Talk:Ulster Unionist Party/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Is the UK's Olympic team "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?

see Cfd discussion: --Mais oui! 22:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Protestant political parties

would anyone object if I classified this article in the Category:Protestant political parties? -- C mon 07:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I would.Traditional unionist 09:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to explain? -- C mon 11:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not a Protestant party, the only requirement for membership is eligability to vote in Northern Ireland and that one be a unionist. Nothing about religion, it is NOT a protestant party, I know Jewish UUP members.Traditional unionist 15:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The category does not seek to include party's with limited membership, but party's with roots in a protestant church, I thought the UUP did, but a well -- C mon 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No roots in a protestant or any other chruch, the Orange Institution maybe at a push, but that still does not make it a Protestant Party, and to say so would be sensitive to say the least, in that you would be offending me at the very least.Traditional unionist 10:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And you wouldn't want to offend a unionist would you? You're probably confused about it being a Protestant political party by things such as the fact that it has had clergy representing it as Members of Parliament (and that Mickey Mouse Assembly). Protestant clergy, that is, no rabbis that I can recall, nor imams and definitely none of those Roman fellows unionists think spend all of their time obsessing about taking over Norn Iron.

The people who dote on the "Protestant Succession" are probably not unionists. The ones who are afraid of "brass money, wooden shoes (see Wikipedia on Holland) and Popery" are probably not unionists either.

For purposes of clarity, please Google "Rev Dr Robert Coulter MLA" (UUP),"Rev Martin Smyth" (UUP), "Robert Thomas William McCrea" (DUP), "Ivan Foster" (DUP), "Ian Richard Kyle Paisley" (DUP). I could go on, ad inifitum, but I'm sure you catch my drift.

Though to be fair (and pedantic, well that's a Norn Iron tradition too) the above contributor did refer to "a protestant" (singular), there are in fact Presbyterian and Anglican clergy who are UUP politicians. Plus, he did also say "chruch" and not "church". "Nothing about religion" though, hmm.

To sum up, you don't have to be a protestant to be in the UUP, the same way you don't have to be familiar with the inside of prison cells to be a senior DUP politician but it tends to be the norm.

194.46.237.204 22:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the above; there tends to be tribal loyalty to what has happened in the recent past, but that's definitely not what the UUP aims for today. To be very cynical, the UUP cannot be Protestant any more because it's not politically viable; it used to be, as we saw in the Stormont Parliament, when they dominated the Protestant politics and could guarantee a majority by nipping Protestant rivals and they could thus ignore 40% of the electorate because they had the other 60% in the bag. Now they don't, they must appeal to as many groups as possible and I think that this as done Northern Ireland politics a world of good. There will be many people in Norn Iron who'll "never" vote Unionist, but there are many people in the rest of the UK who'll "never" vote Tory; I'm glad that, finally, people in Northern Ireland can at least consider voting for any party, rather than just the one that your church/daddy/local knee-capping team tells you to vote for.

As for the "Mickey Mouse Assembly", if you're going to have a population that's split 60-40 and each side entrenches its position and refuses to countenance cross-group alliances, and then the opposition refuse to take their seats, then the result is unsurprising. Wee Jimmy (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegiations

Why isint their alleged involvement with loyalist terrorists mentioned here?

It is now! --Eamonnca1 18:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ulster Unionist Council

Ulster Unionist Council is currently a red link - if it is redirected here then something more should be added here, perhaps into structure. --Henrygb 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unionist or Conservative?

What is the position when linking historical politicians, etc. who described themselves as Unionist?

As I understand it, the Tory party and its candidates often just described themselves as "Unionist" until the split of the NI "Unionists" from the Tories in about 1970.

