PROPOSALS for a Scottish visa, which would differ from the UK’s by omitting the requirement for employer sponsorship or salary threshold, could be “risky” for Scotland according to a new report.
The UK Government has already rejected the notion, and the study from the Reform Scotland think tank and Scottish Policy Foundation said Scotland would have to confidently identify other criteria which predict successful settlement, as the “international experience is clear about the importance of employment for successful outcomes”.
It also warned that we must have a serious debate about how Scotland responds to the projected decline in its population.
Heather McCauley, a former senior civil servant with the Scottish Government, who was formerly a government adviser in New Zealand, considered the experiences of that country, Canada, Australia and the US to find what Scotland could learn about immigration. She said the programmes examined have – on balance – been beneficial, but the size of the benefits is often small.
If current migration levels are maintained, Scotland’s working-age population is expected to remain relatively stable for the next 25 years, but would fall by 12% should migration stop. Regionally differentiated policies are “feasible”, she said, but the arguments are strongest for peripheral areas that would otherwise struggle, with the case for regional differentiation across an entire devolved nation “less strong”.
“Clearly, there are particular sectors, occupations and salary levels where requirements and conditions are different to those in the UK as a whole (or the South East in particular),” said the report.
“This, however, argues for occupational or sector-specific policies rather than a lower bar for entry across the board. Any differential policy for Scotland that provided on-going settlement rights would have implications for the wider UK, particularly if it involved a lower bar for entry.
“Concern about ‘back door’ entry, particularly against a backdrop of UK governments wanting to demonstrate that they have ‘control’ of immigration numbers, is likely to be a significant impediment to differentiation.”
McCauley said: “Irrespective of Scotland’s constitutional future, its demographics mean that it needs to enter a serious debate about how it responds to projected population decline.
“Growing the population as a goal in itself, or as a means to economic prosperity, is problematic, even if it were to be feasible. Maintaining population size, and particularly boosting the size and strength of the working-age population, can be supported by immigration, but only in the short term. Other policies to support adjustment to a different age distribution will be much more important.”
She said it was easy to see immigration as a “fix-all”, but policy makers had to be realistic about how much it can contribute to improved outcomes.
“In considering their strategy and policy, the Scottish Government and the opposition parties should consider the full range of costs and benefits for the people of Scotland as well as potential migrants themselves, and should focus primarily on retaining and upskilling their existing population as well as addressing the root causes of challenges such as depopulation in remote and rural areas,” said McCauley.
Reform Scotland director, Chris Deerin, added: “Reform Scotland believes in immigration for economic, demographic and cultural reasons – as has been said, ‘Scotland is not full up’.
“A healthy level of immigration can improve our nation in welcome and diverse ways.
“Heather McCauley’s report gives a fascinating insight into what has worked and what hasn’t in other countries, and it’s important that the Scottish Government absorbs her findings when setting future policy.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here