Our Auld Enemy rivalry will always be part of our DNA — but look to the US and Canada for the next great national drama
ZARA JANJUA Our Auld Enemy rivalry will always be part of our DNA — but look to the US and Canada for the next great national drama
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
WE Scots pride ourselves on being world-class grudge holders.
For centuries, the English have been our go-to national frenemy — the original source of cultural, political and footie-based beef.
But while we've been locked in this existential tug-of-war with England, another rivalry has been quietly gathering momentum across the Atlantic.
4
Scottish Sun columnist Zara
Credit: The Sun
4
Our Auld Enemy rivalry with England will always be part of our DNA
Credit: PA
4
Donald Trump with new Canadian PM Mark Carney
Credit: AP
4
Matthew Tkachuk of Team USA fights with Brandon Hagel of Team Canada during the first period in the 4 Nations Face-Off game
Credit: Getty
And I hate to say it, but it might just outdo ours in both stakes and pettiness.
I speak, of course, of Canada vs the United States — a feud with the energy of a polite street fight outside a farmers' market, but one that could soon eclipse our age-old Anglo-Scottish sparring.
One close point from the US to Canada is the border between Detroit, Michigan (US) and Windsor, Ontario (Canada), which spans the Detroit River.
This week I flew to Detroit and crossed the border by car into Windsor.
On one side, muscle cars and MAGA hats; on the other, maple leaves and passive resistance.
Landing in the US, I found myself wondering: Have I ever tweeted something spicy enough to be flagged by Homeland Security?
I'm a liberal Pakistani-Scottish woman with a fondness for human rights and sarcasm — so, probably.
I even censored myself mid-flight while chatting to the woman beside me, just in case my views got me deported before I'd even finished my pretzels.
As it turned out, I sailed through immigration. But the process felt Orwellian — less Big Brother, more Big Border Patrol.
It was the first time I felt that my politics, passport and profile picture might be under review by an algorithm with a grudge.
Trump crushes hopes of 'peace talks' call with Musk as he insists Elon has 'lost his mind' after feud went nuclear
Last week King Charles and Queen Camilla landed in Ottawa, 400 miles from Windsor — like some royal advance party sent to remind Canada they're not available for franchise.
Charles was there to open Parliament and, unofficially, to stick a diplomatic elbow between Canada and Trump's vision of turning it into a Walmart with trees.
Trump had recently floated the idea of Canada becoming the 51st US state — a suggestion so absurd it made The Handmaid's Tale look like a romcom.
But Canadians, long stereotyped as gentle pacifists with a fetish for fleece, have started pushing back with the Elbows Up movement.
Time to tan and pair up again
TEN years.
That's how long Love Island has been thrusting bronzed 20-somethings into a villa armed with veneers, trust issues, and bikinis smaller than their moral compasses.
And somehow, despite the rise of AI lovers and Hinge horror stories, the show's stayed loyal to its original premise: couple-up or get dumped.
In this economy? That's practically a marriage vow.
Tomorrow, the 12th series washes ashore – and just like your ex, it'll turn up every weekday at 9pm, whether you want it to or not.
But credit where it's due: in an age of ghosting, orbiting and situationships, the transactional honesty is almost refreshing.
Find someone hot. Stay together. Win.
If only the rest of us had a narrator explaining where we went wrong with that man from Fife who 'wasn't ready to label things'.
'Elbows Up, Canada!' is their national pep talk, a slogan born from ice hockey legend Gordie Howe, who once said: 'If a guy slashed me, I'd pull him close and elbow him in the head.'
And now the nation has adopted that spirit.
It features in a video campaign with new Prime Minister Mark Carney and actual national treasure Mike Myers, whose shirt: reads: 'NEVER 51.'
That's the mood now — polite defiance in plaid.
It's a masterclass in soft power. The Scottish-English tension may have Brexit baggage, but this? This is a full-blown cold war of the niceties.
Miley is the adult now
THERE are things no one prepares you for in life: pandemics, the rise of Crocs, and your dad dating Liz Hurley.
