Immigration may be ‘the most toxic issue in British politics for the decade to come’ (Shabi 2019). Divisions over immigration cut across party factions, but there is a political trend whereby politicians on the left regularly accuse their right-wing counterparts of using immigrants as a scapegoat for social or economic problems. The reprimands are often accompanied by accusations of racism or bigotry. A classic example is when former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown (2007–10) was confronted by a woman complaining about immigrants ‘flocking’ into the UK. Brown was subsequently caught on a hot microphone calling her a ‘bigoted woman’:

In this environment, immigration became the issue politicians used to signal their stance on a wide range of issues, including nationalism, the EU, labour versus capital, and multiculturalism. When immigration has such symbolic power, it is easy to think about the politics of immigration purely as a feature of party competition. As recent elections have demonstrated, political party members use hard positions on immigration to increase support for their own parties. Partisan politics reflect (and often exaggerate) broader social trends, and the actions and promises of candidates have consequences beyond a single election or re-election. Party competition is therefore a valuable lens through which to understand the prioritisation of immigration and a policy trajectory that shapes everyone’s lives. This chapter discusses how that competition has played out in Westminster, the site of the Parliament in the UK, and in Holyrood, the location of the Scottish Parliament. It reviews how party politics have shaped the politics of immigration in Scotland, and the way they have advanced Scottish nation-building. The chapter opens with a brief summary of the general partisan politics of immigration before examining the way Scottish Members of Parliament (MPs) in Westminster discuss immigration in party manifestos, debates, and maiden speeches.