Cardude2 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

OK then if we look at the pose like that in reality and compare it to the May election, there’s a 50-50 split in the country

Does it though? It's definitely close, but if you want to look at the May election results as a proxy for independence, they pretty much followed the polling referenced previously with 52.3% of the vote going to non-SNP parties. And that, of course, assumes that 100% of the people who voted SNP actually support independence.

But you forgot to factor in the fact that some people who support independence voted for either the conservative or labor. Adding for that you have a complete utter tie

You can’t really make that assumption if you’re trying to assert that the May 2021 elections are a proxy for Scottish independence.

In any case, it’s a pretty safe assumption that the SNP captures practically all those wanting to vote yes for independence compared to the reverse assumption.

Reinhardt wrote:

I would hope any second Scottish referenDUM would not be based on the same simply majority of the first, or Brexit. I think as Brexit has shown making major constitutional changes to a country based on a few % difference is stupid. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a majority of Scots would want to break away (after what's happened the last 10 years), however I think it has to be a solid super majority, not a few %.

Polls show that the Scots would vote no to independence.

Although polls are never totally reliable, they do consistently show the same result.

A101 wrote:

That would depend on if the ROI/UK CTA was in affect still, and if the Island was to become one would either the UK/ROI want to keep the CTA in place that is the more serious question to be asked

Correct.
I think that a reunited Ireland would have a very tough choice to make between retaining the CTA with the UK or joining Schengen and thus move closer to the EU and the Eurozone of which they are both a member. Given there would no longer be a land border with the UK then, joining Schengen would move the ROI to the core of the EU, on a par with the Benelux, Fr, D, I, ES etc...

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

That would depend on if the ROI/UK CTA was in affect still, and if the Island was to become one would either the UK/ROI want to keep the CTA in place that is the more serious question to be asked

Correct.
I think that a reunited Ireland would have a very tough choice to make between retaining the CTA with the UK or joining Schengen and thus move closer to the EU and the Eurozone of which they are both a member. Given there would no longer be a land border with the UK then, joining Schengen would move the ROI to the core of the EU, on a par with the Benelux, Fr, D, I, ES etc...

It would be a big decision on behalf of NI and the ROI for that matter on a United Ireland

The CTA gives a lot of benefits, to be honest I cannot see why the UK would continue that agreement moving forward if NI united with ROI

Dutchy wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Ireland should go into Schengen as well, IMO.

Most Irish would probably not agree. It would break the Good Friday Agreement and Common Travel Zone with its biggest trade partner by far, and the current system gives it more control over its border and immigration. The UK and Ireland share immigration data on a very wide scale. Further what benefit would Ireland have in joining Schengen? Its only daily cross border workforce would come from the UK, outside Schengen. Being separate from Schengen was an opt-out the UK agreed with Brussels, but Ireland has reaped the same benefits just as much without the political agro.

If Ireland wouldn't be next to the UK, they would be in Schengen, I am sure of that.

But they aren't
Focussing so much on NI (or Scotland, fwiw) when talking about Britain's future is a mistake because all is in england hands anyway. It's what happens there that will dictate the motion.

Anyway, a straight and educated answer to the topic question is simply impossible today, UK is currently way too unpredictable..
It can't continue like this for long, though.
Eventually they'll get rid of this gov style of running affairs and start to build on something. When?

Grizzly410 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

Most Irish would probably not agree. It would break the Good Friday Agreement and Common Travel Zone with its biggest trade partner by far, and the current system gives it more control over its border and immigration. The UK and Ireland share immigration data on a very wide scale. Further what benefit would Ireland have in joining Schengen? Its only daily cross border workforce would come from the UK, outside Schengen. Being separate from Schengen was an opt-out the UK agreed with Brussels, but Ireland has reaped the same benefits just as much without the political agro.

If Ireland wouldn't be next to the UK, they would be in Schengen, I am sure of that.

