Scottish Rural Communities Policy Review: Stage 4 Final Report

8. Strategic recommendations

8.1 Strategic and transformational recommendations

In addition to evaluating the delivery of Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development against their intended aims (as in the Review Report) and proposing the delivery-level recommendations set out in Sections 5-7, this review also set out to examine their strategic fit in relation to the wider policy and funding context, and to other public and third sector interventions. A range of insights were provided from participants involved in the delivery of the three elements. The strategic interviews were also valuable in helping the research team’s understanding of this wider national context, as was the learning generated from the international case studies.

This evidence gathering led the research team to develop a range of strategic recommendations. These are potential changes which act across the entire causal chain of the initiatives set out in the Theories of Change (inputs → outputs → outcomes → impacts). They focus on how the three individual elements act individually and collectively as a whole rural support system, and how they interact with other policy areas. The strategic recommendations are thus cross-cutting both vertically and horizontally and aim towards improving policy coherence and raising the profile of rural areas and issues across policy domains.

Alongside the strategic recommendations in this section, we put forward options for transformative change. These proposals arise from the evidence collected as well as wider rural development literature, and have been developed with a general consideration of reduced finances available. Given the uncertainties over finance available for implementation, the recommendations focus on enhancing deliberative public fora for collaborative implementation of rural policy, and enhancing accountable oversight on rural policy within Scottish Government. These institutional enhancements are aimed at increasing policy sector robustness in an uncertain wider context, building-in policy making resilience and quality to help develop future policy responses in changing financial circumstances. Specifically, we suggest a time-limited Rural Communities Taskforce, possibly linked to the existing (but refreshed) Rural Stakeholder Group, focused on policy creation and implementation, and an independent individual Rural Commissioner with cross-cutting government oversight. We note the financial implications of these recommendations, and also offer other (delivery-focused) recommendations on these topics which would still deliver notable change.

Underpinning all of the recommendations is the concept of an enabling state^[19]. At a time when austerity measures and public sector withdrawal have been prominent in many western democracies, and governments are also advocating the devolution of activities and responsibilities to more local levels, it is arguably all the more important to more clearly articulate the role of the state, including in relation to its support for rural communities. In line with the notion of neoendogenous or networked rural development^[20], in which top-down and bottom-up actors and resources are brought together to support the development of rural places with control over those processes retained locally, in this chapter we set out various aspects to enhance this ‘enabling’ role for the Scottish Government.

The strategic and transformational recommendations are explained below, underpinned by a summary of the key evidence. The recommendations are interconnected in various ways, but we provide a summary by way of introduction here:

• Approach Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development as an integrated rural community support system, and more explicitly recognise its role and importance within the wider network of support provided by Scottish Government and other organisations
• Create a collaborative or co-designed policy vision for rural Scotland with the engagement of all stakeholders
• Strengthen rural proofing processes
• Align support for rural communities more closely with other place-based policies
• Engage with evolving community empowerment and community wealth building policy to make the most of Local Action Groups
• Articulate the relationships between Community Led Local Development and other community funds more strongly, and explore connections with private community funding

The transformative recommendations suggested are:

• Establish a time-limited Rural Communities Taskforce to deliver the vision for rural Scotland as part of, or closely linked to, the existing, but refreshed, Rural Stakeholder Group
• Appoint an independent Rural Commissioner to provide cross-cutting support for rural proofing and to enhance public accountability

8.2 The Rural Community Support System

Key Evidence Summary

While this review has clearly identified that each element was delivering to its aims, there was also evidence of (both perceived and real) overlap and confusion in some aspects of the work of Scottish Rural Action, Scottish Rural Network and Community Led Local Development. The evidence also suggests that the relative strengths individually and collectively of the elements were not being fully enabled.

The evidence points to the need to more explicitly approach the three elements as a coherent system in future. Underpinning this should be a clear, combined Theory of Change setting out how they, collectively, strengthen rural and island communities across Scotland and deliver to rural and island, as well as wider, policy priorities. The overarching Theory of Change produced for this review will be a useful starting place, and may need to be updated as work plans evolve.

The review collected a significant body of evidence showing strong support for community-led approaches to policy making and delivery generally, amongst local community representatives, those involved in the initiatives being reviewed, those representing third sector organisations, and policy makers in Scottish Government. Cited examples for the initiatives in the review included:

• The core principles of Community Led Local Development in deciding on local funding priorities and supporting local people to make funding decisions
• Scottish Rural Action’s provision of community-based expertise and knowledge to policy developments including through the Scottish Rural and Islands Parliaments
• Scottish Rural Action’s work to strengthen the rural movement and engage with grassroots rural and island voices
• Scottish Rural Network’s strategic role in networking between policy makers and rural communities

We also heard how these roles could all be enhanced to better ensure the voices of communities are heard in policy making in both national and local government, in particular to ensure that that policy making benefits from more rural ‘lived experience’ evidence. We also heard about some suggestions for change in the existing Scottish Government-chaired Rural Stakeholder Group.

Finally, we heard about the value of the support system in building resilience in Scotland’s rural communities. This was articulated by participants in many different ways with reference to building social capital and capacity, but all were clear that this supporting infrastructure is vital for multiple benefits. As one participant said, it is important that

“investing in communities is both a means to an end and an end in itself.” (Strategic interview)

Recommendations

To reduce overlap, duplication and confusion, and to make the most of the available resources and the strengths of the elements, we advise that Scottish Government should approach Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development as a system going forward. The foundation of this system is the inclusive empowerment and engagement of communities. This co-ordinated approach should provide more value for money and maximise the ability of the system to deliver to policy goals through hearing the voices of rural and island communities.

