Ian Murray hints at meeting Donald Trump in Scotland visit
The US president is set to arrive in Scotland on Friday for a five-day visit, where he is expected to visit his golf courses at Turnberry in Ayrshire, and Menie in Aberdeenshire.
US president Donald Trump Trump will meet with Prime Minister Keir Starmer and First Minister John Swinney during his trip.
On Thursday, Scotland Secretary Ian Murray hinted that he will also be meeting with Trump, as he defended previous comments he had made about the US president.
READ MORE: Scottish policing will be 'seriously affected' by Trump visit, says police body
Appearing on BBC Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme on Thursday, Murray was asked whether he would be meeting with Trump.
Murray replied: "Well, it's expected, but not fully confirmed as yet. The details are obviously being worked out.
"My predecessor, the Secretary of State David Mundell, met with the president when he last landed in Scotland.
"It's a duty for us to make sure that we are welcoming foreign dignitaries to Scotland in the right way, particularly one that's our closest and nearest ally, both economically and defence and security, and there's lots to talk about, of course.
"So it's expected but not fully confirmed at this stage."
Ian Murray MP (Image: PA) Murray was then asked whether Scotland should be welcoming Trump "with open arms".
He replied: "Well, the long historic ties, economic ties, cultural ties between the US and the UK – we are the closest allies in the world, and we have to make sure that we are working together for the benefit of our national interest, but the benefit of the global interest as well.
"So it's really important for the UK and the US to continue that close relationship and that historic relationship."
READ MORE: Amnesty calls on John Swinney to stand up to 'authoritarian' Donald Trump
He was interrupted and asked again: "I just wonder if it's a warm welcome, if it's a welcome with open arms to the US president?"
Murray said: "Well, it's in our national interest to work as closely as possible with the United States.
"It's very much in our national interest and therefore, if it's in our national interest, we should be making sure that we're welcoming people when they arrive in Scotland."
The journalist repeats the question again: "I just wanted to ask again, is it a warm welcome? Is it a welcome with open arms?"
"Well, of course it's a warm welcome," Murray responds.
"We would always have a warm welcome, and the president of the United States and the office of the United States and the office of the Prime Minister are ones that work very, very closely together and should do because it's in the national interest to do so.
"And we should make sure those relationships are in place because it's important for our defence, our security, our economies, for jobs.
"And it's really important for the finer details of the US trade deal that's been done."
Murray was then asked about the EDM motion he submitted in 2019, which called for the previous UK government to withdraw its offer of a full state visit to Donald Trump.
In the motion, Murray condemned Trump's record on a number of issues, including his "misogynism, racism and xenophobia", his previous comments on women, refugees and torture, and his "lack of action" on climate change.
READ MORE: 'Twinned with Epstein Island' sign put up at Donald Trump's Aberdeenshire golf course
The motion was backed by several Labour MPs who are now prominent figures in Keir Starmer's Government, including Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Health Secretary Wes Streeting.
When asked what had "changed" between 2019 and now, Murray said: "Well, what's changed is that it's really important for both countries to work together, governments have to work together.
"Given the US is our closest ally, given we have just done the trade agreement with them to remove tariffs for the benefit of UK and Scottish businesses, and given the global events at the moment, it's really, really important for these historic ties to work together with our closest allies, and that's what we're intending to do."
The journalist then asked: "Was that not important in 2019?"
Murray said: "It's really important for governments to work together, it's really important for the offices of the Prime Minister and the United States to work together because it's in our national interest to do so."
Murray was then asked again: "But it was important in 2019, wasn't it, for the governments to work together? I just wonder what's changed in that time?"
He said: "Well, the important thing here is that what has changed is the basis of having to work together with our allies.
"Being in government gives us the responsibility to do that–"
Murray was interrupted by the journalist who said: "Because you're in government, that's what's changed?"
He replied: "Well, what has changed is that both governments have to work together.
