The G7 summit at Evian from June 15 to 17 is most revealing not for what was agreed, but for what was exposed about the state of play among Europeans, and their relationship with the US. For all the choreography and displays of unity, the summit was, in large part, theatre. It was an attempt to paper over what is becoming increasingly obvious: many of the most critical international issues are now decided without the EU. Brussels is now, at best, an informed bystander.

This was obvious when the US president, Donald Trump, signed a physical copy of his deal with Iran at a post-G7 dinner at the Palace of Versailles hosted by Emmanuel Macron. It was a diplomatic coup for France, rather than a plan hatched by the EU.

The G7 produced nine joint declarations and seemingly reaffirmed more than just the bare minimum of western unity that has been possible of late. The leaders’ statement on geopolitical issues included strong language on Ukraine. The G7 promised “to increase the delivery of air defence capacities, additional systems and interceptors, and long-range capabilities” and “to increase the pressure on the Russian war economy”.

À lire aussi :
Macron plays ‘Trump whisperer’ as the US president signs Iran ceasefire deal after a successful G7 summit

Yet, it fell short on concrete provisions and timelines. And it notably lacked the commitment to the “robust and legally binding security guarantees” and “the deployment of the Multinational Force – Ukraine” that France, Germany and the UK (the “E3”) had emphasised in their joint declaration with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky on June 7.

The E3 and Ukraine mini-summit showed European diplomatic coordination at its most effective. Évian, by contrast, showed how little of that coordination carries into the decisions that ultimately matter.

Europe’s struggle for relevance is also obvious in relation to Ukraine. The last meaningful – if hardly constructive – negotiations occurred in the so-called “Geneva track” in February. Mediated by Trump’s Witkoff-Kushner team (which was also involved in talks with Iran), this brought Russia and Ukraine together for talks.

But while Washington reported “meaningful progress”, Zelensky commented that “sensitive political matters … have not yet been sufficiently addressed” and called for European to be involved in the next round of talks. This has not happened.

Meanwhile, Europe’s own efforts also failed. Putin immediately rejected the call from E3 and Ukraine for direct talks. This was reinforced in a June 19 essay penned by Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, accusing Europe of complicity in the 2014 political crisis in Ukraine which ousted the pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, and precipitated the conflict. He added they had sabotaged any attempts at peace.

But the EU was already at loggerheads with itself. Earlier that day, EU leaders gathering for a summit in Brussels discovered that António Costa, the European Council president, had instructed his office to reach out to the Kremlin — without consulting member states — to lay the groundwork for potential peace negotiations with Russia over Ukraine. Their reaction ranged from surprise to outrage. Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, and Macron both publicly pushed back against Costa. Macron stated that “he [Costa] cannot represent [EU states] when security guarantees are at stake”.

The episode was damaging for reasons that go well beyond procedural embarrassment. The spectacle of European leaders publicly repudiating their own council president will have given Moscow the satisfaction of knowing that Europe still cannot speak with a single voice.

The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, tried to bring the message under control. At her press conference after the EU leaders’ summit, she noted that “sooner or later Russia will need to come to the negotiating table, and when that comes we need a united European message to President Putin”. That ambition, however, contrasts sharply with the reality of the earlier Costa episode.

A unified approach

Diplomatic embarrassment is not the only issue when it comes to how quickly Europe will be able to close the persistent gap between ambition and reality.

On June 8, the German government formalised its withdrawal from the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), the €100 billion (£86 billion) joint fighter jet project launched in 2017 as the flagship expression of Franco-German defence ambition. FCAS also included engines, sensors and a digital intelligence network known as “combat cloud”.

One point of contention was reportedly the leadership role played by French aerospace giant Dassault. Germany wanted more of a leadership role and the partners are reported to have had divergent visions of the end product.

Germany’s aspiration to “lead or substantially shape” future European air combat systems may seem rational given the country’s financial muscle and engineering prowess. With more than €750 billion committed to rebuilding its armed forces by 2030, Germany’s instinct that this investment should produce proportionate industrial and strategic leadership is understandable. But when applied to European defence cooperation, it is counterproductive.

While European states, including Germany, have repeatedly stressed the need for collective action on defence, there is a repeated fallback on national initiatives. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Europe continues to struggle to effectively coordinate efforts.

In a development that neatly illustrates this point, on June 20 the UK unveiled three prototype long-range strike missiles built without any US-manufactured components. The product of an 18-month programme known as Project Brakestop, the explicit purpose of developing this capability is to remove Washington’s ability to veto their deployment in Ukraine.

On the positive side, the UK’s ability to pull this off is commendable. It encapsulates the transformation in European thinking about the transatlantic relationship under Trump – and the capability to follow through on this.

But as an act of strengthening European strategic sovereignty, it falls short. It is British rather than European.

Europe’s ambition to rise to the simultaneous challenges of Trump’s transactionalism and Putin’s adventurism has been stated loudly and clearly on more than one occasion over the past 18 months or so. This ambition is most commonly expressed in the quest for strategic autonomy or “going it alone”. But it is not matched with an ability to act coherently.

Steve Clarke and the Tartan Army are heading home after we failed to finish as one of the eight third places nations who have qualified for the last 32

Scotland have finally been put of out their misery, with results elsewhere condemning us to another group stage exit at the World Cup.

Our hopes of reaching the knockout rounds for the first time in our history were left in tatters after Steve Clarke and his men picking up just three points from three matches in Group C, with the 1-0 victory over Haiti quickly being followed by defeats to Morocco and Brazil, crucially leaving us with a goal difference of minus three.

Boss Clarke has came under heavy fire in the wake of those disappointments, and has taken more backlash after storming out of a post-match interview after they were thumped 3-0 by the Selecao in Miami.

A potential saving grace came in the form of the eight teams who finished third that will secure passage into the last 32 but the helping hands we required have failed to materialise.

Supercomputer data had given Scotland a 0.07 percent chance of getting out the group going into Saturday night, with unfavourable score lines from around the competition seeing us drop out of the top eight spots.

And Clarke, his squad and the Tartan Army are now officially heading home after Ghana failed to beat Croatia by three clear goals in the late hours of Saturday night, with Luka Modric and Co claiming a narrow 2-1 win.

The Dark Blues are one of just four other sides who will crash out of the World Cup having finished third in their respective groups, with Uruguay’s fate already confirmed.

The Scots ended a 28-year-long wait to appear at the finals but have now failed to get past the group stage in all of their 13 outings at the World Cup and European Championships – starting with their first appearance in the former in the 1954 tournament.

The three remaining teams to miss out will be determined before the early hours of Sunday morning, joining the 12 countries that finish bottom of their respective groups in bowing out at the first hurdle.

Get more Daily Record exclusives by signing up for free to Google’s preferred sources. Click HERE.

Tune in to Hotline Live every Sunday to Thursday and have your say on the biggest issues in Scottish football and listen to Record Sport’s newest podcast, Game On, every Friday for your sporting fix, all in bitesize chunks.

Follow Record Sport on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram for all of the up-to-the minute breaking news, video and audio on the SPFL, the Scotland national team and beyond.

Indeed, plain scones are normally the centrepiece of a traditional British afternoon tea.

I’m a big fan of scones, especially those served at National Trust properties. The best of those in my, albeit limited, experience was a few years ago at Nunnington Hall in North Yorkshire: freshly baked, I can still taste it in my mind – soft, light and truly scrumptious.

Scones are a type of quick bread primarily made from a few basic staples: flour, butter (or an alternative fat), a leavening agent like baking powder, and a liquid such as milk, buttermilk, or heavy cream. The fruit version commonly contains either sultanas, currants or raisins.

Scones originated in Scotland in the early 1500s as oat-based flatbreads cooked over open fires. They evolved into the beloved baked treats we know today during the Victorian era when the Duchess of Bedford popularised afternoon tea, turning the scone into an essential teatime staple.

My mum’s homemade scones, which regularly graced our tea table, were fabulous – big and fluffy with a firm top, they were delicious, whether with jam, with butter, or on their own.

More than a year has passed since I last ate a scone, when invited to a friend’s house one afternoon. It was yummy, but scones have not crossed my path since.

So, in the season of afternoon teas, I was keen to try out a selection of plain scones from leading supermarkets. Here’s what I thought.

*Specially selected 4 All Butter Scones, Aldi, £1.49

These scones were uniform in shape, with a golden brown top. They were moist and light in texture, and had a pleasing buttery taste. I could imagine them being perfect with jam and cream. A really good price for four.

Pros: appearance, texture, taste, price.

Cons: none.

Mark: 4/5

*Exceptional 4 All Butter Scones by Asda, £2.06

These were a decent size and shape, but otherwise they were disappointing. Inside they felt quite dense and heavy. When chewing the dough felt a little sticky in my mouth. It tasted bready rather than buttery. More expensive than some.

