Arlene Foster and the RHI scandal

blanch152

A Little Pony wrote: »

Call a border poll then. But as see from nearly every poll conducted on it it remains majority Union support. But I have no issue with a border poll.

http://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2015/1104/739633-prime-time-cross-border-poll-test-page/


This is the most comprehensive poll in recent years, albeit it took place before Brexit.

Only 13% in Northern Ireland favoured a United Ireland in the short/medium term. While this will have increased following Brexit, it is clear that not even all SF supporters favour a united Ireland. The 24% that favour Direct Rule can be taken as supporting the Union. However, what isn't known is what proportion of those who favour devolution, favour Northern Irish independence rather than the Union.

From a Southern perspective, the most interesting conclusion was that support for a united Ireland was low in the short/medium term - 36%, and even though there was 66% support for it in one's lifetime, this dropped dramatically to 31% if it meant more tax (much closer to the short-term view).

Later this spring (May) might be a good time for a similar in-depth survey to see have attitudes changed since Brexit.

RicePat

A Little Pony wrote: »

Maybe you have been living in a bubble but go read the history of Ulster. That is what this place is like, it is about the land, territory, progressiveness vs Conservationism. A progressive liberal way of life vs a rural traditional way of life, Republican vs Unionist, Protestant vs Catholic. And I say all that with Catholic family members. 

And I make no apologies as an Ulster conservative over which side I am. I love the Union, I can make no apology for that either. It is in my interests to defend it and cherish it until the day I die.

Did i mention I have black friends?? :rolleyes:

"The place" is not like that, a place is just a place. People are like that, people like you. Thankfully that tide is turning and people, slowly but surely, are beginning to vote based on policy and politics not tribalism.

This election had nothing to do with the union. A landslide victory either way would not have changed the constitutional position one jot.

Your cherished conservatives were running and across all 18 constituencies amassed a grand total of 2399 votes, an average of about 130 per constituency

RicePat

A Little Pony wrote: »

Im 27. I can't change my views on the Union. It is just part of me.

Well isnt that beyond depressing. Never mind logic or reason or circumstance or context or debate or discussion or an open mind or concern for what's best for the country; just head in the sand, beat the drum, no surrender.

RicePat

A Little Pony wrote: »

So what is it then? Its misinformation at best to anyone looking in. Unionism is not a fringe view in Northern Ireland. Its the most widely held view regarding the constitutional question on the state.

You have zero basis for saying that. The only legitimate constitutional poll ever held here was for Brexit and it was rejected.

RicePat

blanch152 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2015/1104/739633-prime-time-cross-border-poll-test-page/


This is the most comprehensive poll in recent years, albeit it took place before Brexit.

Only 13% in Northern Ireland favoured a United Ireland in the short/medium term. While this will have increased following Brexit, it is clear that not even all SF supporters favour a united Ireland. The 24% that favour Direct Rule can be taken as supporting the Union. However, what isn't known is what proportion of those who favour devolution, favour Northern Irish independence rather than the Union.

From a Southern perspective, the most interesting conclusion was that support for a united Ireland was low in the short/medium term - 36%, and even though there was 66% support for it in one's lifetime, this dropped dramatically to 31% if it meant more tax (much closer to the short-term view).

Later this spring (May) might be a good time for a similar in-depth survey to see have attitudes changed since Brexit.

Pre-brexit, daft questions, tiny sample audience, no debate; utterly meaningless.

blanch152

RicePat wrote: »

Pre-brexit,

Clearly acknowledged in my post as a caveat.

RicePat wrote: »

daft questions,

Do you want a United Ireland if it means increased taxes is a daft question to who?

Splitting lifetime from short/medium-term is a daft question?

Please explain with some substance.

RicePat wrote: »

tiny sample audience,

Poll conducted by reputable polling company Behaviour and Attitudes with standard sample sizes. Are you suggesting that their opinion polls which have SF on 19% are inaccurate?

RicePat wrote: »

no debate;

It's an opinion poll, not a debate.

RicePat wrote: »

utterly meaningless.

Facetious comment

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Clearly acknowledged in my post as a caveat.




Do you want a United Ireland if it means increased taxes is a daft question to who?

Splitting lifetime from short/medium-term is a daft question?

Please explain with some substance.




Poll conducted by reputable polling company Behaviour and Attitudes with standard sample sizes. Are you suggesting that their opinion polls which have SF on 19% are inaccurate?




It's an opinion poll, not a debate.