"People see the benefit of that, they see the benefit of the global instability of allies working together with the closest defence and security allies across the world.
"And we have to make sure that we're nurturing those relationships and continue that strong historic relationship for the benefit of the people in this country."
READ MORE: 'Wake up, America!': Alan Cumming hits out at Donald Trump over trans attack
The journalist repeated the question: "Forgive me for asking that again, that was the case in 2019 though, so I just wanted to ask you again, what's changed?
"Have you changed your view about president Trump or has he changed compared to when you signed that motion in 2019?"
Murray said: "Well, the bottom line here is that governments have to work together for the benefit of the national interest, and that's what we're intending to do with the state visit, but also with the visit that's happening this weekend, and also with the trade deal that's been done with the US.
"It's really important for the US and the UK to work together and we'll continue to do so."
Murray previously said that he would "meet Donald Trump off the plane" when he visits Scotland.
He was criticised by the SNP, who called his change in position "disgraceful" and that "he has abandoned almost every principle he once claimed to champion".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Hillary Clinton allegedly approved plan to smear Trump in 2016
Congress released a previously classified intelligence report claiming that Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign likely 'ginned up' the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy and wanted the FBI 's help. The Senate Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released a 29-page classified file from former Special Counsel John Durham's 'Russiagate' investigation on Thursday. The heart of the explosive allegation: That the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign were aware of - and potentially coordinated - a plan to falsely tie Donald Trump to Russia , a chief U.S. rival. Durham examined the FBI's investigation into potential links between Trump campaign officials and Russia during the 2016 election and concluded the FBI should have not launched the investigation given the evidence it had at the time. The report authored by the special counsel, released publicly for the first time today, shows potential election interference from another country regarding Clinton, false FBI reports to surveil the 2016 Trump campaign and the FBI's failure to investigate Clinton's ties to the Russia collusion allegations, like the infamously debunked Steele Dossier. A March 2016 memorandum stated that in part 'Clinton staff, with support from special services, is preparing scandalous revelations of business relations between Trump and the 'Russian mafia.'' 'Based on the Durham annex, the Obama FBI failed to adequately review and investigate intelligence reports showing the Clinton campaign may have been ginning up the fake Trump-Russia narrative for Clinton's political gain, which was ultimately done through the Steele Dossier and other means,' Grassley, 91, said in a statement. 'History will show that the Obama and Biden administration's law enforcement and intelligence agencies were weaponized against President Trump,' the senator continued. 'This political weaponization has caused critical damage to our institutions and is one of the biggest political scandals and cover-ups in American history. According to sources, the annex was among files stuffed in 'burn bags' that were due to be destroyed before recently being rescued by FBI employees. A person familiar with the discovery speculated to the Daily Mail that it was likely an oversight by previous directors that prevented the documents from being destroyed. The person added that it's likely the documents would have never seen the light of day if the FBI wasn't diligently looking through everything it comes across at the bureau. Within the pages of the annex are private communications between Clinton staff and workers at a George Soros nonprofit cooking up a plan to tie Trump to Russia to distract from scrutiny over the Hillary email server scandal. Leonard Benardo, Senior Vice President of Soros' Open Society Foundations, sent emails to top Clinton staffers that showed Hillary Clinton herself approved of the Trump-Russia plan. That plan included the FBI working on behalf of Clinton, according to Benardo's emails. 