National Islands Plan review: consultation analysis

3 Awareness and perceived effects of the current plan (Q1–Q3)

3.1 The consultation contained three questions inviting respondents to indicate and discuss the extent to which they were aware of the current National Islands Plan, whether it had an effect on their lives, and the nature of that effect.

Question 1: How much would you say you know about the current National Islands Plan? [Nothing at all / I have heard of it but know nothing about the content / I know a little about it / I know a lot about it]

Question 2: Has the current National Islands Plan affected your life in any way? [Yes / No / Don’t know]

Please feel free to expand on your answer in the box below.

Question 3: Has the effect of the current National Islands Plan on your life been positive, negative or not at all? [Positive / Negative / It has not affected my life]

Please feel free to expand on your answer in the box below.

Awareness of the National Islands Plan (Q1)

3.2 Question 1 asked respondents to indicate how much they knew about the current National Islands Plan. This was a closed question with no space for comments.

3.3 Table 3.1 shows that, overall, around half of all respondents (52%) knew a little about the current National Islands Plan and a fifth (21%) knew a lot about it. However, around a quarter indicated low awareness of the current plan: 15% said they knew nothing about it, and 12% said they had heard of it but knew nothing of its content.

3.4 All but one of the organisational respondents indicated that they knew a little or a lot about the current plan. By contrast, awareness among individuals was more variable: although two-thirds of individuals said they either knew a little (55%) or a lot (11%) about the current plan, a third said they had either heard of it but knew nothing of its content (14%) or knew nothing at all about it (19%).

3.5 Among organisations, local authorities and other public bodies were most likely to have a high level of awareness of the current plan, with nearly all of this group (12 out of 13) saying that they knew a lot about it.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Effect of the current plan on people’s lives (Q2)

3.6 Question 2 asked respondents if the current National Islands Plan had affected their life in any way.

3.7 Table 3.2 shows there were mixed views in response to this question with 28% answering ‘yes’, 31% answering ‘no’ and 42% answering ‘don’t know’.

3.8 Among the organisations that answered this question, around a third (35%) answered ‘yes’, a third (35%) answered ‘no’ and a third (30%) answered ‘don’t know’. Among individuals, the largest proportion of respondents (42%) said ‘don’t know’, while 26% said ‘yes’ and 30% said ‘no’.

3.9 Among organisational respondents, local authorities and other public bodies were most likely to say that the current plan had had an effect on them, with two-thirds of this group (4 out of 6) answering ‘yes’ to this question. However, community organisations, groups and trusts were more likely than other organisations to say that the plan had had no effect on them, with more than half (5 out of 9) answering ‘no’.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

3.10 Note that this closed question had a very low response from organisations – in particular, from (i) local authorities and public bodies (6 out of 16 answered the question) and (ii) third sector organisations, charities and membership bodies (4 out of 9 answered the question). The wording of this question may have suggested to these respondents that it was not relevant to or intended for them. Additionally, comments from organisations that did answer the question suggested that it was answered in different ways – with some respondents discussing the perceived effects on their island communities, and others talking about the effects on their organisation. Given the potentially different interpretations of this question, the figures shown for organisations in Table 3.2 should be treated with caution.

3.11 Altogether, 148 respondents (22 organisations and 126 individuals) provided comments at Question 2.

3.12 Respondents who answered ‘yes’ to this question often went on to discuss how they were affected by the plan. Such comments were generally framed in terms of the positive or negative effects of the plan on island life, rather than the effects on the life of the respondent. Moreover, there was a great deal of overlap between these comments and those subsequently made at Question 3, which asked about whether the effect of the current plan had been positive or negative. Therefore, most of these types of comments are discussed together with those made at Question 3. The discussion here focuses on more general points made by those who answered ‘yes’, together with the comments made by respondents who answered ‘no’ or ‘don’t know’ at Question 2.

Views of those who thought the plan had affected their life

3.13 Respondents who thought the National Islands Plan had affected their life made a range of points, and the views of organisations were often different from those of individuals. In particular, organisations answering ‘yes’ at Question 2 generally went on to discuss positive effects, whereas individuals who answered ‘yes’ often highlighted negative effects.^[1] As mentioned above, the positive and negative effects of the plan will be discussed together with other similar comments at Question 3.

