Truth, misinformation, and Scotland’s democratic future

Ahead of 2026 Scottish Parliament elections, the RSE’s Scottish Election Programme has been helping citizens engage with the issues that matter most to voters in shaping Scotland’s future. Co-Chairs of the programme, Shonaig Macpherson FRSE and Professor Des Thompson FRSE, caution against the rise of misinformation in an election year.

We are now living in the era of AI-generated news, making it harder for us to know what’s true or fake, what we should give credence to and what we should discredit.

Research has shown that fake news travels six times faster than the norm, as automated robotic networks post ‘likes’, and share content on a mass scale to create trends and make posts look more popular than they are.

The ‘deepfake’ scandal which occurred during the Irish Presidential Election in October is a salutary warning of what AI is capable of. Deepfake news reports were posted online stating that the leading candidate, Catherine Connolly, had pulled out of the election. These false reports included an AI generated video purporting to be Connolly, the eventual winner of the election. This was swiftly followed by further fake news reports imitating several well-known journalists commenting on her withdrawal.

With such a blatant attempt to influence an election so close to home, what influence might these forces, often based outside of the country, have in shaping democracy in Scotland and particularly on our Scottish Parliament elections in May 2026?

At the Royal Society of Edinburgh, we want to raise awareness of this issue and to inform the electorate about this threat to our own political discourse. As part of our Scottish Election 2026 Programme, we recently held a series of events across the country to help the public make educated decisions, ahead of May’s vote.

This included two events in Ullapool which explored how information is created, shared, and increasingly weaponised in the context of the forthcoming election.

The evidence base is worryingly pointing to growing mistrust in public information and official discourse.  The latest Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that only 47% of respondents said they trust the Scottish Government to work in Scotland’s best interests – compared with 61% before the Pandemic. Some forces are clearly tapping into this feeling of discontent by attempting to provide an alternative view, often based on fake information providing simplistic answers to complex issues such as immigration or climate change.  This is a danger to our democracy, and with AI-generated content, false information can be shared widely and repeatedly on social media within seconds.

There are already examples of misinformation and disinformation through AI entering the political arena in Scotland.  Amazon had to take down several error-strewn, evidently AI-created, biographies of leading SNP politicians, including Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf.  One of John Swinney said he was born to a Polish mother in Ohio.  As we get closer to the elections, we can expect a spike in this sort of fake news directed towards our social media feeds.

This is a wakeup call for society, as we begin to start questioning even basic facts as true or untrue.  As we become more divided and increasingly gravitating towards versions of what we want to believe, the pursuit and articulation of truth is vital.  This becomes more acute when we consider that 58% of 16-19-year-olds source their news from social media and 49% trust that source more than mainstream media, according to polling by the John Smith Centre.

This begs the question – who can we trust for news?

Where facts are available, are they from an authoritative source and can they be cross-referenced with other credible news outlets? If it’s a new piece of research, who is behind it or who paid for it? The organisation may have an agenda or motivation for publishing information at a particular time. Is a video oddly choreographed or does it deliberately obscure information in the background to prevent detection?

Credible news outlets are crucial, but as we have seen with the multi-billion-dollar lawsuit filed by US President Donald Trump against the BBC, the edit of a speech in a documentary can be potentially catastrophic for an internationally authoritative news outlet. It’s no surprise that our politicians are alert to the threat of misleading information.  The UK Government’s Online Safety Act (2023) gives ministers regulatory powers over online content deemed harmful to children. Last month the Scottish Government set out a Digital Strategy for Scotland which includes reference to helping young people become digitally literate

The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland is promoting information literacy by exploring how libraries, especially those in schools, can play a role as hubs serving to counter misinformation. The Royal Society of Edinburgh working with Edinburgh Napier University recently produced a ‘FalseWebs Network Policy Paper’ addressing a worrying array of proliferating fake information sources. Clearly, government-led advice and guidance will gather pace – as it has to.

And where does this leave what we refer to as the ‘mainstream media’, with its journalists working to a code of ethics and high editorial standards regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation? Ideally, facts are gathered by trained journalists, cross-checked and sourced and contrasting comments included in articles for balance and impartiality. Will this persist as competing non-regulated media outlets attract more users?

There is a pressing need for support to help us all gain the skills to recognise what is credible information. As Scotland’s National Academy whose mantra is ‘Knowledge made Useful’ we will continue to play our part in the pursuit and dissemination of evidence-based information and truth.  Not just in schools, but for society as a whole, we need to ensure people are skilled to make decisions based on credible information.

During the Scottish Enlightenment debate raged over what is ‘common sense’ as opposed to ‘scepticism’, with leading philosophers of the time fervently promoting opposing ideas. Today, at the very least, healthily scepticism should help us all decide what we can rely on as credible information.