Talk:Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

?

Isn't all this covered by History of the United Kingdom? This article should be merged with that one.--ukexpat (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC) OK I see the differences, comment withdrawn!--ukexpat (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lede

Given that the article starts with the Anglo-Norman conquest of Wales, shouldn't we have something in the lede which makes clear reference to what is not included, that or possible a section with summarises the roman conquest, subsequent invasions of saxon etc. and the stabilisation of boundaries between Saxon, Welsh and Picts/Scott that preceded 1066? I am open to either option but it needs something --Snowded TALK 12:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Without seeing this comment (but with perfect timing!), I've added a disamb link to the article. Comments welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

When this article was created (February 2008) it contained some information about the communities existing in Britain before the Kingdom of England was formed. This information has since been deleted. As it stands, the article seems to portray the Kingdom of England as having grown out of nothing, as if the Germanic tribes had just appeared one day in 927 CE, with the British Celtic tribes, who had lived in Great Britain for centuries, being airbrushed out of history. The disamb link may help, but it still needs some background. Alternatively, as all the information would, or should, have been covered in other articles, this article is a candidate for WP:AfD. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the old supporting information seems to have been deleted by Fishiehelper2 on the grounds that it was not relevant to the subject of the article. In a strict sense I can see that argument, but also agree with Daicaregos that for the unwary reader there needs to be some pre-C12 background. I'm not sure whether the disamb link will do the job or not - my view would be to wait and see if other editors or readers comment, before taking any urgent action. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not support including information on the formation of the Kingdom of England on the grounds that that should be in a separate article (either 'History of England' or even, History of the formation of England') However, if we were going to include information on the formation of the Kingdom of England, I assume we would also include information on the formation of the Kingdom of Scotland as well. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see no reason why the backgrounds to the formation of Kingdom of Scotland as well as the formation of the Kingdom of England as well as the formation of Wales, should not be included in this article (if it is kept). However, I propose that this article is a candidate for WP:AfD. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This may be the chance to do something of greater value. Remember we also have articles such as Countries of the United Kingdom not to mention others such as the sub-divisions one. All of them have mini-histories. Maybe a merge is in order, using this material as a history section on the Countries Page? For that its the post 12thC which is important. --Snowded TALK 21:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My view at the moment is that the article should remain, but be expanded by brief pre-C12 histories of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland if that is felt necessary (I'm not yet convinced). I'm not clear where the supposed duplication is - this article specifically considers the history of the constitutional coming together of the existing sovereign state, and not the wider history, nor the history of the individual countries, nor the settlement history, nor the geography of the current state. I have a strong feeling that if it is deleted or merged, other articles will become even longer and more difficult to understand than they already are, and that is undesirable. In my view the encyclopaedia is more readable and accessible to a general audience with shorter and more focused articles, so long as they contain sufficient and well-placed links to other related articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see the argument, in which case there would need to be more pipelinks to this one. ----Snowded TALK 21:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why so big an indent? Yes, and a cleanup of [[Category:History of the United Kingdom]] to make it useful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I made one change to Countries of the United Kingdom. Sorry about the indent, early morning in Melbourne and I have not had the first coffee yet. --Snowded TALK 22:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Any objection if I change the text to a See also....? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

None, that is a lot better (and I know what you mean about the spelling) --Snowded TALK 22:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Title of article

I feel we should look for a better title. I certainly think there is a need for an article that sets out, simply, the various stages of union that led to the current United Kingdom, but I think the title is wrong. There is also the aspect that the United Kingdom reached its greatest extent prior to 1921 and since then has to some extent been going in the opposite direction.

How about a title on the lines of "Evolution of current states in Great Britain and Ireland"? (Or any other better ideas? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am open to a change and a move to GB&I over UK would make a lot of sense. How about "The political evolution of Britain and Ireland"? --Snowded TALK 19:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I really like that suggestion, though I think we would have to make it "The political evolution of Great Britain and Ireland" so it is clear we are names are referring to geographical entities rather than the current countries. Let's see what others think. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Best not to start a title with the word "The". Therefore: "Political evolution of Great Britain and Ireland" is an option. This could be a huge article, though. Daicaregos (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That is better. I don;t think it needs to be huge though. The lede can make it clear is the major events (as per the diagram) with lots and lots of pipelinks. Almost a disintermediation article --Snowded TALK 19:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Political evolution of Great Britain and Ireland" hits it on the head! I also don't think it need be a huge article as it would be dealing with specific information. The present article needs to be reduced in any case as much of the detail is irrelevent to the purpose of the article and just repeating information that already appears in various history articles. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that using the word "political" would leave the article open to all sorts of unnecessary and distracting additions. Isn't it the constitutional development of GB & I that this article deals with? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Even better --Snowded TALK 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Like it. Daicaregos (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice of you, thanks! Happy whatsits to one and all...! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Would've been nice to let a few noticeboards know folks. I would've opposed this move. We already have a History of the Republic of Ireland that tackles the constitutional development of the state of Ireland. The title should've remained. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

