Trump goes to Scotland
This being Scotland – Edinburgh, to be precise – there might have been a chance of someone flipping it off his head, had he not been around 6'3', seemingly made of bricks and, I soon learned, a veteran of the US Navy. He was probably safe.
We fell into conversation, which involved him almost weepily describing what he saw as the US President's astonishing virtues. The economy was flying, immigration was being crushed, and America's enemies were on the run – as were the 'pathetic' Democrats. When I (gently) put the alternative case to him I was dismissed as a bit of a lefty, which doesn't happen to me very often. He was heading back to the States on Friday, just as his hero is expected to arrive in Scotland on a four-day trip. Trump is visiting his golf courses in Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire, and is also due to meet Keir Starmer and John Swinney. 'He'll sort those boys out,' said Mr Maga with a cackle, before heading off into the night.
Perhaps. Although, according to the Scottish left, it is Swinney who should be doing the sorting out. The First Minister has been told by activists in his own party that he should put pressure on Trump to withdraw US support for Israel. Nadia El-Nakla, the wife of Swinney's predecessor Humza Yousaf, and who has family in Gaza, said he should demand that Trump 'compel' Israel to step back. Now, in Scottish terms, Swinney is a powerful man, but I'm not sure his leverage extends that far. I certainly wouldn't open with it. A tokenistic mention is probably as much as can be expected.
There has been the usual outrage that this most controversial of presidents is even setting foot on Scottish soil. Some are furious that the First Minister is meeting him. Many more are angry that Trump will return later this year for a state visit, when he will meet the King at Windsor. Trump is beyond the pale, a brutal dictator, and the UK should basically restrict any engagement, hunker down and wait for him to leave office, is their argument.
But not even the leadership of the SNP – a party not immune to daft foreign policy thinking – believes this is a sensible idea. The man runs the most powerful country in the world, and is doing so with gangsterish swagger – bombing, tariff-ing and ripping up the old order across the planet. Whatever your view of him, he is probably the most consequential US president since Reagan, and must be accommodated.
Hence, Ian Murray, the Scottish Secretary, promised a 'warm welcome'. 'The office of the president of the United States and the office of the prime minister are ones that work very, very closely together… We should make sure those relationships are in place because it's important for our defence, our security, our economy,' he added. Quite.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Politics requires a certain level of hypocrisy, and those in power who have little time for Trump will have to paint on a smile, roll out the flattery and show him a good time. That is what Murray is doing – in 2019 he signed a motion in the Commons accusing the president of 'misogynism, racism and xenophobia'. I doubt his view of the man has changed, but he is unlikely to repeat the charge this weekend.
There will be protests, of course, and fair enough. Perhaps the most magnificently Scottish protest of all time happened during a previous, pre-presidential Trump visit to the Scottish Parliament in 2012, when a man named Stan Blackley rubbed a balloon on the tycoon's head, making his hair stand on end. 'I just found myself behind Donald Trump with a balloon one day and did what any sane and sensible person would have done,' Blackley explained. No-one will get that close this time – a huge security operation has been launched by Scottish police to prevent disruption.
Trump will want to talk to Starmer about trade and Ukraine and the Middle East, no doubt, but he is also expected to make a pitch for Turnberry, his Ayrshire golf course, to host the Open Championship. The course last hosted the event in 2009. Given Trump's obsession with the game, and his fragile ego, it might be wise for both Starmer and Swinney to offer their support for the idea. He is also likely to be asked about drilling in the North Sea, having said ahead of his visit that 'They have so much oil there. They should get rid of the windmills and bring back the oil.'
Trump creates headlines wherever he goes. It's Scotland's turn to experience Maga in full effect.
