The rising right-wing party recorded its highest-ever level of support in a Scottish poll, a worrying sign for the traditional parties. A shock Survation poll back in March put Reform in third place, ahead of the Scottish Tories but behind the SNP and Labour.

The bombshell poll predicted that, if levels of support remain the same over the next year, Reform would win 17% of the constituency vote, and 16% on the regional list – a form of proportional representation in Holyrood – which would ensure the party won a number of seats north of the border in the 2026 crunch vote.

The First Minister then accused Mr Findlay of “searching for reasons not to take part”. He said: “The gathering is an opportunity for Scotland to unite behind the common principle that far-right and racist hatred should have no place in Scotland and to agree a common approach to asserting Scotland’s shared values and creating a cohesive society where everyone feels at home.

Defending his decision not to attend, Mr Findlay said a summit was not necessary to agree “racist hatred should have no place in Scotland”, adding: “It is disappointing that you have failed to address my reasonable requests, which are to stop seeking to split up our country, stop pushing gender self-ID policies and give a commitment to being transparent and truthful with the Scottish public.

“These are consistent with your summit’s stated purpose of tackling ‘polarising forces’ in politics. If you wish to unite the country, you should begin by addressing these concerns, which the majority of people across Scotland share.

“As you are not prepared to do that, I am therefore left to conclude that this summit is designed to deflect attention from your party’s dismal record and for these reasons I will not be able to attend.”

Desperate SNP Begs Tories to Attend Summit to Help Put a Stop to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK

Desperate SNP Begs Tories to Attend Summit to Help Put a Stop to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK

The Scottish National Party’s efforts to bring political opponents together to challenge the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK have exposed growing tensions across Scotland’s political landscape. With the SNP concerned about Reform’s growing appeal among voters, First Minister John Swinney has sought to build a broader response involving parties and organisations that do not always agree on the country’s future.

The initiative has prompted questions about whether Scotland’s established political parties can work together when faced with a common electoral challenge. It has also created an uncomfortable dilemma for the Conservatives, whose disagreements with the SNP over independence, taxation and the future of the United Kingdom remain profound.

For Farage and his supporters, the dispute offers an opportunity to portray the political establishment as increasingly concerned about Reform’s prospects. For the SNP, the challenge is to demonstrate that it can respond to changing voter attitudes without allowing its opposition to Reform to overshadow its own policies.

At the centre of the controversy is a fundamental question: should political parties cooperate to oppose a rival they consider dangerous, or should they compete directly for voters and allow the electorate to decide?

Why the SNP wants a united response

The SNP has long dominated Scottish politics, particularly since the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014. However, its position has faced increasing pressure from political rivals, public dissatisfaction and questions about the performance of the Scottish Government.

Reform UK’s attempt to establish itself as a significant force in Scotland presents an additional challenge. The party has sought to appeal to voters who are dissatisfied with established political organisations and who want a tougher approach to immigration, government spending and public services.

That message could reach voters who previously supported different parties, including Labour, the Conservatives and the SNP.

For Swinney, the prospect of Reform gaining influence creates a political problem that cannot be addressed simply by criticising Farage. The SNP must also persuade voters that its own policies offer a convincing alternative.

The summit initiative reflects the belief that political leaders, civic organisations and other participants should discuss how to respond to what the SNP regards as the growth of far-right politics.

Yet the proposal also carries risks. If the meeting is perceived primarily as an attempt to isolate Reform rather than address voters’ concerns, it could reinforce the party’s claim that established institutions are working together against it.

That is a difficult balance for the SNP to manage.

Why the Conservatives face an awkward choice

The Scottish Conservatives occupy a complicated position in the debate.

They oppose the SNP’s central objective of Scottish independence and have spent years challenging its record in government. Their political identity is closely connected to maintaining the United Kingdom, defending their interpretation of the constitution and offering an alternative to SNP rule.

At the same time, the Conservatives face competition from Reform UK for voters who favour stricter immigration controls, lower taxes and a more confrontational approach to established political institutions.

Cooperating with the SNP to oppose Reform could therefore create tensions within the Conservative Party.

Some Conservatives may believe that participating in discussions about extremism, public safety and democratic standards is a reasonable responsibility for any political party. Others may argue that working alongside the SNP risks legitimising a party whose constitutional objectives they strongly oppose.

There is also a strategic consideration. If the Conservatives refuse to participate, the SNP could portray them as unwilling to engage in a discussion about the threat it identifies. If they attend, Reform could accuse them of joining an establishment campaign designed to restrict its political opportunities.

