Moderator Action: Thorgalaeg and uat2d, please take it down a notch with each other, thanks.
So the solution to slight damage to the colonies and to national prestige was to incur even greater damage to the colonies and to national prestige?
You don't really know anything about how national identity works in Britain, do you?
In an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances.
I'm not entirely sure what you just said, because you write like you're trying to make three separate arguments at the same time, but my point was that "Falkland Islander" and "British" aren't mutually exclusive categories, any more than "English" and "British", "Cornish" and "British" or "Orcadian" and "British" are mutually exclusive categories. The reason that they're listed separately on that census will be because of how the information is collected, not because Falklanders are by dint of being Falklanders something other than non-British.I'm not sure if you know geography - I wrote about Falklands, you respond asking me about Britain (which is 12734.49 km from Falklands).
I guess you don't really know anything about how national identity works in Falkland Islands.
We won't know it until referendum.
When Scots and Welsh feel themselves to be something other than British, they elect a seperatist candidate. The Falklanders have, as yet, chosen not to elect a separatist candidate. As such, I think that it's fair to say that whatever number of them reject membership in the United Kingdom is small enough not to throw our perspective into chaos.We won't know it until referendum.
BTW - you are from Scotland. What about the Scottish Covenant or the Scottish devolution referendum of 1979, or the Scottish Parliament (which has finally been restored)? Maybe Falkland Islanders would also like a devolution referendum / Parliament?
Really? Wikipedia article in section "nationalities" says:
"61% Falkland Islander
29% British
2.6% Spanish
0.6% Japanese
6.5% Chilean & Other"
Since when is 29% "majority" ???
You mean "numerous targets that aren't allowed to defend themselves". It's always the way with the state. Strip people's ability to defend themselves, spend vast amounts of other people's money in an attempt to defend the stripped, and then whine because it's too big a task!The pirates succeed because they operate within a huge area with numerous targets that can't all be defended.
Maybe some neutral poll instead of Argentine- or Britain- inspired ones?
I'm not sure if you know geography - I wrote about Falklands, you respond asking me about Britain (which is 12734.49 km from Falklands).
I guess you don't really know anything about how national identity works in Falkland Islands.
Argentines flood Chile to purchase electronic devices and home appliances
The Falklands are a British overseas territory
"British Overseas Territory" designates a specific territorial category with a certain constitutional relationship to the United Kingdom, it doesn't just mean any territory of the United Kingdom which is overseas. You're taking the name too literally.Like many other places were in year 1750 or even in year 1850.
"British Overseas Territory" designates a specific territorial category with a certain constitutional relationship to the United Kingdom
All I can say is, I only "remember" (of course, I wasn't alive then) that we used to be a colonial empire when the Argentines bring it up. No-one in the UK thinks like that any more. We've moved forward.
Maybe the Argentines should too. Our association with the Falklands has nothing to do with colonialism, so I'm not sure why they accuse us of it. Probably to cover up the fact that their claim is ridiculously tenuous and also against the interests of the islanders.
This trade thing makes me laugh though. All those Argentines getting themselves worked up and indignant, whereas here it's been mainly a source of amusement. Of course the amusement would evaporate if there was a conflict.
I hope the UK doesn't retaliate in kind to this new move because we don't need to stoop to that level of pettiness.
I believe Kirchners response when Cameron said Argentina wanting to impose its will over the islands was more like colonialism was something like "He says colonialism beause he has no argument"... seriously? The irony physically hurt me as she says it basically every 14th minute.
Correct me if I am wrong, but before the Falkand War wasn't the UK trying to sell the Falklands to Argentina or create some sort of autonomy agreement (like what happened with Cyprus)?