Scottish Minimum Digital Living Standard: interim report

4 Support for a Scottish MDLS

This section presents the first set of findings from the stakeholder and household interviews. The section details the extent to which the idea of an MDLS for Scotland was supported by stakeholders and households.

4.1 Stakeholders

The stakeholder interviews provided significant evidence of support for the concept of a Scottish MDLS. Participants were overwhelmingly positive about the possibility of implementing a Scottish MDLS and the definition itself, reflecting on its added value and benefits. They emphasised that having an MDLS in place would raise the profile of digital inclusion across Scotland, legitimising and recognising the already undertaken digital inclusion work.

Stakeholders stated that an MDLS would aid social inclusion in terms of supporting access to opportunities and services in relation to employment, learning, and social benefits, among others. For example, as remarked by P31, a representative of a local council working on its digital strategy in Scotland:

“[A Scottish MDLS] could result in a whole range of positive benefits in terms of helping people back into work, it could [also] help with ... people learning ... from home... In terms of university, it could help with tackling ... isolation by connecting [students] with their family, friends and loved ones, support workers, etcetera.”

In relation to social benefits, P8, working for an organisation providing leisure and cultural activities, commented on how the implementation of a Scottish MDLS might help those in the community who struggle to ask for what they need and might feel that they are “getting things that they’re not eligible for [... like] a free laptop or a free mobile phone”. She went on to say that an MDLS “might go some way to addressing that stigma of people that are accessing support”. Another way in which participants felt a Scottish MDLS would benefit individuals and communities is by creating conditions that would encourage more affordability, meaning that the MDLS could provide local governments and other public bodies with a mandate for implementing new solutions designed to bring down the costs of digital access. P28, working for a charity providing culture and sports services, explained how the Scottish Government could intervene to support low-income tenants in both metropolitan and rural areas: “I would lay that at the door of the Scottish Government ... ‘what can you do to aggregate demand across the public sector to drive down home broadband prices?’”. As we have noted in other work (Tyrell et al, 2024) the current national policy tool in this space are social tariffs which have had limited uptake and are outside affordability envelopes for some households. However, we have also found that many stakeholders argue for Government and key agencies (e.g. NHS, social housing providers) to work together to lower access barriers as they all gain from households having digital access and making use of digital services.

Meanwhile, participants thought that implementing a Scottish MDLS could also better support the work of civil society organisations in digital inclusion, especially in terms of providing more stable funding (e.g., multiyear funding) and expanding their work with different communities. P25, who works at a charity providing support for people affected by displacement and exploitation, presented a scenario in which they could use the MDLS to obtain more funding to support their digital inclusion work:

“If you're in Scotland and you're seeking asylum and it was said that this was the minimum standard [... and] people were below that minimum ..., I guess we would have more [... of] a robust statement that we could stand against ... when we go looking for funding. You know, we could ... say this is the minimum standard in Scotland, and we can demonstrate to you that all of our clients on our asylum side ... don't even meet that standard.”

Relatedly, P5, a representative of a non-profit organisation delivering projects meeting the needs of marginalised communities, told us how more funding would enable them to expand their work and reach specific groups in need of support: “[If we had more funding] I would get more classes. I would get more people, and then I'll target a particular community. I'll target ... some African communities, for example, the Sudanese community”.

Besides showing support for the overall concept of a Scottish MDLS, participants were presented with the definition of the standard during the interviews, with many saying that that definition is adequate and relevant to the Scottish context. At the same time, several participants thought that the second part of the definition is particularly important, given its focus on internet safety and confidence. As remarked by P22 (a representative of a volunteer organisation), “the safety bit and the confidence, that's really important”. Equally, some participants liked that the definition includes the word “accessible”, which prompted insightful discussions around the specific meaning of this term in several contexts.

Working at a charity supporting people affected by different forms of disability, P17 discussed, for example, the dual nature of the term “accessibility” when engaging with this group. On the one hand, she raised the importance of providing and designing appropriate assistive technology for this community. As she put it: “it might be that you need a Bluetooth speaker, you need an external keyboard, you need an Apple Pencil. You need something else to be able to use [a device]. There's not a kind of one-size-fits-all solution”. On the other hand, this is a community that also has specific needs in terms of confidence, which is why “crappy tablets and other devices of poor quality or functionality (e.g., slow speed) can actually really hinder somebody's digital journey because people go ‘I'm so stupid. It takes me so long to open an app’”. By contrast, other participants considered accessibility related to the stability and (public) availability of broadband and connectivity. It follows that discussions about accessibility reveal the inherent tension in a standard like the MDLS between, on the one hand, its universal character (e.g., in terms of how to provide stable and reliable internet for all) and, on the other, the specific needs of particular groups/individuals.

4.2 Households: “Everything is going online”

Parents and young people emphasised how important it is for families to be able to participate in today’s digital world. Groups discussed the significance of recent digitalisation, and the ways this necessitated families’ digital skills and access to the digital technology and services included in MDLS. Parents and young people reflected on the changes from many services and everyday interactions moving online, including examples of a cashless and paperless society.

“Man: Everything is going online, your bank, your bus pass, I have got a season ticket for football that next year is going to become a digital wallet card, I am not going to be able to hold a physical card, everything is going online. Or if it isn’t, it is aiming that way.

Woman: Yes, I think a lot of shops now don’t allow cash, but then there is a problem right away, even gigs and things, depending if your children are going to concerts and things, I have found myself going into places and they just don’t accept cash at all.”

(Parent group, urban Scotland)

Focusing on the needs of households with children, groups often talked about the digitalisation of school, which had continued and potentially intensified since the COVID-19 pandemic, and its significance for children and families. Young people of secondary school age said that email and online platforms such as Google Classroom were the primary ways they submitted homework. Some parents also said that their primary school-age children were encouraged by schools to use eBooks rather than physical books for home reading. We asked groups about the advantages and disadvantages of digitalisation. They noted that digital resources, like eBooks, gave children instant access to a broader range of resources, and homework activities could be more engaging because technology enabled better access to different mediums of information. However, another implication of such digitalisation was that it created “an expectation that there is a device at home” (Parents group, rural Scotland). Parents reflected that, even if they were not comfortable with it, the digitalisation of school meant that digital goods and services should be considered a “need”:

“Woman 1: Need is a very strong word.

Woman 2: I feel I agree with you, but I feel like in terms of education then it has been taken out of our hands because if the children are coming home and saying well I need [a tablet] to do my work and schools are saying that we’re not giving out homework… your books are now online, your homework is online, then parents don’t have a choice, essentially.

Woman 3: You need to have broadband, you need to have…

Woman 2: It becomes a need but yes like…

Woman 1: No for sure, for sure, like my son came home saying, erm, I am not really into them spending too much time in front of screens and things, and he said no like the teacher said I have to take a picture of the homework so they have to have a phone now, but I don’t like that, I don’t think they should be… they should have to.

Woman 3: Yes, it has almost been forced upon you as a parent.

Woman 2: But that is why it is now a necessity, that list because of how…the world is now. These are now what are considered essential because if you don’t have [them] in your house your kids can’t do their homework essentially now, so it is bad I agree with you.”

(Parent group, urban Scotland)