BEFORE Saturday's assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a bystander saw a man with a gun climbing the roof and tried to warn the secret service and police, who ignored him.
On April 19, Congressional Democrats tried to strip Trump of his secret service protection, unprecedented for a former president and presumptive presidential nominee.
According to a source, Trump’s security detail has been asking for more protection from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that handles the secret service, but was rebuffed. The DHS has also repeatedly denied secret service protection for independent presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jnr, whose father and uncle were both assassinated.
READ MORE: Scottish politicians condemn attempted assassination of Donald Trump
Then we have this. President Biden also told donors on a private call on July 8 that it was “time to put Trump in a bullseye”, a dog whistle if there ever was one.
At Biden’s brief press conference on Saturday evening, when asked if this was an assassination attempt, he said: “I have an opinion but I don’t have any facts.” Really? A rooftop sniper shoots at someone’s head and this isn’t an assassination attempt?
The FBI has now confirmed that this was an assassination attempt, although the secret service in its statement wasn’t sure.
If you’re not troubled by this, you should be. On May 15, Robert Fico, the Slovakian Prime Minister, was shot multiple times but miraculously survived. He is against Ukraine’s Nato membership and says he was targeted because he opposes European and UK policy which is to stoke the Ukraine conflict by sending more weapons. Just a few months ago, former UK PM Sunak said he wanted to put the UK defence industry on a “war footing”. Sir Keir is set to continue that policy.
All empires die. The American military empire is in its death throes, which makes it highly dangerous. It will deploy every trick in the book to retain its hegemony. If the world can survive the coming tumult, there’s hope we can construct a more stable multi-nodal world, where no one power is in a position to dominate, terrorise and subjugate other nations.
Leah Gunn Barrett
Edinburgh
WE in the independence movement want to escape from the influence and control the UK Government at Westminster has over us. We expect the political parties who support independence to want the same. Why then, must I ask, are these parties continuing to seek election to the UK Parliament?
Do our MPs who support independence advance the cause of independence by being there? There have been examples of these MPs performing well in committees and in the chamber. Joanna Cherry’s legal expertise in stopping Boris Johnson’s prorogation of parliament was an outstanding achievement. The SNP leaders have asked very worthy questions which have caused embarrassment to Unionist governments, but has any of their commendable efforts moved Scotland any nearer to independence? I think the answer is no.
READ MORE: Jeremy Corbyn 'in talks' with SNP over 'left-wing alliance'
The nub of the question is this: if we want to leave Westminster, why don’t we leave? It’s perfectly within our rights to do so.
The SNP, correctly in my opinion, refuse to take seats in the second chamber, the unelected House of Lords, but continue to participate in the first-past-the-post system used to elect MPs to the first chamber. The General Election just past has given the Labour Party a landslide majority to rule absolutely for the next five years with only one out of five UK citizens having voted for them! You and I will take no part in our government until 2029.
This system is indefensible as it is undemocratic. The second chamber is unelected and the first chamber uses a system which disenfranchises our MPs even if they all supported Scottish independence.
I say our independence-supporting parties should reject this parliament and concentrate all their energy to support our Scottish Parliament and our people. There are two possible strategies. Firstly the Sinn Fein strategy of standing for election but not taking any seats won, or secondly not standing for election while urging supporters to either not vote or spoil their paper with “none of the above”. With non-voters currently around 40%, an outright majority would be easily achievable.
Importantly, this strategy would reinforce the aim to reject Westminster and run our own affairs.
Campbell Anderson
Edinburgh
WHAT was the point of the SNP getting the Scottish Claim of Right recognised by Westminster parties in 2018 if the SNP had no intention of using it?
I’m sick of reading so-called indy folk claiming a referendum is the only route to leaving Westminster rule. How did the other 60-plus countries that left Westminster rule manage it without a referendum?
We must vote for indy and when a majority is won DEMAND that result is respected by Westminster, and threaten to go ahead without their agreement.
The SNP chose to do things Westminster’s way and they refused to respect our democratic mandate, so that route is closed.
When the British state know that Scots are willing to bypass Westminster they will then try to force a referendum on us.
Choosing to be the region that Union made us has not worked and never will.
Billy Robertson
via email
I FOR one would be delighted to support the deployment of a new nuclear site in Scotland. This is a great idea, and so progressive from a Labour MP. My only stipulation, and one that Scotland must also insist upon, is that it is built in the constituency of the MP who is driving the policy.
Andrew Currie
via email
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here