Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
The Crimea was always part of Russia. It was only in 1954 that Krushchev, on a whim, decided that it should be part of the Ukrainian Soviet Federation. It is Russian speaking and thinking. It would be as if Northumberland had for some bizarre administrative reason become part of Scotland in the 1950s and the English deciding, upon Scottish independence, that actually they still consider it English – as do the people of Northumberland.
"always" in the sense "since it was conquered" and "Russian speaking" in the sense of "once Stalin forceably deported the original residents because he was worried about their residual loyalty to the Khanate"
But that's the reality today Charles are we going to re-deport people ? If not then we have to ignore history and deal with what we have and that's a clear Russian majority.
No, the residents of Crimea are 100% Ukrainian, a portion of whom speak Russian.
If you establish the principle that Russia can unilaterally intervene to protect people of its ethnicity/language when the Russian state itself is not threatened then we are in very dangerous territory
The principle's already established. The residents of Kosovo are 100% Serbian some of whom speak Albanian. The residents of Crossmaglen are 100% British some of whom think of themselves as Irish. We're more than capable of putting the shoe on the other foot when it suits us.
As a country which has decolonised lots of places I'd have thought it would be better to look at the process and recognise things are probably easier when the borders are drawn as close as possible to the ethnic make up of the country. The Ukraine's borders aren't.
Probably, yes. But there is a huge difference between what you are saying and what the Russians are doing. It would probably be quite sensible for Ukraine to either have a federation or to have a vote on independence (in the same way it makes sense for the Scots to vote on independence). It is completely unacceptable for Russia to forment rebellion in an independent state on spurious grounds.
Kosovo was a special case - Western intervention followed (IIRC) ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. So far, the Russians haven't that recently.
Funny how Western interventions are always a special case.
I do like PB split on the right however, The Oxbridgers all want to kick ass from their armchairs and the others all say let them sort it out themselves.
It does make me wonder if anyone would raise an eyebrow if Russia chose to annex a Baltic State, or China chose to invade Taiwan.
.
I bet Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are thanking their lucky stars they both joined NATO and the EU when they did. If they were still independent, and thinking of applying now, I think there'd be a lot of talk and warm-words from both organisations, but no accession treaty.
The thing that really worries me - and probably worries them: would NATO actually do anything if Russia did make a move against the baltic states now?
I'm not sure they would.
****
Disagree entirely. NATO is the most powerful military alliance in the world, it has kept the peace in Europe - and elsewhere - for sixty years, but it depends entirely on its sworn oath, that any attack on one member is an attack on all. Without that it would be worthless and would disintegrate in days.
Washington, and London and Berlin, to name but three, could not allow that to happen, so Yes I think an invasion of the Baltics would see a swift and significant military response, as well as sanctions etc. NATO and/or EU membership is the Red Line. I'm sure Putin knows this, he's not insane (though Merkel has hinted that he's gone slightly doo-lally).
Spot on. And for all the same reasons the Chinese will not invade Taiwan.
I think that used to be true. I'm not sure about now. I want to believe and agree with you, but I'm honestly not sure these days if the whole of NATO would mobilise to defend the Baltic states. It's never been tested.
A lot of talk on here today about how the military move of the Russians into sovereign Ukrainian territory reflects the wishes of the population.
Has anyone actually asked them? Or are people basing this opinion purely on seeing the 'protestors' raise the Russian flag on government buildings on the news, with a few hundred 'supporters' cheering them on?
There have been no elections to show support for the Maidan revolutionaries either.
A lot of talk on here today about how the military move of the Russians into sovereign Ukrainian territory reflects the wishes of the population.
Has anyone actually asked them? Or are people basing this opinion purely on seeing the 'protestors' raise the Russian flag on government buildings on the news, with a few hundred 'supporters' cheering them on?
There have been no elections to show support for the Maidan revolutionaries either.
Neither side has a democratic mandate..
Sorry, you're right: I forgot. The 'Maidan' revolutionaries have also invaded a foreign adjoining sovereign state with their military forces in defiance of international law. How silly of me.
Who asked the Crimeans if they could overthrow the govt ?
No-one overthrew the government. A parliamentary vote decided to remove the president. That vote was unanimous.
Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
The Crimea was always part of Russia. It was only in 1954 that Krushchev, on a whim, decided that it should be part of the Ukrainian Soviet Federation. It is Russian speaking and thinking. It would be as if Northumberland had for some bizarre administrative reason become part of Scotland in the 1950s and the English deciding, upon Scottish independence, that actually they still consider it English – as do the people of Northumberland.
"always" in the sense "since it was conquered" and "Russian speaking" in the sense of "once Stalin forceably deported the original residents because he was worried about their residual loyalty to the Khanate"
But that's the reality today Charles are we going to re-deport people ? If not then we have to ignore history and deal with what we have and that's a clear Russian majority.
No, the residents of Crimea are 100% Ukrainian, a portion of whom speak Russian.
If you establish the principle that Russia can unilaterally intervene to protect people of its ethnicity/language when the Russian state itself is not threatened then we are in very dangerous territory
The principle's already established. The residents of Kosovo are 100% Serbian some of whom speak Albanian. The residents of Crossmaglen are 100% British some of whom think of themselves as Irish. We're more than capable of putting the shoe on the other foot when it suits us.
As a country which has decolonised lots of places I'd have thought it would be better to look at the process and recognise things are probably easier when the borders are drawn as close as possible to the ethnic make up of the country. The Ukraine's borders aren't.
Probably, yes. But there is a huge difference between what you are saying and what the Russians are doing. It would probably be quite sensible for Ukraine to either have a federation or to have a vote on independence (in the same way it makes sense for the Scots to vote on independence). It is completely unacceptable for Russia to forment rebellion in an independent state on spurious grounds.
Kosovo was a special case - Western intervention followed (IIRC) ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. So far, the Russians haven't that recently.
Funny how Western interventions are always a special case.
I do like PB split on the right however, The Oxbridgers all want to kick ass from their armchairs and the others all say let them sort it out themselves.
Good news from Spain! The PMI number expanded to 52.5 in February from 52.2 in January. More importantly, Spanish manufacturing employment (i.e. actual jobs) increased for the second month in a row. From 2007 until last month, manufacturing employment fell every month (on a seasonally adjusted basis) - that has now reversed.
All eyes on Spain and none on the UK, Robert?
Tsk! Tsk! as Gildas might have said.
The Markit/CIPS UK Manufacturing PMI was released an hour later this morning and is surprisingly good news.
We have seen monthly indicators turn down if remain good over the past two to three months so the Manufacturing PMI's rise was a welcome change, with it moving up to 56.9 from a revised 56.6 in January, to record the highest level since May 2011.
Not a massive leap but at least one in the right direction. New Orders and Employment both up with Job Creation recording a 33 month high. The main engine has been the domestic market but exports also posted a gain if down from January. Firms reported new export orders up from a broad range of markets: US, China, the Middle East and Africa as well as Europe.
February may have been the month of floods but it is clear George can walk on water.
A lot of talk on here today about how the military move of the Russians into sovereign Ukrainian territory reflects the wishes of the population.
Has anyone actually asked them? Or are people basing this opinion purely on seeing the 'protestors' raise the Russian flag on government buildings on the news, with a few hundred 'supporters' cheering them on?
There have been no elections to show support for the Maidan revolutionaries either.
A lot of talk on here today about how the military move of the Russians into sovereign Ukrainian territory reflects the wishes of the population.
Has anyone actually asked them? Or are people basing this opinion purely on seeing the 'protestors' raise the Russian flag on government buildings on the news, with a few hundred 'supporters' cheering them on?
There have been no elections to show support for the Maidan revolutionaries either.
Neither side has a democratic mandate..
Sorry, you're right: I forgot. The 'Maidan' revolutionaries have also invaded a foreign adjoining sovereign state with their military forces in defiance of international law. How silly of me.
Who asked the Crimeans if they could overthrow the govt ?
Whoops. Sorry, another mistake I've made - I apologise. I'm a bit off today. I forgot that because a majority of Crimeans voted for Yanukovych in 2010 that means that they don't have to be asked if they want the Russian military to invade and annexe their territory today.
Invading an independent country with the intent to annex territory or set up puppet states, merely because they impeached a leader you got on with. This wasn't a violent seizure of government. It was a parliamentary vote after dozens of unarmed protesters got shot dead on the streets of Kiev, on the orders of the president.
It does make me wonder if anyone would raise an eyebrow if Russia chose to annex a Baltic State, or China chose to invade Taiwan.
There are faults on both sides in this conflict. For the new Ukrainian government to abolish the status of Russian as an official language, and for some of its supporters to parade around in Ukrainian SS uniforms is a red rag to a bull, as far as the ethnic Russian population is concerned. OTOH, no one can seriously say that the Russian population is being persecuted.
It's certainly undesirable to let Russia invade and occupy the sovereign territory of an independent country, with impunity.
It should also be clear to our government (but won't be) that this shouldn't be the moment to disband 20% or our armed forces.
>
Well, if we let the Chinese walk into Hong Kong I don't see why we shouldn't let Peking re-absorb Taiwan - it was part of China for millennia, after all.
As for ring-fencing the military from cuts, what would you cut instead, Sean? Means-test pensions, perhaps?
I'd cut Overseas Aid.
Hong Kong was a negotiated settlement. We could have kept Hong Kong Island but the lease over the New Territories had expired and they contained the water and power system for the island. There was a deal between two sovereign governments, not an invasion by China.
Taiwan argues that it is still the legitimate government of China and the PRC are the rebels... but in any event the people of Taiwan have clearly demonstrated time and again that they want their independence from China.
The elected representatives of the people of Ukraine voted overwhelmingly to fire their President - the current incumbent is clearly interim and there will be elections (? in May). The people of Crimea have not been asked whether they want Russian troops roaming around their region freely and preventing the soldiers of a sovereign Ukraine from leaving their bases
He's not invading a foreign country - yet - despite what the media are saying. There's an agreement to have x thousand Russian troops in the Crimea as part of the base and an agreement they can be moved about a bit in "emergencies" so so far he's skating right along the outer edge of legality.
Do those agreements allow Russian forces to surround Ukrainian military bases and demand that the Ukrainian forces either defect or disarm? I'd be bloody surprised if that was the case. Russia has gone way past any limits of the treaties that govern their actions in and around their bases.
Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
The Crimea was always part of Russia. It was only in 1954 that Krushchev, on a whim, decided that it should be part of the Ukrainian Soviet Federation. It is Russian speaking and thinking. It would be as if Northumberland had for some bizarre administrative reason become part of Scotland in the 1950s and the English deciding, upon Scottish independence, that actually they still consider it English – as do the people of Northumberland.
The better analogy is with Monmouthshire which was annexed by Wales from its historic place in England an on the Oxford Circuit between 1972 and 1974.
That's an interesting thought.
What would be the implications* if Scotland voted YES but, by a very large margin, Dumfries & Galloway voted to remain part of England. Surely there would be a moral case for allowing self-determination?
* I know none in reality, but please play along
Good luck to them then. Given the area is mostly very poor and sparsely populated , to wish to continue their downward spiral would seem counter intuitive to me but no issues with them going if that is what they wanted. Do you think the same re Berwick , Carlisle etc is also applicable
There's been no pressure in England for a vote on independence from Scotland...
I have not heard of D&G wanting to have a referendum to join England either. Why pose the question.
Because it was the most Anglophile part of Scotland I could think of. The question was originally:
IF Scotland votes 'YES' but D&G votes 'No' by a large majority, is it right that D&G should be forced to become independent against their will.
They are not being forced against their will. They are not voting to make D&G independent or not , the vote is "Should Scotland be an Independent Country". So your question is indeed as you say fantasy and therefore irrelevant. If you used that measure Scotland would not have had a Tory government over the last 40 years.
You are deliberately missing the point.
There is a vote as to whether Scotland should remain part of the UK or not. If a there is a clear majority in D&G for remaining in a union with England should their rights not be respected? In the same way that the rights of the people of Donegal were respected.
Ukraine has arguably been Russian since the 9th century, when it was Kievan Rus.
It was certainly part of Russia by the 17th century:
"In 1653 the greater portion of the [Ukrainian] population rebelled against dominantly Polish Catholic rule and in January 1654 an assembly of the people (rada) voted at Pereyaslav to turn to Moscow, effectively joining the southeastern portion of the Polish-Lithuanian empire east of the Dnieper River to Russia.[6]"
It's difficult to argue that Putin is "invading a foreign country", in that light.
That's nonsense.
Even if every single Ukrainian was Putin's half cousin, Russia would still by any logical and legal definition be invading a foreign country.
Is Ukraine part of Russia? No. Has Russia invaded Ukraine? Yes. Therefore Russia has invaded a foreign country.
Why they hell is anybody making excuses for Putin?
See my post below. It's because they either don't want to get involved, and thus need to avoid any moral responsibility in stopping a blatantly imperialist act, or because they instinctively dislike the West, and thus like to back Russia to get back at them. I think the different motives are in different groups of people. The former is more a right-wing and centrist thing while the latter is more for those hard lefties.
I think that used to be true. I'm not sure about now. I want to believe and agree with you, but I'm honestly not sure these days if the whole of NATO would mobilise to defend the Baltic states. It's never been tested.
A strong military needs a strong economy and most western countries including the US spent the last 30 years offshoring their economy. Offshoring their economy has led to the end of Pax Americana and the return of regional superpowers. What people are complaining about now is basically not being able to have their cake and eat it.
"Those guarantees are pretty much worthless, in the post-pax-Americana age when Europe needs Russian gas and China owns most of America's debt (and when the world economy depends on Chinese demand and growth"
Russia is more dependent on Europe for sales than Europe is dependent on Russia for gas.
Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
The Crimea was always part of Russia. It was only in 1954 that Krushchev, on a whim, decided that it should be part of the Ukrainian Soviet Federation. It is Russian speaking and thinking. It would be as if Northumberland had for some bizarre administrative reason become part of Scotland in the 1950s and the English deciding, upon Scottish independence, that actually they still consider it English – as do the people of Northumberland.
The better analogy is with Monmouthshire which was annexed by Wales from its historic place in England an on the Oxford Circuit between 1972 and 1974.
That's an interesting thought.
What would be the implications* if Scotland voted YES but, by a very large margin, Dumfries & Galloway voted to remain part of England. Surely there would be a moral case for allowing self-determination?
* I know none in reality, but please play along
Good luck to them then. Given the area is mostly very poor and sparsely populated , to wish to continue their downward spiral would seem counter intuitive to me but no issues with them going if that is what they wanted. Do you think the same re Berwick , Carlisle etc is also applicable
There's been no pressure in England for a vote on independence from Scotland...
I have not heard of D&G wanting to have a referendum to join England either. Why pose the question.
Because it was the most Anglophile part of Scotland I could think of. The question was originally:
IF Scotland votes 'YES' but D&G votes 'No' by a large majority, is it right that D&G should be forced to become independent against their will.
If Cameron ever has his EU referendum (ho ho) and UK/rUK votes In but Essex Out by a large majority, is it right that Essex should be forced to stay in the EU against their will?
But there is not a redrawing of the borders going on - it's a policy decision that is taken on a national level.
If the people of D&G have a different view about such a fundamental issue then there is a philosophical case that they are part of an English demos rather than a Scottish demos. You could possibly argue this based on their unfortunate habit of voting for Tory MPs...
Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
The Crimea was always part of Russia. It was only in 1954 that Krushchev, on a whim, decided that it should be part of the Ukrainian Soviet Federation. It is Russian speaking and thinking. It would be as if Northumberland had for some bizarre administrative reason become part of Scotland in the 1950s and the English deciding, upon Scottish independence, that actually they still consider it English – as do the people of Northumberland.
"always" in the sense "since it was conquered" and "Russian speaking" in the sense of "once Stalin forceably deported the original residents because he was worried about their residual loyalty to the Khanate"
But that's the reality today Charles are we going to re-deport people ? If not then we have to ignore history and deal with what we have and that's a clear Russian majority.
No, the residents of Crimea are 100% Ukrainian, a portion of whom speak Russian.
If you establish the principle that Russia can unilaterally intervene to protect people of its ethnicity/language when the Russian state itself is not threatened then we are in very dangerous territory
. The Ukraine's borders aren't.
Kosovo was a special case - Western intervention followed (IIRC) ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. So far, the Russians haven't that recently.
Funny how Western interventions are always a special case.
I do like PB split on the right however, The Oxbridgers all want to kick ass from their armchairs and the others all say let them sort it out themselves.
It's also very difficult for America to claim the moral high ground on ANYTHING when Obama has spent the last six years happily vapourising anyone he likes, extra judicially, across the world, with drones - including women and children.
So it's morally OK for the US president to slaughter an anti-American wedding party in Waziristan every month, but it's NOT morally OK for Putin to go into pro-Russian Crimea, so far killing no-one?
How does that work? Can someone explain?
It's funny how people play into arguments already mentioned. When people's defense of Russia's appalling invasion falls apart, they engage in whataboutism and start trying to deflect attention elsewhere.
It's a classic Russian tactic. There's an old Soviet joke:
"Why are food shortages greater this month?" "Because in America, they lynch negroes!"
