RUTH Davidson struggled to set out her policy on immigration yesterday, seemingly simultaneously suggesting she wanted the overall number of migrants coming to Scotland reduced, increased, and also kept at about the current level.
In an awkward interview with the BBC, the Scots Tory leader also said the SNP had made Scotland “uniquely unattractive” to immigrants, and repeated her false claim that only four per cent of all migrants coming to the UK move north of the Border.
Davidson told the show that she was “not that hung up on numbers” but rather wanted to make “sure we’ve got a system that works.”
But the Scottish Tory manifesto, launched last week, says immigration “is still too high” and should be reduced to “sustainable levels” which means “annual net migration in the tens of thousands”.
Yesterday, in a damning analysis of Theresa May and Davidson’s offer to voters, the IFS economic think tank said the desperate rush to cut immigration would risk a £6 billion hit to the Exchequer and could “cause considerable economic damage as well as creating an additional problem for the public finances”.
That analysis echoes comments made two months ago by Professor Anton Muscatelli, Glasgow university’s principal and a leading economist.
He warned that a severe reduction in the number of EU citizens coming to work and live Scotland would have a major impact on the country’s economy.
“The rise in EU immigration has gone some way to stabilising the Scottish population and added significantly to our economic activity – and if we see a significant decline in the number of EU nationals in Scotland post-Brexit, this could impact severely on our tax base and limit the resources the Scottish Parliament has at its disposal,” the professor said back in March.
He added: “We have often been told by anti-immigrant politicians that they simply want a ‘debate’ on migration – the facts are absolutely clear, and those of us who believe in the economic and social benefits of an open, welcoming society should not be shy about using them.”
Yesterday, Davidson tried to reconcile her support for the party’s manifesto, with the knowledge that Scotland is in desperate need of more people.
“I don’t think there is anything anti- immigrant or racist about saying we need to have a system that people can believe in,” she told the show.
When asked if she would like to see the number of people coming to Scotland go up or down, she replied: “I think it’s probably about right at the moment, if I’m honest.”
The presenter pointed out if the same number of immigrants came to Scotland after the Tory manifesto pledge had been implemented it would be the equivalent of Scotland taking in 40 per cent of all migrants to the UK.
“You can’t ask me about whether you want to reduce the cake but increase the size of the slice of it and then say that doesn’t marry up to saying it is about the same number, it is,” the Tory leader said.
“At the moment, Scotland is a third of the landmass of the UK, we’re 8.4 per cent of the population but we only attract about four per cent of the people that come here.
“I want to, as a politician, as a leader in Scotland, I want to make Scotland a more attractive proposition for people and, yes, there needs to be a conversation about where the labour gaps in the market are, where we want people to come, and where we attract them.”
The SNP said the actual figure of immigrants to the UK coming to Scotland was closer to seven per cent, though the National Records of Scotland said the most directly comparable data from 2015 suggested it was closer to six per cent.
The Ferret fact-checking site suggested Davidson’s claim was false and based on statistics two years out of date.
The SNP’s Patrick Grady said the Tory leader’s position on immigration was “all over the place”.
“The Westminster Tories' agenda would do untold harm to Scotland’s jobs, households and economy,” he said.
Tory immigration plans, though popular with Ukip voters, are, reportedly, not so popular with Tory politicians.
Former Chancellor-turned Evening Standard editor, George Osborne, seemed to suggest none of the senior members of May’s cabinet supported the reduction in immigration.
In a leader column, written anonymously but tweeted by Osborne – who is not contesting his Tatton seat – the paper said ministers thought May would use the election to “bury the pledge” that had first appeared in the 2010 Tory manifesto as it was “unachievable”, “undesirable”, and “economically illiterate”.
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