You would have thought ministers would have learned that they need to take considerable care when taking about migration. Apparently that is not true. They now seem to be promoting the line that it is fair to be concerned about migration so long as you don't riot.
Why don't they instead suggest it's not fair to be concerned about migration? In fact, it's wholly inappropriate?
After all, well over 90% of all migrants to the UK come via official routes and are legally welcomed.
The vast majority of those applying for refugee status also get it, because the claim is justified.
The small boat traffic is declining.
And migrants can't claim housing or benefits, at least when they arrive. The track record is that they instead contribute significantly to our economy, to our tax revenues and public services.
The story of migration is positive, and beneficial to all in the UK.
So why aren't ministers out there telling it as it really is?
Why aren't they, in the process, reassuring millions of people that they are welcome and safe here? There is no sign that they are doing that right now.
Could the answer be obvious? Is it that Labour is just as keen as the Tories for there to be a narrative that migrants are to blame for what is wrong with the country, and that the government is not? Is Labour just as keen as the Tories to have this believed by people? Do they also want to pass the buck?
The rhetoric of Labour in office is too new to be sure about this, as yet. But the portents are not good. Labour is not making clear its belief in migration as a positive contributor to UK society as clearly as I think it should. It is already playing too strongly to unfounded prejudices. I am worried by them. I am also worried for those people who might be victimised as a result. This issue is not going away.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Worth pointing out of course that Migration also offers benefits to UK Citizens who wish to work or study abroad, something that Brexit has now made much harder
Problem transferral? Cowardice?
LINO are unwilling/incapable(?) of developing a narrative which would go against the MSM (= immigrants are bad).
The numbers are there for all to see, yet LINO refuse to use them.
Your other post on BoE/independence suggests another unwillingness to take responsibility.
That said, developing an argument on the need for immigrants in some sectors, would expose this and all govs for +34 years with respect to their total failure to train the people that society needs (nah..!!! lets leave it to … the market, let’s use immigrants).
I hope you will forgive for repeating myself. The people arriving ‘illegally’ are much less than 10%. As you say, most have a valid claim for asylum.
The number of people prevented from being deported over the last few years would fit in a taxi. Potential deportations prevented is a higher number-Rwanda plan.
Leaving the ECHR would have implications for the rights of British citizens, the Good Friday Agreement and on relations with Europe.
Some people want to take us to a very different political future which they try to disguise by banging the racist drum.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/leaving-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/
Thank you and well said, Richard.
My parents arrived here in May 1964, aged 19, and have been in Buckinghamshire since 1968. I was born in London and have lived most of my life in Buckinghamshire. After last week’s violence which appears to have spooked my parents, who will be 80 in November, and their expression that perhaps we ought to consider leaving, I am beginning to look for work overseas.
That is troubling…..
And I understand it, which is as troubling. It takes little imagination to think I might do the same.
Thank you, Richard.
We are well aware of the immiseration driving people to desperation. Over supper yesterday, we thought Labour would not do anything to address this country’s long standing problems and are more likely to scapegoat the likes of us. All this literally a week or so after we thought of selling up in Mauritius.
@Colonal Smithers
Excellent article on the long standing housing problem Starmer has no realistic answer for:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/starmer-planning-housing-development-b2582613.html?lid=aon42tlqyid4&utm_medium=email&utm_source=braze&utm_campaign=Step%201&utm_term=IND_subs_emails
@ readers. In case you are wondering why Buckinghamshire, dad was a doctor and more at RAF Halton. Mum worked in the City and, as that was no place for women, especially young mums, joined the civil service.
Dear Colonel
I live in central Somerset -near Bridgwater which is a low income town. There is a hotel on the edge of my village which houses asylum seekers. We were told that there was going to be a march on it from the town. I put it up on the local Facebook site and all evening the comments -over 70- were against the marchers. Not one in sympathy.
When the asylum seekers first came -a year or so ago- there were a few ‘We’re paying for them to live in luxury’ type comments. I put up the Gov,uk webpage on what one is entitled to as an Asylum seeker and the comments stopped.
In the event only a handful of people turned up to harang a number of bored police. It may be they were deterred by the earlier news of the sentences handed out-or two and a half miles was too long to walk!
We did hear that a group had trashed toilets at a local motorway services and sprayed threatening slogans on the wall.
I am not going to pretend that all is well but I think we might take some comfort from the response.
My Mum as a young mother (not me) left Hong Kong in 1941 with no more than a suitcase. My father could see Japan declaring war on us -as they did 9 months later. Mum and my brother found refuge in Australia. I have sympathy for people forced to flee but even if the family history was different, I hope my attitude would be the same.
Relocation is stressful , especially for the elderly like me. You must do as you think right but you are not alone.
Much to agree with
My grandfather and father faced the stress of migration, as did my in-laws
That stress is massive
No one does it voluntarily
Protestors have not a clue about that
“Labour is not making clear its belief in migration as a positive contributor to UK society as clearly as I think it should. It is already playing too strongly to unfounded prejudices. I am worried by them. I am also worried for those people who might be victimised as a result. This issue is not going away.”
This issue will NOT go away until LINO comes up with feasible and implementable plan to to increase school places, increase NHS beds, increase social housing units and decrease wait time to see a GP. LINO is using immigration as a scapegoat due to their failure to come up with feasible and implementable solutions to the problems that are “REALLY” upsetting the electorate of England.
