THIS will not go down in history as the week Nicola Sturgeon won the argument for independence.

The Scottish Government’s paper on the economics of independence was keenly anticipated, but if it was meant to plot the route to a better Scotland, then something went wrong with the sat nav.

A leading pro-independence economist calls the Scottish Government’s position on a separate currency “disastrous”, the Institute for Fiscal Studies points to a likely need for spending cuts after independence and the Scottish Currency Group points to “a lack of ambition”.

Even so, the First Minister deserves credit. Most of the focus has been on her currency plans, but she reiterated another important pledge: to boost the working age population through immigration. When it comes to making a success of going it alone, higher immigration is as important as currency but these days it takes a brave politician to advocate it.

Ms Sturgeon has no choice but to accept higher immigration if she wants Scotland to rejoin the European Union, which would mean accepting free movement of people.

But she makes a virtue of welcoming overseas workers to settle in Scotland, a refreshing change given that many senior politicians would come out in hives at the thought of doing so.

We need to hear this. A sensible debate on immigration has been lacking, in part because politicians who don’t back a draconian policy have been on the back foot. The UK immigration system was creaking as far back as the Blair years, successive governments have had limited control over the numbers entering and there were and are entirely legitimate concerns about it, but Brexit made the discussion of measured solutions all but impossible. Remainer politicians found it hard to defend free movement, in spite of business enthusiasm for it, against the shameless anti-immigrant innuendo of certain Leave campaigners. When the UK outside of Scotland voted for Brexit, it was duly interpreted as a vote strictly to limit immigration.

But the world has moved on since 2016. Brexit fantasies have fizzled away and the immigration debate is changing and, dare I say it, becoming more realistic. European migrants were characterised as undercutting wages and taking jobs and benefits, but now all we hear is how much they helped keep care homes and wards operating, providing essential agricultural labour and staffing hotels, restaurants and bars. The care sector, hospitals, farms, factories and the hospitality industry have all found it harder to recruit suitable staff since Brexit, their predicament made worse by the pandemic.

But don’t take my word for it – listen to Liz Truss. With the Government under pressure to do something about labour shortages, she has signalled an intention to loosen immigration rules, expand the shortage occupation list and remove the cap on seasonal workers. (Struggling to remember the TV debate where Nigel Farage championed a liberal system of immigration for low-skilled workers? Funny that.)

Anyhoo, Scotland has a particular need for immigration. It’s the only nation in the UK with a population that’s set to fall over the next 25 years. Only the elderly population is due to increase.

Nicola Sturgeon is not coy about this, nor should she be. The Scottish Government points out that the Labour-Lib Dem coalition introduced the Fresh Talent work visa scheme for international graduates of Scottish universities, to tempt them to stay here if whisky, shortbread and unreliable skiing opportunities weren’t enough. It was extended across the UK – and then abolished by the government of David Cameron.

Another post-study work visa replaced it after a decade, but it’s stricter, reflecting the Tory era of immigration-bashing that preceded it.

Now there is a new post-Brexit immigration system but many occupations experiencing shortages of staff in Scotland, struggle to meet its salary thresholds.

The combination of a falling population that’s unevenly distributed age-wise, and a post-Brexit immigration system that doesn’t allow employers easily to recruit workers, does indeed point to the need for a separate immigration system, or reform of the UK one.

The First Minister’s economic plan returns to this theme, calling for “a migration policy designed to boost Scotland’s working population”.

This is no apologetic explanation of why Scotland needs migrant workers, it’s a fulsome marketing job. The Scottish Government says it will leave behind the “hostile environment” championed by Theresa May. “Instead, we would encourage and support people to settle here for the long term.” The Scottish Government cites evidence that migrants tend to pay more in tax than they receive in benefits and tend to be more entrepreneurial than the native population. It uses research data to support its claim that higher immigration would boost the economy and public finances. Rural and remote communities in particular would benefit.

There are cultural advantages too – Estonian bagpipe enthusiasts and middle eastern pastry chefs enhance our daily lives – but perhaps that’s for a later discussion paper.

What’s clear is that unless something is done to address the growing imbalance between the elderly and those in work, Scotland is in trouble. No growth plan, under independence or devolution, can ignore the demographic gap.

Pro-UK campaigners may point to a UK population that is growing overall to make up for Scotland’s shrinking one, but cannot promise a separate immigration system like the Yes camp can.

It’s becoming increasingly clear however that the Sturgeon vision of an independent Scotland with generous welfare and well-funded public services would require quite eye-popping levels of growth and potentially hefty levels of immigration, and people may doubt her Government’s ability to deliver it.

And how do voters feel about increased levels of immigration anyway?

There is no evidence I’m aware of that Scots are substantially more pro-immigration than people in other parts of the UK. A bigger population also means more house building, pressure on the natural environment and probably higher carbon emissions. So she can expect resistance and will have to explain how much higher she thinks immigration should be and how she’ll make it compatible with her climate goals.

But the First Minister is right to highlight the benefits of immigration after years in which it’s been presented on the UK stage as nothing but a problem. Whether Scotland becomes independent or not, this nation needs it.

Read more by Rebecca McQuillan:

A bonfire of food safety standards? Is this what Brexit is really about?

For the first time in 15 years, Labour mean to win back Scotland. Can they do it?