Costs of Irish unification.

Schumi7

Follow up on the 'concept of Irishness'...

If the moderators will allow I'll just posit this as I can see the rumblings of a return to the usual NI related nonsense that plagues the thread.

For those in any doubt - a nation is a large group of people with strong bonds of identity - a tribe on a grand scale. The nation may have a claim to statehood or self-rule, but it does not necessarily enjoy a state of its own. National identity is typically based on shared culture, religion, history, language or ethnicity. Ireland is a nation and the Irish people in the North are as much a part of that nation as anyone in the South.

To those who dispute this nation's provenance - Saint Columbanus was the first Irish person to articulate a sense of what it means to be Irish. He was the first Irishman in surviving literature to describe himself as Irish and to give an account of Irish identity. In the letter he wrote to Pope Boniface in AD613, he wrote of “...we Irish”. (he rose to prominence in the great monastery of Bangor btw)

I'm sure you've all heard the moniker 'the land of saints and scholars' - well it's not just a slogan for tourists. What arrived in Ireland with Christianity wasn’t just the knowledge of the three separate languages; Latin, Greek and Hebrew, but the array of mediterranean Christian culture that came with it. Ireland absorbed this wave of ideas. What did it do with them?

The first thing the Irish made themselves masters of was grammar and they created a whole library of new latin grammar, together with a mastery of mathematics which was unrivalled in Western Europe. What did the Irish give back? For one thing the Irish invented new forms of script. In ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin the script was continuous but the Irish broke these up by putting spaces between words. What most of what you and I take for granted on a modern printed page, or on the screen in front of you, is an invention of the Irish in the 6th and 7th centuries. Not only that but we have the oldest vernacular literature of any language in Western Europe, which means that whilst the rest of Europe was speaking their own languages and writing in Latin, the Irish decided that they wanted to write in their own language instead. (I don't want to deflect here but we all know what happened to the language, don't we?)

The Ireland that Columbanus and the rest of these saints and scholars left behind, on their missionary endeavours to a Europe in the dark ages, had a rich culture full of ideas. The Europe they arrived at was ruled by barbarian kings after the fall of the Roman empire. The Irish arrive with no army and no economic power, only a peculiarly rigorous religious life and of course a persuasiveness and mastery of argument. Traits that a lot of us would still recognise in ourselves and in the Irish story today.

The endeavours of these Irishmen led to the eventual re-Christianisation of Europe. One further point of interest - Columbanus was also the first person to use the expression “totius Europae – of all Europe” which first appeared in a letter that he wrote to Pope Gregory the Great in AD600. Given this it does seem appropriate to mention the following in light of Brexit -

In July 1950 a congress was organised in Luxeuil in eastern France to celebrate the 1,400th anniversary of the birth of St Columban. It was the brainchild of Robert Schuman, one of the founders of the European Union, who was at the time foreign minister of France and a tireless promoter of understanding and co-operation among European countries. In his speech then he said that, “St Columban, this illustrious Irishman who left his own country for voluntary exile, willed and achieved a spiritual union between the principal European countries of his time. He is the patron saint of all those who now seek to build a united Europe.”

I could be accused of deflecting again but.....perhaps Ireland is now realigning itself back to its original focus? :rolleyes:


Hopefully now the issue of cost can remain the sole focus of the thread!

tomwaterford

Jawgap wrote: »

The figure, currently, seems to be somewhere north of €8 billion and possibly as high as €10 billion, which is pretty incredible when you think about the size of the place and its population.

It is incredulous it takes that much to run the north tbh


But as has been pointed out....the money the north receives has no relation to its tax take....it's based on a ratio/proportion of money spent elsewhere in the uk??

(Said ratio is circa 40 years old and been discredited with 10 years nearly)

murphaph

jm08 wrote: »

And there I thought that the big turn around in Ireland's fortunes came about when Ireland joined the EEC which attracted FDI because of the very large tariff free market opened up.

There was already very positive signs of life in economy in the 60s which were a boom period. The EEC was massively important but came later.

murphaph

tomwaterford wrote: »

It is incredulous it takes that much to run the north tbh


But as has been pointed out....the money the north receives has no relation to its tax take....it's based on a ratio/proportion of money spent elsewhere in the uk??

(Said ratio is circa 40 years old and been discredited with 10 years nearly)

This is the third time you've suggested the wrong amount is spent in NI. What are you suggesting be done about it?

Jawgap

tomwaterford wrote: »

It is incredulous it takes that much to run the north tbh


But as has been pointed out....the money the north receives has no relation to its tax take....it's based on a ratio/proportion of money spent elsewhere in the uk??

(Said ratio is circa 40 years old and been discredited with 10 years nearly)

Actually it does. Stormont's own rsearch service has pointed out that the tax take doesn't even come close to covering service provision.......hence their description of the situation as a 'fiscal deficit.'

I posted up plenty of figures from different sources showing the extent of the deficit - no one has yet to produce any figures or sources or analysis to show that NI requires significant subsidies to keep people in the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

EDIT: here's the relevant quotes from earlier:

Northern Ireland (NI) receives a sizeable fiscal transfer from the United Kingdom (UK) Government. In other words, considerably more is spent on public services than is raised in revenue. NI therefore relies on taxpayers elsewhere in the UK. Fiscal transfers from national government to sub-national regions are commonplace; they are intended to help redress variances in local economic performance.

.....

....the estimated level of fiscal transfer from the UK Government to NI. In total it was estimated at £9.2 billion in 2013-14 – equivalent to £5,000 more spent on services than was raised in revenue for every person in NI

__________________
sig2big

Jawgap

jm08 wrote: »

And there I thought that the big turn around in Ireland's fortunes came about when Ireland joined the EEC which attracted FDI because of the very large tariff free market opened up.

Not inherently of itself. Joining the EEC helped immensely, but the deals, grants etc we were able to offer made us attractive. If it was just about market access why would a company locate on a wet rock on the periphery of Europe when it could locate centrally and still enjoy the same access without the logistic challenges?

Now we compete on tax.

NI wants to do likewise but in order to gain the necessary tax varying powers Stormont must accept a reduction in the block grant they get from Whitehall - roughly in line with what HM Treasury calculates they'll gain by getting control of Corporation Tax. They won't accept the reduction.......which shows just how wedded they are to the block grant, which doesn't augur well for the Republic in a UI situation as it seems likely we'd be the ones who would have to pick up the tab going forward.

However, IT Aldo means we don't have anyone competing next door to us on tax, so we should be grateful on that score.

Peregrinus

Jawgap wrote: »

Not inherently of itself. Joining the EEC helped immensely, but the deals, grants etc we were able to offer made us attractive. If it was just about market access why would a company locate on a wet rock on the periphery of Europe when it could locate centrally and still enjoy the same access without the logistic challenges?

Well, there was the language factor, which was an attraction for investors from the Anglosphere.

And we did invest heavily in education, so as to offer a more skillled workforce than competing locations. That took a while, but it paid off very well in the end.

However, an educated and therefore productive workforce will tend to seek higher wages and when the boom came of course they could get them, so once we reached full employment wage rates started to rise. Which, you know, is a good thing in terms of the reasons why you seek inward direct investment in the first place, but at the same time it does make it more difficult to seek inward direct investment.

Jawgap wrote: »

Now we compete on tax.

Yup. And that in turn may become a less effective strategy, if the EU presses us towards tax equalisation, or if third countries introduce more stringent rules to prevent their companies sheltering income in low-tax jurisdictions. And in the present international political climate of distaste for trans-national tax minimisation schemes, the risks of either or both of these things happening must be increasing.

Jawgap wrote: »

NI wants to do likewise but in order to gain the necessary tax varying powers Stormont must accept a reduction in the block grant they get from Whitehall - roughly in line with what HM Treasury calculates they'll gain by getting control of Corporation Tax. They won't accept the reduction.......which shows just how wedded they are to the block grant, which doesn't augur well for the Republic in a UI situation as it seems likely we'd be the ones who would have to pick up the tab going forward.

However, IT Aldo means we don't have anyone competing next door to us on tax, so we should be grateful on that score.

Well, you can see NI's problem. If they cut corporation tax rates to RoI levels, their corporation tax take will fall. And if the block grant is reduced at the same time, that's a double whammy; it must cause significant budgetary stress.

