Trump lands in Scotland to visit his golf resorts ahead of Starmer talks
Mr Trump was greeted by thousands of people hoping to catch a glimpse as he landed at Glasgow Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire just before 8.30pm.
The US president was greeted by Scottish Secretary Ian Murray as he walked off Air Force One at Prestwick.
The pair could be seen shaking hands at the bottom of the aircraft stairs before Donald Trump walked across to a group of journalists to answer questions.
Trump is set to start the four-day-visit at his golf club at Turnberry before heading to his second property in Aberdeenshire, where he will open a new course.
On Sunday, Mr Trump is due to meet EU Ursula von der Leyen to discuss trade and on Monday, he will travel to Trump International Links Aberdeen accompanied by Keir Starmer.
On his last day in Scotland, the president is set to open a new 18-hole course in Aberdeenshire.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
19 minutes ago
- Reuters
Union Pacific nearing agreement to buy Norfolk Southern Bloomberg reports
July 26 (Reuters) - Union Pacific (UNP.N), opens new tab, the largest U.S. railroad operator, could reach an agreement to acquire rival Norfolk Southern (NSC.N), opens new tab as soon as early next week, Bloomberg News reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter. Union Pacific had said on Thursday it is in advanced talks to acquire its rival, signaling that a deal to form a $200 billion coast-to-coast rail company could be close - and potentially trigger further consolidation among remaining freight rail giants. Union Pacific declined to comment, while Norfolk Southern did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. The combination, which would be the largest-ever buyout in the sector, would create the first modern West-to-East single-line freight railroad in the United States, significantly affecting how goods from grains to chemicals to autos move across the country. The fact that talks are advancing has surprised many in the rail industry and Wall Street as the U.S. freight rail system already functions as two regional duopolies by point of origin. The talks show how thinking around antitrust issues has shifted under President Donald Trump's administration, with his executive orders aimed at removing anti-competitive barriers and opening the door to potential megamergers in the industry. If completed, the deal would combine Union Pacific's dominant position in the western two-thirds of the U.S. with Norfolk Southern's 19,500-mile network spanning 22 eastern states. Union Pacific is valued at approximately $138 billion, according to LSEG data. The company has been grappling with sluggish automotive volumes and volatile coal shipments as power producers shift to natural gas, which is shipped by pipeline. Norfolk Southern, which is worth about $63 billion, is emerging from a turbulent period that included the ouster of its former CEO amid ethics investigations, a high-profile boardroom clash with activist investor Ancora, and a costly train derailment that set the company back about $1.4 billion.
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Newcastle left with uncomfortable feeling that Isak wants more and romance is dead
Football is a market. It has always been a market and it is more of a market now than it has ever been before. Everybody is constantly looking for a better deal, and everybody has a price. Every club has its place in the ecosystem and those higher up the chain will always take from those below them, who in turn will take from those below them. All a club can ever hope to do is to inch their way higher and higher in the structure, to increase the number of clubs they can feed on while reducing the number of predators who can feed on them. It may be reassuring to think of the legendary servants, the one-club men of the past, but even the term 'servants' betrays an uncomfortable truth. From 1885, when professionalism was legalised and the great clubs of the industrial north and Midlands began to acquire talent from Scotland, footballers have been a product to be traded. From 1963, when the retain-and-transfer system was scrapped, and increasingly after the Bosman ruling of 1995, players have had agency, although even before that there were cases such as that of Wilf Mannion, who went on strike to try to force a move from Middlesbrough to Oldham. Since financial fair play rules began to be introduced 15 years ago, preventing an owner splurging a fortune on elevating his side, the clubs climbing the ladder most successfully are those who have accepted their position within the hierarchy and traded accordingly. Brighton's ascent to become a top-10 Premier League side has been based almost entirely on their ability to identify talent early and sell it at an enormous profit to Chelsea. There remains a reluctance to be seen as a selling club, but other than Real Madrid everybody is a selling club now. Far better to be a selling club than a letting-a-player-run-down-his-contract-and-leave-on-a-free club. Clubs who will have regarded themselves