Scottish Government

CHAPTER THREE DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Jurors' perceptions of the Scottish Executive

3.1 To understand more about the main influences on attitudes towards the Scottish Executive and levels of trust in it, we examined jurors' understanding and perception of the Scottish Executive, and in the context of and compared to other governmental bodies.

3.2 When asked specifically about the 'Scottish Executive', levels of awareness about its roles and responsibilities varied greatly between jurors. Many jurors knew little about the 'Scottish Executive', and a few had not heard of the 'Scottish Executive' and had no idea what it did. Jurors confused it with other governmental bodies. Consequently, they had few or no expectations of the 'Scottish Executive' itself.

3.3 We found that jurors generally did not hold the Scottish Executive in high regard, particularly at the Jury's outset when jurors were asked for their spontaneous views. However, few could cite specific negative influences on these views (other than the cost of the Scottish Parliament building and the recent problems with the building). Rather, these negative perceptions generally appeared to be related to the work and policies of other governmental bodies ( e.g. Scottish Parliament, local government in Scotland, Westminster Parliament, Whitehall, etc.). The majority of jurors did not differentiate the work of the Scottish Executive from these other governmental bodies.

3.4 These findings have a number of implications for the Scottish Executive:

• Jurors did not trust the political process and politicians in general, but there was little evidence to suggest that the Scottish Executive had done anything specifically to fuel such perceptions
  • However, the process of deliberation challenged jurors' perceptions and relationship with the Scottish Executive and engaged them with its issues
  • The findings suggest that knowledge and understanding of the government in Scotland could be improved through more communication of activities and policies. This may foster greater engagement with devolved government in Scotland
• Low levels of awareness of the Scottish Executive among some jurors led to the perception that it was either 'a closed shop' or a poor communicator
  • The Phillis Review Group conclusion that modern government should be based on openness, not secrecy, remains highly relevant in Scotland
• Negative perceptions of other governmental bodies also clearly affected perceptions of the Scottish Executive
  • Consequently, this may limit the ability of Scottish Executive to increase public trust and confidence in itself, its policies and work.

3.5 In contrast, those who held more positive views attributed these more directly to Scottish Executive policies and activities. For example, jurors thought the Scottish Executive had succeeded in running successful mass media campaigns (especially One Scotland No Place for Racism, and Healthier Scotland Healthy Living campaigns) and in launching three iconic policies for Scotland (including the ban on smoking in public places, free personal care for people over 65, and no tuition fees for Scottish students attending Scottish universities).

3.6 However, only a minority of jury members built such positive links between the Scottish Executive and its work; mainly participants who were more politically engaged and more likely to consume national Scottish news and current affairs media. Others neither built such links nor cared about the provenance of such campaigns, policy and work provided the Scottish Executive did their job effectively. This view was challenged through the deliberative process.

3.7 For example, at the start of the Jury, many participants could not see how the work of the Scottish Executive was relevant to them or why they would ever want a direct relationship with the organisation. Jurors' limited knowledge of the Scottish Executive's roles and responsibilities reinforced this view. As a result of the Jury, many jurors were surprised how little they knew about the Scottish Executive and how ill-informed their views of the Executive were given its direct influence on their lives. Almost all agreed that the Scottish Executive's policy and work was essential for the future of Scotland, their own community, and their own household. Consequently, they considered it essential to know what the Scottish Executive was both doing and planning to do in the future. All wanted greater dialogue between the Scottish Executive and Scottish people. All called for greater investment in political education for both young people and the voting population alike.

3.8 Jurors particularly commented on the fact that Scottish Executive staff were impartial and not political appointments. Many jurors were not aware of this nor were they aware of the civil service's role. As such jurors thought it was particularly important to convey this role to Scottish people, to build trust in the civil service. This would appear to support the Phillis Review Group conclusion that an impartial civil service plays an important role in building trust in government communications, and modern Government should stress the Civil Service's political neutrality.

Communications and perceptions of the Scottish Executive

3.9 The deliberative research conducted for the Phillis Review Group showed that people trusted direct messages that they received from sources perceived to be close to home ( i.e. me and mine) ⁶ more than other communications, especially those filtered by the media, etc.

3.10 The Jury findings showed that trust in information sources about the Scottish Executive varied, however jurors were more likely to trust local or Scottish media and sources that were closer to them. Unsurprisingly, jurors tended to trust the media sources they consumed more than other sources. When prompted, jurors stated they were more likely to trust national Scottish news and current affairs media, compared to UK media because of its Scottish perspective. While jurors made prompted rather than spontaneous references to national Scottish news and current affairs media, the higher levels of trust in national Scottish news and current affairs media (compared to UK media) make it a particularly influential factor in determining views on government.

3.11 Across platforms, jurors perceived TV news and current affairs programmes as more impartial than press and therefore more trustworthy. However they also thought that TV news and current affairs programmes sometimes skewed public perceptions by being negative in their coverage of Scottish Executive and associated public services issues. The programmes were thought to be combative in their contact with ministers and other politicians (although this was more commonly associated with national UK news and UK Government ministers). Jurors thought that the national Scottish (and some more local) press were politically biased. They trusted 'their newspaper' but were less likely to trust newspapers in general as an information source. Jurors recognised it was difficult for them to get a balanced view on the work of the Scottish Executive.

3.12 We identified six main drivers of perceptions towards the Scottish Executive. Each one is considered below.

The role of national UK news and current affairs media

3.13 There was perceived to be little coverage of Scottish issues on national UK news and current affairs media (in particular TV and radio; few jurors read national UK newspapers, broadsheet or tabloid). The national UK news and current affairs did little to enable jurors to better differentiate between the Scottish Executive and other governmental bodies. However much of the cynicism expressed by jurors about government and its ministers was directed at the UK government and not the Scottish Executive. As such, we believe national UK news and current affairs media ( TV and radio) has considerable influence over the overall climate of opinion about both politics and political processes (which includes the Scottish Executive as jurors did not differentiate between it and other governmental bodies).

The role of national Scottish news and current affairs media

3.14 National Scottish news and current affairs media enabled jurors to differentiate between the Scottish Executive and other governmental bodies. For example, those jurors who consumed national Scottish news and current affairs media were more likely to be able to differentiate between the Scottish Executive and other governmental bodies (especially national Scottish broadsheet readers). As described before, jurors who did consume national Scottish news and current affairs media, also tended to be more politically engaged and they were already interested in what the Scottish Executive does and how well it does it.

3.15 Such jurors valued and perceived the information they received from national Scottish news and current affairs media as independent. They generally welcomed media scrutiny of the Scottish Executive and its ministers as an effective way of holding the organisation to account. However, there was also concern about the perceived negative focus of national Scottish news and current affairs media. Those who were engaged with national Scottish news and current affairs media would like to see more balanced coverage (in terms of positive and negative news stories). ⁷ Following the Jury's deliberations, the call for more balanced coverage was supported by all jurors, including those who were less engaged with national Scottish news and current affairs media at the outset.

3.16 Across platforms, National Scottish news and current affairs coverage appeared to be the main information source about the Scottish Executive. Scottish TV and radio news and current affairs broadcasting were considered more trustworthy than Scottish newspapers. Jurors considered TV and radio news less partisan than newspapers, with newspapers thought to have a political bias or editorial slant. As such many thought newspapers were in principle less trustworthy than TV news.

3.17 Overall, the Scottish Executive was perceived to have little control over what was reported and how it was covered by journalists nationally and locally. Media spin was a concern, but there were no references to government spin. However, jurors thought more could still be done in Scotland to ensure widespread understanding of government policies and work.

3.18 An in-depth understanding of who consumes what media and how media consumption affects perceptions of the Scottish Executive is clearly vital to the future effectiveness of its communications strategy. Therefore, the Scottish Executive may also wish to consider supplementing the qualitative findings from the Citizens' Jury with analysis to quantify:

• How different sectors of the population consume different news and current affairs media (men and women, different socio-economic groups, different geographic locations in particular urban and rural, and different ethnic groups)
• The correlation between news and current affairs media consumption and awareness and perceptions of the Scottish Executive (including levels of trust).

The role of local news and current affairs sources

3.19 Local news and current affairs media (radio and press) were particularly trusted, with most jurors consuming local media either on its own or alongside national media. These sources were perceived as part of the local community and as having less of an agenda than national media. Jurors found it easier to relate to local stories, which were perceived to provide a more relevant and meaningful point of connection for people than national coverage, which could be perceived as remote and inaccessible.

3.20 Jurors still did not see local news and current affairs as a source of information about the Scottish Executive, both before and after deliberation. However, its reporting of local public services issues clearly influenced how the Scottish Executive or Scottish Government, which oversees such services, was seen as performing. Consequently, local news and current affairs media provided an important way of engaging jurors with Scottish Executive policies and work. The Scottish Executive may wish to explore opportunities to work with local news and current affairs sources to aid this engagement.

The role of ministers and other politicians

3.21 As wider Opinion Leader Research work highlights, the way ministers and other politicians behave influences perceptions of, and trust and confidence in, government and politics. A few of the jury were actively engaged with the detail of government policy and work. A few were actively interested in the detail of what ministers had to say ( i.e. those who were already politically engaged and who consumed national Scottish news and current affairs media).

3.22 Others thought ministers spoke their own language, were focused on staying in power, and therefore might conceal the truth to maintain power. They tended only to engage with headlines, e.g. when ministers were sacked for poor performance or sleaze allegations. Again, it is worth bearing in mind that much of the cynicism was directed at the UK rather than Scottish government.

3.23 However, jurors were often surprised how relevant, accessible, and interesting interviews with Scottish Executive ministers were when they were given the opportunity to read them during the jury. Consequently, there may well be scope for greater engagement with such sectors of the population ( e.g. via local media, deliberative events, etc) by making use of this material as part of a balanced conversation with the Scottish Executive.

3.24 Following deliberation, jurors said they wanted the Scottish Executive to have a 'human face', but said that this need not be a minister. We found that jurors did not spontaneously differentiate between political coverage of ministers' work and Scottish Executive work and policies. As mentioned above, they believed a minister's primary motivation was to stay in power (either by doing a great job or by claiming to do a great job). Consequently, jurors felt it was likely that people will always treat what ministers say with some suspicion. Therefore, it may be more viable to adopt a human face for the Scottish Executive, using individuals with no political associations.

3.25 The deliberative research conducted for the Phillis Review Group suggested a line should be drawn between political messages and messages from government departments, and highlighted the importance of public services in delivering government messages, i.e. communication channels and messengers which deliver the message close to the local community such as local media. The findings of the Phillis Review Group may be broadly consistent, however we believe that people's relationship with devolved government is different (less remote and more local) to their relationship with UK Government and as such there is an opportunity to develop different, unique responses in Scotland. ⁸

The role of Scottish Executive campaigns and branding

3.26 Scottish Executive campaigns were also identified as a key driver of perceptions. They were often well regarded and spontaneously cited as key achievements for Scottish Government (albeit not specifically for the Scottish Executive). At their best, they were thought to tackle important issues for Scotland in a particularly compelling and insightful way. They were perceived as public information rather than advertising ( i.e. statements of fact aiming to inform and enable the public for their own / the common good). They were also many jurors main point of contact with the Scottish Executive, although not all jurors were aware that the campaigns were from the Scottish Executive. The campaigns considered by the Jury were Standing up to anti-social behaviour (Safer Scotland), No Place for Racism (One Scotland) and Choose Healthy Living (Healthier Scotland).

3.27 In summary, the campaigns considered by jurors were all perceived to meet the participants' criteria of successfulness, including:

• Recall: Are they memorable?
• Appeal: Are they considered good advertising?
• Clarity of communication: Is the central message clear and understandable?
• Impact and effectiveness: Is the campaign perceived to have the desired effect?
• Reaching the target audience: Is the campaign perceived to influence the attitudes and behaviour of the perceived target audience - consumers and/or citizens?
• Overall value for money: Is the campaign perceived to be worth the spend?

3.28 Each Scottish Executive campaign presented to the Jury was clearly recognised as a Scottish communication, because of the use of the Saltire in the branding. The perceived 'Scottishness' of the communication was considered important and brought the communication closer to home. The introduction of the five super brands appeared to have been successful at providing both a local and recognisable brand. Jurors could already recall several of them when asked ( e.g. Healthier Scotland, Safer Scotland and One Scotland) and linked them to perceived effective campaigns (No Place for Racism, Healthy Living and Standing Up to Anti-Social Behaviour). The Scottish Executive has also succeeded in establishing strong campaign brands ( i.e. No Place for Racism, Healthy Living and Standing Up to Anti-Social Behaviour).

3.29 However, as mentioned before, the campaigns were not always seen as being linked specifically to the Scottish Executive, despite the fact that the name is included in the brand. We believe this was because:

• Each campaign tended to promote familiar messages (either from previous campaigns, or from wider public debate on the issue in workplace, among friends, news and current affairs, other media, etc) so jurors did not question the origin of the message
• The message was often about something unequivocally in the public interest, so jurors would not challenge it or scrutinise it closely
• The Jury did not always notice the branding, largely because they perceived Scottish Executive campaigns to be public information
  • Jurors did not question the veracity of the message ( i.e. they saw no reason for anyone to lie about this and knew that advertising was a regulated media, so advertisers could not lie)
  • They, therefore, did not scrutinise its source closely (consequently, even when they did notice the super brand, they did not notice the Scottish Executive's name within it)
• Not all the communications were branded ( e.g. Life Matters, etc) so there were perceived to be few clues that this was a government communication; jurors did not always know enough about the Scottish Executive to build the links needed between such communication and its originator.

3.30 Jurors did not consider this ( i.e. not knowing it was the Scottish Executive) a problem for them, provided the campaign message was relevant to them and got its message across effectively. However, they recognised that it may matter more for the Scottish Executive in terms of measuring its impact and proving its effectiveness. However, they also thought it could be advantageous that mass media campaigns were perceived to operate at arms' length from government because this meant they were perceived to be 'public interest information' rather than political messages.

3.31 The COI Common Good study also found that government brands could undermine trust in a communication if the brand itself was not trusted. However, this does not appear to be an issue at present for the Scottish Executive.

3.32 We know from our work on the COI Common Good Study (Trust in Government Communications) that media placement can affect perceived effectiveness of a campaign. Following deliberations the Scottish Executive was perceived to have made effective use of the different media available to it ( i.e.TV, press, radio, poster, online, etc). It was perceived to have used TV advertising appropriately, i.e. for the most / universally important issues ( e.g. Healthy Living, No Place for Racism). Its radio and poster campaigns were considered cost-effective. Other editorial platforms were also generally liked. Life Matters, in particular, was widely enjoyed because it was both entertaining and came from a trusted local source. Opinion was more divided on Talking Scotland and branded news columns. However, many would like to see more invested in campaigns in the future (after learning how much is spent by the Scottish Executive on communications compared to other UK government bodies).

3.34 The COI Common Good research illustrated that the response to campaigns and use of media is inextricably linked to the surrounding social context / climate of opinion. Those who disagreed with the government policy did not usually support campaigns to promote it ( e.g. smokers who opposed the ban on smoking in public places also opposed promotional activities linked to the new policy).

3.35 The close links between response and social context also made it difficult to be prescriptive about the use of media platforms for individual campaigns. However, concerns about value for money suggested that mass media should only be used for messages that were relevant to a large proportion of the public. Targeted media should be used for messages aimed exclusively at minority groups. Consequently, it will continue to be important for Scottish Executive to market test its campaigns carefully across platforms to ensure their acceptability and to maximise their effectiveness.

3.36 Overall, and after deliberation, it was clear that mass media campaigns influenced jurors' perceptions of the Scottish Executive. So far, they have generated positive views although jurors did not always associate the campaigns with the Scottish Executive unless prompted. However, the campaigns themselves did not provide sufficiently strong an influence to counter the perceived negative impact of news and current affairs, and personal experience and hearsay. Of course, it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Executive to use campaigns solely to raise its own profile or to enable people to differentiate between it and other governmental bodies. However, the Scottish Executive may wish to explore further how it can achieve greater prominence via / within its campaigns, and when and in what circumstances this is most desirable.

The role of other Scottish Executive communications

3.37 Other Scottish Executive communications ( e.g. letters, booklets, leaflets, forms, etc) were less front of mind, but also influenced perceptions of the Scottish Executive for those who had encountered them. These were generally accepted as statements of fact and as such were trusted. It is important that the Scottish Executive continues to market test other communications to ensure they continue to meet or exceed expectations.

The role of personal experience and hearsay

3.38 Jurors had more direct, frequent and on-going contact with public services than the Scottish Executive. Contact with the Scottish Executive tended to be more ad hoc, but those who had had such contact were positive about their experiences.

3.39 How public services performed affected how the Scottish Executive was perceived. Personal experience and hearsay were less frequently cited spontaneously as an information source, but clearly influenced opinion of the Scottish Executive. Personal experience of the public services for which the Scottish Executive is responsible ( e.g.NHS Scotland, education, transport, etc) appeared to have more impact on perceptions of the Scottish Executive than direct contact with the Executive itself. Jurors' experiences of public services (and others via hearsay) were also more influential in shaping their perceptions of the Scottish Executive than media sources.

3.40 Jurors' views were consistent with other OLR research findings that people trust their own and other people's experiences of public services. Such information sources were considered irrefutable. However, positive experiences of public services tended to be attributed to luck and not design. Overall, jurors believed public services across the UK were in decline. For example, jurors cited variable standards in health services and increasing waiting time for a hospital appointment. Such perceptions were driven by negative personal experience, the negative hearsay of others, which were supported by negative coverage of public service issues by news and current affairs media collectively. One-off positive personal encounters were not perceived to counter the weight of negative press from other sources, as evidenced by several jurors citing positive personal experiences of public services while also having an overall negative perception of services.

3.41 Consequently, it is important that the Scottish Executive reports openly and transparently about public service standards. Engaging news and current affairs with such evidence will also be important (albeit positive reports may have less impact on views than negative ones). Deliberative approaches may also provide a method of engaging people more directly with the challenges of public service reform both locally and nationally within Scotland. Other research shows that frontline staff can also be highly influential in terms of contributing to people's experience of public services; therefore, the Scottish Executive will also need to ensure effective internal communications with them.

Jurors' perceptions of Scottish Executive communications

3.42 Jurors had little or no sense of how much the Scottish Executive communicated with them and the general public (which was not surprising given their limited knowledge of the Scottish Executive). They did not see Scottish Executive communications as a collective entity, even with recognition of the individual superbrands. Consequently, when shown campaigns across platforms, they were surprised at the wide range of ways that the Scottish Executive used to communicate with them. This was consistent with the findings of the deliberative research conducted for the Phillis Review Group and the COI Common Good Research.

3.43 Many jurors thought of Scottish Executive communications almost exclusively as mass media campaigns. Following deliberations, jurors' perceptions of different campaign platforms included:

• TV advertising was considered to be the most effective advertising medium because of its wide reach. However jurors recognised that it was expensive and only relevant to certain campaigns designed to reach the wider public
• Radio was seen as effective for targeting specific groups such as young people or local communities. There was a high level of trust in local commercial radio stations and some jurors valued the intimacy of listening to radio
• Branded press columns were found to be clearer - easier to understand and read with a clear message - than newspaper coverage and related articles
• Poster materials were seen as particularly effective at getting simple messages across as well as being cost effective and provided they were part of a wider campaign
• Websites were seen as informative and supplementing other communications, however older jurors were less likely to access them
• Jurors did not spontaneously refer to other Scottish Executive communications such as leaflets, letters and booklets. However when prompted these were perceived to be clear, easy to read statements of fact, and particularly provided access to information for those who were not online. However, jurors felt they might not distinguish leaflet mail-drops from other junk mail
• Editorial platforms ( e.g. Life Matters, Talking Scotland) were known but not associated with the Scottish Executive. Life Matters was well-liked and the use of local and trusted media was viewed as an effective way of communicating, even when the information was not branded as Scottish Executive. There were mixed views on branded press columns, with some jurors saying they provided clear information and others being 'turned off' by the Scottish Executive branding.

3.44 Jurors supported the use of a diverse range of platforms to ensure reach and engagement with the diversity of Scottish people. They expressed concerns about the ability to reach socially excluded and seldom heard communities ( e.g. older people, isolated rural communities, low income households, black and few ethnic groups, etc) via new technologies alone, including the Internet. This would appear to support the Phillis Review Group conclusion that modern Government should use all relevant channels and not overly-rely on national press and broadcasters.

Jurors' perceptions of Scottish Executive language

3.45 Jurors spontaneously said they wanted to be communicated with in ways that:

• Are easy to gain access to ( e.g. 'my media') ⁹
• Grab and hold their attention
• Have a clear and concise message which uses their own language
• Give clear direction about how the Scottish Executive wants them to respond
• Manages their expectations and are consistent with their experience
• Are balanced, relevant and from a trusted source.

