Keir Starmer showed visible 'discomfort' when Donald Trump addressed one topic
Sir Keir Starmer appeared nervous during a high-stakes meeting with Donald Trump in Scotland today when the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza came up, according to a body language expert.
The encounter came just a day after President Trump announced a landmark trade deal with the European Union, setting tariffs at 15% after months of uncertainty. According to body language expert Judi James, the Labour leader displayed several self-comfort gestures during the meeting at Turnberry golf course - and appeared particularly uneasy when the conversation turned to Gaza - at one point folding his arms tightly across his chest in what she described as a 'full body barrier,' indicating clear discomfort.
Judi explained: 'This looked very much like Trump's solo press conference, with the Starmers flanking him on either side like bookends.' Lady Starmer performed 'a poker face while Starmer himself let off an endless volley of anxiety and self-comfort rituals', she added.
'Starmer played with his cuffs in a partial barrier ritual and he stroked his cuff with his thumb in a self-comfort gesture. He pulled his jacket together and at one point he clearly went to fold his arms but thought better of it, self-policing and turning it into a truncated gesture instead. When the subject moved to Gaza though, Starmer went fully into his body barrier, folding his arms across his torso and repeating the ritual more than once to suggest discomfort.'
It comes amid a worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with at least eight more Palestinians having died from starvation in the past 24 hours. Israeli airstrikes continued overnight and into this morning, killing 22 people today and 63 on Sunday as they sought aid. So far, 135 people have starved to death, including 87 children, according to local health officials. On Sunday, the Israeli military began daily ten-hour pauses in three populated areas of Gaza, amid growing alarm over the soaring hunger crisis.
During talks with Trump, Starmer also sought to 're-create the signals of a bromance' that began with a hand on Trump's shoulder in the White House earlier this year, according to Judi James.
The body language expert added: 'This time he appeared thwarted by Trump who paid avid attention to Lady Starmer during their greeting ritual, clasping both her and Starmer by the upper arm as he shook hands with Starmer, calling her the 'First Lady', and claiming bizarrely and repeatedly that she was a respected person all over the US'.
'Starmer used stealth though and, with Trump's press conference partly drowned out by bagpipes, he finally chose his moment and, in a move reminiscent of Rod Hull's Emu, he suddenly stuck his arm out to grasp Trump on the shoulder in a 'bromance' kind of a way.'
Before the pair entered the building, Trump was asked what advice he'd give to the UK about small boats. The question was drowned out by bagpipes, so he asked Starmer what was asked. The PM mistranslated, claiming it was a point about how "we're doing a lot to stop it" in a swift act of re-direction.
Judi said: 'His shuffling suggested he was keen to get into the building to get the real business done and before the subject of 'windmills' came up, but by then Trump was telling the cameras that 'If I weren't around you'd have six major wars going on' and referring to himself in the third person as 'Trump'.'
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 Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Nobel Peace Prize winner? Trump faces serious challenges on conflicts
Serving both Republican and Democratic administrations, including under the presidencies of George W Bush and Bill Clinton, Ross for decades was one of those tasked with navigating the most dangerous of diplomatic waters. It was interesting then to hear him opine last week on current US President Donald Trump's diplomatic negotiating style. 'There is a difference between producing cease-fires and pauses and ending wars,' noted Ross, speaking to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). 'The former stops fighting, the latter deals with the causes of the conflict and forges agreements that resolve the differences - or at least gets both sides to adjust their thinking and produces a modus vivendi.' Ross's comments came in a week that saw Trump issue a deadline of '10 or 12 days' to Russian president Vladimir Putin to agree to a cease fire over Ukraine. This weekend that agreement seems further away than ever after Trump said he had ordered two nuclear submarines to 'be positioned in the appropriate regions' in response to 'highly provocative' comments by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. (Image: Jehad Alshrafi) Ross's remarks also came in a week when Washington's allies, France, the UK and Canada, broke with Trump to force a diplomatic shift on Gaza. For despite the US leader's boastful promises on bringing calm to the region as with his claim to be able to bring peace to Russia's war with Ukraine within 24 hours of returning to office, all of Trump's peace-making promises to date have been colliding with a more complicated reality on the ground. In short, Trump's supposed prowess on the peace-making front is not all it's cracked up to be, a point wryly made by Susan B. Glasser of the New Yorker magazine a few days ago. 'Wars, it turns out, do not end magically because Trump clicks his heels and demands that they do so,' wrote Glasser in a recent column. 