giblet wrote:If Scotland breaks up with the UK, I assume they'll loosen up some of the draconian immigration laws that have recently come into play. I have no opinion on the rest of it, but for that reason only I'm interested to see what happens.

What draconian immigration laws?

UKJ wrote:

giblet wrote:If Scotland breaks up with the UK, I assume they'll loosen up some of the draconian immigration laws that have recently come into play. I have no opinion on the rest of it, but for that reason only I'm interested to see what happens.

What draconian immigration laws?

No more highly-skilled migrant visas, that if a UK citizen marries a foreigner he must make over a certain amount per year before his spouse can get a UK visa.

Scotland used to have special visas not available in the rest of the UK and I always assumed that was due to a need for skilled immigrants in Scotland (and a more accepting attitude towards immigration).

*sorry, just saw that I edited and added that last bit after you had already responded.

giblet wrote:

UKJ wrote:

giblet wrote:If Scotland breaks up with the UK, I assume they'll loosen up some of the draconian immigration laws that have recently come into play. I have no opinion on the rest of it, but for that reason only I'm interested to see what happens.

What draconian immigration laws?

No more highly-skilled migrant visas, that if a UK citizen marries a foreigner he must make over a certain amount per year before his spouse can get a UK visa.

Scotland used to have special visas not available in the rest of the UK and I always assumed that was due to a need for skilled immigrants in Scotland.

I agree the highly skilled visa sounds wrong. I didn't know about that.

Marriage visa - Probably fair. Why should someone on welfare be allowed to bring in someone who tax payers will have to support. And it is being abused by sham marriage fraudsters.

Did you know terminally ill, the elderly, and people with serious criminal records can stay? So I don't think the UK's immigration policy can be called draconian. It actually needs tightening up. Highly skilled, young, conviction free immigrants only. We have enough of a low or no skilled work force, and enough claiming welfare. imho

UKJ wrote:Marriage visa - Probably fair. Why should someone on welfare be allowed to bring in someone who tax payers will have to support. And it is being abused by sham marriage fraudsters.

Did you know terminally ill, the elderly, and people with serious criminal records can stay? So I don't think the UK's immigration policy can be called draconian. It actually needs tightening up. Highly skilled, young, conviction free immigrants only. We have enough of a low or no skilled work force, and enough claiming welfare. imho

The marriage visa thing isn't fair, actually, which is why there are major loopholes (because no one else in the EU has anything similar). If I married my UK partner and got a UK visa, I would not be able to get benefits anyway (no matter how poor I was)--the visa very clearly states 'no recourse to public funds.' The other issue is that they do not factor in the income of the foreign spouse when determining visa eligibility. So if the UK partner makes £18,000 a year and the foreign partner makes £80,000 a year, they still can't live in the same country after they are married because the UK partner doesn't make enough money. Which is pretty ridiculous. Especially when you consider the fact that this applies if you are moving from abroad as well.

So let's say you live in Cambodia with your non-UK wife and child. You've been married five years and you make $2,500 a month here in Cambodia. Despite the fact that you've been married five years and have a child together, you would not be able to bring your wife back to the UK with you because you don't make enough, even though making $2,500 a month in Cambodia is actually pretty good and you'd probably be able to make double that once you were back in the UK. In this situation you would need to go back to the UK and work for a year and make more than £18,600 before you could begin the process of getting your wife a visa--meaning that your child would have to live without one of his parents for a year. And this is still the case even if your wife was in a job making £50,000! While the threshold of £18,600 isn't that much, the reality is that outside of major cities a large percentage of the UK population have full-time jobs and make less. I understand the desire to not want to let immigrants onto welfare, but this rule doesn't really address that and only penalizes people that make a pretty average wage and have foreign partners.

Tim Linkinwater wrote: They'll turn on the Pakis and Roma instead, once they can't hate the English.

