These new immigration rules will hit services badly
THE Conservative Government’s new points-based immigration policy reveals an administration completely removed from reality, enslaved in xenophobic ideology and blinkered by little Englander pseudo-principles. (“Scots anger as date revealed over ending cheap labour from Europe”, The Herald, February 19). The post-brexit crusade to ban so called low-skilled workers from the UK by the end of the year is deeply flawed on many levels.
Opposition politicians, employers and trade unions all agree that the timescale involved requires significant adjustments and support to avoid substantial harm to the public and private sectors. In addition, the proposed salary threshold for skilled migrants – now set at £25,600 – will undoubtedly damage services vital to the country that are already under considerable pressure, such as the care and agricultural sectors.
The Government also applies an illogical broad-brush approach to the implementation of its policy across the UK, high-handedly disregarding Scotland’s ongoing vital need of inward migration to grow our population and economy.
Scotland requires a bespoke immigration policy to maintain the needs of our higher education, social care, hospitality and agricultural sectors. Those who choose to work and set up their homes in Scotland enrich our economy, culture and community life. Home Secretary Priti Patel has vaingloriously described her new policy as “delivering on the people’s priorities”, a tacit admission of the institutionalised and irrational prejudice contained in the Brexit narrative. Her policy neither serves the needs of
Scotland nor does it reflect our national vision as an inclusive, European country.
Independence just took one more step in the right direction.
Owen Kelly,
Stirling.
IN response to Priti Patel announcing a points-based immigration system for the whole UK, Nicola Sturgeon tweeted that “it is impossible to overstate how devastating this UK Government policy will be for Scotland’s economy”.
Prior to the 2014 referendum on separation, the Scottish Government’s own White Paper (Scotland’s Future page 109) advocated a similar approach, saying: “We plan to develop and operate a controlled, transparent and efficient immigration system that best meets Scotland’s needs. This will include a points-based approach.”
It is impossible to overstate the hypocrisy of the SNP when it comes to criticising anything that comes out of Westminster. Maggie Openshaw,
Aberdeen AB15.
DURING Priti Patel’s interview with Charlie Stayt on BBC Breakfast (February 19) this Wednesday whilst discussing the new points-based immigration system, she was challenged about the demand for unskilled workers across many sectors in the community and how these would be met. She replied by saying that cheap low-skilled immigrants have dominated the labour market and we have 4.5 million “economically inactive” individuals across the UK that business will invest in to be “upskilled”.
European workers bought a freshness and vitality to the hospitality sector, transforming cafes, restaurants and bars with their friendly and efficient customer service, jobs British workers didn’t want to do. I find our Home Secretary’s whole attitude sinister.
Paul Shaw,
Dunblane.
WANTING powers over migration to be handed over to Holyrood is the latest reason for Scottish independence. Does Nicola Sturgeon not ask herself if we couldn’t attract the required workforce within the EU and the UK, how would we manage as an independent country with high taxation and a border to England? Jane Lax,
Aberlour.
IT is disappointing that Iain Macwhirter (“Yet more evidence that Scots were played for fools in 2014”, The Herald, February 19) persists with one of the enduring myths of the independence referendum of 2014. Contrary to his assertion, The Vow did not commit to “as close to federalism as possible” – and for that matter, nor was Gordon Brown a signatory.
The Vow was signed by David Cameron, Nick Clegg and David Miliband and comprised three pledges only. These were statutory protection for Holyrood, more powers for Holyrood and preservation of the Barnett Formula. All of these were duly delivered. If Mr Macwhirter wishes to remind of us of the longer-term outcomes of the referendum, he might do better to take a look at the recommendations of the Smith Commission. These did not include devolution of the power to hold independence referendums or – topically – devolution of immigration.
The SNP (and their helots the Scottish Greens Party) were full members of the commission and signed up to every jot and title of its report. In other words, it signed up as content with these powers being reserved.
As in its “once in a generation” pledge, however, the word of the Nationalists has proven once more to be worthless. It will not be for the last time.
Peter A Russell,
Glasgow G13.
JILL Stephenson and John Dunlop (Letters, February 19) ask why the Scottish Government spends money on European and international relationships (Letters 19th February).
The answer is simple: they are preparing and maintaining the contacts which will be crucial to our prosperity when Scotland becomes an independent nation. To do otherwise would be remiss. John Jamieson, Ayr.
I WILL declare that I was a “Backing Ballantyne” supporter and campaigned alongside Michelle Ballantyne MSP in the recent Scottish Conservative leadership contest.
The contest was run; it was won and Jackson Carlaw emerged with a resounding mandate – now that’s a good consequential.
Mr Carlaw was true to his word and sacked Ms Ballantyne from his shadow cabinet; he appears to prefer his revenge less than cold and his statesmanship devoid of noblesse oblige (“Carlaw demotes Tory leadership rival as he reshuffles his shadow cabinet”, The
Herald, February 19). But in case one would think that he is the unforgiving type; fear not.
By way of background: in September 2019, Professor Adam Tomkins MSP, the Glasgow Region Conservative MSP, elected in 2016 wrote in the Scottish Mail on Sunday that it was time to consider “...abolishing the Scottish Tories”. He went on to meekly offer up the name of a new cross-party, Enlightenment, and proposed himself as leader.
Under Prof Tomkins’ Enlightenment Party plan, Scottish Tories MSPS and local councillors would be confined to the Scottish political reservation (a kind of “diddy” status) whilst the Scottish MPS would be proper members of the UK Conservative and Unionist Party (or ‘non-diddy’ status).
He is now (in February 2020) openly referring to when he “leaves politics”, something he seems to be looking forward to only three years into his elected term.
So today’s announcement that Prof Tomkins has been appointed to play a “key part in developing our 2021 manifesto” under the title of “Strategy” which will mean spending “a lot more” time in London, makes me wonder why Mr Carlaw has been wilfully blind to Prof Tomkins’ public disloyalty. Councillor (Conservative) Sheila Mechan, Bearsden.