Talk:Ulster Unionist Party

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

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

see Cfd discussion: penisWikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics_to_Category:Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_at_the_Olympics --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)

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)

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)

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)