The Falklands thread

[Castiel]

If there was anything you was going to learn from Dolph surely it would have been "fallacy".

Or how to use Latin inappropriately.

 

[Biohazard]

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.

The poster who repeatedly threatened and argued it was acceptable to simply remove Scottish devolution.

Where is the right to self determination with doomsday clauses and proponents like that?

Britain does, in some weird contortion of it's base principles, accept self determination. It has a checkered history with it and 'democracy'.

Your opinions have always been much aligned, therefore I find similarities.

I do support the UK Government over the islands, but not for the same reasons for some people in here are which I can't help feel are misguided at times.

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 and I appreciate that, but it doesn't mean both positions are incompatible.

My point was you, and the political establishment decried the possibility of a referendum in Scotland and have long tried to frustrate the process since the home rule movement started and then stalled in '79. The Edinburgh agreement only arose because the Nationalists managed to punch through a glass ceiling designed by Whitehall the Scottish Office and Labour. The UK Government had no option but to concede after trying it's hardest to avoid and frustrate thus far. It wasn't for a lack of trying otherwise.

We wouldn't have this if some of the Lords had their way, and as for respecting 'self determination' I wonder if the Lords would be threatening to bomb the Falklands had they dared to vote No..? Perhaps not.

You completely discounted popular sovereignty for all intents and purposes just as I do the same for parliamentary sovereignty. To see you stand by the former, which the Edinburgh agreement is an example of, doesn't fit well with your previous vehement stances against such displays of democracy in Scotland.

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, you 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?

For christ sakes castiel, are you actually this slow? That was clearly commentary towards the thread.

Who mentioned superseding rights or issues? Only you this far I suspect. What I have clearly pointed out is the wider issue isn't that simple, we have to deal with a nation looking at it entirely different.

But it's clear very few people here have the mental agility to grasp this, which is a shame, maybe if someone else was raising the point we might get to discuss a solution to it. The latest military hardware is not going to be it!

 

[Castiel]

The poster who repeatedly threatened and argued it was acceptable to simply remove Scottish devolution.

I did not say it was acceptable, only legally possible under the terms of devolution and the way in which Parliamentary Sovereignty is defined, in fact it was redefined to some extent by the very act of devolution, again I have explained this before and it has nothing to do with this thread. Again you attempt to colour someone's position in order to dismiss it, who is obfuscating here?

Where is the right to self determination with doomsday clauses and proponents like that?

As I said there is a distinction between legal and political sovereignty, the current parliament ascribe to a policy of self determination, this is not incompatible with retaining parliamentary sovereignty.

Britain does, in some weird contortion of it's base principles, accept self determination. It has a checkered history with it and 'democracy'.

None has said otherwise. I actually pointed this out, so what is your point again?

Your opinions have always been much aligned, therefore I find similarities.

Much aligned with what exactly?

I do support the UK Government over the islands, but not for the same reasons for some people in here are which I can't help feel are misguided at times.

And that has exactly what to do with why you quoted my post so negatively?

My point was you, and the political establishment decried the possibility of a referendum in Scotland and have long tried to frustrate the process since the home rule movement started and then stalled in '79.

I think you give me far too much credit, I have no power to frustrate or stall any process....I also did not oppose any referendum, only certain opinons on how the mechanism for such a referendum was to be considered in a legal framework.

Again, this has nothing to do with this thread and is ground already covered numerous times in others.

The Edinburgh agreement only arose because the Nationalists managed to punch through a glass ceiling designed by Whitehall the Scottish Office and Labour. The UK Government had no option but to concede after trying it's hardest to avoid and frustrate thus far. It wasn't for a lack of trying otherwise.

Alternatively the SNP were in a position in which they could claim (through the fact they were elected to power in the Scottish Govt) a mandate from the people to ask for the right to hold a referendum on independence. Previous Scottish governments could not claim such a mandate as it was not part of their manifesto on which they were elected. You cannot objectively state that the British Govt would not have accepted such a mandate had it been produced in an earlier Govt. the actual rights of the Scottish people to self determination are an accepted and acceded fact by the British Govt, hence the legislation in order to ensure constitutional legality of it.

