nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Tokyo

Mod:

Continuation of the How long before Irish reunification? thread.

Please note that all mod warnings, actions and threadbans from the previous thread carry across to here.

I have updated the OP of this thread with a list of threadbanned users, I would advise posters to check on this before posting in the thread again or a forum sanction will be imposed for breaching same.

If you want to discuss your threadban feel free to PM the banning mod (or myself if you can't remember who that is and I'll point you in the right direction).

Threadbanned Users:
blanch152
Randy Archer
Natterjack from Kerry
littlevillage

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

briany

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

For what exactly?

That's probably what we'd be asking.

Junkyard Tom

briany wrote: »

Renewed violence would be a big concern because groups like the UVF and UDA would kick off big-style

For what exactly?

briany

jh79 wrote: »

7% of Protestants said they would vote for a UI while 24% of Catholics said they would vote to remain in the UK!

Worrying though that over half have reservations about sectarian violence if a UI did happen.

Renewed violence would be a big concern because groups like the UVF and UDA would kick off big-style, and then Republican groups would be only too happy to get stuck in as well. There would be a lot of fear about what joining the RoI would mean for British Unionists, although any fear of 'Rome rule' is very 1920, as the RoI is a pretty secular place these days. Obviously it would be discussed at length what, exactly, a UI would look like, and I think it would end up that NI would stay as an autonomous region with much of the existing political structure remaining, but overseen by Dublin rather than London.

[Deleted User]

downcow wrote: »

.......A battle which nationalists are clearly losing as more and more of those traditionally Irish Catholic are not declaring for UI yet those traditionally Ulster Protestants are still basically 100% behind the union

7% of Protestants said they would vote for a UI while 24% of Catholics said they would vote to remain in the UK!

Worrying though that over half have reservations about sectarian violence if a UI did happen.

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

The numbers given where just to illustrate the point. And I'm not defending anything "vigorously"!

I think someone doesn't what to discuss the poll and see this pointless argument as a handy distraction.

Would be a reasonable point if I hadn't specifically given my own opinion on the poll; likely reasonable accurate and I do not think a border poll would pass if it was carried out tomorrow.

The numbers given were specific; to illustrate a point, one would say, 'even a sample size as low as 10 would have some value', to demonstrate one had no idea about margins of error, one would make the specific claim that a sample size of 10 has a margin of error of 10% and a sample size of 50 has a margin of error of 2%. Whatever lipstick you're trying to apply on Natterjack's behalf, the pig is still a pig.

FrancieBrady

Withering stuff from a journalist with a Unionist background.

In reality, of course, the other parties, along with business people and others, are being pragmatic in the interests of stability at a time of pandemic and economic recovery. They got stuck with the protocol because the DUP ignored the wishes of the 56 per cent of people who voted to remain in the EU, and kept bidding for a harder and harder Brexit until their votes no longer mattered and the prime minister they liked because he was like Donald Trump tossed them aside.

Unionism is in a panic because it no longer dominates. There are many constructive voices within the Protestant community, including those of the women who actually run the community sector. The parties shut them out. As for the paramilitaries “withdrawing” their support for the Belfast Agreement, when did you last hear any of these men championing equality, respect and human rights? Or even shouting about God and Ulster?

All the security assessments find them to be armed criminal gangs, though they do a lucrative sideline in hoovering up funds that are meant to persuade them to disband. Last week, some of them were tweeting admiration for the tactics of the QAnon-types throwing fireworks at the police in Dublin. That’s their level. They do not represent working-class unionist communities. The DUP does. But it offers its people nothing but a gaudy flag to wave and curse.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/susan-mckay-dup-believes-chaos-is-best-plan-1.4501467

[Deleted User]

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Can you give an example of any poll where a sample size of 10 would give a margin of error of 10% and 50 people would give a margin of error of 2% given a population anywhere within a degree of magnitude of the topic at hand?

The specific numbers were nonsense in any way that could be taken as relevant to the subject. Absolute nonsense and I suspect you wouldn't be defending it so vigorously if someone was applying such faulty reasoning and poor mathematical comprehension to argue in favour of Unification.

The numbers given where just to illustrate the point. And I'm not defending anything "vigorously"!

I think someone doesn't what to discuss the poll and sees this pointless argument as a handy distraction.

Natterjack from Kerry

jh79 wrote: »

I thought Natterjack was picking an extreme example just to illustrate his point but yes 10 is not a good sample size.

That was my intention indeed. Countering the post that focused exclusively on the number polled. Certainly no arguing that 10 is in anyway a useful sample in reality.

[Deleted User]

Pope's visit to Iraq has also been included in the BBC 1 lunchtime news headlines just there.

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

In the context of the post he/she was responding to I think you're being a bit harsh.

