Can Reform win big in Scotland? The establishment is terrified

Something that the progressive Left always feared but never took very seriously seems to have happened: the accusation of 'racist' has lost much of its power to silence opponents.
Take Scotland. There has been an avalanche of media and political condemnation, bordering on hysteria, against Nigel Farage and the prospect that his party, Reform UK, will do well in this week's by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. The First Minister himself, John Swinney, used the R-word to describe Farage at an election rally at the weekend. But to what effect?
Yesterday, Swinney's predecessor as first minister, Humza Yousaf, took to the stage at an event organised by Stand Up To Racism to inform us that Scotland, on whose behalf Yousaf claimed to be speaking, does not welcome Farage or his party.
We'll discover the truth of this assertion when the votes are counted on Thursday, but all the polling and anecdotal evidence from the campaign trail suggests that at least a significant proportion of this decidedly working-class constituency does not share Yousaf's views.
Worryingly for the main parties, recent front page splashes by Scottish tabloids and dire warnings of Scotland being engulfed in the shadow of 1930s Germany seem to be having far less of an impact than what might have been the case in days gone by.
That is not to say that Scots in west central Scotland are relaxed about the arrival of a 'far-Right' party in the Scottish Parliament and in town halls, or the consequences of that party's policies on race relations. It's more that they seem to have grown somewhat cynical about repeated cries of 'Wolf!' and the subsequent non-appearance of said sheep-bothering predator.
After decades in which ordinary people across the country were warned that criticising high levels of immigration was the equivalent of goose-stepping along Nuremberg High Street, such colourful 'lessons from history' are taken significantly less seriously than in the past. Partly this is down to fascism fatigue: when everyone to the Right of Ed Miliband is a fascist, then no one is.
And when commonly held opinions on immigration or gender ideology are considered by many to define the new fascism, the best response is to accept the new definition with a resigned sigh and get on with your life.
Commentators often seek answers as to the perceived increase in the kind of political disillusion that has led to the relative success of Reform UK in recent opinion polls: they should look no further than how the definition of 'far-Right' has shifted in the last few decades, from violent bullying of political opponents and the subversion of democratic norms, to believing that you cannot change your biological sex.
Much, though not all, of these culture war shenanigans have penetrated the previously comfortable political settlement in Scotland, where anything outside centre-Left opinion, as represented by the SNP, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, is seen as beyond the pale.
The Scottish Conservatives are tolerated at Holyrood because they have never seriously challenged for office, nor are ever likely to, and they provide a handy contrast by which for lazy progressives can signal their many virtues.
It's a cosy consensus just waiting to be blown apart, and Reform UK may be just about to do that. It was arrogant – but expected – for Yousaf to declare that Farage is unwelcome in Scotland. And of course, as has happened south of the border, all this attention given to Reform by politicians who sound increasingly desperate in their shrill warnings has done little to deter voters from supporting this most disruptive of new political forces.
Has it ever occurred to the leaders of the SNP and Scottish Labour, I wonder, if they might consider their own policy and rhetorical failures as part of the reason that disgruntled voters might be turning to Reform? Rather than hosting 'anti-Right-wing summits' to warn poor, stupid, ignorant voters of the drawbacks of Farage and his party, might it be appropriate to try to recapture those voters' support by addressing their priorities?
For some grandstanding MSPs and MPs, the rise of Reform is an excellent opportunity to remind voters which side they would have been on at Cable Street, even if the natural response to such assertions is: 'And?'
And so a political class that already stands accused of forgetting how to talk like ordinary voters, who are no longer seen as concerned with the public's priorities, are compounding their mistakes by using hysterical language about a party that many Scots – by no means a majority or even a plurality, it has to be pointed out – might be considering flirting with at the ballot box.
No one can say with any confidence who will win the Hamilton by-election on Thursday, although if I had to place hard-earned money on the outcome I'd say the SNP followed by Reform in second place.
It could be any other combination of the leading three parties on the night. The point is that, at least for now, Reform is one of those leading parties, and I would caution any politician who, in Thursday's aftermath, might feel attempted to accuse local voters of racism or support for fascism.
Worried politicians of the establishment parties love to attribute the rise of Reform to either the devilishly populist and dishonest rhetorical skills of Farage himself or to the ignorance of voters who never got a university degree, and are therefore uniquely vulnerable to Reform's message.
Perhaps there needs to be an injection of honesty: the culprit who is guilty of the disillusion that has led to a public appetite for new solutions, new language and perhaps a new party, is staring back at them from their own mirrors.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

