Talk:United Ireland/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Until 1800 there was an Irish Parliament for the whole island. Also, irrespective of the lack of home rule, Ireland was united from 1800-1922. zoney ♣ talk 23:05, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But not united in the way we wanted - independant - and we were politically part of the UK. And the pre-1800 Irish parliment was still answerable to the Crown. Fergananim

Not quite true! It was the Act of Union (1800) that made us part of the United Kingdom – an extraordinarily important point. It's for this reason that O'Connell could demand Repeal: if the Act of Union were repealed, Ireland would return to Grattan's constitution, but this time with the franchise for Catholics and Dissenters as well as Anglicans.

As for the question of independence, it's rather hard to apply modern concepts of national independence to mediaeval and Renaissance state formations. Certainly from Strongbow's time to Grattan's, England (and later Great Britain) had considerable influence over Irish affairs – but it really took Henry VIII's reinvasion (in 1544 or so? – have to check the date) and later the Elizabethan programme of capitulation and regrant, plantation, and the Flight of the Earls to place Ireland's welfare firmly in English hands. But from about 1547 or so, Ireland was actually a separate kingdom from England, and it remained so for almost a century after the United Kingdom was created. The Irish parliament met (this was avowedly the representative of the "Protestant Irish nation", that is, an island-wide Anglican ascendancy) and under Grattan it actually gained substantial powers. Now, throughout this period, the kings of Ireland were simultaneous kings of England (or Great Britain) and they spent most of their time across the water; nevertheless, Ireland was (if you like) an independent, unfree kingdom in its own right until the Act of Union.

The meaning for all this for a United Ireland: well, precisely that. Ireland was united, in certain important ways, from the 1540s to 1922, and particularly after the Flight of the Earls. This the reason Irish nationalists took the idea of a 32-county Ireland for granted: a united Ireland was the only one that Wolfe Tone, O'Connell, or Parnell had ever known. Although of course, it wasn't yet an Irish state for the whole Irish people, not by the remotest stretch of the imagination. QuartierLatin1968 21:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I accecpt what you say, Zoney. I've seen enough of your work to know you are usually on the ball. And what you say is fundamentally correct, but ... Fergananim

Well, I'm saying not to say that the situation was one I agree with, but rather to point out that Ireland's partition in 1922 is a *very* modern situation, and entirely British-designed to ensure an artificial pro-Union majority in one area of the country. I mean, if it was OK to do that, why is NI taken as a whole nowadays when considering the principle of consent? Why not allow Fermanagh and Derry to be partitioned from NI?

zoney ♣ talk 18:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh I agree that the 1922 partition is a very modern thing and a great breck with the immediate past. And why indeed? Why can't Fermanagh and Derry be allowed to decide which state they are to be a part of? All our history shows is what a bad idea it is to have a foreign power calling the shots in another nation. Fergananim

Here's another thought: why not let Scotland annex County Antrim (with maybe Coleraine and some of North Down), and let the rest of NI unite with the South?

Mind you, that won't solve the more pressing problem, which is the need for reconciliation between the communities. Protestant-Catholic unity is an absolute prerequisite for either a United Ireland or a United Kingdom, and yet none of the parties is talking about this. QuartierLatin1968 23:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right, unifying the north and the south will solve nothing because the underlying problems will not be solved, merely placed in a new political state. As a citizen of the Republic there is absolutly no way I could endorse the union of Northern Ireland with Ireland at the moment because of this. The peoples of the north have far more in common with each other - because of their proximity, shared history and shared conflicts - that they do with the Irish or British. Not a point of view that would win me any points at a Wolfe Tones concert but there it is. Fergananim.

Than they do with the Southern Irish, you mean! :-P QuartierLatin1968 21:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Fergananim, partition has proven itself a disaster for the people of the North, and arguably held back the Southern economy for many decades, as at the time (1920) it contained 80% of the island's economic output. I think the excellent cross-community relations in the South are an example that should be extended to the North in future. To say otherwise in my opinion amounts to an unjustified motion of no-confidence in our own ability to run a state in which people are treated fairly irrespective of religion. Partition has forced the people of the North to continue voting according to religion and the constitutional question - something we were freed from in the South after independence. The former Unionists in the South found their place in the Southern parties. They didn't keep voting for Unionists in the South. A reunified Ireland would liberate people from this endless sectarian headcount at election time - especially since the Unionists, at 20%, would have no hope of overturning the Nationalist majority. Thus it would make sense for them to integrate into the All-Ireland state. - Peter O'Connell

They cite the decline of the small Protestant population of the Republic of Ireland since secession from the United Kingdom

I'm curious about the source of this. Is there any basis in fact for this claim? Or is it merely apocryphal Unionist speculation. If it's the latter, it seems some revision of the sentence is warranted, as it implies the belief is true. And, what exactly is "the decline"? A decrease in total numbers? Or relegated to once-ran status?

