The world today seems to be full of catastrophes and they queue up to inflict themselves on us with depressing regularity. We as individuals increasingly feel that events are out of control and that we have no say in how they unfold.
It has also become increasingly apparent that central governments do not always work in the interests of the people. In fact it seems in many cases that governments have turned their backs on the rights of individuals and local communities while favouring the wealthy and powerful. This is not a problem affecting us solely in Scotland or even the UK. Every democracy on the planet seems to be degrading. No surprise, therefore, that a majority of the under 35s have no faith in democratic governments and the systems by which they are elected.
Here in the UK government has become centralised and we have a severe democratic deficit. Local decision making is weak at best, ignored at worst. Recent events show us that the party political system is riven by conflict and, worse, by inflexible dogma to the point where the battles are internal and we, the people, are left on the outside watching in increasing horror our lives and ambitions disintegrate while there is nothing we can do about it. Well, there is something we can do. Quite a lot in fact.
Around the world people’s movements are forming and growing and their success rate so far is impressive. In East Africa, Chile, Kurdistan and elsewhere, people’s assemblies are achieving results and new movements are forming as we speak.
Our proposal for Scotland is to form assemblies across the country. These assemblies need to interact with each other and, more importantly, to have an authoritative outlet for their determinations. For this purpose, we intend to use the existing community councils.
Across Scotland there are 1129 community councils. Some – a handful – are quite active, most are not and quite a number don’t function at all. A further 240 have never been brought into existence despite the local authorities being under legislative remit to do so. Their counterparts in England, by contrast, are very active and have access to a budget set under the Local Authorities Act. But they exist under Standing Orders. What this means, in practice, is that they have set powers which they cannot exceed. The position in Scotland is very different and what appears as a disadvantage is actually a strength.
Section 51 (2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 sets out “statutory” purposes as follows: “In addition to any other purpose which a community council may pursue, the general purpose of a community council shall be to ascertain, co-ordinate and express to the local authority for its area, and to public authorities, the views of the community which it represents, in relation to matters for which those authorities are responsible, and to take such action in the interests of that community as it appears to be expedient and practicable.”
I have written out the full text above in order to show, in context, the purpose of the community councils which, as the first sentence makes clear, can go above and beyond simply dealing with issues solely in the purview of the local authority. That the authority may have no powers in any given area of discussion is of no relevance whatsoever.
In the guidance notes, the following:
“The general purpose of community councils is to act as a voice for their local area. This will involve them articulating the views and concerns of local people in their area on a wide range of issues of public concern and make representations to their local authority, other public sector bodies and private agencies on matters within their sphere of interest.”
There are other sections within the guidance notes but it should be noted that even the model constitution may be adapted as the community council sees fit and the reference to “standing orders” is in no way prescriptive but intended to create a broad consistency among all community councils. Furthermore, the standing orders reference is undermined within the guidance by the acknowledgement that many community councils will, for various reasons, need to conduct themselves in a manner at variance with the intended model.
Some community councils – notably Aberdeen and Perth – are very active, some less so and many virtually moribund. Part of the reason for this is the lack of enthusiasm for engagement on the part of some local authorities together with an interpretation – their interpretation – of the remit. Whatever the real intention of the 1973 Act and its variations, it is clear that there is no limit to the community councils’ own terms of reference. However, the councils themselves see no avenue for communication other than the local authorities despite the guidance stating otherwise. This arrangement can be changed.
For the community councils to operate more effectively, we are putting in place a number of platforms for co-ordination and communication. At this point I would emphasise that we see the community councils as a useful established part of the assembly process, in particular because they have a setting within the current political structure and thus have an element of authority which a simple assembly of people would have a struggle to establish, no matter how much support the assemblies would achieve.
To make the process of using these democratic engines actually work, we have designed ready for implementation a number of roles, initiatives and hardware facilities, some of which are ready and some require further development. Before going on, I would repeat that the community councils are only part of the full project.
The first stage is to appoint a small administrative team for each of the local council areas. This team will be responsible initially for the co-ordination of applications for election to the community councils. Currently, we have interest from a number of organisations including environmental groups and civil rights activists as well as local Yes hubs. The membership of the community councils is limited by statute – in total we can expect no more than about eleven thousand appointees – and therefore peoples’ assembly groups will be formed as interest in the organisation increases. All information will be made available on this website, separated into each of the 32 local authority areas.
We have in place working group platforms, one through Microsoft teams and the others through interactive platforms such as Zoom and Hopin – others are under consideration but these platforms are already in place and will be used to collect and disseminate information and voting not only from the community councils but also from the assembly groups. The admins will also be expected to provide expert opinion and assistance in whatever subjects of discussion are taking place.
None of this takes away the community councils’ stated purpose of engaging with the local authorities, it adds to it. In relation to questions about the engagement of civic society in general, it will be one of the primary purposes of the community councils to ensure that all elements of civic society are consulted. Again, on a national level, the collection of information and opinions will demonstrate commonalities in concerns and interests which can be concentrated into a general statement of opinion across the nation. Given the nature of the community councils, any mandate can be applied using the current political organisation and must be taken into account in the event, say, of a convention being called or, for that matter, in pushing the political establishment towards understanding the general opinion of the country. Much of what is needed is dependent on public opinion across a very wide range of issues. If we can create workable democracy at the most local level we should achieve greater solidarity in matters of how our country should be run and, with greater emphasis on self-determination, an overall sense of investment in the project of moving our country forward. Thus the mandate, however it evolves, is guaranteed an audience from the outset.
My colleague, Nicolas Russell and I made several representations to government and the civil service to present Nicolas’s blockchain ID and voting system. This was enthusiastically received by the civil service. The government, however, did not want to know. Despite the highly detailed presentation and reference to a virtually identical model in existence elsewhere in Europe, Mike Russell was simply not interested. All the relevant information can still be accessed on the website https://yesdayscotland.wordpress.com
The above notwithstanding, the voting system we have designed has only one purpose and is very much simpler. All information that is required is only intended to establish residency in Scotland and does not require any personal information which is not already in the public domain. The ID card is similar to a bank or credit card with its own PIN. All data gathered is held offline and encrypted.
If all this seems to require a large amount of work, you would not be wrong. This first stage we propose involves two local authority areas . Starting here, we can run the project and identify any problems which may cause us to alter or adapt the system accordingly. Once the project is tested here, it will be rolled out across all the local authority areas.
Comments