Ukraine has arguably been Russian since the 9th century, when it was Kievan Rus.
It was certainly part of Russia by the 17th century:
"In 1653 the greater portion of the [Ukrainian] population rebelled against dominantly Polish Catholic rule and in January 1654 an assembly of the people (rada) voted at Pereyaslav to turn to Moscow, effectively joining the southeastern portion of the Polish-Lithuanian empire east of the Dnieper River to Russia.[6]"
It's difficult to argue that Putin is "invading a foreign country", in that light.
That's nonsense.
Even if every single Ukrainian was Putin's half cousin, Russia would still by any logical and legal definition be invading a foreign country.
Is Ukraine part of Russia? No. Has Russia invaded Ukraine? Yes. Therefore Russia has invaded a foreign country.
Why they hell is anybody making excuses for Putin?
See my post below. It's because they either don't want to get involved, and thus need to avoid any moral responsibility in stopping a blatantly imperialist act, or because they instinctively dislike the West, and thus like to back Russia to get back at them. I think the different motives are in different groups of people. The former is more a right-wing and centrist thing while the latter is more for those hard lefties.
He's not invading a foreign country - yet - despite what the media are saying. There's an agreement to have x thousand Russian troops in the Crimea as part of the base and an agreement they can be moved about a bit in "emergencies" so so far he's skating right along the outer edge of legality.
Do those agreements allow Russian forces to surround Ukrainian military bases and demand that the Ukrainian forces either defect or disarm? I'd be bloody surprised if that was the case. Russia has gone way past any limits of the treaties that govern their actions in and around their bases.
Sure. It's a game of chicken and he's winning but it's not - yet - an actual full-on invasion. What he'll do is build up regular forces on the border while trying to get pro-Russian demonstrations / militia in the (relatively) pro-Russian bits. He'll want pro-Yanwotsit Ukrainian militia in the front row the same way the US/EU used anti-Daffy militia in Libya.
Funny how Western interventions are always a special case.
I do like PB split on the right however, The Oxbridgers all want to kick ass from their armchairs and the others all say let them sort it out themselves.
Probably becaue the Oxbridgers all understand the consequences of appeasement!
(By the way, sending in troops is absolutely the wrong thing to do. But that doesn't mean that the current supine response is appropriate either).
I think that used to be true. I'm not sure about now. I want to believe and agree with you, but I'm honestly not sure these days if the whole of NATO would mobilise to defend the Baltic states. It's never been tested.
A strong military needs a strong economy and most western countries including the US spent the last 30 years offshoring their economy. Offshoring their economy has led to the end of Pax Americana and the return of regional superpowers. What people are complaining about now is basically not being able to have their cake and eat it.
Well, the US economy is still remarkably strong. It could choose to maintain its forces at current levels if it wanted to. However, all the demographic - and democratic - pressure in both the US and the UK is the other way: increase spending on healthcare, social security and pensions. And never never get involved in any foreign conflict, which is always seen a choice of bellicose western leaders to grandstand at our expense.
It is very hard politically to maintain our defences with this much complacency in western society, but it's not because we're poor.
Ukraine has arguably been Russian since the 9th century, when it was Kievan Rus.
It was certainly part of Russia by the 17th century:
"In 1653 the greater portion of the [Ukrainian] population rebelled against dominantly Polish Catholic rule and in January 1654 an assembly of the people (rada) voted at Pereyaslav to turn to Moscow, effectively joining the southeastern portion of the Polish-Lithuanian empire east of the Dnieper River to Russia.[6]"
It's difficult to argue that Putin is "invading a foreign country", in that light. This is not Japan attacking Pearl Harbour. Nor is it Hitler blitzing Poland or Saddam assaulting Kuwait. There is no casus belli for us.
No it's Hitler annexing the Sudetenland and then invading the rest of Czechoslovakia.
How about this casus belli ? .... Ukraine decides to re-establish itself as a nuclear power. It has the infrastructure and technical ability to do so. How might we, the US or Russia complain as all would have broken the respective treaties.
Ukraine has arguably been Russian since the 9th century, when it was Kievan Rus.
It was certainly part of Russia by the 17th century:
"In 1653 the greater portion of the [Ukrainian] population rebelled against dominantly Polish Catholic rule and in January 1654 an assembly of the people (rada) voted at Pereyaslav to turn to Moscow, effectively joining the southeastern portion of the Polish-Lithuanian empire east of the Dnieper River to Russia.[6]"
It's difficult to argue that Putin is "invading a foreign country", in that light.
That's nonsense.
Even if every single Ukrainian was Putin's half cousin, Russia would still by any logical and legal definition be invading a foreign country.
Is Ukraine part of Russia? No. Has Russia invaded Ukraine? Yes. Therefore Russia has invaded a foreign country.
Why they hell is anybody making excuses for Putin?
See my post below. It's because they either don't want to get involved, and thus need to avoid any moral responsibility in stopping a blatantly imperialist act, or because they instinctively dislike the West, and thus like to back Russia to get back at them. I think the different motives are in different groups of people. The former is more a right-wing and centrist thing while the latter is more for those hard lefties.
Your definition of moral responsibility is absurd. Am I "morally responsible" for this snake killing this crocodile in Queensland?
We gave the Ukrainians a promise in 1994. Unfortunately the balance of global power has shifted enormously since then, meaning we couldn't stand by this promise, militarily, even if we wanted to (which we don't). That's life. Facts change. Most treaties and promises become meaningless over time.
What a ridiculous analogy. As is clear from your own post, we have made diplomatic guarantees to Ukraine. Thus it's a completely separate situation, even if we ever believed that crocodiles were as important as nations of millions of humans. And your "balance of power" stuff is also bullshit, as Moscow was more powerful in recent memory then as it is today. The guarantees were made in full knowledge that Russia could return to being a major power.
Ukraine has arguably been Russian since the 9th century, when it was Kievan Rus.
It was certainly part of Russia by the 17th century:
"In 1653 the greater portion of the [Ukrainian] population rebelled against dominantly Polish Catholic rule and in January 1654 an assembly of the people (rada) voted at Pereyaslav to turn to Moscow, effectively joining the southeastern portion of the Polish-Lithuanian empire east of the Dnieper River to Russia.[6]"
It's difficult to argue that Putin is "invading a foreign country", in that light. This is not Japan attacking Pearl Harbour. Nor is it Hitler blitzing Poland or Saddam assaulting Kuwait. There is no casus belli for us.
No it's Hitler annexing the Sudetenland and then invading the rest of Czechoslovakia.
How about this casus belli ? .... Ukraine decides to re-establish itself as a nuclear power. It has the infrastructure and technical ability to do so. How might we, the US or Russia complain as all would have broken the respective treaties.
That's actually a good point. This might have serious implications for further nuclear disarmament. Who would trust a word on a treaty the west signs now?
On another note, given how weak our defences now are, I'd certainly want to keep our own deterrent 'live' for at least the next 30 years.
"At the end of the party’s spring conference the delegates assembled for their gala dinner, where they were entertained by a comedian called Paul Eastwood.
Milking what the Telegraph’s Steve Swinford described as “rapturous applause”, Eastwood told the following jokes.
Referring to the Olympics, Eastwood said: “Poland did well. They took home bronze, silver, gold, lead, copper – anything they could get their hands on.”
“Team Somalia – they did well, didn’t they? They had to apologise. Didn’t realise sailing and shooting were two different events.”"
"mplying the Midlands was mostly populated by Asian people he said: “Any Midlands people here? Wonderful! My favourite accent is a Midlands accent.” The comedian then tried to do an Asian accent and branded the Islamic call to prayer a “traditional Midlands folk song”."
I have been collecting the 2010 change data from each Populus poll. My simple average on the change data for Feb is within 1% of what I assume is a weighted data analysis in that table.
The interesting item to note is that only 65% of those who voted UKIP in 2010 plan to vote for them again. That is better than C 63% and LD 28% but worse than L 78%. The is still a very large don't know 22% in the 2010 LD vote compared with 12% for C and 8% for the others.
I see that Godwin's law is getting a good airing today.
Does that really count in situations not to dissimilar to what occurred in the thirties with the Sudetenland?
Right, this has been my issue in the whole debate. I do think that there are certain people that describe every situation in international relations as a 1930s moment. Usually it is horrifically over played. But the parallels here are so clear: a formerly great power trying to recover prestige by invading its neighbour, in order to protect an ethnic minority that was under no danger at all. Meanwhile those trying to avoid responsibility for a response do it on the basis that it is "far away", that its inevitable for major powers to dominate their neighbours, that we do not want to risk war, that the autocrat wouldn't dare do anything further, etc etc.
The idea of plaid generally has been around a very long time. You'd get it without trying simply by weaving several different colours of thread together. The bagpipes likewise originated in the Middle East.
A more specific claim about tartan is that the well-known "traditionally Scottish" ones were all in fact invented by the English. This one is very well documented.
In the 18th century, as an aid to recruitment and to esprit de corps, the army directed its tailors to come up with a uniform for its Scottish regiments that was intended to appear characteristically Scots.
The English military tailors of the Strand and Piccadilly had no idea what this entailed, so they guessed, coming up with oddities such as a feather bonnet with "Highland dicing" around it, and knee length socks rolled over the tops of the gaiters with the same dicing. They had vaguely heard of tartan, but this being the army, everyone in the regiment was going to wear the same tartan, and the army as a whole was going to use the same base designs. So they came up with a range of patterns that all use the existing British army colour palette of the day.
Thus there was "Government" sett, which was Garter Blue with a Rifle Green check. The Sutherland Highlanders wore Government sett with an overstripe of yellow, which was the colour of their facings, yellow being the commonest such colour among line infantry regiments.
Royal Stewart sett was British scarlet with white, Garter Blue and Rifle Green overstripes. Etc, etc, etc. Government sett, or "Black Watch tartan" as the uninformed tend to call it, is thus as authentically Scottish as borshcht or bratwurst.
The idea that these are in any way related to names or clans is simply a retrofit based on the fact that recruitment for the army was regional. Thus you would end up with a lot of people all called MacPsmith in this regiment or that. Kitted out with the English-designed sett, they then all became convinced that the MacPsmith tartan was so called because it had been invented by the Clan MacPsmith, rather than having been given by the English to a regiment with a lot of persuade them to enlist.
So the English didn't invent tartan but neither did the Scots; the English did however invent all the famous ones, and any invented in Scotland since cannot in any seriousness be called traditional or authentic.
I see that Godwin's law is getting a good airing today.
Does that really count in situations not to dissimilar to what occurred in the thirties with the Sudetenland?
It's a pretty tenuous analogy. The Sudetenland had never formed part of a unified Germany before 1938.
The Crimea had been part of Russia from 1783 to 1954. It was transferred to Ukraine at a time when Ukraine was a federal state under Moscow's sovereignty. The distinction only became important when the USSR collapsed in 1991. Since then it has always been an autonomous region of Ukraine, but even in that time there has been more than one local attempt to explore a transfer to Russian sovereignty.
I believe that we should oppose a redrawing of Ukraine's borders, but it is unhelpful to see current events through the prism of specific historical events with particular historical overtones.
I see that Godwin's law is getting a good airing today.
Does that really count in situations not to dissimilar to what occurred in the thirties with the Sudetenland?
Right, this has been my issue in the whole debate. I do think that there are certain people that describe every situation in international relations as a 1930s moment. Usually it is horrifically over played. But the parallels here are so clear: a formerly great power trying to recover prestige by invading its neighbour, in order to protect an ethnic minority that was under no danger at all. Meanwhile those trying to avoid responsibility for a response do it on the basis that it is "far away", that its inevitable for major powers to dominate their neighbours, that we do not want to risk war, that the autocrat wouldn't dare do anything further, etc etc.
Ukraine has arguably been Russian since the 9th century, when it was Kievan Rus.
It was certainly part of Russia by the 17th century:
"In 1653 the greater portion of the [Ukrainian] population rebelled against dominantly Polish Catholic rule and in January 1654 an assembly of the people (rada) voted at Pereyaslav to turn to Moscow, effectively joining the southeastern portion of the Polish-Lithuanian empire east of the Dnieper River to Russia.[6]"
It's difficult to argue that Putin is "invading a foreign country", in that light.
Why they hell is anybody making excuses for Putin?
See my post below. It's because they either don't want to get involved, and thus need to avoid any moral responsibility in stopping a blatantly imperialist act, or because they instinctively dislike the West, and thus like to back Russia to get back at them. I think the different motives are in different groups of people. The former is more a right-wing and centrist thing while the latter is more for those hard lefties.
). That's life. Facts change. Most treaties and promises become meaningless over time.
And your "balance of power" stuff is also bullshit, as Moscow was more powerful in recent memory then as it is today. The guarantees were made in full knowledge that Russia could return to being a major power.
Russia was weaker in the mid 1990s than at any time in the decades before or since (probably weaker than at any time since the Second world War), partly thanks to political chaos (and bloody borders) but also because of the post-Soviet economic collapse, which bottomed out in.... 1994.
So in 1994 we could envisage, maybe, telling Russia to bog off, and the Russians under Yelstin were desperate for peace with the West, so they could rebuild.
In 2014 Russia is much stronger and richer compared to Russia two decades ago.
Anyway as I said I must go and do some work, meanwhile, why don't you toddle off and fight your silly war yourself, you ridiculous, anonymous, blowharding pig's-bladder. You seem so keen I'm not sure what's stopping you. You could lead the first Regiment of PB-ers Against Putin.
That's it: come and have a go if you think we're not hard enough.
Russians announcing that all 800 personnel, 60 planes and the command structure of the Ukrainian air force presence in Crimea have sworn allegiance to the government of the Autonomous Region of Crimea and that they will no longer be accepting orders from the "illegal" Ukrainian Government in Kiev.
Yesterday it was the Ukrainian Navy with the Admiral commanding the Ukrainian fleet in the Crimea resigning and all Ukrainian ships remaining loyal to Kiev sailing out of port.
It looks as if the 'annexation' of the Crimea is complete militarily and not a shot has been fired.
A plebiscite on secession is scheduled for March 30th. By April the internal political debate will be resolved in the Crimea.
The realpolitik is that the Crimea is now back in Russia's hands.
This is a good article from Peter Kellner. It's interesting just how monolithic SNP support for independence is, and Con/Lib Dem/Lab opposition to independence.
Whereas in the past, there've been significant numbers of SNP supporters who don't favour independence, and supporters of the other parties who support it, that no longer seems to be the case.
It's a pretty tenuous analogy. The Sudetenland had never formed part of a unified Germany before 1938.
That's not true. Along with the rest of Bohemia, it had been part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation for centuries. That was certainly clear in German rhetoric, the HRE was considered the "First Reich" to which Nazi Germany was the Third.
I see that Godwin's law is getting a good airing today.
Does that really count in situations not to dissimilar to what occurred in the thirties with the Sudetenland?
It's a pretty tenuous analogy. The Sudetenland had never formed part of a unified Germany before 1938.
The Crimea had been part of Russia from 1783 to 1954. It was transferred to Ukraine at a time when Ukraine was a federal state under Moscow's sovereignty. The distinction only became important when the USSR collapsed in 1991. Since then it has always been an autonomous region of Ukraine, but even in that time there has been more than one local attempt to explore a transfer to Russian sovereignty.
I believe that we should oppose a redrawing of Ukraine's borders, but it is unhelpful to see current events through the prism of specific historical events with particular historical overtones.
Although it* was part of the Habsburg family holdings since 1526 which it became a constituent state of the Habsburg Monarchy. A key part of the Holy Roman Empire** as well. So definitely part of the German world, even if not technically part of Germany (which didn't exist until 1871 anyway).
* I don't know my Czech geography, so I've assumed Sudetenland is part of Bohemia-Moravia... I'm sure I will be corrected shortly...
** Which, of course, was not Holy, Roman or an Empire.
Ukraine has arguably been Russian since the 9th century, when it was Kievan Rus.
It was certainly part of Russia by the 17th century:
"In 1653 the greater portion of the [Ukrainian] population rebelled against dominantly Polish Catholic rule and in January 1654 an assembly of the people (rada) voted at Pereyaslav to turn to Moscow, effectively joining the southeastern portion of the Polish-Lithuanian empire east of the Dnieper River to Russia.[6]"
It's difficult to argue that Putin is "invading a foreign country", in that light.
Why they hell is anybody making excuses for Putin?
See my post below. It's because they either don't want to get involved, and thus need to avoid any moral responsibility in stopping a blatantly imperialist act, or because they instinctively dislike the West, and thus like to back Russia to get back at them. I think the different motives are in different groups of people. The former is more a right-wing and centrist thing while the latter is more for those hard lefties.
). That's life. Facts change. Most treaties and promises become meaningless over time.
And your "balance of power" stuff is also bullshit, as Moscow was more powerful in recent memory then as it is today. The guarantees were made in full knowledge that Russia could return to being a major power.
Russia was weaker in the mid 1990s than at any time in the decades before or since (probably weaker than at any time since the Second world War), partly thanks to political chaos (and bloody borders) but also because of the post-Soviet economic collapse, which bottomed out in.... 1994.