A marked decline both in absolute numbers, and as a percentage of population [1] Demiurge 15:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The Protestant decline was mainly due - after independence - to intermarriage with Catholics and the resultant offspring being brought up as Catholics under the Catholic Church rule called the Ne Temere Decree. Since 1994, the population is on the rise again, primarily due to intermarriage no longer resulting in solely Catholic children (due to the decline in Catholic church authority in modern Ireland after a series of scandals), conversions of Catholics to Protestantism, and immigration. It should also be noted that many Southern Protestants were in the British army and they and their families moved to the North. Others in border areas moved to the North simply to remain part of the UK, as they were Unionists.

I wish to draw attention to the following statment, which is incorrect:

"Despite this the entire island shared the same language (the Irish language) and the same ethnic background (Gael), much as the German and Italian kingdoms did before unification."

This statment ignores the presence of such peoples as the Cruithne, Fir Bolg, Ulaid, Conmaicne, Delbhna, Fir Ol nEchmacht, not to mention such johnny-come-lately's as the Ostmen. Thank you. Fergananim 30th July 2005.

I have re-reverted the above statment (which was re-inserted) for the same reasons as stated above. Fergananim 01:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually DNA evidence indicates that 80% of Irish Catholics are descended from the original population from 9,000 years ago. Here is my source http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ti=41&ca=9&si=175861&issue_id=1882

I have a password to that website and it states nothing of the type, the nearest thing it states is:

More than 98pc carry a distinctive collection of genes inherited from the pre-neolithic hunters and fishermen who settled Ireland around 9,000 years ago, the tests showed.

Djegan 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

54.9% of southern Catholics want a united Ireland, 9.1% think NI should stay part of the UK. 41.9% of southern Protestants want a UI, 23.3% think NI should stay part of the UK. (From a March 2005 ESRI study Conflict and Consensus: A Study of Values and Attitudes in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland [2] via The Irish Times via Slugger O'Toole. [3]).

Demiurge 16:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"However under the rule of strong leaders Ireland operated much like a federal nation, where the High King ruled the country and the Irish kings of the four provinces of Ireland were in charge of their local affairs." Hi. I'm going to remove this statment as it just does not reflect the political reality of the different kingdoms in Ireland up to the coming of the Normans. Frankly, it sounds like someone is making some claim for a pre-Norman, United Ireland. And there were FIVE provinces back then. 12:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There were, but the absence of unitary authority doesn't necessarily mean the absence of common national consciousness. There was one single language spoken by the native population, namely Irish. The fact that Scots Gaelic is almost identical to Irish Gaelic proves that the inhabitants from the North of Ireland who invaded modern-day Scotland in the 5th century were Irish speakers - not some mythical separate ethnic group. I would also point out that at the time when England had no central king the people there called themselves "the nation of the English", demonstrating - together with the movement for Italian unification much later on - that national consciouness can precede the establishment of tight central governmental control. I would compare pre-Norman invasion Ireland to a federation. The civil wars often revolved over who should be High King, proving the existence of a common national identity. For 500 years, the O'Neills of Ulster were the High Kings of Ireland, and by default, the High Kings were also kings of Meath. Norway didn't have one central king until sometime in the 1000's, yet no-one is seriously suggesting they are not a nation.

Sorry. Did'nt intend to go on this lenth. However, I do think it helped set it up as a lot of people have very confused and unrealistic ideas of what exactly the political situation was like back before (and after) the Normans. Cheers! Fergananim 13:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks, I just thought this line...

these results do not mean that the people of Northern Ireland would not necessarily choose unification within a few decades; in the event that the Good Friday Agreement is successful and implemented.