And they'd be coming late to the game. They might be going for a tax-driven inward investment strategy just at the time when, because of the international climate already mentioned, tax-driven investment strategies start to become less and less effective. And of course Brexit is not going to make them more attractive as a destination for inward investment, is it?

If I were them, I'd be wedded to the block grant too. Right now, it looks to me like the best option they have. (Of course, in the long term, it too must be vulnerable to political risk.)

Jawgap

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, you can see NI's problem. If they cut corporation tax rates to RoI levels, their corporation tax take will fall. And if the block grant is reduced at the same time, that's a double whammy; it must cause significant budgetary stress.

And they'd be coming late to the game. They might be going for a tax-driven inward investment strategy just at the time when, because of the international climate already mentioned, tax-driven investment strategies start to become less and less effective. And of course Brexit is not going to make them more attractive as a destination for inward investment, is it?

If I were them, I'd be wedded to the block grant too. Right now, it looks to me like the best option they have. (Of course, in the long term, it too must be vulnerable to political risk.)

Actually, no. Currently, all taxes collected in NI are remitted to HM Treasury.

If Stormont gets the power to vary CT then any amounts collected go to Stormont - hence the need to reduce the Block Grant by a commensurate amount otherwise they're double dipping......and there's an argument that such an arrangement would amount to indirect state aid.

There's always the chance, of course, that what they gain from an imaginative CT policy and the resulting revenue more than compensates for what's taken from the Block Grant.

Peregrinus

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, no. Currently, all taxes collected in NI are remitted to HM Treasury.

Good point!

Jawgap wrote: »

If Stormont gets the power to vary CT then any amounts collected go to Stormont - hence the need to reduce the Block Grant by a commensurate amount otherwise they're double dipping......and there's an argument that such an arrangement would amount to indirect state aid.

Well, if Stormont gets power over CT, and the block grant is reduced by the amount of CT collected, that's a zero-sum event. But if Stormont then uses the power to reduce CT, there's a loss of revenue.

Jawgap wrote: »

There's always the chance, of course, that what they gain from an imaginative CT policy and the resulting revenue more than compensates for what's taken from the Block Grant.

Well, that depends. The idea is that you cut your CT rate, thereby attracting inward direct investment, thereby increasing employment, wages and local spending, thereby increasing income tax and VAT receipts. But . . .

1. The increases in income tax/VAT receipts would presumably go to HM Treasury, so Stormont still has a budgetary problem.

2. Even if you fix this with some suitable formula that gives NI credit for extra income tax/VAT receipts generated, it's going to take some years for this to work through, and in the meantime Stormont has a budgetary problem. Plus, of course, for the reasons already touched upon CT reductions may not work as well for NI in the future as they did for RoI in the past, so you're giving up an actual slice of block grant for a hoped-for, but by no means certain, future hike in other tax receipts.

Essentially, a strategy that worked very well for RoI in the 1970s and 1980s might not work so well for a differently-situated NI in the 2010s and 2020s. This would be a risky strategy and, if I were Stormont, I could see a lot of attraction in the bird in the hand that is the current block grant.

Finally, I note the state aid point. That might be a bit less of a problem post-Brexit, depending on what happens over the next year or so.

Jawgap

Peregrinus wrote: »

Good point!


Well, if Stormont gets power over CT, and the block grant is reduced by the amount of CT collected, that's a zero-sum event. But if Stormont then uses the power to reduce CT, there's a loss of revenue.


Well, that depends. The idea is that you cut your CT rate, thereby attracting inward direct investment, thereby increasing employment, wages and local spending, thereby increasing income tax and VAT receipts. But . . .

1. The increases in income tax/VAT receipts would presumably go to HM Treasury, so Stormont still has a budgetary problem.

2. Even if you fix this with some suitable formula that gives NI credit for extra income tax/VAT receipts generated, it's going to take some years for this to work through, and in the meantime Stormont has a budgetary problem. Plus, of course, for the reasons already touched upon CT reductions may not work as well for NI in the future as they did for RoI in the past, so you're giving up an actual slice of block grant for a hoped-for, but by no means certain, future hike in other tax receipts.

Essentially, a strategy that worked very well for RoI in the 1970s and 1980s might not work so well for a differently-situated NI in the 2010s and 2020s. This would be a risky strategy and, if I were Stormont, I could see a lot of attraction in the bird in the hand that is the current block grant.

