Nigel Farage spoke to the largest Reform UK public meeting so far in Scotland, but declined to speak with local journalists afterwards. In his place, recently switched peer Malcolm Offord was left to responding to queries on claims of discriminatory behaviour and antisemitism linked to Farage.
A High-Profile Defection
The leader presented the ex-Tory lord and millionaire donor at a sold-out rally of roughly seven hundred supporters in a hotel venue in central Scotland. Offord, who served as a junior minister for Scotland under the last government and was until recently treasurer of the Scottish Conservatives, announced his intention to give up his peerage in order to stand for the party in the upcoming Scottish parliament vote.
The leader stated he was “extremely pleased” to greet Offord to the party. He described the switch as “a brave and historic act”.
Dodging the Press
Farage addressed the rally after a turbulent week which saw him launch a tirade against the BBC for questioning him about an investigation into claimed discriminatory and remarks from his teenage years. But, the leader avoided a planned media briefing after Saturday’s event.
Questioned why his new party’s leader was not available to address growing claims concerning his history, Offord said: “That is a question for him to answer.”
Pressed on whether he believed 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.”
Insisting on Fitness
Offord insisted that Farage was “ethically suitable” to be the country's leader and denied he was employing dog-whistle politics. While addressing supporters, the leader had reiterated on previous comments 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 criticised the initial comments as “racist”, and Keir Starmer labeled them “harmful and polarising”, Offord maintained that his new leader was “highlighting a factual issue that “voters are discussing”.
Growing Confidence
The event, attended by an energetic and enthused crowd of predominantly older, white male backers who bought tickets for the event, showcases the party’s growing confidence ahead of the Scottish vote.
While the SNP continues to lead in the polls, Reform UK has gained significant ground in the past year, securing 26% of the vote in a recent parliamentary by-election. Following Scottish Labour's decline, the party has often relegated it to third in recent months, with support reaching over a fifth.
Declaring that party membership north of the border had increased fourfold in the past year to 12,000 members, a senior party official stated his belief it could win around twenty parliamentary seats in May, putting the party in “a very strong position” at Holyrood.
Campaign Rhetoric
Thomas Kerr, one of Reform’s 19 Scottish councillors, prompted a roar of approval as he referred to the leader as “the future PM of the UK”. He instructed the crowd to “prepare for a fight” as we “challenge the ruling class”, warning that “the coming campaign will be difficult”.
Although the party has yet to produce a distinct policy platform for Scotland, speakers from the north-east pledged Reform 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 in the last year, admitting to the audience that he was once told he “couldn't fill a small venue”.
Protests Nearby
As the event was taking place, a few miles west in Falkirk town centre, demonstrators with opposing views were gathering 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 criminal case involving an asylum seeker. Speaking previously, Scotland's leader cautioned that the tactic of the far-right is to assign responsibility … to asylum seekers or migrants and I think that is the source of a harmful narrative”.
He also made a clear distinction extremist opinions and people with “valid concerns” about strain on public services or neighbourhood security.