...was maybe a little too subjective for an encyclopedia! I think we should be sticking to the facts, and not making conjectures, especially on a topic such as a United Ireland! Although I do recognise that the statement was probably never intended to be biased. Brian 11:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well ever since the British government was ignorant and let half of the Irish starve, people wanted to break away from them. Ever since the 18th century people wanted independence, even the protestants, but when the industrial revolution came to Belfast, people of both religions were determined to maintain the union with Britian as the Belfast economy relied on access to British Markets. Nowadays it is said that the Belfast economy is growing more reliant on the economy in the republic, due to the republics recent economic success.

Richard, I would say that's a fairly simplistic take on the situation here. Brian 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Over simplistic indeed but their is some truth in it.The blight spread across many parts of europe yet it did not develope into a famine as central european countries looked after their subjects.The only only country were it did develope into a full scale famine was Ireland, ruled by britain. Major coincedence or a government who didnt care about there Irish "subjects".Hhhmmm?

Yes, this, in a nut shell is the key to many of the problems of the entire situation - people with very limited knowledge citing single examples and pretend they sum up the whole picture - they don't. Take your reactionary nonsense out of here - this is a encyclopedia, not a mouth peice for hatred aimed at Irish sympathisers around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.116.223 (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel that a United Ireland has many economic benefits. The Republic of Ireland is currenty the fastest growing economy in the EU and the people of the 6 counties should try to come to terms with this. The reason for the weak 6 county economy is because of the reliance on the British economy and rule in recent years, which does not meet the needs and wants of the people 6 county economy. The 6 county economy is in terminal decline. For example the manufacturing sector has been declining steadily over the years, and most recently a massive loss of jobs in the Ballymoney and Coleraine area from the closure of a processed foods factory, a poultry processing factory and 50 job losses because of cutbacks at a pharmacutical factory. The only sector which has been rising steadily is the low wage service sector! The Isles unique climate and coastline also makes it a very ideal place for large scale wind power genertation, which therefore could be sold to the rest of Europe and bring a lot of wealth into the economy. The republic would benefit greatly from this and the north could aswell if it decides to join the republic. Another problem with the 6 county economy is the currency, sterling, which has limited its traiding power with the European market. If the north joined the republic it would receive the Euro and therefore be able to trade freely with all EU markets. Finally, Ulster used to be the wealthiest and most prosperous province of the Island. Now it's the poorest with a GDP per capita of just over $14500, while the mainland has a GDP per capita of almost $38000! So obviously something has gone very badly wrong somewhere!

One hurdle in achieving Irish unity is the fact that north and south use different currencies. If the newly devolved northern government were to adopt the euro, it would be a very helpful step not only towards unity and integration, but also in boosting the northern economy by strengthening its links with the more powerful southern one. However, it seems that neither Sinn Fein nor the DUP are particularly pro-euro. Millbanks 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting and curious enough, but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a debate board. —Nightstallion (?) 12:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)"...Ireland was never united".Didnt Brian Boru, Ard Ri, unify Ireland under one high king in 1014?"In the event of a united Ireland, the government in Dublin would have to find £10 billion..." Why do you think the British and Irish governments are investing so much money into N.I. right now?It will make the likely re-unification easier.

Just a little thing, would anyone else agree with me that the first image used on this article would be better replaced with the opening image on Ireland? The current image imo isn't all that good looking, and a little standardisation throughout the articles couldn't hurt, unless there's any reason for this different image. Pauric 23:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If southern Ireland wants to be unified with the north, which clearly doesnt want to leave the UK (only 22% support in the north for such an unpopular move) why isn't reunification of the island by southern Ireland rejoining the UK a consideration? Surely if there are benefits to Ireland being unified outside of the UK there would be benefits to the whole of the British Isles bening reunified again (something I would be delighted to see)'. I have never understood why this isn't a serious consideration and I think its something that should be considered for the future as I think the bigger picture should be acknowledged here: not just Ireland being divided but the two islands that formally made up one country being divided. I think southern Ireland rejoining the UK is just as valid a aim in achieving a united Ireland as northern Ireland leaving the UK to unify with the south and I think unionism should evolve to no longer aspiring to maintain the status quo but advocate for the reunfication of southern Ireland into the United Kingdom. YourPTR! 00:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How about you take your views on the matter to a website for discussing such matters. This is WP:NOT a discussion board. Derry Boi 20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though your argument is ridiculous, I still feel it neccesary to remind you that it is up to the people of the Ireland to decide what happens. With 42% of the people of the North voting nationalist and it being a main aim of the majority of parties in the south, a United Ireland. I have never understood why this isn't a serious consideration. No party who receives any votes considers that stupid idea an aim.--Play Brian Moore 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

