"He is our most Scottish president," Mr Offord told us.
"We should be rolling out the red carpet for Donald Trump. Donald Trump loves Scotland."
Mr Offord's comments prompted cheers among Reform members who had gathered at the Ingliston Hotel and Country Club in Bishopton, Renfrewshire.
But the supporters who turned up were not there to hear Mr Offord's views on foreign affairs but to see what policies the party would be putting forward ahead of the Holyrood election in May.
The big announcement from Mr Offord was on income tax cuts.
Read More:
He promised if Reform took power in Holyrood its first move on income tax would be to realign Scotland’s rates and bands with those in the rest of the UK and then cut all rates by 1 percentage point.
He would then to aim to further cut rates so that by the end of the new parliamentary term in 2031, rates would be 3 percentage points below those in the rest of the UK.
So what would this mean for Scottish taxpayers and who would benefit the most?
David Phillips, head of devolved and local government finance at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and João Sousa, deputy director of the Fraser of Allander Institute at Strathclyde University, agreed the "biggest direct beneficiaries" would be the high-income taxpayers who currently pay substantially more in income tax than in the rest of the UK.
Reform UK setting out its pledge ahead of the Holyrood election
"For example, someone on £50,000 a year currently pays around £1,500 a year more than in the rest of the UK, while someone on £125,000 pays around £5,200 a year more," said Mr Phillips.
"If Reform UK’s ambitions for Scottish income tax were fully realised, they would instead pay around £1,100 and £3,700 a year less, respectively, than they would in the rest of the UK."
This would mean that a high earner on £125,000 would be around £8900 better off in terms of their tax bill when the full 3p cut was implemented than they are currently, he added.
Mr Phillips and Mr Sousa also gave The Herald's Unspun more examples.
For instance, according to the former, someone on £20,000 currently pays £40 a year a less income tax in Scotland than the rest of the UK and they would pay £74 a year less if rates were all 1p below UK rates, and £183 less if all rates were 3p below - meaning they would be just £143 better off in terms of their tax bill than currently.
Mr Sousa worked out someone earning £35,000, who currently pays £15 a year more income tax in Scotland than the rest of the UK would pay £239 less income tax initially than if they were in the UK and £688 less if all rates were 3p below.
Mr Phillips also gave the case of someone on £100,000.
Currently, he explained they pay £3,300 more in tax than in the rest of the UK but would pay £2,623 less if the full 3p “aim” was achieved - and so benefit to the tune of £5,923.
So how much would the policy cost the public purse and what would be its impact?
Reform UK said realigning rates and bands to the UK's, and the first 1 percentage point cut would cost £2 billion, while the full 3 percentage point cut would cost an additional £1.7 billion - or around £4 billion in total.
The party insisted savings could be found to the government's coffers by reducing the number of quangos and cutting "wasteful" spending citing over run ferry costs for instance.
It also argued that more revenue would be generated by making Scotland more attractive to high-income individuals inciting more wealthy people to move north of the border -and of course pay large amounts of tax (though less than they would do in England).
However, Mr Phillips severely doubted if the extra revenue generated by more people moving to Scotand and greater economic activity would be enough to pay for the tax cut - meaning likely cuts to welfare spending for the poor and public services for most of us.
"I would expect there to be a boost to labour supply and potentially investment by entrepreneurs but not sufficient to pay for the tax cuts by a long way," he told The Herald.
"Scotland can have lower taxes if it chooses to – but that would require a reduction in the range and scope of public services and social security benefits provided to residents."
Mr Sousa also struck a note of caution as to whether income tax cuts would actually increase growth significantly.
"It has to be taken in the round," he said.
"Higher disposable income would incentivise people to spend more, but those benefitting the most would be at the top of the distribution, and that would mean the impact would be significantly smaller."
