The Scottish Parliament has agreed to the general principles of a proposed Community Wealth Building Bill that would require local authorities and other public bodies to prepare and carry out place-based action plans designed to retain and circulate wealth within communities.

The bill’s action plans would cover measures such as increasing procurement from local firms, supporting fair work, promoting employee-owned businesses, cooperatives and social enterprises, and assisting community groups to acquire and regenerate derelict sites. Proponents say embedding these practices across public bodies and aligning them with national strategy would create a whole-of-government commitment to community-rooted wealth creation; Neil McInroy, chair of the Economic Development Association Scotland and global lead for Community Wealth Building at The Democracy Collaborative, described the bill as a mechanism to reshape enterprise, innovation and investment toward fairer outcomes and stronger local economies.

Members of the Scottish Parliament from multiple parties described the bill as potentially transformative and stressed it must deliver meaningful improvements in community wealth and redistribute power to local workers and communities. Evidence submitted to the Economy and Fair Work Committee and to Parliament highlighted early community wealth building activity in places including North Ayrshire, Clackmannanshire, Fife, Glasgow, the South of Scotland and the Western Isles, and noted other councils are developing similar plans.

Community organisations and other witnesses provided practical examples of locally led wealth-building already in operation: a community-rebuilt bus service in Glenfarg; a community-owned turbine on Tiree funding homes and services; a historic land buyout creating the Tarras Valley Nature Reserve in Langholm (a 10,000-acre site as described in evidence); a multifunctional community hub in Fort William; a community-led newsroom in Govanhill; and a community pantry, café and garden regeneration project in Midlothian. These examples were presented as evidence of an interconnected community sector acting as anchors for local resilience and regeneration.

Several submissions and witnesses noted that the draft bill does not explicitly reference community groups, third-sector organisations, or private-sector representatives within the proposed local partnerships, and they called for those actors to be explicitly included so existing community efforts can be built on rather than sidelined. Advocates urged that the bill enable devolved decision-making and genuine partnerships, with public bodies acting as partners rather than directing from the top down.

Calls were also made for sustained government investment and long-term support for community organisations, including multi-year funding, to avoid relying on short-term grants and to prevent burnout in community organisations. Supporters argued that investment, devolved power, and cross-cutting application of community wealth building across economic development, planning, health, food systems, transport and climate policy are needed to realise the bill’s aims.

A national parliamentary event, Local People Leading, was announced as a forum for community organisations to present priorities directly to decision-makers and to discuss funding models, planning systems that prioritize biodiversity and community benefits, and natural capital management. The bill has attracted international attention, and parliamentary debate and committee evidence work are ongoing as the proposal proceeds through the legislative process.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (scotland) (clackmannanshire) (fife) (glasgow) (procurement) (cooperatives) (entitlement) (outrage) (privilege) (redistribution) (localism)

Actionable information The article describes the proposed Community Wealth Building Bill and what it would require of local authorities and public bodies, and it lists the kinds of measures action plans would include (more local procurement, support for fair work, promotion of employee ownership/cooperatives/social enterprises, assistance for community groups to acquire and regenerate derelict sites). However it does not give a normal reader any clear, step‑by‑step actions they can take right now. It names places with early activity but does not point to specific programs, contact points, grant schemes, procurement rules, checklists, or deadlines someone could use to act or respond. For an ordinary citizen, local community leader, or business owner wanting to get involved, the article offers no concrete how‑to, no forms to fill, no links or instructions for engaging with local councils, and no practical next steps. In short: the piece states aims and scope but provides no direct, usable tools or procedures.

Educational depth The article gives a high‑level explanation of what the bill intends to do and why supporters think it will matter: to move community wealth building from isolated projects into mainstream policy and to align public bodies with national strategy. But it remains surface level. It does not explain the mechanisms by which increased local procurement or promotion of employee ownership would be implemented, monitored, or enforced. It does not analyze costs, likely challenges, trade‑offs, or how success would be measured. There are no statistics, budget figures, performance targets, or evidence summaries that would help a reader understand the scale of impact or the quality of the supporting evidence. Overall it teaches the basic concept and political framing but not the systems thinking, causal pathways, or operational details that would deepen understanding.

Personal relevance For people directly involved in local government, community organisations, or local businesses in Scotland, the topic could be highly relevant because it describes a possible change in policy that may affect procurement, local economic development, or opportunities for community asset transfer. For most other readers, relevance is limited and indirect. The article does not explain who will be legally bound, what timeline would apply, how individual residents or small businesses would experience changes, or whether any immediate decisions (e.g., bidding for contracts, joining cooperatives, applying for funding) should be taken now. Therefore its practical relevance to most readers is low.

