The news thread

[TDYER63]

1 hour ago, Dave78 said:

I realised it didn't make much sense after reading it back, but didn't bother ammending/deleting.

I was trying to be a bit cheeky, by implying Malcolm was the type of person you describe - he just wasn't aware of it.

In reality i'm sure he's lovely. Apologies Malcolm!

😂 the first time I read it I thought that is what you were meaning, but then I thought Malcolm must be winding me up and I was the fish for not recognising this.
FFS it’s  just as well I dont play poker,  I would be the fish’s fish 😁

[Malcolm]

3 hours ago, Dave78 said:

I realised it didn't make much sense after reading it back, but didn't bother ammending/deleting.

I was trying to be a bit cheeky, by implying Malcolm was the type of person you describe - he just wasn't aware of it.

In reality i'm sure he's lovely. Apologies Malcolm!

i got it hence the laughing emoji in my response!  In reality, I’m probably not everyone’s cup of tea as some of my views are a bit divergent from folks here, but I’m here for the banter and no matter what’s folks views are we all want to see Scotland do well at the end of the day!

[ThistleWhistle]

Why is the Solomon Islands-China security pact causing alarm? | Military News | Al Jazeera

Decent summary of what the crack is over in the Solomon Islands with China and US waiving their diplomatic dongs about the place over it.  

Ukraine is looking like the first pawn sacraficed in a much bigger geo-political game about to come to fruition.  

[aaid]

44 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Why is the Solomon Islands-China security pact causing alarm? | Military News | Al Jazeera

Decent summary of what the crack is over in the Solomon Islands with China and US waiving their diplomatic dongs about the place over it.  

Ukraine is looking like the first pawn sacraficed in a much bigger geo-political game about to come to fruition.  

Its still far from certain how things will play out with Ukraine, but suggesting they're a pawn that's been sacrificed is far from accurate.

Edited April 20, 2022 by aaid

[ThistleWhistle]

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

Its still far from certain how things will play out with Ukraine, but suggesting they're a pawn that's been sacrificed is far from accurate.

They'll play out badly for the local population even if they 'win'.  Even if by some miracle the local population get Russia out of everywhere they'll have a country blown to shit that now knows it isn't getting into NATO or the EU and which will still need to come up with some deal with Russia as the east of the country will likely to be a shit show for years regardless who controls it.

We've had 25 years to get them into Nato or tell them they've no chance, years following Georgia, years following the Crimea and we had months of Russia troops on the border who from their side had their bluff called.  Instead of giving Ukraine a clear 'yes' or 'no' we continued with 'somewhere over the Rainbow' and continued to egg them on dealing hardline with the Russians so Ukraine have been sacrifced to avoid what potentially could be the trigger of WW3 if Nato got directly involved.  Chucking them tank guns, tampons and build yer own fighter jets whilst simultaneously buying fuel off the folk slaughtering them then cheering them on from the sidelines with celebs wearing blue and yellow in solidarity doesn't change that but it doesn't sit well with the 'good guys' story we're being shovelled. 

If Ukraine had access to a time machine and knowing the response they got from the west in response to a Russian invasion there is no way they'd make the same choices as they've done - they'd have kept their nukes for a start because they'd be evidently a better deterrent than the west.     

 

[phart]

They can't enter NATO with contested territory anyway.

Article 5 of NATO states this explicitly.

"States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance."

from the NATO enlargment study which was last updated back in 2008 but has primarily been in force for decades.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm

 

[ThistleWhistle]

22 hours ago, phart said:

They can't enter NATO with contested territory anyway.

Article 5 of NATO states this explicitly.

"States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance."

from the NATO enlargment study which was last updated back in 2008 but has primarily been in force for decades.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm

 

I’m not reading that as anything absolute to be honest because although ‘must’ is used there is no timeframe given or specific reference it must happen before an application is successful.  That resolution of such disputes is a factor in deciding whether to invite a state also suggests there are other considerations and doesn’t appear to give resolution of a conflict precedence over other factors in terms of priority.

 

7 appears to dilute this further:

 

 Enlargement will be decided on a case-by-case basis and some nations may attain membership before others. New members should not be admitted or excluded on the basis of belonging to some group or category. Ultimately, Allies will decide by consensus whether to invite each new member to join according to their judgment of whether doing so will contribute to security and stability in the North Atlantic area at the time such a decision is to be made. 

 

And 81 gives them more wiggle room:

 

It may not be feasible for countries invited to join to provide assurances that all domestic requirements for it/them to do so have been met together with formal notification of its/their desire to join. Precision may therefore be required on this point. It will be important, however, to avoid legislative ratification procedures for new accessions going forward in existing Allied countries without assurance that the country concerned wants to and will accede.

 

 

I’m assuming Zelenskyy didn’t believe 6 was a bar to them joining either as he didn’t admit formal defeat in joining Nato until mid-March with the invasion starting 20^th Feb.  He was demanding a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in 2021 too so mustn’t have thought the internal situation at that point was a bar on progress either:

 

Zelenskiy to Biden: give us clear 'yes' or 'no' on Ukraine NATO path | Reuters

[Ally Bongo]

It's a bad day when extremist lunatic Steve Baker loses confidence in you

Someone will pass a note into the Indian fridge Boris is currently hiding in 

[aaid]

25 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

It's a bad day when extremist lunatic Steve Baker loses confidence in you

Someone will pass a note into the Indian fridge Boris is currently hiding in 

I was looking at Steve Baker’s wiki page a few months ago and I was pretty stunned that given what we were both working on - pre him going into politics - around 20 years or so ago that we must have come into contact at some point.   He was obviously so memorable that I’ve no memory of him whatsoever. 

[Ally Bongo]

7 minutes ago, aaid said:

I was looking at Steve Baker’s wiki page a few months ago and I was pretty stunned that given what we were both working on - pre him going into politics - around 20 years or so ago that we must have come into contact at some point.   He was obviously so memorable that I’ve no memory of him whatsoever. 

To be fair he is a lot younger than you

[aaid]

8 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

To be fair he is a lot younger than you

Cheeky bugger, he's not that much younger.  Looking back though, it does seem he was somewhat on the young side to be doing the sort of jobs that he was doing then, but I guess they were relatively small companies.

I see we've three common connections on LinkedIn - one of who I certainly need to dig up about that.

Edited April 21, 2022 by aaid

[phart]

1 hour ago, ThistleWhistle said:

I’m not reading that as anything absolute to be honest because although ‘must’ is used there is no timeframe given or specific reference it must happen before an application is successful.  That resolution of such disputes is a factor in deciding whether to invite a state also suggests there are other considerations and doesn’t appear to give resolution of a conflict precedence over other factors in terms of priority.

 

7 appears to dilute this further:

 

 Enlargement will be decided on a case-by-case basis and some nations may attain membership before others. New members should not be admitted or excluded on the basis of belonging to some group or category. Ultimately, Allies will decide by consensus whether to invite each new member to join according to their judgment of whether doing so will contribute to security and stability in the North Atlantic area at the time such a decision is to be made. 

 

And 81 gives them more wiggle room:

 

It may not be feasible for countries invited to join to provide assurances that all domestic requirements for it/them to do so have been met together with formal notification of its/their desire to join. Precision may therefore be required on this point. It will be important, however, to avoid legislative ratification procedures for new accessions going forward in existing Allied countries without assurance that the country concerned wants to and will accede.

 

 

I’m assuming Zelenskyy didn’t believe 6 was a bar to them joining either as he didn’t admit formal defeat in joining Nato until mid-March with the invasion starting 20^th Feb.  He was demanding a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in 2021 too so mustn’t have thought the internal situation at that point was a bar on progress either:

 

Zelenskiy to Biden: give us clear 'yes' or 'no' on Ukraine NATO path | Reuters

It's been the basis for NATO enlargement for decades the section6 criteria.

When each of the other enlargements happened.

"NATO set basic criteria for joining, including being a stable democracy, having civilian control of armed forces, possessing enough military capacity to contribute meaningfully not simply to one’s own defense but also to collective security, and having no active disputes within or on one’s borders."

here's an academic article from the 1990's https://www.brookings.edu/research/enlarging-nato-a-questionable-idea-whose-time-has-come/

It's irrelevant what Zelensky thinks it's been common practice and followed for as long as I can remember. It's why Russia has instigated border disputes in some countries as it stops them from joining.

[ThistleWhistle]

1 hour ago, phart said:

It's been the basis for NATO enlargement for decades the section6 criteria.

When each of the other enlargements happened.

"NATO set basic criteria for joining, including being a stable democracy, having civilian control of armed forces, possessing enough military capacity to contribute meaningfully not simply to one’s own defense but also to collective security, and having no active disputes within or on one’s borders."

here's an academic article from the 1990's https://www.brookings.edu/research/enlarging-nato-a-questionable-idea-whose-time-has-come/

It's irrelevant what Zelensky thinks it's been common practice and followed for as long as I can remember. It's why Russia has instigated border disputes in some countries as it stops them from joining.

I get the common practice and how that has always been how it has historically always happened but there doesn't seem to be anything from a minimum requirement stipulating it has to happen every case before they can be apply/ be accepted.  

Found this from the US Department of State on minimum requirements too and it doesn't seem to be included within those:

Minimum Requirements for NATO Membership (state.gov)

Minimum Requirements for NATO Membership

Fact sheet prepared by the Bureau of European and Canadian Affairs, June 30, 1997.



NATO membership is potentially open to all of Europe's emerging democracies that share the alliance's values and are ready to meet the obligations of membership.

There is no checklist for membership.

We have made clear that, at a minimum, candidates for membership must meet the following five requirements:

--New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

--New members must be making progress toward a market economy.

--Their military forces must be under firm civilian control.

--They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

--They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.

Again, while these criteria are essential, they do not constitute a checklist leading automatically to NATO membership. 

New members must be invited by a consensus of current members.

Decisions to invite new members must take into account the required ratification process in the member states. In the case of the United States, decisions are made in consultation with Congress.

The key determinant for any invitation to new members is whether their admission to NATO will strengthen the alliance and further the basic objective of NATO enlargement, which is to increase security and stability across Europe.

 

 

 

I'd say what Zelenskyy thought too was important as getting into Nato seems to have been pretty fundimental in his strategy in dealing with Russia so if he and his government didn't understand the application process then that would be a massive cock up surely?

[phart]

The list above is from NATO and was made in 1995 by an official study by NATO as opposed to a fact sheet prepared by the Bureau of European and Canadian Affairs.

Although I guess the final say is consensus.

USA sponsored Slovenia in 1997 and they never got in then, in fact ironically it was Biden in the committee in forgein relations who was championing it back then. Slovenia didn't actually get in till 2004.

Ukraine is playing politics with it, perhaps they are getting strung along, but they're never going to get in with their territory compromised and active fighting happening along the border.

[ThistleWhistle]

15 hours ago, phart said:

The list above is from NATO and was made in 1995 by an official study by NATO as opposed to a fact sheet prepared by the Bureau of European and Canadian Affairs.

Although I guess the final say is consensus.

USA sponsored Slovenia in 1997 and they never got in then, in fact ironically it was Biden in the committee in forgein relations who was championing it back then. Slovenia didn't actually get in till 2004.

Ukraine is playing politics with it, perhaps they are getting strung along, but they're never going to get in with their territory compromised and active fighting happening along the border.

I honestly never thought they would get in but was genuinely intregruiged why they still thought they could even with the Russians at the door then smashing through it. 

If Nato had taken them in with Russia at the border we were essentially going 'all-in' after only the first couple of cards had been dealt.  Wouldn't be surprised if years down the track a lot of historical analysis plays out around how why they thought they could get in, their strategy around it and what the ramifications of that were.     

The evolution of the PfP is interesting and obviously formed a massive part of what was agreed 25 year ago but I've barely touched the surface of that.  Russia's nose must have been put out of joint in terms of the MAP agreements as they just seem a big step closer to full membership but a bit sneaky.  Funding seems an issue for it at the moment, and support too from members, which seems a bit worrying at face value as large chunks of what's agreed 25 year ago had large sections based on this being open and successful . 

[phart]

1 hour ago, ThistleWhistle said:

I honestly never thought they would get in but was genuinely intregruiged why they still thought they could even with the Russians at the door then smashing through it. 

If Nato had taken them in with Russia at the border we were essentially going 'all-in' after only the first couple of cards had been dealt.  Wouldn't be surprised if years down the track a lot of historical analysis plays out around how why they thought they could get in, their strategy around it and what the ramifications of that were.     

The evolution of the PfP is interesting and obviously formed a massive part of what was agreed 25 year ago but I've barely touched the surface of that.  Russia's nose must have been put out of joint in terms of the MAP agreements as they just seem a big step closer to full membership but a bit sneaky.  Funding seems an issue for it at the moment, and support too from members, which seems a bit worrying at face value as large chunks of what's agreed 25 year ago had large sections based on this being open and successful . 

The world changes as well. We've had peace for so long in these parts we often forget how often internecine conflicts happened in the past. Then folk forget why things like Europe and NATO were formed in the first place, to stop the constant wars, and they get hijacked to further other less noble political causes.

