Talk:Unionism in the United Kingdom

Change of name

I don't for one moment accept the reason given for the change from 'British unionism' to 'Unionism in the United Kingdom', but I do not see any great problem with the new name either and am happy to leave it where it is. Does anyone have any comments on it? --Breadandcheese (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I consider it an incorrect move. While the "child" articles are about "Unionism by location", this article is about the concept as a whole, which is known as "British Unionism" search Google Books or Google Scholar for hundreds of sources that use the term. O Fenian (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem in that the present article refers to the creation of the United Kingdom, but the equivalent category is about the various movements to keep the kingdom united. These are not quite tyhe same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Which begs the question: why does this article exist when only the first line deals with the subject of the article. I too think it be moved to Unionism in the United Kingdom. In absense of any substantial article I am also going to strip it down to a dab page and linked to Unionism in Ireland and Unionism in Scotland? --RA (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

RA - the current form of the page suggests that Unionism as a political ideology exists only in Ireland and Scotland. There are no Unionists in England or Wales? It seems to me that this topic is crying out for a more general article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Between 2009 (when the page was created) and 2012, the article had only one sentence describing unionism in the UK. The rest of the article (what there was of it) gave a potted history of the formation of the United Kingdom without referring at any point to unionism. That's not a sign of a topic that is "crying out for a more general article".

I would generally question whether "unionism" is relevant to England and Wales in the same way as it is to Scotland and, in particular, Ireland/Northern Ireland. Certainly, continued participation in the union enjoys near universal support in those areas but — possibly for that reason — "unionism", as an ideology, is not a position that is particularly relevent to the politics of England and Wales (separatism occasionally is, and opposition to it, but "unionism" is more than merely opposition to separatism). Unionism is a position that is pertinent to the politics, and history, of Ireland/Northern Ireland, in particular, and Scotland (especially more recently again).

However, if someone is willing to write a general article on the subject of Unionism in the United Kingdom (more that just single sentence, which is essentially preserved in this dab), I'd be supportive of their efforts. --RA (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I added this book to further reading [1] precisely for this reason; it takes a close look at "english" identity in the context of union, and discusses the question of english unionism (as compared to British unionism). But I don't think we'll need a separate article on that! :) --KarlB (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I added some additional refs and restored the history section. Once I get some additional books I will take a crack at expanding the history section, additional help needed. I also added a link to the dab page, which already existed (so we don't need a new one here) Also need some work on the top definition; I tried to differentiate between what unionism is today, and what it meant in the past (and how historians use it). --KarlB (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've re-written the first couple of sentences and added a ref. I think the previous version leaned a little on OR. I've also renamed the "History of Unionism" section. That section (still) doesn't describe unionism. The claim about historical context needs citation. --RA (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have a whole section on the terminology of unionism/unionist in the context of the isles. I've seen some sources differentiate between big-U Unionism and small-u unionism. Small-u unionism seems to be used rather broadly by historians to describe general movements towards union amongst the constituent countries, where as big-U unionism seems to come about just before or after the acts of union, and becomes enshrined in political parties/etc, but there's not a ton of consistency. In any case, a section on this history of the unionist ideology and terminology would be a useful one; where did it start, what were its antecendents, how did it evolve, and where is it today. I think the rewritten history is good, but the ordering is strange; why is union of the crowns at the bottom rather than at the top? Seems it would be better in chronological order, with personal unions as an antecendent to formal political union. We don't need the full description, which is better handled in the article you linked, but having the key dates/events is useful within the context of this article. --KarlB (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

On the IMOS we avoid capitalisation of these terms (at least explicitly on biographical articles): Wikipedia:IMOS#Biographical_articles.

One reason to avoid a chronological telling history is to avoid traditional narrative history (which can imply a progression or 'course' to history). For example, the Crown of Ireland Act was a deliberate act to unite the crowns of England and Ireland. Whereas the Union of the Crowns was an accidental occurrence. Telling the "story" as 'first the crowns of Ireland and England united, then the crown of Scotland was united with England and Ireland, then the parliaments of Scotland and England united and then the parliament of Ireland joined them' gives an impression of a natural (even inevitable) progression.

