Protesters poised to target Nigel Farage's visit to Scotland
The Reform UK leader is planning to hit the campaign trail in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election next week – but will be given an 'anti-racist welcome' by campaigners.
A group chat has been created to coordinate the protest, given that the exact date and location for his visit is not yet known.
The chat, which was set up by Stand Up to Racism and has 11 members, features the following description: 'Nigel Farage is claiming that he intends to come up to Scotland to campaign in the upcoming Hamilton, Larkhill [sic] and Stonehouse MSP by-election despite last year telling us that coming to Scotland was 'unsafe' for him.
READ MORE: Stand-off breaks out between pro-trans activists and police
'Let's use this group to make sure that once we know when and where Farage plans to come and visit, we're able to arrange the sort of anti-racist welcome he deserves!'
Farage's visit will be his first north of the Border since he attended a campaign event for the Brexit Party in 2019.
His visit to Edinburgh in 2013 descended into chaos after the former Ukip leader had to take refuge in a pub in the Royal Mile after he was protested by independence supporters.
The Reform MP had to be rescued by police in a riot van.
Other campaign visits have posed difficulties for Farage. In last year's election campaign, OnlyFans model Victoria Thomas Bowen threw a milkshake over his head as he left a Wetherspoon pub in Clacton-on-Sea, Essex.
Farage would go on to win the seat while Thomas Bowen was later handed a £600 fine and a 120 community service order but dodged jail.
He also had a milkshake thrown at him during a campaign visit to Newcastle upon Tyne in May 2019.
READ MORE: UK government 'insisted' on intervening in Gaza genocide row at Scottish university
Police had asked a McDonald's in Edinburgh not to sell milkshakes when Farage was in the city that year, which prompted Burger King to tweet: 'Dear people of Scotland. We're selling milkshakes all weekend.'
The fast food chain was rapped by the Advertising Standards Authority for the post, which the organisation said was 'irresponsible'.
The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election is seen as a three-way race between the SNP, who are defending the seat after the death of incumbent Christina McKelvie, Scottish Labour and Reform UK.
Reform UK were approached for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: After by-election win Labour needs to sell message of positive change
Labour's surprise win in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election had readers talking Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, 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... Reform UK's 26 per cent vote share at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election is a warning that the populist party with a toxic ideology can make inroads in next year's Holyrood election. Political expert Sir John Curtice estimates Nigel Farage's party could come third, with 18 seats, based on recent polling (your report, 2 June). He said Reform's success is 'very bad news' for the Tories who polled just 6 per cent at the by-election. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Unfounded remarks by Farage about Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar allegedly favouring the Pakistani community were condemned as racist by all major parties in Scotland apart from the Tories, who remain toothless against a party that has overtaken them in the polls and threatens to render them obsolete. The recent resignation of Bellshill-born Reform party chairman Zia Yusuf, after its newest MP suggested the banning of the burka, is a blow to Farage. This follows Reform's controversial views on banning asylum seekers from Reform-held councils, an unworkable net zero migration policy and the recent comments against Mr Sarwar. Scottish Labour Deputy leader Jackie Ballie, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar and Davy Russell, newly elected Scottish Labour MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse yesterday (Picture: Jeff) Reform has no place in Scottish democracy as it is difficult to justify any support for a party with outdated views on multiculturalism and climate change. Labour must show that Hamilton was not a blip to defeat two decades of failed SNP policies and the toxic politics of Reform. Voters are more likely to engage if there is tangible hope of positive change. Neil Anderson, Edinburgh Counting chickens? While Labour's victory in the Hamilton by-election on Thursday seemingly points to the party winning the Scottish Parliament elections next year, if I were Anas Sarwar I wouldn't be sizing up the curtains of Bute House just yet. The seat was won comfortably by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021 and is just the sort of seat Labour needs to win if Sarwar is to become Scotland's next First Minister. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The SNP has made little progress in restoring its fortunes following its heavy defeat in last summer's Westminster election, with polls suggesting the party's support across Scotland is still 15 points down on its tally in 2021. In the event, the fall in the party's support in Hamilton was, at 17 points, just a little higher than that. However, Labour's own tally was also down by two points on its vote in 2021, when overall the party came a disappointing third. That drop was very much in line with recent polling, which puts the party at just 19 per cent across Scotland as a whole, while the SNP has around a third of the vote. In addition, Labour is losing somewhere between one in six and one in five of its voters to Reform since last year's election. After nearly two decades in the political wilderness, there is little sign that Labour, as it currently stands, is set to regain the reins of power at Holyrood. Alex Orr, Edinburgh Real winner After all the hype by First Minister John Swinney talking up Reform and ignoring Labour it was obviously a tactic by the SNP to try and salvage a win in Hamilton. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Similarly, despite a dreadful campaign by Labour, voting SNP was simply not an option for many on the left. In comes the real winner, Reform UK, with a spectacular vote from a near nil base. Mr Swinney has unleashed a force that will do real damage in the 2026 Holyrood election. The SNP has proved itself too self-congratulatory too many times. Eighteen years of misrule cannot be rewarded by another term in office. All bets are off as to the make-up of Holyrood in 2026. The SNP is tired, Labour has yet to prove itself effective, Reform UK has the bit between its teeth and the Tories might yet recover. A year is a long time in politics. Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Swinney must go The loss of the Hamilton by-election to the risibly inept 'Scottish' Labour – a party so devoid of ideas it could barely muster a coherent manifesto – is not merely a setback. It is a catastrophe of the SNP's own making. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This was an entirely avoidable humiliation. Instead of seizing the moment – with independence support now at a formidable 54 per cent in a Norstat poll – John Swinney chose to dither. His response? A pledge to wait until 75 per cent of Scots beg for freedom before lifting a finger. When Keir Starmer declared he would block any independence referendum, Swinney's silence was deafening. Not a word of defiance, not a hint of resistance to the colonial farce of Section 30. Instead, he opted to align with Labour – a party whose sole distinction from Reform is a marginally more polished veneer of hypocrisy. Both are unionist to the core, united in their mission to siphon Scotland's wealth southward while offering nothing but condescension in return. The campaign itself was a masterclass in misdirection. Rather than rallying the independence movement with a bold vision, Swinney fixated on Reform – as if thwarting Nigel Farage's band of reactionary clowns was the defining struggle of Scottish nationalism. The result? A muddled, defensive mess that left voters uninspired and Labour undeservedly triumphant. The truth is stark: the SNP has no plan for independence. No strategy beyond grovelling to Westminster for permission to hold a vote – a humiliation masquerading as diplomacy. It is a spectacle so pitiful it verges on self-parody. Swinney must go. Not with a whimper, but with the swift, decisive exit his failures demand. The independence movement deserves leaders who grasp that freedom is seized, not negotiated – and who possess the courage to act accordingly. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Until then, the SNP's decline will continue, and Scotland's potential will remain shackled by the timid and the unimaginative. Alan Hinnrichs, Dundee Let teachers teach As a retired primary teacher who worked for 40 years in primary education, I think there is a simple solution to the 'excessive workload'. Stop expecting detailed forward plans, lesson plans and reviews of the same and let teachers teach instead of being overburdened with paperwork for the sake of accountability. The Curriculum for Excellence has a lot to answer for. It was what changed things so drastically and made teaching so much more stressful. When I began teaching in the 1970s, teachers completed a Record of Work every two weeks. This showed the work that had been completed in all the subjects taught in the primary curriculum in the previous two weeks. From there the progress that was made was clear and any teacher taking over the class (say as sickness cover) knew what was being taught. This was not as detailed as the Forward Plan which replaced it, but it was a clear record, in one slim book, of what had been achieved over the school year. Pupils' work was marked daily and preparations for next day made daily. The pupils left literate and numerate and, for the most part, behaved responsibly. Forty years later we were required to make a 'Forward Plan' for each subject for the term ahead and then assessed as to how we felt it had been achieved before writing the next Forward Plan! A daily diary of the plan for each day was also required. This was to be written up for the week so any teacher could take over. This was detailed to show subject, aims and objectives. On top of this there was, of course, the marking and noting of any problems and collecting materials for the next day's work. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the last year or so of my career we had a school inspection. The HMI 'dropped in' to observe one of my lessons and said at the end, 'That was an excellent lesson, but I'm afraid I cannot grade you on it as you didn't have a detailed lesson plan'. My reply was that I had never written a full lesson plan for any lesson since graduating from Callendar Park teacher training college. If teachers are allowed to teach without all the emphasis on accountability their workload would be greatly reduced and they could enjoy working with their pupils and seeing them love to learn, as I did at the start of my career. Barbara Wilson, Edinburgh Cringe no more I must disagree with Alexander McKay, and by extension, Billy Connolly, on the charge that the Scottish Parliament is 'pretendy' (Letters, 6 June). Far from it. Rather, it brings democracy and answerability to our doorstep. If the Scottish Parliament were pretendy, the Westminster Parliament is undoubtedly toxic. Politicians of the calibre of Mhairi Black and Stephen Flynn, disillusioned with Westminster, are seriously thinking of transferring their allegiance. Scotland struggled long and hard to achieve a Scottish Parliament in 1999, with the likes of Donald Dewar, Winnie Ewing, David Steel and Alex Salmond playing leading roles. Hopefully, Holyrood is here to stay, and grow in stature and personnel, with more and Parliamentarians choosing to be MSPs rather than MPs. Let's hear no more of the infamous 'Scottish cringe'. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh On the buses Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Andrew Clark, who expressed absolute dismay over bus lanes (Letters, 5 June), got the wrong end of the stick. Bus priority lanes are not, in the first instance, about reducing pollution, but about minimising congestion for those who are prepared to travel together. And to encourage people to do so, buses need to be able to progress reliably, especially on the main arteries. Cars have a vastly disproportionate footprint compared to buses. Bus lanes go some way towards reallocating the communal road space more fairly. Harald Tobermann, Chair, Edinburgh Bus Users Group Write to The Scotsman
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
All change after Hamilton – but not perhaps in the way you expect
To elect is, literally, to choose. And people in this by-election have chosen, narrowly, to put their faith in Labour's Davy Russell, who fought a doorstep campaign, remote from media concerns. This was the change contest. Understandably pleased, the Prime Minister hailed a 'fantastic victory' for Labour – before adding that 'people in Scotland had once again voted for change.' Read more Brian Taylor I think that is true but I suspect it may not be quite the change advanced by Sir Keir Starmer. I understand his perspective. He is seeking to fit Hamilton into the wider Starmer narrative. You will recall that, at the July UK General Election, Sir Keir repeatedly offered 'change'. His aim was to gain from the discontent – no, the loathing – which had attached itself to the Conservatives. To posit Labour as the remedy, without being all that specific about details. So, with these comments on Hamilton, he is seeking to suggest that Davy Russell's victory is, in some way, continuity: an endorsement of the approach pursued by his government. To repeat, I understand his motivation in so doing. But I am certain that this is awry. You have only to listen to senior figures from Scottish Labour to grasp that Hamilton disquiet was aimed at incumbency. The SNP at Holyrood, yes. But also Labour at Westminster. Broadcasting to an astonished nation on the wireless, I was most struck by Labour MSP Paul Sweeney who disclosed candidly that he had experienced 'pretty grim conversations' with voters. Despite those doorstep difficulties, Labour contrived to oust the defending SNP. Incidentally, only the third time the incumbents have lost in the twelve Holyrood by-elections which have taken place since devolution. But Labour's Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, knows this fell far short of an enthusiastic vote of confidence. He knows people want much more from Team Starmer. He knows