Finally, I note the state aid point. That might be a bit less of a problem post-Brexit, depending on what happens over the next year or so.

Not necessarily. The Laffer Curve suggests otherwise. Worst case is that CT rates in NI are optimal and there is no gain. However, if they're sub-optimal then there's money to be gained.

HM Treasury, from my understanding, are looking to make a fixed reduction of the order of stg£400-500 million in the Block Grant in return for tax varying powers. If Stormont take those powers and bump the CT take to stg£600 million, they're obviously ahead.

And yes, there's a risk, but Stormont and it's advocates always suggest it's a 'government' and if it is then surely this is the type of power they should be embracing rather than leaving "Mammy" to hold the purse strings and dole out their pocket money?

Peregrinus

Jawgap wrote: »

Not necessarily. The Laffer Curve suggests otherwise. Worst case is that CT rates in NI are optimal and there is no gain. However, if they're sub-optimal then there's money to be gained.

No. The worst case, obvious, is that there's a loss. You could reduce corporation tax and find that that didn't result in sufficient additional economic activity to generate sufficent extra revenue to offset the fall in CT revenue.

(This is quite a common outcome of tax cuts based on loose thinking about the Laffer curve. You can't just assume that you are at a point on the Laffer curve where tax cuts will result in increased revenue; you need to have some pretty solid reasoning for thinking you are at such a point.)

Jawgap wrote: »

HM Treasury, from my understanding, are looking to make a fixed reduction of the order of stg£400-500 million in the Block Grant in return for tax varying powers. If Stormont take those powers and bump the CT take to stg£600 million, they're obviously ahead.

Yes, but there is no guarantee that by reducing CT rates they will bump the CT take. The opposite outcome is entirely possible.

Jawgap wrote: »

And yes, there's a risk, but Stormont and it's advocates always suggest it's a 'government' and if it is then surely this is the type of power they should be embracing rather than leaving "Mammy" to hold the purse strings and dole out their pocket money?

No. A rational government should only sacrifice stg£400-500 million in order to "embrace" the freedom to vary CT rates if they believe, on solid grounds, that they can use that freedom to generate more than stg£400-500 million revenue. And, for the reasons already given, I'd be very cautious about that. Basically, applying a policy prescription that worked well in a different economy, differently situated, thirty or forty years ago looks dodgy to me. That in itself is not a good enough reason to expect it to work here, and now.

FrancieBrady

tomwaterford wrote: »

It is incredulous it takes that much to run the north tbh

And we still don't know the breakdown of that figure.

tomwaterford

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually it does. Stormont's own rsearch service has pointed out that the tax take doesn't even come close to covering service provision.......hence their description of the situation as a 'fiscal deficit.'

I posted up plenty of figures from different sources showing the extent of the deficit - no one has yet to produce any figures or sources or analysis to show that NI requires significant subsidies to keep people in the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

EDIT: here's the relevant quotes from earlier:



.....



__________________
sig2big

Once again...I havnt said the 6 counties deosnt need a block grant/subsidy?


All I have said is the figure received is entirely proportional to what Is spent in the uk...irregardles of the tax take there (like if they only took 5 out of 20 required tax take they'd get 15...whereas if they took 25 out of 20 however unlikely they'll still only get 20-example figures)

The formula applies only to expenditure on issues for which the devolved administrations (as opposed to UK central government) are responsible. Its principle is that any increase or reduction in expenditure in England will automatically lead to a proportionate increase or reduction in resources for the devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The fact it costs 20 billion or so to run the 6 counties and that the subvention has trebled since end of the troubles is questionable

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And we still don't know the breakdown of that figure.

What difference does it really make? What do you think they might be spending money on that wouldn't have to be spent in a UI?

We'll still have to pay more or less the same or reduce standards of living in NI. The sectarianism was there a hundred years before partition and it will unfortunately probably be there for a hundred years after it ends if there is a UI so the marching and all that stuff will still need to be policed or will Catholics suddenly have no problem with Orange marches?

Indeed as another poster mentioned, the NHS may actually be cheaper to run than the HSE replacement for it because the HSE pays significantly more to its staff. The north may get a worse health service that costs more.