Modern narrative history is to concentrate on themes when telling the "story" and avoid a chronological telling. So, in the section I ordered them as the union of the three parliaments (which was deliberate and a genuine expression of acts of "unionism") and then the union of the three crowns (which as secondary, accidental and not really "unionism") but important - even critical - background info none-the-less. --RA (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Further reading section

What is the origin of all these books? The Further Reading section is almost as long as the article itself. Indeed, when they were first added, it actually was longer.

Can someone explain why these books were chosen as suggested further reading, esp. when the article itself remains essentially unwritten? --RA (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources are mostly sources that cover in detail the history of unionism, as opposed to many other books which are more general history of the politics of Britain/Ireland/etc. Several of them I am familiar with, but most I have not yet read; I'm trying to source books from my local library now to fill out more sections of this article; I am using a snowball approach, i.e. finding key sources and then seeing what sources those sources used. Your help is appreciated - I do hope that many of those sources will eventually turn into references instead of further reading, but for now the section is useful. --KarlB (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. But can we really recommend books as Further Reading if we have not read them? --RA (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have other good sources that you're familiar with, please add them - this is a complex area so the more help the better.--KarlB (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

For example, the Kanter book I selected in part because of this review, but still haven't found a copy. But I think it's particularly germane to this article, which should cover the unionist sentiments in the UK (or proto-UK), and especially england/Wales/etc since Scotland and Ireland which will be more deeply covered in the other articles --> "In this book Douglas Kanter charts the emergence of a unionist consensus in Britain between 1740 and 1848, and in so doing challenges the common assumption that this had already been achieved (at least on the mainland) by 1800. In following this line Kanter makes a major contribution, as coverage of British, as opposed to Irish, political and public opinion on the union has been limited." [2] --KarlB (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

---

• Unionism in the United Kingdom → British unionism
• Unionism in Ireland → British unionism in Ireland
• Unionism in Scotland → British unionism in Scotland

– Unionism can mean many things, (it could mean trade unionism and in the case of Ireland it could be used to describe supporters of a United Ireland), these titles are less ambiguous and more descriptive. Charles Essie (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Oppose for Unionism in Ireland. WP:ENGVAR: in Ireland, "unionism" usually means means "British unionism", not "trade unionism". WP:COMMONNAME: in Ireland, "British unionism" is usually called "unionism". This may be confusing for non-Irish people: that is what a good hatnote is for. "British unionism in Ireland" is open to misinterpretation as something like "Intervention in Ireland by unionists based in Great Britain". OTOH Irish unionism is a rename I would support; there are people who support Irish unionism who are based outside Ireland, and thus arguably not covered by the present title. jnestorius^(talk) 20:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment "British unionism" is not an improvement over "Unionism in the United Kingdom" unless we live in the UK. To outsiders, the problem with "Unionism in the United Kingdom" is the same problem with "British unionism", that being British trade unions. The only title that works is British unionism in the United Kingdom; if these are renamed, all need to be fully specified. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think that "British unionism" has the same problems as "Unionism in the United Kingdom" as the meaning is Unionism of.. rather than Unionism in.. The terms have no great currency but I would otherwise favour Unionism in the United Kingdom → Unionism (UK) or UK unionism. These are really shorthand versions of Unionism of the UK in the United Kingdom which is both accurate and very long. I agree that "British" is unnecessarily nationalistic and would add non-specific to criticisms. The term "National unionism" would seem to have been hijacked by political idealists in other countries. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The common term in the UK is "trade unionism", not "unionism", so the meaning of Unionism in the United Kingdom is as obvious as it's going to be already. Without a qualifier, "unionism" is generally taken in this country to mean exactly what this article describes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The term unionism has a specific meaning in the UK and Ireland. It does not mean trade unionism ... and it certainly does not mean someone who supports a the re-unification of Ireland!! On the other hand, the description British unionism is more frequently associated with trade unionism in the UK. --Tóraí (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tóraí ----Snowded ^TALK 00:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Voting 'no' does not mean people are unionists, its different

I've reverted mass changes which were politically charged and made the confusion identified in the heading of this subject. The fact that 55% reject Scotland breaking from the Union does not mean that those votes support 'unionism' is its normal use. We have extensive misuse of references here. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Snowded. I think there is some confusion here over terms. You state here the association between 'Unionist' and the Conservative and Unionist Party. I think that this link is legitimate, in the historical sense, but the term 'unionist' in modern British political debate has now come to encompass anyone who supports the continuation of the Union. For instance, in these recent media examples, unionist is used to describe the supporters/proponents of a 'No' vote in the Scottish referendum (Financial Times, New Statesman, BBC News). I think that this means that a section in the article is needed on the changing terminology of 'unionist' and 'unionism'. It is possible to argue that a the 55% 'No' is not a vote for 'unionism', but it is a useful way of gauging support for the Union, just as a 45% 'Yes' vote is a useful of way of measuring support for nationalism/independence. I apologise if my edits seemed politically charged. This was not my intention at all. At the top of the article it says... This article is about support for the United Kingdom remaining united. I didn't add that introduction, and I have merely tried to expand what I believe is an important article with information on the topic. My edits tried to acknowledge the rise of nationalism where necessary, but it remains the case that the majority of the British electorate vote for unionist (in the modern sense) political parties, and that most polling shows people as being against independence. I hope that, rather than stripping the article down to a not very useful history of the Union, as it was before, we can work together to create a useful article about the history of unionism in the UK and its current levels of support - be those high or low. WatermillockCommon (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for interest in the topic, Colin Kidd's book Union and Unionisms: Political Thought in Scotland, 1500-2000 provides an interesting account of the changing nature of unionism in Scotland in the modern period. In it he describes political support for the Union in the countries of the UK as being a 'banal unionism' shared by the majority of Britons. WatermillockCommon (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The question on the ballot was, "Should Scotland become an independent country." If 55% of people voted 'no' to that question, it does not necessarily mean that they are unionist.

At the same time, it is a related question and a useful barometer. We just should be careful not to make a hard link between the two. I don't think the text as it currently is does (e.g. "...support is often measured by being assumed to be that proportion of the population which does not support independence. However, this is not necessarily the case.). --Tóraí (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

To both of you - see my answer below. It is not true to say the unionism necessarily means something very different yet, not without explanation and its not necessary anyway. They did not vote for unionism, they voted against independence at least in part of promises for more devolved powers. If devo-max had been on the ballot that is not unionist in the normal sense of the word. Using current news sources to support any redefinition is also dubious ----Snowded ^TALK 09:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Capital U in "Union"

What is the justification for that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Union" should not be capitalized. It is not part of any proper noun.

The Irish manual of style, which applies here, also advises not to capitalize unionist as a noun or adjective. --Tóraí (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm probably wrong, but if one was to write about 'a union between countries', it would not be capitalised, but when referring to the United Kingdom, the Union should be capitalised. The 'Union' is taking the place of the proper noun 'United Kingdom' in the shorthand. Please correct me... WatermillockCommon (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to see contemporary reliable sources that use the word "Union" in that way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are examples of three news sources that use 'union' to describe a relationship, while using 'Union' to describe 'the Union' (the United Kingdom) (BBC News, The Telegraph, The Independent). I know that they are not necessarily reliable for factual content, but for capitalising protocol they are a useful guide. WatermillockCommon (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I suggest that those sources be used to support the use of the term Union in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. But this appears like a style question. There are other examples of capitalisation like this. For example: "The Government will release a white paper this year." "The prime minister is head of the government." "The Prime Minister is David Cameron." What is Wikipedia style for capitalisation of these kinds of things? --Tóraí (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Our style appears not to: MOS:POLITICALUNITS. --Tóraí (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully we can be guided by consensus here, and good sense, rather than by adhering to unnecessarily rigid guidelines that have led to some odd decisions elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

In this context capitalisation is OK ----Snowded ^TALK 15:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The good sense in the MOS is that, in general, we follow the obvious path and avoid non-obvious decisions. For example, we use sentence case for headings - even if other guides use capitalisation - because it is hard to know what letters to capitalise (e.g would we capitalise 'the' or 'that' or all words equally?). But everyone know how to follow sentence case.

Same with this: it's no obvious to know when to capitalise words that are not proper nouns or the first word in a sentence. So don't. Keep with normal sentence case and we have a consistent style that everyone know how to follow.

