Trump showed ‘willingness' to move on whisky tariffs during meeting
Scotland's First Minister met the President ahead of the opening of a second course at his Aberdeenshire golf club, where he pressed him on the 10% levy on Scotland's national drink.
The tariff, it is believed, costs the sector £4 million per week, with distillery bosses keen to reach an agreement as part of the US-UK trade deal.
Speaking to the PA news agency after the opening of the course, the First Minister said: 'I think there's a willingness for President Trump to look at the issues that I've set out to him.
'I don't think that was the position a few days ago, because I think President Trump was of the view that the trade deal was done and dusted and that was an end of the matter.'
Mr Swinney told Mr Trump Scotch whisky was 'unique' to Scotland and the tariff was a 'significant impediment'.
'I think there is an opportunity for us to make progress,' he added.
'I wouldn't have expected to be able to get an outcome in the course of the discussion I had yesterday and this morning with President Trump, but we will follow this up with the US administration, follow up with the United Kingdom Government, to make the progress that I think Scotland would expect on this matter.'
The president was asked about whisky tariffs by journalists at his Ayrshire golf course on Monday, where he appeared not to know there was an issue.
'We'll talk about that, I didn't know whisky was a problem,' Mr Trump said.
'I'm not a big whisky drinker but maybe I should be.'
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said that the Prime Minister will not need much pressure to push the President on whisky tariffs.
'The great thing is, here, this is not a matter of putting pressure on the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister already agrees and the Prime Minister recognises that we want to go even further on the deal we've already negotiated.
'It's a good deal for Scotland and the UK, but we want to go even further – and that's the conversations that continue.'
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
Trump eats his own: President appears to relish flaying Republican senators in the public square amid Epstein pressure
'You always hurt the one you love.' A Brooklyn-born songwriter named Allan Roberts wrote those lyrics and (with music by Doris Fisher) the Mills Brothers were the first of a litany of performers who turned it into an American standard. Lately, it seems to be a Donald Trump standard as well. Take, for instance, the case of Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri. Few Republicans have been bigger allies to Trump — on Jan. 6, 2021, the Yale Law graduate-turned-populist warrior famously pumped his fist to Trump supporters as he objected to the election results. When the Capitol cleared out after the riot, Hawley continued his objection. But this week, Hawley learned a bitter truth: no matter how MAGA someone is, Trump demands absolute loyalty — and even a perceived slight can leave you on the outside looking in. Hawley's crime? Trying to pass a bill he sponsored that would ban lawmakers from trading stocks. It seemed like a great way to 'Own the Libs,' since Hawley named it the PELOSI Act, a riff off of the former House Speaker Nanacy Pelosi's stock trading outperforming the market. But he faced significant opposition in committee — and every other Republican opposed it. It only passed thanks to support from Democrats. Sure as shooting, Trump lashed out at Hawley on Truth Social, criticizing him for not supporting an effort to launch an official investigation of Pelosi's stock trading. Trump ended his rant by calling Hawley a 'second-tier' senator. When The Independent caught up with Hawley, he laughed it off and said that he and Trump had a 'nice visit.' He later told Business Insider that he walked Trump through the bill and that, contrary to what some of Hawley's enemies in the GOP had said, it would not force the president to sell Mar-a-Lago. Trump said, 'You're exonerated,' according to Hawley. On the surface, the whole affair is a bit of a laugh and shows how fickle Trump can be. But it also shows that as Trump faces increased scrutiny for his handling of the Israel-Gaza war, an inability to bring an end to the war in Ukraine despite promising he'd handle Vladimir Putin, a labor and stock market battered by his tariff news, and – perhaps most gratingly – the fallout from his and his White House's mismanagement of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, the pressure is getting to him. And, six months into an administration that has control of both houses of Congress as well as a friendly majority on the Supreme Court, blaming Democrats simply won't serve as a release. Hawley is not the only Republican Trump has aimed his fire at. On Thursday evening, his ire turned to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). 