Nothing to gain from doing so, only people to upset.
Not an option for me as people know I got the job because of my Parliamentary background, but I make a fetish of not expressing a view on party political subjects, partly because we work for a charity but mainly because it'd be awkward if we vehemently disagreed. I don't talk politcs with my neighbours either, for the same reason, and that's common among canvassers, who often prefer not to canvass people they know.
In the arts - from humble flint-knappers to grand theatrical types - all the leftwingers/Remainers loudly proclaim their politics, while the rightwingers stay quiet and low profile, and never venture an opinion, in case they get cancelled
It is an absolutely toxic environment, for both sides. Arguably it is worse for the Left, as they get the impression EVERYONE agrees with them, whereas this is really not true. And the Left is surprised time and again when they lose elections and plebiscites
In fairness 'the left' has won elections this century, even if parts of it now wish to pretend it was not 'the left' who so won.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
Wearing my sceptic hat, I'd say that's buying an easy win - symbolic, but a decent start. And of course that is being compelled before long.
Have they done the next difficult symbol - stopped flying? One New York return in Business is about the same as the whole annual C02 footprint (everything) of an average UK person.
Have they invested to halve their domestic energy use? Very achievable, but hard yards to do well.
Channel Four broadcasting the 1966 final in full colour on Saturday is a great shout. But I hope they don’t bottle it - Matterface has to record an alternative commentary. ‘Some people are the the pitch. 9 of them I think. Or is it 10? Oh it’s over’
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
Wearing my sceptic hat, I'd say that's buying an easy win - symbolic, but a decent start. And of course that is being compelled before long.
Have they done the next difficult symbol - stopped flying? One New York return in Business is about the same as the whole annual C02 footprint (everything) of an average UK person.
Have they invested to halve their domestic energy use? Very achievable, but hard yards to do well.
Most of them have gone full pelt. That's what makes it so striking.
Solar panels, giving up foreign trips, carbon offsets, donation to green projects.
Even lambasting Boris Johnson for not banning ICE cars from 2030, they are disappointed that from 2030 the ban applies to new cars only.
Caitlin Moran @caitlinmoran · 17h Cab ride across London during extra time - pubs exploding, horns sounding. For an England team who took the knee, wear rainbow armbands, campaign against child poverty. It feels like a cultural game-changer on the same scale as The Beatles.
Hmmm. Colour me sceptical.
Jesus FUCKING Christ Lefties. Give it a fucking rest. Can we have something, anything which isn't about your fucking culture war all the fucking time.
There is so little you can do nowadays which doesn't involve getting shouted at by a fucking leftie with an agenda.
Eh? Nearly all the culture war stuff that I see is from people like your good self being triggered by someone on Twitter.
Exactly. The only people going on about a 'culture war' and 'wokism' are the saddos on the right who cannot come to terms with the long sweep of history towards more liberal attitudes, greater acceptance of diversity, willingness to live and let live etc.
Are you sure this isn't a narrative people tell themselves because it makes them feel modern and progressive? In reality social attitudes evolve in different directions and there is no "long sweep of history" towards liberal attitudes.
It's a view. Which social attitudes do you think have evloved in a way counter to liberal/progressive views over the past say 30, 50, 100, 200 or 500 years?
(PS Yes, I am pretty sure.)
I think Western liberalism took a bit of a bath at some stages last century, wouldn't you say? And have you seen all those photos of car driving, skirt wearing, job having, opinion having women in Tehran 50 years ago?
Yes and yes, both fair points.
But the long sweep... two steps forward, one step back and all that. Think of it like the stock market, there will periods of bear markets and even (temporary) crashes but overall the long-term direction is clear.
To be fair, in 1939 I would not have been so sure about social attitudes progressing... but then again in 1930 I would not have been so sure about the stock market always rising in the long-term.
Are you sure in 2021 that the future will, in the long term, be ever more "liberal/progressive"? I didn't know anybody still thought that.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
That 1% BIK isn’t going to last forever!
Yup.
I've recently jumped aboard that particular wagon.
There was a time I used to drive nothing but one man global warming machines.
That 6 litre S600 was something else.
Ditto the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, that was a sports car on a 4x4 floor plan.
We still get nice cars out here. I’m looking at an E550 Wagon for the next transport, someone somewhere needs to keep all the V8s running!
A little envious of an S600, albeit not for the depreciation on it.
It lost £20 grand the moment I drove it off the garage forecourt.
I really liked the S600, it was a great high tech car and it was so spacious, it was like driving from your living room.
But the thing I loved the most, for all the high tech, it had a little carriage clock in it, rather than a digital display.
The other downside, it was huge, I took up four parking spaces at Meadowhall/Trafford Centre, and six parking spaces if you wanted to open the doors.
I bet you were popular with other shoppers....
I was.
During my petrolhead days, I thought about getting a Hummer, because you know, I'm a twat like that.
I don't buy cars on impulse, I do a lot of research, took a Hummer for a test drive, it was huuuge, like massive, drove it to the Trafford Centre, it took up a lane and a half on the motorway.
The salesman told me just before we took it for a spin
'If you hear a banging noise whilst you are driving, don't panic, there's nothing wrong with the beast, that banging you are hearing is the wing mirrors you are hitting, because these things are wide.'
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
That 1% BIK isn’t going to last forever!
Yup.
I've recently jumped aboard that particular wagon.
There was a time I used to drive nothing but one man global warming machines.
That 6 litre S600 was something else.
Ditto the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, that was a sports car on a 4x4 floor plan.
We still get nice cars out here. I’m looking at an E550 Wagon for the next transport, someone somewhere needs to keep all the V8s running!
A little envious of an S600, albeit not for the depreciation on it.
It lost £20 grand the moment I drove it off the garage forecourt.
I really liked the S600, it was a great high tech car and it was so spacious, it was like driving from your living room.
But the thing I loved the most, for all the high tech, it had a little carriage clock in it, rather than a digital display.
The other downside, it was huge, I took up four parking spaces at Meadowhall/Trafford Centre, and six parking spaces if you wanted to open the doors.
I bet you were popular with other shoppers....
I was.
During my petrolhead days, I thought about getting a Hummer, because you know, I'm a twat like that.
I don't buy cars on impulse, I do a lot of research, took a Hummer for a test drive, it was huuuge, like massive, drove it to the Trafford Centre, it took up a lane and a half on the motorway.
The salesman told me just before we took it for a spin
'If you hear a banging noise whilst you are driving, don't panic, there's nothing wrong with the beast, that banging you are hearing is the wing mirrors you are hitting, because these things are wide.'
Of course now its all about the G Wagon....if you are all about posing in your binged up ex-military vehicle.
19% wanting a permanent curfew. Ffsake who are these people.
As I'm sure has been suggested, it may well be the simpler answer is that choice, for many, was a proxy for 'I am very serious about doing whatever it takes to stop this pandemic' as virtue signalling rather than literal.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
That 1% BIK isn’t going to last forever!
Yup.
I've recently jumped aboard that particular wagon.
There was a time I used to drive nothing but one man global warming machines.
That 6 litre S600 was something else.
Ditto the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, that was a sports car on a 4x4 floor plan.
We still get nice cars out here. I’m looking at an E550 Wagon for the next transport, someone somewhere needs to keep all the V8s running!
A little envious of an S600, albeit not for the depreciation on it.
It lost £20 grand the moment I drove it off the garage forecourt.
I really liked the S600, it was a great high tech car and it was so spacious, it was like driving from your living room.
But the thing I loved the most, for all the high tech, it had a little carriage clock in it, rather than a digital display.
The other downside, it was huge, I took up four parking spaces at Meadowhall/Trafford Centre, and six parking spaces if you wanted to open the doors.
I bet you were popular with other shoppers....
I was.
During my petrolhead days, I thought about getting a Hummer, because you know, I'm a twat like that.
I don't buy cars on impulse, I do a lot of research, took a Hummer for a test drive, it was huuuge, like massive, drove it to the Trafford Centre, it took up a lane and a half on the motorway.
The salesman told me just before we took it for a spin
'If you hear a banging noise whilst you are driving, don't panic, there's nothing wrong with the beast, that banging you are hearing is the wing mirrors you are hitting, because these things are wide.'
Of course now its all about the G Wagon....
I nearly bought the G Wagon for my Dad, I tried to sell it to him as a people carrier for the family.
He wasn't having it, he liked the ML and GLS, loved/love driving those.
It's a view. Which social attitudes do you think have evloved in a way counter to liberal/progressive views over the past say 30, 50, 100, 200 or 500 years?
(PS Yes, I am pretty sure.)
Eugenics immediately springs to mind as the most dramatic example over the last 100 years, say.
You sure? THe liberal/progressives were all quite keen on eugenics, like the reactionaries, up to the 193os. Or have I misread?
It was mainly the liberals and progressives who were keen on it.
I think it's pretty clear that social attitudes today haven't moved their way on that!
But the NSDAP for instance was also very keen on eugenics in various senses. And the imperialists too in Britain - that panic over the state of the nation at the Boer War time, B-P and the boy scouts, etc.
Current law says unborn babies with Down's Syndrome can be aborted up until birth. I am not trying to start a discussion on the rights of wrongs of that, and I'm fully aware that nobody is forced to have an abortion, but the underlying philosophy is definitely eugenics.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
That 1% BIK isn’t going to last forever!
Yup.
I've recently jumped aboard that particular wagon.
There was a time I used to drive nothing but one man global warming machines.
That 6 litre S600 was something else.
Ditto the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, that was a sports car on a 4x4 floor plan.
We still get nice cars out here. I’m looking at an E550 Wagon for the next transport, someone somewhere needs to keep all the V8s running!
A little envious of an S600, albeit not for the depreciation on it.
It lost £20 grand the moment I drove it off the garage forecourt.
I really liked the S600, it was a great high tech car and it was so spacious, it was like driving from your living room.
But the thing I loved the most, for all the high tech, it had a little carriage clock in it, rather than a digital display.
The other downside, it was huge, I took up four parking spaces at Meadowhall/Trafford Centre, and six parking spaces if you wanted to open the doors.
I bet you were popular with other shoppers....
I was.
During my petrolhead days, I thought about getting a Hummer, because you know, I'm a twat like that.
I don't buy cars on impulse, I do a lot of research, took a Hummer for a test drive, it was huuuge, like massive, drove it to the Trafford Centre, it took up a lane and a half on the motorway.
The salesman told me just before we took it for a spin
'If you hear a banging noise whilst you are driving, don't panic, there's nothing wrong with the beast, that banging you are hearing is the wing mirrors you are hitting, because these things are wide.'
Of course now its all about the G Wagon....
The new G-Wagen is nuts. After getting away with selling that old truck for a couple of decades, they’ve made the new one look pretty much the same but handle like a car.
They’ve got a lot more competition now though, everyone’s doing big SUVs.
Fun fact: VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, Audi Q7, Bentley Bentayga, and Lamborghini Urus, are all basically the same car.
The thing that the government got wrong was about 18 months ago, they decided to tell people that a virus which is fairly serious in old people and almost entirely harmless in young people was the new black death.
Now, all the gullible people who believe whatever rubbish the government/media want to tell them are scared rigid of it, despite vaccines making it pretty much a non-issue for the old as well.
If Covid had had a hospitalisation profile when it arrived like it has now, you'd be lucky if it generated a paragraph on page 15 of The Times, and normal life would be continuing.
The government never said any such thing. If you think it did that is because at least one of your intelligence and your memory is seriously faulty.
You have either not heard of or not understood the implications of the emergence and nature of the delta variant. Everybody, whether they agree with the government's policy or disagree with it, accepts that the policy is high risk. Everybody except you, anyway.
No those with an agenda to push are calling it high risk.
Given the figures on death rates and antibodies there is no more real risk of the NHS being overwhelmed than there ever normally is now.
The government have been farcically cautious in waiting as long as they have and those calling it high risk to proceed now have an agenda to push.
Not so. How hard is it to understand that predictions are hard to make, especially about the future? The NHS is going to take a very large hit in July to save, we hope, a larger hit in winter. We do not know how big a hit, because see the last but one sentence.
To say that the future is uncertain is a truism but that doesn't make the current path "high risk".
To quote the late Rumsfeld there could of course be some "unknown unknown" that throws us into danger, like the original Covid did at the start of last year, but from the data we have before us both the known knowns and known unknowns show the current path is not high risk.
You know more about delta than anybody else does then, never mind any potential successors.
Not really. I know nothing that's not been independently verified by those who know better ranging from MaxPB to Chris Whitty. Please quote anyone sane without an agenda like MaxPB or Chris Whitty etc calling this step "high risk".
Zero Covid extremists are of course calling it high risk, that doesn't make it so.
Sajid Javid "uncharted territory". Chris Whitty "inevitably some degree of uncertainty". Both this week. Are you living in some alternative time stream?
No I agree with both of them. It is uncharted territory and there is some degree of uncertainty.
That is not the same as saying "high risk". High risk means something different to some degree of uncertainty.
So, to cash the metaphor, travelling in country without a map because nobody has yet made one is only low or medium risk behaviour, is it? Bearing in mind that the person saying this, like everybody who ever said anything, "has an agenda" - in this case, to minimise the risk involved?
Yes, indeed it is low to medium risk. I would maybe even qualify it as very low to low risk, which is still some degree of uncertainty.
19% wanting a permanent curfew. Ffsake who are these people.
As I'm sure has been suggested, it may well be the simpler answer is that choice, for many, was a proxy for 'I am very serious about doing whatever it takes to stop this pandemic' as virtue signalling rather than literal.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
That 1% BIK isn’t going to last forever!
Yup.
I've recently jumped aboard that particular wagon.
There was a time I used to drive nothing but one man global warming machines.
That 6 litre S600 was something else.
Ditto the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, that was a sports car on a 4x4 floor plan.
We still get nice cars out here. I’m looking at an E550 Wagon for the next transport, someone somewhere needs to keep all the V8s running!
A little envious of an S600, albeit not for the depreciation on it.
It lost £20 grand the moment I drove it off the garage forecourt.
I really liked the S600, it was a great high tech car and it was so spacious, it was like driving from your living room.
But the thing I loved the most, for all the high tech, it had a little carriage clock in it, rather than a digital display.
The other downside, it was huge, I took up four parking spaces at Meadowhall/Trafford Centre, and six parking spaces if you wanted to open the doors.
I bet you were popular with other shoppers....
I was.
During my petrolhead days, I thought about getting a Hummer, because you know, I'm a twat like that.
I don't buy cars on impulse, I do a lot of research, took a Hummer for a test drive, it was huuuge, like massive, drove it to the Trafford Centre, it took up a lane and a half on the motorway.
The salesman told me just before we took it for a spin
'If you hear a banging noise whilst you are driving, don't panic, there's nothing wrong with the beast, that banging you are hearing is the wing mirrors you are hitting, because these things are wide.'
Of course now its all about the G Wagon....
The new G-Wagen is nuts. After getting away with selling that old truck for a couple of decades, they’ve made the new one look pretty much the same but handle like a car.
They’ve got a lot more competition now though, everyone’s doing big SUVs.
Fun fact: VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, Audi Q7, Bentley Bentayga, and Lamborghini Urus, are all basically the same car.
That Lamborghini....the name is nearly as ridiculous as its looks... apparently the "your anus" mobile is dead popular with footballers.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
That 1% BIK isn’t going to last forever!
Yup.
I've recently jumped aboard that particular wagon.
There was a time I used to drive nothing but one man global warming machines.
That 6 litre S600 was something else.
Ditto the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, that was a sports car on a 4x4 floor plan.
We still get nice cars out here. I’m looking at an E550 Wagon for the next transport, someone somewhere needs to keep all the V8s running!
A little envious of an S600, albeit not for the depreciation on it.
It lost £20 grand the moment I drove it off the garage forecourt.
I really liked the S600, it was a great high tech car and it was so spacious, it was like driving from your living room.
But the thing I loved the most, for all the high tech, it had a little carriage clock in it, rather than a digital display.
The other downside, it was huge, I took up four parking spaces at Meadowhall/Trafford Centre, and six parking spaces if you wanted to open the doors.
I bet you were popular with other shoppers....
I was.
During my petrolhead days, I thought about getting a Hummer, because you know, I'm a twat like that.
I don't buy cars on impulse, I do a lot of research, took a Hummer for a test drive, it was huuuge, like massive, drove it to the Trafford Centre, it took up a lane and a half on the motorway.
The salesman told me just before we took it for a spin
'If you hear a banging noise whilst you are driving, don't panic, there's nothing wrong with the beast, that banging you are hearing is the wing mirrors you are hitting, because these things are wide.'
Of course now its all about the G Wagon....
The new G-Wagen is nuts. After getting away with selling that old truck for a couple of decades, they’ve made the new one look pretty much the same but handle like a car.
They’ve got a lot more competition now though, everyone’s doing big SUVs.
Fun fact: VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, Audi Q7, Bentley Bentayga, and Lamborghini Urus, are all basically the same car.
That's the same with the Skoda Octavia, VW Passat, and Audi A4.
19% wanting a permanent curfew. Ffsake who are these people.
As I'm sure has been suggested, it may well be the simpler answer is that choice, for many, was a proxy for 'I am very serious about doing whatever it takes to stop this pandemic' as virtue signalling rather than literal.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
19% wanting a permanent curfew. Ffsake who are these people.
As I'm sure has been suggested, it may well be the simpler answer is that choice, for many, was a proxy for 'I am very serious about doing whatever it takes to stop this pandemic' as virtue signalling rather than literal.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
Wearing my sceptic hat, I'd say that's buying an easy win - symbolic, but a decent start. And of course that is being compelled before long.
Have they done the next difficult symbol - stopped flying? One New York return in Business is about the same as the whole annual C02 footprint (everything) of an average UK person.
Have they invested to halve their domestic energy use? Very achievable, but hard yards to do well.
Most of them have gone full pelt. That's what makes it so striking.
Solar panels, giving up foreign trips, carbon offsets, donation to green projects.
Even lambasting Boris Johnson for not banning ICE cars from 2030, they are disappointed that from 2030 the ban applies to new cars only.
Its incredibly easy to give up foreign trips during a global pandemic. That's like boasting you've still kept your New Year's Resolution at 1 minute past midnight on New Year's Day.
Lets see how many have still given up foreign trips five years from now. Probably about as many as have kept their New Year's Resolution by the end of [the first week of] January, ie next to nobody.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
Wearing my sceptic hat, I'd say that's buying an easy win - symbolic, but a decent start. And of course that is being compelled before long.
Have they done the next difficult symbol - stopped flying? One New York return in Business is about the same as the whole annual C02 footprint (everything) of an average UK person.
Have they invested to halve their domestic energy use? Very achievable, but hard yards to do well.
Most of them have gone full pelt. That's what makes it so striking.
Solar panels, giving up foreign trips, carbon offsets, donation to green projects.
Even lambasting Boris Johnson for not banning ICE cars from 2030, they are disappointed that from 2030 the ban applies to new cars only.
Its incredibly easy to give up foreign trips during a global pandemic. That's like boasting you've still kept your New Year's Resolution at 1 minute past midnight on New Year's Day.
Lets see how many have still given up foreign trips five years from now. Probably about as many as have kept their New Year's Resolution by the end of [the first week of] January, ie next to nobody.
Maybe we will see Skegness, Weston Super mare, Blackpool, Margate, etc all gentrified?