8A. Clarify and optimise the roles of Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development in relation to one another. Closer collaborative working between the three elements will help to identify duplication and gaps and clarify and strengthen their roles individually and collectively. Based on the evidence generated here, their individual and collective roles can be summarised as:

• Scottish Rural Network – supporting policy engagement for rural proofing across government; enhancing information sharing and networking with rural stakeholders and the public
• Scottish Rural Action - building a rural movement and supporting/enabling platforms for the articulation of rural voices into policy formation
• Community Led Local Development – building the capacity and resilience of, and empowering, rural and island communities to identify and deliver to local priorities

The collective role of all three elements in mobilising rural voices to ensure policies are better tailored to rural realities, sharing ideas and learning amongst rural communities in Scotland and beyond, and advocating a community-led ethos could be enhanced. One practical way to achieve this is for representatives of Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development to meet regularly to discuss, agree and then communicate the clarification of roles, how to make the most of aligned future work, etc. These practical refinements should help streamline the support and avoid duplication

8B. Improve transparency and oversight on this work, through the publication of a joint work programme for Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development which articulates their inter-relationships and complementarities, and their fit in the wider system of support for communities across Scotland, underpinned by a combined Theory of Change. The overarching Theory of Change produced for this review will be a useful starting place, and could be revisited on an ongoing basis

8C. Clearly articulate the relationships between Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development, and wider policy and other support for (rural and non-rural) communities (e.g. land reform, public service reform (‘Democracy Matters’), Community Wealth Building, community empowerment, etc.). As key support initiatives specifically for rural communities in a cross-cutting policy area, working across policy teams and portfolios will be vital to fully deliver all of the benefits of rural communities policy, and to share valuable learning from the rural sphere to community interventions more generally. The Rural Stakeholder Group could provide a forum for sharing and discussing these inter-relationships

8D. Re-visit the aims, remit, governance and membership of the Rural Stakeholder Group to ensure that the full range of stakeholder organisations is represented appropriately. This is particularly important given its establishment, initially as an economic group, during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. For example, it may be beneficial for Scottish Rural Action or a new Rural Commissioner to take on the chairing role of the Group to give it greater independence from Scottish Government

Responsibility for all recommendations: Scottish Government

8.3 A vision for rural Scotland

Key Evidence Summary

The team heard from many participants operating at different levels, from local practitioners to national policy makers, about the need for a clear vision for rural communities in Scotland.

The Rural Delivery Plan was an opportunity to set out the actions that government was and would be taking which impacted rural mainland communities, placing a focus on rural delivery. Following a recommendation from the National Council of Rural Advisors, the Rural Delivery Plan contained a draft vision for rural Scotland, and although it did not contain actions, progress on the gathering, analysis and presentation of data was taken forward as part of its development. The decision was taken in February 2026 not to publish the Plan, instead focusing resource on strengthening rural proofing across the Scottish Government.

Based on the evidence in this review, we suggest that a rural policy vision is needed, reflecting the community-led ethos that is central to so many of rural Scotland’s policy and practice developments. We advise that this vision is collaborative or (ideally) co-created with relevant stakeholders, shaped from the bottom up with Scottish Government providing an enabling and supporting function. Such an approach will help to build trust, which for many participants was crucial:

“It’s about trusting that the people that you're dealing with actually fully understand where you're going. So, I suppose there's something for me about trust, there's something for me about a shared vision…So if we all know where we're trying to get to, then we can share the how we get to that…. I think there is something there about… having that frank and open conversation about a shared vision and how we get there. And sometimes it's about... Not to put too fine a point on it, government getting out of the way. Sometimes it's about government removing barriers. So, if you're being told that something is stopping something happening, what can you do as a government about that? Can you take that away? How can you mitigate that? And that can be either at local government level or at national government level. So, I think there's definitely something about that kind of trust and relationship, shared vision and actively that active partnership.” (Strategic interview)

Linked to trust, another participant talked about the importance of accountability, and the need for transparent roles and responsibilities across the system:

“…its all very well to have a shared vision, but…if you're part of a liberal democracy, who's accountable for each part of that shared vision… And that again goes back to what we talked about with the kind of cluttered landscape and the different layers and levels and whatever. But, you… fundamentally can't deliver if you don't understand the roles and responsibilities of who's supposed to be accountable for what and how that gets taken forward. And you can't build the trust without the transparency that goes alongside all of that as well.” (Strategic interview)

Our international case studies described the vision set out for rural Ireland in ‘Our Rural Future, Rural Development Policy 2021-2025’ and for Finland in the Finnish Rural Development Programme 2021-2027. While both England and Canada lack a clear vision for rural areas at national policy level, the case study analysis noted the existence of a vision guiding the work of Action with Communties in Rural England (ACRE) and the example of the province of Quebec in Canada which previously had a rural strategy with a clear vision and allocated resources.

Scotland has had previous rural visions, statements and plans^[21] but these have tended to lack specific actions and clear lines of accountability and evaluation. They have also lacked collaboration or co-production elements, although some have been informed by evidence collected from formal public consultations. Any future plan must draw learning from these other national and past Scottish examples, including in terms of how they were drawn up and how progress in achieving them has been monitored.

Co-creation and building trust is a challenging process, and we have proposed some initial parameters for the creation of this vision. Importantly, a vision for rural policy needs to sit in a complementary manner with other place-based policy for rural areas (See also Section 8.7). Co-creation considerations for the vision are set out below. The vision should be accompanied by an action plan/strategy/framework setting out how it will be achieved and a monitoring and evaluation plan including appropriate indicators.

This vision will be important for all stakeholders, and will help to guide rural proofing activities across Scottish Government policy teams to ensure the process is as effective and positive as possible.

This work should be inclusive, transparent and accountable, and needs to involve all relevant stakeholders from rural communities to Scottish Government policy makers. Based on the voices and preferences of rural communities, we would suggest that priority policy areas are identified (rather than the plan seeking to be comprehensive). For example, three initial priorities could form the initial focus (e.g. economic development, addressing poverty, housing challenges) or the plan could focus on specific geographies (e.g. mainland areas with limited connectivity, post-industrial rural areas, or small towns).

