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

2 Insights from the People’s Panel

2.1 Understandings of trust in government

Overall, trust in government was commonly described as low, particularly in relation to politicians. Panel members frequently raised concerns about political point‑scoring, perceived self‑interest, and a lack of honesty. A recurring concern was whether politicians could be relied upon to follow through on commitments, rather than saying what they believed people wanted to hear.

Low trust was shaped by a combination of factors, including:

• high‑profile incidents or scandals;
• broken, delayed or reversed commitments; and
• personal experiences of interacting with public services or government bodies.

Trust was not experienced uniformly. Panel members described different levels of trust across institutions and levels of government, with some expressing:

• greater trust in local government or individual representatives than in national politics;
• higher trust in public institutions or civil servants than in politicians or political parties; or
• conditional trust in particular services, depending on context (for example, trusting the NHS in emergencies but not in relation to waiting times).

Panel members also described how dissatisfaction in one area could spread into broader mistrust of government, even where they had previously held more positive views of specific institutions or services.

I think when you have trust and then one thing falls, then it all seems to fall and cascade down and you do look more cynically, I think, not just at all national governments, but local governments, other public institutions as well, you start questioning trust in everything.

2.2 What makes leaders or institutions trustworthy?

Panel members described trustworthiness in leaders and institutions primarily in terms of observable behaviour over time, rather than stated values or intentions. Trust was closely linked to whether government actors were seen to do what they said they would do, and to provide credible evidence that commitments were being followed through.

A central expectation was delivery on promises. Panel members emphasised the importance of seeing tangible progress against commitments, whether in relation to national policy pledges or everyday service delivery. This expectation applied both to politicians and to public institutions, such as the NHS, where trust was linked to meeting commitments around access and quality of services.

Honesty and transparency were also seen as essential to trustworthiness. Panel members valued leaders and institutions that were open about how decisions were made, how services were funded, and where constraints existed. Giving clear answers, acknowledging uncertainty, or saying “I don’t know” where appropriate were viewed as more trustworthy than providing reassurance that later proved inaccurate. Communication was expected to be clear, accessible and straightforward, rather than technical or evasive.

Panel members repeatedly highlighted that time and consistency were critical to building trust. Trust was not seen as something that could be established quickly or within a single election cycle. Instead, it developed through repeated actions that demonstrated reliability and follow‑through. One‑off successes or announcements were viewed as insufficient without sustained evidence of delivery.

Trustworthiness was also linked to acting in the wider public interest. Panel members distinguished between decisions they perceived as being motivated by public benefit and those driven by party advantage or personal gain. Leaders and institutions that were seen to prioritise collective outcomes, even where this involved difficult choices, were viewed more positively.

Finally, accountability played an important role in perceptions of trustworthiness. Panel members expected leaders and institutions to acknowledge mistakes, take responsibility, and take action to put things right. Accountability was not only about admitting error, but about demonstrating learning and change over time.

We’ve got an excellent MSP who works very hard… she hasn’t managed to fulfil every promise, but she’s worked to try and do the best for the people who live in the area. That goes a long way towards building trust.

2.3 Signs of trust in an organisation

When asked about signs of trust, panel members did not usually describe trust as a feeling. Instead, they recognised trust by looking back at how organisations or leaders had behaved over time.

Common signs of trust included seeing organisations do what they said they would do, respond when problems arose, and apply rules fairly and consistently. Panel members referred to a range of organisations when giving examples, including public services, employers and private companies. These examples were used to illustrate behaviours that signalled trust, rather than to compare specific organisations.

Trust was also linked to a belief in competence, and to a confidence, built through experience, that organisations would follow through on commitments. For some members, trust was not automatic and was deliberately withheld until there was clear evidence of results.

Panel members also associated trust with clear and open communication. Explaining decisions, sharing progress and making information easy to access were seen as supporting trust, particularly when organisations faced delays or difficulties.

Other signs related to fairness and values. Trust was undermined where rules appeared to be applied inconsistently, or where senior leaders were seen to benefit disproportionately. Trust was strengthened when organisations were perceived to act in line with their stated values and to take responsibility when things went wrong.