Facetious comment

You cannot gauge opinion properly when you haven't had a proper debate.
The polls that will count for anything will be those conducted after a proper debate of proposals.

Jayop

Rte in loaded questions creating a bias shocker.

RicePat

blanch152 wrote: »

Clearly acknowledged in my post as a caveat.

And then breezed over as if it didnt change the very fundamentals of the question at hand

Do you want a United Ireland if it means increased taxes is a daft question to who?

Splitting lifetime from short/medium-term is a daft question?

Please explain with some substance.

The questions were daft for numerous reasons. The main point is, as I alluded to in the following point, that they were asked with no debate or context. Scotland spent a year and a half debating what independence actually meant and that exchange of ideas and knowledge say support swing from the mid/low 20s to 45% These questions were asked dry, without even an allusion as to what is meant by a united Ireland. A 32 county free state? A new socialist republic? A federal Ireland with links to Britain. Nothing. Each person was answering based on what their idea of it was, each person was effectively answering a different question.

The tax thing is a perfect example of idiocy dressed up as intelligence. Setting aside the fact that the most recent major study on reunification showed that the country stood to benefit financially from it, what does this question even mean? Before you even get an answer you've already made an assumption that it means higher taxes. But higher taxes for what? better services? An all Ireland Universal healthcare system? What sort of taxes? Income based or some sort of new unity tax?

They asked 1000 strangers these huge, broad questions with no background information and then presented the findings as if they were some sort of representative result when what they were was a false endorsement of the angle the programme was trying to push. Not even subtly, for anyone with two brain cells to rub together it was very transparent.

Poll conducted by reputable polling company Behaviour and Attitudes with standard sample sizes. Are you suggesting that their opinion polls which have SF on 19% are inaccurate?

Yes, I am. Polls had the DUP winning far more votes and seats than Sinn Féin, polls had Brexit being reject, Trump losing and scottish independence winning. Polls are bull****! Especially polls with weighted questions, doubly especially polls with weighted questions with no explanation or context and triply especially polls with weighted questions with no explanation or context taken before an event that fundamentally changed the question itself.

It's an opinion poll, not a debate.

As i explained, it was more to do with the context of the questions. There was, however, plenty of debate on the show and all of it equally weighted. Anyone of a pro-reunification persuasion who was in any way articulate was quickly cut off and the interviews with Nolan, well, they were just typical of interviews with Nolan, who is awful, just awful, just the absolute worst.

Facetious comment

I dont think you know what facetious means

A Little Pony

RicePat wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

So what is it then? Its misinformation at best to anyone looking in. Unionism is not a fringe view in Northern Ireland. Its the most widely held view regarding the constitutional question on the state.

You have zero basis for saying that. The only legitimate constitutional poll ever held here was for Brexit and it was rejected.

One was held in the 70s and you lost. And Brexit won, a referendum based on a UK wide vote. That is just the facts. 

blanch152 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Call a border poll then. But as see from nearly every poll conducted on it it remains majority Union support. But I have no issue with a border poll.

http://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2015/1104/739633-prime-time-cross-border-poll-test-page/


This is the most comprehensive poll in recent years, albeit it took place before Brexit.

Only 13% in Northern Ireland favoured a United Ireland in the short/medium term. While this will have increased following Brexit, it is clear that not even all SF supporters favour a united Ireland. The 24% that favour Direct Rule can be taken as supporting the Union. However, what isn't known is what proportion of those who favour devolution, favour Northern Irish independence rather than the Union.

From a Southern perspective, the most interesting conclusion was that support for a united Ireland was low in the short/medium term - 36%, and even though there was 66% support for it in one's lifetime, this dropped dramatically to 31% if it meant more tax (much closer to the short-term view).

Later this spring (May) might be a good time for a similar in-depth survey to see have attitudes changed since Brexit.

I don't think it is any ambition for an indepdent Northern Ireland for multiple reasons. One being that it simply would not work economically. We would be absolutely ruined and could not afford to do that. But also I think people are happy to generally to live in Northern Ireland and it is a distinct place from the ROI, even if you are Nationalist, you can't deny that it is just different. 

Many Unionists would call themselves Northern Irish with no shame and neither should they. Its the name of the state.

A Little Pony

One was held in the 70s and you lost. And Brexit won, a referendum based on a UK wide vote. That is just the facts. 