The (refreshed) Rural Stakeholder Group could provide a forum for delivering the collaboration and co-design and co-delivery of the vision and an important opportunity to build in oversight and accountability. In a more transformative approach, a new time-limited Rural Communities Taskforce could provide this forum. These recommendations are detailed below. We suggest that the work includes:

1. Creating a vision for rural Scotland

2. Identifying policy priorities for delivering this vision through an action plan

3. Establishing transparency and accountability processes for creating the policy and delivering the action plan, with an emphasis placed on community-led processes in terms of decision-making, delivery and evaluation

Recommendations

8E. Create and publish a vision for rural Scotland. We advise this should be collaborative and/or co-created with rural communities and stakeholders. This will provide overarching coherence for rural policy.

8F. The Rural Stakeholder Group could be used as the basis for forming a short life working group to collaborate with policy makers on designing this rural vision. The short life working group would have a clear and time limited term of reference. Having Scottish Rural Action as an independent chair or providing the secretariat may be beneficial. The recent public survey on the draft Rural Delivery Plan, which included a vision, may provide useful evidence as a starting point for the Group’s work^[22]. Participatory democratic methods may be useful in forming the group and influencing its work, for example, advertising for new members of the group or for gathering views on a draft vision as part of an event.

8G. In a more transformational approach, formalise the short life working group into a time-limited Rural Communities Taskforce, bringing together key stakeholders, drawing on the existing rural movement, to co-create a clear vision for rural Scotland. This could potentially be independently chaired by Scottish Rural Action. An alternative approach would be for an independent (i.e. outside of Scottish Government) Rural Commissioner to chair this group, working closely with Scottish Rural Action to gather the voices of communities, and focusing on achieving cross-government buy-in to the rural vision working closely with Scottish Rural Network.

Responsibility: Scottish Government, Rural Stakeholder Group

The recommendations are short term proposals for delivering a step change in rural policy through a collaborative or codesigned rural vision. In the medium- to long-term, ongoing work will be needed to ensure that the vision is being delivered to and is regularly revisited and refined if required. This work could be undertaken at Rural and Island Parliaments and/or continue through the Rural Stakeholder Group.

Scottish Government policy teams should ensure that the Rural Assessment Toolkit, and any additional guidance for rural proofing activities, clearly delivers to the agreed vision. This will help policy teams across government understand and ‘buy into’ the vision for rural communities and encourage them to use rural proofing as a positive tool to achieve it.

We acknowledge the complexities that would be associated with having a National Islands Plan which covers all communities on Scotland’s islands and includes a vision for them, and a rural vision and accompanying plan. The relationships and complementarities between these two plans would need to be clearly articulated and regularly revisited (See also section 8.5).

The vision and accompanying framework for rural communities should be informed by evidence, including from this review and from the Scottish Government’s Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture (ENRA) Strategic Research Programme^[23]. An independent Rural Commissioner could also play a key role here (as set out in Section 8.4 on rural proofing) through strategic advocacy work across government as an independent ‘critical friend’.

8.4 Positive rural proofing processes

Key evidence summary

In April 2025 the Scottish Government launched a Rural Assessment Toolkit to support policy teams across government in ensuring that they take rural areas and issues into account when designing and delivering new policies and legislation. The strategic interviews undertaken with a number of Scottish Government departments as part of this review (i.e. policy makers who are users of the Toolkit) demonstrated varied levels of awareness and understanding of rural areas and issues and relatively low levels of uptake of the Toolkit to date. Participants frequently contextualised their uptake of the relatively new toolkit in terms of existing volumes of work, sometimes noting that they had not yet had a chance to work with it. Others stressed their experience of increased volumes of statutory and non statuory assessments generally. In parallel, participants consistently noted that rural proofing can take many forms, both formal and informal, and a number of successful examples were provided of informal and interative rural proofing processes. This illustrates a good level of interest and/or expertise on rural proofing as a process, with the use and role of the toolkit still being implemented over the last year.

Evidence about rural proofing from countries where it has been adopted (including England, Ireland and Canada), is mixed about its success. Several challenges with the process are acknowledged, including:

• its lack of clear outcomes (it is often evaluated as a process – i.e. was the process of rural proofing followed or not - rather than in terms of outcomes it achieves for rural communities)
• the difficulties faced by policy teams in understanding rural issues and communities fully enough to undertake meaningful rural proofing
• the influence of politics and how importantly rural issues are regarded across different places and at different times
• the limitations of existing data on rural areas
• rural proofing often occuring too late in the process of policy development, rather than integrated from the initial stages of design
• while some countries require the responsible Minister and their Department to compile an annual rural proofing report and present it to Parliament, in most countries there is a lack of enforcement of rural proofing processes and no sanctions if it is not carried out^[24]

However, there is emerging evidence of more positive benefits arising from rural proofing as the process has been refined, including in Korea, New Zealand, Spain and Finland amongst others^[25]. This evidence points to the key role of the state (i.e. national or local government) in enabling and facilitating successful rural proofing by setting clear goals for the process or setting up mechanisms for rural voices to be heard more regularly in policy making. The European Commission has recently reiterated its commitment to rural proofing in its 2025 Vision for Agriculture and Food^[26] and the OECD continues to work with its member states in developing a collective understanding of rural proofing and exploring ways in which it can be strengthened and improved in terms of its outcomes for rural communities^[27].

A cross-cutting strategic consideration in this research was how rural and island expertise is included in policy making and implementation across government.

