BORIS Johnson has claimed to “love the SNP” and described his relationship with Nicola Sturgeon as “friendly” at the Covid inquiry.
Speaking under oath at the official probe into the UK’s response to the pandemic, Johnson defended comments he made about refusing meetings with the leaders of the devolved administrations during the crisis.
He delegated them to Michael Gove (below), who then served as the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which was a system he claimed worked well.
But his witness statement suggested he had believed it “wrong” both in terms of the constitution and of “optics” to hold regular meetings with the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – likening that to being like a “mini-EU”.
Explaining the remark to the probe, he said that one of the considerations was the “risk of pointless political friction and grandstanding because of the well-known opposition of some of the devolved administrations to the Government and to avoid necessary leaks”.
He added that he thought the “way to minimise divergence and tensions was to take the temperature down and to have business-like and practical meetings between the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the [devolved administrations]”.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson defends 'let Covid rip' comments as he hits back over partygate
And he rejected a suggestion from his former chief of staff Lord Udny-Lister that he had “no real personal relationship” with Sturgeon – insisting they were “friendly”.
The former prime minister said that he had “no ill will whatsoever” with Sturgeon (below).
“When I have talked to her, we have got on very well and had a friendly relationship.”
Asked why Lord Udny-Lister, a close aide, would have received that impression, Johnson replied: “Much as I love the SNP, politically there was a certain amount of toing and froing between the SNP and me as prime minister.”
He also rejected an accusation from Danny Friedman KC, who was representing a number of national disabled people’s groups, who said the former prime minister was “shamefully ageist”.
The accusation came in response to comments attributed to Johnson in which he was said to have questioned scientists on why not to let Covid “rip” though the elderly and vulnerable and let the rest of society get on with their lives.
Johnson said: “I was doing my best to reflect what was I’m afraid a debate that was very live and live I may say with a great number of older people, who would make these points to me. And I wanted to get the answers.”
READ MORE: Ian Blackford reveals truth about 'friendship' with Boris Johnson
Lady Hallett intervened to say she had not given permission for the use of the “forensic flourish”.
Johnson was also probed by Samuel Jacobs on behalf of the Trades Union Council about “dismissive” comments he had made about trade unions.
The inquiry was shown an extract from Patrick Vallance’s diary in which he was said to have remarked “we can’t have the bollocks of consulting with employees and trade unions”.
Johnson replied: “This is July 2021, we’ve vaccinated a huge proportion of the population, faster than any other European country, I’m determined to get people back to work if I possibly can.”
He added: “What I didn’t want to see was a drag anchor being put on people getting back into the workplace after the colossal changes that we’d been able to make in the pandemic.”
Leaving the inquiry, he was greeted by protesters shouting “murderer” and “shame on you” as he got into his chauffeur-driven car.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel