Black mountain

GlynD

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

That's not true- we contributed an imperial levy up to 1928!

Did we, with nothing back in the way of subvention?

This is something I knew nothing about and I'd be really pleased if you could explain the circumstances around it.

emmett123

GlynD wrote: »

Did we, with nothing back in the way of subvention?

This is something I knew nothing about and I'd be really pleased if you could explain the circumstances around it.

as far as i can recall (without resorting to a text) the NI state still lived off money coming Westminster, but paid some Imperial levy back to satisfy their deluded sense self importance. Of course back before WW2, they had a much healthier industrial base

emmett123

GlynD wrote: »

deluded sense self importance.

Rather an odd statement old chap. Could you maybe word that for me in English instead of Sinn Feinish? :rotfl:

Was there any such levy on Ireland pre 1920? Or was there a subvention for Ireland? I know both received huge amounts of dosh post partition for various things but I don't think this is the place to go into them. In fact I have a funny feeling we've gone too far with this conversation already and the thread will be closed.

Was the "Boycott" anything to do with deluded sense of self importance?

paying into an Empire, when they needed to be subsidized by the Westminster government? a sop to their sense of loyality.

Before partition and independence the money to run the country came from Westminster raised as general taxation. Northern Ireland benefited from being still part of the UK which made sure that health and education at least were on a par with the rest of the UK
The story in the 26 counties was different, in that the new Free State did not get money from London and indeed in the 1930s conducted an economic war with London after DeValera's government refused to pay Land Annuities owed from the Land Reforms of the 1880&90s.
So the south always looked the poor relation in comparison to the North, but then again Harold Wilson summed what he saw as the economic basis of NI. :rotfl::rotfl:

qwert_yuiop

NI has always been a strangely financed entity. All income tax, purchase tax, etc., has always been paid direct to westminster. The only ways the old ni government could raise money were through a levy on rates and very minor sources such as entrance fees for historic monuments like dunluce castle, and even dog licences. Back then of course, farmers were paying poor law valuation, only ending in the sixties, which de valera refused to allow to be transferred to westminster, thus sparking the economic war, and collapse of the economy there.

Pretty meagre. Interestingly, the stormont members were unpaid to begin with.
You have to remember public spending apart from defence was minute in those days, but as today, came largely from london. It's difficult to say what the overall subsidy was, and still is. Look at the difficulty deciding what scotland was "worth" to the rest of us, even now.

qwert_yuiop

emmett123 wrote: »

paying into an Empire, when they needed to be subsidized by the Westminster government? a sop to their sense of loyality.

Before partition and independence the money to run the country came from Westminster raised as general taxation. Northern Ireland benefited from being still part of the UK which made sure that health and education at least were on a par with the rest of the UK
The story in the 26 counties was different, in that the new Free State did not get money from London and indeed in the 1930s conducted an economic war with London after DeValera's government refused to pay Land Annuities owed from the Land Reforms of the 1880&90s.
So the south always looked the poor relation in comparison to the North, but then again Harold Wilson summed what he saw as the economic basis of NI. :rotfl::rotfl:

Yes, but the odd thing was, it turned out Britain was actually paying more into the 26 counties prior to independence than it was extracting. If you read the writings from the era, people thought the new state would get richer without the supposed yoke of england on it. It got poorer.

I've long believed that NI could benefit from a cessation of UK subsidy in the long run. Firstly, we'd soon find out who really wants to live here. Then we'd start afresh, like the eastern european countries after 1989 - crunch then recovery.

Who says anyone owes us a living? Truth is, they don't. Shouldn't we get on with it? We may have to soon enough.

qwert_yuiop

If we could start again, perhaps we should go for Devo Max?

lazer

NI22 wrote: »

I thought you were one of us, why are you sticking up for the Prods?

I am not one of anything, I am a Catholic and I support a united iremand, however that is only a small part of who I am, I am an individual.

I am not against "Prods", I will not take someone's side just because they are a Catholic.

qwert_yuiop

lazer wrote: »

I am not one of anything, I am a Catholic and I support a united iremand, however that is only a small part of who I am, I am an individual.

I am not against "Prods", I will not take someone's side just because they are a Catholic.

"I'm not going to spend my life being a colour" Michael jackson, Black or White

Cotta

Why is it called "Black" mountain, is there a significane to the colour "black"?

NI22

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

"I'm not going to spend my life being a colour" Michael jackson, Black or White

In answer to your question as to what a minor hetrosexual relationship would entail it would simply be the coming together of two people to produce kids to be brought up as Catholic. This can be done within a main relationship with the homosexual relationship in private or vice versa. Of course it shouldn't be with anyone under 18 - Catholic principles are clear on this.