The formal Scottish Government rural proofing approach and process is described earlier in this report. We heard examples of different ways that engagement with rural and island stakeholders had been undertaken, sometimes without using the Rural Assessment Toolkit, or indeed any formal process or tool, for example through workshops and meetings connecting policy teams and stakeholders. This provided evidence of the different ways in which Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development (as well as other organisations, including some of those involved in the Rural Stakeholder Group, for example) are already contributing informally to this process of rural proofing. Some rural proofing had taken the form of a quick sense-checking phone call between policy officials, while other examples were of much more “in-depth, immersive engagement” (Strategic interview) and deeper dialogue undertaken over time from the outset of policy-programme design by the lead policy team and those with varying rural expertise. For one participant, being “agile” (Strategic interview) is vital to ensure that its:

“the right time to engage, genuinely in a way that then informs that policy development. So it's catching the policy development at the right point and early on…. So, where that is always going to be much more impactful and it's about being able to bring a range of expert voices in, whether those are organisations or individuals with lived experience and doing that in a genuine way… we then have the SRN networks and SRA's ability to facilitate and mobilise to bring… in the injection of really deep experience into those at the right moments. That feels like it can work really well.” (Strategic interview)

One participant reflected on the need for different approaches in different situations suggesting that “mass information gathering” was less important and instead a more “iterative process with a set of stakeholders” was needed (Strategic interview).

However, participants in this review also acknowledged the increased number of policy impact assessments that policy makers in Scottish Government are required to undertake and the potential for them to become simple tickbox exercises as the associated demands on policy makers are so high. They discussed the benefits and disadvantages of a legislative approach to some policy assessments in Scotland, including island proofing through Island Communities Impact Assessments (required through the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018), with the key benefit being that making an assessment a legislative requirement perhaps gives it greater weight when viewed in the context of the number of assessments that policy makers need to undertake.

Scottish Rural Action's work as an advocate for rural issues and communities at national and regional policy making levels, and their iterative approach to providing rural expertise to policy makers and other interested bodies, was supported by a notably wide range of participants. These approaches had helped some policy making teams and policy advocacy organisations undertake work which was better informed by the experiences of rural and island people and communities, in a process which was described in ways which resemble collaborative policy co-creation. In short, Scottish Rural Action has been helping to build a team of ‘rural thinkers’ across government policy domains and other organisations. For example, Scottish Rural Action has been working with Public Health Scotland to create a rural place standard tool. It also worked with the Community Wealth Building team to ensure rural considerations were taken into account in the recent legislation. Similar examples were shared by national third sector organisations. Notably, the delivery of these insights into policy by an independent organisation was associated with some challenges, not least a need for sharing of good practice, lack of transparency about impacts on policy making, and associated accountability. In the perspective of one community participant in an interview: “We do have a rural voice one way or the other. What's happening is that the voice isn't being listened to often and it's how we get the voice better listened to that we're trying to do...”. From a policy maker perspective, informed decisions are made balancing a range of perspectives and considerations. Further transparency and sharing of learning about these processes may be beneficial for both those sharing rural perspectives and voices, and those making policy.

Alongside Scottish Rural Action, Scottish Rural Network’s related role is to share information about the latest policy developments relevant to rural and island residents from within government, which could be considered a process of ‘sifting policy making news through a rural lens’ and distributing it to interested bodies and individuals. At local level, the network of Community Led Local Development projects, Coordinators and Local Action Group members provide access to on-the-ground evidence of rural circumstances and what works well (and what does not). Additionally, as the only Scottish Government rural community development fund available to community and private enterprises, Community Led Local Development could be considered to operate as a rural financial proofing mechanism, with it’s flexible approach to delivery allowing for rural refinements and financially ‘topping up’ other funds to take account of the ‘rural premium’.

However, there was a sense amongst review participants, including policy makers, that engagement was mixed, with some policy teams having good, direct relationships with rural and island stakeholders which facilitated regular engagement and indeed influenced policy making, whilst other policy teams did not. A range of suggestions for better incorporating rural and island expertise into policy making are set out below. Some participants sounded a note of caution, however, in noting the need to manage expectations in processes of rural or island proofing where communities could be engaged in the process but still not agree with a decision taken. In such instances, communication becomes all the more important, so that there is clear understanding of why a decision has been taken. There may be useful learning here from literature on community involvement^[28] which discusses different ‘levels’ of community involvement in policy making, from consultation to delegating power and citizen control. However, there are tensions between what could be called the ‘rhetoric of citizen control’ and final decision making, which are fundamental in practical policy making. In these cases, deliberation, transparency and accountability are needed to build trust in government.

There is an opportunity for Scotland to continue to develop a process of rural proofing that takes account of learning from other countries where it has been adopted, and takes advantage of current and future wider policy and legislative changes in Scotland. The evidence from this review suggests that Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development are all already supporting a range of ‘rural proofing type activities’ and there is an opportunity to strengthen rural proofing activities further. The Rural Assessment Toolkit is a valuable tool for use by policy makers across Scottish Government but there may be opportunities to extend rural proofing beyond this and create aligned processes which are even more meaningful, positive and impactful for rural communities and which give them a stronger voice in rural proofing activities. Importantly, strengthening rural proofing does not mean that dedicated rural policy is no longer required. What is important is that there is a clear articulation of the theory of change, aims, outcomes/outputs of both approaches and how they inter-relate and support one another.

Key challenges include gaining cross-Government buy-in for cross-cutting issues - in this case rural - when it might not be the focus of a policy maker’s day job and with increasingly limited resources and growing workloads. In cases such as this, cross-cutting insight and effort is needed to drive horizontal policy coherence and enhance the quality and accountablity of rural proofing effectively across government. Also key is a positive narrative of rural areas and issues which goes beyond the traditional ‘deficit’ approach to rural, which articulates what rural has and can contribute to Scotland’s economy, society and environment nationally, rather than what it is missing or lacks.

All of these considerations highlight the need for cross-cutting expertise on rural policy within government, with increased public accountability. It may be possible for the Scottish Government’s approach to evolve to deliver this, likely in conjunction with Scottish Rural Action’s community-facing grassroots expertise. Should a decision be made to deliver cross-cutting expertise within government, communications, monitoring and accountability will be crucial. However, such an approach would lack independence, and may face delivery challenges.

As an alternative, to maximise independence, accountability and political will, we suggest an independent sole (i.e. individual) Rural Commissioner as a potential transformational change. The Rural Commissioner would work across Scottish Government as an advocate for rural areas and issues in all policy domains. They would support rural proofing activities (in whatever form they take) across Government, working closely with Scottish Rural Network.

There may be useful learning for a Rural Commissioner role in Scotland from the previous Rural Advocate position in England. The Rural Advocate role was set up to champion rural issues across the UK Government and included direct communication with the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet committee of Ministers that co-ordinated rural affairs in the UK Government. This role directly drew on the evidence generated by the Countryside Agency and its successor organisation, the Commission for Rural Communities, as arms-length bodies from the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In Scotland, the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Strategic Research Programme would provide substantial underpinning evidence. In one of his first annual reports one of England’s Rural Advocates talked about his role in putting:

“the case for rural people at the highest levels of government and beyond, to ensure that their needs and circumstances are properly understood… It is an effective and symbiotic relationship, which is focussed on the prime purpose of enabling and maintaining sustainable rural communities. With direct access to the Prime Minister and Ministers across government, I am able not only to feedback views and concerns from the perspective of rural communities, but also to raise policy issues and possible solutions on important issues, such as housing, transport, healthcare, regulation and agriculture.”^[29]

The UK Government’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published a report in 2013 presenting evidence on changes to policies for rural communities in England. Much of the evidence gathered was positive about the Rural Advocate role including its independence from Government and the potential to gather knowledge from rural communities and feed it directly into government policy making. At the same time, some of those presenting evidence described the challenges for such an individual to represent the diversity of issues and views across rural areas^[30].

Recommendations

8H. Framed by the rural vision set out earlier, there is a need for all rural stakeholders to work together to build a more positive rural narrative. This should emphasise the many important roles and contributions of rural Scotland and how these can be enhanced in future, including through a clear rural proofing process. A Rural Taskforce, working with Scottish Rural Network and Scottish Rural Action, could have a key role here in designing and then widely communicating this narrative within and beyond Scottish Government policy makers. Building this positive narrative will help to drive positive action for Scotland’s rural communities.

Responsibility: All Rural Stakeholders

8I. We recommend continuing to review and monitor the content and use of the Rural Assessment Toolkit on an ongoing basis, including quantitative information on how often the Toolkit is used, the training is accessed, and qualitative information on its ease of use, the outcomes it achieves for rural communities and businesses, for example. Building up a database of good practice case studies would be useful. This will ensure that the process and toolkit are continually refined in support of achieving the vision for rural communities in Scotland.

8J. Strengthening communication and relationships between policy teams across Scottish Government will help to ensure that the rural policy teams are informed about upcoming legislation and policy changes and can advocate for the Rural Assessment Toolkit from the outset of the design process. The Rural Commissioner can assist with this relationship-building.

8K. It would be worth exploring the extent to which use of the Rural Assessment Toolkit (which is currently voluntary) can be more formally linked to other policy impact assessments, in particular those that are required by legislation, such as Island Communities Impact Assessments or the Equalities Impact Assessment. This would help to rationalise policy assessment within Scottish Government, making it more efficient and less onerous and tokenistic for policy makers.

8L. It is important that the process of rural proofing through the Rural Assessment Toolkit is advocated across Scottish Government. However, building on the evidence gathered in this review, there may be additional activities which can be used in conjunction with the Toolkit to enhance rural proofing, including one off or regular meetings and workshops, data analysis, etc. The choice about which approach or tool to use may depend on the existing relationships between policy teams, the level of rural knowledge in the ‘lead’ policy team, the type of intervention being developed and the timescale over which it is being designed, for example.

Responsibility: Scottish Government

8M. Building on the existing guidance that accompanies the Rural Assessment Toolkit, there is a need for ongoing review of the expectations for policy teams with respect to consultation and engagement with rural stakeholders. Again sharing best practice learning would be helpful.. Scottish Rural Action should play a key facilitating role here building on its existing expertise in community engagement to enhance the strength of rural voices across all policy domains

Responsibility: Scottish Government and Scottish Rural Action

8N. Biennial Scottish Rural and Islands Parliament events should continue to be organised by Scottish Rural Action, in collaboration with other stakeholders with clear outputs. These events in themselves are an important part of the rural proofing process, particularly if attended by non-rural policy officials and ministers. As per our delivery recommendations, we note the need to enhance formal and transparent policy links and outcomes from the Rural and Islands Parliament to improve impact and accountability

8O. There is a need for those delivering Scottish Rural Network, Scottish Rural Action and Community Led Local Development to continue to engage with their counterparts in Europe (for example through the European Rural Parliament, the European LEADER Association for Rural Development [ELARD]^[31], the European Rural Community Alliance [ERCA^[32]]) in order to share learning, particularly as rural proofing processes evolve at European Union level and in member states and regions

Responsibility: Scottish Government, Scottish Rural Action, collaborators

8P. A transformational step to build independence and accountability on rural policy would be to create a Rural Commissioner. This individual would lead on strengthening engagement with rural proofing across Scottish Government. In effect, the Commissioner would act as a ‘critical friend’ for rural policy, working with Scottish Rural Action and Scottish Rural Network, to ensure that the voices and lived experiences of rural communities are fed directly into policy making in all areas, in support of, and to enhance, the process of rural proofing. Learning from this work could be shared by Scottish Rural Network both internally within Scottish Government and with external stakeholders. The Commissioner’s role would also support relationship-building across policy teams in Scottish Government and between policy teams and rural stakeholders, helping to support engagement at the right time and in the right way. They could also highlight evidence gaps on which to focus future data gathering and/or analysis work. This would help to position rural areas and issues much more centrally and positively within Scottish Government policy making and create clear lines of accountability. The Deputy First Minister role in Scotland continues to have a cross-government co-ordination responsibility, and it would be ideal if the Rural Commissioner could report to, or at least maintain an ongoing dialogue with, the Deputy First Minister.

8Q. A key responsibility for the Rural Commissioner would be to lead the writing of an annual rural proofing report. This would need input from across policy domains, with information collection co-ordinated by rural policy officials. Information would include the extent to which the Rural Assessment Toolkit has been used and examples of good practice rural proofing approaches which have led to positive outcomes for rural communities. The report would be presented to Parliament and would form the basis of an annual progress meeting between the Rural Commissioner and the Deputy First Minister. The requirement for this annual report would help to improve the accountability of rural proofing processes across Scottish Government.

Through the annual rural proofing report, and the other recommendations here, it may be possible for learning from rural assessments in Scotland to be shared internationally with other countries implementing rural proofing, and within Scottish Government to inform other kinds of policy assessment.

Responsibility: Scottish Government, Cabinet Level interest

8.5 Rural policy and other place-based policy making agendas

Key Evidence Summary

Rural policy is fundamentally a place-based policy - one targeting a large and varied area. However, it is interesting to note the history of policy and support for rural communities which has evolved in the context of sectoral agricultural policy rather than wider policy for communities. Rural includes a diversity of places, including rural areas in relative proximity to urban settlements, mainland areas with limited connectivity, towns, and islands. While a formal classification of rural and urban areas exists in Scotland, rural areas are not as easy to delineate as the boundaries of an island for example. The complexity of rural geographies and rural-specific place-based policy making interplays with other place-based policies, such as place-based regeneration, and islands-specific policy.

Participants reflected on the potential confusion between these different layers of place-based policy. In terms of operationalising place-based policy, flexibility was noted to be important. As research participants described it:

“there is no one kind of fixed approach that you can put across every community. You've got to understand each place for its own needs and aspirations.” (Strategic interview)

“And if we're being place-based, then we should be pretty relaxed about what those systems look like in different places. They should be different in Clackmannanshire than they are in (Mull)… That's not actually a rural thing; that's just a place thing.” (Strategic interview)

There was evidence that flexibility was particularly needed for rural areas. For example, differential rural infrastructures, such as a lack of bigger businesses and particular land patterns, need to be taken into account in place-based policy making. As discussed in the previous section on rural proofing, there is emerging evidence of the value of rural proofing place-based approaches; for example, rural refinements to the place standard tool are being piloted over 2026 (unpublished), as is research on the implementation of Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Act 2026 in rural areas^[33].

Importantly, such a place-based approach was considered by some policy makers as a way to improve outcomes and address policy and funding fragmentation or “silos”. For one participant, a coherent place-based approach across Scotland was potentially transformational for all local communities. This does require becoming comfortable with local interpretations and solutions, and as some participants emphasised, also being comfortable with the knowledge that the local approach may not be applicable elsewhere, or possible to scale up. Such an approach requires nuance which can sit uncomfortably with a need for simplification.

These dynamics are reflected in the relationship between rural policy and islands policy within Scottish Government. Community Led Local Development, Scottish Rural Network and Scottish Rural Action all do work on islands, and also collaborate with island-specific organisations, funds and networks. Islands also have additional place-based policy and legislative mechanisms, including legislation for Islands (the Islands [Scotland] Act 2018), island-specific funds and a dedicated islands policy team in Scottish Government. The evidence we heard from rural and island communities was that, generally, the different policies for islands and for rural areas were both supported, and that collaboration across island and rural communities was not perceived as a significant challenge. However, there was more evidence of challenge within the realm of policy making, as the differentiated nature of rural policy and island policy could produce barriers and silos. For example, the legislative implementation of Island Community Impact Assessments is notably different to voluntary application of the Rural Assessment Toolkit, with a lack of clarity potentially in how such different and relatively new approaches will be implemented over time and in complementary ways.

There were varying views on how rural policy and island policy currently sit together, demonstrating the complexity of this issue. There was positive evidence about islands-specific policy and policy making (although this was not a focus on the research), with participants commenting on various aspects including Islands Community Impact Assessments, and collaborative projects with the islands policy team in Scottish Government. Some argued that the relatively smaller scale of Scottish islands vis-à-vis rural Scotland, and the ability to physically delineate islands more easily, supported more in-depth work and legislation. In contrast, some policy makers stressed the challenges of having separate islands and rural policies. One such reflection was that rural policy lacks definition, vision and a clear plan, in comparison to the more detailed island policy area (accordingly, we advise the production of a vision as per Section 8.3). Some participants called for a narrower definition of the geographical focus of the rural support system, suggesting focusing on mainland rural or on mainland rural and island rural, effectively suggesting parallel supports for mainland rural and island Scotland.

In this context, we propose increased dialogue and collaboration between policy makers in Scottish Government working on the various place-based approaches, and more explicit recognition of one anothers’ approaches in their work so that the links between them are more clearly articulated. We note the view expressed in one strategic interview that tightened finances and increased workloads can lead to reduced cross-government collaboration, when in fact this is the time when more collaboration is needed. Enhanced collaboration will help to more clearly articulate the need for development and differentiation of the place-based approach in rural policy, and at the same time, ensure that rural considerations are central to place-based policy making.

