Motion or amendment: Strategic Framework for a Shared Future
Motion or amendment by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 22 February 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Strategic Framework for a Shared Future
- Assembly identifier
- Document 389883
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Strategic Framework for a Shared Future
That this Assembly recognises the ongoing need to build a genuinely shared future; expresses concern at the ongoing and severe costs, both social and financial, of continued social and economic segregation; notes the value of increasing numbers of people now enjoying educational, sporting and career opportunities free from the confines of traditional community divisions; further recognises the need to expand these opportunities to the entire community, including by ensuring that public money is spent on delivery of public services that are open to all rather than on maintaining or further embedding division; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward a strategic framework for a shared future delivering public sector reform to tackle the costs of division while building on good relations work already undertaken.
136 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.67).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.67 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.33 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.96 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:50 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.