Englishman asks "Who won the Bloody War, anyway?"

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

SF are still intent on achieving a UI (and therefore their supporters and electors) and even Taylor could not, in all honesty, deny that it is more than likely inevitable.

You need to adjust those blinkers. Taylor said no such thing.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Including putting them in the ground. Yep.


There's no cover up regarding either.



There's no blame to share in the disappeared - that's entirely on the shoulders of your Gerry's boys.



Heh. How's that working out then? http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-says-yes-to-a-border-poll-but-a-firm-no-to-united-ireland-30622987.html

Just like Taylor and the BBC, you cannot hide your pathetic, sad bias.

As demonstrated on the Scottish Ref thread you disappeared from, polls taken before a debate or campaign begins are worthless.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just like Taylor and the BBC, you cannot hide your pathetic, sad bias.

As demonstrated on the Scottish Ref thread you disappeared from, polls taken before a debate or campaign begins are worthless.

Good thing I didn't reference any polls from before the debate began then, eh?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

You need to adjust those blinkers. Taylor said no such thing.

Peter Taylor wrote:

“I would not be surprised if at some stage in the long years ahead a united Ireland did emerge.

Not suprised = EXPECTED

http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-opposite-of/surprising.html

'More than likely inevitable', was an understatement of what he said.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not suprised = EXPECTED

http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-opposite-of/surprising.html

'More than likely inevitable', was an understatement of what he said.

Like I said - you've got some blinkers on.

So what's my conclusion? Who really won the war? Viewed through the prism of the present, it's clear that the British and the Unionists won, because the union is secure, and the IRA is no more. But nobody knows what the future may hold. The unimaginable has already happened with Martin McGuinness up there at Stormont as deputy first minister and dining at Windsor Castle with the Queen. I wouldn't be surprised if, at some stage in the long years ahead a united Ireland did emerge.

Nothing there about any 'inevitability' there. - just that we can't know what might happen on the future, and that the unimaginable has already happened, so you shouldn't be surprised if it happened down the line.

Honestly. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Good thing I didn't reference any polls from before the debate began then, eh?

The campaign only starts when the proposers publish their proposal, in the Scots Ref case that was the White Paper of Nov 2013. That is when the Yes vote began it's rise.
The same thing will happen here...a proposal will be made and the campaign will begin. Any poll taken before that is a waste of time and means little. They are usually used for posturing, by either side of the debate. The Telegraph in this case being pro-Union.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Like I said - you've got some blinkers on.



Nothing there about any 'inevitability' there. - just that we can't know what might happen on the future, and that the unimaginable has already happened, so you shouldn't be surprised if it happened down the line.

Honestly. :rolleyes:

Which bit of 'more than likely' are you struggling with? :rolleyes:

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The campaign only starts when the proposers publish their proposal, in the Scots Ref case that was the White Paper of Nov 2013. That is when the Yes vote began it's rise.
The same thing will happen here...a proposal will be made and the campaign will begin. Any poll taken before that is a waste of time and means little. They are usually used for posturing, by either side of the debate.

What's patently clear is that there won't be any united Ireland unless there's some remarkable shift in people's views. Unless you've got your blinkers on again.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which bit of 'more than likely' are you struggling with? :rolleyes:

Keep digging. But well done on, once again, misrepresenting a piece of journalism that you seemingly didn't pay much attention to in the first place.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Keep digging. But well done on, once again, misrepresenting a piece of journalism that you seemingly didn't pay much attention to in the first place.

'I wouldn't be suprised if it rained'.
'It is more than likely inevitable that it will rain'

Both statements allow for the prospect of 'no rain'.

Keep up the tired semantics Alastair. Helps to avoid the issues. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

What's patently clear is that there won't be any united Ireland unless there's some remarkable shift in people's views. Unless you've got your blinkers on again.

Which is 'posturing' from somebody who is clearly pro-Union.
Let the campaign begin and then we will actually see what happens.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

'I wouldn't be suprised if it rained'.
'It is more than likely inevitable that it will rain'

Both statements allow for the prospect of 'no rain'.

Keep up the tired semantics Alastair. Helps to avoid the issues. :rolleyes:

Keep digging.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is 'posturing' from somebody who is clearly pro-Union.

I am?, but those people polled, who stated they were, are not (really)? Interesting perspective.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Keep digging.

I wouldn't be suprised if you avoided the issues with semantics, it is more than likely inevitable.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I am?, but those people polled, who stated they were, are not (really)? Interesting perspective.

Yes, you are and you are posturing by using a poll conducted by a pro Union newspaper.

DarkyHughes

"The IRA are to clever to tell the full truth what they negotiated & unionists are to stupid to realize what they achieved".

Think that sums it up & it's also what it likes on the ground. Republicans seem content & confident & unionists who have the 6 counties as safe as ever are as p!ssed of as ever.

That moron Billy Hutchinson talking about a "culture war", he sounds like Bill O'Reilly

DarkyHughes

alastair wrote: »

Robespierre had his head chopped off by his fellow revolutionaries, so he hadn't much of a chance. The others had the advantage of some democratic mandate for their actions. I'm struggling to see where any paramilitaries in NI could claim the same.

And he deserved it to, he was cutting other peoples head off left right & center.

Struggling? To what exactly.

Happyman42

DarkyHughes wrote: »

"The IRA are to clever to tell the full truth what they negotiated & unionists are to stupid to realize what they achieved".

Think that sums it up & it's also what it likes on the ground. Republicans seem content & confident & unionists who have the 6 counties as safe as ever are as p!ssed of as ever.

That moron Billy Hutchinson talking about a "culture war", he sounds like Bill O'Reilly

The problem affecting Unionists is that the pragmatic know that 'it is safe' only for now. No matter which way it went in Scotland, it scared the bejayus out of them. It's an oncoming train for them.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The problem affecting Unionists is that the pragmatic know that 'it is safe' only for now. No matter which way it went in Scotland, it scared the bejayus out of them. It's an oncoming train for them.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, eh?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Despite all evidence to the contrary, eh?

Polls taken before a campaign begins or proposals are made are only evidence that the pro-union media will be out in force again, just like they where in Scotland.

Happyman42

On the earlier mention of cover-ups, have a read...
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/troubled-times-for-north-talks-as-the-truth-about-the-past-is-withheld-1.1948320?page=2

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Polls taken before a campaign begins or proposals are made are only evidence that the pro-union media will be out in force again, just like they where in Scotland.

That's some hard core denial of the realities of NI you have going on there. It's probably worth pointing out that the 'pro-union media' in Scotland actually were quite accurate with their polls of opinion on independence. The vote reflected the polls, as they would in NI, with a couple of percentage points one way or another.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

That's some hard core denial of the realities of NI you have going on there. It's probably worth pointing out that the 'pro-union media' in Scotland actually were quite accurate with their polls of opinion on independence. The vote reflected the polls, as they would in NI, with a couple of percentage points one way or another.

Wasn't it you that said on the Scot Ref thread that before the campaign started the polls had it at NO 52% and YES at 36%?
The YES side shifted nearly 10% by the time an actual referendum took place to 45%.

Is that your definition of accurate?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wasn't it you that said on the Scot Ref thread that before the campaign started the polls had it at NO 52% and YES at 36%?
The YES side shifted nearly 10% by the time an actual referendum took place to 45%.

Is that your definition of accurate?

The polls along the entirety of the two years accurately measured the increase in the yes vote, and the stubbornly static quality of the no vote. So, yes, I'd say that they were very accurate. I'd also say that there's a snowball's chance in hell that there would be a 10% increase in pro united- Ireland votes in NI, and even that would just boost a minority opinion into a slightly bigger minority. Face it, it's not happening any time soon, and quite possibly, never.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The polls along the entirety of the two years accurately measured the increase in the yes vote, and the stubbornly static quality of the no vote. So, yes, I'd say that they were very accurate.

Wee shift of the goalposts again.

52% - 36% was that an accurate reflection of how it went?

I'd also say that there's a snowball's chance in hell that there would be a 10% increase in pro united- Ireland votes in NI, and even that would just boost a minority opinion into a slightly bigger minority. Face it, it's not happening any time soon, and quite possibly, never.

^ Pro-union conjecture m'lud.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wee shift of the goalposts again.

52% - 36% was that an accurate reflection of how it went?

It was an accurate reflection of voter intent at the time. Both campaigns took it as a reliable indicator, as they did all subsequent polls.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It was an accurate reflection of voter intent at the time. Both campaigns took it as a reliable indicator, as they did all subsequent polls.

Come back to me when the campaign actually starts so.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Come back to me when the campaign actually starts so.

There won't be any campaign until there's a realistic chance of a worthwhile competition. With the current 5.7% vs 68% breakdown in the polls, there's going to be a bit of a wait before any referendum campaign is justified.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

There won't be any campaign until there's a realistic chance of a worthwhile competition. With the current 5.7% vs 68% breakdown in the polls, there's going to be a bit of a wait before any referendum campaign is justified.

The 'polls' do not need to be taken into account because as I pointed out earlier, they mean very little.
A referendum is in the gift of the Secretary of State so it will come about from political pressure and expediency. And that pressure is ramping up all the time.

One way or another the UK is going to be entirely re-structured in the next 20 years and may yet sunder...Unionists (judging from their panicked reaction to the Scottish Ref) are rightfully scared of the future because they haven't yet come to terms with what the GFA really means - 'if you vote to leave-we will not interfere'.
Falklanders are more secure...warships will be sent to defend their 'Britishness'.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'polls' do not need to be taken into account because as I pointed out earlier, they mean very little.
A referendum is in the gift of the Secretary of State so it will come about from political pressure and expediency. And that pressure is ramping up all the time.

One way or another the UK is going to be entirely re-structured in the next 20 years and may yet sunder...Unionists (judging from their panicked reaction to the Scottish Ref) are rightfully scared of the future because they haven't yet come to terms with what the GFA really means - 'if you vote to leave-we will not interfere'.
Falklanders are more secure...warships will be sent to defend their 'Britishness'.

It's not in 'the gift' of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is tasked with adjudging whether or not there's any realistic possibility of a vote for leaving the union. There isn't, and they won't be doing anything until there is. Clearly you haven't come to terms with the desire of the vast majority in NI to remain within the UK.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It's not in 'the gift' of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is tasked with adjudging whether or not there's any realistic possibility of a vote for leaving the union. There isn't, and they won't be doing anything until there is. Clearly you haven't come to terms with the desire of the vast majority in NI to remain within the UK.

Where does it say she has to to into account 'polls' conducted by pro-Union or pro-UI organisations?
You know as well as I do that this not how things work.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where does it say she has to to into account 'polls' conducted by pro-Union or pro-UI organisations?
You know as well as I do that this not how things work.

Polls are how you measure voter sentiment. That's 'how these things work'.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Polls are how you measure voter sentiment. That's 'how these things work'.

Just show us where it says that the Secretary of State HAS to take polls into account. There are many scenarios where a ref could be granted, a political deal being one, to ease tensions being another.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just show us where it says that the Secretary of State HAS to take polls into account. There are many scenarios where a ref could be granted, a political deal being one, to ease tensions being another.

Well let's see. They can make a judgement on the viability of a poll (which they're obligated to do - nothing to do with political deals) by sticking their finger in the air, or by assessing the data to hand. Tricky one that, eh?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Well let's see. They can make a judgement on the viability of a poll (which they're obligated to do - nothing to do with political deals) by sticking their finger in the air, or by assessing the data to hand. Tricky one that, eh?

So you can't show us anywhere where it says that the Secretary Of State HAS to take into account polls.
Can you tell us if political deals are done? Have political deals been done in the past in NI?
Are decisions made politically to relieve tensions?
Can pressure be brought to bear on a Secretary of State?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you can't show us anywhere where it says that the Secretary Of State HAS to take into account polls.
Can you tell us if political deals are done? Have political deals been done in the past in NI?
Are decisions made politically to relieve tensions?
Can pressure be brought to bear on a Secretary of State?

