UKIP

[strichener]

How so? I'm certainly not a UKIP supporter or voter, but the idea of an immigration points system like the one used by the likes of Canada and Australia can only be a good thing surely?

Both of which have a larger level of immigration than Scotland.

[~~~]

A proper points-based system that accommodates the requirements of the country would solve all of those issues really, wouldn't it?

What issues?

If you believe UKIP you'd think every foreigner coming into the UK are only here for benefits, housing or access to the NHS.

[David1979]

Both of which have a larger level of immigration than Scotland.

Yeah, but obviously those countries have differing requirements to Scotland, don't they? We would tailor the system to suit our own requirements.

Unless you believe that the EU-style open door policy is actually the way forward?

[Mr Bairn]

UKIP not fielding a candidate in the Western Isles. Just the four main parties plus the Scottish Christian Party.

Ironically the one place where they would have a decent chance to hold their deposit

[Antiochas III]

The "open door policy" is not the problem and never has been. It has benefited the UK massively.

[strichener]

Yeah, but obviously those countries have differing requirements to Scotland, don't they? We would tailor the system to suit our own requirements.

Unless you believe that the EU-style open door policy is actually the way forward?

Open door works both ways.

Why state that we should introduce a system like other countries and then completly dismantle your position in the next post.

[AberdeenBud]

Yes, the free movement of people across the EU is not only a great idea but one which benefits Scotland and the people of Scotland.

[AUFC90]

How so? I'm certainly not a UKIP supporter or voter, but the idea of an immigration points system like the one used by the likes of Canada and Australia can only be a good thing surely?

I was being sarcastic. The narrative in the UK is that even taxpaying immigrants are somehow a burden.

Australia lets in more immigrants per head than the UK and that's with a points system.

[AUFC90]

Yeah, but obviously those countries have differing requirements to Scotland, don't they? We would tailor the system to suit our own requirements.

Unless you believe that the EU-style open door policy is actually the way forward?

Scotland needs thousands upon thousands of immigrants as our population is ageing faster than the UKs. A future immigration policy dictated by Westminster will harm the Scottish economy.

[jagfox]

The only cross section of the community I'd like blindly thrown out of the country are uKippers

[David1979]

Open door works both ways.

Why state that we should introduce a system like other countries and then completly dismantle your position in the next post.

It is possible to introduce a system without having to implement the exact same factors though, isn't it? For example, let's say that Australia requires more nurses and doctors. That would be reflected in how they alter their points system, making it more accessible to people bringing those particular skillsets.

Scotland may require different positions filled, so obviously we'd gear our system to accommodate that, wouldn't we? Saying we should tailor the system to suit our own economic needs isn't completely dismantling my position whatsoever.

And yes, the open door policy would work both ways if we were seeing the same level of interest in EU citizens relocating from places like France, Germany and the UK to the likes of Romania and Bulgaria as we do in the opposite direction. We don't though, do we?

It seems pretty obvious to me that if you create a situation where free movement is allowed between nations of a similar economic and political standing then it can work, and indeed it did work pretty well when it was nations such as the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Italy that were involved.

Once some of the more economically challenged nations, such as Bulgaria and Romania were granted entry things began to go a bit awry somewhat, which makes perfect sense really.

The average monthly salary in Bulgaria in 2007, which is when they were granted access to EU membership, was the equivalent of £165 roughly. The Romanian average monthly salary in the same timeframe was the equivalent of just under £150.

Average monthly earnings in the UK in 2007 were around £19,500 per year, around £1,600 per month.

It's not difficult to see why recent records of EU immigration record the top five destinations within the EU to be Germany, the UK, Italy, France and Spain. Immigration to places such as Romania & Bulgaria didn't even come close.

And just to be clear here, I'm not blaming the actual immigrants themselves. Who wouldn't want to ditch a country and move somewhere that would see their monthly salary rise by the amount that it does when they come to the UK?

I blame the politicians for allowing it to happen, most likely doing so on the basis that their friends who own big business would be provided with cheap labour, thus driving down wages in certain unskilled sectors.

[strichener]

It is possible to introduce a system without having to implement the exact same factors though, isn't it? For example, let's say that Australia requires more nurses and doctors. That would be reflected in how they alter their points system, making it more accessible to people bringing those particular skillsets.

Scotland may require different positions filled, so obviously we'd gear our system to accommodate that, wouldn't we? Saying we should tailor the system to suit our own economic needs isn't completely dismantling my position whatsoever.

And yes, the open door policy would work both ways if we were seeing the same level of interest in EU citizens relocating from places like France, Germany and the UK to the likes of Romania and Bulgaria as we do in the opposite direction. We don't though, do we?

It seems pretty obvious to me that if you create a situation where free movement is allowed between nations of a similar economic and political standing then it can work, and indeed it did work pretty well when it was nations such as the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Italy that were involved.

Once some of the more economically challenged nations, such as Bulgaria and Romania were granted entry things began to go a bit awry somewhat, which makes perfect sense really.

