Major survey reveals 'standout' view on 'Scottish visa'
A slightly smaller number, 68%, believe migration is vital for filling critical skills shortages in Scotland and that the Scottish Government should have power to control the migration of workers. However, respondents to the survey were conscious of the impact of migration on the local workforce, and the need for joined-up thinking on devolution of migration and UK-wide immigration policy.
Scottish businesses groups, notably those representing the hospitality and tourism sectors, have regularly voiced concern over skills shortages since Brexit, which ended the free movement of people between the UK and countries within the European Union. There have been calls by the [[Scottish Government]] in recent years for the introduction of a Scottish immigration visa system to help attract workers to Scotland, but they have been resisted by the UK Government, which controls immigration policy. However, it appears the issue is not going away.
The latest Understanding Business survey suggests Scottish employers are interested in a more flexible, regionally responsive immigration policy, particularly in light of workforce shortages and general economic pressures. The proposed visa would be designed to meet the needs of the Scottish labour market and population requirements which can differ from those in other parts of the UK. Only 17% of respondents said they opposed the idea of a Scottish visa, while the remaining 14% were neutral or unsure.
The survey authors said the relatively low level of opposition suggests there is broad recognition among employers of the economic and demographic benefits of such a scheme. The proposed Scottish visa would allow migrants to work and pay tax in Scotland, while being required to live in the country. This would reflect immigration models used in countries such as Canada and Australia.
The support shown towards a Scottish visa came as businesses indicated a degree of confidence about the economic outlook.
A plurality of expect turnover (47%) and profitability (44%) to increase over the next 12 months, record highs for the survey series, followed closely by those that think their turnover or profitability will remain the same in the next year, at 41% and 39%.
Around half (48%) believe general economic conditions are worse than a year ago, and 41% expect that conditions will continue to deteriorate over the next year. But a growing proportion expressed the view that the general economy is better now than a year ago (30%) or will improve over the next year (35%), up seven and 10 percentage points respectively.
Well over half of Scottish businesses said they were more concerned about tax (56%) and inflation (55%) than they were three months ago, although these proportions witnessed small declines of three and four percentage points respectively.
Meanwhile, there were encouraging findings for government ministers who are often accused of being out of touch with business. More businesses agreed that the Scottish and UK Governments are concerned with the needs of Scottish business and taking action to address them.
Agreement that the UK Government is concerned with the needs of Scottish business is 'notably lower' compared with the perception of the Scottish Government on this front, at two in five (40%) compared to over half (53%).
However, both have risen considerably since the last survey wave, up seven and five percentage points. A smaller gap was apparent when considering if both governments are taking action to address Scottish business concerns.
Mark Diffley, founder and director at Diffley Partnership said: 'The standout data point this quarter is the significant business support for the introduction of a Scottish visa for workers, backed by seven in 10 business, up to 75% of those with an opinion either way on the issues.
'Combined with other positive views about the impact of migration on the labour force and the economy, this should give political parties food for thought ahead of next year's election.
'Meanwhile, although the business community in Scotland is still rather more pessimistic than optimistic, the gap between the two has closed which gives some hope about the possibility of a more positive outlook ahead after a long, tough period for businesses.'
John Penman, managing partner at 56° North said: 'Our last survey showed Reform, which is the most vocal party in terms of restricting immigration, were gaining support among business in Scotland, however these results show that many businesses are in favour of bringing skilled migrants into the Scottish workforce.
'Reform's continued strong showing in the polls may well mean this becomes a recurring theme in the run up to next year's Scottish election as parties seek to position themselves as best for economic growth.'
Understanding Business surveyed more than 500 Scottish businesses across a range of sectors, including hospitality, agriculture, construction, and manufacturing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
4 minutes ago
- Spectator
The youth mobility scheme is just the start of a Brexit reversal
Will Britain continue to be dragged back closer and closer to the EU so that when we eventually rejoin, in say a decade's time, our politicians can present it as a mere exercise in regularising an arrangement which effectively already exists? At some point it must have dawned on most frustrated remainers that they were never going to reverse Brexit in one fell swoop. That would reopen old wounds, motivate a strong reaction from Brexiteers and a sense of ennui. Such an attempted move would probably be doomed by the 'Brenda from Bristol' effect alone (the elderly lady who reacted to the declaration of the 2017 election campaign by exclaiming to a reporter, 'What, another one?'). But what if Britain were to be drawn back into the bloc by degrees? It is easy to argue in favour of joining an EU youth mobility scheme for 18 to 30-year-olds. Use those words and people tend to think about university students and graduates gaining experience of living in other countries. As supporters are eager to point out, we already have such arrangements with 13 countries, from Japan to Australia to Uruguay, and no one goes around saying that we have 'free movement' with those countries. Then again, an EU scheme could end up with a very different balance. No one worries too much about our youth mobility scheme with Australia, for example, because more UK citizens take advantage of it than Australians – the latter of whom only filled 9,000 of the 45,000 places which were available last year (there is an argument for saying that the greater worry is why so few Australians want to come to Britain? Is it a symptom of national decline?). A European scheme, on the other hand, may have a very different effect. The demographic which would benefit – 18-30 year olds – rather matches the large numbers of Eastern Europeans who took advantage of free movement during Britain's membership of the EU. It would end up as just another source of cheap labour for employers, which ends up suppressing wages and opportunities for UK workers at the bottom end of the jobs market. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper does sound alive to the risks of entering into a youth mobility scheme. She is reported to be pressing for EU citizens using such a scheme to be limited to twelve months in Britain; any longer and they will appear in official migration figures. But it isn't just on free movement that Britain risks being drawn back into the EU's sphere of influence. Keir Starmer's reset in EU relations has already, quietly, led to Britain agreeing to mirror EU rules and regulations on food and agriculture. It could mean, unless Starmer succeeds in persuading the EU to allow Britain an exemption, the end of our newfound freedom to embrace gene-edited crops. EU regulations previously destroyed what had been a promising UK industry in genetically modified (GM) foods a quarter of a century ago by making it all but impossible to conduct field trials. We are heading towards the 'vassal state' which many Brexiteers feared. I don't think we have seen the end of this process. We should expect more initiatives to draw us back towards EU rules and regulations. An 'ever closer union' might be one way of describing it. So long as every step is small, the government's diehard remainers might just get away with it.
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Never again': Regulatory reform pledged to prevent repeat of water bill hikes
The Environment Secretary has said households will 'never again' face major water bill hikes as he announced an overhaul of regulation of the troubled sector. Steve Reed announced in a speech alongside the River Thames that regulator Ofwat would be scrapped, as part of measures to pull overlapping water regulation by four different bodies into one 'single powerful' regulator responsible for the whole sector. He made the announcement in response to an independent review by Sir Jon Cunliffe which called for the move, as one of 88 measures to tackle problems in the water sector. The review was commissioned by the Government to answer public fury over pollution in rivers, lakes and seas, soaring bills, shareholder payouts and bosses' bonuses. Mr Reed pledged the new regulator would 'stand firmly on the side of customers, investors and the environment', as he said the Government would cut sewage pollution by half by 2030 – based on a new, higher baseline of pollution in 2024 compared with previous targets relating to 2021. And it would oversee maintenance and investment in water infrastructure so that 'hard-working British families are never again hit by the shocking bill hikes we saw last year'. Questioned by journalists after the speech about future bill hikes, Mr Reed insisted it was 'absolutely the intention' that the reforms would ensure there was adequate investment in the long term to prevent the kind of 30% increase seen in customer water bills last year at the next price review in five years. He also accused the Tories of failing to ensure sufficient investment in crumbling pipes and infrastructure that would have prevented the recent hikes. But in a separate speech, review author Sir Jon warned that costs and bills are likely to continue to rise, as he recommended the Government introduce a national social tariff to help households struggling to pay. 