SNP's wish to ‘throw open our borders' would risk security
Writing in the Daily Mail ahead of the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh, Mrs Badenoch said the SNP's position 'is not remotely serious'.
The Scottish Government is much more liberal than both the UK Labour Government and the Tories on immigration, repeatedly calling for more people to be allowed to come to Scotland, but Holyrood does not have the powers to make changes.
Ministers have pushed for a shift in the system on a number of occasions, going so far as to propose a separate Scottish visa in 2020 under Nicola Sturgeon – a pitch which was quickly rejected by the Conservative-led government of the time.
Mrs Badenoch wrote: 'We need a new, sustainable system that only admits a strict number of people who come here legally, do the right thing, and who contribute to society.
'That means we must introduce a strict numerical cap on legal migration, ensure there is zero-tolerance for foreign criminals, and pass the Deportation Bill to remove those who should not be here.
'The left-wing parties at Holyrood – not just the SNP, but also Labour and the Lib Dems – don't believe tougher action is necessary.
Scottish Conservative Party Conference is now in full swing.
Follow along to see how @RussellFindlay1 is bringing common sense to Scottish politics 🏴🇬🇧#SCC25 pic.twitter.com/Qob5M9Eagy
— Scottish Conservatives (@ScotTories) June 13, 2025
'On immigration, those parties have policies student politicians would be ashamed of.
'The SNP's stance, in particular, is not remotely serious.
'If they ever got their way, they would put our citizens' security at risk. It's the nationalists' view that we should just throw open our borders, without any checks or limitations on who comes into the country.'
The Scottish Government has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
28 minutes ago
- The National
Where is scrutiny of UK's nuclear submarine plans?
In particular, there has yet to be any serious scrutiny of the proposal to build 12 nuclear-propelled submarines under the Aukus agreement, the military co-operation agreement between the US, UK and Australia. This scrutiny is especially necessary given that the Pentagon this week announced a review of its commitment to the agreement, raising questions about whether the billions of pounds committed by the UK Government are destined for the drain. The Aukus agreement's main aim is the material support of the Australian Navy in the Indo-Pacific, primarily by providing it with eight nuclear-powered submarines of the kind announced in the SDR. This means several of the 12 nuclear submarines will probably end up lurking around in the South China Sea, contributing nothing to the defence of the UK and raising regional tensions. READ MORE: Jeremy Corbyn says police 'picked on him' as Gaza protest case dropped No mainstream journalist or news organisation has questioned the Government over whether this is a sensible use of public resources or even a rational 'defence' strategy in any meaningful sense of the word. There has been no coverage of the fact the Government's watchdog the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) recently declared the manufacture of nuclear reactors to power the new Dreadnought submarines 'unachievable'. It gave the nuclear reactor project its lowest rating of 'red' in January of this year, as reported by The Ferret in February. While the IPA assessment rated the delivery of the new Aukus-class submarines as 'amber' ('facing significant issues requiring management attention'), it is widely assumed that the same nuclear reactors will power both the prospective nuclear-armed Dreadnought and Aukus submarines. In short, the Government's own infrastructure office just this year assessed that an indispensable component of all these submarines is not deliverable. This was hardly given a moment's airtime during the media furore on the SDR. (Image: PA) This alone is a serious indictment of Britain's elite journalists and indicates that their role has not been to question the Government's obscene military spending plans but rather to promote them. It therefore falls to citizens and civil society to raise the questions over serious doubts about the Government's costly nuclear plans. The Pentagon's review of its commitment to Aukus to determine if it aligns with the new administration's 'America First' agenda carries a weight of irony. Less than two weeks ago, UK Defence Secretary John Healey was espousing the supposed great benefits of the 'special relationship' with the US in terms of military co-operation and trade. Wednesday's development highlights just how little the UK gains from obsequiously aligning with US geopolitical interests, such as attempting to corral China in the Indo-Pacific. The unreliability of this relationship should compel a total reassessment of the predominant ideology about UK security, which currently prioritises being an arm of the US military in far-flung corners of the world over genuine domestic security. UK CND recently published an