Ex-justice secretary demands UK pay for Trump's visit
Mr Trump will visit both of the golf clubs he owns in the country - Turnberry in South Ayrshire and Menie, near Aberdeen, in the coming days. He is also due to meet Prime Minister Keir Starmer during his visit.
Before boarding the presidential plane Air Force One to fly to Scotland, the US President told journalists: "The Scottish leader is a good man, so I look forward to meeting him." He also said he has a "lot of love" for Scotland.
READ MORE:
Billed as a private visit, the trip comes ahead of the state visit, expected to take place in September, when Mr Trump will meet the King. Despite that, the president's visit will prove a huge logistical challenge for Police Scotland, with the national force calling in support from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI).
Earlier this week, both the Scottish Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents raised concerns about the pressure being put on policing by the arrival of the US leader.
In a statement Mr MacAskill said: "We are seeing our police service drained, front line policing undermined and officers burned out as a result of the pressures being put on Police Scotland to police the Trump visit to Scotland.
"The private visit is only taking place because Sir [[Keir Starmer]] wanted the visit to take place away from Parliament. Therefore it is only right and proper that full cost reimbursement for the massive policing costs of the Trump visit should be met from the coffers of the UK and not the Scottish Government.
'The UK Government met the core costs when world leaders came to Scotland for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) and that is the very least that should happen now.
'But this private trip is only happening because the UK Government have invited Trump to the UK and so they should meet the full costs.
'We must not have the double whammy of our police services being stretched while at the same time the Scottish Government having to pick up the massive costs of policing the Trump visit. That is why the UK Government must meet the full costs for the visit and the disruption which they have imposed on Scotland.'
Speaking to the PA news agency ahead of the visit on Friday, Mr Swinney said the meeting will be "an opportunity to "essentially speak out for Scotland" on international issues such as Gaza, as well as trade and the increase of business from the United States in Scotland.
"There are clearly also significant international issues upon which the people of Scotland have a view and want to have that view expressed by their First Minister," he said.
"That relates to the awfulness of the situation in Gaza and the unbearable human suffering that is going on in Gaza.
"I want to make sure that those concerns and those views are expressed to the president of the United States.
"We have that opportunity, and I intend to take that opportunity to make sure that Scotland's voice is heard."
Mr Swinney also urged all of those set to protest against the president's visit to do so "peacefully and to do so within the law".
A UK Government spokeswoman said: 'There are established processes for considering the policing costs of visits to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by foreign dignitaries.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
19 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Russia dismisses Trump's warning of sending nuclear subs closer to country as a ‘temper tantrum'
Former major general Leonid Ivlev said it did not pose a new threat as the location of US naval forces is known and the range of submarines can be found online SUBS SNUB Russia dismisses Trump's warning of sending nuclear subs closer to country as a 'temper tantrum' Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) RUSSIA has dismissed Donald Trump's warning he is sending nuclear submarines closer to Russia as a 'temper tantrum'. While the Kremlin has yet to respond, the US President has been mocked by local media. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 2 The Kremlin has yet to respond to Trump's recent threats, pictured leader Putin Credit: Getty Former major general Leonid Ivlev said it did not pose a new threat as the location of US naval forces is known and the range of submarines can be found online. Another retired lieutenant general called it 'meaningless blather'. And a Russian security expert told one paper: 'I'm sure Trump didn't really give any orders'. Trump had said he was ordering submarines to 'appropriate regions' after ex-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said they still had Soviet-era nuke capabilities. He said: 'Words are very important and can often lead to unintended consequences.' Trump has said that the US is "totally prepared" for a nuclear war following a slew of threats against America from a Kremlin comrade. He said: "If some words of the former Russian president [Medvedev] cause such a nervous reaction in the entire, formidable US president, then Russia is right in everything and will continue to go its own way. "Let him remember his favorite films about the "walking dead", as well as how dangerous a "dead hand" that does not exist in nature can be." Medvedev may have been referring to Moscow's "Dead Hand" nuclear weapons system, which is designed to launch a doomsday retaliation attack with full nuclear force - even if the Kremlin leadership is wiped out. He also warned that Russia "isn't Israel or even Iran." "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences. I hope this will not be one of those instances. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Trump says US is 'fully prepared' for war after moving subs towards Russia
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
JEFF PRESTRIDGE: Why is it so difficult to get our pensions in one place?
