This was a joint project completed for the class ‘Reinventing Democracy: Innovation, Participation and Power’ 2023 at the University of Southampton, by  Thomas Apsey, George Lewis, Rowan Denny, Faysal Sarumi, Matthew Waldock.

Problems and Purpose

The Scottish climate assembly brought together 100 ordinary citizens to answer, “How should Scotland change to tackle the climate emergency effectively and fairly?” [1]. Led by professional facilitators and expert speakers, the assembly was tasked with producing a representative assembly that could deliberate on the topic of climate change across a diverse group of citizens to allow them to gain the knowledge and perspective to vote on recommendations and goals for the government to reflect and respond to. The purpose of this was for the government to get a better understanding of how to react to the climate emergency and for the citizens’ ideas and views to be able to leak into policy, giving ordinary citizens more influence to inform decision-making and helping them feel more connected to the process of tackling climate change.

The 100 citizens were split into 3 ‘work streams’ for 3 of the seven weekends to consider three specific areas:

1. Diet, land use and lifestyle
2. Home and Communities
3. Work and travel

Assembly Members also heard from children in the Children's Parliament. Their work was regularly fed back to Assembly Members, helping shape the Climate Assembly's final recommendations and, for the first time, giving the children's parliament a voice in a citizens' assembly by being able to submit their evidence [2].

Background History and Context

After many years of Climate change growing as one of the most important issues for voters and citizens in Scotland, grounded in Scotland's Climate Change Act (2019) and a cross-party consensus that a citizen's assembly was needed, the Scottish goverment introduced the first citizen's assembly on climate change [3].

The act that created the assembly had specific agreements in place - the assembly had to be representative of Scotland. It should have two conveners independent of Scottish ministers and parliament to ensure a fair and unbiased assembly. The act also set in place that before the first meeting of the citizen's assembly the Scottish ministers should lay before the Scottish parliament a report of the arrangements for the administration and operation of the assembly; this was completed in September 2020, where ministers published a report outlining the agreements for the climate assembly, specifically the role of the stewarding group, secretariat and sponsorship of the assembly within the Scottish government's climate change division. This set up the arrangements to ensure the independence of the assembly and the resources it requires to run such an assembly. 

As this citizens' assembly occurred in 2020-21, it had to deal with the effects of COVID-19, leading to the original date of the report being delayed and thus the presentations and group meetings were done online over seven meetings. It is the first national citizens’ assembly to be held entirely online in Scotland [4].

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The assembly was awarded £1.4 million in funding by the Scottish government, which organised the effort based on the 2009 climate change act [5]. 

Multiple entities were utilised to ensure an efficient and high-quality citizen assembly. These groups comprised the Secretariat, the stewarding group, the design and facilitation team, the evidence group, and the conveners. The Secretariat had the role of independent oversight by employing civil servants. The design team consisted of members from Involve and the Democratic Society; these two organisations have extensive expertise and experience in designing various citizen assemblies [6]. They had many roles, including the structure, timing, and accessibility of the assembly. Secondly, the 22-person stewarding group was organised to incorporate as many perspectives as possible and balance the assembly [7].

The 9-person evidence group provided the basis of the knowledge. Having the responsibility of inviting 100+ guest experts along with answering over 1000 questions, they ensured the participants stayed informed throughout the process [8]. Lastly, the two convenors were selected to represent the participants best and publicly in the media. The two chosen were experienced social entrepreneurs who could easily communicate the feelings of the group.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The Sortition Foundation was commissioned to perform a civil lottery method using random selection (through 2-step sortition). The foundation worked alongside the Scotland Climate Assembly team to create the material that would constitute an invitation, including a signed letter, FAQ, and invitation card. Subsequently, 20,000 households were selected randomly from all listed addresses in Scotland on the Royal Mail’s Postal Address File database [9].

The 20,000 households were selected with the following criteria in mind. Firstly, 80% of the households were chosen at random from across the entirety of Scotland. The following 20%, to balance out the initial registrations, which typically skew towards higher socio-economic groups, were randomly chosen from households in postcodes with an Index of Multiple Deprivation decile in the 1-3 range [10].

