Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Happyman42 · 19-04-2014 7:36pm

alastair wrote: »

Then why pretend that it would spur on British abandonment of NI? If the economic cost of the place is going to be sorted, why would they worry about what it used to cost to retain?

Because it will still be money wasted. And not only that, NI is an embarrassment to Britain and has been for many years. They know there is only one option, a UI. They know if that doesn't happen, sooner or later it will be embarrassment time again for them, having to try to sort out the cyclical resurgence of violent conflict.

alastair · 19-04-2014 7:51pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because it will still be money wasted. And not only that, NI is an embarrassment to Britain and has been for many years. They know there is only one option, a UI. They know if that doesn't happen, sooner or later it will be embarrassment time again for them, having to try to sort out the cyclical resurgence of violent conflict.

Money wasted? You're certainly out to win the hearts of the NI people. The British clearly are so embarrassed of NI that they held their G8 summit there, only in the last year. As far as I'm aware, and would expect the British to as well, there are at least three possible options for NI - the status quo, and (less likely), join a 32 county republic, or some other autonomous arrangement. Your cyclical resurgence of violence appears to be quite manageable at present, and the status quo is highly popular with the people of NI.

Happyman42 · 20-04-2014 11:07am

alastair wrote: »

Money wasted? You're certainly out to win the hearts of the NI people.

I have no interest in bull****ting, there will be work to be done.

The British clearly are so embarrassed of NI that they held their G8 summit there, only in the last year. As far as I'm aware, and would expect the British to as well, there are at least three possible options for NI - the status quo, and (less likely), join a 32 county republic, or some other autonomous arrangement. Your cyclical resurgence of violence appears to be quite manageable at present, and the status quo is highly popular with the people of NI.

Dealing with NI in conflict is not how Britain wants to be seen or sees itself in the modern world, that's why Unionist belligerence continually drives a wedge into the 'Union'.
Who needs to mount an armed campaign when they are so expert and intent on destroying that 'Union' themselves.

alastair · 20-04-2014 11:20am

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have no interest in bull****ting, there will be work to be done.
Dealing with NI in conflict is not how Britain wants to be seen or sees itself in the modern world, that's why Unionist belligerence continually drives a wedge into the 'Union'.
Who needs to mount an armed campaign when they are so expert and intent on destroying that 'Union' themselves.

Thing is. The union is a reality, and there's not much evidence of that changing in anything but the long term, and even then, perhaps not. Britain has a commitment to NI, which no-one but the people of NI can change, and they're showing little interest in any change.

Happyman42 · 20-04-2014 11:58am

alastair wrote: »

Thing is. The union is a reality, and there's not much evidence of that changing in anything but the long term, and even then, perhaps not. Britain has a commitment to NI, which no-one but the people of NI can change, and they're showing little interest in any change.

I was at a cross community event last night that couldn't have happened 10 years ago. What was once fraught and potentially confrontational was a very warm and social event with Unionists and Republicans meeting and conversing as equals. At one point a man entered distributing Easter Lilies and was greeted with friendly jibing and banter.
In border areas the fear is going, and barriers are coming down everyday. What was striking was that there was a degree of envy evident in the way our economy is being restructured, the move towards a secular society was also remarked on. One prominent and evangelical Unionist actually remarked that he never thought he would see the day.
It is not just attitudes in Buckingham Palace that are changing.
The people at that event would be convinced a lot easier than they would have been 10 or 20 years ago.
I have always believed that 'what we have in common' is what will reunite us, that realisation will grow, the longer we live in peace.
It will come from and begin with border communities, where the conflict was the most bitter and intractable.

alastair · 20-04-2014 12:03pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I was at a cross community event last night that couldn't have happened 10 years ago. What was once fraught and potentially confrontational was a very warm and social event with Unionists and Republicans meeting and conversing as equals. At one point a man entered distributing Easter Lilies and was greeted with friendly jibing and banter.
In border areas the fear is going, and barriers are coming down everyday. What was striking was that there was a degree of envy evident in the way our economy is being restructured, the move towards a secular society was also remarked on. One prominent and evangelical Unionist actually remarked that he never thought he would see the day.
It is not just attitudes in Buckingham Palace that are changing.
The people at that event would be convinced a lot easier than they would have been 10 or 20 years ago.
I have always believed that 'what we have in common' is what will reunite us, that realisation will grow, the longer we live in peace.
It will come from and begin with border communities, where the conflict was the most bitter and intractable.

Sounds like a great advertisement for the status quo.

ChicagoJoe · 20-04-2014 4:30pm

gallag wrote: »

The U.K will have a budget surplus by 2018. You guys do realise the U.K has the fastest growing economy of any first world country at the minute? Things are looking very positive for the U.K, might want to read about it a bit more if you are expecting the U.K to crash.

Dream on buddy

"Mainstream media headlines today are focused on Britain's record national debt, which just surpassed £1 trillion, a figure that can only exponentially increase unless the entire mechanism of Government finance is overhauled. The truth however is much worse, factoring in all liabilities including state and public sector pensions, the real national debt is closer to £4.8 trillion, some £78,000 for every person in the UK."
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

ChicagoJoe · 20-04-2014 4:59pm

alastair wrote: »

Thing is. The union is a reality, and there's not much evidence of that changing in anything but the long term, and even then, perhaps not. Britain has a commitment to NI, which no-one but the people of NI can change, and they're showing little interest in any change.

Long term a nationalist majority is a certainty

And don't bother giving your wee polls from the pro unionist media, that they don't even fit in with voting trends for decades in any remote way is just tripe.

" There are now 43,000 more Catholic pupils in our schools — from nursery to sixth form — than Protestants "
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-28671003.html

alastair · 20-04-2014 5:57pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Long term a nationalist majority is a certainty And don't bother giving your wee polls from the pro unionist media, that they don't even fit in with voting trends for decades in any remote way is just tripe.

" There are now 43,000 more Catholic pupils in our schools — from nursery to sixth form — than Protestants "
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-28671003.html

Again - your sectarian maths isn't actually proving terribly useful when it comes to people's actual polled opinions. A catholic majority is not a nationalist majority.

Richard · 20-04-2014 8:32pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have no interest in bull****ting, there will be work to be done.
Dealing with NI in conflict is not how Britain wants to be seen or sees itself in the modern world, that's why Unionist belligerence continually drives a wedge into the 'Union'.
Who needs to mount an armed campaign when they are so expert and intent on destroying that 'Union' themselves.

This does seem to at odds with reality.

In any case, the Union is not being damaged in any way by demographic changes. The only conceivable thing which will substantially weaken support for the status quo is if loyalists escalate their 'fleg' nonsense. Even then, it'd take a lot to produce a majority for a UI.

Godge · 22-04-2014 11:52am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because it will still be money wasted. And not only that, NI is an embarrassment to Britain and has been for many years. They know there is only one option, a UI. They know if that doesn't happen, sooner or later it will be embarrassment time again for them, having to try to sort out the cyclical resurgence of violent conflict.

The threat of violence again from the republicans.

Yet, when someone mentions that the loylaists may resort to violence in the event of a united Ireland opposed by a significant minority, you say that we shouldn't give in to threats!!!!!

Can republicans be any more hypocritical?

Godge · 22-04-2014 11:54am

Happyman42 wrote: »

I was at a cross community event last night that couldn't have happened 10 years ago. What was once fraught and potentially confrontational was a very warm and social event with Unionists and Republicans meeting and conversing as equals. At one point a man entered distributing Easter Lilies and was greeted with friendly jibing and banter.
In border areas the fear is going, and barriers are coming down everyday. What was striking was that there was a degree of envy evident in the way our economy is being restructured, the move towards a secular society was also remarked on. One prominent and evangelical Unionist actually remarked that he never thought he would see the day.
It is not just attitudes in Buckingham Palace that are changing.
The people at that event would be convinced a lot easier than they would have been 10 or 20 years ago.
I have always believed that 'what we have in common' is what will reunite us, that realisation will grow, the longer we live in peace.
It will come from and begin with border communities, where the conflict was the most bitter and intractable.

It is great that the GFA agreement and the current peace have brought such dividends. Why would anyone want anything to change?

Happyman42 · 22-04-2014 12:05pm

Godge wrote: »

The threat of violence again from the republicans.

Yet, when someone mentions that the loylaists may resort to violence in the event of a united Ireland opposed by a significant minority, you say that we shouldn't give in to threats!!!!!

