Trump tells Starmer to ditch windmills and drill for more oil
The US president is expected to meet Sir Keir Starmer and John Swinney during a trip to Aberdeen.
Trump, 79, has a long-held disdain for wind farms and previously complained about a development offshore spoiling the views from his golf course in Aberdeenshire.
A legal battle with the Scottish government on that issue was eventually lost.
Trump is also heavily in favour of using oil and gas with his 'drill, baby, drill' slogan.
Speaking to the BBC, Trump confirmed he would be coming to Scotland for a 'state meeting with the prime minister'.
He described Aberdeen as the oil capital of Europe and said 'they should bring it back too'.
He added: 'They have so much oil there. They should get rid of the windmills and bring back the oil.
'[Because] the windmills are really detrimental to the beauty of Scotland and every other place they go up.'
Oil output from the UK North Sea peaked in 1999 and will continue to decline in the decades ahead.
The Labour government in Westminster is pushing towards net zero and has said it will no longer issue new offshore oil and gas drilling licences.
The energy profit levy also means oil and gas producers are subject to a tax rate of up to 78 per cent on their UK profits.
Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce expressed pride in the Granite City's reputation as Europe's energy capital.
A spokesman said oil and gas would be required as part of the UK's energy mix for decades to come and that producing it from the North Sea would sustain jobs and the economy.
The spokesman added: 'The biggest barrier to investment in the North Sea is a 78 per cent tax rate on profits and perhaps the US president can persuade the prime minister to lift that punitive tax when they meet in Aberdeen.'
Colin Palmer, the director of offshore at the trade body Scottish Renewables, pointed out that the wind sector supports more than 35,000 jobs in Scotland and was worth about £13 billion to the economy.
He said: 'We know that wind energy is good for jobs, good for supply chains and has the potential to make household bills more affordable.
'As well as helping to secure the UK's energy supply, wind power is poised to play a pivotal role in delivering the UK government's clean energy targets sparking a boom in Scotland's renewable energy industry which will help to grow the economy and create new jobs.'
Tessa Khan, the executive director of Uplift, which campaigns for a transition away from oil and gas, said: 'Donald Trump clearly knows nothing about the North Sea other than the view from his golf course.
'Trump is clearly looking after the interests of the oil and gas industry, which have made billions during the energy crisis, while millions of households in the UK have struggled with soaring bills.
'His team is shot through with fossil fuel interests that want the rest of the world, the UK included, to slow its transition to clean energy and remain hooked on oil and gas for years to come just so they can keep profiting.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
7 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Senate Republicans advance Trump bill to cancel $9bn in approved spending
Senate Republicans on Tuesday advanced Donald Trump's request to cancel about $9bn in previously approved spending, overcoming concerns about what the rescissions could mean for impoverished people around the globe and for public radio and television stations in their home states. JD Vance broke the tie on the procedural vote, allowing the measure to advance, 51-50. A final vote in the Senate could occur as early as Wednesday. The bill would then return to the House for another vote before it would go to the US president's desk for his signature before a Friday deadline. Republicans winnowed down the president's request by taking out his proposed $400m cut to a program known as Pepfar. That change increased the prospects for the bill's passage. The politically popular program is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under then president George W Bush to combat HIV/Aids. Trump is also looking to claw back money for foreign aid programs targeted by his so-called 'department of government efficiency' and for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 'When you've got a $36tn debt, we have to do something to get spending under control,' said Senate majority leader John Thune. Republicans met with Russ Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, during their weekly conference luncheon as the White House worked to address their concerns. He fielded about 20 questions from senators. There was some back and forth, but many of the concerns were focused on working toward a resolution, either through arrangements with the administration directly or via an amendment to the bill, said senator John Hoeven. The White House campaign to win over potential holdouts had some success. Senator Mike Rounds tweeted that he would vote to support the measure after working with the administration to 'find Green New Deal money that could be reallocated to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption'. Some senators worried that the cuts to public media could decimate many of the 1,500 local radio and television stations around the country that rely on some federal funding to operate. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes more than 70% of its funding to those stations. Maine senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate appropriations committee, said the substitute package marked 'progress', but she still raised issues with it, particularly on a lack of specifics from the White House. She questioned how the package could still total $9 billion while also protecting programs that Republicans favor. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she didn't want the Senate to be going through numerous rounds of rescissions. 'We are lawmakers. We should be legislating,' Murkowski said. 'What we're getting now is a direction from the White House and being told: 'This is the priority and we want you to execute on it. We'll be back with you with another round.' I don't accept that.' But the large majority of Republicans were supportive of Trump's request. 'This bill is a first step in a long but necessary fight to put our nation's fiscal house in order,' said senator Eric Schmitt. Democrats oppose the package. They see Trump's request as an effort to erode the Senate filibuster. They also warn it's absurd to expect them to work with Republicans on bipartisan spending measures if Republicans turn around a few months later and use their majority to cut the parts they don't like. 'It shreds the appropriations process,' said senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats. 'The appropriations committee, and indeed this body, becomes a rubber stamp for whatever the administration wants.' Democratic leader Chuck Schumer cautioned that tens of millions of Americans rely on local public radio and television stations for local news, weather alerts and educational programs. He warned that many could lose access to that information because of the rescissions. 'And these cuts couldn't come at a worse time,' Schumer said. 'The floods in Texas remind us that speedy alerts and up-to-the-minute forecasts can mean the difference between life and death.' Democrats also scoffed at the GOP's stated motivation for taking up the bill. The amount of savings pales compared to the $3.4trn in projected deficits over the next decade that Republicans put in motion in passing Trump's big tax and spending cut bill two weeks ago. 'Now, Republicans are pretending they are concerned about the debt,' said senator Patty Murray. 'So concerned that they need to shut down local radio stations, so concerned they are going to cut off Sesame Street ... The idea that that is about balancing the debt is laughable.' With Republicans providing enough votes to take up the bill, it sets up the potential for 10 hours of debate plus votes on scores of potentially thorny amendments in what is known as a vote-a-rama. The House has already shown its support for the president's request with a mostly party line 214-212 vote, but since the Senate is amending the bill, it will have to go back to the House for another vote. Republicans who vote against the measure also face the prospect of incurring Trump's wrath. He has issued a warning on his social media site directly aimed at individual Senate Republicans who may be considering voting against the rescissions package. He said it was important that all Republicans adhere to the bill and in particular defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,' he said.