Neither option is politically cost-free.

The Conservatives must decide whether the proposed summit offers a meaningful opportunity to discuss shared concerns or whether it risks turning them into supporting participants in an SNP-led political initiative.

The summit that brought the controversy into focus

The dispute recalls the summit organised by Swinney in Glasgow in April 2025 to discuss concerns about the far right. Reform UK was not invited, despite being the party at the centre of much of the political debate.

The meeting brought together political and civic figures to discuss how Scotland should respond to what the Scottish Government regarded as a growing threat from far-right politics.

Swinney argued that political leaders needed to draw a clear line against what he described as a politics of fear. His comments about Farage and Reform prompted an angry response from the party.

Reform’s deputy leader at the time, Richard Tice, criticised the initiative, questioning whether public resources were being used appropriately and arguing that the summit was politically motivated.

The dispute highlighted a central problem with efforts to create a united front against a political movement: excluding the party being criticised can make it harder to establish a shared understanding of the issue, while inviting it may undermine the purpose of the meeting for those who regard its positions as unacceptable.

The summit also raised questions about the proper use of government resources in politically sensitive discussions.

A government can legitimately convene meetings about social cohesion, discrimination and public safety. However, it must be clear about the objectives of the meeting and avoid giving the impression that official resources are being used simply to advance a party-political campaign.

That distinction is especially important when a governing party is also a direct electoral competitor of the party under discussion.

Farage’s opportunity to challenge the establishment

Farage has frequently argued that Reform UK represents voters who believe the main political parties have failed to address their concerns.

The party’s message focuses on immigration, public spending, taxation, national sovereignty and dissatisfaction with established institutions. It seeks to present itself as an alternative to what it describes as an entrenched political class.

A summit involving the SNP and other parties could provide Reform with material to support that narrative.

Its supporters may argue that established politicians are more interested in organising meetings against Reform than explaining why voters are turning towards it.

That argument could resonate with people who feel that political leaders have not listened to their concerns about living costs, public services or immigration.

However, criticism of a political party does not automatically demonstrate that its opponents are conspiring against it. Political organisations are entitled to scrutinise one another’s policies and challenge positions they consider harmful.

The relevant question is whether opposition to Reform is accompanied by substantive policy debate or whether it becomes a substitute for addressing the issues that have helped the party attract support.

If the SNP and Conservatives want to persuade voters, they must explain what they would do differently and why their proposals would produce better outcomes.

Simply warning against Farage may not be enough to convince people who have already lost confidence in established parties.

Why Reform’s message may appeal to dissatisfied voters

Reform’s appeal cannot be understood solely through the reactions of its political opponents.

Voters may support the party for different reasons. Some prioritise immigration and border control. Others are frustrated by taxation, public services, housing costs or what they see as a lack of accountability among established politicians.

Some former supporters of Labour or the Conservatives may believe that neither party has delivered the changes it promised. Others may be attracted to Reform’s criticism of the political system itself.

These concerns are not necessarily identical, and Reform’s supporters should not be treated as a single group with uniform motivations.

The same is true of voters who oppose the party. Some may be concerned about its immigration proposals, others about its economic programme or its positions on equality and public services.

For the SNP, the political challenge is to understand these different motivations rather than assuming that all voters who consider supporting Reform can be persuaded to change their minds through a campaign against the party.

That requires credible policies, effective public services and a clear explanation of how the Scottish Government intends to improve people’s lives.

For the Conservatives, the task is different. They must distinguish their approach from both the SNP and Reform while appealing to voters who want change without necessarily supporting either party.

Both parties face a contest over policy and credibility that cannot be resolved by summit attendance alone.

Scotland’s constitutional divide complicates cooperation

The SNP’s commitment to Scottish independence remains one of the most important differences between it and the Conservatives.

The parties disagree fundamentally over whether Scotland should remain within the United Kingdom or become an independent country. That disagreement affects their positions on public finances, constitutional authority, international relations and the future of the Scottish economy.

A joint initiative against Reform would not remove those differences.

Indeed, the SNP could face criticism from its own supporters if cooperation with the Conservatives appeared to weaken its commitment to independence or distract from its wider political programme.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, could face criticism from their supporters if they appeared willing to assist a party whose central constitutional objective they oppose.

This makes the prospect of a broad political alliance particularly complicated.

There is an important distinction between attending a meeting to discuss a public issue and agreeing to cooperate electorally. Political parties can participate in discussions without forming a coalition, endorsing one another’s policies or promising to coordinate their campaigns.