--P.S. The Isle of Wight, Anglesey, Isle of Bute, Northern Isles not included now? Afterall we're only talking about two islands now, not the UK. I suggest a rv. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the title referring to 'Great Britain and Ireland' is an attempt to cover the 'British Isles' without using that phrase (since some object to it.) We already have a History of the United Kingdom article as well but this article was attempting to cover the process by which the different entities eventually formed into a single sovereign state covering the whole 'British Isles', and how it has changed since then. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and I think it works providing a single place. If Jza wants us to go through a notification process fair enough, but I think it was also fair enough to be bold. --Snowded TALK 16:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I also think it might have been better if this proposed name change had been more widely advertised to allow a greater spread of opinions. I'm not sure that "constitutional" sounds quite right given the content of the article, but I don't have anything other than a slight diffuse dissatisfaction with the name so far, which illustrates in my own case why a wider advertisement giving others a chance to comment may have been a better way forward here. Oh well.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of the content does not suit 'constitutional' but perhaps that is the point - this article should not be about restating the history of the United Kingdom that is already covered in the History of the United Kingdom article. With a little work, this article can become a very useful guide to the process and events that led to the constitutional arrangements in these islands. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

But it should be about the United Kingdom, not the British Isles. As I say, we have the History of the Republic of Ireland, and the new title suggests shifts in focus from how the United Kingdom united into a state, to "Constitutional" (both the UK and GB&I has no formal constituion) "development" (development suggests advancement when that could be open to interpretation) "of Great Britain" (which discludes all the UK's outlying islands) "and Ireland" (which is covered in its own article). The article title now also breaches the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) - the decision to move to a new title about two lumps of rock shared by two states is arbitary and unfamilliar to readers. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

For over 100 years, the United Kingdom included Great Britain and Ireland - the process that led to a single state being formed that included all of that is of interest. However, the process did not stop there as Irish independence reduced the United Kingdom and meant that two sovereign states now exist in the area. It makes sense that one article covers the development of political unions etc across the British Isles since the histories of the UK and Ireland are so interlinked. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I notice there is a History of Scandinavia article - sometimes it makes sense to consider the history of an area slightly larger than one individual country to get a true sense of what is going on. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That's because it's not about the history of a country, but the history of a pennisula. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) doesn't cover pennisulas (!). You haven't addressed my points about the wording at all. Why have you changed it to "Constitutional" (both the UK and GB&I has no formal constituion) "development" (development suggests advancement when that could be open to interpretation) "of Great Britain" (which discludes all the UK's outlying islands) "and Ireland" (which is covered in its own article)? This was a hasty backroom descision. We need an article about the formation of the UK, not about the "constitional development" (?) of two lumps of rock. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see your objections to the title I moved to - can you see my objections to the title you have reverted to? Let me restate: If the word 'development' can be criticised for suggesting 'advancement', the word 'formation' must be open to criticism for suggesting 'coming together' when the history of the United Kingdom was about coming together until the 1870's when it started to move in the opposite direction. I think a different word than 'formation' is needed to fully encompass what the article is about. Secondly, since the development/formation of Ireland is totally interlinked with the development/formation of the rest of the British Isles, doesn't it make sense to have one article dealing with both together? If you can have an article about one pennisula (History of Scandinavia), why does it not make equal sense to have an article about a single archipelago? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Fishiehelper2 here and there was support for the move. OK lets involve a few more people but the aim is a good one. --Snowded TALK 21:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(<-)"the word 'formation' must be open to criticism for suggesting 'coming together'".... it kinda did form though didn't it, as in unite, like one state. So this is a nationalist objection to the title now then I presume?

Also, perhaps it would make sense to discuss an archipelago, but you're not doing that: Great Britain and Ireland are two islands of many in the British Isles. Even Scotland spans way beyond Great Britain. However, why would we have an article about the "constitutional development" of two islands, or an archipelago, or penninsula or any geographical place when the topic relates to the state? The "UK" title was more than adequate to allow leeway for the sucession of the Irish Republic. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you see to think that the article stops in the 19th century - no the United Kingdom did 'come together' up until it broke up slightly with Irish independence. The word 'formation' suggests a continuing process in one direction when the reality is more complex. And by the way, my point is no more a 'nationalist objection' than your counter point would be a 'unionist' perspective. Finally, "perhaps it would make sense to discuss an archipelago, but you're not doing that" - your right! The name 'Great Britain and Ireland' was an attempt to cover the archipelago without using the phrase British Isles:please suggest an improvement to the name rather than deny that there is any problem with the present name. Cheers (and merry christmas!) Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concerns over hasty decisions here, but I agree with Fishiehelper2 that some of Jza84's specific complaints don't hold much water. "Great Britain and Ireland" was the name of the country 1801-1922 at its fullest extent, including all the small offshore islands; "formation" implies a continuing process up to the present day, which ignores everything that happened in and since 1922; and the UK does clearly have a constitution, albeit not a coherently written one. So, I still prefer "Constitutional development..", imperfect as it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My own view is that a variation on the original proposal would be best: "Evolution of the United Kingdom": let the development of the Irish state be covered in its own article, as a means of avoiding the morass of argument and disputes that containing it here might inevitably arise if we included it. I see that a variation of it did gain a lot of initial support, and I think it describes what the content of the article is thought it should be. I'm not sure what the specific reasons were why it was thought that "United Kingdom" shouldn't be used in the title, but I think restricting the content to just the United Kingdom (hence retaining that in the title) would be best.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the term "Evolution" too imprecise? To be more specific, how about "Evolution of national sovereignty in the United Kingdom"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Idk whats going on here but id like to point out the title could be pretty contriversial bc the olitics between britain and ireland are still pretty heated

The diagram

I note that the diagram uses an early description of the state that is now called Ireland. Anyone know how to change it? --Snowded TALK 19:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

@Snowded im pretty sure the only person who can change it is the creator 2601:47:2:2B0:1435:7EFF:D6D8:605E (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Final sentence of the introduction

I dont like the way the final sentence in the introduction is worded:

"Since the late 19th century, a growth in support for nationalist political parties, firstly in Ireland, and much later in Scotland and Wales, resulted in independence for most of the island of Ireland in 1922 and devolved parliaments or assemblies for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales."

This makes it sound like people voting for nationalist parties are the reason why devolution was introduced in Wales and Scotland. Could this be rewritten slightly to say it was a rise in national identity or something along those lines rather than people voting for nationalist parties. It currently sounds rather like a point of view as you would expect someone in the SNP for example to take the credit for getting the Scottish parliament. You certainly couldnt say Wales has a Welsh assembly because people have voted for PC, their share of the vote was small (although rising) back then. Its far more about national identity than votes for independence parties. Any thoughts? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think "sense of national identity" would be a lot better. The position on parties is more difficult. All three countries see the emergence of national parties and they gain seats over that period. In Ireland they win the election but don't take their seats.--Snowded (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think it helps that Wales, Scotland, and Ireland are dealt with together. There should be a sentence on Ireland, then one on devolution and a growing sense of national identity in Wales and Scotland BritishWatcher (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont mind the rise in support for nationalist parties being mentioned, but at the moment it sounds like the only thing that led to labour being forced to bring in a referendum on it. Numbers who vote for those parties were very small compared to the numbers who supported devolution. Adding a sense of national identity and the rise in nationalist party support.. or something along those lines would do. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there is any question over the linkage between rising support for nationalist parties and the move to devolution for Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, the rise of the SNP started in the mid 1960's (as illustrated by the Hamilton by-election), with the SNP winning it's first General election seat in 1970, and thereafter the 1973 Govan by-election win, the SNP winning 7 MPs at the first 1974 election and then 11 at the second 1974 election...and then all three major parties came out in support of devolution! Of course, when the Labour government got round to hold the 1979 referendum - which delivered a win, but not by enough to satisfy the so-called '40% rule' (40% of the electorate must also support in addition to a simple majority of those who voted), - Labour was unpopular and on the way to election defeat. Even though SNP support fell back from the highs achieved in the 1970s, it retained the support of a fifth of voters which was much higher than the 1960's. As Labour leader John Smith remarked, devolution was 'unfinished business' which was put into effect once Labour returned to power.

There are plenty of sources that make explicit the linkage between Labour coming round to support devolution and the rise of the SNP - I'll easily insert some if that s felt necessary. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For example, the following written by Michael Cavanagh, University of Strathclyde Department of Government: "The Labour party developed a strong unionist position for the post-1945 period up until the electoral successes of the SNP in the late 1960s. Despite earlier demands for action on Scottish self-government, it was not until the success of the SNP in local and by-elections in the late 1960s that Harold Wilson's government established a royal commission on the constitution in 1969. The Kilbrandon Commission reported back in 1973 and the majority report recommended a system of home rule. By this time the Labour Party were in opposition. The two general elections of 1974 saw the spectacular rise of the SNP, and between the February and October elections the Labour Party came out clearly in support of devolution." [1] Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just seemed odd to me that it did not mention anything about a greater sense of national identity which led to the rise in support for such parties. The increase in support for the parties were a result of that rise which is also a reason for devolution as the two things are linked. But as others are happy with the current wording and there are sources, leave it as it is. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the formation of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103073154/http://www.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/offices.html to http://www.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/offices.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the formation of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080503023739/http://www.parliament.uk/about/images/historical/1707union.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/about/images/historical/1707union.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

---

History of the formation of the United Kingdom → Formation of the United Kingdom – The current title is unnecessarily long. Inside the article text, "formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is used and bolded in the lead - there's no reason "Formation of the United Kingdom" can't be the title. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. This makes perfect sense, the United Kingdom has already formed, so "history" is needless. JIP | Talk 01:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Not so sure. The term "formation" is ambiguous. This is a history article. The "formation of the United kingdom" could be just a listing of its constituent parts, and may not be where one would go for its history. "History of the formation of the United Kingdom" is a natural parallel to, say, "History of the constitution of the United Kingdom". Walrasiad (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.