Again, this has nothing to do with this thread.

We wouldn't have this if some of the Lords had their way, and as for respecting 'self determination' I wonder if the Lords would be threatening to bomb the Falklands had they dared to vote No..? Perhaps not.

And the individual views of some 'Lords' in a non-existant scenario is relevant how?

You completely discounted popular sovereignty for all intents and purposes just as I do the same for parliamentary sovereignty. To see you stand by the former, which the Edinburgh agreement is an example of, doesn't fit well with your previous vehement stances against such displays of democracy in Scotland.

I think you are confusing what my position is, with what you want it to be. I have always acknowledged and supported the Scottish people's right to self determination, at the same time as defending the legal position of the Govt according to the laws and constitutional treaties of this country. A stance that has been validated by the current position of both the Scottish and British parliaments.

For christ sakes castiel, are you actually this slow? That was clearly commentary towards the thread.

That still doesn't explain why you choose to disagree with a position that you admit to actually agreeing with simply because I made it.

Who mentioned superseding rights or issues? Only you this far I suspect. What I have clearly pointed out is the wider issue isn't that simple, we have to deal with a nation looking at it entirely different.

You implied that the rights of the Islanders is not the overriding issue we should consider, you implied to a greater or wider issue that we are not considering....I asked you what that/those issues are?

No need to imply I am stupid or do not have the mental capacity to comprehend something I asked you to clarify.

But it's clear very few people here have the mental agility to grasp this, which is a shame, maybe if someone else was raising the point we might get to discuss a solution to it. The latest military hardware is not going to be it!

None of which has anything to do with the post you quoted and made comment on.

Perhaps you would like to get back onto the topic instead of trying to illicit some kind of flame war on Scottish issues simply because I pointed out that self determination is something supported by Britain as evidenced by Scotland's right to a referendum, and deal with the Falkland issues instead?

Perhaps you could offer your opinion on how we can approach a solution to this topic rather than discussing my opinion on something unrelated?

 

[Biohazard]

I did not say it was acceptable, only legally possible under the terms of devolution and the way in which Parliamentary Sovereignty is defined, in fact it was redefined to some extent by the very act of devolution, again I have explained this before and it has nothing to do with this thread. Again you attempt to colour someone's position in order to dismiss it, who is obfuscating here?

As I said there is a distinction between legal and political sovereignty, the current parliament ascribe to a policy of self determination, this is not incompatible with retaining parliamentary sovereignty.

None has said otherwise. I actually pointed this out, so what is your point again?

Much aligned with what exactly?

And that has exactly what to do with why you quoted my post so negatively?

Your hypocrisy when it comes to self determination and democracy, I've already explained this.

I think you give me far too much credit, I have no power to frustrate or stall any process....I also did not oppose any referendum, only certain opinons on how the mechanism for such a referendum was to be considered in a legal framework.

The process of debate.

Oh, and what happened to the strings attached in due course?

Alternatively the SNP were in a position in which they could claim (through the fact they were elected to power in the Scottish Govt) a mandate from the people to ask for the right to hold a referendum on independence. Previous Scottish governments could not claim such a mandate as it was not part of their manifesto on which they were elected. You cannot objectively state that the British Govt would not have accepted such a mandate had it been produced in an earlier Govt. the actual rights of the Scottish people to self determination are an accepted and acceded fact by the British Govt, hence the legislation in order to ensure constitutional legality of it.

That is not correct, they have always stood on manifesto platforms of having a referendum. When they formed the first SNP administration all main oppositions parties opposed and tainted the process.

The UK Government's position, as I understand it from the only Tory MP in Scotland, is that Scotland was extinguished and that the constituional conventions are baseless.

If it weren't for the benevolent UK Government we'd be stuffed is the line.