The assisted dying debate has been politics – but not as we know it

The House of Commons is a place defined by confrontation where political battles play out and engage more actively with their constituents. But the atmosphere could not have been more different on Friday, as those on both sides of the assisted dying debate listened respectfully, almost solemnly, to one another in the final hours before . As MPs headed for the division lobbies, the bill's supporters seemed confident but nervous. Read more: When the voting was completed and the result imminent, a long and profound silence fell over the House. From the press gallery, it seemed that the entire Commons was holding its breath together, collectively aware of the historic moment we were all about to witness, whatever the outcome. The woman at the centre of this seismic moment, the bill's sponsor Kim Leadbeater, braced herself as the result came in. Many months of pressure and responsibility appeared to be lifted from her shoulders as the win was announced and colleagues gathered to commend her efforts. Throughout the process this been politics but not as we know it, with party divisions put aside and MPs asked to search their own consciences and come to their own conclusions. It has created a more collaborative atmosphere in parliament and encouraged MPs to engage more actively with their constituents. In the end there was still anger, frustration and disappointment among those who were against the law change, either on principle or because they believed the legislation was flawed. And of course, politics will go back to being combative and voices in the Commons will be raised once again. But for a brief period, historic change was calmly ushered in. The challenge for the proponents now is to take the legislation through the next phases and deliver it with the same smoothness and determination.

Boston Globe

3 hours ago

• Boston Globe

UK lawmakers approve assisted-dying law

Advertisement 'I do not underestimate the significance of this day,' Kim Leadbeater, a Labour Party lawmaker and main champion of the bill, said Friday as she opened the debate. 'This is not a choice for living and dying. It is a choice for terminally ill people about how they die.' While assisted dying is illegal in most countries, a growing number of nations and jurisdictions have adopted legislation or are considering it. In England and Wales, assisting a death remains illegal and punishable by up to 14 years in prison. A poll published this week found that 73 percent of Britons backed the assisted-dying bill. While lawmakers voted in favor of the bill in November, at an earlier stage in the legislative process, uncertainty lingered ahead of Friday's vote. Hundreds of demonstrators on both sides gathered outside Parliament. Some carried placards that read, 'Let Us Choose.' Others held signs saying, 'Don't make doctors killers.' Advertisement Many of those who spoke during the debate shared personal stories. Mark Garnier, a Conservative Party politician, spoke about witnessing the dying days of his mother, who had pancreatic cancer and endured a 'huge amount of pain.' Garnier compared her ordeal to that of a constituent who also had pancreatic cancer but went through a state-provided assisted-dying program in Spain that made her 'suffering much less.' Josh Babarinde, a Liberal Democrat, read out a letter from a constituent traumatized by the death of her partner, who struggled to breathe, was incontinent, and repeatedly asked for her help to end his life. He then 'stuffed yards of his top sheet into his mouth' in an attempt to die,' Babarinde said, adding: 'This could have been avoided with an assisted-dying' law. Support for the measure ebbed in recent months, with a handful of politicians saying that they were going to switch their vote due to concerns about inadequate safeguards or insufficient end-of-life care. Steve Darling, a Liberal Democrat, told The Washington Post that while he was 'sympathetic' to the bill, he had changed his view because of 'inadequate' palliative care funding, which in Britain depends heavily on charitable donations. 'People might think, 'I could bite the bullet and get out of this situation because I'm not receiving a service that gives me a decent quality of life toward the end,'' Darling said. Others who said they agreed with the principle of letting people choose to die but could not back the bill included Labour member Vicky Foxcroft, who cited her work with disabled people. 'They want us as parliamentarians to assist them to live, not to die,' Foxcroft told Parliament. Advertisement The issue remains divisive even within parties. Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, whose departments will each be impacted if the change becomes law, both opposed the bill. Prime Minister Keir Starmer made it clear that he supports the measure, citing his experience as the country's former chief prosecutor. Over the past two decades, more than 3,900 Britons have ended their lives with the Switzerland-based organization Dignitas. A few people who helped them were investigated or arrested. The vote Friday was a free vote, meaning that lawmakers could decide based on their own conscience rather than along party lines. It was the second time this week that Parliament held a free vote, which is often allowed on issues of ethics or conscience. Earlier this week, lawmakers voted in favor of decriminalizing abortion in England and Wales. One major revision to the bill in recent months was to eliminate the need for approval from a high court judge. No other country or jurisdiction with legalized assisted dying has that kind of stringent judicial oversight, and it was initially sold to some wavering lawmakers as a reason to back the bill. That requirement was dropped in favor of a three-person expert panel — a lawyer, social worker, and psychiatrist — that will oversee applications. Leadbeater said this would make the bill stronger, as members of the panel would have more relevant expertise and would be better able to spot red flags. Spain uses a similar kind of expert panel. Some professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, remain neutral on the principle of assisted dying but opposed the legislation as written. Their concerns included the shortage of qualified staff for the expert panels. Advertisement The government's own 'impact assessment' found that the law could lead to 7,500 requests a year within a decade. Some campaigners had hoped for greater eligibility, to include patients experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement, or allowing a doctor to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs. This bill allows assisted dying only for terminally ill patients who can administer the medication themselves. Speaking in Parliament, Peter Prinsley, a Labour lawmaker, said that 'as a young doctor, I found the measures that we're debating today completely unconscionable.' However, he added, 'now that I'm an old doctor, I feel sure this is an essential change.' 'We are not dealing with life or death, rather death or death,' Prinsley said. 'And fundamental to that is surely choice. Who are we to deny that to the dying?'

