The SDLP

[LCohen]

It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!

Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.

Yes, the constitutional issue is of huge importance to the majority.  I'm a nationalist and believe in a united Ireland but I won't vote for a party purely on the constitutional issue if I believe they are incompetent and incapable of governing due to poor judgement and decision making, work ethic or incapable of building decent working relations with the other side for the betterment of all here. I believe neither SF or the DUP tick any of those boxes.  I wish they did, but time and time again they've shown themselves to have fallen way short of what's needed.

If you don't vote for a party because you don't think it is sufficiently competent, makes poor decisions, has a poor work ethic or can't work well with "the other side", then thats well and good (out of interest, who do you vote for then?) but my issue wasn't with that viewpoint. It was with your suggestion that it is "a very sad state of affairs" that the majority here vote along orange and green lines. As I say, there's nothing wrong with people voting for whatever party best represents their views on what is unquestionably the single biggest political question of our time.

As a matter of interest how much worse would the life of you and the people around you have to be to make a United Ireland not worth it?

[LCohen]

And you will be first to admit that I haven't condoned any violence from any quarter in any time period.

You will also note that I am not a supporter of any of the parties mentioned (FG, FF, SF or SDLP).

You entered this thread to defend FF/FG blindly and have proceeded to make a litany of unsubstantiated claims.

Your "I'm not a stoop" act is about as credible as any of your arguments

I did not blindly defend anybody. You know that. Anybody who read the posts knows that.

I am not an SDLP supporter. Apart from throwing them a vote well down the card I have voted for them twice in my life. Once early on and once tactically. The latter was quite recent I will admit. But they are not my party of choice. So stop your silly little games

I'm not playing games and the only one being silly is you.

You came on here with willful ignorance to defend FF/FG. You then proceeded to drag in SF out on nowhere when doing so, went on to make a number of allegations and claims with absolutely no substance towards them.

And you top it all off with the "I'm not a Stoop" line.  Belter.

Wilful ignorance? What is it I have said about FG/FF that isn't true?

SF are not being dragged out of nowhere. My point is that they should not be excluded from critique. If you are going to assess FG, FF and SDLP then it's only fair to assess SF (and everybody else). I am sure you will be the first to agree that is only fair?

I have explain the SDLP position time and time again. Not sure why it is important to you but that is a matter for yourself

As I said wilful ignorance.

1) You entered this debate to defend FF/FG on their attitude to northern nationalists and how they consistently play political football with victims of the troubles for the sole purpose of political capital. So that was your opening into this thread, so you now seemed to have gained amnesia.

2) When the focus was on FF/FG and their attitude to northern nationalists, you responded by dragging in SF and going off on a tangent about them. Bizarre behaviour.

3) There's no need to deny you're a stoop, it just further undermines anything you say. It's clear as day you are. You seem to be saying one thing and then doing another.

Well I am going to keep denying I'm a SDLP voter because it's the truth. If you cared to point to any evidence that I am not telling the truth then do so and I will debunk it.

And I will keep coming back to you that I am doing what is fair. I am judging all political parties. Nobody is getting off. Some want to have a debate where SF can't be touched. Sure that makes no sense, especially with so many contributors who can eruditely set out SF's positions.

[Angelo]

Well I am going to keep denying I'm a SDLP voter because it's the truth. If you cared to point to any evidence that I am not telling the truth then do so and I will debunk it.

And I will keep coming back to you that I am doing what is fair. I am judging all political parties. Nobody is getting off. Some want to have a debate where SF can't be touched. Sure that makes no sense, especially with so many contributors who can eruditely set out SF's positions.

It simply lacks credibility though.

I have laid it for you multiples times before. You came onto the SDLP thread to blindly defend FF/FG and in your next post you drag SF in out of nowhere to go off a ranty tangent. You say do one thing an do the other.

The "I'm not a stoop" act does not wash.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

Well I am going to keep denying I'm a SDLP voter because it's the truth. If you cared to point to any evidence that I am not telling the truth then do so and I will debunk it.

