Giving some of N.I. back to the Republic

RoyalCelt

Godge wrote: »

A very interesting analysis.

It obviously means that the prospect of a united Ireland is extremely remote for these economic and financial reasons.

The cause of the NI finances to be so bad is the lack of a strong industrial or service base in the Northern Ireland of today. The reason for that is that many industries were scared or chased away by the Troubles, particularly the IRA campaign.

Extremely ironic that the IRA campaign actually pushed the prospect of a united Ireland further away for economic and financial reasons.

At the same time if ireland was run properly by the last government (not that the new one is doing any better) the republic would look a lot more appealing. If NI was part of the republic all along they would be benefiting from the same tax incentives Ireland has prospered from.

sparky42

RoyalCelt wrote: »

At the same time if ireland was run properly by the last government (not that the new one is doing any better) the republic would look a lot more appealing. If NI was part of the republic all along they would be benefiting from the same tax incentives Ireland has prospered from.

Even at the height of the boom, there still something about only 25% that had a stated preference for unification, which has slipped back hugely now. As for Tax incentives prospering, considering how low their tax base is (a total of 14 billion in 2012), who pays for the rest of it? Does NI align with the Republic in spending (ie what happens to the 200K of extra public servants?).

I'll take you back to the implementation boards view that you have a large section that hasn't the same concentration on development and more concentrated on the past.

The Corinthian

sparky42 wrote: »

NI has had 10+ years since the GFA, and several years of devolved government, yet the structural issues within NI's economy haven't really been touched

Hardly surprising. NI's politics appear to be dominated by personalities who can manage some simple parish pump politics, but are otherwise one-issue politicians.

As poor as the Republic's politicians are, at least the leading ones to tend to have a basic understanding and interest in macroeconomics. I would also question the quality of NI's civil service and the meritocratic standards employed within it.

sparky42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hardly surprising. NI's politics appear to be dominated by personalities who can manage some simple parish pump politics, but are otherwise one-issue politicians.

As poor as the Republic's politicians are, at least the leading ones to tend to have a basic understanding and interest in macroeconomics. I would also question the quality of NI's civil service and the meritocratic standards employed within it.

I'd agree with that completely. Perhaps even more than down South, parties present, and people vote on just who's what (ie Unionists supporting the DUP, Nationalists SF, with little regard to what their actually policies are). Dead end issues like the Flags or Marches are more important voting issues to core groups than economic issues.

In terms of the Public service, when any budget shortfall is covered by the UK and there's no effective opposition in the Parliament, what incentive is there, or repercussions for falling short?

T runner

sparky42 wrote: »

I'd agree with that completely. Perhaps even more than down South, parties present, and people vote on just who's what (ie Unionists supporting the DUP, Nationalists SF, with little regard to what their actually policies are). Dead end issues like the Flags or Marches are more important voting issues to core groups than economic issues.

In terms of the Public service, when any budget shortfall is covered by the UK and there's no effective opposition in the Parliament, what incentive is there, or repercussions for falling short?

The UK has the 3rd largest national deficit in the world. It cannot long continue to justify covering the annual 12 billion deficit to keep NI functioning.

As NI cannot manouvre its fiscal policies - income cant increase, so any reduction in public spending will have direct affects on quality of public service, and employment figures.

This 12 bill deficit hides the fact that NI is a complete dependency.

From being a region pre partition of relatively high production compared to rest of Ireland, it is now the lowest producing region of Ireland and UK.

An independence YES in Scotland might push these issues to the fore. If the British decide that its OUT time, they can push and squeeze NI towards unity.

alastair

T runner wrote: »

If the British decide that its OUT time, they can push and squeeze NI towards unity.

You think? There's two problems with that theory. Firstly, the state is obligated to provide equal public services to NI as long as it remains within the UK, so they're limited in what they can cut on a selective basis, and secondly, any attempt to coerce people out of the union would risk a kick-off of the troubles, which would cost them more than maintaining the status quo. The cost of subsidising NI isn't that big a deal in the overall picture of the UK economy, and remember that there's another player in the equation; NI can't be foisted on the Irish state without the agreement of the Irish voters in a referendum, and the appeal of inheriting an extra annual deficit of 12 billion by choice, would be pretty limited.

NI will remain a part of the UK, with whatever costs it incurs, until the people of NI (and Ireland) decide otherwise. I wouldn't hold my breath.

T runner

alastair wrote: »

You think? There's two problems with that theory. Firstly, the state is obligated to provide equal public services to NI as long as it remains within the UK, so they're limited in what they can cut on a selective basis, and secondly, any attempt to coerce people out of the union would risk a kick-off of the troubles, which would cost them more than maintaining the status quo. The cost of subsidising NI isn't that big a deal in the overall picture of the UK economy, and remember that there's another player in the equation; NI can't be foisted on the Irish state without the agreement of the Irish voters in a referendum, and the appeal of inheriting an extra annual deficit of 12 billion by choice, would be pretty limited.

