AS the US prepares to “sneeze” by electing its 47th president, the world awaits confirmation of which strain of “cold” we will catch from the result.

Despite the implications of the result on an increasingly connected world, is it appropriate for global leaders to state a strong opinion as to how the people of the US vote?

I was surprised to hear First Minister John Swinney (below), come out to endorse Democrat Kamala Harris this week as I was casting my mind back to 2014 while writing my condolence speech to honour Alex Salmond following the very poignant private funeral of our former FM.

Many in our independence movement will remember the stooshie in Scotland in 2014 when then-president Barack Obama declared: “The US interest in the Scottish independence referendum issue was to ensure it retained a “strong, robust, united and influential partner”.

Salmond politely yet powerfully quipped back that “independence for Scotland would mean: “America has two great friends and allies here rather than one.”

To be fair to Obama, he did add, “But ultimately, these are decisions that are to be made by the folks there.” Wise words.

On Thursday, the US Federal Reserve (Fed) and the UK Bank of England (BoE) will announce their positions on interest rates, which are expected to be cut as the excessive artificial inflation, driven by soaring energy costs of the last few years, continues to fall.

READ MORE: It’s absurd to rule out tax rises for those who are bestable to pay

The UK Budget, delivered by Chancellor Rachel Reeves (below) last week, provides some certainty to BoE policymakers. But the US election result is a “known unknown” for both the Fed and BoE, with concerns not just over the policy platform of the new president but also the reaction of the US people to it. The assault on Congress on January 6, 2021 is a raw reminder of the consequences of the people being convinced out of their faith in the democratic process.

(Image: Jordan Pettitt)

Labour’s Budget boasts of “boosting public investment, tackling inflation, and supporting essential services through a significant rise in public spending, especially for healthcare, housing, and infrastructure”, but what is behind their headline promises?

Inflation was already normalising well before Starmer and his team rocked up to Downing Street in their donor-sponsored designer wardrobes, yet that is one ball that Starmer will need to keep his designer specs focused on, with projections showing a higher than expected rate over the next four years.

Economic forecasts, supported by the Office for Budget Responsibility, anticipate a 1.1% GDP growth in 2024, rising to 2% in 2025. Then, growth is expected to taper off as the initial impact of spending diminishes.

The response across the UK was largely disappointing, but who is particularly worried? And what from Labour’s first UK Budget demands Scotland’s attention?

Reeves has set high expectations for business growth while intensely squeezing highly populous workforces with her measures to counteract inflation. Businesses that provide high employment and modest profit will be left to administer the “tough choices” Labour’s politicians have trotted out across the media.

The hike to employer National Insurance contributions (NIC) is an interesting way to meet an election promise of no increase in NIC ...

When coupled with a rise to minimum wage by 6.7% – laudably aimed at establishing a “genuine living wage”, many business owners have emphasised that they also have to “balance the books”. Rising costs to employ staff affect their ability to grow their businesses, leaving difficult decisions about jobs available in their business plans.

Reeves was forced to admit that wages will likely be squeezed due to the employer’s NIC hike. It is clear that in an attempt to raise £25 billion quickly from employer NIC the new Chancellor has given scant consideration to different employer profiles.

The impact on those highly populous workforce business sectors, which will be the most affected, will hit Scotland’s SME economic backbone hard. Our high-staff-based hospitality, services, care sector and supply chain firms will pay a much higher share of this burden than high-profit, low-staff-based financial services and energy sectors. How can this be called fair taxation?

We hear much from Labour and Tories about “making work pay”, but what about “making employing people pay” for our high-staff-based sectors and struggling SMEs?

In assessing where money can be best found for investment in public services and infrastructure, we must also be aware of negative consequences.

The Scottish Government is currently in budget negotiations. Like clockwork, the Greens have gone to press with their usual student demo demands, the “Give me what I want or else” politics. Back in the real world, one thing remains unchanged: the UK fiscal framework, which has consistently disadvantaged Scotland, has not shifted its stance despite the change in government at Westminster.

Over the years, the Barnett consequentials, delivered in Scotland’s so-called “block grant”, has, in real terms, continually been reduced, offering less and less in return for Scotland’s contribution to the UK Treasury from our people and resources.

This is not the UK subsidising a Scotland that more than pays its way into a Union that consistently fails us. Scotland was due £3.4bn from the consequential spending in England – we got not a penny more. This was not a radical political change from Labour, it was the bare legal minimum it was obliged to give Scotland back.

Cutting through the political spin, taking £10 off someone and giving them £3.45 back does not put more money in people’s pockets – it just takes out a bit less.

READ MORE: Saltire atop Arthur’s Seat is a reminder of a genuine radical

Unless the UK Government reverses its change from universal Winter Fuel Payments to means-testing, or takes some substantive action, Scotland’s pensioners face the “perfect storm” this winter. In our energy-abundant nation, winters are earlier, longer and colder; our geography is more rural, and those populations tend to be older.

“One size fits all” policy rarely does, and without adequately assessing the resultant reactive costs to NHS and social care from detrimental impacts on the health and wellbeing of vulnerable older and disabled people, the consequences could be dire.

It is time for Scotland to stop accepting the UK’s short-termism and for our Scottish Government to stop settling in as a devolved administration and start to build a real plan for Scotland’s long-term, independent future.