19% wanting a permanent curfew. Ffsake who are these people.
As I'm sure has been suggested, it may well be the simpler answer is that choice, for many, was a proxy for 'I am very serious about doing whatever it takes to stop this pandemic' as virtue signalling rather than literal.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
Wearing my sceptic hat, I'd say that's buying an easy win - symbolic, but a decent start. And of course that is being compelled before long.
Have they done the next difficult symbol - stopped flying? One New York return in Business is about the same as the whole annual C02 footprint (everything) of an average UK person.
Have they invested to halve their domestic energy use? Very achievable, but hard yards to do well.
Most of them have gone full pelt. That's what makes it so striking.
Solar panels, giving up foreign trips, carbon offsets, donation to green projects.
Even lambasting Boris Johnson for not banning ICE cars from 2030, they are disappointed that from 2030 the ban applies to new cars only.
Now that is more encouraging .
It's so easy to get wrong - I lost count of the number of restored for rental houses I have walked away from because some twunt has done a 25k cosmetic job with the normal Homes Under the Hammer mix, which will have to be gutted again to meet the 2030 regs because an extra 3k has not been spent to sort the fabric before it got covered up.
The tough stuff is things such as underfloor insulation and boarding walls out to get close to newbuild regs. That's the stuff that gets expensive if done at the wrong time.
As an example, I was working with a T today who moved into my former small (500sqft) detached cottage with her 8 dogs in 2010. Her first energy bills were £225 a month. After a lot of detailed work since then, including making it 50% bigger, her current energy bills run at £120 a month.
Keep reminding them that we are on track to meet the enhanced EU 2030 '55% C02 reduction' target by 2023 !
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
That 1% BIK isn’t going to last forever!
Yup.
I've recently jumped aboard that particular wagon.
There was a time I used to drive nothing but one man global warming machines.
That 6 litre S600 was something else.
Ditto the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, that was a sports car on a 4x4 floor plan.
We still get nice cars out here. I’m looking at an E550 Wagon for the next transport, someone somewhere needs to keep all the V8s running!
A little envious of an S600, albeit not for the depreciation on it.
It lost £20 grand the moment I drove it off the garage forecourt.
I really liked the S600, it was a great high tech car and it was so spacious, it was like driving from your living room.
But the thing I loved the most, for all the high tech, it had a little carriage clock in it, rather than a digital display.
The other downside, it was huge, I took up four parking spaces at Meadowhall/Trafford Centre, and six parking spaces if you wanted to open the doors.
I bet you were popular with other shoppers....
I was.
During my petrolhead days, I thought about getting a Hummer, because you know, I'm a twat like that.
I don't buy cars on impulse, I do a lot of research, took a Hummer for a test drive, it was huuuge, like massive, drove it to the Trafford Centre, it took up a lane and a half on the motorway.
The salesman told me just before we took it for a spin
'If you hear a banging noise whilst you are driving, don't panic, there's nothing wrong with the beast, that banging you are hearing is the wing mirrors you are hitting, because these things are wide.'
Of course now its all about the G Wagon....
The new G-Wagen is nuts. After getting away with selling that old truck for a couple of decades, they’ve made the new one look pretty much the same but handle like a car.
They’ve got a lot more competition now though, everyone’s doing big SUVs.
Fun fact: VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, Audi Q7, Bentley Bentayga, and Lamborghini Urus, are all basically the same car.
That's the same with the Skoda Octavia, VW Passat, and Audi A4.
I think an Octavia is Golf/Jetta sized, but yes VAG platform sharing is much more common lower down the range, where the only difference between a Skoda and an Audi is the interior.
Amazing that they could get away with it on £200k cars, although to be fair they’ve given the brands huge leeway to differentiate themselves.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
That 1% BIK isn’t going to last forever!
Yup.
I've recently jumped aboard that particular wagon.
There was a time I used to drive nothing but one man global warming machines.
That 6 litre S600 was something else.
Ditto the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, that was a sports car on a 4x4 floor plan.
We still get nice cars out here. I’m looking at an E550 Wagon for the next transport, someone somewhere needs to keep all the V8s running!
A little envious of an S600, albeit not for the depreciation on it.
It lost £20 grand the moment I drove it off the garage forecourt.
I really liked the S600, it was a great high tech car and it was so spacious, it was like driving from your living room.
But the thing I loved the most, for all the high tech, it had a little carriage clock in it, rather than a digital display.
The other downside, it was huge, I took up four parking spaces at Meadowhall/Trafford Centre, and six parking spaces if you wanted to open the doors.
I bet you were popular with other shoppers....
I was.
During my petrolhead days, I thought about getting a Hummer, because you know, I'm a twat like that.
I don't buy cars on impulse, I do a lot of research, took a Hummer for a test drive, it was huuuge, like massive, drove it to the Trafford Centre, it took up a lane and a half on the motorway.
The salesman told me just before we took it for a spin
'If you hear a banging noise whilst you are driving, don't panic, there's nothing wrong with the beast, that banging you are hearing is the wing mirrors you are hitting, because these things are wide.'
Of course now its all about the G Wagon....
The new G-Wagen is nuts. After getting away with selling that old truck for a couple of decades, they’ve made the new one look pretty much the same but handle like a car.
They’ve got a lot more competition now though, everyone’s doing big SUVs.
Fun fact: VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, Audi Q7, Bentley Bentayga, and Lamborghini Urus, are all basically the same car.
That Lamborghini....the name is nearly as ridiculous as its looks... apparently the "your anus" mobile is dead popular with footballers.
If it's a Lambo, has to be the Countach. They've actually gone up in value.
Do you know, it hadn't occurred to me to wonder how that might have influenced the attitudes of certain elements in NI to Mr Johnson (Mr Blair kept it a lot quieter, I've been rold here for precisely that reason). Though there is plenty already to be going on there.
I did hear that the DUP took a dislike to Boris Johnson way back to the referendum, apparently he appeared to be disorganised, and made incorrect statements about Norn Iron/Ireland.
On a moral level they despised him for the frequent abortions he has participated in and his general lack of moral hygiene.
The more you think about it, the bigger the DUP's own goal looks.
Yup, I do have a former tutor who is convinced that the DUP would have been so pro EU/EC if the founding treaty was called anything but the Treaty of Rome.
We forget Ian Paisley's anti Catholic bigotry.
"I denounce you, Anti-Christ! I refuse you as Christ's enemy and Antichrist with all your false doctrine" - [Paisley] addressing Pope John Paul II on a visit to the European Parliament October 1988.
This Romish man of sin is now in hell! - Paisley on the death of Pope John XXIII
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
That 1% BIK isn’t going to last forever!
Yup.
I've recently jumped aboard that particular wagon.
There was a time I used to drive nothing but one man global warming machines.
That 6 litre S600 was something else.
Ditto the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, that was a sports car on a 4x4 floor plan.
We still get nice cars out here. I’m looking at an E550 Wagon for the next transport, someone somewhere needs to keep all the V8s running!
A little envious of an S600, albeit not for the depreciation on it.
It lost £20 grand the moment I drove it off the garage forecourt.
I really liked the S600, it was a great high tech car and it was so spacious, it was like driving from your living room.
But the thing I loved the most, for all the high tech, it had a little carriage clock in it, rather than a digital display.
The other downside, it was huge, I took up four parking spaces at Meadowhall/Trafford Centre, and six parking spaces if you wanted to open the doors.
I bet you were popular with other shoppers....
I was.
During my petrolhead days, I thought about getting a Hummer, because you know, I'm a twat like that.
I don't buy cars on impulse, I do a lot of research, took a Hummer for a test drive, it was huuuge, like massive, drove it to the Trafford Centre, it took up a lane and a half on the motorway.
The salesman told me just before we took it for a spin
'If you hear a banging noise whilst you are driving, don't panic, there's nothing wrong with the beast, that banging you are hearing is the wing mirrors you are hitting, because these things are wide.'
Of course now its all about the G Wagon....
The new G-Wagen is nuts. After getting away with selling that old truck for a couple of decades, they’ve made the new one look pretty much the same but handle like a car.
They’ve got a lot more competition now though, everyone’s doing big SUVs.
Fun fact: VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, Audi Q7, Bentley Bentayga, and Lamborghini Urus, are all basically the same car.
That's the same with the Skoda Octavia, VW Passat, and Audi A4.
This is why I bought a Skoda :-) . 10k cheaper than the same VW. And 20k cheaper than the same Audi.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
That 1% BIK isn’t going to last forever!
Yup.
I've recently jumped aboard that particular wagon.
There was a time I used to drive nothing but one man global warming machines.
That 6 litre S600 was something else.
Ditto the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, that was a sports car on a 4x4 floor plan.
We still get nice cars out here. I’m looking at an E550 Wagon for the next transport, someone somewhere needs to keep all the V8s running!
A little envious of an S600, albeit not for the depreciation on it.
It lost £20 grand the moment I drove it off the garage forecourt.
I really liked the S600, it was a great high tech car and it was so spacious, it was like driving from your living room.
But the thing I loved the most, for all the high tech, it had a little carriage clock in it, rather than a digital display.
The other downside, it was huge, I took up four parking spaces at Meadowhall/Trafford Centre, and six parking spaces if you wanted to open the doors.
I bet you were popular with other shoppers....
I was.
During my petrolhead days, I thought about getting a Hummer, because you know, I'm a twat like that.
I don't buy cars on impulse, I do a lot of research, took a Hummer for a test drive, it was huuuge, like massive, drove it to the Trafford Centre, it took up a lane and a half on the motorway.
The salesman told me just before we took it for a spin
'If you hear a banging noise whilst you are driving, don't panic, there's nothing wrong with the beast, that banging you are hearing is the wing mirrors you are hitting, because these things are wide.'
Of course now its all about the G Wagon....
The new G-Wagen is nuts. After getting away with selling that old truck for a couple of decades, they’ve made the new one look pretty much the same but handle like a car.
They’ve got a lot more competition now though, everyone’s doing big SUVs.
Fun fact: VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, Audi Q7, Bentley Bentayga, and Lamborghini Urus, are all basically the same car.
That Lamborghini....the name is nearly as ridiculous as its looks... apparently the "your anus" mobile is dead popular with footballers.
If it's a Lambo, has to be the Countach. They've actually gone up in value.
Everything from the ‘80s and ‘90s has gone up in value. There were surprising few of most of them made in period, and everyone who had a Countach on their bedroom wall is now 40 or 50 and can afford them. Running costs and reliability are both horrendous though.
A good Countach goes for about £300k, and budget at least £10k a year to keep it serviceable.
All this talk of Boris and Papists and Northern Ireland and with the twelfth imminent has given me a 17th century thought.
Boris is the modern 'merry monarch' Charles II.
Does that then make May some sort of reformation leader ? Authoritarian like Olly Cromwell but lacking authority like Dick Cromwell ?
And Cameron would be the equivalent of Charles I - managed to get his countries into the civil wars of Scottish independence and Brexit.
Brown is then James I - Scottish, the wisest fool etc.
But who would then be James II ?
Interesting analogy. Blair as Elizabeth I? Both had a long reign but I'm not sure what else links those two.
Have to skip a few going further backwards and Thatcher would be Henry VIII, absolutely transformational (I would have otherwise chosen Elizabeth I for her).
Major and the breakdown in Parliament with the Maastricht "bastards" can be the mess of Edward VI to Bloody Mary.
19% wanting a permanent curfew. Ffsake who are these people.
As I'm sure has been suggested, it may well be the simpler answer is that choice, for many, was a proxy for 'I am very serious about doing whatever it takes to stop this pandemic' as virtue signalling rather than literal.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Follow Back Pro Proportional Representation. It's Femi's latest project.
Oh good, just what Twitter needs more of - another echo chamber.
It's already got to the stage where Femi was trying to say Britain and Belarus were one and the same because we both use FPTP. It must be so tiring being that perpetually angry 24/7.
19% wanting a permanent curfew. Ffsake who are these people.
As I'm sure has been suggested, it may well be the simpler answer is that choice, for many, was a proxy for 'I am very serious about doing whatever it takes to stop this pandemic' as virtue signalling rather than literal.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
19% wanting a permanent curfew. Ffsake who are these people.
As I'm sure has been suggested, it may well be the simpler answer is that choice, for many, was a proxy for 'I am very serious about doing whatever it takes to stop this pandemic' as virtue signalling rather than literal.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Follow Back Pro Proportional Representation. It's Femi's latest project.
Oh good, just what Twitter needs more of - another echo chamber.
It's already got to the stage where Femi was trying to say Britain and Belarus were one and the same because we both use FPTP. It must be so tiring being that perpetually angry 24/7.
We're like Iran because we have religious figures in the Lords as of Right !!!!
All this talk of Boris and Papists and Northern Ireland and with the twelfth imminent has given me a 17th century thought.
Boris is the modern 'merry monarch' Charles II.
Does that then make May some sort of Protectorate leader ? Authoritarian like Olly Cromwell but lacking authority like Dick Cromwell ?
And Cameron would be the equivalent of Charles I - managed to get his countries into the civil wars of Scottish independence and Brexit.
Brown is then James I - Scottish, the wisest fool etc.
But who would then be James II ?
I love historical analogies since with just a little creativity on accuracy you can make absolutely anything work.
Boris as Oliver Cromwell - didn't initially support [removing the king and a republic/Brexit], but through unique skills became central to that cause, but once he took power disappoints many from that cause who regard him as merely having used it for advancement and power, ending up with a great deal of wasted effort on a changed situation which looks a lot like the original. And was horrible to the Irish to boot.
He'll be keeping an eye out for any former Remainers in case they are George Monck.
It's a view. Which social attitudes do you think have evloved in a way counter to liberal/progressive views over the past say 30, 50, 100, 200 or 500 years?
(PS Yes, I am pretty sure.)
Eugenics immediately springs to mind as the most dramatic example over the last 100 years, say.
You sure? THe liberal/progressives were all quite keen on eugenics, like the reactionaries, up to the 193os. Or have I misread?
It was mainly the liberals and progressives who were keen on it.
I think it's pretty clear that social attitudes today haven't moved their way on that!
But the NSDAP for instance was also very keen on eugenics in various senses. And the imperialists too in Britain - that panic over the state of the nation at the Boer War time, B-P and the boy scouts, etc.
Richard, were you trolling? It's only by accident that people like Francis Galton (who coined the word "eugenics"), Herbert Spencer, and H G Wells (author of "Anticipations"), all of whom wished for the mass murder of those they considered to be undesirable social elements, aren't called fascists. As for George Bernard Shaw, well one can call him a social reformer or whatever, but he can get over there and stand with the above-mentioned as far as I am concerned. That said, it is undoubtedly true that some on the left did buy into the disgusting right-wing philosophy of eugenics, but that wouldn't exactly be the first time that some on the left have chosen to do such a thing. For most of them there is no excuse and they deserve to be condemned for it. Anybody who espouses mass murder or forced sterilisation or "breeding" policies etc. deserves to be condemned. There are a few others who meant little more than an across-the-board improvement in public health and physical fitness evolving through the generations. They were stupid and lazy to adopt the word even for five minutes, but they shouldn't all be written off as Shavians or Fabians.
Galton was heavily inspired by Thomas Malthus, the "dirty vicar" who didn't have the courage to publish the first edition of his book on "population" under his own name. Galton himself then inspired Cyril Burt.
A worthwhile endeavour is to look for those who specifically opposed eugenics. One who comes to mind is Boris Sidis. He was on the left. OK, who on the right opposed it, or among Whigs/Liberals for that matter?
All this talk of Boris and Papists and Northern Ireland and with the twelfth imminent has given me a 17th century thought.
Boris is the modern 'merry monarch' Charles II.
Does that then make May some sort of reformation leader ? Authoritarian like Olly Cromwell but lacking authority like Dick Cromwell ?
And Cameron would be the equivalent of Charles I - managed to get his countries into the civil wars of Scottish independence and Brexit.
Brown is then James I - Scottish, the wisest fool etc.
But who would then be James II ?
Interesting analogy. Blair as Elizabeth I? Both had a long reign but I'm not sure what else links those two.
Have to skip a few going further backwards and Thatcher would be Henry VIII, absolutely transformational (I would have otherwise chosen Elizabeth I for her).
Major and the breakdown in Parliament with the Maastricht "bastards" can be the mess of Edward VI to Bloody Mary.
It does worry me that I think there may be a significant proportion of society (a lot larger than many think - but feeding into and indicated by these polls*) who have become so terrified of Covid (and lost all sight or understanding of relative risk) that they may have effectively withdrawn from society for the foreseeable future. And I’m not sure how society gets them back.
*there may also be an element of “I can’t do any of these fun things like socialising, going to crowded places, going on holiday... that I’m damned if I’m going to let other people do so just because they aren’t as scared as I am)
I like your footnote. It rings true. Scared people can be scared of those who aren't scared. (In fact, come to think of it, that applies to me too. I'm scared of people who aren't scared of where things seem to be headed. I'm scared of people who want a permanent curfew, etc.)
Regarding the first part, those people will be spending far more time picking their smartphones than in 2019. How to get them back is certainly a public health issue.
It's a view. Which social attitudes do you think have evloved in a way counter to liberal/progressive views over the past say 30, 50, 100, 200 or 500 years?
(PS Yes, I am pretty sure.)
Eugenics immediately springs to mind as the most dramatic example over the last 100 years, say.
You sure? THe liberal/progressives were all quite keen on eugenics, like the reactionaries, up to the 193os. Or have I misread?
It was mainly the liberals and progressives who were keen on it.
I think it's pretty clear that social attitudes today haven't moved their way on that!
But the NSDAP for instance was also very keen on eugenics in various senses. And the imperialists too in Britain - that panic over the state of the nation at the Boer War time, B-P and the boy scouts, etc.
Richard, were you trolling? It's only by accident that people like Francis Galton (who coined the word "eugenics"), Herbert Spencer, and H G Wells (author of "Anticipations"), all of whom wished for the mass murder of those they considered to be undesirable social elements, aren't called fascists. As for George Bernard Shaw, well one can call him a social reformer or whatever, but he can get over there and stand with the above-mentioned as far as I am concerned. That said, it is undoubtedly true that some on the left did buy into the disgusting right-wing philosophy of eugenics, but that wouldn't exactly be the first time that some on the left have chosen to do such a thing. For most of them there is no excuse and they deserve to be condemned for it. Anybody who espouses mass murder or forced sterilisation or "breeding" policies etc. deserves to be condemned. There are a few others who meant little more than an across-the-board improvement in public health and physical fitness evolving through the generations. They were stupid and lazy to adopt the word even for five minutes, but they shouldn't all be written off as Shavians or Fabians.
Galton was heavily inspired by Thomas Malthus, the "dirty vicar" who didn't have the courage to publish the first edition of his book on "population" under his own name. Galton himself then inspired Cyril Burt.
A worthwhile endeavour is to look for those who specifically opposed eugenics. One who comes to mind is Boris Sidis. He was on the left. OK, who on the right opposed it, or among Whigs/Liberals for that matter?
Not really, not least because the word "fascist" didn't exist till well after Galton's death. Leaving that aside, the only reason you seem to have for calling this very distinctive core belief of the left right wing is that you personally don't like it, so it can't be left wing, so there.
