Scotland

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Before Stepping Down, Nicola Sturgeon Faced a Battle Over Transgender Rights

      by

      A battle over her support for transgender rights is not, by Nicola Sturgeon’s account, the reason she is quitting as Scotland’s first minister. But the issue has dogged her in recent weeks, precipitating a clash with the British government and ensnaring her in a messy episode involving a convicted rapist who was held in a women’s prison.Ms. Sturgeon’s problems began in December when the Scottish Parliament passed legislation that would allow transgender people to have the gender with which they identify legally recognized and to get a new birth certificate without a medical diagnosis. Britain’s government swiftly rejected the law, saying that it conflicted with equality laws that apply across Britain, including Scotland.That prompted a crisis in Britain’s power-sharing system, known as devolution, with Ms. Sturgeon calling it a “a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish Parliament and its ability to make its own decisions.”For Ms. Sturgeon, the transgender legislation is part of her declared commitment to protect minority groups. But while the law was supported in Parliament, it has divided the broader Scottish population and become a cudgel in the culture wars.It has also become conflated with the case of Isla Bryson, a transgender woman who was convicted of raping two women before her transition. She was initially placed in a women’s prison while awaiting sentencing, a decision that prompted an outcry by critics who said it jeopardized the safety of other inmates.Ms. Sturgeon later announced that Ms. Bryson had been moved to a men’s prison. But the handling of the case exposed Ms. Sturgeon to sharp criticism and put her in an awkward position when she was quizzed repeatedly at a news conference about whether she regarded Ms. Bryson as a woman.“She regards herself as a woman,” a visibly frustrated Ms. Sturgeon replied. “I regard the individual as a rapist.” More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How Does Scotland Fit Into the UK Government?

      by

      The news that Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland, will step down raises a variety of questions about how the United Kingdom — England, Scotland and Wales, along with Northern Ireland — is governed. Here is a quick guide.What role does the king play?The United Kingdom operates under a constitutional monarchy. While there is no single written constitutional document, laws and carefully documented traditions together form a Constitution that binds the monarch, currently King Charles III.These rules have accumulated in centuries of legislation. Together, they make the king a constitutional monarch: an embodiment of power and statehood with no personal public role in politics, and tight constraints even on private influence.Who runs the U.K. government?Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is the current leader of the government of the United Kingdom. He took over as the country’s 57th prime minister in October, after his predecessor, Liz Truss, lasted just six weeks in the post.The role of the prime minister, according to the U.K. government’s official website, is to oversee the operation of the civil service and government agencies. The leader also appoints members of the government and is the principal government figure in the House of Commons.Where does Scotland fit in?Here’s where it gets interesting. Mr. Sunak is responsible for some, but not all, of what happens across the United Kingdom. His government makes decisions for England, but some powers and responsibilities are left to elected officials in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland — a result of what is known as devolution.(Northern Ireland is having its own leadership issues at the moment, after the first minister resigned last year and the government remains in limbo.)In Scotland, the government makes decisions relating to the economy, education, health, justice and other areas. The government enforced its own Covid policies during the pandemic, and it has the power to set its own income-tax rates. Decisions regarding immigration, foreign policy and defense are left to the U.K. government.How are first ministers appointed?Following a Scottish parliamentary election, a first minister is nominated by the Parliament in Edinburgh and is appointed by the monarch.The first minister is responsible for appointing Scottish ministers to create a cabinet and is responsible for setting and carrying out government policy. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US accused of illegal abduction of Lockerbie bomb suspect from Libya