And I will keep coming back to you that I am doing what is fair. I am judging all political parties. Nobody is getting off. Some want to have a debate where SF can't be touched. Sure that makes no sense, especially with so many contributors who can eruditely set out SF's positions.

It simply lacks credibility though.

I have laid it for you multiples times before. You came onto the SDLP thread to blindly defend FF/FG and in your next post you drag SF in out of nowhere to go off a ranty tangent. You say do one thing an do the other.

The "I'm not a stoop" act does not wash.

Why did you come into the thread

[Boycey]

Guessed when I came in here for a nosey that Angelo would figure prominently in whatever was going on...

A one man thread ruining wrecking ball.

[LCohen]

Guessed when I came in here for a nosey that Angelo would figure prominently in whatever was going on...

A one man thread ruining wrecking ball.

I think he sets out the SF objection to scrutiny quite well. I think he operates in the top echelons of the party

[LCohen]

Well I am going to keep denying I'm a SDLP voter because it's the truth. If you cared to point to any evidence that I am not telling the truth then do so and I will debunk it.

And I will keep coming back to you that I am doing what is fair. I am judging all political parties. Nobody is getting off. Some want to have a debate where SF can't be touched. Sure that makes no sense, especially with so many contributors who can eruditely set out SF's positions.

It simply lacks credibility though.

I have laid it for you multiples times before. You came onto the SDLP thread to blindly defend FF/FG and in your next post you drag SF in out of nowhere to go off a ranty tangent. You say do one thing an do the other.

The "I'm not a stoop" act does not wash.

Explain how it lacks credibility. List the positive things I have said about SDLP.

I will give you a head start:
Like me they reject violence
I voted for them twice
From a tactical perspective I might vote for them again but have no current plans to do so

What can you add to that?

Anyway, on this as in other threads you don't explain anything and when challenged to do so you say you have done so previously. You seem unaware that a cursory glance at your previous posts will prove that you have not in fact provided the earlier explanations. I am the last to denigrate that tactic, after all it's not that long ago someone got elected Leader of The Free Wall with exactly that attitude to honesty, fact, science, logic and integrity. Frauds get found out though.

[Snapchap]

It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!

Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.

Yes, the constitutional issue is of huge importance to the majority.  I'm a nationalist and believe in a united Ireland but I won't vote for a party purely on the constitutional issue if I believe they are incompetent and incapable of governing due to poor judgement and decision making, work ethic or incapable of building decent working relations with the other side for the betterment of all here. I believe neither SF or the DUP tick any of those boxes.  I wish they did, but time and time again they've shown themselves to have fallen way short of what's needed.

If you don't vote for a party because you don't think it is sufficiently competent, makes poor decisions, has a poor work ethic or can't work well with "the other side", then thats well and good (out of interest, who do you vote for then?) but my issue wasn't with that viewpoint. It was with your suggestion that it is "a very sad state of affairs" that the majority here vote along orange and green lines. As I say, there's nothing wrong with people voting for whatever party best represents their views on what is unquestionably the single biggest political question of our time.

As a matter of interest how much worse would the life of you and the people around you have to be to make a United Ireland not worth it?

That's the way you look at it. I'd sooner ask how worse do things have to get before you will start to realise partition isn't worth it, or more to the point, before you realise that a normally functioning six county state is just the stuff of fantasy? This state was artificially sculpted in order to create a supremacist majority, so it will never be a properly functioning entity. You ask how much worse it has to get - the implication being that voting orange/green keeps making things worse and that we if we all just stopped doing so, sure we'd be laughing and the north could flourish. That's just an airy fairy denial of the reality. This place is always going to be divided between people with two contrasting political aspirations. No matter how hard you wish, they aren't going to put those political aspirations aside when they are asked to use their greatest political power - casting a vote in an election. The way I see it, the only way to make it better, is reunification. I make no apologies for voting accordingly. The alternative is a road to no town. A continuation of the disfunction we have now. Unionists might feel that we are better off being in the UK and that there is a better future in that. More power to them. They should vote accordingly too. I'd have far more respect for a person or party that takes a position on the biggest political decision coming down the tracks -one which has the potential to have the biggest economic and societal impact on us and future generations - than for those people or parties who wither take a tokenistic approach to the problem, pretend it doesn't exist, or (pretend to) sit on the fence.