Finally, some panel members highlighted the importance of visibility. Seeing organisations and leaders engaged in everyday work, rather than appearing only during crises, scandals or election periods, was seen as helping to build trust.

[I] will trust when I see an outcome, something you can measure, somebody has come out and said ‘we have tried this, done that, and here is the evidence that it’s worked’.

2.4 Factors that are important for public trust in government

Panel members were asked to reflect on a set of factors commonly associated with trust in government and to discuss whether any mattered more to them, and why. The factors discussed are set out in Table 1 below.

Panel members generally emphasised that all of the factors were important and closely connected, rather than viewing any as unimportant. However, different factors tended to matter more depending on people’s personal experiences and whether they felt affected or let down in specific ways.

Integrity was most commonly highlighted. Panel members linked integrity to honesty, ethical behaviour and the sense that government can be relied upon to act on what it says it will deliver. Examples of scandals, corruption or misuse of public money were often cited as particularly damaging because they called integrity into question.

Table 1: Factors that are important for public trust in government

Integrity: Is the government honest and ethical?

Responsiveness: Does the government listen, use evidence, and have a good sense of people’s needs?

Reliability: Can the government be counted on? Does it deliver services well?

Openness: Is government transparent? Are citizens involved in decisions?

Fairness: Is the government equally focused on all citizens?

Long-term and global challenges: Is the government focused on deeper problems, not just short-term issues?

Honesty and openness were also frequently discussed. Panel members valued transparency when policies did not work as intended and clear explanations of why decisions were made. Being open about failure or uncertainty was often seen as more trustworthy than avoiding difficult information.

For some members, responsiveness was especially important. Feeling listened to, receiving timely replies and seeing action taken in response to concerns were seen as key signals that government takes people seriously. Where delays or inaction had direct personal impacts, this factor became more prominent.

Fairness mattered where panel members felt decisions were applied unevenly or benefited some groups more than others. This included concerns about politicians acting in the interests of the whole community rather than party or personal advantage, and about rules being applied consistently.

Reliability and long‑term challenges were mentioned less often, but some panel members raised concerns about short‑term decision‑making driven by electoral cycles, and about whether government could be relied upon to address longer‑term challenges.

Integrity is not negotiable. It’s what humanity is based on, trust and openness.

I think they all are equally important descriptions of what we should be doing in a democracy, listening to people, being accountable, transparent, being ethical and trustworthy.

2.5 Examples where government has damaged trust

Panel members described a range of experiences and examples where government action had damaged their trust. These examples related to both the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and were often discussed together.

A common theme was high‑profile incidents and scandals involving politicians, particularly where these were seen to involve double standards or unequal application of rules. Several panel members referred to widely reported breaches of COVID‑19 restrictions by politicians as having a lasting impact on trust. These incidents were described as undermining confidence not only in the individuals involved, but in government more broadly. Media coverage was seen as amplifying the impact of such events.

Another frequently raised issue was failure to deliver on commitments, or repeated delays without clear explanation. Panel members mentioned long‑running infrastructure projects, such as delays to A9 dualling, as well as perceived lack of progress on issues such as NHS waiting times or narrowing the education attainment gap. Repeated failure or lack of visible progress was seen as particularly damaging, eroding trust over time rather than through a single decision.

Trust was also damaged where government priorities appeared misaligned with everyday concerns. Panel members gave examples of spending or policy decisions that were perceived to focus on less pressing projects, while issues that affected daily life were seen as insufficiently prioritised. In these cases, mistrust was linked less to the decision itself and more to what it appeared to signal about government priorities.

Fairness was another recurring concern. Panel members described trust being eroded where policies or decisions were judged to be applied unevenly, or where people felt they were penalised despite having “done the right thing”. Examples included concerns about means‑tested care costs, benefit eligibility thresholds, and decisions perceived to disadvantage particular groups.

Issues of transparency also featured in accounts of damaged trust. Some panel members referred to situations where decisions were poorly explained, information was withheld or processes were seen as opaque. Examples included frustration with redacted Freedom of Information responses and complex administrative processes that made it difficult to understand how decisions were taken or challenged.

Across these examples, panel members often emphasised that single, highly visible events could have long‑lasting effects on trust. Negative experiences were described as shaping wider judgements about government competence, honesty and priorities, even when other actions or policies were viewed more positively.

I guess it comes from those times where people say, ‘That’s a politician’s answer.’ Like we can’t get a politician to answer a question truthfully, or they seem to skirt around issues. So I feel generally in society right now there is a general feeling of we don’t quite trust what people say, or that politicians are going to follow through with things.

2.6 Examples where government earned trust

Panel members described fewer examples of government earning trust than of trust being damaged, but those that were raised were discussed in detail and with clarity about why trust had increased.

A common theme across positive examples was tangible impact on everyday life. Panel members referred to policies that were seen to deliver clear and visible benefits, such as free prescriptions, baby boxes, environmental measures including the ban on fracking and single‑use plastics, and decisions that were perceived to place public benefit above profit or politics. Trust in these cases was linked both to the substance of the policy and to seeing it delivered in practice.

Several panel members also emphasised that how decisions were reached mattered, not just the outcome. Examples were given where cross‑party working, compromise or clear debate were seen as contributing to trust, even where participants did not fully agree with every aspect of the decision. These processes were described as signalling seriousness, fairness and respect for democratic discussion.

Trust was also earned through local and personal experiences. Panel members gave examples of individual MSPs or MPs taking action on local issues, such as helping to keep a bank open or addressing a specific community concern. These actions were valued because they demonstrated responsiveness and follow‑through, rather than symbolic engagement.

A smaller number of members referred to responses during periods of crisis, including aspects of the COVID‑19 pandemic response. In these cases, trust was linked to the perception that governments were acting in good faith, prioritising public safety, and communicating openly under difficult circumstances.

It earned my trust when the SG banned single use plastics. So trying to do things that are actually tangibly moving us in the right direction.

2.7 Questioning government actions

Panel members strongly emphasised that the ability to question government actions is an important part of democratic accountability. Questioning was seen as essential for transparency and public scrutiny, and as a normal way for the public to hold elected representatives to account. Many members stressed that politicians and public bodies should be willing to explain and justify their decisions.

While MPs and MSPs were often described as accessible in principle, panel members frequently reported a gap between this perceived accessibility and their actual experience of receiving meaningful responses. Barriers included complex or poorly designed contact systems, long delays, and responses that felt generic or non‑committal.

Across discussions, panel members made clear that the quality of responses mattered as much as the opportunity to ask questions. Clear, respectful and timely replies were seen as trust‑building, even when people disagreed with the outcome. In contrast, evasive, delayed or inadequate responses were viewed as actively damaging to trust.

Panel members described questioning and challenge as a legitimate and expected form of scrutiny, rather than a sign of hostility. A degree of scepticism was seen as healthy and necessary. However, when questioning failed to lead to explanation, follow‑up or action, panel members felt this could contribute to frustration, cynicism and disengagement, undermining trust rather than strengthening it.

Transparency was closely linked to effective questioning. Panel members wanted to understand why decisions were made, not just what had been decided. Lack of clarity around policy changes, voting decisions or delays was seen as fuelling suspicion and dissatisfaction.

Some panel members also noted differences according to the level of government involved, describing greater responsiveness and trust at local level – where contact felt more personal and issue‑specific – compared with national politics, which were often experienced as more distant.

Once elected officials are in position, I think it’s important to question them where appropriate... they should be open to question as to why you’re going off in that direction... It’s healthy. It’s healthy to critique.

2.8 Government responses to mistrust

Panel members discussed how government should respond when people express mistrust. Across groups, there was broad agreement that responses in these moments play a central role in shaping trust.