..."why isnt reunifcation of the "island" by "southern Ireland"(sic) rejoining the U.K. a consideration."I am assuming your British and also assuming they dont teach Irish history, at least honestly in the U.K. Well we got a bit upset when Cromwell came and massacred women and children.The plantration of Ulster, the penal laws and the cultural genocide didnt endear us to the U.K. very much. The famine was a bit of a downer and the black and tans were the last straw and Bloody Sunday, the second, solidified our our anti imperialist instincts.So that my friend is why we will never join the U.K.

Which Bloody Sunday would that be then? Oh wait, of course it's that Bloody Sunday where British soldiers opened fire after being attacked first and the same Bloody Sunday which has seen the victims shamefully used as propoganda to gain funding and sympathy from "Irish" Americans who fall for this hate filled rubbish. If Cromwell upset you enough to still use as justification for violence, I'd suggest not having your government playfully recreate battles as family entertainment. You can't paint your people as both the victim and the theme park persona, except to the most gullible - see Noraid. Good to know that Ireland has always had "anti imperial instincts" - I assume it doesn't count those who left for the US an promptly stole land from the natives in some of the most brutal land grabs since...well, ever! Or the Irish who tried many times to invade England - or is that so far back it wasn't wrong then? How about Wellington? No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.116.223 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (Also, seeing as you used "(sic)", I assume you'd like me to point out your wrong use of "your", and for that, you're welcome.) Best of British to you x x x I'll leave you now to get back to the history books and read all about the slaughters of Protestants that happened in Ireland long before the British even got there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.116.223 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There hadn't been any talk in opposition to the merger (the tag had been on since around July) of the Irish reunification information into this article, so I decided to go through and add it all in. It's still not NPOV, but then again neither article really was at this point. United Ireland seemed to basically only talk about the history of the movement, while the Irish reunification article seemed to basically talk about groups who want to "reunify" the island. Together I feel it makes a stronger overall article, especially once it is cleaned up. Radagast83 07:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

in which Germany, while a much larger country and more prosperous than the Republic of Ireland

This does not make any sense, why would Germany past or present, be a more prosperous nation than the ROI right now? Germany's unemployment is very high atm 9.6%, Ireland has the the EU lowest with 4.4%. Ireland has a gdp growth of 4.7%, Germany has, well lets not talk about it, or else i'll get depressed! Anyone read the economist lately BTW? Superdude99 02:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Germany wanted to reunify with few objections, ireland they choose to remain seperate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

With the results of new opinion polls from Scotland and England on devolution and independence an interesting and possible question to ask might be, would unionists have a choice if England and/or Scotland decided to abandon the United Kingdom? It is not a certainty, far from it; however it is a distinct possibility. Perhaps this would only be conjecture, and no info. could be added into this article on what the consequences for Ulster or the Six Counties would be. It still would be interesting to know what the opinions of unionists and nationalists are on that possibility, has a poll ever been done on that? I suppose a similar question could even be asked for Wales!

Perhaps this article should link to a single article that discusses all the various differing constitutional options throughout these two islands? As you say, any change in one island could have implications for the other. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 20:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This recent edit asks for a source for the GDP figures [4]. I think the figures are wrong and that 19,000 pounds sterling might be correct for NI, not $19000, but I don't yet have anything to back that up. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 19:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The 19,603 is supposed to be in Euros, per this. However that's actually a 2002 figure anyway, not 2005. One Night In Hackney 19:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and chopped out most of the 'Economic consequences of Irish Unification' section, which read like an essay, and put in what facts I could find. Attempts to quantify the economic consequences of Irish unification seem to be hard to find. Duncan Keith 15:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep - need better sources - after the costs of reunification have been taken into account the GDP figures would be very different - without decent sources it should all be removed Weggie 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that. It reminds me of the joke about Mao Tse Tung: When asked what had been the consequences of the French Revolution he replied that it was too soon to tell. Duncan Keith 18:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Although nationalists and republicans wish for the reunification of Ireland, the island of Ireland has never existed as a single sovereign political state in the modern sense. However, prior to 1922, the island was always considered as a single entity, having been the Kingdom of Ireland for centuries. Until the Act of Union of 1800 the island was governed as a single political entity by an Irish Parliament based in Dublin. Thereafter with the enactment of the the Act of Union on 1 January 1801, the Kingdom of Ireland was merged with the Kingdom of Great Britain to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

Surely these statements are contradictory? We are told that Ireland never existed as a single entity and then we are told that it did! Eog1916 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ireland was united in 1014 a.d. by Brian Boru, high king of Ireland.FACT.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Suikoeire (talk • contribs)

And it had a unified monarchy, High-Kingship, for centuries before that. Gold♣heart 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "in the modern sense" is the weaselly part of that statement. "Modern" meaning what, exactly? 217.155.20.163 22:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly for both himself and the Dal gCais, Brian achieved nothing of the sort. He directly controlled Thomond, was King of Munster, was allied with Hy-Many and Mide, but could never bring Aileach, Ulster or Leinster fully under his control. And that's not even to mention the kingdoms of Dublin, Waterford and Wexford.

Nor was the monarcy unified - its claimants and holders were from different dynasties all over the island - or in use for centuries before that. It only came into existence in the 9th century (circa 862, just over a century and a half before Clontarf. And I must point out - again - that none of the Ard Rí's from Aed Finlaith (reigned 862-876) to Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair (1166-1198) EVER ruled all Ireland. Their title simply meant that they were the most powerful king on an island of kings.

The wiki section on High King of Ireland sums it up: The concept of a high kingship was converted into political reality by the Uí Néill in 862 when Aed Finliath is styled in the annals as rí Érenn uile (king of all Ireland), but this was a personal kingship (my emphasis - Fergananim) to be won anew generation by generation rather than an impersonal office settled upon a lineage.

Is mise, Fergananim 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"... to be won anew generation by generation rather than an impersonal office settled upon a lineage" - this is hardly surprising given that titles were determined by tanistry not lineage in Gaelic Ireland. That the high kingship was not fixed to a certain dynasty is irrevelent in context of Gaelic Irish polity. The greater test is whether the High Kings rule was excerxised authority and legetimacy - by the of the era, up to the Norman invasion, this was ever increasingly so. The authority of the high king was recognised by other states too, for example, following the Norman invasion, the settlement negeotation took place between Henry II and Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair and respective kings of England and Ireland (see: Treaty of Windsor (1175)).

This unsourced statement "A majority of the population of the United Kingdom as a whole support reunification." has been remopved. I certainly dont believe it is true and therefore should only be returned wityh impeccabl;e sourcing, SqueakBox 17:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry, my edit, it was sloppy. A clear plurality, but because of the high numbers of "don't knows" it cannot be said to be a majority. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A majority dont support it but I see according to a poll more do than dont. I have tweaked your edit, SqueakBox 23:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Sorry for the original mix up. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the views of the DUP, UUP and Alliance parties are omitted in this article? I'm a not Unionist, but their omission gives a feeling of "unbalance". Millbanks 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Its an obvious gap in the current article. --sony-youth^pléigh 07:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, but I think a greater problem is the unnecessary repetition in the current article. All significant parties in the Republic of Ireland have signed up to the principle of consent and their differences on the issue of a United Ireland are not substantial. --Duncan Keith 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In 2001 the Guardian reported a "long-term shift in British opinion on the future of Northern Ireland" in the United Kingdom, showing that "more Britons think Northern Ireland should be part of a united Ireland than believe it belongs in the United Kingdom." Compared to similar polls conducted during the 1980s and '90s, when opinion was split, the 2001 poll showed 41% favouring a united Ireland with 26% saying Northern Ireland should stay in the UK and 33% of 'not knowing.' The same article reported "clear majorities of American opinion in favour of a united Ireland, too."

Is it really appropriate to mention this in the opening section?

