Donald Trump is right to stir up the hornets' nest on North Sea oil and gas
As a result – and even in their own backyard – he was not averse to letting John Swinney, the First Minister, and Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, know that he didn't think much of their energy policies.
That's assuming that any one of those who'll be called to vote in next May's Scottish Parliament elections really knows what Swinney's or Sarwar's definite policy on North Sea oil and gas will be.
Both parties have been playing a version of dodgems, ducking and diving all over the place as they constantly seek to confuse the electorate about what the future holds for what the president rightly described as the North Sea's 'treasure chest'.
The SNP have been all over the place in relation to energy, while at least with Nicola Sturgeon voters knew where they were. Then, in that ill-fated and completely nonsensical alliance with the sub-Marxist Scottish Greens, the Scottish Government had set its face firmly against more development of oil and gas fields and any still under way would presumably be abandoned.
Everything was geared to renewable power – wind, solar and tidal. And definitely no nuclear generation, either – not ever.
Swinney has managed to get the SNP off that ludicrous policy for keeping Scotland's lights on, if only by sitting on the fence and stating that they'd no longer ban all North Sea production and instead would consider new licences to drill on a case-by-case basis.
I can just imagine the world's oil giants rushing to do business with the Scottish Government with that sort of 'maybe-aye-maybe-no' condition hanging over their development plans.
The Scottish Tories are completely onside with the president in being ready to approve many new licences that would help preserve the current well-paid and highly skilled jobs in the North East of Scotland. And it should help them hang onto key constituencies.
But it was Scottish Labour that, until fairly recently, looked to have a fair chance of challenging the SNP for the right to form a government next May. That hope, however, almost disappeared thanks to a whole series of own goals by the UK Labour Government over issues such as winter fuel payments and benefit cuts.
It remains to be seen whether their Hamilton by-election victory has put new heart into Labour and also whether they now have a policy on North Sea oil and gas that will attract voters. The omens are not good, if the trades union leader Gary Smith is to be believed.
The general secretary of the Labour-supporting GMB union has said that the UK Government's energy policy is 'bonkers' as it plans to cut off investment that would help create jobs. In that he was essentially echoing the president's comments.
The UK Government is expected to grant permission for the giant new Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North Sea to go ahead as they already have licences approved. But Ed Miliband, the UK Energy Secretary, has repeatedly said no future licences will be granted by Labour – meaning the North Sea sector is in danger of continuing to shed jobs over time.
Labour aims to fight the nationalists on the record of Swinney's Government, which in spite of President Trump's nice words about him are nothing to boast about, and neither is his obsession with breaking up Britain.
But there are lots of votes in the energy policies of the three main contenders, and currently only the Tories seem to agree with the Trump 'manifesto' on North oil and gas.
He was right to stir up that hornets' nest. The electorate deserve clearer answers, especially from Labour.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
a few seconds ago
- South Wales Guardian
Hundreds of children from Gaza to be brought to UK for medical treatment
The plans are reportedly set to be announced within weeks. A parent or guardian will accompany each child, as well as siblings if necessary, and the Home Office will carry out biometric and security checks before travel, the Sunday Times reported. This will happen 'in parallel' with an initiative by Project Pure Hope, a group set up to bring sick and injured Gazan children to the UK privately for treatment. More than 50,000 children are estimated to have been killed or injured in Gaza since October 2023, according to Unicef. Sir Keir Starmer said last week that the UK was 'urgently accelerating' efforts to bring children over for treatment. A Government spokesperson said: 'We are taking forward plans to evacuate more children from Gaza who require urgent medical care, including bringing them to the UK for specialist treatment where that is the best option for their care. 'We are working at pace to do so as quickly as possible, with further details to be set out in due course.' The UK and Jordan have been working together to air drop aid amid warnings of widespread malnourishment in Gaza. It comes as the UK seeks to put pressure on Israel to change course with a plan to recognise a Palestinian state in September ahead of the UN General Assembly. Sir Keir has said the UK would only refrain from recognising Palestine if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months. Concerns have been raised this could see a Palestinian state recognised by the UK without Hamas releasing the remaining Israeli hostages. British families of hostages say the Government has made clear to them that releases would 'play no part' in the UK's plans to recognise Palestine and that it could see those still held 'rot in Hamas dungeons'. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the UK's demands for Hamas to release all hostages and play no role in the future of Gaza are 'absolute and unconditional'. He told The Sunday Times: 'The UK position on recognition is part of (a) co-ordinated international effort. It must begin with an immediate ceasefire that frees the hostages and ends the agony of their families, and which lifts the inhumane aid restrictions.'
The Guardian
a minute ago
- The Guardian
Despite Trump, the US economy remains surprisingly resilient. But for how long?
Chaotic and unpredictable, keeping up with Donald Trump's volatile trade war – never mind his presidency – can be tough. Back in April after his 'Liberation Day' tariff announcement, the talk was of the president crashing the global economy. Then, after a Wall Street backlash, the world learned the acronym 'Taco', which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out'. Now, things are heating up again. The president's decision to hit US trading partners with new tariffs – including Canada, Brazil, India and Taiwan – after his self-imposed 1 August deadline certainly reignites a threat to the world economy. Dozens of countries have been left reeling, and US consumers are expected to pay a heavy price. However, there is a sense that things could have been worse. Nowhere more clearly is this reflected than on Wall Street: despite the chaos of the president's trade war, the stock market remains close to record levels. After the latest escalation on Friday, and some worrying US jobs numbers, share prices took a hit, sliding by about 1%. But this is a setback, rather than a rout. A further slide could be ignited by this capricious president. Trump's decision to fire the official in charge of labour market data and his war on the independence of the US Federal Reserve will make matters worse. But despite the warnings of untold economic damage from the US tariff war earlier this year, the American economy has proven surprisingly resilient in recent months. Last week, the president seized on US growth figures showing the economy had expanded at an annualised rate of 3% in the second quarter – far in excess of the 2.4% rate predicted on Wall Street. Could the 'fake news' media have it wrong? Are tariff wars 'good, and easy to win,' as Trump claims? While inflation has ticked up, from 2.4% in May to 2.7% in June, it is well below the peak which followed the height of the pandemic disruption and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and is far from hitting the levels feared. Back in April, in a country wrought with division, Democrat voters reckoned inflation was on track to hit 7.9% within a year, while Republicans said it would collapse to 0.9%. Butthere is good reason why the US economy has so far defied the prophecies of Armageddon. For starters, the hot-cold nature of Trump's tariff war means investors still anticipate further deals will be done to avoid the worst threats from ever materialising. The toughest tariffs introduced on Friday are only just arriving, too, meaning any impact has yet to emerge. Most countries have not hit back with retaliatory measures, which would have dramatically worsened things by putting international trade into a deeper tailspin. Meanwhile, knowing full well the dangers of this erratic president, businesses have been planning for months to avoid the worst-case scenarios. US companies rushed to stockpile goods before the trade war, helping them to keep prices down for now. Some firms have taken a hit to profits, according to analysts at Deutsche Bank, reckoning this is better than testing struggling American consumers – worn out by years of high inflation – with further price increases. The tariff costs are also being spread by multinationals, by increasing prices across the markets they operate in. In one high-profile example, Sony has put up the price of its PlayStation 5 by as much as 25% in some markets; including the UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. But not in the US. Still, there are signs that consequences are coming. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion When US businesses exhaust their pre-tariff stockpiles, it is likely that prices will creep higher. Meanwhile, the uncertainty of an erratic president is hitting jobs and investment. Last week's US jobs market data has reignited fears over the resilience of the American economy. Tariffs are weighing on business confidence and steadily creeping into consumer prices. GDP growth of 3% might appear robust on the face of things, but this figure was heavily influenced by the 0.5% fall in output in the first quarter, when the surge in US firms rushing to beat Trump's tariffs distorted activity. Growth in the first half averaged 1.25%, markedly slower than the 2.8% rate for 2024 as a whole. Part of the reason Wall Street remains sanguine about this is the continued belief that things could have turned out worse. Deals are still expected, with the pause in tariffs for key US trade partners Mexico and China, suggesting this most clearly. The investor view is that, rather than tariffs, the president would prefer a string of box office moments in front of the TV cameras with trade partners paying tribute to the court of Trump. However, it would be wrong to underestimate the self-described 'tariff man's' love of border taxes. And even though his most extreme threats will be negotiated down, the final destination will still be much worse than before. An economic hurricane might be avoided, but a storm is still the last thing businesses and consumers need. Britain's US trade deal is a case in point. A 10% US tariff on British goods has been welcomed as a big victory for Keir Starmer given the alternative, but it is still far worse than before. British cars will face a tariff rate four times higher than previously; costing jobs and growth in Britain while hitting American consumers in the pocket. For the US consumer, the average tariff had been close to 2% before Trump's return to the White House. After his 1 August escalation, that figure leaps to about 15% – the highest level since the 1930s. Almost a century ago a similar wrong-headed protectionist approach in Washington made the Great Depression far worse: the Smoot-Hawley tariffs hit the US and triggered a domino effect among the main industrialised nations; ultimately leading to the second world war. In the unpredictability of Trump's trade war, hope remains that similar mistakes can be avoided. But significant damage is still being done.