And the individual views of some 'Lords' in a non-existant scenario is relevant how?

It's entirely relevent, they are a component of British democracy and that non-existant scenario is a possibility and such threats against self-determination do not reflect well on some opinion emanating from the houses.

I think you are confusing what my position is, with what you want it to be. I have always acknowledged and supported the Scottish people's right to self determination, at the same time as defending the legal position of the Govt according to the laws and constitutional treaties of this country. A stance that has been validated by the current position of both the Scottish and British parliaments.

Hmmmmmmmm.

That still doesn't explain why you choose to disagree with a position that you admit toy actually agree with simply because I made it.

You implied that the rights of the Islanders is not the overriding issue we should consider, you implied to a greater or wider issue that we are not considering....I asked you what that/those issues are?

No need to imply I am stupid or do not have the mental capacity to comprehend something I asked you to clarify.

That wasn't what I was implying you were slow for castiel when I'm clearly ending with an opinion on the wider debate so far.

I think my point is slightly more nuanced than that, in that it isn't as simple in the case of the Falklands dispute to point singularly to their wishes. I agree they are the highest premise of notion and principle involved, but that it isn't going to remove the issue because of the varied views not least of which historical and political.

None of which has anything to do with the post you quoted and made comment on.

Perhaps you would like to get back onto the topic instead of trying to illicit some kind of flame war on Scottish issues simply because I pointed out that self determination is something supported by Britain as evidenced by Scotland's right to a referendum, and deal with the Falkland issues instead?

Perhaps you could offer your opinion on how we can approach a solution to this topic rather than discussing my opinion on something unrelated?

Supported through gritted teeth, which is why I feel that and the wider 'democracy' card is not Britain's strong point irrespective of appeals to emotion about the idealistic past.

I think we have to explore the possibility of shared ownership or lease in some respect. Or complete independence for the islands, which might actually afford them more international protection as opposed to their current position. I can see a diplomatic offensive from the UK not being as effective as it could due to sensatitivities about other issues. I don't profess to have the answer, but if nearly 70 years of modern dispute including war and a vote doesn't sort the matter out clearly we need to think outside the box a little.

 

[Castiel]

Your hypocrisy when it comes to self determination and democracy, I've already explained this.

There is no hypocrisy in my position. I have always supported a people's right to self determination. Legal frameworks are necessary to enable that right to progress and be accepted by agreement without cause to legal challenge...this has been my position and remains my position.

The process of debate.

Oh, and what happened to the strings attached in due course?

I see no relevance in what you are implying, again it seems engineered in order to carry on a debate that has nothing to do with this thread.

That is not correct, they have always stood on manifesto platforms of having a referendum. When they formed the first SNP administration all main oppositions parties opposed and tainted the process.

The UK Government's position, as I understand it from the only Tory MP in Scotland, is that Scotland was extinguished and that the constituional conventions are baseless.

If it weren't for the benevolent UK Government we'd be stuffed is the line.

I think you have made another mistake in how you interpreted what I said, I never said the SNP did not have it in their manifesto, but that the other parties who formed the previous Scottish Govt's did not....when the SNP came to power they also brought that mandate with them, before they were in power that mandate did not exist as the people had not voted on such a manifesto in sufficient numbers as to imply such a mandate.

That other parties opposed such is obvious as they do not have such a manifesto pledge and quite obviously represent people who wish no such thing, however this doesn't negate the British Govt position on self determination or the acquiesce to the mandate that the current Scottish Govt represent...therefore the referendum is taking place and the legal mechanisms in order for it to take place have been satisfied and agreed.

It's entirely relevent, they are a component of British democracy and that non-existant scenario is a possibility and such threats against self-determination do not reflect well on some opinion emanating from the houses.

However, the possibility of Scottish Independence is very real and yet no-one is making any threats as to ignoring the result of such a referendum, so your point is?

That wasn't what I was implying you were slow for castiel when I'm clearly ending with an opinion on the wider debate so far.

