Can China save South Africa from Donald Trump?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
20 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
At long last, John Swinney has seen what grown-up politics is about
Mr Swinney and his fellow SNP ministers routinely like to churn out anti-Trump rhetoric seemingly because they think that'll garner them a few votes. But the reality of grown-up politics in which Mr Swinney has been obliged to indulge for just a few hours is that dialogue, pragmatism and diplomacy are key weapons in the armoury of a successful politician, not the kind of puerile sidelines sniping that's characteristic of the [[SNP]]. [[Donald Trump]] isn't my cup of tea either, but let's not forget that he leads the world's largest economy. I'm certain Keir Starmer has multiple reservations about Mr Trump, yet he, unlike Mr Swinney, heads up a sovereign state and has both a domestic and international remit – he can't wallow in Swinney-style futile populist virtue-signalling. Martin Redfern, Melrose. Knocking Labour off course Labour is on the way to running out of road for its long-term ambitions. All the MPs were elected on the same ticket with a destination in view and a driver to steer them in the right direction. They all want to reach the same destination but many of them differ with the driver on how fast they should proceed and what is the best route to reach their goal. It all boils down to how much they trust the driver and whether they can accept his gradualist approach. In today's world it would appear that everyone knows better than the people in charge and would like to impose their opinions on the ones whose skill got them on to the bus of government. In every walk of life you have to tailor your ambitions to fit in with the means at your disposal to hit those heights. Furthermore no one wishes to be compared to reckless teenagers who scream from the back of the bus for the driver to go faster, to take chances or to take a more direct route. Paying attention to excited MPs could lead to totalling the whole project the Government is trying to put in place. Do those MPs really want to jeopardise their chances of a second term in government with their short-sighted perspectives by showing that they cannot see the woods for the trees? Failure to take the global picture into consideration will run their bus off the road with regard to the Government's ambitions to improve the running of the UK for every level of the electorate. There is an old Roman tale about how the different organs and functions of the human body need to work together in harmony to achieve its desired results. It would be well worth the time of Labour MPs to reflect upon that. Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs. Read more letters Why not protest something important? So activists have been dangling themselves off the Forth Road Bridge over another issue which is of marginal, if any, concern to the rest of us ("Police arrest 10 Greenpeace activists after bridge protest", July 27). When have we seen such activists glueing themselves to the highway, roosting on motorway gantries, or dangling from bridges and buildings over anything that matters to the Many? Over out of control immigration? The housing shortage? The cost of living crisis? Lack of opportunities for our young people? The epidemic of stabbings and other lawlessness? The answer, of course, is that the narcissistic Few are completely indifferent to the plight of ordinary people. Whether they perform as Just Stop Oil, Climate Rebellion, Stand Up To Racism, or under whatever name, the extreme demands and their callous disregard for the interests of the Many are always the same. Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife. Such a sad life story Richard Holloway's life story ("The Bishop who abandoned God", July 27) is one of the saddest I have read. He is caught up in an orthodox version of the Christian world, and seemingly missing the most basic and fundamental uniqueness of this faith; put off by tradition and hypocrisy that he encountered in the various stages of his religious career. It strikes me that his experience of religious life is strikingly similar to the religious pomposity of the Pharisees of the 1st century, when Jesus was alive. Their religion was one of rules and regulations, burdensome traditions and rituals that were impossible to follow. They made life so difficult for the layperson, and were 100% convinced they were right. Their superiority and controlling natures led them eventually to crucify Jesus Christ, whom they hated with a vengeance, because he did not fit in with their version of religion. Richard Holloway appears to be very knowledgeable about various religions, yet he clearly has missed the whole theme of the Bible, that God, the Creator, loves his creatures with an unending love, yet seeks truth and justice from his people. A God whose love is so immense that, to deal with the root problem of the human race, "sin", he allowed his one and only Son, Jesus, to die on that cross... taking all the pain and sorrow and evil of the world upon himself. This is, I admit, a profound mystery; yet it is