The specific numbers were not in reference to any poll , they were just to illustrate a point on data quality / representation. At least that was my impression.

Can you give an example of any poll where a sample size of 10 would give a margin of error of 10% and 50 people would give a margin of error of 2% given a population anywhere within a degree of magnitude of the topic at hand?

The specific numbers were nonsense in any way that could be taken as relevant to the subject. Absolute nonsense and I suspect you wouldn't be defending it so vigorously if someone was applying such faulty reasoning and poor mathematical comprehension to argue in favour of Unification.

[Deleted User]

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Online polling does tend to introduce a margin of error (though in this case I would imagine it would actually weight in favour of Unification, just so I can't be accused of picking holes due to an agenda), so it certainly would have a margin of error in excess of 4%, I wouldn't imagine we would be talking significant enough to bring 50% within the error bars. I find that unsurprising, as I'm certainly of the opinion that a vote for unification would fail if there was a border poll tomorrow.

Why do you think online would favour Unification? Not seeing the connection myself.

The high number of Catholics that would vote no suggests to me that many don't believe we can afford to maintain their quality of life.

[Deleted User]

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Natterjack committed to specific numbers, saying 10 people would give a margin of error of 10% and 50 people a margin of error of 2%, given that we've just concluded together that a sample size of over 500 has a margin of error of over 4%, we can dismiss his post as nonsense that demonstrates a poor understanding of statistical sampling rather than defending it by attributing some deeper meaning to it.

In the context of the post he/she was responding to I think you're being a bit harsh.

The specific numbers were not in reference to any poll , they were just to illustrate a point on data quality / representation. At least that was my impression.

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

I thought Natterjack was picking an extreme example just to illustrate his point but yes 10 is not a good sample size .

It was done online and data was weighted by age, gender, region, religious community and 2016 vote.

Online polling does tend to introduce a margin of error (though in this case I would imagine it would actually weight in favour of Unification, just so I can't be accused of picking holes due to an agenda), so it certainly would have a margin of error in excess of 4%, I wouldn't imagine we would be talking significant enough to bring 50% within the error bars. I find that unsurprising, as I'm certainly of the opinion that a vote for unification would fail if there was a border poll tomorrow.

Natterjack committed to specific numbers, saying 10 people would give a margin of error of 10% and 50 people a margin of error of 2%, given that we've just concluded together that a sample size of over 500 has a margin of error of over 4%, we can dismiss his post as nonsense that demonstrates a poor understanding of statistical sampling rather than defending it by attributing some deeper meaning to it.

[Deleted User]

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Given a likely distribution of anywhere from 50-75% still gives a margin of error in excess of 25%, so no it doesn't depend on the likely distribution; in practical terms for the topic at hand, a sample size of 10 would be absolutely useless. Not sure why you're working so hard to defend such a nonsensical claim from Natterjack and argue a point with me, when you clearly understand and agree with the criticism I made.

At no point did I disagree with the statistical significance of the poll in question; for NI adults above 18, over 500 is indeed a reasonable sample size.....ten is not.

I would highlight that the margin of error of ~4% is purely the margin introduced by sample size, and indeed there is likely to be further margin of error introduced by things like sampling methods for example. I haven't looked into it in this case (as my argument was not about the poll in question), but some of these polls depend on getting responses via landline telephone; this introduces a particularly large margin of error due to unintentionally skewing massively to the older side of the electorate who still own a landline. I repeat, this is purely an example and I haven't looked at the sampling methodology in the case of this particular survey. I would argue however that given the number of relevant cohorts in NI, it would be impossible to remove a significant sampling error from a respondent number as low as 10, further increasing the margin of error in Natterjack's already useless survey of 10 people.

I thought Natterjack was picking an extreme example just to illustrate his point but yes 10 is not a good sample size .

It was done online and data was weighted by age, gender, region, religious community and 2016 vote.

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

With regards Natterjacks comment, it would depend on the likely distribution of the responses.

Either way we can all agree that in this poll the sample size is appropriate.

Given a likely distribution of anywhere from 50-75% still gives a margin of error in excess of 25%, so no it doesn't depend on the likely distribution; in practical terms for the topic at hand, a sample size of 10 would be absolutely useless. Not sure why you're working so hard to defend such a nonsensical claim from Natterjack and argue a point with me, when you clearly understand and agree with the criticism I made.

At no point did I disagree with the statistical significance of the poll in question; for NI adults above 18, over 500 is indeed a reasonable sample size.....ten is not.