NI will remain a part of the UK, with whatever costs it incurs, until the people of NI (and Ireland) decide otherwise. I wouldn't hold my breath.

In order for the British state to provide equal services to NI in par with the rest of the UK it would need to decrease public spending by a third. This would result in job losses that cannot be offset by fiscal policy for reasons ive outlined.

If Scotland goes and the British don't see NI in their medium to long term future, they can legitimately cut public spending to British proportions.

This will weaken sentiment for the Union and push sentiment towards a UI.

Having Fiscal policy decided in Belfast wont help because NI cant compete with the Republics for attracting FDI.

Something radical like allowing NI companies register in Dublin (if permissible) will only prolong as well as ensure the inevitable.

The question is:

Is NI having a relatively massive deficit within the UK sustainable in the long term? (12 billion is nothing to be sneezed at within the UK, especially when the microscope comes out after Scotland exits)

If the answer is no (and it most certainly will be in the case of Scottish independence) then there will be a UI in the medium term.

Note: The people of the Republic would pass a vote now for unification comfortably. A major backlash of Loyalist violence would be a worry.

Id envision separate police services for a prolonged period. (East Ulster, Belfast, Rest of Ireland)

alastair

T runner wrote: »

In order for the British state to provide equal services to NI in par with the rest of the UK it would need to decrease public spending by a third. This would result in job losses that cannot be offset by fiscal policy for reasons ive outlined.

Equal service provision is not the same as equal cost for service provision. They can't cut the service provision - all they can do is attempt to provide the same service provision for less money. If they can't then it'll remain more expensive, if they can, then it's no concern to to people in NI.

T runner wrote: »

If Scotland goes and the British don't see NI in their medium to long term future, they can legitimately cut public spending to British proportions.

As long as it retains British level public service provisions, sure.

T runner wrote: »

This will weaken sentiment for the Union and push sentiment towards a UI.

Nope - because they can't cut services any more than the rest of the UK.

T runner wrote: »

Having Fiscal policy decided in Belfast wont help because NI cant compete with the Republics for attracting FDI.

Something radical like allowing NI companies register in Dublin (if permissible) will only prolong as well as ensure the inevitable.

Nothing inevitable about the future of NI.

T runner wrote: »

The question is:

Is NI having a relatively massive deficit within the UK sustainable in the long term? (12 billion is nothing to be sneezed at within the UK, especially when the microscope comes out after Scotland exits)

The cost of NI isn't exactly news to the UK. And in the highly unlikely event of Scotland exiting the UK, the status of NI would be unaffected.

T runner wrote: »

If the answer is no (and it most certainly will be in the case of Scottish independence) then there will be a UI in the medium term.

The NI deficit is entirely sustainable for the UK, particularly in a context where they have a much greater deficit nationally, and will obviously introducing national measures to reduce that deficit across the board.

T runner wrote: »

Note: The people of the Republic would pass a vote now for unification comfortably.

People would vote to double our deficit? Double the taxation increases and service cutbacks? Dream on - they certainly would not.

T runner wrote: »

A major backlash of Loyalist violence would be a worry.

A major backlash from more than loyalists - there's no appetite for unification in NI - and that's on the basis of a non-coerced unification.

T runner wrote: »

Id envision separate police services for a prolonged period. (East Ulster, Belfast, Rest of Ireland)

That wouldn't be constitutional.

junder

T runner wrote: »

The UK has the 3rd largest national deficit in the world. It cannot long continue to justify covering the annual 12 billion deficit to keep NI functioning.

As NI cannot manouvre its fiscal policies - income cant increase, so any reduction in public spending will have direct affects on quality of public service, and employment figures.

This 12 bill deficit hides the fact that NI is a complete dependency.

From being a region pre partition of relatively high production compared to rest of Ireland, it is now the lowest producing region of Ireland and UK.

An independence YES in Scotland might push these issues to the fore. If the British decide that its OUT time, they can push and squeeze NI towards unity.

Apologies to the moderates but I feel that I must answer a question put to me by the runner in the moderate unionist thread, that now appears to be locked. Yes I do maintain that I graduated from queens with a degree, my degree was a major in politics and a minor in socal anthropology, I graduated with 2:2 not as I high ad I would have liked, (have since found out I'm dyslexic, so no doubt that was a contributing factor) I have also this very year completed a post grad in youth and community work and will be graduating this July from the university of ulster, Jordanstown. Apologies once again for hijacking the thread, will say no more on the matter. Believe me or not t-runner it's of no.consequence to me.

eire4

alastair wrote: »

Equal service provision is not the same as equal cost for service provision. They can't cut the service provision - all they can do is attempt to provide the same service provision for less money. If they can't then it'll remain more expensive, if they can, then it's no concern to to people in NI.