It does worry me that I think there may be a significant proportion of society (a lot larger than many think - but feeding into and indicated by these polls*) who have become so terrified of Covid (and lost all sight or understanding of relative risk) that they may have effectively withdrawn from society for the foreseeable future. And I’m not sure how society gets them back.
*there may also be an element of “I can’t do any of these fun things like socialising, going to crowded places, going on holiday... that I’m damned if I’m going to let other people do so just because they aren’t as scared as I am)
I like your footnote. It rings true. Scared people can be scared of those who aren't scared. (In fact, come to think of it, that applies to me too. I'm scared of people who aren't scared of where things seem to be headed. I'm scared of people who want a permanent curfew, etc.)
Regarding the first part, those people will be spending far more time picking their smartphones than in 2019. How to get them back is certainly a public health issue.
Yes it's a good footnote. Resentment of other people is a much stronger emotion than often acknowledged.
It's a view. Which social attitudes do you think have evloved in a way counter to liberal/progressive views over the past say 30, 50, 100, 200 or 500 years?
(PS Yes, I am pretty sure.)
Eugenics immediately springs to mind as the most dramatic example over the last 100 years, say.
You sure? THe liberal/progressives were all quite keen on eugenics, like the reactionaries, up to the 193os. Or have I misread?
It was mainly the liberals and progressives who were keen on it.
I think it's pretty clear that social attitudes today haven't moved their way on that!
But the NSDAP for instance was also very keen on eugenics in various senses. And the imperialists too in Britain - that panic over the state of the nation at the Boer War time, B-P and the boy scouts, etc.
Richard, were you trolling? It's only by accident that people like Francis Galton (who coined the word "eugenics"), Herbert Spencer, and H G Wells (author of "Anticipations"), all of whom wished for the mass murder of those they considered to be undesirable social elements, aren't called fascists. As for George Bernard Shaw, well one can call him a social reformer or whatever, but he can get over there and stand with the above-mentioned as far as I am concerned. That said, it is undoubtedly true that some on the left did buy into the disgusting right-wing philosophy of eugenics, but that wouldn't exactly be the first time that some on the left have chosen to do such a thing. For most of them there is no excuse and they deserve to be condemned for it. Anybody who espouses mass murder or forced sterilisation or "breeding" policies etc. deserves to be condemned. There are a few others who meant little more than an across-the-board improvement in public health and physical fitness evolving through the generations. They were stupid and lazy to adopt the word even for five minutes, but they shouldn't all be written off as Shavians or Fabians.
Galton was heavily inspired by Thomas Malthus, the "dirty vicar" who didn't have the courage to publish the first edition of his book on "population" under his own name. Galton himself then inspired Cyril Burt.
A worthwhile endeavour is to look for those who specifically opposed eugenics. One who comes to mind is Boris Sidis. He was on the left. OK, who on the right opposed it, or among Whigs/Liberals for that matter?
Not really, not least because the word "fascist" didn't exist till well after Galton's death. Leaving that aside, the only reason you seem to have for calling this very distinctive core belief of the left right wing is that you personally don't like it, so it can't be left wing, so there.
Its the classic behaviour of the left.
If someone is racist then define them as "far right" therefore they're right wing by definition. Therefore racists can't be left-wing by definition. Just don't mention the Jews.
It's a view. Which social attitudes do you think have evloved in a way counter to liberal/progressive views over the past say 30, 50, 100, 200 or 500 years?
(PS Yes, I am pretty sure.)
Eugenics immediately springs to mind as the most dramatic example over the last 100 years, say.
You sure? THe liberal/progressives were all quite keen on eugenics, like the reactionaries, up to the 193os. Or have I misread?
It was mainly the liberals and progressives who were keen on it.
I think it's pretty clear that social attitudes today haven't moved their way on that!
But the NSDAP for instance was also very keen on eugenics in various senses. And the imperialists too in Britain - that panic over the state of the nation at the Boer War time, B-P and the boy scouts, etc.
Who on earth would try to say that eugenics is a liberal/prgressive idea?
Some on the 'left' were in favour of Stalin's gulags - that doesn't make it a liberal or progressive idea.
This is not about left or right per se (although it seems those railing against liberal/progressive attitudes are mainly on the right these days).
My point is that the long rise of liberal/progressive ideas and attitudes has been unstoppable since the Enlightenment and remains so for the foreseeable future, notwithstanding periodic challenges and setbacks.
Only if you have an absolutely farcical definition of Progressive.
Eugenics absolutely was a Progressive idea when it was first proposed.
And Harriet Harman and others who worked in Liberty's predecessor group were associated for years with the Paedophile Information Exchange, with many progressives considering paedophilia like homosexuality as something that needed to be legalised. Attitudes have gone the complete opposite direction on that one since the 70s, we're more concerned about paedophilia now not less.
Harman was an absolute f***ing moron and scumbag to take the position she did. But if the people involved with say the play "Hair" had wanted to show paedophilia as a "preference" that came with a right of expression, a right hindered only by an existing "taboo", they would have done exactly that. It wouldn't be true to say that most on the left or liberal left shared Harman's view at that time or at any other time.
As for the word "progressive", it can be made to cover any idea about a better future, including in the sense that Tories have in mind when they talk about the "Whig conception of history"; or it might be made to cover right wing attitudes such as those of say John von Neuman or, later, the horribly anti-humanist B F Skinner ("Beyond Freedom and Dignity").
You know the perspex screens in restaurants, offices, etc? Turns out they aren't any good. In fact they're making things worse, according to this article.
"Perspex screens scrapped: Ministers are also being advised that those perspex screens that have appeared in some offices and restaurants are unlikely to have any benefit in terms of preventing transmission. Problems include them not being positioned correctly, with the possibility that they actually increase the risk of transmission by blocking airflow. Therefore there is clear guidance to ministers that these perspex screens should be scrapped."
Clear guidance. Perspex screens.
Someone is having fun.
But yes, they were a daft idea that made things worse but had a psychological effect to make people feel safe.
If the ones on fast food counters stop other customers' saliva getting onto my food, let them stay. Likewise in pubs, given the placement of beer taps.
I'm guessing you're not a fan of having a pub carvery where people help themselves to a lot of the food, (not including the roast meats).
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The main shift has been in favour of mega-companies and against small businesses, which will mean an even bigger gap between rich and poor in the future.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
There is no sovereign of England. Or of Scotland.
There is a sovereign of the United Kingdom.
That must be why pillarboxes in Scotland don't say "EIIR" or even "EIR". But in the museum at Gretna there are official documents, probably marriage certificates, from the 1920s or 1930s that reference "His Majesty the King of Scotland", even if that form is not used in the Coronation Oath.
Can anyone on the left please explain to me why so many left-wingers have embraced both dystopianism and authoritarianism in recent years? In other words, "the human race is heading for catastrophe", and "ordinary people can't be trusted, we need to always do what the experts say".
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
Well, of course, it has to be allowed to influence UK policy. Unless you object to that?
No but I do object it to having devolved powers England does not
I really don't understand why we couldn't have a much simpler system than the present one. Westminster is elected as now, but only handles matters not devolved. The national parliaments just comprise the Westminster MPs of each nation. The English parliament could meet in the House of Commons, the others at Holyrood/Cardiff/Stormont. Obviously sittings would be timed so the UK parliament and National Parliaments didn't clash.
This solves a lot of problems - it's like EVEL but equal for each nation. It doesn't require an extra layer of troughing politicians, and solves the problem with parties either sending their also-rans to Westminster (SNP) or Cardiff (all of them apart from PC). I can't see why it shouldn't work, but obviously such a policy would lead to much squealing from some of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish snouts which would get thrown out of the trough.
The main problem with that idea is FPTP. There would be periods when the majorities in the devolved Parliaments would be absurd. I think there might be alternative electoral systems that would solve that problem.
It would be interesting to have the First Minister of Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland/England share the same chamber as the UK PM on UK sitting days.
But the it's only the same FPTP issue as we have in Westminster now, that the most popular parties tend to do disproportionatly well. If you take Scotland, the reality is that even the special gerrymandered system designed to make Hollyrood majorities impossible without coalition doesn't work, simply because so many people vote for the SNP. Yes, a potential Scottish government with total opposition of one Tory, one Lib Dem and one Lab does seem a little bit ridiculous, but in practical terms if the SNP have a majority, they have a majority. Unless its very small majority, or there is an issue which is contentious within the party, what they want will be what they get. Beyond a certain point, it won't make much difference. (and that was peak SNP - they would have a far smaller majority now).
I must say, the mental and moral gymnastics that have been performed on this thread to try to pretend that Sidney and Beatrice Webb, H G Wells, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, Marie Stopes, William Beveridge, Harold Laski, JBS Haldane, and that whole gang, were not the 'progressives' of their day but were actually right wing has been wondrous to behold.
The logic is impeccable, of course:
1. These people were very enthusiastic proponents of eugenics 2. Eugenics is vile 3. 'Progressives' by definition don't hold vile views 4. Ergo they couldn't have been 'progressives', even those amongst them who founded the Labour Party.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Many in NI and some in Scotland too believe precisely that.
Meanwhile I may re-read my copy of Adrian Hilton's The Principality and Power of Europe: Britain and the Emerging Holy European Empire (1997), with a foreword by former Commons Speaker "Lord Tonypandy", who calls it a "splendid" work that gives a "sound and balanced assessment of the current dangers to the United Kingdom caused by our membership of the European Union".
I must say, the mental and moral gymnastics that have been performed on this thread to try to pretend that Sidney and Beatrice Webb, H G Wells, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, Marie Stopes, William Beveridge, Harold Laski, JBS Haldane, and that whole gang, were not the 'progressives' of their day but were actually right wing has been wondrous to behold.
The logic is impeccable, of course:
1. These people were very enthusiastic proponents of eugenics 2. Eugenics is vile 3. 'Progressives' by definition don't hold vile views 4. Ergo they couldn't have been 'progressives', even those amongst them who founded the Labour Party.