I would highlight that the margin of error of ~4% is purely the margin introduced by sample size, and indeed there is likely to be further margin of error introduced by things like sampling methods for example. I haven't looked into it in this case (as my argument was not about the poll in question), but some of these polls depend on getting responses via landline telephone; this introduces a particularly large margin of error due to unintentionally skewing massively to the older side of the electorate who still own a landline. I repeat, this is purely an example and I haven't looked at the sampling methodology in the case of this particular survey. I would argue however that given the number of relevant cohorts in NI, it would be impossible to remove a significant sampling error from a respondent number as low as 10, further increasing the margin of error in Natterjack's already useless survey of 10 people.

[Deleted User]

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're directing this at me. I corrected Natterjack's comment that a sample size of 10 would give a margin of error of 10%, I didn't make any claims on the margin of error in the sample of that particular survey.

Just to clarify, you do indeed agree with everything in the post you just quoted, yes?

Using your own tool, a sample size of 10 would give a margin of error in excess of 30%.

With regards Natterjacks comment, it would depend on the likely distribution of the responses.

Either way we can all agree that in this poll the sample size is appropriate.

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with the sample size in this case. Here's a good tool for calculating margin of error / confidence intervals.

http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html

Margin of error of 3.8% in this case. At 42% looks like there is a long way to go yet.

I'm not sure why you're directing this at me. I corrected Natterjack's comment that a sample size of 10 would give a margin of error of 10%, I didn't make any claims on the margin of error in the sample of that particular survey.

Just to clarify, you do indeed agree with everything in the post you just quoted, yes?

Using your own tool, a sample size of 10 would give a margin of error in excess of 30%.

[Deleted User]

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The numbers are fine lads and I'm saying that from the POV of someone who is knee deep in Data Analytics.

What isn't fine is how I am struggling to find the proportion of don't knows anywhere. My googling is failing me tonight. Classic British Stout.

Anyone come across them?

Don't knows at 15%, majority of those being Catholic. 24% of Catholics want to remain as part of the UK. If that trend was to continue with the unknows, would still be far off of a majority or "likely to pass" scenario.

https://2sjjwunnql41ia7ki31qqub1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Final_p011076_NI.pdf

[Deleted User]

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And what a stout it is. "Nailed it" isn't the word.

Do you honestly rate Guinness? Seen that you post in the Craft Beer forum. It's a pretty poor example of the style.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

I watched RTÉ news again last evening as I try to get my head around southerners thinking.
Again I was surprised how alien the whole experience was. We have grown very far apart.

So many of you guys are in denial about how your state is slow to throw off the shackles of the Catholic Church. It is surprising to me given the abuse saga and that so many church teachings seem so out of touch with your people.

Again I was met with the de angles at the beginning (and don’t tell me again that it’s not part of the news) I have taped the news a few times now and it always records the de angles).
Then we had a significant news item updating us on the popes current visit. No mention of any of this on our news.
And I am not knocking it - it just shows where interest lies. Up here we would get similar if the queen was visiting Iraq.

Seems like old red socks is still your head of state lol

Seriously, the Pope going to Iraq in the middle of a pandemic is world news. Listen to CNN on it and a Muslim leader saying it is one of the most significant things to happen in 1000 years for him.

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2021/03/04/pope-francis-iraq-christians-anderson-ctw-intv-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/around-the-world/

Imagine, the Pope is being welcomed in a Muslim country and he won't be let set a toe in Northern Ireland.

[Deleted User]

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You've never done any sort of real world statistical analyses, have you? Sample size is much more significant than you imply, and a sample of 10, even with a perfectly representative sample would have an error bar in great excess of +/-10%. I get that you're low grade trolling and trying to wind people up, but at least look up basic statistics before making ridiculous claims like this.

Nothing wrong with the sample size in this case. Here's a good tool for calculating margin of error / confidence intervals.

http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html

Margin of error of 3.8% in this case. At 42% looks like there is a long way to go yet.

[Deleted User]

downcow wrote: »

So many of you guys are in denial about how your state is slow to throw off the shackles of the Catholic Church. Seems like old red socks is still your head of state lol

Not trying to be smart but I think most international news outlets are carrying this story, I first heard about it from the BBC.

lurleen lumpkin

downcow wrote: »

We have grown very far apart.

Wishful thinking. Many of us in the north don't see it that way at all.

downcow wrote: »

So many of you guys are in denial about how your state is slow to throw off the shackles of the Catholic Church. It is surprising to me given the abuse saga and that so many church teachings seem so out of touch with your people.

Meanwhile we have theocratic Arlene still doing her best to keep women and gay people down.

downcow wrote: »

Again I was met with the de angles at the beginning (and don’t tell me again that it’s not part of the news) I have taped the news a few times now and it always records the de angles).
Then we had a significant news item updating us on the popes current visit. No mention of any of this on our news.
And I am not knocking it - it just shows where interest lies.

