Debate contribution: Tackling the Financial and Societal Impacts of Division

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .

MLA
Mr Robbie Butler
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
25 March 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Tackling the Financial and Societal Impacts of Division
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4866507

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for giving way. I do not disagree with him, but, when we talk about fiscal appropriation, it is really important to note that we have campaigned collectively to say that Northern Ireland has been funded under need. That has been pretty new terminology for most of us in the past three or four years; in 2016, we were not even talking about that. Could the figure for that not be offset against the overarching figure? Then, we need to talk about actual figures to which the motion pertains.

92 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.79).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.79Yes
Overall judgement0.05At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.94
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.05
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:08 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification