Equality and Human Rights Mainstreaming strategy: consultation analysis

1. Introduction

Background

In the 2025/26 Programme for Government (PfG), the Scottish Government committed to ”publish our mainstreaming framework which will include an action plan and toolkit, setting out practical steps to achieve this ambition. As stated in the consultation paper: “The Strategy will provide the framework so that the Scottish Government and the wider public sector can apply a consistent focus on equality and human rights in policy and service delivery. It will guide the Scottish Government, the wider public sector, and partners to improve embedding equality and human rights into all of its activities. This will include an overall shared vision, a set of drivers and how we will achieve these to improve mainstreaming.”

In the context of the Strategy, mainstreaming means putting equality and human rights at the core of your business. For the Scottish Government and wider public sector, this means removing systemic barriers, changing how decisions are made, and establishing the culture, mindset, and practice that ensures that government and public sector policy and service delivery are permanently focused on equality and human rights.

Mainstreaming is an approach to promote and support equality and human rights. It is, in essence, long-term, sustainable, and adaptable cultural change. Mainstreaming is not an end in itself, but an approach, or a programme of work, to support the achievement of the goals of equality and human rights. Mainstreaming sets out to effect cultural, procedural, and systemic change in an organisation so that an equality and human rights perspective is integrated into its day-to-day working across all functions. It ensures that equality and human rights sit at the heart of both an organisation’s culture and operational delivery.

A consultation on the Equality and Human Rights Strategy ran from 30 October 2024 to 5 February 2025. Across 48 questions, of which 20 are closed (quantitative) and 28 are open (qualitative), the consultation sought views from stakeholders, including members of the public, on the Strategy. The structure of this report follows the consultation paper, presenting an analysis of respondents’ views on:

• The vision and objectives of the Strategy
• The six drivers of the Strategy:
  • Strengthening leadership
  • Developing accountability and transparency
  • Ensuring effective regulatory and policy environment
  • Utilising evidence and experience
  • Enhancing capability and culture
  • Improving capacity
• Supporting change through an Action Plan and toolkit
• Reporting

The analysis of responses provided in this report will help inform the final Strategy and implementation plan.

Respondent profile

Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.

In total, 123 consultation responses were received^[1]. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 29 responses to the consultation; the remaining 94 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped by the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent.

Table 1: Respondent profile

The analysis also included notes collated from two consultation events. These events were an opportunity for stakeholders to discuss the proposals. The discussion aligned very closely with the themes arising in the formal consultation responses so most are not reported separately here. However, any unique perspectives have been noted in this report.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed and, where possible, use closed questions to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible, but we would encourage the reader to review full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, which can be found on the Scottish Government's consultation website. Similarly, full details about the proposals can be found in the consultation paper.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included 20 closed questions. Not all respondents answered every question. To compare across sub-groups, this report presents the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question.

For clarity, each results table shows:

• The number of respondents who answered each question out of the total sample of 123 (column “n=”).
• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 123 respondents who selected each response (grey row).
• The number and percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses and by type of organisation (rows including and under “All answering (%)”.
• Row percentages in the tables may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Please note: none of the three human rights organisations answered the closed consultation questions as they provided their response in an alternative format. Therefore, the results tables do not include a row for these organsiations.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

In a small number of instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.

Notes from the consultation events were reviewed to identify any differences in opinion compared to the main sample and to identify any new themes. The themes evident in the events typically aligned with those evident in the main sample, but any additional or unique perspectives are noted in this report.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis, we would ask the reader to consider the following:

• Qualitative questions were included in the consultation to allow respondents to elaborate on the views they recorded at the closed questions. However, not all respondents chose to comment, and those who did provided varying levels of detail. Therefore, the qualitative analysis is based on the information provided by those who commented.
• Qualitative comments do not always align with the results of the quantitative questions. For example, respondents may have expressed agreement with a proposal in the closed question but caveated their support or suggested areas for improvement in their open comment.
• Several respondents repeatedly raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are all included in this report, but analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include each theme to avoid repetition.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• Many respondents, 25 or more respondents, a prevalent theme.
• Several respondents, between 15 and 24 respondents.
• Some respondents, between five and 14 respondents.
• A few/a small number, fewer than five respondents, a less common theme.
• Two/one respondent; a singular comment or a view identified in two responses.