So in 1994 we could envisage, maybe, telling Russia to bog off, and the Russians under Yelstin were desperate for peace with the West, so they could rebuild.
In 2014 Russia is much stronger and richer compared to Russia two decades ago.
Right, but given that the USSR was the world's second superpower just give years prior, the diplomats that got that agreement in place did so on the very clear understanding that Russia could easily be a major dominant force again in short order. That was the whole reason Ukraine needed the guarantee to give up its nuclear weapons, which it considered needing as protection against a future Russian attack.
Why are we opposing Russia's meddling in Crimea when we didn't do anything meaningful about either Transnistria or South Ossetia?
The best answer seems to revolve around the Budapest memorandum. First, how much do the UK and the USA want to ensure that their word is seen as binding on them? Secondly, what message does it send out about showing seriousness about nuclear non-proliferation - and getting others to give up the security of nuclear defence in future?
Both of these are very important points. For this reason, the UK and the USA must come up with something that hurts Russia badly. Both countries have to be seen to be taking their obligations very seriously.
I see that Godwin's law is getting a good airing today.
I refuse to kowtow before the alter of Godwin. That said, if we do nothing, this won't be the last time we see flagrant Russian expansionism. And others with a bit of muscle and weaker neighbours worldwide will be encouraged too. It will greatly diminish our future global influence, to the detriment of any fledging democracy seeking to establish itself, and that IMHO is a dangerous thing for us all, long-term.
It goes without saying that it would also be a huge betrayal of the Ukrainians.
Wouldn't pb have been fun in the autumn of 1938. Mr Churchill would have had few friends here: I dread to think of the epithets flung at him by Sean Thomas.
And Mike would have had least three Liberal parties from which to choose.
Why are we opposing Russia's meddling in Crimea when we didn't do anything meaningful about either Transnistria or South Ossetia?
The best answer seems to revolve around the Budapest memorandum. First, how much do the UK and the USA want to ensure that their word is seen as binding on them? Secondly, what message does it send out about showing seriousness about nuclear non-proliferation - and getting others to give up the security of nuclear defence in future?
Both of these are very important points. For this reason, the UK and the USA must come up with something that hurts Russia badly. Both countries have to be seen to be taking their obligations very seriously.
Witholding tax on Russian gas revenues?
30% tax on the capital value of Kensington houses owned directly or indirectly by Russian citizens?
Wouldn't pb have been fun in the autumn of 1938. Mr Churchill would have had few friends here: I dread to think of the epithets flung at him by Sean Thomas.
And Mike would have had least three Liberal parties from which to choose.
I've always wondered what the PB Thread during the Norway Debate would have looked like.
Why are we opposing Russia's meddling in Crimea when we didn't do anything meaningful about either Transnistria or South Ossetia?
The best answer seems to revolve around the Budapest memorandum. First, how much do the UK and the USA want to ensure that their word is seen as binding on them? Secondly, what message does it send out about showing seriousness about nuclear non-proliferation - and getting others to give up the security of nuclear defence in future?
Both of these are very important points. For this reason, the UK and the USA must come up with something that hurts Russia badly. Both countries have to be seen to be taking their obligations very seriously.
Witholding tax on Russian gas revenues?
30% tax on the capital value of Kensington houses owned directly or indirectly by Russian citizens?
Mainly Russians that are trying to keep their money out of reach of Moscow...
I see that Godwin's law is getting a good airing today.
I refuse to kowtow before the alter of Godwin. That said, if we do nothing, this won't be the last time we see flagrant Russian expansionism. And others with a bit of muscle and weaker neighbours worldwide will be encouraged too. It will greatly diminish our future global influence, to the detriment of any fledging democracy seeking to establish itself, and that IMHO is a dangerous thing for us all, long-term.
It goes without saying that it would also be a huge betrayal of the Ukrainians.
21th century world-politics is proving to be very grim indeed for the future. An economic and militarily spent West increasing impotent in the face of those with the will to exert pressure on others.
I certainly agree that the UK's front in this dispute is best opened in W2, SW1 and SW3. When the oligarchs' wives' shopping is disrupted, it should concentrate minds wonderfully.
Russians announcing that all 800 personnel, 60 planes and the command structure of the Ukrainian air force presence in Crimea have sworn allegiance to the government of the Autonomous Region of Crimea and that they will no longer be accepting orders from the "illegal" Ukrainian Government in Kiev.
Yesterday it was the Ukrainian Navy with the Admiral commanding the Ukrainian fleet in the Crimea resigning and all Ukrainian ships remaining loyal to Kiev sailing out of port.
It looks as if the 'annexation' of the Crimea is complete militarily and not a shot has been fired.
A plebiscite on secession is scheduled for March 30th. By April the internal political debate will be resolved in the Crimea.
The realpolitik is that the Crimea is now back in Russia's hands.
The plebiscite later this month will, of course, be a free, fair and honest referendum.
Why are we opposing Russia's meddling in Crimea when we didn't do anything meaningful about either Transnistria or South Ossetia?
The best answer seems to revolve around the Budapest memorandum. First, how much do the UK and the USA want to ensure that their word is seen as binding on them? Secondly, what message does it send out about showing seriousness about nuclear non-proliferation - and getting others to give up the security of nuclear defence in future?
Both of these are very important points. For this reason, the UK and the USA must come up with something that hurts Russia badly. Both countries have to be seen to be taking their obligations very seriously.
Witholding tax on Russian gas revenues?
30% tax on the capital value of Kensington houses owned directly or indirectly by Russian citizens?
Mainly Russians that are trying to keep their money out of reach of Moscow...
Not any more.
Although I may have some self-interest in trying to make houses in Kensington more affordable...
Why are we opposing Russia's meddling in Crimea when we didn't do anything meaningful about either Transnistria or South Ossetia?
The best answer seems to revolve around the Budapest memorandum. First, how much do the UK and the USA want to ensure that their word is seen as binding on them? Secondly, what message does it send out about showing seriousness about nuclear non-proliferation - and getting others to give up the security of nuclear defence in future?
Both of these are very important points. For this reason, the UK and the USA must come up with something that hurts Russia badly. Both countries have to be seen to be taking their obligations very seriously.
There's also the case that Transnistria occurred in the break-up of the USSR, where far greater upheaval was going on, and that Georgia was a muddy situation, where Georgia instigated the military action first. In this situation however, Ukraine hasn't done anything wrong. Just look at this thread: the worst crimes alleged by the pro-Russian side are that (1) Ukraine removed Russian as an official language (which they didn't do), and (2) that a few civilians wore SS uniforms.
It is both laughable and worrying the way in which Kippers have a man crush on Vladimir Putin.
I don't think that's true at all. Two of the most thoughtful posters on this site - and both UKIP supporters - have very different views on what is the right thing (TM) to do re the Ukraine.
I certainly agree that the UK's front in this dispute is best opened in W2, SW1 and SW3. When the oligarchs' wives' shopping is disrupted, it should concentrate minds wonderfully.
In the independence referenda scheduled for 30 March, Crimean residents will be asked, inter alia, whether they wish to change their time zone to align with Moscow's. At present Crimea is two hours behind Moscow.
I certainly agree that the UK's front in this dispute is best opened in W2, SW1 and SW3. When the oligarchs' wives' shopping is disrupted, it should concentrate minds wonderfully.
You are right, time to nationalise Chelsea FC, and sell off their assets and use the money to build up our armed forces.
As with that the populus poll and with a few other pollsters, anyone else finding it astonishing that the Tories are 2/3% below where they polled in 2010, but UKIP are up 9%?
Yes. Whatever one thinks, the taunts of cowardice are off-key, unless the poster is willing to take up arms himself and engage with the Red Army.
This is a fair criticism and I will admit to being guilty here. I have tried to find a less emotive word for "cowardness" for a more mild version, but have been unable to think of one. I have instead used "unwillingness to stick our necks out" in some posts, but that's a bit of a mouthful.
For this reason, the UK and the USA must come up with something that hurts Russia badly. Both countries have to be seen to be taking their obligations very seriously.
Why? The Crimea is Russian. But stuck in the Ukraine politically. The elected scumbag got kicked out because he was no longer acceptable to the western facing Catholic Ukrainians. But he was the man the Russia facing Russian ethnic eastern Ukrainians voted for. Their elected man got deposed in a coup by their political and cultural opponents. Add that to the fact that the whole Crimea is only part ofthe Ukraine since 1954 because of a Krushchev brainfart and you can see that to the Russians and Russian minded Crimeans the regime in Kiev is not really their master.
Part of the prblem is that the Catholic western facing Ukrainians are a bunch of useless violent corrupt scumbags too. Timoshenko may look like an angel but hers was a deeply unlikable regime.