'Wars we end' AS even the most cursory of glances across the global geo-political landscape will quickly confirm, the prevailing reality is a far cry from when Trump in his January 20, 2025, inaugural address proclaimed that 'we will measure our success…by the wars we end.' And 'my proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker.' Despite the obvious shortcomings to date in this regard though, America's peacemaker-in-chief - in characteristic mode - has continued to claim great success, a point he was keen to emphasise during his recent trip to Scotland. 'We have many ceasefires going on. If I weren't around, you would have six major wars going on. India would be fighting with Pakistan,' Trump insisted in one of his speeches. As Trump sees it, should that much coveted Nobel Peace Prize come his way then he is only too deserving of it. 'If I were named Obama, I would have had the Nobel Prize given to me in 10 seconds,' Trump said in October. Trump's ever loyal mouthpiece, White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, never misses an opportunity to remind the world that it's 'well past time' that the president received the prize. Just these past days Leavitt at a press briefing listed the peace deals the Trump administration has supposedly brokered since taking office. Thailand and Cambodia were the most recent of Trump's peacemaker bona fides. Read more Tears and trauma: David Pratt in Ukraine DAVID PRATT ON THE WORLD: Whatever happens in Brazil's resentful and rancorous election, the result will have major repercussions for us all David Pratt in Ukraine: It's hard to comprehend this level of destruction David Pratt: Kremlin's protestations have a hollow ring as atrocities mount up 'The two countries were engaged in a deadly conflict that had displaced more than 300,000 people until President Trump stepped in to put an end to it,' Leavitt insisted. Other conflicts cited by Leavitt included, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) India and Pakistan and Serbia and Kosovo, that were all claimed to have been 'resolved' on Trump's watch. One curious outcome in at least two instances, however, was that in the cases of both Pakistan and Cambodia no sooner were hostilities ceased than their leaders announced that they would nominate Trump for the Peace Prize. Interestingly too in Thailand and Cambodia's case, Trump set a 19% levy on imports from both countries, lower than the 36% they originally faced, after earlier this month he threatened to block trade deals with them unless they ended their deadly border clash. Which brings us to another significant factor that many say undermines Trump's claims to be a peacemaker and mediator and instead casts him as global agitator – trade wars and tariffs. Economy plunge LAST week Trump plunged the global economy into a new round of mercantile competition after hitting dozens of US trading partners with tariffs while formalising recent deals with others, including the UK and EU. While such competition is nothing new in itself, as a Financial Times (FT) editorial on Friday pointed out, in Trump's case they are often flagrantly politically motivated. On the one hand Trump portrays the tariffs he has ordered on US trading partners as a simple rebalancing of global trading that is skewed against America. But as the FT points out, 'what is striking, however, is how some of the harshest new measures reflect blatantly political aims - shaped by presidential whim.' The newspaper cites the example of Canada, which has angered Trump with its own plans to recognise a Palestinian state making it 'very hard' says Trump to reach a trade deal. The FT also highlights India, already hit by a high tariff rate but which Washington has threatened with an additional penalty while rebuking Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government for 'buying Russian oil and weapons'. Trump's stance says the FT also appears to reflect his dislike of India's membership of the Brics' bloc of emerging heavyweight markets and developing nations. During a summit of the 11 emerging economies last month, he threatened an additional 10 % tariff on any countries aligning themselves with the Brics' 'anti-American policies'. More than 100 days on from Trump's 'Liberation Day' set of initial tariffs, many say a new global trading order is taking shape, one that The Economist magazine recently referred to as 'a system of imperial preference.' This, argue some analysts, only adds incendiary economic fuel to an already destabilised world raising the risk that such trade wars might become shooting wars. Allison Carnegie is Professor of Political Science at Columbia University and specialises in global governance and international institutions. Writing recently in the widely respected Foreign Affairs magazine, she said that Trump's trade wars are hardly without precedent and that while 'Trump may think his tariff regime will make the United States richer, safer, and stronger… history suggests it will do just the opposite.' 'In the near term, countries can benefit from wielding trade as a cudgel. But in the long term, trade wars leave almost everyone worse off,' Carnegie notes. 'When countries frequently use economic leverage to secure concessions from vulnerable partners, investment and economic growth go down. Political instability, meanwhile, goes up. States that chafe at economic coercion sometimes turn to their militaries in order to fight back. Countries that once cooperated because of commercial ties turn into competitors. Even close allies drift apart,' Carnegie noted. Few doubt the inherent difficulty in ending protracted conflicts like those in the Middle East and now in Ukraine. Both broke out during the previous administration enabling Trump to dub them 'Biden's wars'. 'Biden will drive us into World War III, and we're closer to World War III than anybody can imagine,' said the same Trump that on Friday moved US nuclear submarines in response to a social media post by Medvedev. On his presidential campaign trail, Trump often railed against Biden and such 'endless wars' and 'forever wars' and mused that he could resolve them. 