[Armamike]

How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen.  I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people.  I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.  I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda.  The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever).  There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen.  I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people.  I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.  I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda.  The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever).  There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.

There will be no UNITED Ireland anytime soon. What I mean is even if we see it physically we will not have a happy or peaceful society. Unionists are not ready for it, SF are the wrong party to convince them. We need a different party to bridge the gap. I don't know how we get around that

[JohnDenver]

How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen.  I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people.  I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.  I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda.  The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever).  There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.

I would say a fair portion of unionists would be more loyal to the crown in their pocket, if the incentive was there.

[Snapchap]

How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen.  I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people.  I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.

I'd propose it be sold to unionists by political persuasion. To my mind, it's a no brainer: a small island, with duplicated services, part in the EU and part out of it (with a border that hinders business between north and south and a border down the sea to hinder business between east and west?) With the north totally subject to and at the mercy of the electoral whims of the worst vestiges of English nationalism, with unionists having allegiance to a landmass across the sea who's people have made it clear have no heed on the north whatsoever and want nothing to do with it? How does any of that serve us? Wouldn't unionism be better served being a big fish in the Dáíl than be a minnow in Westminster for the rest of their days? The only freak result where they held a supposed balance of power in westminster and their electoral reps were still lied to then flung under a bus at the earliest opportunity?
The thing is, I too want reunification sold to the people and as it stands, we have two parties which at least say they want reunification. So it's up to them to articulate the benefits. As far as I can see, only one of them at least tries. The greatest way to persuade unionism will be by convincing them of the economic benefits. SF are actually TODAY publishing a document outlining those economic benefits of reunification. When have the SDLP been pro-active enough to do so? Literally never, as far as I can see. So as I say, I'll continue to vote the party that I feel does most to advance my preferred outcome on the single biggest political issue of our time. That's not to say SF get a ringing endorsement. There are many things they could do better but at least they are not tokensitic in their advocating or ashamed to talk about it.

I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever).  There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.

You mightn't want SF to take the lead, but in reality, if it's left to civic nationalism to do the persuasion, and political nationalism is seen to disengage from the core political aspiration of Irish nationalism, then it's just a non runner. It has to be an all in effort from the civic and the political. Speaking out in favour of reunification needs to be mainstreamed among across all shades of nationalism. If the SDLP are seen as more palatable to unionism, then maybe people like you ought to lobby that party to get off their ass and take a bit of initiative, and let unionism hear the arguments come from them for once. As it stands, they are leaving it to SF to do the work. If you want a United Ireland, then maybe stop taking such issue with the nationalist party that's working for it, and start taking issue with the one that isn't. FFS public support for a United Ireland is at it's highest point since partition, and Brexit has the potential to grow that support significantly, and what are the SDLP doing to take advantage of this opportunity to advocate their stated aspiration for Irish unity? Nothing. Same as always. And you are 100% right in saying there has to be unionist buy in. SF have held umpten confrences on the subject and these seem to always include unionist panelists/speakers. When did the SDLP last try to produce a document or an event, aimed purely at enhancing the unity project and invite anyone whatsoever?

[LCohen]

It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!

Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.

Yes, the constitutional issue is of huge importance to the majority.  I'm a nationalist and believe in a united Ireland but I won't vote for a party purely on the constitutional issue if I believe they are incompetent and incapable of governing due to poor judgement and decision making, work ethic or incapable of building decent working relations with the other side for the betterment of all here. I believe neither SF or the DUP tick any of those boxes.  I wish they did, but time and time again they've shown themselves to have fallen way short of what's needed.

