Swinney to press Trump on Scotch whisky tariffs exemption
The First Minister, who is due to hold talks with Mr Trump during his ongoing visit to Scotland, said the tariffs were currently costing the local whisky industry £4 million a week.
'Tariffs are very important for the Scottish economy and obviously scotch whisky is a unique product,' he told BBC Breakfast.
'It can only be produced in Scotland. It's not a product that can be produced in any other part of the world. So there's a uniqueness about that, which I think means there is a case for it to be taken out of the tariffs arrangement that is now in place.
'Obviously the trade deal with the United States provides a degree of stability for economic connections with the United States, but the application of tariffs is increasing the costs for the Scotch whisky industry.
'So one of my objectives will be to make the case to President Trump that Scotch whisky should be exempted from those tariffs.
'It's a product that is uniquely produced in Scotland, and it's a product that is much welcomed and supported within the United States. And I think there's a really good case for exempting Scotch whisky, and this is an opportunity that I have to put that case to President Trump on behalf of the Scotch whisky industry, which is a significant part of the Scottish economy.
'And the tariffs just now are costing the industry about £4 million each week, so it's a very significant burden on the industry. It would help growth and development within the Scottish economy if we could secure that deal. And, obviously, I'll be using every opportunity I have to try to put that across to President Trump.'
Mr Trump's five-day visit to Scotland is largely a private one that has seen the president play golf at his course at Turnberry in Ayrshire ahead of opening a new course at his property in Aberdeenshire on Tuesday.
Mr Swinney said the final cost of the policing the visit has yet to be worked out.
'Obviously, we're working very closely with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority about the arrangements for this visit,' he said.
'The security arrangements have gone well since President Trump arrived on Friday, and that's as it should be, because we've got an obligation to make sure that when we have major international visitors, when they come to Scotland, that they are protected and able to go about their activities.
Pressed to reveal the bill, Mr Swinney added: 'All of that will be worked out and we'll address that with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority, and we're talking to the United Kingdom government about these questions, but it's important that we have a secure policing operation.
'It's also important that members of the public who wish to express their point of view, who want to protest about the visit or about other issues, are able to go about their exercise of their democratic right to protest. That's exactly what they've been able to do since Friday, and that's the way it should be.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
34 minutes ago
- Reuters
US deportation threats, EU beauty tariffs and AI voice rules
Follow on Apple or Spotify. Listen on the Reuters app. The Trump administration threatens some migrants with third country deportation - then sends them home. European fashion brands scramble to navigate steep U.S. tariffs without burdening consumers. And new AI rules don't go far enough for voice actors across Europe fearing job loss. Find our new On Assignment podcast here. Visit the Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit to opt out of targeted advertising. Further Reading The US said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them home EU brands turn to obscure customs clause to soften blow of Trump's tariffs Voice actors push back as AI threatens dubbing industry
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Minister confirms Scottish Government 'genocide' in Gaza position
His remarks come after, yesterday, First Minister John Swinney said it "can't be disputed" that [[Israel]] is committing genocide in [[Gaza]] after a show he was taking part in at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe was disrupted by around 40 protesters. Commenting on Mr Swinney's remarks on the radio, Mr McKee said: 'I think John absolutely recognises the reality of the situation. 'I've been on and talked about this on your shows before and absolutely clearly called it a genocide as have other members of the SNP so I think it's very clear that is the situation.' Asked if describing the situation as a "genocide" was a Scottish Government position, Mr McKee confirmed it was: 'Yes. absolutely. It's a Scottish Government position. "We are calling on the UK Government to immediately recognise the state of [[Palestine]], to stop all export of arms to [[Israel]] and to put pressure on the [[Israel]]i government.' READ MORE: Swinney says Israel committing genocide after Fringe protest Why Starmer missed the mark with Palestine recognition 'My mum went with my dad to AA and then realised she was an alcoholic' A number of international rights organisations, UN human rights experts, and academics have long accused Israel of committing a genocide in Gaza. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is also examining a case brought by South Africa alleging that Israeli forces are committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. The Israeli Government has continuously disputed it is committing a genocide. During his appearance on the radio this morning, Mr McKee also described lawyers' questioning the legal credibility of the Palestinian state under international law as 'utter nonsense' and "disgraceful". His comments come as Keir Starmer is currently facing pressure from a group of UK lawyers who claim it is not legally possible to recognise [[Palestine]] as a state. The Prime Minister has so far announced the UK would move towards recognition unless Israel met certain conditions, including agreeing a ceasefire and reviving the prospect of a two-state solution, earlier this week. However, some prominent lawyers, including Supreme Court judge Lord Collins of Mapesbury and Lord Pannick KC, have warned that Palestine does not meet the legal requirements for statehood under a 1933 treaty. Under the Montevideo Convention, signed in 1933, the criteria for the recognition of a state under international law are set out as a defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The lawyers argue there is "no certainty" over the borders of Palestine and also that "there is no functioning single government, Fatah and Hamas being enemies". Commenting on their claims, Mr McKee said: 'That is utter nonsense and it really is very disgraceful from those lawyers bringing that forward. "When the dust settles on this and we look back on this genocide, those who were complicit in it will have a lot to answer for, like those lawyers who stand up and try and get in the way of the recognition of the state of Palestine.' The minister pointed out that 146 countries have formally recognised a Palestinian state. 'The UK Government should do that immediately," he insisted as he said what is happening in Gaza is a humanitarian crisis 'created by the Israeli Government'. During the "Up Close and Personal" interview with John Swinney at the Fringe yesterday, protestors held up bits of paper that spelled the word 'genocide" and some had pictures of starving Gazan children. Speaking to journalists after the event, Mr Swinney said he understood the anger and frustration that exists about the situation in Gaza. He said: "And I'm trying to do everything I possibly can do to make sure that we we apply the pressure to do what should be done, which is to get a ceasefire now, to get humanitarian aid in place, and to get recognition of the Palestinian State as an independent, sovereign state as part of a two state solution. "So that is what I am trying to do. I appreciate people are frustrated that is not happening, but I'm using every opportunity I possibly can find to advance those arguments." Asked if he would describe the situation as a genocide, the First Minister said: "Well, it's quite clear that there is a genocide in Palestine. It can't be disputed, and I have seen reports of terrible atrocities which have the character of genocide. "So I've expressed that, and obviously it's not reached all those individuals. But that's my belief."
The National
an hour ago
- The National
What 'top lawyers' got wrong on Palestinian recognition
These warnings came from what was described as 'top lawyers' – 40 members of the House of Lords, including several high-profile barristers with enough letters before and after their name to populate a small alphabet. Lawyers, as you may have noticed, are one of those professions where any lawyer deemed worth quoting on any topic is automatically classified as 'top'. Try and think of the last time you ever saw a barrister or advocate described as one of the 'bottom KCs' in the stable, and you'll ponder in vain. Journalistic cliché has its catechism, and the cub reporter can only follow its rules. This approach sometimes produces absurd results. READ MORE: Donald Trump – peacemaker-in-chief or a global agitator? I remember, as a callow PhD student in the 2000s, one arch-Unionist newspaper picked up on a blog post I'd written, critical of some aspect of Scottish Government policy of the day. In their write-up, I was described as a leading 'boffin' – like 'revellers', a curious species which only exists inside the pages of tabloid newspapers – who'd 'blasted' the hapless Holyrood regime. On any objective analysis, what I'd written was a fairly well-informed reflection as a minnow swimming in the shallow end of legal academia – but because the paper liked the critical line I was advancing, I was polished up, puffed up, and field promoted in my mid-twenties to the status of 'top lawyer'. In this case, however, many of those reported to have added their signatures to this menacing message to Keir Starmer are lawyers of significant eminence, including established academics in the field of international law, leading silks coming down with experience of advocating in the highest courts in the land, and even one former Supreme Court judge. And given all this legal eminence, it is sad to see them putting their names to hokum like this, which most of the signatories must know is a transparent distortion of the true position, pitched in a way which is not only guaranteed but apparently designed to be misunderstood. I can't think of a clearer example in recent years of the cynical exploitation of real expertise to push a feeble argument for nakedly ideological reasons. Politically, Starmer's intervention has prompted a range of reactions. First, why the conditionality? Why should recognition of Palestinian statehood be contingent on what the occupying power does or ceases to do to its civilian population? The International Court of Justice recently recognised 'the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including its right to an independent and sovereign state'. This includes its territorial integrity. If the Palestinian people already have these rights as a matter of international law, why should the UK wait for an Israeli ceasefire before recognising them, or delay full recognition if the killing stops and basic necessities begin to flow back into the region? In law and in politics, neither stance is logical. You might also ask yourself where precisely the line is being drawn on 'intolerability' by the UK Government. Why here? Why now? Experience over the past