Telegraph
a minute ago
- Telegraph
Melania has been shaping Trump's foreign policy for longer than we realise
As Donald Trump was flying back from Scotland, he revealed how he had discussed the horrific images of starving children in Gaza with his wife, the first lady. 'She thinks it's terrible,' he told The Telegraph aboard Air Force One. 'She sees the same pictures that you see and we all see. Everybody, unless they are pretty cold-hearted or worse than that, nuts … there's nothing you can say other than it's terrible when you see the kids.' Melania Trump has kept a low profile during her husband's second term. Her rare appearances at the White House have sparked 'Where's Melania?' headlines and questions about whether she is a part-time first lady. But her influence can be spotted in Mr Trump's policies, and she is credited by insiders for being the 'quiet force' behind the president's tougher stance on Russia. For Melania, it is not a new role. The Telegraph can reveal that she was a key factor in Mr Trump's decision to launch air strikes on Syria during his first term following a chemical weapons attack by the regime of Bashar al-Assad. A former White House official said she was horrified by videos of children dying in Khan Shaykun in 2017 and impressed upon her husband the need to act. Mr Trump abandoned his campaign promises not to intervene in Syria's civil war, and launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean Sea at a government airbase in Syria. It was the first time that the US acknowledged striking Assad targets. The former official said Mrs Trump was highly influential in the decision. 'I think she reacts to human suffering as a mom, without a policy or political filter, and shares her gut reaction with her husband,' they said. Katherine Jellison, a history professor at Ohio University and an expert in the role of first ladies, said Mrs Trump was performing her role in a highly unconventional way, rejecting the traditional role of simply appearing beside her husband at public events. Her approach may mean she is underestimated by the media and public at times. 'It may be that she does have more influence on her husband's thinking about issues than the general public might initially recognise because they seem to have this very traditional marriage in terms of gender role: He's the boss. She's the helpmate,' she said. 'But I think there has to be more to her than that, in that she has gone her own way a number of times.' Mrs Trump, 55, was born Melanija Knavs in the part of Yugoslavia that is now Slovenia. She launched her career as a fashion model at the age of 16, and met her future husband in 1998, when she was 28. Mr Trump was recently separated from Marla Maples, his second wife. They married seven years later and their son, Barron, was born in 2006. She was an unconventional first lady from the start, being only the second foreign-born woman to hold the position (after England-born Louisa Adams) and the first to have once appeared naked on the front cover of a magazine. She did things her own way during Mr Trumps' first term, waiting for five months to move down to Washington DC from New York so Barron could finish his school year, and broke with her husband over family separations at detention facilities at the southern border. She made headlines in 2018 with a jacket she wore during a visit to see migrant children separated from their families. 'I really don't care,' read a statement on the back, 'do u?' It caused an uproar on social media as commentators pondered its meaning. Mrs Trump later said it was a message to reporters who used anonymous sources to undermine her. 'In fact, I decided to let them know that their criticism would never stop me from doing what I feel is right,' she said in her 2024 memoir, entitled Melania. She also used her book, published a month before the election, to speak up for abortion access. It marked a clear break with much of the Republican Party and her husband, who had taken a more conservative stance. 'Some people, they see me as just the wife of the president, but I'm standing on my own two feet, independent. I have my own thoughts,' she told Fox News ahead of Mr Trump's second inauguration. 'I don't always agree [with] what my husband is saying or doing, and that's OK.' Mr Trump recently described his wife's influence when it came to the conflict in Ukraine, describing her sceptical take on Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, and his warm words. 'I go home, I tell the first lady: 'I spoke with Vladimir today. We had a wonderful conversation,'' Mr Trump said. 'She said: 'Oh really? Another city was just hit.'' That turned her into an immediate heroine in Ukraine. She was nicknamed 'Agent Melania Trumpenko' and memes quickly spread showing Ukrainian iconography on her clothing. Agent Melania Trumpenko — Kate from Kharkiv (@BohuslavskaKate) July 14, 2025 Prof Jellison added that Melania was often underestimated in public because of her heavily accented English. 'It wouldn't surprise me that she does have some differing opinions, and might assert those to her husband behind closed doors and might have an influence on his thinking,' she said. The first lady's office did not respond to a request for comment. For her part, Mrs Trump told GQ in 2016 that she had plenty of opinions and shared them with her husband. 'Nobody knows and nobody will ever know,' she said about the advice she gives him... 'Because that's between me and my husband.'
