National Islands Plan review: consultation analysis

4 The content of the current plan (Q4, Q6 and Q7)

4.1 The consultation included three questions which asked for views on various aspects of the current National Islands Plan. The first was a general question, asking for views on the contents of the plan. The second and third questions asked for views on the number of strategic objectives and commitments (respectively) in the current plan.

Question 4: What are your views on the content of the current National Islands Plan? [Positive / Negative / None]

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

Question 6: There are 13 Strategic Objectives in the current National Islands Plan. What is your opinion on the number of strategic objectives? [Just right / Too many / Too few / No opinion]

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

Question 7: There are 134 commitments in the current National Islands Plan. What is your opinion on the number of commitments? [Just right / Too many / Too few / No opinion]

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

General views on the content of the current plan (Q4)

4.2 Question 4 asked respondents to indicate whether their views on the content of the current National Islands Plan were (i) positive, (ii) negative, or (iii) none.

4.3 Table 4.1 shows that, overall, responses to this question were mixed – with 37% saying they had positive views on the content of the plan, 36% saying they had negative views and 27% saying they had no views.

4.4 Organisations (84%) were much more likely than individuals (25%) to indicate positive views. A positive view of the content of the current plan was expressed by some organisations that had previously indicated relatively little awareness of it (i.e. they said they knew ‘a little about it’ or had ‘heard of it but knew nothing of the contents’ at Question 1 – see Chapter 3). Among individuals as a group, views were mixed; however, the largest proportion of individuals (43%) had negative views on the content of the plan.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

4.5 Altogether, 131 respondents (37 organisations and 94 individuals) provided comments at Question 4.

4.6 It should be noted that:

• Some organisational respondents who selected ‘positive’ said they would have liked to choose both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’. In addition, some who selected ‘none’ or did not answer the closed question said they did so because they were unable to select both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’.
• It was very common for respondents who selected ‘positive’ (both organisations and individuals) to go on to express caveats, highlight concerns, or propose changes that they thought were needed in the next iteration of the National Islands Plan. These caveats, concerns and proposed changes overlapped substantially with the views of respondents who selected ‘negative’. Respondents who selected ‘negative’ in response to this question did not generally identify any positive aspects of the plan.

4.7 For these reasons, the figures shown in Table 4.1 should be treated with caution. For the same reasons, the analysis presented here does not compare the views of those who selected ‘positive’ with those who selected ‘negative’. Instead, it discusses what all respondents saw as the positive and negative aspects of the content of the current National Islands Plan.

4.8 Unless otherwise stated, the views discussed below were expressed by both organisations and individuals.

Positive aspects

4.9 Respondents who had positive views of the contents of the plan described it as ‘comprehensive’, ‘ambitious’, ‘effectively presented’, and ‘clear’. These respondents welcomed the plan, noting that it was informed by extensive consultation, and said that:

• Its aspirations are ‘good’, and its ambitions are ‘admirable’.
• It has helped raise awareness of the islands and their unique circumstances both within the Scottish Government and within public agencies.
• It has articulated the key challenges and opportunities for island communities and indicates a commitment by government to addressing those challenges.

4.10 Some noted that the National Islands Plan had informed the development of certain specific local island plans.

4.11 Some respondents (mainly organisations) discussed specific objectives and / or commitments made by the plan which they saw as positive. For example, different organisations commented that the plan:

• Had raised awareness of the challenges faced by island communities in accessing opportunities to participate in and attend cultural and creative activities
• Reflects the priorities of women across island communities
• Recognises the importance of the Gaelic language to many island communities, and the importance of Gaelic-speaking communities to the survival and sustainability of Gaelic in Scotland.

4.12 Other respondents also said they welcomed: (i) the prominence given to nature, (ii) the plan’s reference to aquaculture as a means for sustainable economic development, and (iii) the intended outcomes relating to sustainable transport and active travel.

Negative aspects

4.13 Respondents identified aspects of the contents of the National Islands Plan that they did not like or said they felt concerned about. These views were expressed irrespective of how respondents answered the closed part of Question 4.

4.14 Perceptions about the negative aspects of the content of the plan tended to focus on four main themes: (i) its length, style and accessibility, (ii) the need for a more localised / tailored approach, (iii) strategic objectives and commitments, and (iv) a lack of detail on how outcomes would be achieved and measured. Recurring points made in relation to each of these themes are summarised below.

