Talk:United Kingdom

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Catalogs [?]
Addendum [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition Constitutional monarchy which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. [d] [e]

Review and overhaul

I have begun a review of this article with a view to making it fit for approval. I have found its lede and its opening paragraphs to contain inaccuracies and irrelevant or misleading statements and I am attempting to rectify those shortcomings. Comment and criticisms will be welcome. Nick Gardner 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have completed my revision of the lede, history and politics sections, and I now plan to start a rewrite of the economy paragraph.Nick Gardner 06:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider the paragraphs on devolution and law to be of an acceptable standard of clarity, balance and accuracy. Would somebody else care to overhaul them? Nick Gardner 21:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've had a go myself - mainly by removing rambling passages, updating data, and repairing the lack of citations. I believe that we need to do more on those lines before the article could be considered fit for approval. Help would be welcome.Nick Gardner 22:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary sovereignty in Scottish law

I can probably find some secondary sources given time, but the well-known primary source is the obiter dictum of the then Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Cooper of Culross, in MacCormick v Lord Advocate (1953: SC 396, SLT 255): “the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law”. Peter Jackson 10:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This controversy might warrant a mention in an article on the concept of parliamentary sovereignty but not, I suggest, in an article on the United Kingdom. If you feel bound to refer to it, I urge you do so in a footnote. Nick Gardner 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you think it's right for the article to state one view as fact and relegate disagreement to a footnote? Doesn't sound very neutral to me. Peter Jackson 09:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I believe it to be right when the statement reflects the considered view of the recognised authorities. To draw attention to other views would, in my opinion, be justified only in the context of a significant live controversy. In the case at issue, I doubt whether it even deserves a mention in the article on the Houses of Parliament, and I am confident that it would be out of place in so general a context as the current article. Nick Gardner 16:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree, if it does reflect the considered view of the recognized authorities. I hope to get into the University Library on Thursday and find time to look up some authorities. Peter Jackson 14:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll leave the outcome to you, Peter - this is not a matter of high priority as far as I am concerned, and there's so much else to do. Nick Gardner 05:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I find that there's disagreement even in England but supremacy is the "orthodox" view even in Scotland. Have to think about that. Peter Jackson 11:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Religion

"The United Kingdom is an increasingly secular society with the percentage saying that they have no religion rising from 31 percent in 1983 to 51 percent in 2009"

Needs clarification. People's replies vary with the form of the question, if not the context. The 2001 census figures were far lower than the above. Peter Jackson 08:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
15.1% for GB. Peter Jackson 08:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
[1] says opinion polls give such higher figures, and suggests reasons, making clear there's no evidence on the reasons for the discrepancy. Peter Jackson 08:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Please add whatever clarification/qualification you consider necessary, bearing in mind that all that is required is a broad indication of the strength of the trend referred to in the opening 7 words.Nick Gardner 09:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No source is cited for the figures, so I can't clarify what they mean. However, you sound as if you don't mind about exact figures, so I can try to summarize the general picture. Wikipedia cites quite a lot of sources. Peter Jackson 17:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see there's a source at the end, which presumably was intended to cover everyhing. Anyway, have a look at what I've tried. Peter Jackson 17:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Publication of 2011 census data for England and Wales gives the start of a time series. Here are the percentage changes in absolute numbers (subject to rounding errors):

  • no religion +83%
  • Muslims +80%
  • Buddhists +72%
  • other religions +59%
  • Hindus +48%
  • Sikhs +29%
  • not stated +7.5%
  • Jews +2%
  • Christians -11%

Interesting, but needs proper analysis. Peter Jackson 10:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If information is available from earlier census reports then perhaps it could be presented as a graph, showing the changing percentages of each religion over time. Maybe worth looking into? Richard Nevell 15:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Except for Northern Ireland, 2001 was the first time the question was asked. That's what I meant by "start" of a time series. (In 1851 there was a census of church attendance.) Peter Jackson 11:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah I see, it's a shame it hasn't been asked before 2001. A graph wouldn't be a sensible way of displaying this data then, but it should perhaps be included in some form. Richard Nevell 11:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Maybe in the addendum. But it might be better to wait till the Scottish figures are also available some time next year. Peter Jackson 10:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

[2] looks useful. Peter Jackson 10:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)