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

3 Key considerations and code of behaviour for Government

The findings from the People’s Panel highlight the complexity of public trust in government and the challenges involved in strengthening it. Trust was not discussed as something that can be generated through single actions, announcements or messages. Instead, panel members described trust as developing – or being undermined – through patterns of behaviour over time, particularly in how government delivers, explains decisions, responds to challenge and handles mistakes.

The implications and code of behaviour presented below are grounded in the discussions with this group and should be understood as indicative rather than definitive. They are intended to reflect how trust is experienced, discussed and reasoned about by panel members, rather than to present universal standards for government practice.

Nevertheless, while the findings are drawn from a single People’s Panel session and should be interpreted as qualitative and indicative, they align closely with international evidence on what supports trust in government – for example the OECD’s work on ‘drivers’ of trust.^[12] The themes raised by members align closely with wider literature that consistently highlights low levels of public trust, and show that trust is shaped primarily by observable behaviour over time, including how government communicates, explains decisions and follows through, rather than by stated intentions alone. This includes perceptions of honesty, fairness, responsiveness, delivery on commitments, and how governments explain decisions and respond when things go wrong.

Academic research further reinforces this picture, emphasising that trust is cumulative and fragile: it can be damaged quickly through poorly-handled mistakes or broken commitments, but can be stabilised through clear, honest explanations of difficult decisions, even where disagreement remains.^[13] Taken together, this wider evidence base provides important context for interpreting the views expressed by panel members and helps to situate the implications and suggested code of behaviour set out below.

3.1 Trust as an outcome of behaviour, not messaging

Across the discussions, panel members consistently judged trustworthiness through what government does in practice over time, rather than through stated values or intentions alone. This included delivery and follow‑through, but also how government communicates, particularly how clearly decisions are explained, how openly uncertainty or mistakes are acknowledged, and how consistently messages are backed up by action.

This suggests that efforts to build trust are most effective when communication, policy design and delivery are closely aligned. Trust was seen as cumulative and fragile. It can take time to build through consistent behaviour and clear explanation, but can be damaged quickly through visible failures, poorly-handled decisions or communication that is not followed through in practice.

3.2 Visible delivery and explanation matter most

Panel members linked trust in government closely to seeing progress and understanding how public money is being used. Where delivery stalled or outcomes were unclear, trust weakened, particularly when delays were not explained.

However, panel members did not expect perfect delivery. Trust was more likely to be maintained where government was open about constraints, delays or uncertainty, and where changes were explained clearly. Silence or partial explanations were seen as more damaging than bad news delivered honestly.

3.3 Decision‑making, disagreement and political preference

The findings suggest that trust in government is shaped by a combination of factors, including:

• whether people agree with the substance of a policy;
• their broader predisposition to trust or distrust a political party or politician; and
• how government behaves in making, explaining and delivering decisions.

Panel members were generally more likely to trust policies they agreed with, and less likely to trust those they opposed. However, they often distinguished these political preferences from judgements about honesty, fairness and process. This reflects the reality of a plural society, where people hold different values and priorities, and where disagreement with government decisions is both normal and expected.

In this context, the findings suggest that full or universal trust is neither realistic nor necessarily desirable. A degree of scepticism or mistrust was seen as a legitimate and healthy part of democratic accountability. While good behaviour and clear explanation may not overcome strong disagreement with a policy or party, they were seen as important for stabilising trust, reducing cynicism and maintaining legitimacy in the face of disagreement.

3.4 Realism about public capacity and engagement

Panel members often described practices such as cross‑checking information, engaging with evidence and following detailed explanations. At the same time, there was recognition that these expectations may reflect a relatively engaged group, and that not everyone has the time, confidence or motivation to engage at this level.

This raises a challenge for government practice. Trust‑building approaches that rely heavily on detailed documentation or high levels of public engagement may not work equally well for all audiences. The findings point to the importance of clarity, accessibility and consistency, rather than volume of information alone.

3.5 Responding to mistrust and mistakes

How government responds to challenge, mistrust and mistakes was described as a critical test of trustworthiness. Panel members expected openness, acknowledgement of error, clear explanation and visible learning.

Responses perceived as defensive, slow or focused on managing reputation were seen as deepening mistrust. In contrast, honest acknowledgement and evidence that lessons had been learned were viewed as helping to rebuild confidence, even when outcomes were negative.

3.6 A suggested code of behaviour for Government

Through their discussions in this session, panel members articulated a clear set of expectations about how government should behave when communicating and engaging with the public. Taken together, these expectations can be summarised as a suggested code of behaviour, grounded in the views of this group.

This code should be understood as reflecting the perspectives expressed during this session, within the limitations of a small group, and these findings could be tested further.

Proposed code of behaviour for Government

Based on discussions of the Scottish Government People’s Panel

1. Be honest and clear

Communicate in plain language. Be open about uncertainty, constraints and trade‑offs, and avoid ‘spin’.

2. Explain decisions openly

Set out why decisions were made, what options were considered and what evidence informed them.

3. Deliver visibly and follow through

Show progress on commitments, explain delays and provide regular, accessible updates.

4. Respond with respect and effort

Treat questioning and scepticism as legitimate. Provide meaningful responses rather than generic replies.

5. Acknowledge mistakes and show learning

Admit when things go wrong, explain what happened and demonstrate how learning has been applied.

6. Engage meaningfully with the public

Create opportunities for people to ask questions and raise concerns, and ensure engagement leads to explanation or action rather than tokenism.