Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Giving some of N.I. back to the Republic

17891012

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    And we plot it all down in maps - this field is Protestant and this puddle is Catholic!!

    It was put down in maps in 1922, some people want these lines on the map removed, others favour continued division.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    ardmacha wrote: »
    It was put down in maps in 1922, some people want these lines on the map removed, others favour continued division.
    We wouldn't have this problem if we had more women in politics, because they never read maps.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    RoyalCelt wrote: »
    Districts_of_Northern_Ireland_by_strength_of_religious_majority_2011.png

    The greener the image is the more dominant Catholics are in the area.

    First off I know nobody is going to want a major change for at least another 20 years when hopefully the ROI economy will be fairly sound again.

    When it does however sort itself out the Catholic majorities in certain areas will have increased even more so why not allow certain areas to join the ROI.

    Would the unionist extremists to the East really care if Fermanagh, Tyrone, half of Armagh, half of Down, most of Derry and possibly the north of Antrim leave the UK and join the Republic. That way the majority of people in the north can be relatively happy and hopefully we can move on.

    Would the north be viable as a country if all those areas joined the republic? I'd imagine that's the reason the Unionists wouldn't want them going but at the same time the big money received from the UK would be used for an even smaller area possibly making up for the loss.

    Thoughts?

    Yes I go think that NI should be partitioned with the Catholic areas given to the Republic. It makes a lot more sense and would ensure continued peace on this island. Incorporating solidly loyalist areas into the Republic would be a disaster and see Irish towns and cities bombed by loyalists. No thanks.

    BTW I'm glad to see my picture being more widely used. The above is a modified version of an image I threw together in PhotoShop before uploading to Wikipedia. You're welcome. ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,773 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    Yes I go think that NI should be partitioned with the Catholic areas given to the Republic. It makes a lot more sense and would ensure continued peace on this island. Incorporating solidly loyalist areas into the Republic would be a disaster and see Irish towns and cities bombed by loyalists. No thanks.

    BTW I'm glad to see my picture being more widely used. The above is a modified version of an image I threw together in PhotoShop before uploading to Wikipedia. You're welcome. ;)

    And I'm sure the Catholics left that have now become the permanent minority would thank you, not to mention the other Catholics who have just discovered that huge sections of their lives are going to change (well actually that would be for the rest of the republic as well as we go bank into bailout territory dealing with the economic burden of even part of NI)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,452 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    Yes I go think that NI should be partitioned with the Catholic areas given to the Republic. It makes a lot more sense and would ensure continued peace on this island. Incorporating solidly loyalist areas into the Republic would be a disaster and see Irish towns and cities bombed by loyalists. No thanks.

    BTW I'm glad to see my picture being more widely used. The above is a modified version of an image I threw together in PhotoShop before uploading to Wikipedia. You're welcome. ;)

    haha fair play to you lad it's very well done. I hinestly think they won't give some areas back because the north's economy would be in big trouble if it shrinked even further.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,452 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    sparky42 wrote: »
    And I'm sure the Catholics left that have now become the permanent minority would thank you, not to mention the other Catholics who have just discovered that huge sections of their lives are going to change (well actually that would be for the rest of the republic as well as we go bank into bailout territory dealing with the economic burden of even part of NI)

    In 10 years time things will be economically stable but if in say 30-50 years time it looks like the Island will never be re united then I think we should push for partial re unification. Then maybe in 100 years the bit that is left will have found sense and put past quarrels behind them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,794 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    any kind of reunification will take at least a century. This malarkey about the north 'joining' the south is a bit obtuse, considering one wouldnt be joining the other, rather a whole new country would be recreated.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,773 ✭✭✭sparky42


    RoyalCelt wrote: »
    In 10 years time things will be economically stable but if in say 30-50 years time it looks like the Island will never be re united then I think we should push for partial re unification. Then maybe in 100 years the bit that is left will have found sense and put past quarrels behind them.

