Donald Trump gives opinion on second Scottish independence referendum
The US President was taking questions from journalists as he hosted Prime Minister Keir Starmer at his Turnberry golf resort in Ayrshire.
Trump referred to the suggestion that such a referendum could only take place once in a generation, telling reporters: '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.'
Trump said he did not know Scottish First Minister John Swinney, but added: 'I hear very good things about him, and I'm meeting him today, so maybe I'll have a better opinion.'
On Monday, the First Minister said there should be a 'legal referendum recognised by all' on Scottish independence if the SNP secures a majority at the Holyrood elections.
Asked whether an SNP majority was a high bar to clear, he said: 'The way we break the logjam is to rely on the precedent that happened in 2011.'
Since the Brexit vote in 2016, repeated prime ministers have rebuffed the SNP's calls for another Scottish independence referendum.
Sir Keir insisted Scotland was better off within the UK.
The Prime Minister said: 'I think that at a time like this when it's quite clear that there's uncertainty and volatility around the world, the strength of the United Kingdom together is very important for all four nations, very important for Scotland, and that should be our priority.'
Swinney 'should probably focus more' on delivery in Scotland than constitutional issues, Sir Keir added.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Kremlin denies Putin agreed to trilateral meeting with Trump and Zelenskyy
The Kremlin has said planning is under way for a possible meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump next week – but denied the Russian leader had agreed to a subsequent meeting with both the US president and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Putin met on Wednesday with Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff in the Kremlin, and reports from Washington suggested he had agreed to meet first with Trump and then in a trilateral format, as part of US efforts to bring about the end of the war in Ukraine. On Thursday morning, however, the Putin aide Yuri Ushakov said the Russian president had not agreed to this. 'We propose focusing on preparations for a bilateral meeting with Trump in the first place … As for a three-way meeting, which for some reason Washington was talking about yesterday, this was just something mentioned by the American side during the meeting in the Kremlin. 'But this was not discussed. The Russian side left this option completely without comment,' Ushakov told journalists in Moscow. The prospect of Putin and Trump trying to come to an agreement on Ukraine with no one else in the room is likely to alarm Kyiv and European capitals. Zelenskyy on Thursday was careful not to criticise Trump but said he would spend the day in consultation with European allies, including the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz. 'The priorities are absolutely clear. The first is to stop the killings, and it is Russia that must agree to a ceasefire. The second is a format for leaders so that the meeting can work for a truly lasting peace,' Zelenskyy wrote in a Telegram post. He added: 'We in Ukraine have repeatedly said that the search for real solutions can become truly effective only at the level of leaders. We need to decide on the time for such a format, with a range of issues.' Zelenskyy has repeatedly called for direct discussions with Putin, with either Trump or the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as a mediator, but Putin has so far dismissed the possibility, suggesting that lower-level negotiation groups should come to an agreement first. But little progress has been made at a series of direct talks in Turkey, with Moscow sending a junior delegation and not appearing ready for real talks. In recent weeks, Trump had appeared to take a tougher line with Moscow for the first time in his presidency, calling continued Russian attacks against civilian targets in Ukraine 'disgusting' and promising the introduction of new sanctions if progress towards a deal was not made by a deadline of this Friday. White House officials have said sanctions are still expected and on Wednesday additional tariffs were announced for India, based on the country's purchasing of Russian oil, but at the same time Trump seemed satisfied with the outcome of Witkoff's talks. Ushakov said the discussions had been 'businesslike' and claimed they focused on a bright future of cooperation between Washington and Moscow. 'It was reaffirmed that Russian-US relations could be based on a completely different, mutually advantageous scenario, which drastically differs from how they developed in recent years,' he said. It is not clear where a Trump-Putin summit might take place but the most likely options are Turkey or the Middle East. Ushakov said a location had already been decided but declined to name it. Trump said on Wednesday evening that the meeting could happen 'very soon'. Some others in Washington seemed less sure. The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said a meeting could take place soon, 'but obviously a lot has to happen before that can occur'. If it goes ahead, it would be the first US-Russia leaders' summit since Joe Biden met Putin in Geneva in 2021.
