Brian Taylor: We should all worry about who wins the US election

The play recounts how Benjamin Franklin, on a trip to the UK advocating for the US colonies, paid a visit to the Scottish capital, describing it as “six weeks of the densest happiness I have known in my life.”

In sharp contrast, it occurred to me once more that I have seldom witnessed such anxiety and disquiet as there is among our citizenry today.

That is, of course, mirrored in America. Indeed, the Harris acceptance speech, rich with the customary platitudes, was predicated upon offering unity to a bitterly divided nation.

Ms Harris has derived an uplift in fortunes simply by replacing the evidently ailing Joe Biden. She looks and sounds fresh. She pledges to support working-class aspiration. She promises to work for women, notably through protecting the right to abortion.

As for Donald Trump, he is currently struggling to find a narrative to tackle her. Much of his response to her acceptance speech centred around linking her to Biden, questioning why she had not acted in office on the pledges she was now making.

For now, that does not appear to be working. But he will find his rasping tongue. He will project platitudes of his own, probably derived from his hostility to migration and his claim that Ms Harris failed in that field.

Both candidates, naturally, play the American patriotic card. Neither, we are implausibly told, considers party or personal interests. It is all for the US of A.

But global observers are left to fret over the wider impact of this contest. For example, on the economy. Will the US continue to promote trade – or retreat, to a degree, into protecting US industry, fearful of China and other competitors?

At the Edinburgh Book Festival, I chaired a discussion on the economics of environmentalism. That too is at the core of the US contest.

Read more

Brian Taylor: Stand by for spending cuts and tax rises. Who’s to blame?

Brian Taylor: Condemn the riots – but understand their true nature and context

Joe Biden sought, in office, to power America towards net zero, stressing the opportunity of new industry. Kamala Harris would follow that path.

By contrast, Donald Trump talks of a “Green new scam”. He wants to protect the US automotive industry, dismissing electric vehicles – which are mostly powered by Chinese-constructed batteries.

They differ on taxation too. Ms Harris proposes tax credits for families with newborn children. Mr Trump accuses her of preparing to lift the tax cuts he signed into law – and which are due to expire next year.

Then there is global conflict. Ms Harris says she will stand strong with Ukraine. But she also knows there are voices in America questioning the wisdom of infuriating Moscow by supporting Kyiv. Not least JD Vance, Mr Trump’s running mate

The Kremlin barely bothers to conceal that it might prefer a Trump victory. Donald Trump contemplates President Putin – and seeks to project himself as a comparable strongman. And as a deal maker or, to borrow his phrase, a peace maker.

Ukraine watches – and worries. Consider the incursions into Russia’s Kursk territory. The theory is that President Zelensky wants bargaining counters for the pressure he fears might succeed a Trump victory.

On a broader front, Mr Trump has complained about the scope of America’s commitment to NATO by comparison with what he sees as a minimal contribution by European members. This election could reshape global power.

Back in Edinburgh, I witnessed a remarkable production at the Traverse. A Knock on the Roof depicts the despairing remnants of family life in Gaza. It is poignant and thought-provoking.

In America, the contenders perform an intricate gavotte over Middle East policy. Kamala Harris urges a ceasefire in Gaza but, perhaps understandably, offers no response to the protests outside the convention centre over US support for Israel.

She says that she and President Biden are “working round the clock” to secure a hostage and ceasefire deal. No doubt the pending verdict of US voters is concentrating minds.

(Image: Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump)

Donald Trump has criticised the detail of ceasefire plans, warning they could allow Hamas to regroup.

Then there are his vacillating views on Benjamin Netanyahu. From staunch ally to sharp critic of the Israeli Prime Minister. Now, it seems, chums once more. No doubt Mr Netanyahu hopes for unwavering support from a Trump White House.

How will the UK cope with whoever wins this remarkable, fragmented election? Presumably with the customary blend of obeisance and assertiveness.

There will be talk once again of the special relationship. For the UK, that matters on a permanent basis. It is a question of acquired status.

For the USA, it matters most evidently when American interests are at stake or under question. Less so ordinarily.

To be clear, the UK retains considerable global clout, albeit sharply diminished from previous decades and centuries.

We have the soft power of diplomatic involvement, linked to a substantial military strength. We are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

We share with America the globally dominant English tongue – two nations divided by a common language.

But always the USA will see us as gently, politely subordinate. And perhaps, globally, that is true also with regard to other power groups: the Indian sub-continent, China, the ASEAN countries – and, yes, the EU.

Any Scottish links for the two Presidential candidates? Apparently, Kamala Harris has an Ulster-Scots ancestor.

Rather closer for The Donald. His mother was born in Tong on the isle of Lewis. Suppose that means this election is Lewis versus Harris. OK, apologies, that dreadful gag will never win Fringe Best Joke.

Still on the Fringe, I chortle at The Last Laugh, a brilliant production. And wonder who will be laughing come the US election in November. And will we join in?

Right now, there is a wave of enthusiasm carrying Kamala Harris high. But this will be a bitter, tense contest.

Mr Trump will decry her record in office. Ms Harris will rebut that, excoriating his personal behaviour and criminal conviction. We watch and wait.