'Republicans, when in doubt, vote the exact opposite of Senator Susan Collins. Generally speaking, you can't go wrong,' Trump posted. Of course, Trump being angry at Collins is not entirely implausible under the best of conditions. Despite liberals being angry about Collins constantly saying she's 'concerned' with the latest Trump shenanigan and then voting his way anyway, she did vote to convict him after January 6, endorsed Nikki Haley against Trump in 2024 and, most recently, voted against Trump's ' One Big, Beautiful Bill.' But as a senator from Maine, Collins is probably the only Republican who could win in New England. As The Independent wrote last month, that popularity has created a chilling effect where many promising young Democrats don't want to challenge her. And that makes her a kind of safe target for Trump rage. If anything, it's a surprise that Trump didn't turn his fire on her earlier. (Still, Trump's salvos could make life more difficult because of the fact she leads the Senate Appropriations Committee, which means she controls the federal budget.) Of course, Trump has already tamed Collins' partner in moderation, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Murkowski famously agonized over the vote for the One Big, Beautiful Bill before deciding to support it in the hopes the House would change it. Which it didn't. Later, the Trump administration went behind her back and issued executive orders to curb renewable energy projects she wanted to preserve. She told The Anchorage Daily News she felt 'cheated.' But when The Independent asked her whether that made it harder to work with Trump, Murkowski said 'no.' Pressed why that is, she said 'because we have an understanding.' 'Just generally,' she said. 'He knows that I'm going to advocate for my interests. I know that he's going to advocate for his.' The only Republican senator who has seemed to learn there is no way to win with Trump is Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). Tillis came out in opposition to Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' in June, which caused Trump to attack him. This came despite the fact Tillis had voted for most of Trump's nominees and had consistently defended him. Shortly after, Tillis announced his decision not to seek re-election. 'I respect President Trump, I support the majority of his agenda, but I don't bow to anybody when the people of North Carolina are at risk and this bill puts them at risk,' Tillis told The Independent at the time. Now, Democrats have their dream candidate vying for his seat as former governor Roy Cooper, who won statewide the same year Trump won North Carolina in 2016 and again in 2020, announced his candidacy. Cooper is expected to raise gobs of money and have a decent advantage in the polls. Trump's decision to attack strategic allies shows that his increasing unpopularity has caused him to be more insular. And while it's unclear if Hawley's trading bill will become law, many Republican senators might cash out their stock in Trump.
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
Martin Lewis explains how millions could still get car finance payouts after Supreme Court ruling
Millions of drivers potentially owed compensation over hidden commission payments in car finance schemes could still be able to claim – but they need to 'be patient' for a potential automatic repayment scheme, money expert Martin Lewis said. The founder of Money Saving Expert said motorists with 'secret commission payments' could potentially be reimbursed by an automatic redress scheme by the end of the year. It comes after the Supreme Court ruled that car finance lenders would only be liable for the hidden commission payments in the most 'unfair' cases. 'Nobody should be doing anything right now. You need to sit on your hands. 'People need to be patient. It is the sensible thing to do,' Mr Lewis said. 'While you may have a claim, we are potentially going to see the regulator put in an automatic redress scheme meaning you do not have to put in a claim to get your money. 'So if you were to sign up to a claim's firm on the back of this news, there is a chance you could get money paid to you, and the claim's firm could ask for 25 per cent of it even though it has done nothing.' Mr Lewis said payouts could come by the end of the year, but people should 'wait to see' exactly what the Financial Conduct Authority redress scheme would be. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found commission payments paid by buyers to car dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 – without the motorist's fully informed consent – were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April the decision was an 'egregious error', while the Financial Conduct Authority intervened in the case and claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. The three drivers, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, opposed the challenge. Giving a summary of the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, Lord Reed, one of five justices who heard the case, said: 'For the reasons set out in detail in a judgment published today, the Supreme Court allows the appeals brought by the finance companies.' He continued: 'However, we uphold Mr Johnson's claim that the relationship between him and the finance company was unfair, and we allow the appeal in his case only because the Court of Appeal made a number of mistakes in reaching its decision. Retaking the decision on a proper basis, we award him the amount of a commission plus interest.'
