A senior Scottish politician has issued a sharp rebuke to former US President Donald Trump, condemning his threat to impose tariffs on trade partners in the wake of the diplomatic fallout surrounding his interest in purchasing Greenland. John Swinney, speaking publicly, asserted that the use of additional duties should not be leveraged as a “bargaining chip” in international discussions.
Escalation of Rhetoric
Mr. Swinney, appearing on The Sunday Show, escalated his critique beyond mere trade policy, linking the tariff threat directly to what he characterized as aggressive and unacceptable diplomatic rhetoric from the former President.
“We are in a situation where Donald Trump is threatening to invade and steal a nation,” Swinney stated, referencing the highly controversial manner in which the Greenland issue was handled. “He is issuing military threats… Starmer says Trump’s tariff threat over Greenland ‘completely wrong’.”
The comments underscore deep international concern that economic penalties are being deployed inappropriately to settle diplomatic disputes, rather than being reserved for genuine trade imbalances.
Jeopardizing Existing Trade Deals
The threat of new tariffs, issued over the weekend, introduces significant instability and risks derailing tentative trade agreements that the Trump administration had previously struck with key allies, including the European Union and Great Britain.
These deals were established last year to create baseline trade relations and reduce friction, but the sudden reintroduction of tariff threats over a non-trade issue casts doubt on the reliability of future US commitments. For both the EU and the UK, the prospect of renewed trade hostilities complicates their own economic planning and global trade strategies.
Call for Diplomatic Channels
Mr. Swinney’s position aligns with broader international consensus that sensitive geopolitical matters, such as the status of Greenland, must be handled through established diplomatic protocols rather than economic coercion or military posturing.
A US speaker, commenting on the situation, previously emphasized the need for restraint, noting that “Diplomatic channels are the way to go” over Greenland. This view contrasts sharply with the aggressive approach favored by the former President, highlighting a fundamental divergence in how international relations should be conducted among allies.