the foundational truth that resonates throughout the whole Bible. This same God does not ask us to "obey rules" or to "follow religious traditions"... He asks us to trust him, and to commit our lives to him... he longs for a relationship with us humans; longs that we speak with him, listen to him, and experience the love, the joy, and the peace that comes with him. Trying, as so many do, like Richard Holloway, to follow Christ's teaching without following Christ, is actually impossible, for his teaching demands impossible standards that only he can help us meet, in the strength he provides. I could go on and on, for Richard Holloway's story is so incredibly sad. He says "religion left me"; but Jesus Christ says, "I came to seek out and to rescue those who are lost in this world" – and that is all of us. He has not yet given up on Richard Holloway, and my earnest prayer is that he will truly find the Lord, who died for him, and who was raised from the dead. Now, that truth makes Jesus unique, and worth following. May God bless Richard Holloway, and all who are yearning for truth, and true fulfilment; these are found in God himself. Alasdair HB Fyfe, Carmunnock. Richard Holloway, former Bishop of Edinburgh (Image: Newsquest) Reasons behind Russia's actions Ronald Cameron (Letters, July 27) says that "Ukraine has come close to destroying the Russian war machine". Mr Cameron has got it the wrong way round. Russia has come close to destroying Ukraine' s army. Ukraine is in the position Germany was in in 1944, fighting losing battles, the war effectively lost, but continuing to lash out with deadly but strategically pointless missile strikes. The writing is on the wall for President Zelenskyy and his gang. Mr Cameron repeats the false claim that Russia is going to invade Nato's eastern border, but the fact is that Russian fears invasion from the West more than we fear them. In 1812 Napoleon burned Moscow. In 1854 Britain and France invaded Crimea. In 1918 Germany invaded Russia and Russia lost one million square miles of territory at the subsequent Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Britain, Canada and the United States invaded Russia between 1918 and 1925. In 1941 German forces were at the gates of Moscow and on their retreat destroyed virtually everything. President Eisenhower, then Supreme Commander Allied Forces in Europe, wrote: "When we flew into Russia, in 1945, I did not see a house standing between the western borders of the country and the area around Moscow." Declassified official documents record that in February 1997 the then Prime Minister John Major said: "If I were Russian I too would be concerned that Nato might move up to Russia's borders." Since then Nato has expanded to 32 countries. Russia warned repeatedly from 2008 that Ukraine's admission to Nato was a red line. The coup of 2014 which brought a nationalist government hostile to Russia to power resulted in a civil war between the eastern Russian-speaking provinces and the Kiev regime, which bombed and shelled them for eight years. Russia invaded in their support and to prevent Nato forces on a border which geographically is difficult to defend. Flying the Ukraine flag is risible. William Loneskie, Lauder. • Ronald Cameron contradicts himself. First he writes that "we" (presumably the UK) must do "everything possible" to support Ukraine, but then "there are plenty of better things to spend the money on". Come on, money can't be spent twice, so which is it to be ? George Morton, Rosyth. Off pat Rab McNeil's excellent article on Dougie MacLean ('Singer made every ex-pat yearn for home … and a pint', July 27) was interesting but its headline ignored the fact that an ex-soldier is someone who used to be a soldier, an ex-teacher is someone who used to be teacher and an ex-pat is someone who used to be a pat. If text space is so scarce that an abbreviation for expatriate is needed, it is expat, no hyphen being involved. Peter Dryburgh, Edinburgh.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
I am a Palestinian. Keir Starmer's recognition plan is an insult
The Prime Minister announced last week that the UK would recognise the state of Palestine next month, but only if Israel does not meet a set of conditions which include agreeing a ceasefire, allowing in aid to the starving population of Gaza and engaging in a peace process which leads to a two-state solution. But Glasgow-based Wael Shawish, who is originally from Jerusalem and has family in Gaza, has said the conditional plan set out by Starmer is an 'insult' to Palestinians and is meaningless unless it is accompanied by tangible sanctions, such as an end to arms sales to Israel. 'It doesn't seem to be a genuine statement. They need to satisfy Palestinians – not just Starmer but other world leaders in the West – on why they are doing it now,' Shawish, who is part of the Scottish Palestinian Society, told the Sunday National. READ MORE: The National hosts Q&A with Peter Oborne on UK Gaza complicity 'I think there are a number of reasons [it is being done now] – one is that there is so much unhappiness in the West among the populations of these countries that makes the government divorced from the opinion of their people. 