Yesterday this blog pointed out that, in terms of personal wealth, unionist voters in Northern Ireland are, apparently, voting for relative poverty. By voting to remain in the United Kingdom they are voting to be part of a low wage region rather than a high wage region – average wages in the south are considerably higher than in the north.
An often-heard unionist counter-argument is that, while private wealth in the north may fall below that in the south, public wealth is higher. "We", the unionists may argue, "have the wonderful NHS and excellent schools", (all paid for by the generosity of the harder-working English, of course). "And", continues the unionist argument, "the south couldn't afford to match these wonderful benefits of the Union".
But is it true?
A closer look at the actual figures shows that, while England, and particularly London and the South-East, is amazingly generous to its underperforming Irish colony, in the key areas that count, public expenditure – and thus public wealth – in the south is higher than in the north.
The 'big ticket' items of public expenditure, and those that impact most on the average person, are health, education and social protection (pensions, benefits, etc). On all three of these items the south spends more per capita than the north.
Spending in the north on health in 2008-2009 is planned to be £ 3,255 million (€3,906 million at an average exchange rate of £1 = €1.20), or around €2,300 per person. In the south, however, even after April's supplementary budget, spending on the Health Service Executive will be €14,554 million, or €3,639 per person – fully 158% of the northern figure! The weakness of Sterling in the last year, of course, merely increases the south's lead.
The same is true for education, where the south's per capita expenditure is 119% of the north's (increasing to 128% if today's exchange rate is applied). For Social Protection the rate is 109% (increasing to 117% if today's exchange rate is applied).
On some smaller items the north spends more per capita – significantly including policing, courts and prisons! Agriculture, where most expenditure is set by the EU, per capita expenditure is almost identical.
Of course, the expenditure figures, north and south, are going to shrink quite drastically as governments take action to minimise their budget deficits. Nobody is going to escape, and it is likely that the north will see cuts even more severe than in Britain, as the total public expenditure per capita in Northern Ireland is around 122% of the UK average, for no good reason.
So it seems that unionist voters are not only voting for lower salaries, but also for underfunded health, education and social protection.
That flag must be really tasty!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
"Of course, the expenditure figures, north and south, are going to shrink quite drastically as governments take action to minimise their budget deficits. Nobody is going to escape, and it is likely that the north will see cuts even more severe than in Britain, as the total public expenditure per capita in Northern Ireland is around 122% of the UK average, for no good reason."
That's not quite true dear boy. There is a good reason:
Money received relative to need (100 = perfect match)
London: 171
Northern Ireland: 99
http://www.channel4.com/news/article.jsp?id=1041867
In other words, when actual need in a region of The UK is taken into account it is London that is grossly subsidised, not Northern Ireland.
In any modern nation state, the goal of government is to insure that the needs of the various regions are met fairly - even The ROI attempts this I believe.
I would beinterested to know how they define "Money received relative to need"... There is no explanation of that ratio.
Either way, it's pretty moot imo. London and the South East is the engine that creates the money to subsidise the rest of the UK.
NI is a poverty stricken parasite that takes the largest spending per head in the UK, whilst being one of the lowest regions in the UK for GDP.
All the more reason why London will jump at the chance to withdraw when the Catholics become the majority.
Anonymous said:
" Either way, it's pretty moot imo. London and the South East is the engine that creates the money to subsidise the rest of the UK."
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. The South East draws skilled people from all over The UK and it's these people who create the wealth you talk of. Perhaps the same thing happens with Dublin and the impoverished regions of Ireland?
"NI is a poverty stricken parasite that takes the largest spending per head in the UK, whilst being one of the lowest regions in the UK for GDP."
Then it's hard to believe that The ROI would want such a place.
"All the more reason why London will jump at the chance to withdraw when the Catholics become the majority."
I can certainly see why 'London' would want to get rid of The Irish Republican scum that have plagued British Ulster since it's birth (indeed I feel that way myself), but why would someone's religion bother 'London'?
You could turn this on its head. If wages and standards of living are lower in the north then in Eire why should the latter want to absorb the former? Why should Dublin want to be the new "sugar daddy" for N.I.? Why let London off the hook?
"Why should Dublin want to be the new "sugar daddy" for N.I.? Why let London off the hook?"
Because the unification of the island has been government policy since the inception of the state.
Since the majority of the people of ROI have wanted unification even when the economy of the country was much much much worse than it is right now.
