THE political events that have taken place over the last few weeks clearly demonstrate how Scotland, in comparison to successive Westminster governments, has a much more progressive and inclusive understanding of what political inclusion should be.

The successful halting of the dawn raid in Kenmure street, Glasgow, should not be considered a stand-alone event. Instead it should serve as the catalyst for ensuring that immigration policy becomes devolved to Holyrood.

On Thursday May 6, thousands of new voters cast their first-ever ballots in the Scottish Parliament elections. While most of these new voters were 16 and 17-year-olds, other new voters included refugees living in Scotland. This only became possible last year, when Holyrood passed a landmark new law which extended the right to vote to all foreign citizen residents in Scotland 16 and over. In permitting the political participation of legal residents in national elections, Scotland joined only a handful of other countries in the world (including New Zealand).

As the Tweets on polling day suggested, refugees in Scotland (also known as New Scots) were proud of their right to vote and, more importantly, were keen to ensure that their voices would be heard through this right. With a cheeky grin, Yvonne gave an interview saying: “Thanks for extending the right to vote. I’m asking you now to uphold your end of the bargain to ensure that our community is not left behind.”

The significance of receiving this right should not be overlooked. It demonstrates to refugees that they are welcome not as passive recipients of aid and refuge, but as active participants in our society.

Less than week later, in Westminster, the Queen’s Speech included Priti Patel’s New Plan for Immigration, which experts have repeatedly criticised for being callous, unworkable and will create a two-tiered system which would unjustly penalise refugees who apply for asylum in the UK. The message is clear: the UK Government, its Home Office and the Home Secretary do not view refugees (and other migrants) as people to be welcomed, much less as neighbours and part of the community.

A different picture was painted in Glasgow last Thursday morning, however, one week after the Scottish elections. An attempted dawn raid took place in Kenmure Street, Pollokshields. Neighbours and community members took to the street to bar the immigration van’s departure (including a protester who wedged themselves under the van). The protesters’ chant, which reverberated across both Glasgow and those following events on Twitter, sets the tone for a different view from Scotland: “These are our neighbours, let them go.”

The case has been made previously for immigration to be a devolved power in a post-Brexit Scotland. Primarily, the arguments have centred on the benefits that migrants bring to Scotland’s economy. Yet in the last two weeks we have also seen the extent to which migrants are viewed as forming part of our Scottish communities.

But what would a devolved immigration policy in Scotland look like? How could we guarantee that dawn raids become and remain a thing of the past? Would other migrants continue to be detained at police stations and reporting centres (which mostly go unreported as they pass without spectacle). Of course this would depend on the Scottish Government and the extent to which Scottish parliamentarians continue to show support to asylum seekers and refugees. The worst-case scenario would be that the current immigration enforcement vans become Scottish immigration enforcement vans.

Yet we can be certain about two things at least. First, if a similar situation were to arise, there would not be an unreachable Home Office minister in Westminster. Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s Justice Secretary, tweeted his disappointment that “out of eight Home Office ministers none of them could make themselves available to me”. Voters must be able to shape their own immigration policies, but also be in a position to hold their parliamentary representatives to account.

Second, devolving immigration would allow Scotland to extricate itself from the UK Home Office. While some might not support a full reversal of the Home Office’s policies, there is currently a fundamental lack of trust in the Home Office, its competencies and its intentions. The Home Office is sitting on too many potential scandals, has been through too many unsuccessful reforms, has been led by too many vindictive Home Secretaries and has introduced such a poor internal culture of relentless targets that it cannot be saved. Moreover, the UK Home Office has repeatedly refused the Scottish Government’s offer of trialling community-based alternatives to detention, preferring instead to continue with its practice of detaining people indefinitely in Immigration Removal Centres such as the one in Dungavel.

Business can therefore not continue as usual. Scotland needs to govern its own immigration system.

Dr Dan Fisher is a research associate at the University of Glasgow and Unesco chair in refugee integration through languages and the arts