THERE are several reasons why Scotland has not yet seen any far-right violence while riots erupted south of the Border – but there is “ no reason for complacency,” Professor John Curtice has argued.
Writing in The Times, the Strathclyde University professor said that the “national identity” rhetoric pushed by groups such as the English Defence League – whose members commonly use the Union flag and St George’s Cross as symbols – would have been “less persuasive” north of the Border.
Curtice said that the issue of migration had generally been less “polarising” in Scottish politics, because the issue is reserved to Westminster, and Scottish governments “of all political stripes have argued that Scotland benefits from migrants, not least to help arrest the relative decline in the country’s population”.
The polling expert also pointed to factors including Scotland’s slightly more liberal attitude to immigration, its lower population of Muslim migrants, and the prominence of public figures such as Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar.
Anas Sarwar (left) and Humza Yousaf (Image: PA)
He wrote: “Recent polling conducted by ScotPulse on behalf of Migration Policy Scotland … found in May this year that 42 per cent of people in Scotland wanted immigration reduced, compared with 52 per cent in a Britain-wide poll by Ipsos in February. However, that 42 per cent figure represented a 14-point increase on last year.
“Moreover, like much Britain-wide polling on the subject, opinion on asylum seekers was evenly divided.
“Meanwhile, a systematic comparison of attitudes towards immigration conducted by the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey a few years ago found little difference between attitudes on the two sides of the border.
“So, we should be cautious about assuming Scotland has avoided civil strife simply because of its liberalism towards migrants.”
READ MORE: Warning over Glasgow 'far-right rally' disinformation shared on social media
He went on: “Scotland has a relatively small minority population. For example, according to the latest census just 2 per cent of Scots identify as Muslim, compared with nearly 7 per cent in England.
“Even the figure for Glasgow, where 8 per cent are Muslim, is much lower than the 30 per cent or more in Birmingham, Bradford, and Blackburn. Smaller numbers make it more difficult to portray those from a different background as a ‘threat’.”
However, Curtice said that although the violence has largely been in English towns and cities, “members of Scotland’s ethnic and religious minorities may still share the fear and upset expressed in recent days by those at the wrong end of violence and intimidation”.
His comments echoed those of Scottish Refugee Council chief executive Sabir Zazai, who on Wednesday told the BBC that some people in the communities he works with had been left afraid to go out by the scenes of violence perpetrated by the far-right.
READ MORE: Social media firms must 'get act together' amid far-right riots, John Swinney says
Curtice’s comments come after shops were boarded up in many towns and cities on Wednesday over fears of further rioting after a week of violent disorder which started in Southport.
A stabbing which left three children dead became the focus of a far-right misinformation campaign, with false claims that the attacker had been a Muslim who crossed the Channel on a small boat spreading on social media.
By Wednesday morning, more than 400 people had been arrested after riots around England and Northern Ireland in the wake of the misinformation, reports said, with the number expected to rise.
Officers were understood to be steeling themselves for more than 100 planned protests and potentially around 30 more counter-protests, with gatherings anticipated in 41 of the 43 police force areas in England and Wales on Wednesday evening.
However, in most places, planned anti-immigration protests failed to materialise and, according to Stand Up To Racism, an estimated 25,000 people took to the streets to protest against the racism and violence.
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