"Why should Dublin want to be the new "sugar daddy" for N.I.? Why let London off the hook?" because the north is a piece of dublin, who cares about money when you can be genuinely independent. WE ARE THEM THEY ARE US. has anyone considered why the north costs so much, its misrule, by the brits, not the so-called unionists, the brits, they have always said the bog irish can't govern themselves, yet 26 counties WIN independence and within 60, 70 years its blowing "GREAT" britains economy out of water (were it counts - per head) . you might look at your worthless opinion polls about people in the south,(and nationalist in north ireland) but you must realise that when a united ireland becomes more of a reality, these people will not be long in changing thier pretty little minds, the general wave of delight will sweep these people straight to the polls. The relentless march of history, as the HORSEMAN so eloquently puts it. THE GREEN POST OFFICES R IN THE POST
A united Ireland is a Holy Grail. You just cannot put a price on it.
(speaking as a southerner)
I hope you guys are right. Lets imagine some admittedly fantastic scenario. The people of Eire can have a referendum to absorb N.I. tomorrow. If they vote yes by a majority they get it. (Just go along with me here). The rub? Eire will suffer a 50% drop in wages and living standards for at least 50 years. Are the Irish willing to pay this price? (This is not intended as an antagonistic question). Has this question ever been asked in any polls? I welcome replies. Peace.
"Are the Irish willing to pay this price?"
Yes we are. Obviously you take your views from Thatcher, who made the same idle predictions about the unification of Germany.
Anonymous said:
""Why should Dublin want to be the new "sugar daddy" for N.I.? Why let London off the hook?"
Because the unification of the island has been government policy since the inception of the state."
That's hardly a rational reason. Seems more like theology than politics. In any case, The Republic has surrendered it's claims to British territory as part of The Belfast Agreement.
"Since the majority of the people of ROI have wanted unification even when the economy of the country was much much much worse than it is right now."
Again, there is no rational sense to this, only the outcome of years of brain washing in Irish society and specifically Irish schools. A brain washing that has allowed real problems in Ireland such as systematic child abuse to be covered up.
pagasp said:
""Why should Dublin want to be the new "sugar daddy" for N.I.? Why let London off the hook?" because the north is a piece of dublin, who cares about money when you can be genuinely independent. WE ARE THEM THEY ARE US."
'the north is a piece of dublin' - what on earth does that mean? And people do care about money - ask the fuel smugglers in South Armagh...
"has anyone considered why the north costs so much, its misrule, by the brits, not the so-called unionists, the brits, they have always said the bog irish can't govern themselves"
The North costs so much money, because it's society was systematically wrecked by years of Republican violence. The legacy of that violence remains. The 'brits' didn't say 'the bog irish' can't govern themselves, there was a devolved government in Northern Ireland for fully fifty years, a government the original Unionists had forced on them by 'the brits'.
The rub? Eire will suffer a 50% drop in wages and living standards for at least 50 years.
I think this is unecessarily pessimistic. But even if it were the case we would still go along with it - no generation wants to be damned forever as the one that rejected Irish unity.
In contrast to the Germany's you would be talking about the coalescing two broadly similar capitalist economies.
When replying to a post the other day Watcher, you agreed that:
"Unionists just don't want a united Ireland, regardless of whether they would be better off in it or not."
You can obsess about the figures as much as you want, but Irish Nationalists are the same as you in this respect. They know reuniting their country will cost them, they don't care.
It doesn't matter how much you hope Nationalists will want Britain to stay in NI because GB is a large country. Saying it over and over will never make it true.
Pedro said:
"The rub? Eire will suffer a 50% drop in wages and living standards for at least 50 years.
I think this is unecessarily pessimistic. But even if it were the case we would still go along with it - no generation wants to be damned forever as the one that rejected Irish unity."
'we would still go along with it' - you mean you would still go along with it.
"In contrast to the Germany's you would be talking about the coalescing two broadly similar capitalist economies."
Both East and West Germany contained Germans - uniting them is not the same as uniting two virulently opposed ethnic groups. Try uniting Croatia and Serbia - that would be a similar proposal to uniting 'Ireland'. In any case 'Germany' is not united - Berlin and Vienna are in two different states.
"Both East and West Germany contained Germans"
Both North and South contain Irish!! Ok, around half the population in the North don't but that's their choice.
I don't take my views from Thatcher, or anyone else. Some people thought my 50% estimate was way too high, but it was merely a hypothetical question. It is important to note that West Germans didn't realize or know the costs or consequences of re-union at the time. One wonders what they might have thought had they known then. Opinion polls show about 15% of Germans feel unification was a bad thing. It is worth noting that East Germany has no equivalent to the Unionist community either. So perhaps the situation would be worse in any post-unified Ireland. Don't forget the current generation of Irish are the first to know real prosperity too. I am neither Irish or British. Nor am I a Catholic or Protestant. This is one reason why I comment on this blog. I feel I have objectivity.
Post a Comment