Why won’t Boris Johnson protect the Barnett Formula?
The would-be Prime Minister’s claim to champion the Union demands to be treated with great scepticism
Boris Johnson should not be surprised if his promise that, if he wins the race to become the next Prime Minister of the UK, he would also be “minister for the Union” is treated with considerable scepticism.
Mr Johnson – front-runner in the contest to succeed Theresa May – has previously shown little understanding of the fragile nature of the UK. Indeed, one of his early campaign pledges betrayed a woeful lack of consideration of both the practicalities and the politics of maintaining the ties that bind its constituent parts.
Mr Johnson’s promise to raise the higher tax threshold would not apply to Scotland and would lead to an unsustainable scenario where the national insurance contributions of Scots – whose income taxes are set at Holyrood – were used to fund tax breaks for English workers.
Despite this early blunder, Mr Johnson yesterday attempted to reassert his pro-uk credentials, writing in a Sunday newspaper that he would do “anything” in his power to stop the UK breaking up should he defeat rival Jeremy Hunt in the Tory leadership contest. Mr Hunt, to his credit, has pointed out that scrapping the Barnett Formula – the mechanism by which public spending levels are set in Scotland – would be a reckless decision. Mr Johnson, however, continues to refuse to rule out this possibility.
Mr Johnson wrote that declaring himself “minister for the Union” would be “cost-free but symbolically significant”. The Scotsman does not see any value in such symbolism when the reality may well be that, under a Johnson premiership, public spending in Scotland would fall.
Mr Johnson asserted that he was a “passionate believer” in the Union. The majority of Scots, we daresay, have had quite enough of politicians who state that “belief ” is enough to overcome hurdles.
Almost two-thirds of Scottish voters rejected Brexit in 2016’s referendum and the constant refrain from
those who led the Leave campaign that the process has been hampered by a lack of belief is the most pitiful response to their own failings.
Understandably, the SNP believes a Johnson premiership would be fuel for the independence campaign. And polls showing a majority of Conservative members – that small group of people who will choose our next PM – would rather see the UK break apart than the cancellation of Brexit, can only further help the nationalists’ cause.
The Scotsman is deeply sceptical about Boris Johnson’s sudden conversion to champion of the Union. In word and deed, he has shown that the achievement of his own personal ambitions trump all other considerations.
The prospect of a Jeremy Hunt premiership is little more appealing. The Foreign Secretary may have voted to remain in 2016, but he is now utterly in thrall to the hardline Brexiteers who dominate his party.
Asked yesterday morning by Andrew Marr on his BBC One show whether he would be able to look business owners in the eye and tell them that they should prepare for their companies to go bust if the UK is forced into a no deal Brexit, Mr Hunt said he would do so but “with a heavy heart”. This would be necessary, he said, to maintain the UK’S image abroad as “a country where politicians do what the people tell them”.
Mr Hunt’s words – utterly perverse from a man who seeks to lead a party which has, since its foundation, presented itself as the champion of enterprise – show the extent to which the issue of Brexit has disfigured out national debate.
Jeremy Hunt may say he has the UK’S international reputation at heart. That reputation, we are bound to say, has long since been tarnished and the Tory leadership campaign will, surely, do nothing to change the widely-held view that the UK is currently engaged in an act of catastrophic self-harm.