Jawgap

tomwaterford wrote: »

Once again...I havnt said the 6 counties deosnt need a block grant/subsidy?


All I have said is the figure received is entirely proportional to what Is spent in the uk...irregardles of the tax take there (like if they only took 5 out of 20 required tax take they'd get 15...whereas if they took 25 out of 20 however unlikely they'll still only get 20-example figures)




The fact it costs 20 billion or so to run the 6 counties and that the subvention has trebled since end of the troubles is questionable

Fair enough - show some evidence that NI doesn't operate a fiscal deficit and that it doesn't need an annual handout of several billion, in excess of what it remits in taxes, to keep going.

Lots of obfuscation, deflection and distraction from people who seem to doubt this figure, but no one seems to offer up anything beyond crude irrelevancies to counter it.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

What difference does it really make? What do you think they might be spending money on that wouldn't have to be spent in a UI?

We'll still have to pay more or less the same or reduce standards of living in NI. The sectarianism was there a hundred years before partition and it will unfortunately probably be there for a hundred years after it ends if there is a UI so the marching and all that stuff will still need to be policed or will Catholics suddenly have no problem with Orange marches?

Indeed as another poster mentioned, the NHS may actually be cheaper to run than the HSE replacement for it because the HSE pays significantly more to its staff. The north may get a worse health service that costs more.

Which is all 'if's and buts' that pro UIers are accused of.

How can you come to any decision about a budget if you dson't know what that budget is being spent on?
Have you ever run a business on the basis that you just accept the costs with out looking at where the money is going?

Sectarianism died out in the south because it became pointless. It will be the same scenario in a UI.
What would be the point in it exactly?
Also, nobody with the reins of power will be controlled by a church or religious dogma, just like the south now.
On your last point - afaics The NHS ships almost as much criticism from it's end users as the HSE does.
It is nothing like the institution that it was, and all reports seem to think that it's crisis will only deepen.
Methinks the reverence for it is similar to the invented 'Great Blighty of Yore' of the Brexiteers.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which is all 'if's and buts' that pro UIers are accused of.

How can you come to any decision about a budget if you dson't know what that budget is being spent on?
Have you ever run a business on the basis that you just accept the costs with out looking at where the money is going?

Sectarianism died out in the south because it became pointless. It will be the same scenario in a UI.
What would be the point in it exactly?
Also, nobody with the reins of power will be controlled by a church or religious dogma, just like the south now.
On your last point - afaics The NHS ships almost as much criticism from it's end users as the HSE does.
It is nothing like the institution that it was, and all reports seem to think that it's crisis will only deepen.
Methinks the reverence for it is similar to the invented 'Great Blighty of Yore' of the Brexiteers.

Sure we know what it's spent on - the NIE' Budget page describes what it gets spent on.

Personally, I don't care what it gets spent on - only that if Whitehall doesn't provide the handout, we'll have to provide it in a UI.

Given we're just escaping one period of austerity I've no wish to see us plunged into another open ended one any time soon. Unless someone knows where we can generate the €10 billion or so needed to keep NI going without raising taxes and/or slashing services?

tomwaterford

Jawgap wrote: »

Fair enough - show some evidence that NI doesn't operate a fiscal deficit and that it doesn't need an annual handout of several billion, in excess of what it remits in taxes, to keep going.

Lots of obfuscation, deflection and distraction from people who seem to doubt this figure, but no one seems to offer up anything beyond crude irrelevancies to counter it.

:rolleyes:

I havnt said it deosnt have a deficit....just pointing out that it's budget is wholly dependant upon spending elsewhere in the uk


The fact it's public service is bloated points to just looking at using up the money as opposed to living within its means?

The fact the north's economy is surly better than since end of the troubles (must be??) And the subvention has trebled in that time is simply astonishing and should be questioned tbh

jm08

tomwaterford wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I havnt said it deosnt have a deficit....just pointing out that it's budget is wholly dependant upon spending elsewhere in the uk


The fact it's public service is bloated points to just looking at using up the money as opposed to living within its means?

