Stephen Flynn jokes he'll be ‘washing hair' when Donald Trump visits UK
The Scottish National Party's (SNP) Westminster leader, who is bald, told Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg that he will find "any excuse possible" to avoid meeting the US president on his visit to Scotland.
While insisting it was 'absolutely right' that First Minister John Swinney meets Mr Trump, Mr Flynn quipped that he'd be 'looking after his own toddlers' while the Republican is in the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
8 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I was CO of the SAS. Here are four words our Special Forces need to hear from the PM
With war in Europe and new threats to this country around every corner, from autocratic tyrants like Putin, jihadists and deranged activists, we should be supporting and encouraging those who keep us safe not seeking new legal ways to artificially transform their past acts of military necessity into alleged human rights violations. The US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth spoke recently at the US Special Operations Forces (SOF) week outlining his nation's rock-solid support and admiration for those conducting complex counter-terrorist operations alongside their many allies, including the UK. For emphasis, and in recognition of the new threat of state-sponsored 'lawfare' against these guardians of our collective security, he passed on a personal note to their commander from President Trump which simply stated: 'I have your back'. This is exactly the unequivocal message our protectors need to hear as they advance towards a suspected suicide-capable terrorist hiding within a civilian population, without the blessing of perfect intelligence, time and resources. Contrast this to the way that our own leaders – political and military – stand silent as our own Special Forces are pursued by a toxic combination of creative journalists and lawyers, each keen to prove that historical state-directed operations in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan were done in ways that should now be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service. This in many cases not due to any new evidence, incidentally – that would be reasonable – but simply because of a crafty interpretation of international laws created far from our sovereign legislature and sponsored by those that have no respect for either the realities of close quarter combat, or our need to defend ourselves. To the general dismay of potential volunteers to our armed forces and of our American allies, our public or parliamentary debate seems to dismiss the blood-stained experience of veterans as unreasonable or even fanciful. Self-effacing descriptions of the realities of combat are dismissed as mere cartoon stories and trumped by the creative opinions of human rights lawyers who seem to value the lives of our enemies ahead of those of our soldiers sent to defeat them. Energetic, combative and very well paid, these legal professionals demonstrate great skill at retrospectively transforming descriptions of close quarter combat into revisionist suggestions of human rights violations and even war crimes. No wonder recruiting numbers are falling or that our soldiers start to hesitate, fearing the long-term legal consequences of taking decisive action in a combat situation. To the many practitioners within the vital transatlantic counter-terrorism alliance it appears that the UK's application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the British way of war is starting to critically restrict its ability to stop terrorists and other bad actors from attacking our citizens or those of our allies. Can these staunch allies of ours still rely on the UK to deal with these common threats or are we becoming that type of fearful partner that simply prefers others to do the dirty work? To them, have we become nothing but a soft, compromised underbelly to be watched rather than the respected, self-sufficient bastion of old; a vulnerability rather than a strongpoint? Have we become a risky partner in sensitive operations, whose participation in joint operations carries the risk of inviting follow-on lawfare back into the courtrooms of our allies, even the USA? Such are the whispered and worried questions being asked in the global targeting rooms when considering UK potential contributions to today's fight. In the confusing and murky world of counter-terrorism where threats fade in and out of view in an instant, hesitation always leads to failure and death. This is a brutal reality known to both enemies and allies alike; exploited by the former, feared by the latter. There are never any second chances, and this is no place for unreliable, indecisive or gun-shy allies. Recognising this, let us hope that our own national leaders can offer the same reassuring support to our forces as shown by the US President in that simple but powerful promise to his team: 'I have your back'. For without it, they risk allowing the effect of this escalating lawfare to weaken the hand and confidence of our very special guardians just when we need them the most.