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
This hollowing out of politics could see the death of the centre
Voting in the Green Party leadership election opened on Friday, with the result to be declared on 2 September. The contest between Ellie Chowns and Adrian Ramsay, running on a joint ticket, and Zack Polanski has focused to an unusual extent on electoral tactics and the hopes of winning a large number of Commons seats from Labour. Meanwhile, the Corbyn-Sultana party is still taxiing towards the runway for take-off, its passengers talking excitedly about replacing Labour as the main party of the left, either on its own or in alliance with the Greens. There are plenty of reasons for being sceptical of both parties' ambitions, which I will come to in a moment. But there is also a real possibility that Labour support will collapse. I wrote last week about Keir Starmer's 'Macron strategy', by which he presents himself as the alternative to Nigel Farage as prime minister. Thus he would seek to rally disaffected Labour voters tempted to stay at home or defect to other parties, plus Greens, Corbynites, Liberal Democrats and soft Conservatives, by presenting them with a binary choice. But what if that isn't the choice by the time of the next election? What if, just as Reform has overtaken the Tories in the opinion polls, a Green-Corbynite combination overtakes Labour? Peter Kellner, the polling guru, has commissioned research from YouGov into party loyalty. He says the figures 'should terrify both Labour and the Conservatives'. He found that people who intend to vote Reform and Green are much more likely to give a positive reason for their support, such as 'it has the best policy on the issue I feel most strongly about', whereas Labour and Tory voters are more likely to give a negative reason, such as 'it isn't great but it's better than the alternatives'. He concludes: 'The two pillars of the old Labour-Conservative duopoly, family influence and social class, have crumbled, and nothing has replaced them. Stalled living standards add to their plight.' Every day provides more evidence of the gap between the old duopoly and the new parties in enthusiasm and commitment. The trickle of former Tory MPs defecting to Reform could become a flood if Farage, who caught the Ming vase that Starmer dropped, can carry it over the slippery floor for another couple of years. Defections to the Corbyn-Sultana party are not on quite the same scale yet. Six former Labour councillors in Hastings and one Labour councillor in Coventry said on Friday that they will join the new party. But more will follow if the party can gain credibility. As I said, there are reasons to doubt that this will happen. The party's launch has been chaotic. The temporary name, Your Party, does not work at all. Any discussion of the party begins in confusion. 'Your Party…' 'It's not my party…' The 600,000 sign-ups expressing interest make up a relatively small number compared to, say, the six million who signed the 2019 petition to revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU. There are doubts about the wisdom of re-running Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership campaign outside the Labour Party. James Matthewson, who was a Labour spokesperson under Corbyn, wrote for the i paper on Friday: 'My warning to the left, especially those young lefties who are still unjaded and have the energy we need to change the world, is: don't be lured into another vanity project.' He thought the idea of Zarah Sultana as a fresh face that would mean a fresh approach was 'far from the truth'. As for the Greens, there is an air of unreality that hangs over the leadership election debate, which has become bitter and personal, at least between Ramsay and Polanski. (Ramsay refused to say he 'liked' Polanski in a radio debate between the two.) Ramsay and Chowns claim to be focused on electoral success, having delivered the quadrupling of seats from one to four last year, while Polanski claims to be more ambitious, calling his approach eco-populism and being willing to do pre-election deals with the Corbyn-Sultana outfit. It may be that climate change – 'the issue I feel most strongly about' – and idealistic disillusionment with a Labour Party governing in bleak times will be enough to break through, but the red-green alliance has nothing yet to match the power of the issue of immigration combined with the charisma of Farage. Of course, Reform's success may not last. Farage may drop the Ming vase. He was forced today to deny speculation about his health, telling The Times that his Tory and Labour rivals were 'spreading these rumours' because 'it's the last card they've got'. But the untrue rumours nevertheless draw attention to the extent to which Reform's advance depends on a single individual. It may be, even if Farage is the leader of the real opposition by the time of the next election, that Starmer's Macron strategy will work. Or it could be, if the Labour vote does collapse, that the Lib Dems prove to be the saviours of pragmatic moderation. Ed Davey's inoffensive army, rather than the Green Corbynites, could fill more of the gap left by Labour's retreat. But I think a Labour collapse is an underestimated possibility.
