Ok so it's just a coincidence that northeastern provinces have Labour governors and the sea provinces all have liberal governors.

The provincial governors (actually they are called King's Commissioner) are formally appointed by the King and usually stay in office for twelve years (two terms of six years). They don't have much power and what power they have they are supposed to apply impartially. There can for instance easily be a VVD governor, even when the provincial government doesn't include the VVD (and thus the VVD didn't co-author the political program of said government).

Despite the formal appointment by the King, in practice it's been through wheeling and dealing in national politics that the provincial governor positions, along with a number of other offices (mayors, European Commissioner etc.), are divided amongst primarily the larger national parties such that the division is approximately proportional to their electorate in national elections. Obviously in these deals each party aims to get provinces in which they at least have significant electoral support. For the VVD, even though they don't dominate South-Holland, it's still one of their stronger provinces, so obviously in those deals made at the national level the VVD tends to try and get the South-Holland governor position.

Additionally, if a VVD governor resigns or reaches the end of their second term, to keep the proportional balance between the larger parties, there's usually a good chance that they will be replaced by another VVD governor.

So, to answer your question. No, it's not entirely a coincidence, but not in the way you suggest and it's certainly not because the VVD dominates South-Holland, which again, they don't.

Since we're learning about Dutch politics, I have a question.

In the US context, 'progressive' is synonymous with left-leaning or social-democratic views. However, it does not appear to be the case in Europe. Democrats 66 in the Netherlands calls itself a progressive party but it shares the liberal orientation of the CDA and VVD. So, what does progressive mean in the European context?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pol-landschap-2012.png

"How is it that traditionally many populations could function perfectly well together (I'm thinking Ottoman Empire)"

Hadn't the Ottomans lost their European territories by the Treaty of Berlin? While Russia had wanted to replace the Porte as the suzerain in the Balkans, the British and French had forced the Tsar to accept a treaty that guaranteed the independence of these new states. That the Turkish empire survived at all after 1878 is a direct result of Lord Beaconsfield insistence on sending naval ships to defend Istanbul.

I know that Putin, but I'm thinking about how the Treaty of Lausanne set a precedent of separating populations that has continued to this day. In traditional Ottoman society, Greeks, Jews, Turks and Christians were all able to coexist just fine. Have the powers of modernization and nationalism really fundamentally changed the world so much that each ethnicity must have its own country?

I don't know about your assessment of Ottoman rule (certainly there were many rebellions by its Christian subjects that were ruthlessly suppressed), but unfortunately every attempt at creating a multi-ethnic society has failed.

I for one despise ethnic nationalism and the unspeakable, unimaginable suffering that it has provoked in the last century and a half. I would argue that there is nothing 'natural' about forming countries around heavily mixed linguistic communities.

"but unfortunately every attempt at creating a multi-ethnic society has failed"
Putin33: Perhaps you mean by that that many multi-ethnic societies have not survived. There is a big difference there.

Sure, yes, I'm willing to accept that correction.

I'm with you on that one JECE. That's why I really hope Ukraine doesn't break up

@oscar
Excellent explanations all of them

@Putin
"In the US context, 'progressive' is synonymous with left-leaning or social-democratic views. However, it does not appear to be the case in Europe. Democrats 66 in the Netherlands calls itself a progressive party but it shares the liberal orientation of the CDA and VVD. So, what does progressive mean in the European context? "

Progressive/Conservative in that graph is defined in cultural terms: themes like abortion, gay marriage, the extent to which public officials should be elected/appointed. Left/Right is the classical economic axis with capitalism on the right and socialism on the left.

""Dismantling Ukraine according to meaningless graphs is OK" - This was what steephie proposed."

I queted from Draugnar, but this is @most of you:

NO!! NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I SAID, from the start, IF they want it, sure. Look at the first reply if you don't believe me, I don't have to look, because I know exactly what I wrote. IF, that's what I wrote. Seriously, check it.
I never claimed that they want it, although I can *imagine* that they *might* *possibly* want it, since there are/have been riots, and people die.
*IF that's the case*, that *THEY WANT IT*, sure, let them split. That's a *hypothetical* situation in which *they want* to split. IF that *hypothetical* situation occurs, sure they can split.

STOP saying I'm making assumptions,
STOP saying I want to divide their country,
STOP saying I want to have any influence on wether they divide their country or not,
STOP saying I want them to divide their country,
STOP saying I give a fuck about stats that have little to do with the subject,
START realizing that all I'm saying is that I want to defend their democratic rights, IF they want to use those rights to divide the country. So that is in the *hypothetical* situation that *they want* to split up their country, as you can see because I use the word IF, as can be seen in the very first reply.

When everybody has done those things, I would like it if all people who attacked me on things I did not say tell me what's making it so hard for them to understand (seriously, I might be doing something wrong, but at this point I really don't see what) and if they disagree with my own actual words on the matter at all. If so, what do you disagree with and why?

quoted*

I should clarify that I defend their democratic right if they don't want to split too, naturally.

No, steephie, that was not your proposal, that's redhouse's "provocative" question.

And provoking it was... :D

It provoked many responses, yes. Well played :)

I get that, what I don't get is that many don't seem to follow what I actually say. Looking at the responses aimed at me, I don't think Draugnar is the only one who thought I proposed that, which is odd...

