JD Vance greeted by Palestine protesters as he begins holiday in Scotland
Donald Trump's second-in-command landed at Prestwick Airport on Wednesday evening before travelling with a large motorcade to the luxury Carnell Estate near Kilmarnock in East Ayrshire.
He was greeted at the resort by dozens of pro-Palestine protesters, who accused him of supporting a 'genocide' by Israel in Gaza.
The demonstrated were kettled by police as they bashed pots and pans, waved Palestine flags and shouted pro-Palestine chants.
Police had initially told the protesters they would need to move and that officers would do so if they refused to leave to a different space nearby.
Airspace restrictions are in place around the estate until Sunday.
Mr Vance will reportedly spend five days in Scotland – the same amount of time his boss did during his trip to the country last month.
President Trump split his stay between his golf courses in South Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire, during which time he met the First Minister and Prime Minister.
A spokesperson for Police Scotland said: 'This visit requires a significant police operation and we have appropriate resources in place using local, national and specialist officers from across Police Scotland.'
Mr Vance had been holidaying in the Cotswolds, but travelled to the Foreign Secretary's Chevening House retreat in Kent on Friday – and he joined David Lammy for a spot of carp fishing at the countryside estate.
Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Vance described the UK-US relationship as 'a beautiful alliance' during a speech at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Nicola Sturgeon: Gender opponents said they wanted me ‘raped in toilet'
Nicola Sturgeon has said opponents of her self-ID gender policy have laughed at her miscarriage and said they want her to be 'raped in a toilet' on social media. The former first minister accused self-professed feminists of having 'vilified' her this week, as she released her memoir, despite them claiming to stand up for women's rights. She was forced to deny claims she was responsible for a free speech row over whether critics of her gender policy were being censored, saying she 'does not believe' in cancel culture. The row erupted after an Edinburgh Fringe arts venue indicated that Kate Forbes, the deputy first minister, would not be invited to speak at future events because of her views on trans rights. Summerhall Arts issued an apology to performers for its 'oversight' in allowing Ms Forbes, a devout Christian, to be interviewed on stage last week. Several artists at the venue are performing shows with gay or transgender themes, and some set up a 'safe room' because they claimed to have been 'terrified' while the 5ft 2in-tall politician was in the building, the Daily Mail reported. It also emerged that the National Library of Scotland (NLS) had removed a gender-critical book from an exhibition after staff complained. The library removed The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht, a collection of essays by feminists, including JK Rowling, about their fight against Ms Sturgeon's gender self-ID laws. The book was selected to be included in an exhibition celebrating the library's centenary but was removed following complaints that it was 'hate speech'. However, it was still available to read in the library. Stephen Kerr, a Scottish Tory MSP, wrote to Angus Robertson, the Scottish culture secretary, arguing that public bodies that fail to protect freedom of speech should have their funding withheld. In his letter, Mr Kerr asked Mr Robertson to 'seek full and transparent explanations' from Summerhall Arts and NLS about their conduct and to make a 'clear public statement ... that freedom of speech and expression are non-negotiable where public funding is concerned.' He urged the culture secretary to 'require that future funding arrangements include explicit, enforceable commitments to uphold these freedoms in practice, and that breaches will have consequences'. Ms Sturgeon's controversial Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill would have allowed Scots to change legal gender by simply signing a declaration, with no medical diagnosis. The legislation was passed at Holyrood, with Ms Sturgeon arguing that some of its opponents were transphobic, 'deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well'. However, it was vetoed by the UK Government over concerns it undermined women's safe spaces. 'Toxic' trans debate In a sold-out interview with broadcaster Kirsty Wark at Edinburgh Book Festival, Ms Sturgeon described the debate around trans issues as 'toxic on both sides'. Highlighting comments made on social media this week, she said: 'There are people who call themselves feminists, standing up for women's rights, saying things about me such as when I described my miscarriage experience the other day 'I haven't laughed as much in years', accusing me of making it up, people saying they hope I am raped in a toilet.' The former SNP leader has recounted the miscarriage she had aged 40 in 2010 as part of events and interviews to publicise her memoir in recent days. She said she was 'heartbroken' about the loss. In the book, named Frankly, she admitted that she 'should have hit the pause button' on the controversial legislation to allow trans people to self-identify. Reflecting on the row over the policy in her interview with Ms Wark, Ms Sturgeon insisted that not all opponents of gender reform are either transphobic or homophobic, but claimed the issue of trans rights 'has been hijacked and weaponised by people that are transphobic and homophobic'. She said she was 'worried' that if she paused the gender reforms at Holyrood, this would have seen her 'give in to that', but admitted that that 'might have been wrong'. 