I suppose the counter to all this is that rioters and disseminators of false information to promote trouble should all be banished to Rwanda! Only kidding of course – Rwanda wouldn’t want our thugs!
It is deeply depressing this article in the Guardian this morning: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/09/number-applying-work-study-uk-falls-more-than-third
In the article it states: “Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government banned those coming to study in the UK and those on health and care visas from bringing family members and Labour has no plans to change the policy.”
“Labour has no plans to change the policy”. This truly restates the fact that Labour are pandering to their imagined ‘Reform curious’ voter. They couldn’t give a toss about the (growing demographic) natural base of Labour support who doesn’t share ‘legitimate concerns’ about migration, indeed, are very positive about migration. (Oh and by the way, the birth rate has plummeted to record low levels with an aging population – and without immigration – how’s that going to be tackled??)
What also got me this week was the absence of Kier Starmer’s praising of the anti fascist mobilisations across the country in solidarity with diverse communities – no mention praising that, which speaks volumes as to the ‘Tory lite’ narrative Labour and the Labour right (who have control of the party).
Phil Burton-Cartledge is always well worth reading, and he did a good comment piece this week in the Guardian regarding the Tories (which is well worth reading from a Labour perspective, if, as expected, continues going down a ‘Tory lite’ direction):
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/07/tories-older-voters-conservatives
Thanks
Might the abuse of the emotional power around ill/under informed immigration issues, actual to manufactured, be yet another example of the terrible triad of:
1) Public ignorance and learned analytical helplessness
2) Devious collusion between so many politicians and the mainstream media
3) The apparent addiction of the mainstream media, not least the BBC, to pressent its (deliberately) restricted form of news as dramatised entertainment rather than reasonably objective and accurate analysis?
Thank you and well said, Steve.
The BBC South news was particularly infuriating yesterday. Every sentence included the phrase “anti-immigration protest”. I wonder what the ethnic minority newsreaders and reporters feel about saying that.
What’s even more ridiculous. The BBC overseas services repeat that at the same time as not just Reeves, but the Foreign Office, too, are wooing investors. Do they think these investors not notice?
I’m being maybe cynical again but all I would say is that given that fact that the British state – still inculcated with Thatcherism – and therefore still purposefully under-funding public services even when it is not even talking in public about austerity (the ‘perma-austerity’ that I have spoken of before), is using immigration/migration (inward) rather cynically to hide its own niggardly commitment to the British people.
It using immigration to explain that there is too much demand when in fact it is chronic under-funding that is the problem.
Nasty stuff.
Abusive actually.
Thank you, PSR.
In the 1980s, my parents both taught some evening classes. There were many opportunities for people to obtain an education and skills beyond school.
The armed forces maintained medical facilities and training schools for all sorts of activities. That supported the NHS and other organisations. Thatcher thought she knew better.
Fun fact for readers to throw back at Thatcher only fans: HMS Endurance cost £300 – 400k pa to survey and patrol the South Atlantic. Thatcher, Howe and Nott scrapped it. Argentina walked in, which if they had waited a few more weeks, the weather would have made it nearly impossible to recapture, an exercise that was much more closely fought than is known to the public and still controversial if one talks to Generals Michael Rose and John Waters. It cost the UK over 250 lives and £700 – 800m to regain the islands. That’s Tory housekeeping for you.
I think that most of the time immigration is an analytical tool to talk about other issues. Someone could complain that they can’t get a GP appointment and they could attribute this to increasing population size and immigration. Or they could believe that their wages are stagnant because of increasing immigration from low wage countries. They could believe that house prices are going up because of more immigration.
Much of these are regulated by Thatcher-lite policies. And these policies have failed to deliver. However our politicians are still wielded to these ideas. Our politicians have their own set of analytical tools and what we have is a clash between tool boxes.
A neat argument
@Pilgrim Slight Return
“It using immigration to explain that there is too much demand when in fact it is chronic under-funding that is the problem.”
EXACTLY! If there were sufficient school places (which as a Yank I still do not understand), sufficient NHS beds, a reasonable wait-list for social housing units and the ability to get a GP appointment within 5 working days for non-emergencies then the mainstream English electorate would NOT be concerned about immigration.
Footnote: Was listening to American NPR and they interviewed a guy about the riots and immigration. The guy said (paraphrasing not a direct quote) ; I really do not have problems with immigrants but I do have a problem when “boat people” are being housed and feed at taxpayer expense while my son who served his country becoming disabled is on a three year wait list for a flat.
And what else did he suggest should be done with legal asylum applicants?
His issue on housing is not related to their low grade hotel accommodation that would not suit his son.
@Richard
I agree with you. I was just making a point with something I heard on a reliable USA media outlet about how one so-called “average man on the street” interprets the issue of the riots. When ask what he would like to see government do, he stated that he wanted more affordable housing units, more school places at local schools so less commuting for the “school run” (which as a Yank I do not understand) and the council to ensure garbage bins were collected properly ( I guess properly = Timely and in an Efficient manner). It is my conjecture that this man thought government funds used to house and feed “immigrants” should firstly be spent on housing for his son and if any funds were left over they could be secondly spent on immigrant housing.
Please be advised, the reporter’s question was about what he thought should be done about the riots not about the social ills plaguing him and utmost in his mind.
