Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties have struck an agreement with Sinn Féin, committing to cooperate on efforts that could ultimately reshape — and potentially break up — the United Kingdom.

Leaders of the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru unveiled a “memorandum of understanding” with Irish republican representatives ahead of what has been described as a separatist summit in Cardiff.

John Swinney, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Michelle O’Neill and Mary Lou McDonald said they would pursue shared priorities, including “supporting the right of each nation to determine its own future”.

Mr Swinney said the gathering of political leaders from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland marked a “pivotal moment in the constitutional journey of the UK”. He also claimed that Mr Burnham would be the country’s final prime minister.

Scotland’s First Minister argued there should be “no obstacle” preventing voters in the three devolved nations from determining their own futures. He said the countries should be free to “move forward” and “decide their own future”.

However, the meeting drew a sharp response from unionist politicians. It comes after US President Donald Trump caused controversy by expressing support for a united Ireland.

Scottish Conservative deputy leader Rachael Hamilton said: “The majority of Scots don’t want another damaging and divisive referendum. They want Swinney to do his actual job.”

‘But he would rather waste a working day on separatist fantasy league politics. This follows a week where the SNP’s failures in education have been brutally exposed by PISA scores well behind those in England.

‘The former education secretary should be answering questions about how badly he has let down pupils, parents and teachers.’

Ms Little-Pengelly, the DUP joint head of the Stormont powersharing Executive, accused Ms O’Neill of attempting to ‘weaponise the role of First Minister’.

In a social media post she said: ‘Let me be absolutely clear. Michelle O’Neill is not travelling to this ”summit” as First Minister, she has no authority to present herself as representing the FM role at any such ‘summit’ and nor does she have any authority to sign anything as First Minister of Northern Ireland at any such ”summit’.’

‘She has not sought any agreement or permission from me to travel, attend or sign anything as First Minister.’

It came after Mr Trump doubled down on his comments in support of Irish unity, saying it was ‘one of the naturals of all time’.

Speaking on the second day of his trip to Ireland, Mr Trump also dismissed the diplomatic backlash to his remarks, which have dominated his trip.

Sinn Féin vice president Michelle O’Neill said the comments in support of Irish unity show the independence debate is ‘very much alive’.

‘I think that tells us where we’re at with where the thinking is around what is the big prize here for our people, and the big prize here is unification,’ she said.

‘It is the end of partition and it is that new beginning in a new Ireland.

‘I think the comments that we’ve seen over the weekend very much reflect that there is a chorus now of people that are engaged in this debate.’

The group, who met in their capacity as party leaders – rather than as officials in their respective governments, also stated their ambitions for partnership around the economy, energy and international co-operation.

The agreement says: ‘The political landscape across these islands is changing.

‘For the first time ever, people across these islands have first ministers in Scotland, in Wales and in the North of Ireland who are all committed to independence from the United Kingdom.

‘For people watching across these islands – for people watching around the world – there could be no clearer sign that Westminster’s time is coming to an end.

‘We believe there is a better way: nations working together as equals, sharing ideas and expertise, and building relationships based on mutual respect and common interests.

‘Momentum is behind our movements; we believe that constitutional change is coming.

‘We therefore commit to strengthening cooperation between our parties and identifying practical areas where working together can make a real difference.’

The agreement sets out plans to ‘reject Whitehall’s broken economic model’ and share ideas on economic growth, expand energy resources, and states that ‘the future of our nations belongs in the European Union’.

Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said the agreement was was ‘historic’, adding:  ‘It is that moment where we assert collectively our inalienable right to decide our futures.’

A leading AI safety expert set off fresh concern last week with a stark prediction: artificial intelligence could pose an existential threat to humanity before the decade is out.

Jacob Coxon, who worked on training Anthropic’s newest AI systems in San Francisco, said the public should not dismiss the technology’s potential — especially if AI reaches a “superintelligent” stage.

The 27-year-old, formerly employed by ChatGPT maker OpenAI and later by Claude developer Anthropic, argued that both companies were falling short of responsible AI safety practices.

His warning has intensified an already heated discussion involving technology executives, researchers and global political leaders.