This Guardian article was published nearly six years ago, and it's a little bizarre to trumpet the opinions of non-NI residents at the top of the page, when the fact that 59% of the electorate in Northern Ireland want the province to remain part of the UK is not mentioned until much later in the article. 217.155.20.163 22:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Its in the second paragraph: "... Northern Ireland, where the population is divided 60:40 in favour of remaining within the United Kingdom[citation needed]." I added the Guardian article in order to get opinion from the three constituencies that would be affected by a united Ireland (viz. NI, RoI and UK). Its old, but can't find anything newer. If it the UK bit is too long, change it. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not overly sure what point you're trying to make about the electorate of Northern Ireland. A United Ireland is something that would affect the populations both north and south of the border, therefore each must be given due weight. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just that point, but including GB opinion also. I like the current set up, but think a "59%" somewhere in there wouldn't go amiss. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at reworking some of the opening paragraphs, but there's still a lot wrong with this article. In particular there's a lot of rambling commentary that needs to be pruned. --Duncan Keith 02:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots to be done. It a bit of a mess. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any point for including it at all for a number of reasons, it fails to point out that the GB opinion is likely based on the tax burden and that the American opinion is likely to be uneducated on some of the most basic facts of the situation (i.e. That Northern Ireland has self determination, here in the US most think it's a imperialist military occupation)MichiganCharms 02:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is American opinion really that ill informed? And have the pro nationalists there ever realised that by the same logic the US should allow "Mexican reunification"?

As for GB opinion, I can't remember the actual cost ever coming up much at all in public debate over the years - certainly no-one's ever made headlines with "keeping Northern Ireland adds Xp to income tax". The opinion polls are probably influenced more by various events - in the 1980s and 1990s the terrorist campaign probably encouraged a knee-jerk "no surrender" attitude that meant people equated a united Ireland with IRA victory. Now a united Ireland is not automatically equated with terrorism and I think the problem is that Northern Ireland seems a very strange place to many in Great Britain. A lot have never set foot in it and what media coverage the province does get tends to be very political, and it's a politics that is completely removed from political debate over here in both issues (the religious issues in British politics are about faith vs secularism in general and how to accommodate non-Christian denominations, not about debates within Christianity; community politics are not the basis for most parties here; and nobody understands what the marching season is about) and tone (for instance the only times I can recall David Dimbleby having to read the riot act to the panelists on Question Time are in editions from Northern Ireland). With a few exceptions Northern Irish Unionist politicians have never made much effort to sell the Union outside their electorate and few major politicians from Great Britain have filled in the gap by prominently advocating Unionism - Enoch Powell is probably the most recent. Most British Unionists instead talk about Scotland. So for much of the British public it is a strange place that they can't understand why it is part of the UK in the first(ish) place and assume it should naturally be part of "Ireland", equating island and state as one. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A simple time series is better for the first chart. Stacked charts can be useful in showing trends across a spectrum of categories where there is a natural order, but in this case a natural order is not obvious. Is 'United Ireland' really a position that lies between 'Independent state' and 'Remain in the UK'? Stacked charts also have the serious disadvantage of making it difficult to read individual values and to track changes of categories in the the middle of the stack. I have doubts about the doughnut chart as well -- I think this would be clearer as a pair of pie charts, or even better would be a multiple bar chart. --Duncan Keith 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree and disagree. I tried to do a multiple pie chart (show current split in long-term opinion in a pie, then 'pull-out' two more pies for the relevant slices) but it didn't work out so well for me in Excel. Side-by-side would also be better than the doughnut but I was afraid that it would take up too much space. Multiple bar chart is an good option, but personally I think they are ugly and require a lot of reading. The dough nuts aren't good, but the best I could knock-up quickly.

For the stacked chart, I can't agree. The intention was to show the whole of Northern Irish opinion, which is what a stacked chart does best. Time series are not the best option when what is being shown amounts to a natural "whole". What we get with a time series is having to clip at 60%, otherwise be faced with a chart where 40% is blank, and have everything else bundled at the bottom in a tangled mess. The eye naturally reads differences between lines, rather than between the axis and lines. That's fine if what you want is to contrasting lines but in this case we are contrasting proportions of a whole, like a pie chart but over time, that's what a stacked chart does best. (What you say about a spectrum of categories, I get, but don't think it's necessary - is it true for a pie?) --sony-youth^pléigh 20:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :) I think Usage_share_of_web_browsers has a good example of a stacked percentage time series that works. It clearly demonstrates the trend over time of layout engines growing in popularity then being supplanted by others and the chronological succession provides a natural order for the categories. The same strong trends would be clear from a series of pie charts. If the intention is just to illustrate this clear-cut trend then the chart is fine, but it has been achieved at the cost of obscuring useful information; It's not easy to answer questions like "What was the peak share for Netscape Classic?" or "What was Trident's share in 1999?" from such a chart.