Length, style and accessibility

4.15 Respondents said that:

• At over 70 pages long, the plan is too detailed and is not suitable for engaging with communities. It was suggested that (ii) a ‘tighter’ document was needed – perhaps with explanatory notes provided in a separate document, or (ii) a shorter, more user-friendly version could be produced which could sit alongside the main plan.
• The plan would benefit from using simplified language and less jargon. The language used in the document does not reflect the way people in the islands communicate.
• The plan is too ‘high-level’ and ‘strategic’; local people do not see it as relevant to them. While the plan does need to be directed at the Scottish Government and Scottish Ministers, it also needs to be able to speak to island communities, so that they know what it means for them and what they can do to help achieve the strategy.

The need for a more localised / tailored approach

4.16 The need for a more localised / island-specific approach was frequently raised. Respondents repeatedly said that:

• Where islands are concerned, one size does not fit all. The particular challenges they are facing – while similar – are not identical, and the solutions to those challenges need to be tailored to each island’s circumstances. Individual islands need to be able to identify their own priorities, which could then be connected with national outcomes.
• The content of the plan was developed through a series of workshops on the islands. This was seen to be positive, but it then failed to involve local authorities in sifting through the many ideas generated to identify the best critical path for their localities.

The strategic objectives and commitments

4.17 Questions 6 and 7 focused specifically on the number of strategic objectives and commitments in the National islands Plan. However, several respondents also focused on aspects of the objectives and commitments in their responses to Question 4 – including how many there were. Various respondents commented that:

• The plan has too many objectives and commitments, which cannot all be delivered.
• The interdependence of the strategic objectives was not clear in the plan. This should be made clearer to avoid the risk of objectives becoming rigid ‘silos’ / ‘strait jackets’.
• The objectives are ‘vague’ and ‘process-oriented’. They need to be tangible and measurable.

Lack of detail on how outcomes would be achieved and measured

4.18 This issue of ‘measurability’ was a recurring theme in the comments at Question 4 (and elsewhere in the consultation responses). Respondents repeatedly said that the plan lacks detail about how its strategic objectives and commitments would be achieved. Respondents thought that:

• The plan is not clear about how its objectives and commitments will be implemented or funded, and how outcomes will be delivered. The plan also lacks an effective performance monitoring framework.
• Many of the interventions cited in the National Islands Plan annual reports as achievements of the plan would likely have been delivered by partner agencies (national and local) whether or not a National Islands Plan existed. There needs to be a more refined reporting regime so that the contributions of the National Islands Plan and those of other national and local agencies can be distinguished.

4.19 It was also relatively common for respondents who answered ‘negative’ at Question 4 to say that the plan had not delivered on its objectives or resulted in improvements. This type of comment does not relate specifically to the content of the plan – and has already been discussed previously in Chapter 3.

Views on the number of Strategic Objectives (Q6)

4.20 The current National Islands Plan contains 13 Strategic Objectives. (See Chapter 5 for details.) Question 6 asked respondents for their opinion on the number of strategic objectives.

4.21 Table 4.2 shows that, overall, there were mixed views on this question – around a quarter (26%) said the number of strategic objectives was just right, 40% said there were too many, and 29% had no opinion on the matter. Just 5% thought there were too few strategic objectives. This view was expressed only by individual respondents; none of the organisations thought there were too few objectives. Otherwise, the pattern of responses among organisations and individuals was similar, although organisations (33%) were somewhat more likely than individuals (25%) to say that the number of strategic objectives was just right.

4.22 Among organisations, community organisations, groups and trusts were more likely than other organisations to think that the number of strategic objectives was just right (4 out 8 said this), while organisations in the ‘other organisation types’ category were more likely to say that there were too many objectives (3 out of 4 said this).

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

4.23 Altogether, 108 respondents (27 organisations and 81 individuals) commented at Question 6. The views expressed by respondents who selected each option are discussed below.

Number of strategic objectives is ‘just right’

4.24 Respondents who thought the number of strategic objectives was just right generally said that all the objectives in the current National Islands Plan were still relevant and together addressed the key challenges facing island communities. The current list of objectives was seen by this group to represent a ‘holistic approach’ to achieving sustainability in Scotland’s islands. One local authority also noted that the objectives broadly reflected the longstanding aims of public agencies involved in island life.

4.25 Some individuals commented that, while it is helpful to have strategic objectives, it is equally important to achieve them. There was a view that the current number of objectives were achievable. At the same time, there were also suggestions among this group that it may be helpful and appropriate to prioritise the objectives going forward, but there were differences in opinion about how to do this.

4.26 The views on the prioritisation of strategic objectives among those who thought the number of objectives was ‘just right’ largely reflected the views of those who thought there were ‘too many’ strategic objectives. Thus, the issue of prioritisation is discussed further below.

There are ‘too many’ strategic objectives

4.27 Respondents who thought there were too many strategic objectives suggested that the current number was detracting from the Scottish Government’s capacity to deliver the National Islands Plan. This group recognised the importance of all the current objectives and acknowledged that the list had been arrived at through extensive consultation. However, they thought it would be preferable to focus on a smaller number of key / ‘crucial’ objectives – and deliver on them – before turning to other objectives. Moreover, it was suggested that having a smaller number of objectives (a subset of the current list) would make it easier to demonstrate progress in relation to each one.

4.28 Different respondents suggested that there should be a maximum of four, five or six strategic objectives. There was also a more general suggestion that the focus should be on issues for which change will not happen without the plan.

4.29 Those who wanted to see fewer strategic objectives often made suggestions about which of the current objectives should be retained and / or prioritised. Although, there was not always agreement about what the priorities should be, housing (Objective 4), transport (Objective 3), sustainable economic development (Objective 2 – some respondents suggested referring to ‘enterprise and employment’ or, simply, ‘employment’) and digital connectivity (Objective 6) were all mentioned frequently, both by organisations and individuals. In addition, health, social care and wellbeing (Objective 7) was widely seen by individuals as a key objective.

4.30 Other respondents thought some of the existing objectives could be ‘nested’ into grouped with others. For example, there was a suggestion that Objective 5 (fuel poverty) could be incorporated into Objective 4 (housing). Others thought certain objectives could be dropped altogether – for example, one respondent thought that ‘population’ (Objective 1) should not be seen as an objective, but rather an indicator (i.e. depopulation will be reversed if other objectives are addressed and achieved). There were also suggestions among this group that Objective 13 (implementation) should not be a strategic objective.

4.31 Finally, two additional recurring views were that: (i) the current objectives could be prioritised at a local (island) level, rather than within the plan itself; and (ii) the strategic objectives should reflect or be more closely aligned to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

There are ‘too few’ strategic objectives

4.32 Just seven individuals thought the current plan had too few objectives. Of these, four offered comments, and only one provided an explanation of what additional objectives they thought were needed. However, two different respondents proposed additional objectives in their comments at Question 4, and these comments are included here.

4.33 Arguments in favour of additional objectives were made as follows:

• One individual highlighted the difficulties that many island communities have in accessing water and wastewater services, and the impact this has on the health and wellbeing of people, on the environment and on the development of communities. This respondent argued that access to safe and sufficient water and sanitation services is a precursor to improving housing, and therefore improving access to these services should be added as a separate strategic objective in any future National Islands Plan.
• One organisation and one individual thought that food and drink (and food security) were largely missing from the plan or given too little priority. These respondents suggested that food and drink should be included as a strategic objective in its own right or as a ‘cross-cutting theme’ relating to multiple objectives.

4.34 Additionally, one respondent suggested that there should be an objective to ‘protect the environment and sea from windfarms’. However, this individual’s comment was primarily an argument against the expansion of windfarms, rather than an argument in favour of additional objectives in the National Islands Plan.

‘No opinion’ on the number of strategic objectives

4.35 Respondents who said they had ‘no opinion’ on the number of objectives (and those who did not answer the closed question) made a range of comments.

4.36 Some organisations and individuals made general statements – saying the number of objectives was less important than (i) what the objectives were and (ii) ensuring they can be delivered. One local authority suggested that the number of strategic objectives should be ‘proportionate’ and reflect the needs of island communities and the plan’s commitments.

4.37 Two organisations made similar comments to those above who thought there were ‘too many’ objectives. These respondents noted that several of the objectives were dependent on the delivery of others. They went on to highlight what they saw as key objectives (a subset of the current ones) or to suggest a ‘clustering’ or grouping of objectives. Both these organisations thought a smaller set of more focused objectives could be considered. One referred to the Irish Islands Action Plan, suggesting that the type of integrated approach used in this plan may be of relevance in Scotland.

