Scottish Government People's Panel 2026-27 Event 1: Reform of the National Performance Framework

2 Insights from the People’s Panel

2.1 Initial reactions and first impressions of the NPF proposals

Across all groups, panel members overwhelmingly reported no prior awareness of the NPF, even among those with an interest in politics and public policy. Some were surprised that a national framework has existed for nearly two decades without them hearing about it, and with a relatively low public profile.

Many felt the NPF proposals were reasonable and diverse enough in the topic coverage of the proposed outcomes, but they questioned the value of another reform, particularly where the problem may not be about the overall design, but more about the implementation and other parts of the policy and delivery system.

Several suggested that while the NPF may be a useful internal planning tool, it has not been meaningfully communicated to citizens. Many felt its low visibility undermines its credibility as a ‘national’ framework. A minority felt low public visibility was acceptable if it is intended mainly as an internal tool.

There was more divergence in views around whether public visibility of the NPF matters, whether this should be an internal tool for government or should form part of the public narrative, and around the value of reforming outcomes, with the benefits of streamlining being weighed up against a fear of vagueness.

While a minority welcomed the proposed updates to the NPF after many years, others saw it as “spin” without plans for meaningful delivery. Some called for broader consultation about the specifics of the proposal, and some queried the cost of the review.

There was recurrent frustration about long‑standing challenges facing Scotland and a sense of lost momentum for change. A number of panel members described the outcomes as “general”, “utopian”, or “so broad they risk being meaningless”.

From where I’m standing, it feels like they’ve missed the point and it’s frustrating to have this thing that is now nearly 20 years old and it’s changing again because it hasn’t worked or it’s not quite right and to change it again… that’s a huge amount of money, when there’s so much money to be spent elsewhere.

I was aware of it…it’s failure that has been in existence for nearly 20 years and quite a lot of people don’t know anything about it… it kind of makes clear that it can’t just be contained like within the Scottish Government… is probably something that has to be broadened out and be part of other things… with an independent body to kind of oversee it and working alongside like public sector as well.

2.2 Relevance of the NPF proposals to daily life

Panel members connected the proposed NPF outcomes to a range of tangible issues and concerns of relevance to them. For example, they talked about public transport reliability and affordability; neighbourhood safety; pressure on education and inclusion with stretched teachers; social care access; the cost of living; fairness for workers and retirees; and viability challenges for small businesses such as wage and employment costs.

They discussed declining community infrastructure – for example swimming pool closures – as well as volunteer fatigue where communities fill gaps in public services. They also raised broader concerns such as drugs, crime, and the bleak prospects that some members perceive for young people – for example because they are struggling to translate education into jobs, save for housing, or see hope for the future.

Many panel members put a particular emphasis on health and public services, with the National Health Service (NHS) and primary care access cited as vital. Environmental protection and nature – as well as Scotland’s underutilised potential for renewable energy – also featured in the concerns of many.

There was broad consensus that the themes reflected in the NPF proposals felt relevant to participants’ lives, with health, poverty, and compounded adversity seen as being of foundational importance. While agreement on relevance was high, emphasis varied by personal experience. For example, some participants focused on business costs and job offshoring, while others focused on community fragility and social infrastructure. Some panel members from rural areas focused on issues around community volunteers whilst members from more urban areas focused on issues of safety.

Yeah, when I initially saw them, I thought that…you’ve sort of covered all bases. So to me, ‘Connected’ sounds like more like local Government. ‘Healthy’ sounds like more NHS, hospitals, doctors and things. ‘Secure’, policing maybe. ‘Prosperous’ sounds like the economy and business. ‘Skilled’, we’ve got education. And ‘Sustainable’ obviously with the environment. So it sounds like it covers all aspects.

Members did not identify aspects of the proposed outcomes or principles as being irrelevant, instead, they worried that high-level outcomes risk being too broad to guide real decisions.

There was general agreement that the scope of the NPF proposals was comprehensive, with isolated doubts about specific wording, relevance or distinctiveness. Some queried items like ‘Scotland’s place in the world’ within the principles which felt less directly connected to everyday life. Several panel members questioned where key issues such as housing, drugs, and childcare were reflected within the structure. However, the main contention was not topic exclusion but the perceived vagueness and breadth of the outcomes.

If you ask people if they agree with all the six statements, I think they’re so vague... everyone wants these things for the country... I can’t say any of them are particularly relevant without knowledge of how they’re going to measure these things.

Like supported or cared for, supported is probably quite a good one because I guess it does fill in a lot of the gaps that we’re seeing maybe around like…I have the support that I need for me to thrive, whether that be through childcare or through good housing or something, I don’t know.

