Cost of Northern Ireland

ardmacha

The unionist people wish to remain British

Which is precisely their problem, they have never articulated a case for the union which appeals to people who are not British, so are dependent on the number of descendants of planters, a diminishing proportion of the population.

A lot of stuff on this tread is the usual useless half baked stuff found on all of the NI threads on Boards. The relevant point to the theme of this thread is that the UK government has a government deficit this year only a fraction less than the ROI. They have already a higher level of government debt than here and so will have high debt repayments for the foreseeable, and they have more banks than here, which may still need more loot.

A consequence of this is that UK government expenditure will be tight for many years to come. This will be felt most where it is the greatest proportion of the economy, i.e. in the 6 counties. UK government policy in recent years has been to follow policies to suit the City of London and then spin out the tax proceeds to parts of the UK that these policies don't suit. In the future enterprise will have to be encouraged and NI will have to start to pay its way, making it a more normal economy. The relevance of this for the constitutional debate is that it will not be receiving a huge subsidy any longer.

futurehope

ardmacha said:

Which is precisely their problem, they have never articulated a case for the union which appeals to people who are not British, so are dependent on the number of descendants of planters, a diminishing proportion of the population.

These figures say otherwise (constitutional preferences poll - NI):

to remain part of the United Kingdom - direct rule: 11%
to remain part of the United Kingdom - devolved government: 55%
to reunify with the rest of Ireland: 23%
Independent state: 5%
Other answer: 1%
Don't know: 5%

Looks like a lot of those not descended from 'planters' are already persuaded of the benefits of The Union!

A lot of stuff on this tread is the usual useless half baked stuff found on all of the NI threads on Boards. The relevant point to the theme of this thread is that the UK government has a government deficit this year only a fraction less than the ROI. They have already a higher level of government debt than here and so will have high debt repayments for the foreseeable, and they have more banks than here, which may still need more loot.

So The UK can't afford NI? (:rolleyes:), but dear old little Ireland can?(:rolleyes:)

A consequence of this is that UK government expenditure will be tight for many years to come. This will be felt most where it is the greatest proportion of the economy, i.e. in the 6 counties.

Really?:

Region: Net government spending 2004/5 (£bn):

London: -25.1
Scotland: 3.7
Northern Ireland: 3.8
South East: -24.1
North West: 2.4
East of England: -13.3
North East: 4
Wales: 5.4
Yorkshire and Humberside: 1.3
West Midlands: -2.2
South West: -4.8
East Midlands: -3.5

http://www.channel4.com/news/article.jsp?id=1041867

According to your analysis, The Geordies and The Taffs will have to be offloaded prior to Ulster. Or perhaps they will scale back London expenditure, given the fact London is grossly overly subsidised according to need.

UK government policy in recent years has been to follow policies to suit the City of London and then spin out the tax proceeds to parts of the UK that these policies don't suit. In the future enterprise will have to be encouraged and NI will have to start to pay its way, making it a more normal economy. The relevance of this for the constitutional debate is that it will not be receiving a huge subsidy any longer.

We'll see. I suspect the burden of any cutbacks will fall pretty evenly across The UK as previously.

As a matter of interest, do you see The Republic holding together in this recession, or do you think some sort of 'constitutional debate' will emerge, perhaps leading to The ROI falling apart and returning the island of Ireland to pre-British anarchy (outside of British Ulster I mean)?

A Dub in Glasgo

ardmacha

Looks like a lot of those not descended from 'planters' are already persuaded of the benefits of The Union!

These figures show nothing of the sort. The Good Friday Agreement requires that NI remain in the UK until a majority of its people favour change. Such a majority does not presently exist, as shown by elections, so anyone in favour of the GFA (i.e. SF and SDLP voters) is logically in favour of the current continuation of the the Union. Which is not to say that they are not working towards bringing about the conditions that end the UK.

According to your analysis, The Geordies and The Taffs will have to be offloaded prior to Ulster. Or perhaps they will scale back London expenditure, given the fact London is grossly overly subsidised according to need.

As A Dub in Glasgow's map shows NI expenditure is higher than Tyneside, Scotland, Wales or anywhere else. London expenditure being higher partly reflects London allowances etc for people working there and politically you can only cut services in the capital to a certain degree.

I suspect the burden of any cutbacks will fall pretty evenly across The UK as previously

No doubt. But the effect of the same level of cutback in all places will be greatest where the public sector is the largest part of the economy.

