Census 2021: More from Catholic background in NI than Protestant

[morayloon]

I wasnt suggesting that at all , I just gave another example of democracy after you dragged Brexit into the debate Scotland  are part of the UK and it was a UK vote its done . You can of course use whatever you like to heat the blood of the Nationalist but if giving your sovereignty away to the EU as soon as you have gained it is your plan its not a very good one .

I 'dragged' Brexit in because it is another example of a country with a big population lording it over a country with only 5.2 million people. I accept the UK aspect of the Referendum but there is also the Scottish aspect. We voted Remain by a 24% margin. Yet our vote did not count. That will be a major argument from our side in any future referendum. 
The EU is an organisation of Independent states. In that organisation we would be working with other countries for the common good. That is the difference between it and the UK. England tramples over the views and wishes of the other three members. England gets what it wants, the others can go hang.

[Streetwalker]

To suggest that the English vote did not decide the outcome of the Brexit Referendum is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

I wasnt suggesting that at all , I just gave another example of democracy after you dragged Brexit into the debate 

Scotland voted 62% to 38% Remain yet this massive majority was cancelled out by a close English result. Imagine the furore if the Scottish majority had been enough to overcome a small English majority!!! Farage et al would have been up in arms. Scot Gov did nothing to stir up the Scots. But the result will be used in a future referendum to show an example of the colonial status our country has in this 'country of equals'. 
Scottish voters want to return to the EU as a recent panelbase poll shows https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20681698.two-thirds-scots-want-rejoin-eu/ But only Independence can turn that dream into reality

Scotland  are part of the UK and it was a UK vote its done . You can of course use whatever you like to heat the blood of the Nationalist but if giving your sovereignty away to the EU as soon as you have gained it is your plan its not a very good one . 

[morayloon]

Indeed , being on a knife edge made the Scottish vote count with regard who gained power .

But as I have said its not the main point of my post but a repost to Loony's suggestion of the South deciding the EU vote . As with the Scottish vote (which HAS effected the UK vote in GE) we have to accept that as our democracy and get on with it .

The Irish if it ever happens will have to do the same and abide by the democratic vote if they decide to unite Ireland and for the first time in their history become one sover

To suggest that the English vote did not decide the outcome of the Brexit Referendum is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
Scotland voted 62% to 38% Remain yet this massive majority was cancelled out by a close English result. Imagine the furore if the Scottish majority had been enough to overcome a small English majority!!! Farage et al would have been up in arms. Scot Gov did nothing to stir up the Scots. But the result will be used in a future referendum to show an example of the colonial status our country has in this 'country of equals'.  
Scottish voters want to return to the EU as a recent panelbase poll shows https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20681698.two-thirds-scots-want-rejoin-eu/ But only Independence can turn that dream into reality

[morayloon]

I dont need to do Math I can read English

''For the rest of RUK (the UK without Scotland ) the result in terms of the largest party would twice 64 and 74 been different without Scottish MP's . On two further occasions 74  (& 2010 con/lib coalition) the exclusion of Scottish seats would have given /denied an overal majority ''

So yes on three occasions we had a Labour government propped up by the Scottish vote at 4 years a pop = 12 years . So my contention that we had a 'Labour government for years due to the Scottish Labour vote '' was in fact correct

And your contention of 'Thet is rubbish' was a reaction based on diddly squat

In 1964 you would have had a Tory majority of 1. How long would that have lasted? Labour only lasted a couple of years. In February 1974 you would have had a Tory minority. How long do you think that would have lasted? The Labour minority Government only lasted 8 months. The October vote would still have left you with a Labour Govt albeit a minority one. In 2010 you would have had a Tory majority of 19. So, 2010 was the only election which would have made a real difference.
As I said at the outset, you are talking rubbish and you really need to brush up on your mathematical skills

[Streetwalker]

The difference in terms of majorities was clearly wafer thin, so the absence of Scottish MPs made bugger all difference to the rest of the UK politically unless it were on a knife edge already. 

Indeed , being on a knife edge made the Scottish vote count with regard who gained power . 

But as I have said its not the main point of my post but a repost to Loony's suggestion of the South deciding the EU vote . As with the Scottish vote (which HAS effected the UK vote in GE) we have to accept that as our democracy and get on with it .

The Irish if it ever happens will have to do the same and abide by the democratic vote if they decide to unite Ireland and for the first time in their history become one soveriegn nation . 

[srb7677]

I dont need to do Math I can read English

''For the rest of RUK (the UK without Scotland ) the result in terms of the largest party would twice 64 and 74 been different without Scottish MP's . On two further occasions 74  (& 2010 con/lib coalition) the exclusion of Scottish seats would have given /denied an overal majority ''

So yes on three occasions we had a Labour government propped up by the Scottish vote at 4 years a pop = 12 years . So my contention that we had a 'Labour government for years due to the Scottish Labour vote '' was in fact correct

And your contention of 'Thet is rubbish' was a reaction based on diddly squat

The difference in terms of majorities was clearly wafer thin, so the absence of Scottish MPs made bugger all difference to the rest of the UK politically unless it were on a knife edge already. Which clearly demonstrates that the Scottish bloc of MPs is far less central to the outcome overall than you are making out.