Can republicans be any more hypocritical?

:rolleyes: Stating that there is violence imminent no matter which way you chose to go is not 'a threat. Go and have a lie down maybe?

Godge wrote: »

It is great that the GFA agreement and the current peace have brought such dividends. Why would anyone want anything to change?

That is what it was meant to do and what was expected of it, however what those with responsibility must never forget is that it is and was designed as and agreed on as 'a process'.
There can be no resting on laurels.

alastair · 22-04-2014 12:09pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is what it was meant to do and what was expected of it, however what those with responsibility must never forget is that it is and was designed as and agreed on as 'a process'.
There can be no resting on laurels.

A process that can reassert the status quo, if that's what the majority want. As they do.

Happyman42 · 22-04-2014 12:15pm

alastair wrote: »

A process that can reassert the status quo, if that's what the majority want. As they do.

For the moment.
However the longer a poll and the debate around that poll is denied the process is being deliberately stalled.
The onus is once again on those with the responsibility and the power. Will history repeat itself?

alastair · 22-04-2014 12:20pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

For the moment.
However the longer a poll and the debate around that poll is denied the process is being deliberately stalled.
The onus is once again on those with the responsibility and the power. Will history repeat itself?

Nothing is being deliberately stalled. The poll is only required when it stands any reasonable chance of passing - that's what everyone signed up to.

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.

No-one pretends it has any chance of passing, so there's no onus to do squat until that situation changes. Perhaps you don't quite understand this aspect of the GFA (as well as the seven year polling arrangement)?

Godge · 22-04-2014 12:51pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

For the moment.
However the longer a poll and the debate around that poll is denied the process is being deliberately stalled.
The onus is once again on those with the responsibility and the power. Will history repeat itself?

Nobody is stalling any debate.

There is only a very small minority (2-10% depending on the opinion poll) interested in a united Ireland in the foreseeable future so there is nobody looking for a debate (apart from a few internet posters). It is like having a debate about alien contact because 2% of people have reported being contacted by aliens. It is a fringe debate of no interest to the vast majority of people.

Happyman42 · 22-04-2014 1:00pm

alastair wrote: »

Nothing is being deliberately stalled. The poll is only required when it stands any reasonable chance of passing - that's what everyone signed up to.

No-one pretends it has any chance of passing, so there's no onus to do squat until that situation changes. Perhaps you don't quite understand this aspect of the GFA (as well as the seven year polling arrangement)?

Godge wrote: »

Nobody is stalling any debate.

There is only a very small minority (2-10% depending on the opinion poll) interested in a united Ireland in the foreseeable future so there is nobody looking for a debate (apart from a few internet posters). It is like having a debate about alien contact because 2% of people have reported being contacted by aliens. It is a fringe debate of no interest to the vast majority of people.

Which bit of 'For the moment' did you guys not get?

Godge · 22-04-2014 1:08pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which bit of 'For the moment' did you guys not get?

Happyman42 wrote: »

For the moment.
However the longer a poll and the debate around that poll is denied the process is being deliberately stalled.
The onus is once again on those with the responsibility and the power. Will history repeat itself?

Do you accept that the process is not being stalled? If so, we are in agreement.

Happyman42 · 22-04-2014 1:19pm

Godge wrote: »

Do you accept that the process is not being stalled? If so, we are in agreement.

My jury is still out on that one.
There have been several calls for the debate to begin, from the leaders of the party in joint leadership, representing a significant number of the electorate.
We'll see how long the Secretary of State depends on dubious polls and refuses to listen to those mandated.

alastair · 22-04-2014 1:43pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which bit of 'For the moment' did you guys not get?

So you agree nothing is being 'deliberately stalled'? If so - what was your point exactly?

alastair · 22-04-2014 1:47pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

My jury is still out on that one.
There have been several calls for the debate to begin, from the leaders of the party in joint leadership, representing a significant number of the electorate.
We'll see how long the Secretary of State depends on dubious polls and refuses to listen to those mandated.

SF were not mandated to judge the viability of a border poll. You do seem to have difficulty with what everyone signed up to in the GFA. How exactly have the various polls highlighting the overwhelming preference for the status quo been 'dubious'?

