Reform UK has a clear lead over Labour in Scotland in a new poll ahead of May’s Holyrood election. The YouGov survey puts Nigel Farage’s party, which is led by former Tory peer Malcolm Offord north of the border, five points ahead of Scottish Labour.
Reform UK is backed by 20% of voters in both the constituency and regional vote, compared to 15% for Labour. The SNP takes the lead on 34% and 29% respectively, but that is a substantial drop from its backing in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
The Conservatives have 10% support in constituencies and 11% in the regional list.
The Scottish Greens are on 9% in constituencies and 12% on the list, while the Lib Dems are on 10% and 9% respectively.
Reform’s Mr Offord said the poll findings “reflect the reality we are hearing on the doorsteps”.
He added: “Anas Sarwar is in the last-chance saloon. His desperate attempts to escape Scottish Labour’s toxic brand and make this a presidential election between him and [John] Swinney have backfired spectacularly
“The SNP are down 14 points on the 2021 election, recording their lowest opinion poll share since John Swinney’s disastrous first leadership of the party in 2003.
“It is now a clear two-horse race between a clapped-out SNP Government and a new direction for Scotland with Reform.”
The poll is a blow to Sir Keir Starmer, who is facing questions over his leadership ahead of the May elections, which are expected to be a bloodbath for Labour.
Reform UK Surges Ahead of Labour in New Scottish Poll Ahead of Crunch Election
Reform UK’s rapid rise in Scotland has become one of the most closely watched developments in British politics, with new polling showing the party challenging Labour for second place in a political landscape that has traditionally been dominated by the Scottish National Party.
The rise of Nigel Farage’s party represents a significant change in Scotland’s political balance. For decades, the SNP, Labour and Conservatives have occupied the central positions in Scottish electoral politics, while smaller parties have competed for a more limited share of the vote. Reform’s emergence has changed that picture, putting pressure on both Labour and the Conservatives while creating a new political force among voters dissatisfied with the established parties.
Recent polling before the 2026 Scottish Parliament election showed just how rapidly Reform had gained ground. In an Ipsos poll conducted in early April, Labour and Reform were both on 15% for the constituency vote, while the SNP remained significantly ahead on 39%. On the regional list vote, Reform was on 16%, one point ahead of Labour.
Earlier YouGov polling had already placed Reform in second position behind the SNP. Its January 2026 survey gave Reform 20% of the constituency vote and Labour 15%, while Reform also stood at 20% on the regional list vote compared with 15% for Labour.
These figures illustrate why Reform’s Scottish performance attracted so much attention ahead of the election.
A Major Shift in Scotland
Scotland has traditionally been a difficult environment for right-wing parties.
The SNP has dominated Holyrood politics for much of the devolved parliament’s existence, while Labour historically held many Scottish Westminster seats before the SNP’s breakthrough in 2015.
The Conservatives became the principal unionist challenger to the SNP in the later 2010s, particularly during the Brexit and independence debates.
Reform’s growth introduces another competitor.
The party has attempted to appeal to voters concerned about immigration, taxation, public services, government spending and Britain’s constitutional arrangements. Its message has found support among some voters who previously backed the Conservatives, Labour and other parties.
The scale of the change was highlighted by YouGov’s final modelling before the Holyrood election. Its MRP projected 19 Reform MSPs, compared with 17 for Labour and seven for the Conservatives. The model projected the SNP as the largest party with 62 seats, although it fell short of the 65 needed for an outright majority.
The projection was not a prediction of the final result in itself, but it demonstrated how dramatically Reform’s position had changed compared with previous Scottish elections.
Labour’s Difficult Position
For Scottish Labour, Reform’s rise creates an additional challenge.
The party has historically been one of Scotland’s major political forces, but its position has weakened considerably since the SNP’s rise.
The 2026 Holyrood election confirmed that difficult position. According to YouGov’s post-election analysis, Labour returned only 17 MSPs, its lowest number at a Scottish Parliament election. Reform also won 17 seats, meaning the two parties shared second place in terms of seats.
That result gives added significance to polling showing Reform competing directly with Labour.
The challenge for Labour is particularly complicated because its electoral coalition has historically included voters with very different political priorities. Some are strongly focused on public services and economic issues, while others are motivated by questions surrounding the constitution and Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Reform approaches many of these questions from a very different perspective.