Out of every household, only one person could be selected, with anybody above or 16 years of age being able to register. The registration could be done online or by Freephone; 878 registrations had been made by the 28th of September (the day registration closed), which indicated a 4.4% response rate. From this pool of registrants, the Foundation eventually selected 105 people in line with their demographic targets, shown by “T” for a target number of participants and “C” for a confirmed number of participants (as they were subject to change at times). In terms of Gender: Male (T=49.7, C=49), Female (T=52.3, C=54), other: (T=2, C=2). In terms of age: Age 0-15 (T=0, C=0), Age 16-18 (T=5.8, C=5), Age 19-24 (T=10.4, C=10), Age 25-29 (T=6.4, C=6), Age 30-44 (T=23.9, C=25), Age 45-64 (T=34.5, C=34), Age 65+ (T=24, C=25). In terms of Geography: Central Scotland (T=12.3, C=9), West Scotland (T=13.1, C=14), South Scotland (T=12.5, C=15), Glasgow (T=12.9, C=15), North East Scotland (T=16.1, C=15), Mid Scotland (T=12.3, C=11), Highlands (T=10.2, C=8), Lothian (T=14.5, C=16). Regarding Ethnicity: White (T=96, C=97), BAME (T=8, C=8). Regarding Disability: Yes (T=27, C=26), No (T=78, C=79). This was also done regarding Income and Climate Views [11].

Methods and Tools Used

The overarching method used was that of a Citizens Assembly. Under such a method, participants are briefed on an issue or group of issues and invited to make recommendations to a convening body [12].

To begin with, before the assembly convened, the government commissioned a public engagement platform to gauge broader society's views and help set the agenda [13]. The suggestions from the public were coded into similar themes to structure the group deliberation in the assembly. The primary problem with this method was that respondents were self-selecting, so their views could not be seen as a representative sample. However, this is not too much of a drawback given that it was simply seeking ideas and was not intended as a polling exercise [14]. 

Due to COVID-19, the 100-person assembly was held online for seven weekends, the last of which was requested by assembly members for learning and deliberations; there was also one more weekend where assembly members were invited to hear the government’s response [15]. The assembly utilised tools including small group deliberation, professional facilitation and expert presentations.

Three streams were used to group assembly members and ensure both breadth and depth of discussion, with each stream feeding back to the others. The assembly members were responsible for developing their principles to guide how they formed their recommendations and how they would make decisions [16]. The transparent nature of this design, through collective ownership of the process, afforded it a high level of internal transparency.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The process of the Scottish Climate Assembly began with the selection of 100 participants from across Scotland. These individuals were chosen through random stratified sampling, ensuring representation based on demographic criteria such as age, gender, ethnicity, and geography [17]. This approach aimed to capture a broad cross-section of Scottish society, enabling diverse perspectives to be included in the discussions.

The Assembly fostered a high level of interaction among its members. Participants engaged in lively and insightful discussions throughout the six weekends of Assembly meetings. They were encouraged to share their personal experiences, knowledge, and perspectives on climate change [18]. Expert presentations were organised to provide participants with comprehensive information, enabling them to engage in informed deliberations. This interactive environment facilitated the exchange of ideas and the exploration of different viewpoints. 

The selected members actively contributed to the Assembly's activities, including group discussions and deliberation sessions. They collaborated to generate recommendations for climate policy, working towards common goals. The Assembly also recognised the importance of public involvement. Members of the public were given opportunities to provide input and feedback through online surveys and community events. This ensured that a wider range of perspectives was considered in the decision-making process.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

By the end of the climate assembly, once the voting had finished, the assembly had voted on 16 overarching goals and 81 recommendations for achieving [19]. The final report also integrated the children's report with the assembly’s recommendations. Once the full report of recommendations and goals was released and given to the ministers, they were required to respond within six months. 

In terms of the outcomes of the climate assembly, they are mixed. Due to the relatively recent timing of the climate assembly, it is difficult to come to a definitive conclusion on how successful it has been. The Scottish government responded with a large document outlining how likely they were to initiate the recommendations and goals, the document was comprehensive, but difficult to identify what precisely the assembly’s impact was on policy, and a third of the recommendations appeared to match policy broadly. However, it is generally unclear in the government response how the change will be implemented at the scale and urgency the assembly pushes [20].

