ON MAY 8, the Scottish Parliament is set to look markedly different. Alongside the familiar party colours that symbolise the Scottish political Establishment will arrive Reform UK as the supposedly insurgent party ready to shake things up
Reform promises everything will be better except for immigrants
Polls suggest that Reform could win up to 20 seats. For some, this signals the troubling shift of the growing presence of a harder right within Scottish politics. For others, it represents a long-awaited disruption to an Establishment they don’t feel represents them.
What is clear is that the next parliament will include both Scottish Tories and Reform MSPs who are, at best, sceptical of devolution and, at worst, openly hostile to it.
Contrary to Reform UK’s desire to present itself as an insurgent force, even a cursory glance through the Tory and Reform UK manifestos reveals the similarities between the two.
There are the usual pledges to cut tax and to “fix” public services. Both promise a “bonfire of the quangos” and to weaken the Scottish state to fund tax relief for the richest. Both manifestos hint of working closely with the UK government in what is a clear dream of being in power in Westminster in 2029.
The overlap is not just ideological but organisational. Two-thirds of Reform’s candidates are former Tories. It can never be said loudly enough, the Tories and Reform are two sides of the same coin.
Understanding Reform’s rise means looking beyond the headline hype. Much of its support comes from the same pro-union electorate that has historically backed the Conservatives, but it also draws in voters disillusioned with Labour, as well as those simply rolling the dice on something new. This is less a dramatic expansion of right-wing support in Scotland than a reconfiguration of it.
Historically, explicitly rightwing parties have struggled to achieve the same level of support in Scotland as they have elsewhere in the UK. Even at high points for the right, such as the era of Ukip’s prominence in 2017, their combined vote share lagged significantly behind that seen in England and Wales.
Current trends suggest a similar pattern: the right is not necessarily growing so much as recalibrating. While the arrival of Reform may feel like a surge, it is in many ways a redistribution of an existing base. However, the impact on parliamentary dynamics should not be underestimated.
On May 8, we will have an emboldened and more arrogant breed of Tory making noise in the chamber, and much of that noise will be against our democratic structures themselves.
At times it can be hard to defend devolution. One in four children in Scotland are living in poverty, 220,000 emergency foodbank parcels were issued in 2025, people are dying waiting for treatment due to NHS
waiting times, and our public services are on their knees. For many, these realities call into question what devolution has truly delivered. Yet it would be wrong to dismiss its achievements.
Compared to successive Westminster governments, Scotland has often pursued more progressive policies therefore mitigating aspects of austerity, maintaining elements of universal provision, and embedding a stronger emphasis on fair work. Free university tuition and prescriptions, a more progressive income tax structure, and until the pandemic, a relatively protected public sector, are tangible outcomes of devolved decisionmaking.
These gains are not insignificant. They reflect the original purpose of devolution which was to give people in Scotland greater democratic control and to enable policies that better reflect social priorities.
At the same time, devolution has not fully met its promise. The Scottish government has too often fallen short for working people.
After nearly two decades in office, the SNP has repeatedly failed to match its rhetoric with action, particularly on investment in public services. Promised transformations, from fair work to a National Care Service and a just transition, have been delayed, diluted or stalled altogether, leaving workers facing uncertainty rather than security.
While Westminster austerity has constrained choices, the Scottish government has not always used the powers it holds to rebuild capacity, strengthen collective provision, or consistently prioritise workers’ pay, conditions and job security.
Devolution was not granted lightly. It was the product of decades of organising by the labour movement and civic society, rooted in the belief that decisions affecting people’s lives should be made closer to those that they impact.
It was, at its core, a democratic advance. That achievement now faces a different kind of challenge. Not outright abolition, although some advocate for it, but a gradual hollowing out which will reduce the scope of devolved powers, aligning more closely with Westminster priorities, and reframing devolved institutions as obstacles rather than instruments of change.
The rise of Reform UK speaks to a wider dissatisfaction in politics. Many voters are searching for alternatives, and in the past that desire has fuelled support for other parties, including the SNP. The question now is how that demand for change is met.
Trade unions must defend devolution because it represents democratic power that was won through struggle, not granted from above, and because it creates space for working people to organise, campaign and influence decisions that shape their lives.
Devolved institutions bring political decision-making closer to workers and communities, making it easier to challenge injustice, demand accountability and win improvements in public services, pay and conditions. Devolution is not an end in itself but a means; it is a set of levers that can be used to resist austerity, strengthen collective provision and push for more progressive policies where Westminster has too often failed.
Defending devolution is therefore about defending the political space in which workers can organise, be heard and fight collectively for change.
If its defenders fail to make that case, others, like Reform UK will fill the vacuum for those who see devolution not as a foundation to build on, but as a barrier to be removed.
Ruby Gibson is PCS national officer for Scotland writing in a personal capacity. This article first appeared in the Morning Star on 21st April 2026 morningstaronline.co.uk/
What is clear is that the next parliament will include both Scottish Tories and Reform MSPs who are, at best, sceptical of devolution and, at worst, openly hostile to it.
Contrary to Reform UK’s desire to present itself as an insurgent force, even a cursory glance through the Tory and Reform UK manifestos reveals the similarities between the two.
There are the usual pledges to cut tax and to “fix” public services. Both promise a “bonfire of the quangos” and to weaken the Scottish state to fund tax relief for the richest. Both manifestos hint of working closely with the UK government in what is a clear dream of being in power in Westminster in 2029.
The overlap is not just ideological but organisational. Two-thirds of Reform’s candidates are former Tories. It can never be said loudly enough, the Tories and Reform are two sides of the same coin.
Understanding Reform’s rise means looking beyond the headline hype. Much of its support comes from the same pro-union electorate that has historically backed the Conservatives, but it also draws in voters disillusioned with Labour, as well as those simply rolling the dice on something new. This is less a dramatic expansion of right-wing support in Scotland than a reconfiguration of it.
Historically, explicitly rightwing parties have struggled to achieve the same level of support in Scotland as they have elsewhere in the UK. Even at high points for the right, such as the era of Ukip’s prominence in 2017, their combined vote share lagged significantly behind that seen in England and Wales.
Current trends suggest a similar pattern: the right is not necessarily growing so much as recalibrating. While the arrival of Reform may feel like a surge, it is in many ways a redistribution of an existing base. However, the impact on parliamentary dynamics should not be underestimated.
On May 8, we will have an emboldened and more arrogant breed of Tory making noise in the chamber, and much of that noise will be against our democratic structures themselves.
At times it can be hard to defend devolution. One in four children in Scotland are living in poverty, 220,000 emergency foodbank parcels were issued in 2025, people are dying waiting for treatment due to NHS
waiting times, and our public services are on their knees. For many, these realities call into question what devolution has truly delivered. Yet it would be wrong to dismiss its achievements.
Compared to successive Westminster governments, Scotland has often pursued more progressive policies therefore mitigating aspects of austerity, maintaining elements of universal provision, and embedding a stronger emphasis on fair work. Free university tuition and prescriptions, a more progressive income tax structure, and until the pandemic, a relatively protected public sector, are tangible outcomes of devolved decisionmaking.
These gains are not insignificant. They reflect the original purpose of devolution which was to give people in Scotland greater democratic control and to enable policies that better reflect social priorities.
At the same time, devolution has not fully met its promise. The Scottish government has too often fallen short for working people.
After nearly two decades in office, the SNP has repeatedly failed to match its rhetoric with action, particularly on investment in public services. Promised transformations, from fair work to a National Care Service and a just transition, have been delayed, diluted or stalled altogether, leaving workers facing uncertainty rather than security.
While Westminster austerity has constrained choices, the Scottish government has not always used the powers it holds to rebuild capacity, strengthen collective provision, or consistently prioritise workers’ pay, conditions and job security.
Devolution was not granted lightly. It was the product of decades of organising by the labour movement and civic society, rooted in the belief that decisions affecting people’s lives should be made closer to those that they impact.
It was, at its core, a democratic advance. That achievement now faces a different kind of challenge. Not outright abolition, although some advocate for it, but a gradual hollowing out which will reduce the scope of devolved powers, aligning more closely with Westminster priorities, and reframing devolved institutions as obstacles rather than instruments of change.
The rise of Reform UK speaks to a wider dissatisfaction in politics. Many voters are searching for alternatives, and in the past that desire has fuelled support for other parties, including the SNP. The question now is how that demand for change is met.
Trade unions must defend devolution because it represents democratic power that was won through struggle, not granted from above, and because it creates space for working people to organise, campaign and influence decisions that shape their lives.
Devolved institutions bring political decision-making closer to workers and communities, making it easier to challenge injustice, demand accountability and win improvements in public services, pay and conditions. Devolution is not an end in itself but a means; it is a set of levers that can be used to resist austerity, strengthen collective provision and push for more progressive policies where Westminster has too often failed.
Defending devolution is therefore about defending the political space in which workers can organise, be heard and fight collectively for change.
If its defenders fail to make that case, others, like Reform UK will fill the vacuum for those who see devolution not as a foundation to build on, but as a barrier to be removed.
Ruby Gibson is PCS national officer for Scotland writing in a personal capacity. This article first appeared in the Morning Star on 21st April 2026 morningstaronline.co.uk/
RSS Feed