Those who share the concerns say AI presents major dangers, from potential attacks on nuclear facilities and disruption of political systems to the prospect of helping bad actors access weapons of mass destruction.

Sceptics have pushed back, insisting such catastrophic scenarios are unlikely to materialise. Some also contend that demands to slow AI development may be driven less by safety than by commercial self-interest.

Here is how several prominent figures in the AI debate have responded.

Tech bosses

Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei has also acknowledged that advanced AI carries “serious risks.”

In a blog post, he said the concerns range from humans losing control over AI systems to the misuse of the technology for cyberattacks or bioterrorism, as well as severe economic upheaval. Amodei said progress in AI model capabilities must be slowed.

This morning Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, also weighed in on the debate, conceding there are two ways AI ‘could go very badly and that we must avoid’.

‘First, we could lose control of the future to AI,’ he wrote on X. ‘This is unacceptable; we are unapologetically on Team Humanity, and AI must always serve people.

‘To ensure that, we need ways to ensure that alignment and safety techniques stay ahead of progress in model capabilities.

‘Second, we could end up in a world with too much concentration of power. If an extraordinarily powerful AI is used by one person or company to impress their worldview onto everyone else, the results could be extremely dystopian.’

Elon Musk, owner of xAI, has also backed the warnings, adding he has ‘been sounding the alarm on AI for a long time’.

Scientists

According to experts, a list of AI ‘worst-case scenarios’ ranges from creating political chaos with misinformation to irrevocably changing the planet’s environment.

Scientists also suggest that AI’s fatal blow could come from the technology’s capacity to build and harness weapons of mass destruction.

Professor Mark Lee, an artificial intelligence expert from the University of Birmingham, told the Daily Mail that once we create AI more intelligent than ourselves, we might struggle to ensure its goals remain ‘aligned’ with our own.

‘The issue is that while the big AI companies are all rushing to develop AIs which are as smart or even smarter than humans, we don’t have reliable means to control their behaviour,’ he explained.

‘AI exists as software, so any system which is connected via the internet could be vulnerable.

RELATED: Delaying Deportation of Criminal Migrants Raises Taxpayer Costs

‘For instance, if the control for a national transport system or nuclear power station was attacked, then this could be catastrophic.’

Ben Eisenpress, Director of Operations at the Future of Life Institute, previously told the Daily Mail that integrating AI into nuclear command and control systems could lead to a ‘flash war’. Experts have also repeatedly warned that AI tools make it significantly easier to develop deadly bioweapons.

Developers

Geoffrey Hinton, a Canadian researcher often referred to as the ‘Godfather of AI’ – has similarly warned that super-intelligent systems could ‘lead to human extinction’.

‘We would be very foolish to develop superintelligence now, when there is no scientific consensus it can be developed safely and controllably,’ Dr Hinton said.

‘Losing control over AI smarter than ourselves could be catastrophic and could even lead to human extinction.’

In his resignation post on X, researcher Jacob Coxon wrote: ‘Do not underestimate the power of this technology.

‘These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources.

‘We have all witnessed the progress in each of these domains, and progress is not slowing.

‘The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt.’

Politicians

Despite the concerns, US President Donald Trump has downplayed the risks posed by AI.

‘You have a lot of very negative forces that are bringing it up that shouldn’t be bringing it up and they’re bringing up things that won’t happen,’ he said during a visit to Ireland.

‘We’re leading China on AI… and, frankly, I want to keep it that way because whoever wins AI, wins.’

Meanwhile, MPs and peers have urged Andy Burnham to back a ban on the creation of artificial intelligence and lead an international movement to stop the technology.

According to ControlAI, more than 135 cross-party UK parliamentarians already support the campaign.

‘Nobel Prize winners, AI scientists, and CEOs of leading AI companies have stated that mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority,’ ControlAI explains in the campaign statement.

‘Specialised AIs – such as those advancing science and medicine – boost growth, innovation, and public services. Superintelligent AI systems would compromise national and global security. The UK can secure the benefits and mitigate the risks of AI by delivering on its promise to introduce binding regulation on the most powerful AI systems.’

