politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly polling aggregates become all the rage: Introducin
At the start of the year I introduced the weekly PB YouGov polling average so we could better track the way opinion was moving and isolate key segments for analysis. Well the idea has caught on and today we see the launch of the Populus online monthly polling for the FT based on an overall sample of 14,000.
Comments
-
First!0
-
It is both laughable and worrying the way in which Kippers have a man crush on Vladimir Putin.0
-
0
-
As the winner of the Oscar for TOTY I have to say that Poll of polls is so last year darlings ....
I mean my ARSE gave them up for Lent some years ago and has never felt better since. I'd also like to thank my milkman's uncles third cousin best man for her unswerving support before her operation.
My undying thanks also go to Peter the Punter as a most worthy but unsuccessful nominee. His portrayal as a gin soaked, cross dresser and leather fetishist was unerringly lifelike and a warning to all PBers worldwide.
And before the tears begin to fall .... Thank you World !!
0 -
Beware, Jack. OGH has his status as 35th most influential Oldie to protect. And remember that, after Caledonia has floated off to an independence of a million empty oil barrels, Boris will be writing in his Daily Tele*art column a call for expat Scots to be either repatriated (if drunk in Camden Town) or subject to other emergency measures (if caught on the Internet)...0
-
An American acquaintance posted this on Facebook
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/118668-remember-obama-mocking-romney-foreign-policy-question-2012-campaign/
With the strapline "Could this snide comment look any more foolish today?"
....yeah, joke's on you Mr President of the United States!!! Bet you wish you were Mitt now!0 -
The weekly change figures seem a little odd in that the gains are 1.4% and the losses only 0.2%. Are the "others" being squeezed?
For the tories to get a majority Labour need to lose about 8%. At 0.2% in a week this is going to take a while. There is still time but only just.0 -
"my milkman's uncles third cousin best man” and "her unswerving support”.JackW said:
And before the tears begin to fall .... Thank you World !!
I’d like to thank the UTC for his commitment to equality!
However the LibDem > Lab switch now has the kiss of Death. David Owen has publicly announced his participation.0 -
But which one is better, averages or aggregates?
"We haven’t got the detailed data yet but I’ve no doubt that when it is published it will provide a mine of information."
Just add up the numbers in the individual polls0 -
It doesn't usually work with gradual erosion. What's needed is a game-changing black swan (mixed metaphors meh).DavidL said:The weekly change figures seem a little odd in that the gains are 1.4% and the losses only 0.2%. Are the "others" being squeezed?
For the tories to get a majority Labour need to lose about 8%. At 0.2% in a week this is going to take a while. There is still time but only just.
0 -
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.old_labour said:It is both laughable and worrying the way in which Kippers have a man crush on Vladimir Putin.
0 -
@JoeWatts_: Territorially 2steps forward for Putin, economically he just fell in a ditch http://t.co/Js0i5UTgEB via @ReutersJamie0
-
Good morning, everyone.
On a less serious but nevertheless interesting note is this little story about a snake and a crocodile that wrestled one another for five hours before a victor emerged:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-264131010 -
Ukraine isn't yet a black swan event yet but if the "problem" lasts until May 2015, any serving PM will gain.
Cameron is a fop but knows what sounds good (even if it isn't).
What would Ed say to Putin in a face-to-face? We'd need a translator to understand, but it would include a judge-led inquiry.
What would Putin say to Ed? Two teas, boy, and be quick about it0 -
0
-
Morning all
I'm often reminded it's an imperfect world though on this glorious early spring morning in London you could for a moment almost imagine such a place existed.
Stodge's Twelfth Law states that in any crisis you have two effective options - everything or nothing. Doing anything in between is a recipe for failure. As far as Ukraine is concerned, the morning papers carry the usual anguished thrashing of the frustrated neocons who know their time has gone and lament the passing of Pax Americana.
The same is true for Vladimir Putin - had he demurred in the face of the ousting of Yanukovych and done nothing to support the ethnic Russians, he would have faced serious consequences.
We don't quite face those issues if we decide to do nothing - the appetite for intervention has long gone and, in truth, if Ukraine comes back under Russian influence, many will argue it's business as usual. Then again, it's an imperfect world.0 -
As second only to Mrs JackW in my status as most influential Jacobite in my rural north Hertfordshire empire I feel content to repel all borders and especially those a few miles north of Luton who have a more than temporary and passing difficulty of the follicular fashion.Innocent_Abroad said:Beware, Jack. OGH has his status as 35th most influential Oldie to protect. And remember that, after Caledonia has floated off to an independence of a million empty oil barrels, Boris will be writing in his Daily Tele*art column a call for expat Scots to be either repatriated (if drunk in Camden Town) or subject to other emergency measures (if caught on the Internet)...
0 -
Will Dr Death have Ed sitting in his pocket a la "Spitting Image" mode ?OldKingCole said:
"my milkman's uncles third cousin best man” and "her unswerving support”.JackW said:
And before the tears begin to fall .... Thank you World !!
I’d like to thank the UTC for his commitment to equality!
However the LibDem > Lab switch now has the kiss of Death. David Owen has publicly announced his participation.
0 -
Stop the war coalition seem to have an even bigger crush on Putin..rcs1000 said:
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.old_labour said:It is both laughable and worrying the way in which Kippers have a man crush on Vladimir Putin.
0 -
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.0
-
I thought repelling borders was a Kipper process. I stand corrected.JackW said:
As second only to Mrs JackW in my status as most influential Jacobite in my rural north Hertfordshire empire I feel content to repel all borders and especially those a few miles north of Luton who have a more than temporary and passing difficulty of the follicular fashion.Innocent_Abroad said:Beware, Jack. OGH has his status as 35th most influential Oldie to protect. And remember that, after Caledonia has floated off to an independence of a million empty oil barrels, Boris will be writing in his Daily Tele*art column a call for expat Scots to be either repatriated (if drunk in Camden Town) or subject to other emergency measures (if caught on the Internet)...
0 -
Isn't that a bastardised form of Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy, I.XXVI?stodge said:Stodge's Twelfth Law states that in any crisis you have two effective options - everything or nothing. Doing anything in between is a recipe for failure.
