Understanding extremism in Scotland: research findings

Conclusion

The aim of this research was to explore how stakeholders, the public and public sector practitioners define and understand extremism; their views on the extent to which extremism is a problem in Scotland; the types of extremism that are more and less prevalent; and how well they perceive current approaches to countering extremism in Scotland to be working. As well as providing significant insights in these areas, this research has highlighted where further research may be beneficial and recommendations for policymakers and agencies involved in Prevent delivery in Scotland, which are discussed below.

Further research

It was notable that the perceptions held by stakeholders, public sector practitioners and members of the public on the threat posed by extremism in Scotland broadly aligned with findings from the evidence review carried out by the Scottish Government (2023a), which indicated that levels of extremism may be lower in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, and that there may be differences in the types of extremism that are more and less common in Scotland when compared with other parts of Britain.

However, the evidence review also highlighted a lack of research exploring the real extent and nature of extremism in Scotland, and this was also reflected across the research with stakeholders, public sector practitioners and the public.

In each of these projects, there were relatively high levels of uncertainty about the extent of extremism in Scotland, and the types of extremism that are more and less prevalent.

In the research with stakeholders, participants were supportive of further research being carried out on this topic in Scotland. In the research with the public, it was suggested that further research which seeks to develop understanding of the level of threat, drawing on different data, would be beneficial for informing Scottish Government efforts to counter extremism in Scotland.

The findings from this work therefore suggest that research exploring extremist activity taking place in Scotland in greater detail a would be helpful. This might include work to explore the influence and reach of particular extremist groups in Scotland in comparison with the rest of the UK, and more detailed examination of the data on referrals to Prevent and hate crime in Scotland in comparison with England and Wales.

It is likely that such research would support those with responsibility for delivering Prevent in Scotland to do so more effectively, by improving their understanding of extremism in Scotland and their awareness of any Scotland-specific risks.

In addition, a further suggestion presented in the research with stakeholders was that there would be benefit in work to explore the impact and effectiveness of Prevent in Scotland in more a depth, for example, undertaking independent in-depth case studies of, or ethnographic research with people who have been through Prevent in Scotland. Exploring the experience of Prevent from their perspectives, including developing understanding of the circumstances and factors that led to their referral, how the programme has worked with them and what the results of this have been, would support a more in-depth, multifaceted understanding of what works to address the needs of those at risk.

A further suggestion presented in the research with public sector practitioners was to undertake a programme of communications testing research to identify the best way to communicate with public sector practitioners on the complex topic of extremism and the Prevent duty.

Finally, the research with the public suggested that further research could seek to explore differences in the views and experiences of different demographic groups in more detail, as well as how perceptions and views may change in future (e.g., through repetition of the survey).

Recommendations

The research also provided recommendations for policymakers and agencies involved in Prevent delivery in Scotland.

Understanding of extremism

That stakeholders, public sector practitioners and members of the public had such wide-ranging understandings of extremism was notable. In particular, while the public would not necessarily be expected to have a consistent understanding of extremism, it might have been anticipated that stakeholders and public sector practitioners involved in the delivery of Prevent in Scotland may have a broadly similar understanding of the concept. However, even among stakeholders and practitioners, a range of different interpretations of extremism were presented.

Although this was to some extent surprising, it may reflect the fact that the Scottish Government does not currently have an official definition of extremism, having not adopted the UK Government definition (Home Office, 2011). The findings from this research suggest that the absence of an official definition of extremism in Scotland, combined with the subjective and relative nature of the term, has led to it being interpreted in varied, and at times contradictory ways.

As was noted in the research with stakeholders, there are potential difficulties with not having a shared understanding of the term extremism, particularly in the context of Prevent delivery. For example, it may lead to different thresholds for what constitutes a referral, and for their subsequent adoption into the Prevent programme.

It therefore appears that it would be useful to give consideration to the merits of having an official definition of extremism for use in Scotland, or at least to set out the views, behaviours and activities that are considered to constitute extremism in the context of Prevent more clearly. This should help to ensure there is a shared understanding of what is meant by the term among those responsible for tackling it in the Prevent arena as a means to stop individuals being drawn into terrorism (as opposed to those seeking to tackle hate crime and sectarianism, for example).

It may also be beneficial to be more explicit about the views, behaviours and activities that might indicate the presence of extremism if further research is carried out on this topic in Scotland. As noted previously, although a significant minority of participants in both the research with the public and with public sector practitioners indicated that they had experienced extremism in some way, participants in both projects interpreted the term extremism in wide-ranging ways, and this was reflected in the types of experiences that were reported. For example, experiences of racism were often mentioned, which would not necessarily be considered as extremism in more conventional understandings of the term. Providing more guidance to research participants may therefore allow for a more robust estimate of the extent of experiences of extremism among different groups.

Prevent delivery

The research highlighted ways in which Prevent delivery in Scotland could be enhanced. Firstly, levels of awareness of Prevent were low among public sector practitioners and the public. Although awareness was low, there was support for the policy in principle, and a desire for more knowledge of how it works in practice. It may therefore be beneficial to seek to raise awareness of Prevent, particularly among public sector practitioners with a statutory obligation to fulfil the Prevent dutya.

Participants in both the research with public sector practitioners and stakeholders also felt that more training and resources around the different types of extremism that exist, and the views, behaviours and signs that could indicate vulnerability to extremist narratives , would be useful, to support those working to deliver Prevent in Scotland to identify those at risk of radicalisation more effectively.

In addition to the above, a range of other suggestions for improvement were also raised across the projects, including raising awareness of the positioning of Prevent as a policy that supports community cohesion and integration in Scotland; increasing transparency around how the policy is delivered; carrying out greater community engagement work; and improving information flows.

Although the UK Government retains overall responsibility for national policy on counter-terrorism, the suggestions largely relate to improving existing processes, perceptions and understanding of Prevent, rather than the underlying principles of the programme or the mechanisms through which it is delivered. The research recommended that the Scottish Government and statutory partners give consideration to whether and how these suggestions could be taken forward to foster improvements in Prevent delivery in Scotland.