The world should follow Trump's lead on stablecoins
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
29 minutes ago
- BBC News
US-China talks to restart as hopes grow for trade war truce extension
The US and China are due to start a fresh round of talks on Monday as expectations grow that the world's two biggest economies could agree a 90-day extension to their trade war meetings in Sweden - led on Washington's side by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and for Beijing by Vice Premier He Lifeng - come hours after US President Donald Trump announced a framework tariffs deal with the European current 90-day truce between the US and China - which saw the two countries temporarily lowering tariffs on each other - is set to end on 12 Trump returned to the White House in January, the US and China had raised import levies on each other to more than 100%. The current 90-day tariffs pause came after top officials from the US and China met in Geneva and London earlier this week, Bessent said talks with China were in "a very good place" and suggested the new round of talks could result in a second Monday, citing sources on both sides, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported that the US and China are expected to extend the truce by another three BBC has contacted the Chinese embassy in the US and the US Treasury Department for latest US-China talks come after Washington struck deals with both the EU and Japan in the last Sunday, Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a trade agreement ended a months-long standoff between two of the world's biggest economic week, Trump said Washington had agreed a "massive" trade deal with the agreement, Japan would invest $550bn (£407bn) in the US while its goods sold to America would be taxed at 15% when they reach the country - below the 25% tariff Trump had US has also struck tariffs deals with the UK, Indonesia and 10%, Britain has negotiated the lowest US tariff rate so similar breakthrough is expected from the US-China talks this week but, with expectations of an extension to their truce, there are hopes that global trade will not be hit by fresh tariffs disruption.
The National
44 minutes ago
- The National
Independence will be won by narratives, not technicalities
I was happy to do this because I am quite sure an online subscription to the paper is a bargain. In summary, I suggested there are three reasons why The National is of value: It seeks to tell the truth in a world where that is rare The paper is clear about what it seeks to achieve, which is Scottish independence, and what it wants from doing so, believing it will benefit everyone in the country. It tries harder than any newspaper I know to explain how the goals that it promotes might be achieved Together, these add up to a narrative, and narrative mattersto me. Simultaneously, I was discussing with a team what makes for a good YouTube video. I am now creating more than 400 of these a year and, on average, they are attracting significantly more views than is typical for that channel, so I hope I have some insight into this. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' My summary on this, which I have learned through painful experience, is that there are usually five steps to this process, which are largely consistent with any narrative anyone might ever want to create. These are: You have a situation involving an unresolved stress that needs to be resolved as the story progresses The narrator of the story has a desire to resolve this issue, which they can explain, including by suggesting what outcome they want There is a problem or conflict that must be resolved before change can take place The necessary conditions to remove that obstacle to progress can be described The consequence is that the stress can be removed, and the person engaging with the story can understand how they might be better off as a result I am not claiming any great or novel insight here (pun intended). All I am relating is the foundation of the plot for just about any book, film or even newspaper column that you have ever read or watched. Of course, there are lots of ways in which variations on this theme can be created, but the fact is that, as life has taught me, resolving stress is pretty much what everything in life is about. It was undoubtedly the basis of my professional life during the 40 years I worked as a chartered accountant. Why is it worth relating these two tales? It is because understanding how narratives are created and resolved is crucial to the cause of Scottish independence, as well as to the broader political economy. The reason is quite simple: the hearts, souls and minds of those who will have to vote for independence will not be swayed by technicalities, however important they might be; nor are our relationships of power ever altered using financial or other data. Instead, it is stories that make and change our world. As a result, it is the power of the independence movement to create stories that really matters. Using the plot steps I note above, I suspect that every reader of this newspaper knows what the conflict Scotland faces is. It is being governed by interests that are wholly uninterested in the wellbeing of the people of Scotland, and they are based in another country. I do, again, suspect most readers are very well aware of what they desire. They wish for an independent Scotland. What we do, however, know is that there is a conflict, and that is that the Westminster political parties do not want Scotland – or Wales or Northern Ireland, come to that – to be independent. They wish to hang on to their remaining colonies. They are putting every obstacle they can in the way of independence. I'll jump a stage and suggest most people reading this article would also know the people of Scotland will be better off than they are now if independence is won. The end of this story is known. In that case, using this simple analytical tool, we can see that the problem for the Scottish independence cause is at stage four of the narrative process. What the SNP, in particular, are having difficulty with is explaining how the obstacles to progress can be removed. What John Swinney said recently has done very little to change this. That is, then, what the political economic debate in Scotland must now focus on. I particularly emphasise this because while, as an economist, technicalities matter to me, narratives matter more. The Irish independence movement in the early 20th century never clearly defined what an independent Ireland would look like before achieving its goal. That was unfortunate, because the civil war developed soon after London had agreed to grant Ireland its freedom, and this must be avoided in the case of Scotland. However, my point is that without discussion on a currency, or any other technicality, the case for independence in Ireland was primarily shaped by the narratives that the Irish independence movement created for itself. Through the poetry of Yeats, the plays of Synge, stories from the west of Ireland, and tales of the persecution that had happened, plus the promotion of cultural centres such as the Abbey Theatre in Dublin, a narrative was created that captured the popular imagination not just in Ireland, but also of sympathetic people elsewhere. I think this is essential and I am not sure I am seeing or hearing enough of it in Scotland. Now, I readily admit I live in England and so it would be easy for me to miss this, but there again, people outside Ireland in the early 20th century could not have missed the intellectual and literary momentum that promoted the politics of independence at that time. So, much as I think that technical issues around currency, taxation, and other such matters will have to be resolved before independence can happen, I am also of the opinion that the popular resolve to create an independent Scotland cannot be achieved without more storytelling. That storytelling has to build on genuine, and not fabricated, Scottish tradition. It has to emphasise that the reality of Scottish life can be improved. And what it needs to do is be clear that there is sufficient cohesion within Scotland for a strong and proud nation that does more than support its rugby, football and curling teams, but which wants to be independent as well. Emphasising Scottish modern culture will also be key. In that regard, I was heartened to see Scottish performers proudly displaying the Saltire at Glastonbury. That makes a difference, as does the championing of the cause by people such as actor David Tennant. All that being said, though, there is still a story to tell, and when it is, I think that the critical breakthrough will happen. I also happen to think The National will be part of that story, which is why an annual subscription for £20 will definitely be worth the money.
