Nigel Farage addressed the largest Reform UK rally so far in Scotland, however declined to speak with local journalists afterwards. In his place, newly defected peer the former Conservative donor took on the task of responding to queries on claims of discriminatory behaviour and anti-Jewish sentiment surrounding Farage.
A High-Profile Defection
Farage introduced the former Conservative peer and wealthy businessman at a packed event of roughly seven hundred attendees in a hotel venue near Falkirk. Offord, who served as a junior minister for Scotland in the previous administration and was until recently treasurer of the Scottish Conservatives, announced his intention to relinquish his seat in the Lords in order to stand for the party in next May’s Holyrood elections.
Farage said he was “extremely pleased” to welcome Offord to the party. He called the peer’s defection as “a courageous and significant move”.
Dodging the Press
Farage addressed the rally after a turbulent week which included him delivering a tirade against the BBC after they quizzed him regarding a report into alleged racist and remarks from his teenage years. But, Farage dodged the expected press huddle after Saturday’s event.
Questioned why Farage was not available to answer mounting allegations concerning his history, the new recruit responded: “That is a question for him to answer.”
Challenged about whether he believed Farage should apologise for his alleged remarks towards Jewish pupils, Offord said: “That is a matter for him to deliberate on with his team.”
Insisting on Fitness
The peer maintained that Farage was “morally fit” to be the country's leader and rejected claims of dog-whistle politics. During his speech, Farage had doubled down on his remarks about pupils in Glasgow who are not native English speakers by posing the question to the crowd: “Who voted for the wholesale change of the population of Glasgow?”
Although Scotland's First Minister criticised Farage’s original remarks as “discriminatory”, and Keir Starmer called them “toxic and divisive”, Offord maintained that his new leader 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 largely male, white and middle-aged supporters who each paid £6 to attend, showcases Reform's increasing self-assurance ahead of the Scottish vote.
Although the SNP continues to lead in the polls, the party has made substantial progress in the past year, achieving a quarter of the vote in its first Holyrood byelection test. Following Scottish Labour's decline, the party has often relegated it to third in recent months, polling up to 22%.
Declaring that Reform UK membership in Scotland had quadrupled over the last twelve months to a running total of 12,000, a senior party official said he believed it could gain up to 20 MSPs in May, putting the party in “a powerful situation” at Holyrood.
Campaign Rhetoric
Thomas Kerr, a local representative for the party, 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 next five months will be tough”.
Despite not yet publishing any Scotland-specific policies, representatives pledged Reform would “take on the green blob and the net-zero grifters”.
The leader personally expressed his pleasure at Reform's rise as a significant player in Scottish politics in the last year, admitting to the audience that he was once told he “couldn't fill a small venue”.
Local Context
Meanwhile, a few miles west in Falkirk town centre, demonstrators with opposing views were gathering for what have become regular weekly confrontations outside a local hotel where asylum seekers are now housed.
A group coordinating protests said it was galvanised by a serious local crime. Speaking previously, Scotland's leader warned that the tactic of the far-right is to apportion the blame … to asylum seekers or migrants and I think that is the root of the poison”.
He also made a clear distinction extremist opinions and people with “valid concerns” about pressure on local services or community safety.
