Future Scotland, the National Conversation and Related Debate

SCVO/ Uist CVO Event 8^th September 2008

Nunton Steadings, Benbecula

Introduced by Lena Carter, UCVO and Jill Flye SCVO

Speakers

Alasdair Allan MSP on the National Conversation - Alasdair emphasised his desire not to lecture, but rather to learn from those present. The big issue facing Scotland is the consultation and referendum on the constitution. SCVO is not promoting any political viewpoint, and there are many other interested parties, including churches, who do not have a political viewpoint. Alasdair of course does have a political opinion, and a preference for independence, but would also attempt to put across the other viewpoints.

There are 3 real options:

• Continue as we are with minor changes.
• ‘Devolution Max’ – enhanced devolution or fiscal autonomy which would increase the powers of the Scottish Government dramatically and fiscally in particular.
• Independence, whereby Scotland becomes a sovereign state.

The people of Scotland need to make up their minds about this issue.

An example of how limited Scotland’s powers are: recently Alasdair was in a discussion about parking for the disabled when it became clear that the decisions that could be made here were limited, as parking is an area ruled over by Westminster.

To use an analogy from biology, it would be like digesting food, when vitamins A and D go to one body and vitamins B and C go to another. One body of opinion thinks that Westminster will sort out the bits that are ‘meant to be for’ Scotland, but Alasdair’s feeling is that they probably won’t have time.

The present system, while it works to an extent, is not adequate. There are a number of significant areas over which Holyrood does not have control ranging from defence, foreign affairs, Europe, currency, the constitution and Scottish Parliament elections to the date of Easter, and outer space. (Almost all taxes except rates and council tax are raised by Westminster).

There is a great amount of interest amongst the public in this debate and there have been a huge number of hits on the National Conversation website. Most people want a referendum. A key question is “What does the practicality of Independence mean?” This is no longer just a theoretical debate; there will be a referendum in 2010. If a majority wants independence then the Scottish Government will negotiate with Westminster to create an independent state.

This would not be a new phenomenon; 50 commonwealth countries have achieved independence within the last 50 years. In 1940 there were 40 independent countries in the world but there are now 200. Eg, Norway and Sweden separated in 1905 and the Czech Republic and Slovakia separated in 1990.

One could ask the question “why bother?” The economic disruption would be great but a relationship of equality between England and Scotland could be very beneficial. Scotland could grow its economy, access wealth and emulate Scandinavian countries of roughly the same size, who enjoy massively higher living standards and better provision of services.

Some people have concerns about the practicalities of being independent; eg would trains stop at the English border? One only really needs to look at Europe for the answer to this, where passports are almost obsolete and there is freedom of movement.

There are also questions over the role of the monarchy but this would need to be decided as a separate issue. It would still be perfectly possible to have a head of state as in other commonwealth countries.

The Calman Commission is looking at other options for increasing Scotland’s power. Other options may be included in the referendum. The consensus is that change is inevitable. Alasdair is fairly confident that the political situation has changed so much in the last 2 years that staying as we are is unlikely. The Scottish Government believes that we cannot only go so far but no further. A key questions is “How Many more powers does Scotland need?”

Stephen Maxwell, Associate Director, SCVO - (Stephen was unable to make the event in person but appeared by DVD).

Stephen spoke about SCVO’s involvement in the debate – SCVO has long had an interest in constitutional matters. In the 1990s SCVO consulted the sector and found overwhelming support for a Scottish Parliament with tax varying powers, and that its policy committee agreed to support the "Yes, Yes" vote. Behind the support for a Scottish Parliament was recognition of the opportunities it would provide for legislation and policies more responsive and relevant to voluntary organisations in Scotland. Since the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 the way in which voluntary organisations in Scotland work has undergone a huge change. Policy makers are now much more accessible, and there are many more opportunities for influence. Nearly ten years on, SCVO is keen that the voice of voluntary sector organisations should be heard in the current debate, and aims to encourage discussion and contributions to the relevant consultations from the points of view of voluntary organisations, looking at what changes may or may not be beneficial to them and to the communities and interests that they represent.

There had been some reluctance from the sector, and in particular from charities to get involved in what is viewed as a very party political debate, but if a charity is looking at the debate from the point of view of the needs of its members and the community it represents, and where changes to the current settlement may be of benefit to them, then this is not taking a party political viewpoint and charities need not worry about their involvement on that basis.

SCVO realises many organisations have an interest in these issues, eg poverty organisations may have an interest in the taxation arrangements, and in the impact that any radical changes may have on the Scottish economy; peace groups in may have an interest in control over defence issues, and international aid organisations have an interest in the areas of foreign policy and the distribution of aid. And voluntary sector organisations in general may have concerns over control of the lottery funding distribution.

