Nigel Farage spoke to the biggest Reform UK rally held in Scotland to date, but avoided engaging with local journalists afterwards. Instead, newly defected peer Malcolm Offord took on the task of field questions on claims of discriminatory behaviour and antisemitism linked to Farage.
A High-Profile Defection
Farage introduced the former Conservative peer and wealthy businessman at a packed event of about 700 attendees in a hotel venue near Falkirk. The businessman, who worked as a Scotland Office minister under the last government and was until recently the Scottish Tory party's chief financial officer, stated his plan to give up his peerage in order to become a candidate for Reform UK in next May’s Holyrood elections.
Farage said he was “delighted” to greet the new member. He called the peer’s defection as “a brave and historic act”.
Avoiding Media Scrutiny
Farage addressed the rally following a difficult period which saw him launch a fierce criticism of the broadcaster for questioning him regarding a report into claimed discriminatory and remarks as a youth. But, Farage dodged the expected press huddle post-rally.
Questioned why Farage was not available to answer mounting allegations about his past behaviour, Offord said: “That is a question for him to answer.”
Challenged about whether he believed an apology was necessary for his alleged remarks about Jewish students, he stated: “I think that’s something he’ll need to consider with his own advisers.”
Insisting on Fitness
The peer maintained that the leader is “morally fit” to be prime minister and rejected claims of dog-whistle politics. While addressing supporters, Farage had doubled down on previous comments about pupils in Glasgow who speak English as a second language by posing the question to the crowd: “Who authorised the complete transformation of Glasgow's demographics?”
Although the first minister, John Swinney criticised Farage’s original remarks as “discriminatory”, and Keir Starmer labeled them “harmful and polarising”, Offord maintained that Farage was “drawing attention to a real concern” that people are talking about on the doorstep”.
Growing Confidence
The rally, attended by an energetic and enthused crowd of largely male, white and middle-aged supporters who bought tickets for the event, showcases the party’s growing confidence before next May’s elections.
While the Scottish National Party remains ahead, Reform UK has gained significant ground recently, 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 in recent months, 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, the party chair, David Bull said he believed it could win around twenty parliamentary seats in May, which would place Reform in “a powerful situation” in the Scottish Parliament.
Fighting Talk
Thomas Kerr, one of Reform’s 19 Scottish councillors, elicited loud cheers as he described Farage as “the future PM of the UK”. He instructed the crowd to “man the barricades as we “challenge the ruling class”, cautioning that “the coming campaign will be difficult”.
Although the party has yet to produce any Scotland-specific policies, representatives pledged Reform would “confront climate activists and those profiting from green policies”.
Farage himself expressed his pleasure at the party’s emergence as a force in the political scene in Scotland in the last year, 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, demonstrators with opposing views assembled for what have become regular weekly confrontations near a hotel where asylum seekers are now housed.
The organisers of the demonstrations said it was galvanised by a criminal case involving an asylum seeker. In an interview, Scotland's leader warned that “what the far right do is to assign responsibility … to new arrivals and I think that is the source of a harmful narrative”.
He also made a clear distinction between those who hold far-right views and people with “valid concerns” about strain on public services or neighbourhood security.