Not in your original remarks, they said nothing about any wider position or anything other than being critical of me personally and the British in general.

I think my point is slightly more nuanced than that, in that it isn't as simple in the case of the Falklands dispute to point singularly to their wishes. I agree they are the highest premise of notion and principle involved, but that it isn't going to remove the issue because of the varied views not least of which historical and political.

Until now you haven't made any specific point however, you are implying something without clarification, even when asked.....

Supported through gritted teeth, which is why I feel that and the wider 'democracy' card is not Britain's strong point irrespective of appeals to emotion about the idealistic past.

That is only your opinion, one coloured by your politics. As I pointed out successive British Govt's since the resurgence of Argentine claims have all reference the Islanders rights to decide, and it has been respect for those very Islanders rights that have halted any transfer of sovereignty even when it was a consideration by a British Govt.

And again you make comparisons with 'Britain's idealistic past' that I made no reference to, I openly ceded that Britain is not perfect in this regard (Diego Garcia for example). However we are dealing with the position now, not what it was before.

I think we have to explore the possibility of shared ownership or lease in some respect. Or complete independence for the islands, which might actually afford them more international protection as opposed to their current position. I can see a diplomatic offensive from the UK not being as effective as it could due to sensatitivities about other issues. I don't profess to have the answer, but if nearly 70 years of modern dispute including war and a vote doesn't sort the matter out clearly we need to think outside the box a little.

The Islanders have themselves refused such a shared sovereignty arrangement in the past, as have the Argentines....this was a British suggestion in the 1970s if I recall. Complete independence is a position, however again it is not something widely supported by the Islanders or would be acceptable to the Argentines, both of who have previously rejected such suggestions.

I think the problem really lies in the political cache that the Falklands has in the psyche of the Argentinians and how that is abused by successive Argentine Administrations to enable them to avoid dealing with their own internal problems, be it economically or politically. Recognising the Islanders rights to have even a say in how their homes and lives are affected by this dispute only reinforces this view.

 

[[bgcb]REPO_MAN]

lol at the utter one upmanship thats ruined the last 2 pages of this thread.

Two people a little to desperate to appear intelligent IMO.

 

[Firestar_3x]

lol at the utter one upmanship thats ruined the last 2 pages of this thread.

Two people a little to desperate to appear intelligent IMO.

Must troll harder.

 

[Biohazard]

There is no hypocrisy in my position. I have always supported a people's right to self determination. Legal frameworks are necessary to enable that right to progress and be accepted by agreement without cause to legal challenge...this has been my position and remains my position.

I see no relevance in what you are implying, again it seems engineered in order to carry on a debate that has nothing to do with this thread.

You are re-inventing your position, you never held popular sovereignty with any much regard and have proved to be almost arrogant in opinion akin to over-lordship when it came to previously laid down self determination settlements.

There have been clear differences in your sentiments on these issues, the Scottish dynamic was the first thing you were vocal with on these forums and it wasn't as friendly as your opinion towards the Falkland Islands.. now quite happy to use Scotland as an example of something you have categorically stated you wish you didn't see. A devolved Scotland.

I think you have made another mistake in how you interpreted what I said, I never said the SNP did not have it in their manifesto, but that the other parties who formed the previous Scottish Govt's did not....when the SNP came to power they also brought that mandate with them, before they were in power that mandate did not exist as the people had not voted on such a manifesto in sufficient numbers as to imply such a mandate.

Quite possibly.

How do you excuse the current UK coalition government policy then, for arguments sake?

Do they have a mandate?

That other parties opposed such is obvious as they do not have such a manifesto pledge and quite obviously represent people who wish no such thing, however this doesn't negate the British Govt position on self determination or the acquiesce to the mandate that the current Scottish Govt represent...therefore the referendum is taking place and the legal mechanisms in order for it to take place have been satisfied and agreed.

