Argentinians protest arrival of Prince Williams on Malvinas

Sorry to intrude on another British civil war.

But Pr0t0 does have some interesting points, as does Stumason. If only they toned it down a notch how much more enjoyable the thread would be.

Self determination is what the British quote here. And that's fair enough, it's enshrined in the UN charter, that peoples have the absolute right to determine their own fate, without any form of external let or hindrance.

But how far do you take that ?

I ask because I'm genuinely confused. Because many patriotic British contributors here want self determination for Britain (to get them out of the EU), they want self determination for the Falkland Islands (to keep them British) ... but the same people here would deny self determination to the Scots and the Welsh people, for them to hold referendums to separate. Or as the English majority, they'd impose % conditions on the Scots and Welsh, write them twisted referendum questions, time the vote to maximum disadvantage and such like.

That's what I don't understand. Some of you are two faced when it comes to self determination. You'd grant it to some yet deny it to others.

Without massive British intervention, the Îles Malouines have historically been quite unable to support themselves. Without that help, the population would have slowly dwindled away and, eventually, those little bits of rock would have naturally passed over to Argentina.

I don't buy the idea that the Falklander Islanders are some native population, worthy of even self determination. They're too few in number. They're the type of person you might meet on any High Street in England. They're genetically British. They're British, not some indigenous population of different race, colour, religion etc. So their continued presence on those islands is colonial, that's what I honestly believe. They have no natural right to be there, their presence is alien.

They're no more worthy of self determination than the Isle of Wight.

In no way does that mean that any Argentinian occupation is any more legitimate. I'm merely saying that it'd make much more sense if the islands had been under Argentinian jurisdiction due to their proximity to South America, that's all.

But here the discovery of oil changes everything. Because the Îles Malouines could actually become self sustaining. They'll be able to pay their own bills, they might even be able to contribute substantially to their own defences. They'd be able to do things themselves & not rely on the British Exchequer to support them any more. And I suppose that makes the case for the islands staying British colonial even stronger.

Still, as they stand just now, the islands no more deserve self determination than Southall or Bradford deserve to become either Indian or Pakistani. Because the people who live there, well, they're just invaders really. A few generations may have passed since the original invasion but their continued presence doesn't justify a thing.

I think the islands should for all practical purposes become Argentinian but adopt a handsoff Hong Kong type lease status, say 250 years. Then everyone can stay happy ... and alive.

Because it's such an insubstantial issue, all this talk of war is stupid.

This debate has been allowed to get way too personal, which is a pity as it has actually been quite fascinating and informative.

Most of the Brits (who've participated) see it as a straight-forward issue of democratic self-determination. A couple of the Argentinian posters have acknowledged the legitimacy of this argument, and emerged with considerable dignity.

Some from other parts of the world see it as an issue of foreign occupation based on territorial proximity, regardless of who lives there. The fact the ostensible occupiers are British appears to have inflamed their passion. One or two others are Brits themselves who see injustice in the territorial claim and are manifestly against the idea of British forces being used to maintain overseas territory.

Oil and gas have muddied the waters, and threaten to add fuel to the fire.

One or two ex or serving members of the British army have brought spice, (but not much sugar).

I suppose trenchant positions are to be expected. One or two may have painted themselves into a corner rather than admit being trumped by greater historical accuracy, and I'd suggest they would have come off better if they had admitted the same as no-one would have thought the worse of them. I for one hope no-one of any persuasion actually walks away from the board due to the heat of this particular discussion. Alternative views are always stimulating, and refreshing.

And at the end of the day 'the race is not always to the swift'. No matter who wins the argument justice does not always prevail. Long term who knows what might happen to those islands. Events can take unexpected twists and turns, leaving all involved feeling euphoric, or downright gutted.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
Sorry to intrude on another British civil war.

But Pr0t0 does have some interesting points, as does Stumason. If only they toned it down a notch how much more enjoyable the thread would be.