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Beware the blizzard of lies: US advice on how to handle Farage's Trump tactics
Truth, the progressive California politician Hiram Johnson once said, is the first casualty of war. Johnson's oft-cited remark was supposedly made in 1918 in reference to the first world war, which had by then caused millions of human casualties. More than a century later, truth is once again caught in the crossfire, this time as a casualty of 21st-century culture wars. If Donald Trump is the high priest of disinformation, then Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, is showing signs of being a willing disciple, if his behaviour in the UK this week is anything to go by. Farage has proposed sending prisoners abroad – including to El Salvador, where the Trump administration has sent hundreds of deportees and suggested sending US citizens. He also suggested an extensive police recruitment drive and prison-building programme all while cutting health and education spending. In the US, the parroting of Trump's policies by a UK populist has not gone unnoticed. And for those who have studied the president's modus operandi – there is one particular tactic the British public should be braced for: the blizzard of lies and false statements that frequently overwhelms his opponents. The Trump experience, they say, contains sobering lessons for critics of Farage. US pro-democracy campaigners warn that Trump has become even harder to factcheck since his first term, thanks to a combination of factors including looser social media content moderation and a reluctance among some media owners to stand up to his intimidation tactics. The Washington Post, which tracked more than 30,000 lies or misleading statements from Trump during his presidency, lost subscribers and public trust after its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, reportedly vetoed an editorial endorsing the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for president. 'It's become more difficult because there's less commitment from those who are in the best position to do the factchecking,' said Omar Noureldin, a senior vice-president for Common Cause, a non-partisan group. 'Seeking the truth here comes with costs and risks.' Complicating matters is the loss of trust in institutions, with many consumers relying on social media platforms for news. 'Even the best factchecking can be unpersuasive, because we're not just facing an information crisis here, but also a trust crisis in the American information ecosystem,' Noureldin said. Media watchers say the political environment has become so deeply polarised that factchecking can even have the counter-productive effect of further entrenching misplaced beliefs. 'From a lot of research, we're reaching the conclusion that factchecking hasn't been as effective as one would want,' said Julie Millican, the vice-president of Media Matters for America, a media watchdog. 'One reason is that information and disinformation spreads faster than you can check it. It takes a lot longer to factcheck something than it does for it go viral. 'But the other thing is factchecking can backfire. People so distrust institutions that factchecking can validate the misinformation in their minds and make them more inclined to believe the lie they believed in the first place.' A 2022 report from Protect Democracy suggested this was the result of a deliberate strategy of authoritarian regimes. 'Disinformation is spread through coordinated networks, channels and ecosystems, including politically aligned or state-owned media,' the report said. 'The goal is not always to sell a lie, but instead to undermine the notion that anything in particular is true.' Further compounding the problem in the US has been Trump's appointments of allies to key government agencies that have traditionally served as sources of accurate and reliable data for factcheckers. A case in point is Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has engaged in anti-vaccine theories, Trump's pick for health and human services secretary, putting him in charge of the country's vast health bureaucracy. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'Factchecking wasn't working very well in the first place, but now you can't even get access to the facts that you need be able to factcheck as well as you used to,' said Millican. The outlook seems bleak. Yet that does not make the problems insurmountable, campaigners insist. One answer is to invest in independent, non-partisan research. A prime purpose would be to increase media literacy among young people, who primarily get news from platforms such as TikTok which can be subject to disinformation tools such as AI-manipulated videos. The aim is to teach consumers how to spot doctored footage. 'Media literacy is extremely important and something that should be invested in and taught at a young age,' said Millican. Another solution is the development of 'pre-buttal' strategies to inoculate the public against disinformation, in effect getting the truth out first. Media Matters for America and Common Cause used this approach during last year's presidential election, partly by producing videos designed to counter anticipated false narratives surrounding voting procedures in certain areas. Also important, said Shalini Agarwal, special counsel at Protect Democracy, is calling out the demonisation of vulnerable groups, such as immigrants, as soon as it happens. A crucial role is played by media, even as Trump intensifies his assault on journalists as 'fake news' and tries to exclude certain established outlets from press briefings. 'It's really important when there are opportunities for one-on-one briefings and there are multiple reporters,' Agarwal said. 'Part of it is a sense of collective action. Often, whoever is speaking at the podium won't give a straightforward answer or gives a false answer and then tries to move on – it's incumbent when that happens for other reporters to jump in and say: 'Wait. What about what the other reporter asked?'' Millican has two pieces of advice for Britain and other European countries hoping to arm themselves against any coming authoritarian onslaught: fortify the media and preserve legislation designed to combat disinformation and illegal content online – represented by the online safety act in Britain and the digital safety act in the EU. 'The first thing that's going to happen in these authoritarian takeovers is they're going to try to silence and take over the media and information landscape,' she said. 'Any efforts to rein in hate speech or misinformation on platforms will be seen as tantamount to suppression of conservative thought or free speech. 'I can't stress enough trying to buffer the pollution of your information ecosystem as much as possible. One of the first things that they're going to do is just take down any barriers they can.'