'So they want to do something to say 'okay, we are with you, you are angry, we are angry, we are taking steps and the step is to recognise the state of Palestine' not because the Palestinians deserve a state, but because Israel is misbehaving and we are punishing it by recognising Palestine. 'That is not the right way to go about it. We shouldn't be used as a stick to hit Israel with. We should get recognition because we deserve it. To use it as a bargaining chip to hit Israel with is an insult to us. "The only way this announcement could be meaningful is if it is coupled with sanctions or stopping exporting arms to Israel." On Starmer, Shawish (below) added: 'With all due respect to the guy, who was supposed to be a high-flying international lawyer, his knowledge of international law to start with seems to be doubtful." (Image: NQ) Daily images of starving children coming out of Gaza has led to a change in tone from several world leaders in recent weeks, with the UK's hand seemingly being forced by France which also plans to recognise the state of Palestine next month. Canada has since indicated that it will recognise a Palestinian state, but there are again conditions, such as the Palestinian Authority committing to elections and other democratic reforms with no involvement from Hamas. Shawish claimed Starmer and other world leaders may be starting to worry about their complicity in war crimes being carried out in Gaza and so have felt compelled to make an 'empty gesture'. 'Some of them [Western world leaders], having seen the images of the starving children, now can recognise that they cannot argue about the death toll as being part of the battle, as collateral damage,' he said. 'It is now clear that there is a starvation plan in place to starve the Palestinian people and when these leaders actually provide weapons to Israel, to kill whoever they can kill, with British weapons […] these leaders are now worried that if somebody goes to the international courts, they could actually stand before the courts for being complicit, if not partners, in that genocide that is taking place.' A group of legal figures in the House of Lords claimed last week that the UK recognising Palestine would not be compatible with international law, citing a Pan-American treaty from 1933 – to which the UK was not a signatory. There are several signatories of the Montevideo Convention who recognised Palestine as a state. An expert explained to The National that it was a 'cynical ploy' by peers and a 'ludicrous' interpretation of the treaty. The SNP have said they will press ahead with a vote on recognising [[Palestine]], saying that it must be based on 'principle, not preconditions'. But, like Starmer, the party has still been speaking of a 'two-state solution that we all wish to see'. Dr Richard McNeil-Willson, a Middle East expert at Edinburgh University, said he did not believe a two-state solution was viable, adding that if state recognition is to happen, there needs to be 'serious discussions' on what that state looks like. In a piece for The Conversation, law lecturer Malak Benslama-Dabdoub – based at Royal Holloway University of London – also outlined how analysts have warned that recognition of this kind risks formalising a state in name only and Palestine would end up a 'fragmented, non-sovereign entity without control over its borders, resources or defence'. Shawish – who recently said his family member came back from an aid point with a gunshot wound – is in agreement and said he does not believe in the viability of a Palestinian state. He said: 'Even if recognition says the West Bank and Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, subject to the borders of 1967, is that feasible? You've got one million Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Can you get them out? 'If you can't, is there any point in having a state that is a Swiss cheese shape where there are pockets of Israel's settlements in the middle of the state all over the place? 'How viable is that state going to be? How independent or sovereign? I don't believe in the feasibility of a Palestinian state. 'I don't see the two states that Starmer is talking about as a viable option. It is too late. Maybe 25 years ago it was possible, not today.' A UK Government spokesperson said: "We have announced our intention to recognise [[Palestine]] in September to protect the viability of the two-state solution. The first step in that process must be a ceasefire and there is no question about that. 'Our demands on Hamas have not changed. For there to be any chance of peace, the hostages must be released. Hamas must lay down its weapons and commit to having no future role in the governance of Gaza. 'We must also see significant progress on the ground including the supply of humanitarian support and for Israel to rule out annexations in the West Bank, and a commitment to a long-term sustainable peace. We will make an assessment ahead of UNGA [The UN General Assembly] on how far both Israel and Hamas have met the steps we set out. No one side will have a veto on recognition through their actions or inactions."