The purpose of my comment was to show the disconnection (and not understanding the issue properly) about cause and effect by some people. Immigration did not cause the “social shortages” but the “social shortages” were one of the underlying causes of the riot(s) undertaken under the banner of anti-Immigration.
Thanks. Understood.
The show is “Here and Now” originating via WBUR (Boston) and broadcast on NPR (National Public Radio) Monday thru Friday. International news events (especially British) are very well covered.
Thank you for pointing out that well over 90% of immigration is sanctioned and apparently welcomed by the government. As you say, the issue is not going away.
There arguments both for and against immigration. But I think they largely miss the point. Of course we should welcome some immigration and the benefits it brings. To me the question is not whether immigration is good or bad but what rate of immigration we should have.
For example, almost everyone is aware of the housing crisis. Clearly, unless we build or otherwise free up, homes having net immigration of greater than half a million a year exacerbates this crisis. Which is not to say we should not have immigration but rather we should take care of the rate of immigration.
Immigration has increased a lot in the past few years. It is difficult to determine an “optimum” rate, not least because that depends what are your criteria for optimum. Many people think that the current rate of government sanctioned immigration is too high. That debate is not being heard (and it is difficult in the current febrile atmosphere with asylum being falsely conflated with legal immigration). So thanks for raising the issue in a reasoned way.
Refugees don’t wait for optical conditions
War, the environment and much else dictates that
We need to plan for it, not react when it does
And the plan needs to be feasible to implement.
If the plan is a pie-in-the-sky (see Tory plans since 2010 especially BREXIT) and not feasible to implement (again see BREXIT) then it is NOT a plan and only causes more chaos making the original problem worse.
Please add Rwanda to Pie-in-the-Sky unfeasible Tory plans.
Isn’t it strange that, while we have neoliberal government the one area of society that ‘the market’ is not allowed control is migration.
In the supposed ideal neoliberal world you would not need migration control because people would not migrate to a country where there were no suitable jobs and the lifestyle was unattractive. Even though they have less control over timing, the same applies to refugee migration as well as planned migration.
Has anyone asked the current and previous government why they NEED to control migration?
I haven’t heard that question being asked recently, but in the 1960’s asking it was quite common. I remember Michael Dummett (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dummett ) saying, in answer to it, that he could not see any reason why there should be any immigration controls.
Good from Zarah Sultana in the Graun today: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/09/enemy-working-class-far-right
Very good
Stewart refers to Zarah Sultana’s piece in the Graun today: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/09/enemy-working-class-far-right
Sultana criticises politicians’ policies but does not insult, denigrate or name-call.
I am frequently inspired by posts and comments on this blog. Ministers will (I hope) sometimes read them and be influenced. I’m nervous about saying this but I think we would be more effective if terms such as ‘LINO’ did not appear. Our politicians cannot know everything. At times they give too much weight to scanty ‘political’ representations. Let’s give them the information that they may need to make changes.
Sultana’s writing is specific about policies and actions: ‘Just think about how the billionaire-owned right-wing press drip-feeds hate into British politics, splashing fearmongering headlines across their papers: “Islamist plotters in schools across the UK” – the Telegraph; “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis” – the Sun; “Migrants spark housing crisis” – the Daily Mail.’
A good article by Zarah Sultana MP in today’s Guardian. If anyone has seen Ed Balls despicable treatment of her on ITV the other day, they will understand her disquiet and concern.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/09/enemy-working-class-far-right
Agreed
She’s very good
I’m just reading about Cleverly (if anyone’s ever had a wrong name) congratulating himself and celebrating the fact that applications for work visas in social care have fallen for about 90 per cent in the first 6 months of this year compared to last year and student visas for about 15 per cent. I’m sure someone in Labour will celebrate this as success as well sooner or later. Will there be any joined-up thinking when in a couple of months we’ll be talking about yet another crisis in care recruitment (which will inevitably lead to visa rules being loosened again) and first universities going under.
Immigration needs a serious conversation. Surveys show that 75 per cent of people think that what MSM describe as ‘illegal’ immigration makes a vast majority of immigrants in UK. No-one in Labour or Tories ever tried to counter this narrative.
“Will there be any joined-up thinking when in a couple of months we’ll be talking about yet another crisis in care recruitment (which will inevitably lead to visa rules being loosened again)”
The government needs to devise a scheme where studying for a healthcare degree or healthcare license at a certified institution allows for free tuition, free books and no institutional fees in return for 7 years service to the NHS.
There are several distinct issues here, which coalesce:
1) The housing crisis, which has resulted from a whole panoply of causes, ranging from Thatcher’s obliteration of social housing; various property price spikes; high interest rates for rentiers with rental portfolio mortgages, relatively low wages; and a pisspoor construction industry only wanting maximum profits from building 4 bed detached estates;
2) persistent racial prejudice and discrimination, with added and cultivated islamophobia;
3) shortfalls in training health professionals in the UK, and continued poaching of medics trained elsewhere, plus continued underfunding in the NHS post 2010;
4) social deprivation, especially that has lingered in areas of traditional manufacturing and heavy industry, and a continuing lack of opportunity for a segment of the UK population, thus reducing their life chances, and then providing them with a motivation for inculcated jealousy and ‘othering’;
5) a current rise in the retired population due to post war baby boomers reaching pensionable age, and a widespread perception, cultivated through generational culture politics, that this demographic bulge is a ‘problem’. OAPs are currently running at about 10% of government spending, and the conventional fear is that this spending increases and then puts huge pressure on tax receipts and public funding, through increasing dependency ratios.
