SINCE JOINING REFORM UK in February 2025, I have found myself in a unique position within Scottish local government. As far as I am aware, I have been the only councillor in Scotland willing to consistently stand up and speak out on behalf of the many residents in my hometown of Falkirk who have raised serious concerns about the accommodation of migrants in a hotel located in the town centre.
For many local people, these concerns have centred on community safety, transparency, and the impact that decisions made without meaningful local consultation can have on the character and wellbeing of our town. These concerns have only intensified following reports of serious criminal offences, including sexual assaults and rape convictions involving residents of the hotel. Regardless of political affiliation, such matters deserve scrutiny, accountability, and open discussion.
My role as an elected councillor is not to ignore concerns because they are politically inconvenient. It is to listen to residents, represent their views, and ensure their voices are heard. That is exactly what I have sought to do.
In doing so, I have become a voice for many people who feel ignored by the political establishment. Yet speaking up for those concerns has come at a cost. Those who disagree with my views have repeatedly attempted to silence, discredit, and intimidate me rather than engage in honest debate.
Disagreement is part of politics. Intimidation is not
Over recent months, I have been subjected to relentless criticism and publicly labelled with terms such as “racist”, “far-right”, “Neo-Nazi”, and a range of other defamatory slurs. These labels are not designed to encourage discussion or understanding. They are intended to shut down debate and discourage others from speaking openly about issues that matter to them.
The reality is that many ordinary people share concerns about immigration policy, public safety, housing pressures, and the direction of our communities. To dismiss those concerns with insults rather than arguments is both dishonest and disrespectful. It is also deeply revealing of how some activists and political opponents choose to operate.
Beyond the online abuse and public attacks, there have been repeated attempts to target both me personally and my home. One person has been given a police warning for a Communications Act offence after posting a horrific comment on one of my social media posts, I have also had takeaways I did not order delivered to my house on multiple occasions, costing from £60 to £100 each time, while local businesses have been left out of pocket, and my family has also been targeted. I have a personal alarm directly connected to emergency services and CCTV installed at my home; this is the reality of doing my job.
No elected representative should have to endure harassment simply for carrying out their democratic responsibilities. Disagreement is part of politics. Intimidation is not.
Despite these efforts, I remain undeterred and committed to doing the job I love and am privileged to be able to do.
Neither I nor Reform UK in Scotland will be intimidated into silence. We will continue standing up for the people we represent and ensuring that legitimate concerns are heard in council chambers, public meetings, and across Scotland.
Those who believe they have the right to target innocent businesses, organise harassment campaigns, or attend someone’s home with malicious intent should be held accountable for their actions. Such behaviour has no place in a democratic society. The fact that some individuals are willing to dedicate so much time and energy to targeting a local councillor is deeply concerning and raises serious questions about their motives and priorities. “What will happen next?”, I ask myself. Others, worried, say to me “how far will they go?”.
The rise of Reform reflects a growing demand for change
While some focus on intimidation, Reform and I remain focused on representing the views of ordinary people.
Across Scotland and the wider United Kingdom, increasing numbers of people are turning to Reform because they feel abandoned by the traditional political parties. For too long, working-class communities have been taken for granted. Their concerns have been dismissed, their voices ignored, and their priorities pushed aside in favour of political agendas that often seem disconnected from everyday reality.
The rise of Reform reflects a growing demand for change. It reflects a desire for politicians who are prepared to listen, challenge the status quo, and put local communities first.
What is particularly striking is the attitude of some political commentators and opponents towards Reform supporters themselves. To suggest that the hundreds of thousands of Scottish people who support Reform should be dismissed, marginalised, or ignored is insulting and completely out of touch with reality.
More than 380,000 people voted for Reform in the 2026 Scottish Parliamentary election. These voters come from every walk of life. They are workers, parents, pensioners, business owners, and taxpayers. They are people who care deeply about the future of their communities and their country. Their views deserve the same respect as anyone else’s.
Democracy does not mean only listening to people you agree with. It means respecting the right of others to hold different opinions and allowing all voices to be heard.
Every attempt to silence legitimate concerns only convinces more people that change is needed. Every effort to shut down debate reinforces the belief that ordinary voices are despised by those in power.
The truth is simple: people want politicians who will speak honestly, challenge failed policies, and put their communities first. I am a working-class lassie from a small village who simply wants to stand up for people who live in the constituency I serve.
That is what Reform is all about.
No amount of intimidation, abuse, or political hostility will distract us from that mission. We remain committed to delivering for the people of Scotland and fighting every single day for the communities that have been overlooked for far too long.





Comments: 0
Join the debate
Do you agree with this analysis, or is the author wrong? Have your say below.
No comments yet. Be the first to join the discussion.