Nicola Sturgeon’s comments on immigration will soon come back to bite her

Yesterday was not the first time UK immigration law has slammed awkwardly against protests by Scots determined to halt deportations of illegal immigrants. In the noughties, the media, activists and political parties would indulge in hostilities over so-called dawn raids, when families who had run out of legal options to remain legally were physically apprehended in their homes and taken to immigration detention centres.

Nevertheless, yesterday’s events, in which the arrests of two asylum seekers by immigration enforcement officers was halted and the men eventually released after hundreds of Glasgow residents blockaded their vehicle, is a new development. Never before has the rule of law been so flagrantly, or so successfully, challenged. The political consequences could be enormous.

It’s important at the start to define terms, especially in all episodes relating to immigration. Various observers have referred to the two detainees as “refugees”. This is not the case, unless you wish to describe anyone who arrives in Britain from abroad as such. Were they in fact refugees, they could not have been removed. They were arrivals who had had their application for asylum rejected. 

This is important, because to get to the stage where an applicant is considered for deportation, there are many legal and administrative hurdles to clear. Everyone rejected claimant for asylum in the UK lodges an appeal. Judicial reviews inevitably follow, not to mention the involvement of local MPs. If, after all this, the Home Office has decided to remove someone, you can be sure it is only because all the legal avenues open to the claimants have been firmly and permanently closed.

Bearing this in mind, yesterday’s events should be a cause for concern. It was inevitable that the SNP government would take centre stage in seeking to benefit from any public revulsion at the very notion that immigration rules should ever be enforced. Nicola Sturgeon, a trained lawyer, in whose constituency the incident took place, said nothing in defence of the principle that the law should be upheld, whatever individuals’ views of such a law might be.

Neither did she or her justice minister, Humza Yousaf, concede that the devolution settlement should be respected. The principle that asylum (as opposed to immigration) should be the exclusive preserve of the UK Government has never been seriously challenged. Is Holyrood now seeking to take charge of asylum policy in direct violation of The Scotland Act?

No, because the first minister undoubtedly recognises that this is an area her party can benefit from, but at the same time understands that in the broader debate on Scotland’s future, it could come back to bite her. Yesterday her comments were interpreted as condemning all and every attempt to repatriate anyone who is living in Scotland without the legal right to do so. But she knows that the reality of the independent Scotland she wants to lead would be that immigration enforcement is a distasteful but inevitable part of a modern democratic state. Unless, of course, she is suggesting that such a state would remove no one. Is that the future she wants to see for her country, a money-making paradise for people-traffickers?

It’s comforting for those involved in yesterday’s demonstrations to believe that everyone in Scotland feels the same as they do, that the act of removing people who have defied the law to remain here illegally is regarded with consistent contempt across Scotland. But that is far from the case; despite their reputation, Scots are hardly more tolerant of illegal immigration than anyone else in Britain.

And where were the opposition parties yesterday? In the noughties, Scottish Labour MPs spent a great deal of time – and expended a good deal of political capital – dealing with this issue and defending the then Labour government for implementing a policy that had been pursued by every British government since the end of the First World War. It was an uncomfortable task but we felt we had to make the case, otherwise we would be giving the green light to organisations and individuals to pick and choose which laws to follow.

The most dishonest interpretation of events has come from those who cynically dismiss immigration laws as “Tory” and therefore carry less weight. It’s a well-worn tactic among nationalists to try to discredit all the works of the UK government on principle. They have made much electoral progress in doing so, but surely even the SNP recognises how dangerous this is?

Yesterday there were few, if any, opposition politicians’ voices heard supporting immigration workers or condemning the intimidation they faced as they sought to implement the law of the land. 

In the months and years ahead they may come to regret allowing the loudest voices in this debate become the only ones we hear.