I don't think it is any ambition for an independent Northern Ireland for multiple reasons. One being that it simply would not work economically. We would be absolutely ruined and could not afford to do that. But also I think people are happy to generally to live in Northern Ireland and it is a distinct place from the ROI, even if you are Nationalist, you can't deny that it is just different. 

Many Unionists would call themselves Northern Irish with no shame and neither should they. Its the name of the state.

A Little Pony

RicePat wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2015/1104/739633-prime-time-cross-border-poll-test-page/


This is the most comprehensive poll in recent years, albeit it took place before Brexit.

Only 13% in Northern Ireland favoured a United Ireland in the short/medium term. While this will have increased following Brexit, it is clear that not even all SF supporters favour a united Ireland. The 24% that favour Direct Rule can be taken as supporting the Union. However, what isn't known is what proportion of those who favour devolution, favour Northern Irish independence rather than the Union.

From a Southern perspective, the most interesting conclusion was that support for a united Ireland was low in the short/medium term - 36%, and even though there was 66% support for it in one's lifetime, this dropped dramatically to 31% if it meant more tax (much closer to the short-term view).

Later this spring (May) might be a good time for a similar in-depth survey to see have attitudes changed since Brexit.

Pre-brexit, daft questions, tiny sample audience, no debate; utterly meaningless.

It wouldn't change that much post Brexit. Any polls released on this since Brexit?

givyjoe

A Little Pony wrote: »

Nationalists should enjoy the little victory over Protestants right now but it won't last. The amount of people I have spoken to who didn't vote saying to me they will vote next time is incredible.

I can only assume you have spoken to thousands of people.. or at least 1000 for this point to have any weight.. ?

Consonata

A Little Pony wrote: »

One was held in the 70s and you lost. And Brexit won, a referendum based on a UK wide vote. That is just the facts. 

Northern Ireland border poll 1973

On 23 January 1973, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) called on its members[ B]"to ignore completely the referendum and reject this extremely irresponsible decision by the British Government"[/B]. Gerry Fitt, leader of the SDLP, said he had organised a boycott to stop an escalation in violence.[2]

Anybody who has done any Irish history, knows that this poll was unrepresentative. To even use it as an example is lunacy.

A Little Pony wrote: »

I don't think it is any ambition for an independent Northern Ireland for multiple reasons. One being that it simply would not work economically. We would be absolutely ruined and could not afford to do that. But also I think people are happy to generally to live in Northern Ireland and it is a distinct place from the ROI, even if you are Nationalist, you can't deny that it is just different. 

I don't think we ever said it was distinct, I doubt a unification would stop you from being "distinct" as you more likely than not have the use of Stormont

A Little Pony wrote: »

Many Unionists would call themselves Northern Irish with no shame and neither should they. Its the name of the state.

I really don't see how this is relevant to the conversation.

A Little Pony

Consonata wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

One was held in the 70s and you lost. And Brexit won, a referendum based on a UK wide vote. That is just the facts. 

Northern Ireland border poll 1973

On 23 January 1973, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) called on its members[ B]"to ignore completely the referendum and reject this extremely irresponsible decision by the British Government"[/B]. Gerry Fitt, leader of the SDLP, said he had organised a boycott to stop an escalation in violence.[2]

Anybody who has done any Irish history, knows that this poll was unrepresentative. To even use it as an example is lunacy.

A Little Pony wrote: »

I don't think it is any ambition for an independent Northern Ireland for multiple reasons. One being that it simply would not work economically. We would be absolutely ruined and could not afford to do that. But also I think people are happy to generally to live in Northern Ireland and it is a distinct place from the ROI, even if you are Nationalist, you can't deny that it is just different. 

I don't think we ever said it was distinct, I doubt a unification would stop you from being "distinct" as you more likely than not have the use of Stormont

A Little Pony wrote: »

Many Unionists would call themselves Northern Irish with no shame and neither should they. Its the name of the state.

I really don't see how this is relevant to the conversation.

People on here have said Stormont wouldn't be used. Economically the ROI could not afford the burden on the backs of the Irish people, never mind the other social issues.

RicePat

A Little Pony wrote: »

People on here have said Stormont wouldn't be used. Economically the ROI could not afford the burden on the backs of the Irish people, never mind the other social issues.

Oh well if people on here said it then that must be the official position.

It has already been pointed out numerous times that the only reliable independent studies ever carried out on reunification all concluded it would benefit the country economically. Even setting aside the transparent attempts to dismiss these reports, they, at the very least, nullify the automatic assumption that it would cost the country money.

