May was a disaster, her election campaign highlighted that. Out of her depth and very stuck in a loop.
SNP want a 2nd ref and are just waiting for the public to give them favour one more time. I guess the plus from the first one was Salmond never got the castle he was promised in the event of a victory.
NI and IRE will emerge, that's a no brainer really, works for both. NI will look to advance in all sectors and IRE look to expand. Wales will follow Scot in due course too.
Possibly, but if Brexit is cancelled that is the end of all referendums.It would be pointless for Scotland to have a second referendum because if the result is to leave the UK it will just be ignored and overturned by the losers.
The only way I can see referendums having any validity in the future is if a minimum margin is required - for example, a vote to change the status quo must be won by at least a 10% margin.
Cheers,
Nigel
I almost feel sorry for any N.Ire Unionists who are about to be cast adrift.
They voted for the same Leave that people in other parts of the UK voted for, their politicians supported the government in blocking everything Teresa May put forward, and now because of bumbling Boris, their voice is no longer as relevant as it was prior to him taking over.
Now they are scrambling about at the last minute trying to pull some sort of trade agreement together and their red lines are constantly having to shift.
Hey Nigel,
The trouble with refs is they are not bound by law but a mandate set by the result for the GOVT in power to follow and make law. If Brexit is cancelled then I totally agree with you but SNP will keep pushing but the common jock is not stupid, they know what he/she will be giving up.
10% margin? We could be in for numerous referendums. Two of out three? Three out of five? 
The political landscape is ever shifting, a week is a long time in politics they say. In favor in one day, cast out the next. Unionists in one IRELAND would have a tough time indeed.
I'd be absolutely delighted for the Union to break up.
Why is it in my interest to be in a union where we subsidise the rest and have less democratic say than the rest do?
I'm only suggesting the 10% margin because we keep hearing that 4% is not significant enough.
Of course those that say that would be singing a different tune if they had won by 2%.And the happily ignoring the fact that some of the parliamentary votes in the last year have been won in their favour with much smaller margins and that it is possible to 'no confidence' the Prime Minister with a margin of just 0.15%.
Cheers,
Nigel
That is the trouble with margins Nigel, they're so variable, we have too accept the fact that elements will remain of those that will moan moan and more moan because they can't accept the result. We have become a nation of remoaners, never thought I say that but how it is, a bit like we have too apologize for everything, even what our forefathers did decades ago just to appease some lefty liberal who has done nothing. Well I say bollocks to that! Guess I am old skool in that regard.
Someone shouted at me the other day, * Hey Hamps, Peoples vote? I shouted back *Guess aliens voted in the 1st one*
Voted leave and would vote leave again.
I think we are agreeing with each other.All I was saying is that if we find ourselves in a situation where referendum results are being overturned or rerun because the margin is so small and enough people might have changed their minds to reverse the result, then the only mitigation is to insist on such a margin that result cannot be denied.
But I agree with you about the problem of margins which is why I gave the examples where people had complained a margin that went against them was too smaller but celebrated victories with much smaller margins.
Cheers,
Nigel