Former Tory MP Ross Thomson joins Reform
His move comes after Thomas Kerr, the former leader of the Scottish Tories on Glasgow City Council, defected to Reform in January.
On the move to Reform, Mr Thomson, who was MP for Aberdeen South from 2017 to 2019, said: "I am pleased to confirm that I have joined Reform UK.
"Only Reform UK have the courage to take on, and the answers to, the big issues facing the North East, Scotland and the United Kingdom.
READ MORE:
"Nigel Farage leads with conviction, courage, and above all, he listens. He is the only national leader who understands the serious challenges facing the North East of Scotland — and what it will take to make our region thrive again.
"Only Reform UK is standing up for our oil and gas industry that has been betrayed by all the establishment parties. The Conservatives introduced the Windfall Tax. Now Labour are doubling down and the SNP cheered them on.
"The fishing industry has been similarly sold out. Fishermen have been treated as expendable by Labour, Conservative and the SNP politicians for too long. Only Reform will fight to ensure our waters remain ours — and our fishermen get the support they need to thrive.
"In the North East, as in the rest of Scotland, it is now Reform UK that is best placed, and strong enough, to defeat the SNP and finally rid us of this rotten, divisive SNP government that has failed us all.
"Reform UK is the no nonsense, common sense, voice Scotland needs. To sort a broken Holyrood system that's in desperate need of change. Scotland needs Reform. That is why I am proud to be part of it."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Number of Brits who see US as a global threat doubles since Donald Trump came to power
The number of Britons who see the US as a serious threat to global security has skyrocketed since Donald Trump entered the White House in January, new research shows. Even before the president bombed Iran at the weekend, almost three quarters of those asked — 72 per cent — named the US as a threat to world peace in the next decade. Researchers said the figure, which has doubled since last autumn, when it was just 36 per cent, was an 'all time high'. And it rivals China, on 69 per cent, Israel, on 73 per cent, and North Korea, on 77 per cent, although the highest was Russia on 90 per cent. In recent months, Trump has alarmed the international community on a number of occassions, including when he raised doubts about his willingness to defend European countries and when held a televised showdown with Ukrainian President Zelensky in the Oval Office. The latest British Social Attitudes (BSA) report, by the National Centre for Social Research, shows fears over the US' role in the world is split along political party lines. Labour and Green supporters are more likely — by 81 and 96 per cent — than those who back the Conservatives or Reform UK — 68 and 41 per cent — to consider the US a serious threat. The survey also shows that increased public concern over potential threats has led to a significant increase in support for defence spending. Almost one in ten — 9 per cent — believe defence should be the top priority for extra government spending, the highest figure ever recorded in the survey. Again, however, there are marked differences by party, with Conservative and Reform supporters more likely to be in favour than those who back Labour or the Greens. Gianfranco Addario, research director at the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), told The Independent the research did not go into the reasons why those who took part believe the US to be a significant threat, but said 'that would be very interesting to explore'. He added: 'The escalation of recent international conflicts is clearly reflected in the attitudes of the British population, who have never been so supportive of military spending and so concerned about serious security threats since the British Social Attitudes survey first addressed the subject in 1985. 'Perception of the US as a security threat has increased since the 2024 presidential elections and the first 100 days of the Trump administration, reaching an all-time high. 'The Labour government's approach to addressing these concerns, particularly in navigating internal party divisions while aligning with public sentiment, will be crucial in determining its success in managing the country's security and defence policies.' The British Social Attitudes survey has been conducted every year since 1983.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
A chance to reform public services: can we get it right this time?
The autumn political conference season in the year before an election is always one to watch. It's when near-final manifesto pledges — focus-grouped and thrashed out over the summer — are given a public airing to see how they fare against the prevailing mood. Crucially, it also gives parties time to finesse or abandon them altogether if the response is less than enthusiastic. By the time spring conference season rolls around, campaigning is in full swing and everything becomes about the pitch to voters. This autumn's season will arguably be one of the most significant in the post-devolution era. Current polling points to a much broader split in representation at Holyrood in 2026 than we've seen before, and there's a growing sense that every vote is up for grabs. The public mood increasingly demands action over loyalty — something we haven't seen for quite some time. Read more by Calum Steele As things stand, the SNP is still on course to be the largest party at Holyrood, albeit a much-diminished force compared to its 2011 peak. Labour — still a long way off the halcyon days when they boasted of weighing the vote rather than counting it — will be buoyed by their recent success in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, and are starting to believe they're no longer just there to make up the numbers. Meanwhile, the emergence of Reform will almost certainly see the new kid on the block hosting its own conference, creating a dilemma for many organisations and businesses now furiously debating the optics of attending — and how such a move might be perceived. However it's sliced and diced, the very nature of devolved politics leaves little room for genuine originality. With the overwhelming majority of the Scottish budget directed straight into public services — and with increasing welfare responsibilities now falling to Holyrood — tinkering at the edges is all we're likely to see in reality. That's not to say we won't hear grandiose pronouncements about changing how 'we' do things. (No one wants to use the word 'reform' any more, lest it boost the algorithms that propel Farage's party further into public consciousness.) This probably explains why the Christie Commission of 2011 seems to have been dusted off and turned into a talking point again in recent weeks. As far as aspiration goes, the Christie Commission