So now we know the truth. Dolphins were intended to be used in the search for the Loch Ness monster, West Kilbride has the most UFO sightings in Scotland and there are exactly seven zebra crossings in Glasgow.

Trivia, you might think. But if knowledge is power, then the ordinary person in Scotland is a lot more powerful than they were even two years ago.

There is no doubt that Freedom of Information - the act which was brought into Scottish law more than two years ago - has been a success in a largely unforseen way.

For every media story about the brand of wine in Jack McConnell's cellar; David McLetchie's taxis; the Thatcher government's bizarre plan to see if Nessie was real; or the RAF's log of UFO sightings, however, there have been dozens more requests from ordinary members of the public.

Why has my child been denied access to his local school? Who ordered the yellow lines to be painted outside my home? What is the cost of closing our local clinic? These are the sort of questions which now have answers thanks to freedom of information.

In his annual report, Kevin Dunion, the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC), makes the point that ordinary members of the public now comprise the largest group requesting information, followed by the legal profession at 12%, and the media and politicians, who account for 6% of requests.

Indeed, 65% of appeals to Dunion's office in the past year have been from members of the public - a rise of 10%. While two-thirds of requests for information under the law were from journalists in the first few months following the Act, that has now dropped to 8%.

Public awareness of our right to access the information that affects us has risen from less than 50% in 2005 to 72%, and resulted in the increase in requests.

Of the thousands of Scots who made valid requests for information to public authorities, 511 appealed to the SIC in the last year.

The appeals covered a range of subjects including health, crime, housing, planning, employment and education.

The commissioner has ruled in favour of the local authority in 108 cases and in favour of the applicant in 144 cases. The remaining applications were either invalid on technicalities or withdrawn.

Yes, many requests are still turned down, but the information being made available means that public bodies are becoming increasingly accountable. When parents in Glasgow were unhappy about the closure of Simshill School in Cathcart, a freedom of information request meant they could find out that every parent who had been consulted on the plan was opposed to it. They are not alone. Here, we speak to three ordinary people about out how the Act has worked for them.

Fiona McLay

As a burial clerk dealing with internments within Aberdeenshire Council, when Fiona McLay's staff grading was reviewed she remained unhappy with her position, and subsequently asked to see the background report used by the evaluation panel that re-graded her post from an AP1, the lowest, up one level to an AP2.

"In the past 10 years my duties and experience have increased and I thought I should have been on a higher grading," says Fiona, pictured below.

But the council withheld the information used by the evaluation panel in making its decision.

It claimed if employees knew specific information about the grading of posts, it could distort the decision-making process.

When McLay contacted the Scottish Information Commissioner, he upheld her request.

"When the SIC said he would take on my case, I was jumping with joy and felt more empowered," she says. "And when the council released the information, it showed how it had reached its decision. It was useful during my final appeal on the grading of my position, although ultimately, it did not affect the final outcome and my grade remained the same. However, it was fantastic to have the opportunity to access the information about myself, and this should be a fundamental right of living in an open society."

Bruce Sandison

As a keen fisherman, Bruce Sandison wanted to find out which fish farm was responsible for the escape of thousands of farmed salmon into the wild in 2006.

The Scottish Executive's Fisheries Research Services (FRS) had confirmed salmon had escaped, but refused to name the farm involved.

"Something like 37,000 fish had escaped from a farm in Orkney, yet the FRS said they would only name the farm with the permission of the farmer involved, which he was not going to give," says Mr Sandison.

"I felt that the information should really have been public knowledge because if we can identify the farms that are regularly losing fish, there is more likelihood that direct action would be taken.

"Also, given that about two million farmed fish have escaped from caged farms in recent years, it is important to find out who is responsible."

Before Sandison, who is the chairman of the Salmon Farm protest group, could go to the FOI commissioner, he had to ask the FRS to review its decision, which it did, and it upheld its original response not to release the details.

Mr Sandison then appealed to the commissioner, who found in his favour and gave the FRS 45 working days in which to release the fish farmer's details under environmental regulations.

"It waited until the 44th day to give me the information, but it set a precedent," says Sandison, who went on to ask for details of other escapes from other farms and was then able to identify a league table of the worst offenders.

"An enormous number have escaped and, generally speaking, it is the same fish farmers involved.

"But releasing their details has prompted the farms to take action, and recent figures show the numbers of farmed fish escaping has reduced by half."

Allan McLeod

In February 1997, the body of Allan McLeod's nephew, Kevin, was found in Wick Harbour. He had received massive abdominal injuries and the police quickly concluded that his death was an accident. But his parents, Hugh and Jane, maintained he had been killed and thought police had mishandled the investigation.

Their complaints, led by Allan McLeod on behalf of the family, resulted in a report by Central Scotland police into the investigation and the handling of the family's concerns.

"When we asked to see that report, both Central Scotland and the Northern Constabulary refused," says McLeod.

"After they both refused again on appeal, the next step was to write to the Freedom of Information Commissioner. Emotionally, this was too difficult for Kevin's parents to do, so I wrote a simple and straightforward letter on behalf of the whole family.

"The commissioner acknowledged that it was a complex and sensitive request and that it might be a lengthy process."

Eighteen months later, in January this year, the FOI commissioner upheld Mr McLeod's request and approved the release of two-thirds of the report to the family.

"It confirmed our suspicions that our original complaints were not handled properly, and neither was the investigation into Kevin's death," says McLeod.

"The report said Northern Constabulary should apologise to the McLeod family for the shortcomings in the investigation, but all we ever received was a letter that was an expression of regret, not an apology."

The report is now in the hands of the family's solicitor and they hope it will help get the case into Kevin's death reopened.

A user's guide to the FOI

The Freedom of Information Act 2002 gives you legal rights to see information held by all public-funded bodies and other organisations that provide services for them.

All you have to do is ask for the information - you don't have to say why you want it.

You have the right to see paper files, reports, e-mails, computer documents, microfiche, video and other forms of information.

All Scottish public authorities now have a duty to advise and assist the public when they make requests for information - and they must provide the information within 20 working days.

Say you are requesting the information under the FOI Act. It speeds the process along because many organisations now have FOI officers to handle inquiries.

No official documents need to be filled in and you have only to e-mail, phone or write requesting the information.

Some information can still be held back for good reasons - but you should be given those reasons, such as notes from a court case, information that could damage a person or putting people in danger.

Most requests are dealt with free of charge, but if it is going to cost up to £600, you get the first £100 free then have to pay 10% of the cost. If your request will cost more than £600, the authority can refuse or can charge you the full cost.

In the case of a refusal, you need to ask for a review of the decision before you can appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner, which must be done within 40 days of the authorities' decision.

The commissioner weighs up a case and issues a decision in favour of the applicant or authority, normally within four months.

A request to the commissioner must be made in writing giving your name, address, details of your original request and why you are unhappy with the response.

  • If the Commissioner decides the authority has failed to follow the Act, he will issue a formal notice setting out the steps the authority needs to take.

If it fails, the commissioner can inform the Court of Session, which could result in the authority being fined.

Requests for information numbered over 20,000 in the first year to local authorities, the Scottish Executive, police forces, NHS boards, universities, prisons, the Scottish Arts Council and various other public bodies.

For more info go to: