Kevin McKenna: So Scotland has a big heart? Then let’s prove it

This was never more evident than in 1972 during the Ugandan refugee crisis when President Idi Amin expelled 60,000 Ugandan Asians from his country within a 90-day deadline. The UK, under Ted Heath’s Conservative administration, took in around 30,000 of them with England resettling the vast majority.

It’s also far too easy for us to behold inner city race riots in England in the 1980s and sporadic bursts of support for the far right in the north-west of England and then declare that in Scotland we have a far more civilised approach to race relations. This simplistic view fails to take account of some factors which are not evident in Scotland. If they had been this country’s reputation for providing succour and compassion to the weak and vulnerable may well have been tested much more acutely. One of these is the extent to which England’s two main political parties have neglected working class communities in northern industrial areas has allowed racial tension to feed on chronic unemployment and mass de-industrialisation.

Scotland’s future ability to support its own ageing population is much more heavily reliant on growing our population at a faster rate than in England. Simply put, in the absence of significant patterns of growth in our indigenous population we need a sustained influx of skilled migrant workers to help grow our economy. And this is why the current Syrian refugee crisis and the numbers of families seeking asylum from persecution and torture in their own lands present us with an opportunity as well as a challenge to the values we think we possess.

The Westminster government’s attitude in this area is often driven by xenophobia and fear of the English right-wing press, and, while this state of ugly hysteria persists, there will never be an appetite for Scotland having complete control over immigration policy when our border with England is open. What we do have though, is an excellent record of providing support for services aimed at integration, and one which is regarded as the European gold standard. This approach has done much to mitigate any racism or anti-refugee feelings which we hear so often reported in other parts of the UK.

Scotland’s deserved reputation though, for reaching out to the world’s persecuted and dispossessed may now be put to the test more than ever before. The Home Office, acting in a high-handed and peremptory manner, has written to 28 of Scotland’s 32 local authorities effectively coercing them into housing asylum-seekers. On the face of it, this might be seen as a long overdue attempt at alleviating Glasgow’s burden in this area. Scotland’s biggest city, despite enduring levels of deprivation and health inequality that dwarf those that exist in every other Scottish city, currently hosts all of Scotland’s 4,000 or so asylum-seekers.

The recent widespread support for the Syrian refugees arriving in Scotland has been gratifying and has reinforced our belief in ourselves as a welcoming country, open to all. There are, though, questions to be asked on the policy of wide distribution of vulnerable and traumatised individuals to local authorities, many of whom have little or no experience of dealing with issues around forced migration.

Nor is it clear that such an approach will be in the long-term best interests of the refugees themselves. Since the Home Office moved housing provision for asylum seekers into the private sector there is no reason for the Home Office to negotiate directly with local authorities. But it cannot be right that the sanctuary and safety of people fleeing persecution can be decided purely on the basis of where a private housing provider can find houses to rent.

Maggie Lennon, Chief Executive of the Bridges Programmes (of which I am a Trustee) which helps the integration of refugees and asylum-seekers, said: “The location of people, many of whom may have mental and physical health needs, may not speak any English and (unlike the Syrians) are not permitted to work by the UK Government, should be based on where the best services are available or where there is the capacity for developing these services within a critical mass of need.

“The best interests of the asylum seekers rather than the pragmatism of the Home Office must be paramount, and we must remember that we have a legal responsibility to support asylum seekers as signatories of the UN convention of Refugees in International Law. Given the Home Office’s acknowledged recognition of the successful integration we have developed in Scotland and the successful transitioning from asylum to refugee, due to a critical mass of services being where people are living, it seems strange that they now seem to have turned their back on that in favour of a different model.”

While many people have been moved by the plight of the Syrians, the UK Government and the national media generally have consistently portrayed asylum seekers in a negative light. There can be no guarantees that asylum seekers would be welcomed as widely. Many who work in this field believe there is a deliberate attempt to manipulate public opinion by presenting a scenario where there are “good refugees” and “bad asylum seekers”.

Some of us can still recall the shocking murder of an asylum seeker in Glasgow over 14 years ago in the early days of dispersal, which triggered a great deal of unrest in the city. This directly contributed to the creation of the Bridges Programmes and other services in the city. I’d hate to think that similar anti-asylum seeker feelings may be stirred up in other parts of Scotland.

Rather than pursuing a widespread dispersal approach the Home Office should instead be forcing Scotland’s other big cities to play a part; especially Edinburgh, which has capacity and services available but which has not yet lifted a finger to help.