Would it be correct to link all pre-1970 mainland "Unionists" to the Conservative party, and all pre-1970 NI "Unionists" to the UUP? The situation is confusing because often NI "Unionists" (pre-1970) were described as "Tories"! RodCrosby 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's more convoluted. Generally UK/British (subject) history books tend to use "Unionist" for the lot until c 1921 then "Conservative" from that point onwards. However "Unionist" was still used in a lot of places - after 1921 The Times used it in election results and other coverage, the Scottish party used it into the 1960s, candidates in Birmingham (i.e. Chamberlainville) used it at least until the Second World War and it may well have been used elsewhere. Some Ulster Unionist MPs had roles at Westminster - Hugh O'Neill was chair of the 1922 Back Bench Committee in the 1930s, H. Montgomery Hyde was Harold Macmillan's PPS in the 1960s and Robin Chichester-Clark was a minister in the Heath government in the 1970s. For a Westminster focused party and media the distinctions of the Scottish and Northern Irish parties weren't always clear.
Post war "Unionist" is probably best dropped for "Conservative" in Scotland from 1965 onwards. For Northern Ireland it's complicated. IIRC there were some Ulster Unionist MPs still taking the whip until February 1974 - Chichester-Clark only became a minister after Stormont was abolished. And I've seen people consider the votes for "Pro Agreement Unionists" who contested the Feb 1974 election (including a few sitting MPs) as potential Conservative votes. The Ulster Unionist split off from the Conservatives seems to have been in stages - rejecting the whip c1972-1974, refusing to retake the whip (end of Feb 1974 when Heath tried to survive), withdrawing from the National Union in 1985. (I recall from Dean Godson's biography of Trimble that at least the Lagan Valley Ulster Unionist Association was considering the question of affiliation after this, although this may have been a formal thing or perhaps a sign of an association asserting that it was they who would make such a decision even though they would make the same decision as the UUC!)
As ever these things are far from simple! Timrollpickering 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I only ask, because when writing the article on James Godfrey MacManaway, I came across this contemporary piece in Time magazine
£500 a Day,in which he's described as a Tory MP! That threw me a bit, but I have linked his "Unionist" description to the UUP.
Would a good approximation be that pre-1970, NI "Unionists" were "UUP first, Tories second", so they can all be safely linked to the UUP? RodCrosby 22:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

PUP controversey

Looks like we have some UVF apologists running riot here. How is it 'POV' to say that catholics were killed by the UVF 'at random?' Were they specifically targetted using a clear criterion or were they just picked off at random because they were catholics? Why has the UVF 'terrorist' citation been removed? Wikipedia's not an election manifesto, it's supposed to be neutral. NPOV means including a few unpalettable facts that you might not like to hear. --Eamonnca1 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you calling me a UVF apologist? If you knew the history properly you would know just how offensive that is. It is grossly simplistic to say that the UVF murdered at random, and misleading to say that the murdered Catholics, as they murdered all types of people. The IRA murdered at random on a sectarian basis, for eg Kingsmills, but it would be too simplistic to say that they killed Protestants at random in another article only loosely related, even though the statement is true. That is my reasoning. Traditional unionist 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I just find it a little bit odd that some people are softening up any language that portrays the UVF as the terrorists they are. What's so offensive about saying that the UVF targetted catholics and killed them at random on the basis of their religion? That's precisely what they did and the vast majority of their resources were devoted to it. Just because they got into a few feuds once in a while and murdered some of their own doesn't change the fact. --Eamonnca1 00:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are displaying POV in your comments as well as your edits. There is no objective reason to include what you want to, readers following the links can draw their own concusions from the facts.Traditional unionist 01:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is an objective reason to say that the UVF are terrorists who targetted catholics and killed them at random. It's called stating the facts, not POV. What conclusions would you prefer the readers to draw? That the UVF are a neighbourhood watch scheme? Please don't confuse the unionist POV with NPOV. --Eamonnca1 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

UUP: conservative or not?

There is a long debate about the issue of defining the ideology of UUP in the edit summaries' chronology between me and Traditional unionist. I think it is time to move the discussion on this talk page. There are many sources (and reasons for) stating that UUP is a conservative party.

I don't know why the issue is so controversial, indeed saying that a party is conservative is not an offence: this is not to say that an extremely conservative party, but a respectable, moderate and centrist conservative party, exactly as many other parties are or can be (think about British Conservatives, French UMP, German CDU). Unionism can't be the only definition for a party like UUP, which is member of the EPP-ED group at the European Parliament and is close to the Movement for European Reform launched by British and Czech Conservatives.

About the sources stating that UUP is conservative, I can provide you the links to Parties and Elections in Europe, Encyclopedia Britannica, World Statesmen, Conservapedia, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, The Raw Story. I don't think that is a scandal to think that UUP is a moderately conservative party, but conservative. --Checco 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Traditional Unionist has a very US-informed view of what "conservative" is, it appearantly means on the socio-economic right for him. There is however a tradition of English conservatism, of which Disraeli is an important exponent which emphasized is much more social, oriented at social cohesion and making things work "for all of us". The UUP appears to stand in that tradition. C mon 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Something along the lines of the Canadian Red Tory tradition - I am aware of it. But it is still not true to say that the UUp is Conservative, that is a very out of date perception. And it isn't just me objecting, I'm just the only registered editor.Traditional unionist 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

By European standards, the Ulster Unionist Party is certainly conservative, there's *no* doubt about that. —Nightstallion 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

UUP definitely not "conservative" in its current incarnation - ref the 2007 Election Manifesto (http://www.uup.org/uup_manifesto2007.pdf) which among other things supports extending the welfare state in terms of Free Prescriptions, Nursing Home Care, defending the Minimum Wage and so on - it is would be just as incorrect to describe the centre-ground position of the UUP as "conservative" as it would be to describe it as "socialist". --81.136.49.50 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

...by that definition of conservative the United Kingdom's Conservative (Tory) Party would not be conservative! (which it probably isn't) --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Moderate

"The Ulster Unionist Party...is a moderate unionist political party in Northern Ireland, which formed its government between 1921 and 1972."
I understand that this opening sentence means that in 2007, the UUP is moderate in comparison with the DUP or the PUP, but I think a fair number of people would disagree that it was a moderate party when it "formed its government between 1921 and 1972." Is there any way to re-write this opener? Scolaire 15:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit, "although not then moderate", has now been changed so that the original POV, that the UUP was moderate in the period 1921 - 1972, has been restored. This needs to be addressed urgently. Scolaire 10:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I support what you say. --Checco 11:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That is not POV, it is fact. Could you define moderate for me? For each and every example you give of the UUP not being moderate, I will give you an example of "moderate" progressive policy in that period. To say "not then moderate" is an awful form of words in any case.Traditional unionist 11:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"Moderate" is a rather meaningless term in politics as it's so relative. The UUP in the 1921-1972 period was not moderate compared to some, extremely moderate compared to others, whether the point of comparison is the UK, Ireland, both, Europe, the world... Is there a better form of wording that avoids this useless term? Timrollpickering 11:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
On this, I agree with you. --Checco 11:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So, what I'm asking you, between the three of you, is to find an alternative wording for the first two sentences that avoids the suggestion that the party spent those fifty years "being moderate" (whatever that means). I agree with TU that the wording of my edit wasn't great; that's why I would like somebody else to come up with an alternative. Scolaire 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with saying it was the sole Unionist party? I think that implies everything it needs to.Traditional unionist 12:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing at all wrong with saying it was the sole Unionist party. It's the "moderate" bit that needs modifying. Scolaire 12:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Scolaire on changing that sentence. --Checco 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Or changing the first sentence. That was the point I was making here. Scolaire 12:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well there was also briefly the Ulster Progressive Unionist Association and the Commonwealth Labour Party for starters. And weren't there a bunch of One Man And His Dog parties as well? Timrollpickering 12:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
To me, its clear that the current form of words in the 1st sentence makes it a clear comparison with contemporary electoral rivals - the second sentence pointing out that there were no rivals then circumnavigates this problem surely?Traditional unionist 12:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Surely it's clear from the response that it doesn't. Scolaire 12:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that I don't agree. Perhaps it just needs re-ordered.Traditional unionist 12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And while we're defining "moderate", what is the evidence that the UUP is more moderate than other unionist parties? The DUP stands for the rule of law, and also for power-sharing. Is that extremist? Scolaire 12:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find it pretty tough to find a source to say that the DUP is as moderate or more so than the UUP!Traditional unionist 12:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's for you to find a source to say it's not. Otherwise the statement is OR. Scolaire 12:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, [1] let's be serious.Traditional unionist 12:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but that's history! The first sentence is supposed to refer to the current (i.e. post-May 8) position of the parties. Scolaire 12:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine, last nights H&M is pretty good for that.Traditional unionist 13:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Am I supposed to watch the whole programme? Why don't you just tell me what was said? Scolaire 13:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a little excerpt about the contentTraditional unionist 13:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the excerpt about either party being moderate. Scolaire 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
We're in danger of looking for evidence that water is wet again.Traditional unionist 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the point is, why not just delete the word "moderate" from the first sentence. Surely "unionist" is synonymous with "moderate", anyway? Scolaire 13:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not when you're talking about Norman Porter and the like!Traditional unionist 13:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This is going nowhere! You have my proposal. Let's see what other people think. Scolaire 13:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I simply think that he opening paragraph needs re-ordering.Traditional unionist 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I can live with the re-ordering you did, indeed. Thank you. --Checco 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Scolaire 16:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Stormont era

The first sentence in this section refers to Lord Craigavon and Lord Brookeborough. Subsequent paragraphs refer to Craig (identified in the previous section as Sir James Craig) and Sir Basil Brooke. To anybody familiar with NI politics this probably isn't even noticeable, but to anybody else it must be quite baffling. Since this first sentence is already top-heavy with brackets I suggest that they be named here as James Craig and Basil Brooke (the links are already piped anyway), and the next time they appear their lordly titles be added. So, for instance, the very next sentence would begin "Craig (later Lord Craigavon) governed Northern Ireland from its inception..." Another option would be to refer to them in the first sentence as James Craig - since his baronetcy arose from his political career - and Sir Basil Brooke - who inherited his title, the very point that is being made in that sentence. Scolaire (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think they are generally known by their titles (Craigavon and Brookeborough), which they both held for the majority of their respective periods as Prime Minister. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, no! Come on! Sir James Craig became famous in the Home Rule period as Sir James Craig! Sir Basil Brooke became famous in the heave against Andrews as Sir Basil Brooke! You're treating this as an anti-Unionist, "deny-them-their-titles" argument; it's nothing of the sort! Like any other lord, they should be referred to in any given period by the name they were known by in that period. Scolaire (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
And "Sir Clarence Graham, Bt."?? We don't do that on Wikipedia. Scolaire (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not. They're famous as PMs (during which time they were mostly known by their titles!). Counter-revolutionary (talk)
Where does it say we don't do it. It looks tidier to include "Sir" in the link, and Bt. is appropriate so one knows what he was. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"Sir" inside the link is fine. I'm pretty sure the policy is not to add Barts and the like to peoples names except at the very start of a biographical article, but I can't find the policy. I'm not going to argue the toss over the PMs/Lords. I think it's wrong the way it is now but it's not worth fighting over. Scolaire (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Conservatives

I added a section to the lead about the UUP's new agreement with the Conservatives. Feel free to change or remove it. -MichiganCharms (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to leave it as it is for a few weeks until more info comes out. Then the weight of the subject needs a section in the body of the article.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

UUP spokesmen

I've tided up the party spokesmen section and combined it with Ministers for an overall party leadership one. Source (and perhaps updates) needed for the spokesmen list. --Gecko177 (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Electoral pact with Conservatives

No harm at all in having a separate section for this, but why on earth is it the second paragraph in the article? Is it really the most significant event in the history of the party? Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Language Issues

The inimical stance of the UUP towards Irish Gaelic should be elucidated. There would seem to be a meeting of minds between the UUP the DUP and TUV on this matter! I have appended a recent BBC report below. BBC NEWS | UK | Northern Ireland | Executive warned on report delay The UK government is required to report to the Council of Europe every three years on its progress in protecting minority languages, such as Ulster Scots, Irish, Scots Gaelic and Welsh.

The implementation of the policy is left to the devolved regions.

But at Stormont, the Executive could not agree on a submission prepared by a cross-departmental group of civil servants who work on implementing the treaty.


The BBC has seen a letter from April this year in which the then Europe minister Caroline Flint wrote to Stormont's then Culture Minister Gregory Campbell.

She stated she was "disappointed" that his department was still unable to provide its input.

She went on to state that following a formal request from the Council of Europe she could no longer delay.

She wrote: "I cannot ignore this request as there is now a real risk of the UK being censured for not meeting its international obligations.Eog1916 (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Membership

Membership has not been stated in the info box. This is something we usually include, can we look in to this? What sources are appropriate for citing this, some people have expressed oposition to some sources on other parties' pages. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

What is the correct name of the UK's Olympic team? uklanders

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ulster Unionist Party. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Disproportionately

User:Gob Lofa you do know that you have just technically violated 1RR. It would of been better to post your sources here and discuss it, especially as some of your sources do not explicitly back up your wording. Better wording going by the sources you've provided would be "who were less likely to be Catholic". Mabuska (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by the firmness of your grasp of English. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulster_Unionist_Party/Archive_1&oldid=1123812399"