'He has made comments on all of them that this could be done quickly or easily and that there are solutions to these problems," says Aaron David Miller, a State Department diplomat in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations - now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'And yet, he has not been successful in even identifying what I would consider to be a potentially effective strategy for managing or let alone resolving them. And therein lies the challenge,' Miller told broadcaster ABC News in recent interview. (Image: AP) 'Biden's wars' SIX months after Trump's inaugural address proclaiming that his presidency would bring 'a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent and totally unpredictable,' and denouncing 'Biden's wars', the data tells a very different story. For in that six months, Trump has already launched nearly as many airstrikes on foreign nations as Biden did within four years. A huge part of this of course was 'Operation Midnight Hammer' when Trump decided that he would order use of 30,000-pound weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. According to Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), an independent international data collection monitoring group, since Trump returned to the White House, the US has carried out at least 529 bombings in more than 240 locations in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. His predecessor's administration launched 555 over its entire four years. 'Trump's preference for engagement begs the question: Does this contradict his promise to end America's wars - or are the foreign strikes how he wishes to keep that promise?' ACLED president Clionadh Raleigh said in a statement cited by the Independent last month. 'The recent airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites have been framed as a major turning point in US foreign policy. But if you take a step back, they don't stand out - they fit,' Raleigh added. Right now when not riling other nations through his own tariffs and trade wars, ending the fighting in Ukraine and Gaza by far poses Trump's biggest diplomatic challenge. In both cases he has his work cut out, not least say some in that he has appointed the same man, his friend Steve Witkoff, as the US envoy for all three sets of peace talks, involving Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Hamas and Israel-Iran. As the New York Times columnist Max Boot, recently observed this 'would test the powers of even a veteran diplomat' … and 'the task is all the more onerous given that Witkoff is a real estate developer with no background in diplomacy.' Meanwhile as Gaza bleeds and starves, Trump diplomatically muddles through as was poignantly described recently by another American columnist, Susan B. Glasser of the New Yorker. 'In a summer of horror for Gaza, it's hard to recall the unfulfilled promises of last winter, when Trump bragged, in near world-historical terms, of the 'EPIC' ceasefire that he and his team had helped broker,' wrote Glasser recently. 'Now, as Trump stands by and does close to nothing at all, what can we do but wish that he had, for once, been right?' Negotiating style MANY critics maintain that a huge part of the problem with Trump's negotiating style is that it fluctuates depending on the current state of his personal relationships with other world leaders. As his second term progresses Trump's priorities would seem to become more apparent by the day startling observers and US allies alike. Already there have been calls for US intervention in Panama, Canada and as recently as May, Trump announced that he didn't rule out employing military force to seize Greenland. He has also proposed a $1 trillion US military budget for 2026 - a 13.4 % increase - and again took action to withdraw US support from the UN. Critics continue to accuse him of shaping American foreign policy determined primarily by a desire to pursue his own vendettas toward those that rebuff him and in doing so use whatever means, economic or otherwise at his disposal. As Dennis Ross, rightly pointed out recently, there is indeed 'a difference between producing ceasefires and pauses and ending wars,'. To achieve the latter, patience and lengthy negotiations are a prerequisite, and that, as we all know by now, has never been part of the Trump playbook.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Time will tell whether new Scottish left-wing party has the legs
In fact, having spoken to both Phil and other enthusiasts, SLA seems at a pretty embryonic stage right now. However, they are having a crunch meeting tomorrow with members of Collective, the London-based English grouping which shares much of the same left-wing agenda. One of the people coming north for the summit is Karie Murphy, who was head honcho at Jeremy Corbyn's office before being seconded to run Labour's 2019 election campaign. Labour subsequently had their worst result since 1935. Karie, a former nurse, now self-describes as a 'political strategist'. Although they are apparently not formally part of the Corbyn/Zarah Sultana combo which launched a new party somewhat messily the other week, Collective's website does not hide its admiration for the former Labour leader. READ MORE: John Swinney brands Gaza as 'genocide' for first time as Fringe show disrupted They assert that Collective 'has captured a renewal of socialist ideas and political energy that was generated under [[Jeremy Corbyn]]'s leadership of the Labour Party. It is driven by the spirit of 'Corbynism' that can now be seen in the UK-wide mobilisation, at all levels, in opposition to Labour's rightward and authoritarian turn.' Rightward and authoritarian it may be, but there's little evidence of enthusiasm for Scottish independence, which