      by

      US accused of illegal abduction of Lockerbie bomb suspect from LibyaEx-intelligence officer’s family say he was ‘kidnapped’ by militia before being secretly flown out of country The abduction of a former Libyan intelligence operative accused of preparing the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 and his transfer into US custody raises concerns about a renewed willingness in Washington to flout international law to hunt alleged terrorist fugitives.The family of Mohammed Abouagela Masud, who appeared in a US courtroom last week, have described how the 71-year-old was “kidnapped” from his home in Tripoli’s Abu Salem neighbourhood around 1am on 17 November by armed gunmen sent by a notorious local militia commander. He was then held by another militia for two weeks before being handed over to US agents.The case recalls the excesses of the “war on terror” which saw dozens of so-called renditions – clandestine, illegal transfers of suspects by US intelligence services.Abdel Moneim al-Muraimi, Masud’s nephew, told the Observer that his uncle had been unlawfully abducted. “We have filed a complaint with the attorney general’s office and demanded an investigation of the people who kidnapped him and those who handed him over. We want them to face justice. This is an assault on a citizen in his home,” al-Muraimi said.Last week, Masud was charged in the US with having set the timer for the bomb that destroyed the Boeing 747, killing 270 people in the most deadly terrorist attack to have taken place on British soil.Diana Eltahawy, Amnesty International’s deputy regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, said: “We have long called for accountability for crimes [including the Lockerbie attack] under international law but this has to be done in a manner that respects due process and upholds fair trial rights. In this case even a facade of legality was not maintained … there was no hearing for [Masud] to challenge the lawfulness of his detention and transfer.”The exact legal justification for the transfer of Masud is unclear. Libya does not have an extradition treaty with the US, no court is known to have considered any request from Washington nor from the government of Libya, and there is no record of any warrant issued for Masud’s detention. Libyan officials have cited an Interpol warrant.“This is clearly illegal under Libyan law. It was very obviously an extraordinary rendition contrary to international law,” said Jason Pack, author of Libya and the Global Enduring Disorder. But in a televised broadcast on Thursday evening, Libya’s prime minister, Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, said Masud’s extradition was lawful and his government was cooperating with an “international judicial framework to extradite accused citizens”.Libyan officials with knowledge of the case told the Observer that Masud was seized by gunmen loyal to Abdel Ghani al-Kikli, known as “Gheniwa”, an infamous local militia commander who controls the capital’s poor, crowded Abu Salem neighbourhood.“Several armed vehicles filled with armed men arrived at his house … and kidnapped him. My father and my uncle’s other brothers live on the same street so we went out to see what was going on, but they threatened us with weapons. It was terrorism, real terrorism,” said al-Muraimi.Al-Kikli has been accused of human rights abuses. Amnesty has documented disappearances, torture and unlawful killings while a UN report earlier this year described “beating by guards, denial of medical care, starvation and enslavement practices” by al-Kikli’s militia at a migrant detention centre west of Tripoli.Libyan sources in Tripoli said Donald Trump’s administration officials had been in discussions with local authorities about bringing Masud to the US to stand trial since 2019. These “conversations” had continued under Joe Biden.In July, powerful individuals within the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU) contacted US government officials and offered to hand Masud over despite his recent release from prison. The 71-year-old had been serving a 10-year sentence for crimes while an intelligence operative under the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, who was ousted in 2011,After being abducted from his home, Masud was transferred to a heavily armed paramilitary unit called the Joint Force in the port city of Misrata. The Joint Force was set up a year ago by Dbeibeh to act as a personal praetorian guard and has been accused of human rights abuses, including an extra-judicial execution earlier this year, torture, arbitrary detention and forced disappearances.After around 10 days in Misrata, Masud called his family who were allowed to visit him in a militia base. “They said, ‘Don’t worry about him, we are taking care of him and will not hand him over’,” al-Muraimi, told the Observer. Two weeks later, US officials collected Masud and flew their captive to Malta on a secret flight and then on to the US, Libyan officials said.According to US legal documents, Masud was a key figure in the 1988 attack, along with Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was jailed for life for mass murder at a special court sitting in the Netherlands in 2001, and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who was acquitted. Dozens of US citizens died in the bombing of the Pan Am flight from London to New York.Dbeibeh’s mandate expired last December and he may have hoped to win favour from the Biden administration by giving Masud to the US.Jake Sullivan, the US national security adviser, said last week that Masud had been brought to the US “in a lawful manner according to established procedures”. But Amnesty’s Eltahawy said that relying on “commanders of abusive militias and armed groups … for law enforcement or special operations only further entrenches their power and emboldens them to commit further horrific crimes”.Masud’s relatives are concerned about the health of an “old, sick man”. “As a family, we have been in complete shock. We did not expect this to happen at all,” al-Muraimi said.TopicsLockerbie plane bombingThe ObserverRenditionUS politicsScotlandLibyanewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Scottish Group Seeks Source of Trump’s Funds for Golf Courses

      by

      The Trump Company invested hundreds of millions in the properties during a time when the former president was reporting heavy losses on his income tax returns.LONDON — A Scottish judge on Wednesday opened a path to a possible investigation into the purchase of Donald Trump’s two golf courses in Scotland, in a ruling that could force the former president to explain how he funded the deals.The Scottish government had resisted pressure to demand financial details from Mr. Trump through an “unexplained wealth order,” a powerful legal instrument usually deployed against leading figures in organized crime or drug trafficking.But on Wednesday a judge ruled that Avaaz, an online campaign group, should be given the right to challenge the government’s rejection of calls for such a move.Nicknamed “McMafia orders,” unexplained wealth orders were introduced in 2018 to strengthen the government’s armory against organized crime. Those subject to them can ultimately be forced to forfeit their assets if they are unable to explain satisfactorily how they were purchased.Though it remains far from clear that such an investigation will ever arise in this case, Wednesday’s court decision is nonetheless a setback for Mr. Trump, whose financial and tax dealings are under investigation in the United States.“This was a hurdle we had to jump, and we can now proceed to the substance,” said Nick Flynn, legal director of Avaaz, welcoming the ruling.“If you don’t think there is reasonable suspicion over these purchases then I don’t think you’ve been paying attention,” he added. “It’s the collective responsibility of Scottish ministers to act on this.”Mr. Trump bought a golf course near Aberdeen in 2006. But campaigners have focused more of their questions on the purchase of the larger and more prestigious Turnberry property for $60 million in 2014 — a time when he was reporting substantial losses on his income tax returns. Despite the Trump Organization’s investment of nearly $300 million, none of the Scottish properties have turned a profit.Though Eric Trump once said that most of the company’s financing came from Russia in those years, he has since said that the golf course investments were financed with company funds. Mr. Trump himself has denied that the money came from Russia.On Wednesday, Sarah Malone, executive vice president of Trump International Scotland, described the push to investigate the funding of the organization’s golf courses as “political game-playing at its worst and a terrible waste of taxpayers’ money which further damages Scotland’s reputation as a serious country to invest in and do business.”“We have developed and operate two globally acclaimed, multi-award winning visitor destinations in Scotland and make a significant contribution to the Scottish leisure and tourism economy. This latest attempt to undermine that investment is an utter disgrace,” Ms. Malone said in a statement.Scottish ministers initially rejected the idea of issuing an unexplained wealth order, and there was a dispute over whose responsibility it would be to authorize such an investigation. In February, Scotland’s Parliament voted against a motion, brought by the Scottish Green Party, that would have pressed for more details on the source of the Trump Organization’s money.But on Wednesday in the Court of Session, Scotland’s highest civil court, the judge, Lord Sandison, sided with Avaaz, saying that its legal claim “had real prospects of success” and there was “a sensible legal argument to be had on the matters raised by the petition.” He also rejected Scottish government arguments that the petition had been filed too late to proceed.The decision was welcomed by the co-leader of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie, who said in a statement that he was “glad we are a step forward in getting some clarity over why Trump’s business dealings in Scotland haven’t been investigated. It should never have got to the stage of a legal challenge from a nongovernmental organization for the Scottish government to confirm or deny whether they will seek a ‘McMafia order.’”In a statement, the Scottish government said that “it would be inappropriate for us to comment on an ongoing legal action.” More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Scotland Election Results Complicate Hopes for Independence Referendum

