Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

DeSantis edges Trump out to become new WH2024 favourite – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • I do not agree with Steve Bray, but I 100% support his right to protest.

    I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    England and Scotland are one island? Huge revolution in Ptolemaic geography. @IanB2 for one would be astounded that North Island is no longer separate from Wight.
    99% of England and Scotland are one island yes
    No, Lewis on its own is 1% the size of the main island of Great Britain (including Wales)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994
    edited June 28
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    England and Scotland are one island? Huge revolution in Ptolemaic geography. @IanB2 for one would be astounded that North Island is no longer separate from Wight.
    99% of England and Scotland are one island yes
    What an outrageous fib. You are movcing the goalposts again.

    And in any case you are, as usual, inaccurate in your stats. The Western Islands/Hebrides alone are 7.2K square km - GB is only 209K square km.

    Maybe you confused rods, poles and perches? Or are muddling the Minch and the Persian Gulf?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    edited June 28
    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054

    I see we've discussed Max Verstappen's father-in-law used the n word in relation to Sir Lewis Hamilton.

    I think the only course of action is to strip Verstappen of his title from last year and ban him for the next 200 races.

    #RacismCannotWin

    Jos Verstappen is a really nasty piece of work. That should not reflect on his son, but whenever I see him giving his son 'advice' I get a little shiver for Max.
    The only thing that makes me feel just a little sorry for Max, is that his main influences have been Jos Verstappen, Helmut Marko, Christian Horner, and now Nelson Piquet.

    I mean, how was he supposed to turn out?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994

    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....

    It's not about old people: it's about people with a specific medical issue.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    England and Scotland are one island? Huge revolution in Ptolemaic geography. @IanB2 for one would be astounded that North Island is no longer separate from Wight.
    99% of England and Scotland are one island yes
    What an outrageous fib. You are movcing the goalposts again.

    And in any case you are, as usual, inaccurate in your stats. The Western Islands/Hebrides alone are 7.2K square km - GB is only 209K square km.

    Maybe you confused rods, poles and perches? Or are muddling the Minch and the Persian Gulf?
    So the vast majority of England and Scotland are still all one island.

    Shetland, Orkney etc don't even see themselves as solely Scottish either and could well break away from a hypothetical independent Scotland
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    edited June 28
    Carnyx said:

    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....

    It's not about just old people: it's about people with a specific medical issue.
    Same difference. They will literally become housebound for ever more if the government mandated it, its not going away.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P
    That's as may be, but it doesn't help. It seems pretty clear that religious belief goes with ways your brain is hardwired (cf the oddity that epileptic fits are often followed by religious conversion, as with - probably - St Paul). If yours is wired like that bully for you, but if it isn't, this is no more helpful than saying tall right handers have the best life expectancy so become tall and right handed.
    But there are routes to faith. I found God on LSD and speed (combined). Tho I would personally recommend high-quality ayahuasca if you want to take the hallucinogenic route - I tried it and REALLY enjoyed my chat with God last Xmas, in Ibiza


    Then there are retreats, fasting, religious pilgrimages, near death experiences, a week on Mount Athos (worked for lifelong atheist Bruce Chatwin)

    Or you could try being lined up in a firing squad only to be spared at the last moment (Dostoevsky), going to an Italian church during an emotional crisis (Stravinsky) or just lying on a bed in a garden on a midsummer’s evening in the Malverns (Auden)
    The shrink who collaborated with John Cleese on some pop psychology books (checks: Robin Skynner) describes something similar. Drugs in his case. Somehow you have to divert attention from the background noise of everyday blah, and then there's a signal there- David Cameron's "Magic FM as you drive out towards the Cotswolds". The experience is ubiquitous and consistent enough to be convincingly real, I think.

    What one does with that experience, and people do pile a whole lot of human phooey and will-to-power on top of it, is another matter. But people pile a whole lot of human phooey and will-to-power on top of all sorts of things. Doesn't negate the underlying experience.
    I think the Magic FM analogy belongs to Boris actually

    For me - like cleese’s shrink - it’s more a case of tuning out than tuning in. God is the background hum of the multiverse. You have to Listen HARD
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,073
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Cricket officials believe cocaine fuelling crowd problems
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-officials-believe-cocaine-fuelling-crowd-problems-g6d3h5xx2 (£££)

    Cocaine has also been blamed for problems at football and racing.

    The crowd in the Western Terrace at Headingley was behaving in exactly the same way it has done for decades.
    Nope, on Sunday, the only day I attended, there was a definite violent edge.

    Saw some actual fist fights.
    The crowd in the Western Terrace at Headingley was behaving in exactly the same way it has done for decades - i.e. a violent edge with fist fights once in a while.

    Remember we are talking about Leeds...
    Watching the people get lairy
    It's not very pretty I tell thee
    Walking through town is quite scary
    It's not very sensible either
    A friend of a friend he got beaten
    He looked the wrong way at a policeman
    Would never have happened to Smeaton
    An Old Leodensian
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,249
    Of course I support Steve Bray’s right to protest, but his amplified lunacy disturbs local workers and indeed tourists.

    I don’t actually know what the solution is, but piling in 20 officers the day the new law comes into effect makes me incredibly uncomfortable.

    It feels like there is effectively no longer a right to protest.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,636
    Interesting Ashcroft survey of opinion in Ukraine, Russia and lots of neighbouring countries. Usual reservations about people daring to answer truthfully, but comparison to the earlier survey is useful.

    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2022/06/my-new-polling-from-ukraine-russia-and-11-neighbouring-countries/

    Key findings are that support for "their" side in the war continues at a very high level on both sides, with only modest differences by age group. Lots of support for Ukraine joining the EU and NATO, though some sympathy for the view that Russia sees NATO expansion as a threat. Russians seem not much bothered by sanctions, but conversely people in most other countries accept some pain if needed to punish Putin. Boris is much-loved in Ukraine. A striking finding at the end - nearly all countries in the region oppose freedom of expression and prefer their respective Governments to ensure that people are "not misled".

    Bottom line: nobody's giving in any time soon.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,337
    It has been officially announced, Eoin Morgan retires from international cricket.

    He is undoubtedly the great Irishman ever.

    Brenda should make him a peer, to match the likes of Lord Cowdrey, Lord Constantine, Lord Sheppard, Lord Botham, and Baroness Heyhoe-Flint.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    So what, it is the Vatican that determines Roman Catholic doctrine not Biden and the Vatican is firmly anti abortion.

    The majority of SC justices (some appointed by Bushes not just Trump) are Roman Catholics

  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,530

    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....

    What a thorough going pr*ck.

    Vine knows full well that the economy is facing the prospect of a recession as it is. He also knows that a new covid alarm makes that recession a certainty.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    edited June 28

    Of course I support Steve Bray’s right to protest, but his amplified lunacy disturbs local workers and indeed tourists.

    I don’t actually know what the solution is, but piling in 20 officers the day the new law comes into effect makes me incredibly uncomfortable.

    It feels like there is effectively no longer a right to protest.

    As I said down thread, say to him such and such isn't on. Have your banners and you are more than welcome to sit there as a protest, but you can't have your amplified mega phones blaring day in day out nor chasing MPs down the street or interfering with journalist outside broadcasts.

    When the anti-lockdown and pro-Brexit protestors overstepped the mark they were swiftly (and rather harshly) dealt with.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    edited June 28
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    England and Scotland are one island? Huge revolution in Ptolemaic geography. @IanB2 for one would be astounded that North Island is no longer separate from Wight.
    99% of England and Scotland are one island yes
    What an outrageous fib. You are movcing the goalposts again.

    And in any case you are, as usual, inaccurate in your stats. The Western Islands/Hebrides alone are 7.2K square km - GB is only 209K square km.

    Maybe you confused rods, poles and perches? Or are muddling the Minch and the Persian Gulf?
    England/scotland mainland is approx 189,000 km2, all the islands a bit over 10,000 km2, so its about 94% or so, certainly nowhere near 99% as you rightly say

    Edit - you can also make a reasonable argument that everything N and W of the Great Glen is an island
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    edited June 28

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    It’s slowly sinking in with the Democrats, that the events of last week were the culmination of *decades* of efforts by those opposed to the Roe decision.

    If you want to point to two recent events that swung it, then look to Ruth Bader Ginsburg not retiring under Obama, and Hillary Clinton calling working-class voters deplorables.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Of course I support Steve Bray’s right to protest, but his amplified lunacy disturbs local workers and indeed tourists.

    I don’t actually know what the solution is, but piling in 20 officers the day the new law comes into effect makes me incredibly uncomfortable.

    It feels like there is effectively no longer a right to protest.

    As I said down thread, say to him such and such isn't on. Have your banners and you are more than welcome to sit there as a protest, but you can't have your amplified mega phones blaring day in day out nor chasing MPs down the street or interfering with journalist outside broadcasts.

    When the anti-lockdown and pro-Brexit protestors overstepped the mark they were swiftly (and rather harshly) dealt with.
    The probability of him having been unaware of that before today is zero. He's always known exactly what he was doing.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    edited June 28
    MISTY said:

    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....

    What a thorough going pr*ck.

    Vine knows full well that the economy is facing the prospect of a recession as it is. He also knows that a new covid alarm makes that recession a certainty.

    Doesn't effect him. Still raking in that £350k a year from BBC no matter what....plus his CH5 money.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    edited June 28

    It has been officially announced, Eoin Morgan retires from international cricket.

    He is undoubtedly the great Irishman ever.

    Brenda should make him a peer, to match the likes of Lord Cowdrey, Lord Constantine, Lord Sheppard, Lord Botham, and Baroness Heyhoe-Flint.

    Its the right decision. Great player, great captain, unfortunately now ongoing injury, lack of form and rise of the next generation means the team were effectively carrying a player. Could they not still have him in the dressing room / coaching staff?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,167
    edited June 28
    Pulpstar said:

    MISTY said:

    kinabalu said:

    MISTY said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, do any of our US watchers have a view on whether DeSantis has a better or worse chance of beating Biden/Dem in the general?

    I think DeSantis would wipe the floor with pretty much any Dem, because the Dems (like the Conservatives here) are facing the cost of living crisis. Plus, of course, Biden is ... shall we say ... not as sharp as he used to be.

    Indeed, I think the Republicans have to be the clear favourites for 2024. The exception would be if Trump were the candidate again. Because a lot of the people who came out to vote against Trump last time will do so again. And there's also a host of Republicans who (while not voting for Biden/ADem) will likely sit on their hands if he is the nominee.

    Now, it's possible things turn around for the Dems before the General (not least if energy prices drop sharply, and if they get themselves a charismatic centrist below the age of 70 as candidate). But right now, I would say that DeSantis would be a very strong candidate for the Republicans in an election that favours them.
    So GOP self-interest is to not pick Trump. American self-interest too, since he'd be a threat to its democracy, could knock that reeling beast out for the count.

    Will he only run for the nomination if it looks in the bag, I wonder? Or is that self-fulfilling in that IF he runs, DeSantis won't?
    Like it or not, Trump has a massive following in America and his endorsement is generally prized in primaries. There are exceptions but his endorsements tend to win.

    If Trump fails to endorse any Presidential candidate chosen by the Republicans, that candidate is DOA, electorally. IF he isn't the candidate, he's the kingmaker.
    He does, and I don't like it. But the question for me is - is he liking the idea of puppeteer, sitting in Florida and yanking people around as they seek his favour, or is all that very gratifying but at the end of the day a poor substitute for the limelight and the big stage? All we need to do to make ourselves some serious money is get inside that orange bonce of his and see what's going on there. It's not a pleasant task but, boy, it'll be profitable for the person willing to take it on.
    Fair enough. My instinct would be that his ego is just too big to endorse another candidate and try to manipulate them. I just don't see bringing himself to do that. He loves the limelight too much, He still holds rallies FFS.

    His ego also won't take to grooming a successor or having a successor on the ballot. Even as veep. His veep pick will be a no mark.

    For what its worth.

    Yeah 100% this.

    And that's why he chose Pence. Pence still hasn't spoken out about Trumpers trying to lynch him on Jan 6th ffs. Trump always knew what Mike Pence was. A complete CUCK.
    Of all the potential candidates, Republican and Democrat, according to Betfair, Pence has the highest chance of being elected (74%) IF he is nominated (7% chance) leading to an overall 5% chance of winning.

    Harris has the lowest chance of being elected (38%) IF she is nominated (16% chance) leading to an overall 6% chance of winning.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,337
    .

    It has been officially announced, Eoin Morgan retires from international cricket.

    He is undoubtedly the great Irishman ever.

    Brenda should make him a peer, to match the likes of Lord Cowdrey, Lord Constantine, Lord Sheppard, Lord Botham, and Baroness Heyhoe-Flint.

    Its the right decision. Great player, great captain, unfortunately now ongoing injury, lack of form and rise of the next generation means the team were effectively carrying a player. Could they not still have him in the dressing room / coaching staff?
    He said a while back that he's not mad keen on going from being captain to coach straight away, he thinks there needs to be a gap, to allow the new captain to get comfortable.

    Sky have confirmed Morgan will be commentating on England's white ball games this summer.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,929
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    At least he would then be remembered for one positive thing, to counter all the negative things he is currently likely to be remembered for.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    Applicant said:

    Of course I support Steve Bray’s right to protest, but his amplified lunacy disturbs local workers and indeed tourists.

    I don’t actually know what the solution is, but piling in 20 officers the day the new law comes into effect makes me incredibly uncomfortable.

    It feels like there is effectively no longer a right to protest.

    As I said down thread, say to him such and such isn't on. Have your banners and you are more than welcome to sit there as a protest, but you can't have your amplified mega phones blaring day in day out nor chasing MPs down the street or interfering with journalist outside broadcasts.

    When the anti-lockdown and pro-Brexit protestors overstepped the mark they were swiftly (and rather harshly) dealt with.
    The probability of him having been unaware of that before today is zero. He's always known exactly what he was doing.
    Of course he does and so do those who continue to back him. However, its looks really bad on the authorities. Lay out reasonable opportunity to protest which the plod say are permissible and when he oversteps the mark again he doesn't have any excuse.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,073
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    I wonder what mandate the head of a party sub branch that has fought every single election since 2014 on the promise that voting for them will stop indy ref 2 and lost by a distance every time feels he has?

    If wee Dougie & Co follow through on the 'we're no playing' gambit it'll be great entertainment to see them trying to observe omerta while dying to spout Project Fear 347.
    The only mandate needed is the Tory majority at Westminster to respect the once in a generation vote.

    The UK government will therefore continue to refuse an official indyref2, tell Unionists to boycott any unofficial referendum and completely ignore the result, just as their conservative cousins in Spain did in 2017 with the unofficial Catalan independence referendum.

    The future of the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government alone
    It is not even that as labour and the lib dems are also opposed to indyref2, so even without a conservative government, which is increasingly likely, Westminster is not going to grant a section 30 agreement in years
    Indeed, the SNP's only chance is to get a hung parliament in 2024 with the Tories most seats but the SNP having the balance of power.

    Another Tory majority or Labour most seats and zero chance of an official indyref2
    Big G & HYUD on the same democracy blocking, granny bashing page, hot from *checks notes* North Wales and Epping.
    Maybe you should get the Scots to want indyref2 which they clearly do not and it clearly upsets you that some of us who have as much right as yourself to express an opposing view, and one that would win a referendum if it was held anyway
    The electorate in Scotland voted to have one ...
    They voted for the SNP but do not want one at this time

    No polling has indicated support for indyref2 at this time and until it does Westminster will just say no
    Amazing. First it's seats. Then it's percentage of the vote. Then it's what polling says.

    Do you not believe in parliamentary democracy?
    That’s a tricky subject. The Parliament that gets to decide is Westminster. The Westminster Parliament has a majority opposed to a second referendum at this time. Ergo, parliamentary democracy works.

    Of course, that majority comes from non-Scottish seats. That whole analysis ignores the majority in Scottish seats at Westminster and in Holyrood for a new referendum. But do they matter? The current constitutional settlement is that this is a reserved power for the Westminster Parliament as a whole. And Scotland voted in a referendum for this existing constitutional settlement!

    One can argue it different ways and I’m not saying one or other view is better, but there is a case that this is entirely consistent with parliamentary democracy.
    But Scotland didn't vote for the existing settlement, ie after Brexit. It voted for the opposite, to remain in the EU, which was explicitly promised as only available if voting No.

    Nevertheless: there remains a conflict, which will not be resolved by carpet-biting and claiming the immutable eternity of the UK (which of course only dates from the 1950s, 1970s, or 1920s, depending on how one takes Rockall's status).
    Brexit is a red herring, an excuse. Leave or Remain makes no difference to the fact that holding a referendum is a reserved power for the Westminster Parliament. (Scotland is not Northern Ireland with a Good Friday Agreement. Arguments put forth during a referendum campaign carry little constitutional significance.)

    I agree there is a conflict. I have said nothing about the immutable eternity of the UK. (The UK, like Scotland, is an invention, a shared social belief.)

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    edited June 28

    .

    It has been officially announced, Eoin Morgan retires from international cricket.

    He is undoubtedly the great Irishman ever.

    Brenda should make him a peer, to match the likes of Lord Cowdrey, Lord Constantine, Lord Sheppard, Lord Botham, and Baroness Heyhoe-Flint.

    Its the right decision. Great player, great captain, unfortunately now ongoing injury, lack of form and rise of the next generation means the team were effectively carrying a player. Could they not still have him in the dressing room / coaching staff?
    He said a while back that he's not mad keen on going from being captain to coach straight away, he thinks there needs to be a gap, to allow the new captain to get comfortable.

    Sky have confirmed Morgan will be commentating on England's white ball games this summer.
    Another clever signing from Sky. Getting a current elite player to give insight about how the game is now actually played, not somebody from 20 years ago who doesn't even understand the idea of tactical retirements and not taking the single every time. Saqib Mahmood was pretty good the other week on the T20 blast coverage for Sky, bit nervous to impose himself when he knew the other commentator was talking phish, but he gave some good insight.

    I also read that Sky now have somebody from Cricviz in the box with them when they cover big games to provide the state of the art analysis.
  • Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 130
    My non-expert opinion on Ukraine war (although I did live there for 3 years and have heard plenty of local opinions on original 2014 invasion)

    Russia sees Crimea, Odessa and Donbass as its lost territory (conveniently forgetting they gave it away in the first place). The invasion was intended to sieze all of this area plus probably all of East Ukraine up to the Dnieper river, leaving a rump West Ukraine state with a puppet leader like Belarus. This original objective has clearly failed but Putin can still sell winning the Donbass and the landbridge to Crimea as a victory.

    Ukraine could probably be reluctantly persuaded to accept this position as a ceasefire, persuaded by massive EU & US financial assistance, EU membership and continuing Russian sanctions. The lost areas have been largely flattened in any case.

    However the problem would lie in Kherson - Russia needs to control the west bank of Dnieper to secure water supplies to Crimea - Ukraine knows it and will push heavily to retake Kherson. I expect compromise will be for Russia to retreat from Kherson city to east of Dneiper with promise of guaranteed water supply. But not before they have looted, razed and raped their way out.

    This to play out by end of August.

    Long term security (including for Baltic States) will be settled by sacrificing Putin (will probably die one way or another shortly anyway) plus others in exchange for sanctions relief. That will be by end December as winter start to bite - in both Russia and Western Europe.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Applicant said:

    Of course I support Steve Bray’s right to protest, but his amplified lunacy disturbs local workers and indeed tourists.

    I don’t actually know what the solution is, but piling in 20 officers the day the new law comes into effect makes me incredibly uncomfortable.