2.3 How to make the NPF feel more relevant for the public

Panel members asked for visible links from outcomes to concrete actions, metrics, baselines, and progress updates – clarity on ‘how we’ll get there’, ‘who is responsible’, and ‘how we’re doing so far’.

Several argued that communications should offer a motivating, shared vision and that more open public engagement is needed.

Some members compared Scotland with countries that offer more advanced digital public services, for example Estonia and Ukraine, and felt this increased expectations about transparency and accessibility.

There was strong consensus on the need for data, milestones, and accountability. Some wanted a simpler, “back to basics” focus given constrained resources, others worried that simplification could dilute clarity. There was broad alignment on the value of regular reporting.

The National Outcomes seem to be something that you can’t really argue with. You know, they’re pretty obvious, but the point about how to achieve them is really important as well. You know, what sort of actions should the Scottish Government take to achieve these?

2.4 Attitudes towards the new National Outcomes

Overall, the majority of members thought the proposed six National Outcomes were simpler and less technical than the previous 11 National Outcomes. There was general agreement that simplification helps, and the discussion was centred on wording, ordering, and whether the structure would be self-evident to a lay audience.

However, present-tense phrasing describing future states – for example, ‘We live free from threats’ – caused confusion and several panel members recommended using future-oriented language to avoid implying a reality that does not exist.

Members also flagged categorisation questions – for example where housing and care sit within the framework, and whether education is nested within ‘Skills’ – and worried that some of the design was not intuitive. Some felt that the public might struggle with the underlying logic even where there is guidance or explanation.

I really like the streamlining of the 11 down to 6. I felt that it was a lot more succinct, it’s a lot more palatable for people to absorb. So I think that’s a really good step about streamlining it.

I thought the second version probably had like a bit less technical language. I don’t think anything in the first was like particularly terrible or anything, but probably just felt a bit more kind of, yeah, a little bit more plain English.

2.5 Cross‑cutting principles: understanding and importance

Overall, panel members saw most of the cross-cutting principles as relevant to everyday life.

Fairness and equality felt particularly relevant and were discussed across groups as underlying principles for everything else. Many also mentioned fairness between people of different ages and places as important, with people worried that younger cohorts may fare worse and that place of birth can unduly shape life chances. Many groups discussed how the principles were all interconnected and important.

Panel members’ emphasis on geographic inequality, intergenerational fairness, and lived experience suggests a desire for an NPF that is sensitive to diverse circumstances and avoids one-size-fits-all assumptions. Several endorsed having principles to counter “out-of-touch” policy making and ensure lived experience informs decisions. Some expressed scepticism about superficial approaches to diversity and stressed the importance of using the NPF’s fairness and equality principles to understand how outcomes and decisions may affect different groups in different ways, including identifying potential unintended consequences.

The principle about future impact was often unclear to members and required further explanation. Similarly, ‘Scotland’s place in the world’ was seen as conceptually different to the other principles and harder to relate to. Members also raised potential tensions between principles – for example, balancing wealth creation with long-term impacts such as climate change.

I just think our place in the world, again, either the description needs to be clearer or that that title just doesn’t really work…I guess that’s all about like sustainability and stuff, is it? And then I think that’s about what’s our responsibility to the world as opposed to where do we stand?

I think it’s interesting that it’s people that perhaps have come from the more comfortable backgrounds. They’re often in a position to make the decisions. And I think sometimes they can’t entirely empathise with people that are going through issues that are related to poverty or health issues. They’ve maybe got quite an insular idea of these things… This is why these things like these are such a good idea.

2.6 Reflections on the name

Panel members were presented with ideas and options for changing the name of the National Performance Framework, including ideas that had been proposed in the Scottish Government’s NPF engagement specification document as well as examples from other countries.^[9]

There was broad support for changing the name, as panel members felt that the term ‘National Performance Framework’ was dry and not especially useful for understanding what it does. ‘Performance’ and ‘Framework’ were especially criticised for being overly technical. Several said they would assume it was an economic measure if they noticed it.

There was a general preference for something that includes Scotland in the title, and divided support for referring to wellbeing in the title. Some felt like this was essential to convey what it was whilst others felt this was too technical or not emphasising ‘the people’ enough.

Specific popular names were variations of: ‘Scotland’s Future’, ‘Vision for Scotland’, ‘Scotland’s Future Wellbeing’ and ‘The Compass’. Some felt that abstract names like ‘Scotland’s Future’ would remove meaning and thought it was important for the name to emphasise measurement.

There was an awareness that some names could be misunderstood: for example ‘Scotland’s Future’ could relate to independence or the Scottish National Party, although one group was particularly in favour of the name.