The fact the north's economy is surly better than since end of the troubles (must be??) And the subvention has trebled in that time is simply astonishing and should be questioned tbh

Have to agree. They throw money at anything up there for cross-community projects. I was involved in a cross border mellinum youth project supported by both Govs. The NI grant was double what the ROI gave which meant that NI had double the number of kids involved. We were not complaining, but it was way too generous.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Sure we know what it's spent on - the NIE' Budget page describes what it gets spent on.

Personally, I don't care what it gets spent on - only that if Whitehall doesn't provide the handout, we'll have to provide it in a UI.

Given we're just escaping one period of austerity I've no wish to see us plunged into another open ended one any time soon. Unless someone knows where we can generate the €10 billion or so needed to keep NI going without raising taxes and/or slashing services?

So, you sticking to the position that the 10 billion figure cannot be changed, reduced?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, you sticking to the position that the 10 billion figure cannot be changed, reduced?

Nope. I've been perfectly clear that it can be reduced - what I'm doubting is the will and imagination of the political parties and reps in NI to implement the cuts and revenue raising measures needed to even halve the deficit in a reasonable period (say a decade).

Seriously, in an economy which is almost 50% (in terms of GDP) reliant on public services, you don't have to be economic or change management genius to find the requisite savings. You just need to have the wherewithal to carry through the necessary reforms.

And those reforms need to happen before a UI otherwise the incentive to change goes out the window and we're stuck holding the bill.

Jawgap

tomwaterford wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I havnt said it deosnt have a deficit....just pointing out that it's budget is wholly dependant upon spending elsewhere in the uk


The fact it's public service is bloated points to just looking at using up the money as opposed to living within its means?

The fact the north's economy is surly better than since end of the troubles (must be??) And the subvention has trebled in that time is simply astonishing and should be questioned tbh

It's not really. You look st something like education. There are essentially three systems funded from state coffers in NI - there's only one in the rest of the uk.

When I was working in the PS we'd regularly meet with our colleagues from NI to discuss cross-border issues - the corresponding team in NI was three times the size of our team, for a fraction of the population.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Nope. I've been perfectly clear that it can be reduced - what I'm doubting is the will and imagination of the political parties and reps in NI to implement the cuts and revenue raising measures needed to even halve the deficit in a reasonable period (say a decade).

Seriously, in an economy which is almost 50% (in terms of GDP) reliant on public services, you don't have to be economic or change management genius to find the requisite savings. You just need to have the wherewithal to carry through the necessary reforms.

And those reforms need to happen before a UI otherwise the incentive to change goes out the window and we're stuck holding the bill.

Well then, what we need to do is see how much it can be reduced to and then start the discussion.

You have already said the PS can be reformed. I would expect that if a UI is approaching that will be dealt with by negotiations between the two governments who will have a vested interest in making a UI work.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which is all 'if's and buts' that pro UIers are accused of.

How can you come to any decision about a budget if you dson't know what that budget is being spent on?
Have you ever run a business on the basis that you just accept the costs with out looking at where the money is going?

Sectarianism died out in the south because it became pointless. It will be the same scenario in a UI.
What would be the point in it exactly?
Also, nobody with the reins of power will be controlled by a church or religious dogma, just like the south now.
On your last point - afaics The NHS ships almost as much criticism from it's end users as the HSE does.
It is nothing like the institution that it was, and all reports seem to think that it's crisis will only deepen.
Methinks the reverence for it is similar to the invented 'Great Blighty of Yore' of the Brexiteers.

I know the NHS is a mess. The HSE is even worse though and almost certainly costs more per patient to run. Luckily for me I don't rely on either of them and I have a fully functioning health service with no waiting lists or any of that rubbish to fall back on.

Sectarianism was always much worse in the north than the south. There have been sectarian riots in Belfast for at least 150 years. In contrast these were very rare in the south (because there were fewer Protestants and so fewer interactions with Catholics) and of course after partition huge numbers of the Protestants in the south shipped out.

The central belt (especially in the Glasgow area) also experiences sectarian bigotry and there are no signs of it abating. It would not abate in an independent Scotland either. It would not abate in a UI either.

