The Reform UK figurehead spoke to the largest the party's rally so far in Scotland, however declined to speak with local journalists following the event. Instead, newly defected peer the former Conservative donor took on the task of field questions on allegations of racism and antisemitism surrounding the party leader.
A High-Profile Defection
The leader presented the ex-Tory lord and wealthy businessman at a sold-out rally of about 700 supporters in a hotel venue near Falkirk. Offord, who served as a junior minister for Scotland under the last government and most recently served as treasurer of the Scottish Conservatives, announced his intention 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 described the switch as “a brave and historic act”.
Dodging the Press
Farage spoke to the crowd following a difficult period which saw him launch a fierce criticism of the broadcaster for questioning him regarding a report into alleged racist and antisemitic behaviour from his teenage years. But, Farage dodged a planned media briefing after Saturday’s event.
When asked why Farage was not available to answer mounting allegations about his past behaviour, the new recruit responded: “You’ll need to ask him that question.”
Pressed on whether he believed Farage should apologise for his alleged remarks about Jewish students, 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. During his speech, the leader had reiterated on his remarks 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 Farage’s original remarks as “discriminatory”, and the Labour leader called them “harmful and polarising”, Offord maintained that Farage 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 each paid £6 to attend, highlights Reform's increasing self-assurance ahead of the Scottish vote.
Although the Scottish National Party remains ahead, the party has made substantial progress recently, securing 26% of the vote in its first Holyrood byelection test. Following Scottish Labour's decline, the party has often relegated it to third lately, polling up to 22%.
Announcing that party membership north of the border had increased fourfold in the past year to a running total of 12,000, the party chair, David Bull stated his belief it could win around twenty parliamentary seats in May, putting the party in “a very strong position” at Holyrood.
Fighting Talk
A Reform councillor, 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 “prepare for a fight” as we take on the political establishment”, cautioning that “the coming campaign will be difficult”.
Despite not yet publishing a distinct policy platform for Scotland, representatives vowed the party would “confront climate activists and those profiting from green policies”.
Farage himself expressed his pleasure at Reform's rise as a significant player in Scottish politics over the past 12 months, admitting to the audience that in previous years he had been warned he “couldn't fill a small venue”.
Protests Nearby
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.
A group coordinating protests stated they were motivated by a criminal case involving an asylum seeker. In an interview, Scotland's leader cautioned that the tactic of the far-right is to apportion the blame … 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 “legitimate points” about strain on public services or community safety.