as the elite, as destination clubs, have to accept that almost everybody is a stepping stone . Perhaps for those who are battling to return to the elite, who are not confident in their status, that is a difficult adjustment to make. Which brings us to Alexander Isak. The dance of briefing and counter-briefing that has played out over the past couple of weeks has been fascinating and, frankly, a little baffling. If Isak wanted to leave Newcastle – and he was considering his future in the final weeks of last season – why wait until after Liverpool signed Hugo Ekitiké and Chelsea acquired Liam Delap and João Pedro, as well as for Arsenal's move for Viktor Gyökeres to be at an extremely advanced stage, to make that public? Does the scarcity of centre-forwards on the market push his price up? Or does the fact that potential suitors have no burning need for a striker reduce it? Understandably, Newcastle fans are reluctant to see the Swede go. He is, after all, probably the club's best player since Alan Shearer. He is only 25; once upon a time it would have been possible to dream of him staying for the best part of a decade, scoring 200 goalsb. Last season was the best Newcastle have known since the first Kevin Keegan era. They won the Carabao Cup, their first domestic silverware in 70 years, qualified for the Champions League and their line was led by one of the world's most coveted strikers. It was possible to imagine a future when Isak was joined by players of similar stature. But that is not how modern football works. Isak wants more: more money (and his £120,000-a-week salary does seem below the market rate) and a more consistent chance of winning trophies. Newcastle could hang on to him, hope he does not succumb to bitterness and try to add further stars. Or they could take £140m and invest it in strengthening the squad as a whole, accumulating more assets who can be sold at a profit so more can be bought, driving their ascent. It is cold and mercantile, it is far from the romance many would like to see in the game, but it is also the reality. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion There are two problems. First, the sense of loss if Isak goes, which is particularly acute for a fanbase that still carries the collective memory of the departures of Chris Waddle, Peter Beardsley and Paul Gascoigne in the 80s and the fear that the Saudi Public Investment Fund may essentially turn out to be the habitually beleaguered Stan Seymour in disguise. Isak is not the only Newcastle player pondering his future and there is a danger his departure is the start of a mini-exodus. Second, there is a lack of faith that the club is equipped to make the most of such a windfall. Paul Mitchell left this summer after a year as sporting director and although Jack Ross has been appointed as head of football strategy and Sudarshan Gopaladesikan as technical director, with Ross Wilson likely to be named as sporting director soon, it is unreasonable to expect anybody taking up a role in July to coordinate a coherent transfer strategy for a window that closes on 1 September, particularly with Darren Eales stepping down as chief executive because of illness. There has already been disquiet about a lack of incoming players, with Anthony Elanga the only senior signing to date as Newcastle have missed out on a number of targets, most recently James Trafford, who preferred to rejoin Manchester City. Although plans are being drawn up for a new stadium, there were fears last season that Newcastle might be the victims of a more general Saudi retrenchment. Meeting profitability and sustainability rules remains a check on expenditure, but with Champions League football this season there were reasons to expect the budget to be a little more generous. Instead, there is a sense of drift. In part that is misfortune, given the illnesses suffered by Eales and Amanda Staveley, who sold her stake in the club last summer. But the appointment of Mitchell never seemed a comfortable fit and the result is a vacuum. Last season was supposed to be the beginning of a glorious future for Newcastle; the fear within the frustrations of the past few weeks is that it was actually a summit.
The Guardian
41 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. His 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 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. The parroting of Trump's policies by a UK populist has not gone unnoticed in the US. 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 Farage's critics. US pro-democracy campaigners says 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. 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 suggests this is 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 complicating the problem in the US has been Trump's appointment 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. As Trump's pick for health and human services secretary, he is 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, but campaigners say that does not make the problems insurmountable. 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.'