Nothing is straightforward when it comes to pensions. Complexity rules. It's one of the reasons more than 40 per cent of working age people are not saving enough for retirement. Many just don't understand the myriad rules governing pension contributions, permitted tax breaks and how funds at retirement can be turned into hard cash. As a result, they desist from long-term saving when they should be embracing it. This complexity extends to when people attempt to put their pension affairs in good order. Long gone are the days when people retired after working all their life for one employer. Now, unlike our parents who had one works pension to see them through retirement, we have a mishmash of pensions – some good, others not fit for purpose. Some we may have forgotten about or struggle to track down. Research by financial services company Hargreaves Lansdown shows more than one in five people have lost track of pensions accumulated over a lifetime of work. To address this, consumer groups have repeatedly called for the setting up of an online dashboard, allowing people to see in one place key details on all of the pension plans they have accumulated over their working life. Such a dashboard would be a game-changer, allowing people to piece together their pension jigsaw – and enable them to make better choices when saving and at the point of retirement. Yet despite promises by previous governments to get it off the ground, it has yet to see the light of day. Although a quango called the Pensions Dashboards Programme has been tasked with delivering the scheme, the project trundles on at a snail's pace. Pensions minister Emma Reynolds says the Government is committed to getting a dashboard over the line. But I doubt it will be fully operational before the next General Election in 2029. In light of such slow progress, Labour should listen to those calling for new rules governing pension switches. Pension switching and consolidation of plans makes great sense for many savers, giving them greater control over their long-term finances and the opportunity to benefit from lower fund fees. It's not for everyone. Some older pensions can include valuable benefits that would be lost if transferred to another provider. Yet overall, it is good for consumers and should be hiccup-free. Sadly, it isn't. Many providers make life difficult for want-away customers by dragging out transfers over many weeks and sometimes months. Scandalous. PensionBee, a relatively new pension kid on the block, wants the Government to introduce a ten-day pension switching guarantee, backed by law. It would be similar to the seven-day current account switching service (CASS) launched 12 years ago to stop banks dilly-dallying on account transfer requests. CASS's data indicates that of the 11.9 million current account switches completed since 2013, 99.6 per cent have been within the required seven working days. PensionBee's Lisa Picardo says pension switching delays 'have real opportunity costs – hampering engagement, costing people real money, limiting their choices and undermining trust in the whole pensions system'. To prompt change, PensionBee has set up a petition calling for 'faster, electronic pension transfers'. Bafflingly, there's no specific mention of the ten-day switching guarantee, nor the compensation savers should (must) get if the guarantee is breached. And the petition's title – 'legislate to mandate offer of electronic pension transfers and higher standards' – reads like it has been dreamt up by an actuary who has spent too much time immersed in the complexities of pensions. I can only assume there is method in the madness. As I said at the start, nothing is straightforward when it comes to pensions. Find the petition at Cashless tills have invaded our shops Paying for goods with cash at a supermarket should be a given. But many stores are rapidly turning invasive self-checkout services into near cashless zones. Think 1963 horror film The Day Of The Triffids, about an invasion of carnivorous plants. For example, at Marks & Spencer's store at London Paddington (the railway station I commute into and from five days a week), there are only a handful among the phalanx of self-checkout terminals that now accept cash. Debra Morrison, chief executive of charity CLASP, based in my home town of Wokingham in Berkshire, is a passionate advocate for cash. CLASP provides invaluable support to people with learning difficulties, encouraging them to express themselves, participate in a wide range of events, and live more independently. Its work is enlightening. Debra says cash is vital for most CLASP members who need to budget carefully and don't use credit and debit cards. It is also key for the elderly and others who eschew other payment methods. Debra is backing an petition – find it online at – calling for an end to the discrimination of cash users at self-service checkouts. Financial inclusion is an imperative. I urge you