Talk:Unionism in Scotland

It should be noted that the vast majority of Scottish Unionists, being electorally the majority of the population of Scotland, have nothing to do with the Conservative Party or the Orange Order. Most Unionists would vote for one of the Labour/Lib-Dem coalition partners in the Scottish Parliamentary elections.

That is not what the article says. It reports that the Orange Order, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are all Scottish Unionists. That fact surely cannot be disputed.--Mais oui! 22:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

The genesis of an article is here. But a much clearer definition of terms is required. 1) Scottish unionism i.e. commitment to Scotland remaining in the union (which is, debatably, the majority position of Scots including many Roman Catholics), cannot and should not be compared to Orangism. Most 'unionists' in Scotland would abhore sectarianism. The Tories, historically, have been known as the 'unionist party', but in fact Labour and the Lib-Dems are also 'unionist' parties in Scottish terms. The Tory 'unionist' tag has undergone changes - I think, and I can't be sure, that it originated in 19th Century over opposion to Irish home rule, but that is not what it is generally taken to mean today.

Unionism is a very slippery term in Scotland - and because of its use in Northern Ireland, a careful discussion is needed. This article needs re-written with a lot more care. Perhaps starting with a disambiguation of the term in a scottish context. --Doc (?) 23:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. (Would it help, or hurt, to begin by making a temporal distinction between old-time Scottish unionism and the present-day variety that seems more slippery?) QuartierLatin 1968 01:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

This is really difficult. As it stands, the article is awful. It gives the false impression that the Scottish situation bears similarities to that in NI. Obviously there are many people, quite probably a majority, in Scotland who want to remain in the UK, and it would theoretically be possible to call them unionists. But the word is not normally heard in Scotland. If this article has a purpose, I think it would be to talk about the political opposition to the independence movement, that is to say the reasons why the Labour and Conservative parties share a consensus on maintaining the union. However, since this is in no sense a unified movement, it would be better to move this whole discussion to an article on the independence debate, giving both sides. --Doric Loon 16:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Scouting round a bit, I see there is an article on Scottish independence. I propose we make this article into a redirect, deleting the entire text, and expand the independence article with a new section about opposition to independence.--Doric Loon 16:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd go for that redirect - deal with the politics of independence and 'unionism' at Scottish independence. And perhaps have a separate article on Sectarianism in Scotland to deal with the 'religious' dimension. This article confuses two things that need to be kept apart for the most (I suspect many rangers fans actually vote SNP).--Doc (?) 16:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Good stuff, Doc G. Since there seems only to be the two of us here, I think we can go ahead if we are agreed. I have just made some changes to the Scottish independence article, which I hope are an improvement, though it is still rather rambling and disorganised. In particular, I have beefed up the section on "criticisms" (which I have renamed "opposition to independence"), giving a statement of the pro-union case. (Somehow I got logged out as I did it, so those changes are anonymous, but they are mine!) These articles, I note, are all strongly pro-independence and need a strong NPOV injection. Please look at this and see what you think. Anyway, I think we now have the basis of an article which gives two sides of a debate. If you agree, we can make this one a redirect right away. --Doric Loon 16:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, guys. I know plenty of patriotic Scots who support the Union and are therefore "unionists", I suppose. Most of them feel, rightly or wrongly, that Scotland's best interests are served by remaining part of the UK. Going by the voting figures about two thirds of the population fall into that category but very few of them are sectarian, Loyalist, or members of an Orange Lodge. This article as it stands gives a completely misleading impression, so by all means, go ahead and fix it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have re-applied the 'totally disputed' tag. Although the article has certainly improved in parts - the confusion of political commitment to the UK with sectarianism and Irish unionism still remains. And the Rangers stuff is wrong - whilst sectarianism certainly is a motive for many Rangers (and Celtic fans) - and while this has often connections with Irish sectarianism and politics - not all supporters of Rangers adhere to this (as implied) - as not all Celtic supporters are RC's. Further, the article implies that Rangersfans are 'unionists' is there any evidence to support the idea that support for independence is markedly lower among Rangers fans than any other cross-section of the Scottish community (perhaps there is - but I don't know of it). (Hey, it might even be possible to be a sectarian bigot - and still vote SNP!) --Doc (?) 23:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy now. Great NPOVing by Dave souza (talk · contribs) and AllanHainey (talk · contribs) - well done! (I still think the section on Sectarianism would be better as its own article.) --Doc (?) 08:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Late in the day but whilst I don't know of any studies particularly focusing on how many SNP-voting Rangers fans there are, there certainly have historically been religious alignments in voting patterns. The SNP vote has historically been more Protestant than the Scottish electorate as a whole, though this may be largely because until recently Labour has managed to hold onto much of the "Catholic vote" whilst the old concept of a "Protestant vote" has decline much faster. (There have been all manner of accusations of sectarian campaigning on all sides.) More recently this alignment is breaking down with other parties courting Catholic voters - see this article from a decade ago. http://www.newstatesman.com/199902120026 Timrollpickering (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing it

I see two possibilities here (there may, or course, be more):

1) Fix this article - to clearly differentiate between a)unionism as a commitment to keeping Scotland in the UK, which is a political position supported by Lab, Conservative, and Lib-dem - and Scots Protestants and Roman Catholics alike. b)Unionism as a term for a small protestant subset ('loyalists'), associated with the Orange Lodge and Rangers, seen as 'anti-Catholic' - and perhaps more akin to 'Unionists' Ulster.