Happyman42 · 22-04-2014 1:54pm

alastair wrote: »

SF were not mandated to judge the viability of a border poll. You do seem to have difficulty with what everyone signed up to in the GFA. How exactly have the various polls highlighting the overwhelming preference for the status quo been 'dubious'?

SF where mandated to talk on behalf of their electorate, if they make a call they should be listened to.
The Secretary of State has a responsibility here, and my jury is out on whether he is listening or not. We shall see.

p.s. I pay no attention to polls, because I believe they are dubious.

alastair · 22-04-2014 2:08pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

SF where mandated to talk on behalf of their electorate, if they make a call they should be listened to.
The Secretary of State has a responsibility here, and my jury is out on whether he is listening or not. We shall see.

They were listened to, and rightly dismissed. The poll wouldn't stand any chance of passing.

Happyman42 wrote: »

p.s. I pay no attention to polls, because I believe they are dubious.

Kinda strange you're so needy for a border poll then.

Happyman42 · 22-04-2014 2:27pm

alastair wrote: »

They were listened to, and rightly dismissed. The poll wouldn't stand any chance of passing.

There is a need for one within 5 years, or you will start to see drift from adherence to the agreement. It is a 'process' to be ignored at peril.
If Unionists are so sure of the desire for the 'status quo' they have nothing to fear.

Kinda strange you're so needy for a border poll then.

I have made calls for a border poll? Show me please.

alastair · 22-04-2014 3:15pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is a need for one within 5 years, or you will start to see drift from adherence to the agreement. It is a 'process' to be ignored at peril.

There's no need until there's a point to the poll - anything beforehand is just an exercise in futility. Ignoring the desire of the majority is what would cause peril.

Happyman42 wrote: »

If Unionists are so sure of the desire for the 'status quo' they have nothing to fear.

Seemingly they don't - the DUP was happy enough to call SF's bluff on it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have made calls for a border poll? Show me please.

You haven't? What's this all about then?:

the longer a poll and the debate around that poll is denied the process is being deliberately stalled.

Happyman42 · 22-04-2014 3:22pm

alastair wrote: »

You haven't? What's this all about then?:

Nice try Alastair. You know very well I was referring to a referendum and NOT a border poll. Have a look at your own next post referencing mine.
Sometimes your attempts at scurrilous accusations and insinuation fail your own high standards.
Very funny to witness.

Nothing is being deliberately stalled. The poll is only required when it stands any reasonable chance of passing - that's what everyone signed up to.

alastair · 22-04-2014 3:34pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nice try Alastair. You know very well I was referring to a referendum and NOT a border poll. Have a look at your own next post referencing mine.
Sometimes your attempts at scurrilous accusations and insinuation fail your own high standards.
Very funny to witness.

Ehh, the border poll is the referendum. They're one and the same thing.

Godge · 22-04-2014 3:49pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

We'll see how long the Secretary of State depends on dubious polls and refuses to listen to those mandated.

Happyman42 wrote: »

p.s. I pay no attention to polls, because I believe they are dubious.

Ah, that explains why you believe that there will be a border poll every seven years.

When the first one is defeated 85-15, you will come along in seven years and say we need another one because the previous one was dubious because [insert dubious explanation here].

When after sixteen polls, you finally get the answer you desire [probably by 51-49] when people either change their mind or get worn out by constant border polls, you will declare this result to be genuine and conclusive and requiring immediate implementation after all the others were dubious.

I now finally understand the SF/IRA mind on this.

Happyman42 · 22-04-2014 5:19pm

alastair wrote: »

Ehh, the border poll is the referendum. They're one and the same thing.

Godge wrote: »

Ah, that explains why you believe that there will be a border poll every seven years.

When the first one is defeated 85-15, you will come along in seven years and say we need another one because the previous one was dubious because [insert dubious explanation here].

When after sixteen polls, you finally get the answer you desire [probably by 51-49] when people either change their mind or get worn out by constant border polls, you will declare this result to be genuine and conclusive and requiring immediate implementation after all the others were dubious.

I now finally understand the SF/IRA mind on this.

Apologies, that should have read 'opinion poll' not 'border poll'.

