UK immigration changes are a disaster for Scotland's most elderly area
He did his apprenticeship and Scottish Vocational Qualification (SVQ) – a nationally recognised work-based qualification.
READ MORE: Scottish policing will be 'seriously affected' by Trump visit, says police body
In the meantime, Perera's family grew. His wife gave birth to a baby girl. He then successfully became a qualified carer – satisfying all the immigration requirements at the time. His family planned for a future in Scotland – a country they now love.
Then, the rug was pulled from under them on May 12.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer – during a speech in which he invoked far-right Enoch Powell-style language – announced significant changes to immigration rules to significantly reduce net migration as Labour seek to head off the electoral threat from Reform UK.
This included a new system to end automatic settlement and citizenship for anyone living here for five years, with migrants instead required to spend a decade in the UK before applying to stay.
This directly impacted Perera, whose visa is now set to expire in 2028 — with he and his family's future in Scotland thrown into doubt.
'We feel horrendous,' he (pictured below with his family) told The National. 'Why do they do it like this? We just fulfilled all the requirements.'
(Image: Yohan Perera)
The UK Government immigration changes will impact many sectors, but Scotland's care industry is one that is under particular threat given its high dependence on international workers.
This wasn't helped by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper also announcing the UK Government is closing the care worker visa route for overseas recruitment.
It's a move that has put it in odds with the SNP – who have repeatedly called for a bespoke Scottish visa to attract workers to fill labour shortages.
Kaukab Stewart, Scotland's migration minister, said yesterday – as the immigration rules officially came into effect – that Labour's approach 'simply isn't working for Scotland' and will 'hinder the prosperity of Scotland'.
She added: 'Ending the international recruitment of care workers, without sufficient notice or any substantial consultation on its impact, will be devastating for the care sector in Scotland and across the UK.'
The challenges faced by the care sector in Scotland can also be linked to the country's ageing population.
There are more than one million people aged 65 and over in Scotland, according to the National Records of Scotland.
READ MORE: Scottish community-owned island announces full boycott of Israel
The impact of these changes will be felt across the country but disproportionately so in Perth and Kinross, which has a significantly higher proportion of older people than the national average – including the most over-85s of any area in Scotland.
Scottish Care – which represents the largest group of independent social care providers across the country – conducted a national survey of its members in May focusing on immigration and the role of international recruitment in the social care sector.
It found that the restriction or end of international recruitment would present serious consequences for the sector's workforce sustainability, financial viability, and most importantly, the ability to deliver essential care and support services to those who rely on them.
Scottish Care also did a more focused follow-up in Perth and Kinross to explore the impact at a regional level, including a survey of local care providers – the findings of which it has shared with The National.
It found that, if international recruitment ends, many services in the area believe it would have a 'high to significant impact on the sustainability of their workforce'.
Lakmal Suranga is another local care worker from Sri Lanka – a community that disproportionately props up Perth and Kinross's care sector – that is also set to be impacted by the UK Government immigration changes.
The 36-year-old came to the UK in 2022 with my wife Vishmi and daughter Lithisha, who was just 3 years old at the time.
Like Perera, his family sees Scotland as home and was planning for a future here before the immigration changes.
'Our daughter, now 6 years old, is happily settled in school. She has made friends, receives a high-quality education, and has adapted beautifully to life in Scotland. This country has become our home — not just where we live, but where we truly belong,' he told The National.
He doesn't feel like the rule changes are fair at all.
'Like many other families, we carefully planned our future based on the existing UK immigration rules, which currently allow people on skilled worker or student-related visas to apply for settlement after 5 years,' Suranga said.
'With that in mind, we've invested emotionally, financially, and socially into our life here. We pay over £700 a month in income tax and around £150 in council tax, and we've also started building our pension savings in the UK. We were even hoping to buy a house soon — a dream that now hangs in the balance.'
He added: 'Changing the goalposts halfway through our journey feels not only unfair but incredibly destabilising. It has thrown our future into uncertainty — impacting everything from our financial plans to our daughter's stability and emotional wellbeing.
We feel anxious, disheartened, and let down.'
Suranga went on: 'We came here legally, we work hard, we pay taxes, and we contribute to the community. All we are asking for is the chance to settle under the rules we arrived with, so we can continue to live, work, and raise our daughter in the country we've come to love.
'Scotland has welcomed us with warmth, and we want to give back. But these sudden policy shifts risk turning hope into hardship — especially for families like ours who came here with trust and long-term dreams.'
The local MP, Pete Wishart, has called Labour's immigration changes 'as economically nonsensical as they are morally bankrupt' and called for the Home Secretary to scrap them.
'Like most of Europe, Scotland is facing a demography crisis; an especially acute problem in Perth and Kinross which has the highest proportion of over-85s in Scotland. Against this backdrop, immigration plays a crucial role in meeting the ever-increasing demand on the likes of our care sector,' he told The National.
'Since these new regulations were announced, I have been inundated with heartbreaking enquiries from constituents, particularly from members of Perth's Sri Lankan community, who have made Scotland their home but who are now feeling compelled to leave.'
The SNP MP added: 'These are hardworking, taxpaying members of society who provide an exceptional standard of care to our sick and elderly. They are rightly fed up with having their lives continuously made more difficult all so the UK Government can get some trivial numbers down on a spreadsheet.
'Labour plans are therefore as economically nonsensical as they are morally bankrupt, which is why I have called on the Home Secretary to scrap them altogether. I have already heard of constituents' care packages being withdrawn as a result, and this problem is only going to get worse if they don't urgently change course.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Lithuania to teach thousands, including schoolchildren, how to build and pilot drones
Lithuania's government said Tuesday it plans to open nine drone training centers over the next three years to teach thousands of people, including schoolchildren, skills in flying and building the machines. Drones have become increasingly common in everyday life and warfare in recent years. Lithuania's project aims to strengthen the public's abilities in drone control and engineering and 'expand civil resistance training,' its defense and education ministries said in a statement. Lithuania, a NATO member country of about 2.8 million people on the alliance's eastern flank, borders both Russia 's Kaliningrad exclave and Moscow-allied Belarus, and is aware of possible threats to its security. The first three drone centers are due to open in September and the remaining six by 2028. The plan is for 15,500 adults and 7,000 children to be taught drone skills by 2028, Defense Minister Dovilė Šakalienė said. The government said the program will be adapted to different age groups. Third- and fourth-grade students will learn to build and pilot simple drones while high-school students will design and manufacture drone parts and learn how to build and fly advanced 'first-person view' drones. It plans a total investment of more than 3.3 million euros ($3.8 million).
New Statesman
27 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The British public aren't who you think they are
Illustration by Gary Waters / Ikon Images Last week, YouGov revealed that nearly half of Britons – 47 per cent – wrongly think there are more migrants staying in the UK illegally than legally. The numbers aren't even close: there are between 120,000 and 1.3 million illegal migrants living in the UK, out of a total of 10.7 million foreign-born people in total. Depending on which figure you use, that means people who come to the UK illegally make up between 1.1 per cent and 12 per cent of the total migrant population, suggesting half the British public are wildly wrong on this one. But the way in which they are wrong tells us something interesting about how misconceptions may be shaping the political debate and what politicians might want to do about it. It got me wondering: what else can we learn about the British public that might surprise us? August is a good time for taking a step back and examining how voters really feel about things, which may have been missed in the endless drama of the news cycle. So I asked five pollsters what they have discovered recently that might challenge the outlook of Westminster watchers, and what they thought this told us about our current political climate. Trump island Last week, we learned that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves currently have lower favourability ratings than Donald Trump. But how do Brits really feel about the US president anyway? The answer, according to Ipsos, may surprise you. 'Let's be clear, Donald Trump isn't winning any popularity contests in the UK anytime soon, with 64 per cent of Britons overall unfavourable towards the US president,' says Keiran Pedley, director of UK politics at Ipsos. 