South Wales Guardian
27 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Trump to meet Putin in coming days, Kremlin says
'At the suggestion of the American side, it has been agreed in principle to hold a bilateral meeting at the highest level in the coming days,' Mr Putin's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov told reporters. Next week is the target date for a summit, Mr Ushakov said, while noting that such events take time to organise and no date is confirmed. The possible venue will be announced 'a little later', he said. He also played down the possibility of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky joining the summit meeting to discuss ending Russia's three-year-old invasion of its neighbour, which the White House said Mr Trump is ready to consider. 'We propose, first of all, to focus on preparing a bilateral meeting with Mr Trump, and we consider it most important that this meeting be successful and productive,' Mr Ushakov said. A meeting between Mr Putin and Mr Trump would be their first since the Republican president returned to office this year. It would be a significant milestone in the war, though there is no promise such a meeting would lead to the end of the fighting, since Russia and Ukraine remain far apart on their demands. Western officials have repeatedly accused Mr Putin of stalling for time in peace negotiations to allow Russian forces time to capture more Ukrainian land. Mr Putin has in the past offered no concessions and will only accept a settlement on his terms. It was not clear whether Mr Trump's Friday deadline for the Kremlin to stop the killing in Ukraine still stood. A new Gallup poll published on Thursday found that Ukrainians are increasingly eager for a settlement that ends the fight against Russia's invasion. The enthusiasm for a negotiated deal is a sharp reversal from 2022 – the year the war began – when Gallup found that about three-quarters of Ukrainians wanted to keep fighting until victory. Now only about one-quarter hold that view, with support for continuing the war declining steadily across all regions and demographic groups. The findings were based on samples of 1,000 or more respondents aged 15 and older living in Ukraine. Some territories under entrenched Russian control, representing about 10% of the population, were excluded from surveys conducted after 2022 due to lack of access. Since the start of the full-scale war, Russia's relentless pounding of urban areas behind the front line has killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, according to the United Nations. On the 1,000-kilometre (620-mile) front line snaking from north-east to south-east Ukraine, where tens of thousands of troops on both sides have died, Russia's bigger army is slowly capturing more land. The poll came out on the eve of Mr Trump's Friday deadline for Russia to stop the killing or face heavy economic sanctions. In the new Gallup survey, conducted in early July, about seven in 10 Ukrainians say their country should seek to negotiate a settlement as soon as possible. Mr Zelensky last month renewed his offer to meet with Mr Putin, but his overture was rebuffed as Russia sticks to its demands, and the sides remain far apart. Most Ukrainians do not expect a lasting peace anytime soon, the poll found. Only about one-quarter say it is 'very' or 'somewhat' likely that active fighting will end within the next 12 months, while about seven in 10 think it is 'somewhat' or 'very' unlikely that active fighting will be over in the next year. Ukrainian views of the American government have cratered over the past few years, while positive views of Germany's leadership have risen, according to Gallup. Three years ago, about two-thirds of Ukrainians approved of US leadership. That has since fallen to 16% in the latest poll, reflecting new tensions between the two countries since Mr Trump took office in January. But although the dip from last year was substantial – approval of US leadership was 40% in 2024 – positive views of US leadership were already dropping before Mr Trump took office, perhaps related to the antipathy that prominent Republican politicians showed towards billions of dollars in US support for Ukraine. Germany has grown more popular among Ukrainians over the past few years, rising to 63% approval in the new poll. Ukrainians are much less optimistic that their country will be accepted into Nato or the European Union in the next decade than they were just a few years ago. In the new poll, about one-third of Ukrainians expect that Ukraine will be accepted into Nato within the next 10 years, while about one-quarter think it will take at least 10 years, and one-third believe it will never happen. That is down from 2022, when about two-thirds of Ukrainians thought acceptance into Nato would happen in the coming decade and only about one in 10 thought it would never happen. Hope for acceptance into the EU is higher but has also fallen. About half, 52%, of Ukrainians now expect to be part of the EU within the next decade, down from 73% in 2022.