And you know I was referencing 'opinion polls' Alastair, which is all we have to go on when judging demand for a poll. Stop being a silly boy and wasting mine and others time.

alastair · 22-04-2014 5:33pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Apologies, that should have read 'opinion poll' not 'border poll'.

And you know I was referencing 'opinion polls' Alastair, which is all we have to go on when judging demand for a poll. Stop being a silly boy and wasting mine and others time.

Wasting time? Aren't you the man who's looking for a pointless border poll (you're pretty confused in your posts, but it certainly reads that way)? Seems like that would be rather more of a waste of people's time and money. You've yet to clarify why polls are 'dubious' though - perhaps because they tell a story you don't want to hear?

Happyman42 · 22-04-2014 6:01pm

alastair wrote: »

Wasting time? Aren't you the man who's looking for a pointless border poll? Seems like that would be rather more of a waste of people's time and money. You've yet to clarify why polls are 'dubious' though - perhaps because they tell a story you don't want to hear?

No, they are dubious in general imo. And I pay little attention to them.
Polls conducted in an instance like this are slightly different as they can be tainted by leading questions and subsequently misunderstood.
Sometimes those conducting them, want them misunderstood. e'g. asking questions like 'If there was a referendum tomorrow would you vote for...'

Of course Unionists willingly misunderstood the question and made dubious inferences as a result.

alastair · 22-04-2014 6:04pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sometimes those conducting them, want them misunderstood. e'g. asking questions like 'If there was a referendum tomorrow would you vote for...'

Of course Unionists willingly misunderstood the question and made dubious inferences as a result.

It's a pretty straightforward question, with little room for misunderstanding.

Happyman42 · 22-04-2014 6:19pm

alastair wrote: »

It's a pretty straightforward question, with little room for misunderstanding.

Totally agree.

But the way the answers where used was dubious in the extreme. Not wanting something tomorrow is not the the same as not wanting something ever.

gallag · 22-04-2014 7:46pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Totally agree.

But the way the answers where used was dubious in the extreme. Not wanting something tomorrow is not the the same as not wanting something ever.

Here's a question I would really like an answer to if you would oblige me, with the benefit of hindsight would you rather N.I had been ruled by the corrupt Dublin government over the last decade, the children of N.I carrying the same debt? Ho would it have been any better? Better health care? Education? Any tangible benefits?

I know a lot of Republicans on here believe the whole system will be changed in the event of a U.I, making my point about the people of N.I from both community's not seeing any improvement being ruled by the Irish government moot and to be honest I think that's a sage argument and I can see the sense in that, the way you guys describe it it will be a socialist paradise! Who wouldn't want to be a part of it?

So here is my question, why not start with changing the system? Why not have the likes of me, as a unionist looking enviously over the boarder instead of looking down with disgust and fear? Why does it have to be United Ireland then socialist paradise instead of socialist paradise followed by a U.I?

I know we all have entrenched mindsets on these issues, but would you ever consider that your romantic idea of a U.I is a stronger desire that what's actually best for the people of N.I. ? I know you are no fan of the corrupt political set up in the republic so why do you focus your energy on drawing us down as well instead of forcing change first? Would you have been happy if Bertie and his cowboys got to rule the north? Would it have been any better?

Godge · 23-04-2014 12:30am

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, they are dubious in general imo. And I pay little attention to them.
Polls conducted in an instance like this are slightly different as they can be tainted by leading questions and subsequently misunderstood.
Sometimes those conducting them, want them misunderstood. e'g. asking questions like 'If there was a referendum tomorrow would you vote for...'

Of course Unionists willingly misunderstood the question and made dubious inferences as a result.

To be fair to the opinion pollsters, they have been within the margin of error for all of the recent referenda down South. There have been no surprises in the last few years.

Explain to me how they can get this one so wrong? Or is it wishful thinking on your part.

I go back to my previous post - the only ones calling for a referendum are random young internet posters like yourself.

Karl Stein · 23-04-2014 1:39am

gallag wrote: »

Here's a question I would really like an answer to if you would oblige me, with the benefit of hindsight would you rather N.I had been ruled by the corrupt Dublin government over the last decade, the children of N.I carrying the same debt? Ho would it have been any better? Better health care? Education? Any tangible benefits?