SCVO is keen that voluntary organisations get the opportunity to debate the areas that will affect them, and that their voices are heard in the debate.

Stephen encouraged organisations to get involved in the discussions and to make responses to the consultation.

Jill Flye SCVO - Jill explained about the Calman Commission, and about SCVO’s work on the constitutional debate.

The Commission on Scottish Devolution (“Calman Commission”) was established in April this year after the main opposition parties represented in the Scottish Parliament voted in December last year, that there should be an independent review body set up to review the devolution settlement. It is chaired by senior academic Sir Kenneth Calman, and it’s members include voluntary sector, union and business sector representatives. The remit is to investigate all aspects of devolution and possibilities for change, except for independence, but including the possibility of returning powers to Westminster if there is a particular call for this to be investigated too. The Commission is also looking for external input, in three main ways –

• Through written submissions to time limited inquiries. An initial inquiry ran in the spring to call for views on what areas the commission should look into, and a more in-depth inquiry ran over the summer.
• Through written responses that can be made to the commission at any time (but you would need to bear in mind that the commission intends to publish an interim report towards the end of this year, and a final report in 2009)
• Through attendance at events. Details of events to be held across Scotland are available on the Calman Commission website.

Jill emphasised that there is a very large area of overlap across the two strands of the debate – all the political parties in the Scottish Parliament are considering changes that could be made to the devolution settlement - so why not the voluntary sector too!

SCVO’s work to date – SCVO received funding from the Scottish Government to encourage voluntary organisations to join in the debate. A pilot event was held in March for the Third Sector Policy Officer’s Network. This took place in Edinburgh. The format was similar to today’s event but we were earlier on in the debate. There was some discussion of specific policy areas, but also quite a lot of focus on how best to get the voluntary sector voice heard in the debate.

A second event was held in June at the voluntary sector Gathering in Glasgow. There we heard from different parts of the third sector – churches, STUC, and the umbrella body the Council for Ethnic Minority Voluntary Organisations on why they felt it was important to get involved in the debate. We also gave the audience an electronic vote on specific issues.

SCVO has also published the Future Scotland website - www.scvo.org.uk/FutureScotland This contains links to relevant sites, collated media articles, Frequently Asked Questions, reports from events, details of future events, discussion threads and voluntary sector viewpoints. It is a new website and the discussion threads have not yet taken off – delegates were encouraged to join in or start new threads. However voluntary sector viewpoints have come in on such aspects as whether or not the debate can be a rational, logical one, or whether it will always be about a heartfelt sense of identity; about how the increased access and influence the sector has enjoyed since devolution can only be extended through independence/ further powers devolved to Scotland; and a case is made for devolution of powers over equalities. Again delegates were encouraged to send in their own views.

Jill concluded that the debate is happening, and now it was time to hear views from the Uist voluntary organisations.

Round Table Discussions

Present- There were 14 delegates present from the following organisations:

• South Uist Angling Club
• North Uist and Berneray Community Co-ordinator
• Community Energy Scotland
• Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
• Caraidean Uibhist
• Voluntary Action Barra and Vatersay (from 11 am)
• Lochboisdale Community Council
• UCVO
• AM Paipear
• Commun na Mara

Summary of main discussion points: The feeling of the majority was that the Scottish Parliament has a better understanding of rural aspects of life than Westminster, and that Scotland needs to have more control over factors that could influence the potential for the population of the islands to grow. Discussions were wide ranging but largely centred around what further powers could allow more control over these factors - eg increased powers over taxation (tax and National Insurance relief for groups that employ volunteers was one suggestion), increased control over employment/ social security schemes so that these can be tailored to local needs, more power over how lottery money is spent, powers over transport safety and regulation could allow for more local responses to issues.

Q. 1 What is your vision for a future Scotland? - What would you like to see happen for people / communities etc?

Access to influence

• Decision makers would be more accessible to local communities
• All groups would have equality of opportunity to have influence and to participate.
• We are not remote from the mainland – it is remote from us – this must be addressed.
• People would be aware of the powers that they do have as a collective voice.
• Scotland would have a stronger voice

Energy

• Scotland would control its own energy so the communities can take advantage of our resources.