It's brilliant, isn't it?
Definitions and rigid separation between Left and Right are hard enough to maintain with much ideological consistency in the present without also trying to make them apply universally across time.
I must say, the mental and moral gymnastics that have been performed on this thread to try to pretend that Sidney and Beatrice Webb, H G Wells, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, Marie Stopes, William Beveridge, Harold Laski, JBS Haldane, and that whole gang, were not the 'progressives' of their day but were actually right wing has been wondrous to behold.
The logic is impeccable, of course:
1. These people were very enthusiastic proponents of eugenics 2. Eugenics is vile 3. 'Progressives' by definition don't hold vile views 4. Ergo they couldn't have been 'progressives', even those amongst them who founded the Labour Party.
It's brilliant, isn't it?
Marie Stopes was an admirer of Adolf Hitler. Are you of the view that Hitler was left wing?
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I must say, the mental and moral gymnastics that have been performed on this thread to try to pretend that Sidney and Beatrice Webb, H G Wells, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, Marie Stopes, William Beveridge, Harold Laski, JBS Haldane, and that whole gang, were not the 'progressives' of their day but were actually right wing has been wondrous to behold.
The logic is impeccable, of course:
1. These people were very enthusiastic proponents of eugenics 2. Eugenics is vile 3. 'Progressives' by definition don't hold vile views 4. Ergo they couldn't have been 'progressives', even those amongst them who founded the Labour Party.
It's brilliant, isn't it?
Marie Stopes was an admirer of Adolf Hitler. Are you of the view that Hitler was left wing?
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
Can anyone on the left please explain to me why so many left-wingers have embraced both dystopianism and authoritarianism in recent years? In other words, "the human race is heading for catastrophe", and "ordinary people can't be trusted, we need to always do what the experts say".
Dunno, have they? Yes, on climate change - but that's not just a left-wing view. But no on not trusting people in general. The left has always believed in collective action though - for example, that the most effective way to tackle climate change is a global carbon tax, and not just leaving it to everyone to hopefully drive a bit less, though that'd help too.
But there's all varieties of leftism, of course, just as there are on the right. Like kle4 I'm perplexed by efforts to classify people neatly who lived 90 years ago and had some funny ideas. Anecdote, though - my very apolitical mother met the Webbs and Harold Laski when she came to Britain - London social life seems to have brought a lot of well-known names together. She thought the Webbs were "rather dull and stodgy" but Laski was "very charming". It was news to her that any of them were well-known in political circles 50 years later and that I'd actually heard of them.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
Barely any in Germany, Lutherans are classed as part of the Evangelical Church
I have worked that out now. Which, I must say, comes as something of a surprise to me. I thought Germany was much more Protestant. I also didn't really know Lutherans were evangelist. You learn summat on here every day, thanks. Still think it's a bit of a stretch to lump Germany in as Catholic, mind.
Prominent members of the Eugenics Society (now the Galton Institute) have included Tory prime ministers Arthur Balfour, Neville Chamberlain, and Winston Churchill, and no PMs from any other major party as far as I'm aware.
If you want to stir it up some more, Richard, you could mention Karl Pearson, who was a friend of both Francis Galton and Karl Marx. I can't see anything wrong with saying that the guy seems to have done an amazing intellectual contortion act. Aside from anything else, Galton was an admiring follower of Malthus whereas Marx despised the ground that Malthus walked on.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
Wearing my sceptic hat, I'd say that's buying an easy win - symbolic, but a decent start. And of course that is being compelled before long.
Have they done the next difficult symbol - stopped flying? One New York return in Business is about the same as the whole annual C02 footprint (everything) of an average UK person.
Have they invested to halve their domestic energy use? Very achievable, but hard yards to do well.
Assuming 79% occupancy, then a flight London-New York generates 0.6 tonnes per passenger. If we double that for business class passengers, then we get to almost exactly one tenth of the annual personal UK CO2 emissions.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
Wearing my sceptic hat, I'd say that's buying an easy win - symbolic, but a decent start. And of course that is being compelled before long.
Have they done the next difficult symbol - stopped flying? One New York return in Business is about the same as the whole annual C02 footprint (everything) of an average UK person.
Have they invested to halve their domestic energy use? Very achievable, but hard yards to do well.
I usually fly about once a year, with 50% being short flights, (longer ones every two years, in case that was an odd way of phrasing it). I don't see why I should be lectured on the subject by people who probably fly dozens of time each year to attend conferences and meetings that could probably be held remotely.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
Wearing my sceptic hat, I'd say that's buying an easy win - symbolic, but a decent start. And of course that is being compelled before long.
Have they done the next difficult symbol - stopped flying? One New York return in Business is about the same as the whole annual C02 footprint (everything) of an average UK person.
Have they invested to halve their domestic energy use? Very achievable, but hard yards to do well.
I usually fly about once a year, with 50% being short flights, (longer ones every two years, in case that was an odd way of phrasing it). I don't see why I should be lectured on the subject by people who probably fly dozens of time each year to attend conferences and meetings that could probably be held remotely.
People in general need to cut down flying. That isn't lecturing, but a statement of fact. Pointless jollies for conferences and meetings are a damn good place to start. But then I probably don't understand how business works.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
Barely any in Germany, Lutherans are classed as part of the Evangelical Church
I have worked that out now. Which, I must say, comes as something of a surprise to me. I thought Germany was much more Protestant. I also didn't really know Lutherans were evangelist. You learn summat on here every day, thanks. Still think it's a bit of a stretch to lump Germany in as Catholic, mind.
It's ridiculous to say Germany is Catholic. The Catholic Church is slightly larger than the evangelical Church in Germany now only because people left the evangelical Church quicker than they left the Catholic Church. Go back a few decades and it's the other way around.
Numbers leaving both are accelerating 272000 left the Catholic Church in 2019, and 270000 left the Evangelical Church. I expect the numbers to get higher for the Catholic Church which has a few scandals going.
The Evangelical Church is made up of Lutherans and others. I believe most member churches ordinate women and bless same sex marriages - don't confuse them with the fire and brimstone stereotypical US evangelicals!
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
Wearing my sceptic hat, I'd say that's buying an easy win - symbolic, but a decent start. And of course that is being compelled before long.
Have they done the next difficult symbol - stopped flying? One New York return in Business is about the same as the whole annual C02 footprint (everything) of an average UK person.
Have they invested to halve their domestic energy use? Very achievable, but hard yards to do well.
Assuming 79% occupancy, then a flight London-New York generates 0.6 tonnes per passenger. If we double that for business class passengers, then we get to almost exactly one tenth of the annual personal UK CO2 emissions.
Of course. If the flight goes anyway, minus one passenger, then the net saving is close to zero.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
Wearing my sceptic hat, I'd say that's buying an easy win - symbolic, but a decent start. And of course that is being compelled before long.
Have they done the next difficult symbol - stopped flying? One New York return in Business is about the same as the whole annual C02 footprint (everything) of an average UK person.
Have they invested to halve their domestic energy use? Very achievable, but hard yards to do well.
Assuming 79% occupancy, then a flight London-New York generates 0.6 tonnes per passenger. If we double that for business class passengers, then we get to almost exactly one tenth of the annual personal UK CO2 emissions.
Of course. If the flight goes anyway, minus one passenger, then the net saving is close to zero.
Yeah, but if enough people stop flying, then fewer planes fly. And enough planes will fly that the 79% usage number will be right most of the time.
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
Wearing my sceptic hat, I'd say that's buying an easy win - symbolic, but a decent start. And of course that is being compelled before long.
Have they done the next difficult symbol - stopped flying? One New York return in Business is about the same as the whole annual C02 footprint (everything) of an average UK person.
Have they invested to halve their domestic energy use? Very achievable, but hard yards to do well.
I usually fly about once a year, with 50% being short flights, (longer ones every two years, in case that was an odd way of phrasing it). I don't see why I should be lectured on the subject by people who probably fly dozens of time each year to attend conferences and meetings that could probably be held remotely.
How do you get back? Or do you stay away for a whole year?
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
Was reading Beevor's Spanish Civil War, and was astonished to find out that Spain had the lowest Church attendance in Europe in the 19th Century. It is still low to this day. Despite which, it was, and still is, distinctly culturally Catholic.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
Was reading Beevor's Spanish Civil War, and was astonished to find out that Spain had the lowest Church attendance in Europe in the 19th Century. It is still low to this day. Despite which, it was, and still is, distinctly culturally Catholic.
It is.
Most of my Jewish friends will cheerfully admit to being atheists. I think the idea that one can't be a member (culturally) of a religion, while simultaneously be sceptical of the existence of God is for the birds.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
I forgot Romania and Poland: both of those countries have relatively few atheists.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
Barely any in Germany, Lutherans are classed as part of the Evangelical Church
I have worked that out now. Which, I must say, comes as something of a surprise to me. I thought Germany was much more Protestant. I also didn't really know Lutherans were evangelist. You learn summat on here every day, thanks. Still think it's a bit of a stretch to lump Germany in as Catholic, mind.
It's ridiculous to say Germany is Catholic. The Catholic Church is slightly larger than the evangelical Church in Germany now only because people left the evangelical Church quicker than they left the Catholic Church. Go back a few decades and it's the other way around.
Numbers leaving both are accelerating 272000 left the Catholic Church in 2019, and 270000 left the Evangelical Church. I expect the numbers to get higher for the Catholic Church which has a few scandals going.
The Evangelical Church is made up of Lutherans and others. I believe most member churches ordinate women and bless same sex marriages - don't confuse them with the fire and brimstone stereotypical US evangelicals!