It wouldn't have been NI it would have been a 32 county Ireland. In simple terms 1-in-5 people on the island would have been of the unionist tribe which means that approximately 1-in-5 people making decisions would have been unionist, 1-in-5 profiting from the pyramid would have been unionist and 1-in-5 suffering from the consequences would have been unionist.

So here is my question, why not start with changing the system? Why not have the likes of me, as a unionist looking enviously over the boarder instead of looking down with disgust and fear? Why does it have to be United Ireland then socialist paradise instead of socialist paradise followed by a U.I?

Are you saying that when the Celtic pyramid was in full swing you thought you'd be okay with a UI and might even have voted for it? I know Junder has said that many he knows would rather be poorer and within the UK than better off and in a UI.

gallag · 23-04-2014 7:45am

Karl Stein wrote: »

It wouldn't have been NI it would have been a 32 county Ireland. In simple terms 1-in-5 people on the island would have been of the unionist tribe which means that approximately 1-in-5 people making decisions would have been unionist, 1-in-5 profiting from the pyramid would have been unionist and 1-in-5 suffering from the consequences would have been unionist.

Are you saying that when the Celtic pyramid was in full swing you thought you'd be okay with a UI and might even have voted for it? I know Junder has said that many he knows would rather be poorer and within the UK than better off and in a UI.

What you need to understand is if I prescribe to a 32 county Ireland I will no longer be a unionist, I will by default be a republican. The only one argument the more level headed republicans on here made that piped my interest is that in a 32 county Ireland it would not be ireland absorbing N.I, it would be a new system, new non nepotism corruption riddled government, no Vatican grip and a new world class secular education without dead language classes taking up the day, world class free health care, new flag and anthem, new tax systems with the goal of wealth distribution instead of the Irish children picking up the tab, new legal, justice and policing systems etc etc etc.

Basically ripping up the book and starting again, if you are now telling me I picked that up wrong and the best this new Ireland has to offer me and my children is a rerun of the few years of boom of the Celtic tiger, where a few got rich to the detriment of the next generation I.e if you get your way my children then we have nothing more to discuss.

alastair · 23-04-2014 9:29am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Totally agree.

But the way the answers where used was dubious in the extreme. Not wanting something tomorrow is not the the same as not wanting something ever.

And who claimed that it was?

How does that make the poll 'dubious'? Stating that you wouldn't vote yes in a poll tomorrow, is the best measure of whether there's any taste for a break with the union currently. The difference between the answer to 'how would you vote tomorrow' and 'how might you vote ten years from now' is essentially the 'sh1t or get off the pot' question, and far more useful in gauging the pragmatic mandate.

Happyman42 · 23-04-2014 10:44am

gallag wrote: »

where a few got rich to the detriment of the next generation.

That's what your monarchical class system and inherited privilege has been doing to you for centuries.That's what Orange men are aping when they run around in their bowler hats. :rolleyes: Seeing the wood for the trees springs to mind.

Happyman42 · 23-04-2014 10:53am

alastair wrote: »

And who claimed that it was?

How does that make the poll 'dubious'? Stating that you wouldn't vote yes in a poll tomorrow, is the best measure of whether there's any taste for a break with the union currently. The difference between the answer to 'how would you vote tomorrow' and 'how might you vote ten years from now' is essentially the 'sh1t or get off the pot' question, and far more useful in gauging the pragmatic mandate.

It is dubious because of the way in which the results where used. Here is the headline the BBC itself used. Says it all really.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-21345997

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity

alastair · 23-04-2014 11:22am

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is dubious because of the way in which the results where used. Here is the headline the BBC itself used. Says it all really.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-21345997

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity

The headline is completely accurate. There's no other way of interpreting the poll findings. As I suspected - you just don't like what it's telling you.

gallag · 23-04-2014 11:23am

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's what your monarchical class system and inherited privilege has been doing to you for centuries.That's what Orange men are aping when they run around in their bowler hats. :rolleyes: Seeing the wood for the trees springs to mind.

To be honest I was hoping for a better answer. You failed to address any points or answer any questions and just went on a rant about orange men, of which I am not.

alastair · 23-04-2014 11:28am

gallag wrote: »

To be honest I was hoping for a better answer. You failed to address any points or answer any questions and just went on a rant about orange men, of which I am not.

This is part and parcel of Happyman's campaign of 'winning hearts and minds' to his cause.