0 -
Just imagine the effect of Ed's price freeze if the Ukraine crisis continues....
Edit: It should be a matter of national priority that the UK controls more of it's energy needs. That means investment in renewables, nuclear, and shale gas. Anything and everything to keep the need for Russian supplies to a minimum.0 -
Speaking as someone who was thinking of voting UKIP in the euros, I have been turned off by the dismissive and condescending attitude shown by some of the more enthusiastic UKIP supporters on Ukraine. It crosses over into almost xenophobic territory.
Supporting a fellow european country threatened by clear naked militarist aggression is not the same as selling out our sovereignty to Brussels. On the contrary, standing up for others whose freedom is threatened by a tyrannical bully is one of things that makes me proud to be British.0 -
Latest ARSE 2015 General Election Projection Countdown :
1 day 1 minute 1 second0 -
Kippers .... Tsk .... I smoked them out.Innocent_Abroad said:
I thought repelling borders was a Kipper process. I stand corrected.JackW said:
As second only to Mrs JackW in my status as most influential Jacobite in my rural north Hertfordshire empire I feel content to repel all borders and especially those a few miles north of Luton who have a more than temporary and passing difficulty of the follicular fashion.Innocent_Abroad said:Beware, Jack. OGH has his status as 35th most influential Oldie to protect. And remember that, after Caledonia has floated off to an independence of a million empty oil barrels, Boris will be writing in his Daily Tele*art column a call for expat Scots to be either repatriated (if drunk in Camden Town) or subject to other emergency measures (if caught on the Internet)...
0 -
I don't think the situation in Ukraine is as simple as some think. Yes, there was an agreement by Russia to respect Ukraine's borders, but this was in return for the permanent stationing of a number of Russian troops and for access to a Mediterranean port.
The sudden change in leadership plus the appearance of the ultra national party would naturally give rise to alarm in Russia and a desire/need to protect their interests/nationals in the Crimea.
Unless this escalates over the next few days/weeks, I would hope that there will be a gradual reduction in tension coupled with the stabilisation of the new Ukrainian government and a restatement of the agreements between Ukraine and Russia. Russia could then pull back their troops.
There will always be a tension in this area as access to a warm water port is essential to Russia's interests and the only real option is to base the fleet on Ukrainian territory.0 -
Great catch behind the stumps from Haddon. SA now 42:2 they trail Oz by 451.0
-
F1: long, rambly piece on the Bahrain tests here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/f1-2014-second-and-third-tests.html
My next piece will be pre-qualifying for Oz.0 -
Is it ? I thought the Russians were pouring money into Novorossisk as their the Black Sea port.Blue_rog said:I don't think the situation in Ukraine is as simple as some think. Yes, there was an agreement by Russia to respect Ukraine's borders, but this was in return for the permanent stationing of a number of Russian troops and for access to a Mediterranean port.
The sudden change in leadership plus the appearance of the ultra national party would naturally give rise to alarm in Russia and a desire/need to protect their interests/nationals in the Crimea.
Unless this escalates over the next few days/weeks, I would hope that there will be a gradual reduction in tension coupled with the stabilisation of the new Ukrainian government and a restatement of the agreements between Ukraine and Russia. Russia could then pull back their troops.
There will always be a tension in this area as access to a warm water port is essential to Russia's interests and the only real option is to base the fleet on Ukrainian territory.0 -
I don't claim ownership of that by any stretch but it's a good adage to judge life and politics. Margaret Thatcher, it seems to me, was a huge exponent of that. For all her radicalism, there were some areas where you might have expected huge change but where there was none while in others the change was enormous.Life_ina_market_town said:
Isn't that a bastardised form of Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy, I.XXVI?stodge said:Stodge's Twelfth Law states that in any crisis you have two effective options - everything or nothing. Doing anything in between is a recipe for failure.
Whatever your viewpoint, it's one form of leadership - the other is trying to tinker in everything everywhere at once.0 -
As Benedict Brogan observes 'Labour has gone tonto' over the 'Miliband-Syria-emboldened-Putin' link some are suggesting:
Senior Tories last night prompted an angry row with Labour by claiming Ed Miliband’s vote against military action in Syria helped embolden Russia to invade part of Ukraine.
Several prominent Conservatives suggested Mr Miliband’s ‘appeasement’ of Russia, a staunch ally of Syrian tyrant Bashar al Assad, had contributed to the current crisis.
Treasury minister Sajid Javid, a close ally of Chancellor George Osborne, said there was a ‘direct link between Miliband’s cynical vote against [the] Syria motion and Russia’s actions on Ukraine’, adding that this made the Labour leader ‘completely unfit to lead Britain’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2571733/Was-Eds-Syria-vote-green-light-Putin-Tories-claim-Labour-leaders-vote-against-military-action-encouraged-Russia-invade.html#ixzz2utBxkwPa
0 -
The times we live in.
Dan Rebellato @DanRebellato 1 hr
Half a league, half a league, / Half a league onward, / Into the valley of Death / Rode the strongly-worded letter of complaint. #crimea20140 -
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.0 -
I wouldn't go that fair, but we do need a 'national debate' about how impotent the West is becoming.CarlottaVance said:As Benedict Brogan observes 'Labour has gone tonto' over the 'Miliband-Syria-emboldened-Putin' link some are suggesting:
Senior Tories last night prompted an angry row with Labour by claiming Ed Miliband’s vote against military action in Syria helped embolden Russia to invade part of Ukraine.
Several prominent Conservatives suggested Mr Miliband’s ‘appeasement’ of Russia, a staunch ally of Syrian tyrant Bashar al Assad, had contributed to the current crisis.
Treasury minister Sajid Javid, a close ally of Chancellor George Osborne, said there was a ‘direct link between Miliband’s cynical vote against [the] Syria motion and Russia’s actions on Ukraine’, adding that this made the Labour leader ‘completely unfit to lead Britain’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2571733/Was-Eds-Syria-vote-green-light-Putin-Tories-claim-Labour-leaders-vote-against-military-action-encouraged-Russia-invade.html#ixzz2utBxkwPa
The USSR was defeated not by guns or the military, but because the West was so superior economically. If that is no longer the case, as if guys like Assad and Putin can operate without fear or worry, then we live in very dangerous times...0 -
If I may say you make a number of fundamental errors, some of which have been repeated on news programmes.Blue_rog said:I don't think the situation in Ukraine is as simple as some think. Yes, there was an agreement by Russia to respect Ukraine's borders, but this was in return for the permanent stationing of a number of Russian troops and for access to a Mediterranean port.
The sudden change in leadership plus the appearance of the ultra national party would naturally give rise to alarm in Russia and a desire/need to protect their interests/nationals in the Crimea.
Unless this escalates over the next few days/weeks, I would hope that there will be a gradual reduction in tension coupled with the stabilisation of the new Ukrainian government and a restatement of the agreements between Ukraine and Russia. Russia could then pull back their troops.
There will always be a tension in this area as access to a warm water port is essential to Russia's interests and the only real option is to base the fleet on Ukrainian territory.
1. Over the past twenty years Russia has signed numerous treaties guaranteeing Ukraine borders, one of the first of which was in return for Ukraine surrendering her nuclear arsenal. A treaty also signed by the US and UK.
2. You note Russian "interests/nationals". Russia as an interest in the naval base and allowed limited military facilities but thy remain in Ukrainian sovereign territory. More importantly ethnic Russians in Crimea are Ukrainian citizens and not Russian nationals.
3. Russia has no inherent right to a warm water port. If allowed, as it presently is, their status is that of a guest of a friendly neighbour not that of an occupying power enforcing "Russia's interests".
0 -
John Curtice on '200 Days to go' (now 199) and the latest YouGov on SIndy:
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/03/200-days-to-go/0 -
The response on pb has been pretty cross-party as we all chew over the complexities of the situation: it doesn't lend itself to the classic party rivalries. Britain seems largely powerless (even the most gung-ho aren't suggesting we send in troops) so it's an example of where any relatively effective action has to be taken by the US and/or EU, and even they haven't all that many realistic options. It's surely clear that we should be supporting the right of the western Ukraine to turn their backs on Russia without intimidation, not so clear that we should be supporting a Ukrainian claim to dominate Crimea and cancel the language rights of the majority there? Any attempt to portray the issue as purely one-dimensional (or, ludicrously, caused by the UK doing or not doing anything) is mistaken.Casino_Royale said:Speaking as someone who was thinking of voting UKIP in the euros, I have been turned off by the dismissive and condescending attitude shown by some of the more enthusiastic UKIP supporters on Ukraine. It crosses over into almost xenophobic territory.
0 -
The better analogy is with Monmouthshire which was annexed by Wales from its historic place in England and on the Oxford Circuit between 1972 and 1974.Patrick said: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.0 -
"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"Patrick said: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.0 -
That's an interesting thought.Life_ina_market_town said:
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.Patrick said: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.
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 along0 -
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.Charles said:
"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"Patrick said: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.0 -
The right to self-determination only applies to "peoples", whatever that may mean. The Scottish Government would argue that the Scots are a "people" and have a right to self-determination, but the people of Dumfries and Galloway are not and have no such right. Of course, no one has ever come up with any objective grounds for determining what "a people" is.Charles said: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 along0 -
Fair dinkum. But established ethnic facts on the ground are what they are. It's like the Falklands - they're British, and transferring sovereignty to Argentina would only create a huge mess and an independence movement. The Crimea is Russian, but part of the Ukraine. What a mess!Charles said:
"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"Patrick said: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.0 -
Perhaps Nick it is clear if you accept that the UK should uphold its treaty obligations signed over the past two decades and especially that which saw the sovereignty of Ukraine assured in return for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons.NickPalmer said:
The response on pb has been pretty cross-party as we all chew over the complexities of the situation: it doesn't lend itself to the classic party rivalries. Britain seems largely powerless (even the most gung-ho aren't suggesting we send in troops) so it's an example of where any relatively effective action has to be taken by the US and/or EU, and even they haven't all that many realistic options. It's surely clear that we should be supporting the right of the western Ukraine to turn their backs on Russia without intimidation, not so clear that we should be supporting a Ukrainian claim to dominate Crimea and cancel the language rights of the majority there? Any attempt to portray the issue as purely one-dimensional (or, ludicrously, caused by the UK doing or not doing anything) is mistaken.Casino_Royale said:Speaking as someone who was thinking of voting UKIP in the euros, I have been turned off by the dismissive and condescending attitude shown by some of the more enthusiastic UKIP supporters on Ukraine. It crosses over into almost xenophobic territory.
What hope for future nuclear disarmament is there if the US and UK abrogate so blatantly the terms of such agreements ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
0 -
Yep..how far down does self-determination apply, a region, a county, a town, a street?Life_ina_market_town said:
The right to self-determination only applies to "peoples", whatever that may mean. The Scottish Government would argue that the Scots are a "people" and have a right to self-determination, but the people of Dumfries and Galloway are not and have no such right. Of course, no one has ever come up with any objective grounds for determining what "a people" is.Charles said: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 along0 -
Interesting poll. It looks like it is going to be close next year.0
-
As has been previously explained, the only means under the treaties to uphold our obligations is to refer the matter to the Security Council, where Russia has a veto. There is nothing we can do except exert some diplomatic and economic pressure, and even there our scope for action is limited.JackW said:Perhaps Nick it is clear if you accept that the UK should uphold its treaty obligations signed over the past two decades and especially that which saw the sovereignty of Ukraine assured in return for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons.
What hope for future nuclear disarmament is there if the US and UK abrogate so blatantly the terms of such agreements ?0 -
The problem is we use the self-determination argument when it suits us - Ulster, the Falklands, Gibraltar being good examples. The British Government line has always been that as long as these people wish to stay British then British they will be.
The history of the 20th Century shows what happens when disaffected minorities are ignored within larger states. IF the population of the Crimea, in a free and fair referendum, were to vote to join Russia rather than the Ukraine, that would have to be respected internationally as we would expect the international community to recognise the vote if Scotland votes to leave the United Kingdom.
Whatever the history of the Crimea, if the population is dragooned into being governed (however loosely) from Kiev by a Government with which it feels no sense of loyalty, then that is only storing up trouble.0 -
No, the residents of Crimea are 100% Ukrainian, a portion of whom speak Russian.Alanbrooke said:
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.Charles said:
"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"Patrick said: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.
