RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE has attempted to make political capital out of the claim that around 40 per cent of Reform Scotland candidates were previously members of the Conservative Party. As in England, many of the party’s most prominent figures in Scotland – including its leader Malcolm Offord, MSP Graham Simpson, and councillors such as Thomas Kerr and Ross Lambie — are former Conservatives.
The implication is meant to be obvious: that Reform is somehow less authentic or less new because some of its candidates have a political past.
That argument is fundamentally flawed. This is not a weakness – it is exactly what one would expect.
People who care about politics and want to change things do not materialise out of thin air when a new party is formed. The normal route into public life is through existing political structures.
For decades in Scotland, anyone on the centre-right who wanted to campaign, stand for office, or play an active role in politics had very few viable options. In practice, the Conservative Party was often the only meaningful vehicle available.
It follows naturally that many politically active individuals today will have had some previous association with it.
Another overlooked factor is age. Most candidates are not newcomers in their early twenties. They are individuals with decades of experience, formed views, and long-standing political engagement.
To suggest they should have remained politically unaffiliated until Reform’s arrival is not just unrealistic – it misunderstands how political participation works. Politically engaged adults do not spend most of their lives as “political virgins” waiting for a perfect party to appear. They participate in the political structures that exist at the time.
What has changed is not simply the emergence of Reform, but the ideological trajectory of the Conservative Party itself.
Across a range of issues, many voters who once saw the Conservatives as their natural home now believe the party has moved away from core centre-right principles. As the Overton Window has shifted leftwards since the financial crisis, both major parties have followed, leaving many voters politically displaced.
Hence the increasingly common refrain: “I didn’t leave the party; the party left me.”
This is not just rhetoric. High-profile UK defectors have cited clear ideological reasons. Jonathan Gillis pointed to immigration and net zero, arguing the party had “lost touch with the people it was meant to serve”. Suella Braverman highlighted concerns around immigration and law and order, while Robert Jenrick stated bluntly that “Britain is broken”. Danny Kruger went further: “The Tories are done, the voters aren’t coming back.”
In Scotland, Malcolm Offord has criticised the Conservatives as too “parochial”, overly focused on a second independence referendum rather than winning power and making Scotland “a prosperous, happy, healthy country”.
When a political party changes direction, it inevitably leaves behind people who once felt represented by it. Those individuals do not suddenly lose their political beliefs. Instead, they begin looking for another political home that better reflects their convictions.
For many in Scotland, Reform now fills that space. It offers a clear, unapologetic centre-right alternative for voters who feel unrepresented by the current political landscape.
It is also important to recognise that individuals themselves evolve. Views change with experience, evidence, and time. It would be unhealthy for a democracy if citizens felt permanently locked into the party they first supported decades earlier. A healthy democracy depends on that flexibility. Political allegiance is not a lifelong contract.
In fact, the willingness to change parties can be a sign of political integrity, not opportunism. It reflects a decision to prioritise principle over habit.
Critics often dismiss this as self-interest, ignoring the real personal and professional costs that can come with changing political allegiance – from strained relationships to career risk.
Ultimately, the criticism misunderstands how serious people approach politics.
Supporting a political party is not like supporting a football team – it is not a fixed, tribal identity, or an inviolable bond of loyalty you are born into and stick to come hell or highwater. Yet in Scotland, both Labour and nationalist politics have often encouraged exactly that kind of tribal loyalty as if being Labour or SNP was akin to being a Rangers or Celtic fan.
Mature political engagement instead involves continual judgment – assessing which party best represents one’s values at any given time.
Seen in this light, the fact that some Reform candidates were once Conservatives is not evidence of contradiction or hypocrisy. It is evidence of realignment.
Far from undermining Reform’s credibility, it demonstrates that the party is successfully attracting experienced, politically engaged individuals who recognise that the status quo no longer works.
If anything, it confirms that Reform is doing what new political movements have always done: building a coalition of those who feel politically homeless and offering them both a voice and a viable alternative.
Established in 2006 and celebrating twenty years, ThinkScotland is not for profit relying on donations to publish our wide range of opinions. You can subscribe to our FREE newsletter here – share and follow us on ‘X’ here – like and comment on facebook here and make a donation here. Every contribution helps to meet our overheads.
This article was first published in The Reformer.