What other social issues. This is pretty important, I'd like to mind them, regardless of your desire to ignore them

blanch152

RicePat wrote: »

Oh well if people on here said it then that must be the official position.

It has already been pointed out numerous times that the only reliable independent studies ever carried out on reunification all concluded it would benefit the country economically. Even setting aside the transparent attempts to dismiss these reports, they, at the very least, nullify the automatic assumption that it would cost the country money.

What other social issues. This is pretty important, I'd like to mind them, regardless of your desire to ignore them

Except as pointed out, they were neither reliable nor independent.

blanch152

RicePat wrote: »

And then breezed over as if it didnt change the very fundamentals of the question at hand

On the one hand, we have the opinion poll carried out by a reputable polling company that showed support for a united Ireland in the short-term at a historic high of 13%.

On the other hand, we have internet posters on here claiming that Brexit and the recent election mean a united Ireland could be happening within the next decade.

As significant as Brexit is, it won't have that kind of effect. If it is to change opinion that seismically in even a small part of the UK such as Northern Ireland, then it is more likely that there will be a public push for a referendum on the terms of Brexit which may see the UK stay in.

RicePat

blanch152 wrote: »

Except as pointed out, they were neither reliable nor independent.

It was not pointed out, an allegation was made about one group that commissioned one study and the allegation was that this group had committed the heinous crime of being, as described in your own link, "a nonprofit social welfare organization that promotes social welfare and conflict resolution through education."

Beyond this absolutely nothing was offered to question the people who actually carried out the study or the results of the study itself.

RicePat

blanch152 wrote: »

On the one hand, we have the opinion poll carried out by a reputable polling company that showed support for a united Ireland in the short-term at a historic high of 13%.

On the other hand, we have internet posters on here claiming that Brexit and the recent election mean a united Ireland could be happening within the next decade.

As significant as Brexit is, it won't have that kind of effect. If it is to change opinion that seismically in even a small part of the UK such as Northern Ireland, then it is more likely that there will be a public push for a referendum on the terms of Brexit which may see the UK stay in.

I dont know who you are trying to convince here; others or yourself. You discredit all your future arguments when you try to defend the point that a half arse, weighted, pre-brexit poll from two years ago has more significance than the results of an actual referendum

A Little Pony

Some pals of  Gerry Adams is NOT independent, that is just ridiculous.

RicePat

A Little Pony wrote: »

Some pals of  Gerry Adams is NOT independent, that is just ridiculous.

No, that statement is ridiculous. Present your evidence that the

Knights of the Red Branch (San Francisco Bay area–based nonprofit social welfare organization that promotes social welfare and conflict resolution through education)

Dr. Kurt Hubner (professor at the Political Science Department of University of British Columbia and holder of the Jean Monnet Chair for European Integration and Global Political Economy, specialising in European integration in the context of the global political economy)

and Dr. Renger Van Nieuwkoop (Lecturer and researcher at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, Director and Founder Modelworks, Thun, specialising in advanced applied computational equilibrium)

are "pals of Gerry Adams"

blanch152

RicePat wrote: »

No, that statement is ridiculous. Present your evidence that the

Knights of the Red Branch (San Francisco Bay area–based nonprofit social welfare organization that promotes social welfare and conflict resolution through education)

Dr. Kurt Hubner (professor at the Political Science Department of University of British Columbia and holder of the Jean Monnet Chair for European Integration and Global Political Economy, specialising in European integration in the context of the global political economy)

and Dr. Renger Van Nieuwkoop (Lecturer and researcher at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, Director and Founder Modelworks, Thun, specialising in advanced applied computational equilibrium)

are "pals of Gerry Adams"

A little google search just for you. The Knights count Sean Crowe and Des Mackin among their friends.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/

This hilarious economic analysis of the report - it only works if you impose Tory Austerity - is good too.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2016/03/26/the-reports-canadian-authors-made-their-numbers-add-up-by-using-a-tory-island-model-of-small-government-low-taxes-free-markets-and-no-debt/

A Little Pony

blanch152 wrote: »

RicePat wrote: »

No, that statement is ridiculous. Present your evidence that the

Knights of the Red Branch (San Francisco Bay area–based nonprofit social welfare organization that promotes social welfare and conflict resolution through education)

Dr. Kurt Hubner (professor at the Political Science Department of University of British Columbia and holder of the Jean Monnet Chair for European Integration and Global Political Economy, specialising in European integration in the context of the global political economy)

and Dr. Renger Van Nieuwkoop (Lecturer and researcher at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, Director and Founder Modelworks, Thun, specialising in advanced applied computational equilibrium)

are "pals of Gerry Adams"

A little google search just for you. The Knights count Sean Crowe and Des Mackin among their friends.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/

This hilarious economic analysis of the report - it only works if you impose Tory Austerity - is good too.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2016/03/26/the-reports-canadian-authors-made-their-numbers-add-up-by-using-a-tory-island-model-of-small-government-low-taxes-free-markets-and-no-debt/

Yeah, I mean debunking that garbage is like shooting fish in a barrel. Felt sorry for that poster.

Anyway, no closer to a deal at Stormont. Going to Direct rule. Election was kind of irrelevant.

RicePat

blanch152 wrote: »

A little google search just for you. The Knights count Sean Crowe and Des Mackin among their friends.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/

This hilarious economic analysis of the report - it only works if you impose Tory Austerity - is good too.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2016/03/26/the-reports-canadian-authors-made-their-numbers-add-up-by-using-a-tory-island-model-of-small-government-low-taxes-free-markets-and-no-debt/

Brilliant! You are attempting to discredit the report by using the BLOGS of one guy with a huge Shinner chip on his shoulder. Here's the list of his latest blog posts https://sluggerotoole.com/author/petebaker/
he has an awful dose of Arleneitis, every other word is Sinn Fein or Gerry Adams.

Nah, think I'll stick with the researched findings of the experts rather than the rantings of one bitter blogger if you dont mind

blanch152

RicePat wrote: »

Brilliant! You are attempting to discredit the report by using the BLOGS of one guy with a huge Shinner chip on his shoulder. Here's the list of his latest blog posts https://sluggerotoole.com/author/petebaker/
he has an awful dose of Arleneitis, every other word is Sinn Fein or Gerry Adams.

Nah, think I'll stick with the researched findings of the experts rather than the rantings of one bitter blogger if you dont mind

Oh dear, did you even read his posts where he dismantled the links between the authors and SF, all backed up with sources.

Did you even read the report, where the authors several times admit themselves that they made up the data?

RicePat

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, did you even read his posts where he dismantled the links between the authors and SF, all backed up with sources.

I did, and hilariously what it amounts to is that MEP Matt Carthy welcomed the report :eek: An Phoblacht printed an article on the report :eek: Gerry Adams was somewhere in America in or around the time they were founded maybe (assuming such an organisation can be set up overnight :rolleyes: ) and that they have met with members of SF. IMAGINE! An Irish American welfare group meeting with the only significant anti austerity party in Ireland :eek:

To quote Michelle O'Neill today "waffle, waffle and more waffle" from, as has already been demonstrated, a vehement anti-shinner blogger

Did you even read the report, where the authors several times admit themselves that they made up the data?

No, in places where data was unavailable they made the best possible estimations they could (as any study on anything would) and outlined this themselves in the report exactly when it was occurring. Nobody who read the report could be surprised by or suspicious of this, they are very open about it.

More waffle and no actual rejection of the findings or questions over the independence of the people who actually carried out the report.

Poor effort

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, did you even read his posts where he dismantled the links between the authors and SF, all backed up with sources.

Did you even read the report, where the authors several times admit themselves that they made up the data?

Did you even read Slugger? Every criticism he has of the report seems to be dealt with by the report itself.
i.e the report itself says it is an 'economic study' not a 'political' one so it's not trying to fool anyone there.

Slugger goes on the attack/ridicule again BUT has to admit 'To be fair to the authors of the study they appear to be aware of the limitations of their approach.'

Slugger then has to accept what the report authors know and what we all know or SHOULD know, economic prediction(s) in particular, is an art, not a science.
They are also matters of OPINION as can be seen any night of the week on political discussions on telly and when stockbrokers jump out of windows having made the wrong punt and lost the family fortune.
I don't see any attempt either, to obscure who paid for or commissioned the study, so no problems there either.


So after all that and recognising that these reports will always be open to one sided criticism we are still waiting for the reports you have seen that detail why a UI is economically a bad idea?

Please post links to your studies for the purposes of comparison.

Jayop

blanch152 wrote: »

On the one hand, we have the opinion poll carried out by a reputable polling company that showed support for a united Ireland in the short-term at a historic high of 13%.

On the other hand, we have internet posters on here claiming that Brexit and the recent election mean a united Ireland could be happening within the next decade.

As significant as Brexit is, it won't have that kind of effect. If it is to change opinion that seismically in even a small part of the UK such as Northern Ireland, then it is more likely that there will be a public push for a referendum on the terms of Brexit which may see the UK stay in.

Where do you get your numbers from?

The last poll conducted by the BBC was at 22% to join the republic.

If you remove the don't knows and the won't votes then the figure of actual yes vs no voters is 26%.

Consider further that the vast majority of "don't know" responses came from Catholics (17% vs 5%) then the number rises again.

Going even further again, of the Catholics who voted yes or no, 53% said they would vote yes. Of the 13% that said they didn't know I'd have a strong suspicion that they'd vote yes.

These figures would of course have to slide significantly and I would have little faith overall in that survey. How many people did they interview? Where were they from? Did they conduct the interview along the border counties?

Also, from 2013 to 2016 the number of people who don't know rose by 8%. The number who would vote to stay in the UK dropped by 2%. The number of people who would vote yes rose by 5%.

If that figure keeps on rising like it has been doing then it'll get there eventually.

But to my main point, you pulled the 13% figure from your arse.

blanch152

Jayop wrote: »

Where do you get your numbers from?

The last poll conducted by the BBC was at 22% to join the republic.

If you remove the don't knows and the won't votes then the figure of actual yes vs no voters is 26%.

Consider further that the vast majority of "don't know" responses came from Catholics (17% vs 5%) then the number rises again.

Going even further again, of the Catholics who voted yes or no, 53% said they would vote yes. Of the 13% that said they didn't know I'd have a strong suspicion that they'd vote yes.

These figures would of course have to slide significantly and I would have little faith overall in that survey. How many people did they interview? Where were they from? Did they conduct the interview along the border counties?

Also, from 2013 to 2016 the number of people who don't know rose by 8%. The number who would vote to stay in the UK dropped by 2%. The number of people who would vote yes rose by 5%.

If that figure keeps on rising like it has been doing then it'll get there eventually.

But to my main point, you pulled the 13% figure from your arse.

Before you make definitive statements like that, you might want to check back just a few posts in case you find something.......

blanch152 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2015/1104/739633-prime-time-cross-border-poll-test-page/


This is the most comprehensive poll in recent years, albeit it took place before Brexit.

Only 13% in Northern Ireland favoured a United Ireland in the short/medium term. While this will have increased following Brexit, it is clear that not even all SF supporters favour a united Ireland. The 24% that favour Direct Rule can be taken as supporting the Union. However, what isn't known is what proportion of those who favour devolution, favour Northern Irish independence rather than the Union.

From a Southern perspective, the most interesting conclusion was that support for a united Ireland was low in the short/medium term - 36%, and even though there was 66% support for it in one's lifetime, this dropped dramatically to 31% if it meant more tax (much closer to the short-term view).

Later this spring (May) might be a good time for a similar in-depth survey to see have attitudes changed since Brexit.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you even read Slugger? Every criticism he has of the report seems to be dealt with by the report itself.
i.e the report itself says it is an 'economic study' not a 'political' one so it's not trying to fool anyone there.

Slugger goes on the attack/ridicule again BUT has to admit 'To be fair to the authors of the study they appear to be aware of the limitations of their approach.'

Slugger then has to accept what the report authors know and what we all know or SHOULD know, economic prediction(s) in particular, is an art, not a science.
They are also matters of OPINION as can be seen any night of the week on political discussions on telly and when stockbrokers jump out of windows having made the wrong punt and lost the family fortune.
I don't see any attempt either, to obscure who paid for or commissioned the study, so no problems there either.


So after all that and recognising that these reports will always be open to one sided criticism we are still waiting for the reports you have seen that detail why a UI is economically a bad idea?

Please post links to your studies for the purposes of comparison.

Well, there we go, you admit that there are limitations to their approach, so does Slugger, so do I, so do the other links provided by Slugger, let's all agree that the report is limited and doesn't tell us very much and could well be completely wrong.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, there we go, you admit that there are limitations to their approach, so does Slugger, so do I, so do the other links provided by Slugger, let's all agree that the report is limited and doesn't tell us very much and could well be completely wrong.

It's a 'study' 'projection' and has all the caveats that go with that. Not one of it's authors has claimed it is how things will go.

Yet again and again we get people queuing up here to say 'A UI will be economically disastrous' and it is based on this mythical figure of 9 billion.

