Donald Trump in Scotland LIVE as President set to meet Keir Starmer
Keir Starmer will raise the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and try to seal a US trade deal during a high-stakes summit with Donald Trump later today.
The Prime Minister will also demand tough action against Vladimir Putin when he meets the US President at Turnberry.
The Republican arrived at Prestwick airport on Friday to kickstart a five day trip that will combine golf and political meetings.
He played his Turnberry course over the weekend and will travel to his other golf club at the Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire on Monday as well.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Voters hate Medicaid cuts. Now Republicans are backpedaling
But many of those same Republicans in Congress are now openly fretting about President Donald Trump's signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which he signed into law on July 4. Some worry that it slashes Medicaid funding for the working poor. Some think it doesn't cut enough federal funding. And it adds $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Call this "Vote yes and second-guess." That's not exactly the vibe Trump was looking for from his political party for what he had hoped would be a summer victory tour to celebrate this and other early accomplishments in his second term. But here, Trump - and his party in next year's midterm elections - have a serious problem. Americans don't like his massive budget bill, which swaps short-term tax relief for some low-income working people for permanent tax cuts for America's wealthiest people. That's only going to get worse as Americans see what programs Trump and his Republican allies have defunded and where they are boosting federal spending. Trump is dumping money into immigration policies Americans don't like Consider immigration, a signature issue for Trump, which previously won him significant support among American voters in 2016 and 2024. He's seen a reversal of fortunes here. That's probably because so many of us are watching masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents indiscriminately grabbing people off the street to be deported with little or no due process under the law. What Trump touted as an effort to deport violent criminals who entered this country illegally has devolved into an oppressive spectacle as ICE agents snatch people who hold green cards or appear at immigration hearings. Opinion newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter on people, power and policies in the time of Trump from columnist Chris Brennan. Get it delivered to your inbox. Trump's new budget bill includes $170 billion for more of that over the next four years, with $76.5 billion going to ICE to detain people snatched off our streets and to add 10,000 new agents to a force that already has 20,000. How is that going to play across America? Gallup offered us a clue with a mid-July survey that showed a sizable shift in how Americans view immigration. Opinion: Trump's policies on immigration, economy and trade are unpopular with Americans In 2024, 55% of Americans told Gallup they thought immigration should be decreased. That dropped to 30% this year, after they saw Trump's approach on the issue. And a record high - 79% - of U.S. adults told Gallup that immigration is good for this country. That same survey found that 62% of Americans disapprove of Trump's immigration policies. And he's about to drive this country deep into debt to ramp up an approach Americans don't like. Now Republicans want you to believe they're saving Medicaid Then there is the Republican regret. You get the feeling Republicans in Congress want to increase funding either for a time machine to undo their vote or a device to make voters forget how those senators and representatives supported Trump's big, beautiful bill. This game of both sides is as desperate as it is hypocritical. U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri wrote an essay for The New York Times in May expressing concerns about how the bill will slash Medicaid for the working poor. Then he voted for Trump's budget. Now he says he's trying to undo some of the harm he supported with new legislation. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska expressed concerns before folding to support Trump's budget. Murkowski's shameless bid to spread the blame, by urging Republicans in the U.S. House not to endorse the bill she had just endorsed, of course, fell on its face. U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado touted her vote for Trump's budget in May. By late July, she was denouncing the government for not reducing the national debt. Opinion: MAGA is coming for Trump over lost Epstein files. Bondi may pay the price. U.S. Rep. Ted Cruz of Texas is among the legislators now calling to roll back the provision in Trump's budget that changes tax deductions for gamblers. Cruz's explanation for backtracking, according to NBC News: "Most Republicans didn't even know this was in the bill when they voted to pass it." Republicans are still spending our tax dollars recklessly Trump has assumed control of the Republican Party in Congress, where legislative leaders are careful to never act as an independent and coequal branch of government. They sing a song about making America great by cracking down on federal spending, while piling up the nation's debt. They're not spending less of your tax dollars. They're just making sure the super rich in America don't have to pay at the same rates as middle-class people. They're spending much, much more, just as Americans discover they like Trump's policies less and less every day. There's a cure for all this. It's called the 2026 midterm elections. Republicans in Congress are afraid of Trump. They really should be afraid of voters tossing them out of office for backing his budget. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump said he ordered 2 nuclear subs moved after Russia nuclear threat
President Donald Trump said on Aug. 1 he ordered two nuclear submarines to "appropriate regions" in response to Russia's nuclear threats. "Based on the highly provocative statements" of Russian spokesperson Dmitry Medvedev, "I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances."
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.