I think splitting the Ukraine would leave things alot more stable and peaceful for all afterwards. It's Belgium with nukes.
Russians announcing that all 800 personnel, 60 planes and the command structure of the Ukrainian air force presence in Crimea have sworn allegiance to the government of the Autonomous Region of Crimea and that they will no longer be accepting orders from the "illegal" Ukrainian Government in Kiev.
Yesterday it was the Ukrainian Navy with the Admiral commanding the Ukrainian fleet in the Crimea resigning and all Ukrainian ships remaining loyal to Kiev sailing out of port.
It looks as if the 'annexation' of the Crimea is complete militarily and not a shot has been fired.
A plebiscite on secession is scheduled for March 30th. By April the internal political debate will be resolved in the Crimea.
The realpolitik is that the Crimea is now back in Russia's hands.
The plebiscite later this month will, of course, be a free, fair and honest referendum.
Of course it will.
Russia and their satellite government in Crimea, who will organise the vote, have absolutely no incentive to hold anything but "a free, fair and honest" referendum.
The vast majority Crimean residents have wanted in the past and continue to want to be part of Russia. The referendum is purely a means of formalising the known will of the people at an opportune political moment.
Whatever side you take in this dispute, there is no question that the Russian speaking regions of Crimea and, only to a slightly lesser extent, the East of the UKraine would prefer to be part of Russia than the Ukraine.
O/T - it does seem that the Conservatives have ticked-up to c.34% over the last 2-3 weeks.
That's quite interesting. They only need to tick up a further 3% by May 2015 to exceed the 2010 GE poll. It looks do'able.
Question is, of course, what happens to Labour. I'm still feeling a GE result that's something like: Con - 37%, Lab - 33.5%, LD - 15%, UKIP - 8.5%. Tories squeak ahead on seats (aided by 1st time incumbancy and a late swing in key marginals) to within the 285-305 boundary.
Wouldn't pb have been fun in the autumn of 1938. Mr Churchill would have had few friends here: I dread to think of the epithets flung at him by Sean Thomas.
And Mike would have had least three Liberal parties from which to choose.
I've always wondered what the PB Thread during the Norway Debate would have looked like.
The Norway Debate in May 1940 that presaged Churchill becoming Prime Minister is one of the most dramatic in parliamentary history.
Immense contributions from Admiral Sir Roger Keyes (in full uniform), Leo Amery and one of the final great speeches from Lloyd George.
The Wiki article is a useful guide to the theatre and drama of the event :
For this reason, the UK and the USA must come up with something that hurts Russia badly. Both countries have to be seen to be taking their obligations very seriously.
Why? The Crimea is Russian. But stuck in the Ukraine politically. The elected scumbag got kicked out because he was no longer acceptable to the western facing Catholic Ukrainians. But he was the man the Russia facing Russian ethnic eastern Ukrainians voted for. Their elected man got deposed in a coup by their political and cultural opponents.
This is completely untrue. Let me count the ways:
1. Crimea is Ukrainian, within Ukrainian borders and has been actively endorsed by Russia as such on three separate occasions since the dissolution of the USSR.
2. Western-facing Ukrainians are not Catholic, considering Catholics are just 6% of the population.
3. The "scumbag" that got kicked out was not because he was "no longer acceptable" to the Western-leaning Ukrainians - they always disliked him and had left him in power for four years. The thing that changed was that he had unarmed civilians killed on the streets after an order to use live rounds on them.
4. Most eastern Ukrainians actually speak Ukrainian. Only a minority speak Russian, but most of them are still Ukrainian ethnically.
5. There was no "coup" and no violence in the removal of Yanukovych from power. Parliament voted to remove him and he then fled the country.
6. The people that voted to remove him were not the "political and cultural opponents" of eastern Ukrainians. The vote was unanimous, including MPs from the eastern Party of the Regions party. The latter also removed him from leadership of their party, such was their disgust at this tyrannical orders.
O/T - it does seem that the Conservatives have ticked-up to c.34% over the last 2-3 weeks.
That's quite interesting. They only need to tick up a further 3% by May 2015 to exceed the 2010 GE poll. It looks do'able.
Question is, of course, what happens to Labour. I'm still feeling a GE result that's something like: Con - 37%, Lab - 33.5%, LD - 15%, UKIP - 8.5%. Tories squeak ahead on seats (aided by 1st time incumbancy and a late swing in key marginals) to within the 285-305 boundary.
That result Baxtered, would lead to
Con 301, Lab 295, LD 27, UKIP 0.
Nightmare scenario, because of the Shinners, The LDs could form a coalition with either Lab or the Tories.
But either combination would have a tiny majority, can't see that lasting a full parliament.
O/T - it does seem that the Conservatives have ticked-up to c.34% over the last 2-3 weeks.
That's quite interesting. They only need to tick up a further 3% by May 2015 to exceed the 2010 GE poll. It looks do'able.
Question is, of course, what happens to Labour. I'm still feeling a GE result that's something like: Con - 37%, Lab - 33.5%, LD - 15%, UKIP - 8.5%. Tories squeak ahead on seats (aided by 1st time incumbancy and a late swing in key marginals) to within the 285-305 boundary.
Are you a betting man?
What price would you say Lib Dems are to beat UKIP in vote share?
I certainly agree that the UK's front in this dispute is best opened in W2, SW1 and SW3. When the oligarchs' wives' shopping is disrupted, it should concentrate minds wonderfully.
Aren't these oligarchs mostly fairly anti-Putin ?
No. The Kensington Russians are middle class oligarchs who remain employed in Putin's Russia.
It is John O who houses most of the Yeltsin era anti-Putin aristocratic oligarchs. Englefield Green, Virginia Water and Woking and the dogging country of Esher are where the aristocratic palaces are located.
Do a search for "country houses" on Savills or Knight, Frank and you will quickly see that great estates of yore have been replaced by one acre manor houses of the home counties at the top of the value list.
Wouldn't pb have been fun in the autumn of 1938. Mr Churchill would have had few friends here: I dread to think of the epithets flung at him by Sean Thomas.
And Mike would have had least three Liberal parties from which to choose.
I've always wondered what the PB Thread during the Norway Debate would have looked like.
The Norway Debate in May 1940 that presaged Churchill becoming Prime Minister is one of the most dramatic in parliamentary history.
Immense contributions from Admiral Sir Roger Keyes (in full uniform), Leo Amery and one of the final great speeches from Lloyd George.
The Wiki article is a useful guide to the theatre and drama of the event :
Even among those parts that speak Russian, they are still majority ethnic Ukrainians, unlike the Russian ethnic majority in Crimea. (Think of the south Welsh speaking English.)
While it's true they voted for Yanukovych in 2010, that in no way means they wish to leave their country. It's not even clear that the majority there are still Yanukovych supporters, seeing as their MPs decided to vote to remove him from power, and likely would not have done so if it was against their constituents' views.
The idea of plaid generally has been around a very long time. You'd get it without trying simply by weaving several different colours of thread together. The bagpipes likewise originated in the Middle East.
A more specific claim about tartan is that the well-known "traditionally Scottish" ones were all in fact invented by the English. This one is very well documented.
In the 18th century, as an aid to recruitment and to esprit de corps, the army directed its tailors to come up with a uniform for its Scottish regiments that was intended to appear characteristically Scots.
The English military tailors of the Strand and Piccadilly had no idea what this entailed, so they guessed, coming up with oddities such as a feather bonnet with "Highland dicing" around it, and knee length socks rolled over the tops of the gaiters with the same dicing. They had vaguely heard of tartan, but this being the army, everyone in the regiment was going to wear the same tartan, and the army as a whole was going to use the same base designs. So they came up with a range of patterns that all use the existing British army colour palette of the day.
Thus there was "Government" sett, which was Garter Blue with a Rifle Green check. The Sutherland Highlanders wore Government sett with an overstripe of yellow, which was the colour of their facings, yellow being the commonest such colour among line infantry regiments.
Royal Stewart sett was British scarlet with white, Garter Blue and Rifle Green overstripes. Etc, etc, etc. Government sett, or "Black Watch tartan" as the uninformed tend to call it, is thus as authentically Scottish as borshcht or bratwurst.
The idea that these are in any way related to names or clans is simply a retrofit based on the fact that recruitment for the army was regional. Thus you would end up with a lot of people all called MacPsmith in this regiment or that. Kitted out with the English-designed sett, they then all became convinced that the MacPsmith tartan was so called because it had been invented by the Clan MacPsmith, rather than having been given by the English to a regiment with a lot of persuade them to enlist.
So the English didn't invent tartan but neither did the Scots; the English did however invent all the famous ones, and any invented in Scotland since cannot in any seriousness be called traditional or authentic.