year suggests Starmer and those around him have remarkably strong stomachs for violations of conduct actually prohibited by international law, such as the use of lethal force on civilian populations and indiscriminate deployment of deadly munitions in urban areas occupied by men, women and children who cannot be classified as combatants. The problem for our 'top lawyers' is that they're making bricks without straw. Their main argument is that because Palestine might not meet the criteria for statehood identified in the Montevideo Convention – an international treaty the UK has not even signed – then it would be unlawful for the UK to press ahead and extend diplomatic recognition of the Palestinian regime. They argue that Palestine lacks a permanent population, clearly defined territory, a specific government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states – and therefore shouldn't be recognised as one. For the purposes of this intellectual exercise – and that's exactly what this intervention amounts to – we are apparently not to think about how all these population displacements and territorial encroachments on Palestinian territory might have happened and who might have been responsible for them. It isn't just the weakness of the underlying argument which rankles. It is the cynical framing. Describing recognition of the state of Palestine as 'breaking' international law might imply to the average reader that the UK might face some kind of criminal sanction or judicial challenge if the Government recognises Palestine. It won't. It can't. That isn't how it works. READ MORE: Rhoda Meek: The drive to go digital has real implications in rural and island areas [[UK Government]] ministers are quite right to push back hard, underscoring that this is a political judgement for states to exercise. To give you some kind of context on exactly how persuasive these 'top lawyers'' analysis is internationally, [[Palestine]] is already recognised as a sovereign state by almost 150 members of the United Nations. In total, there are only 193 member states of the UN. You work out the percentages. If these legal peers were right, that's a lot of breaches of international law nobody noticed before. The intervention is pure pettifoggery. The top lawyers must know this. It is the kind of basic legal fact which you must have tripped over in that long climb to the top, which won you your ermine macintosh and all those magic post-nominals. This story is a little microcosm of the uses and abuses of legal ambiguity in thinking and reporting on what has happened in Gaza over the past two years. A huge amount of energy has been expended online and on air asserting, denying and quibbling about whether or not what is being done by Israeli forces to the civilian population in Gaza meets the legal tests for genocide under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention defines the international crime of genocide as encompassing 'any of the following acts' committed with intent to destroy a 'national, ethnic, racial or religious group' in 'whole or in part'. Prohibited conduct includes killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to them, or 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part'. The definition also extends to 'imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group' and 'forcibly transferring children of the group to another group'. Language matters. What we call things matters. Allegations of genocidal violence are dire ones to make. But an extraordinary wattage of intellectual energy over the past two years has gone into disputes over whether this threshold has been reached – as if it is the only legally and morally significant issue at stake in Palestine. This illustrates what a powerful distraction legalistic reasoning can be. Imagine you're sitting in your office and a masked man kicks in the door. He's armed with a gun, and opens fire, killing one of your colleagues. If my first reaction to this terrifying event was 'that man just violated Kenny's right to life', you might well think my legalistic mindset had got the better of ordinary human reactions to witnessing violence like this, and finding the right words to describe what you saw. If I immediately started quibbling about whether the shooting was murder or culpable homicide, you might reasonably think I'd missed the enormity of what I'd just seen. This should be a moral caution. Legal analysis can sometimes have a powerful distancing effect, transforming living people into bloodless abstractions, and tales of human horror into fine conceptual disputes over nice points of law. It can do so in a way which doesn't recognise and capture an injustice, but actually obscures and distracts from the evidence of our own eyes and a full moral engagement with what you witness. If there is any consolation here, it is that it won't work. Throughout this conflict, ordinary people across the United Kingdom have demonstrated a much keener sense of the injustice being visited on the civilian population in Gaza by the IDF than the UK Government, the Conservative opposition and the tangled web of increasingly manic media opinion formers, who are still trying to persuade the public that their concern about dead, dying and amputated and malnourished civilians somehow represents support for an extremist cause, or amounts to an unjust and exaggerated critique of Israel, itself in some versions of the argument amounting to a form of antisemitism. 'Technically, we are not committing genocide but only systematic violations of international humanitarian law against the civilian population' may not be the persuasive defence argument some very online lawyers seem to think it is. This is one kind of stupidity that only very smart people fall into. Most people, mercifully, have more sense.