And unless it is exceptionally close, clearly Labour can win without Scotland. Whether it deserves to though is an entirely different matter.

But Truss is governing so blatantly in favour of the rich like her front bench cronies that she is managing to make even Sir Wet Lettuce look like a far less bad option.

Am starting to believe that even the least deserving Labour leader in living memory might well win a majority, simply because the Tories have reverted to type and are sign-posting their self-interested greed and absolute awfulness.

[Streetwalker]

Clearcut Labour wins in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 & 2005.
Without Scottish MPs
1950: England still had a majority of 2.
1964: A Labour majority would have turned into a Tory majority of 1
1974 February: Labour minority to Tory minority
1974 October: Labour majority to a Labour minority
The figures show five clearcut Labour majorities in England and no great difference to the outcomes in the others.
Like I said do the arithmetic

I dont need to do Math I can read English 

''For the rest of RUK (the UK without Scotland ) the result in terms of the largest party would twice 64 and 74 been different without Scottish MP's . On two further occasions 74  (& 2010 con/lib coalition) the exclusion of Scottish seats would have given /denied an overal majority ''

So yes on three occasions we had a Labour government propped up by the Scottish vote at 4 years a pop = 12 years . So my contention that we had a 'Labour government for years due to the Scottish Labour vote '' was in fact correct 

And your contention of 'Thet is rubbish' was a reaction based on diddly squat 

[morayloon]

General Elections without Scotland, Part 1: 1945-2010 (parliament.uk)

Not quite as clear cut as I remember but still quite clear that Labour would not have had a majority in numerous elections .

My point was though that democracy rules however you want to carve it up

Clearcut Labour wins in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 & 2005.
Without Scottish MPs
1950: England still had a majority of 2.
1964: A Labour majority would have turned into a Tory majority of 1
1974 February: Labour minority to Tory minority
1974 October: Labour majority to a Labour minority
The figures show five clearcut Labour majorities in England and no great difference to the outcomes in the others.
Like I said do the arithmetic

[Streetwalker]

Thet is rubbish. Do the maths. Blair and Wilson would have had had massive majorities without Scottish input. Only in February 1974 was there any doubt

General Elections without Scotland, Part 1: 1945-2010 (parliament.uk)

Not quite as clear cut as I remember but still quite clear that Labour would not have had a majority in numerous elections .

My point was though that democracy rules however you want to carve it up 

[johnofgwent]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-62980394

Given the two faith's attitudes to reproduction is this so surprising now they've (largely) stopped killing each other

[morayloon]

Or that we had a Labour Government in England for years due to the Scottish Labour vote . Thank feck that senario has been put to bed with the rise of the SNP

Thet is rubbish. Do the maths. Blair and Wilson would have had had massive majorities without Scottish input. Only in February 1974 was there any doubt

[Streetwalker]

'Dragged out'? Reminds me of a certain situation where we were dragged out of the EU because of the 'votes of the more numerous south'

Or that we had a Labour Government in England for years due to the Scottish Labour vote . Thank feck that senario has been put to bed with the rise of the SNP 

[morayloon]

I don't know but my guess is that both would have to vote yes. I don't think the powers that be could risk a situation where the north narrowly voted to remain in the union but the votes of the more numerous south dragged them out.

My understanding is that the people of Northern Ireland itself would need to consent to any change without their wishes being overruled from outside. And then that the people of the south would have to consent to incorporating the north into their country. So it seems implicit to me that a separate vote would be needed in both north and south, with each consenting independently of each other.

'Dragged out'? Reminds me of a certain situation where we were dragged out of the EU because of the 'votes of the more numerous south'

[Sheepy]

Wonder which will leave the UK first, Northern Ireland or Scotland?

Wales appears too ensconced in the England & Wales arts, legal and sporting structure to go independent before the other two.

Now it's going to cost individuals to transfer fees to send money from UK banks to EU banks, and British passport holders will need to buy visas to enter parts of the EU, the idea of London chasing independence and getting back close to the EU, seems even more compelling and urgent...

https://www.cityam.com/brexit-costs-brits-face-staggering-e18-fee-on-uk-eu-bank-transfers-and-atm-withdrawals-in-europe/

LOL its all about the Benjamins. 

[patman post]

Wonder which will leave the UK first, Northern Ireland or Scotland?

Wales appears too ensconced in the England & Wales arts, legal and sporting structure to go independent before the other two.

Now it's going to cost individuals to transfer fees to send money from UK banks to EU banks, and British passport holders will need to buy visas to enter parts of the EU, the idea of London chasing independence and getting back close to the EU, seems even more compelling and urgent...

https://www.cityam.com/brexit-costs-brits-face-staggering-e18-fee-on-uk-eu-bank-transfers-and-atm-withdrawals-in-europe/