I WAS struck by the report from Holyrood’s Europe committee calling for Scotland to be allowed its own separate immigration deals after Brexit (‘Acute risks’ loom if Scotland cannot attract EU workers, The National, February 6).
This is not a call made in isolation, but was also made earlier this year by the Westminster all-party parliamentary group on social integration. Indeed, stalwart of the Leave campaign Michael Gove made considerable political capital over the fact that Scotland could be given greater control over immigration on Brexit.
Like other issues, such as the additional £350 million Brexit bonanza to be invested weekly in the health service, this seems to have been curiously glossed over.
Reducing the numbers of incoming migrants does not recognise Scotland’s economic needs, with the country facing an increasingly ageing population and some rural areas struggling to attract skilled workers. The demographic risks for Scotland of a reduction in the number of EU migrants, who are largely of working age, is more acute than for the UK as a whole.
Overall we face the prospect of the very welcome recent increase in the Scottish population going into reverse without the injection of new working-age people into the country as the population ages.
Reducing population growth, and its associated impacts on economic growth, will also have a major negative impact on the capacity of the Scottish Government to increase tax take under its new tax powers.
A bespoke immigration policy for Scotland, recognising our nation’s situation, provides a practical solution to address this demographic challenge.
Alex Orr, Edinburgh
---
IN describing their preferred Brexit scenario, it seems that the UK Government, whether deliberately or unconsciously, is confusing the terms: “a deal which works for the whole of the UK” (repeated endlessly) with: “a deal which is the same for the whole of the UK” (usually avoided).
This is like saying that treating everyone the same corresponds to treating everyone equally.
This can easily be shown to be nonsense, since treating the disabled, pregnant women or even very short or very tall people the same in an office would result in inequality of everything from comfort at your desk to complete impairment of function.
Treating everyone the same only works if there is close equivalence in everyone’s personal situation. Translated to the national stage, treating Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the same as England will inevitably disadvantage those areas.
It seems that centralisation and British nationalism are part of the same process, despite claims that power is being returned to the British people by leaving the EU on Tory/Ukip terms.
Dr David White, Galashiels
---
ARE we witnessing the start of the end of the British state? A divided Labour Party is in demise, a Tory Party has bowed to the rise of a populist, anti-EU and xenophobic right in England. A progressive, leftist and pro-EU nationalism is gaining ground in Scotland. These events have led to two referendums. No supporters and Brexit supporters claim their “victories” are binding because they came from democratic referendums. This is far too simplistic because many who try to vote selflessly for the common good find it difficult to make informed choices because of lies, misinformation and scaremongering. I’m sure most of us will remember pensioners being frightened about their state pensions in 2014, and what can one say about the massive display on the now infamous bus? The lie that if we left the EU a weekly £350 million would be redirected into the NHS permeated the minds of the less informed. How can this be democratic?
Britain’s political scene has changed. A regressive British/English jingoism has come to the fore. Many English working-class people let down by Labour have fallen for the nasty narrative that immigrants are to blame for their ills. In Scotland a more progressive nationalism is challenging a democratic deficit of being ruled by a Tory Party its electorate seldom supports, being taken out of the EU when 62 per cent voted to remain and finally being outvoted on Article 50 at Westminster. Only one Scottish MP voted in favour of triggering the said article ... yes, you’ve guessed. He is a Tory. David Mundell will go down in Scottish history as “such a small parcel of a rogue in a nation”.
Jack Fraser, Musselburgh
---
JUST after the EU referendum the Scottish Tory leader said: “I want to stay in the single market. Even if a consequence of that is maintaining free movement of labour”.
The Scottish Government says that if the UK Government compromises on at least negotiating to keep the UK in the European single market – which Ruth Davidson agreed supports 43,000 Scottish jobs – that they will not hold an indyref.
Davidson says the Scottish Tories would “oppose any attempt” for a second independence referendum but then oddly also said that “any attempt” for a second independence referendum should not be blocked by UK Government.
So why is she not supporting the Scottish Government’s compromise for the UK Government to at least negotiate to keep the UK in the single market – which she said she supported – if she doesn’t want an independence referendum?
Graham C B Roberts, Glasgow
---
CLIVE Lewis, Labour shadow business secretary and close ally of Corbyn, is reported stating that Labour is “hanging on by its fingertips” against Ukip in the North (of England) – Labour traditional heartlands.
As UK Labour is now starting to implode, just as it did in Scotland, what now for Kezia Dugdale and Labour remnants?
Their cries about the “UK’s broad shoulders” and any future Labour UK government at Westminster are looking shaky. Since Corbyn has backed Brexit and UK politics down south could end up a Tory-Ukip regime, Scots Labour need to do some quick reorientation in strategic thinking if they want to survive.
Corbyn has written his branch off as ineffectual and of no importance! It will no longer be useful to the “main office” as Westminster lobby fodder. Its only Scottish MP voted with the SNP against the recent Brexit bill, and Labour for Independence is up and running for indyref2.
Like the old Empire Loyalists of yore in the Conservative party were left high and dry after the Empire went, so Labour for the UK Union will be out on limb going nowhere.
John Edgar, Blackford
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel