Donald Trump plans to ‘visit his three Scottish golf courses next month'
DON HIS WAY Donald Trump plans to 'visit his three Scottish golf courses next month'
DONALD Trump is reportedly planning to visit his three Scottish golf courses next month.
The US President is set to head to Scotland for the first time since his election victory last year.
Advertisement
4
Donald Trump is reportedly planning on visiting Scotland next month
Credit: AFP
4
He is likely to visit his three golf courses including Turnberry which was vandalised earlier this year
Credit: Alamy
The MailOnline reports that, in the final two weeks in July, security services are preparing for Air Force One to land at Prestwick Airport.
A ring of steel is expected to be thrown around the President amid fears of major protests following the US military's attack on Iran's nuclear stockpile.
During his first stint in office, thousands of Scots took to the streets in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in 2018 to protest against his visit.
It comes after Mr Trump previously revealed he plans to visit Scotland during his second state visit to the UK.
Advertisement
The US President was given the historic invitation to officially come to Britain.
It is the first time an American leader has been offered as second state visit.
He was handed the invitation by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in the White House.
Mr Trump was hoping to informally meet King Charles this summer at one of his Scottish residences - Balmoral or Dumfries House - ahead of the second state visit likely to take place in September.
Advertisement
But it is understood that their diaries do not align.
The President is likely to visit his Turnberry golf course in Ayrshire - which was vandalised by pro-Palestinian protesters in March.
'Daddy' Trump stopped Israel and Iran war, Nato chief tells 'strong' Don
He will also visit his controversial Trump International course in Aberdeen.
And Mr Trump may also take time to check in on his brand new 18-hole course, which is set to open at the Aberdeenshire property, named the MacLeod course after the President's mum.
Advertisement
A Trump visit to Scotland has proved controversial both politicians and the public.
First Minister John Swinney called for his second visit to be axed after Trump's explosive bust-up with Ukrainian president Zelensky in the Oval Office.
But the SNP leader was branded a hypocrite after he met with Eric Trump over tea and biscuits at Bute House.
And several people have been charged over alleged vandalism at the President's Turnberry golf course.
Advertisement
4
He will also visit his controversial Trump International course in Aberdeen
Credit: AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Lisa Murkowski's new book details centrist senator's clash with Trump, dismay at supreme court
Lisa Murkowski is Alaska's four-term senator, first appointed in 2002 by Frank Murkowski, her father and the state's governor. An avowed moderate Republican, she entertains the possibility of caucusing with the Democrats if the Senate emerges deadlocked from next year's midterms. Her relationship with Donald Trump is fraught. In 2016, she voted for the former Ohio governor John Kasich. In Far From Home, her first book, she writes: 'One of my simple rules … has been to withhold my vote from any candidate of bad character, regardless of the politics.' Trump … failed the test. In office, Murkowski clashed with him over the attempted repeal of the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare, and the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court. Trump trashed her (to Don Young, then Alaska's congressman) as 'that bitch Murkowski'. Young and Murkowski were allies. It made no difference to the president. At Trump's second impeachment trial, Murkowski voted to convict. Out of office, he attempted to doom her 2022 re-election – and failed. Still, of the seven Republican senators who voted to convict, only Murkowski, Susan Collins of Maine and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana remain in Congress. Subtitled An Alaskan Senator Faces the Extreme Climate of Washington, Murkowski's memoir sheds light on her life, family and career, brimming with anecdotes and grudges. Well-paced and informative, with an assist from Charles Wohlforth, a seasoned Alaska writer and politico, the book offers a window into Murkowski's mind. 'I call myself a Republican because of the values I hold, such as personal responsibility, small government, a strong national defense, and the individual's right to make her own choices,' she writes. Along with Collins, she is the last of that tribe. The geographic and ideological centers of the GOP reside in the Rust belt and the south, not in New England and Alaska. Murkowski is wary of populism and shows little respect for Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who was the Republican nominee for vice-president in 2008. Two consecutive sentences sum up her take. 'Sarah Palin didn't know she was helping start a movement – she was just being Sarah Palin – but she became the prototype for Donald Trump, the showman without principle,' Murkowski observes, acidly. 'And he took populism much further, partly because he didn't need a script.' Murkowski viewed Palin as both lazy and a dim bulb, unfit for higher office. 'I would have warned John McCain about selecting her as his vice-presidential running mate if I had given any credence to the rumors that he was considering Palin,' Murkowski writes. 'I did not, because I thought the idea was preposterous.' Palin failed to complete her term as governor, resigning in summer 2009, as she faced ethics investigations and growing legal bills. More recently, she has lost in two attempts to sue the New York Times for defamation. In 2010, Murkowski lost the Republican primary but won in November as a write-in. After the initial loss, Joe Biden, then vice-president, called to console her. 'Goddamn it, what were those people thinking?' he said. Murkowski devotes considerable space to the Kavanaugh confirmation, the #MeToo movement and sexual assault. She discloses for the first time how as a second-grader, walking alone in a forest, she was abused by a relative of a neighbor. 'I was terrified,' she writes. 'He said if I ever told anyone what happened, I would get in horrible trouble for being bad. I believed him. I never told anyone, not even my sisters. I was ashamed as well as afraid.' Murkowski is pro-choice. Kavanaugh signed the majority opinion and wrote a concurrence in Dobbs, the decision that overturned Roe v Wade and gutted the federal right to abortion. She accuses him of bad faith. 'Kavanaugh had emphasized the strength of precedent over and over, in formal and colloquial language, in a way that could hardly be interpreted any other way than as saying Roe should not be overturned,' Murkowski says. 'More than being angry, I was discouraged. I had believed that the court would keep Americans' trust as an institution, as we needed it to do.' Only 44% of the US views the supreme court favorably. Only one-fifth agree that the court is politically neutral – 58% disagree. Murkowski also dives into religion. A Georgetown University graduate and a practicing Catholic, she addresses the role of faith in public life, particularly given her support for Roe. It wasn't simple. 'In my own life, harsh voices declared I was not a good enough version of who I am – a Catholic unworthy of Communion, a Republican in name only … not even a real Alaskan,' Murkowski writes. At church, a parishioner handed out anti-abortion leaflets critical of Murkowski. Her family, including her son Nic, then 13, were offended. Church leaders offered reassurance but tension took its toll. 'My relationship to the church has suffered,' she writes. Murkowski counts former centrist senators – Joe Manchin, Mitt Romney and Kyrsten Sinema – as friends. Manchin and Romney (and Christine Todd Whitman, a former Republican New Jersey governor) provide blurbs for her book jacket. As senators, Manchin, Sinema and Romney voted to convict Trump and bar him from office. Manchin and Sinema later left the Democratic party, to become independents. Might Murkowski follow their path? She laments the stridency exacted by hyper-partisanship. 'The parties demand conformity, and their loudest voices are also their most extreme and uncompromising,' she complains. 'As holdouts for bipartisanship, those of us building consensus brought abuse on ourselves. Now all three of these smart, honorable, productive colleagues have retired from the Senate.' Trump is back in the White House. Murkowski remains in the Senate. She has criticized him over Ukraine and expressed doubts about Medicaid cuts in the 'big, beautiful bill'. Both their terms expire in 2028. Trump is constitutionally barred from seeking re-election. Murkowski is not. Far From Home is published in the US by Penguin Random House
NBC News
21 minutes ago
- NBC News
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states propose a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. 'Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved,' said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. 'Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents.' Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional 'collections' actions that one would take against a 'deadbeat debtor.' Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including 'sanctuary' policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. 'We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites,' she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. 'It's a novel concept,' said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. 'I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds.' Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. 'So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much,' said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. 'There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people,' he said. 'The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'' But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. 'Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'' he said. 'States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law.' But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. 'We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget,' said Moon, the Maryland legislator. 'There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House.'
