THERESA May has been urged by MSPs to consider a bespoke solution for immigration policy in Scotland following Brexit.
Members of the cross party European committee at Holyrood concluded the demographic risk faced north of the Border if the number of EU migrants drops is “more acute” than for the UK as a whole.
Their report, published today, states the 181,000 EU nationals in Scotland are suffering “imposed uncertainty” over their right to remain living and working in the country and calls for the UK Government to allow them to stay without delay.
“As the majority are of working age, they have increased the size of the working population in Scotland and offset the effects of an ageing population," the report states. "With higher fertility rates, they have also helped reverse population decline."
“The committee therefore believes that there are acute risks to Scotland of a loss of the existing EU migrants or a decline in future migration.
“The committee heard of the precedents in countries such as Canada, Australia and Switzerland for different immigration policies within a state and believes that this must be considered for Scotland.”
The document also recommends the Scottish Government identify a bespoke deal on immigration post-Brexit, highlighting that more than 30,000 EU migrants work in hotels, distribution or restaurants while 20,000 are employed in public administration, education and health.
“EU migration has helped reverse a decline in the Scottish population, particularly amongst people of working age," said committee convener Joan McAlpine. "A ‘hard Brexit’ runs the risk of driving this valuable group of European citizens out of Scotland."
“That will have a devastating effect on the communities where EU citizens have made their home.
“We’re therefore calling on the UK and Scottish governments to identify a differentiated solution for immigration policy in Scotland after Brexit as soon as possible.”
It emerged yesterday that rebel Tories have warned they could vote with the SNP and Labour to give a humiliating defeat to the Prime Minister over the Brexit Bill this week.
Pro-Remain Conservatives fear May’s comments she would prefer “no deal to a bad deal” could see the UK “falling off a cliff” if negotiations break down.
Backbencher Neil Carmichael expressed concern that, as the Bill stood, MPs would be unable to force her back to the negotiating table, with potentially disastrous consequences for the economy.
It is believed about 27 Conservative MPs could vote with the SNP and Labour – enough to out-vote the government, which has a majority of just 16 in the Commons.
Carmichael’s intervention came as ministers prepare to take the EU (Notification Of Withdrawal) Bill back to the Commons for its committee stage, with three more days of debate starting today. It will be a chance for MPs to amend the legislation – which gives ministers the power to trigger Article 50, marking the start of formal withdrawal process – after last week’s second-reading vote on the principle of the Bill.
The government has sought to restrict the opportunities for change by limiting it to just two clauses. Speaker John Bercow will decide today which of the scores of amendments MPs will have a chance to vote on.
For Labour, shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry said Labour would not seek to block Article 50, even if it did not get its amendments accepted.
“We have said that we will not frustrate Brexit. We are democrats and the public have voted to leave the European Union,” she told The Andrew Marr Show.
Thornberry refused to be drawn on whether shadow home secretary Diane Abbott – who infuriated many Labour MPs when she missed last week’s vote saying she had migraine – would face the sack if she failed to support the Bill in Wednesday’s final third reading vote.
Responding to the Holyrood committee report, a UK Government spokesman said: “As we leave the EU, we must face the future together as one United Kingdom. We’re clear that we want protect the status of EU nationals already living here, and the only circumstances in which that wouldn’t be possible is if UK citizens’ rights in European member states were not protected in return.”
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