Brian Cox says Donald Trump is 'talking boll***s' with indyref2 claim
The First Minister had just put forward his plans for Scottish independence, saying getting a second referendum could only be achieved if the SNP win a majority in Holyrood.
'I don't want to get involved in your politics, we got enough politics of our own,' Trump said/
'I will say that I predicted what was going to happen the last time.'
(Image: Chris Furlong)
He noted that he was opening his golf course in Aberdeenshire at the time and had called the result for Better Together, adding: 'I like to be correct.'
Trump added: 'I do say that when they made that deal, somebody said that it was, and I remember this very distinctly, I said, could they do this all the time?
'There was a little bit of a restriction like 50 or 75 years before you could take another vote because, you know, a country can't go through that too much.
Responding to the comments, the 79-year-old actor told Sky News: "He's talking bollocks. I'm sorry, but he does. It's rubbish. Let's get on with it and let's get it [independence] done. We can do it.
"It's been tough as there's a great deal of undermining that has gone on."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
10 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Forbes calls for change for parents in politics after decision to quit
Ms Forbes will not seek re-election in the Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch constituency next year, bringing to an end – for at least the next election cycle – one of the most promising political careers in Scotland. In a letter to First Minister John Swinney, Ms Forbes said she did not want to 'miss any more of the precious early years of family life'. Ms Forbes – who has a two-year-old daughter and three step-daughters – pushed the Scottish Parliament to be better for those with young families working in politics. The parliament was viewed as a more family-friendly version of the Westminster legislature, but recent years have seen a number of women step back, citing the pressures on young parents. Former Tory leader Ruth Davidson, former minister Aileen Campbell and MSPs Jenny Marra and Gail Ross were among those who were outspoken in their thinking for standing down at the 2021 election. 'I'm not the first and, unless anything changes, I'm unlikely to be the last,' Ms Forbes said on BBC Radio Scotland on Tuesday. 'So many parents know the pressures and the guilt of balancing all of this, and I'm totally in the same camp as them.' Ms Forbes said there was the added stress of one of the country's furthest north constituencies, meaning an 'eight hours return trip to my place of work' and sometimes 'a minimum three to four hours drive across the constituency before the day even begins'. 'There are some areas I think the Parliament could do more and do better,' the Deputy First Minister said. She pointed to the Holyrood creche – a service which was seen as a sign of the more family-friendly ethos – which is only available for three hours per day, three days a week. After careful thought over recess, I've decided not to seek re-election to @scotparl next year. I've written to the First Minister this morning 👇🏽 I will continue to serve the First Minister, the Government and my constituents to the best of my ability until May 2026. — Kate Forbes MSP (@_KateForbes) August 4, 2025 'I don't know anybody who only works three hours per day, so that doesn't make sense,' she said. 'I'm certainly not advocating for the job to be any less demanding or any less all-consuming, it has to be by its very nature of representing people. 'But if we can't even get some of the basic support right, then it will always be difficult for mums and dads.' Despite the decision announced on Monday, the Deputy First Minister did not completely close the door to a political return, saying 'maybe' she would consider such a move in 20 years. Since taking over as finance secretary in 2020 after the resignation of her predecessor Derek Mackay following a scandal involving messages he sent to a 16-year-old boy, Ms Forbes has been marked for leadership. She would ultimately lose the race for the SNP's top job after Nicola Sturgeon's resignation in 2023 in a contest marred by criticisms of her views on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Following the resignation of Humza Yousaf last year, Ms Forbes was handed the role of kingmaker, being the one to decide if the party would be forced to go through with a potentially damaging leadership contest, which she ultimately decided against in favour of a pact with First Minister John Swinney, becoming his deputy. The, sometimes ugly, criticisms levelled at the Deputy First Minister, she said, were 'in the past' as she continued to voice her support for the SNP and Scottish independence.
