On 28th August, The Herald reported that the Scottish Government has stopped collecting data on how many civil servants are working from the office, making it impossible for ministers to know whether staff are following the hybrid working policy.

More than 9,000 core civil servants worked for the Scottish Government at the end of June this year. Since October, staff have been expected to spend at least two days per week in the office, but the target is not formally enforced and attendance levels have consistently fallen below the threshold.

Freedom of information disclosures show that the Scottish Government collected attendance information from October 2025 to January 2026, but has now stopped recording the figures entirely. An FOI response stated that the government no longer collects this information and cannot fully respond to requests for it.

The Scottish Government explained that collecting data on core civil servants would represent an increased security risk to staff and endangers the health and safety of all individuals in accessing the buildings. Instead, the government now collects occupancy data for all staff in buildings to assess it against workplace capacity.

This change in measurement produces higher rates because it includes contractors and agency workers, not just core civil servants. In June 2026, occupancy at Victoria Quay in Edinburgh was 27%, while Saughton House was 29.5% full. In January, before tracking stopped, the average monthly percentage at Victoria Quay was 12.1% among core civil servants, and 8.2% at Saughton House. Atlantic Quay in Glasgow was 32.5% full in January among core civil servants, but that figure rose to 70.8% in June when other staff were included.

Permanent Secretary Joe Griffin has asked officials for advice on raising the hybrid working target to three days per week, warning that maintaining the current arrangement is not recommended. A consultation process is now underway with trade unions to consider how the current hybrid working policy is working and how it may be improved.

Scottish Government ministers have stated that trade unions will not be permitted to determine the hybrid working arrangements for civil servants, even as questions persist about the enforcement of existing office attendance expectations. Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform Ivan McKee declined to specify what compromises were agreed upon with trade unions, stating only that conversations with union officials are ongoing. He maintained that the government's position is clear, though he would not confirm whether he knows if the 40% target is being achieved, saying that responsibility lies with the Permanent Secretary.

The Scottish Government has spent £41.8 million since 2020 on operating costs for five key buildings: Bute House, Saughton House, St Andrew's House, Victoria Quay, and Atlantic Quay. McKee previously described Victoria Quay as largely empty, with approximately 80% of the 350,000 square metre (376,737 square foot) building unused. He now says efforts are underway to move other public bodies into the space.

McKee claims estate reforms have already delivered savings of £52 million and resulted in the closure of 15 buildings. He affirmed the government's commitment to continuing these efforts. The UK Government currently enforces a 60% office attendance target for its civil servants, a figure the Scottish Government had previously aimed to reach.

A Scottish Government spokesperson said that building occupancy data supports effective estate management, including ongoing building closures and cost reduction priorities, but is not suitable for assessing hybrid working because it does not capture staff working with stakeholders in the community or in non-government buildings.

Original Sources/Tags: heraldscotland.com, heraldscotland.com, heraldscotland.com, scotsman.com, heraldscotland.com, heraldscotland.com, thenational.scot, heraldscotland.com, (holyrood), (scotland), (edinburgh), (glasgow), (october)

The article provides no actionable steps for a normal reader. It does not give instructions, choices, or tools that someone can use soon. A civil servant cannot change the policy from this text, and a member of the public cannot act on the information in any practical way. The article offers no action to take.

The article offers little educational depth. It states that 9,000 civil servants were told to spend 40% of their time in the office, but it does not explain how that target was decided, how it is monitored, or what the compromises with unions actually mean. The occupancy numbers are presented without context. The reader is not told how capacity is measured, why January figures were lower than June figures, or why contractors and agency workers were counted in one month but not the other. The statistics remain superficial and unexplained. The article does not teach enough.

The personal relevance is limited. The policy affects only Scottish Government civil servants and their unions. For most readers outside that group, the information has no bearing on their safety, money, health, or daily decisions. Even for those civil servants, the article does not help them decide whether to comply, how to appeal, or where to find guidance. The relevance is narrow and indirect.

The article does not serve the public. It contains no warnings, safety guidance, emergency information, or responsible advice. It is a political announcement that recounts a dispute about office attendance without offering context, help, or useful detail. It appears designed to generate attention rather than to inform or assist the public.

There is no practical advice in the article. It does not tell readers how to assess their own workplace policies, how to negotiate hybrid arrangements, or how to plan around uncertain rules. The guidance that is implied, such as maintaining 40% office attendance, is vague and not actionable for someone who wants to act soon.

The article focuses entirely on a short-lived political dispute. It offers no lasting benefit, no habits to build, no safety practices to adopt, and no way to avoid repeating problems. It does not help a person plan ahead or make stronger choices in the future.

The emotional impact is neutral but unhelpful. The article does not create fear, shock, or helplessness. However, it also does not offer clarity or constructive thinking. It simply states facts about a policy dispute without helping the reader understand why it matters or what to do with the information.

The article does not use clickbait language or exaggerated claims. It is straightforward and factual, without dramatic or repeated assertions. It does not overpromise or sensationalize.

The article misses several opportunities to teach or guide. It could have explained how hybrid policies are negotiated in public sectors, how occupancy data is collected and used, or how civil servants can seek clarity on workplace rules. It could have offered a checklist for evaluating workplace policies, tips for communicating with managers about flexible work, or advice on how to interpret government announcements. A reader who wants to keep learning can compare this announcement with official government guidance documents, look up the relevant civil service codes on verified platforms, and check union communications for updates. They can also ask colleagues or workplace representatives about how the policy is applied in practice. These steps rely on common sense and basic observation, require no special data, and help the reader make informed decisions about their own work situation.