In future, the relationship between the rural vision, plan and associated positive narrative, and policy and planning for islands and for places generally will need to be more clearly articulated. Learning from other contexts may be appropriate, for example Ireland, where islands policy is complementarily ‘nested’ within an overall rural policy to ensure that approaches are coherent and collaborative. We also note the need to tailor visions and plans to appropriate strategic levels—and that a strategic vision for rural Scotland could complement more detailed islands plan and policy. Our recommendations on a vision for rural Scotland (Section 8.3) reflect this approach.

Recommendations

8R. Develop and communicate the place-based approach to rural policy in Scotland, in a complementary manner to other place-based policies, to support enhanced policy coherence. This can be taken forward in conjunction with the recommendations on a rural policy vision. This may require reflection on and new articulation of the relationship between rural and agricultural policies in future.

8S. If the transformational recommendation for a Rural Commissioner is taken forward, this individual could play a key role here in developing relationships across policy domains. Support could be provided by the Scottish Rural Network in their technical assistance and policy support role.

8T. Clearer articulation of how rural proofing work supports the refinement of place-based policy approaches across Scottish Government Rural proofing work should support refinement of other place-based approaches for rural areas. Ongoing collaboration on this is likely to be most effective.

Responsibility for all recommendations: Scottish Government

Rural Places Framework

8U. To deliver these place-based strategic recommendations, we propose that a series of regular collaborative meetings be organised involving relevant policy leads over a short period of time (for example, 12-18 months).

8V. A more transformative approach would be to task these policy leads with creating a national rural places framework. The aim of this would be to support strengthened and streamlined rural place planning and animation work across Scottish Government policy areas relevant to rural communities (e.g. Rural Communities Team, Community Empowerment, Public Service Reform/Democracy Matters, Islands Policy). The Planning, Architecture and Regeneration Directorate should be included to reflect the high levels of local place planning uptake in rural areas. Highlands and Islands Enterprise and South of Scotland Enterprise, both of which have a rural community development function, should also be involved. This rural places framework would be grounded in the principles of grassroots-based working and local participation, with collaboration and co-design used to inform the vision (such as by the Rural Stakeholder Group or Rural Communities Taskforce). It may be valuable to include a new cross-sector performance metric for accountability in the National Performance Framework, or explore other incentives for institutional alignment.

Responsibility: Scottish Government, community development teams at Highlands and Islands Enterprise and South of Scotland Enterprise, Community Led Local Development Local Action Group members or Network lead.

8.6 Local Action Groups and community empowerment

Key Evidence Summary

We heard strong messages in this review from stakeholders operating at all governance levels about the value of Community Led Local Development and the long history of these kinds of approaches in Scotland’s rural communities. However, participants suggested that the Community Led Local Development fund in rural Scotland was still seen as somewhat separate from similar approaches in other policy domains. This arises to some extent from the evolution of Community Led Local Development from the LEADER approach which is structurally part of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, and its inclusion in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. In practice, however, it has strong links to wider Scottish Government policy teams such as Community Empowerment, Community Development, and Place-base Regeneration Funding. While there are benefits to Community Led Local Development funding being linked with agricultural policy and support, not least in terms of recognising the importance of the agricultural sector for wider rural communities and vice versa, there are also drawbacks. For example, learning from what works well in Local Action Groups is not widely shared beyond the Community Led Local Development programme.

We heard about the ‘cluttered landscape’ of governance structures that operate at local and regional levels in rural (and indeed urban) areas across Scotland, including Community Councils, Community Landowners, Development Trusts, Local Action Groups and third sector interfaces (see Section 5.13 of the Review Report). As discussed in the Review Report (See Tables 11.1, 11.2), while these structures share many features, the Local Action Groups that deliver Community Led Local Development funding have a number of unique governance functions including decision-making by local people, delivered through flexible governance structures (third sector interface, local authority, trust) at a regional level, and targeted at locally-defined priorities.

The review has revealed evidence of different community organisations seeking to identify and deliver (sometimes different) local priorities, in sometimes overlapping and conflicting ways, and of concerns over volunteer fatigue. At the same time, participants consistently noted that funding and support for organisational capacity-building has declined in recent years, despite this being so important for local delivery.

Some participants noted an unhelpful tension between the cluttered landscape of community empowerment organisations and a desire for simplification: simplification to one, or a few, organisational structures may not be realistic or necessary. Following this view, it could be argued that communities should be able to select the structures which are most appropriate for the type of community-led action they are seeking to implement; here simplification should be focused on clarification of organisational purpose and supporting collaboration between different structures. The organisational flexibility of Community Led Local Development may provide useful insights in this regard.

Participants also spoke about the need to balance meaningful local empowerment with efficiency and effectiveness of spend. There were varying perspectives on the cost of layered administration approaches – with some arguing that minimal administration costs should be a key priority, and others focusing on the need for capacity-building and having a number of different local organisations to improve representativeness and inclusivity, which can lead to increased short-term costs.

This review is timely in terms of the potential for its findings to feed into wider Democracy Matters and local governance review work, such as the recently published “Route Map to Reform”^[34], which provides wide ranging recommendations on how to support Scotland’s local democratic infrastructure.

Recommendations

8W. There is a need for evidence-gathering to build a like-for-like basis picture of how different community governance structures operate in different places, the functions of representative democracy and the public interest, and what the potential is for future reforms. Ideally this would align with Public Service Reform and specifically the “Democracy Matters” project.

8X. Learning from Local Action Groups could be further considered in future Democracy Matters work, such as the flexibility of distributing organisation, regional (versus local) scales, administration costs, and rural-specific requirements.

Responsibility: Scottish Government

8Y. The benefits and drawbacks of changing the position of Community Led Local Development from agricultural support may want to be considered by Scottish Government. This research identified some challenges with this community funding being located separately to other community funds. However, there may also be benefits of continuing to align the structure of Community Led Local Development with European Union funding for agriculture and rural development. We also acknowledge that this would not be straightforward particularly given its inclusion in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 although the wording of the Rural Support Plan (making reference to support potentially being available beyond the Act) may help in this regard.