Public service function The article does not provide warnings, emergency guidance, or actionable public service information. It is informational about a proposed policy change and examples of local initiatives, but it does not advise the public on how to respond, participate, or prepare. It reads mainly as reporting on a parliamentary debate and advocacy statements rather than as a guide enabling public action or safety.

Practicality of any advice given What might be construed as advice — that public bodies should increase local procurement, support fair work, and promote employee ownership — is framed as policy goals rather than actionable tips for ordinary readers. The article does not explain how a community group could realistically acquire a derelict site, what requirements a local supplier would need to meet to benefit, or how to start a worker cooperative in this context. Thus, any guidance is too vague for an ordinary reader to apply.

Long-term impact The article outlines a long‑term policy objective: mainstreaming community wealth approaches across public bodies. It suggests potential systemic benefits (fairer outcomes, stronger local economies) but does not provide the evidence, timelines, or implementation details that would help readers plan personal long‑term actions. It does not describe monitoring, accountability, or likely obstacles, so it offers limited help for strategic planning by communities or businesses.

Emotional and psychological impact The tone is informative and positive about the bill’s aims. It is unlikely to create fear or panic, but neither does it provide reassurance through concrete steps readers can take. For interested parties, it may raise hopeful expectations without clarifying feasibility, which could lead to frustration if no avenues for participation are provided.

Clickbait or sensational language The article does not use sensational or dramatic language. It reports on a political debate and quotes advocates describing the bill’s potential. It does not overpromise specific outcomes or employ clickbait tactics.

Missed chances to teach or guide The article missed several opportunities: it could have included practical guidance for community groups and local businesses on how to engage with the legislative process, examples of successful tactics from the named places (what specifically was done in North Ayrshire, Fife or Glasgow), basic steps for forming employee‑owned businesses or cooperatives, or contact points for local council economic development teams. It could also have explained how procurement rules might change and what criteria would matter to suppliers. It fails to point readers toward further resources or explain how to verify claims.

Practical, usable guidance the article omitted If you want to act or prepare around this kind of policy change, start by identifying the relevant decision‑makers in your area: find your local council’s economic development or procurement team and the councillors on relevant committees. Contacting them to ask whether they are developing a community wealth action plan and how the public can participate is a straightforward, practical first step that requires only an email or phone call. If you are part of a community organisation, prepare a short one‑page summary of what your group does, the assets you might manage, and what support or permissions you need; that makes it easier for officials to understand and respond. For businesses that hope to win more local contracts, review recent public procurement notices on your council’s website and compare your business model to common social value or “local supplier” criteria; then prepare simple evidence of local ties, fair work practices, or community benefit that you can include in bids. If you are considering employee ownership or a cooperative, begin with a basic feasibility check: estimate how ownership transfer or conversion would affect governance, funding needs, and decision‑making in your organization, and consult local cooperative advisers or umbrella organisations (most councils and third‑sector support bodies can point you to such advisers). To assess the credibility of claims about benefits, look for independent evaluations or summaries from civic research organisations and compare multiple local case studies rather than relying on a single success story. Finally, participate in public consultations and committee hearings where possible; submitting a concise written response or attending a local meeting is a practical way to influence how a policy is implemented. These steps use ordinary outreach, simple documentation, and basic comparison to move from awareness to practical engagement without requiring specialised knowledge or external searches.

"described the bill as a mechanism to reshape enterprise, innovation and investment toward fairer outcomes and stronger local economies."

This phrase uses positive, value-loaded words like "reshape," "fairer," and "stronger" that promote the bill. It frames the bill as a beneficial tool without showing evidence. That choice helps supporters and makes readers feel the bill is good, hiding uncertainty or downsides.

"increasing procurement from local firms, supporting fair work, promoting employee-owned businesses, cooperatives and social enterprises"

Listing only desirable actions uses loaded, approving language. It presents the bill’s measures as plainly good and assumes those measures are the right remedies. This favors community-based businesses and downplays counterarguments or trade-offs.

"Supporters argue that embedding these practices across public bodies and aligning them with national strategy would create a whole-of-government commitment to community-rooted wealth creation."

Saying "would create a whole-of-government commitment" presents a strong causal claim as certain. It assumes embedding practices will produce a unified government commitment without showing proof. This treats a positive outcome as if it is settled fact.

"Advocates say the bill would move community wealth approaches from marginal projects into mainstream economic policy rather than leaving them as isolated initiatives."

This statement frames the bill as correcting a problem (marginalization) and assumes mainstreaming is desirable. It takes the advocates' value judgment as central, helping proponents and minimizing reasons someone might prefer decentralized or diverse approaches.

