'Scotland is not an island of strangers', says Humza Yousaf
Yousaf criticised Starmer's language in a speech which drew comparisons to Enoch Powell, saying: "Let me be absolutely clear, Prime Minister: Scotland is not an island of strangers.
"We are a nation that is proud of its many cultures, many languages, many threads. That tartan, each colour, each strand is different, but woven together to something strong, something beautiful, that we are proud of in Scotland."
READ MORE: Labour have 'given up' on by-election amid SNP-Reform contest, says John Swinney
The Glasgow Pollok MSP also spoke at length about the contributions from and importance of migrants in Scotland and the rest of the UK.
'This country could not survive without immigrants. This continent requires immigration if we are to prosper", he said.
'I ask you, in the 1960s, who drove the buses that kept this city moving? Immigrants. Who kept the factories running when there was labour shortages, like my grandfather, who worked in the Singer Sewing Machine factory in Clydebank?
'It's immigrants today, when our loved ones need care, be that in the NHS or social care system — who is there, propping up our vital public services? Immigrants.
'When the crops need picking, the parcels need delivering, children need teaching, who's ready and willing to put in the hard graft? Immigrants.'
The SNP MSP went on to 'bust myths' peddled by anti-immigration rhetoric, noting the significant economic contributions made by migrants through taxes and job creation, as well as highlighting failures of the Tory government in replacing social housing lost through Thatcher's Right to Buy scheme.
He added: 'Successive UK governments did that through austerity, through awful financial mismanagement, like Trussonomics, through a lack of political courage.
'So let's bust another myth while we're here: migrants aren't taking your jobs. Migrants are creating your jobs.'
Yousaf also criticised Nigel Farage's recent attacks on Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, stating that whilst their political views differ, Sarwar 'loves Scotland infinitely more than Nigel Farage'.
Yousaf, Anwar and Foyer were joined by Labour councillor Matt Kerr at the sold-out event (Image: Gordon Terris) Regarding the upcoming Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, he told The National: 'There has never been a more important moment to stand up against the advance of the far-right.
'Scotland, I am afraid, is not immune to the rise of populism, and next Thursday's by-election in Hamilton will be a key moment, where I hope, the good people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse will roundly reject the politics of racial division.
'We need to wake up to the fact that Farage's Reform are gaining support. Those of us who are progressive, and believe in inclusive values, need to organise, mobilise and most importantly articulate an alternative vision to what Farage is offering.
'We need to articulate a vision rooted in hope, that is bold, radical and promises to make the lives of the majority better.
'If we do that, then we can stop the rise of the far-right. If not, well, the alternative does not bear thinking about.'
READ MORE: Why the UK media 180 on Gaza is too little, too late
Human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar also gave a speech at the summit, where he criticised First Minister John Swinney and Police Scotland's handling of the recent Kneecap controversies, which saw the Irish rap trio axed from the TRNSMT lineup.
Anwar said: 'A message also for John Swinney and Police Scotland over Kneecap: mind your own business.
'Don't tell us what we can listen to. You stopped Kneecap, while only days earlier the police protected fascists on our streets.
'You are punishing Kneecap for speaking out against Israel's genocide in Gaza, but when will you stop the arms trade? When will you hold the politicians who armed the genocide accountable?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
26 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Kemi Badenoch's failure to relaunch
Photo byKemi Badenoch is relaunching. The Conservative leader has made a number of brand-aware media interventions recently. First, she said she intended to be Britain's Javier Milei, the chainsaw-wielding (literally) 'anarcho-capitalist' Argentinian president whose political mission is to slash public spending. This was followed by the revelation that she no longer identifies as Nigerian. (As a reminder, Badenoch was born in the UK to Nigerian parents and spent most of her childhood in Lagos, before coming to London to study for her A-levels.) Then she went to war with Liz Truss (as discussed earlier this week), finally putting a bit of distance between herself and the least popular Conservative prime minister. Now, the notoriously media-adverse Tory leader has done a wide-ranging interview with the BBC's Amol Rajan, in which she discusses how she once got another pupil expelled for cheating while at school around aged 15 and lost her Christian faith after reading how the Austrian Josef Fritzl man raped his captive daughter for 24 years. These anecdotes are, to be honest, a bit odd. On the cheating one, Badenoch said that when people (it's unclear whether she means her classmates or her teachers) asked why she had got the other boy into trouble, 'I said 'because he was doing the wrong thing'.' She clearly thinks this makes her sound moral and just, as somebody who cannot abide rule-breakers. That Badenoch also said she 'didn't get praised for it' implies she expected praise; again, suggesting she believes the anecdote puts her in a positive light. Whether most Brits, thinking back to their teenage selves, will be able to imagine doing as she did or consider it worthy of praise is more dubious. As for her faith, Badenoch's position that she is a 'cultural Christian', even if she no longer believes in God, is hardly unusual for a Conservative leader. Liz Truss said similar when she was appointed PM. David Cameron, meanwhile, borrowed Boris Johnson's line that his 'religious faith is a bit like the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes'. Nor is the reasoning she gives for atheism all that startling. Lots of people find their belief in a higher power waning when confronted with tragedies, whether natural disasters, personal grief or horrific news stories. But just read Badenoch's description of her thought process: 'I was praying for all sorts of stupid things and I was getting my prayers answered. I was praying to have good grades, my hair should grow longer, and I would pray for the bus to come on time so I wouldn't miss something… Why were those prayers answered, and not [Elisabeth Fritzl's] prayers?' Leaving aside the simplistic theology, the Fritzl case hit the news in 2008, when Badenoch was 28. Praying for longer hair or for a bus to come on time does not exactly chime with the average adult experience (most of whom no longer have to worry about getting good grades, either). This isn't the first time Badenoch has given details of her life or thinking that make her seem eccentric. Her insistence that she never makes gaffes springs to mind, as does her tirade against sandwiches (in particular, moist bread). She still clings to the origin story of the 'poverty of low expectations' she encountered at school in London, when teachers discouraged her from applying to Oxbridge or medical school. Her lacklustre A-level results (B, B, D) suggest there may be more to this discouragement than unthinking racial prejudice. So do the comments from her former head teacher – whom Rajan quotes in the BBC interview when she retold that story – which refute her assessment. But that doesn't fit into the Badenoch world-view. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Seeming normal is both a crucial skill in politics and one that many politicians struggle with. Those who reach the upper echelons of politics are rarely 'normal' in any real sense – the key is how well they are able to hide their various oddities. Once the public (or the media) decides you are a bit weird (Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich), it's hard to recover. Unless you lean in and make weirdness your brand (Boris Johnson painting cardboard boxes to look like buses). Voters are on the lookout for 'gotcha' moments when they detect a whiff of inauthenticity (David Cameron forgetting who his favourite football team was), while the reality of being a front-line politician can make even genuine sentiment appear manufactured (Keir Starmer's love of Arsenal). The challenge Badenoch has is that she has not yet properly introduced herself to the British public. While she might be a Big Name In Westminster, according to YouGov one sixth of voters don't actually know who she is – putting her below Nick Clegg, Diane Abbott and Suella Braverman. It takes time to introduce an opposition leader to the British public, but there does need to be a strategy. As one former Tory adviser told me in March: 'When David Cameron was four months in… he was hugging huskies. All anyone knows about Kemi is she wants to cut maternity leave and hates bread.' Now they know she hates bread and loves snitching. Badenoch is in catch-up mode. One way to address that is to make big, attention-grabbing statements: like no longer identifying as Nigerian, or starting some blue-on-blue infighting by provoking Truss. Another is to try to win people over by opening up about issues of faith and ethical stances (the cheating example). But the latter only works if those stories are relatable. And their relatability isn't exactly helped by a simultaneous comparison with a far-right Argentinian with a chainsaw. All of this should be seen in the context of the Tories languishing on 18 per cent in the polls, during a summer recess in which Reform's crime campaign has sucked up all the political oxygen – and with just three months until Badenoch's immunity runs out, when Conservative MPs can trigger a leadership challenge. The need for some kind of relaunch is clear. But it's hard to see how her recent interventions are meant to help, and she risks affirming her reputation for weirdness before the public knows much else about her. After all, it's not like Miliband chose to get the bacon sandwich expelled. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Keir Starmer would be a much happier politician in Japan] Related
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's war on the middle classes has just taken a vicious turn
A government in severe distress always falls back into its comfort zone of issues it wants to talk about, rather than tackle the most important issues before it. And so, as the dog returneth to its vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly, and the Labour Party return to the comforting familiarity of fomenting class war. Another day when, instead of focusing on economic catastrophe, social meltdown and ever-more boat crossings, Labour are tinkering with their already-disastrous Equality Act to introduce a requirement for schools to consider the 'socio-economic' background of pupils when selecting children. This consideration is even likely to trump how far away a student lives from a school, whether they have siblings already there, and perhaps even whether they have disabilities. What these factors are is obviously not properly defined yet, as doing the hard work is too much for the brainboxes behind this scheme. Perhaps it will be based on the same policy surrounding civil service internships announced last week, where you can only apply if you are an ethnic minority or if your dad did a certain list of jobs when you were fourteen. Because being judged on who your father was is now, in this topsy-turvy world, something that the Left-wing progressives do, rather than the toffs. We already know the enormous, wonderful, inspiring, sacrificial steps that parents will take to get their children into the best schools. They take second jobs to pay for private school (much harder since Labour's ruinous and useless VAT increase); they will move house to be in better areas; they will even change religion to get into, for example, Catholic schools. So when yet another ladder of opportunity is removed and broken up for firewood, what will parents do next? Will they quit their jobs, sell investments, adopt a Cockney accent, all in a bid to contort themselves into Labour's increasingly narrow criteria of 'working class'? What then will happen to the economy? This will hurt children, it will hurt parents, it will hurt Britain. The same happened after the disgraceful attacks on the grammar school system. But Labour don't care. Theirs is a pathological hatred of middle England, the wellspring from which so many of them come, but bitterly resent. It is no more someone's fault to be born to loving middle-class parents than to be born to loving working-class ones, or unloving families or no family. As Alex Burghart, the Conservative shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said so well in these pages: 'Rather than dragging people down through social engineering, we should instead focus on improving equality of opportunity, so hard-working people can get on, irrespective of their class, colour or creed.' More broadly, this sorry little diminution of Britain is just the latest in a long list of examples proving that the Left, broadly defined, just does not understand human nature. The Rev Fergus Butler-Gallie put this perfectly recently: 'Liberalism believes that human nature can be bribed or oppressed or educated into goodness' and that this world view 'has been a catastrophe for the last 50 years of policy making'. Governments must work with the grain of human nature, understanding that parents will do everything they can for their children, and harnessing that rather than trying to deny it, or worse, decry it as evil and selfish. Some children will always be brighter than others, too. Again, a return of the grammar school system would allow those kids to thrive, regardless of their 'socio-economic' background. Capitalism works by harnessing human nature – socialism fails by denying it. No amount of moronic Labour policies will ever change that.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
SNP's conference agenda must let us debate routes to independence
Malcolm Smith's Sunday National letter (Scottish Government has a moral obligation to break the law) makes the related point that the SNP have missed major opportunities to make a break with Westminster with the backing of the Scottish people. He goes on: 'There is no guarantee that a constitutional crisis and rift with London would be successful. It doesn't have to be. It has only to be the spark that will set a fire under the people of Scotland and shed the SNP of their establishment image.' READ MORE: John Swinney dismisses SNP members' rival independence plan The policy proposal in my recent letters to The National is all about lighting just such a spark – one legitimate in our own legal and constitutional traditions – that can gain support from a majority of Scots. The main options that have been put forward as 2026 SNP manifesto offers of routes to independence are essentially only three: 1) As before, if a majority of our MSPs are elected then Holyrood will ask Westminster for a Section 30 'permission' for a referendum on independence; 2) Say that Holyrood 2026 is some sort of plebiscite election on independence; 3) Say we will assert competency over Scottish constitutional matters if elected. The last option is that of the resolution put forward by Newington and Southside branch SNP as A Manifesto for Scotland's Right to Decide, and reads: 'Conference recognises that the policy of seeking a Section 30 order from the UK Government to hold a referendum on Scotland's constitutional future has proven ineffective. More fundamentally, it undermines Scotland's sovereign right to decide and contributes to the gap between public support for independence and support for the SNP. 'Conference reaffirms that referendums on how Scotland is governed, when held under mandate by the Scottish Parliament, must not be subject to an external veto. Sovereignty lies with the Scottish people, not Westminster. 'Therefore, Conference agrees that the SNP shall put in their manifesto for the 2026 Scottish Parliament election, that if a majority of SNP and other pro-independence MSPs are returned to Holyrood in 2026, they will bring forward a bill to assume responsibility for constitutional affairs as directed by the people of Scotland. This will include the right to hold referendums on increased powers and independence – driven by the will of the people.' READ MORE: Richard Walker: Indy plans are like buses – you wait ages for one and then ... There is also a short supporting statement attached to this that expands on what is implied here. I have been in touch with some of the spokespersons for the SNP branches involved in submitting a motion on the second, 'independence election', option and have been invited to attend their meeting in Perth tomorrow. I am happy to do so and look forward to lively and respectful debate on the respective merits of the resolutions. At a meeting in Portobello last Thursday, I handed over a copy of the Newington Resolution and its supporting statement to John Swinney. John said he would get back to me with his response to this specific motion. Disappointingly, he has not yet done so. The provisional agenda for SNP conference is due to appear today. It is vital for full and open debate on our manifesto offer for next year that all three of the main differing options are in that provisional agenda for consideration of support from branches and possible amendments. Mike Wallace Edinburgh