But they aren't
Focussing so much on NI (or Scotland, fwiw) when talking about Britain's future is a mistake because all is in england hands anyway. It's what happens there that will dictate the motion.

Anyway, a straight and educated answer to the topic question is simply impossible today, UK is currently way too unpredictable..
It can't continue like this for long, though.
Eventually they'll get rid of this gov style of running affairs and start to build on something. When?

That’s easy to answer; the next general election cycle I cannot see Boris contesting it TBH.

The question then who is best placed to replace Johnson?

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

If Ireland wouldn't be next to the UK, they would be in Schengen, I am sure of that.

But they aren't
Focussing so much on NI (or Scotland, fwiw) when talking about Britain's future is a mistake because all is in england hands anyway. It's what happens there that will dictate the motion.

Anyway, a straight and educated answer to the topic question is simply impossible today, UK is currently way too unpredictable..
It can't continue like this for long, though.
Eventually they'll get rid of this gov style of running affairs and start to build on something. When?

That’s easy to answer; the next general election cycle I cannot see Boris contesting it TBH.

The question then who is best placed to replace Johnson?

Sunak

A101 wrote:

The question then who is best placed to replace Johnson?

I think Boris did it for his ego, like most things he does. I don't see any sign he remotely enjoys any of it and certainly what's been happening the last year and half stinks of someone we all knew was completely out of his depth. I have no clue who the Tory's would put up to replace him. There are a few not in the cabinet that have some morals left but there's not many of them. I suspect they will pick Sunak. He is popular with some because he threw money at people at the beginning of the Pandemic and can hold a decent speech together. I firmly disagree with almost everything he's done in the last budget, but I suspect people will see him as entirely competent compared to Boris - that's not hard.

I don't think we need a rich, ex hedge fund manager as a PM and I don't think that will bring the country back together.

But I wouldn't vote Tory for all the money in the world after what they've done the last 10 years. And I used to be a Conservative voter. I even voted Boris as London Mayor first time round. Doh.

Reinhardt wrote:

I think Boris did it for his ego, like most things he does. I don't see any sign he remotely enjoys any of it and certainly what's been happening the last year and half stinks of someone we all knew was completely out of his depth. I have no clue who the Tory's would put up to replace him. There are a few not in the cabinet that have some morals left but there's not many of them. I suspect they will pick Sunak. He is popular with some because he threw money at people at the beginning of the Pandemic and can hold a decent speech together. I firmly disagree with almost everything he's done in the last budget, but I suspect people will see him as entirely competent compared to Boris - that's not hard.

I think you are right. Boris Johnson is a jester, good for fun, good to make fun of the people in power without impunity, but it is a terrible idea to make a jester a king.

Reinhardt wrote:

I don't think we need a rich, ex hedge fund manager as a PM and I don't think that will bring the country back together.

I don't think any country needs people who are corrupted by big money, like hedge fund managers or Golden Sachs, Deutsche Bank etc. People corrupted by big money and big money reasoning. Not what is best for the country, but what is best for a small group of people.

Dutchy wrote:

I think you are right. Boris Johnson is a jester, good for fun, good to make fun of the people in power without impunity, but it is a terrible idea to make a jester a king.

It's entirely the same thing that happened across the pond. "We want change" the people who shout the loudest demand. What change, you ask. Well this guys' a laugh, I'd like to have a pint with him. He's not a traditional politician, part of the establishment, he said he'll get something done with an undefined outcome....but we want it.

Except he is exactly that, and worse. And the outcome was known (Brexit i'm talking about), and some of us knew what Boris is like. Ask half of London what a joke of a Mayor he turned into.
Just like the other one across the pond was. When you pull away the layers, and crisis after crisis comes around, lie after provable lie is made in parliament, incompetence and pure corruption is allowed.. and actually promoted from the top. Well... time's up and those who defend it and refuse call it out for what it is, are as bad as the one doing it.

