The Reform UK figurehead addressed the biggest the party's public meeting held in Scotland to date, however declined to speak with local journalists following the event. In his place, recently switched peer Malcolm Offord was left to field questions on claims of discriminatory behaviour and antisemitism linked to the party leader.
A High-Profile Defection
The leader presented the former Conservative peer and millionaire donor at a packed event of roughly seven hundred attendees in a hotel venue near Falkirk. The businessman, who worked as a Scotland Office minister under the last government and was until recently treasurer of the Scottish Conservatives, stated his plan to give up his peerage in order to stand for Reform UK in next May’s Holyrood elections.
Farage said he was “extremely pleased” to greet the new member. He called the peer’s defection as “a courageous and significant move”.
Avoiding Media Scrutiny
Farage addressed the rally after a turbulent week which saw him launch a fierce criticism of the broadcaster after they quizzed him regarding a report into alleged racist and antisemitic behaviour as a youth. But, Farage dodged the expected press huddle post-rally.
When asked why his new party’s leader was not available to address growing claims concerning his history, Offord said: “You’ll need to ask him that question.”
Pressed on if he thought Farage should apologise for his alleged remarks towards Jewish pupils, Offord said: “That is a matter for him to deliberate on with his team.”
Defending the Leader
Offord insisted that Farage was “ethically suitable” to be prime minister and denied he was employing dog-whistle politics. During his speech, the leader had reiterated on previous comments 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?”
Although the first minister, John Swinney condemned the initial comments as “racist”, and the Labour leader labeled them “toxic and divisive”, the defector argued that Farage was “drawing attention to a real concern” that people are talking about on the doorstep”.
A Party on the Rise
The rally, filled with an energetic and enthused crowd of predominantly older, white male backers who each paid £6 to attend, showcases Reform's increasing self-assurance before next May’s elections.
While the SNP continues to lead in the polls, the party has gained significant ground in the past year, achieving a quarter of the vote in a recent parliamentary by-election. After the collapse in support for Scottish Labour, Reform has regularly pushed it into third place in recent months, with support reaching over a fifth.
Announcing that party membership north of the border had increased fourfold over the last twelve months to 12,000 members, a senior party official said he believed it could win around twenty parliamentary seats in May, which would place Reform in “a very strong position” at Holyrood.
Campaign Rhetoric
Thomas Kerr, a local representative for the party, prompted a roar of approval as he described Farage as “the future PM of the UK”. He told supporters to “prepare for a fight” as we “challenge the ruling class”, warning that “the coming campaign will be difficult”.
Despite not yet publishing any Scotland-specific policies, speakers from the north-east vowed the party would “take on the green blob and the net-zero grifters”.
Farage himself underlined his delight at the party’s emergence as a force in Scottish politics over the past 12 months, admitting to the audience that he was once told he “couldn't fill a small venue”.
Local Context
Meanwhile, not far away in Falkirk town centre, anti-immigration and anti-racist protesters assembled for what have become regular weekly confrontations outside a local hotel used to accommodate asylum seekers.
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”.
However, he differentiated between those who hold far-right views and people with “valid concerns” about strain on public services or neighbourhood security.
