Nigel Farage addressed the biggest Reform UK public meeting held in Scotland to date, however avoided engaging with local journalists following the event. Instead, newly defected peer Malcolm Offord took on the task of field questions on allegations of racism and anti-Jewish sentiment linked to Farage.
A High-Profile Defection
The leader presented the former Conservative peer and wealthy businessman at a packed event of about 700 supporters in a hotel venue near Falkirk. The businessman, who worked as a junior minister for Scotland under the last government 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 the party in next May’s Holyrood elections.
Farage said he was “extremely pleased” to greet Offord to the party. He called the peer’s defection as “a courageous and significant move”.
Avoiding Media Scrutiny
The Reform leader addressed the rally 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 the expected press huddle post-rally.
Questioned why Farage was not available to address growing claims about his past behaviour, Offord said: “You’ll need to ask him that question.”
Pressed on whether he believed an apology was necessary for his alleged remarks about Jewish students, he stated: “That is a matter for him to deliberate on with his team.”
Defending the Leader
Offord insisted that Farage was “ethically suitable” to be the country's leader and denied he was employing dog-whistle politics. During his speech, Farage had doubled down on previous comments about the number of Glasgow schoolchildren who are not native English speakers by posing the question to the crowd: “Who authorised the complete transformation of Glasgow's demographics?”
Although the first minister, John Swinney condemned the initial comments as “discriminatory”, and Keir Starmer labeled them “toxic and divisive”, 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 rally, attended by an lively and passionate audience of predominantly older, white male backers who each paid £6 to attend, highlights the party’s growing confidence ahead of the Scottish vote.
While the Scottish National Party remains ahead, 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, Reform has regularly pushed it into third place lately, polling up to 22%.
Declaring that party membership north of the border had quadrupled over the last twelve months to a running total of 12,000, the party chair, David Bull stated his belief it could gain up to 20 MSPs in May, putting the party in “a powerful situation” in the Scottish Parliament.
Campaign Rhetoric
Thomas Kerr, one of Reform’s 19 Scottish councillors, elicited loud cheers as he described Farage as “Britain’s next prime minister”. He told supporters to “prepare for a fight” as we take on the political establishment”, warning that “the next five months will be tough”.
Despite not yet publishing a distinct policy platform for Scotland, representatives pledged Reform would “take on the green blob and the net-zero grifters”.
Farage himself underlined his delight at Reform's rise as a significant player in Scottish politics in the last year, confessing to supporters that he was once told he “couldn't fill a small venue”.
Protests Nearby
Meanwhile, not far away in Falkirk town centre, demonstrators with opposing views assembled for a now-regular weekly standoff near a hotel where asylum seekers are now housed.
A group coordinating protests said it was galvanised by a serious local crime. In an interview, Scotland's leader warned 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 between those who hold far-right views and people with “valid concerns” about strain on public services or community safety.