As long as it retains British level public service provisions, sure.


Nope - because they can't cut services any more than the rest of the UK.


Nothing inevitable about the future of NI.


The cost of NI isn't exactly news to the UK. And in the highly unlikely event of Scotland exiting the UK, the status of NI would be unaffected.



The NI deficit is entirely sustainable for the UK, particularly in a context where they have a much greater deficit nationally, and will obviously introducing national measures to reduce that deficit across the board.


People would vote to double our deficit? Double the taxation increases and service cutbacks? Dream on - they certainly would not.



A major backlash from more than loyalists - there's no appetite for unification in NI - and that's on the basis of a non-coerced unification.


That wouldn't be constitutional.

I would not be so quick to dismiss the Scottish indpendance vote as being unlikely. The latest polling is showing the gap is closing and is actually very close at the moment. I think if Scotland does vote yes I think that will have a knock on effect in London where they will be a lot more careful about their money.




Scottish independence campaign is gaining ground, polls show

Gap between yes and no camps has narrowed with five months to go until referendum

• Press Association
• theguardian.com, Sunday 20 April 2014 10.46 EDT
  

The Yes Scotland campaign for independence says it is confident of getting the two-point swing polls suggest it needs. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

The campaign for Scottish independence appears to be gaining ground, according to new polls.
With five months to go before the referendum that could lead to Scotland leaving the UK, the gap between the yes and no camps has narrowed, suggesting a two-point swing could be enough to secure independence on 18 September.
An ICM poll for the Scotland on Sunday newspaper shows support for independence is at 39%, while opposition has fallen four points to 42%.
Excluding people who have not yet made up their minds, the results put yes on 48% and no on 52%.
It is the highest level of support for independence since last August, leading the Yes Scotland campaign group to claim it is confident of securing the necessary two-point swing.


A second poll by Survation for the Sunday Post puts a yes vote up one point to 38% and a no vote down one point to 46%.
When the "don't knows" are stripped out, the results are 55-45 in favour of keeping Scotland in the UK.
Scottish first minister Alex Salmond said: "These are very encouraging polls and show the yes campaign has the momentum because it is more positive and more trusted than the no campaign.
"In contrast the no campaign is in a panic because they are seen as negative and unbelievable.
"It is also very encouraging that women and Labour supporters are moving to yes and with a third of English-born people already voting yes, we are confident that more will follow as momentum continues."
He said the problem for the no campaign was that it was stuck in a "rut of negativity".
"Even today we see yet more evidence that they can't help themselves and just blunder on with the same old failing message. Sending out figures from the political past or dispatching Tory ministers on day trips from Westminster is not cutting any ice."
The polls were published as it emerged Labour is planning to step up campaigning in Scotland.
Ed Miliband's shadow cabinet will hold a meeting in Glasgow on Friday, while MPs will campaign across the country over the week.
Meanwhile, the former prime minister Gordon Brown will focus on the security of pensions as he makes the case for the union during a speech for Better Together in Glasgow.
Yes Scotland is stepping up activity with the launch of a new billboard poster campaign explaining why the country "must" be independent.
Blair McDougall, director of Better Together, said his group would also launch an advertising campaign this week.
"Whilst it is welcome that there is a majority in favour of keeping the UK together, these polls are a reminder that there can be no complacency from those who believe that the brightest future for Scotland is to remain in the UK," he said.
"With the launch of our advertising campaign tomorrow and a big grassroots campaign push we will be fighting hard for every single vote between now and polling day. Everybody who wants to keep Scotland in the UK needs to play their part."
The Scottish Green party co-leader Patrick Harvie, who supports independence, said there was still work to do.
"As we get closer to the vote, more people are seeing the exciting possibilities that a yes vote opens up," he said.
"This poll reflects the mounting energy and strength of the grassroots campaign, but we will only succeed if we continue to reach out beyond traditional supporters."
Meanwhile, Scottish government agencies in charge of creating jobs and attracting tourists have become the latest to quit the business lobbying organisation the CBI after it formally backed a no vote in the referendum.
The government in Edinburgh said it would be "clearly inappropriate" for Scottish Enterprise and VisitScotland to carry on their membership after the body registered with the Electoral Commission to campaign against independence.
The two agencies follow the broadcaster STV, the Balhousie Care Group and the energy company Aquamarine Power in resigning from the CBI.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "The CBI has registered as a campaign organisation for a no vote in the referendum. In these circumstances, it is clearly inappropriate for government agencies to remain in membership of CBI. We would expect any other member to follow Scottish Enterprise and resign with immediate effect."
The confederation has faced criticism that its position does not accurately reflect its members' views, and it failed to consult them before formally registering to campaign for the union.
Tony Banks, chairman of the Balhousie Care Group, said his business would now leave the confederation.
Banks, who is also chairman of the pro-independence group Business for Scotland, said: "It is abundantly clear that the CBI is not representing its members' views honestly. I am therefore writing to the director general, John Cridland, today, withdrawing my company membership

sparky42

T runner wrote: »

