Scotland: National Rural Network
Speak Up for Rural Scotland is a consultation document from the Scottish Government containing advice provided by the Rural Development Council.
The consultation seeks views on how best rural Scotland can contribute to the nation's sustainable economic growth. It acknowledges the tremendous natural assets of rural Scotland and identifies priority issues and opportunities which should be addressed to enable rural Scotland to move forward.
The Rural Development Council is an informal group which Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment Richard Lochhead convened in 2008 to advise him on rural issues. They are independent and impartial and all members have particular expertise and interest in rural issues.
The Scottish Government wants as many people as possible to take an active interest in, and contribute to, the future of rural Scotland and we would encourage you to participate in the comments section below.
Alternatively, if you wish to make a formal response, hard copies of the consultation document are available from the Speak Up Team at the following address: Rural Communities Division, C Spur, Saughton House, Edinburgh, EH11 3XD. Alternatively you can respond online by visiting www.scotland.gov.uk/speakup
Here, you'll find questions intended to identify which of Step Changes suggested by the Rural Development Council you support, which you would give priority to and where you think the gaps are.
As well as answering any of these questions you can also add general comments to the Speak Up for Rural Scotland consultation page.
Join the Network Now!
Comments
Carers
I wish to speak up on behalf of unpaid carers who make up 1 in 8 of the population in Scotland – the accepted figure, although Carers UK believes it is nearer 1 in 6. Those figures apply whether you live in an urban or rural area and they also include young people who are still in primary or secondary education. Across the vast areas that make up rural and remote Scotland, there is a dearth of services for carers and the people they care for.
Statements made in policy and strategy documents issued by the Scottish Government do not apply if you happen to live more than 2 hours away from a major city, and I wonder if the day is coming when those who do not get ‘all the promises’ will sue MSPs for discriminating against their own people?
There cannot be equality or equity for Scottish people, regardless of race, creed or colour when place of residence means impoverished services. What would the European Court of Human Rights make of people being denied support, care and treatment simply because of where they live?
We do need to encourage carers and the people they care for to speak up about these issues – they make up at least a quarter of the population in Rural Scotland and are being denied basic human rights.
Why?
Should we continue to speak up? No one is listening. Lets examine some recent developments in our area. SFP? Nothing for new entrants and token action against slipper farmers. Not one of the slipper brigade will lose a penny to the stocking rate changes. Total opposition to real change in 2013 from the usual suspects and demands that the historic payment nonsense is extended until 2020. Rural Priorities? Can anything more be said about this shambles of a system. Rural Broadband? Can we have some please? One that is faster than dialup if possible. Rural services? Yes we would like some of those too. Access to nursery education without a leaky roof and with a working heating system would be nice. Education? A student award system that paid for a year at uni instead of just til Easter. Transport? Yes we would like some of that too, a trip to the local town by public transport used to require an overnight stay but things are simpler now you cannot get there at all except by car. LEADER? What exactly does it do? As lifelong country dweller I am mystified as to what our local LAG has to with any aspect of our lives. In short we speak no one listens.
Rural services
Those of us who live in rural areas know that some things we like to have are more expensive to provide here than in cities and towns. We also see benefits to us from our rural situation. If a rural community wishes to have fast broadband, the members of that community could collectively buy it, if they accept that they would have to pay much more than would be paid for an equivalent service in a city. If there is demand for nursery education in a rural community, that community can rent, buy or establish a suitable building, engage staff and get on with it, if they attach to the service a value similar to the cost of provision. Parents do have responsibilities to their children and should not expect the wider (national) community to relieve them of those responsibilities. Transport? Yes every rural community has some, at least privately owned vehicles. If there is a demand for more shared use, the community could make arrangements if they see the benefit of those arrangements as being equivalent to the cost of making them. I would like a bus service to town but I recognize that there are so few in my locality who wish to share such a service with me that it would not be reasonable to expect others to fund a local bus service for me.
Rural Services
Remote rural people have always found innovative ways to survive and come together as one. Most are aware that it is unrealistic to expect the same level of transport support or indeed council services, that are afforded urban people. There are other advantages to rural living.
Since the sixties, and aided by rising wages, which has afforded more car ownership, outward migration to rural areas has increased. This has produced many, less resilient, peri urban type rural communities which are dangerously imbalanced and unsustainable in the face of future challenges around peak oil and climate change. Add the credit crunch to the mix and the fashionable trend of "moving out to the country", may well be reversed, leaving those remaining to recreate the resilience that rural communities were once famous for.
Those who do not migrate back to the cities should be even more resilient having benefited from the mix of imported new ideas.
The trick is to ensure that councils no longer dictate from above but listen to and work with their communities and other partnerships, and that's what the Community Planning Forums are for.
Why? Yes, why?
Is there never any definite statement from any sort of government that they do wish people to live in rural areas. That is as opposed to simply designing policies supporting life and prosperity in urban areas. If at base level governments do not want a rural population please let's make that known and future generations can plan their migration to the cities. If a rural population is deemed worth supporting then let us see some strategy. That means Universal Service Obligations covering all the population. All us us have to recognise USO's represent costs. Urban people will need support structures, inclusion in USO's, as well. The costs and revenues will have to be revealed and incorporated into strategy. What Michael descibes is The Market. Do we live in a Market, or in a Society? That question was opened some years back; ever since answers have been shunned.
Speak up for Rural Scotland
SCVO's first thoughts on the document, issued to the media, are as follows:
"We welcome the fact that this commendably succinct document acknowledges the key role that the Third Sector in all its guises will play in the future of rural Scotland, and recognises the importance of building community capacity and developing partnerships across sectors and interest groups to create effective models of service delivery and to sustain community life in Scotland's remote and rural areas.
"At first sight, the document is an effective springboard for debate, and we will be encouraging all our members and stakeholders to take part in that debate, either through the formal consultation methods or online, as part of the discussion on the Rural Network website."
More to come - and we'll issue a briefing for members on the issues raised in the document.