    Economically stable doesn't come into it. We can't pay for the status quo in NI. They can't pay for the Status Quo, it exists because a G7 country pays for it to exist. It doesn't matter what time frame you use, only if NI was wiling to make deep cuts and the South willing to pay more taxes could the gap be bridged (it's at least more than the 3 billion a year cuts we've had to make under the bailout agreement), we can't afford all the Public servants up there, and they can't afford the unemployment that would come about without that number.

    How do you have "partial reunification", particularly as you will still have at least a parity that are still opposed to unification, as to 100 years to "see sense" you are aware that we are talking about NI, where riots can break out over celebrations of events of 100's of years ago. Short of a massive population change, coupled with growth surpassing the Celtic Tiger Years it's not going to happen


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,773 ✭✭✭sparky42


    RoyalCelt wrote: »
    haha fair play to you lad it's very well done. I hinestly think they won't give some areas back because the north's economy would be in big trouble if it shrinked even further.

    The NI economy is always going to be weak, the over reliance on public servants and being tied into the Republics economy whether they like it or not we always keep it weak.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭on the river


    sparky42 wrote: »
    The NI economy is always going to be weak, the over reliance on public servants and being tied into the Republics economy whether they like it or not we always keep it weak.

    The Northern economy is weak the southern econmy is disaster mix the two and you get a economic explosition .

    the fact is both economies depend on britian for economic joy.

    with or without a united ireland this wont change.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,773 ✭✭✭sparky42


    The Northern economy is weak the southern econmy is disaster mix the two and you get a economic explosition .

    the fact is both economies depend on britian for economic joy.

    with or without a united ireland this wont change.

    The NI economy has 900K employed of which 300K are public servants.
    The Republic has 1.9 million employed of which 300K are public servants.

    The NI total income tax take in 2012 was less than 1 quarter the total income tax take of the Republic in the same year.

    The Republic's economy exports globally with all other trading partners being much more than the UK's share (the UK being the closet yields the quickest reaction to improvement).

    The North has a MUCH smaller trading environment concentrated among the other UK countries (I can pull out the numbers if you want but there's a gap of over 100 billion in trade from memory).

    The NI government has a deficit of over 3 billion a year (or up to 12 billion depending on which figures you use).

    A United Ireland will only increase the economic difficulties when NI is forced to live within it's means.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭on the river


    sparky42 wrote: »
    The NI economy has 900K employed of which 300K are public servants.
    The Republic has 1.9 million employed of which 300K are public servants.

    The NI total income tax take in 2012 was less than 1 quarter the total income tax take of the Republic in the same year.

    The Republic's economy exports globally with all other trading partners being much more than the UK's share (the UK being the closet yields the quickest reaction to improvement).

    The North has a MUCH smaller trading environment concentrated among the other UK countries (I can pull out the numbers if you want but there's a gap of over 100 billion in trade from memory).

    The NI government has a deficit of over 3 billion a year (or up to 12 billion depending on which figures you use).

    A United Ireland will only increase the economic difficulties when NI is forced to live within it's means.

    I agree N. Ireland would only be a extra burden on the republics fiances.
    N. Ireland is not paying its way for britian . maybe they should leave the union and go out on their own.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,773 ✭✭✭sparky42


    I agree N. Ireland would only be a extra burden on the republics fiances.
    N. Ireland is not paying its way for britian . maybe they should leave the union and go out on their own.

    And who pays for what they have then? NI can't no matter which party says what their only plan is to continue to sponge, while threatening a destabilisation if those funds are reduced.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭on the river


    sparky42 wrote: »
    And who pays for what they have then? NI can't no matter which party says what their only plan is to continue to sponge, while threatening a destabilisation if those funds are reduced.
    default and start over


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,773 ✭✭✭sparky42


    default and start over

    Not an option for NI, it's not debts, its the day to day costs. reduce those costs (in public service numbers, NHS service) and the public are both hammered and furious. So NI will continue on as is without being able to deal with the fact that historical backbone industries are gone and won't be returning.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭on the river


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Not an option for NI, it's not debts, its the day to day costs. reduce those costs (in public service numbers, NHS service) and the public are both hammered and furious. So NI will continue on as is without being able to deal with the fact that historical backbone industries are gone and won't be returning.

    so your basically saying N Ireland is continously increasing its public service debt each year. this is not sustainable. surely something has to give.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,773 ✭✭✭sparky42


    so your basically saying N Ireland is continously increasing its public service debt each year. this is not sustainable. surely something has to give.