is right up there. In fact, I can't think of a single person I've met who disagrees with its principles. Christie rightly identified massive inefficiencies in public service delivery and emphasised the need to shift spending away from ever-growing demand and towards preventing that demand in the first place. Few disagreed on the what — the how was never addressed. The First Minister has already cited the creation of Police Scotland as an example of the kind of reform Christie inspired. This is, of course, as politically courageous a claim as it is an inaccurate one — police reform was already well under way before Christie was even established. But it illustrates just how far apart political interpretations of 'successful reform' are from public perceptions. It also assumes the public has forgotten what that reform was actually supposed to deliver. When Alex Salmond ran the temperature check on a single Scottish police service at the SNP conference in October 2010, he declared: 'If it comes down to a choice between cops and bureaucracy, between bobbies on the beat and the boundaries of police authorities, then with me it's simple — it's policemen first — safety first — communities first — bobbies before boundaries.' John Swinney is right that £200 million has been cut from the annual cost of policing, but beyond saving money, police reform brought leadership chaos, consecutive years of accounting failures and bailouts, catastrophic headlines, and several years of political pain — before finally settling into a model that delivers a much-diminished quality of service across the country, far removed from how it was sold. John Swinney (Image: PA) It's inevitable that this summer recess will see parties of all stripes grappling with questions of structural reform — particularly across local authorities and health boards. How these deliberations manifest at the conference lecterns later this year will largely determine the direction of travel for the post-2026 parliament. Structural reform holds many appeals for politicians. They look at the number of chief executives and the size of management teams replicating much of the same functions and see easy wins in cutting their number. They'll claim procurement benefits and economies of scale, while ignoring the chaos increased centralisation always causes — simply hoping that service improvement will follow. The Police Scotland experience suggests those hopes would be very misplaced indeed, as new, more expensive bureaucracies emerge to replace old ones, and those actually delivering services are jettisoned to make way for shiny new corporate functions measuring them. We can debate whether Christie failed because it was designed for an ideal world rather than the real one, or whether Christie was failed by the very institutions it aimed to inspire — who simply ignored it and carried on as before. Either way, it has not delivered the outcomes that the fanfare surrounding its publication promised. The reasons for that are not structural. Almost all of them come down to failures in leadership — and unless politicians are prepared to tackle that problem, the only thing that will change is that our public services will become centralised beasts, even further removed from the communities they are meant to serve. The fall out from that would be a price no government could survive. Calum Steele is a former General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, and former general secretary of the International Council of Police Representative Associations. He remains an advisor to both
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Labour prospects of 10th councillor at by-election look slim
At the moment Labour heads a coalition administration in the City Chambers despite only having nine councillors in its group The electorate of Fountainbridge/Craiglockhart will have the opportunity tomorrow to elect a councillor to fill the vacancy brought about by the untimely death of the sitting Labour Councillor, Val Walker. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... However, Labour's prospects of filling the vacant position are in some doubt to say the least. Last time around in May 2022, the Conservative candidate Christopher Cowdy came first in the Single Transferable Vote election and the Tories are confident that their candidate in the current contest will do likewise. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad At the moment Labour forms the administration up in the High Street despite only having nine councillors in its group. Edinburgh City Council is comprised of 63 councillors and after tomorrow's election that number will be restored, but Labour, unfortunately for them, are unlikely to increase their number to ten. Of course, it is remarkable that they form the administration in the first place and only do so with the support of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative groups who banded together to thwart the aspirations of the SNP/Greens who had the combined total of 29 councillors, just three short of an outright majority. The SNP and Greens assumed that they, and not Labour, would form the administration – with some justification I might add. So why did the Liberal Democrats and the Tories decide to use their combined forces to catapult Labour into power and block the SNP's bid for the spoils? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It has been said that both those parties are 'Unionist' and so would naturally want to limit to the role of a party of 'Independence' to that of a by-stander but there would seem to be more to it than that. After all, when I was fortunate to lead the SNP group in the City Chambers, I successfully negotiated coalition deals with first the Liberal Democrats in 2007 and then Labour in 2012, with both coalitions lasting their full term of five years. So it would appear that the reluctance to allow the SNP to run the council along with the Greens was borne out of resentment at the way they were treated by the SNP when it formed the previous administration with the Labour Group. Accusations of arrogance and failure to consider proposals from others were cited as examples of how some SNP members in that particular administration dealt with members from other groups and the Liberal Democrats and Tories did not fancy more of the same, thank you very much. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So, the outcome of tomorrow's by-election will have no bearing on who runs the council because that ship has already sailed and the only way that it can be sunk is if the Labour Group scuttle it by so incensing their two political allies, the Lib Dems and the Tories, to the extent that they jump ship. Even the current Labour group, inexperienced as it is, surely cannot be so foolish as to jeopardise its position – after all the opportunity to run a council with nine members out of a total of 63 doesn't land in your lap every day!