As a matter of interest, do you see The Republic holding together in this recession,

I do. It will emerge from this with a higher GDP and a lower Government debt as % of GDP than the UK. Which is not saying a lot!

futurehope

ardmacha said:

These figures show nothing of the sort. The Good Friday Agreement requires that NI remain in the UK until a majority of its people favour change. Such a majority does not presently exist, as shown by elections, so anyone in favour of the GFA (i.e. SF and SDLP voters) is logically in favour of the current continuation of the the Union. Which is not to say that they are not working towards bringing about the conditions that end the UK.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa........................You've the blarney mate, no doubt about it!:D:D:D

As A Dub in Glasgow's map shows NI expenditure is higher than Tyneside, Scotland, Wales or anywhere else. London expenditure being higher partly reflects London allowances etc for people working there and politically you can only cut services in the capital to a certain degree.

No it doesn't - it is subsidised as regards NEED - check the table again - last column. It surprised me as well.

LordSutch

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course it is a colony. On what date did it cease to be a colony?

I have never ever heard Northern Ireland being refered to as a colony, so maybe you can enlighten us as to where you got your information from?

Exile 1798

Anyway, getting back to the point of the thread...

The North gets about £5 billion from the British govt a year in direct aid. It's a point of debate weather it's public sector economy should be counted as one of one of it's "costs".

The cost of Unity is unknown, but surely nothing compared to German re-unification.

Ireland should set up a sovereign wealth fund.

Deedsie

K-9 wrote: »

Strabane?

Ya, whoops i was going for Coleraine there. The east Derry Constituency.

Dunno why Strabane came out.

Can'tseeme

futurehope wrote: »

Which is about as likely to happen as pigs jumping over steeples.

Who knows futurehope. We never thought we'd see Sinn Fein and the DUP in government. Remember Britian doesn't want to have anything more to do with us. The beauty of the GFA is it's up to the will of the Irish people. Attitudes are changing all the time. Maybe in time when you get a bit older yourself you might not have such a staunch attitude towards Ireland. We're all people on an island, we need to work to get on better and I think the large majority of unionists do see things differently than they did in the bad old days of the orange state.

Can'tseeme

mrtaylor1981 wrote: »

The unionist people wish to remain British, nothing has changed that. Sure Adams and the rest of his followers like to fool themselves that the GFA will result in unionists changing their view on their nationality, which is plainly nonsense.

Well we know that!

We need to change alot of attitudes from all walks of life in Ireland regarding unity, win the arguments for it, promote it, etc.There's a lot of voters to be won on this island to make it happen.

futurehope

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Who knows futurehope. We never thought we'd see Sinn Fein and the DUP in government. Remember Britian doesn't want to have anything more to do with us.

How do you work that out?

Fratton Fred

futurehope wrote: »

I think you'll find that many of The English (especially in The South), tend to tailor what they say depending on who they're saying it to. Did they tell you what they thought of The Irish leaving their kids to be abused by the local parish priest? Or what they thought of Irish Nationalists blowing children to pieces? Probably not...

Very good point. Do I support unification, yes I probably do. If I was Irish I would be pretty pissed of about the situation. Would I like to see the IRA and SF win, absolutely no ****ing way. Would I like to see 1m people who consider themselves British shafted? no, I would not.

With regards the costs, big deal TBH. Yes, if London and the home counties broke away it would be very wealthy, but so would LA and New York. what if the City of London broke away, that would be incredibly wealthy, but not many people actually live there. where do you stop, should Milam break away because the south of Italy drags it down, or Paris, or Frankfurt.

musicmonky

Norn Iron is one big quango.

2 out of 3 jobs are government jobs.
The other 1/3 are mostly sponsored by the government.

Fratton Fred

musicmonky wrote: »

Norn Iron is one big quango.

2 out of 3 jobs are government jobs.
The other 1/3 are mostly sponsored by the government.

Personally I get the impression it is a collection of shopping malls and large Asdas.

Can'tseeme

futurehope wrote: »

How do you work that out?

"Britain had no "selfish strategic or economic interest" in Northern Ireland and would accept unification, if the people wished it. It is not the aspiration to a sovereign, united Ireland against which we set our face, but its violent expression."

Peter Brooke, Sec. of State, 1990.