Only one panel member said the name didn’t need to be changed.

I think it would be nice to see Scottish in there instead of national, because it’s more personal to the Scottish people. National, you think UK sometimes, whereas if you’ve got Scottish in there...then it’s, you know, it’s about the Scottish people and Scottish people just might get involved.

I feel kind of similar about the performance aspect. Sounds like kind of like a business continual improvement model, like a quality standard or something. So I do think wellbeing suits better. I think it does fit in with the kind of six proposed aspects that they want to cover with it.

2.7 Receiving updates about the NPF

Panel members mostly seemed interested in hearing about the NPF when this was asked, and some thought people they knew would be interested too. However, there was broad agreement that the current way of sharing information does little to support this and puts people off. Several had accessed information on the NPF in advance of the Panel and universally found it difficult to find, navigate and interpret.

Members wanted to hear about the NPF across multiple channels, with many recognising that Scotland’s population is varied and would be best reached through different means including: TV, radio, social media, newspapers, QR codes, posters, and billboards.

Across all the groups, panel members wanted clear, accessible, plain-language communication on progress that avoids jargon, acronyms and technical policy language. This included an explanation of what indicators mean, how progress is measured and how numbers relate to real life.

There was broad support for more engaging forms of presentation including data visualisation and infographics, use of colour, videos, storyboards and real-life stories to make progress reports more understandable. Several praised the visuals used in the Welsh Future Generations dashboard, comparing the NPF charts unfavourably.

Some were eager for more local forms of communication, especially those which were ongoing and participatory. For instance, some valued community discussions and word of mouth more than official announcements.

I think it’s got to be shared over multiple [channels]…there is a lot of people that do get their information from social media… newspapers, news channels… whether it’s a two or three-minute programme to say that this is the analysis over that, that what we’ve done. Yeah, and then obviously the website as well.

When I see stuff like that, I want to be stimulated. I want to go this looks like a great initiative. I want to get involved with this…but I feel it’s kind of boring. I want it to draw me in.

While members recognised that many people may not actively engage with the NPF, they nevertheless felt the public should have opportunities to understand its purpose and progress.

I just think that obviously there are people that you’ll never be able to reach…So I think so long as good strong collective effort is made, you know, a multidisciplinary campaign covering various aspects and trying to target as many people as you can.

2.8 Importance of the NPF and how to make it work

There were mixed opinions on whether the NPF was a realistic plan. Some thought the intentions were believable but lacked the necessary next steps to make it feel more realistic. Others felt that unless you could get everyone to work towards the achievement of the National Outcomes it would exist only on paper.

Having a long-term vision or plan like the NPF was valued, and several said Scotland deserved to have a positive vision of the future. Equally important to panel members was the need for the NPF to have real accountability and performance oversight built into it to avoid it becoming a merely symbolic exercise. This included having a named minister or body responsible for the outcomes and clear performance monitoring.

If it’s not done properly, the end goal will not be met. It will just stay another digital document or printed document on the shelf of someone in the ministry or in the cabinet of ministers and that’s it. And it will be a waste of a lot of resources already invested.

If you don’t have a long-term plan, a vision of the future, you’re just chugging along from month to month…the Scottish people deserve to have some sort of a vision of the future, and hopefully an optimistic one.

I think that’s my biggest concern is like the rebranding that they’ve admitted that it’s maybe became a bit of a tick-box exercise…The biggest thing I would want to see as a member of the public is accountability. Who’s making the decisions on these outcomes? Is there anyone that’s overseeing the performance of it?

2.9 Overall trust in the proposed NPF

Some panel members expressed deep disillusionment and low trust, and were sceptical about whether anything would be done with outputs from the discussions.

There was general support across the groups for open, honest information about both achievements and failings in the government in general and the NPF specifically. Greater transparency in communications about the NPF was valued and a lack of clear updates was felt to build distrust. One expressed the view that the previous NPF had not been properly implemented and that this made it more difficult to trust in the new proposals.

Some also highlighted how the pressures of everyday life make it difficult to engage with or trust something like this, even if the issues themselves matter. Panel members said they felt more hopeful about local, community-based engagement, and some groups felt that community conversations can rebuild trust and motivation more effectively than top-down communications.

I don’t trust it because.. we’ve had this plan around for a long time. Most of us didn’t even know it was there and it hasn’t really been implemented. So from that point of view, I’ve got no faith in this whatsoever. But from the point of view of reading it and being able to relate to the values and finding them highly brilliant, and wouldn’t it be bloody marvellous if we were all living in that Scotland. I absolutely 100% am behind it.