I'm pleased to see that finally most polls are now starting to show Labour edging ahead, and Boris' approval ratings are through the floor. Lets hope it's accurate and continues.

Dutchy wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

I think Boris did it for his ego, like most things he does. I don't see any sign he remotely enjoys any of it and certainly what's been happening the last year and half stinks of someone we all knew was completely out of his depth. I have no clue who the Tory's would put up to replace him. There are a few not in the cabinet that have some morals left but there's not many of them. I suspect they will pick Sunak. He is popular with some because he threw money at people at the beginning of the Pandemic and can hold a decent speech together. I firmly disagree with almost everything he's done in the last budget, but I suspect people will see him as entirely competent compared to Boris - that's not hard.

I think you are right. Boris Johnson is a jester, good for fun, good to make fun of the people in power without impunity, but it is a terrible idea to make a jester a king.

Reinhardt wrote:

I don't think we need a rich, ex hedge fund manager as a PM and I don't think that will bring the country back together.

I don't think any country needs people who are corrupted by big money, like hedge fund managers or Golden Sachs, Deutsche Bank etc. People corrupted by big money and big money reasoning. Not what is best for the country, but what is best for a small group of people.

The only thing worse than having big money in your country, is not having big money in your country.

LCDFlight wrote:

The only thing worse than having big money in your country, is not having big money in your country.

Nothing wrong with big money in a regulated capitalist way. What's wrong is when that impacts law making because they have influence when they should not, or when those in power have no appreciation for how the rest of the country lives so laws are passed that don't help most people.

By the way, London is widely known as a massive money laundering location for Russian and Middle Eastern mafia + nice other folks. So yes again a country needs big money but it doesn't need dodgy money.

Reinhardt wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

The only thing worse than having big money in your country, is not having big money in your country.

Nothing wrong with big money in a regulated capitalist way. What's wrong is when that impacts law making because they have influence when they should not, or when those in power have no appreciation for how the rest of the country lives so laws are passed that don't help most people.

By the way, London is widely known as a massive money laundering location for Russian and Middle Eastern mafia + nice other folks. So yes again a country needs big money but it doesn't need dodgy money.

Exactly, nothing wrong with the banking industry, but it needs to be heavily regulated. If not, we have seen what it turns into in 2008.

Newark727 wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

It's fantasy stuff to think the current dispute between the UK and EU would lead to another European war. We're living in a different era to the 1930s. What would be the objective? While the UK may have left the EU, it is still a democracy. How exactly would a "strongman" emerge to make the disastrous decision to attack a bloc of 450 million people? Given the opposition to the Iraq war it doesn't bear thinking the opposition to starting a war with the EU. It just doesn't make sense.

If there's one thing I've learned in the last few years, it's that democratic ideals are a lot more fragile than I'd previously given them credit for. All it takes is a few cynics or zealots, offering easy promises of "winning" and easy cures to fear and anger. War might follow, or it might not, but never underestimate the power of reckless domestic politics to drive reckless external foreign policy decisions.

All true, and when you read history it seems like we really haven’t progressed at all. I, too, was shocked by how weak our institutions really are.

11C wrote:

All true, and when you read history it seems like we really haven’t progressed at all. I, too, was shocked by how weak our institutions really are.

And how fragile our basic humanity is.

As someone born just post WW2, I had come to the view that the genocidal atrocities of WW2 were an apparition in "civilised" Europe.
Brutal wars were for the "less civilised" parts of the world, conveniently overlooking that participants from my "civilised" parts of the globe were at least the suppliers to, and more often major players, if not initiators, in these conflicts.

In the last years of the 20th C the unimaginably brutal genocidal Balkan war, once again in "civilised " Europe, shook me out of that view.

I came to the sobre realisation that our entire "civilisation" is incredibly fragile. Uncontrolled descent into multicountry genocidal conflicts, is only kept at bay by the smallest of margins, and requires constant vigilance to counter pro armed conflict advocates, and their benificiary armaments suppliers.