6) the emergence of right wing and neo-fascist demagogues using social media as platforms for the spreading of hate politics.
7) the manipulation of racial prejudice by the conservative party as a distraction and deflection from the wider social problems their policies had created
8) The persistence of “Little Englanders” – there has always been a group of English xenophobes and racists, quite different from Irish, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, whose aim is mostly autonomy. This group owes more to Mosley’s fascists in outlook and behaviour.
9) The unfolding of the wider history of imperialism, realisation of the level of exploitation that the British Empire undertook routinely in its colonies, but also an emotional yearning for those days of British superiority on the global stage, (by some classes and interests).
So we have a set of issues to do with population, attached to ‘migration’ when this an essential attribute of human patterns of behaviour globally, and which conceals a whole range of other matters, from poor GDP productiivty and investment to English nationalism and NHS underfunding.
As a population geographer, I see the actual demography as often misunderstood and exaggerated by the social and political factors, and more recently, culture politics.
In reality, Item 5 will take a mere 20 years to work through the system, whereas Thatcher created the social housing problem 40 years ago now, and then failed to regenerate the declining industrial areas, also in the 80s, so these two matters alone go back almost half a century, already, without resolution.
How long English nationalism and racial prejudice has existed is difficult to pin down, but the Mosley mentality goes back at least 90 years. Hate politics is depressingly enduring.
“7) the manipulation of racial prejudice by the conservative party as a distraction and deflection from the wider social problems their policies had created”
with comment #7, you hit the nail on the head without even swinging the hammer.
I do not understand your argument about demography, certainly from Scotland’s current position; which is endemic, and made worse by UK Government policy. The birthrate problem is worse in Scotland (and for longer); and not offset by immigration. The ageing crisis of the work force, especially in the care sector; is serious and current, not forestalled sometime into the future. Brexit and a hostile environment has hit Scotland badly (including in soft fruit or fish processing – both invaluable economic activities, and in care and the NHS). See my comment below.
The Scottish government has a care policy it struggles either to find the labour force, or fund. The policy is: “Free personal and/or nursing care is available to all adults in Scotland who have been assessed by the local authority as eligible for these services”. In Scotland this is deemed an essential requirement of civil society, not a premium priced luxury exclusively open only to high earners.
One man from the Indian subcontinent pointed out on TV that ‘they had bought us 24 hour shopping’; indeed I remember when shops closed at 5PM! Not everyone realizes that Bangladesh is responsible for providing the best chefs in our Indian restaurants. As someone who has traveled extensively, and lived all over the world, I often wondered if those who had been so welcoming towards me would be treated with such kindness in the UK? I am ashamed that the reality of recent riots was not the first time I doubted our ability to welcome those from overseas. However, I feel very much ‘at home’ with the increased diversity we have achieved in the UK. For me, as a colourful person, perhaps the most appreciated contribution is ‘colour’; we were such a very drab nation before the arrival of migrants from all over the world.
The demographic reality of our aging population with the falling UK birth rate demands a level of inward migration. However, there is a solution to the growing strain on housing and services, beyond desperately needed investment. There are members of the older generation who would like to retire overseas, but current UK policy unfairly depreciates the pension contributions of those who leave. There was a Tory commitment to end this policy; along with extending overseas voting rights, it never materialized. Other benefits are erased if you leave the UK making us ‘Prisoners of Mother England’ (POMs).
Among my ideas for Collaborative Circular Migration was a suggestion to drastically change this policy in order to openly encourage retirement overseas. This would require the UK Government to honour all financial obligations to retirees at exactly the same level as if they had remained in the UK, including everything from housing benefit to disability payments and healthcare provision. Of course this is only to be offered as a potential option of free choice. I think many would want to take advantage of this opportunity, especially if they already have had their children emigrate overseas or they now long for a slower pace in their country of origin.
We could set up mutually beneficial arrangements with other countries in the EU and beyond to accept our fully funded retirees. Why would other countries even consider accepting our pensioners? If they do not present a burden to that foreign state, they function as semi-permanent tourists, spending money into the economy. For example a country such as Greece could finally make a significant recovery without a bail-out. At the same time the cost to the UK would probably be lower than if these pensioners remained living in the UK. More housing would be available to younger working families and it would take the pressure off the NHS and other public services creating a win, win situation.
This component of Collaborative Circular Migration offers a workable solution that would quite rapidly take the pressure off our public services and housing. Other aspects of this group of proposals could establish some of the freedoms we lost under Brexit and in doing so bring us closer to our former partners in the EU, opening up improved trade potential in future. I know that you are incredibly busy but, I hope that at some point Richard, you will have the time to evaluate the Collaborative Circular Migration documents that I sent you as I am especially interested in your evaluation of their economic feasibility.
Isn’t there a danger of ‘fully funded pensioners ‘ pricing local people out of their housing market, exacerbating the existing problem with excessive tourism in some places?
Kim Sanders-Fisher:
The freezing of pensions paid overseas is *not* universal.
If a foreign country agrees to reciprocal recognition of Social Insurance contributions, British Nationals do not suffer frozen pensions.
Beyond my pay grade to fully explain or even try to account for, I understand it is tied in with sectoral balances and holding foreign currency / imports and exports. Do your position papers show the bookkeeping involved?