If you don't vote for a party because you don't think it is sufficiently competent, makes poor decisions, has a poor work ethic or can't work well with "the other side", then thats well and good (out of interest, who do you vote for then?) but my issue wasn't with that viewpoint. It was with your suggestion that it is "a very sad state of affairs" that the majority here vote along orange and green lines. As I say, there's nothing wrong with people voting for whatever party best represents their views on what is unquestionably the single biggest political question of our time.

As a matter of interest how much worse would the life of you and the people around you have to be to make a United Ireland not worth it?

That's the way you look at it. I'd sooner ask how worse do things have to get before you will start to realise partition isn't worth it, or more to the point, before you realise that a normally functioning six county state is just the stuff of fantasy? This state was artificially sculpted in order to create a supremacist majority, so it will never be a properly functioning entity. You ask how much worse it has to get - the implication being that voting orange/green keeps making things worse and that we if we all just stopped doing so, sure we'd be laughing and the north could flourish. That's just an airy fairy denial of the reality. This place is always going to be divided between people with two contrasting political aspirations. No matter how hard you wish, they aren't going to put those political aspirations aside when they are asked to use their greatest political power - casting a vote in an election. The way I see it, the only way to make it better, is reunification. I make no apologies for voting accordingly. The alternative is a road to no town. A continuation of the disfunction we have now. Unionists might feel that we are better off being in the UK and that there is a better future in that. More power to them. They should vote accordingly too. I'd have far more respect for a person or party that takes a position on the biggest political decision coming down the tracks -one which has the potential to have the biggest economic and societal impact on us and future generations - than for those people or parties who wither take a tokenistic approach to the problem, pretend it doesn't exist, or (pretend to) sit on the fence.

I have thrown you off on the wrong tangent. My fault as phrased the question badly.

I am taking your premise that people wi be better off long term in a UI and therefore delivering that is people's best interest. That seems to be the logic you are putting forward for voting for say a SF councillor.

My point is that councillor will not be able to use their tenure to achieve or meaningfully advance that UI. Meanwhile they will be able to impact on the everyday lives of people. If they are incompetent they can negatively impact people's everyday life. So how much incompetence would you tolerate?

SF and SF candidates are far from the only incompetent actors in NI politics

[LCohen]

How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen.  I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people.  I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.

I'd propose it be sold to unionists by political persuasion. To my mind, it's a no brainer: a small island, with duplicated services, part in the EU and part out of it (with a border that hinders business between north and south and a border down the sea to hinder business between east and west?) With the north totally subject to and at the mercy of the electoral whims of the worst vestiges of English nationalism, with unionists having allegiance to a landmass across the sea who's people have made it clear have no heed on the north whatsoever and want nothing to do with it? How does any of that serve us? Wouldn't unionism be better served being a big fish in the Dáíl than be a minnow in Westminster for the rest of their days? The only freak result where they held a supposed balance of power in westminster and their electoral reps were still lied to then flung under a bus at the earliest opportunity?
The thing is, I too want reunification sold to the people and as it stands, we have two parties which at least say they want reunification. So it's up to them to articulate the benefits. As far as I can see, only one of them at least tries. The greatest way to persuade unionism will be by convincing them of the economic benefits. SF are actually TODAY publishing a document outlining those economic benefits of reunification. When have the SDLP been pro-active enough to do so? Literally never, as far as I can see. So as I say, I'll continue to vote the party that I feel does most to advance my preferred outcome on the single biggest political issue of our time. That's not to say SF get a ringing endorsement. There are many things they could do better but at least they are not tokensitic in their advocating or ashamed to talk about it.

I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever).  There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.

You mightn't want SF to take the lead, but in reality, if it's left to civic nationalism to do the persuasion, and political nationalism is seen to disengage from the core political aspiration of Irish nationalism, then it's just a non runner. It has to be an all in effort from the civic and the political. Speaking out in favour of reunification needs to be mainstreamed among across all shades of nationalism. If the SDLP are seen as more palatable to unionism, then maybe people like you ought to lobby that party to get off their ass and take a bit of initiative, and let unionism hear the arguments come from them for once. As it stands, they are leaving it to SF to do the work. If you want a United Ireland, then maybe stop taking such issue with the nationalist party that's working for it, and start taking issue with the one that isn't. FFS public support for a United Ireland is at it's highest point since partition, and Brexit has the potential to grow that support significantly, and what are the SDLP doing to take advantage of this opportunity to advocate their stated aspiration for Irish unity? Nothing. Same as always. And you are 100% right in saying there has to be unionist buy in. SF have held umpten confrences on the subject and these seem to always include unionist panelists/speakers. When did the SDLP last try to produce a document or an event, aimed purely at enhancing the unity project and invite anyone whatsoever?