The average monthly salary in Bulgaria in 2007, which is when they were granted access to EU membership, was the equivalent of £165 roughly. The Romanian average monthly salary in the same timeframe was the equivalent of just under £150.

Average monthly earnings in the UK in 2007 were around £19,500 per year, around £1,600 per month.

It's not difficult to see why recent records of EU immigration record the top five destinations within the EU to be Germany, the UK, Italy, France and Spain. Immigration to places such as Romania & Bulgaria didn't even come close.

And just to be clear here, I'm not blaming the actual immigrants themselves. Who wouldn't want to ditch a country and move somewhere that would see their monthly salary rise by the amount that it does when they come to the UK?

I blame the politicians for allowing it to happen, most likely doing so on the basis that their friends who own big business would be provided with cheap labour, thus driving down wages in certain unskilled sectors.

This whole policy is predicated on needing immigrants to only carry out skilled jobs. How many pakistani, bangladeshi and other former colonial citizens have come to this country and worked their butts off in unskilled positions only to use the money earned to start a business. How will any points system accommodate these people?

You need to get a basic grip of the problems. Immigrants are not the problem as proven by the various analysis of their contribution to the country. If we want to stop people from travelling here to access the health or benefit systems then tackle this access rather than try to limit who can actually get into the country.

[Pete's Frontier]

This whole policy is predicated on needing immigrants to only carry out skilled jobs. How many pakistani, bangladeshi and other former colonial citizens have come to this country and worked their butts off in unskilled positions only to use the money earned to start a business. How will any points system accommodate these people?

You need to get a basic grip of the problems. Immigrants are not the problem as proven by the various analysis of their contribution to the country. If we want to stop people from travelling here to access the health or benefit systems then tackle this access rather than try to limit who can actually get into the country.

Non EEA have cost us £120bn since 1997, 10% of the national debt, so don't kid us that Pakistani and Bangladeshis have made a huge contribution, just is not true. The social problems in England are immense with this community, which is a large part of the bill. This is aside from the Rotherhams and Rochdales.

[strichener]

Non EEA have cost us £120bn since 1997, 10% of the national debt, so don't kid us that Pakistani and Bangladeshis have made a huge contribution, just is not true. The social problems in England are immense with this community, which is a large part of the bill. This is aside from the Rotherhams and Rochdales.

I am not speaking about from 1997 but feel free to pull random numbers from the UKIP textbook on immigration.

[David1979]

This whole policy is predicated on needing immigrants to only carry out skilled jobs. How many pakistani, bangladeshi and other former colonial citizens have come to this country and worked their butts off in unskilled positions only to use the money earned to start a business. How will any points system accommodate these people?

You need to get a basic grip of the problems. Immigrants are not the problem as proven by the various analysis of their contribution to the country. If we want to stop people from travelling here to access the health or benefit systems then tackle this access rather than try to limit who can actually get into the country.

So you would agree with the idea of withholding access to benefits, social housing and free healthcare for a set period of time until they have paid into the system?

[~~~]

So you would agree with the idea of withholding access to benefits, social housing and free healthcare for a set period of time until they have paid into the system?

I don't. especially the healthcare. why should someone be denied medical treatment?

[David1979]

I don't. especially the healthcare. why should someone be denied medical treatment?

I was asking Strichener, it was his point about dissuading people from travelling here simply to access our free healthcare and benefits.

[strichener]

So you would agree with the idea of withholding access to benefits, social housing and free healthcare for a set period of time until they have paid into the system?

No, I have not expressed this opinion. The simple reason is that I, unlike others, do not see immigration as a financial cost to the country. I think I read somewhere that the government have already put in place measures for people coming to the country to pre-pay a fee for access to healthcare.

[Jamaldo]

Ironically the one place where they would have a decent chance to hold their deposit

Don't particularly agree with that, for all that's wrong this place. If they would have a great chance of holding their deposit here then how come they haven't found a candidate to stand for them?

It makes Coburns, "we'll stand in every Scottish seat" chat look pretty embarrassing now though. Wonder where else they're not standing.

They'll be tears and snotters from the Sevco-lite crew up here though, having no bigoted option to vote for.

[yoda]

Ironically the one place where they would have a decent chance to hold their deposit

Based on what?

I know they got >5% of votes in the European elections in the Western Isles but I assume they managed that in most of the "constituencies".

Edit:

Using EU elections, the Western Isles was in the same UKIP support bracket (10.4% - 11.7%) as:

Aberdeenshire

Angus

Argyll & Bute

West Dunbartonshire

North Ayrshire

North Lanarkshire

South Lanarkshire

Midlothian

And less support (11.7% - 13.6%) than:

Highland

Moray

Orkney

Shetland

South Ayrshire

Borders

West Lothian

Falkirk

Not the ideal way to gauge support but there's nothing to suggest that the Western Isles are more pro-UKIP than anywhere else.

Edited April 11, 2015 by yoda