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 territory0 -
But wouldn't the most natural precedent be the fact that the 9 counties of Ulster became the 6 counties of Northern Ireland with 3 choosing independence?Life_ina_market_town said:
The right to self-determination only applies to "peoples", whatever that may mean. The Scottish Government would argue that the Scots are a "people" and have a right to self-determination, but the people of Dumfries and Galloway are not and have no such right. Of course, no one has ever come up with any objective grounds for determining what "a people" is.Charles said: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 along0 -
My side of the bed!Slackbladder said:
Yep..how far down does self-determination apply, a region, a county, a town, a street?Life_ina_market_town said:
The right to self-determination only applies to "peoples", whatever that may mean. The Scottish Government would argue that the Scots are a "people" and have a right to self-determination, but the people of Dumfries and Galloway are not and have no such right. Of course, no one has ever come up with any objective grounds for determining what "a people" is.Charles said: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 along0 -
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.Charles said:
That's an interesting thought.Life_ina_market_town said:
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.Patrick said: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.
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
Do you think the same re Berwick , Carlisle etc is also applicable0 -
We already abrogated those agreements by interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine and engineering a coup against the president who was elected in free and fair elections (according to all the western observers we sent to oversee them).JackW said:
Perhaps Nick it is clear if you accept that the UK should uphold its treaty obligations signed over the past two decades and especially that which saw the sovereignty of Ukraine assured in return for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons.NickPalmer said:
The response on pb has been pretty cross-party as we all chew over the complexities of the situation: it doesn't lend itself to the classic party rivalries. Britain seems largely powerless (even the most gung-ho aren't suggesting we send in troops) so it's an example of where any relatively effective action has to be taken by the US and/or EU, and even they haven't all that many realistic options. It's surely clear that we should be supporting the right of the western Ukraine to turn their backs on Russia without intimidation, not so clear that we should be supporting a Ukrainian claim to dominate Crimea and cancel the language rights of the majority there? Any attempt to portray the issue as purely one-dimensional (or, ludicrously, caused by the UK doing or not doing anything) is mistaken.Casino_Royale said:Speaking as someone who was thinking of voting UKIP in the euros, I have been turned off by the dismissive and condescending attitude shown by some of the more enthusiastic UKIP supporters on Ukraine. It crosses over into almost xenophobic territory.
What hope for future nuclear disarmament is there if the US and UK abrogate so blatantly the terms of such agreements ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
Indeed we continually bend and stretch to breaking point the treaties we have signed by our continual involvement in the affairs of other countries up to and including armed invasion or bombing campaigns. The first decade of this century ensured that we would never be taken seriously by the rest of the world when we pontificated about international treaties or the rule of law.
0 -
------------ Cheltenham Betting Post --------------
Paddy Power's Money back special on the supreme Novices means that by backing Irving to win you effectively get a 5.0 E/W 1 point stake bet for a 2 pt win bet placed at 3.0 (2/1)
The horse is 3.65/3.7 on Betfair so this indicates value.
Vautour is also value for this offer but not by as much I think.
In fact its even better value than a 4-1 E/W bet as the E/W bet only pays out 3 places.0 -
I'm sorry, that's utter bollocks. The situations and cases you quote are a simple claim for the status quo, without any outside influence.stodge said:The problem is we use the self-determination argument when it suits us - Ulster, the Falklands, Gibraltar being good examples. The British Government line has always been that as long as these people wish to stay British then British they will be.
The history of the 20th Century shows what happens when disaffected minorities are ignored within larger states. IF the population of the Crimea, in a free and fair referendum, were to vote to join Russia rather than the Ukraine, that would have to be respected internationally as we would expect the international community to recognise the vote if Scotland votes to leave the United Kingdom.
Whatever the history of the Crimea, if the population is dragooned into being governed (however loosely) from Kiev by a Government with which it feels no sense of loyalty, then that is only storing up trouble.
That's utterly different from what Russia is doing, which is messing about in a defined foreign country, breaching treaties, just because it can. The Crimea has never had a referendum to say it wants to separate, and until that happens, Russia has no rights or control over it.
I know the left hates the British Empire, and the rights of the Falklanders et al, but theres some utter doublethink to warp that to supporting homophobia belligerent rulers like Putin.0 -
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.Charles said:
No, the residents of Crimea are 100% Ukrainian, a portion of whom speak Russian.Alanbrooke said:
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.Charles said:
"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"Patrick said: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.
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
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.0 -
If anyone in Ukraine ever thought the US and UK signing a piece of paper offered them any succour they were not very bright.JackW said:
Perhaps Nick it is clear if you accept that the UK should uphold its treaty obligations signed over the past two decades and especially that which saw the sovereignty of Ukraine assured in return for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons.NickPalmer said:
The response on pb has been pretty cross-party as we all chew over the complexities of the situation: it doesn't lend itself to the classic party rivalries. Britain seems largely powerless (even the most gung-ho aren't suggesting we send in troops) so it's an example of where any relatively effective action has to be taken by the US and/or EU, and even they haven't all that many realistic options. It's surely clear that we should be supporting the right of the western Ukraine to turn their backs on Russia without intimidation, not so clear that we should be supporting a Ukrainian claim to dominate Crimea and cancel the language rights of the majority there? Any attempt to portray the issue as purely one-dimensional (or, ludicrously, caused by the UK doing or not doing anything) is mistaken.Casino_Royale said:Speaking as someone who was thinking of voting UKIP in the euros, I have been turned off by the dismissive and condescending attitude shown by some of the more enthusiastic UKIP supporters on Ukraine. It crosses over into almost xenophobic territory.
What hope for future nuclear disarmament is there if the US and UK abrogate so blatantly the terms of such agreements ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine0 -
Perhaps, but you seem to be forgetting the provisions of Article 12 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6 December 1921. It provided that if each House of the Parliament of Northern Ireland presented an Address to His Majesty, as they did, praying that the powers of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State should not extend to Northern Ireland, then a boundary commission would be establishedCharles said:But wouldn't the most natural precedent be the fact that the 9 counties of Ulster became the 6 counties of Northern Ireland with 3 choosing independence?
to determine in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions, the boundaries between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland.
It is of course the case that the Government of the Irish Free State were happy to shelve the idea in the 1920s. In return, its share of the imperial debt was cancelled. They were also unwilling to give up one acre of the Protestant parts of Donegal even in return for one and half counties of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the precedent from Ireland ought to be that the boundary should be determined in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants. The Government of Ireland Act 1920, which established the six county area, was of course passed when it was still envisaged that all of Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom.0 -
Mr. G, Berwick is pronounced 'Berrick', right?
[A character in Dragon Age: Origins has the name, variously pronounced Berrick and Ber-wick].0 -
There's a big different between separation due to a internal desire to go it alone, and a outside country claiming part of another country 'cos it's basically ours anyway'.Alanbrooke said:
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.Charles said:
No, the residents of Crimea are 100% Ukrainian, a portion of whom speak Russian.Alanbrooke said:
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.Charles said:
"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"Patrick said: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.
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
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.0 -
@LIAMT
It's a bit of a myth that Monmouthshire was annexed by Wales. It's status was in fact ambiguous for four centuries, muddied by the fact that, because the two countries share (unlike Scotland and NI) the same legal system, there was no real incentive to clarify. But geographically it's a Welsh county - lying west of the Wye, the traditional watershed. Many of the place names are Welsh so it's easy to make the case that culturally/ethnically it's also Welsh. The 1974 Act arguably clarified what has always been so.0 -
So what do you think we should do about it - tell President Obama to dispatch the 82nd Airborne to Simferopol and see what happens. Whether we like it or not, there are clearly a lot of people in the Eastern Ukraine and Crimea who would rather be ruled from Moscow than from Kiev and while we may not understand or agree with that, we have to accept it as reality in an imperfect world.Slackbladder said:
I'm sorry, that's utter bollocks. The situations and cases you quote are a simple claim for the status quo, without any outside influence.
That's utterly different from what Russia is doing, which is messing about in a defined foreign country, breaching treaties, just because it can. The Crimea has never had a referendum to say it wants to separate, and until that happens, Russia has no rights or control over it.
I know the left hates the British Empire, and the rights of the Falklanders et al, but theres some utter doublethink to warp that to supporting homophobia belligerent rulers like Putin.
0 -
HMG adopts the same attitude abroad as it does at home, which is that the rule of law should apply to everyone but HMG. The difference is that at home there are still (just about) the means of forcing HMG to abide by the law of the land.Richard_Tyndall said:We already abrogated those agreements by interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine and engineering a coup against the president who was elected in free and fair elections (according to all the western observers we sent to oversee them).
Indeed we continually bend and stretch to breaking point the treaties we have signed by our continual involvement in the affairs of other countries up to and including armed invasion or bombing campaigns. The first decade of this century ensured that we would never be taken seriously by the rest of the world when we pontificated about international treaties or the rule of law.0 -
Utter nonsense.Richard_Tyndall said:
We already abrogated those agreements by interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine and engineering a coup against the president who was elected in free and fair elections (according to all the western observers we sent to oversee them).JackW said:
Perhaps Nick it is clear if you accept that the UK should uphold its treaty obligations signed over the past two decades and especially that which saw the sovereignty of Ukraine assured in return for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons.NickPalmer said:
The response on pb has been pretty cross-party as we all chew over the complexities of the situation: it doesn't lend itself to the classic party rivalries. Britain seems largely powerless (even the most gung-ho aren't suggesting we send in troops) so it's an example of where any relatively effective action has to be taken by the US and/or EU, and even they haven't all that many realistic options. It's surely clear that we should be supporting the right of the western Ukraine to turn their backs on Russia without intimidation, not so clear that we should be supporting a Ukrainian claim to dominate Crimea and cancel the language rights of the majority there? Any attempt to portray the issue as purely one-dimensional (or, ludicrously, caused by the UK doing or not doing anything) is mistaken.Casino_Royale said:Speaking as someone who was thinking of voting UKIP in the euros, I have been turned off by the dismissive and condescending attitude shown by some of the more enthusiastic UKIP supporters on Ukraine. It crosses over into almost xenophobic territory.
What hope for future nuclear disarmament is there if the US and UK abrogate so blatantly the terms of such agreements ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
Indeed we continually bend and stretch to breaking point the treaties we have signed by our continual involvement in the affairs of other countries up to and including armed invasion or bombing campaigns. The first decade of this century ensured that we would never be taken seriously by the rest of the world when we pontificated about international treaties or the rule of law.
If you seriously believe that Foreign Office intervention in Ukraine amounted to more than a very marginal interest and certainly nothing in comparison to Putin, then I suggest you look to re-education in a Ukip camp.
Neither do I concede that mistakes of the past, even recent past, allow us to negate treaty obligations freely given, especially in relation to nuclear disarmament.
You might consider the UK is damaged goods but assuredly most citizens of Ukraine think the opposite.
0 -
Probably Putin has dissipated the goodwill that emanated from Sochi, but does he really care as the EU is dependent on Russia for about a third of its oil and gas and a quarter of its coal.
Will the anti-frackers still support Putin?0 -
I cannot think of any time in the last 100 years when the West might have intervened militarily over Russian military action in a place such as Ukraine, however unpalatable and dreadful it is. That is realpolitik, isn't it? Big powers have their spheres of influence and in practical terms they have a freedom of action in those places which can only be countered by diplomatic means.0
-
The biggest force in the world is now beginning to hit back at Russia .. The Markets...the rouble is plummeting and interest rates are near 7%0
-
If someone's going to ignore treaties made between superpowers, why would they baulk at not repaying sovereign debt? Or seizing foreign-owned assets? Etc.richardDodd said:The biggest force in the world is now beginning to hit back at Russia .. The Markets...the rouble is plummeting and interest rates are near 7%
0 -
Because in the end, as UK politicians have found, you can't buck the markets.Anorak said:
If someone's going to ignore treaties made between superpowers, why would they baulk at not repaying sovereign debt? Or seizing foreign-owned assets? Etc.richardDodd said:The biggest force in the world is now beginning to hit back at Russia .. The Markets...the rouble is plummeting and interest rates are near 7%
0 -
I was talking of the West, not of the UK specifically. The EU has engineered this crisis and then - not surprisingly - seen it get out of hand.JackW said:
Utter nonsense.