But here we are – Miley Cyrus, patron saint of post-trauma empowerment, has broken her silence on her da Billy Ray's new love interest.
Not a line-dancing divorcee or a country starlet, but the one and only safety-pinned icon of the Nineties. Yes, that Liz Hurley.
Now, if you thought family drama peaked with Meghan and Harry, hold Miley's gluten-free beer.
The former Disney rebel has navigated her parents' split, gone no-contact with Dad, and now emerged with the kind of perspective that costs thousands in therapy.
'I'm being an adult about it,' she told the New York Times, as if she's not clearly the only adult in the room.
Should we have opinions on our parents' love lives?
Absolutely not. Do we? Always.
Especially when their new flame once dated Hugh Grant and probably owns lingerie more expensive than most mortgages.
But Miley's honesty hits a nerve. That moment you realise your parents are fallible, with achy breaky hearts and questionable taste in post- divorce rebounds.
It's disarming, dignified – and depressingly mature.
Still, if anyone can make blended family dysfunction look glam, it's Liz bloody Hurley.
And if Miley can 'wish happiness' to the chaos, maybe there's hope for the rest of us.
Next year construction is due to finish on the Gordie Howe International Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, named after the elbow-throwing icon.
But this isn't just infrastructure — it's metaphor.
A physical link between two nations increasingly trying to figure out how to stay connected without being consumed.
The old Auld Enemy rivalry will always be part of our DNA — but if you're looking for the next great national drama, look to the US and Canada.
It's neighbour vs neighbour, lumber vs logic, satire vs statecraft and Mike Myres vs Trump.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
31 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Trump sends 2,000 troops to LA as protesters tear gassed in violent clashes with cops over immigration crackdown
LA ANARCHY Trump sends 2,000 troops to LA as protesters tear gassed in violent clashes with cops over immigration crackdown Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) PRESIDENT Donald Trump has ordered 2,000 National Guard troops into Los Angeles as federal immigration raids erupted into chaos. It prompted violent street clashes between protesters and law enforcement on Saturday night in an explosive showdown over immigration enforcement. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 4 Law enforcement stand during a protest in Compton, California Credit: AP 4 A demonstrator waves a Mexican national flag next to a car on fire during a protest following federal immigration operations in Los Angeles Credit: AFP 4 Law enforcement clashes with demonstrators during a protest following federal immigration operations Credit: AFP 4 Protesters demonstrating against operations conducted by federal immigration authorities clash with law enforcement officials in Compton Credit: Shutterstock Editorial Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that "active duty Marines" are on "high alert", ready to mobilize from Camp Pendleton if the violence continues. The dramatic escalation came after demonstrators hurled flaming projectiles, set cars ablaze, and swarmed federal vehicles in response to ICE raids targeting undocumented migrants. Threatening to send in the Marines, Hegseth wrote on X: 'The violent mob assaults on ICE and Federal Law Enforcement are designed to prevent the removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens from our soil… and a huge NATIONAL SECURITY RISK.' More to follow... For the latest news on this story, keep checking back at The U.S. Sun, your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, sports news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures, and must-see videos. Like us on Facebook at TheSunUS and follow us on X at @TheUSSun
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
St Mirren land dispute judgment a 'crucial precedent' for free speech
The claim for damages surrounded comments made by Mr Wardrop around the legality of an application for public funds for a regeneration project including a well-being centre on what appeared to be club land. Lord Clark dismissed Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan's claim for damages, which might have amounted to £80,000 because he believed that Mr Wardrop's comments made surrounding the legality of the application in were in the public interest and were honestly held based on the evidence he had at the time - both defences under the Scottish law around defamation damages. Campbell Deane, head of BKF and Co who represented Mr Wardrop, said: "This case sets a crucial precedent in the application of Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021, particularly the public interest defence. READ MORE by Martin Williams "The ruling underscores the legal protection available to individuals who responsibly raise issues of public concern – even if they are ultimately mistaken in their claims. It affirms that Scottish defamation law now balances reputation rights with the importance of free expression in democratic discourse." Alan Wardrop (left) and St Mirren directors and Kibble execs Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan (Image: Damian Shields) Mr Deane represented former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale in a successful defamation case battle in 2020, an appeal case of Wings over Scotland blogger Stuart Campbell, who claimed Ms Dugdale defamed him in a newspaper column three years ago. Mr Campbell lost the defamation case and demand for £25,000 in reputational damages at Edinburgh Sheriff Court when it was decided that while Ms Dugdale was incorrect to imply Mr Campbell was homophobic, she was protected under the principle of fair comment. Mr Deane in the Wardrop case said it was a defence to a defamatory statement if it relates to publication of a "matter of public interest and the defender reasonably believed that publishing it was in the public interest". He said: "This defence is designed to protect freedom of expression on issues that affect the public, so long as the individual making the statements acts responsibly, seeks to verify the facts, and is not motivated by malice. This ruling makes clear that raising concerns about governance, charity involvement, or the use of public funds can fall within the scope of public interest. "This ruling confirms that the defender does not need to be correct in the allegations. Rather, the defender must show that their belief in the truth and public value of the statements was formed through reasonable effort. "As the first judicial interpretation of this new defence in Scotland, the decision is likely to have a significant impact on how future public interest defences are framed." Stuart Munro of Livingstone Brown, solicitor for Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan, said: 'My clients required to bring this action after Mr Wardrop wrongly accused them of having a 'secret plan' to build on land owned by St Mirren FC and of lying about it. 'They are extremely pleased the judge, having heard detailed evidence from numerous witnesses, made it clear in his written judgment that there was no such secret plan, thus setting the record straight. 'Furthermore, the judgement underlines that Mr Wardrop's very public allegations were, as my clients have consistently stated, both untrue and defamatory. "The judge also agreed that Mr Wardrop's untrue and defamatory statements caused serious harm to their reputations. 'Notwithstanding the finding that Mr Wardrop was entitled to publish, the judge made it very clear that, the true facts having now been established, any future repetition of his claims would have serious consequences.' Alan Wardrop (Image: .) But Mr Wardrop said: "As a lifelong St Mirren supporter this entirely unfounded and misconceived court action has unquestionably proved difficult. To be banned from attending home football matches and have my motivations put under the spotlight, when all I was doing was trying to shine a light on a significant issue concerning St Mirren has been taxing. "Prior to applying to join the SMISA board, I had conducted detailed investigations as to the whereabouts of the land forming part of Kibble's applications for a well-being centre. I had done this, having been met with a wall of silence from the Kibble directors of St Mirren Football Club, Jim Gillespie and Mark McMillan to my repeated requests for information." He said he had maintained throughout the process that what he said in relation to the land dispute was "honest opinion" and what he brought into the public forum was "in the public interest". "I am delighted, but not in any way surprised, that the court has accepted that it was in the public interest to publish what I did. The law promotes free speech, and based on all my thorough and detailed enquiries, what I wrote was clearly a statement on a matter of public interest and I believed in the public interest to publish," he said.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
How can Trump use the national guard on US soil?
Donald Trump said on Saturday he's deploying 2,000 California national guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of the California governor, Gavin Newsom. Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on US soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against US citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism a president can use to activate the military or national guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize national guard troops under certain circumstances. The national guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often, it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes national guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places national guard troops under federal command. The law says this can be done under three circumstances: when the US is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the US government; or when the president is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States', with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States'. It's not immediately clear whether the president can activate national guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Trump's proclamation says the national guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting US immigration officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because national guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the civil rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central high school after that state's governor activated the national guard to keep the students out. George HW Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the Covid pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their national guard troops to Washington DC to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then defense secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations'. Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he had been prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said that if the issue came up again in his next term: 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the national guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser, Stephen Miller, explained how that would be carried out: sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refused to participate, Miller said on The Charlie Kirk Show in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the national guard troops on Saturday, the defense secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues'.