Critics

Calls to slow the AI race may not be entirely altruistic, some critics say, questioning whether there could also be commercial motives behind the push for restraint.

After pouring billions into developing ever-more powerful AI systems, companies could benefit from slowing down rivals and making it harder for new competitors to catch up.

‘Stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic,’ David Sacks, Trump’s former AI tsar and a frequent critic, wrote on X.

A young worker says she has been cut off from her own money after her bank allegedly froze her account without warning, then advised her to seek help through Centrelink.

Zoe Graham, 26, said Up Bank placed a hold on her funds while it investigates a disputed transaction.

Ms Graham said she sold a rare book online for $90 about four months ago. However, the buyer later claimed the item had not arrived and accused her of being a scammer.

The digital bank told Ms Graham it was unable to offer financial assistance while her account remained under review, but suggested she contact welfare and support services.

The charity worker said she had recently been paid when she discovered she could not access ‘every single cent I own right now’. She said she had been told the Up Bank investigation could take weeks.

‘Approximately a four week wait time. How is this legal?’ she told Daily Mail.

‘Up is the worst, most patronising customer service I’ve ever dealt with. They won’t help me and keep repeating that the investigation is under way.

‘They advise that the only way to dissolve the claim is to contact the buyer … but I cannot after many failed attempts.’

The bank advised Ms Graham to seek emergency support from Centrelink and AskIzzy, a service that helps people find food, accommodation and financial aid. 

‘I am most definitely not eligible for Centrelink or AskIzzy resources,’ Ms Graham said.

‘I work full time…but I certainly still have bills to pay and no way to pay them.’

In messages to Ms Graham, only sent after she realised on Friday she could not use the funds in her account, Up Bank said restrictions had been placed on her account while its team conducted an account review.

‘This means you won’t be able to make purchases or send payments. Your incoming payments will be impacted during this time,’ the bank wrote.

‘These reviews typically take up to 4 weeks to complete. We’ve already escalated your case to our specialist team, who will reach out directly with further information.’

The bank later advised it could not offer financial assistance directly but suggested she seek external support services. 

‘While we aren’t able to provide financial assistance directly, I do want to make sure you have access to some helpful resources who can provide the support you need and deserve,’ the message read.

‘AskIzzy is a great tool to find local organisations that can help with financial assistance, emergency accommodation and access to food and other necessities.

‘Centrelink also provide crisis payments for those in need of extra support.’

Ms Graham said she had supplied the customer’s information and tracking details to the bank to try and resolve the dispute, but remained locked out of her funds.

‘I have provided all the tracking information and her details to show where it went to but Up won’t budge,’ she said.

‘(They) have told me I have to contact her but I cannot. I’m blocked.’

In a follow-up message, the bank said it had an ‘obligation to act on reports received from other institutions’ and that payments to Ms Graham’s account had been flagged by alerts from other banks. 

‘Due to the above, your account is under investigation and we’ve placed restrictions on your account preventing debits and credits until the investigation is complete,’ the message read.

Ms Graham said she had also been advised not to open an account with another bank while the investigation is ongoing. 

Up Bank, Bendigo Bank’s youth-focused digital banking brand, launched as a mobile-only app in 2018 and is headed by Xavier Shay.

Ms Graham is not alone, with several other Up Bank customers leaving one-star reviews claiming they were also frozen out of their accounts. 

‘Had my account cancelled without any prior notice or anything due to breaking their terms and conditions with a transaction that they deemed suspicious when it was just a normal transaction,’ one wrote.

‘Locked my funds behind a ID verification that never gets accepted.’

‘One day, they put my account on hold,’ another added.

‘All my payments/Centrelink were going in there. They said they would need to do an investigation and until then had my funds on hold also said it could take up to six weeks.

‘Gave me some wishy washy story and advice about food banks and getting help from Salvos. No I didn’t need Salvos, or a couch or mattress to sleep on, I wanted access to my own money to buy food, or alcohol or cigarettes if I wanted to.’

Ms Graham said she intended to lodge a complaint with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

‘The fact that they’ve done this with no call to me is absolutely disgusting,’ she said.

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, which owns Up Bank, has been contacted for comment.