If you seriously believe that Foreign Office intervention in Ukraine amounted to more than a very marginal interest and certainly nothing in comparison to Putin, then I suggest you look to re-education in a Ukip camp.
Neither do I concede that mistakes of the past, even recent past, allow us to negate treaty obligations freely given, especially in relation t nuclear disarmament.
You might consider the UK is damaged goods but assuredly most citizens of Ukraine think the opposite.
And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.0 -
I thought the problem with Kosovo was that it was a place “sacred” to Serbs as a result of a crucial battle, but where over the years migration had meant that Albanians had moved in. Almost as though the area around Hastings was now French.Alanbrooke said:
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.Charles said:
No, the residents of Crimea are 100% Ukrainian, a portion of whom speak Russian.Alanbrooke said:
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.Charles said:
"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"Patrick said: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.
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
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.0 -
A.. It begins to matter when it hits the peasant on the village street..then they get angry.0
-
@Slackbladder
I think you are wrong to try and cast this debate on left-right lines. Many of us just don't know - and, despite our political differences, come on here to help us think about it, knowing that the intellect of the average PBer is far higher than the average person.0 -
The key moment was not the Local Government Act 1972, which entered into force in 1974, but the Courts Act 1971, entering into force on 1 January 1972. Under the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by that Act, Monmouthshire was annexed from the Oxford Circuit (which was itself dismembered) to the Wales and Chester Circuit. For centuries, Her Majesty's Judges had taken the Assizes at Monmouth and then Newport while they completed the itinerary for the Oxford Circuit beginning with the Berkshire Assizes at Reading and ending with the Staffordshire Assizes. Here is an example of a circuit itinerary from 1953. Monmouthshire was, and is a part of England.*BobaFett said:@LIAMT
It's a bit of a myth that Monmouthshire was annexed by Wales. It's status was in fact ambiguous for four centuries, muddied by the fact that, because the two countries share (unlike Scotland and NI) the same legal system, there was no real incentive to clarify. But geographically it's a Welsh county - lying west of the Wye, the traditional watershed. Many of the place names are Welsh so it's easy to make the case that culturally/ethnically it's also Welsh. The 1974 Act arguably clarified what has always been so.
*This may also have something to do with the fact that one side of my family is from Eastern Monmouthshire, and we consider ourselves English.0 -
Is there ? I suspect we'll find the ethnic genie is out of the bottle and that Russians in the Ukraine will be more keen on their own form of Anschluss from here on.Slackbladder said:
There's a big different between separation due to a internal desire to go it alone, and a outside country claiming part of another country 'cos it's basically ours anyway'.Alanbrooke said:
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.Charles said:
No, the residents of Crimea are 100% Ukrainian, a portion of whom speak Russian.Alanbrooke said:
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.Charles said:
"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"Patrick said: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.
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
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.
I think the whole Ukranian episode would proceed a lot better if we all stopped moral posturing and just recognised the facts on the ground and proceeded from there.0 -
British Vikings;malcolmg said:
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.Charles said:
That's an interesting thought.Life_ina_market_town said:
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.Patrick said: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.
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
Do you think the same re Berwick , Carlisle etc is also applicable
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21596525-scotlands-independence-referendum-more-booty-canny-folk-shetland-and-orkney0 -
I'm not trying to do that at all. Just that some on the left are using petty point-scoring over it when it's much bigger than that.BobaFett said:@Slackbladder
I think you are wrong to try and cast this debate on left-right lines. Many of us just don't know - and, despite our political differences, come on here to help us think about it, knowing that the intellect of the average PBer is far higher than the average person.0 -
What a council of despair.SouthamObserver said:I cannot think of any time in the last 100 years when the West might have intervened militarily over Russian military action in a place such as Ukraine, however unpalatable and dreadful it is. That is realpolitik, isn't it? Big powers have their spheres of influence and in practical terms they have a freedom of action in those places which can only be countered by diplomatic means.
Putin needs to be challenged. He will not turn back unless the bully in him is confronted.
If that means full cultural and economic sanctions by the EU and the US and other countries against Putin's expansionism, then so be it.
And yes before anyone asks, military aid and support to Ukraine and other east European nations threatened with annexation by the Russian bear.
Appeasement of Putin will only embolden him for future conquests.
0 -
I think we now probably have to accept that we have to keep out of it, and accept that the EU certainly has made a utter utter cock up of flirting with the Ukraine.stodge said:
So what do you think we should do about it - tell President Obama to dispatch the 82nd Airborne to Simferopol and see what happens. Whether we like it or not, there are clearly a lot of people in the Eastern Ukraine and Crimea who would rather be ruled from Moscow than from Kiev and while we may not understand or agree with that, we have to accept it as reality in an imperfect world.Slackbladder said:
I'm sorry, that's utter bollocks. The situations and cases you quote are a simple claim for the status quo, without any outside influence.
That's utterly different from what Russia is doing, which is messing about in a defined foreign country, breaching treaties, just because it can. The Crimea has never had a referendum to say it wants to separate, and until that happens, Russia has no rights or control over it.
I know the left hates the British Empire, and the rights of the Falklanders et al, but theres some utter doublethink to warp that to supporting homophobia belligerent rulers like Putin.
Makes a difference from a few days ago when some people were hero-worshipping Baroness Aston.0 -
The most blatant example of party point-scoring has been the attempts of sections of the Conservative Party to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition's vacillation over the government's attempt to start an aggressive war against Syria, is responsible for the Russian action in the Crimea.Slackbladder said:I'm not trying to do that at all. Just that some on the left are using petty point-scoring over it when it's much bigger than that.
0 -
Divided countries (divided along ethnic/religious/cultural lines) always struggle. There is no common demos to hold them together.
It is the tragedy of the Eurozone that the Brussels bureaucrats believe administrative unity can replace this. There is no Eurozone demos and at some point the Germans will not take on the debts of the bankrupt periphery. Democracy requires a demos to be viable – otherwise you get the tyranny of a majority over an ethnically distinct minority.
Maybe countries like Ukraine, Belgium, etc should just split and the two halves go their natural way with their brethren. I wonder how many such countries there are?