The National
44 minutes ago
- The National
It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland
The first thing to say is that if it is able to break out of the factions and abbreviations which abound in the terrain to the left of Labour – and with 300,000 claimed sign-ups and a poll rating of 10% it just might – then it marks a very big change in socialist thinking. For more than a century, socialists who wanted to change capitalism have rubbed along in the Labour Party with those who just wanted a bit more from it. Now large sections of the Labour left look set to give up the ghost. For me, that ship sailed long ago. It's more than two decades since I became convinced that using the powers that Scotland would get with political independence offered a much better prospect of changing the world than trying to reform a British state run by people still steeped in the mindset of empire. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' Nonetheless it's an important debate. The political character of England should matter greatly to Scotland and this new party might even play a role here. In one sense the Labour left has nowhere to go. Those now in control of the party have made it perfectly clear radical views are no longer welcome within it. They have been demonised and purged. Labour is manifesting every bit as much intolerance and authoritarianism in its internal structures as it does in government. But how did it come to this? A short time ago the Labour left had more power than at any point in the party's history. Corbyn was leader and commanded the considerable resources provided to the parliamentary opposition by the state. The left controlled the conference and the NEC. And the mobilisation of the grassroots through Momentum was impressive in its day. Yet within a few short years it had all evaporated. Corbyn and others left or were expelled, policy was abandoned wholesale, and the Labour conference would sing the national anthem with no visible dissent. It has been a remarkable transition both in speed and scale. In part this is because the Corbyn project failed abjectly (Image: Getty) in its own terms. Jeremy became leader by accident. And he wasn't very good at it. I watched for years in the House of Commons the breathtaking disloyalty of the right-wing Labour parliamentarians towards the Corbyn front bench. It was embarrassing. Never have I seen such hostility and hate between political parties, never mind within one. But no-one got suspended, or expelled or deselected. They were ignored, left alone to operate as a party within a party. Despite his strength in the wider party organisation, Corbyn never moved against his enemy within. Too naïve, or too nice. Either way, a fatal mistake. Corbyn also never got out of his silo, unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his natural support. He should have developed a narrative about Brexit or constitutional reform that would have galvanised a wider alliance which the left could lead. He didn't. Once defeated, his opponents lost no time in eradicating any possible legacy. These right-wing parliamentarians had been busy making plans. There were organised by a ruthless and clever Irishman called Morgan McSweeney under the banner Labour Together. McSweeney built a strategy for power inspired by Odysseus. Seeing the popularity of left policies in the party, and among the electorate, he argued for 'Corbynism without Corbyn'. But he needed someone to front it who couldn't immediately be outed as a right-wing hack. Step forward the hapless Keir Starmer. You'll cringe to look now at the ten-point platform McSweeney drew up for Starmer's leadership bid. Common ownership, higher income tax on top earners, improving welfare, and more. It worked at the time. Those Labour members who hadn't left after their leader fell lapped it up. Once in position, McSweeney and his acolytes didn't show any hesitation that might have come from wanting to be nice or fair. At breakneck speed and with ruthless efficiency they brushed aside anyone in their way, including many on the soft left, which they saw as a gateway for extremists. They won through deceit, but at the price of the party itself. Which is why we've got a new one. So, what does this mean for us? We've just got used to Scotland being a plurality in which six parties compete. Are we now to have seven? It's hard to see. Certainly, there's plenty of discontent within Labour ranks, but not nearly as much as in places like London. Besides, there's already plenty of options where the disenchanted could escape to. And across it all lies the independence question. Not really something you can avoid. Is it plausible, or possible, for a new party to say we're really radical and want a complete overhaul of the system, but we are agnostic on whether Scotland should be an independent country or remain in the UK? Especially when they would, by definition, be living proof of the failure of the latter option.