2) Agree that the first category is best/already discussed under Scottish independence, and the second should be discussed under a new article on Sectarianism in Scotland (or something like) - and restore the redirect on this article to Scottish Independence.

I favour the second option, as to discuss these things on one page will lead to them being misleadingly identified.--Doc (?) 21:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If people want to move towards a Sectarianism in Scotland article, Religious rivalry in Glasgow already exists; we could either broaden that article into a pan-Scottish one, or at any rate link to it. (I think I should stay well out of the process for the time being, since I was the main author of this article which now seems to be the object of universal opprobrium. Admittedly, my primary interest was in how Scottish unionism was related to that in Northern Ireland – you do hear Northern Irish unionists talking a fair bit about Scotland as if it was their Mecca or something.) QuartierLatin 1968 22:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the opprobium, QuartierLatin1968; it wasn't meant quite that vitriolically, but what you say now confirms the impression I had from the article - that you are seeing Scotland in Northern Irish terms. The problem is that Unionism is a movement in NI. In Scotland there is no such movement; there is a broad range of people representing about two thirds of the electorate ranging right across the political spectrum who don't want independence; they are not called "unionists", though if we forget about the baggage the word carries and think only of the literal meaning, that is what they are; they have no unified voice, and don't think they need one, because the major parties will not let them down, and they reckon the SNP can't win anything. That may all change of course, but at present all we are talking about is a resistence to the independence movement. And the most sensible place to discuss that is in a subparagraph of the independence article.

So: I agree, DG, your second possibility really is better. But then, you and I already had a consensus about that. The question is, is there anyone else out there? Mais oui! is quite aggressive with the reverts, as I have discovered elsewhere, but has not contributed here. It would be good if (s)he would! I would like to hear more from Derek Ross. Anyone else got a point of view here?

I would like to declare myself politically: I am a Scotsman who is pretty ambivalent about independence. Sometimes I think it would be a good thing, sometimes not. So I have no agenda here. I just wanted to say that, because some of Mais oui's remarks could leave the impression that he thinks I do.

So, we've been challenged to get a broader consensus. I propose a vote. After seven days we can do whatever the majority say. Agreed? --Doric Loon 22:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Since you've suggested that I comment further, Loon, I'll add this.

Firstly I'd prefer that the content of this article was transferred to other articles (sorry, QuartierLatin1968), as per the Doc's second suggestion. The thing is that there's nothing absolutely untrue in the article as it stands (or not much at any rate). It's just that its overall description doesn't resemble the Scottish political situation that I recognise, owing to its emphasis on the fringes of Scottish unionism rather than the (rather boring) core. Maybe that's because I'm from the North-east where sectarianism has always been less of an issue and independence more of an issue than in the Central Belt, but there you are. I assume that there is a stronger unionist sentiment in the North-east than the rest of Scotland in reaction to the stronger independence sentiment but there is also a weaker sectarian sentiment. So the two are not nearly as strongly linked as the current article implies. Separating them out is the thing to do.

Secondly, I'm not very fond of votes except as a last resort. The seven days is fine though but let's just use it to invite other Scots Wikipedians to join the discussion. It should be clear at the end of that time what the consensus is. We need only vote if it's not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Unionists (Scotland) (pasted from Mais Oui's talk page)

If you look at the talk page, you will see that this article was redirected after discussion. You are, of course, at liberty to disagree with redirection. But please do not call such an act 'vandalism' - that is a personal attack. And please do not revert without giving reasons (or better still joining the disccussion) on the talk page. I am replacing the redirect - please don't unilaterally revert without establishing a consensus. Edit wars are born of such actions. --Doc (?) 18:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm... you and one other person decide to delete an entire article. I don't think so. Since when were "Unionists (Scotland)" and "Scottish independence" the same topic? You did not create a consensus at all. For a start you must put up the "Merge" box so that people at least know that a consultation is in progress. I am restoring the vandalised article, WITH the appropriate merge suggestion, and adding the merge box to Scottish independence too. Then, and only then will we see if consensus can be reached.--Mais oui! 18:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

1) No-one 'deleted' the article, it was redirected. Redirection is not deletion as it can be undone.

