Why Boris Johnson now looks more likely to preserve – not destroy – the union

For the best part of five years, there has been a gathering sense that the United Kingdom might not survive as a unitary state. The strains brought about by Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic were combining to force the devolved nations apart.

Suddenly, though, what looked like an inexorable trend seems to be juddering to a halt, even going into reverse. Could it be that, far from going down in history as the prime minister who lost the union, Boris Johnson could emerge as the premier who saved it? And if he does, how much would that feat be down to him, and how much to what sometimes seems his infernal luck?

To recap: the result of the 2016 EU referendum was not just a defeat for those who voted to stay within the EU; it also confirmed the depth of disunity in the Kingdom. The threat posed by the Scottish referendum a year earlier had been averted, it seemed, only to spring back to life when the Brexit vote showed a clear division between Remain-voting Scotland and Northern Ireland, and Leave-voting England and Wales. A new push by the SNP for Scottish independence was one consequence.

The totally unforeseen intervention of the pandemic served only to reinforce the fissiparous trend. With health a devolved responsibility, leaders of the three nations were able to differentiate themselves from London in a way that underlined the advantages of separation, even if the performance of their health systems – as judged by the mortality rate – were no better than England’s.

By the time Brexit was well and truly “done”, at the start of this year, the break-up of the UK seemed, if not inevitable, then a prospect that had at very least to be broached.

Reported disputes around a Cabinet Office union unit suggested that Downing Street might be doing just that – the fear being that, if David Cameron’s fate was to be known as the prime minister whose ill-judged referendum triggered Brexit, his successor-but-one could go down in history as the last prime minister of the UK. Only a few years before, it would have seemed inconceivable that the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party could have little choice but to stand by as the UK broke up; in recent months – well, not nearly so much.

For me, at least, the (hopefully peaceful) break-up of the UK is something I could countenance, if not cheerfully, then with a degree of equanimity and voyeuristic fascination. And the outline of the process was already becoming clear.

The unification of Ireland seemed – still seems to me – both a logical outcome of the awkward Brexit arrangements, and the completion of a process that has been in train, often unhappily, for more than 100 years. Similarly, the departure of Scotland, with its separate legal system and a desire to pursue a more European identity. Even in initially reluctantly devolved Wales, opinion may be shifting in a more self-determining direction.

There would also be a certain elegance in the re-emergence of England as a separate state. The way devolution was enacted entailed a host of ambiguities and inconsistencies, with the devolved powers differing from one nation to another. The break-up of the UK would allow for the evolution of a far more coherent and consensual state than the UK has been for many a decade. Such an outcome never seemed to me the worst possible consequence of the Brexit vote.

Now, though, just as it seemed many Britons were starting to accept the possible break-up of the UK, the tide could be turning. Opinion in Scotland is now showing a majority of those asked rejecting independence, according to recent polls. Of course, this may be a blip, and people were not asked for their reasons. But at least two may be suggested.

One, which applies across the devolved nations, is what is seen as the huge success of the Covid vaccination campaign, which has been clearly branded as an NHS operation across the UK, and overseen from Westminster. For the first time in the pandemic, the UK government, as opposed to the devolved governments, has come across as competent and even something akin to a “world leader”. This success appears to be responsible for the poll lead currently enjoyed by Johnson over Keir Starmer and by the Conservatives over Labour. It seems also to have spread to the devolved nations.

The other is the current shambles inside the Scottish governing party and parliament, that has grown out of what appears (to me) to have been the grievous mishandling of sexual assault complaints against the former leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), Alex Salmond. A lot of dirty linen is currently being washed in public, thanks to the televising of parliamentary committee hearings into the conduct of officials, up to and including the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon. Salmond believes that Sturgeon, his former protegee and successor as party leader, plotted to discredit him – a claim she categorically denies.

Sturgeon may now have successfully fended off calls for a vote of confidence in parliament – or for her resignation – on the grounds that she may, allegedly, have breached the ministerial code. But damage has been done, certainly to her own standing – which had been enhanced during the early stages of the pandemic – but probably also (given that she has been the cheerleader for a new independence referendum) to the cause of independence itself.

From facing negligible opposition, Sturgeon now has two of Scotland’s most effective politicians ranged against her: Salmond himself (who was acquitted of all charges of sexual assault last year), and the Conservative, Ruth Davidson, who is currently leading the Opposition in the Scottish parliament.

How much the SNP or the cause of independence has been harmed is hard to gauge, but the impression of unity and competence is being replaced by an impression of parochialism, which could damage the SNP’s quest for a big majority in parliamentary elections in May, which Sturgeon had planned to use as a mandate for a new referendum.

Downing Street will surely not be displeased by developments in Edinburgh. The one question will be whether the SNP’s embarrassments will last until May.

The situation with Northern Ireland is also suddenly more complicated than it seemed even a month ago. Continuing supply difficulties as a result of the new sea border led London to extend the agreed transitional period under cover of Wednesday’s UK Budget announcement and without prior agreement with Brussels.

So long as problems persist, the DUP’s objections to the Brexit arrangements will grow, security could deteriorate, and what had seemed the realistic prospect of Northern Ireland voting to join the Republic could be much further down the line than it once looked.

And if the SNP does not secure the mandate it seeks for a new referendum at the May elections, and if the DUP-Conservative ties are strengthened because the post-Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland are not working, then a Welsh question will simply not arise.

Nor, so long as there is no major politician prepared to champion the cause of self-government for England, will the English question.

To the extent that Boris Johnson now plays up the dangers of break-up, he has a good chance of being hailed as the union’s saviour, because – as of now, and for a host of reasons – the United Kingdom may, almost imperceptibly, have gained a new lease of life.