That's not true, they represented people who did want a referendum. The majority of Scots, Unionist and Independent, have wanted a referendum on this and other matters for quite some time actually. Nationalists wanted the opportunity to debate, and Unionists wanted the opportunity to put the issue to bed. It was the Unionist parties in near isolation, and quite often abandonment of their founding principles, that opposed a referendum on Scottish independence. This issue has been going for decades, and the only people who were scared to confront it were the Unionist politicians.

However, the possibility of Scottish Independence is very real and yet no-one is making any threats as to ignoring the result of such a referendum, so your point is?

No, they are just threatening to bomb us instead of ignoring it.

Not in your original remarks, they said nothing about any wider position or anything other than being critical of me personally and the British in general.

What would my original remarks have to do with a post later, to you, on a tangent, regarding the audience?

I wasn't critical of the "British in general", that's you inventing a position I've never maintained, but the British State and it self professing as a beacon of democracy when it is slowly slipping down the international rankings and has a poor history of upholding these principles universally.

That is only your opinion, one coloured by your politics. As I pointed out successive British Govt's since the resurgence of Argentine claims have all reference the Islanders rights to decide, and it has been respect for those very Islanders rights that have halted any transfer of sovereignty even when it was a consideration by a British Govt.

I don't think we've entirely explored all options, the islanders have voted but it won't stop a counter claim with a completely different perspective.

War beyond invasion and occupation is very unlikely to resolve this difference in opinion, which is why I think the best long term outcome would be for their own independence which is something we could help build and support. It needn't be an abandonment of Britishness with the common wealth and common bonds that would remain.

They might never want that, but if not we're always going to have an uncomfortable stance and relation with the south America's if that's the case.

And again you make comparisons with 'Britain's idealistic past' that I made no reference to, I openly ceded that Britain is not perfect in this regard (Diego Garcia for example). However we are dealing with the position now, not what it was before.

I didn't say that you did, god almighty is everything I discuss or profess in debate to you have to be something you yourself have said?

That again, whooshing right over your head, was commentary to the opinions banded about by some in this regard.

The Islanders have themselves refused such a shared sovereignty arrangement in the past, as have the Argentines....this was a British suggestion in the 1970s if I recall. Complete independence is a position, however again it is not something widely supported by the Islanders or would be acceptable to the Argentines, both of who have previously rejected such suggestions.

Argentina would find it very hard if they declared them self independent and were accepted and recognised by the global community as such. I think it's something that should be explored further with the islanders, 40 odd years ago is a very long time.

I think the problem really lies in the political cache that the Falklands has in the psyche of the Argentinians and how that is abused by successive Argentine Administrations to enable them to avoid dealing with their own internal problems, be it economically or politically. Recognising the Islanders rights to have even a say in how their homes and lives are affected by this dispute only reinforces this view.

Could it also be that they genuinely believe they have territorial claim too? I don't think it's entirely deflection, quite probably in certain ways but not in entirety.

I just can't see a resolution to the standoff, and at risk of being balked at again by the usual crowd we're going to have to pull of a blinder to get them off the back of the islanders. War isn't going to solve it, it hasn't fixed it from last time and I fear the referendum will clearly fall on deaf ears.

 

[StriderX]

I wonder if the Falklands would see it differently if Argentina was having a massive boom and the UK was heading for bankruptcy, if the answer was yes they would change over, then maybe that is what is also a reason for the UN to stay out of it.

After all the UN uses think tanks to decide on these things (most governments do as well), they must have gone through possibilities and alternate positions.

Either that or the UN just doesn't care.

 

[Castiel]

You are re-inventing your position, you never held popular sovereignty with any much regard and have proved to be almost arrogant in opinion akin to over-lordship when it came to previously laid down self determination settlements.

There have been clear differences in your sentiments on these issues, the Scottish dynamic was the first thing you were vocal with on these forums and it wasn't as friendly as your opinion towards the Falkland Islands.. now quite happy to use Scotland as an example of something you have categorically stated you wish you didn't see. A devolved Scotland.

You seem unable or unwilling to accept that my opinion is not as you describe it to be, and you seem set on derailing this thread and turning it into a discussion on Scotland and my character....something I am not really interested in indulging you in. My opinion have been made pretty clear in this and previous discussions, and the contexts in which they have been made. That I do not thing a devolved system in the way we have one really helps with integration of a single society and allows petty nationalism to usurp and undermine what a society should be, doesn't mean that I do not support anyone's rights to self determination....as for popular Sovereignty, I have no regard or disregard for it, I have argued the position from a legal and constitutional perspective and that I am afraid in the U.K despite devolution requires consideration of Parliamentary sovereignty...this has been borne out by the Accords leading to the Scottish Referendum. This is the last I will talk about Scottish issues in this thread, it is derailing and irrelevant. People can dig out the Scottish threads and decide for themselves if they so wish.

Quite possibly.

How do you excuse the current UK coalition government policy then, for arguments sake?

Do they have a mandate?

They have a mandate collectively as the elected UK Govt. as do the Scottish Govt.

That's not true, they represented people who did want a referendum. The majority of Scots, Unionist and Independent, have wanted a referendum on this and other matters for quite some time actually. Nationalists wanted the opportunity to debate, and Unionists wanted the opportunity to put the issue to bed. It was the Unionist parties in near isolation, and quite often abandonment of their founding principles, that opposed a referendum on Scottish independence. This issue has been going for decades, and the only people who were scared to confront it were the Unionist politicians.

Was it in their manifestos, did the people vote for these parties on the manifesto pledges which included a call to referendum for independence?

No, they are just threatening to bomb us instead of ignoring it.

Members of the UK parliament are threatening to bomb Scotland? Really!!!

To be honest I don't see the point of discussing Scotland with you, and this is certainly not the thread for it in any case.

What would my original remarks have to do with a post later, to you, on a tangent, regarding the audience?

They relate entirely to what I stated if you have quoted them without clarifying to whom you are addressing, if you are now talking about something unrelated to that then continue...it has nothing to do with me so I see no point in you quoting me in such responses as that only confuses the issue.

I wasn't critical of the "British in general", that's you inventing a position I've never maintained, but the British State and it self professing as a beacon of democracy when it is slowly slipping down the international rankings and has a poor history of upholding these principles universally.

Hold on, did I not mention this tacitly in my original post, the one which you took exception to?

I don't think we've entirely explored all options, the islanders have voted but it won't stop a counter claim with a completely different perspective.

Other options?

Suggestions, if we haven't explored all the options maybe you can enlighten us what those options are and why they need be explored and what practical advantages they have given the stated positions of all three parties, even if one of the parties doesn't recognise there are three in the dispute.

War beyond invasion and occupation is very unlikely to resolve this difference in opinion, which is why I think the best long term outcome would be for their own independence which is something we could help build and support. It needn't be an abandonment of Britishness with the common wealth and common bonds that would remain.

I don't think there is any real danger of another war, at least not at the moment. And independence requires the assent of the Islanders, which has not been forthcoming so far.

They might never want that, but if not we're always going to have an uncomfortable stance and relation with the south America's if that's the case.

Perhaps.

I didn't say that you did, god almighty is everything I discuss or profess in debate to you have to be something you yourself have said?

Then make yourself clear, as you are quoting me directly so it also implies that you are addressing points I raised.....or trying to alter the context of what I have said or implied something I have not said. I am afraid that you need to clarify to whom your are referring when making such allegations or not if that is case. The simple addition of the word 'others' would suffice, particularly as you were responding to the supporting a position shared by the British Govt. I don't think that the epitept 'gritted teeth' really applies whether you were referring to me or to the British Govt or both, it is a position they have maintained for decades.

Argentina would find it very hard if they declared them self independent and were accepted and recognised by the global community as such. I think it's something that should be explored further with the islanders, 40 odd years ago is a very long time.