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Don't count on the Iran-Israel ceasefire lasting. What Netanyahu really wants is a forever war
The war is over! Except it's not, not by a long chalk. The verbally agreed Iran-Israel ceasefire could be ripped to shreds at any moment. An aggressive theocratic regime still holds power in Tehran. The same is true of Jerusalem. In Washington, a president whose stupidity is matched only by his vanity prattles about making peace, but the angry old men in charge have learned nothing. Meanwhile, hundreds of civilians lie dead, thousands are wounded and millions have been terrorised. The war is over! Except only the naive believe that Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister and prime warmonger, is done fighting. Even if Donald Trump is right and Iran's nuclear facilities have been 'obliterated' ('severely damaged' appears more accurate), its nuclear knowhow and elusive stockpile of enriched uranium have not. At the first sign, real or imagined, of rebuilding, Netanyahu and his cronies will surely attack again. Trump called them off last week. But this is a man who can change his mind three times before he's even had breakfast. Who seriously believes Netanyahu will readily relinquish the dominance over Iran's airspace that his forces have established with unexpected ease? It's unlikely he will be able to resist the temptation to target Iran again, if fresh attacks are politically advantageous. Netanyahu is now reportedly weighing up the possibility of a snap election. Perhaps he hopes his Iran exploits will obscure his 7 October 2023 failures and abandonment of hostages held by Hamas. There is a pattern here. Since March, when he unilaterally wrecked the Gaza ceasefire, Netanyahu has sought to subjugate the territory. Palestinian civilians have been gunned down in repeated Israeli army and settler atrocities around Gaza food centres and in towns in the West Bank. In places such as Rafah, Bloody Sunday takes place almost every day. In Lebanon and Syria, Israel has dropped bombs with impunity. Netanyahu's military grinder never stops. Why imagine that he will be any different with Iran? Most people deplore 'forever wars', typified by dismal, multi-year western entanglements in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not Netanyahu. Peace is his enemy. Forever war keeps him in power, in the limelight and out of jail. Like Vladimir Putin, he sees continuing war as an opportunity to boost domestic support and outflank his opponents. Unending state violence is deadly for democracy, legality and good governance (and on this note, Americans should worry, too: Trump's presidency is on a similar trajectory, except his forever war is against the 'enemy within'). Despite Netanyahu's video appeal to the Iranian public in which he encouraged them to 'stand up' against an 'evil and oppressive regime', he cares little for their freedom. What he wants is what imperialist powers always want: a permanently weakened, divided, degraded country that poses no challenge to Israel's strategic interests and can be punished at will. By controlling Iranian skies and pursuing covert cyber-attacks, sabotage and assassinations, Israel could ensure an enfeebled Iran is held in check indefinitely – or so Netanyahu may calculate. The war is over … except it's not in Tehran, either. Rattled by talk of regime change and Israel's killing of prominent allies, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has emerged from his bunker to wage another war, on his own people. Hundreds have been arrested in a security crackdown. Alleged spies have been executed. In order to survive, the mullahs may now do what they have never done before: secretly race to build a nuclear weapon, or buy one off the shelf from North Korea. In truth, Iran's loathsome regime didn't even come close to falling. If anything, Israel's bombs rallied public support and patriotic sentiment. Iran was attacked on the basis of a lie (neither US intelligence nor the UN backed Netanyahu's claim that it was weaponising) and European governments failed to condemn the bombing. These facts will only deepen distrust of the west. Iran wants relief from US sanctions, and may agree to discuss this, but not its future nuclear activities. It is suspending cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Rejecting Israeli containment, Tehran may in time resume asymmetrical conflict and revive regional proxy wars. The war isn't over for Trump either (though, beguiled by delusions of a Nobel peace prize, he may think it is). He has demonstrated, as in Ukraine and Gaza, that his impulsive, unthinking, uninformed interventions only make the world more dangerous. He's made it harder for the US to walk away if war flares up again. His sneak attack on Iran, reminiscent of Pearl Harbor, breached the UN charter and will help rogue states justify illegal aggression. By continuing to aid and abet Netanyahu, an alleged war criminal, Trump is opening himself up to prosecution by the international criminal court. Trump has trashed multilateral diplomacy, sidelined and insulted European allies, relied on rookie envoys and rejected expert advice. His manifest untrustworthiness and monstrous egotism are all additional reasons why the US cannot be counted on. War across the Middle East is barely on hold. Trump took a shot at instant glory – and missed. The utter futility and pointlessness of this war is breathtaking. It achieved almost nothing positive. It caused misery, destruction and insecurity. Only rarely does brute force advance peaceful ends. Typically it inflames existing problems – and that's what happened here. When will these angry old men get it? Probably never, unless and until democrats summon the courage to defy them. Simon Tisdall is a Guardian columnist
