Process of changing investment policy proved difficult to arrange

In recent years, councils and pension funds across the country have been called upon to divert money from controversial investments, such as arms and tobacco.

Even those with a will to do so, however, have found such a process tricky.

In 2013, Dundee City Council took the decision that the Tayside Pension Fund would not seek fresh investment in tobacco firms.

A further policy change, to divest all monies from tobacco – described as “an ethical decision” by some elected members – was proposed in 2015, but was abandoned after it proved difficult to arrange. In August this year, a freedom of information request made to UK local authorities revealed that Dundee City Council was one of the biggest investors in tobacco stocks, with £56.3 million.

And 12 years ago Aberdeen council chiefs had similar struggles when they were told they could not divest their tobacco money either.

And the investments are not just confined to the north but in public services across Scotland.

In December it was revealed that around £1.8 billion was invested in arms firms by Scottish public service pension funds.

Lothian Pension Fund and Strathclyde Pension Fund, the second largest in the UK, together have investments worth £341m in the arms industry.

They have £11.6m invested jointly in Raytheon, which has a factory in Glenrothes, Fife, making laser-guided systems for Paveway IV smart bombs used in the Yemeni civil war.

But it is argued that the primary duty of pension funds are to make the most returns for investors and there are few industries more stable than arms.

The north-east fund has made large returns on the investments since they were made – 236% in terms of Ricardo PLC, 61% in Rolls Royce and 68% in Ultra Electronics.