Number of commitments (Q7)

4.38 The current National Islands Plan contains 134 commitments. Question 7 asked respondents for their opinion on the number of commitments.

4.39 Table 4.3 shows that, overall, more than half of respondents (55%) thought the current plan had too many commitments. Fewer than one in ten (8%) thought the number of commitments was just right, and 5% thought there were too few commitments. A third of respondents (33%) had no opinion on the matter.

4.40 Organisations (64%) were more likely than individuals (52%) to say there were too many commitments. A large majority of (i) local authorities and public bodies (8 out of 13), (ii) community organisations / groups (5 out of 6), and (iii) organisations in the ‘other organisation type’ category (4 out of 4) thought there were too many commitments in the current National Islands Plan. However, all the third sector, charities and membership bodies organisations that answered this question said they had no opinion on the matter.

4.41 Of the 7 respondents who thought there were too few commitments, all were individuals.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

4.42 Altogether, 100 respondents (29 organisations and 71 individuals) provided comments at Question 7. The views expressed by respondents who selected each option are discussed below.

Number of commitments is ‘just right’

4.43 Of the 12 respondents who indicated that the number of commitments was just right, four (two public bodies and two individuals) provided further comments. Each of these comments were distinct; the only common theme (in two of them) was the importance of monitoring progress in carrying out the commitments.

4.44 Local authorities and public bodies noted that the National Islands Plan needs to be comprehensive in its scope and each of its strategic objectives should be linked to appropriate commitments. However, they also thought it was important to resource, make progress on, and monitor the delivery of the commitments.

4.45 The individuals commented that:

• Information should be provided about how the commitments will be met.
• The current number of commitments is aspirational (which was seen as positive) but should be (or are likely to be) revised following (the current) consultation.

There are ‘too many’ commitments

4.46 More than half of respondents thought there were too many commitments in the current National Islands Plan. In general, this group thought it would be better to prioritise – and deliver on – fewer commitments.

4.47 While there was a view that some of the current commitments were ‘vague’ or ‘too general’, there was also a contrasting view that the current set of commitments was ‘comprehensive’, ‘well thought out’ and ‘evidence-based’. However, the large number of commitments had raised expectations among island communities, and respondents questioned whether they all could be reasonably delivered, or even monitored, within the resources available. Several individuals suggested the current list represented a ‘wish list’ rather than a set of deliverable commitments.

4.48 The point was also made that some of the commitments were not relevant to all island communities. For example, the focus on Gaelic and crofting was not perceived as relevant to the Northern Isles.

4.49 Respondents often had very specific ideas about how the current list of commitments could be reduced. Some respondents argued that there should be no more than five key actions for each strategic objective. Two other public sector organisations noted that:

• Some commitments do not relate to specific outcomes – for example, they express an intention to create an action plan for outcomes that are still to be determined.
• Some commitments are statutory obligations that would happen anyway.
• Some commitments relate to national programmes or policy initiatives that were already underway when the plan was published and thus do not represent anything new or additional.
• Some commitments involve ‘working with’ other organisations or stakeholders, or they refer to work being carried out by other organisations. Again, it is not clear whether such commitments were bringing anything additional to this ongoing work.

4.50 These two organisations suggested that all of these kinds of commitments should be removed, thus leading to tighter focus on work that would not otherwise happen without the National Islands Plan. Other respondents echoed this view.

There are ‘too few’ commitments

4.51 Seven individuals indicated that they thought there were too few commitments in the current plan. Only four of these provided further comments, and only one expanded on their view that there were too few commitments, by suggesting that the current number of commitments was ‘a start’.^[2]

‘No opinion’ on the number of commitments

4.52 Respondents who said they had no opinion on the number of commitments (and those who did not answer the closed question) made a range of comments.

4.53 In general, individuals expressed the view that delivering on the commitments was more important than the number of commitments. These respondents wanted to see actions with measurable results. Organisations – and particularly the community organisations – often echoed this view.

4.54 Occasionally, organisations said that the current commitments remain relevant and reflect ambition. Some organisations that did not answer the tick-box question suggested that the number of commitments should simply be ‘proportionate’, ‘informed by feedback from the consultation’ and ‘deliverable’ within the context of the plan and the available resources.