Scottish Government People's Panel 2026-27 Event 2: Trust in Government

Key findings

This report presents findings from a meeting of the Scottish Government People’s Panel 2026-27, a research panel of 40 members of the public recruited to broadly reflect the diversity of Scotland’s population. The session was held on 19 March 2026 and involved a full day of facilitated discussions exploring questions on trust in government. The session explored what trust means to people, what builds or damages it, and how government behaviour, decision‑making and communication shapes public trust. A total of 37 panel members attended all or part of the session.

How trust in government is understood

• Trust in government was commonly described as low, particularly in relation to politicians. Participants raised concerns about political point‑scoring, perceived self‑interest, dishonesty and a lack of follow‑through on promises. Trust was shaped by a combination of high‑profile incidents, personal experiences of public services or government bodies, and views on specific policies or decisions.
• Panel members described how single, highly visible events can have a disproportionate and lasting impact on trust, sometimes leading to wider mistrust of government institutions. Media coverage was seen as amplifying this effect. At the same time, trust was not uniform. Participants described different levels of trust across local and national government, political parties, individual representatives and public institutions such as the NHS and police.

What makes leaders and institutions trustworthy?

• Trustworthiness was judged primarily through observable behaviour over time, rather than stated values or intentions. Panel members associated trust with delivering on promises, honesty, transparency and clear communication. Acting in the wider public interest, rather than for party or personal advantage, was seen as central to trust.
• Panel members emphasised that trust builds through consistency and visible evidence of progress and cannot be established within a single election cycle. Seeing tangible outcomes, supported by accessible information and regular updates, was important for maintaining trust.

What shapes public trust?

• Panel members identified a set of interlinked factors as important for trust, including integrity, responsiveness, fairness, openness and reliability. None were seen as unimportant, but different factors became more important depending on people’s experiences, particularly where they felt personally affected or let down.
• Trust was damaged where there were perceived double standards, broken or delayed promises, lack of transparency, or decisions judged to be unfair. Examples included long‑running infrastructure delays, such as A9 dualling, and perceived lack of progress on issues like NHS waiting times.
• In contrast, trust was strengthened by tangible policy interventions that improved everyday life, such as free prescriptions, baby boxes and environmental policies, as well as by local examples where government action had a clear and visible benefit. Panel members also noted that how decisions are reached, such as through cross‑party working and clear reasoning, can influence trust.

Questioning government and responding to mistrust

• There was strong agreement that the ability to question government actions is fundamental to a healthy democracy. Panel members viewed scrutiny and challenge as legitimate and necessary for accountability. However, many described a gap between the perceived accessibility of politicians and their experience of receiving meaningful responses.
• How government responds to questioning and mistrust was seen as central to trust. Clear, honest and respectful responses were valued, while evasive, delayed or generic replies were viewed as actively damaging. Panel members distinguished between healthy scepticism, which supports accountability, and deeper distrust, which can lead to frustration, disengagement and democratic harm.

Explaining difficult decisions and handling mistakes

• Panel members felt that trust is shaped less by whether government avoids mistakes, and more by how it responds when things go wrong. Acknowledging errors, apologising where appropriate, explaining what happened and showing learning were all seen as essential.
• Trust was also linked to clear explanations of difficult decisions and trade‑offs, particularly where choices involved costs, delays or negative impacts. Panel members emphasised that people are capable of understanding complexity when decisions are explained honestly, clearly and without jargon.

Information, misinformation and trust

• Panel members preferred official and verified sources, particularly government and local council websites, while recognising the need to cross‑check information across multiple sources. Traditional media remained important, although often approached with caution.
• Misinformation was seen as damaging to trust, but members were wary of government acting as an arbiter of truth. Transparency, explanation and accessibility of information were viewed as more effective responses than control, alongside longer‑term investment in education and digital literacy.

What this means for Government

• Trust is built when governments behave consistently over time, not through one-off decisions or announcements. Delivery, honesty and accountability matter most.
• How government makes and explains decisions matters as much as what is decided, particularly for difficult or unpopular choices, and can help stabilise trust even where people disagree with the policy or the party behind it.
• Visible delivery is critical. Government needs to provide clear explanations and evidence to underpin communication about progress, delays and changes to plans.
• Poor government responses to questions, mistakes or delays actively damage trust, while openness, apology and learning help rebuild it.
• Transparency is the most trusted response to misinformation, with people favouring explanation and access to information over control.

These findings align closely with international evidence on what supports trust in government – for example the OECD’s work on ‘drivers’ of trust.^[1] A full set of implications, along with a suggested public code of behaviour for government, is set out in Section 3 of this report.