Alex Salmond: Living the Dream

Could First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, take up the legendary mantel of Peter Risdale and economically destroy an institution he professes to love, largely to appease his own ego? Let me explain.

We remember back to those halcyon days, when Leeds were not only in the Premier League but challenging Manchester Utd for the title. More impressive was the run all the way to the semi-final of the Champions league where they were eventually beaten by runners up Valencia. Unfortunately if Leeds were adopt the mantel of legend it was to be of Icarus, rather than Hercules. Their flight to the top was financially disastrous with the the club splashing out on expensive players like Rio Ferdinand, gambling that continued, extended runs in Europe would fund their purchase and wages. To complete the metaphor , Leeds flew too close to the sun, eventually plummeting into the depths of League 1 as the financial adhesive which kept them airborne disintegrated. The experience of Leeds, serves a cautionary tale not just in football, but is an effective warning against hubris in other less important arenas. The governance of Scotland for example.

The rest of the SNP victory in these Parliamentary elections was the collapse of the Labour and Liberal Democrat vote, with these voters defecting largely to the SNP. This has handed the party a majority of seats, winning 69 out of the 129 available. As a result, this gives the SNP the chance to bring a long held dream to fruition, a referendum on independence. There are several issues of interest here.

To start on a lighter note, parts of the right-wing press have furiously denounced Labour as both architects of devolution, which has brought this constitutional calamity to a head by allowing those rouge Scots an independent parliament. Secondly they attack Labour and the Liberal Democrats for failing to 'hold the line in Scotland'. Alan Cochrane in the Telegraph refers to the 'little people' who run Scottish Labour as being no match for the political skills of Alex Salmond and as a result has brought us 'to the break up of the Union'. There is a certain irony in the Tories, who have long abandoned Scotland electorally, criticising the two parties who are still electorally relevant in Scotland for not stopping the SNP. What a potential Scottish referendum might bring is a debate on the nature of governance in the UK, over the centralising power of Westminster vs the desire for constitutional institutions which draw their power and legitimacy from the region which they represent. Fat chance, a debate over Scottish independence, and ultimately the fate of the union will be more underhanded, intellectually pointless than the AV referendum. With the three Westminster parties and the SNP playing for keeps, a referendum will not be a pleasant affair.

Right, back to Peter Risdale. The second, more pressing issue for Scotland is if increased political independence is worth truncating the Union as well as splitting Scotland off from the larger economic unit of the UK. Salmond has spoken in grandiose language about the establishment of a renewable energy manufacturing base, which will help to re-industrialise Scotland. The critical issue is over the North Sea oil and gas, can this provide the needed capital to re-invest in Scotland and make it economically viable in a globalised economy. Opponents of independence, frequently point to the importance of the bloc grant from Westminster to Scotland's economic performance as well as its provision of social services. Salmon's greatest test as a politician will be to explain that the potential for cuts in social services are a price worth paying for independence or that they will not manifest in any meaningful way.

If this is the case then Salmond will be recast as Peter Risdale but now in charge of a nation. Can the desire for what Salmond sees as the ultimate prize be reconciled with economic realities? If Scotland does vote to seek independence, then the best of luck to them both politically and economically. However what Salmond might discover is that the numbers simply don't add up and that these grandiose ambitions will be worth nothing if Scotland cannot rapidly establish itself as a viable nation state. If not a slow decent into the lower league of nations is on the cards. On the upside, scraping to defeat Liechtenstein’s football team wont be as bad in comparison.

My Three Foreign Policy Books

My Three Foreign Policy Books

1. Icarus Syndrome – Peter Beinart

I really enjoyed reading Icarus Syndrome, it's an extremely well written book by an eloquent commentator and previous advocate for liberal interventionism. Beinart, like Hitchens and other liberal hawks backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This excellent book is partly a way of Beinart explaining why he and other liberal interventionists supported the war and part how a nation like the US could be seduced by moments of hubris which would lead to ruination.

This book analyses three distinct and important periods in the history of American foreign policy: the Paris Peace Accords of 1919, the Vietnam War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Beinart discusses why the US made certain critical decisions during these three critical junctures and how the repercussions have shaped the US's role and outlook in the world.

The book is not a comprehensive history of the three periods. For this I would recommend Paris 1919, The Best and the Brightest and the Rise of the Vulcans. What Beinart offers is to show how the lessons and perceived lessons that have resulted from major world events have been learnt and internalised by institutions and individuals. Beinart's work shows how these perceived lessons are just as important in shaping policy as hard facts. This attention to the perceived lessons is the most intriguing part of the book as it reveals an often unappreciated part of diplomatic history. What individuals and institutions take from situations will shape policy often regardless of the facts on the ground. Both governments and societies should not ingrain any lesson or maxim to the extent that it can overrule what is clearly in front of them.