"Evidence given to the Scottish Parliament’s Economy and Fair Work Committee highlighted early Community Wealth Building activity in places including North Ayrshire, Clackmannanshire, Fife, Glasgow, the South of Scotland and the Western Isles, and noted other councils are developing similar plans."

Citing "evidence" and listing places implies broad, positive uptake, which supports the bill. The phrase hides what the "evidence" actually says and whether it shows success. This choice suggests momentum without showing results or dissent.

"Neil McInroy, chair of the Economic Development Association Scotland and global lead for Community Wealth Building at The Democracy Collaborative, described the bill as a mechanism to reshape enterprise..."

Naming an expert and his titles gives authority to the positive description. This uses appeal to authority to boost the bill’s image. It helps the bill by lending credibility without showing other expert views.

"would require local authorities and other public bodies to prepare and carry out place-based action plans to retain and circulate wealth within communities."

The verb "require" states an obligation but the phrase "retain and circulate wealth" is vague and value-laden. It frames the aim positively without clarifying methods or trade-offs. This masks practical challenges and helps the bill by emphasizing a desirable goal.

"move community wealth approaches from marginal projects into mainstream economic policy rather than leaving them as isolated initiatives."

Calling existing efforts "marginal" and harmful if "isolated" is a value judgment. It makes the bill seem corrective and necessary. That choice biases readers toward seeing the current situation as deficient and the bill as the remedy.

The text conveys a measured sense of optimism and advocacy. Words and phrases such as “reshape enterprise, innovation and investment toward fairer outcomes and stronger local economies,” “create a whole-of-government commitment,” and “move community wealth approaches from marginal projects into mainstream economic policy” express positive anticipation and hope. These expressions are moderately strong: they present desirable outcomes and frame the bill as a constructive, progressive change. Their purpose is to portray the bill as beneficial and forward-looking, encouraging readers to view the proposal as a solution that can improve fairness and local economic strength. This optimism guides the reader toward support and receptiveness, building trust in the bill’s aims and reducing resistance by highlighting practical, collective gains.

The text also communicates a tone of endorsement and confidence. Describing Neil McInroy’s role and title and quoting him calling the bill “a mechanism to reshape” gives authority and expertise to the argument. The mention of specific places where early activity is already happening—North Ayrshire, Clackmannanshire, Fife, Glasgow, the South of Scotland and the Western Isles—adds evidence-based reassurance. This confident, evidence-backed tone is mild to moderate in strength: it does not use emotional extremes but relies on credibility to persuade. Its purpose is to build trust and legitimacy, signaling that the idea is grounded in real practice and expert support. The expected effect is to make the reader more likely to accept the bill’s feasibility and to see it as rooted in successful precedent.

A subtle sense of urgency and purposeful action is present in phrases that emphasize requirements and duties, such as “would require local authorities and other public bodies to prepare and carry out place-based action plans.” The verb “require” and the active clause “prepare and carry out” convey that this is not merely optional or vague; it is meant to prompt concrete steps. The strength of this urgency is moderate and functional rather than alarmist. Its role is to push the reader from passive interest to an understanding that the bill aims for tangible implementation. This nudges readers toward action or at least toward taking the bill seriously as a program that demands commitment.

There is an implied protective and community-centered emotion, expressed through phrases like “retain and circulate wealth within communities,” “supporting fair work,” and “assisting community groups to acquire and regenerate derelict sites.” These word choices carry concern for local well-being and fairness. The emotional strength is gentle but clear: the language evokes care for communities and fairness without dramatic language. Its purpose is to create sympathy for local people and places and to make the policy feel humane and socially responsible. This framing helps readers empathize with communities and see the bill as addressing real needs.

A pragmatic, reform-minded mood appears through terms such as “embedding these practices across public bodies,” “aligning them with national strategy,” and “mainstream economic policy.” The words emphasize system-level change and institutionalization, suggesting a deliberate, structural approach. The strength of this mood is moderate and deliberate, aiming to reassure readers that the bill is comprehensive and strategic rather than piecemeal. This shapes the reader’s reaction by appealing to those who value orderly policy change and long-term planning, thereby increasing credibility and perceived effectiveness.

The writing uses persuasive techniques by combining expert endorsement, concrete examples, and future-oriented verbs to create emotional impact without overtly emotional language. Citing a named expert with credentials lends authority and invites trust; listing specific places where activity already exists serves as concrete evidence and reduces skepticism. Repetition of the core idea—that the bill moves community wealth building from marginal to mainstream—reinforces the central message and makes it more memorable. Use of active verbs such as “require,” “prepare,” “carry out,” “supporting,” and “assisting” makes the proposal feel dynamic and actionable, increasing the sense that change is both planned and achievable. These devices shift the tone from neutral description to constructive persuasion, steering the reader to view the bill as credible, impactful, and worthy of support.