Alternative Defence, focusing on strengthening domestic social investment and a programme for common international security. The full report is on the UK CND website. The UK Government's irrational and incoherent military spending plans come at a time when the current generation of submarines based at Faslane are in an increasingly atrocious state of disrepair. Serious radioactive risk incidents at the naval base are increasing. The Vanguard nuclear-armed submarines are going on record-long assignments while their substitutes sit rusting in the repair docks. Crew are likely enduring awful conditions during six-month stints underwater, with some reports saying they ran out of food during the last assignment. Meanwhile, the Dreadnoughts that will supposedly replace these ailing vessels are unlikely to enter service for 10 years at least – if the reactors to power them can be built at all. The UK's nuclear superpower farce is unsustainable and a disaster waiting to happen. Those of us who understand this in Scotland must support the parties which oppose nuclear weapons in the run-up to the 2026 election, and keep up the pressure on Scottish parliamentarians to support the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Samuel Rafanell-Williams is Scottish CND's communications officer
The Herald Scotland
42 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Glasgow sidelined by Labour Spending Review, says Aitken
In a letter seen by The Herald, the SNP councillor warned that Ms Reeves's review is a 'retrograde step' for regional devolution in Scotland, and risks 'disempowering' Glasgow. READ MORE: Although the Treasury confirmed a £160 million Investment Zone in the Glasgow City Region and £20 million for Trailblazer Communities, Councillor Aitken said this fell far short of the funding deals being rolled out to five English Mayoral Strategic Authorities. The Spending Review included detailed commitments to expand integrated settlements for English city regions. Rahcel Reeves delivering the spending review (Image: House of Commons/PA Wire) Instead of applying for individual grants through competitive bidding processes, these areas receive a single, flexible pot of long-term funding, allowing Mayors greater autonomy in making their own investment decisions. This integrated funding grants local control over budgets for areas such as housing, skills, and transport. Following the Spending Review, these settlements are being expanded to include London, the North East, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and Liverpool City Region. These will join existing arrangements in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, meaning nearly 40% of England's population will now have local control over this unified funding for growth and public services. Glasgow will instead be forced to enter what one council source described as a 'beauty contest' and need to bid for cash — similar to the process under the last Tory government, which Labour criticised in opposition. Councillor Aitken told Mr Murray: 'It is clear from the Spending Review that the UK Government recognises the best way to support economic growth of English City Regions is through an integrated settlement, allowing places the ability to make their own investment decisions. 'And yet Glasgow City Region, which is larger in population, size of economy, opportunity and need than most of the Mayoral Combined Authorities, is reduced to simply administering programmes on behalf of UK Government as if it were a small local authority.' She added: 'The empowerment of our comparator city regions in England and the disempowerment of Glasgow City Region threatens all of the progress we have made. We have a shared priority of growing Scotland's economy and ensuring our people reap the benefits of that. 'We cannot grow Scotland's economy without growing Glasgow's economy — and yet yesterday's budget will not contribute to that growth and will cause us to fall behind our English counterparts.' Council insiders told The Herald the lack of progress had come as a surprise, particularly given the constructive tone of recent discussions with the UK Government. Cllr Aitken and Kevin Rush talking to Newsquest's Stewart Paterson in February (Image: Gordon Terris) In February, Councillor Aitken and Glasgow's head of regional economic growth, Kevin Rush, told The Herald the city was 'ready to go' on a bespoke devolution deal. The model would mirror Greater Manchester or the West Midlands — with a 'single pot' of funding and the ability to make investment decisions locally. They said the structures were already in place and that Glasgow was managing numerous major UK Government-backed programmes, including the City Deal, Innovation Accelerator, Investment Zone, Shared Prosperity Fund, 5G Region, and Clyde Mission. The Treasury did reaffirm its commitment to the Glasgow Investment Zone — which it says could unlock £1.7 billion in private investment and create up to 18,000 jobs — and praised the region's potential in advanced manufacturing. READ MORE: But Councillor Aitken said that without control over wider investment decisions, Glasgow's economic future would remain constrained by short-term funding rounds and top-down allocations. She told The Herald: 'If anyone thought locking Glasgow and other Scottish cities out of investment talks last year was a simple oversight, this Spending Review risks creating the impression that the UK Government has now decided it is prepared to let our city regions be left behind. 