Fair enough, but real highlanders (as opposed to the Piccadilly and USA varieties don't take the clan tartan thing very seriously anyway. I don't see JackW or easterross proposing a horsewhipping for someone wrongfully clad in ancient weathered hunting McJockstrap.
As with that the populus poll and with a few other pollsters, anyone else finding it astonishing that the Tories are 2/3% below where they polled in 2010, but UKIP are up 9%?
Is there anywhere that tracks likelyhood to vote - what sort of uptick in turnout would be required for previously uninterested Ukip voters to want to proclaim their democratic right ?
Russians announcing that all 800 personnel, 60 planes and the command structure of the Ukrainian air force presence in Crimea have sworn allegiance to the government of the Autonomous Region of Crimea and that they will no longer be accepting orders from the "illegal" Ukrainian Government in Kiev.
Yesterday it was the Ukrainian Navy with the Admiral commanding the Ukrainian fleet in the Crimea resigning and all Ukrainian ships remaining loyal to Kiev sailing out of port.
It looks as if the 'annexation' of the Crimea is complete militarily and not a shot has been fired.
A plebiscite on secession is scheduled for March 30th. By April the internal political debate will be resolved in the Crimea.
The realpolitik is that the Crimea is now back in Russia's hands.
The plebiscite later this month will, of course, be a free, fair and honest referendum.
Of course it will.
Russia and their satellite government in Crimea, who will organise the vote, have absolutely no incentive to hold anything but "a free, fair and honest" referendum.
The vast majority Crimean residents have wanted in the past and continue to want to be part of Russia. The referendum is purely a means of formalising the known will of the people at an opportune political moment.
Whatever side you take in this dispute, there is no question that the Russian speaking regions of Crimea and, only to a slightly lesser extent, the East of the UKraine would prefer to be part of Russia than the Ukraine.
You may not like it, but them's the facts.
Errm, no. Those 'facts' are just your strongly held, and only partly-informed (I'm being generous) opinions, and have not come close to being established. Even if if you were correct, they would not be the 'vast majority' since the number of ethnic Russians is barely just over 50%. And not even all of them want to join Russia - if there had been a majority, the Crimean constitution would not have held water over the last 20 years and several of the initiatives launched to encourage Crimea to join Russia migh have succeeded.
Your point on Russia having no incentive but to hold a free vote amused me. Putin had even more of an 'incentive' to be honestly elected President of Russia by as many Russians as possible.
It still didn't stop him and his United Russia party using intimidation to ensure as many voters as possible, right across Russia, backed him - with a nice little dusting of ballot rigging by preventing opponents standing, and getting to the polls to vote, as well.
O/T - it does seem that the Conservatives have ticked-up to c.34% over the last 2-3 weeks.
That's quite interesting. They only need to tick up a further 3% by May 2015 to exceed the 2010 GE poll. It looks do'able.
Question is, of course, what happens to Labour. I'm still feeling a GE result that's something like: Con - 37%, Lab - 33.5%, LD - 15%, UKIP - 8.5%. Tories squeak ahead on seats (aided by 1st time incumbancy and a late swing in key marginals) to within the 285-305 boundary.
That result Baxtered, would lead to
Con 301, Lab 295, LD 27, UKIP 0.
Nightmare scenario, because of the Shinners, The LDs could form a coalition with either Lab or the Tories.
But either combination would have a tiny majority, can't see that lasting a full parliament.
True, but Baxtering does not an election result make. I very much doubt the Lib-Dems will drop below 40 seats, or Labour top a net 30 gains, given all the local and incumbency factors, so the Tories should be set-up ok for a (much weaker) renewal of the coalition agreement, albeit on a overall majority of 20-ish.
The question is whether both parties would go for it again. Hmm.
Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
an on the Oxford Circuit between 1972 and 1974.
That's an interesting thought.
What would be the implications* if Scotland voted YES but, by a very large margin, Dumfries & Galloway voted to remain part of England. Surely there would be a moral case for allowing self-determination?
* I know none in reality, but please play along
There's been no pressure in England for a vote on independence from Scotland...
I have not heard of D&G wanting to have a referendum to join England either. Why pose the question.
IF Scotland votes 'YES' but D&G votes 'No' by a large majority, is it right that D&G should be forced to become independent against their will.
They are not being forced against their will. They are not voting to make D&G independent or not , the vote is "Should Scotland be an Independent Country". So your question is indeed as you say fantasy and therefore irrelevant. If you used that measure Scotland would not have had a Tory government over the last 40 years.
You are deliberately missing the point.
There is a vote as to whether Scotland should remain part of the UK or not. If a there is a clear majority in D&G for remaining in a union with England should their rights not be respected? In the same way that the rights of the people of Donegal were respected.
No you are deliberately missing the point. Can you point me to any information on where there is a referendum on D&G to become English or stay Scottish. You also failed to answer why we get a Tory government when we never vote for one
I certainly agree that the UK's front in this dispute is best opened in W2, SW1 and SW3. When the oligarchs' wives' shopping is disrupted, it should concentrate minds wonderfully.
Aren't these oligarchs mostly fairly anti-Putin ?
yes because he would want to take back the money they stole and are laundering in London
Comments
I do like PB split on the right however, The Oxbridgers all want to kick ass from their armchairs and the others all say let them sort it out themselves.
I think that used to be true. I'm not sure about now. I want to believe and agree with you, but I'm honestly not sure these days if the whole of NATO would mobilise to defend the Baltic states. It's never been tested.
Tsk! Tsk! as Gildas might have said.
The Markit/CIPS UK Manufacturing PMI was released an hour later this morning and is surprisingly good news.
We have seen monthly indicators turn down if remain good over the past two to three months so the Manufacturing PMI's rise was a welcome change, with it moving up to 56.9 from a revised 56.6 in January, to record the highest level since May 2011.
Not a massive leap but at least one in the right direction. New Orders and Employment both up with Job Creation recording a 33 month high. The main engine has been the domestic market but exports also posted a gain if down from January. Firms reported new export orders up from a broad range of markets: US, China, the Middle East and Africa as well as Europe.
February may have been the month of floods but it is clear George can walk on water.
I really do need to read up a bit more.
Hong Kong was a negotiated settlement. We could have kept Hong Kong Island but the lease over the New Territories had expired and they contained the water and power system for the island. There was a deal between two sovereign governments, not an invasion by China.
Taiwan argues that it is still the legitimate government of China and the PRC are the rebels... but in any event the people of Taiwan have clearly demonstrated time and again that they want their independence from China.
The elected representatives of the people of Ukraine voted overwhelmingly to fire their President - the current incumbent is clearly interim and there will be elections (? in May). The people of Crimea have not been asked whether they want Russian troops roaming around their region freely and preventing the soldiers of a sovereign Ukraine from leaving their bases
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26417047
There is a vote as to whether Scotland should remain part of the UK or not. If a there is a clear majority in D&G for remaining in a union with England should their rights not be respected? In the same way that the rights of the people of Donegal were respected.
Russia is more dependent on Europe for sales than Europe is dependent on Russia for gas.
If the people of D&G have a different view about such a fundamental issue then there is a philosophical case that they are part of an English demos rather than a Scottish demos. You could possibly argue this based on their unfortunate habit of voting for Tory MPs...
It's a classic Russian tactic. There's an old Soviet joke:
"Why are food shortages greater this month?"
"Because in America, they lynch negroes!"
"It should also be clear to our government (but won't be) that this shouldn't be the moment to disband 20% or our armed forces."
Cheers.
(By the way, sending in troops is absolutely the wrong thing to do. But that doesn't mean that the current supine response is appropriate either).
It is very hard politically to maintain our defences with this much complacency in western society, but it's not because we're poor.
How about this casus belli ? .... Ukraine decides to re-establish itself as a nuclear power. It has the infrastructure and technical ability to do so. How might we, the US or Russia complain as all would have broken the respective treaties.
As thought, they have aggregated all their Feb polls.
http://t.co/ROm5pX3Xzl
On another note, given how weak our defences now are, I'd certainly want to keep our own deterrent 'live' for at least the next 30 years.
Bradley Manning or Bradley Cooper? Guardian could never confuse the two. Or could it? pic.twitter.com/UnUSc7ohrS via @BuzzFeedUK
A more specific claim about tartan is that the well-known "traditionally Scottish" ones were all in fact invented by the English. This one is very well documented.
In the 18th century, as an aid to recruitment and to esprit de corps, the army directed its tailors to come up with a uniform for its Scottish regiments that was intended to appear characteristically Scots.
