Understanding extremism in Scotland: research findings

Research findings

Understanding of extremism

Each of the projects sought to explore participants’ understanding of the concept of extremism, including: how they themselves would define it; their perceptions of extremist views and actions and where the boundaries of extremism sit in relation to these; views on definitions and categorisations used in other countries; and views on the links between hate crime, terrorism and extremism.

Definitions of extremism

Stakeholders, public sector practitioners and members of the public were often initially confident that they understood what is meant by the term extremism. This was particularly true of stakeholders involved in Prevent delivery in Scotland, and public sector practitioners with a Prevent-related role.

However, stakeholders, public sector practitioners and members of the public often found it difficult to articulate a definition of the concept when asked to. There was consensus across the projects that it is a challenging concept to define.

For members of the public and stakeholders, the subjective and contextual nature of extremism was highlighted as the main reason for this. Participants in these projects discussed how extremism is often conceptualised as being outside of societal norms or existing legal or democratic frameworks, meaning that what is considered to constitute extremism can vary according to time and place.

In contrast, public sector practitioners felt that the breadth of the range of beliefs and behaviours that may be considered to constitute extremism is the main reason why the term is difficult to summarise concisely.

Despite these challenges, there were stakeholders, public sector practitioners and members of the public who could articulate a definition of extremism, and common themes could be identified in the definitions that were presented.

In particular, the definitions often depicted extremism as views or behaviours which are in opposition to societal and cultural norms, values and morals. The use or advocacy of violence to promote a viewpoint or in pursuit of a particular aim was also a common feature of definitions.

Extremism and violence

Although stakeholders, members of the public and public sector practitioners often initially associated extremism with the use of or support for violence, different perspectives emerged across the projects regarding whether extremism does necessarily involve violence.

For some stakeholders, public sector practitioners and members of the public, acts of physical violence, or advocacy on behalf of people who commit acts of violence, were considered to be important components of extremism. Others felt that a wider spectrum of behaviours could be considered to constitute extremism, such as causing disruption or disorder, discrimination, bullying and hate speech.

This was reflected in discussions of existing definitions of extremism identified in the review carried out by the Scottish Government (2023b). In all three projects, there was some preference towards definitions which referenced violence, such as that adopted in Australia:

‘a willingness to use unlawful violence, or support the use of violence by others, to promote a political, ideological or religious goal’. (Australian Government, 2022)

However, there were also participants who disagreed with the inclusion of violence in the definition. Among these participants, it was felt that referencing violence made the definition too narrow, and could lead to harmful non-violent forms of extremism being overlooked.

Categorising types of extremism

In the research with the public and stakeholders, participants were asked for their views on the approach to defining extremism adopted in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where broad categories of types of extremism are the focus, rather than specific ideologies. Participants were asked to consider the use of three groupings: ‘religiously-motivated’, ‘ideologically-’ or ‘identity-motivated’ and ‘politically-motivated’ extremism.

Stakeholders and members of the public were mostly supportive of the use of the categories, but for different reasons. The public found the approach to be a helpful way to think about what the term extremism can cover, giving them a sense of the range of motivations that may underpin extremist views or actions. Meanwhile, stakeholders discussed how this approach could help to overcome challenges with existing language used in relation to extremism. In particular, it was noted that this approach could shift the focus away from particular religious or political groups when discussing extremism.

However, both the public and stakeholders raised the same concern with the approach – that some ideologies may not fit neatly into one of the three categories. For example, stakeholders highlighted sectarianism, Northern Ireland-related Terrorism (NIRT) and right-wing extremism as often having both political and religious elements.

Extremism, hate crime and terrorism

Stakeholders, the public and practitioners were asked for their views on the links between extremism, hate crime and terrorism. Across the projects, there was consensus that the concepts are closely connected and sometimes difficult to disentangle.

In the research with stakeholders and public sector practitioners, a key theme that emerged was the idea of a spectrum or continuum between hate crime, extremism and terrorism. There was a sense that hate crime could progress to extremism and then terrorism without appropriate support or intervention.

However, stakeholders, the public and public sector practitioners all drew similar distinctions between extremism, hate crime, and terrorism. In particular, when considering the links between extremism and hate crime, many felt that extremism was more likely to be underpinned by a deep-seated belief system or ideology, whereas hate crime was more likely to be motivated by bias or prejudice. It was also felt that hate crime is more likely to arise spontaneously, for example from an escalation of an existing conflict, than extremism.

Differing perspectives regarding whether extremism necessarily involves violence also emerged in discussions of the differences between extremism and terrorism. While some had initially associated extremism with violence, when considering terrorism, many felt that terrorism was the violent act, while extremism was the underlying belief system or view.

Many also felt that terrorism could be distinguished from extremism by its motive and impact, with terrorism more focused on influencing government actions and policies, and more likely to be large-scale and involve planning, than extremism.

Understanding of extremism – key findings

• Stakeholders, public sector practitioners and members of the public found it difficult to articulate a definition of extremism, and acknowledged that it is challenging to define.
• Those who were able to express a definition often depicted extremism as in opposition to societal and cultural norms, values and morals, or involving the use of violence in pursuit of an ideological aim.
• However, across the projects there were contrasting views regarding whether extremism necessarily involves violence, which was reflected in discussions of existing definitions. Some favoured definitions which referenced violence, while others felt that this focus was too narrow.
• Among stakeholders and the public there was some support for an approach to defining extremism which involves the use of broad categories of types of extremism. However, there were concerns that some ideologies may not fit neatly into one of the three categories.
• Stakeholders, public sector practitioners and members of the public all felt that extremism, hate crime and terrorism are closely related, with the idea of a spectrum or continuum of views expressed. However, participants in each of the projects were able to draw distinctions between the terms.

Views on extremism in Scotland

The projects also sought to explore participants’ views on extremism in Scotland, including the extent to which they view it as a problem; perceived geographic variations in the prevalence of extremism; whether the threat from extremism has changed over time; and the threat posed by different types of extremism.

Views on the prevalence of extremism

Stakeholders, the public and public sector practitioners generally felt that extremism is a problem in Scotland, but less so than it is elsewhere in the UK. For example, Figure 1 below shows that 5% of public sector practitioners and 9% of the public viewed extremism as a big problem in Scotland, compared with 32% of public sector practitioners and 24% of the public viewing it as a big problem in the rest of the UK.

Base sizes: Practitioner: All survey respondents, n=492, Public: All survey respondents, n=2071.

Question: How much of a problem do you consider extremism to be in the following places?

Participants gave similar reasons as to why they perceived Scotland to have lower levels of extremism than elsewhere in the UK across the projects. Most commonly, demographic factors were highlighted, including Scotland’s smaller population size. This was viewed as having contributed to lower levels of extremism due to a perception that there is greater opportunity for extremism to develop in areas of larger population. Although many did not elaborate on why this may be the case, it was suggested that monitoring extremism could be more challenging among a larger population.

However, while some research has identified links between terrorism and high levels of population growth (in combination with income inequality and deprivation) (Coccia, 2018), there is little evidence that specifically indicates a link between population size and extremism.

In the research with stakeholders and public sector practitioners, lower levels of immigration and smaller ethnic minority populations were also highlighted as factors that may have contributed to the presence of less extremism in Scotland than England. In both projects, there was a sense that areas with higher levels of immigration and larger ethnic minority populations could have higher levels of tension, hate crime and discrimination, which could in turn create environments which are more permissive of extremist views.

A further reason discussed in the stakeholder research was that higher levels of immigration could lead to the propagation of narratives which blame immigrants for domestic problems, creating support for more extreme viewpoints.

Finally, in the research with the public and stakeholders, some participants also had a perception that levels of extremism are lower in Scotland because Scotland is more cohesive and tolerant than other parts of the UK. It was noted in the stakeholder research that this argument is highlighted in the work of Bonino (2016), who has suggested that lower levels of Islamist extremism in Scotland may in part be explained by Scotland’s distinctive political culture and positive attitudes towards settled immigrants. Notably, however, other research has shown that despite a perception that there are more positive views towards immigration in Scotland than England, the proportion of people who view the economic and cultural consequences of immigration negatively is similar on both sides of the border (NatCen, 2018).

Geographic variation

Stakeholders, public sector practitioners and the public were asked their views on whether the prevalence of extremism in Scotland varies by geographic region. In the research with the public and public sector practitioners, there was a sense that extremism is more likely to be encountered in urban areas than rural areas. The reasons presented for this were similar to those outlined above, including the perception that there is greater opportunity for extremism to develop in areas of larger population and in more ethnically diverse communities.

However, stakeholders had more mixed views. While some held the view that extremism is more likely to be a concern in urban areas of Scotland than in rural areas, others felt that extremism is likely to be a concern in both urban and rural areas. These participants felt that lower levels of ethnic diversity in rural areas could increase the likelihood of extremism due to the lack of exposure to, or interactions with, people from other ethnic groups leading to more bias and discrimination, therefore fostering environments where extremism can flourish.

Some stakeholders also felt that geography is now less relevant due to the increasing ease with which people can communicate with others and access content online, which has meant that people can be radicalised from their homes.

Trends over time

Stakeholders, public sector practitioners and the public were asked to consider whether they perceive the threat from extremism in Scotland to have increased, decreased or stayed the same over the last five years.

Among public sector practitioners, there was a strong sense that extremism had increased in Scotland over this period, particularly among those with experience of Prevent in their roles. Reasons for this presented included: the view that young people are now spending more time online, with social media seen as a ‘breeding ground’ for extremism; and the COVID-19 pandemic, which was viewed as having increased isolation, a perceived risk factor for radicalisation.

Among stakeholders and the public, views on this were more mixed. In the stakeholder research, no participants felt that the threat from extremism had decreased in the last five years, but there were differing views on whether the threat had increased or stayed the same.

As with public sector practitioners, stakeholders who felt that there was a chance extremism could have increased discussed the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and increased time spent online during periods of lockdown, particularly among younger people. Other contributory factors were also suggested, such as Brexit leading to increased political polarisation and the prevalence of mental illnesses having increased over time. Notably, links between extremism and mental illness are not empirically well-established, although research has explored relevant features associated with particular conditions which may shape vulnerability to extremism (Al-Attar, 2019).

Stakeholders who felt that levels of extremism in Scotland were likely to be the same as five years ago mostly pointed to the fact that they were not aware of any evidence or data which indicates that extremism is growing.

In the research with the public, more felt the threat had increased than decreased or stayed the same. As with practitioners and stakeholders, those feeling that there had been an increase often attributed this change to the growth of social media and its role in spreading extremist sentiment and COVID-19, while a view that society is becoming more divided was also discussed.

However, there were also members of the public who felt that the threat of extremism had declined over time. In particular, some older participants felt that extremism had declined over a longer time period, mentioning the decline in threat relating to the conflict in Northern Ireland within their lifetimes. Meanwhile, there were also participants who felt that the COVID-19 pandemic had reduced opportunities for extremist action to take place.

Figure 2 below shows public sector practitioners’ and members of the public’s views on whether the threat from extremism in Scotland has changed over the last five years, demonstrating that less than half (46%) of the public felt the threat from extremism has increased in Scotland in the last five years, compared with almost two thirds (64%) of public sector practitioners.

Base sizes: Practitioner: All survey respondents, n=492, Public: All survey respondents, n=2071.

Question: Public research – In the last five years, do you think the threat from extremism has changed in Scotland?, Practitioner research – In the last five years, do you think the threat from extremism has increased or decreased in Scotland?

Stakeholders and the public were also asked their views on whether they feel extremism will change in Scotland in the next five years. In both projects, most participants felt that extremism is likely to increase over this period. Both stakeholders and members of the public discussed the Scottish independence debate, with some suggesting that a second independence referendum might have the potential to lead to increased tension and polarisation in Scottish society. Stakeholders also highlighted potential consequences of the current economic climate and cost of living crisis, including the view that economic insecurity and unemployment could increase people’s vulnerability to more extreme narratives by feeding societal divisions and encouraging ‘us versus them’ positions.

Types of extremism

Stakeholders, the public and public sector practitioners were also asked their views on the types of extremism they perceive to be more and less prevalent in Scotland. In all three projects, intra-Christian sectarianism was highlighted as a pervasive concern, particularly in the West of Scotland. However, not all participants in the studies considered sectarianism to be a form of extremism, due to a perception that it is embedded in elements of Scottish culture and does not frequently lead to violence (which, as discussed above, was viewed by many as a key component of extremism).

Further, in the research with public sector practitioners, there was a sense that intra-Christian sectarianism had declined in severity in Scotland, which was linked to the end of the violent conflict in Northern Ireland in the late 1990s. This was also reflected in the research with the public; as noted above, some older participants mentioned the decline in conflict in Northern Ireland as a factor in why they felt extremism had decreased in Scotland.

The public were uncertain as to the extent to which other forms of extremism might exist in Scotland but did highlight racism as representing a significant concern. This was also highlighted as a prevalent problem by public sector practitioners. However, racism – similar to sectarianism – was not definitively viewed as a form of extremism by all participants due to a perception that it does not always result in violence.

Whilst participants in the stakeholder research did not mention racism, stakeholders and public sector practitioners had largely similar views regarding the prevalence of other types of extremism. In particular, right-wing extremism was viewed by both groups as a prominent concern in Scotland, while Islamist extremism was not viewed as particularly prevalent.

Stakeholders highlighted the demographic profile of the Muslim community in Scotland as a potential reason for this, with some participants feeling that the Muslim population is smaller and more integrated in Scotland than it is in England, which may have lessened the appeal of Islamist extremist narratives. Similarly, public sector practitioners felt that because there are smaller ethnic minority populations in Scotland compared with England, these groups may feel less marginalised in Scotland than they do elsewhere in the UK, meaning they could be less vulnerable to radicalisation.

However, public sector practitioners who were more familiar with Prevent were more likely to cite right-wing extremism as a big problem in Scotland than those who were less familiar, while public sector practitioners were more likely to see Islamist extremism as a big problem in Scotland if they had not heard of Prevent or did not see it as part of their role. In the research with the public, participants did not spontaneously refer to right-wing or Islamist extremism, and felt unable to comment on the extent to which different forms of extremism might exist in Scotland when presented with a list of groups.

Some participants in the research with stakeholders and public sector practitioners also discussed concerns they feel are emerging in Scotland. These included the incel movement^[6] and mixed, unstable or unclear ideologies.

Improving understanding of extremism

Among stakeholders, public sector practitioners and the public there was a relatively high level of uncertainty about the prevalence of extremism in Scotland. Stakeholders often commented that their perspectives were not based on data or evidence but rather were more anecdotal, and sometimes qualified statements by noting that they were unsure if there was evidence underpinning their view.

Similarly, the public and public sector practitioners often indicated that they were unsure about the extent and nature of extremism in Scotland. For example, some members of the public felt they could not comment on the level of threat posed by individual forms of extremism based on publicly available information, while there was a relatively high level of uncertainty among public sector practitioners about the prevalence of extremism in Scotland compared with the rest of the UK and worldwide. This was particularly true for public sector practitioners less familiar with Prevent, who often turned to what they had heard in the media when discussing extremism, including examples from England or worldwide, rather than from within Scotland.

In the stakeholder research, there was a desire for improvements to be made to the collection of data on extremism in Scotland, as well as wider sharing of existing data where possible, to improve understanding of the problem.

Views on extremism in Scotland – key findings

• Stakeholders, the public and public sector practitioners felt that extremism is a problem in Scotland, but less so than it is elsewhere in the UK.
• Public sector practitioners felt that extremism has increased in Scotland over the last five years, while stakeholders had differing views as to whether it had increased or stayed the same over this period.
• Most members of the public felt that extremism has increased in Scotland in the last five years, although there were some who felt it had declined over time.
• Stakeholders and the public were also asked whether they feel the threat posed by extremism in Scotland will change in the next five years, and both groups felt that it is likely to increase.
• Participants across the projects highlighted intra-Christian sectarianism as a prominent concern in Scotland, though they did not all definitively consider this to be a form of extremism.
• Right-wing extremism was also highlighted as a prevalent concern in Scotland by stakeholders and public sector practitioners, while Islamist extremism was viewed as less of a problem.
• Members of the public did not spontaneously refer to right-wing or Islamist extremism, and were unsure about the existence of other forms of extremism in Scotland.
• Growing concerns in Scotland highlighted by stakeholders and public sector practitioners included the incel movement and mixed, unclear or unstable concerns.
• Across the projects there were high levels of uncertainty about the prevalence and nature of extremism in Scotland.