Prussia and the other North German states were Protestant, Bavaria and the southern German states were Catholic, as was Austria.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
Was reading Beevor's Spanish Civil War, and was astonished to find out that Spain had the lowest Church attendance in Europe in the 19th Century. It is still low to this day. Despite which, it was, and still is, distinctly culturally Catholic.
One of the last books I bought before the first lockdown!
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
Barely any in Germany, Lutherans are classed as part of the Evangelical Church
I have worked that out now. Which, I must say, comes as something of a surprise to me. I thought Germany was much more Protestant. I also didn't really know Lutherans were evangelist. You learn summat on here every day, thanks. Still think it's a bit of a stretch to lump Germany in as Catholic, mind.
It's ridiculous to say Germany is Catholic. The Catholic Church is slightly larger than the evangelical Church in Germany now only because people left the evangelical Church quicker than they left the Catholic Church. Go back a few decades and it's the other way around.
Numbers leaving both are accelerating 272000 left the Catholic Church in 2019, and 270000 left the Evangelical Church. I expect the numbers to get higher for the Catholic Church which has a few scandals going.
The Evangelical Church is made up of Lutherans and others. I believe most member churches ordinate women and bless same sex marriages - don't confuse them with the fire and brimstone stereotypical US evangelicals!
Prussia and the other North German states were Protestant, Bavaria and the southern German states were Catholic, as was Austria.
Historically the former East Germany was almost entirely Lutheran/Protestant/Evangelical, although most of the population there now is non-religious thanks to 45 years of communism. (Interesting how just 45 years of communism undid about a thousand years of Christanity isn't it?) Another way of putting it is that almost all of the Catholic areas of Germany were in the former West Germany.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
Was reading Beevor's Spanish Civil War, and was astonished to find out that Spain had the lowest Church attendance in Europe in the 19th Century. It is still low to this day. Despite which, it was, and still is, distinctly culturally Catholic.
It is.
Most of my Jewish friends will cheerfully admit to being atheists. I think the idea that one can't be a member (culturally) of a religion, while simultaneously be sceptical of the existence of God is for the birds.
I think the cultural Anglicanism of England is one of its greatest strengths.
Whilst we have strayed onto history, there is only one area I am a bit Obsessive orderly and that is in books. It is an ambition to read and own a collection of books on British history ( social as well as political and war stuff) that span the time of say the Romans to present. Ideally I woudl like books to go into detail about a small part of that span but get a full set of books covering the span . The Dominic Sandbrook books cover the fifties to the early eighties and also got the Simon Heffer ones covering the victorian period. Any suggestions to fill any of that span? This is a long term project /obsession of mine!
Geoff Searle’s Peace and War: England 1886-1918 Adrian Gregory The Last Great War Ross McKibbin, Classes and Cultures: England 1918-1951 Richard Overy, The Morbid Age: Britain Between the Wars Martin Pugh We Danced All Night: A Social History of Britain Between the Wars. T O Lloyd, Empire, Welfare State, Europe.
Whilst we have strayed onto history, there is only one area I am a bit Obsessive orderly and that is in books. It is an ambition to read and own a collection of books on British history ( social as well as political and war stuff) that span the time of say the Romans to present. Ideally I woudl like books to go into detail about a small part of that span but get a full set of books covering the span . The Dominic Sandbrook books cover the fifties to the early eighties and also got the Simon Heffer ones covering the victorian period. Any suggestions to fill any of that span? This is a long term project /obsession of mine!
Geoff Searle’s Peace and War: England 1886-1918 Adrian Gregory The Last Great War Ross McKibbin, Classes and Cultures: England 1918-1951 Richard Overy, The Morbid Age: Britain Between the Wars Martin Pugh We Danced All Night: A Social History of Britain Between the Wars. T O Lloyd, Empire, Welfare State, Europe.
The newish Penguin History of Britain series covers the whole shebang.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
Not true, France, Spain, Germany and Austria are all plurality Catholic too.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
Not true, France, Spain, Germany and Austria are all plurality Catholic too.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
Not true, France, Spain, Germany and Austria are all plurality Catholic too.
Wikipedia says Germany: 38. 8% no religion 27. 2% catholic 24.9% evangelical
So you continue your unbroken streak of everything you post about Germany being wrong
So thanks for confirming I was right and you were wrong then.
2.3% more Germans are Catholic than are Protestant now, a plurality may be no religion but a majority of Germans are still Christian and of those who are Christian more are Catholic than Protestant
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
Not true, France, Spain, Germany and Austria are all plurality Catholic too.
Wikipedia says Germany: 38. 8% no religion 27. 2% catholic 24.9% evangelical
So you continue your unbroken streak of everything you post about Germany being wrong
So thanks for confirming I was right and you were wrong then.
2.3% more Germans are Catholic than are Protestant now, a plurality may be no religion but a majority of Germans are still Christian and of those who are Christian more are Catholic than Protestant
You claimed that Germany is mainly Catholic, which is bullshit. But I've never known you admit to getting anything wrong so let's forget it
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
Not true, France, Spain, Germany and Austria are all plurality Catholic too.
Wikipedia says Germany: 38. 8% no religion 27. 2% catholic 24.9% evangelical
So you continue your unbroken streak of everything you post about Germany being wrong
So thanks for confirming I was right and you were wrong then.
2.3% more Germans are Catholic than are Protestant now, a plurality may be no religion but a majority of Germans are still Christian and of those who are Christian more are Catholic than Protestant
You claimed that Germany is mainly Catholic, which is bullshit. But I've never known you admit to getting anything wrong so let's forget it
I claimed Germany is more Catholic than Protestant, which it is. It also remains a country which is still majority Christian overall but the largest proportion of those Christians are now Catholics
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
Not true, France, Spain, Germany and Austria are all plurality Catholic too.
Wikipedia says Germany: 38. 8% no religion 27. 2% catholic 24.9% evangelical
So you continue your unbroken streak of everything you post about Germany being wrong
So thanks for confirming I was right and you were wrong then.
2.3% more Germans are Catholic than are Protestant now, a plurality may be no religion but a majority of Germans are still Christian and of those who are Christian more are Catholic than Protestant
You claimed that Germany is mainly Catholic, which is bullshit. But I've never known you admit to getting anything wrong so let's forget it
I claimed Germany is more Catholic than Protestant, which it is. It also remains a country which is still majority Christian overall but the largest proportion of those Christians are now Catholics
"Catholicism is the main religion of Germany" is news to Germans "a plurality of Germans are catholics" is contradicted by Wikipedia.
You would be right if you'd said a plurality of Germans are christian, and about half of those christians are catholics. But Germany isn't now and has never been since its formation a mainly Catholic country which was what you were mistakenly claiming.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
"still the main religion in Germany"
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
Post reunification 27% of Germans are Catholic to only 24% who are evangelical Protestants.
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
I think that's a little misleading: if you ask the atheists in Germany if they're Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists, I think you'd find that the vast bulk of them are Protestant atheists.
If you are an atheist you are an atheist, by definition you cannot be Catholic or Protestant.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
It is absurd to pretend that Germany is not a culturally Protestant country. My point was humorous, but if you ask a German atheist if he is more culturally Protestant or Catholic, you will find that most would choose to identify as Protestant.
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
Not true, France, Spain, Germany and Austria are all plurality Catholic too.
Wikipedia says Germany: 38. 8% no religion 27. 2% catholic 24.9% evangelical
So you continue your unbroken streak of everything you post about Germany being wrong
So thanks for confirming I was right and you were wrong then.
2.3% more Germans are Catholic than are Protestant now, a plurality may be no religion but a majority of Germans are still Christian and of those who are Christian more are Catholic than Protestant
You claimed that Germany is mainly Catholic, which is bullshit. But I've never known you admit to getting anything wrong so let's forget it
I claimed Germany is more Catholic than Protestant, which it is. It also remains a country which is still majority Christian overall but the largest proportion of those Christians are now Catholics
"Catholicism is the main religion of Germany" is news to Germans "a plurality of Germans are catholics" is contradicted by Wikipedia.
You would be right if you'd said a plurality of Germans are christian, and about half of those christians are catholics. But Germany isn't now and has never been since its formation a mainly Catholic country which was what you were mistakenly claiming.
52% of Germans are Christian ie a majority not just a plurality. Over half of those German Christians are now Catholic
Comments
I really liked the S600, it was a great high tech car and it was so spacious, it was like driving from your living room.
But the thing I loved the most, for all the high tech, it had a little carriage clock in it, rather than a digital display.
The other downside, it was huge, I took up four parking spaces at Meadowhall/Trafford Centre, and six parking spaces if you wanted to open the doors.
Have they done the next difficult symbol - stopped flying? One New York return in Business is about the same as the whole annual C02 footprint (everything) of an average UK person.
Have they invested to halve their domestic energy use? Very achievable, but hard yards to do well.
Solar panels, giving up foreign trips, carbon offsets, donation to green projects.
Even lambasting Boris Johnson for not banning ICE cars from 2030, they are disappointed that from 2030 the ban applies to new cars only.
During my petrolhead days, I thought about getting a Hummer, because you know, I'm a twat like that.
I don't buy cars on impulse, I do a lot of research, took a Hummer for a test drive, it was huuuge, like massive, drove it to the Trafford Centre, it took up a lane and a half on the motorway.
The salesman told me just before we took it for a spin
'If you hear a banging noise whilst you are driving, don't panic, there's nothing wrong with the beast, that banging you are hearing is the wing mirrors you are hitting, because these things are wide.'
He wasn't having it, he liked the ML and GLS, loved/love driving those.
They’ve got a lot more competition now though, everyone’s doing big SUVs.
Fun fact: VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, Audi Q7, Bentley Bentayga, and Lamborghini Urus, are all basically the same car.
High risk is something else altogether.
Fact.