The Herald Scotland
22 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Water boss accused of negotiating pay for just 15 minutes
Mr Plant earns £483,000 - £100,000 more than his predecessor. [[Scottish Water]] did not confirm the length of time spent in negotiations by Mr Plant, but told The Herald the boss had been "fully engaged" in the process. Labour's Central Scotland MSP Monica Lennon has accused the water body of failing to "negotiate in good faith" with trade unions. Strikes by Scottish Water workers concluded after an improved offer was accepted by unions. The pay deal for 2024-25 and 2025-26 financial years is worth a minimum of £2,850 for members on salary bands one to six. Staff on band seven salaries will receive an additional £3,030 while band eight workers gain another £3,771. There were 10 days of strike action this year after the employer initially offered a pay rise of £1,050 for the lowest grade salaries. This, and a later 7% increase over two years, had been rejected by staff. Read more: Despite the strikes being called off, unions remain unhappy and have urged the company to reduce its reliance on contractors and agency staff, with approximately £3 million spent during this year's strikes. In a letter to the First Minister, seen exclusively by The Herald, Ms Lennon condemned the "unacceptable" situation which has led to Scottish Water executives being exempt from public sector pay policy. "I have seen clear evidence that Scottish Water failed to negotiate in good faith with unions of the past year to settle this dispute," Ms Lennon wrote. "Senior managers appeared to take a 'hands-off' approach and there was little engagement with staff. "I have been told chief executive Alex Plant attended just 15 minutes of talks. To put that into perspective, Unison's branch secretary Tricia McArthur logged 200 hours of work on the issue." While Mr Swinney has previously expressed support for public ownership, Ms Lennon warned the water firm appeared to be "drifting towards a completely different model". "The company has made significant decisions on how services are delivered without any involvement from unions, including a major transformation programme," she added. Read more: "Due to the direct impact on staff, those changes deserve detailed scrutiny." The Labour MSP, whose parliamentary register of interests state she is a member of the GMB and Unite the Union, told the First Minister: "It is time for the Scottish Government to act. Ministers must remind [[Scottish Water]] that it is publicly owned - and must operate in the interest of staff and the wider public." The Herald revealed the Scottish Water boss's pay rise in February, despite public sector pay rules stating he was expected to receive a 10% cut. The increase was a record in recent years with performance bonuses and benefits amounting to £170,000 on top of a £246,000 basic salary. A Scottish Water spokesperson said: 'The trade union members who work at Scottish Water voted strongly in favour of our recent pay deal. 'The more than 7.5% increase over two years builds on a decade where pay deals have kept well ahead of inflation, reflecting the company's commitment to its people and fair work principles. 'Alex Plant, our chief executive, was fully engaged in decision making with negotiations led by Peter Farrer, our chief operating officer, and Lynne Highway, our director for people, as part of the consultation and negotiating structure agreed by the Joint Trade Unions. Each dedicated significant amounts of time to pay talks over many months. 'Publicly owned Scottish Water is the UK's top performing water company with 94% customer satisfaction and one of the most trusted utilities in the UK, according to the Institute of Customer Service. 'Scotland's bathing waters have also recently achieved new quality records with 87% rated 'good' or better according to the independent regulator, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). The UK Government's Independent Water Commission also recently noted 'Scotland has a greater number of water bodies achieving 'good' status compared to England and Wales''. Ms Lennon's letter warns the First Minister that the public are at risk of losing trust in the water industry following a spending scandal at regulator Water Industry Commission for Scotland (Wics). The regulator spent £77,000 on a Harvard Business School course for a senior executive, as well as a number of meals and gift cards for staff which exceeded gift value limits. Climate Action Secretary Gillian Martin admitted "shortcomings" in how the government handled the spending saga. Ms Martin said: "Following the recent week long strike, I wanted to ensure a positive way forward which fell within the spirit of the Government's public sector pay policy; was affordable to Scottish Water's employees and minimised the impact on customers. "The Scottish Government has been assured that Scottish Water's pay negotiations with the Unions was transparent and in line with fair work principles and aligned with the appropriate standards for a public corporation. "There are no plans to privatise Scottish Water. Scottish Water is performing extremely well as a publicly owned corporation, matching the levels of service provided by companies in England and Wales whilst ensuring that households in Scotland pay less than in the rest of the UK. "All profits go back into improving the service, never to shareholders and that is the way it will stay under this government."
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The EU is a colossus. So why is it cowering before Trump like a mouse?