Experiences of extremism in Scotland

In the research with the public and public sector practitioners, participants were asked about any experiences they may have had with extremism. The public were asked about experiences they may have had online or in person, while public sector practitioners were specifically asked about experiences they may have had dealing with extremism as part of their work.

The prevalence of experiences

Although most members of the public and public sector practitioners had not experienced extremism, a significant minority indicated that they had.

As shown in Figure 3, a third (33%) of the public reported that they had experienced or observed extremism in the last five years, including 13% who had experienced or observed extremism online, 8% in person, and 12% both online and in person. Younger people and those living in Glasgow were the most likely to report having experienced or observed extremism.

Base size: Public: All survey respondents, n=2071.

Question: Have you observed extremism in Scotland in the past five years? This can include experiencing extremism yourself.

As shown in Figure 4, in the research with public sector practitioners, around two fifths (39%) of survey respondents reported ever having had an experience with extremism at work. Those working in local authorities were most likely to report an experience of extremism, followed by those in the prison and police sectors.

Base: Practitioner: All survey respondents, n=492; Police Scotland, n=74; Scottish Prisons Service, n=85; Local authorities and social work, n=99; Education, n=93; Health and social care, n=141.

Question: What experience, if any, have you had with extremism as part of your work?

Types of extremism experienced

Members of the public and public sector practitioners who had experienced extremism were asked to describe this. Participants interpreted the term extremism in wide-ranging ways, and this was reflected in the types of experience that were reported. For example, in both projects experiences of sectarianism and racism were the most common ‘types’ of extremism mentioned, but as indicated previously, there were mixed views as to whether sectarianism and racism are definitively forms of extremism.

A small number of public sector practitioners also discussed experiences of right-wing and Islamist extremism, but these were less common.

Types of behaviours

When asked to describe their experiences of extremism, members of the public and public sector practitioners mentioned similar types of behaviours. These included verbal abuse, extreme views being shared, promoted or spread, and attendance at marches, demonstrations and rallies.

In addition, public sector practitioners mentioned extreme opinions from online sources being echoed and extreme right-wing political figures being idolised, while the public mentioned experiences of violence and physical abuse, such as a homophobic assault.

The broad range of experiences mentioned highlighted the wide-ranging interpretations of what is meant by extremism. For example, it was notable that in the research with the public, homophobic abuse was considered to be a form of extremism, rather than a hate crime.

In both projects, experiences typically involved the participants witnessing particular behaviours as opposed to being victimised personally.

Experiences of extremism in Scotland – key findings

• Most members of the public and public sector practitioners had not experienced extremism, but a significant minority indicated that they had.
• Participants interpreted the term extremism in wide-ranging ways, and this was reflected in the types of experience that were reported. Many of the experiences that participants reported involved intra-Christian sectarianism or racism, which would not necessarily be considered extremism in conventional understandings of the term.
• However, some had also experienced other forms of extremism, such as right-wing or Islamist extremism.
• Behaviours commonly mentioned included extreme views being expressed, protests and verbal abuse.

Views on Prevent in Scotland

The projects also sought to explore participants’ views on Prevent in Scotland. Reflecting the research participants’ differing levels of knowledge, awareness and involvement in Prevent, the approach to the questions varied between the different research projects. In particular, the public were asked about their awareness and perceptions of Prevent, while stakeholders and public sector practitioners were asked more detailed questions regarding how Prevent is delivered in Scotland.

Awareness of Prevent

Members of the public and public sector practitioners were asked if they were aware of Prevent. This was not included in the research with stakeholders, since most participants were either involved in Prevent delivery or had a wider interest in the policy.

In both projects, awareness was low. While the public would not necessarily be expected to know about Prevent, greater awareness would be expected among public sector practitioners, given their statutory obligation to fulfil the Prevent duty. Prior to being shown a definition of Prevent, only half (54%) of public sector practitioners said that they thought Prevent was part of their role, while a significant minority (16%) said they had never heard of Prevent.

After being shown a definition of the Prevent duty, however, eight in ten (80%) public sector practitioners said that they thought Prevent was part of their role. There was consensus that tackling extremism in Scotland was important, and that wider promotion of Prevent would therefore be beneficial.

Similarly, in the research with the public, while no participants had heard of Prevent, impressions were largely favourable when the purpose of Prevent was explained, and there was a desire for more awareness of how it works in practice. Notably, however, questions on Prevent were only asked in the qualitative component of the research with the public, meaning that wider inferences about awareness of Prevent among the Scottish population as a whole cannot be drawn.

Views on Prevent delivery

Stakeholders and public sector practitioners who were aware of Prevent were asked for their views on how it is delivered in Scotland.

In both projects, there was uncertainty around the effectiveness of Prevent. This was explicit in the research with stakeholders, with some commenting that it is difficult to establish the effectiveness of Prevent due to inherent challenges in evaluating programmes that are preventative in nature. For example, some discussed how it is difficult to determine whether an individual disengaging from extremism following Prevent support did so as a direct result of Prevent intervention, or other factors.

In the research with public sector practitioners this was more implicit, with views on Prevent often mostly uncertain or neutral among participants. For example, over half (53%) answered ‘neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘don’t know’ in response to being asked whether ‘Prevent is effective in tackling extremism in Scotland’, and a higher proportion (61%) answered in this way in response to whether ‘Prevent is delivered in the right way in Scotland’.

Nevertheless, some stakeholders and public sector practitioners were able to point to aspects of Prevent in Scotland that work well.

Within Scotland, Prevent has been more closely aligned to areas of policy that promote community cohesion and integration than those that focus more on security and justice related aspects of countering terrorism, and is grounded in early intervention and safeguarding.

In both the research with stakeholders and public sector practitioners, participants who were aware of this approach were supportive of it. Public sector practitioners felt that this approach was the right direction for Prevent in Scotland, and should be more widely known.

Further positive aspects of Prevent delivery in Scotland that were mentioned by stakeholders included the introduction of the Prevent Multi-Agency Panel (PMAP)^[7] guidance (Home Office, 2021d), which was viewed as having provided greater clarity around processes and responsibilities for those involved in PMAPs; tools and resources used within Prevent such as Intervention Providers^[8]; and the involvement of a range of sectors in the delivery of Prevent (such as the police, education, social care services, health sector services, children and youth services), which was viewed as helpful for ensuring that individuals involved are able to access a holistic, bespoke package of support which is tailored to their needs.

However, stakeholders and public sector practitioners also highlighted concerns regarding how Prevent is delivered in Scotland. In particular, some stakeholders and public sector practitioners felt that Prevent has a negative reputation, for reasons such as a perception of excessive surveillance and an overemphasis on Islamist extremism. Some stakeholders felt this had reduced the credibility of Prevent, leading to a lack of buy-in from Scottish communities and sectors.

Some participants in both projects felt that that cooperation between partners involved in Prevent in Scotland could be improved. In particular, some commented that some sectors contribute less to delivery in comparison with others, and that information sharing between sectors on individuals of concern could be better.

Both stakeholders and public sector practitioners also felt that improvements could be made to Prevent-related training in Scotland. For example, in both projects there was a feeling that training is somewhat of a ‘tick box’ exercise and could be made more interactive.

There were also some areas of concern that were only highlighted by stakeholders. In particular, some stakeholders felt that at present there is not enough resource and funding dedicated to Prevent in Scotland, meaning that it is difficult for sectors to contribute at the level required.

Some stakeholders were also critical of the fact that the focus of Prevent in Scotland is largely on the second objective outlined in CONTEST (Home Office, 2018): ‘safeguarding and supporting those most at risk of radicalisation through early intervention, identifying them and offering support’. It was felt that less work is carried out in relation to the first objective: ‘tackling the causes of radicalisation and responding to the ideological challenge of terrorism’.