2)Your undoing of it was not my main problem, but rather that you (unlike the person who redirected it) made no attempt to explain your actions on the talk page, or to see if anyone agreed with you. Further you called them a vandal - hardly assume good faith.

3)There was no 'merge notice' as no merger was being proposed - a redirect had been proposed and no-one had objected. Now that someone has (and, objecting is a resonable thing) there should now be a discussion and not an edit war or a slagging match.

The content of the article can be discussed on the talk page not here. --Doc (?) 20:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop being pedantic. You know fine well that redirecting has precisely the same effect as deleting - it removes the existing writing from the encyclopedia. Just because you do not like what others have written gives you no right to eliminate an entire (huge) topic. If what you say is correct, and there are indeed more unionists in Scotland than supporters of Scottish independence, then surely those millions of people deserve their own wee Wikipedia entry?

Stop playing "holier than thou". It is a profoundly unattractive trait in a correspondent. Your motivation was far from the pure white of the driven snow - in fact it was a typically human (ie. sinful) reaction: hearing a home truth that sits ill with your own vision of the world and attempting to censor the speakers. Indeed, it is the reaction of all establishmentarians. Wikipedia was not created to further the aims of The Establishment.

Since you appear fond of quoting Chapter and Verse, here is some of your own medicine:

"... Deleting useful content. A piece of content may be written poorly, yet still have a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. If the material seems miscategorized or out of place, consider moving the wayward material to another page, or creating a new page for it. If all else fails, and you can't resist removing a good chunk of content, it's usually best to move it to the article's "Talk page", which can be accessed using the "discussion" button at the top of each page. The author of the text once thought it valuable, so it is polite to preserve it for later discussion... " Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes

If you really do want to avoid edit wars or slagging matches, and I suppose I must take that in good faith despite strong evidence to the contrary, then I advise you to get off your pedestal and start respecting the views of other users, like the people that took the time to set up the Unionists (Scotland) article in the first place - they are after all trying to present a history of an important social movement which seems to be singlehandedly keeping the United Kingdom on the map.--Mais oui! 04:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, we've not going to agree here I suggest any further discussion should be on the talk page, where some folk are trying to reach a true consensus. --Doc (?) 07:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's cool it

OK, Mais Oui obviously wanted that little exchange to be more prominent. Don't know why, because he doesn't come out of it covered in glory, but be that as it may. What we need now is less personal comment and a calmer tone of discourse.

I think Derek is right when he says that sectarianism in Scotland is quite a separate issue from unease about Scottish independence - for which reason I reject the word "Unionist", which implies a conflation of the two. I know of Orange Order people who vote SNP; the Orange Order is anti-Catholic, so in Northern Ireland it is necessarily anti-Republican, but in Scotland there is no such alignment of the issues. SO, if we ARE going to keep this article (and rewrite it completely) then I would want it moved to a different heading which does not include the word "Unionist".

But being the "vandal"(!) who first attempted the redirect I still think it is the right thing to do, for all the reasons I gave the first time around. If we take out the sectarian stuff, which clearly belongs elsewhere, what is left is an attitude to the constitutional status of Scotland. You might argue that this attitude deserves an article, but the difficulty is that it does not have the structure which would make that easy. This is not a party. It is not a movement. It is not a coherent political philosophy. It is rather an amalgam of many different reasons for resisting change. I think the only sensible place to discuss that is under the heading of the change they are resisting.--Doric Loon 13:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That is assuming that Unionism is purely reactive. It is not. British nationalists/British unionists (Labourites, Cons, LabDems) are extremely proactive in attempting to destroy the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish identities and attempting to erect a pseudo "British" (sic) identity. If in doubt, check out the British nationalists/British unionists in-chief: the BBC. British nationalism/unionism is a huge and important topic. It is a remarkably successful social movement, perhaps the most successful in all-Europe, far exceeding the (in comparison) modest achievements of similarly dominant CDU in Bavaria, or the Swedish Social Democrats. It deserves a proper Wikipedia article explaining why so many people vote for the three principal British nationalist parties. All commenters here so far appear to be British nationalists, so surely you have the gumption to defend your creed in writing. Here is your opportunity: write a decent Wiki entry about the wonders of the British state. I await with baited breath. I haven't had a good chortle in days.--Mais oui! 16:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've voted nothing but SNP for the last thirty years, so chortle away if that's what you're good at. Wikipedia's not about defending creeds or pushing political agendas. It's about writing unbiased articles and a good wikipedian should be able to help write one on any subject no matter what their views. If you're not up to it what are you doing here ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"... what are you doing here?" Trying to make sure that we have a decent reference resource. A nice start would be if people did not unilaterally delete important topics. "Wikipedia's not about defending creeds or pushing political agendas." Oh... I wish I could believe that, but there is extremely strong evidence to the contrary. Wikipedia is one of the most powerful political tools on the net, and the British Establishment knows it. In future it could be one of the most important political tool on the planet. But I suspect that you have already realised that. Good luck.--Mais oui! 16:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear that we have a common aim re decent reference resource. As for "Wikipedia's not about defending creeds or pushing political agendas." That's an aim not a belief, and I'm not asking you to believe in it: I'm asking you to aim for it. As you say it's pretty obvious that plenty of folk, British Establishment or otherwise, are trying to use Wikipedia to push their agenda, you only need to look at the Polish/German naming wars or the American Presidential candidate wars to see that. But we don't have to lie back and take it, and many of us don't. We try and change stuff to make it describe all sides, each with the appropriate level of detail for its support. In the long run it's the only defence we have against ending up as a political tool. Sometimes we're more successful than others. Good luck is definitely a requirement.

Now getting back to the current article and what should be done with it. You suggest that we need an article on Unionism in general, which is reasonable, and I doubt that anybody here would object. In fact I would say that we already have a fair bit of material but it's spread around in a few different articles. Being spread around in several articles tends to hide it, and that's one reason why I'd rather take most of the unionist material in this article and move it with material from others into a more comprehensive article on Unionism. After all the strongest and most Established support for the Union probably lies in England yet there is no "Unionists (England)" article. That's not to say that we should create one. To my mind it makes more sense to discuss the history and situation in each country as part of a comprehensive article on the whole topic. Nobody is suggesting that the material within the article should be deleted. Rather Doc suggested that it be moved to two other articles, one on the Independence movement and one on Sectarianism. I like that idea (although I'd rather it was the Unionist programme than the Independence movement since that would allow us to put non-Scottish unionist material in there): that improves the visibility of each topic and gives a "one stop shop" to read all about it. Balkanising the topic into articles on the Scottish siuation and the Irish situation and the Tory party as is done at the moment just makes it less likely that people will get the full picture unless they're committed enough to search through all the little articles. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Just three very quick thoughts, and I do promise to take a hand-off approach till the dust settles here – First, I appreciate the apology Doric Loon, my Wiki-self esteem had been feeling a little bruised. And of course you're right, I was looking at the subject from a Northern Irish lens; it's a perfectly fair criticism. Second, they have the CSU in Bavaria, not the CDU. Third, I wonder if "Unionism (England)" is at all the right term to use – I've never heard this term used of English supporters of the Union or of British national identity, so I wonder if it would violate Wikipedia's non-original naming policy. QuartierLatin 1968 19:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well there are Unionists in England. Their official title is the Conservative and Unionist Party but you'll be relieved to hear that I wasn't actually proposing an article called "Unionism (England)". That would be silly for the reasons that you mentioned. A better title would be "History of Unionism" or "Unionists in Britain and Ireland" or something of that sort. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I may be butting into a private squabble here but my thoughts are this: this article definately needs rewritten, or renamed. Basically it links Scottish unionism too much with Northern Irish unionism (whereas Scottish "unionism" is not as distinct and is motivated by the fact that the "unionist" parties are also primarily associated with other things, such as the working class, civil liberties and conservative principles) & with unionism as a seperate political belief, which is only really widespread in Northern Ireland.

I would agree with an article on unionism in general (& don't see what is wrong with an article on English unionism simply because English national identity has recently, past 300 years or so, been associated with the United Kingdom) as it could deal with the general arguments for all 4 Kingdoms remaining part of, or leaving, the union. In terms of Scotland I'd go with a seperate article dealing with the desire & opposition to Scottish Indepenance (& the same for English or Welsh independance if anyone desires to write one, or anyone has made the case for it & it should be reported). On the issue of Sectarianism (& I'm sorry if I'm being disjointed here) this is quite seperate from unionism, nationalism or the support of English or Scottish independance and should be treated as such, it is only lumped together by those who don't consider the issues sufficiently, & should be dealt with in a seperate article. I'm going to try to rewrite thi article (although it should be renamed to) but I really don't have a great deal of time (hour a day) & I'm involved in a few other projects, but I'll try to remain involved.. AllanHainey 21:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This probably doesn't need anyone else sticking their oar in, but the title of this article is ridiculous. I've lived my whole life in Scotland and I can never once remember the term "Unionist" being used outside of reference to Ireland (I've never even heard of that Scottish Unionist party!). In Scotland you're either pro-nationalist or not, nobody identifies themselves as a Unionist in reference to Scottish politics. Whatever content can be salvaged here should be merged with Scottish independence. The article currently reads like it was written by someone with an axe to grind regarding the situation in Ireland. Leithp 17:28, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation is needed

As far as I'm concerned, Unionist in Scotland is another term for Tory, and is also a term used by Separatists to label those who don't take their position. The confusion in this article is that it doesn't state this clearly, and in trying to justify the label includes the Orange anti-Catholic position as well as misstating the aims of other organisations. An article is needed here to clarify this muddle, but care is needed to avoid Nationalist / Separatist propaganda and make it clear that many of the people and organisations mentioned have a solidly Scottish identity and believe in supporting Scottish interests within a British or UK framework without thinking themselves "Unionist" or, for that matter, being monarchist. Regarding the Scottish independence#Opposition to independence section, opposition to separatism might be a fairer statement of the position: I'll think about rewording that section. ...dave souza 18:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That is the crux of the problem really. Unionist, in Scotland, is a highly subjective term and in many quarters seems to make people feel uncomfortable. In most parts of Scotland the association is with the conservative party and given the poll tax debacle unsuprisingly viewed negatively. In the West central belt use of the term may have uncomfortable sectarian connotations due to the Northen Irish/football associations. However nationalists freely use the term to describe those who support remaining in the Union which the groups already mentioned as being Unionist do. My opinion on the matter could be summed up fairly succinctly by saying Unionists are unionists but they don't like to be called such. Although the idea that there is a political Unionist movement is farce to say the least - there is a political ideology on which three of the main parties in the UK represented in Scotland agree but they agree on little else. To my mind both ways of looking at the article are correct in some of their assumptions. Its correct to say there is not really a unionist movement in Scotland and not many people who ascribe to Unionist views would identify as being Unionists. However many people do and just because the term carries negative connotations does not make it any less true. I would have stated that perhaps the problem is that its easier to classify the group wanting political change (in this case the nationalists) and label them as such but not the group that represents the majority (or at least has in recent history) but if that were the case why is there an article on Northen Irish Unionism? The Northen Irish Unionists are in favour of the status quo and are the majority in Northen Irish politics and despite differences in some policies and ideological stance the fact that they are Unionist is enough to "lump them all together" so why is Scotland different in this respect? Is it purely because those who are Unionist (or in support of the Union) do not wish to be identifies as such rather then Unionism or Unionists in Scotland not existing in some form? Endless psych 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of the confusion stems because historically the use of the term "Unionist" in Scottish politics had nothing to do with opposition to Scottish independence (because it wasn't a significant factor on the radar). The original (for these purpose) political "Unionist" movement emerged as an alliance opposed to plans for Irish Home Rule. To answer Endless psych's question, the Irish situation was different in that the status quo was not perceived as secure and thus was felt to need "defending". Alliances of opponents, using the "Unionist" moniker, sprang across the UK and many made common cause across existing political lines, most obviously in the alliance between the Liberal Unionists and the Conservatives. Between 1886 and 1968 there were three periods when the Conservatives were in alliance with one group of Liberals or another - Liberal Unionists 1886-1912, Lloyd George Coalition Liberals 1916-1922, Liberal Nationals 1931-1968 - although as time went by the first and third alliances increasingly became a single entity even before formal mergers. In Scotland the Liberal element at election time was almost always far bigger proportionally than in England, as shown by the ratio of candidates and MPs elected. Hence when the parties merged in 1912, organisations in areas where the Liberal Unionist element was strong (and indeed had converted fallow areas for Conservatives into good areas for Unionists) tended towards using the "Unionist" label rather than the "Conservative" one - e.g. the Scottish Unionist Party (and also the continuing use of the term in Birmingham amongst others).

Related to this is the use of the term "Unionist" as a sectarian identity for Protestants, much as in Northern Ireland, again stemming from the Home Rule period. Part of this fed into support for the Unionists in their heyday of the 1920s-1950s, but it also reached out in other ways. There was also an attempt by Conservatives to redefine "Unionism" in terms of class unity (sort of One Nation Conservatism by another name) but it didn't really take off. The original "Unionism" was fast losing its appeal by the 1960s due to a combination of social and international changes and gradually drifted off the radar.

It's true that the formal full name of the UK party is the "Conservative and Unionist Party" but "Unionist" is now very rarely used outside of individual local branches (and letter writers/commenters, usually from outwith Scotland, on blogs screaming "we are the Conservative and Unionist Party" without understanding what that means) and indeed the last time I can recall a national advert using it was in a newspaper in 1997 appealing to trade unionists! The Scottish party nowadays also goes in for the "Scottish Conservatives" moniker.

Of course complicating things immensely has been the emergence of the term "unionist" in relation to Scottish independence. This has resulted in the terms being conflated at times (and given the negative connotations of "Unionist" this may not be entirely accidental) and the original meaning being overlooked in some quarters, especially in parts of Scotland where sectarianism is less of an issue (e.g. the North-east as mentioned above).

As for a formal "Unionist" movement, there isn't really much of one, possibly because a lot of Scots who are against independence don't see it as the most pressing issue in politics that parties must align around. Hence some members of Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems all being found expressing at the very least a willingness to contemplate independence but not changing party as a result. (And since pretty much everyone's agreed that independence will only come with a referendum of the Scottish people, not from the electoral victory of a particular party, they have a point.) Individual institutions are a very different thing from a cohesive overall movement. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

There is a lot of discussion here about the ideal article - and how this 'topic' should be adressed. But, we seem to agree that 1. unionist generally means 'one who is anti-Scottish independence/ pro-UK' 2. this article is confused/confusing. So I'd like to restore the redirect to Scottish independence for now. If an article on Scottish sectarianism is ever created (and I think someone, not me, should) then material can be taken from the edit history here. I'll wait 7 days, and then act only if there is a clean consensus. Please indicate support or opposition below:--Doc (?) 23:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Tally for: 4 - against: 3

Strongly oppose. There is no way on earth that Unionism (Scotland) and Scottish independence are the same topic. Please accord each subject its due respect. Surely it is not beyond the gumption of British Unionists in Scotland to write a decent article about their creed. I wait with baited breath. Anything else is a complete cop-out.--Mais oui! 23:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - mixing the two would confuse and not explain. BTW, is baited breath when the cat eats the cheese to lurk at the mousehole?...dave souza 00:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree - I'd say that anyone looking at Unionists (Scotland) is looking for something concerned with the arguments far & against continued union with the rest of the UK & this is dealt with in Scottish independance, however if any British unionists can write a good NPOV article on the subject without confusing the issue with sectarianism & the Irish issue, so far they haven't, then it can replace the redirect. AllanHainey 11:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree - Mais oui seems not to understand what Wikipedia is about. One article for Nationalists to put their propaganda, and another for "Unionists" to put theirs? I don't think so! If there were to be an article on "Unionism", it should not be written by people who are defending it as their "creed"!!! However, since there is no such thing as a unionist movement in Scotland, this is really about the pros and cons of independence, and the pros and cons of any argument belong under one heading where they can be weighed and balanced. --Doric Loon 15:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Support - SoM 21:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - This article has been very much improved thanks to the attention and discussion it has enjoyed of late; it would be a shame to throw that work away. (Besides, regarding Doric Loon's comment, it's beyond question that both an article on Scottish independence and another on Scottish unionism must conform to NPOV like all Wikipedia articles.) 17:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to rename

To my suprise, and due largely to Dave sousa's excellent changes, I'm now happy to keep this article. Although, I still think that a seperate article on Scottish sectarianism is justified. Would anyone have an objection to renaming this article Unionism in Scotland, as unlike N.Ireland, there is no coherent group of 'unionists' but more a political philosophy on one hand, and a cultural phenomenon on the other. No-one in Scotland would primarily identify themselves as part of a unionist community. Any views? --Doc (?) 11:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I object to you renaming the article. Of course Unionists are a coherent group. Witness the cobbled together Lab/Con/LibDem council administrations in recent years, stitched together in a desparate attempt to keep the SNP out, eg Perth and Kinross (until last year) and Dundee. All three Unionist parties are far more willing to work together to oppose the SNP, rather than breaking ranks and allowing the SNP an administrative roll. "No-one in Scotland would primarily identify themselves as part of a unionist community." Indeed? Pray provide a source. The very existence of (at least) two parties with the words Scottish and Unionist in the title would tend not to support that sentence.

I would go further, and say that the entire dynamics of Scottish politics pivots on the fulcrum of the Union. Left, right and centre mean far less to Scottish voters than they do in normal, independent countries, because the constitutional issue is always a big factor in determining which way to vote. The article as written is an awful lot better, but it very heavily downplays the critical importance of Unionists in Scottish society, politics and culture. You are doing this important topic a big disservice by trying to sideline it. The article needs a big dose of NPOV added. I would start by changing the "may be" to "is" in the first sentence, because it is a fact. I would also remove the heavy POV of "in this sense it refers to a political view rather than a unified movement". That just sounds like the Unionist spin that it is.

Finally, you must put up the Template:Move notice, and allow a reasonable period of consultation, if you want to rename and move this article.--Mais oui! 12:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Chill out, for goodness sake! I'm not going to move anything unless there is a clear consensus. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a battle for the soul of Scotland. I mearly made a suggestion to see what others thought. --Doc (?) 12:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Mais oui obviously has a bit of a chip on his shoulder, to the extent that he sees any attempt at balance as propaganda for the (from his perspective) other side. But I do rather resent the implication that I have a political agenda which I really don't. Unlike Mais oui, I have not declared a support for one side or the other here, and he has no business labelling my edits as "unionist spin". It is just a fact that there are many people in Scotland (quite possibly a majority of the electorate) who do not want independence but also do not want to be called unionist because they do not feel that the associations of that word fairly describe them. That is not "spin" - it is people claiming their right to define their identity themselves. And since Wikipedia must call groups within society by the terminology which those groups themselves prefer, I support Doc G's excellent renaming suggestion. --Doric Loon 17:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (although splitting it into a section of the independence article and a sectarianism article still seems like the smartest thing to do.) - SoM 17:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I note with disappointment that User:SoM has decided to unilaterally rename and move this page, without the slightest opportunity for discussion. I repeat, if anyone wants to rename and move the page, would they please do users the courtesy of applying the Template:Move notice to the relevant page, and then allowing a decent time period (at least a week) to allow other users to make their opinions known. I further note that no-one has added the Move template yet. I am not going to do it, because I do not support such a move.--Mais oui! 18:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no, repeat no obligation for a registered user to use WP:RM unless technical obstacles prevent them moving the page directly. Especially when, one particularly vocal user who's disagreeing with everyone else on everything as far as I can see from this and Talk:Scotland, aside, there's a clear consensus that the status quo is undesirable. - SoM 18:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Bravo! That is the very first time I can recall ever being referred to as a supporter of the status quo. It does not alter the fact that you will have to use the Move template on this occasion. This whole topic is far too contentious for one user to unilaterally rename and move the whole article, after so many people have been contributing to the debate and the redraft.--Mais oui! 19:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The content of this article is now much better. As for the title, it surprises me that you guys are arguing so heatedly since there is very little to choose between the two. They're both acceptable titles so why not just go with the majority preference ? The important thing is that the article has been sorted out. Kudos for that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to let this point about biased language drop. The article rightly makes the point that "separatist" is a term for people who believe in independence, but that this term is not used by those people themselves - it is thrown at them by the other side. For this reason we make passing reference to the fact that the word is to be heard, but we don't use it ourselves. In exactly the same way, people who DON'T believe in independence have the word "unionist" thrown at them by the pro-independence side, and most of them feel uncomfortable with it. The fact that a tiny right-wing party does use the word, and that the Conservatives used to (but significantly no longer do) doesn't change that. I think we owe it to both sides to use terminology sensitively. Mais oui only wants this respect to be shown to the pro-independence side.--Doric Loon 21:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. The Tories are still the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. You clearly did not read your ballot paper very consciensciously. You are also wrong on the other point too: the article downplays Unionism so much that the uninformed reader would come away thinking that it was a fringe feature of Scottish politics. The Scottish Unionist movement is actually one of the most powerful and successful political movements in modern European history.--Mais oui! 21:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not wrong: the point I was making was that Scottish Conservatives mostly keep as quiet as they can about the fact that the word Unionist is still in the historical name of their party. The other point is the one you have to prove - it is you who is conjecturing a conspiracy theory which no-one else here is convinced by. I am quite certain that Labour and Conservative do not co-operate in any sense whatsoever as part of a "powerful and successful unionist political movement". And you haven't brought a shred of evidence to suggest that such a movement exists. However, I do agree with you on one point: the article should say much more clearly that most Scots oppose independence. --Doric Loon 21:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Most opinion polls have shown public opinion to be about 50:50 on the matter. But of course the only way to test that is to have a referendum. It is very telling that only the Scottish Greens, SNP and SSP want an independence referendum. The three Unionist parties are scared to death by the very thought. I wonder why?--Mais oui! 21:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair question. I suppose, if I were pro-union I would say, why take a political risk if it's not necessary. That's the way politics works, and all parties play by the same pragmatic (cynical?) rules. However, what I am concerned about here is not so much the party policies as the electorate, and this idea of yours that they are caught up in a conspiracy, hoodwinked by the BBC (was it here you made that claim or on another page?) and organised into a defence of the union. People who don't buy the Nationalist argument don't see themselves as part of a movement. They take views on topics. They are pro-abortion, anti-Iraq-war, pro-hunting, anti-the-new-village-bypass, pro-Euro, anti-independence. They take stances on issues, and independence is just another. A "movement" is something more than that. And that's where you have failed to prove your case. (Unfortunately I'll be away for the next couple of days - sorry to drop out; I've enjoyed watching you avoid that challenge!) --Doric Loon 22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I smile to myself, as I wonder whether Phil Gallie and George Galloway realise that they are part of the same movement, and co-conspirators. :) --Doc (?) 22:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Touché. (This is partly why I originally wrote the article with only the much smaller group who are happy to self-identify as Unionists in mind...) In fact, though, I think RESPECT is in some kind of partnership with the SSP these days – don't they tell their supporters in Scotland to vote/join the SSP rather than themselves? Presumably that puts them on the Scottish nationalist side of the great divide. QuartierLatin 1968 22:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Limitation of parties