      by

      The Scottish National Party fell short of an outright majority, though pro-independence parties appeared to retain control of Scotland’s Parliament.LONDON — Hopes for a swift path to independence in Scotland were tempered on Saturday, as the dominant Scottish nationalist party fell one seat short of a majority in the country’s Parliament.The Scottish National Party’s results, though impressive, deprived it of a symbolic victory in a closely fought election. That, in turn, is likely to stiffen the determination of Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain to deny Scottish voters the chance to hold a second referendum on independence.Yet pro-independence parties stayed in control and even expanded their overall majority in Thursday’s election, which will keep the flame of Scottish nationalism alive and ensure that the threat of Scotland’s breaking away from the United Kingdom will continue to bedevil British politics.The number of seats won by the Scottish National Party is in some ways less important than the political winds, which are still blowing in the separatists’ direction. By allying with the pro-independence Scottish Greens, the Scottish nationalists will tighten their control over the regional Parliament.Party leaders have signaled that they will put a second referendum at the top of the agenda as soon as Scotland recovers from the coronavirus pandemic. The last time the Scots voted on independence, in 2014, they opted to remain in the United Kingdom by 55 percent to 45 percent. Polls show close to a 50-50 split on the question now, with support for breaking away having weakened in recent months.While disappointing to the Scottish nationalists, the lack of a clear majority might ultimately work to their advantage, by giving them time to build support for a referendum rather than being stampeded into an immediate campaign by the pressure of an overwhelming mandate.Demonstrators for Scottish independence in Glasgow last week.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesStill, the result is a relief to Mr. Johnson, for whom the dissolution of the United Kingdom looms as a potentially defining event for his premiership. He remains deeply unpopular in Scotland, and it is not clear how well prepared his government is to counter a reinvigorated push for Scottish independence.For his part, Mr. Johnson was basking in the Conservative Party’s victories in regional elections across England, which left the opposition Labour Party in disarray and reinforced his reputation as an inveterate vote-getter.However, some of the same post-Brexit populism that won the Conservatives votes in working-class parts of the Midlands and northern England worked against him in a more liberal, Brexit-averse Scotland.Mr. Johnson vowed to reject demands for a referendum, saying that as Britain emerged from the pandemic, the country should focus on rebuilding the economy rather than fighting over constitutional issues.“I think a referendum in the current context is irresponsible and reckless,” he said on Friday to The Daily Telegraph. “I think that there’s no case now for such a thing. I don’t think it’s what the times call for at all.”That showed no signs of stopping Scotland’s independence-minded leaders. Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister and leader of the Scottish National Party, pronounced the results, which represented a gain of one seat over 2016, as “historic and extraordinary.” She promised to push for another referendum.Speaking in Glasgow on Saturday, Ms. Sturgeon said there was “no democratic justification whatsoever for Boris Johnson or anyone else seeking to block the right of the people of Scotland to choose our future.”She and other officials claimed a mandate like that of 2011, when the Scottish National Party last won an absolute majority and petitioned for a referendum. Mr. Johnson’s predecessor, David Cameron, yielded to their demand.“He saw that there was a clear democratic mandate for it, and there will be another clear democratic mandate this time,” Lorna Slater, a leader of the Scottish Greens, told the British Broadcasting Corporation on Saturday. “What kind of country are we if we ignore that kind of democratic mandate?”Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, center, said on Friday that the country should focus on rebuilding the economy rather than fighting over constitutional issues.Owen Humphreys/PA Images, via Getty ImagesAnalysts said the cause of independence might be helped by a drawn-out battle with the Westminster government, since it would alienate Scottish voters, potentially driving more of them into the separatist camp. There is also the prospect of bitter legal battles, potentially ending up in Britain’s Supreme Court, if the Scots threaten to proceed with a referendum in defiance of London.“That’s not a bad thing for the S.N.P., because Nicola Sturgeon has said our priority is to solve Covid first,” said Nicola McEwen, a professor of politics at the University of Edinburgh. The nationalists, she noted, also do not yet “have answers to tough questions regarding what would happen with the border.”Problems in Northern Ireland, which emerged from Brexit with a hybrid status as a part of the United Kingdom but with no border checks with the Irish republic, underscore the difficulties of even a partial split from the union. Economists warn that the cost to Scotland of leaving would be profound.Pro-independence sentiment in Scotland was fueled by the Brexit referendum in 2016, which a majority of Scots voted against. Many in Scotland would like to rejoin the European Union and view an independence referendum as a step in that direction.That is one reason Professor McEwen and other analysts predict that Scotland would not stage a “wildcat referendum,” since the European Union and other governments would be unlikely to recognize the results.Mr. Johnson, analysts said, would probably seek to blunt pro-independence sentiment by pouring money into Scotland. If the pressure continues to mount, he could offer to delegate more authority to Scotland’s government.Under the terms of limited self-government in the United Kingdom, the Scottish authorities are responsible for matters like health and education, while the British government handles immigration, foreign policy and fiscal policy.Mr. Johnson’s goal, analysts said, would be to play for time, delaying any referendum until after the next British general election, which is due to be held in 2024. But repeatedly rebuffing Scottish calls could backfire.The border between Scotland and England.Andrew Testa for The New York Times“There is a view in Westminster that denying a referendum will only fire independence sentiment,” said Mujtaba Rahman, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy. “This is not a problem that is going away. It is only going to get bigger over time.”For Ms. Sturgeon, failing to win a clear majority by such a close margin was nevertheless deflating. It seemed within her grasp last summer when she was getting credit for steering Scotland’s response to the coronavirus, an approach that was more cautious than Mr. Johnson’s and seemed, for a time, to produce better results.But Britain’s successful rollout of vaccines blurred the differences, and Scotland’s case and death rates — while somewhat lower than those of England — are no longer all that far apart. Analysts cited the British vaccine campaign as a factor in the modest decline in support for independence, which was above 50 percent in polls for much of last year.Moreover, Ms. Sturgeon, 50, became embroiled in a bitter feud with her predecessor, Alex Salmond, over a botched internal investigation of sexual misconduct charges against him. She was accused of deceiving lawmakers, breaking rules and even conspiring against Mr. Salmond, a former close ally.Ms. Sturgeon was cleared of breaching the rules and misleading Parliament just as the campaign got underway, but the dispute dented her image. Mr. Salmond launched a breakaway party, Alba, which did not win any seats but served as a reminder of the internecine split.“This year has been quite difficult for the S.N.P. and for Nicola Sturgeon personally,” Professor McEwen said. Also, she added, “The broad shoulders of the U.K. have helped see us through the pandemic.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      U.K. Elections Likely to Favor Boris Johnson, and Scottish Separatists