The English military tailors of the Strand and Piccadilly had no idea what this entailed, so they guessed, coming up with oddities such as a feather bonnet with "Highland dicing" around it, and knee length socks rolled over the tops of the gaiters with the same dicing. They had vaguely heard of tartan, but this being the army, everyone in the regiment was going to wear the same tartan, and the army as a whole was going to use the same base designs. So they came up with a range of patterns that all use the existing British army colour palette of the day.
Thus there was "Government" sett, which was Garter Blue with a Rifle Green check. The Sutherland Highlanders wore Government sett with an overstripe of yellow, which was the colour of their facings, yellow being the commonest such colour among line infantry regiments.
Royal Stewart sett was British scarlet with white, Garter Blue and Rifle Green overstripes. Etc, etc, etc. Government sett, or "Black Watch tartan" as the uninformed tend to call it, is thus as authentically Scottish as borshcht or bratwurst.
The idea that these are in any way related to names or clans is simply a retrofit based on the fact that recruitment for the army was regional. Thus you would end up with a lot of people all called MacPsmith in this regiment or that. Kitted out with the English-designed sett, they then all became convinced that the MacPsmith tartan was so called because it had been invented by the Clan MacPsmith, rather than having been given by the English to a regiment with a lot of persuade them to enlist.
So the English didn't invent tartan but neither did the Scots; the English did however invent all the famous ones, and any invented in Scotland since cannot in any seriousness be called traditional or authentic.
The Crimea had been part of Russia from 1783 to 1954. It was transferred to Ukraine at a time when Ukraine was a federal state under Moscow's sovereignty. The distinction only became important when the USSR collapsed in 1991. Since then it has always been an autonomous region of Ukraine, but even in that time there has been more than one local attempt to explore a transfer to Russian sovereignty.
I believe that we should oppose a redrawing of Ukraine's borders, but it is unhelpful to see current events through the prism of specific historical events with particular historical overtones.
Boris Johnson to return to Parliament?- 7/2 pre-GE; 7/4 at GE; 6/4 after GE but pre 31/12/19. 6/1 not by 1/1/20. #Boris
Yesterday it was the Ukrainian Navy with the Admiral commanding the Ukrainian fleet in the Crimea resigning and all Ukrainian ships remaining loyal to Kiev sailing out of port.
It looks as if the 'annexation' of the Crimea is complete militarily and not a shot has been fired.
A plebiscite on secession is scheduled for March 30th. By April the internal political debate will be resolved in the Crimea.
The realpolitik is that the Crimea is now back in Russia's hands.
Perhaps, if Avery is correct, the historical parallel is 1938 but earlier in the year.
The question now is what happens in the rest of eastern Ukraine.
This is a good article from Peter Kellner. It's interesting just how monolithic SNP support for independence is, and Con/Lib Dem/Lab opposition to independence.
Whereas in the past, there've been significant numbers of SNP supporters who don't favour independence, and supporters of the other parties who support it, that no longer seems to be the case.
* I don't know my Czech geography, so I've assumed Sudetenland is part of Bohemia-Moravia... I'm sure I will be corrected shortly...
** Which, of course, was not Holy, Roman or an Empire.
There are existing condominiums in Europe - all of them (AIUI) in the middle of rivers/lakes.
France and Spain have dual sovereignty over an island in the middle of the Bidasoa, while there is another in the Moselle.
The best answer seems to revolve around the Budapest memorandum. First, how much do the UK and the USA want to ensure that their word is seen as binding on them? Secondly, what message does it send out about showing seriousness about nuclear non-proliferation - and getting others to give up the security of nuclear defence in future?
Both of these are very important points. For this reason, the UK and the USA must come up with something that hurts Russia badly. Both countries have to be seen to be taking their obligations very seriously.
It goes without saying that it would also be a huge betrayal of the Ukrainians.
And Mike would have had least three Liberal parties from which to choose.
30% tax on the capital value of Kensington houses owned directly or indirectly by Russian citizens?
New Populus VI: Lab 37 (-1); Cons 34 (+1); LD 10 (+1); UKIP 12 (-1); Oth 8 (+1) Tables: http://popu.lu/s_vi140303
Btw the 2nd PB.com diplomacy game still needs a final player
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/
Game number is 77399. Password is OGH
Andy Cooke, Nick Palmer and Hurstllama are all in the 1st one now so its pretty much become the pb.com deathmatch challenge.
Although I may have some self-interest in trying to make houses in Kensington more affordable...
Yes. Whatever one thinks, the taunts of cowardice are off-key, unless the poster is willing to take up arms himself and engage with the Red Army.
In the independence referenda scheduled for 30 March, Crimean residents will be asked, inter alia, whether they wish to change their time zone to align with Moscow's. At present Crimea is two hours behind Moscow.
Now there is a trick being missed by our Eck.
The fact I'm a Liverpool fan is incidential
Part of the prblem is that the Catholic western facing Ukrainians are a bunch of useless violent corrupt scumbags too. Timoshenko may look like an angel but hers was a deeply unlikable regime.
I think splitting the Ukraine would leave things alot more stable and peaceful for all afterwards. It's Belgium with nukes.
I expect this poll will draw much comment and analysis. When it reverts to the mean, I expect silence.
Russia and their satellite government in Crimea, who will organise the vote, have absolutely no incentive to hold anything but "a free, fair and honest" referendum.
The vast majority Crimean residents have wanted in the past and continue to want to be part of Russia. The referendum is purely a means of formalising the known will of the people at an opportune political moment.
Whatever side you take in this dispute, there is no question that the Russian speaking regions of Crimea and, only to a slightly lesser extent, the East of the UKraine would prefer to be part of Russia than the Ukraine.
You may not like it, but them's the facts.
That's quite interesting. They only need to tick up a further 3% by May 2015 to exceed the 2010 GE poll. It looks do'able.
Question is, of course, what happens to Labour. I'm still feeling a GE result that's something like: Con - 37%, Lab - 33.5%, LD - 15%, UKIP - 8.5%. Tories squeak ahead on seats (aided by 1st time incumbancy and a late swing in key marginals) to within the 285-305 boundary.
Immense contributions from Admiral Sir Roger Keyes (in full uniform), Leo Amery and one of the final great speeches from Lloyd George.
The Wiki article is a useful guide to the theatre and drama of the event :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_Debate
1. Crimea is Ukrainian, within Ukrainian borders and has been actively endorsed by Russia as such on three separate occasions since the dissolution of the USSR.
2. Western-facing Ukrainians are not Catholic, considering Catholics are just 6% of the population.
3. The "scumbag" that got kicked out was not because he was "no longer acceptable" to the Western-leaning Ukrainians - they always disliked him and had left him in power for four years. The thing that changed was that he had unarmed civilians killed on the streets after an order to use live rounds on them.
4. Most eastern Ukrainians actually speak Ukrainian. Only a minority speak Russian, but most of them are still Ukrainian ethnically.
5. There was no "coup" and no violence in the removal of Yanukovych from power. Parliament voted to remove him and he then fled the country.
6. The people that voted to remove him were not the "political and cultural opponents" of eastern Ukrainians. The vote was unanimous, including MPs from the eastern Party of the Regions party. The latter also removed him from leadership of their party, such was their disgust at this tyrannical orders.
Con 301, Lab 295, LD 27, UKIP 0.
Nightmare scenario, because of the Shinners, The LDs could form a coalition with either Lab or the Tories.
But either combination would have a tiny majority, can't see that lasting a full parliament.
What price would you say Lib Dems are to beat UKIP in vote share?
It is John O who houses most of the Yeltsin era anti-Putin aristocratic oligarchs. Englefield Green, Virginia Water and Woking and the dogging country of Esher are where the aristocratic palaces are located.
Do a search for "country houses" on Savills or Knight, Frank and you will quickly see that great estates of yore have been replaced by one acre manor houses of the home counties at the top of the value list.
http://www.kyivpost.com/media/images/2012/08/23/p1759ae0mbk8i1nqs6n010uv9g94/big.jpg
Even among those parts that speak Russian, they are still majority ethnic Ukrainians, unlike the Russian ethnic majority in Crimea. (Think of the south Welsh speaking English.)
While it's true they voted for Yanukovych in 2010, that in no way means they wish to leave their country. It's not even clear that the majority there are still Yanukovych supporters, seeing as their MPs decided to vote to remove him from power, and likely would not have done so if it was against their constituents' views.
NB BNP and ED had 2.1% in 2010 combined..
Your point on Russia having no incentive but to hold a free vote amused me. Putin had even more of an 'incentive' to be honestly elected President of Russia by as many Russians as possible.
It still didn't stop him and his United Russia party using intimidation to ensure as many voters as possible, right across Russia, backed him - with a nice little dusting of ballot rigging by preventing opponents standing, and getting to the polls to vote, as well.
The question is whether both parties would go for it again. Hmm.