Its emphasis on immigration and opposition to aspects of the political establishment has enabled it to attract voters who might previously have remained within the Conservative or Labour camps.
Immigration and Reform’s Appeal
Immigration has been particularly important to Reform’s support.
Ipsos’ post-election research provides evidence of this. Among people who voted Reform in the 2026 Scottish Parliament election, 76% said immigration was an important factor in their decision. That compared with 28% of Conservative voters, 18% of Labour voters and 15% of SNP voters.
This does not mean immigration was the only issue motivating Reform voters.
Ipsos found that perceptions of the SNP government’s performance were the most commonly cited reason for voting Reform, mentioned by 55% of its constituency voters. The NHS was the most important issue overall among Scottish voters, while independence remained another major concern.
The findings demonstrate that Reform’s support cannot be explained by a single issue.
Instead, its voters combine concerns about government performance, immigration, public services and political change.
The Conservatives Under Pressure
Reform’s rise has also affected the Conservative Party in Scotland.
The Conservatives had established themselves as the principal unionist opposition to the SNP during the late 2010s and early 2020s. However, the emergence of Reform has created competition for voters who favour parties opposed to Scottish independence and who are also concerned about immigration and national political issues.
The final Ipsos poll before the 2026 Holyrood election put the Conservatives on 11% for the constituency vote, with Reform on 18% and Labour on 20%. On the regional list, Reform was also on 18%, compared with 11% for the Conservatives.
The eventual election result underlined the Conservatives’ difficulties. YouGov’s analysis found that the party won only seven MSPs, while Labour and Reform each won 17.
The figures illustrate the increasingly fragmented nature of Scottish politics.
Instead of a straightforward SNP-versus-Labour contest, voters now have several significant parties competing for support.
Reform’s Breakthrough
Reform’s breakthrough is especially notable because the party had previously had a limited presence in Scottish electoral politics.
Its growth before the 2026 election was therefore one of the campaign’s most closely watched developments.
YouGov’s final MRP suggested that Reform could win 19 MSPs, representing a major breakthrough compared with its previous representation.
The final result produced 17 Reform MSPs, confirming that the party had become a significant force at Holyrood.
YouGov subsequently described the 2026 election as a major shake-up of Scotland’s party system, highlighting the SNP’s continued dominance alongside significant gains for Reform and the Greens and losses for Labour and the Conservatives.
For Farage and Reform’s Scottish leadership, the result provided evidence that the party’s support was no longer confined primarily to England.
A Different Political Battlefield
Scotland also presents Reform with challenges that are less prominent elsewhere in Britain.
The question of independence remains central to Scottish politics.
While Reform strongly supports the United Kingdom, the SNP continues to advocate Scottish independence. The Greens also support independence, while Labour and the Conservatives remain unionist parties.
Ipsos found that independence was the second-most important issue for Scottish voters overall after the NHS, with 34% mentioning it as a factor in their voting decision. Among SNP constituency voters, the figure was 62%.
Reform therefore has to operate in a political environment where constitutional identity remains much more important than in many parts of England.
Its strategy has been to emphasise issues such as immigration, public services and government performance rather than attempting to compete directly with the SNP’s independence agenda.
What the Polling Means
The phrase “surges ahead of Labour” needs to be interpreted carefully because Scottish polling varies according to the type of election and voting system.
The Scottish Parliament uses a mixed electoral system involving constituency and regional list votes. Consequently, a party’s percentage on one type of ballot does not automatically translate into an equivalent number of seats.
Furthermore, individual polls can produce different results depending on methodology and fieldwork dates.
The January YouGov poll, for example, put Reform ahead of Labour on both constituency and regional list voting intention.
Ipsos’ final pre-election poll in May, however, placed Labour ahead of Reform on the constituency vote, although Reform remained close behind.
This is why polling should be treated as a snapshot of opinion at a particular moment rather than as a definitive measure of future electoral results.
The Bigger Picture
The most important development is not simply whether Reform is one or two percentage points ahead of Labour in a particular survey.
It is the broader transformation of Scotland’s political landscape.
The 2026 election demonstrated that Reform had become a significant parliamentary force in Scotland. Labour’s decline and the Conservatives’ reduced representation have created space for a new political contest involving several parties.