      by

      The prime minister’s Conservative Party stands to gain at the polls on Thursday, despite ethical accusations against him. But growth in support for the Scottish Nationalist Party could create turmoil.LONDON — For an ordinary politician, heading into midterm elections on an unsavory plume of scandal over cellphone contacts with billionaires and a suspiciously funded apartment makeover might seem like the recipe for a thumping. But Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain is not an ordinary politician.As voters in the country go to the polls on Thursday for regional and local elections that have been swollen by races postponed from last year because of the pandemic, Mr. Johnson’s Conservative Party stands to make gains against a Labour Party that has struggled to make the ethical accusations against him stick.Far from humbling a wayward prime minister, the elections could extend a realignment in British politics that began in 2019 when the Conservative Party won a landslide general election victory. That would put the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, on the back foot and ratify Mr. Johnson’s status as a kind of political unicorn.“No politician in the democratic West can escape the consequences of political gravity forever, but Boris Johnson has shown a greater capacity to do it than most,” said Tony Travers, a professor of politics at the London School of Economics. “People see his behavior as evidence of his authenticity.”Yet there is peril as well as promise for Mr. Johnson in the elections, which will decide thousands of seats, including that of London’s mayor, and which the British press has perhaps inevitably nicknamed “Super Thursday.”In Scotland, the Scottish National Party could win a clear majority in Scotland’s Parliament that the nationalists would brandish as a powerful mandate to demand another referendum on independence from the United Kingdom after an earlier one was defeated in 2014.Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, left, with a supporter in Edinburgh last week.Pool photo by Russell CheyneIn that event, Mr. Johnson could emerge in a stronger position in Westminster only to find that he will spend the next few years scrambling to avert a breakup of the union. That could make the tempest over his WhatsApp texting and who paid for the wallpaper in his Downing Street apartment look quaint.“The test of the Johnson premiership is going to be the integrity of the union — not Covid, not Brexit, not Europe, not sleaze,” said Mujtaba Rahman, an analyst with the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group.Whether the Scottish National Party wins an outright majority or is forced to enter a coalition with the pro-independence Scottish Greens, pollsters said, was still unclear. But the numbers are less important than the direction, which is expected to be emphatically behind a new campaign for Scottish independence.In the English elections, the big prize is Hartlepool, a struggling northern port city and Labour bastion where a new poll suggests that the Conservatives could win a bellwether seat in a parliamentary by-election. The Tories could make further inroads in other Labour cities and towns in the industrial Midlands and North, where they picked off dozens of seats in 2019, running on Mr. Johnson’s promise to “Get Brexit Done.”The prime minister did get Brexit done, as of last January. Yet while the split with the European Union brought predicted chaos in shipments of British seafood and higher customs fees on European goods, its effects have been eclipsed by the pandemic — a twist that ended up working to the government’s benefit.Although the pandemic began as a negative story for Mr. Johnson, with a dilatory response to the first wave of infections that left Britain with the highest death toll in Europe, it turned around with the nation’s rapid rollout of vaccines.Customers at a London pub after England began lifting pandemic lockdown restrictions last month.Mary Turner for The New York TimesAs new cases, hospitalizations and deaths have plunged, voters have rediscovered their affection for Mr. Johnson. His poll numbers rebounded from their lows last fall and show little damage from the charges and countercharges about his conduct, even though those have riveted London’s political circles.More important, Mr. Johnson’s message of “leveling up” the economically blighted Midlands and North with the more prosperous south still seems to resonate with people, including many who traditionally voted for Labour. And the government’s free-spending response to the pandemic has pulled the Conservative Party even further from its roots as the party of fiscal austerity.“The party of Margaret Thatcher is becoming the party of a big state and higher taxes, which can quite easily become the party of economic nationalism and ‘Buy British,’” said Mr. Travers, the London School of Economics professor.For Mr. Starmer, the Labour leader, this shape shifting has been confounding. A disciplined former prosecutor who lacks Mr. Johnson’s raffish manner, he has found it difficult to attack the government on its pandemic response, particularly the vaccine rollout, which is the largest peacetime mobilization in British history.Instead, Mr. Starmer has grilled Mr. Johnson in Parliament weekly about who picked up the initial bill for the upgrade of his apartment and why he was texting the billionaire James Dyson about the tax status of his employees, when the two were discussing a plan for Mr. Dyson’s company to manufacture ventilators.But there is little evidence that voters are particularly surprised or concerned that Mr. Johnson does not play by the rules. As political commentators have taken to saying this week, the prime minister’s behavior is “priced in.”The Labour Party leader, Keir Starmer, has grilled the prime minister about ethical issues but has struggled to attack the government’s recent pandemic response.Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA, via ShutterstockThe same is not true of Scottish independence. Analysts say Mr. Johnson’s government is not prepared for the wall of pressure it will face if the Scottish National Party wins a majority. The last time the party achieved that, in 2011, Britain’s then-prime minister, David Cameron, yielded to demands for a referendum. In 2014, Scots voted against leaving Britain by 55 percent to 44 percent.Polls now put the split at roughly 50-50, after a stretch in which the pro-independence vote was solidly above 50 percent. Analysts attribute the slight softening of support to both the vaccine rollout, which showed the merits of staying in the union, as well as an ugly political dispute within Scottish nationalist ranks.Mr. Johnson holds a trump card of sorts. To be legally binding, an independence referendum would almost certainly have to gain the assent of the British government, so the prime minister can simply say no and hope the problem goes away. But that strategy can work for only so long before becoming untenable.“I don’t see any way in the world that Boris Johnson turns around the day after the election and says, ‘OK, you can have a referendum,’” said Nicola McEwen, a professor of politics at the University of Edinburgh.And yet the calls could only grow. “If they manage to peel off a single-party majority,” she said, “it does put pressure on the U.K. to answer the question, ‘If a democratic vote isn’t a mandate for independence, then what is?’” More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Losing our marbles over Stonehenge | Brief letters