Pros: appearance.

Cons: texture, taste, price.

Mark: 2/5

Taste the Difference Clotted Cream Scones from Sainsbury’s

Morrisons The Best Plain Scones

Lidl’s Deluxe All Butter Scones

Tesco Finest All Butter Scones

*M&S Food 4 Plain Scones, All Butter, £2.20

Not very appetising to look at – quite flat with a leathery-looking top. These were doughy in texture and were claggy in my mouth. The taste was that of a very basic, cheap scone, yet these were the most expensive of the selection. If I had made these myself I would think they needed longer in the oven.

Pros: none

Cons: appearance, texture, taste, price.

Mark: 1/5

*Sainsbury’s Taste the Difference 4 Clotted Cream Scones, using an all butter recipe, £2.10

A nice shape and a light, fluffy texture inside. I couldn’t detect a buttery taste, but I did enjoy the scone. They are clearly popular as I had to go to the store three times due to them selling out. More costly than most others.

Pros: texture, taste.

Cons: taste (not buttery), price.

Mark: 3/5

*Lidl Deluxe 4 All Butter Scones, £1.49

A decent appearance and size, but these were very crumbly. They broke up easily, so much so that it was hard to put a reasonably-sized piece in my mouth without it falling apart – I ended up with bits all over the plate, and on my lap. The scone had a nice buttery taste but it was quite dry, which explained the crumbs. A good price.

Pros: taste, price.

Cons: consistency, texture.

Mark: 2/5

M&S Plain Scones

Asda Exceptional All Butter Scones

Aldi Specially Selected All Butter Scones

*Tesco 4 Finest All Butter Scones, £2.10 (£1.55 with Tesco Clubcard)

A decent size and shape, with a golden brown top, these had a lovely fluffy texture and a really nice buttery taste. They were soft in the mouth and would be delicious with jam and cream. A good price too, with the Clubcard. Top marks.

Pros: texture, taste, price (with Clubcard).

Cons: none

Mark: 5/5

Morrisons The Best 4 Plain Scones, £2

I tried to buy Morrisons The Best All Butter Clotted Cream Scones, but they were not in stock at either of the two supermarkets I visited on more than one occasion, and nobody could tell me when they would arrive. So I tried these, and they didn’t disappoint. With their rounded bun-like shape they looked unconventional, but had a lovely light, fluffy texture and tasted good.

Pros: texture, taste.

Cons: some may not like the bun look.

Mark: 4/5

Durham Police issued the seasonal warning to bikers to wear the correct safety equipment, regardless of the climate.

Longer days and sunshine make for ideal riding conditions, but they can also tempt some riders to swap protective clothing for lighter, cooler alternatives.

While that may feel more comfortable, officers are reminding bikers that the right kit could make all the difference if the unexpected happens.

Durham Police warning to motorcyclists to wear proper protective equipment even during warm weather (Image: Durham Constabulary)

Motorcyclists are among the most vulnerable road users.

Even the most experienced riders cannot control every situation on the road, whether it’s another driver’s actions, changing weather conditions, poor road surfaces or an unavoidable hazard.

Wearing a properly fitted helmet, protective riding clothing or leathers, gloves and appropriate boots can significantly reduce the severity of injuries in the event of a collision.

Officers understand the discomfort that comes with wearing protective clothing during hot weather, but stress that no journey is worth risking life-changing injuries.

Durham Roads and Armed Police Sergeant Chris Milburn, said: “We know many riders will be keen to get out and enjoy the sunshine, and we want everyone to do exactly that, safely.

“Protective clothing can feel hot and uncomfortable, especially during warmer weather, but it is there for a reason.

Shorts, T-shirts and trainers offer little or no protection if you’re involved in a collision.

“You may be the safest rider on the road, but you can’t control the actions of other road users or every hazard you may encounter.

“We want every rider to get home safely to their loved ones.

“Please make the right choice before setting off.

“Wear the right kit, ride within your limits and enjoy the roads safely.”

Read more … emergency stories from The Northern Echo by clicking here

Motorcyclists are also reminded to carry out basic safety checks before every ride.

They should ensure tyres, brakes, lights and chain tension are all in good working order before heading out.

Sgt Milburn added: “This summer, we’re asking all riders to help us keep County Durham and Darlington roads safe.”