Likewise Scotland if the majority no longer feel they share an ethnic/cultural identity with the rest of the UK.0 -
@JackW
Or maybe it would just be more realistic to regonise the USSR disintegrated with some daft borders leaving lots of people living in the wrong state and see if there's a better way to correct the faults.0 -
The problem with that approach is the last time anything near it was tried (i.e. in inter-war Europe) it was an absolute disaster. There are no easy answers to this mess, especially not the tiresome warmongering advocated by some.Alanbrooke said:Or maybe it would just be more realistic to regonise the USSR disintegrated with some daft borders leaving lots of people living in the wrong state and see if there's a better way to correct the faults.
0 -
I regret to say you're one-eyed Ukip anti-EU stance colours your whole judgement fatally. This issue shouldn't be seen though the prism of straight bananas or a multiple of other Ukip fantasies.Richard_Tyndall said:
I was talking of the West, not of the UK specifically. The EU has engineered this crisis and then - not surprisingly - seen it get out of hand.JackW said:
Utter nonsense.
If you seriously believe that Foreign Office intervention in Ukraine amounted to more than a very marginal interest and certainly nothing in comparison to Putin, then I suggest you look to re-education in a Ukip camp.
Neither do I concede that mistakes of the past, even recent past, allow us to negate treaty obligations freely given, especially in relation t nuclear disarmament.
You might consider the UK is damaged goods but assuredly most citizens of Ukraine think the opposite.
And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.
The simplest of simple facts is that Putin is striving to annex vast swathes of sovereign Ukraine. The Russian bear is on the march.
0 -
Putin is not Saddam Hussein or some other swivel-eyed despot. He is a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work but he is a rational being who grew up with and was schooled in realpolitik. Domestically, he has to be seen to be acting in Ukraine - Russian nationalism would not tolerate any other response. That is not an excuse for what is clearly aggressive and offensive behaviour, but it is context. Full scale economic and cultural sanctions will escalate the situation for no positive gain - in fact, they will be entirely detrimental.JackW said:
What a council of despair.SouthamObserver said:I cannot think of any time in the last 100 years when the West might have intervened militarily over Russian military action in a place such as Ukraine, however unpalatable and dreadful it is. That is realpolitik, isn't it? Big powers have their spheres of influence and in practical terms they have a freedom of action in those places which can only be countered by diplomatic means.
Putin needs to be challenged. He will not turn back unless the bully in him is confronted.
If that means full cultural and economic sanctions by the EU and the US and other countries against Putin's expansionism, then so be it.
And yes before anyone asks, military aid and support to Ukraine and other east European nations threatened with annexation by the Russian bear.
Appeasement of Putin will only embolden him for future conquests.
As someone notes below, the markets - which not even Putin can buck - are already hammering Russia. That may be the most effective weapon there is. And this has happened on the cusp of spring, not in deepest winter, which makes Russia's grip on gas supplies less telling than it could have been.
0 -
One referendum at a time! For obvious legal reasons, and the Edinburgh Agreement, we have to stick to the defined national boundary this time round. However if someone wanted to try and set up a D&G independence party and seek a referendum and then get people to vote for them then that is called democracy. By the way, Berwick is something of a special case because of its origins as the county town of Berwickshire, extreme geographical location, and anomalous legal status (not to mention its close links to Scotland in many ways, such as medical cases going to the Borders General Hospital in Melrose). A local voodoo poll showed a fair bit of interest in a return to Berwickshire a year or two back. Given the current dissatisfaction with Northumberland CC etc it would not surprise me if this issue came to a head after a Yes.malcolmg said:
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.Charles said:
That's an interesting thought.Life_ina_market_town said:
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.Patrick said: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.
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
Do you think the same re Berwick , Carlisle etc is also applicable0 -
It's a great point. As I said last night, the former soviet republics were broken up along the internal boundaries of the SSRs - many of which were arbitrary and counter intuitive.Alanbrooke said:@JackW
Or maybe it would just be more realistic to regonise the USSR disintegrated with some daft borders leaving lots of people living in the wrong state and see if there's a better way to correct the faults.0 -
The inconsistency of logic here is incredible. Apparently the wishes of the pro-EU bulk of Ukraine we can have "no idea" about, but the wishes of the pro-Russian East is "very clear".Richard_Tyndall said:And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
Whataboutism is the refuge of those who can't defend something on the grounds of the case itself, and try to change the subject to what others have done elsewhere. Russia has moved its military into a foreign country, whose borders it has pledged to respect on several occasions, without any basis in international law, and with the apparent intent of outright imperialist annexation and is clearly illegal.Richard_Tyndall said:The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.
0 -
At least the piece didn't include that sure sign of idiocy, 'Braveheart', not far off it though.MonikerDiCanio said:
Not sure which day I'll be able to fit in tossing a couple of cabers this week.
'having been ruled by Nordic kings until the late 15th century, Shetland and Orkney share little of the Celtic culture that defines much Scottish nationalism. They do not wear kilts or toss the caber. They also lack much sense of Scottish nationhood. Scottish saltires are almost as hard to find on the islands as the union flag—rather it is their own flags, Scandinavian-style crosses on blue and red backgrounds, that billow from trawlers and flagstaffs. Begrudgingly, the SNP suggested the islanders should be free to set their own course—and this has fuelled a fresh debate about devolution which could have great consequences for them and other local communities, however the referendum turns out.'
Interestingly the Shetland flag which I assume they're referring to was designed by a Scottish Nationalist.
0 -
I can easily defend it. You just don't want to hear it.Socrates said:
The inconsistency of logic here is incredible. Apparently the wishes of the pro-EU bulk of Ukraine we can have "no idea" about, but the wishes of the pro-Russian East is "very clear".Richard_Tyndall said:And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
Whataboutism is the refuge of those who can't defend something on the grounds of the case itself, and try to change the subject to what others have done elsewhere. Russia has moved its military into a foreign country, whose borders it has pledged to respect on several occasions, without any basis in international law, and with the apparent intent of outright imperialist annexation and is clearly illegal.Richard_Tyndall said:The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.