'Julie [Clinton Campaign Advisor] says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump,' one of his emails disclosed in the Durham annex states. 'Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later the FBI will put more oil into the fire.' Durham later wrote that Julie Smith, the campaign advisor, 'was, at minimum, playing a role in the Clinton campaign's efforts to tie Trump to Russia.' The emails 'certainly lends at least some credence that such a plan existed,' Durham said. Donald Trump's CIA Director John Ratcliffe recently suggested that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top Obama aides could be hit with perjury charges over the annex. A spokesperson for Clinton did not immediately respond to the Daily Mail's request for comment. A spokesperson for the Obamas did not immediately respond to a request for comment either. Ratcliffe said that Obama officials involved with the 'Russia hoax' - the debunked narrative that Russia interfered with the 2016 election on behalf of Donald Trump 's campaign - could be prosecuted. The dossier, a 2016 opposition research file crafted by former MI6 spy Christoper Steele against then-candidate Trump, was a central - and largely debunked - component of the FBI's 'Russiagate' investigation. Ratcliffe has also noted that former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan could still be hit with charges, including lying to Congress. has also noted that former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan could still be hit with charges, including lying to Congress. 'They conspired against President Trump, they conspired against the American people,' the CIA director said. 'So, I'll leave it to Pam Bondi and our DOJ and Kash Patel and our FBI to investigate the conspiracy to do what, and what charges that they're capable of bringing.' However, some critics have slammed Ratcliffe for not releasing 'Russiagate' documents when he served as director of national intelligence during Trump's first term. 'Can anyone explain why John Ratcliffe, who held the same position as Tulsi (DNI) under Trump, totally failed to identify the Russian collusion coup hoax against Trump and was then promoted by Trump to head the CIA,' podcast host Clint Russell wrote on X. Last week, DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents that she claims show how Obama-era intelligence officials 'manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork.' She released a September 2020 report by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election. The file disputes the claim that Russia interfered with Trump's first election on behalf of the Republican.
Daily Record
27 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Donald Trump issues major announcement on Fox News in humiliating blow to UK
Donald Trump has hit out at the UK live on Fox News, saying he is hearing reports of Brits being locked up for social media posts and branding it a 'mean' country Donald Trump has sparked outrage after a blasting attack on Britain's free speech laws during a live Fox News appearance, describing reports of individuals being jailed over social media posts as an alarming sign of decline under left-wing government. The US President, who is currently spending several-day in Scotland combining business and diplomatic engagements, was asked about claims that British citizens had faced arrest for online remarks. His reply, aired live during a Fox News interview, was scathing. Speaking about Air Force One to various media representatives when questioned about Brits being sent to jail for social media posts, Trump declared: "Are you saying that's taking place in the UK? Well we're hearing that. They said they cancelled Truth Social, I'll bet it's uncancelled very quickly. No it's very different. I see it in some countries, and you would never suspect it." He went on to draw comparison between Britain's present atmosphere and socialist administrations, suggesting that freedom of expression was being targeted, the Express reports. He went on to say: "Not only there I've seen it in other countries and then all of a sudden they become somewhat violent. "You know when people go socialist over it you get the radical left or the left going and the countries actually become very mean. They become mean and incompetent simultaneously." The comments come during Trump's prominent Scottish visit where he recently held discussions with Prime Minister Keir Starmer for bilateral talks centred on trade and international aid. However, despite the formal diplomatic setting, it was his televised interview that sparked controversy. The President's journey to Scotland included the opening of a new golf course in Balmedie, named in honour of his mother, Mary Anne MacLeod. While the event was designed to spotlight his business endeavours, the visit has been overshadowed by increased security measures, political backlash and now his explosive remarks on UK speech laws. Over 7,000 police officers were mobilised to monitor Trump's movements, and he also had a meeting with Scotland's First Minister John Swinney. Meanwhile, his discussions with Starmer centred around trade, aid for Gaza, and global stability - though there was little to none reference to domestic UK policies. Trump's comments are set to escalate tensions with Starmer's Labour government, which has already come under fire over growing complaints about free speech and police crackdown. As the state visit in September approaches, Downing Street may now be compelled to directly address the US leader's claims. A broader look at UK enforcement revealed that police made over 12,000 arrests in 2023 for social media offences under the Communications Act 2003 and Malicious Communications Act 1988-averaging around 33 arrests per day. Civil liberties organisations have raised concerns that the laws underpinning these cases are vague and often lead to arrests for speech that many argue should be protected