De angles. Haha. Are you really that stupid, or just pretending to be?

downcow wrote: »

Up here we would get similar if the queen was visiting Iraq

Ah, our scrounging, duplicitous, unelected, paedophile protecting queen.

downcow wrote: »

Seems like old red socks is still your head of state lol

Lol. 1/10 for effort. Up there with de angles.

downcow

I watched RTÉ news again last evening as I try to get my head around southerners thinking.
Again I was surprised how alien the whole experience was. We have grown very far apart.

So many of you guys are in denial about how your state is slow to throw off the shackles of the Catholic Church. It is surprising to me given the abuse saga and that so many church teachings seem so out of touch with your people.

Again I was met with the de angles at the beginning (and don’t tell me again that it’s not part of the news) I have taped the news a few times now and it always records the de angles).
Then we had a significant news item updating us on the popes current visit. No mention of any of this on our news.
And I am not knocking it - it just shows where interest lies. Up here we would get similar if the queen was visiting Iraq.

Seems like old red socks is still your head of state lol

downcow

downcow wrote: »

I haven’t watched the show but their interpretation of the data will inevitably be skewed. The are making a tv programme and want to show that the UK is near breakup, otherwise their programme has no point to it.
It would be good to see the raw data

No real stats yet but this is interesting from itv on it.

“ 43% of people in Northern Ireland would vote to unify with the Republic of Ireland, with 72% reasoning that the country is historically Irish”

I could certainly be wrong but my interpretation of what is being said is that 72% of the 43% reason history For their support for a united ireland. If true, that is shocking. By my calculations it means that only 12% of Ni residents want a UI firstly for any reason other than romantic notion that it was once Irish
Astounding that less that 12% put quality of life as a reason for wanting a UI.

Shows it is still a battle of the heart and soul and not the mind and wallet (unless of course everyone in ni is confident Roi is a poorer place). A battle which nationalists are clearly losing as more and more of those traditionally Irish Catholic are not declaring for UI yet those traditionally Ulster Protestants are still basically 100% behind the union

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The numbers are fine lads and I'm saying that from the POV of someone who is knee deep in Data Analytics.

What isn't fine is how I am struggling to find the proportion of don't knows anywhere. My googling is failing me tonight. Classic British Stout.

Anyone come across them?

I haven’t watched the show but their interpretation of the data will inevitably be skewed. The are making a tv programme and want to show that the UK is near breakup, otherwise their programme has no point to it.
It would be good to see the raw data

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The UUP had such an obvious route back to the top when Mick was in charge and they fupped it up.

Now they're running around like the rump that they are.

I was busy earlier with coláiste that I couldn't watch the ITV show itself, just stuck it on there. Will report back...

EDIT: "It's a union that's lasted centuries..." good opening gambit there Julia.

I haven’t seen it but I’ll not be paying much attention to your prejudiced critique of it bonnie

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The DUP are utterly terrified of a border poll they're so confident in the outcome.

They DUP (now aided and abetted by the UUP) have behaved abominably and will drive 'don't knows' to vote for a United Ireland and soft Unionists to Alliance where they'll gradually 'de-unionist' themselves.

My goodness Republican dissidents must be in absolute convulsions of laughter at the mess the DUP/UUP have made of their 'union'.

Haha. Same point. If they have made such a mess of the union, and that poll is in the last fortnight, what does that say for the mess people think a UI would be.
Can you imagine if we had decent representation for the union? Whatever way you look at it United Irelanders must be depressed.

Fionn1952

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

It doesnt really work like that. Its the quality of the sample rather than the size in polling that matters, given that you are never going to get within even a tiny fraction of the actually referendum/election participation. Or looking at it another way, if you could select the perfect representative sample, 10 people would be enough for an accuracy of 10 percent, or 50 people for an accuracy of 2%. I cant comment on those doing this poll specifically, but it is very much a quality not quantity capability, and in principal, for something like that poll, as long as you are in the hundreds, its likely representative data.

You've never done any sort of real world statistical analyses, have you? Sample size is much more significant than you imply, and a sample of 10, even with a perfectly representative sample would have an error bar in great excess of +/-10%. I get that you're low grade trolling and trying to wind people up, but at least look up basic statistics before making ridiculous claims like this.

briany

I don't think the DUP have much to fear of a border poll in the near future, but I don't think they'd want one anyway just because of the symbolism of it, ie the very idea that a UI is that possibly near.

Between a slim majority of Unionists in the electorate plus pragmatism (fears of renewed violence, fears of losing the NHS), plus the fact that political tribalism has diminished somewhat in NI, then short of a longterm period of UK economic stagnation (a possibility with Brexit) or a strong surge in Nationalist numbers, NI will stay a part of the UK for the foreseeable.