Phil Taylor describes as one of the core principles of the new movement in Scotland. Corbyn once described indy as 'not a priority', while Keir Starmer now says it can't happen at all while he's PM. Otherwise, the list of causes the Scottish Left Alternative embraces echoes to a large extent the mantra adopted by Collective in terms of support for workers, for Gaza, an assault on the climate emergency and corporate greed. Which means more than an element of crossover with the Greens. In Taylor's view, new leadership in the Greens in both England and Scotland means that the party will be readier to accept new kids on the political block. We shall see. Thus far, all is not sweetness and light amid the Greenery. He also says that in conversations within Scotland, he's found that many people are prepared 'to leave their political baggage at the door'. The other question mark is whether or not they can make a dent in SNP support or woo back those who defected/returned to Labour the last time round. The [[SNP]] too are in the midst of internal warfare, with their leader proposing one strategy and impatient footsoldiers an entirely different one. Half of his party thinks independence needs a much stronger focus, while the other half believes getting public services right will matter more to the Holyrood electorate. At the moment, Mr Swinney seems inclined to ride both horses at once which is fine, so long as you don't fall off. The other possible bone of contention between north and south is the SLA's declaration that it will support both women's rights and those of the LGBT+ community. Of late, that issue has also made a jagged split in tartan ranks. There is no doubting Taylor's sincerity, but perhaps a question mark over his naivety. It's one thing to suggest that there are many folks on the London left who just don't understand Scotland; quite another to hope they will jettison their long-standing beliefs in the value of Unionism on the say-so of a newly registered Scottish counterpart. There will be a second meeting of SLA adherents in early October which is coming perilously close to next May's Scottish elections. And, not at all incidentally, it will take place a week before the [[SNP]] gather for their 91st conference in Aberdeen. Taylor concedes that Collective is rather more motivated by the 2029 election than next year's Holyrood variety but sees no reason why that needs to matter. In his opinion, inclusivity and transparency will be the hallmarks of the new movement in Scotland. and Collective will be relaxed about any divergence in the electoral cycle or the attendant strategies required. Yet setting out a stall for an election some four years distant is a totally different proposition from one which has to get a serious act together in a matter of months. Plus, there is no guarantee that tomorrow's summit between Collective and Scottish Left Alternative will be an entirely harmonious affair, given the known areas of likely controversy. I reminded Phil that new parties have an unfortunate habit of rising without trace, but his optimism for the notion of a Scottish Left Alternative is unshakeable. There is no doubt that many erstwhile Labour voters are downright scunnered with the party just a year into its current five-year stint; the question is whether they will scamper off into this 'electoral vehicle' or whether they will merely switch allegiance to the Scottish Greens or the [[SNP]]. Much will ride on what conclusions the [[SNP]] conference reaches (or perhaps is allowed to reach). And whether or not Scottish Labour remember the Scottish bit. Mr Swinney's latest suggestion of a constitutional convention would have had rather more merit in late 2014 when the indy troops were licking their wounds and desperate for some kind of balm. Since then, there have been many trigger points to advance independence which were ignored from a great height – Mr Swinney will remember them well as he was embedded in the leadership team at the time. One straw in the nationalist wind is the notion of reprising 'both votes SNP'. As I never tire of explaining, this is a surefire route to handing seats to Unionist parties as the imperfect hybrid proportional system we use was devised to give list options to parties who failed to have their vote share properly reflected in parliamentary numbers. It has meant, inter alia, that some of those most hostile to independence for Scotland and, for that matter, even to devolution, are able to rest their posteriors on Holyrood seats. Though 2011 might have been a triumph, it was also an aberration. All parties – especially one in power for a long time – are liable to fall out with each other, a fate which may also await a fledgling one too. After all, if there's one thing the left excels at, it's contriving to split. After which, implosion generally follows. It's also difficult to see how a Corbynite cadre based in London can offer the hand of solidarity and friendship to a similar would-be mass movement in Scotland, but one wedded to self-determination even if they share an interest in most of the other named causes, like wealth taxes and 'welfare not warfare'. Mr Taylor insists that the Scottish end of the equation is bottom-up and organic and most certainly not a mere branch office of the English operation: 'It will not be a franchise of a UK initiative.' That's an admirable ambition, and one which makes it rather more distinctively Scottish than Anas Sarwar's fiefdom. Yet you do wonder if the Scottish tail will be permitted to wag the English dog. Anyway, some of the mist will have cleared by close of play tomorrow. Then we will find out if we have a serious new player in the game, running up and down the left wing, or whether this is yet another false dawn for people of a lefty persuasion. Watch this space.