      by

      Donald Trump’s acquittal in the US Senate (Report, 14 February) surely provides the best possible evidence for never allowing politicians to get involved in judicial decision-making. Their priorities lie in other directions. Les Baker Fordingbridge, Hampshire• The Queen gets £220m a year for seabed lease options for windfarms (Queen’s property chief delays sale of Scottish seabed windfarm plots, 12 February). Really? Perhaps she could give the country her cut given the future costs of the climate crisis, Covid and the expected hardships to come? Stephen King London• While I can empathise with Elizabeth Kerr (Letters, 11 February) my own travel aspirations are more mundane. I would just like to be able to visit Scotland to hand-deliver the teddy bear I have bought for my first grandchild, born six weeks ago. Nick Denton Buxton, Derbyshire• I assume that the original site in Wales was the manufacturer’s showroom (Dramatic discovery links Stonehenge to its original site – in Wales, 12 February). After all, you wouldn’t buy a circle of standing stones unless you’d seen it standing up and circular, would you? Katy JennisonWitney, Oxfordshire• If the people of Wales call – quite rightly – for the return of the “Preseli marbles” (Letters, 12 February) please can the stones go home by the same route and method so that we can all enjoy the spectacle? Sue BallBrighton More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Official plane used by Trump will fly to Scotland just before Biden inauguration – report

      by

      The murk surrounding Donald Trump’s likely whereabouts on his last day as president has thickened considerably with news that an official plane he has used in the past is due to fly to Scotland the day before Joe Biden’s inauguration.Trump himself is sticking to his refusal to accept his decisive electoral defeat. He has been caught cajoling election officials to “find” thousands of extra votes and is encouraging his supporters to gather for a “wild” day of protest on Wednesday when Congress is due to ratify the result.The White House has refused to say what he will do when Biden is inaugurated on 20 January, raising the question of whether Trump will even leave the building voluntarily.Most Trump-watchers expect him to dodge any event that would involve acknowledging his election loss. They predict he will stage a spectacular diversion to detract from Biden’s first day on the job.Many versions of that scenario have the outgoing president flying to his private club in Florida, Mar-a-Lago. But Scotland’s Sunday Post has reported that Prestwick airport, near Trump’s Turnberry golf course resort, has been told to expect a US military Boeing 757 that has occasionally been used by Trump, on 19 January.The report said that speculation over a possible inauguration day drama has been fuelled by sightings of US military surveillance aircraft circling Turnberry for a week in November, doing possible advance work.“It is usually a sign Trump is going to be somewhere for an extended period,” the Post quoted an unnamed source as saying.The 757 is a smaller, narrower plane than the Boeing 747-200Bs that are normally designated Air Force One. It is more often used by the vice-president and first lady, Melania Trump, than the president.There was no immediate response to requests for comment from the White House or Prestwick airport. Leaving the country before formally leaving office would be unprecedented for a US president.Flying to Scotland before 20 January would be a way to get US taxpayers to pay for the first leg of a post-presidential holiday. It is also possible the flight was booked as a contingency by a candidate surprised by defeat and unsure what to do.Multiple reports suggest he will face severe difficulties in his heavily indebted business empire.New accounts published on Monday showed Trump’s array of golf properties in Scotland lost £3.4m in 2019, though Trump Turnberry showed a modest profit.Meanwhile his neighbours at Mar-a-Lago have launched a legal effort to stop him moving there full-time, saying he is precluded by an agreement he signed in the early 1990s converting the estate from a private residence to a club.Wherever Trump goes on 20 January, it is unlikely the exit will be quiet or particularly dignified. But it will be unlike any presidential departure the country has ever witnessed. More