3.46 Jurors were given a series of interviews and articles that included phrases used by ministers to describe key policy initiatives. Jurors worked in pairs using a questionnaire to help them work through each of the phrases used by ministers in detail.

3.47 The main issues they were asked to consider were:

• Have you heard the phrase before?
• What do you think of the phrase?
• Do you understand the phrase used?
• What do you think is the overall message?
• Is this what the minister wanted to say / get across?
• How would you say it if you were the minister or Scottish Executive to get your point across?

3.48 Jurors then regrouped into breakout groups of 7 or 8 to swap notes and prepare a response for the plenary session. The jurors prompted response is outlined below.

3.49 As a result of the deliberative process, and experience of a range of government communications, they said they wanted to be communicated in ways that were:

• Simple and informative
• Engaging people with Scottish Executive policy and decision-making
• Arresting and memorable
• Clear and accessible
• Accurate and factual
• Demonstrably from the Scottish Executive ( i.e. so that people know the Executive cares about and for the population, and is not self-serving)
• A two-way conversation where possible ( i.e. not one-way passive communications, not didactic or preaching).

3.50 Using accessible language was fundamental to engagement. Jurors said spontaneously that they found it hard to engage with politicians and ministers because they used 'their own language'.

3.51 However, when given press coverage of ministerial interviews about Scottish Executive policy and work to read, they were surprised how interesting and engaging such coverage could be. Although they would not always engage with such coverage, they thought ministers came across as down to earth and easy to understand. The press releases were accepted as statements of fact because they were seen to be coming 'directly from government'. As such jurors were more likely to trust the contents of press articles, in contrast with their lower levels of trust in ministerial interviews and government information via other sources (eg. TV and radio).

3.52 When asked to comment on phrases used by ministers in relation to Scottish Executive initiatives, jurors could see their potential to enable ministers to 'brand' a particular policy initiative ( i.e. as a shorthand 'catchphrase' for a wider programme of work). They thought this approach could help to ensure future engagement with such policy initiatives, especially where they:

• Tap into a common concern ( e.g. health, health services, racism, etc)
• 'Speak my language' ( i.e. understood, plain speaking)
• Are credible, but sufficiently aspirational and ambitious
• Have a clear link to government action rather than policy debate
• Have a clear call to public action, with it being clear what the minister or Scottish Executive is asking people to do
• Have a clear benefit (to the consumer and / or the citizen).

3.53 Jurors were concerned that use of inaccessible words and phrases could fuel disengagement, disinterest and distrust with the Scottish Executive and ministers. The Scottish Executive may wish to review whether and how it market tests such phrases in the future to ensure public engagement.

Communicating with the Scottish Executive

3.54 Only a very few participants had had any direct contact with the Scottish Executive and consequently it was not possible to isolate their views on this experience. However, as a result of the deliberative process, there was much interest in finding ways of establishing greater dialogue between the Scottish Executive and Scottish people (inwards and outwards) to ensure that:

• The general public had a more informed and balanced view of the Scottish Executive, its work and policies
• The Scottish Executive had an accurate view of public opinion (including people's needs, expectations and aspirations) to enable it to respond effectively.

3.55 Jurors did not suggest any specific ways of achieving this in an on-going way. However, given the perceived low levels of engagement across Scotland, jurors thought the Scottish Executive would have to reach out more pro-actively to ensure public engagement and participation in its policies and work (few people were thought sufficiently motivated to reach in). None of the future communication formats ¹⁰ considered by the Jury were thought on their own to achieve this for the diversity of Scottish people, and consultation tended to be seen as one-off exercises on single issues.

3.56 Jurors thought the Government should consult people on key issues ( e.g. where there was a major shift away from the manifesto on which they were elected or where the issue was not covered in the manifesto). Jurors were also keen to ensure that the Scottish Executive only consulted when necessary. They wanted the Scottish Executive to strike an appropriate balance between leadership and consultation ( i.e. to avoid over consulting).