Has the document being published yet?

Please tell me the lies of the past are not repeated? If the document claims that "non-identifiable public expenditures" can just be ignored and that NI pensions will be funded from London in a UI scenario then you dismiss the whole thing as a fraud.

It's not just a matter of printing a document. Paper doesn't refuse ink. The contents have to accurate. Every previous effort by SF has dealt in lies

[Franko]

How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen.  I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people.  I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.

I'd propose it be sold to unionists by political persuasion. To my mind, it's a no brainer: a small island, with duplicated services, part in the EU and part out of it (with a border that hinders business between north and south and a border down the sea to hinder business between east and west?) With the north totally subject to and at the mercy of the electoral whims of the worst vestiges of English nationalism, with unionists having allegiance to a landmass across the sea who's people have made it clear have no heed on the north whatsoever and want nothing to do with it? How does any of that serve us? Wouldn't unionism be better served being a big fish in the Dáíl than be a minnow in Westminster for the rest of their days? The only freak result where they held a supposed balance of power in westminster and their electoral reps were still lied to then flung under a bus at the earliest opportunity?
The thing is, I too want reunification sold to the people and as it stands, we have two parties which at least say they want reunification. So it's up to them to articulate the benefits. As far as I can see, only one of them at least tries. The greatest way to persuade unionism will be by convincing them of the economic benefits. SF are actually TODAY publishing a document outlining those economic benefits of reunification. When have the SDLP been pro-active enough to do so? Literally never, as far as I can see. So as I say, I'll continue to vote the party that I feel does most to advance my preferred outcome on the single biggest political issue of our time. That's not to say SF get a ringing endorsement. There are many things they could do better but at least they are not tokensitic in their advocating or ashamed to talk about it.

I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever).  There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.

You mightn't want SF to take the lead, but in reality, if it's left to civic nationalism to do the persuasion, and political nationalism is seen to disengage from the core political aspiration of Irish nationalism, then it's just a non runner. It has to be an all in effort from the civic and the political. Speaking out in favour of reunification needs to be mainstreamed among across all shades of nationalism. If the SDLP are seen as more palatable to unionism, then maybe people like you ought to lobby that party to get off their ass and take a bit of initiative, and let unionism hear the arguments come from them for once. As it stands, they are leaving it to SF to do the work. If you want a United Ireland, then maybe stop taking such issue with the nationalist party that's working for it, and start taking issue with the one that isn't. FFS public support for a United Ireland is at it's highest point since partition, and Brexit has the potential to grow that support significantly, and what are the SDLP doing to take advantage of this opportunity to advocate their stated aspiration for Irish unity? Nothing. Same as always. And you are 100% right in saying there has to be unionist buy in. SF have held umpten confrences on the subject and these seem to always include unionist panelists/speakers. When did the SDLP last try to produce a document or an event, aimed purely at enhancing the unity project and invite anyone whatsoever?

Has the document being published yet?

Please tell me the lies of the past are not repeated? If the document claims that "non-identifiable public expenditures" can just be ignored and that NI pensions will be funded from London in a UI scenario then you dismiss the whole thing as a fraud.

It's not just a matter of printing a document. Paper doesn't refuse ink. The contents have to accurate. Every previous effort by SF has dealt in lies

Know nothing of this document and have no interest in getting bogged down in this whole debate but this one is interesting.

Given that people will have paid their way into the British Exchequer for their whole working lives up until the point of separation, how can it be argued that the British Government would not bear liability for this?