'That is incredibly frustrating, at a time when we have been working closely with the Secretary of State, Deputy First Minister and officials from governments in Edinburgh and London to develop a positive, deliverable proposition for a devolution deal that would allow us to build on our strong record for innovation, unlock investment opportunities and grow the Scottish economy. 'Despite all of that, it appears the voice of Scotland's cities has not been heard around the Cabinet table." 'We are not asking for anything difficult," she added, "just a level playing field." In her Spending Review, Ms Reeves confirmed that the Scottish Government is set to receive an average of £50.9 billion per year between 2026–27 and 2028–29, representing its largest settlement in real terms since devolution. A UK Government spokesperson said: "Glasgow City Region is at the heart of our Plan for Growth in Scotland. "We are delivering more than £663m funding for the region including an Investment Zone focussed on developing advanced manufacturing and a strategic partnership with the National Wealth Fund. "Further plans will be set out, including the city's important role in the Industrial Strategy. "Devolution within Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government but, building on the success of city and growth deals, we will work with them to help to ensure places like Glasgow City Region have the tools they need to deliver change and unlock the same levels of growth as their English counterparts like Greater Manchester."
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Industry leader writes to SNP minister over new nuclear ban
The long term commitment includes a major new plant in the south of England that will create 10,000 jobs, as well as small modular reactors. Louise Gilmour, the GMB Scotland secretary has written to Gillian Martin, MSP and Scottish energy secretary, 'to urge the Scottish Government to review its stance on blocking new nuclear'. She said the new investment 'includes £14.2 billion for an entirely new nuclear site at Sizewell, and also £2.5bn in cutting edge small modular reactor (SMR) technologies'. Louise Gilmour, GMB Scotland secretary. (Image: Andrew Cawley) Ms Gilmour wrote: 'Both of these investments will not just protect our energy security, but create thousands of well-paid, skilled jobs in their construction, and in the long term, hundreds of well-paid jobs in operations and research. 'A total of 10,000 jobs will be created at Sizewell alone. Where in Scotland are jobs being created at such a scale? Scotland's manufacturing base – in construction and energy – is dying.' She continued: 'We have experienced the closure of Grangemouth in Falkirk, of Aggregate Industries in North Lanarkshire, the slashing of jobs at Tarmac in East Lothian, the trickle of job losses from the North Sea, and the yards at Methil and Arnish being brought back from the brink yet again and still there are no major renewable works in those yards 'We are now contending with the planned closure of Alexander Dennis which would be yet another blow to the Falkirk area. This is not sustainable.' READ MORE: 'Amidst broken promises on a green jobs revolution, the Scottish Government cannot afford to scoff at the offering of nuclear energy on the table. An offer that would in large part be funded by the UK Government. The ban against new nuclear – especially SMRs – must be lifted.' Gillian Martin, Scottish energy secretary. (Image: Getty Images) The union said green-lighting new mini reactors in Scotland could create thousands of skilled jobs generating hundreds of millions of pounds for surrounding communities. Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the government is 'investing in Britain's renewal, with the biggest nuclear building programme in a generation ... this landmark decision is our Plan for Change in action', adding: 'We are creating thousands of jobs, kickstarting economic growth and putting more money people's pockets.' The Scottish Government declined to answer in direct response but a spokesperson said to this and earlier questions from The Herald: 'The Scottish Government is focussed on supporting growth and creating jobs by capitalising on Scotland's immense renewable energy capacity rather than expensive new nuclear energy which takes decades to build, creates toxic waste which is difficult and costly to dispose of and does not generate power at a cost that will bring down energy bills.' The union said the nuclear industry supports around 3,700 jobs in Scotland and contributes about £400 million to the Scottish economy.
