I wonder what you thought when you saw the title above… suspected my of being incredibly inward-looking, perhaps stretching to a comparison with Gordon Brown’s “British jobs for British workers”?  It could be the title of a rather controversial post, I will grant you… and, I guess, is something to ponder.

But – for the moment – its nothing like that.  I’m after a favour.  Or rather, someone else is.

Dr Paul Cairney of the University of Aberdeen is in the midst of drafting a book which is likely to be of interest to readers of this blog.  It is titled “The Scottish Political System Since Devolution: From New Politics to the New Scottish Government”.  So really, all the stuff we talk about here – but probably (definitely!) written in a more comprehensible manner, and certainly better researched than our stuff.

Anyway, the phrase in the title of this post:  “Scottish solutions for Scottish problems”.  Dr Cairney is looking for the origin of it.  Who said it first, and in what context?  Does anyone know?

I couldn’t help, but figured someone here might be able to.  If so, let us know in the comments.  Thanks!

A cross-post from our pal Peter Geoghegan’s blog, this. What are you doing on Saturday?

Next Monday, Edinburgh plays host to the second UK conference of TED (that’s Technology, Entertainment and Design to you and me). When I mentioned this to a friend in town recently, she was delighted. ‘I’ll definitely be there. Where do I book my ticket?,’ she asked excitedly.

Like millions of others around the world, my TED-loving friend regularly downloads talks from the TED website and follows the discussions on their forums and blogs. She won’t, however, be attending the Edinburgh conference – because it costs $6,000.

TED – with its tagline of ‘ideas worth sharing’ – is a modern phenomeon. Since its first conference in 1984, TED has become remarkably popular and influential. Previous attendees have included both David Cameron and Gordon Brown; scientists Richard Dawkins and Craig Venter; biomimicry guru Janine Benyus and singer Annie Lennox; adventurer Bertrand Piccard and “soft power” theorist Joseph Nye. Last year’s event was addressed by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

This year’s TED Global conference at the EICC is estimated to be worth £6.7 Million to the local economy. over 4500 delegates will listen as Philip Blond waxes lyrical on the Big Society, Niall Ferguson presents his version of history and vie for the chance to grab a drink with Alain de Botton.

But what if you don’t have six grand spare to mingle? Or would rather participate in a space that radically rethinks – and influences – how we live our lives today?

Presented by myself (as Realpolitik) and the ever-excellent Bella Caledonia, ‘FED – Ideas Worth Sustaining’ is a homegrown alternative to the increasingly corporate TED model. This one-day event takes place at Inspace, University of Edinburgh on July 9 and will feature talks, discussions, videos and, most importantly, ideas for a sustainable future for both humans and the planet.

Just like TED, the line-up of speakers is inspiring, including Robin McAlpine, Lorna Waite, Kevin Williamson, Gerry Hassan and Kevan Shaw.

And like TED, there will be an artistic angle, with the afternoon’s deep thinking and talking finishing with poetry from Elspeth Murray. And of course a few drinks and a stimulating blether once it’s all over.

But unlike TED there will be an opportunity for members of the audience to have their say and pitch their ideas and views. Also, while TED costs an austerity busting £3,700 to attend, a day at FED will set you back an altogether more modest fiver.

As blogger Kate Higgins, who will be speaking on the day, says, ‘Without hearing a single pitch or presentation, without even stepping over the door, I’m prepared to go out on a wing and declare that FED beats TED.’ (BN Eds: yes, that’s the same Kate Higgins, so yes, this is self-promotion of a sort)

FED starts at 1.30 pm, Saturday July 9 at Inspace, University of Edinburgh. The full line-up for the day is available here and you can book tickets here.

You can also follow FED on Twitter, if that’s your kind of thing.

Many call the ‘right to buy’ scheme a well-intentioned disaster. Others are less generous. However you view the venture (or madcap adventure, if you like), a Government owning less houses will inevitably lead to problems if demand for social housing increases.

I am attending a discussion event later today (Facebook link) that will focus on this very problem of housing shortages with the attention being strictly on London but, in truth, the event could be held in any town or city the length and breadth of the UK and still be relevant. I suspect the overriding message will be, do all you can to make sure you are not left vulnerable in the coming years and dependent on the state as there will be fewer and fewer guarantees that it will be there for you. It can be easy to coast along with life thinking you are safe but a job can be lost in an instant, rent demands can then soon go unpaid and suddenly that cosy life you had built for yourself can be all to precarious. Homelessness and the need for Social Housing is less of an ‘us and them’ situation that many of us, myself certainly included, give it credit for.

