Hypocrisy, Rhetoric, and the Real Debate on Immigration

By Stuart Crawford

The recent comments by former First Minister Humza Yousaf, accusing the Prime Minister and Sir Keir Starmer of echoing the far right’s rhetoric, have made headlines. Yousaf compared Starmer’s language to that of Enoch Powell and Nigel Farage, warning that such sentiments risk pushing Britain into further division and decline. He also invoked his own family’s immigrant background, stating that under such policies, his father—and the father of Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar—might not have been allowed into the UK.

Now, I’m no fan of ad hominem attacks, but I would caution readers to consider Yousaf’s own record before taking his statements at face value. This is the same politician who once stood in Holyrood lamenting the number of white people in senior public positions—remarks that many viewed as divisive in themselves. For a man who often critiques division, Yousaf has not always led by example in uniting people across Scotland’s communities.

That said, let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yousaf is entitled to his opinion, and he does raise a valid concern: political discourse in Britain around immigration is growing increasingly toxic. Language matters, especially in times of economic uncertainty and social change. When politicians start speaking in terms that flirt with the language of exclusion, it’s worth sounding the alarm.

However, the problem of immigration is not a monolith, and certainly not the same across the UK. In Scotland, the issue plays out differently. Very few of the small boats crossing the English Channel carry people with ambitions to settle north of the border. Scotland has, by and large, avoided the strain placed on some English local authorities dealing with asylum backlogs and overcrowded accommodations. As a result, Scottish politicians—from Alex Salmond to Nicola Sturgeon—have consistently repeated the refrain that “Scotland is not full.” And in principle, I agree.

Yet, let’s not ignore another uncomfortable truth: much of the quiet nationalist sentiment within the SNP has expressed unease, not about immigrants from abroad, but about people from England moving to Scotland. It’s a nuance that Yousaf conveniently omits. If we’re talking about toxic rhetoric and exclusionary nationalism, we should examine all its forms, including those closer to home.

The UK does need a serious, balanced discussion about immigration—what levels we can manage, how we can integrate new arrivals, and what kind of society we want to build. But this conversation should be rooted in fact, not fear; in compassion, not posturing. It certainly shouldn’t be weaponised for political point-scoring.

So yes, while Yousaf is right to warn against inflammatory rhetoric, he—and others—should also reflect on their own contributions to the tone of political debate. If we are to move forward as a more cohesive nation, honesty and consistency must apply across the board.

Stuart Crawford is a political and defence commentator, former SNP member, and retired army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk

Have you signed up for the Defence Review Podcast? 

https://open.spotify.com/show/4vHJsYgxfrDyTkKgMpGlqs  

Lt Col Stuart Crawford’s latest book Tank Commander (Hardback) is available now

http://www.DefenceReview.UK

@peoplemattertv

@509298