Trump threatens to walk away from UK investments amidst travel ban debate
January 7 2016
The billionaire property developer turned politician claims to be planning investments worth £200m at Turnberry and £500m in Aberdeenshire but is prepared to scrap these ‘immediately’ alongside any other potential investment in the event of travel restrictions being imposed.
In a statement the Trump Organisation said: “Westminster would create a dangerous precedent and send a terrible message to the world that the United Kingdom opposes free speech and has no interest in attracting inward investment.
“This would also alienate the many millions of United States citizens who wholeheartedly support Mr Trump and have made him the forerunner by far in the 2016 presidential election.”
The ruckus follows an online petition started by campaigners angered by Trump’s pledge to temporarily halt all Muslim immigration to the US should he become president.
A final decision on whether or not to impose restrictions rests with home secretary Theresa May.
11 Comments
#1 Posted by posterity on 7 Jan 2016 at 11:32 AM
cheerio then
#2 Posted by Dr P on 7 Jan 2016 at 12:31 PM
Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
#3 Posted by David on 7 Jan 2016 at 13:35 PM
Don't forget your toupee...
#4 Posted by sven on 7 Jan 2016 at 17:32 PM
Banning Trump and banning Muslims are exactly the same thing. We do not ban things in the UK, end of story. Whilst I will not be taken hostage by his 'ban me and I take £700M investment with me' diktat I also do not expect our political leaders to make our businessmen feel threatened especially given his remarks were made in America for an American audience and only effected America...
#5 Posted by posterity on 7 Jan 2016 at 20:01 PM
Gee whiz... 'our businessmen'? And there was me thinking this racist tyrant was running for the office of President of the United States of America!
Wot a larf! Not.
Wot a larf! Not.
#6 Posted by John Grant on 8 Jan 2016 at 10:04 AM
Banning Trump is a denial of our free speech tradition. Who is to be next - any group can get a petition together and have their hate figure banned. The banning demand has to be rejected out-of-hand.
#7 Posted by CADMonkey on 8 Jan 2016 at 11:01 AM
#6 Absolutely
And Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister, backing calls for him to be banned from our shores is an absolute disgrace.
What sort of precedent does that set, and how will our relations with the USA play out with SNP in charge when Trump gets elected? Politicians need to have their eye on the big picture and not target small minded votes.
And Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister, backing calls for him to be banned from our shores is an absolute disgrace.
What sort of precedent does that set, and how will our relations with the USA play out with SNP in charge when Trump gets elected? Politicians need to have their eye on the big picture and not target small minded votes.
#8 Posted by posterity on 8 Jan 2016 at 12:12 PM
#4,6&7 - The simple fact is that we have the legislation of Hate Crime in this country and so-called freedom of speech does not extend to overt racists, whether they be businessmen or presidential candidates, as is in this case.
It's straightforward, really. Look it up.
It's straightforward, really. Look it up.
#9 Posted by CADMonkey on 8 Jan 2016 at 14:19 PM
#8 I have looked it up, and USA has hate crime legislation too.
If Trump was guilty of it, as you infer, do you not think one of his republican rivals....or anyone in the states would have accused him and the police would have charged and cuffed him by now?
He is strongly against immigration, a view he is entitled to have (just as we are entitled to disagree), but is using this view very undiplomatically.
Banning him is equally undiplomatic.
If Trump was guilty of it, as you infer, do you not think one of his republican rivals....or anyone in the states would have accused him and the police would have charged and cuffed him by now?
He is strongly against immigration, a view he is entitled to have (just as we are entitled to disagree), but is using this view very undiplomatically.
Banning him is equally undiplomatic.
#10 Posted by Tom Cochrane on 8 Jan 2016 at 16:38 PM
Other issues aside - (and they are significant).
Could I ask if anyone thinks his Trump branding, and all that goes with it, are a boon to Scottish tourism?
Could I ask if anyone thinks his Trump branding, and all that goes with it, are a boon to Scottish tourism?
#11 Posted by posterity on 8 Jan 2016 at 17:06 PM
Dear CADMonkey, how America chooses to deal with this overt racist is up to them. He is not just, 'strongly against immigration' as you put it, but an out and out racist. The question of him not being 'diplomatic' about his racism is a dumb argument. I find this defense of the indefensible unbelievable.
More importantly, from an architectural point of view, the question surely arises is it ethical for architects to work for tyrants?
Perhaps someone from the ARB, RIAS or RIBA may care to comment?
3. Principle 3 – Relationships:
3.1 Members should respect the beliefs and opinions of other people, recognise social diversity and treat everyone fairly. They should also have a proper concern and due regard for the effect that their work may have on its users and the local community.
Also, with regards to The Law:
Members must comply with all relevant legal obligations. It is not the remit of
this Code to duplicate the provisions of business, employment, health and safety,
environmental and discrimination law.
etc. etc.
I think we should be told.
More importantly, from an architectural point of view, the question surely arises is it ethical for architects to work for tyrants?
Perhaps someone from the ARB, RIAS or RIBA may care to comment?
3. Principle 3 – Relationships:
3.1 Members should respect the beliefs and opinions of other people, recognise social diversity and treat everyone fairly. They should also have a proper concern and due regard for the effect that their work may have on its users and the local community.
Also, with regards to The Law:
Members must comply with all relevant legal obligations. It is not the remit of
this Code to duplicate the provisions of business, employment, health and safety,
environmental and discrimination law.
etc. etc.
I think we should be told.
Post your comments
Read previous: Flats plan to bring life to Glasgow’s east end
Back to January 2016
Like us on Facebook
Become a fan and share
News Archive
Search News
Features & Reports
For more information from the industry visit our Features & Reports section.