At the core of this issue is surely the structure that we have in place for financing homes. Housing Associations lend from banks, use that money to finance properties and their maintenance and then write the value of those properties down over a certain lifetime. One problem with this situation is that the Housing Associations do not accurately recognise the value of the properties that they hold at the end of a given asset’s lifetime.

Another problem with banks lending money to Housing Associations to maintain housing stock is that banks have a duty to their shareholders to maximise value, Housing Associations have a duty to provide accommodation for as many of those in their catchment area that require it. There is a conflict of interest there and that conflict can only ever come to a head and realistically only with one winner – the banks.

We may currently have a social housing crisis but this is with Housing Associations enjoying loans that are way below commercial terms, lent out by banks during the boom years when they couldn’t get enough customers onto their books quickly enough. It remains to be seen whether, when these loans need to be refinanced, the banks decide to maintain the generous rates or pull the margins up to commercial levels, devastating the current model for funding council homes and creating massive funding gaps and exacerbated housing shortages in local areas all across the country.

If this does turn out to be the case, then in a decade or two, you don’t want to run the risk of being a person with nowhere to go and no-one to turn to. However, with communities and families being broken up due to incessant travel and increased marital breakdown, with the coalition’s faster than necessary cutting of public spending and a deep uncertainty over what impact global warming will have on peaceful trade into the future, the number of displaced, distressed peoples going forward can surely only increase. A solution is required.

One potential solution is a 20-30 year churn of existing housing stock on a rolling basis. I don’t know to what extent this already happens but a Government owning homes outright, recording the assets on an ongoing basis at market value (in accordance with up-to-date International Accounting Standards) rather than depreciating down to zero, selling the properties into the private market and then using the proceeds to build newer, cheaper properties to ensure housing stocks are always maintained. It’s a bit like how the fishing industry should work really, making sure that stocks are always replenished.

Private involvement in the financing of housing stock may well be unsustainable unless banks appreciate that they have a shared duty – to shareholders and to communities in which they operate. Leveraging private markets to maximise the value of public sector assets is something quite different and, from my rather distant perspective, this is where Governments are missing a trick.

Maybe I am biased and perhaps this is a bit crass, but I can’t help but think that a left-leaning Scottish Government with some Ministers representing the poorer side of Scotland will be better prepared and better briefed for tackling this problem than the millionaire’s club that is the UK coalition. Certainly the SNP’s main priority appears to be the commendable building of an extra 5,000 council homes this parliamentary term with housing given a £16m increase in 2011-12, while the coalition’s priority appears to be getting people out of council homes. The UK Government, to be fair, is committed to building an extra 150,000 council homes this Parliament but that is after halving the budget from £8.4bn to £4.5bn (from 2011 to 2014) so how that will work remains to be seen. At least the Scottish Government’s is putting its spending where its mouth it. (Note – That 5,000 extra doesn’t sound like a golden bullet solution but it is welcome nonetheless)

All that said, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations was “disappointed” at the SNP manifesto’s offering to Social Housing and is specifically concerned at the lack of “commitments from the SNP to deal with the huge drop in new build by associations, due to a cut in government funding”. The SFHA also called for “a commitment (to) reverse the changes in funding for housing adaptations, which were changed recently with no consultation with the sector”. How this body lobbies and regards the SNP Government will be key in the years to come.

It is interesting that in London, skyscraper developments outside of the city centre can be viewed as luxurious (and priced accordingly) while, in Glasgow, not dissimilar buildings are viewed as tantamount to the slums and get marked for demolition. The red road flats are (were?) 2.5 miles from the City Centre but their potential was sadly never realised. Perhaps creative thinking rather than always starting from scratch and simply building upon building is also required. It is certainly a problem that should transcend one party being wrong and another one being right, a philosophy that will hopefully prove to be the case over the next four or five years both down here in London and up north in Scotland. I hesitate to roll out the t-word but a tram line from Balornock/Barmulloch into the City Centre and/or tax incentives for businesses setting up locally could boost the prestige of the area and could arguably negate the need to knock down homes when accommodation is at a premium. Who knows, but knocking down when we can’t afford to build up just doesn’t seem right.

In the meantime, I guess keeping eyes and ears out for those in need, knowing what local charities exist and require support etc, is the best way to assist what is an ever-growing problem for whichever town, city or nation you happen to live in. Here’s hoping for a constructive debate tomorrow.