the limited time and space on this platform that has enabled more trust to develop, for citizens and civil servants to work, learn and experiment together.

This essay is one of a series curated by the Social Innovation Exchange (SIX) and made possible with the support of the Seoul Metropolitan Government. It is republished here with their permission.

Author: John Crawford, The Herald

WHEN I began training in a Scottish Small Burgh in 1968, the Town Clerk was the only one of the four chief officials who lived in a bought house: the others lived in council houses, a perk of their appointment, and an indication of the salaries paid at the time.

Councillors had their expenses reimbursed when on official business. Their priority (both Labour, and SNP/Conservative administrations from 1968-75) was to keep the rents and rates as low as possible.

Councillors saw their role as approving policy that the officials would implement and (apart from the allocation of council houses) would rarely get involved in the day-to day running of the burgh. Any chief official who was unhappy at a council decision could table a formal letter at the council meeting and if necessary, have it entered verbatim into the minutes. Committee reports were full of detail and published after approval by the full council. Local newspaper reporters regularly attended these meetings, recorded the debates and the decisions taken. Councillors and officials had a healthy respect for each other and if any of the latter fell foul of the former there was always the option of moving to one of the many other Scottish burghs that existed at the time.

The 1975 reorganisation of Scottish local government changed it all. The Strathclyde mega-council resulted in significant pay rises for many of the staff merging from the former burghs and counties. Rather than a council house and a contributory pension to look forward to, internal promotion became the objective for many staff and that developed a different attitude. Within a decade too councillors were being paid allowances for attending meetings and also as committee chairs/conveners. For some, it offered an opportunity to become a career councillor: not just a desire to serve the public. This in turn led to councillors starting to get more closely involved (older officials felt it was more like interference) in operational issues. Sometimes when an official offered professional advice that didn’t suit the councillors’ objectives they’d be asked to “rethink” and if unable (or unwilling) to do so, might find their aspirations for future promotion were thwarted.

A further reorganisation in 1996 hasn’t helped. Back-bench councillors are now “earning” more than £16,000 a year while others get a lot more. The consequence is that some councillors feel the need to “be seen to be involved/in charge” rather than letting the officials get on with it. Committee reports are nowadays couched in such vague terms that there’s little substance or detail for local press to report. It’s now difficult to identify just who formulated policy, whether officials offered professional guidance, and if that guidance was considered or not.

Is it any wonder then that a situation like the women’s equal pay debacle has ended in political point-scoring over who is responsible for Glasgow City Council having to pay out £500million to settle a long-standing dispute? Is there a paper trail for the process that led to the decision to go to court rather than settle? Were the council’s legal and HR chief officers asked for their advice?

Or have we reached a stage where council chief officials are nowadays content to see the politicians ignore their professional advice rather than jeopardise their promotion prospects and in turn their pension pots? And if that happens, both sides have to keep quiet rather than let the truth emerge. And that’s a sad day for the council tax-payer.

The author was a chief officer in three Scottish district councils and a unitary authority between 1984 and 2006.

Author: GCU

Inspiring social enterprise in Scotland by preserving and retelling the history of the sectors distinctive heritage is the aim of a new project, funded by the Scottish Government, to develop the Social Enterprise Collection (Scotland). Based on a collaboration between the Glasgow Caledonian University Archive Centre and the Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health this funding will build on recently published research by Dr Gillian Murray into the origins of social enterprise in Scotland. The central message of the project is that consigning material to the archive does not mark the end point of a project or organisation, but can be the spark for a whole range of new beginnings.

The Collection of documents and oral histories relating to the development of social enterprise in Scotland, including the papers of community enterprise pioneer John Pearce, will ensure that the legacy of such forerunners to social enterprise is preserved for future generations. Acquiring new material for the archival collection and recording oral histories will be an important feature of the project, and the team are passionate that the Collection should be a living resource. Therefore, as part of working to make the Collection as accessible as possible to the sector and the wider public, a travelling exhibition is also planned for this summer.

The exhibition will provide and introduction to the history of social enterprise in Scotland and showcase the images and documents held within the collection. By breaking these materials out of their boxes and demystifying the archive, the team hope it will provide a point of inspiration and learning for established and future social enterprises alike. Locations and dates for the exhibition will be announced as soon as possible. If you have been part of the history of social enterprise in Scotland and would like to share your story with the project, or donate materials to the archive please get in touch with Dr Gillian Murray (gillian.murray2@gcu.ac.uk) or contact the GCU Archive Centre here.   

If you’re interested in donating materials to the Collection – here’s the online form.