Key areas for improvement suggested were therefore similar between stakeholders and public sector practitioners. These included raising awareness of Prevent, and in particular of the safeguarding approach taken to Prevent in Scotland, as well as improving training, flows of information and collaboration between partners.

Additionally, stakeholders also felt that Prevent’s reputation could be improved if there was greater grassroots engagement with communities, third sector organisations and faith groups, support of projects and initiatives to encourage community cohesion and integration, and events and workshops, with the purpose of raising awareness of Prevent and challenging extremism at a local level.

Fulfilling the Prevent duty

In addition to asking about levels of awareness of Prevent and views on the policy more broadly, the research with public sector practitioners also explored how confident, well-equipped and supported participants felt in their ability to deliver Prevent, including in their ability to recognise and respond to extremism.

This was also covered to a lesser extent in the research with stakeholders. Given that some participants in this project represented sectors with a statutory obligation to fulfil the Prevent duty (local authorities, health, prisons, the police and education), these participants were asked their views on the ability of those working in the sector they represented to deliver Prevent, including to identify and support those vulnerable to extremism.

The majority of public sector practitioners felt confident that they could identify someone at risk of being drawn into extremism. However, only a minority felt ‘very confident’, and public sector practitioners often struggled to clearly articulate the signs of extremism they would look out for. Levels of confidence in knowing what to do if they came across someone at risk of being drawn into extremism were slightly higher.

These findings suggest that increasing confidence in identifying susceptible persons and improved understanding of what to do in the event of such an identification are important areas to address in terms of increasing practitioner confidence. Building practitioners’ confidence in how to identify a susceptible person appears to be a particular priority.

This was reflected in the research with stakeholders. Many stakeholders felt that practitioners are well-placed to identify and support vulnerable individuals. For example, a local authority sector representative discussed how local authority practitioners tend to be connected to individuals and families in a range of ways, meaning they are able to notice changes in behaviours or views that may indicate vulnerability.

However, participants across the sectors felt that training on behaviours and signs that might indicate susceptibility to extremism would be beneficial, particularly as this may not be something they encounter or are dealing with on a regular basis. Stakeholders also highlighted a need for greater resources and funding to deliver Prevent in Scotland.

Views on Prevent in Scotland – key findings

• Levels of awareness of Prevent were low among the public and public sector practitioners. While the public would not necessarily be expected to know about Prevent, greater awareness would be expected among practitioners, given their statutory obligation to fulfil the Prevent duty.
• Although awareness was low, there was general support for the policy in principle, and a desire for more awareness of how it works in practice.
• Positive aspects of Prevent delivery identified by stakeholders and practitioners included: the positioning of Prevent as a policy that supports community cohesion and integration in Scotland; the P MAP guidance; resources and approaches used within Prevent such as Intervention Providers; and the involvement of a range of sectors in the delivery of Prevent.
• Concerns raised by stakeholders and practitioners included: the view that Prevent has a negative reputation, for reasons such as a perception of excessive surveillance and an overemphasis on Islamist extremism; that the training could be made more engaging; and a perceived lack of resources and funding.
• Stakeholders also felt there is a lack of work to tackle the causes of radicalisation, and that Prevent’s reputation could be improved if there were greater grassroots engagement with communities, third sector organisations and faith groups; support of projects and initiatives to encourage community cohesion and integration; and events and workshops, with the purpose of raising awareness of Prevent and challenging extremism at a local level.
• Most public sector practitioners felt confident that they could identify someone at risk of being drawn into extremism. However, only a minority felt ‘very confident’, and many struggled to clearly articulate the signs of extremism they would look out for. Their levels of confidence in knowing what to do if they came across someone at risk of being drawn into extremism were slightly higher.
• This suggests that increasing confidence in identifying individuals who may be susceptible to extremism – and improved understanding of what to do in the event of such an identification – are important areas that could be more effectively addressed. Building practitioner confidence in how to identify a susceptible person emerged as a particular priority.
• This was reflected in the research with stakeholders, who felt that training for practitioners on behaviours which indicate susceptibility to extremism would be beneficial.