'I don't believe in cancel culture' Asked if her change of heart on the bill merited an apology to the people who say they were 'vilified' for wanting it paused, Ms Sturgeon said: 'People on both sides of this debate are vilified. 'I've been vilified and received some awful abuse, nothing like the abuse trans people are getting right now.' Pressed later for her response to the free speech rows, Ms Sturgeon said: 'I don't believe in cancel culture and I don't agree with that.' She also refused to take responsibility for the decision made by Summerhall Arts. The Fringe venue was awarded £608,302 of public money from Scottish Government quango Creative Scotland in January. In his letter to the culture secretary, Mr Kerr asked for an audit to be conducted to ascertain how much public money had been given to organisations that have restricted freedom of expression. Mr Robertson told the Herald that the Scottish Government was fully committed to freedom of speech in the arts but added: 'For very good reasons, funding to our major cultural and festival events takes place at arm's length.' The Summerhall venue said: 'This event was booked as a series of long-form interviews prior to the guest list being confirmed. 'Summerhall Arts' primary concern is the safety and wellbeing of the artists and performers we work with, and going forward we will be developing robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that would prevent this oversight in our bookings process happening again.'
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I fear visiting Britain to promote my book, when speaking freely can get you in trouble
'New Zealand woman … and 6-year-old son detained by US immigration,' blared a recent story in the New Zealand Herald. So far, so scary. It seems the woman went to the US based on her marriage to an American. They divorced before she adjusted her status to permanent resident. When she tried to get back into the US from a trip to Canada, she and her son were detained by US Customs and Border Protection. She reportedly applied to re-open her green-card application on the grounds that she was allegedly a survivor of domestic abuse. She may or may not have a case. But the bottom line is that this is a complicated immigration case that will work itself out in due course, not an innocent tourist mum being blocked by the American jackboots of Leftist imagination. A few weeks ago, I was invited on a podcast in New Zealand. The other guests were Stephen Young, a professor at Otago University whose 'areas of research involve the intersection of Indigenous peoples … drawing from critical and social theories,' and Zane Wedding, 'an activist who's been involved in recent pro-Gaza rallies'. They appeared to want me as a proxy pinata for President Trump's highly successful (though controversial) policies to control the southern border and deport aliens here illegally. The podcast's premise was that Kiwi academics were being hassled at US airports. 'A number of our universities are now advising academics to clean their social media profiles, travel with burner phones, and reconsider attending US conferences altogether,' they said. Their implication was that research would grind to a halt, tourism would dry out, and sundry other disasters would result from the alleged border crackdown. But when I researched the claims, practically nothing came up. Yes, a May 2025 article alarmingly said 'NZ travellers warned of increased detention risk at US border', and the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's travel advice for the United States is set at level 2, 'exercise increased caution'. But the Ministry said that in the year to that point, '24 New Zealand passport holders have sought our assistance because they have experienced immigration difficulties in the US … Typically, we would see 14-25 cases per year.' No crisis there. Indeed, a government spokeswoman said that 169,000 New Zealanders had travelled to the US in the year to March 2025 – up from 168,000 for the same period a year earlier. The global Left is panicking about the US president or secretary of state using powers in immigration law to deny visas or entry to foreigners who endorse or espouse terrorism or undermine our national security or foreign policy. They seem to believe that the United States, uniquely among nations, is obliged to admit foreigners who rail against our system of government and capitalism, and advocate for radical foreign political causes. We don't. We have rules which visitors are asked to respect, or else they're not welcome. Meanwhile, the rest of the Anglosphere is policing speech not just about politics, but about statistical and biological truth. I worry more about free speech there than here. Armed with facts, I was easily able to counter the narrative that the US was a threat to free speech. In fact, I told the podcast hosts that I was more afraid of speaking in New Zealand – or Australia, Canada, and Great Britain, the rest of the 'Five Eyes' of English-speaking countries that share