Coutts' debanking of Nigel Farage was a test of metropolitan liberal elite's commitment to free speech which many of us failed – Euan McColm

The Farage affair has thrown a spotlight on those who are unable to secure accounts with major banks for purely economic reasons

As a fully committed member of the metropolitan liberal elite, I take seriously my dislike of Nigel Farage. I think he’s a dangerous populist, a spiv, a boor, and a bore. I loathe his divisive rhetoric and rue the day he entered public life. As far as I’m concerned, Farage has coarsened our politics and I long for the day when he shuts up, sods off, and continues sodding off.

However, despite my abhorrence of the former Ukip leader's views, I firmly support his right to say and do the things he does. How could anyone not? If we truly believe in freedom of expression, then we have no choice but to defend the right to speak of those with whom we profoundly disagree.

So, when it emerged Coutts bank had decided to close Farage’s account on the grounds that his views were incompatible with its values, I shuddered. When people whose politics I might share defended the bank or celebrated Farage’s humiliation, I despaired. After all, if Farage could be “de-banked” on the basis of his legally held and expressed opinions, then so could any of us.

Nigel Farage poses with a highly controversial Ukip campaign poster ahead of the 2016 Brexit referendum (Picture: Jack Taylor/Getty Images)

Days after the Farage-Coutts row erupted, it emerged that the bank Monzo had decided to close an account opened by pro-EU campaigner Gina Miller on behalf of her party, True and Fair. Monzo wrote to Miller informing her of its decision, without explaining its motivation. Suddenly, those on the centre and left of politics, who had rejoiced in Farage’s predicament, found one of their own had been similarly treated.

Throughout this messy affair, it has often been pointed out that neither Farage nor anyone else has a human right to hold an account with Coutts or any other bank. This, of course, is true, but it should not lessen our unease over a situation where someone, having been accepted as a bank’s customer, is then ditched on the whim of managers who find their views déclassé.

The Farage affair has also thrown a spotlight on the troubling issue of how difficult it is for some who – for purely economic reasons – are unable to secure accounts with major banks. Again, these people have no human right to hold an account, but we should be concerned about a situation which sees the poorest denied a service the rest of us take for granted.

There is space here for politicians to apply pressure on banks. The Farage case has cost the chief executives of Coutts and its parent company Nat West their highly paid positions. This, I think, was quite right.

Our political debate gets more fraught by the day. Cheap populists – whether they be Eurosceptic Little Englanders or perma-victim Scottish nationalists – encourage their supporters to see opponents as enemies. They reject the idea of good faith disagreement and suggest malign intentions on the parts of those with whom they disagree.

In the current climate, it would be easy to neatly categorise any defeat of the “other side” as a victory for our own. This isn’t good enough. Nigel Farage’s treatment by Coutts created a test for defenders of free speech which, I’m afraid, many failed to pass.