Understanding extremism in Scotland: stakeholder perceptions and views

7. Conclusion

The purpose of this research was to explore stakeholder understandings of and perspectives on extremism and Prevent delivery in Scotland. This section summarises the key findings from this work, reflects on their implications and presents suggestions for further research.

7.1. Summary of findings

Understanding of extremism

Participants had difficulty defining extremism, and held diverse understandings of the concept. A particular contention which arose between participants related to whether holding extremist beliefs can in and of itself be considered extremism, or whether these beliefs have to be acted upon to be considered extremism. There were also mixed opinions as to whether extremism necessarily involves violence.

There was some support for use of the ‘politically-motivated’, ‘ideologically-motivated’ and ‘religiously-motivated’ categories of extremism used in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, though it was felt that a caveat that the categories are not mutually exclusive would be needed if they were to be operationalised within Prevent.

Participants were largely in agreement that there are strong links between extremism, hate crime and terrorism, with the idea of a spectrum of views discussed. However, views differed regarding whether sectarianism forms part of this spectrum, with some feeling that it is less harmful than typical manifestations of extremism.

Views on extremism in Scotland

Participants felt that while extremism exists in Scotland, it is less of a problem in Scotland than it is in England. Despite this, many participants felt that the prevalence of extremism is increasing in Scotland, and that Scotland should not be viewed as immune from extremist ideologies and groups.

There was also a perception that the spread of extremist ideologies is different in Scotland to other parts of the UK, with right-wing and sectarian forms of extremism viewed as the most prevalent (among those who considered sectarianism to be a form of extremism) and Islamist extremism viewed as less of a problem than in other areas of Britain.

Participants discussed various factors they felt may make people vulnerable to being drawn into extremism, including isolation and loneliness, mental illness, neurodivergence, spending time online, family background, lack of opportunities and demographic characteristics.

However, a key theme that emerged during discussions about extremism in Scotland was participants’ reflections that more information is needed regarding the extent of extremism in Scotland, trends over time, and the ideologies that are more and less prevalent. There was a desire for further research to be carried out on this topic in Scotland.

Views on Prevent in Scotland

Difficulties with determining the effectiveness of Prevent in Scotland were discussed, but a range of factors that work well were also highlighted, including the alignment of Prevent with safeguarding policies; the PMAP guidance; existing tools and resources; and the multi-agency delivery of Prevent. Concerns with Prevent were also raised, with some relating to the policy more broadly rather than being specific to its delivery in Scotland. Concerns relating to its delivery in Scotland were around information-sharing; the availability of resources and funding; the provision of training; and the lack of work to ‘tackle the causes’ of extremism.

Suggestions for improvement included raising awareness of the positioning of Prevent as a policy that supports community cohesion and integration Scotland; increasing transparency around how the policy is delivered; carrying out greater community engagement work; and improving training and information flows. Participants also expressed support for more research to determine the impact and effectiveness of Prevent in Scotland.

Views on the ability of sectors to identify and support those vulnerable to being drawn into extremism

Those representing sectors with a statutory obligation to fulfil the Prevent duty had mixed views on the ability of those working within these sectors to identify and support individuals who may be vulnerable to being drawn into extremism. While many felt that practitioners are well-placed to identify and support vulnerable individuals, concerns such as the need for more resources, funding and training were raised.

7.2. Implications and considerations

Suggestions for further research

This work highlights the need for further research in two key areas. Firstly, it is notable that the perceptions of stakeholders of the threat posed by extremism in Scotland broadly aligned with findings from an 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 concrete data and evidence about the prevalence of and trends in extremism in Scotland, which was also noted by participants in this research.

Further research exploring extremist activity taking place in Scotland in greater detail would therefore be beneficial. 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.

Secondly, participants felt that at present it is difficult to determine the extent to which Prevent is meeting the objectives outlined in CONTEST. This research therefore suggests that there would be benefit in work to explore the impact and effectiveness of Prevent in Scotland in more depth. This could be approached through 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. Indeed, participants in this research showed support for making case studies of individuals who have been supported by Prevent available, which they felt would help to improve understanding of, and transparency around, how Prevent is delivered in Scotland.

More broadly, further exploration of the Prevent referral data may also provide an indication of the frequency with which those who are offered Prevent support are referred back to Prevent in future, and potential reasons for this.

Broader considerations

It was notable that the stakeholders who took part in this research had such wide-ranging understandings of extremism. In particular, it might have been anticipated that those representing sectors with a statutory obligation to fulfil the Prevent duty may have a broadly similar understanding of the concept, given their responsibility for ensuring that Prevent is implemented effectively in Scotland (Home Office, 2021a). However, even among this group of stakeholders, 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.

Participants in this research pointed out difficulties with not having a shared understanding of what is meant by 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 would 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).

In addition, it may be useful to be clearer about the types of extremism or ideologies that Prevent is concerned with, as it was also notable that when asked about extremism in Scotland, some participants discussed beliefs and behaviours that would not be covered by conventional understandings of the term (e.g., disruptive climate activism).

It may also be beneficial to improve training in relation to the factors that can lead people to be susceptible to extremism, and in particular, to prioritise training and research in relation to the linkages between extremism and neurodivergence and mental illness.

Indeed, participants themselves highlighted that more training and resources around the different types of extremism that exist, and the 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.

Finally, this research has also highlighted suggestions for ways in which Prevent delivery in Scotland could be enhanced. Although the UK Government retains overall responsibility for national policy on security and counter-terrorism, the suggestions presented by participants largely related to improving existing processes (e.g., training and processes for sharing information), perceptions (e.g., by raising awareness of the positioning of Prevent as a policy that supports community cohesion and integration Scotland and increasing transparency around it’s delivery) and understanding of Prevent, rather than the underlying principles of the programme or the mechanisms through which it is delivered in Scotland. The research recommends giving consideration to both whether and how these suggestions could be taken forward to foster improvements in Prevent delivery in Scotland.