Nigel Farage spoke to the largest Reform UK public meeting so far in Scotland, but avoided engaging with the press corps following the event. Instead, newly defected member of the House of Lords Malcolm Offord was left to field questions on allegations of racism and anti-Jewish sentiment surrounding Farage.
A High-Profile Defection
Farage introduced the former Conservative peer and millionaire donor during a packed event of roughly seven hundred attendees at a hotel conference centre in central Scotland. Offord, who served as a junior minister for Scotland under the last government and most recently served as treasurer of the Scottish Conservatives, announced his intention to give up his peerage in order to stand for the party in next May’s Holyrood elections.
The leader stated he was “delighted” to welcome Offord to the party. He called the peer’s defection as “a brave and historic act”.
Dodging the Press
Farage spoke to the crowd following a difficult period which included him delivering a tirade against the BBC after they quizzed him regarding a report into claimed discriminatory and remarks as a youth. But, Farage dodged a planned media briefing after Saturday’s event.
When asked why his new party’s leader did not make himself available to answer mounting allegations concerning his history, the new recruit responded: “That is a question for him to answer.”
Pressed on if he thought an apology was necessary for his alleged remarks towards Jewish pupils, Offord said: “That is a matter for him to deliberate on with his team.”
Defending the Leader
The peer maintained that the leader is “ethically suitable” to be prime minister and denied he was employing dog-whistle politics. While addressing supporters, the leader had reiterated on his remarks about pupils in Glasgow who speak English as a second language by asking the rally: “Who voted for the wholesale change of the population of Glasgow?”
Although the first minister, John Swinney condemned the initial comments as “discriminatory”, and Keir Starmer called them “toxic and divisive”, Offord maintained that his new leader was “highlighting a factual issue that “voters are discussing”.
A Party on the Rise
The rally, filled with an energetic and enthused crowd of predominantly older, white male backers who bought tickets for the event, showcases Reform's increasing self-assurance before next May’s elections.
While the Scottish National Party remains ahead, Reform UK has gained significant ground in the past year, achieving a quarter of the vote in its first Holyrood byelection test. After the collapse in support for Scottish Labour, the party has often relegated it to third lately, polling up to 22%.
Declaring that party membership north of the border had increased fourfold in the past year to a running total of 12,000, a senior party official said he believed it could gain up to 20 MSPs in May, which would place Reform in “a very strong position” at Holyrood.
Fighting Talk
Thomas Kerr, a local representative for the party, prompted a roar of approval as he described Farage as “Britain’s next prime minister”. He told supporters to “prepare for a fight” as we “challenge the ruling class”, cautioning that “the coming campaign will be difficult”.
Despite not yet publishing any Scotland-specific policies, speakers from the north-east vowed the party would “confront climate activists and those profiting from green policies”.
Farage himself underlined his delight at the party’s emergence as a force in Scottish politics over the past 12 months, confessing to supporters that he was once told he “wouldn’t get 20 people in a room”.
Local Context
Meanwhile, not far away in the heart of Falkirk, anti-immigration and anti-racist protesters were gathering for what have become regular weekly confrontations outside a local hotel used to accommodate asylum seekers.
A group coordinating protests said it was galvanised by a serious local crime. In an interview, Scotland's leader warned that “what the far right do is to assign responsibility … to asylum seekers or migrants and I think that is the source of a harmful narrative”.
However, he differentiated extremist opinions and people with “legitimate points” about pressure on local services or community safety.