Happyman42 · 23-04-2014 11:29am

alastair wrote: »

The headline is completely accurate. There's no other way of interpreting the poll findings. As I suspected - you just don't like what it's telling you.

It is not accurate.

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity if the poll was held tomorrow.

That is accurate.

I would expect that answer and it would be the one I would have to give myself if the question was asked that way as the time (which is critical imo) is not right.
'Liking' or 'disliking it doesn't come into it.

alastair · 23-04-2014 11:34am

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is not accurate.

Oh, but it is.

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity if the poll was held tomorrow.

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is accurate.

That's accurate too. It doesn't undermine the truth and accuracy of the first headline

Happyman42 wrote: »

I would expect that answer and it would be the one I would have to give myself if the question was asked that way as the time (which is critical imo) is not right.
'Liking' or 'disliking it doesn't come into it.

I believe it does - if it blinds you to the accuracy of the headline. You're not a NI voter in any case, so it doesn't matter what answer you would give.

Happyman42 · 23-04-2014 11:45am

gallag wrote: »

To be honest I was hoping for a better answer. You failed to address any points or answer any questions and just went on a rant about orange men, of which I am not.

We tried and failed to build a real republic here. It failed for many reasons, one of which was because the island was divided and a civil war mentality that didn't disappear for a long time. Par for the course for an island that is still divided.
A 'new' republic and a proper functioning republic can only be built after unity. It is nonsense to attempt again to build one without removing the impediments that brought the last one down.
It is galling to hear somebody who comes from a tradition (downtrodden even if it doesn't realise it itself) that has never even attempted to throw off the shackles of monarchy and privilege, criticise what we still fundamentally have.
They died in their thousands for it and even when the British say they will walk away from them when the time comes, they still cling to it, and still see themselves as servants to a monarchical system (ala the bowler hats, a direct reference to the class that serve the aristocracy).
I am convinced that fact is slowly sinking in though and genarational change will see a shift in attitude among Unionists, the Orange Order active numbers are slowly falling, which is as good an indicator as you can get of a mindset change.

At least we tried, and had a vision. We may have failed but the potential of what we have is many times better, and many of us still have that vision.

alastair · 23-04-2014 11:59am

Happyman42 wrote: »

We tried and failed to build a real republic here. It failed for many reasons, one of which was because the island was divided and a civil war mentality that didn't disappear for a long time. Par for the course for an island that is still divided.
A 'new' republic and a proper functioning republic can only be built after unity. It is nonsense to attempt again to build one without removing the impediments that brought the last one down.
It is galling to hear somebody who comes from a tradition (downtrodden even if it doesn't realise it itself) that has never even attempted to throw off the shackles of monarchy and privilege, criticise what we still fundamentally have.
They died in their thousands for it and even when the British say they will walk away from them when the time comes, they still cling to it, and still see themselves as servants to a monarchical system (ala the bowler hats, a direct reference to the class that serve the aristocracy).
I am convinced that fact is slowly sinking in though and genarational change will see a shift in attitude among Unionists, the Orange Order active numbers are slowly falling, which is as good an indicator as you can get of a mindset change.

At least we tried, and had a vision. We may have failed but the potential of what we have is many times better, and many of us still have that vision.

Oh dear. That's some fragile republic you have in mind there, if it necessitates a complete landmass before it can kick in. File under SF woo.

Happyman42 · 23-04-2014 12:03pm

alastair wrote: »

Oh, but it is.

That's accurate too. It doesn't undermine the truth and accuracy of the first headline

I believe it does - if it blinds you to the accuracy of the headline. You're not a NI voter in any case, so it doesn't matter what answer you would give.

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity if poll was held tomorrow.

Indicates to me that people are thinking about Unity and the timing of it and are not necessarily opposed to it.

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity

indicates to me that people would reject Unity.

It's a dubious, misleading use of a headline. And plenty of other, including some on here used the info for exactly the same dubious purposes.

Happyman42 · 23-04-2014 12:04pm

alastair wrote: »

Oh dear. That's some fragile republic you have in mind there, if it necessitates a complete landmass before it can kick in. File under SF woo.

Now it's my turn to ask...is that the best you can come up with? :rolleyes:

Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Comments