The Ukraine as it is configured today is an artificial relic of the Soviet Union and in no way reflects the wishes of the peoples it contains. As such they have a right to self determination and the country should be partitioned to allow the south and east to either form an independent country or join the Russian Federation if that is what they want.
This is the morally and politically right thing to do.
As I said the hypocrisy of those trying to attack the Russians over this is remarkable.0 -
Mr. Divvie, and tartan/kilts were invented by the English.0
-
Border conflicts have been the thorn in the side of modern European history. However if we fail to act against a blatant aggressor nation in such overt circumstances then I dread to think what will be offered to us in the future.Alanbrooke said:@JackW
Or maybe it would just be more realistic to regonise the USSR disintegrated with some daft borders leaving lots of people living in the wrong state and see if there's a better way to correct the faults.
As I noted last night, we must be mindful that once again we do have to swallow the words of Winston Churchill :
"Thou art been weighed in the balance and been found wanting."
0 -
Oh I'm well aware of the precedent. But at heart we still have a state where nobody has sought the mandate for it's current shape. I have no doubt if asked the 3 russian majority provinces all of whom border Russia would wish to leave probably placing 2 thirds of the russian population in the right state and leaving the Ukraine on more solid footing. The question is have we the balls to do it and then give the new Ukraine solid security guarantees ( Nato membership ?) to stop future uncertainty.Life_ina_market_town said:
The problem with that approach is the last time anything near it was tried (i.e. in inter-war Europe) it was an absolute disaster. There are no easy answers to this mess, especially not the tiresome warmongering advocated by some.Alanbrooke said:Or maybe it would just be more realistic to regonise the USSR disintegrated with some daft borders leaving lots of people living in the wrong state and see if there's a better way to correct the faults.
0 -
That may be true, but that doesn't give the Russians the right to march their tanks over the border, unless there was some referendum held and some political settlement agreed which I must have missed.Richard_Tyndall said:
I can easily defend it. You just don't want to hear it.Socrates said:
The inconsistency of logic here is incredible. Apparently the wishes of the pro-EU bulk of Ukraine we can have "no idea" about, but the wishes of the pro-Russian East is "very clear".Richard_Tyndall said:And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
Whataboutism is the refuge of those who can't defend something on the grounds of the case itself, and try to change the subject to what others have done elsewhere. Russia has moved its military into a foreign country, whose borders it has pledged to respect on several occasions, without any basis in international law, and with the apparent intent of outright imperialist annexation and is clearly illegal.Richard_Tyndall said:The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.
The Ukraine as it is configured today is an artificial relic of the Soviet Union and in no way reflects the wishes of the peoples it contains. As such they have a right to self determination and the country should be partitioned to allow the south and east to either form an independent country or join the Russian Federation if that is what they want.
This is the morally and politically right thing to do.
As I said the hypocrisy of those trying to attack the Russians over this is remarkable.
You don't know that the South/East of Ukraine want to be part of Russia, because no ones actually asked them.0 -
That's not the case at all. Czechoslovakia and Poland could have been said to have been Germany's sphere of influence in the 1930s, and Serbia could have been said to have been Austria-Hungary's sphere of influence in the 1910s. In both situations it was considered unacceptable, due to the fact that the "sphere of influence" theory is a 19th Century imperialist one, where the smaller nations of this world would be sacrificed for the interests of the large ones. During the early 20th Century, the more moral statesmen successfully fought for a world where this concept was overturned, and instead all nations should have their territorial integrity protected, except in the rare circumstance where ethnic cleansing had been going on. Russia has been trying to bring back the 19th Century mentality, because it is a barbaric, autocratic power that seeks to bolster its own prestige at the expense of its neighbours. I am appalled that so many people in this country are willing to endorse that, and throw long standing principles of international out the window, to justify a cowardly unwillingness to stick our necks out.SouthamObserver said:I cannot think of any time in the last 100 years when the West might have intervened militarily over Russian military action in a place such as Ukraine, however unpalatable and dreadful it is. That is realpolitik, isn't it? Big powers have their spheres of influence and in practical terms they have a freedom of action in those places which can only be countered by diplomatic means.
0 -
That line of thinking, correct in my view, was what formed the speech by Enoch Powell that caused much controversy in 1968. Powell had been stationed in India during ww2 and saw how a country divided by religious factions couldn't be a country at all, and saw the introduction of huge numbers of people of a different culture/ethnicity/religion into this country as asking for the same to happen here.Patrick said:Divided countries (divided along ethnic/religious/cultural lines) always struggle. There is no common demos to hold them together.
It is the tragedy of the Eurozone that the Brussels bureaucrats believe administrative unity can replace this. There is no Eurozone demos and at some point the Germans will not take on the debts of the bankrupt periphery. Democracy requires a demos to be viable – otherwise you get the tyranny of a majority over an ethnically distinct minority.
Maybe countries like Ukraine, Belgium, etc should just split and the two halves go their natural way with their brethren. I wonder how many such countries there are?
Likewise Scotland if the majority no longer feel they share an ethnic/cultural identity with the rest of the UK.
Some say it hasn't panned out the way he predicted, others like myself would say he was extremely accurate, not only on this matter but also on the ever increasing influence of the EU on British life0 -
I regret to say 'your' grasp of the issues is about as good as your grammar.JackW said:
I regret to say you're one-eyed Ukip anti-EU stance colours your whole judgement fatally. This issue shouldn't be seen though the prism of straight bananas or a multiple of other Ukip fantasies.Richard_Tyndall said:
I was talking of the West, not of the UK specifically. The EU has engineered this crisis and then - not surprisingly - seen it get out of hand.JackW said:
Utter nonsense.
If you seriously believe that Foreign Office intervention in Ukraine amounted to more than a very marginal interest and certainly nothing in comparison to Putin, then I suggest you look to re-education in a Ukip camp.
Neither do I concede that mistakes of the past, even recent past, allow us to negate treaty obligations freely given, especially in relation t nuclear disarmament.
You might consider the UK is damaged goods but assuredly most citizens of Ukraine think the opposite.
And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.
The simplest of simple facts is that Putin is striving to annex vast swathes of sovereign Ukraine. The Russian bear is on the march.
The simplest of truths is that the West has striven to undermine Russia in its own backyard and is now in no position to complain when they play the same game.
0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