The SNP remains the largest political force, but the competition below it has become much more intense.
Labour faces the challenge of rebuilding its Scottish identity and reconnecting with voters who have moved towards other parties. The Conservatives face competition from Reform among some unionist voters. Reform, meanwhile, must demonstrate that its new support can be maintained beyond a single election cycle.
The party’s supporters have shown that they are capable of turning polling support into actual votes and parliamentary representation. Ipsos’ post-election study found that Reform was particularly successful at maintaining consistency between constituency and list votes: 85% of those who voted Reform on their constituency ballot also supported the party on the regional list.
That provides an important insight into the nature of Reform’s Scottish support.
A New Chapter for Scottish Politics
Reform UK’s rise marks a new chapter in Scotland’s political story.
The party’s breakthrough has challenged assumptions about which parties can compete for significant numbers of Scottish votes. It has also complicated the position of Labour and the Conservatives, both of which now face competition from a party campaigning on a distinct combination of immigration, government reform, public spending and unionist themes.
For Nigel Farage, Scotland represents an important test of whether Reform can build a genuinely UK-wide political organisation.
For Scottish Labour, the rise of Reform adds another obstacle to rebuilding its position.
And for Scottish voters, the growing number of competitive parties means that political choices are becoming increasingly fragmented.
The 2026 Holyrood election has already demonstrated that Reform’s rise is more than a temporary polling story. The party won 17 seats and finished level with Labour in parliamentary representation, while the SNP retained its position as the largest party.
The longer-term significance of that transformation will depend on whether Reform can maintain its support and develop a lasting presence in Scottish politics.
What is beyond dispute is that the old three-way assumptions about Scotland’s political landscape have changed. Reform has entered the contest in a substantial way, Labour is facing a difficult period of rebuilding, and the SNP continues to dominate the largest share of the Scottish electorate.
Scotland’s political map has therefore become more fragmented, more competitive and considerably harder for the traditional parties to navigate.
A commentator warned the state pension bill is ‘only going to go up’ due to the triple lock.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham has been warned the state pension triple lock “has to go” to fund an uplift in defence spending. The Prime Minister is under growing pressure to cut the welfare bill in order to boost the military budget amid rising tensions with Russia.
The triple lock, introduced in 2011 by the Tory–Lib Dem coalition. sees the state pension rise every year by whichever is the highest out of earnings growth, inflation or 2.5%. Most of the major parties, including Labour and the Conservatives, are in favour of keeping it. However, commentators and some organisations have voiced concern as its costs continue to soar.
There are growing calls for defence spending to be ramped up (Image: Getty)
David Blair, The Telegraph‘s chief foreign affairs commentator, said he believes the triple lock should be axed to give more cash to the Ministry of Defence.
In an op ed, he wrote: “If, like me, you constantly urge the British state to invest more in defence, then you have even more of a moral responsibility to show where the money comes from. So here goes. We need to abandon the “triple lock”.”
He added: “When they invented the triple lock, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition assumed it would cause pensions to rise by only 0.2 per cent above average earnings, with a price tag of an extra £5.2bn by 2029, even accounting for an ageing population.
“In fact, real wages have grown by less than forecast, meaning that the additional cost of the triple lock reached £12bn this year and will climb to £15.5bn – three times the predicted sum – by 2029, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).”
The commentator said the bill is “only going to go up”.
Official forecasts show the state pension is set to hit almost 9% of GDP by 2075.
Britain currently spends around 5% of its GDP on state pensions.
Defence spending is expected to account for 2.6% of the UK’s national income in 2026.
Many experts have warned current defence plans are insufficient amid the tensions with Russia.
The Conservatives are calling for defence spending to hit 3% by 2030, rather than in the next parliament as pledged by the Government.
Mr Blair said he would replace the triple lock from 2027, with the state pension instead rising by inflation only.
He concluded his piece by writing: “Cut welfare to fund defence. End the triple lock to ease the burden on future generations. Not easy – and there would be many losers – but it would be right.”
It comes days after Baroness Therese Coffey, Conservative work and pensions secretary between 2019 and 2022, said the triple lock should “probably” be replaced.
The British Chambers of Commerce has called on the Prime Minister to scrap the triple lock, claiming it would save more than £3 billion across two years.