Rural/ island Issues

• There would be rural-proofing of policies, rather than a one-size fits all approach. (a good example – Wales)
• There would be a re-population of our island. The place would be made more attractive to families and an end to the dramatic decline in population.
• Industries would be made sustainable – eg through fiscal assistance, more support for small industries, support for job-sharing, and opportunities for working from home developed.
• More power would be devolved to the regions – eg to help tackle rural/ urban issues separately.
• There would be investment in rural infrastructure and amenities to increase population and living standards (as has happened on Gigha).
• There would be parity of fuel prices across the country.
• Geographical issues would be taken into account
• Funds would be set up so that young people here can participate on an equal basis and are not prevented through travel costs. Our/ your people are disenfranchised because of where they live.

Voluntary sector

• The voluntary sector would be given adequate recognition and taken seriously at a political level.
• The Western Isles should be used as an example of how the voluntary sector supports the community. Some assessment/ evaluation of this support and its impact should be made, and the obstacles to providing the support (eg transport issues, remoteness) should also be addressed.
• The government should appreciate how much work the voluntary sector is saving them – eg in the Western Isles. If one in five in Scotland volunteers, it must be everyone here that volunteers in some way.
• There would be an end to Stop-Go funding, and more longer term funding provided.

General

• There would be good housing and a vibrant economy.
• There would be improved health care services.
• Scotland would have more control over its natural resources.
• There would be the potential to nationalise energy and transport.
• Inclusive community, not exclusive community
• There would be funds to enable projects to come that otherwise can’t afford to (eg theatre, ballet)
• Every event would be video-conferenced so that everyone can participate.
• National grid connections provided by government would allow communities and businesses to develop.

Q.2 – In what ways could constitutional change help bring about your vision ? - Or hinder achievement of your vision?

Access/ Influence

• With more devolved powers there would be easier access to people who have real power.

Employment

• More control over employment/ social security schemes would ensure that schemes are better tailored to local needs.
• If employment legislation were devolved then the community would have more say.

Energy

• Scottish control needed over resources coming in through Scotland – eg oil, renewables.
• Energy devolved to Scottish Parliament would address energy issues.

Rural/ island issues

• Devolution of powers over transport safety and regulation could allow for more local responses to issues.
• Better representation at EU level – there has to be Scottish input into EU policy – especially in relation to agriculture and fisheries. Single farm payments make it very difficult for young people to get into crofting, and we have no vote currently on our own fishing – Scottish and Western Isles fishing should be locally managed.
• Rural proofing – island communities should have more input to local issues.
• Positive encouragement could be provided to students to return to rural areas.

Voluntary sector

• Scotland should have control over its share of lottery money. We could have more power over how lottery money is spent – match funding for public money.
• Could independence mean that voluntary groups have less access to funding bodies that are UK wide at present but are based in England?

Other

• Concerning defence and national security, we would need to consider how safe we would be in the event of a war. Most deployments now are multi-national. What kind of agreements and treaties could there be? Should Scotland be a part of NATO?
• Nuclear weapons – Scottish people should be able to decide whether we have them on our soil.
• Develop economy

Q.3 Could an increase in powers mean an increase in influence for the sector?...or otherwise?

‘Yes’ responses

• The Scottish Parliament has a better understanding of rural aspects of life than Westminster
• Access would be direct with no ‘middle-man’.
• Rural Scotland would have more influence

‘No / Maybe’ responses

• This would be dependent on relationships with MSPs.
• There is a danger of Western Isles people getting voted in and then pursuing their own agenda once in power.

Other points noted

• Petitions – on devolved areas, more opportunity for influence
• Strengthen community councils.

Q. 4 – What might a ‘voluntary sector constitution’/ Western Isles voluntary sector constitution look like?

Changes to powers

• It would enable tax and National Insurance relief for groups that employ volunteers
• Social security would be devolved – people on benefits could devote time to voluntary sector without this affecting their income.
• Scottish Government would control a share of lottery funding
• Voluntary sector so diverse it would be difficult to suit them all under the same legislation – but some common issues may be employment, energy, funding streams, public/private funding, diversity of servicers, transport, resources etc.

Other points made

• There would be more funding to allow projects to be sustainable – so they are not always scrabbling about for funding.
• There would be more work on encouraging people to engage (not always the same faces)
• BIG Lottery would be run by the voluntary sector.
• Equality – no community should be disenfranchised by geographical location.
• Keep voluntary sector minister
• Look at voluntary sector’s legislative right to be heard
• There would be a structure which allows all areas of Scotland equal access and chance to participate
• There would be a specific fund for transport so that we are no longer perceived as remote.
• Project Scotland replaced so that volunteers get costs covered
• Voluntary sector would have an equal voice with other agencies and not be considered as an after-thought.

This event was one of a series of seminars on this topic being held across Scotland. For more information, see the Future Scotland webpages.