It's not the first time this happened. It seems that for some reason all stupid statements are assumed to be mine, causing a spiral, and I'd like to break that spiral before people think I'm Sbyvl36.

The same goes for me, actually. I feel poorly understood in this thread. I'm not proposing a carving up of the Ukraine. My question (question!) is whether, if you analyze the situation, the culture, the politics and the economics of the country, it wouldn't be the best *for them* (so not, *for me*) to separate in two, so that the north can start aligning with the EU and the south with Russia?

Dividing a country because of a disagreement over a customs union strikes me as being the most overreactive solution one could dream up. It is very odd that in this era of free trade we want to replicate state boundaries 192 times over and make states smaller. Dividing Ukraine deprives the east the granaries of the west and the west the coal and mineral rich east. Two smaller states means two smaller, and thus resource-poorer, economies. It weakens both in their efforts to be self-sufficient. It turns both into dependencies rather than creating a single independent polity. The EU, as we've seen with the Romanian and Bulgarian fiascos, doesn't care about eastern Europe. They've spent the better part of the last two years stoking fear and xenophobia about the influx of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants. They want access to Ukraine's markets, want to pulverize the populations with austerity as they have the rest of the east, but don't want to allow them to move anywhere to escape poverty. For Ukraine, I have a hard time believing a draconian IMF/EU package is what the population actually wants if this was put up to a legitimate free vote. The IMF is demanding severe Greek-like "reforms" of the Ukrainian public sector and economic policy. How is this remotely desirable? As we've already seen with the Balkan cases, the EU will drag their feet on actually admitting these countries into the union and their admission will only fuel more xenophobia and resentment in the west. Meanwhile the Ukrainians will be stuck in a death spiral of austerity and financial dependency.

Well HELLLOOOOO Putty-Putty I disagree with every word you write but *at least* it's an answer to my actual question instead of a hyperemotional accusation.

Well, redhouse, you framed your question like it was a no-brainer. Especially when you caill it provocative, which to me means it's original and thought-provoking. Given the fact we have Kosovo, South Sudan, might have had two Libyas if Gaddafi didn't fall, might have two Syrias in the future, the idea is certainly not very original. It's almost a standard Western solution when we cannot add a small power into our sphere of influence - break it into two pieces (ethnic lines, language lines, political lines, whatever suits) and hope the rebellious piece feels thankful for some time (which they usually don't because our violent "allies" are usually not very nice people so we have to bribe them afterwards).

So maybe I took the bait and was overreacting but you surely laid a very vitriolic bait in the OP :)

The Ukraine case seems special, because of the binary element. North-South, Ukrainian-speaking - Russian-speaking, poor-rich. And is one of these going to obtain a credible dominance over the other? It seems like that won't be the case..

In Holland, as in any other nation, we have minorities and distinct cultural regions, but its binary character as proposed by Putin33 is a caricature.

As in most European countries, there is a dominant center that has credibility all over the country, with areas like Limburg, Friesland, Zeeland and Groningen putting accents on their own cultural identities within this context.

This is one reason why I'd be against the separation of Scotland from GB, for example. It seems like the Scots and English have so much in common that I wouldn't support separation or subsequent Scottish accession to the EU. In the case of Ukraine it seems different.

Well, you know more about the Scotttish-English example than the Ukrainian one. The more you know, the more likely you are to believe that internally different countries can work. Outsiders could divide USA into parts based on many criteria but Americans know there's no need for that. The UK holds together, Italy holds together, Belgium holds together even though armchair politicians divide them on daily basis. There are problems but so far they have been always overcome. Lord Runciman knew jack squat about Czechoslovakia and Hitler was given Sudetenland. That's the kind of externally forced solution that fucks everything up.

If Ukrainians wanted to divide, they would have divided. Despite their problems, the elections were quite clearly working democratically, with power shifting between different blocks and opposition running in the election with no problems. They voted in Yanukovych last time, very mildly pro-Russian, but staunchly pro-independence and territorial integrity. He was dealing with the EU but didn't want Ukraine to be completely ripped off and demanded re-negotiation. Maidan was born to force him to sign the treaty as it was. The interim government now says they won't sign outright either - basically saying Yanukovych was right in his actions towards EU. That makes his ousting even less legitimate. Klitschko and his UDAR negotiated a treaty with Yanukovych that was supposed to calm the situation. Street thugs instead ousted Yanukovych out. Again, nothing a democratically inclined person could ever support. Now Russia was forced to step in because it has a potential ticking bomb right on its doorstep. If Ukraine gets split up, it definitely won't be based on its population's will, but because of violence.

"Now Russia was forced to step in because it has a potential ticking bomb right on its doorstep."

Can you expand on that? How exactly do you figure is it a potential ticking time bomb for Russia?

I think he meant to the Russians in the Krim, not to Russia as a country.

There are no Russian soldiers taking pictures with smiling Scotsmen in the Highlands ulytau. I'm sorry, but your comparisons just don't seem to make sense :(

@steephie That makes no sense so I doubt it.

How can you look at the violence and tensions, attempts to seize city governments, attempts to eliminate Russian language, etc and not see it as a ticking time bomb?

Brilliant quote:

"After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."

-Sarah Palin, 2008