Fratton Fred

Can'tseeme wrote: »

"Britain had no "selfish strategic or economic interest" in Northern Ireland and would accept unification, if the people wished it. It is not the aspiration to a sovereign, united Ireland against which we set our face, but its violent expression."

Peter Brooke, Sec. of State, 1990.

if only that message had been given and understood 20 years earlier.

Can'tseeme

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if only that message had been given and understood 20 years earlier.

Agreed mate.

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Would I like to see 1m people who consider themselves British shafted? no, I would not.
.

Where did you get 1m from?

We've had a fugure of 49% support Unionism. Pop=1.7m roughly, so half of that is 850,000.

Daithinski

futurehope wrote: »

I guess the Irish schools are to blame.

Eh? How did you figure that one out?

You're having a little pop at the Irish schools for no apparent reason. Strange.

futurehope

Can'tseeme wrote: »

"Britain had no "selfish strategic or economic interest" in Northern Ireland and would accept unification, if the people wished it. It is not the aspiration to a sovereign, united Ireland against which we set our face, but its violent expression."

Peter Brooke, Sec. of State, 1990.

You really are naive aren't you? This statement was all part of the softening up process that eventually lead to The IRA unilaterally destroying it's arms and it's political hangers on taking their place in a subsidiary UK assembly. You could get a very similar statement of a Brooke 'type' figure today regarding Scotland or Wales. In any case, the statement is misleading, as The UK State can only withdraw from Northern Ireland, it can't legally determine what happens next - one of the bogus concepts underlying The Belfast Agreement. But then Brooke and co. knew all this at the time.

Interesting to note that Brooke's party (The Conservatives) have recently put together an electoral pact with The UUP to fight Ulster elections (even agreeing a new name). No strategic interests? :rolleyes:

futurehope

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if only that message had been given and understood 20 years earlier.

Wouldn't have mattered - The IRA still thought they could win at that time. In any case, the traditional Republican position categorically rejects partition regardless of how many people support The Union in 'the gerrymandered Orange statelet'.:D Accepting 'The Unionist Veto':D was all part of The Republican surrender process.

Can'tseeme

Don't see the need for the insult Futurehope. I see how your trying to spin it but like it or not, the British and Irish governments and the political parties have all signed up to the agreement and it's supported by all the main parties in Britian. It's up to the Irish people to determine their future which is how it should be.

futurehope

gurramok wrote: »

Where did you get 1m from?

We've had a fugure of 49% support Unionism. Pop=1.7m roughly, so half of that is 850,000.

Or using the following opinion poll:

to remain part of the United Kingdom - direct rule: 11%
to remain part of the United Kingdom - devolved government: 55%
or, to reunify with the rest of Ireland: 23%
Independent state: 5%
Other answer: 1%
Don't Know: 5%

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

66% are Unionists
23% are Nationalists

Using 1.7 million as population

Unionists: 1,122,000
Nationalists: 391,000

guinnessdrinker

futurehope wrote: »

You really are naive aren't you? This statement was all part of the softening up process that eventually lead to The IRA unilaterally destroying it's arms and it's political hangers on taking their place in a subsidiary UK assembly. You could get a very similar statement of a Brooke 'type' figure today regarding Scotland or Wales. In any case, the statement is misleading, as The UK State can only withdraw from Northern Ireland, it can't legally determine what happens next - one of the bogus concepts underlying The Belfast Agreement. But then Brooke and co. knew all this at the time.

Interesting to note that Brooke's party (The Conservatives) have recently put together an electoral pact with The UUP to fight Ulster elections (even agreeing a new name). No strategic interests? :rolleyes:

I agree, I still think Britian still has selfish strategic interests in Ireland. I remember hearing ages ago that if/when there is reunification, Britian will put pressure or insist that Ireland joins NATO. I think some of Britians leading security people are still paranoid and would never trust a fully independant Ireland.

Maybe thats one for the conspiricy theory forum but I believe there is some truth in it. What are Britians real motives. I don't believe they really care about the unionists. They just need to keep the people divided in order for them to keep a foothold here. Wasn't that always the plan though?

Can'tseeme

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I agree, I still think Britian still has selfish strategic interests in Ireland. I remember hearing ages ago that if/when there is reunification, Britian will put pressure or insist that Ireland joins NATO. I think some of Britians leading security people are still paranoid and would never trust a fully independant Ireland.