Author: BBC

Scotland’s oldest community health project is facing closure following sudden funding cuts.

The Pilton Community Health Project, formed in Edinburgh in 1984, said closure was “imminent” after the City of Edinburgh Council and NHS Lothian announced plans to stop funding.

The health project said it received the news “out of the blue” on Thursday.

City of Edinburgh Council said it was following a new process for allocating grants.

If it is not overturned, the project, which aims to reduce health inequalities in north Edinburgh, will be forced to close by the end of the financial year.

Project staff said they applied to the Integrated Joint Board (IJB) for renewal of £220,000 annual funding to cover core costs and specific projects “that tackle social isolation and health inequalities”, but were told by email that funding was being pulled “without explanation”.

They said they had received council and NHS funding for 30 years and claimed annual reviews had shown targets had been “met or exceeded”.

The Pilton Community Health Project:

·         Provides mental health counselling to pupils at local high schools

·         Supports women who are survivors of gender-based violence or facing other difficulties in their lives

·         Supports people from different countries integrate into the community

·         Helps people lead healthier lives by getting them more active and giving them cookery training

·         Supports local men and women with emotional distress in an adult counselling service

·         The Pilton Community Health Project (PCHP) employs 35 staff and has 40 volunteers.

Graham Rae, chairman of the PCHP board, said: “This decision has come completely out of the blue and left the people of north Edinburgh and the project staff facing a miserable Christmas and a bleak future.

“We deserve a full explanation and the opportunity to make our case to the Integration Joint Board before it rushes to a decision that will have devastating impact on people’s lives. We will not go quietly.”

Ben MacPherson, MSP for Edinburgh Northern and Leith, said the project “serves communities with some of the highest levels of deprivation in Scotland, supporting local families and individuals in need, and encouraging and creating positivity and greater confidence within the area.”

He added: “This is yet another example of the negative impact of the UK government’s austerity agenda, which continues to reduce, and put serious pressure on, both the Scottish government’s budget and local authorities’ budgets.”

Ricky Henderson, chairman of the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board said: “This is a new process for allocating grants which I strongly believe meets our strategic objectives for providing health and social care services across Edinburgh.

“Following the EIJB decision in November 2017 to review the grant programmes for those inherited from the council and NHS Lothian, a steering group was formed and a grants programme was co-produced with the voluntary sector and subsequently agreed by the EIJB in August 2018.

“The steering group completed a robust and well thought-out application and assessment process. Training and advice surgeries were held for applicants throughout and following the closing date an independent chair was appointed to moderate the allocation programme – ensuring objective and impartial decisions.

“The EIJB will consider the recommendations of sharing £14.2m from the grants review steering group at our next meeting on 14 December.”

Author: Scottish Government

Last week, Scotland’s Second Action Plan on Open Government was launched. This has been produced in partnership by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Open Government Network. The Action Plan contains commitments on improvements to openness, transparency, involving people, and accountability of public services.

What is an Action Plan?

An Action Plan is a collection of all the different actions that the Scottish Government and its partners are going to do over the next couple of years. It’s a list of all the improvements and changes that Scottish Government wants to make, why these are important, who they will work with to deliver this and when they will do this by. ‘Open Government’ is the key theme for this Action Plan. When we (Scottish Government and the Open Government Network) talk about opening up government, we mean making governments and decision-makers more accessible, more transparent and involving the people they serve.

Where did the ideas come from?

The ideas in this document came from the public, in what we heard from public discussions and consultation. The ideas have been developed by the organisations and individuals involved in Open Government, members of the Open Government Steering Group, public service regulators, academics, and the policy teams at the Scottish Government. This work has been done in partnership. This document tells the story of Open Government in Scotland, the ambitions behind it and where it sits in wider contexts of other work and movements relating to open government.

What is an Open Government?

An Open Government is one which values openness, accountability, transparency and involving people. This Action Plan includes some ambitious commitments that have the potential to makereal progress towards these goals.

This Action Plan has been produced in line with the requirements of Scotland’s membership of the Open Government Partnership, an international collaboration of 90 governments across the world committed to three key principles of openness, transparency and citizen participation.

In 2016, Scotland was selected as one of 15 countries/regions around the world to join the programme to bring new leadership and innovation at all levels of government. We developed the first Scottish Open Government Partnership Action Plan in partnership with civil society. This Action Plan set out how we would use the opportunity to improve the lives of people living in Scotland, to learn from others, and to share our experience of Open Government. We delivered our first Action Plan over 2017.