Reuters
11 minutes ago
- Reuters
Frustration, Gaza alarm drove Macron to go it alone on Palestine recognition
PARIS, July 26 (Reuters) - President Emmanuel Macron's announcement that France would become the first Western member of the United Nations Security Council to recognise a Palestinian state in September has caused diplomatic ructions from the Middle East through Europe to Washington. But it did not come out of the blue. When Macron visited the Egyptian town of Al-Arish on the border with Gaza in April, he was struck by the mounting humanitarian crisis and made clear on his return home that Paris would soon opt for recognition. Working with Saudi Arabia, Macron came up with a plan to have France plus G7 allies Britain and Canada recognise Palestinian statehood, while pushing Arab states to adopt a softer stance towards Israel through a United Nations conference. But despite weeks of talks he failed to get others on board. Three diplomats said London did not want to face the wrath of the United States, and Ottawa took a similar stance, leaving Macron to go it alone. "It became increasingly apparent that we could not wait to get partners on board," said a French diplomat, adding France will work to get more states on board ahead of conference on a two-state solution in September. Domestically Macron was under rising pressure to do something amid widespread anger at the harrowing images coming out of Gaza. Although with both Europe's biggest Muslim and Jewish communities and a polarised political landscape, there was no obvious course of action that would satisfy all sides. Israel and its staunch supporter the United States have blasted France's move, branding it a reward for the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which ran Gaza and whose attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 triggered the current war. Macron had discussed the matter extensively with both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in advance. Trump said on Friday that France's decision didn't "carry any weight" but added Macron was "a good guy". French officials previously considered an announcement at a conference scheduled for June at the United Nations, co-hosted by France and Saudi Arabia, to sketch out a roadmap to a viable Palestinian state while also ensuring Israel's security. But the conference was postponed amid intense U.S. diplomatic pressure and after Israeli air strikes on Iran. Macron's announcement on Thursday is linked to a rescheduled and rejigged version of the U.N. conference, now planned to take place Monday and Tuesday. That meeting will be at ministerial level, but Paris decided it would hold a second event with heads of state and government on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in September, where Macron will announce formal recognition. Some analysts say Macron has used the carrot of recognition to extract concessions from Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority which is a moderate rival to Hamas, and other regional players. "Macron here is acting as a catalyst to get the Palestinians to deliver on the needed reforms, to get the Arabs to deliver on a stabilization force and the disarming of Hamas," said Rym Momtaz, editor-in-chief of the Strategic Europe blog run by the Carnegie Europe think tank. Others say while recognition has symbolic value, there will still be no functioning Palestinian state whenever the war in Gaza comes to an end. "Recognition by a European heavyweight like France is indicative of the rising frustration with Israel's intransigent policies," said Amjad Iraqi, senior analyst at International Crisis Group. "What's the point of recognising a state if they're doing little to stop it from turning into ruins?" French officials point to months of intense Israeli lobbying to try to prevent Macron's move - and Netanyahu's fierce criticism of it - as evidence that it matters a lot to Israeli leaders. Sources familiar with the matter say Israel's warnings to France had ranged from scaling back intelligence-sharing to complicating Paris' regional initiatives - even hinting at possible annexation of parts of the West Bank. But French officials concluded that Netanyahu would do whatever he thought was in his interests in the West Bank anyway, regardless of what France did on recognition. Israel's parliament voted on Wednesday in favour of a non-binding declaration urging the government to apply Israeli law to the West Bank, widely seen as a de facto annexation of the territory. That added to the urgency in Paris. "If there is a moment in history to recognise a Palestinian state, even if it's just symbolic, then I would say that moment has probably come," said a senior French official.