    It's part of the UK, a G7 country, it's portion of debts as a whole are tiny so it doesn't realistically matter, and the rest of the UK is committed historically to pay for any services (NHS) that NI can't to maintain them at the same level as the rest of the UK. so as long as they are part of the UK, NI can live with deficit spending without anyone commenting on debt to GDP ratio's or long term debt profiles.

    That's why they will stay in the UK, the alternative is social impacts that make the cuts of the bailout in the Republic look mild (think about it, impact to PS numbers, impact to the health system, social payments etc, all would be impacted to some degree or another)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭on the river


    sparky42 wrote: »
    It's part of the UK, a G7 country, it's portion of debts as a whole are tiny so it doesn't realistically matter, and the rest of the UK is committed historically to pay for any services (NHS) that NI can't to maintain them at the same level as the rest of the UK. so as long as they are part of the UK, NI can live with deficit spending without anyone commenting on debt to GDP ratio's or long term debt profiles.

    That's why they will stay in the UK, the alternative is social impacts that make the cuts of the bailout in the Republic look mild (think about it, impact to PS numbers, impact to the health system, social payments etc, all would be impacted to some degree or another)

    wow love your economic insight teach me more


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    sparky42 wrote: »
    The NI economy has 900K employed of which 300K are public servants.
    The Republic has 1.9 million employed of which 300K are public servants.

    The NI total income tax take in 2012 was less than 1 quarter the total income tax take of the Republic in the same year.

    The Republic's economy exports globally with all other trading partners being much more than the UK's share (the UK being the closet yields the quickest reaction to improvement).

    The North has a MUCH smaller trading environment concentrated among the other UK countries (I can pull out the numbers if you want but there's a gap of over 100 billion in trade from memory).

    The NI government has a deficit of over 3 billion a year (or up to 12 billion depending on which figures you use).

    A United Ireland will only increase the economic difficulties when NI is forced to live within it's means.
    sparky42 wrote: »
    And who pays for what they have then? NI can't no matter which party says what their only plan is to continue to sponge, while threatening a destabilisation if those funds are reduced.
    sparky42 wrote: »
    It's part of the UK, a G7 country, it's portion of debts as a whole are tiny so it doesn't realistically matter, and the rest of the UK is committed historically to pay for any services (NHS) that NI can't to maintain them at the same level as the rest of the UK. so as long as they are part of the UK, NI can live with deficit spending without anyone commenting on debt to GDP ratio's or long term debt profiles.

    That's why they will stay in the UK, the alternative is social impacts that make the cuts of the bailout in the Republic look mild (think about it, impact to PS numbers, impact to the health system, social payments etc, all would be impacted to some degree or another)

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,773 ✭✭✭sparky42


    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.

    It's not just that they might have been chased away, heavy industry (ie ship building) has declined throughout Europe and NI would never have been able to compete with either the other UK yards or European ones). From memory Bombardier alone makes up over 10% of NI's exports and a significant employment base, NI is has far fewer, but individually more important companies than the Republic.

    A core issue for NI as identified in the latest implementation report is the inability for certain groups (particularly deprived Protestants) to embrace education and build skill sets for new economic needs. Even protestant kids asked pointed to Catholics focusing on educational achievements more than they are.

    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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,452 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,773 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,773 ✭✭✭sparky42


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭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)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,061 ✭✭✭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

    Scottish-independence-sup-011.jpg 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


Advertisement