15th November 2026
The Scottish Government is tightening its rules on working from home, requiring most civil servants in hybrid-working roles to spend at least 40% of their contracted working time working in person. For senior civil servants, the expectation rises to 60%.
The revised arrangements came into effect on 9 November 2026. Although ministers have presented the change as an effort to improve collaboration and make better use of government offices, it raises an important question for rural Scotland: could a policy designed to bring employees back into the workplace undermine years of efforts to spread employment opportunities beyond the major cities?
For someone living in Edinburgh, Glasgow or Dundee, attending an office for two days a week may be relatively straightforward. For someone living in Wick, Thurso, Ullapool or the Western Isles, the implications can be very different.
What has changed?
The Scottish Government's previous hybrid-working arrangements already included an expectation that employees in suitable roles should spend 40% of their contracted working time in person. However, the expectation was more flexible and was not intended to operate as a fixed attendance mandate.
The revised policy, effective from 9 November, makes the requirement more explicit. Staff in hybrid-compatible roles must spend 40% of their contracted hours working in person, while senior civil servants face a 60% requirement.
Importantly, working in person does not necessarily mean sitting at a government desk. The time can include attending meetings, working with colleagues, visiting communities and meeting stakeholders.
There are provisions for adjustments and exemptions where individual circumstances justify them. Nevertheless, the change has caused considerable concern among some employees and their trade unions.
The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) announced on 6 November that it would ballot members for industrial action. The dispute covers Scottish Government staff and employees in four other public bodies: Social Security Scotland, Community Justice Scotland, Transport Scotland and Disclosure Scotland.
PCS argues that the attendance requirements risk undermining established flexible-working arrangements. The union also questions whether ministers have produced convincing evidence that compulsory office attendance will improve productivity or public services.
The ballot is scheduled to run until 14 December.
The rural employment question
The potential consequences for rural Scotland deserve particular attention.
For many years, governments have promoted digital connectivity and remote working as ways of encouraging people to live and work in rural areas. The ability to work for an organisation based in Edinburgh, Glasgow or elsewhere without having to move house has opened opportunities that previously would have been inaccessible to many people.
This is particularly relevant to Caithness and Sutherland, where the distance from major employment centres has traditionally restricted career choices.
A person living in Wick might be perfectly capable of undertaking a professional administrative, analytical, financial or technical job for a government department based in Edinburgh. Modern communications systems make much of this work possible without daily physical attendance.
However, if the employee is required to attend a designated workplace regularly, the practical advantages of remote employment can diminish.
A journey from Wick to Edinburgh is not comparable with a short commute across the city. Even travelling to Inverness involves a substantial commitment of time and money.
For someone with family responsibilities, caring commitments or limited transport options, the additional travel could make an otherwise attractive job less appealing.
There is also a recruitment issue. If an organisation insists on a greater physical presence, it may find that applicants living far from its offices are less willing or able to apply.
A government workforce spread across Scotland
The Scottish Government has previously acknowledged the importance of having employees based throughout the country.
In a parliamentary answer published in March 2026, ministers said that the hybrid-working policy had taken account of the dispersed workforce, including employees living in rural and island communities.
The same response acknowledged that work was continuing to clarify the location policy for Scottish Government staff, with consultation involving trade unions and staff networks.
The geographical distribution of government employment is important. Public-sector jobs can provide relatively well-paid, skilled employment in communities where private-sector opportunities may be more limited.
They also support local economies through household spending, housing demand and the use of local services.
A government employee living in Caithness contributes to the local economy whether their employer's headquarters is in Edinburgh or Inverness.
If remote working allows more professional employment to be located in rural communities, there is a wider economic benefit beyond the individual employee.
The question of empty offices
There is, however, another side to the argument.
Government buildings are expensive to operate. If offices are maintained for large numbers of employees who rarely attend, taxpayers may reasonably ask whether the accommodation is being used effectively.
The Scottish Government has faced questions about office occupancy, including its Victoria Quay building in Edinburgh.
The argument for more in-person working is that teams can collaborate more effectively, new employees can learn from experienced colleagues, and managers can provide support through direct contact.
There may be considerable merit in these arguments, particularly for training, confidential discussions and work requiring close teamwork.
But there is a distinction between encouraging employees to meet when there is a clear business purpose and requiring attendance simply to satisfy a percentage target.