Self determination is what the British quote here. And that's fair enough, it's enshrined in the UN charter, that peoples have the absolute right to determine their own fate, without any form of external let or hindrance.

But how far do you take that ?

I ask because I'm genuinely confused. Because many patriotic British contributors here want self determination for Britain (to get them out of the EU), they want self determination for the Falkland Islands (to keep them British) ... but the same people here would deny self determination to the Scots and the Welsh people, for them to hold referendums to separate. Or as the English majority, they'd impose % conditions on the Scots and Welsh, write them twisted referendum questions, time the vote to maximum disadvantage and such like.

That's what I don't understand. Some of you are two faced when it comes to self determination. You'd grant it to some yet deny it to others.

Without massive British intervention, the Îles Malouines have historically been quite unable to support themselves. Without that help, the population would have slowly dwindled away and, eventually, those little bits of rock would have naturally passed over to Argentina.

I don't buy the idea that the Falklander Islanders are some native population, worthy of even self determination. They're too few in number. They're the type of person you might meet on any High Street in England. They're genetically British. They're British, not some indigenous population of different race, colour, religion etc. So their continued presence on those islands is colonial, that's what I honestly believe. They have no natural right to be there, their presence is alien.

They're no more worthy of self determination than the Isle of Wight.

In no way does that mean that any Argentinian occupation is any more legitimate. I'm merely saying that it'd make much more sense if the islands had been under Argentinian jurisdiction due to their proximity to South America, that's all.

But here the discovery of oil changes everything. Because the Îles Malouines could actually become self sustaining. They'll be able to pay their own bills, they might even be able to contribute substantially to their own defences. They'd be able to do things themselves & not rely on the British Exchequer to support them any more. And I suppose that makes the case for the islands staying British colonial even stronger.

Still, as they stand just now, the islands no more deserve self determination than Southall or Bradford deserve to become either Indian or Pakistani. Because the people who live there, well, they're just invaders really. A few generations may have passed since the original invasion but their continued presence doesn't justify a thing.

I think the islands should for all practical purposes become Argentinian but adopt a handsoff Hong Kong type lease status, say 250 years. Then everyone can stay happy ... and alive.

Because it's such an insubstantial issue, all this talk of war is stupid.

It holds just as true for the welsh and scots. Now that a nationalist party has a majority in scotland there will be a referendum and the results will be respected.

I happen to think in the word as it is today breaking away would be madness for my nation (i'm a scot) but one way or another it will be put to bed in the next year or two.

There isn't really any inconsistency.

I was just ready to post potentially the most hate-filled vitriolic message ever posted to these boards. But then that's not who I am, and it's entirely misdirected because of life changing personal events that I've faced this week.

Stu was right. I apologize. I stand by my opinion in general, but it's not important because there is nothing i can say or do that would change the entire history of the country, much as I'd like to. Maybe I was out for the fight and unintentionally brought it here. I apologize. None of you have annoyed me so much. I've had a bad bad weekend, and respectfully request that the two posters after Stu refrain from further goading. I'm sure Freud would understand fully.

Yes, I may seem highly strung. It's just possible that there's a reason for that, and that has nothing to do with this website or conversation, but you're not to know. So, with respect, I'll leave you to continue and you can ignore that I was ever here.

Regards

reply to post by EvanB


Anybody ever heard of the 'black hole of Calcutta' where Indian mutineers crammed 180 women and children into a
space ten feet square, with one 'window' in the wall, about a foot square? guess how many survived the night? (this was the height of summer) also the male bodies found in an adjacent cell hung on the walls with wall hooks through the backs of their necks? ankle deep blood on the floor? yes, the Brits really are nasty people, building decent roads, railroads, telephone systems, mapping the countries, shipping ports.
Who was it had to spent vast amounts of money freeing Europe from Napoleon? Twice?
Who was bankrupted, twice, in the last century, fighting a middle European country?

Originally posted by pikestaff
Who was it had to spent vast amounts of money freeing Europe from Napoleon? Twice?
Who was bankrupted, twice, in the last century, fighting a middle European country?

