The SDLP

Started by ardmhachaabu, April 23, 2010, 09:32:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

LCohen

Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 04:17:54 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 10:28:14 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 09:06:30 AM
Read that SF "economic" document.

I was accused of second guessing it's content. Wouldn't have been difficult. He a re-presentation of a greatest hits of earlier documents. An environmental twist thrown in.

I was correct about the pensions. This runs to the heart of the fraud in this document. It's is based upon selective quoting from earlier research. It's is concluded that Scottish citizens keep their accrued UK pension rights and Edinburgh foot the bill. The first bit of that suits the SF narrative but the second doesn't. So the first but finds it's way into the document but the second doesn't.

But there are other issues. No doubt the reduced economic activity in border areas but can we jump to the conclusion that that is because of the border. Were these areas poorer that other areas before the border? Are there historic issues in many of these areas due to land quality, distance from major/historic conurbations, road and infrastructure?

They reference benefits of local decision making. Doesn't specify how these play out but surely this is about the form of devolution rather than where power is devolved from?

Where is the analysis of how much of NI's historic economic woes are related to The Troubles and the inhibition it places on investment?

The troubles and impact on investment

The references to Hubner and Fitzgerald are again selective.

There are references to the impact of the various forms of Brexit on East-west trade between GB and NI but where is the analysis of the east-west trade between RoI and GB?

On the green agenda it's is completely unclear what the advantage of UI is on delivering a green agenda. What element of the competition for private sector investment is hampered by the border? There already is a single electricity market and NI gets additional financial support to that sector that are not included in the subvention stats.

It's not an honest document

You're not an honest poster.

Are you still persisting with your "I'm not a stoop" facade?

I have shown you the lie on pensions. What are your thoughts? Do you think it was good of SF to spin that lie or bad to spin that lie?

I'm afraid you've done no such thing. The one lie you have showed us is your "I'm not a stoop" facade.

So when SF left out the bit about Scotland footing the pensions bill how was that not a lie?

Rossfan

I don't mind who you vote for but in Angeloworld being a "Stoop" is up there with "Freestater" "West Brit" "Quisling" as a term of abuse.

PS you probably vote Alliance and might even be on of "them" :o
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

Fear Bun Na Sceilpe

Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 05:38:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 21, 2020, 05:15:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 04:17:54 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 10:28:14 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 09:06:30 AM
Read that SF "economic" document.

I was accused of second guessing it's content. Wouldn't have been difficult. He a re-presentation of a greatest hits of earlier documents. An environmental twist thrown in.

I was correct about the pensions. This runs to the heart of the fraud in this document. It's is based upon selective quoting from earlier research. It's is concluded that Scottish citizens keep their accrued UK pension rights and Edinburgh foot the bill. The first bit of that suits the SF narrative but the second doesn't. So the first but finds it's way into the document but the second doesn't.

But there are other issues. No doubt the reduced economic activity in border areas but can we jump to the conclusion that that is because of the border. Were these areas poorer that other areas before the border? Are there historic issues in many of these areas due to land quality, distance from major/historic conurbations, road and infrastructure?

They reference benefits of local decision making. Doesn't specify how these play out but surely this is about the form of devolution rather than where power is devolved from?

Where is the analysis of how much of NI's historic economic woes are related to The Troubles and the inhibition it places on investment?

The troubles and impact on investment

The references to Hubner and Fitzgerald are again selective.

There are references to the impact of the various forms of Brexit on East-west trade between GB and NI but where is the analysis of the east-west trade between RoI and GB?

On the green agenda it's is completely unclear what the advantage of UI is on delivering a green agenda. What element of the competition for private sector investment is hampered by the border? There already is a single electricity market and NI gets additional financial support to that sector that are not included in the subvention stats.

It's not an honest document

You're not an honest poster.

Are you still persisting with your "I'm not a stoop" facade?

I have shown you the lie on pensions. What are your thoughts? Do you think it was good of SF to spin that lie or bad to spin that lie?

I'm afraid you've done no such thing. The one lie you have showed us is your "I'm not a stoop" facade.

Out of interest. Where you from. What age are you

Not really any of your business is it?

Naw but the stoop thingy is embarrassing for you. You must be a 17 year old stuck in the 1970s

LCohen

Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2020, 05:51:32 PM
I don't mind who you vote for but in Angeloworld being a "Stoop" is up there with "Freestater" "West Brit" "Quisling" as a term of abuse.

PS you probably vote Alliance and might even be on of "them" :o

I thought the Alliance thing was fairly obvious to all apart from the hard of thinking. Poor old Angelo. He is hard to define. Plain thick? Misfiring comedian? Troll trying to generate site traffic? Who knows

Armamike

Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2020, 05:51:32 PM
I don't mind who you vote for but in Angeloworld being a "Stoop" is up there with "Freestater" "West Brit" "Quisling" as a term of abuse.

PS you probably vote Alliance and might even be on of "them" :o

When the name calling starts it usually means the argument's lost!
That's just, like your opinion man.

Angelo

Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2020, 05:51:32 PM
I don't mind who you vote for but in Angeloworld being a "Stoop" is up there with "Freestater" "West Brit" "Quisling" as a term of abuse.

PS you probably vote Alliance and might even be on of "them" :o

And you tick the box beside three of those.

It's not a term of abuse, it just encapsulates your complete and utter cowardice.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

LCohen

Quote from: Angelo on November 22, 2020, 11:49:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2020, 05:51:32 PM
I don't mind who you vote for but in Angeloworld being a "Stoop" is up there with "Freestater" "West Brit" "Quisling" as a term of abuse.

PS you probably vote Alliance and might even be on of "them" :o

And you tick the box beside three of those.

It's not a term of abuse, it just encapsulates your complete and utter cowardice.

When are you going to overcome your own cowardice and answer the questions putto you across a number of threads?

(PS good work on maintaining the official SF/DUP position on scrutiny)

Franko

Quote from: LCohen on November 20, 2020, 05:57:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2020, 04:06:47 PM
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?

You are assessing one side of the issue. And assessing it correctly

The beneficiary of the pensions have accrued their rights and that will to be met.

The question is who has the responsibility to meet it.

To state the obvious NI is currently a constituent part of the UK of GB & NI. In a UI scenario it would cease to be. In leaving it would take the ongoing position with it. The UK of GB & NI would cease to be and would cease to be responsible for NI. There would have to be a divorce settlement to establish where the lines would be drawn but there are precedents. When ROI was set up it took on these liabilities in RoI. As UK leaves the EU it takes the pensions liability with it. In the Scottish independence referendum it was established that Scots would retain their UK pension rights but at the expense of the would-be Scottish exchequer.

Not sure about this.  Lets deal with your precendents.

1. There were no decisions on who would fund the Scottish pensions post-referendum.  Liability for this was still to be decided during a 'divorce settlement'

2. ROI did indeed inherit the war pensions liability in 1921, through an acceptance of a portion of British Gov't war debt.  This debt was assumed to be 'unpayable' and was written off but the British in 1925, in part to recompense the Irish for the failures of the boundary commission and the failures of the NI state to offer equal status to Catholics.  (In essence, the British bought the right from the post-partition govt of the free state to behave whatever way they wanted towards NI Catholics)

3. The pensions liability in GB's withdrawal from the EU is miniscule in comparison the scale of the deal, so much so that it is almost moot.

Your precedents are shaky at best.  And you are using this to dismiss the entire argument as 'fraud'.  Your response to this definitely asks more questions than it answers with regards to how 'honest' an actor you are here. 

LCohen

Quote from: Franko on November 23, 2020, 07:55:45 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 20, 2020, 05:57:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2020, 04:06:47 PM
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?

You are assessing one side of the issue. And assessing it correctly

The beneficiary of the pensions have accrued their rights and that will to be met.

The question is who has the responsibility to meet it.