And in most cases, anyway, we can avoid the phrase "the Union" very easily by using more easily understood ways of saying the same thing. For example, by saying "the UK", or "the union of England and Scotland", or "the continued union of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom", or what ever the case may be. That's even more helpful to the reader again IMO. --Tóraí (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with that ----Snowded ^TALK 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Support for Union does not equal unionism

Snowded, there may be a subtlety in what you mean that I don't get - but what do you mean by "Support for Union does not equal unionism"? --Tóraí (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well to spell it out. Someone can support continued membership of the UK without being a Unionist. Within Northern Ireland and Scotland Unionism has a very distinct and orange/conservative perspective. If we use lower case its technically correct but the confusion is too easy and I see some evidence of receipt recent edits attempting to make a political point using that confusion. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a very insightful observation. --Tóraí (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

But we can still acknowledge that terms like "Unionist" and "Unionism" are used now to describe support for maintaining the current union - [3], [4], etc. In many ways it's a shift in meaning from Unionism as it has been meant in Northern Ireland, or as it was meant in Scotland 50 or 100 years ago - that's what language does - but it is still the appropriate word to use in today's debates. Articles like this one - and disambiguation pages - need to make clear what definition is being used in each case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Its not an archaic problem. The use of the language in Northern Ireland and Scotland is still deeply tied into sectarian politics (witness the Orange Order march). A lot of people who want to save the Union would deeply resent that position being called unionist. The level of explanation needed is high and its much easier to say things like continue to be a part of the UK or similar. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As an example, in Northern Ireland you can talk about unionist identity. What is unionist identity in England? And how does it differ from the identity of other English people?

Never-the-less, the Scottish referendum rediscovered a sense of the term "unionist" that didn't involve identity politics. That sense has probably been been heard since the partition of Ireland. --Tóraí (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Unionism

From your history here you are more than familiar with the way Wikipedia works. You inserted a broad statement without any supporting references and it was reverted. That means you have to go to the talk page to make a case. In fact, although there was collusion between Unionist paramilitaries and some parts of the British security forces that is not the same thing as saying they were engaged in a joint campaign. If you really think you have a point make the case on the talk page and I will respond there.

The above comment was posted on Gob Lofa's talk page by me and reposed here by him. I've reformatted and added this comment to avoid any confusion. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say "they were engaged in a joint campaign", I pointed out they had a common enemy. Stop putting words in my keyboard. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Its how it read and the error is compounded by talking about a 'common enemy' ----Snowded ^TALK 07:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I certainly didn't read it that way. What error? You don't believe they had a common enemy in the Provisional IRA? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I've clearly explained it above and you don't have (nor will you find) a reliable source which supports your wording. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're being far from clear and you've completely avoided my second question. There's no shortage of reliable sources which can answer it for you. If it's the wording that's your problem, why didn't you reword it instead of blanking it? Gob Lofa (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The suggested wording - "....state security forces and unionist paramilitaries fought a bitter conflict against Irish republicans" - is, at best, a gross over-simplification of a complex situation, clearly open to misinterpretation, and utterly unhelpful. It should not be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I consider the suggested blanking unhelpful. What wording would you suggest? Gob Lofa (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

None. Better left to the linked articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not easy to link from blanked text. Here's the text before I edited it: "During these conflicts, unionist paramilitaries waged a violent campaign against republicans and the Catholic community." You see the problem: the biggest armed group had been excluded. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph already links to Unionism in Ireland. There is scope, perhaps, for a link from this article to the article on Ulster loyalism (possibly under "See also"), but not for a link to a subsection of that article, and especially not using the misleading language that you suggested. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The British army and paramilitary efforts were the greatest expression of armed unionism in the 20th century. I'm not sure I can agree to a total blanking of these efforts. If you believed the language was misleading, you could propose an alternative version. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The current phrasing is more than adequate. There is no obligation on other editors to propose an alternative to a misleading text inserted by another ----Snowded ^TALK 07:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not adequate enough to cover armed unionism, in fact it glosses right over it. I don't agree it's misleading and I didn't insert it, I altered text inserted by another. Even though there was no obligation on me to do so. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, its still wrong. Please do not insert again until you have consensus----Snowded ^TALK 03:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unionism in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140913063536/http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/regional/288603-7-in-10-english-want-scots-to-remain-part-of-the-uk%2C-reveals-mail-poll.html to http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/regional/288603-7-in-10-english-want-scots-to-remain-part-of-the-uk,-reveals-mail-poll.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)