McConnell must not dodge immigration issue

SCOTLAND is a land of immigrants as well as a land of emigrants. Far more than any other part of Great Britain, modern Scottish society is composed of incomers. Which helps explain the national mood of anger over the detention of asylum seekers’ children in the so-called "family unit" at Dungavel, and the furious criticism of the First Minister, Jack McConnell, over his silence on the issue.

Over 250,000 Catholic Irish fled to Scotland in the wake of the Great Famine of the late 1840s. They continued to arrive in large numbers until the 1920s. At the turn of the 20th century economic hardship and political repression brought Russian Jews, Italians and Lithuanians (40,000 of them) to these shores. These new Scots brought little capital, but what they lacked in cash they made up for in skills and hard work which benefited the whole nation. The Second World War brought Polish and Ukrainian refugees, while the break-up of Empire brought a small but energetic influx of folk from the Asian sub-continent and Hong Kong. As a result, something like a third of the population of Scotland can trace its origins in recent immigration.

Because we are the product of that experience, because we have earned our living from a vast influx of foreign inward investment over the past 50 years, and because Scots of all origins have retained intimate links with family members who emigrated to North America and the Antipodes in search of a better life, it is difficult for most of us to work up the paranoia about asylum seekers that appears to have gripped other parts of the United Kingdom or the tabloid press. That is not to say that Scotland has not its fair share of racist attitudes - remember the terrible murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar. But it is fair to say that the robust anti-immigration line of the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, does not play well north of the border.

Which makes the position of Mr McConnell on Dungavel all the more curious. Back in February, just before the Scottish Parliament elections, the First Minister spoke bravely of his plans to encourage foreign students to stay here on completion of their degrees, and to seek to attract skilled immigrant workers to Scotland to help counteract our falling population. He said: "I want our devolved government pro-actively to intervene within the UK framework and vigorously promote Scotland as a destination for people applying for UK work permits."

But more recently, Mr McConnell has lapsed into silence on matters to do with immigration. First, he refused to intervene with the Home Secretary over the deportation of the Ay family. This week he was refusing to comment on the case of Mercy Ikolo and her baby daughter, Bessie, who were freed on bail from Dungavel on Thursday while their application to stay is processed. In passing, it should be noted that the Ikolo case is riddled with anomalies, not least that Mrs Ikolo was detained by the immigration authorities at Stranraer as she was actually leaving Scotland to return to Dublin.

There are three live issues here. First, it is recognised that there is a crisis in how to manage the vast demand to immigrate to Britain (a product of our relative economic and social success compared to much of the rest of Europe). That crisis needs a UK solution. But one aspect of that solution (with suitable safeguards) could be allowing those parts of the UK which can absorb more legitimate asylum seekers and economic migrants to do so, thereby taking the pressure off London. Second, no matter how we process the tide of immigrants, it is inhumane to incarcerate young children at Dungavel (especially as this contradicts assurances given by the heath minister, Malcolm Chisholm, that "the children of asylum seekers and refugees are treated in exactly the same way as any other children".) Third, given both the foregoing, there is a particular Scottish interest which Mr McConnell should be representing to Westminster instead of hiding behind the excuse that immigration policy is a reserved matter.

Mr McConnell will doubtless argue that nothing concrete will be gained from quarrelling with Mr Blunkett in public. But that is not the point. Mr McConnell has a political - arguably a constitutional - duty to represent Scotland. Advising Westminster on the feeling north of the Border regarding a sensible and humane approach to immigration control can be done in a diplomatic fashion. But the case must be put.

Meantime, somewhat in contradiction to his public line on what constitutes a reserved matter, Mr McConnell has established a special Fresh Talent team to examine ways of encouraging foreigners to come and live and work in Scotland. It is due to report to ministers in November. Mr McConnell and his Fresh Talent staff may care to consider the fact that, currently, some 376 million EU citizens already have the right to live and work in Scotland, as well as to vote in elections to the Holyrood Parliament. Attracting them with jobs in education and the health service would not be difficult as there exist growing vacancies in these sectors. Such a policy would have two benefits. It would help make Scotland a better place. But it would also show Mr Blunkett how to manage a sensible immigration policy. It is time for Mr McConnell to speak for Scotland.