Transport Just Transition Plan: Consultation Analysis

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

In the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, the Scottish Government committed to a net zero carbon emissions target by 2045. The Act represents a legal commitment to just transition principles, committing the Scottish Government to deliver a just transition which ensures that change happens in a fair and planned way, and which leaves no one behind.

A Just Transition Commission was established in 2019 to provide ongoing independent scrutiny and advice on the journey to reaching net zero. Following the Commission’s 2021 report, the Scottish Government committed to a Planning Framework and the co-design of Just Transition Plans for specific high emitting industries. In 2023, the Scottish Government published a discussion paper on a just transition for the transport sector, followed by an extensive public participation programme to consider priority areas.

Informed by this earlier work, the Scottish Government developed a draft Transport Just Transition Plan, which was subject to a public consultation to gather feedback.

1.2 The Public Consultation

The public consultation was available via Citizen Space (the Scottish Government’s online consultation portal), and was open for twelve weeks, from 24 February to the 19 May 2025. It was structured around five key sections, including:

• The draft vision and outcomes for transport;
• People and communities;
• Workers;
• Businesses and organisations; and
• Monitoring and reporting.

Feedback was sought across 17 questions, including a mix of multiple-choice, open-ended, and some follow-up questions.

In addition, a number of engagement events were held across the country in order to facilitate discussion and gather qualitative feedback about the draft plan and proposals. These events were typically hosted by public and third sector partner organisations in order to target the views of particular stakeholder groups (such as equality groups, transport workers, and different business sectors).

In May 2025, Wellside Research Ltd. was commissioned to undertake independent analysis of the consultation responses, the findings from which are presented here.

1.3 Profile of Respondents

Overall, 126 written responses were received. Of these, 99 responses were submitted via Citizen Space, and 27 were received by email and post. However, three respondents submitted feedback both by Citizen Space and email/post. In two cases, the information was collated into a single response for each respondent. In the third case, the email/postal response was categorised as event feedback.

The cleaned dataset contained a total of 123 written responses (once the duplicates and event data had been extracted). This included 55 (45%) individuals and 68 (55%) organisations.

In addition, 10 sets of summary notes from engagement events held by trusted messenger organisations were provided for analysis. However, not all outlined the number of engagement events that had taken place, or the number of people who had attended or contributed, so it was not possible to identify the total number of contributors. From the information that was available, over 266 people attended engagement events (mostly focus groups), and over 200 people responded to a survey which contributed to this feedback.

Finally, 12 reports from the previous public participation programme (conducted in 2023) were included in the analysis for comparison purposes. This included over 100 online or in-person events, with around 1,000 attendees in total. The events sought to identify areas of priority for the Just Transition Plans and included consideration of transport.

More details of the respondent profile can be found in Appendix A, and details of the previous public participation reports can be found in Appendix B.

1.4 Caveats and Reporting Conventions

Where feedback differed between respondent groups this is identified and outlined in the narrative of the report, however, this tends to be limited to individuals versus organisations, and on occasion, to organisational sector. Due to the small sample sizes among some groups, it was difficult to identify any common themes within these groups. In addition, many topics were discussed across organisational sectors and geographic regions rather than being specific to any one group.

While only a small number of individuals were located in or represented remote, rural and island areas, feedback was received on issues affecting these areas from a wider range of respondents, including several organisations. Similarly, those in remote, rural and island areas discussed the proposals more generally, not always adopting a local perspective. As such, it should be noted that feedback focused on remote, rural and island areas includes the views of those not based there. Meanwhile, feedback relevant to Scotland as a whole or specific demographic groups, includes views from those in remote, rural and island locations.

In relation to the engagement events, participants were not asked to consider the full set of questions from the main consultation. A smaller number of key questions were asked in order to gather feedback on the different sections. In addition, the questions asked in engagement events were not always worded in the same way as the main consultation document. The difference in wording means there may have been a slight difference in the focus of the questions or in the way they were interpreted. This difference needs to be borne in mind when considering and comparing the results. Due to these differences, the engagement events feedback has been reported under separate dedicated coverage within each chapter below.

When considering the previous participation reports, it should be noted that the topics and questions related to transport were not consistent with the current consultation questions, so direct comparisons were not possible. Rather the results represent a high level and general comparison of the main findings.

Tables outlining the results of the quantitative questions are provide at Appendix C. These have been rounded to add to 100% where necessary. As such, the value with the largest/smallest decimal places were rounded up/down as required. Where this was not possible, e.g. where more than one value had equally high/low decimal places, these values have been shown at either one or two decimal places (as appropriate). Where charts do not add to 100%, the missing values represent those who answered ‘don’t know’.

While quantitative data were analysed at the disaggregate level for individuals versus organisations, it has not been included in this report due to the small number of respondents per group. These results did show, however, that organisations were generally more supportive of the proposals overall, but were also more likely to indicate that there were gaps in the proposals compared to individuals. Disaggregation was not undertaken at the organisational sector level due to the small numbers involved across most of the categories.

It should be noted that one written response was received from the Just Transition Commission. This body was established to provide advice to the Scottish Government on delivering the just transition, and receives funding to support this. Their response has been treated in the same way and analysed alongside all other responses. However, feedback from this organisation has been attributed to them (with their permission) rather than treated anonymously.

Where qualitative data is presented, topics and bullet point lists are generally set out in frequency based order. As such, the issues discussed most often are presented first, with other issues considered in order of decreasing frequency. In addition, descriptive terms have been used throughout this report to provide an indication of how frequently issues were discussed by respondents. These include:

• Most - roughly 75% of respondents or more;
• Many - roughly 40% of respondents or more;
• Some - less than most/many but more than several;
• Several - less than some but more than a few, generally no more than 10; and
• A few - the smallest number of respondents, up to around five.

Finally, the findings here reflect only the views of those who chose to respond to this consultation. It should be noted that respondents to a consultation are a self-selecting group. The findings should not, therefore, be considered as representative of the views of the wider population.