The National
41 minutes ago
- The National
I'm not fan of Kate Forbes but this is a far wider problem
The party of government shouldn't be entertaining the notion that the hard-won rights of minority groups are debatable, and I won't be convinced that's a controversial stance to take. I think the presence of those views has unforgivably given rise to those narratives and allowed them to feel at home in a space they should not have been welcomed. An important preface. However, it's impossible to consider her decision in isolation. Whether her views are congruent with the foundations of the SNP or not, it raises serious questions for the party and Scottish politics more widely. Already, 23 SNP MSPs had announced their intention to stand down in 2026, with 14 of them women. A list inclusive of party giants like Nicola Sturgeon and Shona Robison as well as fresh faces like Natalie Don-Innes, representing more than 60% of those stepping down and almost a quarter of the SNP's current parliamentary group, and that's alongside resignations from other parties. It's not a case of a few gentle career transitions or a generational refresh, it's a systemic across-the-board retreat from political life. A gendered haemorrhaging of experience and talent. READ MORE: John Swinney to consider imposing state boycott on Israel Forbes is just the latest in what could be described as a mass exodus of women from Holyrood, and more specifically from the SNP benches. While I don't always agree with her politics, her decision is a really uncomfortable one. Politics has become a punishing and thankless environment for women in Scotland, especially those who dare to be ambitious. It's to the shame of everyone involved. Even more uncomfortable when you consider that it wasn't so long ago Scotland was internationally recognised for its gender balanced representation in political life, a sore contrast to the reality heading into 2026. Even just looking to the last Holyrood election in 2021, which saw a record number of women elected to our national parliament. Or even more nostalgically to the heydays of the mid-2010s, when three of Scotland's major parties were headed by women. Sturgeon for the SNP, Ruth Davidson for the Tories and Kezia Dugdale for Labour. I remember watching First Minister's Questions at the time and feeling like I was witnessing something big and out of the ordinary. Like progress was not only in front of us in the short term, but had taken root. It was what we understood to be normal in Scotland, even if it wasn't the case more broadly around the world. We're now watching that progress, which was so intentional and meaningful, be unravelled and in large part due to the neglect of those with the power to change it. Forbes has decided to step down because the job demands too much of a mother to a young child. Was it naive of me to hope that gone were the days women would have to sacrifice the careers they worked tirelessly to build because those careers aren't accommodating of family life? It would seem so. (Image: Colin Mearns) If elected politics can't be a place of work flexible enough to accommodate family priorities, it's not working for the benefit of us all. That's just one issue cited as a reason. Others speak of burnout from an unsustainable workload, relentless abuse and a lack of support to handle it, misogyny both from external sources and internal mechanisms that are setting women up to fail. Our female political leaders are communicating en masse that they are no longer willing to tolerate what politics demands of them. The cost is too high, and the return is too low and it's no longer enough for these announcements to be met with lacklustre statement after lacklustre statement loosely expressing disappointment but understanding. We are sleepwalking into a regression that will be as hard to undo as it was the last time. Michelle Thomson MSP, one of those stepping down, described politics as being 'generally very misogynist'. She went on to say: 'I don't think the SNP can be complacent about their own internal mechanisms.' She's absolutely right. Long gone are the days of the gender balance mechanisms championed by Sturgeon, which we are told did their job in 2021 and therefore cannot be repeated. It's almost as if when women aren't represented in the highest offices, gender equality begins to slip back down the priority list. Just two years after the departure of Sturgeon and four since a record number of women were elected to Holyrood, candidate selections for 2026 are already demonstrating a backwards trend, with women making up just 42% of confirmed SNP candidates. A number that isn't final by any means and still has the potential to decline before the election rolls around. The party still completely lacks any kind of system for dealing with harassment or providing meaningful support to those facing the relentless abuse that has become synonymous with politics in Scotland. I say that from experience as a woman in the party, who has faced that abuse for years now. Support is impossible to come by, even when you ask for it. I don't believe there is a single party in our political atmosphere that is tackling this effectively, but as the party of government, it's not amiss to expect the SNP to lead by example. It's this environment, and the lack of support that allows it to freely continue, that is driving women away from our public life. It's not just women who lose out and it's not just part and parcel of being in politics like we are led to believe, it's the strangling of our democracy. When Parliament becomes a place where only certain types of people can survive and be heard, decisions naturally stop being about the many and start being about the same few. That's how representation works, and it's where we're heading if the passive acceptance of this trend continues. So yes, Kate Forbes might never have been the future of feminist politics in Scotland. But her decision to go is emblematic of a much bigger problem. A system that failed her as it has her colleagues and as it will the women coming up behind them if nothing changes. Our leaders of today would do well to look to the example of leaders gone by – who were living proof that progress is possible and sustainable – before it's too late. The time for listening is now, to the women choosing to stay and to those choosing to leave, or we are going to find our politics drowned once again under the weight of a political culture built primarily for and upheld by men. If we don't, 2026 will mark a huge step back for gender equality in Scotland. A reality that was supposed to be behind us.