To fill the gap, a person can take a few practical steps that work in any workplace or region. Before making decisions about work arrangements, review the official written policy from your employer and note any stated expectations, exceptions, and appeal processes. When policies are unclear, ask your manager or human resources for written clarification rather than relying on verbal summaries. If you are negotiating flexible work, propose a trial period with measurable goals so both sides can assess what works. Keep a simple record of your own attendance or output so you can respond to questions with facts. When government or organizational announcements include numbers, ask how those numbers were measured and whether they include all relevant groups. If you are unsure whether a policy applies to you, check the official source directly rather than trusting summaries. These habits rely only on common sense and basic planning, require no special data, and help you navigate workplace changes safely and responsibly.

The text frames trade unions as obstacles by saying compromises were “preventing strict enforcement” of the office rule. This wording makes the unions look like they are blocking a reasonable policy instead of negotiating fair terms. The phrase “will not be permitted to determine” reinforces that ministers hold all the power. The bias helps the government appear firm while painting unions as the problem. No union voice is quoted to explain their side.

The Permanent Secretary “acknowledged that compromises were reached with trade unions, preventing strict enforcement of the policy.” This passive construction hides who actually agreed to the compromises. It makes the outcome sound like something that just happened rather than a decision by management. The bias protects leaders from blame for weak enforcement. The reader cannot tell if ministers or officials chose to compromise.

The Cabinet Secretary calls the 40% rule a “clear expectation” while also admitting compromises stopped strict enforcement. These two statements contradict each other because a clear expectation would not need compromises that block enforcement. The bias makes the policy sound stronger than it really is. It helps the government look consistent while the data shows the opposite. The reader is left confused about what the real rule is.

Occupancy data for January shows Victoria Quay at 12.1% and Saughton House at 8.2% for core civil servants, but June figures for Atlantic Quay jump to 70.8% only when “contractors and agency workers were included.” The text mixes two different groups to make June look better. This selection hides that core staff attendance stayed low. The bias helps the government claim progress that does not exist for its own workers. The comparison is not fair because the groups are different.

The Cabinet Secretary “claimed that recent reforms to the government estate have already delivered savings of £52 million and resulted in the closure of 15 buildings.” The word “claimed” casts doubt on the savings figure while other statements use neutral verbs like “stated” or “acknowledged.” This subtle choice makes the positive news sound less certain. The bias helps a skeptical reader dismiss the success. No independent source is cited to verify the number.

The text says remote work flexibility is “preserved where practical.” The phrase “where practical” gives managers full discretion to deny remote work whenever they want. It sounds like a protection for workers but functions as a loophole for employers. The bias helps the government appear flexible while keeping control. Workers have no guarantee the option will be honored.

The government has spent £41.8 million on operating costs for five key buildings since 2020 while Victoria Quay sits “largely empty, with approximately 80% of the space unused.” The text presents the cost and the emptiness as separate facts without linking them to the hybrid policy failure. This omission hides the waste caused by low attendance. The bias avoids blaming the policy for the expense. The reader must connect the dots alone.

Efforts to “consolidate public sector organizations into Victoria Quay” are described as underway with other offices “gradually relocated.” The language sounds orderly and efficient but does not mention whether services suffer or staff oppose the moves. The bias frames consolidation as purely positive. It helps the government justify keeping a half-empty building. No downside is presented for balance.

The text carries several emotions that shape how the reader understands the situation. Pride appears when Cabinet Secretary Ivan McKee speaks about government reforms, especially when he claims savings of £52 million and the closure of 15 buildings. This pride is strong and serves to show that the government believes its actions are successful and worth celebrating. It helps the reader see the government as capable and in control, building trust in their leadership.

Defiance is another clear emotion, especially in the statement that trade unions will not be permitted to determine hybrid working arrangements. This defiance is firm and shows that ministers are standing their ground against outside pressure. It guides the reader to see the government as resolute and unwilling to back down, which may inspire support for their position.

Frustration comes through when the text mentions that the 40% office target has been met only rarely. This frustration is moderate and reflects the difficulty of enforcing the policy. It helps the reader feel that the situation is challenging and that things are not going as planned, which may create worry about how well the policy works.

Disappointment is present in the low occupancy numbers, such as Victoria Quay operating at 12.1% in January. This disappointment is quiet but noticeable and shows that the buildings are not being used as intended. It guides the reader to feel that the policy is failing, which may lead to concern about wasted money and effort.

Concern appears when the text discusses the £41.8 million spent on operating costs for five key buildings. This concern is subtle and makes the reader think about whether the money is being used wisely. It helps shape the message that there may be problems with how the government manages its resources.

Resignation is felt when Permanent Secretary Joe Griffin acknowledges that compromises were reached with trade unions. This resignation is calm and shows that the government accepts some limitations. It helps the reader understand that the situation is not entirely under the government’s control, which may reduce trust in their ability to enforce rules.

The writer uses these emotions to persuade the reader by choosing words that carry weight. Phrases like “will not be permitted” sound strong and final, which increases the feeling of defiance. Numbers like 12.1% and 70.8% are used to make the situation feel real and urgent, which increases concern and disappointment. Repeating the idea that the government is saving money and closing buildings builds pride and trust, while mentioning compromises introduces resignation and softens the image of control.

By mixing pride with frustration and concern, the writer creates a balanced but emotional picture. This helps guide the reader to feel both support for the government’s goals and worry about how things are going. The emotions work together to shape the reader’s reaction, making them more likely to pay attention, feel involved, and form an opinion about whether the policy is working.