I said you were both experts at it Castiel, playing it when it suits. I'm not conflating you for the UK State just pointing out a similarity.. Ya' know, like read what I've written not what you'd like me to have bunched up with your multiple straw men.
The Falklands thread
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
I said you were both experts at it Castiel, playing it when it suits. I'm not conflating you for the UK State just pointing out a similarity.. Ya' know, like read what I've written not what you'd like me to have bunched up with your multiple straw men.
Experts at what? Are you trying to insult me?
Why?
Look on the bright side, we'll have ringside seats as Biohazard implodes when the Scottish people vote to remain in the union.
I wouldn't be so assured on any of that, neither am I quite so certain as to why some perspective attracts so much disdain..
Would it be better if I started laughing about the slaughter of some Argies instead? Wave ma wee flag?
And the big one the USA dictate the engagement terms and cheat. Oh no your radar is to good can't use that that's cheating!
Look on the bright side, we'll have ringside seats as Biohazard implodes when the Scottish people vote to remain in the union.
How can you be so sure?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,773
- Location
- Under the Hill
Because they aren't stupid?
What you choose to do with your wee flag in the privacy of your own home is entirely up to you. A right ironically protected for you by the British armed forces, which funnily enough did the same for the Falkland Islanders.
When imperialist Scotland gives the Shetland Islanders a free vote on if they wish to continue to be governed by their Scottish overlords or returned to Norway you may have more solid ground to throw bricks from.
Islands and colonialism eh?
When imperialist Scotland gives the Shetland Islanders a free vote on if they wish to continue to be governed by their Scottish overlords or returned to Norway you may have more solid ground to throw bricks from.
Islands and colonialism eh?
The islands were pictish before Viking invasion, and were ceded back through marriage to Scotland many many centuries ago. If the Islanders wanted to return that's up to them, but no one apart from frustrated Englishmen seem to seriously suggest it.
It's a bit of a wobbly example you have there, since the islands were the only region of the UK to vote no to the EEC but were dragged into it by London anyway, so it's not your best democratic example.
My point stands, I'm not letting people cite the Scottish referendum as some sort of beacon of British democracy when the person citing it and the state itself has done nothing but to obfuscate, avoid and frustrate the process and many other issues surrounding Scottish politics.
Again, in my opinion, the democracy card isn't the best to be playing nor is it by some member here given their past opinions and arguments.
Ironic and simply because someone doesn't agree with you or your interpretation of events doesn't mean they are obfuscating or avoiding anything. The question (if it was even a question rather than some awkward way to bait someone) was answered fully and rationally, the concept of the Islanders having the right to decide their own future has been British policy since Argentina readdressed their claims in the 1950s, so the answer to your initial question was no. You appear to want to illicit some kind of character assassination instead in order to forward some kind of personal agenda, something that has nothing to do with the thread or the topic at at hand.
If you disagree that the Islanders have the right to self determination (which is what I said and you quoted) then feel free to explain why, anything else is irrelevant and off topic.
Last edited:
Again with the straw men?
I'm not contesting Argentina but you, of all people here, citing the Scottish referendum as some sort of example of the altruistic British democracy.
I quoted it for different reasons, already stated. If you bothered to read the thread you would see my stated opinion on self determination. What I'm saying is you have a brass neck for standing by the same given your past opinions on validity of popular sovereignty and devolution as a benchmark.
Then you are mistaken in such, as I also mentioned British mistakes regarding the position of self determination in the same post. I cited the Scottish Referendum as an example of a people having the right to self determination, something that the Falkland Islanders also have the right to express.
I have never questioned the position of Scottish rights (or anyone for that matter) to self determination, only the mechanisms which need to be followed in order to comply with the law, treaty and Constitution as stated. You disagree with me on several points as is your right. however you seem to want to turn this into a thread about bashing Britain (and it seems an excuse to incorporate an insult or two) rather than accepting the validity of their current position, which you admit you hold yourself.
Last edited:
They do yes. Any people do in my eyes, but not all sovereign states see the world through such a prism which was my point before the Britnats piled in.
That law, your opinions, were of a concept diametrically opposed to popular sovereignty.
You can't have it both ways.
I haven't bashed Britain once where it hasn't been deserved, we aren't a beacon of democracy we've got current problems domestically and internationally. Scotland isn't the best example of democracy within the UK either. I realise feelings and national emotions run high at times like these, yet at least recognising the wider problem might stimulate greater debate beyond 'rofl belgrano' 'democracy!'.. when that's not quite the issue we face.
The British Govt current agree that a people have the right to self determination, as do you...you are therefore both in agreement and the response to my initial post stating such seems to be ill conceived at best.
I agree that not all Sovereign States see it that way (Argentina for example) however I did not mention Argentina's position, only Britain's position on the Islanders rights to self determination, so I fail to understand why you questioned what I said so negatively.
However those laws, treaties and constitutions exist nonetheless and it doesn't impede any parliament from ceding to a position of self-determination without ceding Parliamentary Sovereignty. As is evidenced by the Scottish Referendum Agreement between the Scottish and British Parliaments, following the proscribed legal position. You have a different view (as do some jurists) and I appreciate that, but it doesn't mean both positions are incompatible. There is a distinction between legal sovereignty and political sovereignty in practice, this is also not really pertinent to the thread debate.
Given that I have neither made any posts associated to 'lol belgrano' and have clearly stated (in the post you quoted) that Britain is not perfect in this regard, your criticism of my post is unfounded.
I think the only issue of any importance is what the people who live and call those Islands home actually want. Perhaps you can explain what issues supersede those?
Last edited:
If there was anything you was going to learn from Dolph surely it would have been "fallacy".
