THERE was an inevitability about it.
When the super-thin-skinned Donald Trump tweeted the White House would no longer deal with Sir Kim Darroch, then it seemed the ambassador’s days were numbered.
Being “disinvited” to a White House dinner, having to absent himself from a meeting with Ivanka Trump to spare her the embarrassment of meeting him in the wake of her father’s wrath and then Wilbur Ross, the US Commerce Secretary, making clear he would not meet Liam Fox, the Trade Secretary, because Sir Kim would also be in the room, meant the ambassador’s role had been fatally compromised.
Downing St insisted Theresa May continued to have “full faith” in the ambassador but it was difficult to see how he could continue for much longer.
But, of course, there was a twist to the tale. When Jeremy Hunt backed the ambassador to the hilt during the live TV head-to-head, Mr Johnson’s instinct was not to follow suit but to place keeping on good terms with the US President above all else.
There is, of course, a theory the leaking of the emails was a piece of political sabotage.
This will only be reinforced after Nigel Farage, the leader of the Brexit Party, responded to Sir Kim’s resignation by commenting the ambassador had made the “right decision". And he tweeted: “Time to put in a non-Remainer who wants a trade deal with America."
Will what Labour’s Emily Thornberry condemned as Mr Johnson’s “pathetic lick-spittle response” have any bearing on the Tory leadership race? Probably not.
Most people at Westminster assume that a majority of Tory members have already cast their ballot and most of these to Mr Johnson’s favour.
No doubt, like the Prime Minister after Mr Trump took over the Oval Office, Mr Johnson will make a dash for Washington within hours of receiving the Conservative crown.
There will no doubt be a lot of laughter and shoulder-punching camaraderie on the White House lawn between the transatlantic buddies but diplomats across the world will be rolling their eyes and watching their backs and, if they haven’t already, deleting countless emails.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel