SNP policy U-turn on immigration powers revealed in FOI documents

The Scottish Government has quietly shelved its long-standing policy that Scotland should have full powers over immigration, according to documents released under freedom of information laws. A May paper addressing the UK Government’s Immigration White Paper states that while the Scottish Government is seeking a reform and redesign of the immigration system, its policy position is not to seek devolution of immigration powers. The shift marks a significant reversal from the SNP’s traditional stance that Holyrood ministers should decide immigration and asylum matters north of the border.

The change comes amid mounting tensions over the housing of asylum seekers in hotels and student accommodation across Scotland. Glasgow, in particular, has drawn attention as it hosts more asylum seekers than any other British city in recent weeks, prompting local authorities to debate capacity and funding. In several councils, there have been calls for pauses or reprioritization of asylum placement as pressure on public services and housing markets grows. The notes also reference demonstrations tied to the use of asylum hotels in communities such as Perth, Aberdeenshire, and Falkirk, where residents have protested in response to the resources allocated to migrants.

The internal documents mirror a broader political debate over whether immigration policies should be centralized in London or tailored by Scotland to reflect its distinct demographic and economic needs. The Scottish Government has argued that decisions around immigration should, in principle, be made in Scotland, even as many aspects of the policy remain reserved to the UK Government. In the paper released for the White Paper process, officials stressed that Scotland’s approach would focus on reforming the system within the existing constitutional framework rather than seeking new devolved powers.

Reaction to the apparent U-turn was swift. Scottish Labour figures criticized the SNP for what they described as a lack of transparency. Neil Bibby, the party’s constitution spokesman, said the episode suggested the SNP “will say one thing publicly and another privately,” pointing to prior statements by SNP leaders and MPs that signaled a push for Holyrood control over immigration. Bibby noted that back in April, SNP MP Stephen Gethins attempted to use a private member’s bill at Westminster to transfer powers to Holyrood, highlighting the tension between public messaging and policy direction.

In September, First Minister John Swinney had asserted that Scotland requires a separate approach to immigration, while Equalities Minister Kaukab Stewart voiced frustration that asylum decisions remain reserved at the UK level. Those comments, rising earlier in the month, appear at odds with the Government’s newly disclosed position. Observers said the discrepancy underscores a broader struggle within the SNP as it balances domestic political pressures with the realities of a UK-wide immigration system.

A Scottish Government spokesman framed the policy stance as pragmatic, stressing that while decisions around immigration are reserved, Scotland has proposed targeted measures to address its specific needs. The spokesman pointed to ideas such as a Rural Visa Pilot and a Scottish Graduate Visa, arguing that these proposals would better align migration with Scotland’s economy and public services. He urged the UK Government to engage seriously with these proposals, signaling that the Government still seeks practical reform even if it will not pursue devolved powers.

The notes illustrate a broader narrative in which the SNP has sought to pursue reform through policy design rather than wholesale constitutional change. In April, SNP MPs publicly pushed a path toward devolution of immigration powers, but the May White Paper-related paper reaffirms a different approach. Critics say the shift has left voters unsure about the party’s long-term strategy on immigration and asylum, and raises questions about how Scotland will handle ongoing pressures in housing, schools, and healthcare for asylum seekers.

The housing issue has become a flashpoint in communities across Scotland, with protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers drawing attention from local authorities and residents. The Cladhan Hotel in Falkirk, the former railway station hotel in Perth, and facilities in Aberdeenshire have all been sites of demonstrations. The protests have been described by officials as distasteful and unacceptable by First Minister Swinney, yet they continue to highlight the tension between housing asylum seekers and meeting local service capacities. The broader public debate includes concerns about the suitability of using student residences for asylum housing, a topic that Scotland’s cities have grappled with in recent months as asylum numbers have fluctuated.

The current policy stance, the government notes, does not foreclose future changes to Scotland’s immigration posture. Officials emphasize that the Scottish Government’s focus remains on designing a migration system that serves Scotland’s economic and demographic needs while engaging with the UK Government on joint reform. The conversations are expected to continue as Dublin-sized flows of asylum seekers and other migrants intersect with Scotland’s housing and public-service pressures.

As the UK and Scottish governments navigate these dynamics, legal and policy experts say the FOI-revealed shift could influence how parties frame immigration during upcoming elections. Whether the SNP will recalibrate its messaging or pursue new avenues for devolved control remains to be seen. For now, officials insist that the priority is practical governance: delivering tailored migration routes for Scotland, while pressing the UK Government to advance reforms that reflect Scotland’s unique needs.