Jonathan Gullis's asylum bill showed no respect for rule of law

She went further, describing his decision to persist with an attempt to secure the progress of the bill on the very day when four such people drowned in the dark and freezing waters of the English Channel whilst their rubber dinghy disintegrated beneath their feet as lacking in both compassion and sense.

Mr Gullis, the “Red Wall” member for Stoke-on-Trent North was, incredibly, the minister for school standards for a few weeks in the Truss administration, but his talent for distasteful extremist self-publicity far exceeds his suitability for office.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon says Tories 'lack basic humanity' after tragedy of deaths in Channel

Such people exist in politics but the worrying thing about his bill was that it attracted considerable Tory support. Both Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg were said to be in favour, though didn’t vote. To add a further bizarre touch to the story, Mr Gullis has admitted to modelling his “classroom persona” when he was a teacher on these two.

Sixty-six other Tory MPs trooped through the division lobby in favour of the bill, even though it was not only undoubtedly immoral but also quite likely to be illegal. This motley collection included not only the usual swivel-eyed obsessive Brexiteers like John Redwood and Bill Cash but also a former justice secretary, Brandon Lewis, and a former home secretary, Priti Patel.

To their credit, four Tory MPs voted against the bill (though none of them were Scottish Tory MPs) which was killed off by opposition members. That does not mean that it might not come back at a future date.

There certainly appears to be a continuing Conservative appetite to defy international norms and agreements in order to be seen to be “doing something” about immigration.

Just the day before the bill – and only hours before the tragic loss of life in the Channel – the Prime Minister (above) had laid out yet more plans to “disrupt the business model” of the people smugglers who make their living from the desperation and misery of some of the world’s poorest people.

Previous attempts have failed, as have several EU initiatives though it would be far better to have continued to cooperate with attempts to make those policies work than turn inward and abandon them.

One reason for failure lies in the “business model” language itself, which indicates that the Tories see this as a matter of deterring a small number of callous traffickers rather than recognising the reality across the globe of gross inequality, climate changed induced famine, bloody repression and rampant corruption – all of which are factors which understandably persuade large numbers of our fellow human beings suffering such things that making a new life for themselves is worth even the most terrifying of risks.

READ MORE: Rees-Mogg's denial of businessman's Brexit plea stuns Question Time viewers

Perversely, making such risks even greater and the barriers to overcome them ever higher has, for these people, sometimes a contrary effect to that intended, persuading many of them that getting where they want to go must be even more worthwhile if those that are already there protect their position and wealth so ruthlessly.

Of course, UK policy on these matters is also increasingly driven by a desire to pander to false backwards-looking isolationism, egged on not just by populist individuals even further to the right but by both Brexit-supporting mainstream Westminster parties.

The current UK approach has failed to separate out, in the public mind and in some of its actions, the issue of asylum – the provision of a safe place for those who are in genuine and sustained fear of persecution – from that of immigration.

Essentially, it wants to put up the barriers to both and has deliberately added to the mix European freedom of movement which has little to do with it.

Establishing clear, well-understood and legal routes for those seeking asylum and for those who wish to migrate for economic, social and personal reasons would be at least a partial answer though it would take considerable time to spread that message to key countries around the world.

In order to take that step, there needs first to be a clear and accepted ethical basis for the policy. That is unlikely to emerge in the current state of UK politics but establishing and then building on that basis is what an independent Scotland would have to do very quickly as it moved onto the European and world stage.

Fortunately, the basic elements are already to hand.

Rereading the immigration and asylum section of Scotland’s Future, the still impressive independence White Paper published back in November 2013, it’s striking that whilst the context has changed, there is a tangible determination to welcome those who want to come to work and live in Scotland and a strong commitment to human rights, equality and – pay attention, Mr Gullis – to the rule of law for all involved, including asylum seekers who would be looked after by a distinct and separate asylum agency.

No country can have an entirely open door but lending a helping hand to those who desperately need it would never be rejected by Scotland.

Accepting that, as a small country with a falling population, we need immigration for economic reasons should also be easy for us.

Scotland’s Future was a prospectus for its time.

Those times have changed, in some if not all respects.

Nonetheless, its vision – in whole and part – of an independent Scotland is grounded in an ethical approach, treating not just all Scotland’s citizens fairly, but also those who do us the honour of wanting to choose this country as their home.

That must be how we react to a world which is currently so harsh to so many and why we must forcibly reject those who would make it harsher and harder still.