Yahoo

5 hours ago

• Yahoo

Two Middle East-related protests to be held in central London on Saturday

Protesters are set to rally at two high-profile demonstrations in central London on Saturday over flaring conflicts in the Middle East, the Metropolitan Police said. A protest organised by groups under the Palestine Coalition banner will gather in Russell Square from 12pm, before marching to Whitehall via Aldwych and the Strand for an assembly outside Downing Street. Former Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and musician Paloma Faith are among those set to give speeches at the assembly. Meanwhile, a static counter-protest organised by pro-Israeli group Stop The Hate will be held at the same time just north of Waterloo Bridge at the junction with the Strand. The group said it would meet at the location from 12.30pm onwards. Police have set out conditions for the first protest under the Public Order Act which demands that any person taking part in the procession must remain within Russell Square ahead of the protest and must not deviate from its specified route. Demonstrators must then stay in a specified part of Whitehall for the assembly, which must finish by 5.30pm, the force said. The Palestine Coalition is comprised of a number of different groups, including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and Stop The War. Stop The War said in an advertisement for the event on its website: 'Israel's attacks on Gaza and the West Bank are intensifying. Their starvation policy continues. And now Israel attacks on Iran seem intended to lead us into a full-scale war in the Middle East. 'The UK Government has at last accepted that Israel's actions in Gaza are unconscionable. Now they must act – words are not enough.' Discussions are ongoing regarding possible conditions for the Stop The Hate protest, the Met said. In a post on X, Stop The Hate said: 'Our families in Israel are under attack: standing bravely in the face of threats and ballistic missiles, whilst the people of Iran are bravely facing down their totalitarian government — now it's our turn to stand proudly in solidarity with them.' The demonstrations come after reports on Friday that the Home Secretary will ban Palestine Action after the group vandalised two aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action, after footage posted online showed two people inside the RAF base, with one appearing to spray paint into an aircraft's jet engine. PSC described the move on social media as 'outrageous', while the Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomed the news, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.'