I AM just back from spending a precious few days in Connecticut with my American fiance, time which was devoted to planning a route through the tricky and hazardous immigration process so we can set up home together here in Scotland.

Well, to that and marvelling at one of the traditional sights of a New England December: men bundled up in heavy winter coats, scarves, gloves, and woollen hats – but worn with shorts and training shoes with no socks. Apparently, American winters only affect you from the waist up.

And if you run into difficulties with the cold you can refuel at one of the donut shops sited every couple of hundred yards, seemingly always next door to a drug store with a large range of antacids on sale.

Originally, we had wanted to get married in Scotland but, thanks to changes Theresa May made to the immigration rules when she was Home Secretary, that’s not going to be possible. In order for us to wed here, my fiance, Peter, would have to spend 30 days in the UK before the wedding, then would have to leave after the ceremony and apply to live here. Since he gets just 15 days’ annual leave from his employer in the USA, that’s not going to be possible. The only way we could get married here would be for him not to have a job to go home to. So we need to plan a wedding in the USA, which means that my elderly mother won’t be able to be there, since she’s got a phobia about flying. Thanks a bunch Theresa May: because you felt the need to suck up to the Daily Mail, my mother won’t be at my wedding. Yes, I am taking it personally.

Prince Harry’s bride doesn’t seem to have all these problems. She swans in from across the Atlantic, sets up home with her betrothed, does a couple of photo ops and, reportedly, is on her way to getting British citizenship – never mind permanent leave to remain. For the rest of us it takes at least five years residence before our foreign spouses would be allowed to apply for British citizenship and thus escape the malign clutches of the Home Office. Which only goes to show that you get special treatment when you have a queen in the family. We have one of those in my family too, but clearly I’m the wrong kind of queen.

One of the pleasant side-effects of a trip across the pond was escaping the interminable sycophantic guff about Meghanarry plastering the UK media. The only enjoyable aspect of the entire sorry proceedings was watching the Daily Mail pretend to be happy that an unemployed immigrant is getting a fast track to a British passport.

Frustrating and difficult as the process may be for those of us who are not multimillionaires and related to royalty, at least Peter and I know that we have a number of options and that although it will take a long time, eventually we will be able to live together. There are many British citizens who don’t have even that much. They are permanently separated from their foreign spouses due to an immigration system which prioritises pandering to the right-wing press over the right of British citizens to a family life.

In order to bring a non-EU citizen into the UK as your spouse, the British partner needs to prove that they have an income over £18,600 a year. This figure increases by £3,800 annually to £22,400 if the couple have a child, and further increases by £2,400 for each subsequent child. According to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants 42 per cent of British people won’t reach that financial threshold. If you are gainfully employed, but on a low wage or struggling to get by on a zero-hours contract, because of Theresa May’s political need to score brownie points with the Daily Mail UK immigration rules won’t let you marry and live with a foreigner. Even if you do pass the threshold, you still have to negotiate the Byzantine complexities of an understaffed and under-resourced Home Office where documents are routinely lost or misplaced, and the onus is placed on the applicants to sort the problem.

There’s little compassion for those who are separated by the rules. Foreign partners who have expressed an intention to apply for a partner visa are prohibited from entering the country on a tourist visa. They’re not even allowed to visit their loved ones. According to the Children’s Commissioner for England, there are at least 15,000 children in England who are separated from a parent because of immigration rules. There is likely to be a proportionate number in Scotland – possibly as many as 1500 Scottish children are separated in the same way. They’re called “Skype families”, because the weans only get to see their mother or father in a video chat. That’s better than nothing, but it’s no substitute for a hug or a bedtime kiss.

Despite certain prominent leave campaigners like Michael Gove promising that Scotland could control aspects of immigration policy, Westminster has denied it. Scotland thus has no chance of introducing a more compassionate and humane policy which prioritises the needs of Scottish families over the knee-jerk migrant-phobia of the right-wing media. British immigration rules will continue to favour the rich and the well connected. Amongst all the hype about the royal nuptials, we should remember the thousands of British citizens and their spouses and children who don’t have the benefit of Meghan and Harry’s wealth and connections, and who don’t have much prospect of living happily ever after.