To state the obvious NI is currently a constituent part of the UK of GB & NI. In a UI scenario it would cease to be. In leaving it would take the ongoing position with it. The UK of GB & NI would cease to be and would cease to be responsible for NI. There would have to be a divorce settlement to establish where the lines would be drawn but there are precedents. When ROI was set up it took on these liabilities in RoI. As UK leaves the EU it takes the pensions liability with it. In the Scottish independence referendum it was established that Scots would retain their UK pension rights but at the expense of the would-be Scottish exchequer.

Not sure about this.  Lets deal with your precendents.

1. There were no decisions on who would fund the Scottish pensions post-referendum.  Liability for this was still to be decided during a 'divorce settlement'

2. ROI did indeed inherit the war pensions liability in 1921, through an acceptance of a portion of British Gov't war debt.  This debt was assumed to be 'unpayable' and was written off but the British in 1925, in part to recompense the Irish for the failures of the boundary commission and the failures of the NI state to offer equal status to Catholics.  (In essence, the British bought the right from the post-partition govt of the free state to behave whatever way they wanted towards NI Catholics)

3. The pensions liability in GB's withdrawal from the EU is miniscule in comparison the scale of the deal, so much so that it is almost moot.

Your precedents are shaky at best.  And you are using this to dismiss the entire argument as 'fraud'.  Your response to this definitely asks more questions than it answers with regards to how 'honest' an actor you are here.

I am going to ignore the "dishonest actor" bit other than to say I am very happy to retract anything that is proven to incorrect or indeed no longer correct.

I think they key example is Scotland but to deal with the other 2 first.
Ireland 1922 - its still a pensions precedent. Admittedly pensions were significantly less comprehensive then. My point is that even when it is acknowledged that the new Ireland could not afford the pensions the liability still fell to Ireland. The unaffordability resulted in a later, much  wider write off.
Brexit- it's smaller as it only relates to civil servants but it's still a whopping €11.6bn.

Scotland is more relevant as it represents a country leaving UK and the UK regulatory framework and it applies to a broad base of civil servants and the general accrual of state pension rights. In Scotland the SNP agreed that they would take on the liability. They issued a paper, launched it, did a press conference and took questions. Absolutely clear that they would take the liability. They only thing they said was that pensions were slightly different in Scotland and some people would have to map across to the Scottish system. But that Scotland would make and fund the payments. I remember in the press conference Sturgeon taking a question on the affordability and her pointing that it would be more affordable in Scotland than the UK model assumptions because people don't live as long as Scotland. Which happens to be true and did answer the question but it was probably the first time I saw a politician make a virtue out of shorter life expectancy. That's why it stuck with me.

Angelo

GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

Applesisapples

Every time SF piss me off and I hear Nicola Mallon, I think might switch back to the SDLP. Then Eastwood or Dolores Kelly come on the air waves. They have nothing to say regarding policy other than but SF. Kelly asked on GMU about the Chief Constable...this is about SF. GMU though allowed Storey and Kelly unchallenged to do a party political broadcast, not for the first time. Can they not ask difficult questions?

imtommygunn

IMO if the SDLP want to go anywhere they need a new leader. I just don't think Eastwood is up to it.

Angelo

The problem for the SDLP is they never had anything beyond John Hume and after he left politics they have offered nothing. Mallon was a really regressive politician himself and was an obstacle to the peace process.

I would not consider the SDLP a nationalist party - it's about time they merged with Alliance.

Alliance are actually a much less anti-republican party than the SDLP are whose default voice just seems to be shouting about whatever it is SF have done now.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

general_lee

The SDLP don't stand for anything these days - just anti-SF rhetoric (perfectly exemplified as it happens by the resident stoop(s) on here). That in itself is fair enough if you've no serious ambition as a party but if you actually want to attract voters then it's time for a slight change in direction.

screenexile

Quote from: general_lee on April 01, 2021, 11:29:59 AM
The SDLP don't stand for anything these days - just anti-SF rhetoric (perfectly exemplified as it happens by the resident stoop(s) on here). That in itself is fair enough if you've no serious ambition as a party but if you actually want to attract voters then it's time for a slight change in direction.

I think you're forgetting that Eastwood is stopping Brexit as well!