    It feels like there is effectively no longer a right to protest.

    As I said down thread, say to him such and such isn't on. Have your banners and you are more than welcome to sit there as a protest, but you can't have your amplified mega phones blaring day in day out nor chasing MPs down the street or interfering with journalist outside broadcasts.

    When the anti-lockdown and pro-Brexit protestors overstepped the mark they were swiftly (and rather harshly) dealt with.
    The probability of him having been unaware of that before today is zero. He's always known exactly what he was doing.
    He also drowned out quite a few crucial Brexit TV interviews, so he was interfering with the democratic process (in quite an annoying way)

    You can’t have an untrammelled right to scream so loud you prevent others working, and doing the job of democracy, day in, day out
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,950
    Am I going to have to get out the flow chart again?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,249
    edited June 28
    Having a census which is semi-devolved is batshit.

    The devolution settlement is a bugger’s muddle.

    While I’m at it, so is the decision to decouple from Eurostat.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,337
    Alistair said:

    Am I going to have to get out the flow chart again?

    Yes.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,073

    Carnyx said:

    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....

    It's not about just old people: it's about people with a specific medical issue.
    Same difference. They will literally become housebound for ever more if the government mandated it, its not going away.
    The quote wasn’t suggesting mandation: it was suggesting informing.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347
    MISTY said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2

    I think we get our Blackadder Goes Forth perception of WW1 from Lloyd George, via his memoirs. He made sure Hague and Co carried the can.

    Hague never really got to put his side of the argument.
    Also amplified by the historians of the 60's on - previous to that the works were similar to WW2 history. Its also true that there has been much revision of the Lions led by Donkeys version of the war in recent decades. John Terraine and others have been fairer on generals who uniquely in warfare could not see what was happening at the front or communicate to it to react quickly. Before WW1 battlefields were small enough to see the field from a suitable spot, after WW1 radio made comms that much better. In WW1 the generals had to set up plans and the wait.

    The British evolved a way of fighting (bite and hold, creeping barrage etc) that worked to minimise costs in lives at the expense of heavy shells. Monty used the same approach in WW2.

    Its easy to criticise WW1 generals, but those who do so with no more knowledge than a bit of Blackadder and some poetry do the serving troops a disservice.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,073
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    So what, it is the Vatican that determines Roman Catholic doctrine not Biden and the Vatican is firmly anti abortion.

    The majority of SC justices (some appointed by Bushes not just Trump) are Roman Catholics

    You seem oddly obsessed with reminding us that several SC Justices are Catholic: multiple times in the previous thread. It seemed to me worth pointing out that the President is also Catholic, but takes the opposing view.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,932

    Carnyx said:

    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....

    It's not about just old people: it's about people with a specific medical issue.
    Same difference. They will literally become housebound for ever more if the government mandated it, its not going away.
    The quote wasn’t suggesting mandation: it was suggesting informing.
    Same thing for many people. You are telling anyone who might be vulnerable to this that the official Government line is that you should continue to isolate for the rest of your life. It never gets better than this. Unless we are incredibly, almost impossibly, lucky, we don't ever get to a point where this is not endemic in the same way a cold is. At what point do you tell people to just get on with their lives if not now?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347

    I do not agree with Steve Bray, but I 100% support his right to protest.

    I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

    I absolutely agree about the right to protest but others have a right to go about their business in peace. I'd argue he infringes on others rights often enough.

    I'd love to know who pays him to do what he does.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,929
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    Under your convoluted logic, Wight, Osea Island, Skye and Arran are not part of the UK as they are separate islands.

    Johnson is likely to be remembered as the worst PM since Lord North because of Brexit.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,220
    Penddu2 said:

    My non-expert opinion on Ukraine war (although I did live there for 3 years and have heard plenty of local opinions on original 2014 invasion)

    Russia sees Crimea, Odessa and Donbass as its lost territory (conveniently forgetting they gave it away in the first place). The invasion was intended to sieze all of this area plus probably all of East Ukraine up to the Dnieper river, leaving a rump West Ukraine state with a puppet leader like Belarus. This original objective has clearly failed but Putin can still sell winning the Donbass and the landbridge to Crimea as a victory.

    Ukraine could probably be reluctantly persuaded to accept this position as a ceasefire, persuaded by massive EU & US financial assistance, EU membership and continuing Russian sanctions. The lost areas have been largely flattened in any case.

    However the problem would lie in Kherson - Russia needs to control the west bank of Dnieper to secure water supplies to Crimea - Ukraine knows it and will push heavily to retake Kherson. I expect compromise will be for Russia to retreat from Kherson city to east of Dneiper with promise of guaranteed water supply. But not before they have looted, razed and raped their way out.

    This to play out by end of August.

    Long term security (including for Baltic States) will be settled by sacrificing Putin (will probably die one way or another shortly anyway) plus others in exchange for sanctions relief. That will be by end December as winter start to bite - in both Russia and Western Europe.

    That's all good, aside from the fact that Putin wants more. His idea of a 'Greater Russia' is far more expansive than just those small areas.

    And how can anyone trust him and Russia? How can we guarantee he will not just take the rest in a few years, as he did after 2014?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,073
    MISTY said:

    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....

    What a thorough going pr*ck.

    Vine knows full well that the economy is facing the prospect of a recession as it is. He also knows that a new covid alarm makes that recession a certainty.

    Don’t you trust people with the truth? We’re in another COVID wave. What’s wrong with the government being honest about the situation. Individuals can decide for themselves what to do. We’re not living under Stalinism.

  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Applicant said:

    Of course I support Steve Bray’s right to protest, but his amplified lunacy disturbs local workers and indeed tourists.

    I don’t actually know what the solution is, but piling in 20 officers the day the new law comes into effect makes me incredibly uncomfortable.

    It feels like there is effectively no longer a right to protest.

    As I said down thread, say to him such and such isn't on. Have your banners and you are more than welcome to sit there as a protest, but you can't have your amplified mega phones blaring day in day out nor chasing MPs down the street or interfering with journalist outside broadcasts.

    When the anti-lockdown and pro-Brexit protestors overstepped the mark they were swiftly (and rather harshly) dealt with.
    The probability of him having been unaware of that before today is zero. He's always known exactly what he was doing.
    Of course he does and so do those who continue to back him. However, its looks really bad on the authorities. Lay out reasonable opportunity to protest which the plod say are permissible and when he oversteps the mark again he doesn't have any excuse.
    Do we know for sure that he wasn't previously warned that the new law was coming in today?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347
    edited June 28

    MISTY said:

    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....

    What a thorough going pr*ck.

    Vine knows full well that the economy is facing the prospect of a recession as it is. He also knows that a new covid alarm makes that recession a certainty.

    Don’t you trust people with the truth? We’re in another COVID wave. What’s wrong with the government being honest about the situation. Individuals can decide for themselves what to do. We’re not living under Stalinism.

    I think we would benefit from some sensible government statements about the current situation. If nothing else it communicates the message to people that it is still worth bothering about, especially if you are vulnerable. The current government has clearly decided that covid is over, and for most people it pretty much is, as covid gives a mild illness, but sadly for some (usually older folk) it can be fatal, or at least turn other conditions into something worse.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520
    edited June 28
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    It’s slowly sinking in with the Democrats, that the events of last week were the culmination of *decades* of efforts by those opposed to the Roe decision.

    If you want to point to two recent events that swung it, then look to Ruth Bader Ginsburg not retiring under Obama, and Hillary Clinton calling working-class voters deplorables.
    She did NOT.

    No apologies for reminding people (below) of one of the great speeches of modern times. Why great? Because it was the Truth and was said without regard to the electoral consequences. It was genuinely "telling it like it is" which is rare for a politician. Those that claim to are usually just spouting bigotry.

    In pastel trouser suit and with stern face she addresses the crowd -

    "I know there are only 60 days left to make our case – and don't get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

    The "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735
    Scott_xP said:
    He is quite correct in what he says that we have no right lecturing the US on their highest court's decision to leave abortion to the states. Nor in the fact that another body of involved, the unborn child, as well as the woman
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,073

    Carnyx said:

    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....

    It's not about just old people: it's about people with a specific medical issue.
    Same difference. They will literally become housebound for ever more if the government mandated it, its not going away.
    The quote wasn’t suggesting mandation: it was suggesting informing.
    Same thing for many people. You are telling anyone who might be vulnerable to this that the official Government line is that you should continue to isolate for the rest of your life. It never gets better than this. Unless we are incredibly, almost impossibly, lucky, we don't ever get to a point where this is not endemic in the same way a cold is. At what point do you tell people to just get on with their lives if not now?
    You give them the information to make an informed decision themselves. That is the standard, ethical approach at the heart of modern medicine. The idea that the State should conceal information because it’s made a decision for people is horrendous.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    So what, it is the Vatican that determines Roman Catholic doctrine not Biden and the Vatican is firmly anti abortion.

    The majority of SC justices (some appointed by Bushes not just Trump) are Roman Catholics

    You seem oddly obsessed with reminding us that several SC Justices are Catholic: multiple times in the previous thread. It seemed to me worth pointing out that the President is also Catholic, but takes the opposing view.
    The Pope and Vatican determine doctrine for US Roman Catholics, not the President
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,929

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    England and Scotland are one island? Huge revolution in Ptolemaic geography. @IanB2 for one would be astounded that North Island is no longer separate from Wight.
    99% of England and Scotland are one island yes
    What an outrageous fib. You are movcing the goalposts again.

    And in any case you are, as usual, inaccurate in your stats. The Western Islands/Hebrides alone are 7.2K square km - GB is only 209K square km.

    Maybe you confused rods, poles and perches? Or are muddling the Minch and the Persian Gulf?
    England/scotland mainland is approx 189,000 km2, all the islands a bit over 10,000 km2, so its about 94% or so, certainly nowhere near 99% as you rightly say

    Edit - you can also make a reasonable argument that everything N and W of the Great Glen is an island
    Only if all the lock gates on the Caledonian Canal are open.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,950

    Alistair said:

    Am I going to have to get out the flow chart again?

    Yes.
    I've got the Flow Chart out. Look what you've made me do!

    1) Does Holyrood have the power to hold referendums in general?
    If Yes goto 2)
    In No goto END-Bad)

    2) Does a non-binding referendum mean that any actual change is guaranteed to take place
    If Yes goto 3)
    In No goto 4)

    3) Really?
    Actually no you are right, it doesn't goto 4)

    4)Is there any law that limits the topics a non-binding referendum the Scottish government calls can be on (Bearing in mind the result of the referendum doesn't actually change anything)?
    If Yes goto 5)
    If No got END-Good)

    5) Are you able to actually point at in the law book?
    if Yes goto 6)
    No got END-Good)

    6) Go on then, give us a link?
    If able to give link then goto END-Bad
    Otherwise got END-Good

    END-Bad) Holyrood does not have the power to hold a non-binding referendum on Sindy
    END-Good) Holyrood can call a non binding advisory referendum on any topic it likes.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    It’s slowly sinking in with the Democrats, that the events of last week were the culmination of *decades* of efforts by those opposed to the Roe decision.

    If you want to point to two recent events that swung it, then look to Ruth Bader Ginsburg not retiring under Obama, and Hillary Clinton calling working-class voters deplorables.
    She did NOT.

    No apologies for reminding people (below) of one of the great speeches of modern times. Why great? Because it was the Truth and was said without regard to the electoral consequences. It was genuinely "telling it like it is" which is rare for a politician. Those that claim to are usually just spouting bigotry.

    In pastel trouser suit and with stern face I address the crowd -

    "I know there are only 60 days left to make our case – and don't get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

    The "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
    Only a quarter of the country is deplorable? Yeah, that makes it so much better.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,633
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    It’s slowly sinking in with the Democrats, that the events of last week were the culmination of *decades* of efforts by those opposed to the Roe decision.

    If you want to point to two recent events that swung it, then look to Ruth Bader Ginsburg not retiring under Obama, and Hillary Clinton calling working-class voters deplorables.
    She did NOT.

    No apologies for reminding people (below) of one of the great speeches of modern times. Why great? Because it was the Truth and was said without regard to the electoral consequences. It was genuinely "telling it like it is" which is rare for a politician. Those that claim to are usually just spouting bigotry.

    In pastel trouser suit and with stern face I address the crowd -

    "I know there are only 60 days left to make our case – and don't get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

    The "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
    I look forward to your similarly spirited defence of Theresa May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech. Very similar context, and a similarly iconic phrase that's all anyone remembers from it.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,512

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    England and Scotland are one island? Huge revolution in Ptolemaic geography. @IanB2 for one would be astounded that North Island is no longer separate from Wight.
    99% of England and Scotland are one island yes
    What an outrageous fib. You are movcing the goalposts again.

    And in any case you are, as usual, inaccurate in your stats. The Western Islands/Hebrides alone are 7.2K square km - GB is only 209K square km.

    Maybe you confused rods, poles and perches? Or are muddling the Minch and the Persian Gulf?
    England/scotland mainland is approx 189,000 km2, all the islands a bit over 10,000 km2, so its about 94% or so, certainly nowhere near 99% as you rightly say

    Edit - you can also make a reasonable argument that everything N and W of the Great Glen is an island
    Not that reasonable an argument as the Caledonian canal is nowhere near sea level. Otherwise you could chop England up via canals too.

    But still, you'd think someone from Essex might realise there are a quite a few islands out there.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    England and Scotland are one island? Huge revolution in Ptolemaic geography. @IanB2 for one would be astounded that North Island is no longer separate from Wight.
    99% of England and Scotland are one island yes
    What an outrageous fib. You are movcing the goalposts again.

    And in any case you are, as usual, inaccurate in your stats. The Western Islands/Hebrides alone are 7.2K square km - GB is only 209K square km.

    Maybe you confused rods, poles and perches? Or are muddling the Minch and the Persian Gulf?
    England/scotland mainland is approx 189,000 km2, all the islands a bit over 10,000 km2, so its about 94% or so, certainly nowhere near 99% as you rightly say

    Edit - you can also make a reasonable argument that everything N and W of the Great Glen is an island
    Only if all the lock gates on the Caledonian Canal are open.
    Islandesque :smile:
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Carnyx said:

    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....

    It's not about just old people: it's about people with a specific medical issue.
    Same difference. They will literally become housebound for ever more if the government mandated it, its not going away.
    The quote wasn’t suggesting mandation: it was suggesting informing.
    Same thing for many people. You are telling anyone who might be vulnerable to this that the official Government line is that you should continue to isolate for the rest of your life. It never gets better than this. Unless we are incredibly, almost impossibly, lucky, we don't ever get to a point where this is not endemic in the same way a cold is. At what point do you tell people to just get on with their lives if not now?
    You give them the information to make an informed decision themselves. That is the standard, ethical approach at the heart of modern medicine. The idea that the State should conceal information because it’s made a decision for people is horrendous.

    Who's concealing anything? By now, all the people that the NHS sees as vulnerable are well aware of that status, and everybody ought to have known for more than two years that this virus is never going away.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,489
    THIS THREAD HAS DEFECTED
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    England and Scotland are one island? Huge revolution in Ptolemaic geography. @IanB2 for one would be astounded that North Island is no longer separate from Wight.
    99% of England and Scotland are one island yes
    What an outrageous fib. You are movcing the goalposts again.

    And in any case you are, as usual, inaccurate in your stats. The Western Islands/Hebrides alone are 7.2K square km - GB is only 209K square km.

    Maybe you confused rods, poles and perches? Or are muddling the Minch and the Persian Gulf?
    England/scotland mainland is approx 189,000 km2, all the islands a bit over 10,000 km2, so its about 94% or so, certainly nowhere near 99% as you rightly say

    Edit - you can also make a reasonable argument that everything N and W of the Great Glen is an island
    Not that reasonable an argument as the Caledonian canal is nowhere near sea level. Otherwise you could chop England up via canals too.

    But still, you'd think someone from Essex might realise there are a quite a few islands out there.
    There are one or rwo for sure. Some even have lifeforms!
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,073
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    So what, it is the Vatican that determines Roman Catholic doctrine not Biden and the Vatican is firmly anti abortion.

    The majority of SC justices (some appointed by Bushes not just Trump) are Roman Catholics

    You seem oddly obsessed with reminding us that several SC Justices are Catholic: multiple times in the previous thread. It seemed to me worth pointing out that the President is also Catholic, but takes the opposing view.
    The Pope and Vatican determine doctrine for US Roman Catholics, not the President
    The Pope and the Vatican determine doctrine for all Roman Catholics, and all Roman Catholics choose the degree to which they wish to be guided by Church doctrine. Some Catholics, e.g. the President, choose to support a pro-choice position. Others, like the SC Justices in question, do not.

    I remain unclear what point you are actually trying to make. Do bears shit in the woods? Yes. Is the Pope the head of the Catholic Church? Yes. Do Catholics all do what the Pope wants? No, clearly not. Most Catholics (of child-bearing age) in the US and UK, for example, use contraception.
  • Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 130

    Penddu2 said:

    My non-expert opinion on Ukraine war (although I did live there for 3 years and have heard plenty of local opinions on original 2014 invasion)

    Russia sees Crimea, Odessa and Donbass as its lost territory (conveniently forgetting they gave it away in the first place). The invasion was intended to sieze all of this area plus probably all of East Ukraine up to the Dnieper river, leaving a rump West Ukraine state with a puppet leader like Belarus. This original objective has clearly failed but Putin can still sell winning the Donbass and the landbridge to Crimea as a victory.

    Ukraine could probably be reluctantly persuaded to accept this position as a ceasefire, persuaded by massive EU & US financial assistance, EU membership and continuing Russian sanctions. The lost areas have been largely flattened in any case.

    However the problem would lie in Kherson - Russia needs to control the west bank of Dnieper to secure water supplies to Crimea - Ukraine knows it and will push heavily to retake Kherson. I expect compromise will be for Russia to retreat from Kherson city to east of Dneiper with promise of guaranteed water supply. But not before they have looted, razed and raped their way out.

    This to play out by end of August.

    Long term security (including for Baltic States) will be settled by sacrificing Putin (will probably die one way or another shortly anyway) plus others in exchange for sanctions relief. That will be by end December as winter start to bite - in both Russia and Western Europe.

    That's all good, aside from the fact that Putin wants more. His idea of a 'Greater Russia' is far more expansive than just those small areas.

    And how can anyone trust him and Russia? How can we guarantee he will not just take the rest in a few years, as he did after 2014?
    Agreed - but he has clearly only been able to deliver limited gains at massive cost - once the dust settles saner heads in the Kremlin will decide that it was not worth it - the population want to return to their summer holidays and designer clothes - the elite want their Mercedes and Maybachs again. He will be quietly sacrificed and replaced by a more pro-economy and less-warmongering alternative.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,512

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    England and Scotland are one island? Huge revolution in Ptolemaic geography. @IanB2 for one would be astounded that North Island is no longer separate from Wight.
    99% of England and Scotland are one island yes
    What an outrageous fib. You are movcing the goalposts again.

    And in any case you are, as usual, inaccurate in your stats. The Western Islands/Hebrides alone are 7.2K square km - GB is only 209K square km.

    Maybe you confused rods, poles and perches? Or are muddling the Minch and the Persian Gulf?
    England/scotland mainland is approx 189,000 km2, all the islands a bit over 10,000 km2, so its about 94% or so, certainly nowhere near 99% as you rightly say

    Edit - you can also make a reasonable argument that everything N and W of the Great Glen is an island
    Not that reasonable an argument as the Caledonian canal is nowhere near sea level. Otherwise you could chop England up via canals too.