The Islanders expressed the same very recently, in the discussions leading up to and including the referendum. It was a consideration for the referendum but was unpopular so was set aside.

Could it also be that they genuinely believe they have territorial claim too? I don't think it's entirely deflection, quite probably in certain ways but not in entirety.

I am sure they do, however that doesn't alter the rhetoric or the underlying reason for that rhetoric.

I just can't see a resolution to the standoff, and at risk of being balked at again by the usual crowd we're going to have to pull of a blinder to get them off the back of the islanders. War isn't going to solve it, it hasn't fixed it from last time and I fear the referendum will clearly fall on deaf ears.

I don't think a war is either practical or on the agenda for Argentina, I think it is more about political capital rather than any real desire to own the Falklands.

 

[Abraxaz1]

I wonder if the Falklands would see it differently if Argentina was having a massive boom and the UK was heading for bankruptcy, if the answer was yes they would change over, then maybe that is what is also a reason for the UN to stay out of it.

After all the UN uses think tanks to decide on these things (most governments do as well), they must have gone through possibilities and alternate positions.

Either that or the UN just doesn't care.

amazingly not everyone is motivated by monetary values, the majority of the islanders still remember the last invasion and the lives lost in securing there freedom.

 

[Castiel]

I wonder if the Falklands would see it differently if Argentina was having a massive boom and the UK was heading for bankruptcy, if the answer was yes they would change over, then maybe that is what is also a reason for the UN to stay out of it.

After all the UN uses think tanks to decide on these things (most governments do as well), they must have gone through possibilities and alternate positions.

Either that or the UN just doesn't care.

I think there are cultural and identity issues that are possibly more important than economic ones, I expect the Islanders wish for economic ties to Argentina as their neighbours, what Argentina wants is anyone's guess.

 

[StriderX]

amazingly not everyone is motivated by monetary values, the majority of the islanders still remember the last invasion and the lives lost in securing there freedom.

Considering the Islands dependence on the UK, it would likely be costed out of any measures of redemption of our "hypothetically failing state".

I doubt the Islanders would want to live in squalor, either way it is as I've said hypothetical.

Still relevant though in long term planners like the UN.

 

[Frxn]

Because they aren't stupid?

Obviously you were attempting to insult anyone that would happen to vote 'Yes', however about 80% of 'intelligent' people (as in 'educated' / 'smarter' than the general populace) I personally know in Scotland are for independence, so I'd wager you're wrong. With that, I could say most of those who vote for 'No' are stupid, but I'm not going to because I'm not a *****.

 

[FallshirmjAEger]

I just read the article regarding the new pope's opinion on the situation. Not surprising really

Slightly OT, but is that last Avro Vulcan capable of flight or has it been decommissioned entirely?

 

[StriderX]

I wonder what the chances are that the Church will get involved now due to the popes wonderfully coincidental identity.

 

[PhillyDee]

I just read the article regarding the new pope's opinion on the situation. Not surprising really

Slightly OT, but is that last Avro Vulcan capable of flight or has it been decommissioned entirely?

It was flying at the last sunderland airshow. It is one seriously impressive LOUD aircraft!

 

[Macro]

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.

Much as no one seriously suggests the Falkland Islands are ceded to Argentina against the democratically expressed will of its population except frustrated Argentines and the odd Scot. Your double standards when it comes to anything to do with imperial Scotlands oppression of an island people in the Shetland isles as opposed to Falkland islanders is as predictable sadly as it is nationalist.

Strangely, both islands have the potential to control large oil reserves, coincidence I'm sure...

 

[Xordium]

I wonder what the chances are that the Church will get involved now due to the popes wonderfully coincidental identity.

Bring them on! There's fat loot in those churches we can replace all the gold that Gordon gave away.

 

[Angilion]

Bring them on! There's fat loot in those churches we can replace all the gold that Gordon gave away.

You are King Henry VIII and I claim my £5!