A Confrontation in the Scottish Parliament
A famously sharp political putdown once targeted former deputy prime minister Geoffrey Howe, with a rival comparing debating him to being “savaged by a dead sheep.” This memory resurfaced this week when I found myself facing a group of MSPs from the SNP, Labour, Greens, and Lib Dems, who seemed to be baring their teeth in a similar fashion.
The context for this confrontation was a Scottish Conservative debate held at Holyrood on Wednesday. Over the past months, we have been listening to growing concerns from constituents about immigration and its impact on communities and the nation’s finances. Law-abiding and decent Scots, both in urban and rural areas, are increasingly worried about the rising number of people entering the UK via small boats.
These individuals often pay significant fees to organized crime gangs and then claim asylum upon arrival on Britain’s south coast. Once here, they are entitled to free accommodation, meals, spending money, NHS treatment, and schooling for children. Many of these new arrivals end up in Scotland, particularly Glasgow, due to decisions made by SNP ministers.
Glasgow, which has a debt of £1.6 billion and declared a ‘housing emergency’ two years ago, now hosts more asylum seekers than any other part of the UK. Councils across Scotland are required to house those granted refugee status who are homeless, but this applies only to those in ‘priority need,’ typically people with children. However, since 2012, the SNP has removed the priority need clause, requiring councils to house all homeless refugees, including single males.
In 2022, the SNP also abolished the ‘local connection’ rule, allowing homeless applicants to qualify for help without proving connections to an area. Additionally, John Swinney allocated £2 million for free bus travel for asylum seekers, a move opposed only by the Scottish Tories.
Upon arrival in Britain, illegal migrants are guided into the arms of taxpayer-funded lawyers who ensure they will almost certainly never be deported. The UK government even provides a website listing specialist firms that advertise their services. One such firm boasts a “98 per cent win rate” through Google ads. These lawyers often use the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the UK signed in 1950, to protect their clients.
When an asylum claim is first made, they frequently cite ECHR Article 3, which prohibits ‘inhuman or degrading treatment.’ The definition of ‘degrading treatment’ has been stretched far beyond its original intent. Furthermore, the ECHR prevents the deportation of foreign criminals, no matter how severe their crimes.
I support Kemi Badenoch’s pledge to withdraw from the ECHR after an analysis by Lord Wolfson KC. While immigration is reserved for the UK government, mass illegal immigration and the ECHR are significantly affecting Scotland.
When I decided to debate these issues at Holyrood, I anticipated the response from Left-wing parties. However, nothing prepared me for their reaction, which I would describe as wilfully dishonest and deeply intolerant.
I began by acknowledging Britain’s long history of immigration and diversity, citing Matthew Syed’s speech about his father, an immigrant from Pakistan. I highlighted the diversity within the Conservatives, including Kemi Badenoch, the first black leader of a major UK party, and Rishi Sunak, the first non-white Prime Minister.
It is not racist to recognize that our country has failed in its duty to control borders or to note that too many come here illegally, overstay, or oppose our values. In response, Màiri McAllan delivered a diatribe, claiming the term ‘illegal migrant’ is ‘divisive and dehumanising.’ She also falsely asserted that ECHR membership represents the difference between barbarity and civilisation.
McAllan, a protege of Nicola Sturgeon, shares her intolerance for debate, as seen during Sturgeon’s promotion of radical gender ideology. When I attempted to intervene, she rejected my efforts, just as she did with other colleagues.
The SNP’s lead attack was not interested in debate but in shutting it down and smearing opponents. Labour, Lib Dem, and Green MSPs were similarly uncooperative, deploying insults and inaccuracies.
Jamie Hepburn, recently forced to resign as an SNP minister, rejected my attempts to intervene and accused us of not using the word ‘refugee.’ He was right, but not in the way he thought. I had used the word three times, so was he not listening or relying on a pre-prepared script?
Maggie Chapman, extreme even by the standards of the Scottish Greens, claimed it is racist to ‘spit on people in the streets just because of the colour of their skin.’ This ‘debate’ further illustrated the performative culture of the parliament.
As the opposition continued their baseless accusations, I eventually intervened on my colleague Meghan Gallacher. She agreed that the refusal of SNP politicians to take interventions while hurling insults was pathetic and evidence of their disconnect from the concerns of people across Scotland.
The Scottish Tories are resilient. We can withstand a savaging from any Holyrood sheep. Discussing immigration and reflecting the views of ordinary, mainstream Scotland is not far-Right. It is right, and my party will continue to defy Scotland’s out-of-touch, Left-wing political class.