It does sound rather limiting only to mention the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and the SUP as Unionists. This could lead people to assume that it there is no 'unionism' within the left of politics. A number of communist parties, such as the CPGB and the CPB support a union of sorts (usually federal in nature and sometimes excluding Ireland). I also assume that, due to its leader, the RESPECT group is pro-Union, but I've never heard then actively speak on the matter. -- Anonymous

I would personally disagree with any Labour politician describing themselves as "of the left", but many still do. You can bet George Galloway will be moving in shortly on the Scottish left, after the internecine warfare in the remnants of the established (pro-independence) Scottish left: that is if he can drag himself away from London politics. -- Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.178.115 (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Belfast Northern Ireland "freedom corner" image

This image which has a mural in Belfast uses the Ulster Independence Flag and flag of Scotland. The Ulster Independence Flag represents the view of a Nothern Ireland without being part of United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. Just guessing also using the Scottish flag the maker of this mural was dedicating it to Ulster-Scots and to the belief of Ulster Independence, so I don't see how this has anything to do with Scottish Unionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddythecelt (talk • contribs)

Fair point. Feel free to upload something more appropriate. --Breadandcheese 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction re the Unionist Party?

Under Status of the term the sentence "the 'Unionist' in the present title of the Conservatives was added as a reference to Irish Unionism after a merger with the Liberal Unionist Party and has nothing to do with the name of the former Scottish party" appears to contradict the Unionist Party article. As I read the latter, it says that it was this very merger which formed the Unionist Party. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not the merger of the Unionist Party in Scotland and the Conservatives that caused it to be called the Conservative and Unionist Party - indeed, the Conservatives in England had been using that title for decades. It was indeed from the Liberal Unionist merger, so this page is correct. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we remove the tag then? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite yet. Breadandcheese makes a valid point but I think we're talking slightly at cross purposes here as a direct consequence of the confusing and ambiguous phrasing of the quoted passage, plus possible contradiction with or confusion in the Unionist Party (Scotland) article.

I'll firstly suggest an alternative wording based on my (possibly incorrect) understanding of the facts, starting with the end of the sentence preceding the quote:

...merged with the Conservative and Unionist Party in England and Wales in 1965, adopting the latter name. This party was often known simply as the Unionists. 'Unionist' in the names of these parties is rooted in the merger of the Conservative and Liberal Unionist Parties in 1912. The union referred to therein is the 1800 Act of Union, not the Acts of Union 1707.

I wouldn't read any further if you're happy with that wording but if required, the reasoning for my suggested changes is as follows:

As I understand it, in 1912 the Conservative Party and the Liberal Unionists merged to form the Conservative and Unionist Party, and the Unionist Party article states that this is "in the United Kingdom", implying that this term had significance in Scotland (as elsewhere in the UK). The same paragraph refers to the "Scottish Unionist Party emerg(ing)" at this time but is vague as to how the two new names/entities relate. Does the term Conservative and Unionist Party really apply throughout the UK or just south of the border at this point?

To say that "'Unionist'...was added" to "the present title of the Conservatives" "as a reference to Irish Unionism" is confused on a number of counts. Unionist here refers to preservation of the union with Ireland under the terms of the 1800 Act of Union, not Irish Unionism per se. What's more, the term unionist is in the title of the new party in reference to the Liberal Unionist party itself, not as reference to one of its central doctrines in attachment to the name of the other party, the Conservatives. It would be equally incorrect to say that conservative was added to the name of the Liberal Unionists (...in reference to the innate conservatism of the Conservatives..?).

In regard to the emergence of the the Scottish Unionist Party in 1912, as laid out in the Unionist Party (Scotland) article, it would be reasonable to assume that the word Unionist appears in its title for the very same reason it appeared in the title of the Liberal Unionist Party preceding it and of the Conservative and Unionist Party which emerged concurrently. Therefore to say ""the 'Unionist' in the present title...has nothing to do with the name of the former Scottish party" is clearly wrong as they are quite specifically of the very same origin. It may be true to say that it "has nothing to do with the" 1965 merger with "the former Scottish party", but even then that may be moot or at least needs clarification. To my understanding the name Conservative and Unionist Party was not (at least generally) used in Scotland until 1965 and the merger with the entity of that name in the rest of the UK, so the use of the term Conservative and Unionist Party in Scotland could be said to indeed be a consequence of the 1965 merger. I don't actually know if that is in fact a reasonable conclusion and it's not an assumption I've made in my suggested rewording, but it's one that could be drawn from the articles. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

BBC report: "Labour leadership contender rejects unionist label"

Please see:

• Talk:Ken_Macintosh#BBC report: "Labour leadership contender rejects unionist label"

--Mais oui! (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Unionism in the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unionism in Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060620181321/http://www.cpgb.org.uk:80/theory/ssp.htm to http://www.cpgb.org.uk/theory/ssp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Original research

There are no third party sources to establish the subject or its scope ----Snowded ^TALK 09:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)