The data we are trying to illustrate here doesn't tell such a simple story as the browser share data. The values for each category fluctuate within fairly narrow bounds and there isn't an unambiguous long term trend. In a case like this a series of pie charts (or equivalently a stacked percentage time series) just doesn't work very well. I think that the key information the chart needs to communicate is the level of public support for a United Ireland over the recent past and how it has fluctuated, and a simple time series is the best way of communicating this. I take your point that the jumble of lines at the bottom of the chart might be aesthetically unappealing, but I'm of the opinion that in an encyclopaedia article it is more important for a chart to be informative that beautiful. --Duncan Keith 22:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The browser chart is a brilliant example - thank you, it's one I'll want to keep - but it demonstrates what I said above, however also, I must admit, it demonstrates why a stacked chart doesn't work to its full potential in this circumstance. Yes, there is no huge change over time with one category replacing the another. That however leads one to ask why show any time-based chart at all?

My argument against the line chart was not on aesthetic grounds but on readabilty. We are not comparing the position of lines in this circumstances, but proportions of a whole. A line chart simply isn't good at that because peope read from line-to-line not from axis-to-line and so they don't compare the proportions of the whole but differences between proportions in succession to eachother(effectively they read a running order of preferences, but not how many people proportionately share those preferences).

I'd be happy to replace it with a 2006 pie if that would satisify you, but still believe that a stacked chart would be better. If not, would be OK with posting a message on the Northern Ireland page and asking for opinion? --sony-youth^pléigh 08:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You probably won't be surprised to find that I'm not keen on pie charts either. :) It may be better just to present the data in a table. I appreciate your efforts to resolve this amicably and I agree that the time is right to invite other opinions. I've posted a request for a third opinion at WP:3O. --Duncan Keith 10:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. (But, sorry - eeek! tables! run! run! run!) ... --sony-youth^pléigh 11:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I came here via WP:3O, though I'm not giving a true third opinion, and keeping it listed. Image:EventNI-UIUK2006.PNG looks incredibly confusing to me, and it may to other editors as well. User:Krator (t c) 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• In response to the RF3O, Image:Northern Ireland Poll.png is a potentially useful style as it shows that the totals always add up to 100%. However I;m sorry to say that I find the formatting very unattractive, and for now prefer Image:Nilt-Political Attitudes-NIRELAND-2006.svg. (It might be interesting to see a graph in the first style but with the font and presntation format of the second. That would be a tougher choice.) I also agree that the stacked pie chart is very confusing. In general I would try to be consistent and show data in as similar a manner as possible; so if the preference data is in a line graph, can the "what if" data be in two side-by-side bar charts? (Most similar in style to the line graph.) Dread Pirate Westley•^Aargh 01:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The history section could use some work, particularly in the earlier bits. I don't see a single source before Present Day, and the presentation that Ireland's system of government, with various seperate monarchies in the island and a highking, as unique, is not true. It even compares itself to two countries that were similar, Scotland (which was no less than 7 Kingdoms and eventually fully united by a High King or Ar Righ, who himself may have been from the Kingdom of Dal Riada, the Irish one, the rest being Pict), and England (which was once the Kingdom of Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, East Anglia and various others). Not to mention Wales, which was something like 11 Kingdoms that only became fully united shortly before being conquered. Nor is this a unique feature of the British Isles, but was common in Europe, namely with Germany and Italy (who existed as dozens of smaller states until the 19th century), Germany in particular had a Emperor elected from member states of the Holy Roman Empire (made up of various German states). In the opening, the statement "Unionists form a majority within Northern Ireland; nationalists form a large majority across the island as a whole." is weaselly and misleading, it is in effect comparing apples and oranges, or a piece of rind and orange flesh. Of course nationalists form a majority across the island as a whole, even if all of Northern Ireland, to the last person, was die-hard Unionist, they still represent roughly 1/3rd the population of the entire island. You could also say that across the island as a whole the majority do not support the British government, ignoring that most are not even citzens. the logical statement to follow Unionists form a majority in Northern Ireland is that nationalists form a majority in the Republic. 174.112.18.193 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)