they are upset over the economy and benefit curbs. Still, that Labour victory does represent change. The ousting of the SNP. Which itself demands a further change. John Swinney acknowledged as much at his news conference. His party, he said, had made some progress – but not enough. The aim now must be to address the priorities of the people, specifically the cost of living and NHS waiting times. He was accused by Labour's Anas Sarwar of seeking to drive voters towards Reform UK. Again an understandable point, but not entirely valid. Certainly, Mr Swinney suggested that the by-election was a two-horse race between the SNP and Nigel Farage's party. In so doing, he was seeking to polarise the contest, to pitch his party as the ones to stop the seemingly resurgent Reform, aware that Labour had comfortably outpolled the SNP at the UK election last year. Sir Keir Starmer is keen to tie the by-election into a wider story about Labour (Image: free) It was, in short, a strategy rather than a forecast. Nevertheless, the SNP came up short – and a degree of humility can now be expected from the First Minister. So he too must change the SNP formula. To a substantial degree, he already has, concentrating upon popular priorities such as the NHS, while sidelining issues such as gender. Some within the SNP may question Mr Swinney's own judgement. I suspect, however, that the majority will back his determination to focus firmly upon the economy and public service delivery. If there was even a fragment of complacency in the SNP leadership, it has been utterly expunged by Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Might this result also sideline the issue of independence, as the campaign group Scotland in Union suggest? Not in those terms. John Swinney will continue to pitch independence as a solution to persistent problems. But I expect he will primarily concentrate upon the problems themselves. Listening, in short, to voters. That emphasis may further disadvantage the Tories who tend to do well at Holyrood when they can depict themselves as the stalwart defenders of a threatened union. However, there are other changes to consider. Labour's vote is well down on the UK General Election in this area and on their by-election showing in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Folk are scunnered with the SNP. But they are also unhappy with the PM and the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves. If she doubts that, perhaps she could have a word with her Commons aide, Imogen Walker. The MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley. So Anas Sarwar will pursue a twin strategy. Gently, diplomatically urging his Westminster colleagues to pursue policies which palpably help voters. While at the same time offering to change the government at Holyrood. Pitching himself as the sole contender to oust Mr Swinney. Seeking to marginalise rivals. Another change is the emergence of Reform. They came a creditable third, consigning the Tories to a whimpering fourth. Indeed, they got a higher percentage in this area than the Tories have historically managed. A sign perhaps that Reform can appeal to a wider range of voters, also eating into Labour and SNP support. Read more But will that endure? Or will Reform fall back again, perhaps beset by the internal divisions which emerged sharply on polling day itself when their chairman, Scots-born Zia Yousuf, resigned? On quitting, he said that he no longer wished to devote his time to installing Nigel Farage in Downing Street. He was also less than delighted with the new Reform MP Sarah Pochin who said in the Commons that the burka should be banned. However, the Tories are not exactly exempt from internal division, at Westminster and Holyrood. They must simply strive to recover from this by-election nadir – and hope that Reform will subside. Does this by-election change expectations of the Holyrood outcome next year? In itself, no. It tells us that voters are scunnered. But then you already knew that. It tells us that folk want and expect change. They want an easing of this age of anxiety. But then you knew that too. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Britain is Scottish: a truth from history that's still true today
A couple of examples. James Boswell's diaries for Sunday 21 November 1762 describe his meeting with a fellow Scot Walter Macfarlane who was 'keenly interested in the reigning contests between Scots & English'. Boswell says this of Macfarlane: 'He talked much against the Union. He said we were perfect underlings, that our riches were carried out of the country and that many others were hurt by it.' Switch the date from 1762 to 2025 and some of the language but not much of it, and this is very familiar stuff. Another example. There's been a bit of a fad of late for books about James VI, focusing mostly on what his sexuality might have been, but I quite enjoyed The Wisest Fool by Steven Veerapen and, as with Boswell, there are striking familiarities with now. In the bookstalls of London and Edinburgh in the early years of James's reign, there were pamphlets explaining why unionism was a wonderful idea and pamphlets explaining why unionism was a terrible idea. There were also Brexit-style arguments over what kind of union Scotland and England should have; was the best idea some kind of loose federation or should the countries go for a much closer, Wales-style deal instead? So ancient, so modern. On top of all that, there's now a new piece of work that suggests a more surprising historic take on the relationship between Scotland and Britain. It's by the Glasgow University Professor Dauvit Broun and it concludes that medieval Scottish historians and scholars regarded the Scottish kingdom as equivalent to Britain; Britain as fundamentally Scottish in fact. 'Scotland as Britain can be detected quite clearly in histories of the Scottish kingdom written in Latin and read by Scots between the 1380s and 1520s,' says the professor. Professor Broun says this idea of Britain as fundamentally Scottish will be provocative in today's polarised debates about national identity and I can see what he means. There are some Scots today who think one of the big problems in the debate about national identity is that there are English people who project their sense of nationhood on to Scotland, do not appear to respect the separate Scottish identity, or actually conflate England and Britain. I don't think this happens as much as we think, but when it does, it's irritating. Read more However, what makes the idea of the English projecting their sense of nationhood onto Scotland more interesting is Professor Broun's idea that it's happened the other way around as well and there are Scots who conflated Britain and Scotland. The professor quotes John Mair, sometimes called the father of Scottish unionism, and says Mair's vision was essentially of a Scottish kingdom expanded to include England. Mair assumed a Scottish king would come to rule Britain which is indeed what happened in the end. As we know, the king that did it, James VI and I, was certainly of the Better Together persuasion; 'this kingdom was divided into seven little kingdoms,' he said in an address to parliament, 'Is it not the stronger by their union?' But a Scottish king projecting his sense of self, and nation, and union, onto England wasn't the beginning or the end of it. Indeed, the extent of the Scottish projection or influence on England and the UK makes me wonder how surprising and provocative the idea of Britain as Scottish really is. It seems to me that it still underlines the way the United Kingdom works. Britain was Scottish and still is. Obviously, England remains the dominant partner constitutionally and politically, but even politically Britain has often been Scottish. One of the history books I've opened recently is The Wild Men by my former colleague David Torrance, which relates how Scottish the first Labour government was, but it's continued ever since with Scots often at the top of British government, and not always when it's Labour in power. The history books also tell us it was bigger than that: much of the British Empire is covered with Scottish fingerprints so not only is Britain Scottish, the British Empire is Scottish too. James VI and I (Image: Free) The signs of Scotland as Britain are more permanent as well; they're built in stone. I did a walk round Glasgow recently with Colin Drysdale, the author of Glasgow Uncovered, a book on the city's architecture, and many of the architects we talked about went way beyond Scotland and had a massive influence on England and Britain too. John James Burnet, for example, designed Glasgow's Charing Cross Mansions and lots of other fine buildings in the city. But he also worked on British icons like Selfridges and the British Museum. Visit London and look at the buildings and a lot of what you're looking at is Scottish. The projection of Scotland onto Britain is everywhere else as well, once you start to look for it. Business and trade (the vast majority of our exports are to England). Population: there are more Scots living in England than there are in any single Scottish city. And music, culture, the arts, food, drink, technology. And Lulu of course. All of it, as well as our influence on politics and government – and a Royal family that's arguably more Scottish than English – says to me that the idea of Britain as Scotland is not surprising at all. Professor Broun says it raises fundamental questions about the nature of British identity, so let me suggest an answer. The concept of Britain as Scottish isn't a distant idea in the minds of medieval scholars. It still exists, it's still real, and it's still proving how interconnected we are. And of course, it raises the eternal question, the one that bugged us then and bugs us now: how much would it cost to unravel it all?