Lets see how many have still given up foreign trips five years from now. Probably about as many as have kept their New Year's Resolution by the end of [the first week of] January, ie next to nobody.
It's so easy to get wrong - I lost count of the number of restored for rental houses I have walked away from because some twunt has done a 25k cosmetic job with the normal Homes Under the Hammer mix, which will have to be gutted again to meet the 2030 regs because an extra 3k has not been spent to sort the fabric before it got covered up.
The tough stuff is things such as underfloor insulation and boarding walls out to get close to newbuild regs. That's the stuff that gets expensive if done at the wrong time.
As an example, I was working with a T today who moved into my former small (500sqft) detached cottage with her 8 dogs in 2010. Her first energy bills were £225 a month. After a lot of detailed work since then, including making it 50% bigger, her current energy bills run at £120 a month.
Keep reminding them that we are on track to meet the enhanced EU 2030 '55% C02 reduction' target by 2023 !
Boris is the modern 'merry monarch' Charles II.
Does that then make May some sort of Protectorate leader ? Authoritarian like Olly Cromwell but lacking authority like Dick Cromwell ?
And Cameron would be the equivalent of Charles I - managed to get his countries into the civil wars of Scottish independence and Brexit.
Brown is then James I - Scottish, the wisest fool etc.
But who would then be James II ?
Amazing that they could get away with it on £200k cars, although to be fair they’ve given the brands huge leeway to differentiate themselves.
(Exits PB, goes back to Pistonheads forum)
And I can get about 10 house doors in it. Flat.
https://twitter.com/NYMag/status/1413211713474863107
A good Countach goes for about £300k, and budget at least £10k a year to keep it serviceable.
Have to skip a few going further backwards and Thatcher would be Henry VIII, absolutely transformational (I would have otherwise chosen Elizabeth I for her).
Major and the breakdown in Parliament with the Maastricht "bastards" can be the mess of Edward VI to Bloody Mary.
(yadda yadda yada gub gub gub)
- New cases: 611
- Average: 417 (+45)
- In hospital: 70 (-10)
- In ICU: 15 (-4)
- New deaths: 3
Population vaccinated:
- 1st dose: 61.43% (+0.27)
- 2nd dose: 55.80% (+0.04)
Boris as Oliver Cromwell - didn't initially support [removing the king and a republic/Brexit], but through unique skills became central to that cause, but once he took power disappoints many from that cause who regard him as merely having used it for advancement and power, ending up with a great deal of wasted effort on a changed situation which looks a lot like the original. And was horrible to the Irish to boot.
He'll be keeping an eye out for any former Remainers in case they are George Monck.
It's only by accident that people like Francis Galton (who coined the word "eugenics"), Herbert Spencer, and H G Wells (author of "Anticipations"), all of whom wished for the mass murder of those they considered to be undesirable social elements, aren't called fascists. As for George Bernard Shaw, well one can call him a social reformer or whatever, but he can get over there and stand with the above-mentioned as far as I am concerned. That said, it is undoubtedly true that some on the left did buy into the disgusting right-wing philosophy of eugenics, but that wouldn't exactly be the first time that some on the left have chosen to do such a thing. For most of them there is no excuse and they deserve to be condemned for it. Anybody who espouses mass murder or forced sterilisation or "breeding" policies etc. deserves to be condemned. There are a few others who meant little more than an across-the-board improvement in public health and physical fitness evolving through the generations. They were stupid and lazy to adopt the word even for five minutes, but they shouldn't all be written off as Shavians or Fabians.
Galton was heavily inspired by Thomas Malthus, the "dirty vicar" who didn't have the courage to publish the first edition of his book on "population" under his own name. Galton himself then inspired Cyril Burt.
A worthwhile endeavour is to look for those who specifically opposed eugenics. One who comes to mind is Boris Sidis. He was on the left. OK, who on the right opposed it, or among Whigs/Liberals for that matter?
Probably the one we need after Boris.
Regarding the first part, those people will be spending far more time picking their smartphones than in 2019. How to get them back is certainly a public health issue.
If someone is racist then define them as "far right" therefore they're right wing by definition. Therefore racists can't be left-wing by definition. Just don't mention the Jews.
This poll is horrific.
Around one in five people support permanent curfews and the enforced closure of nightclubs?
FFS.
Ignore any polls on covid restrictions from now on.
As for the word "progressive", it can be made to cover any idea about a better future, including in the sense that Tories have in mind when they talk about the "Whig conception of history"; or it might be made to cover right wing attitudes such as those of say John von Neuman or, later, the horribly anti-humanist B F Skinner ("Beyond Freedom and Dignity").
Like a few billion mussels cooked on the Pacific Nothwest coast just now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/08/canada-sea-creatures-boiling-to-death/
27% of Germans are members of the Catholic church.
At the time of the Treaty of Rome the percentage of West Germans who were members of the Catholic Church was in the mid 40s, but over 50% were members of the Evangelical church.
If you take Scotland, the reality is that even the special gerrymandered system designed to make Hollyrood majorities impossible without coalition doesn't work, simply because so many people vote for the SNP.
Yes, a potential Scottish government with total opposition of one Tory, one Lib Dem and one Lab does seem a little bit ridiculous, but in practical terms if the SNP have a majority, they have a majority. Unless its very small majority, or there is an issue which is contentious within the party, what they want will be what they get. Beyond a certain point, it won't make much difference. (and that was peak SNP - they would have a far smaller majority now).
The logic is impeccable, of course:
1. These people were very enthusiastic proponents of eugenics
2. Eugenics is vile
3. 'Progressives' by definition don't hold vile views
4. Ergo they couldn't have been 'progressives', even those amongst them who founded the Labour Party.
It's brilliant, isn't it?
Meanwhile I may re-read my copy of Adrian Hilton's The Principality and Power of Europe: Britain and the Emerging Holy European Empire (1997), with a foreword by former Commons Speaker "Lord Tonypandy", who calls it a "splendid" work that gives a "sound and balanced assessment of the current dangers to the United Kingdom caused by our membership of the European Union".
Are you of the view that Hitler was left wing?
Thus all the main EU nations, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany are Catholic while the main Protestant nation in Europe ie the UK, has now left the EU.
Of western European nations not in the EU all are Protestant ie Iceland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, as are the non Eurozone nations of Denmark and Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Germany
But there's all varieties of leftism, of course, just as there are on the right. Like kle4 I'm perplexed by efforts to classify people neatly who lived 90 years ago and had some funny ideas. Anecdote, though - my very apolitical mother met the Webbs and Harold Laski when she came to Britain - London social life seems to have brought a lot of well-known names together. She thought the Webbs were "rather dull and stodgy" but Laski was "very charming". It was news to her that any of them were well-known in political circles 50 years later and that I'd actually heard of them.
I thought Germany was much more Protestant. I also didn't really know Lutherans were evangelist. You learn summat on here every day, thanks.
Still think it's a bit of a stretch to lump Germany in as Catholic, mind.
If you want to stir it up some more, Richard, you could mention Karl Pearson, who was a friend of both Francis Galton and Karl Marx. I can't see anything wrong with saying that the guy seems to have done an amazing intellectual contortion act. Aside from anything else, Galton was an admiring follower of Malthus whereas Marx despised the ground that Malthus walked on.
Assuming 79% occupancy, then a flight London-New York generates 0.6 tonnes per passenger. If we double that for business class passengers, then we get to almost exactly one tenth of the annual personal UK CO2 emissions.
So the point remains the EU and Eurozone are now dominated by Catholic Europe, while most of Protestant Europe is either outside the EU altogether like the UK, Norway and Iceland or at least outside the Eurozone like Sweden and Denmark
That isn't lecturing, but a statement of fact.
Pointless jollies for conferences and meetings are a damn good place to start.
But then I probably don't understand how business works.
Numbers leaving both are accelerating 272000 left the Catholic Church in 2019, and 270000 left the Evangelical Church. I expect the numbers to get higher for the Catholic Church which has a few scandals going.
The Evangelical Church is made up of Lutherans and others. I believe most member churches ordinate women and bless same sex marriages - don't confuse them with the fire and brimstone stereotypical US evangelicals!
But let's pretend that what I say isn't true. In which case, the EU and the Eurozone are actually atheist dominated, as it is the dominant "religion" in France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. Only in Italy (Catholic) and Greece (Orthodox) does the total for the leading religion beat out "no religion".
Despite which, it was, and still is, distinctly culturally Catholic.
Most of my Jewish friends will cheerfully admit to being atheists. I think the idea that one can't be a member (culturally) of a religion, while simultaneously be sceptical of the existence of God is for the birds.
NEW: South Korea reports 1,316 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record
A few that may help:
Geoff Searle’s Peace and War: England 1886-1918
Adrian Gregory The Last Great War
Ross McKibbin, Classes and Cultures: England 1918-1951
Richard Overy, The Morbid Age: Britain Between the Wars
Martin Pugh We Danced All Night: A Social History of Britain Between the Wars.
T O Lloyd, Empire, Welfare State, Europe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_History_of_Britain
I enjoyed David Cannadine’s contribution on the 19th century.
Only the Netherlands is mainly non religious now of those nations listed but of course being non religious is not the same as being atheist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe#/media/File:Largest_(non-)religious_group_by_EU_member_state_(and_5_other_countries)_-_Eurobarometer_2010.svg
38. 8% no religion
27. 2% catholic
24.9% evangelical
So you continue your unbroken streak of everything you post about Germany being wrong
2.3% more Germans are Catholic than are Protestant now, a plurality may be no religion but a majority of Germans are still Christian and of those who are Christian more are Catholic than Protestant
"a plurality of Germans are catholics" is contradicted by Wikipedia.
You would be right if you'd said a plurality of Germans are christian, and about half of those christians are catholics. But Germany isn't now and has never been since its formation a mainly Catholic country which was what you were mistakenly claiming.