So can you give us the break down of where that 9 billion is going and indeed where it is coming from.
And while you are at it could you PLEASE link to the studies you are using?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's a 'study' 'projection' and has all the caveats that go with that. Not one of it's authors has claimed it is how things will go.

Yet again and again we get people queuing up here to say 'A UI will be economically disastrous' and it is based on this mythical figure of 9 billion.

So can you give us the break down of where that 9 billion is going and indeed where it is coming from.
And while you are at it could you PLEASE link to the studies you are using?

Well, if I was doing a study, I wouldn't ignore it, wave a magic wand and say it will be replaced by a subsidy from the EU.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, if I was doing a study, I wouldn't ignore it, wave a magic wand and say it will be replaced by a subsidy from the EU.

So no study on your side of the debate - that says a lot to be honest. There seems to be a tremendous fear of looking at this option for the island in a serious way among partitionists and unionists.
What makes you think that the EU wouldn't be involved in a UI?
They are in projects aimed at consolidating the GFA.

Jayop

blanch152 wrote: »

Before you make definitive statements like that, you might want to check back just a few posts in case you find something.......

You said the most comprehensive poll in recent times. So you're just ignoring the one done last year by the BBC and RTE because the numbers don't suit you?

Like I said, from your rse.

blanch152

Jayop wrote: »

You said the most comprehensive poll in recent times. So you're just ignoring the one done last year by the BBC and RTE because the numbers don't suit you?

Like I said, from your rse.

That is the one I linked to!!!! November 2015, just 16 months ago, carried out by RTE and BBC.

Is there another more recent joint poll?

Consonata

blanch152 wrote: »

Before you make definitive statements like that, you might want to check back just a few posts in case you find something.......

The only useful figure in that one is "Do you want to see a United Ireland in your lifetime".

Which is:
Yes: 30%
No: 43%
Don't Know: 27%

Asking if you want a United Ireland now when there hasn't been any real substantial campaign for one in recent years, will cut into the 30% figure greatly since a lot of people would want to go for the status quo rather than risk it in an economically turbulent time.

That may change when there is actual demonstrable positives for a United Ireland, getting out of the blow-back of Brexit being a major one.
People seem to think that since there isn't a lot of positivity for a United Ireland in the north at the moment, that that won't change over time.

____________________________________________________________________________

Remember there is a key difference between:

"Do you support a United Ireland?"

and

"Will you vote yes in the unification referendum on x date?"

Jayop

blanch152 wrote: »

That is the one I linked to!!!! November 2015, just 16 months ago, carried out by RTE and BBC.

Is there another more recent joint poll?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37309706

6 months ago

blanch152

Jayop wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37309706

6 months ago

Nope, that's not the one you referenced:

Jayop wrote: »

You said the most comprehensive poll in recent times. So you're just ignoring the one done last year by the BBC and RTE because the numbers don't suit you?

Like I said, from your rse.

You make a point of "calling me out" on what you believe are my lies, and are extremely precise in what you challenge. If I had said RTE were part of the poll, you would slaughter me on it. I will let it go because I am not that type, but you might want to lay off a bit. If you define comprehensive as being north and south, my point stands.

Consonata

The real figure on UI probably hovers around the 27% to 30% in the North at the moment, with a lot of don't knows. Who knows, that might change over time.

Jayop

Ah Ffs now you're really getting into petty pedantic point scoring now. You were saying that number was from the last major poll, I said it wasn't. Whether it was Rte or BBC (both strongly partitionist) is irrelevant.

Jayop

Consonata wrote: »

The real figure on UI probably hovers around the 27% to 30% in the North at the moment, with a lot of don't knows. Who knows, that might change over time.

The don't knows are all pretty much Catholic. Convince those and you're getting closer to 40.

Consonata

Jayop wrote: »

The don't knows are all pretty much Catholic. Convince those and you're getting closer to 40.

You never know, I would say that there are a good few small-u Unionists who just want peace and quiet.

blanch152

Jayop wrote: »

Ah Ffs now you're really getting into petty pedantic point scoring now. You were saying that number was from the last major poll, I said it wasn't. Whether it was Rte or BBC (both strongly partitionist) is irrelevant.

I didn't use the word "major", I used the word "comprehensive". The last poll covering north and south is the one I referenced. I also acknowledged that I could be mistaken and there is a later one.

You claimed I missed another joint poll, which you couldn't find, and turned out to be a BBC-only poll.

I am not being pedantic but you are the one who said I "pulled the 13% figure from your arse." You might at least acknowledge that wasn't the case, and that the last comprehensive poll (covering North and South) by RTE and the BBC had the figure at 13%.

Getting back on topic, if Brexit has only brought the figure from 13% to 22%, it hardly changes much, does it?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I didn't use the word "major", I used the word "comprehensive". The last poll covering north and south is the one I referenced. I also acknowledged that I could be mistaken and there is a later one.

You claimed I missed another joint poll, which you couldn't find, and turned out to be a BBC-only poll.

I am not being pedantic but you are the one who said I "pulled the 13% figure from your arse." You might at least acknowledge that wasn't the case, and that the last comprehensive poll (covering North and South) by RTE and the BBC had the figure at 13%.

Getting back on topic, if Brexit has only brought the figure from 13% to 22%, it hardly changes much, does it?

Eh...Brexit hasn't happened yet.

Consonata

blanch152 wrote: »

I didn't use the word "major", I used the word "comprehensive". The last poll covering north and south is the one I referenced. I also acknowledged that I could be mistaken and there is a later one.

You claimed I missed another joint poll, which you couldn't find, and turned out to be a BBC-only poll.

I am not being pedantic but you are the one who said I "pulled the 13% figure from your arse." You might at least acknowledge that wasn't the case, and that the last comprehensive poll (covering North and South) by RTE and the BBC had the figure at 13%.

Getting back on topic, if Brexit has only brought the figure from 13% to 22%, it hardly changes much, does it?

I have already said the 13% figure isn't useful, and the 30% is much more meaningful as it shows more people are open to the idea of a UI in the future. If the campaigning was done right and if the impact of Brexit is as we believe i.e a hard border, then who knows what will happen.

FrancieBrady

Consonata wrote: »

I have already said the 13% figure isn't useful, and the 30% is much more meaningful as it shows more people are open to the idea of a UI in the future. If the campaigning was done right and if the impact of Brexit is as we believe i.e a hard border, then who knows what will happen.

There is also the likelihood that FG or FF will not be able to campaign against it come the time. Imagine FF campaigning against a UI???

Jayop

blanch152 wrote: »

I didn't use the word "major", I used the word "comprehensive". The last poll covering north and south is the one I referenced. I also acknowledged that I could be mistaken and there is a later one.

You claimed I missed another joint poll, which you couldn't find, and turned out to be a BBC-only poll.

I am not being pedantic but you are the one who said I "pulled the 13% figure from your arse." You might at least acknowledge that wasn't the case, and that the last comprehensive poll (covering North and South) by RTE and the BBC had the figure at 13%.

Getting back on topic, if Brexit has only brought the figure from 13% to 22%, it hardly changes much, does it?

1) we are literally only talking about the results from the North so whether RTE conducted a part of the poll is completely irrelevant and you're being massively pedantic.

Anyway, no point dragging this over and over. The fact remains that your 13% is hugely outdated.

And the fact also remains that 9% is a massive leap in 1 year regardless of what you think. The number of people who moved from "won't vote" to "don't know" also indicated a bigger swing to the UI than the actual 9%. Brexit has caused those "won't votes" to become more political and that would only benefit the UI cause.

Jayop

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is also the likelihood that FG or FF will not be able to campaign against it come the time. Imagine FF campaigning against a UI???

Depends who was in charge of FG. FF will never campaign against it regardless of the personal beliefs of the leadership at the time. If Leo is the top dog in FG I'd guess he'd argue against it as he's very much a partitionist.

Leonard Hofstadter

Jayop wrote: »

Depends who was in charge of FG. FF will never campaign against it regardless of the personal beliefs of the leadership at the time. If Leo is the top dog in FG I'd guess he'd argue against it as he's very much a partitionist.

Considering that Leo has been one of the most vocal in terms of criticising the British approach to Brexit, I'm not so sure about that at all.

I doubt anyone in Fine Gael would openly campaign against it, but obviously they wouldn't be as keen on it as other parties. They probably would be more keen to compromise with Unionists on certain matters than other parties, some members have openly been saying that we should rejoin the Commonwealth, for example - something that most people south of the border are at best indifferent to. That might be partly because they're not as in favour of it as other parties, but it might also indicate they've the best chance of making it work because they'll know there will have to be serious and perhaps unpalatable consequences (to those on the nationalist/republican side) to give it some shot of succeeding and so that we don't have loyalists doing to us what the IRA did to people in Britain.