Who remembers the spate of 'introduction videos' that emerged during the first Trump administration – a series of tongue-in-cheek clips about European countries to introduce them to Donald Trump? The viral video trend was sparked by the Dutch comedian Arjen Lubach, who ended his segment on the Netherlands with: 'We totally understand it's going to be America first, but can we just say the Netherlands second?' It seems that Europe's leaders remember the videos all too well; that they internalised the caustic message a little bit too much. Afraid of rocking the boat during its trade negotiations with Trump, the EU decided to pre-emptively sink itself. Instead of strategic autonomy, it will spend hundreds of billions of dollars on American weapons; in place of future climate goals, it will pour hundreds of billions into US natural gas; instead of a mutual tariff reduction, it will take a huge unilateral hit to EU exporters; instead of self-respect, humiliating prostration. The new trade 'deal' announced by Trump and Ursula von der Leyen last month left a five-year-old's worth of whys to ponder. Why does the EU, a colossus, think it is a mouse? Why is it content to merely nibble at the edges of power? Will it ever respect itself as much as China, which met Trump tariff for tariff until he backed off? Why don't its politicians understand that voters want leaders who will defend them, and that, as for Canada's Mark Carney and Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, there are actually electoral rewards to be reaped by doing so without reserve? Why, even after Brexit, do they ignore the lesson that these same voters prioritise identity and emotion over cold economic rationality? The EU could have called Trump's bluff; the problem is that, as Emmanuel Macron remarked, the EU isn't 'feared enough'. And yet, it has far more leverage than China does against the US economy. If deployed, the EU's anti-coercion instrument would enable it to flatly end the future manufacturing of the most advanced semiconductors in the US by shutting off exports, turning Trump's $500bn Stargate AI project into an intergalactic bridge to nowhere. It could obliterate long-term US tech dominance by taxing the Silicon Valley behemoths, blocking their market access and removing their intellectual property protections. It could severely disrupt Americans' supply of Ozempic and Wegovy for good measure. Would this spiral? Undoubtedly – but as the weaker tech player, the EU arguably has less to lose and ultimately more to gain. Plus, Europeans hate Trump and would probably unify in the face of a full-blown trade war, whereas Americans – half of whom also hate Trump – would not. We tend to take the EU for granted, but there is anger brewing amid latent pride. The first European politician to tell Trump where to shove it – in a crude, unapologetic and very public way – is going to surf a wave of never-before-seen emotion and support. Is this far-fetched and unrealistic? Probably. But everything about Trump is far-fetched and unrealistic. Why are we willing to accept – expect, even – boundary-pushing, shocking behaviour from the US, but not from ourselves? Surrendering to Trump's demands is the act of an entity that still believes the US is a wayward friend to appease, cajole and fear, all while the US under Trump sees and treats Europe as a weak, naive thing to manipulate and exploit. Well, congratulations, Europe proved it right – and all but ensured that Trump and his ilk will come back for a second round of ransom demands and threats. In fact, they already are, with the US commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, going after EU tech regulations following the deal. Europe might not like it, but the world has changed. In this new era, Russia, China and the US all want a return to spheres of influence and the rule of power in place of the rule of law, just with varying appetites for chaos (Russia) versus stability (China). Within this fuzzy picture, Trump is a genius at twisting emotion to his purposes, but he is also deeply ignorant, intellectually incoherent and follows mafioso-style instincts about how to wield the power he has, with the end result of undermining it more quickly. The EU is the only significant force left with a deep desire for a world that abides by the rule of law. That doesn't mean it's the only actor that wants this – it's joined by the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and, especially when it comes to climate, a host of other nations potentially led by Brazil. For decades, though, Europe has been enthralled with the story the US spins. As a result, it's now in thrall to an America spinning a dark story. That's a bad place for Europe to be. Not just economically, but geopolitically, because its dependence on the US (and fear that Trump will drop Ukraine into the deep end) leaves it in a place of hypocrisy in relation to would-be global partners: unwilling to uphold international law against Benjamin Netanyahu's genocide in Gaza all while rightly exhorting it in response to Vladimir Putin's relentless bombing of civilians in Ukraine. There is an inflection point looming – or perhaps it has just arrived – where Europeans will have to ask themselves, what is the purpose of an EU for ever consigned to can-kicking half measures, choosing the lowest common denominator among its internal divisions, and repeated capitulation? The far-right nationalists have an answer: no real union at all, and a future of vassalage and endless bickering for the scraps of global irrelevance. What is the federalist answer? This is not just a nice intellectual exercise. I don't want to live in a world where aggressors grab land when they want, where genocides go unchecked, where the climate crisis spins out of control and where far-right autocracy takes root. The answer has to be that the EU starts to actually believe in itself, rather than the narrative the US so deftly spins. That means an end to being enthralled by GDP per capita as a measure of prosperity. It means including the climate crisis as context in every economic discussion, for the same reason that a nutrition label that made no mention of sugar content would make no sense. Europe-based economic activity is among the least carbon-intensive in the world; the World Trade Organization is broken, so why not reorganise global trade – among the willing, and excluding the unwilling – around a price on carbon, using the EU's existing emissions trading system as a starting point? It means removing the far-right's complaint that countries 'send' money to the EU by replacing national contributions with a common corporate tax rate for its members, along with wealth taxes and taxes on big tech. It means getting over the internal allergy to spending internationally insignificant sums of money, because almost every sphere in which the EU feels inferior to the US boils down to a willingness to spend – or not. The EU is jealous of the US's big tech firms, but there is no secret sauce here beyond investment. Take space for example, where, again, the US is dominant. How could it be anything other when Nasa's 2023 budget was $25bn and the European Space Agency's was €7bn? Time instead to roll out a budget worthy of a true geopolitical power, and invest in long-term economic, environmental and political success. And finally, it means copying one thing from the Trump playbook: DGAF. Or, for the polite pages of the Guardian, 'caring less'. As in, if a von der Leyen spokesperson is reading this, the next time you hold a press conference, you might shoot back at all the public criticism: 'The European Commission president might not be a great negotiator, but at least she's not a sexual predator or a convicted felon.' Alexander Hurst is a Guardian Europe columnist