[Further reading: The abomination of Obama's nation]
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
Heartfelt prayers: photos of Argentines turning to the Catholic saint of work in search of jobs
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
New Statesman
13 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Starmer is now less popular than Trump
New polling has found that Keir Starmer is now less popular amongst British voters than Donald Trump. Today, we're talking about Keir Starmer's first year in government and the rapid decline in his personal popularity. From a triumphant election victory to sliding approval ratings, where has it gone wrong for the Labour leader? Anoosh Chakelian is joined by the New Statesman's senior data journalist, Ben Walker. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
The National
19 minutes ago
- The National
Plans to deliver the SNP's 'Promise' are a muddle. They won't do
Good evening! This week's edition of the In Common newsletter comes from Nick Kempe of the Common Weal Care Reform Group, who was previously head of commissioning of social care at Glasgow City Council. ON June 17, the Scottish Government introduced the horribly named Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Parliament. This was almost nine years after Nicola Sturgeon first promised to improve the lives of children and young people with experience of the care system. The Independent Care Review was then set up to consider how to do it. In 2020, it produced its report, The Promise, which was followed in 2021 by The Plan. The purpose of the bill is to implement recommendations arising from The Promise and The Plan – for example, reforming the Children's Hearing system, which the Scottish Government believe requires changes in the law. Among them is also the recommendation that profit should have no place in the children's care system. READ MORE: SNP must do more to keep my flagship 'promise', Nicola Sturgeon says The policy memorandum accompanying the bill starts well, with this statement: 'The Promise is clear that there is no place for profiting in how Scotland cares for its children and that Scotland must avoid the monetisation of the care of children and prevent the marketisation of care by 2030.' Unfortunately, the proposals which follow represent a complete policy muddle and will not deliver what was promised. Residential care and for-profit problems Take the proposals for children's residential care. They will do nothing to prevent private companies extracting large profits. For residential children's services, the bill only gives Ministers the power to limit profit, not abolish it and that only after a period of collecting data about profit levels – a recipe for delay. In proposing this, the Scottish Government has decided to follow England but not Wales, who are in the process of abolishing private provision completely. The Scottish Government's justification for this stance is they believe profits are lower in Scotland (£28k a year per child) than England and the UK average of £44k a year. This is based on data from the Competition and Markets Authority. For context, £28k a year is four times the amount per child the bill proposes to spend extending aftercare services to children who leave care before 16 over their lifetimes! Every pound extracted in profit is a pound less for helping a child who needs it. (Image: Vitolda Klein on Unsplash) The latest Looked After Children Statistics report that 1324 children and young people were in residential care settings in 2024, and suggest that of these a minimum of 365 were in placements provided by the private sector. That is more than £10 million in private profit. The explanation for this retreat from The Promise appears to lie in the Financial Memorandum to the bill. This states that the Scottish Government is concerned that profit-making providers would walk away from service provision (with their buildings) if the profit extraction stopped. The answer to that risk is for the Scottish Government to pledge to use emergency powers to take over such services and, if their current powers are not sufficient to do this, to add new emergency powers to the bill. The bill contains no proposals to stop profit-making by private companies which operate services for care-experienced children in local communities rather than residential or foster care settings. Such services also monetise the care system. A step forward for foster care The proposals in foster care do, however, represent a step forward. Independent Fostering Agencies (IFAs) are the only type of care service in Scotland that are currently required to operate on a non-for-profit basis – but this has never been enforced by the regulator responsible, the Care Inspectorate (CI). As a result, as Common Weal showed in our The Crisis in Foster Care in Scotland report, profits continue to be siphoned out of some IFAs by profit-making parent companies. We are pleased that the Scottish Government has explicitly mentioned our report and acknowledged what is happening in the policy memorandum to the bill. To address these problems the Scottish Government is proposing that all IFAs should be required to register as charities with the Scottish Charity Regulator. It also correctly argues that if any of the current IFAs decide to withdraw from the foster care market as a result, the foster carers contracted to work for them can be taken on by other IFAs or local authorities. It predicts this will release £6-10m a year which can then be reinvested in foster care – less than will be taken in profit for residential children's services. Public services for private profit? All this does represent a significant step forward in government thinking – but begs the question as to how the not-for-profit requirements will be enforced? More specifically, how will profit-making parent companies be prevented from continuing to extract money from IFAs through internal charges for legal and administrative services, or borrowing large sums of money interest-free, as they do at present? The Scottish Government is proposing that the CI should be responsible for delivering this and that after setting up new systems the costs of doing so will be minimal. If it's so simple, the CI could have done this years ago. First Minister John Swinney's Government had published the proposals (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) We would like to see the bill go further and the Scottish Government use its legislative powers to break all links between IFAs and profit-making companies, the only sure way to ensure profit extraction stops. Common Weal's Care Reform Group will publish our full response to the Scottish Government's proposals in due course. The consultation and the bill itself, however, present an opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to challenge the hold that profit-making companies now have over swathes of what are supposed to be public services. We must ensure that they are once again run for public benefit – and only ever in the interests of the children who need them.