'But what's fascinating in our polling is the generational divide that we uncovered.' Ipsos found that while just 9 per cent of those over 55 view Trump favourably, that figure jumps to 29 per cent for 18-34-year-olds (though 45 per cent in this age group are unfavourable). 'This isn't just a quirky stat,' Pedley adds. As the UK prepares for Trump's unprecedented second state visit, with the vice-president chilling out in a Cotswolds village, 'it suggests Trump's anti-establishment, social-media-driven brand of politics is having some cut through with a generation that gets its news from very different places than their parents. For many young people, who are perhaps more sceptical of 'business-as-usual' politics, his disruptive style seems to resonate. It's a crucial trend, and one that hints at a real shift in the political landscape.' What did your dad do again? During the election campaign, avid followers of UK politics got so sick of Starmer reminding us that his father was a toolmaker that when the Labour leader mentioned it in a live event with Sky News, the audience started to laugh. But according to Joe Twyman, co-founder and director of Deltapoll, only 18 per cent of British adults know this fact about the Prime Minister's background. 'You might know the correct answer, almost everyone you know might know the correct answer, but the average person in the street doesn't,' Twyman warns. With the question 'Who is Labour for?' increasingly coming up in focus groups and questions about class dynamics swirling once more around British politics, it's striking how little cut-through Starmer's personal story has had with the public. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe In more bad news for the Prime Minister, Deltapoll also found that 56 per cent of British adults think Starmer makes the world a worse place, compared to 24 per cent who think he makes it a better place. 'On the plus side,' Twyman adds, 'his score is better than that of Donald Trump (63 per cent vs 21 per cent), Benjamin Netanyahu (58 per cent vs 10 per cent) and Vladimir Putin (83 per cent vs 6 per cent). On the downside, his score is worse than that of domestic opponents including Kemi Badenoch (23 per cent vs 39 per cent), Nigel Farage (32 per cent vs 46 per cent), Boris Johnson (31 per cent vs 47 per cent), and Jeremy Corbyn (22 per cent vs 54 per cent).' Ouch. I have a cunning plan Speaking of Corbyn, Scarlett Maguire, founder and director of Merlin Strategy, has found an unlikely source of support: Reform voters. On a range of indicators – from 'authentic' and 'honest' to 'for working people' and 'understands people like me' – Corbyn beats Starmer decisively among those who say they would back Farage's party if an election were held tomorrow. The biggest wins for Corbyn over Starmer were 'represents change' (69 per cent vs 31 per cent) and 'makes radical decisions' (70 per cent vs 30 per cent). The only thing Reform voters thought Starmer was better at was representing Britain on the world stage. The fact that supporters of a radical right party preferred the (potential) leader of a radical left one to the Prime Minister of a centre-left government is striking, and suggests a real weakness in Labour's strategy of chasing Reform votes – although, Maguire points out, 'this does not show they like Corbyn, more the extent to which they dislike Starmer'. Merlin Strategy also found that, by a whisker, more people trust Farage on the economy than Starmer (33 per cent vs 31 per cent). The good news for Labour is that Badenoch is languishing behind at 21 per cent – but then, that was before she went to war with Liz Truss. In separate polling, when asked for a word or phrase that best describes Labour, the most popular answer was 'no plan' (22 per cent). But then, voters also picked 'no plan' for Reform (23 per cent), the Conservatives (25 per cent), the Lib Dems (27 per cent) and the Greens (33 per cent). Does anyone in Westminster have a plan? Answers on a postcard, please. Normal people So what are Reform voters actually like? As it's the holidays, Luke Tryl, UK director at More In Common, has been on the lookout for some more summery insights. In a survey on what summer activities people were looking forward to, he found that Reform voters 'are ahead among basically all the normal stuff' – like going abroad (to both EU and non-EU countries), sitting in a pub garden and having a barbecue. In contrast, 'the Tories only lead is with Tour de France fans, and Labour is posting its biggest scores on more niche things like Glastonbury or cold-water swimming', plus celebrating Pride. Reform have also won Wimbledon off the Tories. More In Common has looked at people's entertainment choices too, asking Brits to choose their favourite sitcoms. 'We found Reform led among fans of Fawlty Towers and Only Fools and Horses – which you might expect – but also among fans of The Office and Gavin and Stacey,' Tryl says. Labour are left leading on things like The IT Crowd and The Young Ones. (Unsurprisingly, the Tories lead among fans of Yes, Minister – a show which, by pure coincidence, contains the immortal political adage that 'the less you intend to do about something, the more you have to keep talking about it'.) According to Tryl, these two surveys 'tell a really good story using non-political proxies of how 'normal' the Reform vote is. It helps to explain their rise from fringe to leading in the polls'. They also show the sheer range in terms of class and cultural markers of those considering backing Farage. All that said, it's best to beware putting the UK public into neat little boxes – as two intriguing bits of polling from YouGov show. The first found that while just 35 per cent of Britons identify as a feminist, 83 per cent believe men and women should be equal in every way. They did the test by asking the question in three ways: 'Are you a feminist?'; then 'One definition of a feminist is someone who believes men and women should have equal rights and status in society, and be treated equally in every way. Are you a feminist?'; and finally 'Do you think men and women should have equal rights and status in society, and be treated equally in every way?' Support increased with each option. Tanya Abraham, director of political and social research at YouGov, notes the data 'suggests that there is a certain toxicity to the term 'feminist' that is putting some people off using it, even when it is paired with a description they would back'. But the poll is also a great demonstration of why it's so important not to make assumptions. You could look at answers to the first question and get what looks like a very clear indication of how British people feel about a pretty fundamental social question. And that indication would be wrong. YouGov also found last year that, whatever stereotypes we might have in our heads about England football fans, over two-thirds (67 per cent) don't mind whether the England manager is English or not. With the recent triumph of the Lionesses under their superstar Dutch manager Sarina Wiegman, that figure is probably even higher today than it was when YouGov asked the question in October 2024, after the German Thomas Tuchel was announced as Gareth Southgate's successor. Back then, Farage tweeted 'Why can't we have an English manager?' But YouGov found that just only 30 per cent of England fans had a preference for the manager to be English. Even more interestingly, YouGov's Dylan Difford wrote that while 'desire for an English candidate is highest among Reform UK voters, at 42 per cent… even then, 47 per cent disagree with Farage's view'. Maybe the real takeaway is that, in sport as in politics, the British people just want a winner. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu are trapped] Related
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US court says Trump's Doge team can access social security numbers and other sensitive data
A US appeals court on Tuesday rejected a bid by a group of unions to block the Trump administration government downsizing team known as the 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) from accessing sensitive data on Americans. The Virginia-based fourth US circuit court of appeals in a 2-1 decision said the unions were unlikely to prevail on claims that Doge would violate federal privacy laws by accessing data at the US Department of Education, treasury department, and Office of Personnel Management. The court refused to block Doge's access to the agencies' computer systems and data such as social security numbers and individuals' citizenship status pending the outcome of the case. The decision reverses a temporary injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland, which had been paused by the appeals court in April. The agencies involved in the case and the unions that sued, which include the American Federation of Teachers and the National Federation of Federal Employees, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Donald Trump after taking office in January launched Doge, then headed by billionaire Elon Musk, to dramatically shrink government bureaucracy and federal spending. Doge, which is not a formal government agency, has overseen job and spending cuts at nearly every federal agency and has been the focus of numerous lawsuits. Musk stepped down from Doge in May after publicly falling out with Trump. The fourth circuit on Tuesday said the unions that sued along with a group of military veterans had not shown how they would be injured by Doge accessing agencies' computer systems. They also probably lacked legal standing to sue because that access is not a 'final agency action' that can form the basis of a lawsuit, the court said. A dissenting judge said it was prudent to temporarily block access to the data while the case plays out, and that the standard his colleagues had imposed on the plaintiffs was too high.
