Digital assets in Scots private law: Consultation - Scottish Government analysis

2. Methodology

2.1. The respondents

21 written responses to the consultation were received. We had a mixture of responses from individual respondents and respondents on behalf of representative bodies and organisations. From the latter, respondents were mixed in terms of professional background, and they can be categorised based on organisation type, with the numbers of respondents in each category detailed below:

2.2. Responses

With the consultation now closed, responses have been logged, analysed, and reported publicly where data permissions have been granted. We will consider all feedback as part of shaping potential future legislation.

All questions received at least one response. Each submission was reviewed, logged, and screened to ensure they were appropriate and valid. No responses, or elements of responses, were excluded from the analysis. While some answers did not directly address the specific question asked, all feedback was examined, with key themes and frequently discussed points highlighted in Section 4.

Insights from our in-person roundtables have been included in Section 4.5. These sessions were conducted to provide an opportunity for focused discussions from both the legal and financial technology perspectives, given the cross-sectoral nature of digital assets.

Question responses were quantified with the number of respondents who agreed, disagreed or did not know, with each reported below. All the questions invited respondents to state the reasons for their views, or to explain their answers. The main reasons presented by respondents both for and against the proposals set out across the consultation were reviewed, alongside specific examples or explanations, alternative suggestions, caveats to support, and other related comments. If a question had not been answered, this has also been captured.

Respondents to the consultation document completed a Respondent Information Form (RIF) which allowed them to specify their publishing preferences. Respondents who choose to email their views and did not complete the RIF were contacted to ascertain their publishing preferences. Only where the respondent indicated that they were content for their response to be published have extracts from their response been referenced in this analysis.