New Statesman
28 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Ursula von der Leyen's deal exposes the delusions of EU boosters
Photo byThe French prime minister François Bayrou said it was a 'dark day' for Europe. Under the trade deal that Donald Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced in Scotland on 26 July, the US would impose a 15 per cent tariff on most European imports, but the European Union would not increase tariffs on American imports in return. According to Bayrou, 'an alliance of free peoples' had 'resolved to submission'. It was definitely a climbdown for the EU. Ever since Trump was re-elected last year and threatened new tariffs on imports to the US, the European Commission had threatened counter-measures – just as it did during the first Trump administration, when it responded to US tariffs on European aluminium and steel with its own tariffs on American products like bourbon. In the end, though, the EU simply accepted the new US tariffs this time – and on top of that, promised to increase purchases of American liquified natural gas and weapons. To be clear, what was agreed in Scotland is a political or 'framework' deal and a lot of the important details have yet to be worked out. In particular, it is not yet clear whether pharmaceuticals – a hugely important sector for the EU and especially Germany – will be included or how much steel will be exempt from tariffs. Moreover, the promises that von der Leyen made to increase investment in the US have already turned out to be empty – there is no way the EU can buy $750bn of American oil and gas in the next few years and it cannot direct companies to invest in the United States. Nevertheless, in the few days since the deal was announced, it has widely been seen as a humiliating European capitulation to Trump. Many critics of deal – especially EU boosters who fantasise about the idea of 'strategic autonomy' or a 'geopolitical Europe' – seem to imagine that the EU could have followed an alternative approach and stood up to Trump. In reality, though, there was little alternative to what Bayrou called 'submission'. Critics of the deal think EU member states undermined von der Leyen and forced her to negotiate from a position of weakness. It is true that some member states, especially Germany and Italy, ultimately backed off from threats of retaliatory measures because they feared that a full-on transatlantic trade war would ultimately hit important sectors of their economies harder than they are now being hit by the new US tariffs. But the idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it had but did not use – and that if it had used it, it could have struck a much better deal – is wishful thinking. As the world's largest trading bloc, the EU has long thought of itself as an economic superpower and prided itself on its ability to negotiate trade deals – that, of course, was one of main arguments why the UK should remain within in the EU. This deal has somewhat undermined that self-image. After all, in May, the UK was able to negotiate a slightly better deal with the Trump administration, with a baseline tariff of 10 per cent. But what really makes the EU weak relative to the US is its vulnerability in security terms. The idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it did not use only makes sense if you think that economics and security are completely separate realms and that security issues are irrelevant to trade negotiations and cannot be linked. But deep down, despite all the tough talk and the threats of retaliation to Trump's tariffs, European politicians knew that taking such a confrontational approach could have consequences for US support for Ukraine – or even for Nato and the US security guarantee to Europe itself. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe It's striking that this trade deal was being negotiated just as Trump seemed to be becoming increasingly frustrated with Vladimir Putin and more supportive of Ukraine. Earlier in July, Trump had reinstated supplies of US weapons to Ukraine – albeit paid for by Europeans – and threatened new economic sanctions against Russia if Putin did not make progress in negotiations within 50 days. (The day after the EU-US trade deal was announced, Trump said he was now giving Putin even less time.) As tentative as European leaders know Trump's shift on Ukraine is, they do not want to jeopardise it. EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who apparently spent hundreds of hours in frustrating negotiations with Trump administration officials, hinted at this in a briefing the morning after the announcement of the deal. He said he could not go into the details of everything that was discussed with Trump in Scotland, but 'it was not just about trade'. In the end, what has made the EU so dependent on the US, and made the EU's 'submission' inevitable, is the war in Ukraine – or, to be more precise, the way that, for the last two and half years since the Russian invasion in 2022, European leaders have insisted that their own security depends on a Ukrainian victory. Related