Well, it wasn't you that's for sure.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity

Originally posted by pikestaff
Who was it had to spent vast amounts of money freeing Europe from Napoleon? Twice?
Who was bankrupted, twice, in the last century, fighting a middle European country?

Well, it wasn't you that's for sure.

Very true!

Neither what happend in Scotland, Ireland, India et al, but that truth gets lost on the many with their personal bigotry on these boards..

I for one have no problems with Scottish independence

It would be good to see what Scottish mettle can do

reply to post by pikestaff


you mass murdered more than a billion people,Stole tens of thousands tons of gold,silver,diamonds,gems.Forced farmers to grow cash crops instead of food and killed them when they did not obey. Deliberately starved people.

India is much more moral nation than you. India use to be the richest nation on earth and you stole and looted and plundered its wealth ,mass murdered 1.8 billion people.


nteresting points:
1) In 1700 India, China and Europe had about the same GDPs at 20% of world GDP each.
2) From 1700 to 1950, India and China (well, early 1800s for China) are straight down hill while the US is straight up
3) Around 1973 India and China awoke and are starting to climb back, while US and Europe fell respectively.
fatknowledge.blogspot.in...

Proves that british rule was good for nothing.

www.mapsofindia.com...

ATTENTION!!!!

This thread seems to have wandered away from the topic:

Argentinians protest arrival of Prince Williams on Malvinas

Please be reminded:

We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

I respect any move made by Scotland.

The only real fear is losing 5.5 million people who actively hate the Tory party.

Please reconsider.

--

Just noticed the warning above - so on topic.

--

There's a big difference between wanting the falklands to remain British and wanting war. I don't want war with Argentina and I hope nobody gets hurts.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity

Self determination is what the British quote here. And that's fair enough, it's enshrined in the UN charter, that peoples have the absolute right to determine their own fate, without any form of external let or hindrance.

Indeed.
And that should always be the single, most important factor.
The right to self-determination is an inalienable right.

I ask because I'm genuinely confused. Because many patriotic British contributors here want self determination for Britain (to get them out of the EU), they want self determination for the Falkland Islands (to keep them British) ... but the same people here would deny self determination to the Scots and the Welsh people, for them to hold referendums to separate. Or as the English majority, they'd impose % conditions on the Scots and Welsh, write them twisted referendum questions, time the vote to maximum disadvantage and such like.

Now there you go again telling outriight, blatent lies!

Scotland are planning there own referendum on independance.
Westminster wants them to hold it as soon as possible yet the pro-independance SNP want to delay it?
I understand the complexity etc but just who is dragging their heels over this?

Westminster wants a straight forward Yes or No vote on independance.
The SNP want to complicate issues by including a vote on Devo Max as well.
Looks like they really want to hedge their bets.

Whilst there is an independance movement in Wales it is no way as large or as popular as the one in Scotland.
If it ever is then I sincerely hope the Welsh get their chance to determine their own future.

The vast majority of English fully support Scotland's right to self-determination.
Some actually hope they vote for it.
Most of us hope they vote against it.
I have posted the reasons why I hope we maintain The Union, I don't intend to bore everyone by doing so again.
Suffice to say that ultimately that choice is Scotland's......and no-one is denying them that right.....and you know that yet you repeatedly post this blatant lie.

Why?

And despiite Kirchner's irrational reasoning that Right to Self-Determination applies to The Falkland Islanders and they have repeatedly expressed their desire directly to the UN that they wish to remain British.

Britain has made concilliatory offers to Argentina which Kirchner has turned down out of arrogance and political ambition and maneuvering.....all to the detriment of the Argentinian people.

reply to post by Freeborn


It's for the Scots to decide whether they want a vote on independence, what the question will be & when that vote will be held.

Scots. That's because they're the ones exercising their right to self determination.

With every caveat you attach to this issue, you're removing their rights to determine their own fate.

That's what you and many of the English contributors here cannot understand. One rule for the Falkland Islands, the same rule for the UK vis a vis the EU ... and another rule for the Scots.

I don't call you a liar. I just don't think you appreciate the subtleties involved.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by Freeborn

 

It's for the Scots to decide whether they want a vote on independence, what the question will be & when that vote will be held.

Scots. That's because they're the ones exercising their right to self determination.

With every caveat you attach to this issue, you're removing their rights to determine their own fate.

That's what you and many of the English contributors here cannot understand. One rule for the Falkland Islands, the same rule for the UK vis a vis the EU ... and another rule for the Scots.

Also to add. Few realise yet how heated and divisive this issue will become. Blood will spill in pubs, mark my words.

I don't call you a liar. I just don't think you appreciate the subtleties involved.

Nor do you.

The SNP are a majority in the Scottish parliament not because the scots want independence but as its the only credible party left when people become disenchanted by Labour. Scots won't vote tory and the liberals are not deemed serious.

Now that it looks like it might be put to the test many Scots who don't want independence are glad the UK parliament (government) is attempting to stop the SNP stacking the deck with misleading referendum language and other dirty tricks such as allowing scottish expats abroad to vote, allowing 16 year olds to vote etc.

reply to post by justwokeup


So. You're saying that London politicians and the Westminster Parliament are acting as a safeguard for "Scotland's Best Interests" ... are they ? The English looking after the Scots ?

In your dreams.

So much for the UN Charter and the rights of self determination.

Because there's no self determination if some other nation is pulling the strings.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by justwokeup

 

So. You're saying that London politicians and the Westminster Parliament are acting as a safeguard for "Scotland's Best Interests" ... are they ? The English looking after the Scots ?

In your dreams.

So much for the UN Charter and the rights of self determination.

Because there's no self determination if some other nation is pulling the strings.

You are equating one parliamentary party with a nation. Utterly wrongheaded.

The matter will be decided by referendum but it is unfair on the nation to allow one political party to dictate the wording of the referendum.

It needs to be agreed as a neutral question to be fair.

reply to post by justwokeup


I think we're both deviating somewhat from the thread.

But some here demonstrate hypocrisy when it comes to the right of self determination.

And I'll leave the thread with that.

Adieu.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by justwokeup

 

I think we're both deviating somewhat from the thread.

But some here demonstrate hypocrisy when it comes to the right of self determination.

And I'll leave the thread with that.

Adieu.

ok. being a Scot the issue is something I'm passionate about and few outside would understand the politics. I tend to get upset when people harp on about scotland being some downtrodden mass yearning for freedom.

its twaddle and it sets me off on one :-)

back to the topic.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


What caveats are 'the English' putting on it?

Yes or No and you can have the vote as soon as possible, that's it.

It's the pro-independance lobby who are wanting to drag it out and complicate the issue.

I don't think there's been a single English person on here say that the Scots have no right whatsoever to a referendum...if anything there's been too many who see it as a foregone conclusion and good riddance.
I merely hope they decide to remain within The Union, but it's up to them.

But we digress.

The Falklands were until the late 90's essentially a welfare state. Very expensive real estate! I recall reading that higher education was provided in the UK.

With the potential of oil wealth and no self defense they have no choice but to choose to remain British rather than an independent nation. Not to mention cultural and language differences with Argentina.

Self determination versus international law dating to the early 1800's. A tough call.

How many Brits or those on this thread believe the Palestinians, Kurds, Taliban; etc.should be allowed self determination?

If I were in control in Argentina I might do a Castro style 1980 boatlift emptying all my prisons and asylums and send them one way to the Falklands! LOL

It is not an equal comparison but in 1936 the US forces drove the Brit, there was only one, from Canton Island which was internationally recognized as British. In 1937 ships exchanged shots across the bow over an anchorage issue. The Brits fired the first shot! The island was 'given' back to Britain (1937?) and a new Pan-Am airstrip was built in 1939(?). .