Responsibility: Scottish Government

8.7 Community Led Local Development and Other Community Funds

Key Evidence Summary

We heard evidence from participants with local and national expertise of confusion regarding the number of different funding streams available to communities across Scotland (from UK Government, Scottish Government, local authority and others, including private sources) (See Section 5.12, Tables 9.1, 9.2, Table 10 in the Review Report). We heard that participants were not always clear on what these funding schemes were seeking to achieve and how they differ or are similar (for example in terms of the balance of animation and capacity-building compared to project funding), how to access them and how they deliver to specific policy priorities. For example, confusion arose for a community group that had applied to two Scottish Government-managed funding schemes and been successful in one, but not in the other, possibly as a result of ‘duplication’ and inconsistency in some of the criteria.

Notably, Community Led Local Development funding has unique empowerment and funding delivery characteristics - it is the only rural exclusive community development fund provided by Scottish Government, it does not necessarily involve local authority partnership, and it is delivered by local people. This local delivery is unique within Scottish Government community funds; however UK Government funds such as Pride in Place funding require Neighbourhood Boards to be established to deliver the funding, and other funding sources such as Crown Estate and private developer Community benefit funds can also require local decision-making organisations. Such complicated funding structures, often delivered with the aim of increasing local decision making, may actually be leading to the opposite impact, by creating confusion and adding to volunteer fatigue and the “cluttered landscape” of community empowerment.

In recognition of this, some participants argued for national funding to be delivered through local authorities rather than directly from Scottish Government to communities to reduce some of this confusion. However, there may be challenges with this approach as this money would not be ring-fenced and so local authorities would have discretion over how it is spent, leading to it potentially being used for other priorities. Others detailed challenges they experienced accessing funding through local authorities, such as with funding “gatekeepers” and lack of transparency. Overall, the evidence pointed to lack of knowledge of Community Led Local Development funding outside those directly involved, and a complicated landscape and diverging perspectives on funding generally.

Participants detailed a number of strategic benefits from the structure of Community Led Local Development funding; for example, that its flexibility allowed it to match fund effectively. There was good practice learning from the pooling of funds undertaken by some Accountable Bodies and Local Action Groups, who have developed community-facing funding portals which simplify community interactions with diverse fundings opportunities. This was noted to be a potential priority for future funding structures to reduce the burden on communities of applying to, managing and reporting on different funding streams, although as noted in Section 5.12 of the Review Report, pooling can reduce administrative transparency unless carefully managed. A transformational step would be the creation of local structures to support the pooling of Scottish, United Kingdom and private funds.

Those involved in public funding management noted that knowledge of public funding could be fragmented, without a cross-cutting or encompassing view, and without clear aims. For example:

“We're very poor at looking at the totality of public funding going into any one place, so… we end up having this very fragmented, small scale discussions about tailored funds for particular purposes and lose sight of the huge investment that's going in through councils into education or through investment in transport networks… tweaking other large-scale funds in the way they operate would have far more impact than creating what is a politically attractive, small scale dedicated fund to sort of dance around the edges for community development.” (Strategic interview)

Notably, this fragmented approach was connected by this participant to “dancing around the edges” of meaningful community development. Other participants stressed diminishing public funds, and a need for maximising impact, arguing that strategic approaches to community funds could make more of the decreasing funds available.

As already discussed, there was some evidence of a lack of knowledge about Community Led Local Development and its key principles and mode of operation amongst policy makers in other Scottish Government policy teams (i.e. beyond the rural team). This is perhaps at least in part due to its history and evolution in, and continued association with, agricultural policy, rather than within other policy domains such as community empowerment or regeneration. At a time of constrained public sector budgets and declining public sector service provision locally – and possibly with an opportunity for change after the Scottish election - there is a need for greater transparency and clarity about the funding that is available, and for different funding streams be clearly differentiated and aligned in purpose.

Recommendations

8Z. Consider further evidence gathering on, and mapping of, the different funding streams that operate at national, regional and local levels for Scotland’s rural and island communities, considering theories of change, aims, activities, evaluations, etc. This research has considered Community Led Local Development in detail. Like-for-like analysis of other funds may identify where funds overlap or duplicate, or where they are complementary and supportive, of one another. The aim of this is to enhance complementarity and coherence across community funding mechanisms to support internal and external coherence and maximise value for money for the Scottish Government.

8AA. Enhance consideration of rural expertise and funds across government community funding. For example, we note the commitment in the 2026 Democracy Matters Route Map to Reform to “learn from the Investing in Communities Fund to explore future funding options for communities” and would highlight the value of learning from Community Led Local Development, as well as potentially from other funds.

8AB. On the basis of this future evidence-gathering, there may be an argument for streamlining funding streams to maximise efficiency across community funds and improve outcomes for rural communities. Any streamlining should consider the key features and benefits of all funds involved, and look for complementarities as set out above. The evidence base collected here on fund delivery in rural areas should be a key consideration, particularly the need for revenue funding and consistent and longer-term funding arrangements, and local decision-making structures.

Responsibility: Scottish Government

8AC. We recommend sharing good practice learning and developing expertise on approaches to reduce the complexity of community funds for applicants, such as those undertaken by some Accountable Bodies. This could consider, for example, community-facing funding portals which simplify community interactions with diverse funding opportunities. It should also consider ability to replicate the combining or “pooling” of variable community funding streams into consolidated funds, which could potentially include both public and private funding (such as community benefit funds). Consolidated public and private community-controlled funds could operate as local community wealth funds. Details of community influence on and control over such a fund will be important, and there is learning from the experiences of Local Action Groups. This is an important piece of work with transformational potential which should be a priority at a strategic level for Scottish Government.

Responsibility: Scottish Government. For effective delivery, cross-cutting oversight may be needed at Cabinet Level.