Islands Bond: consultation responses analysis

2. Description of the responses and respondents

2.1 This chapter provides information about the responses and the respondents.

Number of responses received, and number included in the analysis

2.2 The consultation received 1,661 responses. Of these, the vast majority (1,656) were submitted electronically through the Scottish Government's online response form. Five (5) responses were submitted by email.

2.3 Upon examination of the responses, 7 respondents were found to have submitted more than one response to the consultation. Three (3) respondents had submitted identical duplicates, and 4 respondents had submitted two different responses. The 3 duplicate responses were removed. Multiple different responses from the same respondent were combined to create a single amalgamated response. In these cases, where the respondent's answers to the closed questions were different in their two responses, the later answers (based on the time and date of their two submissions) were retained for the amalgamated response. This process resulted in the removal of 7 responses.

2.4 Thus, the analysis was based on 1,654 responses. Table 2.1 provides a summary of this process

2.5 Of the total 1,654 responses included in the analysis, 69 were written in languages other than English. Specifically, 65 responses were in Spanish, 3 in Gaelic, 1 in German, and 1 in Italian. A further eight responses used a combination of Spanish and English. All of these responses were translated into English by the Scottish Government and / or the analytical team and the analysis was based on the English translations.

Description of the respondents

2.6 Table 2.2 shows that responses were submitted by 1,615 individuals and 39 organisations.

2.7 Table 2.3 shows that a third of organisational responses (33%) were submitted by community groups and community trusts. Just under a quarter (23%) came from public organisations, including local authorities and NHS boards, and a further quarter (23%) were from third sector organisations, charities, and membership bodies. The remaining organisational responses (around 20%) were submitted by other types of organisations. Annex 2 contains a list of the organisations which took part in the consultation.

* Includes hospitality and tourism organisations, educational organisations, and cultural organisations.

2.8 The consultation (Question 2) asked respondents if they lived in a Scottish island location, and if, so, which island or island group they lived on. ^[4] Table 2.4 shows that, overall, 42% of respondents lived (or were based) in island communities and 58% were not. However, there was a difference in the distribution of island residents among individuals and organisations. Among individual respondents, 41% lived in island communities. By contrast, most of the organisational respondents (74%) were located in island communities. ^[5]

2.9 Table 2.5 provides information about the island locations of the individual respondents who said they lived in island communities. This shows that the largest proportions of individual respondents were from Lewis and Harris (29%), followed by the Argyll Islands (22%) and Uist and Barra (13%).

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

2.10 Table 2.6 provides information on place of residence for individual respondents who did not live on the islands. This shows that just over half (53%) of non-island individual respondents lived on the Scottish mainland. A further 13% were from elsewhere in the United Kingdom (RUK) and 9% were from overseas. A quarter (25%) of non-island respondents provided no further information (such as a postcode) to allow their residence status to be determined. This latter group includes respondents who did not answer Question 2 of the consultation. The location of these respondents is shown as 'Unknown' in the table below. ^[6]

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Response rates for individual questions

2.11 Respondents did not necessarily reply to all the questions in the consultation. However, the response rates for individual questions were relatively high. Where a question had both a closed (tick-box) and open component, the response rate was higher for the closed part of the question.

2.12 Among island respondents, the response rates were highest for the closed part of Question 5 (What do you think should be the priority focus for the Islands Bond?) and Question 7 (Do you agree that there would be a need for an advisory service to support those relocating to island communities?). Both these questions were answered by 98% of island respondents. However, Question 1 (What are your initial thoughts about the Islands Bond criteria?) and Question 3 (If you are a resident of an island, what are the significant population challenges in your area and why?) were both open questions which also had very high response rates – 97% in both cases. Among island respondents, the lowest response rate was for the open part of Question 5 (priority focus for the Islands Bond); comments were offered at this question by just 40% of islanders.

2.13 There was a similarly high response rate among non-island respondents, with several of the same questions as above attracting the highest level of response among this group, too. In particular, the closed parts of Questions 7 and 5 received the highest level of responses (99% and 98% respectively), and 97% of non-islanders addressed Question 1 (an open question). Questions with the lowest response rates among this group were those which were addressed specifically to islanders – i.e. Question 3 (as above) and Question 4 (If you are a resident of an island, are there any particular demographics underrepresented in your area that you think the Islands Bond should target?) These questions were answered by 24% and 29% of non-islanders. However, the lowest response rate (23%) was for the open component of Question 5 (What do you think should be the priority focus for the Islands Bond?)

2.14 Full details of the response rates for individual questions are provided in Annex 3 of this report.