Businesses ‘crying out' for Scottish visas to boost workforce, says SNP MP
Businesses are 'crying out' for Scottish visas, an SNP MP has said, as he claimed a managed migration scheme could boost Scotland's economic growth.
Stephen Gethins argued the UK's current 'one-size fits all' approach to immigration is not working, ahead of the second reading of his Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill on Friday.
The MP for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry said his private member's Bill proposes to devolve more powers over immigration to Holyrood, to increase Scotland's workforce in the hospitality, tourism and care sectors.
Speaking to the PA news agency, he said: 'Having a one-size fits all approach to migration is not something that makes for good policy.
'Currently, we are making policy that is taking into account the South East of England, and not taking into account, for example, parts of Scotland that are crying out for a greater workforce.
'And migration has always driven economic growth.'
He added: 'We're not talking about uncontrolled migration, we're talking about areas that are good for business, and that's why so many businesses and industry bodies are calling for this very measure.
'As part of that, we need to have a more sensible debate and discussion on migration.
'Too often, on issues like Brexit, migration, cultural issues, the Labour Party and other parties are leaning into a Reform agenda, and we need to reject that.'
Gethins continued: 'This is about managed migration, but instead of doing the Boris Johnson approach of just throwing open the doors and having no benefit for Scotland, let's see where it can benefit specific sectors.'
The specific details of what a Scottish visa would entail could be decided in collaboration with other political parties, Gethins said.
He added: 'It could be something that is targeted at specific sectors, it could be a decentralised migration system like you have in places like Australia and Canada, where different provinces and Canada, for example, have different needs.
'It's something that could be held, for example, you already have a Scottish taxation system, so the infrastructure is set up.
'And obviously this is something that has been acknowledged by Brexiteers and even by the Labour Government coming in, that there is a particular need.'
He continued: 'It's something that business in Scotland have been crying out for, as well as important sectors like the care sector and the NHS, who were so badly hit by Brexit and have been so badly hit by the hostile environment.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Public sector struggling to define what a woman is, trans report finds
Public sector workers and trade unions are widely refusing to accept the Supreme Court's judgment on what a woman is, a think tank has warned. A new study by Policy Exchange shows that dozens of organisations across the public, private and charitable sectors have continued to question the legal meaning of 'a woman', despite the ruling. In April, the court ruled that the term 'woman' refers to a biological female in the Equality Act 2010. The decision means trans women, who were born male, should use men's toilets, changing rooms and other single-sex spaces, contradicting the previous stance of a string of public sector organisations. Policy Exchange's report, the fifth edition of its 'Biology Matters Compendium', compiles examples of organisations refusing to acknowledge the legal force of the court's judgment. These include universities, professional bodies and several trade unions, along with other public bodies. Rosie Duffield, the gender-critical MP who left the Labour Party last year, hailed the report and said it showed that 'radical positions on gender identity have become deeply embedded and it will be the work of years to rectify it'. Ms Duffield wrote in the foreword: 'There should be no illusions that this is over: there will be many more battles to fight before women's sex-based rights are secure.' Lara Brown, the author of the report, said that 'despite progress, our latest edition of the Biology Matters Compendium reveals there is still a great deal of ideological capture in the policy and practice of many public institutions'. 'The defence of sex-based rights does not end with a court ruling. It requires persistent scrutiny, open debate, and the courage to challenge ideological orthodoxy – wherever it may reside. This compendium finds that in this domain, there is still much more to be done.' The report notes that at least seven major trade unions have appeared to question the ruling in recent months. Unison, one of the UK's largest unions, and the University and Colleges Union, which represents academic and support staff in further and higher education institutions, have warned of the judgment's 'harmful implications'. The Fire Brigades' Union has said in response to the ruling that 'the law is not always on the right side of history'. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (Aslef) released a statement on social media saying that it 'recognises the distress and uncertainty that the Supreme Court's ruling about the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 has caused to trans and non-binary communities.' The union declared: 'We have a proud history of championing the rights of our trans and non-binary members and we continue to stand in solidarity with them.' A collection of unions, including Unite, the civil service union PCS, the RMT and the BFAWU, a food industry union, have staged marches against the Supreme Court's decision, with one leading figure declaring that 'the trade union movement will protect and stand with trans people, whether the law cares or not.' Policy Exchange's report also draws attention to professional bodies such as the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy continuing to describe gender self-identification as 'valid'. After the Supreme Court judgment, a number of public bodies announced plans to change their policies on gender recognition. Within days, the British Transport Police announced that trans women could in future only be strip-searched by male officers. The NHS was also told by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the equalities watchdog, to change guidelines that did not fit the newly clarified legal settlement. The Football Association announced that athletes would have to compete in their biological sex categories, going forward. But other bodies were more reluctant to accept the ruling. The British Medical Association, the doctors' union, branded the Supreme Court's decision 'scientifically illiterate'. Meanwhile, the National Police Chiefs' Council said it would 'not rush' to change rules on strip-searching in order to fall in with the court's decision.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's immigration speech ‘fundamentally racist', says Diane Abbott
Diane Abbott has said Keir Starmer's speech about Britain becoming an 'island of strangers' was 'fundamentally racist'. Ms Abbott, the UK's first black woman MP, said she was 'very disturbed' by the Prime Minister's recent speech in which he said that mass immigration had done 'incalculable damage' to Britain. Speaking at a thousands-strong anti-austerity march in London on Saturday, Ms Abbott said: 'I was very disturbed to hear Keir Starmer on the subject of immigration. 'He talked about closing the book on a squalid chapter for our politics – immigrants represent a squalid chapter. 'He talked about how he thought immigration has done incalculable damage to this green and pleasant land, which, of course, is nonsense – immigrants built this land. 'And finally, he said we risk becoming an island of strangers. I thought that was a fundamentally racist thing to say. It is contrary to Britain's history. 'My parents came to this country in the 50s. They were not strangers. They helped to build this country.' The Prime Minister faced outrage from Left-wing critics who claimed the reference to an 'island of strangers' had been deliberately lifted from Enoch Powell's incendiary 1968 speech on immigration, known as the 'Rivers of Blood' speech. Ms Abbott, who has served as a Labour MP since 1987, also accused Sir Keir of aping Nigel Farage in order to turn around Labour's dire poll rating. She said: 'I think Keir Starmer is quite wrong to say that the way that you beat Reform is to copy Reform.' The Prime Minister delivered the speech last month while announcing a new programme of immigration restrictions. He has castigated record-breaking net migration numbers under the Conservative governments of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak as 'Britain's failed experiment in open borders'. The latest figures show that the net flow of people into Britain halved between 2023 and 2024. While Labour sought to take credit for the cut, former Conservative Home Secretary James Cleverly claimed his immigration rule changes were behind the sudden fall in numbers. Thousands of Left-wing demonstrators gathered in central London on Saturday to march against the Government's programme of spending cuts and welfare reform. The march was organised by The People's Assembly and featured representatives from the Green Party, the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union, the National Education Union (NEU) and the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) among other Left-wing groups. A spokesman for The People's Assembly slammed the Government's spending cuts and said: 'Real tough choices would be for a Labour government to tax the rich and their hidden wealth, to fund public services, fair pay, investment in communities and the NHS.' The Prime Minister is facing increasing pressure from his Left flank to change direction. He has now announced a U-turn on a cut to winter fuel allowance, which removed the benefit payment from 10 million pensioners. A major change to the two-child benefit cap is also expected after concerns that it increases child poverty. But senior Left-wingers have urged Sir Keir to go further. Splits over economic policy A secret memo from Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, to Rachel Reeves, uncovered by The Telegraph, has also shown the splits over economic policy at the top of Government. In the memo, sent before the Spring Statement, Ms Rayner urged the Chancellor to raise taxes rather than cut spending to plug fiscal holes. Ms Abbott had the whip withdrawn in 2023 after sending a letter to the Observer, for which she later apologised, arguing Jews could suffer prejudice but not racism. In the run-up to the last general election, Ms Abbott was readmitted to the party, but there was rampant speculation that she would not be allowed to stand again as a Labour candidate in her Hackney North and Stoke Newington seat. After political pressure, Sir Keir said that she was 'free to stand' in the seat if she wished. She now sits as Mother of the House, the longest continuously serving woman MP in the House of Commons.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to.
