02221-25 Hunt v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Russell Hunt complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Farage: Scrap ‘out of date’ Barnett formula”, published on 3 June 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page 6 of the newspaper’s Scottish edition - reported on comments Nigel Farage made during a visit to Scotland.

3. The article reported:

“Nigel Farage has proposed scrapping the Barnett formula, which gives Scots thousands of pounds more public spending per person than the English.

“The Reform UK leader said the Barnett formula, used to calculate Scotland’s block grant from Westminster, originated in the 1970s and was ‘somewhat out of date’.

“Speaking during a visit to Scotland, he said it “should be looked at again” and argued that Holyrood should instead be given more powers to ‘raise a bit more of its own revenue’.”

4. It went on to report:

“Asked whether he viewed public spending in Scotland as too high, and whether he would scrap the Barnett formula, Mr Farage said that ‘of course’ there was an argument for it to be examined.

“He added: ‘The Barnett formula seems to me to be somewhat out of date. What I’d like to see is a Scottish Government that’s able to raise a bit more of its own revenue, and a Scottish economy that has genuine growth.

“‘And I don’t believe that can happen without this sector [North Sea oil and gas] booming. The Barnett formula goes back to the 1970s. Is there an argument that it should be looked at again? Of course there is.’”

5. The article also appeared online, in a live blog format, headlined “Slash handouts to Scotland, demands Farage”. This version of the article was published on 2 June 2025.

6. The article also appeared in the newspaper’s London print edition; however, this version of the article was not under complaint.

7. The complainant said that the article headlines were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said they were not supported by the text of the article, as Mr Farage did not “demand” anything, or use the words “slash” or “scrap” in relation to the Barnett formula.

8. The publication did not accept that either version of the headline was inaccurate. It said that its reporter had been with Mr Farage all day during his visit to Scotland, and had recorded and made notes of his comments – which showed it had taken care over the accuracy of its coverage. It said that the headlines accurately reflected Mr Farage’s argument that the Barnett formula is out-of-date and should be revised, and that he had spoken forcefully about his view that the Scottish government should raise more of its own revenue.

9. The publication said Mr Farage’s comments as reported in the article were made in response to a question about previous comments he had made about the public being unhappy about the amount of public money being spent on Scotland. It said that, in light of this, his comments could reasonably be understood as a “demand” that the funding to Scotland be reduced, or “slashed”.

10. To support its position, it provided the following transcript of the exchange between a reporter and Mr Farage:

Reporter: Nigel, back in 2015, during the general election campaign, you said that taxpayers in England were, "cheesed off" with the amount of public money that goes to Scotland. Can I ask: I that still your view, and if you won power, would you look to scrap the Barnett formula?

Nigel Farage: The Barnett formula, it seems to me, is really somewhat out of date. What I'd like to see is a Scottish government that's able to raise a bit more of its own revenue, a Scottish economy that has actually got genuine growth, and I don't believe that can happen without this [oil and gas] sector booming, all right? And I think… the Barnett formula goes back to the 1970s. Is there an argument that should be looked at again? Of course there is. But I mean, frankly, frankly, if you look at welfare dependency, if you look at educational standards, the idea that 50 billion this year...roughly what the figure is going to be going to Scotland...it isn't going to reduce in the short term until Scotland actually starts to have an economy that is thriving. Now it's going in completely the wrong direction.

11. The complainant did not accept that the headlines reflected Mr Farage’s comments. He said that Mr Farage had said the Barnett formula should be “looked at again”, which was a call for it to be reviewed rather than scrapped. He said that the publication had misrepresented this as a demand for the formula to be scrapped and for a reduction in the amount of funding to Scotland.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

12. The Committee noted that the reporter present had both recorded and taken notes of Mr Farage’s comments, and it had therefore been able to provide a full transcript of Mr Farage’s response to the question of Scottish funding. It noted that the reporter put to Mr Farage whether he would “look to scrap the Barnett formula”, and the Committee considered that Mr Farage’s response should be considered in light of this question.

13. The Committee noted that the publication was able to demonstrate that it had contemporaneous record of Mr Farage stating – in response to a question about whether the Barnett formula should be “scrap[ped]”, that it was “out of date”, “should be looked at again”, and that he would “like to see […] a Scottish Government that’s able to raise a bit more of its own revenue, and a Scottish economy that has genuine growth”. In such circumstances, it did not consider that it was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted to characterise this as Mr Farage having made a demand to “scrap” the formula, and to “slash handouts to Scotland”. It also considered the headlines were supported by the text of the article, where the article set out the comments from Mr Farage which acted as the basis for this characterisation. As the headlines were not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted – and were supported by the text of the article - there was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

14. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

15. N/A

Date complaint received: 03/06/2025

Date complaint closed: 17/10/2025