In February 2022, members were asked to reconvene for a final weekend to consider the government's response and respond. There appeared to be a mismatch in the views of the Scottish Government and the assembly members regarding an appropriate reaction, as many members felt the response was lacking in any clear policy commitments or key changes. In response to the Assembly’s disappointment in real significant change, the First Minister stated in a foreword three actions relating to three recommendations [21].

• support for a new network of sharing libraries 
• increasing woodland creation and peatland restoration 
• integration of emissions and emission reduction topics into education programmes 

These three statements were some of the clearest examples of the assembly having some influence on the Scottish government. In the government response, the supported recommendations are about half the recommendations, with 37 being supported and the rest being placed in the lower support ranking. The Scottish Government's response states, "Where we have committed to taking action in future, we will provide updates to Assembly members to ensure we remain accountable for the steps we have set out in this response" [22].

While it is not evident that the climate assembly had a large policy influence, it was influential elsewhere in other projects connected to climate change:

• Just transition commission (JTC) - JTC recommendations document published before the Assembly report has recommendation 15, “Apply the lessons learned from Scotland’s Climate Assembly across the development of all policies for tackling climate change” [23]
• Heat in building strategy - The document states that it welcomes the recommendations made by the assembly and that it is similar to their strategy [24]
• Transport Scotland route map - members voted for two assembly recommendations to show public support for change [25]

While the assembly members' views of the government response are not evidence of the impact of the response, it gives us a good idea of the kind of outcome the assembly had from the participants' perspective. When asked about their satisfaction with the government response, over a third (38%) were dissatisfied, a quarter (25%) were satisfied and over a third (35%) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied [26]. 

Regarding how satisfied members were with their responses, only 61% agreed that their views were reflected in the statement, and 55% disagreed that there was enough time to finalise the statement appropriately.

Another way we can view the impact and influence of the climate assembly is via the impact of the assembly on the debate surrounding climate change. This may not implicitly impact policy, but it can increase the salience of the issue to voters in Scotland. Fifty-two news outlets wrote 151 articles between November 20- February 22. The skew of the articles was primarily positive and neutral (40% and 41%), with only 11% being balanced and 8 % being negative. The assembly featured strongly in 94 articles about climate change (62% of all coverage). This, therefore, shows that the climate assembly affected the climate change debate [27].

Overall, there is clear evidence that the climate assembly impacted the debate surrounding the assembly and did have some impact on policy, even if the government response makes it hard to understand how it is to be implemented in the urgency required. The assembly has also apparently influenced how other projects and assemblies will go about their democratic innovations. The aspects that clearly limited the impact of the assembly are the timing of the assembly, being during covid; this led to the news being dominated by covid and the assembly being held entirely online. This limited the exposure the assembly could get and made the assembly slightly limited in how they could communicate with the assembly members. The assembly was also hindered by the government's lack of assurance on the potential changes to policy or how they could implement the recommendations.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Scotland’s Climate Assembly was an attempt at getting citizens more involved in the democratic process; we can learn many lessons from it. We can systematically analyse the assembly by using Graham Smith’s framework of “democratic goods” to critically analyse how deliberating over climate change worked to understand how the assembly succeeded as a democratic innovation and where it could have improved. 

Considered Judgement:

How information was presented allows for high levels of considered judgement. This started with the non-partisan expert presentations, which members said helped them gain much more knowledge on the subject; this aligns with Graham Smith's criteria for his procedure [28]. Additionally, due to the online nature of the assembly, Q&A sessions were utilised along with breakout rooms. These are key features as it allows for interaction between members and the easy consultation of experts if questions arise during the discussion. Moreover, to tackle the issue of breadth vs depth, participants were streamed into three groups focusing on different issues with more topical and in-depth knowledge given to them. This allows more considered judgement as the participants can gain better expertise making their stream's decision-making better. The evidence team succeeded in their role of providing sufficient non-partisan expert information. It is not to say the design was perfect as the evidence group were required to exceed their contracted hours to get the job done. However, not all members could afford to do this, arguably reducing the quality of evidence provided and reducing considered judgement below what it could have been.

Popular Control:

One of the first aspects of popular control was problem definition/agenda setting. The question being answered in the assembly was decided by the legislation that set up the climate assembly. However, it was said that the assembly members would be able to shape the agenda; it needed to be clarified how this was done. While 65% of the assembly thought the question was fair, some of the organisers believed that the question presupposed that climate change was real and an emergency and thus could potentially lead assembly members towards a specific viewpoint [31]. This is one of the key weaknesses of the assembly, and thus going forward, more emphasis should be put on problem definition.

Another key aspect of popular control is the extent to which citizens are afforded control over the decision-making process. In this case, this would be the control over the final recommendations and goals produced by the climate assembly. To come to the final recommendations, the members selected representatives within each work stream (link to inclusion) to explain the decisions made by the members within each work stream and the evidence they presented to the rest of the assembly. There was no limit to the number of recommendations the members could make, and the members selected them through a vote. In a survey produced at the end, 8 out of 10 members agreed that their views were reflected in the various outputs throughout the assembly [32]. 

Transparency:

Internal transparency was high; as aforementioned, the participants, through collective ownership of the process, afforded the process a high level of clarity. Using effective facilitators ensured that participants understood the process; said participants frequently reported how friendly and useful the facilitators were. The process was not overly complicated, and the capacity-building was highly effective at fostering considered judgement. The external transparency was also relatively high due to the salience and importance of the issue. A Deltapoll found that 21% of respondents said they had heard of Scotland’s Climate Assembly, which is a good level of awareness for a citizen's assembly, particularly given that COVID-19 overwhelmingly dominated the news cycle at the time [33]. 

The Scottish Government commissioned the assembly to prepare for their own net-zero plans, so the ‘publicity’ aspect of external transparency was relatively high [34]. They utilised forms of publicity such as YouTube and the news media. Also, they made the full report accessible in a detailed and summarised format to allow interested parties in the general public to easily and quickly understand the process [35]. Therefore, the organisers can be seen as ‘more active’, going beyond a ‘passive strategy’ and utilising more ‘energetic engagement’ methods through other forms of media, which lends the process a high degree of external transparency [36].

The initial stage also allowed for anyone to submit topics and problems to be discussed by the assembly, which involved the wider public in the process. There may be a slight problem, or advantage, depending on how you look at it, in that the media side may induce participants to come to more ‘public-spirited’, rather than ‘self-interested’, recommendations. There is a risk that this will reign in the participants, reducing popular control and leading to a misrepresentation of public opinion [37]. This, though, is more of an advantage of the design in that it makes the participants conscious that their recommendations are to make society as a whole better.

Inclusion:

Participant selection was made via random selection but also based on target numbers of participants from various demographics, which was used to ensure that participants reflected Scotland’s broader demographics and, as such, groups were accurately represented [38]. These targets were held across variables like gender, age, geography, income, climate views, rural/urban, ethnicity, and disability; appropriate consideration of this wide selection of variables in participant selection would suggest high levels of inclusion, according to Graham Smith's notion of inclusion (regarding selection).

Furthermore, the assembly meetings took place online, which likely provided a more comfortable setting for the participants to contribute (as they could participate from their homes) [39]. There was technical support available for participants before and during the assembly, which ensured that participation from a member of any group was unrestricted by technical ability [40]. However, there were also instances where connectivity affected contribution; the fact that participants had to rely on technology provided by themselves meant that those with access to less reliable technology might not have participated equally in this respect (e.g., lower income groups could have been victim to this) [41].

Nonetheless, contributions from members of the different groups were actively encouraged by the support team, who assured participants that their views were worth sharing and that they could speak up online [42]. The presence of a professional facilitation team also made sure that the views of all participants were heard and considered in discussions. Discussions were also held in small groups, which allowed participants to express their opinions in a less intimidating and more focused environment.

Lastly, the entire assembly was involved in developing principles that would guide them when forming recommendations and how decisions would be made together [43]. This ensured that all participants would have a say in the product of the recommendations, and even if it did not strictly reflect their views, the outcomes products would be recognised as legitimate by all involved.

To summarise, the assembly made various successful inclusionary efforts that satisfied how Graham Smith suggested that democratic innovations be assessed based on inclusion: the selection process for participation, fairness in contribution-making, the encouragement of participation from various groups, and equality of voices in the outcome [44]. 

Efficiency:

The compressed Assembly schedule also had consequences for members in digesting large volumes of evidence, in short periods, between weekends. The weekend programming did not allow members much time to “digest” the information [45]. The assembly came in under budget at £0.938 million, from an original budget of £1.37 million, which suggests it was an efficient process; However, one factor that led to it coming in under budget was the fact the assembly had to be held online [46]. Therefore, the process can be seen as a value for money for the taxpayer.

In terms of efficiency for the participants, the response from the Scottish Government was generally good; they agreed with many of the recommendations in directional terms but admitted there were structural constraints to progress on net zero due to central government funding. Despite this, the assembly members were ‘overall… disappointed with the Government's response to many areas of our recommendations, as it does not appear to recognise the urgency behind the Assembly's recommendations for action’ [47]. This does, then, suggest that the participants' time was wasted to a degree. The participants criticise using words like ‘consider’ in the Scottish Government’s response and refusing to enact perceived quick wins like public information campaigns on low-carbon diets [48]. The ‘demands they place on citizens’ only to not follow through with a plan to implement their recommendations is a design weakness linked to popular control. [49] There was a lot of strain placed upon the Evidence group and Secretariat due to the amount of information and support they had to supply. [50]

Transferability:

While the assembly may hold strong performances in other democratic goods such as transparency, inclusion and considered judgement, the transferability is certainly lacking as replicating this model elsewhere may pose challenges where such a unifying issue or political consensus is absent. In regions where climate change is viewed more divisively or does not hold the same urgency, it may be more difficult to mobilise a similar level of engagement and consensus. Thus, the transferability of Scotland's Climate Assembly model is contingent on the issue's relevance and the local sociopolitical climate. Furthermore, the methodological aspects of the assembly, such as the random selection of participants, the iterative deliberation process, and the role of experts, although seemingly generic, were deeply rooted in Scotland's specific context. These methods require significant adaptations in other countries with different social structures, cultural norms, or political systems. Therefore, the process itself requires tailoring to its context. Lastly, it's essential to consider the infrastructural and financial requirements to hold such assemblies. While Scotland's wealth and government support enabled the assembly's successful execution, these conditions may need to be met in less affluent or politically unstable regions, reducing the model's transferability. The online nature of the assembly, though, and the proven record of citizens’ assemblies, helps make it more easily transferable.

Improvement:

Despite all the positive contributions to the democratic goods from the innovation, several aspects could be improved. Using Graham Smith’s democratic goods model, we have come to a few recommendations to improve the process for this style of assembly and the broader question of citizen assemblies in general.

One drawback of the citizen's assembly was the nature of the demographics. It is representative. However, there is an argument that older people have less of a stake in the planet's future, so ideally, there should be measures to counter conservatism in a forward-thinking citizens' assembly. The assembly could make a greater effort to enhance the voice of young people and minorities.

Another way to improve and empower citizens' assemblies more generally is through governmental change. The government could change how citizen assemblies operate to empower recruitment selection to more closely resemble jury service, compelling people to participate as a civic duty.

The condensed nature of the assembly process placed too much on the assembly members when answering such a broad question, which placed a significant workload on the supporting evidence group and secretariat. A way in which this can be improved in future assemblies would be to limit the number of recommendations made by members. This would not only most likely increase the quality of recommendations but will reduce the workload on the evidence group.

While the lack of problem definition was viewed as unfavourable for many of the assembly members, it is not an area we can improve upon due to the nature of a citizen's assembly. This is due to the many drawbacks of affording too much control in problem definition to the members of a citizen's assembly. As Graham Smith discusses, the assembly has been expressly set up to deliberate over an issue. If altered too much, it may become less relevant to the authority running the assembly. There is also the problem that the citizens often lack knowledge on the issue until they take part in the assembly, so it may be difficult for them to make reasoned judgements on the problem definition [51].

See Also

https://participedia.net/method/4258

References

[1] NRS Web Continuity Service, p.6. (2021a, June 21). Webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk. https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https:/www.climateassembly.scot/full-report

[2] NRS Web Continuity Service: p.148. (2021b, June 21). Webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk. https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https:/www.climateassembly.scot/full-report

[3] Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. (2019). Legislation.gov.uk. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/15/contents/enacted

[4] Scotland’s Climate Assembly - recommendations for action: SG response, p.159. (2021a, December 21). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-response-scotlands-climate-assembly-recommendations-action/

[5] Full Report: Organising the Assembly. National Records of Scotland. (2022c, March 21). https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/full-report/organising-assembly 

[6] Full Report: Organising the Assembly. National Records of Scotland. (2022c, March 21). https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/full-report/organising-assembly 

[7] Full Report: Organising the Assembly. National Records of Scotland. (2022c, March 21). https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/full-report/organising-assembly 

[8] Full Report: Organising the Assembly. National Records of Scotland. (2022c, March 21). https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/full-report/organising-assembly 

[9] Scotland's Climate Assembly. (2020). Scotland's Climate Assembly: Recruitment Report. National Records of Scotland Web Archive.https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004mp_/https://www.climateassembly.scot/sites/default/files/2020-12/Scotland%27s%20Climate%20Assembly%20Recruitment%20Report%20v2.pdf

[10] Scotland's Climate Assembly. (2020). Scotland's Climate Assembly: Recruitment Report. National Records of Scotland Web Archive.https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004mp_/https://www.climateassembly.scot/sites/default/files/2020-12/Scotland%27s%20Climate%20Assembly%20Recruitment%20Report%20v2.pdf

[11] Scotland's Climate Assembly. (2020). Scotland's Climate Assembly: Recruitment Report. National Records of Scotland Web Archive.https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004mp_/https://www.climateassembly.scot/sites/default/files/2020-12/Scotland%27s%20Climate%20Assembly%20Recruitment%20Report%20v2.pdf

[12] Citizens’ Assembly. Participedia. (2021, April 29). https://participedia.net/method/4258

[13] Assembly Pre-engagement. National Records of Scotland. (2022, March 21). https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/how-it-works/assembly-pre-engagement

[14] Scotland’s Climate Assembly: Pre-engagement Overview. Scotland’s Climate Assembly. (2020, November). https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004mp_/https://www.climateassembly.scot/sites/default/files/2021-03/Communications%20-%20Dialogue%20-%20Report%20FINAL-merged.pdf

[15] Assembly Meetings. National Records of Scotland. (2022, March 21). https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/meetings 

[16] Full Report: Organising the Assembly. National Records of Scotland. (2022c, March 21). https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/full-report/organising-assembly 

[17] Full Report: Organising the Assembly. National Records of Scotland. (2022c, March 21). https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/full-report/organising-assembly 

[18] Full Report: Organising the Assembly. National Records of Scotland. (2022c, March 21). https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/full-report/organising-assembly 

[19] NRS Web Continuity Service: p.46-89. (2021c, June 21). Webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk. https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https:/www.climateassembly.scot/full-report

[20] Scotland’s Climate Assembly - recommendations for action: SG response, p.159. (2021b, December 21). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-response-scotlands-climate-assembly-recommendations-action/

[21] Scotland’s Climate Assembly - recommendations for action: SG response, p.159. (2021c, December 21). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-response-scotlands-climate-assembly-recommendations-action/

[22] Scotland’s Climate Assembly - recommendations for action: SG response, p.159. (2021d, December 21). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-response-scotlands-climate-assembly-recommendations-action/

[23] Just Transition Commission: A National Mission for a fairer, greener Scotland - gov.scot. (2021, March 23). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/transition-commission-national-mission-fairer-greener-scotland/

[24] Heat in Buildings Strategy - achieving net zero emissions in Scotland’s buildings. (2021, October 7). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/heat-buildings-strategy-achieving-net-zero-emissions-scotlands-buildings/

[25] A route map to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres by 2030 | Transport Scotland. (2022, January 13). Www.transport.gov.scot. https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/a-route-map-to-achieve-a-20-per-cent-reduction-in-car-kilometres-by-2030/

[26] 3. Assembly member experience. (2022, March 31). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-assembly-research-report-process-impact-assembly-member-experience/pages/4/

[27] 5. Impact on climate policy and debate. (2022a, March 31). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-assembly-research-report-process-impact-assembly-member-experience/pages/6/

[28] Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework. In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation essay, Cambridge University Press.

[29] Citizens’ Climate Report: Recommendations for German climate policy. Bürgerrat-Klima. (2021). https://buergerrat-klima.de/english-information 

[30] Machin, A. (2023). Democracy, Agony, and Rupture: A Critique of Climate Citizens’ Assemblies. Polit Vierteljahresschr, 1–20. 

[31] 2. Organising the Assembly. (2022, March 31). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-assembly-research-report-process-impact-assembly-member-experience/pages/3/

[32] 2. Organising the Assembly. (2022, March 31). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-assembly-research-report-process-impact-assembly-member-experience/pages/3/

[33] Thomson, K. (2022, March 31). Scotland’s Climate Assembly - process, impact and assembly member experience: research report. Scottish Government. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-assembly-research-report-process-impact-assembly-member-experience/pages/5/ 

[34] Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework. In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (pp. 8–22). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[35] Scotland’s Climate Assembly. (2021, June 23). Our Story | “We Can Make A Difference” | Scotland’s Climate Assembly. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hisAImPXhOI 

[36] Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework. In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (pp. 8–22). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[37] Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework. In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (pp. 8–22). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[38] Scotland's Climate Assembly. (2020). Scotland's Climate Assembly: Recruitment Report. National Records of Scotland Web Archive.https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004mp_/https://www.climateassembly.scot/sites/default/files/2020-12/Scotland%27s%20Climate%20Assembly%20Recruitment%20Report%20v2.pdf

[39] Scotland's Climate Assembly. (2021). Scotland's Climate Assembly: Final Report Goals. National Records of Scotland Web Archive. https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004mp_/https://www.climateassembly.scot/sites/default/files/2021-09/620640_SCT0521502140-001_Scotland’s%20Climate%20Assembly_Final%20Report%20Goals_WEB%20ONLY%20VERSION.pdf

[40] Scottish Government. (2023). Scotland's Climate Assembly: Research report on the process and impact of assembly member experience. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-assembly-research-report-process-impact-assembly-member-experience/

[41]Scottish Government. (2023). Scotland's Climate Assembly: Research report on the process and impact of assembly member experience. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-assembly-research-report-process-impact-assembly-member-experience/

[42] Scotland's Climate Assembly. (2022). Organising the Assembly. National Records of Scotland Web Archive. https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/full-report/organising-assembly

[43] Scotland's Climate Assembly. (2022). Organising the Assembly. National Records of Scotland Web Archive. https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/full-report/organising-assembly

[44] Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework. In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (pp. 8–22). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[45] 2. Organising the Assembly. (2022b, March 31). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-assembly-research-report-process-impact-assembly-member-experience/pages/3/

[46] Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland costs and Ministerial Papers: FOI release. Scottish Government. (2023, February 6). https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200334314/#:~:text=Response&text=The%20final%20cost%20of%20the,budget%20of%20%C2%A31.37%20million 

[47] Statement of Response. National Records of Scotland. (2022d, March 21). https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/statement-of-response 

[48] Statement of Response. National Records of Scotland. (2022d, March 21). https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004/https://www.climateassembly.scot/statement-of-response 

[49] 2. Organising the Assembly. (2022c, March 31). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-assembly-research-report-process-impact-assembly-member-experience/pages/3/

[50] 2. Organising the Assembly. (2022c, March 31). Www.gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-assembly-research-report-process-impact-assembly-member-experience/pages/3/

[51] Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework. In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (pp. 89). essay, Cambridge University Press.

External Links

Assembly Final Report: https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220321134004mp_/https://www.climateassembly.scot/sites/default/files/2021-09/620640_SCT0521502140-001_Scotland%E2%80%99s%20Climate%20Assembly_Final%20Report%20Goals_WEB%20ONLY%20VERSION.pdf

Scotland's Climate Assembly - process, impact and assembly member experience: research report:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-assembly-research-report-process-impact-assembly-member-experience/documents/

Notes

N/A