2. The Shia Revival – Vali Nasser

This book is important as it is a telling reminder that there was a Middle East, with its own rich history and internal rivalries long before the West became involved in the region. Islam's great divide between Shia and Sunni has set the tune to the movements of different countries and groups of the region and it continues to do so despite the influence of oil, terrorism and other external factors. The book shows how recent developments in the region fit into the much longer history of the Sunni/Shia struggle and how the preferences and beliefs of the two groups has shaped their fortunes up to now.

The most interesting and eye opening theme that I encountered is the almost forgotten idea that the 2003 has not just affected the region vis a vis the West. Western involvement, especially the invasion of Iraq has unsettled the balance of power and history between the two groups with the primary beneficiary of the toppling of Saddam being Iran. Vasser shows how the Shia have an chance to recast parts of the Middle East in their favour and that this will be strongly resisted by the Sunni states, focused around Saudi Arabia. The tensions between these two states will be the defining factor over regional stability.

The key issue is that policies will be lost in the region if they do not respect that Western efforts will feed into a larger history of the region rather than supplanted it.

3. Descent into Chaos – Ahmed Rashid

It's important to read a book about how things go wrong, how the best intentions can be for nothing and how a few critical mistakes can have such a terribly detrimental effect on both policy and the fate of a nation.

Rashid describes this elegantly in Descent into Chaos as he charts how the twin US objectives to both thwart Al Qaeda and develop Afghanistan often clashed to the detriment of both. Throw in a generous helping of cynicism from many in the Bush Administration coupled with the inevitable problems involved with such an ambitious nation building project and the causes of the in problems in Afghanistan becomes clearer.

The book elegantly imparts a large amount of information, imparting both a comprehensive picture of the fate of Afghanistan since the 9/11 attacks as well as portraying how errors, miss steps and chance have shaped it. This focus on the unintended consequences is the general theme of my three picks. What the West gleaned from the demise of the USSR was an overconfidence in capability of our arms and the extent of our knowledge. Instead of recognising our lack of appropriate knowledge about the rest of the world we insisted it could be reformed into an copy of ourselves. The West has had to relearn this humility at great cost to the prestige of its nations and the lives of so many of its citizens.

Libya - Intervention Rises Up From The Dead

This week we saw the issue of interventionism rise up from its seemingly permanent exile from the pallet of respectable/plausible policy options. The vote by the Arab League gave cover for nations some hesitant, some enthusiastic, to back a UN Security Council mandated no-fly zone and the recent bombardment of Libyan air defence systems it has enabled.

Libya has divided opinion unlike the other regimes who have fallen in the recently christened ‘Arab Spring’. Relatively quickly it became apparent that Qaddafi would not go quietly into the night. Mubarak and Ben Ali despite their numerous faults, recognised when their position had become untenable, and reluctantly left office. Qaddafi quickly made the decision however that the storm could be weathered out, and that the deployment of domestic security forces, augmented with foreign mercenaries and his own air force would see off domestic rebellions centred around Benghazi, which has a historically adversarial relationship with Tripoli.

However the series of victories that Qaddafi has won, while pushing the rebels back to Benghazi has coalesced international opinion against him into something a little stronger. However while NATO and other allied nations may now be able to protect Benghazi from the final onslaught that Qaddafi was about to unleash, national leaders must now decide the limits of their ambitions vis a vis Qaddafi. The intervention by international forces will most likely swing domestic opinion behind the Qaddafi regime. The regimes rhetoric suggests this change in confidence, shifting from its focus on Al Qaeda to resisting Western imperialism and protecting Libya’s own oil reserves from a rapacious West. If this does come to pass then Benghazi might become all the more isolated as peoples sympathies realign from the rebels to this nationalist and anti-colonialist message.

If this is the case then Obama, Cameron and other leaders will be faced with the choice of for how long they are willing to protect Benghazi as an outpost of resistance to Qaddafi, especially if the country swings back to him in response to the air strikes? For the rebels this conflict has now be transformed from an emancipatory objective, to one of survival. The international community has intervened to protect Benghazi from the slaughter Qaddafi was to commit. However with regime change spearheaded by Western forces off the table, how long will international forces agree to protect the city and the rebels from a regime which controls the rest of the country. While certain Western leaders such as Cameron and Sarkozy have been more enthusiastic about intervening, none have any appetite for a long mission to maintain Benghazi as an Libyan West Berlin within the surrounding country.

International forces rightly stayed out of Libya during the early stages of the civil war. Any intervention would have undermined the rebels credibility and undercut their ability to win popular support. However what the recent air strikes have done is to protect Benghazi and its inhabitants but at the cost of the wider popular appeal of the anti-Qaddafi movement. If this is the case then the UN backed forces will have found themselves in the middle of a civil war, and will be forced to take sides.