Maybe thats one for the conspiricy theory forum but I believe there is some truth in it. What are Britians real motives. I don't believe they really care about the unionists. They just need to keep the people divided in order for them to keep a foothold here. Wasn't that always the plan though?

The difference being mate, that relationships between Ireland and Britian have never been better and only show signs of continuing to grow. We're in a different era, alot of fear and mistrust is disappearing between the two islands. I think we can all agree there's a different relationship between Ireland and Britian.

Fratton Fred

Britains interest in NI, certainly over the last 25 years, was that it would have been political suicide for any party to be seen siding with SF/IRA, simple as that.

I don't buy the NATO one, maybe 50 years ago, but not recently. If Ireland ever became hostile to the UK, it would effectively be severing ties it has with not only the EU, but also the US.

futurehope

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I agree, I still think Britian still has selfish strategic interests in Ireland. I remember hearing ages ago that if/when there is reunification, Britian will put pressure or insist that Ireland joins NATO. I think some of Britians leading security people are still paranoid and would never trust a fully independant Ireland.

Maybe thats one for the conspiricy theory forum but I believe there is some truth in it. What are Britians real motives. I don't believe they really care about the unionists. They just need to keep the people divided in order for them to keep a foothold here. Wasn't that always the plan though?

There is the military aspect, of course. There's also the fact that England (particularly The South) is extremely overcrowded, whereas Ulster has plenty of living space - this could come in handy at some point (a second plantation perhaps?). Also, it's important to look at issues such as intellectual capital. Whilst The South East of England appears to subsidise the rest of The UK, it relies on high quality young people coming from across The UK to feed it's knowledge based industries. So it's a two way process. In addition, Ulster has always provided a disproportionate number of combat troops to The Army.

Where we part company is on the issue of The UK not caring about Unionists. The UK State has an interest in all parts of The UK in terms of the welfare of the people who live there and is not involved in treating any one group badly - subsidies paid to Ulster (including the mainly Catholic West) clearly show this. As for keeping people divided, actually I think The contemporary UK prefers The Northern Ireland community to be united, hence all the efforts involved in destroying militant Nationalism and establishing a local assembly within The UK. A process which has brought some real satisfaction to me personally.

Beyond all this though, is the reality that States don't give up territory voluntarily, especially if said territory contains their own kith and kin. Had Northern Ireland been full of black people who knows what might have happened - but it wasn't.

futurehope

Can'tseeme wrote: »

The difference being mate, that relationships between Ireland and Britian have never been better and only show signs of continuing to grow. We're in a different era, alot of fear and mistrust is disappearing between the two islands. I think we can all agree there's a different relationship between Ireland and Britian.

I think The UK never really regarded Ireland or The Irish as a problem except over miscellaneous issues such as the refusal to extradite murderers. The Irish people, of course, had the legacy of The Civil War to contend with, as well as an introspective view of the world fostered by the Irish Schools system and The RC church. But as you say, things are improving.

Are you moving towards a position where you'd like The ROI to apply to rejoin The UK?

gurramok

futurehope wrote: »

Or using the following opinion poll:

to remain part of the United Kingdom - direct rule: 11%
to remain part of the United Kingdom - devolved government: 55%
or, to reunify with the rest of Ireland: 23%
Independent state: 5%
Other answer: 1%
Don't Know: 5%

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

66% are Unionists
23% are Nationalists

Using 1.7 million as population

Unionists: 1,122,000
Nationalists: 391,000

Bull.

The subject was which people identified themselves as Unionists and which as Nationalists, not a border poll.

Using a silly weeny tiny poll of about 1000 people :rolleyes: instead of that poll call the election which takes in well over a million of the electorate consistently and a much tinier Unionist result and a bigger Nationalist result emerges.

Can'tseeme

futurehope wrote: »

I think The UK never really regarded Ireland or The Irish as a problem except over miscellaneous issues such as the refusal to extradite murderers. The Irish people, of course, had the legacy of The Civil War to contend with, as well as an introspective view of the world fostered by the Irish Schools system and The RC church. But as you say, things are improving.

Are you moving towards a position where you'd like The ROI to apply to rejoin The UK?

Nah mate, I believe in independence, looking after our own affairs for the betterment of everyone on the island. Which is why I'd get rid of the border rather than to have it continue to restrict the Irish economy. Although I think working in partnership with Britian would be a positive move for both islands. We've go plenty in common.

Do you see benefits in the north working closer with the rest of Ireland futurehope?