Reform has landed in Scotland
Yet again a Scottish by-election has kicked the political establishment in the shins. Yes, in Scotland, after 18 years in power, the SNP is currently the political establishment and its defeat at the hands of Labour with a 602 vote majority – and Reform UK close behind in third place by just 869 – votes demonstrates the disruptors are making an impact.
Labour's unexpected and narrow victory makes it clear the SNP is likely to struggle to form a Government when the full Holyrood election is held next May. That election will be held under a proportional voting system which, were Reform UK to poll anything like the 26.1 per cent achieved in Hamilton by its candidate Ross Lambie, could give the party a healthy group of MSPs in the mid-twenties and possibly make them king-makers.
For the Conservatives, the evening was bad but not quite as embarrassing as they privately feared. Polling only 1621 votes, Tory sighs of relief were audible from Gretna to John O'Groats once they realised their vote share was 6 per cent, saving a lost deposit had it fallen to below 5 per cent.
Still, it remains impossible to say if the Conservatives have yet bottomed out. Tory candidates face being squeezed across Scotland from all ends by the other pro-UK parties so long as regaining trust with voters remains the Conservatives' biggest challenge.
Despite the best efforts of Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay providing more focussed stewardship, the Conservatives still risk falling below their worst ever Holyrood vote in 2011 when Annabel Goldie's campaign achieved only 12.4 per cent.
The SNP leadership will need to look hard at their strategy of building up Reform as a 'far right' bogeyman and talking-up the prospect of a two-horse race between the SNP and Reform. The First Minster, John Swinney, had suggested the only way to stop Reform was for Labour voters to get behind the SNP; he begged them from the pages of a Labour-supporting tabloid to come over to the nationalists.
Instead of reducing Labour's support by this tactical ploy, he received a stinging political slap in the face as his pleas only served to give Reform credibility as a serious challenger while Labour activists flooded the constituency on the last day to get their vote out.
What is also clear from the by-election is that making out Nigel Farage as a vote loser in Scotland does not hold water. The same used to be said about Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson, but the truth is there has always been a Scottish market for big personalities that parties of the Left have sought to demonise.
Photos of the Clacton MP were all over the Reform UK's publicity materials, and he was regularly promoted via social media – and did the unthinkable of visiting the constituency during the campaign. Yes, he's a marmite figure, but he's been a marmite figure for much of his political life in most of England too, and now has the best ratings of all the party leaders.
After the initial realisation during polling day that they simply did not have the shoe leather on the ground to push for second place, Reform UK's supporters quickly realised they had actually achieved an amazing result. Their candidate, Ross Lambie, had polled 7,088 – which next to Labour's 8,599 and the SNP's 7,957 resulted in a highly creditable three-way fight. Coming from only 7.8 per cent in the Hamilton and Clyde Valley Westminster constituency boundary at last year's general election to achieve 26.1 per cent this time round is a very strong showing. Reform UK has landed in Scotland.
Brian Monteith is a former member of the Scottish and European parliaments
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Herald's Unspun Live heads to the Edinburgh Festival Fringe
The future of Scotland will take centre stage at this year's Edinburgh Festival Fringe, as The Herald's flagship politics podcast hosts a series of live conversations with the country's political leaders. The new show — Unspun Live at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe — runs from 4–7 August at Summerhall's Dissection Room, featuring a different high-profile guest each evening. Across four nights, audiences will hear from First Minister John Swinney, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes, and Britain's leading polling expert, Professor Sir John Curtice. Tickets are available now — click here to book your place at Unspun Live. These discussions will move beyond the usual political talking points, exploring the personal motivations, challenges and life experiences that shape Scotland's most influential figures. Professor Sir John Curtice and guestsThe series opens on 4 August with Professor Sir John Curtice, who will be joined by special guests to take the political temperature of the nation and analyse the trends influencing the next Holyrood election. Click here to buy tickets to Unspun Live with John Curtice and guests John Swinney (Image: Gordon Terris) On 5 August, John Swinney will make a rare festival appearance. He will be interviewed by The Herald's Brian Taylor — the legendary former political editor of BBC Scotland, who has been covering the First Minister for more than 25 years. The SNP leader will reflect on his first year leading the Scottish Government, the challenges facing his party and the country, and share a personal perspective on leadership and life in high office. Click here to buy tickets for Unspun Live with John Swinney Anas Sarwar reading The Herald (Image: Gordon Terris) On 6 August, attention turns to the opposition. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar will discuss one of the most dramatic years in his party's recent history. Buoyed by a strong performance at Thursday's by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, his appearance comes at a pivotal moment in his campaign to lead the next Scottish Government. Click here to buy tickets for Unspun Live with Anas Sarwar Kate Forbes speaking to The Herald (Image: Colin Mearns) Closing the series on 7 August is Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes. A former SNP leadership contender and key figure in the Cabinet, she will offer insights into the Government's economic priorities — and reflect on her political journey to date. Click here to buy tickets for Unspun Live with Kate Forbes Each Unspun Live session will be hosted by journalists and columnists from The Herald. The events will combine political analysis with personal storytelling, offering audiences a rare chance to engage with both the public views and private reflections of Scotland's leading politicians. Audience members will also be invited to put their questions directly to the guests, ensuring a two-way conversation about Scotland's political direction — and the people behind the headlines. Catherine Salmond, Editor of The Herald, said: 'We are delighted to bring the world's longest-running national newspaper into the heart of the world's largest arts festival. 'As Scotland faces a pivotal election in 2026, there is real value in having these conversations live on stage — where our readers and the wider public can engage directly with the people shaping our country's future. 'For those with a serious interest in Scottish politics, The Herald remains an essential read, combining authoritative coverage with unparalleled access to the key players and issues that matter. 'It is all part of our commitment to fostering understanding and informed debate — ensuring Scots have access to the insight they need, whether in our pages or face to face.' Click here to book your tickets now via the Summerhall box office.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