'The cost of producing water and wastewater services is likely to increase over the medium and longer term as the industry has to replace ageing assets, respond to higher environmental and public health standards and continue to adapt to the challenges of population growth and climate change,' he said. 'And against that likely background of rising costs and rising bills, there is a need for a stronger safety net for the most vulnerable when exposed to water poverty.' Asked if investor returns will need to rise to attract the capital needed and contribute to bill hikes, Sir Jon said: 'All the investors I talked to said we are happy to accept a lower return … if you can give us lower risk on the downside. 'Bills will have to reflect what investors need, the equity they need. 'That is part of the cost of building the infrastructure that we need but at the same time, a regulator needs to continue to maintain pressure and efficiency.' Sir Jon's review did not explore renationalising water companies; ministers have refused to entertain the possibility despite demands from campaigners to return them to public ownership. Mr Reed warned nationalisation would cost £100 billion and slow down efforts to cut pollution. He said it was not the answer, adding: 'The problems are to do with governance and regulation, and we are fixing those problems so we can fix the problem of sewage pollution and unacceptable bill hikes in the fastest time possible.' The reforms would see a single regulator replace Ofwat and take in functions related to the water sector from the Environment Agency, which currently investigates pollution incidents and licenses water abstraction from the environment, as well as the Drinking Water Inspectorate and Natural England. Sir Jon suggested a new water regulator would take two years to set up after looking at the time frame for setting up Ofcom, the communications regulator, in the early 2000s. The process could involve bringing the different organisations together as one before integrating the staff and working out where there may be duplication or gaps. Sir Jon also said the Government will have to tackle the issue of securing a 'very high level of leadership', adding that the current system does not have the skills and expertise that will be needed in the new set-up. Asked if ministers need to carry forward all of his 88 recommendations to ensure a full reset of the sector, he said: 'I don't think you're going to solve the fundamental problem unless you tackle all of those issues. 'I think you can get improvement on all those dimensions, but I do think you need to address it all in order to move us to a different place.'
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action terror ban made UK ‘international outlier', High Court told
Banning Palestine Action as a terror organisation had the hallmarks of a 'blatant abuse of power' and made the UK an 'international outlier', the High Court has heard. The group's co-founder Huda Ammori is making a bid to legally challenge Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws, announced after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge over that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5. The case returned to the High Court in London on Monday, where lawyers for Ms Ammori asked a judge to grant the green light for a full legal challenge against the decision to ban the group, saying it was an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. Raza Husain KC said: 'We say the proscription of Palestine Action is repugnant to the tradition of the common law and contrary to the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights).' The barrister continued: 'The decision is so extreme as to render the UK an international outlier.' Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' 'The consequences are not just limited to arrest,' Mr Husain later said, telling the court there was 'rampant uncertainty' in the aftermath of the ban. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also for Ms Ammori, later said: 'The impacts (of proscription) have already been significant.' She continued: 'Dozens and dozens of people have been arrested for protesting, seated and mostly silent protest.' The Home Office is defending the legal challenge. Previously, Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Sir James Eadie KC, representing the department on Monday, said that an 'exceptional case' would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC. He said: 'Judicial review is, and has been accepted to be, a remedy of last resort and that is for very good and well-established reasons.' However, Mr Husain told the court on Monday morning that the POAC was not 'convenient nor effective' in this case. He continued: 'It would be quite absurd to say that we should tolerate the consequences of the proscription… even if it is unlawful, and just go to POAC. 'That is an absurd position.' Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. More than 100 people were arrested across the country during demonstrations this weekend protesting against the proscription, with protests held in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Bristol and Truro on Saturday. Saturday's arrests brought the total number of people arrested since the ban came into force to more than 200, with more than 72 arrested across the UK last weekend and 29 the week before. The hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain is due to conclude on Monday. A decision may be given at the end of the hearing, or in writing at a later date.