3.57 In terms of effective consultation, jurors thought the government needed to provide background information in an accessible way to ensure engagement and an informed response. As such, the Jury and other deliberative models were thought to have great potential. However, jurors stressed that it was vital that the Scottish Executive:

• Only consults early enough for decisions to be influential (to ensure trust and confidence in the process)
• Is clear which decisions can be changed and which cannot (to manage expectations)
• Tells people which recommendations were adopted, and which were not and why (to ensure openness and transparency, and trust and confidence in future consultations).

3.58 Further work is needed to determine the criteria for selecting issues on which to consult the public, what consultation methods to use, how to enable people to take part in such processes and the mechanisms for ensuring any subsequent consultation is effective ( e.g. in terms of ultimate impact on decision-making, etc). In their verdict, the jury suggested mandatory citizen days, using the Citizens' Jury as a model with jurors being required to take part in the same way they have to for Jury duty.

Future Scottish Executive communications options

3.59 Scottish people may be more willing to trust the Scottish Executive than UK Government, as the Executive was perceived by jurors to be closer to them and their needs. However, the Jury response suggested that changes in how the Scottish Executive communicates and builds relationships with the Scottish people in future could build greater trust. Many may see such changes as radical, with jurors calling for a dialogue instead of the perceived one-way communications between the Scottish Executive and Scottish people. As such, the Phillis Review Group conclusion that radical change is needed may well be relevant to Scotland and the Scottish Executive.

3.60 The criteria used to judge the perceived effectiveness of future communications media were similar to those used to judge the perceived effectiveness of Scottish Executive campaigns. In summary, the main criteria used by the Jury were:

• Reach: Who will this media reach (and not reach) and how effectively (reach)?
• Fit with message: What messages could it get across and not get across?
• Impact on perceptions: How will it affect the corporate reputation of the Scottish Executive positively / negatively?
• Trustworthiness: Would people trust messages in this format?
• Value for money: Is the spend worth it for both the Scottish Executive and them personally? ¹¹

3.61 Jurors were shown samples of possible future communication concepts, including print, transport and technology. All new technologies considered by jurors were thought to have the potential to provide effective ways of communicating with specific target audiences ( e.g. ipods and 3G phones were considered effective at reaching younger age groups, the mobile truck was thought effective for reaching isolated rural communities, the Government newspaper was thought effective at reaching public sector workers, etc). Further market testing would be needed to determine the effectiveness of each proposition (as deliberative methods provide only limited scope for such market testing).

3.62 Appropriate and effective use of new technology could help the Scottish Executive to communicate with people in innovative and contemporary ways. Use of individuals own preferred media ( e.g.ipods and 3G phones) could connect the Scottish Executive with different audiences, particularly younger people. However, they would need to address jurors concerns about the cost of downloads and access to the necessary technology among socially excluded young people.

3.63 Use of the mobile truck might provide an effective means for the Scottish Executive to 'reach out' to a wide range of people in an interesting and engaging way, including hard-to-reach communities. As such, it was thought to be worth the investment. However, it did not offer sufficient reach (in terms on on-going contact with large numbers) to deliver the on-going dialogue that jurors called for.

3.64 Again, the different Government newspaper and magazine formats were of interest to their respective audiences, but not others. Gazette was thought to be an effective way of engaging public sector workers and cutting the costs to the public purse of public sector job advertisements. However, it was unlikely to reach people outside this audience. Share was liked by women, who agreed it would be effective in targeting women and especially those from less affluent socio-economic backgrounds. However, it was unbranded and, as such, it might succeed in getting its message across, but readers were unlikely to relate positive perceptions back to the Scottish Executive. Those not in the target audience for Share often disliked this format greatly ( e.g. they found it patronising and tacky).

3.65 Community TV was thought to have considerable potential in terms of reach and engagement ( e.g. in public service waiting rooms). However, concerns were expressed about the cost of investing in the necessary hardware and in generating sufficiently interesting and engaging content to engage and hold attention for any length of time. The jurors did not strongly favour the use of community TV compared to other formats.

3.66 Some concerns were expressed about government control of such mass media outlets ( i.e. a government TV channel or newspaper). For example, although there was interest in the vlogging concept, there was concern about government editorialising the outputs. Therefore, Government newspapers and TV channels were only likely to work for specific types of information / messages ( e.g. more factual outputs).

3.67 Given the emphasis on value for money, we believe the Phillis Review Group conclusion that public interests should be paramount in any modernisation of government communications is relevant in Scotland.