Scottish immigration attitudes shift as elite narratives clash with public concern

A Daily Mail columnist argues that public opinion in Scotland about immigration has become more skeptical, challenging the idea that the country is uniformly welcoming. Stephen Daisley contends that elite narratives about Scotland's openness mask genuine concerns among voters, and that the immigration debate is increasingly tied to questions about public services and social cohesion.

Daisley cites Humza Yousaf's remarks in the BBC documentary Scotland Wants You: the line 'we're all Jock Tamson's bairns' is described as a 'very nice soundbite' but one used to 'mask the fact that people have genuine concerns about immigration,' and he warns that the 'toxicity' of migration debates has managed to find its way up here.

Polls and demographic data highlighted by the column illustrate a pronounced shift in Scottish attitudes. Migration Policy Scotland, in a study released earlier this year, found that public opinion moved from a slight tilt toward increasing immigration to a growing preference for restricting it. Two years earlier, 39% of Scots said they would like to see the number of immigrants increase, while 28% preferred a decrease. Today, those figures have reversed: 45% want immigration cut, and 28% would like to see it grow.

The piece argues that Scotland’s stance cannot simply be inferred from a supposed English-centric bias. It notes that, historically, public attitudes toward national identity have often diverged from elite cosmopolitanism. For example, a YouGov survey from 2016 showed that 87% of Scots believed being born in Scotland made a person Scottish, yet 59% said simply considering oneself Scottish did not automatically make a person Scottish, and 58% said people who had lived in Scotland for ten years or more were still not Scottish.

The column also ties rising concern about immigration to tangible pressures on public resources. It highlights the large numbers associated with migration in the United Kingdom over recent decades: annual net migration has climbed from about 77,000 in 1994 to roughly 430,000 in 2024. The public’s perception of these changes is framed as frustration with service strain and perceived threats to safety, amplified by the presence of irregular and legal migration.

Supporters of open-border policies and multiculturalism—once a defining feature of Britain’s political consensus—are described as having pushed for policies that outpaced public appetite. The piece cites that in 2023, the United Kingdom recorded 1.3 million migrants arriving, yielding a net addition of about 900,000 people; the government promised a cap of 100,000 but did not meet that target as non-EU migration rose. The author argues that this divergence between policy and public preference has helped fuel disillusionment with the political class.

Local authorities are not spared from critique. Glasgow City Council leader Susan Aitken is quoted as saying that asylum policy operates like a 'machine that creates homeless refugees' and leaves local governments to absorb the consequences, noting that Glasgow takes nine out of ten asylum seekers who arrive in Scotland and urging other cities to share the burden.

The piece emphasizes that the controversy is not merely about hatred or bigotry. It argues that most people’s concerns are rooted in practical effects on services, safety, and democratic legitimacy when migration policy appears to be set in opposition to the will of voters. The author acknowledges toxic elements in the debate but contends that the toxic climate has been produced by political elites who ignored public opinion. Some readers have even signaled openness to radical remedies, including leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. The conclusion: if public attitudes seem toxic, it is because they have been toxified by those in power.