International opinion must decide to what extent they are willing to protect the citizens of the city from Qaddafi, if they aren’t prepared for a potentially long deployment to protect the city with a no fly zone then a deal will have to be struck with the regime in order to gain some amnesty for the rebels. Although it is hard to see the regime honouring such a commitment when the eyes of the world are drawn elsewhere.

We can only hope that popular opposition does throw him and his family out of Libya, however if it does not some difficult questions lie ahead.

As always other commentators provide more stimulating, insightful and intellectually coherent takes on these issue. Here are some of the best I’ve found.

http://www.slate.com/id/2288214/ Christopher Hitchens

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0801483115 Robert Pape ‘Bombing to Win’

http://thinkstrat.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/what-to-do-in-libya/ Aaron Ellis

England vs Hungary

Last night me and a companion had the pleasure of seeing England's Brave Boys© play and beat the Hungarians.  Any football fan needs no introduction to the heritage to Hungarian football, which created a team which punished England mightily many years ago. Many see their ultimate failure to win the World Cup as a footballing travesty and I personally feel that they deserve the unwanted title of best team never to have won the World Cup, beating the efforts of the Dutch 74 and Brazilian 82 outfits. They can of course never hope to live up to that amazing heritage, a nation the size of Hungary will mightily struggle to produce a team like that again.

Still they played well, giving England a good game. Certainly for a pre-season friendly the quality was pretty good. a treat for the 70,000 or so people who turned up to see it.

I was disappointed by the squad choices. The 'Golden Generation' for its successes and faults has come to an end. These players, these household names; Gerrard, Lampard, Terry and Ferdinand will not be at the next world cup in Brazil. Age and injuries will not allow it. Old hopes will have to be carried by new players. Unfortunately with Capello's contract not reaching to the next World Cup he has no reason to dispense with old and take proper risks to blood the new players. The press would have slaughtered him if he had lost. Fundamentally this raises the question, why have an international manager who wont be going to the next world cup? Logic would suggest that Capello will make do with what he has, getting adequate performances out of the players to ensure his survival and qualification to the Euros. Why put this on the line by player Wilshire and Rodwell then?

The FA's plan should revolve around the WC, players and management should reflect this.

The iPad, A review by somebody who can't afford to buy one

The UK's High Priest of Apple, the Reverend Stephen Fry has already has his.

Wired says that tablets will change the world of computing.

Filthy Glasses says: who are ya?

Both Apple and the Catholic Church have been in the news recently. Both are secretive and highly profitable organisations led by a supreme leader, beloved by his disciples and mocked by the rest of us. Each promises in their own way to show us a better way of living, free from the sordid clutches of the unbelievers. This salvation however comes at a price. It the Catholic Church's example..... I'm gonna avoid because I don't want to be sued for libel. In Apple's case however it's any resemblance of being a fan boy.

Full disclosure, I have an iPhone. I'm not especially proud of the fact but it allows me to feed my obsessions  with football and politics to an extend I never thought possible. 

To give Apple their due they have consistently punched above their weight in directing the development of consumer technology and services that we all consume. Responsible for popularising MP3 players and touch screens. Apple didn't develop these technologies but they gave them a polish and a desirability which introduced them to a wider audience. 

The success of the iPod and iPhone products have been to introduce mainstream consumers to Apple products. People, now familiar to the design and idiosyncrasies of the products feel comfortable in purchasing the laptops and desktops. These items are mainstream and feature in annoying adverts featuring beloved comedians  shamelessly selling out and professional midgets. 

While it might be now acceptable to have these products, its gonna be a long time before the iPad looses its status as the crown jewel of fan boyism. There will be no escape if you purchase one of these devices. You will have purchased an indelible mark, highlighting your commitment to being an early adopter and a rabid consumer of the shoddy Mk.1 products that technology companies always release. Only a true devotee would buy a device which costs twice as much as the laptop I'm currently ranting on. 

In a few years when the hype has rescinded tablet computers may become socially acceptable, this will be a slow process and will involve a few brave souls claiming the format back. Society will progress and maybe we will all one day by party to a world that looks more and more like that shitty film, Minority Report.

Until then we wait. 

An Obscured View of the World

Hello unwashed masses.

I have succumbed and finally decided to do a blog. This means you, the uninterested and oblivious public will have unfettered access to the rabbit warren of banal/libellous thoughts that rattle around inside my head. Hopefully my unedited musings on life, politics, films and West Ham's chances of avoiding relegation will be of some interest to somebody. If not please feel free to troll the shit out of the site.

Alex Di Mascio