The government needs to demonstrate that the benefits justify the additional travel, accommodation and disruption involved.
How will the rules be enforced?
Another issue is the way the new arrangements will be monitored.
In a Freedom of Information response published in July 2026, the Scottish Government said it did not centrally record how many employees worked entirely remotely or how many were meeting the 40% expectation.
It also said there was no central attendance enforcement process and that managers dealt with individual circumstances through normal management arrangements.
However, the November changes have brought a more explicit attendance requirement, and reports of plans for a location-monitoring tool have added to union concerns.
PCS argues that employees could face disciplinary consequences for failing to comply. The government and union clearly have different interpretations of how the arrangements will operate in practice.
This needs clarification. Employees should know precisely what is expected, how attendance will be recorded, what exemptions are available and how individual circumstances will be considered.
Could Scotland take a different approach?
There is no reason why every public-sector job should be carried out from home. Hospitals, schools, maintenance teams, emergency services and many other occupations require people to be physically present.
Equally, there is no obvious reason why every administrative, analytical or professional role should require regular attendance at a central office.
A more geographically flexible approach could involve regional offices, shared government workspaces and agreed arrangements for employees living considerable distances from their contractual workplace.
It could also mean assessing employees on the quality and timeliness of their work rather than treating physical attendance as an indication of productivity.
The Scottish Government could use its own employment policies to support the development of rural communities rather than concentrating opportunities around its largest offices.
An opportunity that should not be lost
Scotland faces continuing challenges in retaining young people, attracting skilled workers and sustaining rural populations.
Caithness and Sutherland know these problems particularly well. The loss of employment opportunities can mean that younger people move away, while businesses struggle to recruit and communities lose the spending power that comes with skilled employment.
Remote and hybrid working cannot solve all these problems. Reliable broadband, transport, housing and local training opportunities remain essential.
Nevertheless, the ability to work for a major employer without having to live near its headquarters is an important development.
The Scottish Government is entitled to decide how its workforce operates and how its buildings are used. But it should also consider the wider consequences of its decisions.
The Microsoft Outage: What Happens When Home Working Stops Working?
The recent worldwide Microsoft 365 outage has introduced another consideration into the debate about working from home. It demonstrated just how dependent modern businesses and public services have become on a relatively small number of technology providers.
The disruption, which affected Microsoft services including Outlook, Teams and Exchange Online, left organisations in many countries struggling to communicate and access essential information. Some services were disrupted for more than 24 hours before Microsoft confirmed that normal operations had been restored.
For people working from home, the implications were particularly obvious. A laptop, broadband connection and a suitable workspace are not enough if the systems needed to carry out the job are unavailable.
An employee sitting at home may be unable to access emails, shared documents, appointments or the systems needed to communicate with colleagues. Even arranging an alternative meeting can become difficult if the usual communications channels have failed.
However, it would be wrong to assume that returning to the office automatically solves this problem. If employees in government offices are using exactly the same Microsoft cloud services, they may be just as unable to work as colleagues sitting at home.
The issue is therefore not simply where employees work, but whether their employers have adequate contingency arrangements.
Businesses and government departments should have alternative ways of contacting employees, access to essential information that does not depend entirely on cloud services, and clear instructions about which activities can continue during an outage.
Telephone contact lists, offline copies of essential documents and agreed alternative communication arrangements may sound rather old-fashioned, but they can become extremely valuable when sophisticated technology fails.
There is also a wider question about the concentration of so many essential services in the hands of a small number of technology companies. Microsoft is not the only provider, but its importance to businesses and public administration means that an incident affecting its systems can have consequences across the economy.
For Scotland, this raises an additional consideration. If the government wants to encourage more people to work remotely and spread professional employment into rural communities, it must also ensure that the infrastructure supporting those jobs is dependable.
Reliable broadband is important, but digital resilience requires more than a fast internet connection.
The lesson from the outage is that modern working arrangements need to be designed around the possibility of failure. Whether employees are sitting in Edinburgh offices or working from home in Caithness, essential public services and business operations should not grind to a halt simply because one technology provider experiences difficulties.
If the new rules make it harder for people in remote communities to secure and retain professional employment, Scotland could find itself working against its own rural development ambitions.
The real question is not whether civil servants should work in offices or at home. It is whether the location of a person's home should unnecessarily restrict the employment opportunities available to them.
For rural Scotland, that distinction matters enormously.