Thank you for your constructive input; I still need help from an economist like Richard to look at the economic feasibility. Most countries currently allow retirees to resettle if they can demonstrate a certain level of income so that they will not become a burden on the host country. So, overseas retirement is already an option for rich people. The actual cost to our government of paying for equal benefits overseas will probably be lower than if they remained here in the UK in most cases.
It is correct that we have a reciprocal arrangement with certain countries re the pension, but other benefits like disability are lost. I think we still have reciprocity with the EU, the US and Jamaica, but not Australia, Canada or anywhere in the Indian subcontinent. The push-back against tourists results from the increasing use of Air B&B accommodation, which absorbs regular local housing stock. This has caused a problem with the deluge of short-stay tourists and hoards coming ashore from cruise ships trying to get the maximum out of their brief visit.
I believe that if this proposal became a reality then investors overseas would seize the opportunity to create specialized complexes suitable for the elderly and disabled. I think that certain struggling Southern European countries would compete for this opportunity to host those who wanted to take advantage of the scheme. Why? This would provide a steady source of income more reliable than regular tourists, and probably a lot less disruptive. Their funded healthcare would be a boost to local provision of care and they would provide jobs locally. All of the concepts in the Collaborative Circular Migration documents are designed to be beneficial to all parties.
I share with the esteemed Colonel and others the belief that what we are seeing is government-fomented racism. Alas, old codgers like me have nowhere to go other than S Wales.
Labour is profoundly corrupt, both in the financial and in the moral sense. My profound good luck was to be born with the NHS and get to 25 in the golden years until the mid 70s. As many have argued, it was the exception in the misery of human social conditions in so many countries. I teach people who have never known other than austerity,, and whose parents are the children of the me-me Thatcher greed era.
Thank you and well said, John.
My parents echo your thoughts on that, perhaps, golden era.
@ Kim: My parents are sad at how the promise of the 1960s and 1970s, the latter a much belittled decade, ended in a neoliberal nightmare seemingly without end.
@ John SW: Dad and I are descendants of Scots (“fide et fortitudine”) and wonder why Scots don’t get out, but we note, understand and agree with your explanation.
I will be 54 in a month and, other than some years with grandparents in Mauritius when an infant, and working abroad regularly, I have no great desire to start again. My parents and I are also of French descent and exploring the possibility of French citizenship as it’s much closer on dad’s side.
Where to go?
It is a discussion in our house.
I am not sure if I can face another relocation now though. But I do not rule it out.
“[We] ….. wonder why Scots don’t get out”.
Three hundred years of common history, which Scots did a great deal to shape (for good or ill). Sterling (I will not rehearse the argument for the umpteenth time; but I ask you to trust me, it is important to Scots). The reasons are hard-headed, and not necessarily uplifting. They are what they are; and they take a great deal of shifting, even when Britain is obviously in an advanced state of dysfunctional disarray, and incapable of facing the critical issues; indeed with Brexit has implemented a serious regime of self-harm. The reason for that is, that Scotland has always been the most dedicated Unionist of the four nations.
For those who know the New Town in Edinburgh; they are probably unaware that the designer, James Craig (1739-1795) intended the street plan was intended to represent a literal Union Jack (it would have provided an astonishing photograph from the sky had it been executed). It was not fully executed because the developers rejected the problem the feus on the corners of the flag would have provided as viably saleable. Money and immediate profit wins. Always. I always think that story is illustratively illuminating in different ways.
There is another side to this. The care sector in Scotland is complaining that it does not have the labour to meet demand. This is well known. The care sector insiders squarely identify Westminster Government policy for giving Scotland an impossible problem it simply cannot solve. Firstly, Brexit deprived Scotland of the immigration it required. Then the Conservatives doubled down with its restrictions on families. Immigration applications in care have fallen 90% since January. Westminster has cut Scotland off from vital labour supply.
The proposition that Scotland can supply the labour from its own resources is unsustainable; and the care sector knows it. There are three reasons. The first is general demographics. Scotland has struggled to achieve population growth for decades. This has serious consequences, both for the care sector, and the economy. A recent small increase in population showed that Scotland had recovered solely through the effects of past immigration, established before Brexit.
The second, is the fact that Scotland has an ageing labour force, rapidly running out of time. The consequences are inevitable and serious. This is indisputable.
The third reason is even more disastrous, and inevitable. The fertility rate in Scotland is so low the birthrate is only 1.3 births per woman. The replacement rate (i.e., with no recovery) is 2.1 births per woman. The birthrate has fallen catastrophically (a phenomenon of ‘advanced’ countries), and is now only 62% of the replacement rate, and offers no prospect of recovery at all for the lost population and labour required. There is no prospect of change, and it is made worse by a two-child cap that actually places a cost disincentive not to increase the fall in the birthrate. Scotland is already on an extinction curve; an extinction curve effectively devises and insisted on by all British governments.
The public ignorance and gross stupidity about all this is quite staggering. The facts are there, have been there; and the trends are long established. There are no grounds for ignorance. But the gross public stupidity over this is everywhere; promoted by cynical or deeply ignorant politicians. And colluded in by the media. toady an unjustifiably, deeply ill-informed, so-called journalist ob BBC Scotland Lunchtime News, has just asked a representative of Scotland’s care sector to explain the problem; for the umpteenth time this has been explained. The BBC is in denial; but denial means it doesn’t have to cross-examine Government and opposition politicians on the real facts of immigration, and its necessity for Scotland.