Panel members consistently valued clear, honest and direct responses that addressed the specific concern raised. They wanted government to acknowledge issues openly, explain decisions in plain language, and set out what would happen next. Direct communication from government or elected representatives was often preferred over information filtered through the media, as it was seen as reducing misunderstanding when explanations were timely and accessible. Delays, silence or generic replies were viewed as reinforcing mistrust, even where the original issue was relatively small. Several panel members said they would prefer difficult or negative information to be delivered clearly rather than reassurance that later proved inaccurate.

Panel members also emphasised the importance of follow‑through. Explanations were seen as losing credibility if they were not matched by visible action. Where commitments could not be delivered, members expected timely updates and clear explanations, rather than silence.

Some members highlighted the need for better systems to support public questioning and feedback. This included clearer routes for raising concerns, more reliable acknowledgement of queries, and ways to track what had happened to an issue once it was raised. Views differed on preferred channels, but there was broad agreement that no single approach would work for everyone.

Make the process easier, freedom of information is quite complicated. When questions are asked, it’s not about being defensive or evasive, just give the answer as it is, that shows respect.

2.9 Effects of distrust in government

Panel members discussed a range of ways in which distrust in government was experienced as harmful, particularly when it moved beyond healthy scepticism into deeper disengagement.

Panel members felt that distrust could lead people to withdraw from political participation, including reduced engagement with democratic processes and less willingness to engage with government at all. Some suggested that when people believe government cannot be trusted, they are less likely to see value in voting, contacting representatives, or taking part in consultations.

Several panel members also linked distrust to increased vulnerability to misinformation. Where trust in official sources was low, people were seen as more likely to rely on social media, informal networks or unverified information, which members felt could deepen confusion and suspicion rather than resolve it.

Distrust was also described as contributing to polarisation and social division. Panel members expressed concern that when people no longer agree on basic facts or intentions of government, public debate can become more adversarial and fragmented. Some felt this made it harder for society to act collectively or accept difficult decisions.

Panel members noted that widespread distrust could undermine confidence in public services, with perceived failures in areas such as healthcare or infrastructure becoming markers of broader government incompetence. Once distrust took hold, it was described as difficult to reverse, even when services performed well in other areas.

At the same time, panel members distinguished these effects from healthy mistrust, which they viewed as necessary for accountability and scrutiny. The concern was not scepticism itself, but situations where distrust led to disengagement, cynicism or a refusal to listen, reducing the space for constructive dialogue.

Look at the voting levels, look at the percentage of people who don’t vote and it’s disgraceful. And I think that comes from a bit of mistrust in government.

2.10 Explaining the trade-offs and encouraging public trust

Panel members discussed how government should explain decisions where all options involve costs, risks or negative consequences. There was broad agreement that these situations are unavoidable, and that trust depends heavily on how decisions are explained.

Panel members emphasised the importance of open and honest explanations. They wanted government to be clear about why a decision was made, what other options were considered, and what the likely impacts would be. Several members said they preferred explanations that set out risks, delays or uncertainty plainly, rather than information that appeared overly reassuring or avoided difficult details.

Clear explanations were seen as particularly important for unpopular or disruptive decisions, such as infrastructure projects or service changes. Panel members felt that people are generally able to understand difficult choices when they are explained clearly and without jargon. Frustration was expressed with explanations that relied on technical language or long documents without clearly setting out the main reasons for a decision.

Panel members also highlighted the role of evidence and expertise. Explanations were seen as more credible when they drew on clear evidence or expert advice, and when there was transparency about what information had been considered and how decisions were reached.

The timing and consistency of communication were also important. Panel members wanted clear timelines, milestones and regular updates, particularly for long‑running projects. Where plans changed or delays occurred, timely explanations were seen as important for maintaining trust.

Finally, panel members stressed that explaining trade‑offs should not replace opportunities for public questioning and engagement. Trust was stronger when people felt able to ask questions and receive responses, rather than being informed about decisions only after they had already been made.

I do think quite a lot of politicians sometimes forget, people have their own personal budgets, people do these trade-offs in day-to-day life anyway. So people are probably more understanding about what’s been said, if it’s laid on the line and it is put in kind of stark terms rather than trying to sugarcoat things.