It doesn't matter how much political pressure is brought to bear on the Secretary of State. The law is clear and mandated by the people. They must base their decision on the likelihood of the poll passing, and the best way to measure that likelihood, is by reviewing the polling data available. It's not exactly rocket science, now, is it?

2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It doesn't matter how much political pressure is brought to bear on the Secretary of State. The law is clear and mandated by the people. They must base their decision on the likelihood of the poll passing, and the best way to measure that likelihood, is by reviewing the polling data available. It's not exactly rocket science, now, is it?

And the bit where it says....'She/He must take into account polls'?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

And the bit where it says....'She/He must take into account polls'?

Keep digging.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Keep digging.

You cannot show it, because it isn't there and isn't a requirement.
Anybody who knows anything about politics knows that things can very suddenly become expedient and 'possible'.
Doesn't take very much and a Secretary of State can spin it anyway he/she likes and stay within the requirements of the Agreement.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

You cannot show it, because it isn't there and isn't a requirement.
Anybody who knows anything about politics knows that things can very suddenly become expedient and 'possible'.
Doesn't take very much and a Secretary of State can spin it anyway he/she likes and stay within the requirements of the Agreement.

Not at all. The requirement for a decision is quite clear - it's only triggered on a likelihood of a vote to leave the union. No amount of expediency or political pressure changes the law.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Not at all. The requirement for a decision is quite clear - it's only triggered on a likelihood of a vote to leave the union. No amount of expediency or political pressure changes the law.

Read it properly Alastair, it is 'triggered' if 'it appears to the SoS that....'

A junior Civil Servant could spin that all day long and that is what will happen. Ignoring increasing political pressure for a poll has it's own dangers and pitfalls.
SF go into a coalition government here...what do you think one of the conditions will be?
As I said...it doesn't take much to happen politically to change the entire playing field.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Read it properly Alastair, it is 'triggered' if 'it appears to the SoS that....'

A junior Civil Servant could spin that all day long and that is what will happen. Ignoring increasing political pressure for a poll has it's own dangers and pitfalls.
SF go into a coalition government here...what do you think one of the conditions will be?
As I said...it doesn't take much to happen politically to change the entire playing field.

The legislation is quite clear. No likelihood of a vote to break, no poll. The trigger is enough change in voter sentiment to make that likelihood evident. Anything else is wishful thinking.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The legislation is quite clear. No likelihood of a vote to break, no poll. The trigger is enough change in voter sentiment to make that likelihood evident. Anything else is wishful thinking.

The Secretary Of State For Northern Ireland wrote:

With today's announcement by the Irish Government and it's White Paper on a United Ireland it now appears to me that a referendum on a United Ireland has a likelihood of succeeding. The referendum will take place on .....

The SoS is not mandated to get the call right. That would be ridiculous. It just has to 'appear' that there is a 'likelihood'

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The SoS is not mandated to get the call right. That would be ridiculous. It just has to 'appear' that there is a 'likelihood'

Which there isn't, and wouldn't be on the back of any notional white paper. The only criteria for making that judgement is voter sentiment.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Which there isn't, and wouldn't be on the back of any notional white paper. The only criteria for making that judgement is voter sentiment.

I think you have demonstrated perfectly something I was talking about earlier...just how much Unionists are clinging to hope.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think you have demonstrated perfectly something I was talking about earlier...just how much Unionists are clinging to hope.

Seems rather more applicable to your perspective tbh.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Seems rather more applicable to your perspective tbh.

You don't want to understand how much latitude a phrase like 'there appears to be a likelihood' gives to a politician.
It is your perspective that needs some adjusting.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

You don't want to understand how much latitude a phrase like 'there appears to be a likelihood' gives to a politician.
It is your perspective that needs some adjusting.

Keep living that dream.

5.7%

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Keep living that dream.

We are...it's you Unionists and partitionists that will continue to have the nightmares. :cool:

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

We are...it's you Unionists and partitionists that will continue to have the nightmares. :cool:

I'm sleeping very easy - I'm entirely ambivalent about the subject, but so will any actual unionists who take note of those figures.