As usual, BBC Scotland is spineless, gutless, and copping-out of the hard issues.
Scotland will not survive without immigration. That is an incontrovertible fact.
Agreed
And well said
‘Scotland will not survive without immigration. That is an incontrovertible fact.’
Thank you.
I’m on my way!
If you don’t mind of course.
Kettle’s on!
Thank you, John.
@ PSR: Let’s go together.
Can you meet my plane in Edinburg?
Three months residency and you’ll be able to vote in the next (I have faith that the Scots will get it) indy Referendum!
I think they should go full-on UDI, myself.
With immigration policy, it seems to me, prima facie is at least a positive indicator, if people actually wish to come and work in Scotland.
British Governments, it seems clear do not agree. They prefer to watch Scotland atrophy, decline and decay. In fact this seems to be official British policy; because they have allowed it to happen, and the decay is accelerating. If it wasn’t serving their purposes, they would do something about it. Instead they have made it happen, and watch it unfold; uncaring and unmoved.
British Governments have failed Scotland at the most fundamental level; its very future.
Several commenters, and Humza Yousaf, have talked about emigration because they don’t feel safe here.
Where would you go where you would feel safe?
Thank you.
Mauritius.
The EDL is marching where we live tomorrow. They last did a decade ago.
Hopefully, the actual population figures and trends for Scotland can provide some reassurance, whilst highlighting related genuine long term concerns
The National Records for Scotland (NRS), includes professional demographers, and their data is based on actual census returns.
In 2000 Scotland had 5.06m people, and it is currently 5.48m.
The population of Scotland is calculated to rise to 2030, peaking at 5.53m, and then level off, slowly declining to 5.45m by 2045. (NRS)
So still almost half a million more than 2000, with a rate of actual decline calculated at 8,000 persons per annum, most of whom will be in the over 70 age group.
As far as immigration goes, of the 2045 5.45m population, NRS seem to be including an additional 250k as immigrants.
Interestingly, NRS have actually assumed a fall in net immigration from 13,000pa to 10,000pa in the above calculations.
Now, in 2014, Scotgov estimated 20-25,000 as the annual immigration needs in the Indyref White Paper, but this was a political estimate, unsupported by any calculations.
Whether the current shortfalls in staffing services might be due to a generally poor level of productivity, low rates of pay causing recruitment problems, or a shortage of potential employees, thus requiring immigration to maintain services, is the big question.
However, given that UK productivity is cited as being some 22% below that of our neighbour France, 19% below Germany and 38% below the USA, it would seem that investment in productivity growth is absolutely critical anyway. (service sector data expressed as GDP per cap – data from ESRC)
“The persistent productivity gap between the UK and the two big continental European economies can mainly be ‘explained’ by the fact that they have more capital invested per worker and their workers are more skilled.” That message is crystal clear.
I do not believe the NRS calculations represent an immediate existential crisis for Scotland, even though we certainly do need an increase in numbers working in social care (and other specialities) now, but we desperately do need higher investment in our people generally.
Whether or not the current UK government have identified investment in people as one of the key metrics in mitigating potential future population issues through productivity gains is presently unknown.
The lack of a holistic view of population by UK governments post 2024 would certainly give cause for concern, and imo supports the case for Indy.
Incidentally, if we extrapolate from the NRS calculations on net immigration to Scotland in our population projections to the whole UK, then there would be net annual immigration into the UK of about 135,000 pa from 2025-45 – so very considerably less than the actual net figure of 685,000 in 2023.
The actual net figures for the 2001 census year were 179,000 and then for 201, 277,000.
Of course definitions matter, and the inclusion of temporary migrants and post graduate students with limited leave to remain (and their dependents) can make a huge difference to net figures.
Frankly, I’d like to see a reasoned discussion on the time thresholds for seasonal and temporary migrants.
Do our Olympic athletes with college places in the USA count as net emigrants during their ‘college’ careers training with US coaches ?
I’m not sure how specific rules have been changed through these years, and how programmes like the seasonal agricultural workers scheme have had an impact but that we do know BREXIT has had a major effect on source countries and patterns since 2016.
“Do our Olympic athletes with college places in the USA count as net emigrants during their ‘college’ careers training with US coaches ?”
No! They are not considered immigrants as they are on a “Student Visa” which must be renewed every 12 months and they do NOT hold a “Green Card”. A foreign student can bring their spouse to reside with them but the spouse cannot work for wages unless the spouse applies independently for and obtains a “Green Card”. I know people going through this process as I type.
A census does not provide a usable forecast. As I have already indicated, in critical areas migration is falling fast, and your only discussion of migration acknowledges the distortions of temporary migration. In the UK, student immigration is expected to fall, given the policies in place, or being discussed. I do not think the analysis to which you refer allows for the extent, depth and effects of the hostile environment, with immigration collapsing in some areas; as the problems in important labour sectors show.