Andy Burnham Given Huge State Pension Warning as ‘Benefit Has to Go’
Andy Burnham has been handed a major warning over the future of Britain’s state pension, with critics arguing that the controversial Triple Lock may have to be abandoned as the government faces mounting pressure over public spending.
The warning comes at a difficult moment for the new government, with rising defence costs, higher borrowing costs and increasing pressure on the Treasury creating a complicated fiscal picture.
The Triple Lock has become one of the most sensitive issues facing the government because it directly affects millions of pensioners while also carrying a substantial cost for the state.
Under the current system, the state pension increases each year by whichever is highest of average earnings growth, inflation or 2.5 per cent. The policy was introduced in 2011 under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and was designed to prevent pensioners’ incomes from falling behind wages and prices.
However, critics increasingly argue that the mechanism is becoming too expensive to maintain.
Calls to scrap the Triple Lock
One of the strongest recent interventions came from David Blair, foreign affairs commentator at The Telegraph, who argued that the Triple Lock should be abandoned to help fund higher defence spending.
Blair argued that anyone demanding greater investment in national defence should also explain where the additional money would come from. In his assessment, ending the Triple Lock could provide one possible source of savings.
According to figures cited in the argument, the additional cost associated with the policy has been considerably higher than originally expected. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that the extra cost could rise to around £15.5 billion by 2029.
The argument has therefore moved beyond the question of pension policy alone.
It has become part of a much wider debate about Britain’s priorities: how much should be spent on defence, welfare, healthcare and other public services, and who should bear the cost of the government’s spending commitments?
For Burnham, this creates a particularly difficult political problem.
Why the pension bill is rising
The fundamental issue is Britain’s ageing population.
As the number of pensioners increases relative to the working-age population, the government must spend more on state pensions. The Triple Lock can increase the pressure further because pension payments are automatically linked to whichever of three measures produces the largest increase.
The mechanism was originally introduced partly because pensioner incomes had fallen relative to earnings over previous decades.
Supporters of the policy argue that pensioners should not be left behind when wages or prices rise. They also point out that older people face significant expenses, including energy bills, food costs, housing costs and healthcare-related spending.
Critics, however, argue that the policy can create a structural advantage for pensioners over younger working-age taxpayers.
The Financial Times recently described Britain’s pension system as increasingly difficult to sustain, particularly because income-tax thresholds are frozen while pension payments continue to increase. It reported that state pension spending could reach around £154 billion a year.
That debate has intensified because the state pension is approaching a significant tax threshold.
State pension set to pass £13,000
Recent earnings figures have created another complication.
According to reporting in The Times, average wages increased by 3.9 per cent. Because earnings growth is currently the relevant measure under the Triple Lock, the full new state pension is expected to rise by approximately the same percentage.
That would take the annual payment above £13,000.
The current personal allowance is £12,570, meaning that the pension could technically exceed the income-tax threshold.
The government has indicated that people whose only income is the state pension will not be forced to pay income tax simply because the pension rises above the threshold.
Nevertheless, the situation highlights a structural problem.
If the pension rises while the personal allowance remains frozen, more pensioners with additional sources of income could potentially find themselves paying tax.
That has created additional political pressure on Burnham’s government.
Advisers have already raised concerns
The warning about the Triple Lock is not entirely new.
Earlier in 2026, reports emerged that several economists associated with Burnham were open to abandoning the current system.
Among those linked to Burnham’s economic team are Lord Jim O’Neill, former Bank of England chief economist Andy Haldane and former Office for Budget Responsibility chairman Richard Hughes.
The Independent reported in June that some of Burnham’s economic advisers regarded scrapping the Triple Lock as a potentially necessary measure given the pressure on public finances.
That does not mean that Burnham has announced a policy to abolish the Triple Lock.
It does, however, demonstrate that the issue is being discussed within the wider economic debate surrounding his government.
The distinction is important.
An adviser supporting a policy change does not automatically mean that the prime minister has adopted it. Any major alteration to the state pension system would require a political decision and would likely generate substantial opposition.
The defence spending dilemma
Defence has become another important part of the argument.
Britain faces pressure to increase military spending amid heightened international tensions and demands for greater European defence capabilities.