Well I for one won't, I'll continue to hate the English.

giblet wrote:

UKJ wrote:Marriage visa - Probably fair. Why should someone on welfare be allowed to bring in someone who tax payers will have to support. And it is being abused by sham marriage fraudsters.

Did you know terminally ill, the elderly, and people with serious criminal records can stay? So I don't think the UK's immigration policy can be called draconian. It actually needs tightening up. Highly skilled, young, conviction free immigrants only. We have enough of a low or no skilled work force, and enough claiming welfare. imho

The marriage visa thing isn't fair, actually, which is why there are major loopholes (because no one else in the EU has anything similar). If I married my UK partner and got a UK visa, I would not be able to get benefits anyway (no matter how poor I was)--the visa very clearly states 'no recourse to public funds.' The other issue is that they do not factor in the income of the foreign spouse when determining visa eligibility. So if the UK partner makes £18,000 a year and the foreign partner makes £80,000 a year, they still can't live in the same country after they are married because the UK partner doesn't make enough money. Which is pretty ridiculous. Especially when you consider the fact that this applies if you are moving from abroad as well.

So let's say you live in Cambodia with your non-UK wife and child. You've been married five years and you make $2,500 a month here in Cambodia. Despite the fact that you've been married five years and have a child together, you would not be able to bring your wife back to the UK with you because you don't make enough, even though making $2,500 a month in Cambodia is actually pretty good and you'd probably be able to make double that once you were back in the UK. In this situation you would need to go back to the UK and work for a year and make more than £18,600 before you could begin the process of getting your wife a visa--meaning that your child would have to live without one of his parents for a year. And this is still the case even if your wife was in a job making £50,000! While the threshold of £18,600 isn't that much, the reality is that outside of major cities a large percentage of the UK population have full-time jobs and make less. I understand the desire to not want to let immigrants onto welfare, but this rule doesn't really address that and only penalizes people that make a pretty average wage and have foreign partners.

When the Thai visa system is abused, everyone applauds the tightening of rules. But when the British system gets tightened because of abuse, everyone shouts foul. ( I'm just talking generally and not aimed at you)
What I meant by benefits is, why should someone on benefits be allowed to bring in a partner? So they must set a bottom line, ie , employed with a minimum salary, which I'm sure every tax payer would agree. A figure just needs to be set then. £18k is barely above minimum wage. How low do you think it should be set for two people who may have children at any time or already have children? Do you think they could survive on less than that? I wouldn't like to try it.
Would £18k leave about £15k net after tax?

Looks like it's all a non-starter. Have any Scottish polls on the topic showed even 30% likely pro-independence support?

Cowshed Cowboy wrote:

Tim Linkinwater wrote: They'll turn on the Pakis and Roma instead, once they can't hate the English.

Well I for one won't, I'll continue to hate the English.

Haha.
Tim's a Scot too and was there just last month. He'll be there again in a couple of weeks.

I have this sneaking feeling you are from Grantown on Spey, or was it Dalmeny Bridge, Cowboy?

As for UKj, I can just feel your tolerance. People like you, eh? Nice. Save your mikkles and maybe you'll have a muckle to get back here some day.

Tim Linkinwater wrote:
As for UKj, I can just feel your tolerance. People like you, eh? Nice. Save your mikkles and maybe you'll have a muckle to get back here some day.

WTF are you talking about, People like me? You use a derogatory racist term " Paki" , then have a snide remark about my tolerance and finances? It's you who's intolerant pal.
So you called another BM misogynist for no apparent reason, and now attacking me. I guess there one clueless racist trolling for arguments on every forum!

Scottish ? Yet you called the Scots " they" , and mentioned Roma's ,and don't seem to have noticed that Roma's haven't had any problems in Scotland.

Anyway, don't bother answering. I try not to feed trolls. Go and bother someone else with your baseless name calling and making snide baseless remarks about a strangers finances lol. This is a friendly place.

OK.

Anyway, you can have a pint in an hour.

Enjoy.

XX