I am perplexed by the complacency you suggest from analysis from NRS records, because the birthrate is extremely low (1.3 births per woman; 1.5 in England), and this is not recent. the decline is endemic, and the rate falling. Let me give an example from NRS records (mid-year trends, Table 5). For 2022 children 0-9 total 530k. That is 9.7% of the total population of 5.4m (that includes an increase in immigration). In 1975, children 0-9 total 820k. That is 15.7% of the total population of 5.2m. That represents a fall of 6% of the total population over the period, and that age group is now recently retired or about to retire. The position is deteriorating at a faster rate. Primary school rolls are expected to fall from under 400k in 2023, to just over 300k by 2035; at an average rate of fall of 1.7%pa (Scottish government Pupil Projections; Graph 4.3 WPI Economics/ONS/NRS – which neatly avoids the exact quantum). The peak primary school roll was 400k in 2017; implying a loss of almost 100k, or almost 25% 2017-2035; and note, that includes immigration, which may well now be a gross over-estimate. All this is dreadful in ints implications. It is a terrible indictment of policy, and no way to run a country. It may look like a slow death, but the pace of decline is more likely sharply to increase.
Tony, while you have turned to the evidence, to be frank I think your analysis and conclusions, even with the acknowledgement of a need for ‘concern’; is complacent.
@JSW
Unless you can prove that there is a certain fertility rate that is essential for economic and social well being there is no argument.
It is NOT the replacement fertility rate which would doom us to 8-10 billion people globally.
There is no “essential” level of 0-15 yr olds calculable.
Populations change all the time, up and down, as does population distribution. We adapt accordingly.
We recovered from the potato famines here. (Even if the social and heritage costs were cruel ).
We survived the world flu pandemic that killed more people than WW1.
There really is no reason why Scotland cannot adapt to a population that fluctuates by 10% over 50 yrs, as the figures show.
Ireland lost 25% of its people, in little more than a decade, and has not ceased to exist, though many of its issues linger from that dire punitive colonial period of land ownership.
You have cited schooling as a metric., suggesting we need more primary age children. Yet high dependency ratios , to which schooling contributes, have higher costs and wider economic impacts that can be negative too.
Demography is a complex web, but the data is solid, and ought to inform politics more than it does, but I suppose I would say that as it is my specialism.
There is no complacency involved in reading the figures.
Hopefully we’ll meet net zero, and at that time, Scotland in 2045, will have a population about 500k more than at the turn of the century, and with the boomer bulge past.
That is absolutely nothing to panic about at all.
However, as a rider, what does worry me is that the SKS government now seems to be dealing with its migration issues, without reference to Brexit, and only emphasising migration as a ‘get tough’ law and order matter, ignoring all the causal social and economic factors that have impoverished the UK through neoliberal created deprivation.
The Tories have conspicuously failed to show any remorse over the far right campaign, and seem very reluctant to condemn its brown shirt thugs. Passive endorsement of culture wars by them is utterly disgraceful and dangerous posturing.
To me that is a huge political failure, by both parties, and offers no hope of a less fractured society where wellbeing for all is a prime objective.
Migration reflects wider issues. It is not the cause.
England could well slip into neo fascism if these political defectives do not change track, and we in Scotland dragged down by them.
I don’t see Indy as a panacea, but it would be our mess, not an English mess, though I cannot see us doing worse, even with our mostly mediocre politicians.
I think you seriously understate the impact of the starvation on Ireland
“The persistence of “Little Englanders” – there has always been a group of English xenophobes and racists, quite different from Irish, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, whose aim is mostly autonomy. This group owes more to Mosley’s fascists in outlook and behaviour.”
Can anyone recommend a balance and truthful book on Oswald “Kit” Mosley? I have read two books on Mosley and when I finished the second book, I really wondered if both books were written about the same person or if there were two historical English figures named Oswald Mosley.
Anyone?
Thank you.
Do you mean Tom, not Kit, Mosley? When he defected to Labour from the Tories, his economic programme, disregarded by Philip Snowden, was Keynesian. Some socialists and suffragettes joined Mosley for such reasons.
Thank you.
Unfortunately, I don’t, but will look and revert. I know what you mean, though.
I read some of Mosley’s ‘My Life’. in the early 70s. It was a long book borrowed from a colleague.
I remember a striking phrase. Some in the Labour Party had long forecast a collapse of the capitalist system. He had a plan based on public works and spending. Free trade was to be abandoned but Empire trade encouraged. I think something on promoting scientific research.
The Labour party rejected it and felt TINA was true ‘There is no alternative’ to what the bankers said.
He compared the Labour party to a band of salvationists who, at the Second Coming, turned tail and ran.
Sounds a bit familiar!
@Ian Robert Stevenson. Oswald Moseley’s “My Life” was published in 1968 at a time when he was trying to rehabilitate his reputation and to whitewash much of his past. He tried to do this in his 1967 interview with David Frost, which I remember watching live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXhpU3XokX4
That is not to say that early in his career he did not have some progressive ideas about how the economy should be run. However instead of campaigning for these policies, he formed the British Union of Fascists and exploited the social discontent that existed at the time.
@Colonel Smithers
“Kit” was Diana Mitford’s “nick-name” for her husband, Oswald Mosley.
“Free trade was to be abandoned but Empire trade encouraged.”
@Ian Robert Stevenson
This idea was originally devised and promoted by Joseph Chamberlain and he called it “Imperial Preference”.
Indeed
It led to wars
British historians are uncomfortable with all this. This is not how Britain thinks of itself, so it is rarely a good career move to pursue that kind of downbeat research; not really the “done thing”, even in the 21st century, although the facade is now rumbling; the historical endemic slavery problem has rather undermined the retaining walls.