2.11 Trustworthy sources of information

Panel members discussed where they would go to find information about what government is doing and which sources they trusted most. Views reflected concern about misinformation and uncertainty about how to judge which information is reliable.

Official sources, particularly government and local council websites, were commonly seen as the most authoritative places for factual information, especially on local issues. At the same time, panel members recognised that official sources may present information in a favourable way and may not always highlight problems or failure.

Many panel members described cross‑checking information across multiple sources as important, including comparing official information with traditional media to check for consistency. However, some acknowledged that actively triangulating information requires time, confidence and motivation, and may not be realistic for everyone.

Traditional media, especially established broadcasters, were still widely used, though often approached with caution because of concerns about bias or selective reporting. Some panel members also valued independent experts or institutions for providing context and explanation, particularly where they were seen as non‑partisan.

Panel members were generally sceptical about social media as a trustworthy source, describing it as highly prone to misinformation. While official or verified accounts were sometimes seen as useful for quick updates, most felt information from social media should be checked against more reliable sources.

With social media, it’s very difficult to believe anything you read online. I would normally go to the BBC website and look at several different sources and see if they’re all saying the same thing.

2.12 What government can do about false or misleading information

Panel members viewed false or misleading information as a serious risk to public trust but expressed mixed views about what role government should play in addressing it.

There was broad agreement that clear explanation and transparency were the most appropriate ways for government to respond. Panel members felt that misinformation often takes hold where decisions are poorly explained, information is hard to find, or updates are slow. Clear accounts of what decisions had been made, why they were taken, and how they would be delivered were seen as reducing space for speculation and false narratives.

At the same time, panel members were cautious about government acting as an arbiter of truth. Many expressed concern that this could undermine trust or be perceived as censorship or political bias. Independent bodies, regulators or trusted media organisations were more commonly viewed as appropriate actors for challenging or correcting false information.

Panel members also discussed the role of social media platforms, which were widely seen as enabling the rapid spread of misleading content. While there was support for platforms taking greater responsibility, panel members were wary of government involvement in policing online content and highlighted the difficulty of balancing regulation with freedom of expression.

Some panel members highlighted the importance of education and digital literacy as longer‑term responses, particularly helping people to assess information critically and understand how misinformation spreads. However, these were seen as gradual measures rather than immediate solutions.

I would not trust the government to be responsible for policing the media…It needs to be something completely independent of government.

Education needs to be important, making sure we are building on critical thinking skills along with people’s tolerance.

2.13 How government should respond when mistakes are made

Panel members felt strongly that mistakes are sometimes unavoidable, particularly in complex systems or during periods of uncertainty or crisis. Trust was not seen as depending on government avoiding mistakes entirely, but on how mistakes were handled when they occurred.

Panel members consistently emphasised the importance of acknowledging mistakes openly. Admitting when something had gone wrong, rather than becoming defensive or avoiding responsibility, was viewed as a sign of honesty and respect. Several felt that failing to acknowledge errors early could worsen mistrust.

Clear explanation was also seen as essential. Panel members wanted government to explain what went wrong, why it happened, and what would be done next. Understanding whether a mistake resulted from a system failure, a decision‑making error or external pressures was seen as important for rebuilding confidence.

Learning and change were central to restoring trust. Panel members expected government to show that lessons had been learned and that steps had been taken to prevent similar mistakes from happening again. Repeated mistakes without visible learning were described as particularly damaging to trust.

Panel members were critical of responses that appeared driven by public relations or reputation management, rather than by a genuine attempt to address the problem. Trust was seen as weakening where responses focused on minimising blame or managing headlines instead of dealing with underlying issues.

The scale and impact of a mistake were seen as shaping expectations of accountability. Smaller or technical errors were viewed as more forgivable if handled well, while mistakes resulting in significant harm were associated with higher expectations for transparency, responsibility and action.

Apologising is the first thing. Explanation as to how and why…was it a person or a system error….if they explain how it won’t happen again you would have more confidence in them and that they are working on a fix.