intelligence data. To promote my new book, The Ten Woke Commandments (You Must Not Obey), I will be speaking in the US and Europe. In the United States, our First Amendment protects my free speech. I'll go to the Five Eyes countries if invited, but with trepidation, because several of the woke commandments I urge readers to reject in the book appear to have become state-sanctioned truth in some of these countries. Deviation from that dogma, or adherence to factual truth that threatens some sub-group's subjective sense of safety, can result in cancellation, ostracisation – or, in some cases, legal trouble. In Australia, the case of Tickle v Giggle grinds on. It boils down to a website for women being sued by a biological male who wants access to the site. Commenting on the case might be risky – 'transgender vilification', defined as 'a public act that could incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule towards people who are transgender', is against the law in New South Wales. Kirralie Smith, head of the Australian group Binary, says she's had 'vilification' complaints against her 'for calling male soccer players 'male''. In my book, I discuss gender ideology in two chapters. I state the fact (not opinion) that mankind is a sexually dimorphous species with only two sexes. If one bloke in Scotland finds it offensive, could that be 'stirring up hatred' – an offence under their Hate Crime and Public Order Act? I'd hope not, but the fact the question even has to be asked is chilling to free expression. In the chapter titled 'You Will be 'Woke' to Imaginary Oppression', I use hard data to debunk myths about crime – who are the victims, and who are the perpetrators. In Britain, a data point in the debate about migration is the rate of crime by foreign compared to UK-born men. Whatever the true statistics are, they might cause someone offence – but that does not make them false. Facts are facts. Their purpose is not to vilify, but to inform policy. The Free Speech Union is fighting to protect ordinary Britons who state factual truths or express their opinions. The British Government, meanwhile, seems determined to crack down on negative views of mass migration if they are injudiciously expressed. In Canada, former PM Justin Trudeau's government suppressed free speech over Covid mandates and advocated an Online Harms Act that would create a new hate-crime offence with a maximum sentence of life in prison. His Liberal Party successor, Mark Carney, seems little better. And in New Zealand, they have a Human Rights Act under which using 'words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting' or 'inciting racial disharmony' are offences. Such laws naturally chill free speech, because the definitions and lines are rarely clear, absent court cases of which no one wants to be the guinea pig. The New Zealand Law Commission has been looking at extending the categories protected under the Human Rights Act to 'people who are transgender, people who are non-binary and people who have an innate variation of sex characteristics'. But while people with disorders of sexual development indubitably exist, the concepts of 'transgender' or 'non-binary' require a belief – that humans have a 'gender' which sometimes doesn't match their biological sex, and that human beings can exist without being of either sex. These are convictions of faith, not facts that can be proven or disproven empirically. Despite the panic from the Anglophone Left, the home of free speech remains the United States. It's in the rest of the ex-British Empire where it is in jeopardy. Simon Hankinson is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Border Security and Immigration Center and author of The Ten Woke Commandments (You Must Not Obey) from Academica Books
The Sun
17 minutes ago
- The Sun
Labour minister accused of misleading Parliament over secret plans for China's mega-embassy in London
A LABOUR minister has been accused of misleading Parliament over secret plans for China's mega-embassy in London. Tory chairman Kevin Hollinrake has written to Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook after it emerged key building drawings for the Royal Mint Court site were hidden from view. 4 4 Mr Pennycook told Parliament 'all inquiry documents for this case are publicly available on Tower Hamlets website'. But a Government letter sent on August 6 admits some designs are 'redacted for security reasons' and asks the Chinese to 'consider' handing over the unedited versions. Mr Hollinrake told him: 'This directly contradicts the letter of 6 August… "You cannot claim that you did not know about the redacted plans.' Concerns have previously been raised about the plans, including unmarked basement rooms, a tunnel, airlocks and vertical access between buildings. In his letter, Mr Hollinrake warned this underground zone 'will undeniably be used for intelligence work… [and] could be used for the abduction, intimidation or torture of anti-Chinese dissidents living in the United Kingdom.' Ms Rayner has given the embassy until next week to justify the redactions. The final decision on the 20,000 sq metre site - which would be China's largest embassy in Europe - sits with the Deputy PM and is due by September 9. Human rights groups including Amnesty International and the China Dissent Network have said Chinese embassies have previously been used to monitor, intimidate and silence dissidents abroad. 4 4
