Talk:Republicanism in the United Kingdom/Archives/2006/May

Why is Northern Ireland different?

"Unlike in the rest of the UK, republicans in Northern Ireland, whilst also subscribing to the removal of the monarchy and its replacement with a president in respect of Northern Ireland, also usually subscribe to the view that the replacement should be with the institutions of the Republic of Ireland."

There is no sense at all in this sentence. Republicanism is a wide and fractured movement, and while some Welsh republicans merely wish for the opportunity to elect a head of state, there is also a campaign for creating a Welsh republic which is separate from the UK. The above quoted sentence is misleading because it implies that only Northern Irish republicans desire an alternative to the "Republic of Great Britain". In reality a British republic is at variance with the goal of many Welsh, Scottish and even English republicans too. [This is one of the first results on a google search for example: http://www.aign.co.uk/leanne_wood_a060211.html]

This is very true, however I think the main point being made in the sentence is that Republicans in Northern Ireland generally wish to become part of the Republic of Ireland, rather than a "Republic of Northern Ireland" or part of a "Republic of Great Britain". In that sence, Northern Irish Republicans could perhaps more accuartely be described as "Irish Unionists" - i.e. in favour of a united Ireland independent of Great Britain. Of course such a description would ineveitably lead to confusion with Northern Irish Unionists who wish for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. - Michael Gibson

More less.. Irish Republicans wish to be part of a republic with NO political ties to Britain, kingdom or republic. 86.12.251.37 17:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I’m sure there are some in NI that believe that perhaps a United Republic of GB & NI would be a less divisive way forward as there are some in England that believe that a separate republic of Wessex, for example, may be the best way forward. I think the point that should be made in the article is not that republicans in NI necessarily have a different view to those in GB but that the USE OF THE TERM republican when in connection to NI has extra connotations that it does not have when used in connection to GB. On a side note perhaps it should be pointed out that one of the key advantages of the monarchy is seen as the fact that people don’t trust an elected politician as head of state (i.e. with police, army etc directly answerable to him/her) and feel safer having parliament ‘kept in its place’ with the guarantee that the monarch can dissolve it and call an election should the situation arise. The most common argument I have found is the “Would you trust Blair or Thatcher as president”.

POV tag?

Is it still necessary to tag this as a POV article? It seems fine to me, and the dispute was some months past. Wally 19:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It has definatly improved, however the article still makes very little use of references. Dubious, generalised, claims also need tiding up, statements such as "However, the effect of the jubilee celebrations was diminished following the collapse of the Burrell case and allegations surrounding the household of the Prince of Wales.", require sourcing from mainstream academia/media or else they fall under Wikipedia:No original research.

I think there is also an arguement that only one side of the story (with no counter-arguements) is presented although I am not sure how this can be addressed without including detail which is irrelevant for this article. The wording in certain sections is not very neutral either, with a definate republican POV, although it is much better now than at times in the past. Canderra 00:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)