Russia is at war with Britain, the US is no longer a reliable ally and the UK has to respond by becoming more cohesive and more resilient, according to one of the three authors of the strategic defence review. Fiona Hill, from County Durham, became the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term and contributed to the British government's strategy. She made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian. 'We're in pretty big trouble,' Hill said, describing the UK's geopolitical situation as caught between 'the rock' of Vladimir Putin's Russia and 'the hard place' of Donald Trump's increasingly unpredictable US. Hill, 59, is perhaps the best known of the reviewers appointed by Labour, alongside Lord Robertson, a former Nato secretary general, and the retired general Sir Richard Barrons. She said she was happy to take on the role because it was 'such a major pivot point in global affairs'. She remains a dual national after living in the US for more than 30 years. 'Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't fully anticipated,' Hill said, arguing that Putin saw the Ukraine war as a starting point to Moscow becoming 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. As part of that long-term effort, Russia was already 'menacing the UK in various different ways,' she said, citing 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber-attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they're putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.' The conclusion, Hill said, was that 'Russia is at war with us'. The foreign policy expert, a longtime Russia watcher, said she had first made a similar warning in 2015, in a revised version of a book she wrote about the Russian president with Clifford Gaddy, reflecting on the invasion and annexation of Crimea. 'We said Putin had declared war on the west,' she said. At the time, other experts disagreed, but Hill said events since had demonstrated 'he obviously had, and we haven't been paying attention to it'. The Russian leader, she argues, sees the fight in Ukraine as 'part of a proxy war with the United States; that's how he has persuaded China, North Korea and Iran to join in'. Putin believed that Ukraine had already been decoupled from the US relationship, Hill said, because 'Trump really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment'. When it came to defence, however, she said the UK could not rely on the military umbrella of the US as during the cold war and in the generation that followed, at least 'not in the way that we did before'. In her description, the UK 'is having to manage its number one ally', though the challenge is not to overreact because 'you don't want to have a rupture'. This way of thinking appears in the defence review published earlier this week, which says 'the UK's longstanding assumptions about global power balances and structures are no longer certain' – a rare acknowledgment in a British government document of how far and how fast Trumpism is affecting foreign policy certainties. The review team reported to Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and the defence secretary, John Healey. Most of Hill's interaction were with Healey, however, and she said she had met the prime minister only once – describing him as 'pretty charming … in a proper and correct way' and as 'having read all the papers'. Hill was not drawn on whether she had advised Starmer or Healey on how to deal with Donald Trump, saying instead: 'The advice I would give is the same I would give in a public setting.' She said simply that the Trump White House 'is not an administration, it is a court' in which a transactional president is driven by his 'own desires and interests, and who listens often to the last person he talks to'. She added that unlike his close circle, Trump had 'a special affinity for the UK' based partly on his own family ties (his mother came from the Hebridean island of Lewis, emigrating to New York aged 18) and an admiration for the royal family, particularly the late queen. 'He talked endlessly about that,' she said. On the other hand, Hill is no fan of the populist right administration in the White House and worries it could come to Britain if 'the same culture wars' are allowed to develop with the encouragement of Republicans from the US. She noted that Reform UK had won a string of council elections last month, including in her native Durham, and that the party's leader, Nigel Farage, wanted to emulate some of the aggressive efforts to restructure government led by Elon Musk's 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) before his falling-out with Trump. 'When Nigel Farage says he wants to do a Doge against the local county council, he should come over here [to the US] and see what kind of impact that has,' she said. 'This is going to be the largest layoffs in US history happening all at once, much bigger than hits to steelworks and coalmines.' Hill's argument is that in a time of profound uncertainty, Britain needs greater internal cohesion if it is to protect itself. 'We can't rely exclusively on anyone any more,' she said, arguing that Britain needed to have 'a different mindset' based as much on traditional defence as on social resilience. Some of that, Hill said, was about a greater recognition of the level of external threat and initiatives for greater integration, by teaching first aid in schools or encouraging more teenagers to join school cadet forces, a recommendation of the defence review. 'What you need to do is get people engaged in all kinds of different ways in support of their communities,' she said. Hill said she saw that deindustrialisation and a rise of inequality in Russia and the US had contributed to the rise in national populism in both countries. Politicians in Britain, or elsewhere, 'have to be much more creative and engage people where they are at' as part of a 'national effort', she said. If this seems far away from a conventional view of defence, that's because it is, though Hill also argues that traditional conceptions of war are changing as technology evolves and with it what makes a potent force. 'People keep saying the British army has the smallest number of troops since the Napoleonic era. Why is the Napoleonic era relevant? Or that we have fewer ships than the time of Charles II. The metrics are all off here,' she said. 'The Ukrainians are fighting with drones. Even though they have no navy, they sank a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet.' Her aim, therefore, is not just to be critical but to propose solutions. Hill recalled that a close family friend, on hearing that she had taken on the defence review, had told her: ''Don't tell us how shite we are, tell us what we can do, how we can fix things.' People understand that we have a problem and that the world has changed.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