The scope of any proposed summit therefore matters.

If the objective is to discuss specific concerns about political extremism, the parties may be able to identify areas of agreement while maintaining their differences elsewhere.

If the initiative is primarily designed to coordinate electoral opposition to Reform, the political and constitutional obstacles are likely to be greater.

Can established parties win back voters?

The controversy ultimately raises a question that extends beyond Scotland: why are some voters turning away from traditional political organisations?

Established parties often respond to electoral pressure by examining their policies, adjusting their messaging and trying to rebuild trust. They may also seek cooperation with other organisations when they believe a shared problem requires a collective response.

However, these approaches are not interchangeable.

A summit can provide an opportunity to discuss concerns and establish common principles. It cannot, by itself, resolve dissatisfaction with public services, improve household finances or answer questions about immigration policy.

If voters believe their concerns have been ignored, they may require more than assurances that another party should not be supported.

The SNP must defend its record in Scotland, including its performance on public services, public finances and economic development. The Conservatives must explain how their proposals differ from those of Reform and why voters should choose their approach.

Both parties must also recognise that people can hold different views on immigration, national identity and the constitution without necessarily sharing the same broader political priorities.

A credible response to electoral change begins with understanding those differences.

The risks of making Reform the central issue

There is a danger for established parties when opposition to a rival becomes the dominant feature of their political strategy.

A campaign focused almost entirely on warning voters about Reform could allow Farage to define the debate. Instead of discussing their own priorities, the SNP and Conservatives could find themselves responding continually to Reform’s agenda.

That may provide short-term opportunities to criticise the party, but it does not necessarily offer voters a clear picture of what an alternative government would achieve.

The same problem applies to Reform itself. A party can gain attention by attacking established politicians, but it must also demonstrate that its proposals are workable and that it can manage the responsibilities of government.

Voters ultimately need to assess more than the rivalries between party leaders. They need information about the policies on offer, their financial implications and their likely effects on public services and the economy.

Political debate is most useful when it compares credible alternatives rather than reducing every disagreement to a contest between competing personalities.

What the summit could achieve

A well-defined summit could provide an opportunity to discuss discrimination, public safety, political rhetoric and the conditions that allow extremist movements to gain support.

It could also help clarify the responsibilities of public institutions and political parties when addressing concerns about community relations.

However, any meaningful outcome would require a clear agenda, transparent procedures and an understanding of what participants are being asked to achieve.

If the meeting is intended to develop practical recommendations, its organisers should explain how those recommendations will be implemented and evaluated.

If it is intended to create a political statement opposing Reform, that purpose should be acknowledged rather than presented as though it were a neutral administrative exercise.

The participation of the Conservatives would not necessarily imply an electoral pact with the SNP, just as refusing to attend would not automatically mean supporting Reform.

The significance of the decision depends on the meeting’s objectives and the positions taken by the participants.

The central test is whether the initiative produces useful discussion and practical action or becomes another episode in the political struggle between Scotland’s competing parties.

A wider battle over Scotland’s political future

The SNP’s efforts to bring other political figures into discussions about Reform reflect growing concern about the changing shape of Scottish politics.

For Swinney, the challenge is to defend the SNP’s position while persuading voters that his government can address their everyday concerns. For the Conservatives, the dilemma is how to oppose Reform without appearing to strengthen the SNP’s political agenda. For Farage, the controversy offers an opportunity to argue that established parties are increasingly focused on containing his movement.

Each party has its own political incentives, and those incentives should be considered when evaluating its public statements.

Yet the debate should not be reduced to a simple question of which party fears another most. Scotland faces substantive decisions about public services, economic growth, taxation, immigration, constitutional change and the future of local communities.

Those questions require detailed policy proposals and honest assessments of trade-offs.

The SNP may believe that cooperation is necessary to challenge political positions it considers dangerous. The Conservatives may decide that participation is either worthwhile or incompatible with their wider objectives. Reform will continue to argue that voters, rather than meetings between political leaders, should determine the party’s future.

Ultimately, the strength of any political response will depend on whether it addresses the concerns that motivate voters. Political alliances and summit meetings can influence the debate, but they cannot replace the need to earn public confidence.

The most important question is therefore not simply whether the Conservatives attend an SNP-led summit. It is whether Scotland’s political parties can make a convincing case for their policies while allowing voters to judge their records, their proposals and their competing visions for the country’s future.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.