Talk:Unionism in Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Northern Ireland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.If you are a member of the project, please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

WikiProject Northern Ireland tasks:

 

Contents

[edit] Assorted comments

Irish Unionist Alliance

http://www.irishunionism.org

The Reform Movement (Realising our Common Future)

http://www.reform.org

The Irish Association

http://www.irish-association.org

Dublin University (Trinity College) Young Unionists

http://www.csc.tcd.ie/~unionist/

Ethnic cleansing in the free state - Protestants in Republic of Ireland : New Statesman July 10, 1998

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_n4393_v127/ai_20967818

Aughavey 3 July 2005 21:54 (UTC) (Craig openly condoned discrimination against Catholics.) I`m not sure the above is quite true - he did however state: July 12 1932 - James Craig

"ours is a Protestant Government and I am an Orangeman" As NI Prime Minister, at Orange demonstration at Pontzpass, Co. Armagh

April 24 1934 - James Craig (Lord Craigavon) "I have always said that I am an Orangeman first and a politician and member of this Parliament afterwards - They still boast of Souther Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State" As NI Prime Minister, at Stormont.

and to put that in context

Eamon de Valera Prime Minister of the Irish Free State / Irish Republic 1930

"Justifying the sacking of a properly appointed librarian in Mayo, because, though highly qualified, she was a Protestant, de Valera argued in June 1930: "I say the people of Mayo in a county where I think 98% of the population is Catholic are justified in insisting on a Catholic librarian." He went on to widen the issue indeed, and asserted: "a Protestant doctor ought not to be appointed as a dispensary doctor in a mainly Catholic area."

(But De Valera was in Opposition before 1932. So he cannot be accused of making that decision regarding the librarian.)


Mayo County Council made the decision. But for the state's Opposition leader to back them unequivocally was definitely sectarian populism.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Not long after partition:- During the debate on compulsory Irish, Deputy Wolfe (a Protestant) protested:


"I doubt if compelling people to learn is a good way of spreading the language; it is a very difficult thing to compel an Irishman to do anything." It is still a compulsory requirement to this day (2005) that you must speak fluent Irish to gain employment as a Civil Servant in the Republic of Ireland.


Yeats a prominent Southern Irish Protestant TD in the Dail / Irish Parliament gave the Government a warning:

"If you show that this country, Southern Ireland, is going to be governed by Catholic ideas and by Catholic ideas alone, you will never get the North . . . You will put a wedge in the midst of this nation."

Quote: "It is still a compulsory requirement to this day (2005) that you must speak fluent Irish to gain employment as a Civil Servant in the Republic of Ireland."

Not so. The compulsory element of Irish in schools was removed in April 1973 (see Compulsory Irish by Adrian Kelly), and was removed in 1974 as a requirement for the civil service.

Actually the Study of Gaelic is still compulsary in Irish Schools. All the so-called abolition of compulsary Irish did was to end the situation where if one failed Irish in theie exams one was deemed to have failed the entire exam ! And this wasnt a retroactive change either There are still many people in Ireland today who effectively have no educational qualifications whatsoever because they failed one Irish exam !.

The term 'Southern Ireland' is nonsensical, geographically and politically. That country simply does not exist. The term is Republic of Ireland.

Northern Unionism can not be predominantly Presbyterian as that would be insufficient to maintain a unionist majority. The Presbyterians are the largest religious bloc, but the Church of Ireland is generally just as unionist and only a few percentage points below the size of the Presbyterians. MnJWalker Also there is a geographical divide between Presbyterianism and Anglicanism with Presbyterianism being dominant in the North and East of Northern Ireland and Anglicans (Church of Ireland) being the dominant (Protestant) religion aross the rest of the Island.

Some anonymous individual claims above that WB Yeats said "this country, Southern Ireland". I'd like to see the evidence for Yeats's use of that loyalist term. His country was Ireland, a fact which he was very proud of.El Gringo 05:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Admitidely Southern Ireland may not be a TECHNICALLY correct description of the Republic of Ireland (The most Northerly point of the Island being in the south and all that) however in the context of a discussion about Unionism or Nationalsm the term "Southern Ireland" is arguably more readily understood by people living outside (the island of) Ireland. It is certainly far less misleading than the widespread practice of referring to the Republic (as opposed to the Island as a whole) as "Ireland" (as enshrined in Article 4 of The Republic's 1938 constitution) or the even more confusing term Irish Republic unwittingly used by many Unionists (and others) to describe "the south" when it actually refers to the notional All-Ireland republic to which nationalists aspire. And for a short period prior to the establishment of the free state there WAS an legal entity called "Southern Ireland" albeit largely existing on paper.


SO THE DUCK GOES INTO THE BAR AND SAYS " WHERES MY MARGIRITA!" AND THE BARTENDER SAYS " ITS ON FIRE!" LOL SARAH NEEDS TO WORK ON HER REVOLUTION MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Alright, hands up who did this? EmpComm 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Taking of Ireland

Given the context of the sentence, I changed this back to the literal translation. As a compromise however, I added the 'known as' comment. There is no other "Book of the Taking of Ireland" to confuse this with, and the Wikilink points directly to the article in question. The common 'translation' is also, ironically, part of historical revisionism. --Mal 08:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Small Island Property and Tax Law?

I fail to see the logic behind: "Irish unionists opposed Home Rule for many reasons. Much of their support in southern and western Ireland (the provinces of Munster, Leinster and Connacht) came from landed gentry who feared that a nationalist assembly would introduce property and taxation laws more suitable to a small island than the laws imposed from Westminster, which were designed for a much larger area, the entire United Kingdom." I fail to see how Ireland being a slightly smaller island than Britian is at all relevent. Other factors may have made UK law less just in Ireland than in Britian, but not island size. matturn 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Troubles

This section begins with a reference to brutal killings, to which are linked the British army and the police. I think that this is badly phrased, rather than deliberately incorrect. I've left it because I don't like trespassing on other people's pages, but I think that it could do with being looked at. --Major Bonkers 12:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole section seems a bit out of place to me. It is talking about the Troubles in general, and doesn't specifically relate to Unionism. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish culture

Can anyone help me get my head around the following phrase?

“ Everyday life in Northern Ireland reflects the rest of the UK, sharing the same newspapers, roadsigns, postcodes etc. Irish culture, of course, influences the province as well. ”

It makes it sound like Northern Ireland is some sort of cultural blank slate, appropriating the culture of its next-door-neighbour, when in fact many "Irish" things are intrinsically bound up with Ulster and the north. We wouldn't say Irish culture "influences" the Republic of Ireland, would we? Martin 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason for keeping the paragraph myself. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Most cultures are influenced by neighbouring cultures Northern Irish culture is heavily influenced by both Irish and British (mainly Scottish) cultures. Indeed Southern Irish culture is also influenced by British (mainly English) cultures and to a lesser extent that of the rest of the Anglosphere.


-The part that bothers me most is the term "provence". Ulster has 9 counties, Northern Ireland has 6, therefore to call the country a provence (as so many often do) is inaccurate. EmpComm 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protestants in the Irish Parliament

There are four Protestants in the current Dáil: Seymour Crawford, Mildred Fox, Jan O'Sullivan and Trevor Sargent. What about Ivan Yates and Martin Manseragh ? Im not sure how relevent this anyway. None of the 4 TD's (or 3 Senators) AFaIK are Unionists. In anycase a Southern neo-Unionist in this day and age is as likely to be Roman Catholic (or of "other" or no religion) as Protestant !

I've removed all that. Ivan Yates is no longer a TD and Martin Mansergh is a Senator. As none of them are Unionists, I don't think it's relevant. --Ryano 09:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies

This article is seriously bad in large areas. It mucks up terminology, makes sweeping generalisations, veers from a pro-republican bias (I should have known Lapsed Pacifist had edited it!) to an over-the-top Unionist bias, then jumps between the two. It contains a lot of POV crap about "neo-Unionists" (except in Sinn Féin-speak there ain't no such thing). Oh gawd, it is so substandard and unencyclopaediac it is almost funny. BTW Ivan Yates is retired from the Dáil years ago!!! The fact that the article cannot even get that fact speaks volumes for how bad it is. And who the heck is so bad at spelling? Senete??? For crying out loud! This article is a thorough embarrassment. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There IS such thing as a neo-Unionist. Not many but more than most people realise. I am a neo-Unionist although admitidely I no longer live in the Republic 87.113.19.12 18:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph does state that "the number of Unionists in what is now the Republic of Ireland declined to a point where their numbers were widely regarded as almost insignificant" So wheres the dispute ? As for inaccuracies regarding spelling, numbers of representitives in parliament etc why dont you correct it instead of complaining about it in here ? Oh and yes there are a few of us left. Southern Unionism may not exactly be fashionable (for now ?) but it certainly still exists 194.165.161.133 13:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is appalling. It mentions the partition of Ireland without any attempt to put it into context, it's blatantly politically biased throughout.

[edit] Natives of Ulster

Could someone go to the foot of the article on Cruithne (people) and flesh out the Unionist notion described there, that Scots settlers in Ulster are descended from the original inhabitants of the province? Or is there a separate article on this matter?--Shtove 17:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For aa start, I think you've misunderstood the history. The Cruthin are not "Scots settlers in Ulster". Perhaps the article isn't quite up to scratch - I'll have a look at it. --Mal 23:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks a very ethnic-political proposition to me. As I understand it, there is a theory that the Scots who settled in Ulster in the 16th-17thC. are descended from the Cruithne, who formed the common, aboriginal population of Ulster and Scotland.--Shtove 10:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard this theory before. If you have a decent source, feel free to add it to the article with a citation though I suppose.
My understanding is that the Cruthin were a large tribe of people who may or may not have been pre-Celtic and lived in the British Isles some two- to two and a half thousand years ago onward. In the 1500-1600s (the 16th and 17th centuries), any people from Scotland would have been much more mixed because the tribes of previous millenia had been largely consolidated.
While there may be a substantial proportion of the British population that is descended from these people, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that these people are, each and every one of them, unionists, or Protestant (an 'invention' of the 16th century), or Scots. --Mal 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm just inquiring, not asserting. I have no source for this, just a recollection of a political argument based on ethnicity to counter the Brits Out! line ie. loyalists would argue that since their Scots forebears (the planters) were descended from a population once common to Scotland and Ulster, then their presence in Ulster was justifiable ab initio. I'm not for it or agin it - just think it's notable and worth fleshing out, if in fact that is the gist of the argument. P.S. Leaving a message for User:El Gringo on my talk page is probably not the best way to reach him. Thanks.--Shtove 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me illustrate a point for you Shtove. The Irish folk hero Setanta has been hijacked by both Republicans and Loyalists and politicised. That does not mean that the myth never existed until these two polar opposite groups decided the character represented their respective 'cause'.
Some of the more stringent unionists, and probably many Loyalists too, use the idea of the Cruthin to demonstrate how the history of our peoples isn't as straightforward as 'native' and 'Planter'. Some go further than that.
The problem though, is that we're dealing with a pre-history society in the case of the Cruthin - very little is actually known about them. One theory is that they had lived as a matriarchial(sp?) society, as opposed to the Celtic culture's patriarcial society. Another is that they spoke with a pre-Celtic tongue. Another is that they arrived at the same time as Celts, or were themselves Celts.
We should probably note all of these theories, but I don't believe it is necessary to politicise it in terms of Catholics versus Protestants or nationalists vs unionists. Too many things are polarised in that way already, which only serves to further divide the people, rather than give us all some kind of common ground and mutual appreciation and understanding. It is wrong to dismiss something simply on the grounds that it is perceived to be, in mordern terms, of nationalist or of unionist import. Instead, we should just present the theories and/or facts, and let the reader formulate their own opinion, or do further research for themselves. --Mal 02:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interested in polarisation. Not interested in common ground. Not interested in the history of the matter. I understand your point about Setanta. I understand use of the Red Hand of Ulster. But I'd like to read a coherent statement of the political/ethnic theory that seeks to justify the Plantation of Ulster and the continued presence in Ireland of descendants of the Scots settlers. People are people, and being people they often tell themselves elaborate stories. So, what's the story?--Shtove 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North of the island of Ireland

Is there a politically neutral manner of referring to the North of the island of Ireland if one wants to include not only Northern Ireland but the northern part of the Republic, without implicitly passing comment on the legitimacy of Northern Ireland?--Lucifer(sc) 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the northern half of the island you could say "north of Ireland" but it will always be taken the wrong way, and so IMO shouldn't be use on Wikipedia. If you mean Northern Ireland plus Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan then Ulster is acceptable. It would help if I knew what you were referring to the north of Ireland in relation of? Also if you're using north, south, east and west geographically then capitals are not required. Keithology Talk! 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the Belfast agreement the term "Northern Ireland" is recognised by most people (including moderate nationalists) nowadays. Only hardline Irish Nationalists ("republicans") Insist on referring to it as "the six counties" or even "occupied Ireland". In casual conversation the terms "the North" and "the South" are widely accepted (despite the most Northerly point on the Island actually being in "the South") but only makes sense when all the speakers are actually IN Ireland 87.113.19.12 18:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

87.113.19.12 misunderstands: I do not want to refer to Northern Ireland but to the north of the Island.--Lucifer 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You probably need to provide some context. You could be referring to the the northern coast of Ireland, or Ulster, or Northern Ireland and border counties or the northern half of Ireland. If its clear that its a purely geographical description, I don't think there should be much of a problem or offense taken. --Mal 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Use north of Ireland. The island is a distinct geographical entity, with parts in the north, south, east and west. If you were referring to the north of Antarctica, then you'd have a problem.--Shtove 23:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Whatever we do, let's not forget Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan are part of Ulster, but not part of Northern Ireland (or the North/Occupied Ireland/Six Counties, etc) - EmpComm 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Captain Obvious. 88.107.72.138 14:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donegal Progressive Party

What in the world is the Donegal Progressive Party? Dermo69 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think its something like the Peoples Front of Judea. --LiamE 00:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The Judean People's Front, surely? « Keith t/e» 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnionism_in_Ireland_e455.html"