Then cause of advent of pre-emptive warfare over the last 2 decades plus, also NATO-bombing in Serbia. Couple this with Russian imperliasm being on the rise (2nd Chechen war, Georgia , annexation of Crimea , Ukraine conflict, Central African republic civil war etc) it's a total shit show atm.

I agree NATO can't admit Zelensky but often international proclamations are for domestic benefit.

NATO funding is going to be less of an issue since countries in Europe seem to be ramping up defense spending I think they are meant to spend 2% of GDP.

NATO saying they wouldn't go east, Russia saying if Ukraine gave up nukes they'd never compromise their territory etc. We're dealing with duplicity all round.

[vanderark14]

 

[TDYER63]

Consumer confidence at its lowest level since 2008, and second lowest level since records began 50 years ago. Retail sales drop 1.4 % against an expected 0.3%. Pound tumbles. 
 

https://www.ft.com/content/5e15eaaf-e987-4263-979c-81330035b152

[TDYER63]

10 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

 

Wtf. I dont even know the know the rules of cricket but can guarantee this is utter shite. Think this tweet covers it.

[Malcolm]

I normally consider myself right leaning as a voter but the current bunch are a shower of shits.  Rapidly running out of anyone to vote for.  Might give up on democracy and just do what I want like every other fucker.  If only there was a party that could persuade me to vote.

in the locals, anyone that will get rid of the anti car agenda and “spaces for people” in Edinburgh you have a guaranteed vote waiting for you….  All you need to do is say.

[ThistleWhistle]

17 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

I normally consider myself right leaning as a voter but the current bunch are a shower of shits.  Rapidly running out of anyone to vote for.  Might give up on democracy and just do what I want like every other fucker.  If only there was a party that could persuade me to vote.

in the locals, anyone that will get rid of the anti car agenda and “spaces for people” in Edinburgh you have a guaranteed vote waiting for you….  All you need to do is say.

I'm a left of centre guy although recently seem to be retreating but find myself as politically homeless as you.

[TDYER63]

3 hours ago, Malcolm said:

I normally consider myself right leaning as a voter but the current bunch are a shower of shits.  Rapidly running out of anyone to vote for.  Might give up on democracy and just do what I want like every other fucker.  If only there was a party that could persuade me to vote.

in the locals, anyone that will get rid of the anti car agenda and “spaces for people” in Edinburgh you have a guaranteed vote waiting for you….  All you need to do is say.

 

3 hours ago, ThistleWhistle said:

I'm a left of centre guy although recently seem to be retreating but find myself as politically homeless as you.

I genuinely believe an independent Scotland could bring a fresh political outlook in Scotland and provide choices that do not exist at present. Nothing will ever change in the UK. Tories and Labour will never ever vote to change  FPTP , its like the political equivalent of the Old Firm. 
But to unlock those choices you are going to have to hold your nose to help obtain independence . 

[Och Aye]

4 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

 

I genuinely believe an independent Scotland could bring a fresh political outlook in Scotland and provide choices that do not exist at present. Nothing will ever change in the UK. Tories and Labour will never ever vote to change  FPTP , its like the political equivalent of the Old Firm. 
But to unlock those choices you are going to have to hold your nose to help obtain independence . 

Should you really be posting common sense stuff here? Just you steady on a bit.

[Malcolm]

19 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

 

I genuinely believe an independent Scotland could bring a fresh political outlook in Scotland and provide choices that do not exist at present. Nothing will ever change in the UK. Tories and Labour will never ever vote to change  FPTP , its like the political equivalent of the Old Firm. 
But to unlock those choices you are going to have to hold your nose to help obtain independence . 

hmmn yeah, dilemma.  Right wing Independence Party required.

[TDYER63]

11 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

hmmn yeah, dilemma.  Right wing Independence Party required.

That would be the answer. Problem is not all right wing people think like you. Far too many fall into the ‘I’m allright Jack’ category and are happy sticking with the UK whilst we have a never ending Tory government. 

I totally understand people being worried about the financial risk involving independence but the truth is too many people who are well aware of the riches Scotland hold  are far too tied up in short termism to protect their own interests. Again , nothing wrong at all with wanting to protect your money and assets,  but these very people are willing to chuck their life savings onto the stock market to increase their bank balance but somehow think Scottish Independence is too risky. 

Truth is they just cannot be arsed unless there is something in it for them. Thats where a right wing independence party would be very useful.