The question is:

Is NI having a relatively massive deficit within the UK sustainable in the long term? (12 billion is nothing to be sneezed at within the UK, especially when the microscope comes out after Scotland exits)

If the answer is no (and it most certainly will be in the case of Scottish independence) then there will be a UI in the medium term.

Note: The people of the Republic would pass a vote now for unification comfortably. A major backlash of Loyalist violence would be a worry.

Id envision separate police services for a prolonged period. (East Ulster, Belfast, Rest of Ireland)

In terms of the deficit, it's not a massive amount compared to the UK economy, even if Scotland leaves they will still be a Trillion Dollar plus economy. The burden of NI won't materially affect that.

In terms of the Republic, no I doubt the majority of voter's would even think about it right now, add in the economic costs, the massive security issues (from both Loyalists and the Dissident Republicans who would remain violent) and the political and social issues, it's far from an automatic result.

RoyalCelt

sparky42 wrote: »

In terms of the deficit, it's not a massive amount compared to the UK economy, even if Scotland leaves they will still be a Trillion Dollar plus economy. The burden of NI won't materially affect that.

In terms of the Republic, no I doubt the majority of voter's would even think about it right now, add in the economic costs, the massive security issues (from both Loyalists and the Dissident Republicans who would remain violent) and the political and social issues, it's far from an automatic result.

I'd agree with that. I'd be pro unification for Ireland but not in the next 10-20 years.

sparky42

RoyalCelt wrote: »

I'd agree with that. I'd be pro unification for Ireland but not in the next 10-20 years.

In 10-20 years if we are lucky both sides in the North will at least be able to discuss matters without threatening to bring down the assembly if they don't get their way (which at the moment they can't). They still have a long way to go to conducting themselves as a normal democratic society.

The burden economically, socially and in security for the Republic would be huge no matter when it happens and frankly I completely unconvinced that even within 20 years you'll have the population support in NI to win a poll (please don't quote just the Catholic/Protestant numbers, the divide doesn't break down like that)

ChicagoJoe

alastair wrote: »

You think? There's two problems with that theory. Firstly, the state is obligated to provide equal public services to NI as long as it remains within the UK, so they're limited in what they can cut on a selective basis, and secondly, any attempt to coerce people out of the union would risk a kick-off of the troubles, which would cost them more than maintaining the status quo. The cost of subsidising NI isn't that big a deal in the overall picture of the UK economy, and remember that there's another player in the equation; NI can't be foisted on the Irish state without the agreement of the Irish voters in a referendum, and the appeal of inheriting an extra annual deficit of 12 billion by choice, would be pretty limited.

NI will remain a part of the UK, with whatever costs it incurs, until the people of NI (and Ireland) decide otherwise. I wouldn't hold my breath.

"an extra annual deficit of 12 billion" You keep throwing this out but again and again you fail to show that this is the actual correct figure. It's just to paraphrase Anglo Irish bankers, a figure pulled out of their ar$e.

sparky42

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

"an extra annual deficit of 12 billion" You keep throwing this out but again and again you fail to show that this is the actual correct figure. It's just to paraphrase Anglo Irish bankers, a figure pulled out of their ar$e.

Yeah it only comes from the Department of Finance of NI, I'm sure you have a far more firm grasp of the micro and macro economic situation of NI than they do.:rolleyes:

alastair

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

"an extra annual deficit of 12 billion" You keep throwing this out but again and again you fail to show that this is the actual correct figure. It's just to paraphrase Anglo Irish bankers, a figure pulled out of their ar$e.

No it's not. Last year's NI annual deficit was €11.6 billion. As already explained to you - it's the actual inland revenue figures for NI. I posted a link to the published figures a while back.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/northern-ireland-is-officially-one-of-uks-costliest-regions-as-fiscal-deficit-hits-9bn-30152040.html
http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/publications-foi/publications-browse/publication-scheme-what-we-spend-how-we-spend-it/publication-scheme-what-we-spend-financial-statements/northern-ireland-net-fiscal-balance-report.htm
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/RaISe/Publications/2012/finance_personnel/19712.pdf