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
How the BBC got into a mess over Gaza
On Monday, the BBC released its long-awaited report into its decision to remove the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone from its platforms. The report determined that not making viewers aware of the fact that the narrator's father was a member of the Hamas-run government of Gaza constituted a breach of its editorial policies, specifically on accuracy. However, the documentary was not found to have breached guidelines on impartiality. As the Guardian's media editor Michael Savage tells Helen Pidd, the release of this report has come after a particularly intense period for the BBC, in which its handling of the war in Gaza has been heavily criticised. In response to the resignation of Gary Lineker, its coverage of Glastonbury performers, and its decision not to broadcast certain documentaries, the BBC has faced heightened criticism from many sides in the conflict. The pair discuss how the Labour government is approaching the BBC, the shrinking number of licence fee subscribers, and whether this string of controversies will change the way the corporation approaches more sensitive issues. Support the Guardian today:
Times
28 minutes ago
- Times
Gagging order to cover up Afghan leak must never be used again
The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 resulted in a scramble to flee from Kabul airport WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES T hat legal abomination, the superinjunction, is traditionally regarded as the last resort of the desperate celebrity attempting to conceal compromising information. It is a draconian device that not only prohibits the media from reporting a court case — an injunction — but prevents the world from knowing that such an injunction even exists (the 'super' bit). It is intended not so much to stifle legitimate journalistic scrutiny of a court hearing as to smother it. The blanket of secrecy a superinjunction confers means that cases involving serious misconduct by individuals and institutions can go unnoticed by the outside world for months or years, or possibly for ever. Disclosing its very existence can land one in jail. When the party seeking to conceal their actions for this length of time is the government, and when the parties being kept in the dark are the public and parliament, it risks becoming a tool of authoritarianism. Yet that is exactly what has occurred in a case revealed by this newspaper. One in which a military data breach that placed tens of thousands of Afghans in jeopardy, and resulted in a covert rescue and resettlement programme potentially costing £7 billion, being hidden for two years in what the judge finally lifting the order called a vacuum of scrutiny. It is the first time a British government has used a superinjunction in this way and it must be the last. In observing its terms, in place for so much longer than intended, ministers misled parliament, if largely by omission, concealing from relevant committees and the Commons as a whole a scandal that should have resulted in heads rolling down Whitehall. It concerned the unauthorised release in February 2022 of a Ministry of Defence database containing the names of tens of thousands of Afghans at risk of retribution from the restored Taliban regime. The list was transmitted by a soldier at a special forces barracks in London to Afghan contacts in Britain as he attempted to verify applications for sanctuary in Britain. The list subsequently found its way to Afghanistan. • Did the risk ever justify the secrecy in this Kafkaesque calamity? When one of the individuals it was passed to threatened to publish it on Facebook it became a potential death warrant for many of those named, and possibly their relatives. As a result, the then Conservative government decided to relocate thousands of Afghans, adults and children, to Britain in a covert programme that was later endorsed by the current Labour government. Incredibly, the existence of this operation, involving some 23,000 people, was kept secret even from the discreet Commons intelligence and security committee. The superinjunction was granted in September 2023, supposedly as a four-month measure to help cloak a rescue. But it would last for almost two years, the MoD continuing to insist that it was necessary to save lives, though there was a possibility that the database had already fallen into the possession of the Taliban. Whatever the reality of this, the superinjunction continued to act as a shield for official incompetence. Due to the continuing secrecy surrounding this fiasco it is not known who, if anyone, was disciplined for the breach. What is clear is the disquiet of a High Court judge involved in hearings in which The Times and Daily Mail sought to have details of the scandal released. At one point Mr Justice Chamberlain warned that it could be perceived as censorship. Concerns were also raised that the government was using the gagging order to control the narrative surrounding the scandal. Unfortunately, he was overruled by a court of appeal again swayed by MoD warnings of potential disaster. Now, those objections have evaporated, the risks apparently being overstated according to a review. So much for parliamentary and press oversight. In terms of free speech the superinjunction is a weapon of mass destruction. No government should be allowed to employ one again.