Look, there may be limited scope to save a few bob here and there in a UI but the NHS->HSE morphing may well cost more than currently. So the 9bn is a perfectly reasonable figure to use an ongoing expense in a UI scenario. Donegal, Mayo, Clare, Kerry etc. etc. all require subsidy (that's just the way it is) and at least 4 of the 6 counties would be long term subsidy "munchers" as well. The only way a UI could ever break even was if the greater Belfast area could become economically active enough to subsidise the 3 or 4 western counties. How likely is that really?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

I know the NHS is a mess. The HSE is even worse though and almost certainly costs more per patient to run. Luckily for me I don't rely on either of them and I have a fully functioning health service with no waiting lists or any of that rubbish to fall back on.

Sectarianism was always much worse in the north than the south. There have been sectarian riots in Belfast for at least 150 years. In contrast these were very rare in the south (because there were fewer Protestants and so fewer interactions with Catholics) and of course after partition huge numbers of the Protestants in the south shipped out.

The central belt (especially in the Glasgow area) also experiences sectarian bigotry and there are no signs of it abating. It would not abate in an independent Scotland either. It would not abate in a UI either.

And there is a perfectly good historically correct reason why sectarianism is worse in the north than the south. Because the north was more densely planted than the south due to the resistance of the Irish living in Ulster.
Partition then concentrated that demographic even more and they most certainly didn't all live happily ever after, as many predicted even at the time.

Look, there may be limited scope to save a few bob here and there in a UI but the NHS->HSE morphing may well cost more than currently. So the 9bn is a perfectly reasonable figure to use an ongoing expense in a UI scenario. Donegal, Mayo, Clare, Kerry etc. etc. all require subsidy (that's just the way it is) and at least 4 of the 6 counties would be long term subsidy "munchers" as well. The only way a UI could ever break even was if the greater Belfast area could become economically active enough to subsidise the 3 or 4 western counties. How likely is that really?

A UI could be looked on as a major chance to reform both systems. I again would await the expert opinion on all that. No system is immune to reform.

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

There was already very positive signs of life in economy in the 60s which were a boom period. The EEC was massively important but came later.

Well, it took a big dip in the 70s and 80s. The introduction of free secondary education was an excellent move in the 60s, but early 70s, 80s, the job options were, civil service, bank or emigration.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

No, what they have shown us is that if we take that attitude for a year or two, it takes a decade of pain to recover.

That's the same 'we' we bent over backwards to look after while the rest of us picked up the tab.
In the throws of economic melt down we bailed out private gamblers and created a quango, jobs for 'our own' and very questionable NAMA decisions. these are all debatable. The point is regardless of our financial straights, if the will is there and it benefits 'our own', sticking it to the lowly taxpayer does not keep them awake at night. If they want a United Ireland, money won't play a part.
For the tax payer, we get the brunt so they can play at economics, but a natural whole Ireland would be something for our money and after generations of little value, seeing results for the spend would be joyful.

There's a good argument for the UK taking on any debt accrued up north. The counties where not under our rule. There could also be a case for reparations. It certainly won't be a case of, 'here's the keys, we're off'. Individual organisations will have contracts with the UK government. Civil servants would be due compensation. This is all very vague I know, but there will certainly be elements of this involved.
The idea that British civil servants will slip into Irish civil service rolls is highly unlikely, although there will of course be similar openings, as long as we don't see too much Fine Gael 'we look after our own' taking hold.

If only the powers put this much public debate into bailing out shareholders, shady NAMA deals and quangos. Ms. Foster will have some competition with the sweet deals mind.

Carlos Orange

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There's a good argument for the UK taking on any debt accrued up north. The counties where not under our rule. There could also be a case for reparations.

What would the case/argument be? Preferably with reference to previous instances where similar outcomes occurred.

James Brown

psinno wrote: »

What would the case/argument be? Preferably with reference to previous instances where similar outcomes occurred.

If your company has a contract with a UK company or you work as a civil servant, on foot of a united Ireland, some financial understanding would be likely. I've no case to point to, this wouldn't be an every day event. Do you disagree?
As regards debt accrued by the partially occupied province while under British rule, it would certainly be up for discussion, no? I would think so.

Carlos Orange

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As regards debt accrued by the partially occupied province while under British rule, it would certainly be up for discussion, no? I would think so.

I think Ireland took on some UK debt under the Anglo Irish treaty when it separated. If Northern Ireland separated from the United Kingdom I don't see why it would be any different. Why would it be any different except for wishful thinking?