After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, John Swinney needs to moderate his language

Charlie Kirk, executive director of Turning Point USA, was shot dead at a public debate event on the Utah Valley University campus (Picture: Joe Raedle) | Getty Images

The notion of Scottish exceptionalism in relation to attitudes to immigration is now being exposed for the conceit it always was. For years we have heard some in politics and amongst the commentariat trying to claim that Scotland has a more welcoming attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers than other parts of the UK, and that we were basically “kinder” in accepting into our society those from other countries.

Such claims were never backed up by the evidence. Consistent social attitude polling showed very little difference between views on immigration here compared to elsewhere in the UK.

Recently, we have seen concerns amongst the population grow to put immigration amongst the top three issues that Scots say will influence their votes, across a range of polls. The sudden proliferation of Saltire flags on lampposts across the country is the most visual indication that many Scots are as concerned about immigration levels as people south of the Border.

Regular readers of this column will know that I have written in the past about how every developed economy needs an appropriate level of managed inward migration, providing skilled and indeed unskilled workers to fill roles which otherwise would lie vacant. But that system of immigration needs to be carefully managed and controlled.

READ MORE: Why Scottish Tories cannot defeat Nigel Farage's Reform UK by copying their policies

Charlie Kirk, executive director of Turning Point USA, was shot dead at a public debate event on the Utah Valley University campus (Picture: Joe Raedle) | Getty Images

Legitimate concerns

Uncontrolled numbers of immigrants, either coming through legal routes or crossing the Channel on small boats and then claiming asylum, do not have a universally positive impact, putting pressure on strained public services.

We already have a housing crisis in Scotland which the Scottish Government has acknowledged, and more and more people coming into the country simply adds to the problem if we are not building enough new homes to keep up with population expansion. And there are legitimate concerns about community cohesion if we are taking in large numbers from societies which do not share our values, for example on the rights of women.

READ MORE: Why Nigel Farage's hard-right English nationalism poses existential threat to Scottish Tories

The difficult question for mainstream politicians is how to respond to the immigration crisis, and the growing, and increasingly evident, public concern. As we have seen in other European countries, such as Germany and France, the far-right will seek to capitalise on public concern about levels of immigration, when it appears to voters that the political establishment is deaf to their concerns. If we are to avoid that happening here, at least to the same scale, there is a need for responsible politicians to acknowledge public concern and work on solutions.

That is exactly what the Scottish Conservatives did at Holyrood last week when my colleague Craig Hoy MSP brought to the chamber a debate reflecting the views of his constituents in the south of Scotland, on the impact of accommodating asylum seekers on Scottish local government. As he pointed out in his remarks, there are now more than 6,000 asylum seekers in Scotland, with Glasgow alone housing nearly 4,000, at a considerable cost to the taxpayer.

‘Measured tone’ praised by SNP minister

This provoked a rare intervention in an Opposition debate from First Minister John Swinney, who described Mr Hoy as “disgusting”. This was clearly not an off-the-cuff remark, as earlier in comments to the media the First Minister had gone further, describing Mr Hoy’s motion as “despicable”.

No reasonable person listening to the manner in which my Conservative colleague presented his arguments last week could have reached the conclusion that Swinney’s choice of words was appropriate. Indeed, in the same debate, SNP equalities minister Kaukab Stewart, in stark contrast to her party leader, actually welcomed Hoy’s “measured tone”.

The choice of words by Swinney was evidently not accidental. It was intended to convey the sense that my colleague’s remarks were beyond the pale, and that he should be ashamed of raising these matters in the Scottish Parliament.

‘Traitor’, ‘Quisling’

We might well ask what is the point of having Holyrood at all, if MSPs cannot bring to the chamber the very real concerns that their constituents have. But the tactic of “othering” political opponents is one which all those of us who lived through and campaigned in the 2014 independence referendum will be very familiar with.

If I had a pound every time I was called a “traitor” or “Quisling”, in the run-up to the referendum and in the period since, I would long ago have been able to afford to retire to the sun. It is a lazy method of debate, refusing to engage with the substance of the issues being raised, and instead demonising and delegitimising the individual making the arguments.

And we see, just last week, where such an approach leads. I had very little knowledge of who Charlie Kirk was before his brutal murder in Utah, but my teenage children are familiar with him from social media.

One does not have to agree with much Kirk said to recognise that this was an individual who was prepared to engage freely and openly in debate on his ideas with anyone, and who championed free speech. For that, he became a hate figure for some of those who disagreed with not only his views, but also with the engaging manner in which he was able to present them.

Whilst we are fortunate to live in a society not as violent as America, we have already seen in our own country, with the murders of two MPs – Jo Cox and Sir David Amess – that we are not immune from extreme, violent acts against politicians. There are always troubled individuals in society who will take a lead from those in power who use language which will inflame passions, rather than engage in reasoned debate.

Describing opponents as “despicable” doesn’t just lower the tone of debate, it potentially puts targets on their backs. For the sake of Charlie Kirk’s widow and children, we all need to do better.

Murdo Fraser is a Scottish Conservative MSP for Mid-Scotland and Fife