3.14 More generally, some organisations and individuals noted that the plan had given them an opportunity to participate in its delivery – either (i) at a national level, through the National Islands Delivery Group, the Islands Strategic Group or other groups linked to implementation of the National Islands Plan, or (ii) at a local level by applying for and receiving funding available under the Islands Programme, which supports delivery of the plan for local improvement activities and initiatives. Some organisational respondents said they had appreciated and benefited from working more closely with the Scottish Government Islands Team to implement the plan in their area. Some individuals said they had become involved in developing a local island plan for their own community using the National Islands Plan as a framework. Both organisations and individuals said they thought the National Islands Plan had raised (their) awareness of the specific issues affecting island communities in Scotland, and that it had also brought about a greater focus on addressing these issues.

Views of those who thought the plan had not affected their life

3.15 In general, respondents who indicated that the National Islands Plan had not affected their life did so because they perceived ‘no improvements’ in their area. Many referred to a perceived lack of improvement – or even deterioration – in transport services, availability of affordable housing, fuel poverty, educational standards, and / or digital connectivity. Concerns about continued population decline (and / or large influxes of people of retirement age) were also raised.

Views of those who did not know if the plan had affected their life

3.16 Respondents – and particularly organisations – who said they did not know if the plan had affected their life made several points:

• There was a common view that the plan had successfully identified the key challenges for island communities, but there was less certainty about whether the plan had led to improved outcomes.
• In terms of any local improvements made during the period of the plan, some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the contribution made by the National Islands Plan and the contributions made by other agencies.
• Others suggested that any effect the plan may have had was unclear because of other factors including the Covid pandemic and Brexit.
• It was acknowledged that some island communities / organisations received funding for projects through the plan and there may, therefore, be greater awareness of the impact of the plan among individuals involved in these communities or organisations. However, it was thought that most island residents would be unaware of such projects, or unaware that they were a result of funding under the National Islands Plan.

3.17 Individual respondents who did not know if the plan had affected their lives generally highlighted their lack of awareness of the plan – which meant they did not know what effect it may have had. However, some who answered ‘don’t know’ at Question 2 (like those who answered ‘no’) pointed to a perceived lack of improvement (or a deterioration) in key aspects of island life – particularly in relation to transport, fuel poverty, population growth, digital connection, road infrastructure, etc.

3.18 Occasionally, respondents who did not know if the plan had affected their life suggested that some of what was in the plan was not relevant for their own island community. These respondents called for (i) improved communication about the plan, and (ii) a greater focus on the specific needs of their island community.

Nature of the effect on people’s lives (Q3)

3.19 Question 3 asked respondents about the nature of the effect of the current plan on their lives – specifically, whether it had been positive or negative, or whether it had had no effect.

3.20 Table 3.3 shows that around one in six respondents (16%) said the effect of the current plan on their life had been positive and around a quarter (27%) said it had been negative. However, more than half (56%) said the plan had not affected their life at all.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

3.21 Organisations (50%) were more likely than individuals (10%) to say the plan had had a positive effect. By contrast, individuals were more likely than organisations to say it had had a negative effect (32% compared to 4%). Individuals (58%) were also more likely than organisations (46%) to say the plan had not affected their life in any way.

3.22 Among the organisations that answered this question, respondents were largely split between those who said the effect of the plan had been positive (12 out of 24), and those who said it had had no effect (11 out of 24). Just one organisational respondent (in the community organisation, groups and trusts category) said the effect of the plan had been negative.

3.23 Note that, as with Question 2, this closed question had a very low response from organisations – in particular, from (i) local authorities and public bodies (9 out of 16 answered the question) and (ii) third sector organisations, charities, and membership bodies (2 out of 9 answered the question). These organisations may not have seen the question as being relevant to or intended for them. Thus, the figures shown in Table 3.3 for organisations need to be treated with caution.

3.24 Altogether, 116 respondents (25 organisations and 91 individuals) commented at Question 3. The discussion below also includes comments made at Question 2 which referred to positive or negative effects of the National Islands Plan.

Positive effects

3.25 Both organisations and individuals who thought the plan had had a positive effect made a range of points, including that the plan had:

• Led to a ‘much-needed’ focus on the significant challenges facing Scotland’s islands which may otherwise have gone unrecognised and unaddressed
• Provided a framework which could be referred to (nationally and locally) when developing policy and planning infrastructure improvements in island communities
• Helped inform (and gave an impetus to) the development of local island plans in some areas, and led to the creation of local steering groups to take forward the priorities of individual island communities
• Provided data that were used to develop performance indicators for local island plans
• Provided funding to island communities for a range of initiatives to address local priorities, including for infrastructure development and pilot projects (examples included a Net Zero pilot scheme, and a Skills Initiative pilot)
• Provided crisis funding after the Covid pandemic (through the Islands Cost Crisis Emergency Fund)
• Provided funding to support community-based officers to take forward activities.

3.26 However, some of the points made at Question 3 were more specific to particular types of respondents. For example:

• Some local authority respondents highlighted the importance of the plan in enabling them to build relationships with key island partners, stakeholders and anchor organisations – and to work together towards better outcomes in local island communities.
• One third sector respondent thought the plan had led to a more inclusive approach to developing transport in the islands – which had, in their view, been beneficial for disabled people.
• Some individuals focused on quite specific positive changes which they attributed to the plan. These included improvements in broadband / digital connectivity in their areas, funding / support for local housing projects or other specific developments (e.g. redevelopment of a local college), and the provision of free bus travel for young people.

3.27 However, among those who identified positive effects, there was also a recurring view that there was ‘still a long way to go’ before it could be said that the National Islands Plan was fully addressing the significant challenges island communities continue to face. The point was made that having a strategy does not automatically result in change. There was a view that the links between strategy and action need to be clearer in the future.

Negative effects

3.28 As Table 3.3 showed, those who thought the National Islands Plan had had a negative effect were mainly individuals, with just one organisation sharing this view. This group of respondents repeatedly made the following two broad points:

• There had been no improvement to the quality of life of (most) islanders during the period of the plan. Respondents pointed to a lack of positive change (or a deterioration) in relation to depopulation, fuel poverty, digital connectivity, housing, availability of economic opportunities, educational attainment, health and social care services, environmental protection, and ferry services. Some suggested that island communities felt less empowered than they had been previously.
• The publication of the plan had raised expectations but had not delivered on them. There was a view that it had been largely ignored by some local authorities. Some respondents thought it had not contributed anything tangible to their island community. Others who saw a negative effect from the plan nevertheless were able to identify specific changes in their areas which they thought had been funded by the plan, but they did not think such changes were significant, substantial or widespread enough to attribute an overall positive effect to the plan.

3.29 Additionally, some respondents expressed frustration that island communities had received little benefit – in terms of fuel costs – from the expansion of windfarms in the islands. Others perceived an over-emphasis on tourism to the detriment of local residents.

3.30 However, one respondent in this group suggested that, while the situation in one group of islands in the west of Scotland had worsened over the past few years, this was not necessarily the fault of the National Islands Plan.

No effects

3.31 Table 3.3 showed that around half of organisations and more than half of individuals thought the National Islands Plan had had no effect. The views of these respondents are presented below. It should be noted that some of the organisations that perceived ‘no effect’ were national membership organisations. In most cases, these respondents reported that their members, living in island communities, had very little awareness of the plan.

3.32 Local authorities and other public bodies often commented that there were many ways in which their island communities had benefited from the National Islands Plan, but they suggested that it was unlikely that local residents were aware of the plan’s purpose or would associate specific positive changes with the plan. Some in this group also suggested that local changes supported by the plan may have been delivered regardless.

3.33 This view was largely echoed by community organisations, groups and trusts and organisations in the ‘other organisation types’ category who perceived little significant progress in addressing the ‘big ticket items’ which affect islanders and island economies. One organisational respondent commented that it is difficult to determine the measures of success of the plan, since so many of its objectives will require investment over years to address.

3.34 There were several recurring points made by individuals:

• Some said they had been unaware of the plan and therefore did not know what, if any, effects it may have had.
• Others said no changes had occurred in relation to the challenges faced by island communities. These respondents highlighted the same issues raised by those who thought the plan had had a negative effect.
• Some said that the plan appeared to be good but, in their view, it had been widely ignored by public bodies that should have had a role in delivering it – and therefore it had not achieved its objectives.

3.35 Some respondents in this group were aware of funding provided under the plan for local projects, but they did not think the plan had had an effect on their own life. Other respondents expressed support for the Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) concept, but thought such assessments were not routinely done by local authorities – or were not done correctly – and therefore, policy decisions affecting island communities continued to be made from the ‘top down’ without input from local residents. This issue is discussed further in Chapter 5.