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
The recent poll makes it clear – the EU door is open for Scotland
The news that there is overwhelming support among folks in five key EU members for an independent Scotland joining the bloc comes as no surprise – I've been having conversations with their representatives and diplomats for years. YouGov polled 2000 folks in Germany, and 1000 in Denmark, Spain, Italy and France asking: 'If Scotland voted for independence from the rest of the UK and asked to join the European Union, would you support or oppose allowing it to do so?' In Denmark, 75% support, 6% oppose; Germany, 68%/10%; Spain, 65%/13%; Italy, 64%/11%, and France, 63%/13%. I include the 'oppose' figures because it really is a slam dunk across all five countries: if people aren't actively in favour there are plenty don't know/don't cares, and little actual opposition. READ MORE: Police remove pro-Palestine protesters from John Swinney's Edinburgh Fringe show If anything, I'd love to see the numbers for all EU states and suspect they'd be similar, with potential Irish, Polish and other Scandinavian figures likely to be particularly intriguing. So we should be wary of the breathless 'we're Scots, everyone loves us!' attitude you'll find at the panglossian end of the Yes spectrum. There will be a serious negotiation and they'll argue hard for their interests (as indeed will we), but the upshot is clear – they want us in. The poll (and I really would urge reading it in full) also asked the question about the UK rejoining, and the numbers were less enthusiastic, but still remarkably positive given the last few years of nonsense, ranging from 51% in Italy to 53% in France, 60% in Spain and 63% in Germany. But, opposition was higher as were don't knows/don't cares. A salutary note for the UK's remainiacs, though – the EU deal you left isn't the one you'll get back. The UK had the financial rebate on the EU budget, opt-outs on passport-free travel, joining the euro and some aspects of judicial co-operation, and when asked about the UK joining but keeping them, all states bar Denmark (which has a couple of opt-outs too) were opposed. The UK, if it rejoins, will need to get over itself and join as a full, normal member. That causes no problems for Scotland given there are several dozen reasons why, like Ireland, we wouldn't want the opt-outs anyway (except for Schengen passport-free travel given, like Ireland, we only have one land border and let's assume the UK does not join any time soon). Even more salutary, the poll also asked 2000 or so UK folks whether they were in favour of rejoining, and 57% think they should keep the opt outs. Precisely the exceptionalist attitude that got the UK into this mess. So, for Scotland, game on. The last couple of weeks also showed other reasons why joining is urgent. The EU Commission president Dr Ursula von der Leyen came to Scotland to meet with visiting US president Donald Trump and agreed – or at least agreed in general terms yet to actually be agreed – a trade pact with the US. Where unease over the potential impact of the handshake has been voiced in various member state capitals, it is clear that the EU acting with one voice was taken seriously, to the extent the current US administration takes anything seriously. But more on that as the actual details emerge, closer to home, the first draft of the catchily named Multiannual Financial Framework was unveiled, the EU budget for 2028-2034. At €1.78 trillion (yes, trillion), it is a big old number but only 1.26% of the EU's Gross National Income. This is still a significant increase, and while this is only the EU Commission's first proposal and it will be hotly debated by the member states and EU Parliament, it shows a more assertive EU Commission, and more spending on an EU level. It was only released late last Tuesday so a lot of analysis will be done on the coming weeks, but a few things are clear. There will be a significant increase in EU defence, both in procuring new kit and in defence research and development spending. Scotland's universities and defence companies risk being excluded. The budget for renewables technology, research and the move to the just transition is in for significant increases – and again, our companies and researchers risk being left out – as well as on the infrastructure spending where Scotland has an urgent need for better grid connections to sell our abundant clean green energy. Agriculture and European food production continue to be supported, with €291 billion being ring-fenced for direct payments to farmers as part of a €387bn budget for other supports. NOT many Scots farmers voted for Brexit, but even so, have endured the triple whammy of having lost subsidy and access to the single market as well as being on the chopping block for any future UK trade deals, there's plenty of good news for Scots farmers in joining the EU. Cohesion policy – the EU structural funds Scotland made such good use of in building infrastructure and training – take a hit, with a smaller budget and less prominence. But it's still €392bn and non-members won't get buttons from it. The EU is moving on apace in a fast-changing world, and where the UK Government has made some steps in achieving a better mood music, there's no substitute for actual membership. I would welcome the UK getting serious about rejoining the EU, but in my heart of hearts, I just can't see it because too many UK politicians are running scared of populists. Scotland, however, has it all to play for.