    But still, you'd think someone from Essex might realise there are a quite a few islands out there.
    There are one or rwo for sure. Some even have lifeforms!
    :)

    Are you sure about that?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,249
    edited June 28
    Endillion said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    It’s slowly sinking in with the Democrats, that the events of last week were the culmination of *decades* of efforts by those opposed to the Roe decision.

    If you want to point to two recent events that swung it, then look to Ruth Bader Ginsburg not retiring under Obama, and Hillary Clinton calling working-class voters deplorables.
    She did NOT.

    No apologies for reminding people (below) of one of the great speeches of modern times. Why great? Because it was the Truth and was said without regard to the electoral consequences. It was genuinely "telling it like it is" which is rare for a politician. Those that claim to are usually just spouting bigotry.

    In pastel trouser suit and with stern face I address the crowd -

    "I know there are only 60 days left to make our case – and don't get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

    The "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
    I look forward to your similarly spirited defence of Theresa May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech. Very similar context, and a similarly iconic phrase that's all anyone remembers from it.
    Both made very basic errors, and were deservedly criticised.

    Clinton characterised a subset of voters as irredeemable when she was trying to win their votes. It was insensitive and arrogant.

    May seemed to “other” large swathes of the population at a time of heightened sensitivities. It was inflammatory and ignorant.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,220
    Penddu2 said:

    Penddu2 said:

    My non-expert opinion on Ukraine war (although I did live there for 3 years and have heard plenty of local opinions on original 2014 invasion)

    Russia sees Crimea, Odessa and Donbass as its lost territory (conveniently forgetting they gave it away in the first place). The invasion was intended to sieze all of this area plus probably all of East Ukraine up to the Dnieper river, leaving a rump West Ukraine state with a puppet leader like Belarus. This original objective has clearly failed but Putin can still sell winning the Donbass and the landbridge to Crimea as a victory.

    Ukraine could probably be reluctantly persuaded to accept this position as a ceasefire, persuaded by massive EU & US financial assistance, EU membership and continuing Russian sanctions. The lost areas have been largely flattened in any case.

    However the problem would lie in Kherson - Russia needs to control the west bank of Dnieper to secure water supplies to Crimea - Ukraine knows it and will push heavily to retake Kherson. I expect compromise will be for Russia to retreat from Kherson city to east of Dneiper with promise of guaranteed water supply. But not before they have looted, razed and raped their way out.

    This to play out by end of August.

    Long term security (including for Baltic States) will be settled by sacrificing Putin (will probably die one way or another shortly anyway) plus others in exchange for sanctions relief. That will be by end December as winter start to bite - in both Russia and Western Europe.

    That's all good, aside from the fact that Putin wants more. His idea of a 'Greater Russia' is far more expansive than just those small areas.

    And how can anyone trust him and Russia? How can we guarantee he will not just take the rest in a few years, as he did after 2014?
    Agreed - but he has clearly only been able to deliver limited gains at massive cost - once the dust settles saner heads in the Kremlin will decide that it was not worth it - the population want to return to their summer holidays and designer clothes - the elite want their Mercedes and Maybachs again. He will be quietly sacrificed and replaced by a more pro-economy and less-warmongering alternative.
    "once the dust settles saner heads in the Kremlin will decide that it was not worth it"

    Really?

    That's an almighty gamble.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,932

    Carnyx said:

    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....

    It's not about just old people: it's about people with a specific medical issue.
    Same difference. They will literally become housebound for ever more if the government mandated it, its not going away.
    The quote wasn’t suggesting mandation: it was suggesting informing.
    Same thing for many people. You are telling anyone who might be vulnerable to this that the official Government line is that you should continue to isolate for the rest of your life. It never gets better than this. Unless we are incredibly, almost impossibly, lucky, we don't ever get to a point where this is not endemic in the same way a cold is. At what point do you tell people to just get on with their lives if not now?
    You give them the information to make an informed decision themselves. That is the standard, ethical approach at the heart of modern medicine. The idea that the State should conceal information because it’s made a decision for people is horrendous.

    I don't think they are concealing information. The fact that they are not promoting it to scare people into decisions that will ruin their lives does not mean the same thing as 'concealing'. The stats are out there and are easy to find.

    Do you think the Government were 'concealing' information in the past when they didn't push scare tactics over 20,000 people a year (mostly of exactly the same target audience) dying of flu?

    If Vine didn't know Covid was still out there then he is a fecking idiot. More likely he is trying to make a cheap political point.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    So what, it is the Vatican that determines Roman Catholic doctrine not Biden and the Vatican is firmly anti abortion.

    The majority of SC justices (some appointed by Bushes not just Trump) are Roman Catholics

    You seem oddly obsessed with reminding us that several SC Justices are Catholic: multiple times in the previous thread. It seemed to me worth pointing out that the President is also Catholic, but takes the opposing view.
    The Pope and Vatican determine doctrine for US Roman Catholics, not the President
    The Pope and the Vatican determine doctrine for all Roman Catholics, and all Roman Catholics choose the degree to which they wish to be guided by Church doctrine. Some Catholics, e.g. the President, choose to support a pro-choice position. Others, like the SC Justices in question, do not.

    I remain unclear what point you are actually trying to make. Do bears shit in the woods? Yes. Is the Pope the head of the Catholic Church? Yes. Do Catholics all do what the Pope wants? No, clearly not. Most Catholics (of child-bearing age) in the US and UK, for example, use contraception.
    So what, the teachings of the Pope and Vatican are still Roman Catholic doctrine strict Catholics follow. The fact some Catholics are more loose in their adherence does not change Catholic doctrine. On abortion the SC Justices are clearly more devout Catholics and followers of Vatican teaching than the President
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520
    edited June 28
    Endillion said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    It’s slowly sinking in with the Democrats, that the events of last week were the culmination of *decades* of efforts by those opposed to the Roe decision.

    If you want to point to two recent events that swung it, then look to Ruth Bader Ginsburg not retiring under Obama, and Hillary Clinton calling working-class voters deplorables.
    She did NOT.

    No apologies for reminding people (below) of one of the great speeches of modern times. Why great? Because it was the Truth and was said without regard to the electoral consequences. It was genuinely "telling it like it is" which is rare for a politician. Those that claim to are usually just spouting bigotry.

    In pastel trouser suit and with stern face I address the crowd -

    "I know there are only 60 days left to make our case – and don't get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

    The "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
    I look forward to your similarly spirited defence of Theresa May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech. Very similar context, and a similarly iconic phrase that's all anyone remembers from it.
    Not sure about similar context. HRC was fighting the far right, Mrs May was ... well I'm not sure what she was trying to do.

    But I do agree that speeches remembered for one phrase often - if you go and check - prove to be something a little bit different to the myth.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    Under your convoluted logic, Wight, Osea Island, Skye and Arran are not part of the UK as they are separate islands.

    Johnson is likely to be remembered as the worst PM since Lord North because of Brexit.
    Lindisfarne has an on-off relationship.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    Scott_xP said:
    Honesty is remarkable these days.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520
    Applicant said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    It’s slowly sinking in with the Democrats, that the events of last week were the culmination of *decades* of efforts by those opposed to the Roe decision.

    If you want to point to two recent events that swung it, then look to Ruth Bader Ginsburg not retiring under Obama, and Hillary Clinton calling working-class voters deplorables.
    She did NOT.

    No apologies for reminding people (below) of one of the great speeches of modern times. Why great? Because it was the Truth and was said without regard to the electoral consequences. It was genuinely "telling it like it is" which is rare for a politician. Those that claim to are usually just spouting bigotry.

    In pastel trouser suit and with stern face I address the crowd -

    "I know there are only 60 days left to make our case – and don't get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

    The "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
    Only a quarter of the country is deplorable? Yeah, that makes it so much better.
    Trump SUPPORTERS not all GOP voters. The Trump base.

    Half of them being Deplorable was erring on the generous. Pulling her punches a bit there.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    edited June 28
    Applicant said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    It’s slowly sinking in with the Democrats, that the events of last week were the culmination of *decades* of efforts by those opposed to the Roe decision.

    If you want to point to two recent events that swung it, then look to Ruth Bader Ginsburg not retiring under Obama, and Hillary Clinton calling working-class voters deplorables.
    She did NOT.

    No apologies for reminding people (below) of one of the great speeches of modern times. Why great? Because it was the Truth and was said without regard to the electoral consequences. It was genuinely "telling it like it is" which is rare for a politician. Those that claim to are usually just spouting bigotry.

    In pastel trouser suit and with stern face I address the crowd -

    "I know there are only 60 days left to make our case – and don't get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

    The "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
    Only a quarter of the country is deplorable? Yeah, that makes it so much better.
    Well they definitely thought so!

    Been there, got the t-shirt Trump sold a million t-shirts.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,594

    Carnyx said:

    'Why isn't the Government mentioning it? Why isn't it saying anyone vulnerable, you know, stay indoors?'

    Nearly 4million extremely vulnerable people were told they were no longer advised to shield from April 1, as part of No10's 'living with Covid' plan.

    Showing his positive lateral flow test to the camera, Vine added: 'That's a big red line there, there is a lot of it around.

    'Shouldn't they [the Government] be saying... just stay in if you are vulnerable, but we've not heard a peep. I guess they are just too busy.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10960617/Stay-inside-youre-vulnerable-Covid-stricken-Jeremy-Vine-leads-calls-RETURN-shielding.html

    Because old people will never be allowed out their house ever if we take this approach....

    It's not about just old people: it's about people with a specific medical issue.
    Same difference. They will literally become housebound for ever more if the government mandated it, its not going away.
    The quote wasn’t suggesting mandation: it was suggesting informing.
    Same thing for many people. You are telling anyone who might be vulnerable to this that the official Government line is that you should continue to isolate for the rest of your life. It never gets better than this. Unless we are incredibly, almost impossibly, lucky, we don't ever get to a point where this is not endemic in the same way a cold is. At what point do you tell people to just get on with their lives if not now?
    You give them the information to make an informed decision themselves. That is the standard, ethical approach at the heart of modern medicine. The idea that the State should conceal information because it’s made a decision for people is horrendous.

    I don't think they are concealing information. The fact that they are not promoting it to scare people into decisions that will ruin their lives does not mean the same thing as 'concealing'. The stats are out there and are easy to find.

    Do you think the Government were 'concealing' information in the past when they didn't push scare tactics over 20,000 people a year (mostly of exactly the same target audience) dying of flu?

    If Vine didn't know Covid was still out there then he is a fecking idiot. More likely he is trying to make a cheap political point.
    Am I right in thinking shielding was a specific thing before COVID, and would have been part of the individual medical advice (perhaps in an information sheet) that, for example, cancer patients might get in the course of undergoing treatment. That should continue with an additional be mindful of COVID note.

    As to wider lower level covid shielders, the balance might still be to encourage a lot of them out in risk aware and mitigating ways.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,536

    Of course I support Steve Bray’s right to protest, but his amplified lunacy disturbs local workers and indeed tourists.

    I don’t actually know what the solution is, but piling in 20 officers the day the new law comes into effect makes me incredibly uncomfortable.

    It feels like there is effectively no longer a right to protest.

    20 police officers is overkill, unless they had good reason to expect a wider disturbance, but Steve Bray's antics and idiocy over many years is certainly something that would cause me to review the law.

    Yes, he can say what he likes but he has no right to disturb the peace night and day to do it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,536

    I do not agree with Steve Bray, but I 100% support his right to protest.

    I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

    I absolutely agree about the right to protest but others have a right to go about their business in peace. I'd argue he infringes on others rights often enough.

    I'd love to know who pays him to do what he does.
    I expect even those that pay him know he's a nutcase and a dickhead - he's almost always alone, and even when he does have a "partner" it isn't the same one for long - but continue to fund him because they find it convenient to constantly have the presence of a pro -EU message in the background of national TV broadcasts useful.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,536

    Endillion said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    The SCOTUS decision has also been condemned by the Catholic President Biden. The justices who swung the result were appointed by an obviously atheist Trump (even if he pretends to be Christian).
    It’s slowly sinking in with the Democrats, that the events of last week were the culmination of *decades* of efforts by those opposed to the Roe decision.

    If you want to point to two recent events that swung it, then look to Ruth Bader Ginsburg not retiring under Obama, and Hillary Clinton calling working-class voters deplorables.
    She did NOT.

    No apologies for reminding people (below) of one of the great speeches of modern times. Why great? Because it was the Truth and was said without regard to the electoral consequences. It was genuinely "telling it like it is" which is rare for a politician. Those that claim to are usually just spouting bigotry.

    In pastel trouser suit and with stern face I address the crowd -

    "I know there are only 60 days left to make our case – and don't get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

    The "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
    I look forward to your similarly spirited defence of Theresa May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech. Very similar context, and a similarly iconic phrase that's all anyone remembers from it.
    Both made very basic errors, and were deservedly criticised.

    Clinton characterised a subset of voters as irredeemable when she was trying to win their votes. It was insensitive and arrogant.

    May seemed to “other” large swathes of the population at a time of heightened sensitivities. It was inflammatory and ignorant.
    Clinton was arrogant, entitled and humourless and remarkably lacking in self-awareness.

    It's remarkable she was ever selected as the Democratic candidate.
This discussion has been closed.