More significant in almost every way, because he is almost unknown to the public, is the shadowy ‘ éminence grise’ Sir Joseph Ball (1885-1961), Chamberlain’s closest advisor, senior member of MI5, first Director of Research of the Conservative Party, who ran an anti-semitic newspaper ‘Truth’; bugged both Churchill’s phone, and the Labour Party, may have drafted the Zinoviev letter, and ran a foreign policy for Chamberlain independent of the FO, and tried to negotiate peace with Hitler through Italy; as far as I know there has never even been a biography.
Later, Ball employed guy Burgess, and was the genius and Chairman behind Lonhro, and his final triumph was appointing Tiny rowland to run it.
Wow….
“Churchill’s Secret Enemy”, by Jonathan Pile.
Thank you, John and Anne. I echo Richard.
Thank you, John.
I forgot to mention that Mauritian relatives working in the sugar industry knew Tiny. His consigliere Rene Leclezio asked if I was interested in joining after school. I wanted to go to university and keep options open.
Wow indeed!
That seems to be a story worth unearthing…….
Thank you to Ian, Richard and John S for the replies and kind thoughts above.
The signs were there long before the election that Labour would demonize migrants in the same manner as the Conservatives. Having said that, even I was a little surprised when listening to a collection of HofC speeches, tv appearances, and read out newspaper pieces, where if you hadn’t known the mps party, you would’ve thought it was Braverman, Kendrick, Sunak and co. It wasn’t.
The current govt is quickly shedding the pretence of being anything other than yet another conservative, neo-liberal govt in all bar a handful of policy areas, all of which smack of sops to the liberal centre.
Those desperate to prove they didn’t waste their willingly given vote will not hear it, but Starmer and co have seamlessly slipped into the Tories shoes.
Starmers arrogance this week, when the tide finally turned, thanks partly to better intelligence for the Police, but mainly because decent people are out in numbers facing down the thugs, was a Tory tribute act. Not from him was there to be any praise for the bravery of thousands standing up brutal thuggery, no, it was all down to Comrade Stal.. sorry, Starmer.
It’s always nice to be right, and all along the narrative of ‘these people are just representing the frustrations of the many’, was garbage. As a former senior office said, as I’ve being saying, these rioters are just thugs. They don’t care about the myriad issues the Daily Mail reader says is wrong with the UK, they don’t even care about the drop, drop, drip of racism and bigotry on the front pages of Tory newspapers and falling from rotten politicians lips.
They are angry, violent people, who live for violence. Imprisonment doesn’t work, they already roll in and out of prison for violent crime anyway. You cannot, as the Libs claim, ‘sit down and discuss their issues’ because what they want, total repatriation of ALL ethnic minorities, a return to LGBT being illegal, and the Left being arrested and imprisoned simply for being left wing, regardless of anything else, is unachievable.
To deal with this hardcore of thugs you need to – rehabilitate them, separate from their peers on release, and find them jobs that matter to them. None of which govt is interested in doing.
As for those cheering on from the sidelines, The Telegraph, Muskrat, the legions of Daily Mailites, if the govt was serious about cracking down on hate speech, then the Tory press would be a good place to start. Social media? Warn Muskrat, Guttersnipe and the rest they have a month to clean up their act, or a three month ban will be imposed. If Musk ramps up the rhetoric, six months. The advertisers would soon be asking serious enough questions about lost revenue to force action.
Alas, none of this is likely to be considered. Peoples lives not being ruined v keeping the Tory press and Social media barons sweet. No contest to a moral coward like Starmer.
I think you overstate your case. People have really good reason to be angry. They have been discriminated against for decades, and very deliberately so. In that case their anger has a reason, but it has been deliberately manipulated and distorted to focus on migrants by those neoliberals who have been in power who have been doing the actual discrimination.
Anger has been deflected onto migrants by politicians and the MSM. The BBC uses the ‘legitimate grievances’ trope repeatedly. I’ve just come from a long phone call with my NHS, Labour voting daughter who unfortunately lives in Ashfield. She was asking why SKS isn’t tackling immigration etc, and I had to go through the distraction argument with her and why Labour are parroting the Tory phrases. I found it quite distressing that a lifelong Labour voter like her was beginning to adopt these positions, but that is indicative of SKS failure to govern as a statesman.
Much to agree with
Although immigration ,globalisation and free trade are good for most it pénalisés losers.
Losers are those crowded out of social housing, with low paid jobs for which there is an ever expanding pool of new entrants undercutting wage levels, in industries being wiped out by international competition , and reliant on benefits and public services being defunded by politicians eager to obtain funding and kudos from cutting taxes not increasing spending.
It’s not surprising losers are being wound up by facists.
I.m clear that Richard would build more houses, fund more public spending and increase taxes on the wealthy, the minimum wage, and invest in our universities, health services, social care and infrastructure.
I’m not clear that this labour government will.
Neither are the losers participating in riots.
It would be better to address grievances than to feed them.
I agree with your last comment.
That is a lot of what this blog is about.
From The Independent:
12-Year Old Boy charged in Riots.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/uk-riots-jail-sentencing-counter-protest-far-right-southport-b2594938.html?lid=6tgzy5fba6bh&utm_medium=email&utm_source=braze&utm_campaign=Riots%2012%20Breaking%20Newsletter%2012-08-24&utm_term=IND_Breaking_Newsletter