The debate over the UK Government’s plans to house 300 asylum seekers at Cameron Barracks in Inverness has taken center stage in Scottish politics, exposing deep rifts between local and national officials and raising urgent questions about transparency, preparation, and the provision of essential services. The controversy, which erupted in late November 2025, has become a lightning rod for broader concerns about asylum policy, local government engagement, and the well-being of those seeking sanctuary in Scotland.
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental disagreement about communication. According to Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander, the UK Government kept all relevant parties in the loop before making any public announcement about the plans. Speaking on the BBC’s Sunday Show on November 30, Alexander insisted, “Highland Council, the Scottish Government, the local police service and indeed the local NHS were all informed prior to any public announcement.” He went further, accusing First Minister John Swinney and some of his ministers of “perhaps not wanting to be fully candid about the fact that they were informed,” and even claimed he could produce correspondence from Scottish ministers referencing Cameron Barracks before the news broke.
Yet, the Scottish Government paints a different picture. First Minister Swinney, speaking to the Press Association, described the plans as “drawn up on the back of an envelope,” emphasizing that the core issue was not the timing of notification, but rather a lack of “detailed engagement” and meaningful dialogue during the development of the proposals. “We’ve said all along that there had to be detailed engagement and dialogue with Highland Council and the Scottish Government about these plans, and despite our best efforts, we have been unable to have that detailed engagement,” Swinney stated. He lamented the lack of answers from the Home Office, saying, “I can’t answer detailed questions about what would be the arrangements around the Cameron Barracks, and that’s because the answers are not forthcoming from the Home Office.”
Highland Council, which would be directly responsible for much of the local response, reported being told only on November 29, the day before the public announcement. Meanwhile, Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville claimed she was notified as the plans were being announced on November 30. The confusion over who knew what—and when—has only fueled public frustration and suspicion about the government’s handling of the situation.
The stakes are high, not only for the asylum seekers who could soon call Cameron Barracks home, but also for the local services tasked with supporting them. One of the most pressing concerns is healthcare access. On November 29, the UK Government decided to restrict the use of taxis for transporting asylum seekers to medical appointments, following a BBC investigation that uncovered cases of significant travel costs, including a reported 250-mile taxi journey that cost the Home Office £600. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood clarified that, moving forward, taxis would be authorized only in exceptional circumstances. Swinney was quick to criticize this move, arguing, “People have got to get to medical appointments. Don’t send asylum seekers to places where it’s impossible for them to access public services.” He laid the blame for the current situation squarely at the feet of the Home Office, saying its “chaotic arrangements” had exacerbated the problem.
Somerville echoed these concerns, describing the Home Office’s management as “chaotic from start to finish.” She stated, “The Scottish Government was told that the UK Government was contemplating the use of Cameron Barracks and we asked a series of very serious questions, as did Highland Council. The Scottish Government only learnt of the UK Government’s formal decision to proceed through media reports. We are still awaiting satisfactory answers.” Somerville has since written to the UK Government, stressing the urgency with which local agencies require information in order to properly plan and assess what support they may be able to offer. She also made clear that any effort to provide sanctuary must come with “appropriate financial assistance so local authorities and others can provide necessary support services.”
In response to the mounting criticism, the Home Office has defended its approach. A spokesperson expressed frustration over illegal migration and the continued use of hotels to house asylum seekers, stating, “Moving to large military sites is an important part of our reforms to remove the incentives that draw illegal migrants to Britain.” The spokesperson assured that plans to transition people into Cameron Barracks would proceed “once it is operational and safe.”
Yet, the timeline for when asylum seekers might actually arrive remains uncertain. The first cohort was originally expected in December 2025, but amid public anger and the subsequent postponement of the proposals, no new date has been set. Alexander, when pressed on the matter, refused to provide specifics, arguing, “This needs to be done in a reasonable and appropriate way. You would be criticising us if we rushed this, you would criticise us if we didn’t do this in the right and proper way, that’s exactly what we’re doing.”
The debate has exposed not just a clash of political personalities, but also a deeper systemic challenge: How can governments at all levels coordinate effectively to ensure that vulnerable people are housed safely and humanely, while also maintaining the confidence of local communities? The situation in Inverness is far from unique—across the UK, local authorities have struggled to keep pace with shifting asylum policies, often finding themselves caught between national directives and local realities.
For now, the future of the Cameron Barracks project hangs in the balance. The Scottish Government insists it stands ready to work constructively with Westminster to provide safety and sanctuary for people seeking asylum, and to support their integration into Scottish communities. But as Somerville pointedly noted, this willingness must be matched by clarity, resources, and respect for local expertise. “We stand ready to work constructively with the UK Government to provide safety and sanctuary for people seeking asylum and support integration into our communities. However, this must come with the appropriate financial assistance so local authorities and others can provide necessary support services.”
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the questions raised in Inverness will have implications far beyond the Highland city. The outcome will test not just the resolve of politicians, but the capacity of public institutions to meet the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in society, under the glare of public scrutiny and political disagreement.