to sign the petition. Shame on Barclays for axeing ANOTHER service I hadn't heard of Barclays' 'sterling home service' until a neighbour of my partner mentioned it a few days ago. The service, introduced during the 2020 lockdown, enables people to order cash and have it delivered to their home rather than trundle off in search of a cash machine or a Barclays branch still open (good luck there). It has been a godsend for Edna who was 90 a couple of weeks ago and is not as mobile as she once was. It has enabled her to pay cash for at-home care, food deliveries and other needs besides. Sadly for Edna and other elderly people, Barclays is withdrawing the service on October 9. It says it was only meant to be temporary – and given it is now only used by a 'very small number of customers' (its words, not mine), it must be given the chop. The bank says the Ednas of this world can still get cash in other ways: via an ATM, getting cashback at a retailer or by asking for an 'authorised user' to be added to their account who can get cash out for them. Interestingly, it didn't mention the other option: withdrawing cash over the counter at a local Barclays branch. I draw two conclusions from this. Either Barclays feels it has shut so many branches (1,236 since 2015) that such an option is not worth mentioning. In Edna's case, the local Barclays in Wokingham, Berkshire, shut two years ago – and is now an ugly, empty shell. Or, that the days of permitted big cash withdrawals over the counter at Barclays' branches are drawing to an end. PS: There is worrying evidence that banks and retailers are turning their backs on cheques. If you have had difficulties banking a cheque or making a payment by cheque, email me at
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
74 years on - and Britain is still struggling to balance the books
The past often looms larger than the present as one grows older. So I was grateful to receive a letter from a loyal reader who found a newspaper cutting revealing the contents of the 1951-52 Budget. At the time I was still in my Silver Cross pram blissfully unaware of the privations of the nation. But as a financial journalist who has reported on Budgets since the mid-1970s, the news was depressingly familiar. It dated to the final days of the post-War Government. The occupant of No 11 seeking to balance the nation's books was Hugh Gaitskell. Hailing from the moderate wing of Labour, he was the Rachel Reeves of his time. Tax and spend were the order of the day, but the welfare state was still in its infancy and handouts on today's scale were a dream. Dominating the Budget was defence of the realm. On the eve of the Korean War, Britain was spending 8.5 per cent of national output on the military. That was sharply down on the peak during the Second World War. It puts in perspective Keir Starmer's pledge to devote 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product to defence by 2027 and the undertaking at the recent Nato summit to eventually raise this to 5 per cent of GDP. In contrast the big consumers of Government resources in 2025-26 are welfare, the NHS and education. Spending on these was minuscule, compared with arms, in 1951-52. A key similarity with today is that the UK of 74 years ago was up to its neck in borrowing, debt and interest payments. Defeating Hitler was the only goal that mattered for Winston Churchill's Cabinet and in 1951 the ratio of debt-to-GDP stood at a huge 200 per cent. Britain has suffered three successive shocks to the public finances this century. The global financial crisis, Covid and soaring energy bills after Russia's invasion of Ukraine have sent the national debt soaring to 100 per cent of annual output. But remarkably that is half the level of 1951. The cost of servicing all that debt – including war loans from the US, savings certificates and Government bonds – was also far higher then. The annual interest bill was £215 billion in today's money – almost twice the £126 billion cost of servicing the national debt today. Those urging Reeves to loosen her fiscal straitjacket may find solace in the 1951 deal. Britain was deep in debt but survived. Taxation then was a simpler affair. Dominated, as it is today, by income tax, it was boosted by a surtax on the wealthy. National Insurance, now worth £199 billion a year to the exchequer, was near invisible. The biggest change to the tax system came after Britain joined the EU in 1973. It brought the Revenue the gift of VAT, which this year is set to raise £214 billion, making it the second biggest revenue-raiser after income tax. In 1951, when consumer spending power was modest, purchase tax raised a miserable £310 million or £3.8 billion today. One ever-present element of Budgets is alcohol duty. A few pennies off a pint is still seen by No 11 as a way of soothing the troubles of working people. As long as they can find a pub that's still open after the Chancellor's latest tax raid.