The government has therefore been confronted with a basic budgetary question: if defence spending rises, where should the additional money come from?
One possible answer is higher taxation.
Another is borrowing, although higher borrowing can increase debt-interest costs.
A third is reducing spending in other areas.
That is where the Triple Lock enters the debate.
Those calling for its abolition argue that pension spending represents a large and growing commitment and therefore cannot be ignored when the government is searching for savings.
The opposing argument is that state pensioners should not be treated simply as a source of savings because many depend heavily on the pension for their living costs.
Pensioners warn against weakening the guarantee
Campaign groups have strongly challenged calls to abandon the Triple Lock.
Dennis Reed, director of the pensioner organisation Silver Voices, argued that many older people continue to face serious financial pressure despite increases in the state pension.
He pointed out that people receiving the older basic state pension would receive a considerably smaller cash increase than those receiving the full new state pension. Campaigners have also warned that rising energy and food costs could erode much of the benefit of the annual increase.
This is at the heart of the political dispute.
Supporters of the Triple Lock see it as a protection against pensioner poverty.
Critics see it as an expensive mechanism that increasingly transfers resources towards an ageing population while younger workers face high taxes and housing costs.
Both sides therefore approach the issue from fundamentally different perspectives.
Burnham faces a difficult political choice
For Burnham, the pension debate is particularly sensitive because Labour traditionally seeks to protect social security while also promising responsible management of public finances.
Abandoning the Triple Lock could produce significant savings over time, but it would also represent a major political change.
Keeping it would provide pensioners with continued protection against inflation and wage growth, but it would leave the Treasury facing a larger long-term spending commitment.
The choice becomes even more complicated when combined with the government’s other commitments.
Burnham has promised action on public services and the cost of living, while the government is simultaneously under pressure to increase defence spending.
At the same time, the Treasury is facing a deteriorating fiscal outlook.
The Times reported in September that the government could face the need for approximately £10 billion in tax increases or spending reductions in the upcoming Budget. The report also highlighted the growing cost of the pension system under the Triple Lock.
Could the system be changed rather than abolished?
Scrapping the Triple Lock is not the only possible reform.
One alternative would be to replace the current three-part guarantee with a different formula.
For example, pensions could be linked primarily to earnings, while additional support could be provided to pensioners facing severe financial hardship.
Another option would be to retain some form of inflation protection while removing the 2.5 per cent minimum.
Such proposals would attempt to reduce the long-term cost without completely removing protection against rising prices.
However, every alternative has consequences.
A system linked only to earnings could leave pensioners vulnerable if inflation rises faster than wages. A system linked only to inflation could cause pensioners’ incomes to fall relative to workers during periods of strong wage growth.
The existing Triple Lock was designed precisely because policymakers wanted to avoid those situations.
The wider generational debate
The pension argument is ultimately part of a broader debate about intergenerational fairness.
Older generations have benefited from decades of rising house prices and, in many cases, generous occupational pensions. Younger workers face different economic circumstances, including high housing costs, student debt and pressure on household incomes.
Critics of the Triple Lock argue that the government should consider these differences when allocating public resources.
Supporters respond that today’s pensioners should not be blamed for structural problems in the housing market or the wider economy.
The debate is therefore unlikely to disappear even if the government decides not to change the system immediately.
What happens next?
For now, there is no confirmed announcement that Burnham’s government will abolish the Triple Lock.
Instead, the policy is facing increasingly visible criticism from economists, commentators and some political figures.
The upcoming Budget will be an important moment because it will reveal how the government intends to balance pension spending, defence, public services, taxation and borrowing.
The central question for Burnham is not simply whether the Triple Lock is popular or unpopular.
It is whether the government can continue funding the policy at its current cost while meeting its other commitments.
If the Triple Lock remains unchanged, pension spending will continue to place pressure on future budgets.
If it is abolished or significantly reformed, millions of pensioners could see a different pattern of increases in the years ahead.
For Burnham, either route carries significant consequences.
The phrase that the “benefit has to go” represents the view of critics calling for the policy to be scrapped, not an established government decision. The confirmed picture is that the Triple Lock is under growing scrutiny as the government confronts difficult choices over public spending.
The coming months will show whether Burnham chooses to defend the existing guarantee, modify it or open the door to a fundamental reform of Britain’s state pension system.