Nigel Farage addressed the biggest Reform UK public meeting held in Scotland to date, but avoided engaging with local journalists following the event. In his place, recently switched member of the House of Lords Malcolm Offord was left to field questions on allegations of racism and antisemitism surrounding the party leader.
A High-Profile Defection
Farage introduced the former Conservative peer and millionaire donor during a packed event of about 700 supporters in a hotel venue near Falkirk. Offord, who served as a junior minister for Scotland in the previous administration and most recently served as treasurer of the Scottish Conservatives, stated his plan to give up his peerage in order to become a candidate for Reform UK in the upcoming Scottish parliament vote.
The leader stated he was “extremely pleased” to greet the new member. He described the switch as “a courageous and significant move”.
Avoiding Media Scrutiny
Farage spoke to the crowd after a turbulent week which saw him launch a fierce criticism of the broadcaster after they quizzed him about an investigation into claimed discriminatory and remarks as a youth. But, Farage dodged a planned media briefing post-rally.
Questioned why his new party’s leader did not make himself available to address growing claims about his past behaviour, Offord said: “You’ll need to ask him that question.”
Challenged about if he thought an apology was necessary for his alleged remarks towards Jewish pupils, he stated: “I think that’s something he’ll need to consider with his own advisers.”
Insisting on Fitness
Offord insisted that the leader is “morally fit” to be prime minister and denied he was employing dog-whistle politics. During his speech, Farage had doubled down on his remarks about pupils in Glasgow who are not native English speakers by asking the rally: “Who voted for the wholesale change of the population of Glasgow?”
While the first minister, John Swinney criticised the initial comments as “discriminatory”, and the Labour leader called them “harmful and polarising”, the defector argued that his new leader was “drawing attention to a real concern” that people are talking about on the doorstep”.
Growing Confidence
The event, attended by an lively and passionate audience of largely male, white and middle-aged supporters who each paid £6 to attend, highlights the party’s growing confidence ahead of the Scottish vote.
Although the Scottish National Party remains ahead, Reform UK has gained significant ground in the past year, securing 26% 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 Reform UK membership in Scotland had quadrupled in the past year to 12,000 members, the party chair, David Bull stated his belief it could win around twenty parliamentary seats in May, which would place Reform in “a powerful situation” at Holyrood.
Campaign Rhetoric
Thomas Kerr, one of Reform’s 19 Scottish councillors, prompted a roar of approval as he described Farage as “the future PM of the UK”. He instructed the crowd to “man the barricades as we take on the political establishment”, warning that “the next five months will be tough”.
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 the political scene in Scotland over the past 12 months, confessing to supporters that he was once told he “wouldn’t get 20 people in a room”.
Protests Nearby
Meanwhile, a few miles west in the heart of Falkirk, anti-immigration and anti-racist protesters assembled for a now-regular weekly standoff near a hotel used to accommodate asylum seekers.
The organisers of the demonstrations said it was galvanised by a serious local crime. In an interview, Scotland's leader cautioned that “what the far right do is to apportion the blame … 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.
